rahinah ibrahim stanford university architect craig long kansas university engineer jorge fuentes...

RAHINAH IBRAHIMStanford UniversityArchitect

CRAIG LONGKansas UniversityEngineer

JORGE FUENTESStanford UniversityConstruction Manager

ROXANNE ZOLINStanford University

Owner

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, USA

Precipitation:Temperatures:

Seismic Zones Map Wind Speed Zones Map

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN- Site Location Plan

REDESIGN

REDESIGN: AEC 1

Gym

Cafe

Perspective View

•Nominal cost for construction•Makes building very compact•Maintain no view for 4 nos Faculty rooms

REDESIGN: AEC 2

Improving Indoor Quality•Increase Faculty rooms from 16 to 20.•Provide views to all Faculty rooms.•Faculty Lounge has view of river.

Improving Outdoor Quality•Additional landscape-integrated steps•Café on top of 2F floor slab protected from afternoon sun

Gym

Cafe

Perspective View

Auditorium Span

Pratt-Type Truss

• Openings for hallways and circulation

• Satisfies the architectural constraints

REDESIGN: AEC 2

Structural Framing

Original Framing

•Complex Geometry

•Difficult Connections

•High Fabrication cost

REDESIGN: AEC 2

Structural Framing

New Framing

•Simplified Geometry

•Simpler Connections

•Standardized Fabrication

$avings

REDESIGN: AEC 2

Redesign Alternatives Schedule Comparisons

Redesign Estimates

4278235

185250

4278235

159109

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

4500000

Alternative 1 ($4.46M) Alternative 2 ($4.44M)

(in 2001 $US)

Changes

Original Cost

General & Redesign Constructibility Issues & Alternatives

Limited access to site due to levy

Floodplain- best solution is to elevate structure

SQUARE BASE

TEAM DESIGN APPROACH

C- Build an Offshore Oil Rig

E- Design a Bridge

A- Design A Highrise

Building on piers to minimize hydraulic impact

SQUARE BASE DESIGN: Concept

ROTATING SQUARES- for floor expansion

GOLDEN SECTION-for vertical expansion

SQUARE BASE DESIGN

SECTION

VIEW FROM BUILDING

SQUARE BASE DESIGN

1ST FLOOR PLAN

3RD FLOOR PLAN

2ND FLOOR PLAN

Administration

Faculty/Student Offices

Classrooms/Lab

Terrace

Restroom

Circulation

SQUARE BASE DESIGN: AEC 1

•Live Loads Terrace, Interior Atrium – 100 psf Corridors, Computer Lab – 100 psf Auditorium, Classrooms & Offices – 50 psf Roof – 20 psf

•Dead Loads Cast-in-Place Concrete – 150 lb/ft3

Steel Construction – 60 psf Flooring, ceiling, lights – 15 psf HVAC – 5 psf Partitions – 20 psf Exterior Cladding – 30 psf

Structural Constraints – Gravity Loads


• Seismic Constraints Moderate seismic activity; Zone 3

Occupancy category, I = 1.0

Sandy soil with subsurface rock

• Wind Constraints Design wind speed, V45 = 90 mph

Structural Constraints – Lateral Loads

•Structural Piers

•Lower Level Structure

•Foundation Concerns

•COST


Impact of elevated structure

•Water corrosion

•Soil difficulty

•Additional lateral load

Flooded structure made complicated by...


Structural system that defies gravity

Structural Concept Due to Rotating Concept

Slender Roof Framing

Traditional Framing System

“Table Top” Stable Platform



King-Post Truss

•Post Tension Concrete Beam 24” x 30”

•5000 psi Concrete

•Steel Tension Cords

Difficult Detailing



North – South Truss

•Cantilever Gravity Resisting System

•Cantilever Lateral Resisting System

East - West Truss

•Decorative Element

•Completes the Square

External trusses to perform aesthetically and structurally


Flexible open plan design

1ST FLOOR PLAN 3RD FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR PLAN

Core Placement Study

Two-Joists with Elevated Floor

•Space for Building Services

•Required Additional Columns

Two-Way Slab System

Waffle Slab

•Column Free Environment

•More Complicated HVAC Routing



Freeflowing interior spaces

Open Plan Structural Solutions

Option 2

•Steel/Concrete Composite System

•Shear Wall Service Core

Option 1

•Cast-in-Place Concrete Frame

•Shear Wall Service Core


Structural Option 1

2nd Floor Plan

Column 1’x1’

Beam 12”x24”

3rd Floor Plan

Two-Way Slab

6”x6” Tube Brace


Structural Option 2

3rd Floor Plan

Joist W16x26

W8x24


Roof Plan

¾” Dia. Cable

16” Open-Web Joist

Foundation System

Drilled Pier

2’-6” Diameter / 30’ Depth

Drilled Pier Array

1-6” Diameter typical

CIP Transition Piece to Shear Wall


Foundation Isometric

SQUARE BASE DESIGN- AEC 7

SECTION

Administration


Classrooms/Lab

Terrace

Restroom

CirculationPreliminary Core Plan

SQUARE BASE DESIGN: CM

CM ( slide)Comparison of Estimates (Totals, structural costs and

elevating elements costs- piers and floor + lift)Schedule length comparison (including phase milestones)Critical Construction IssuesConstruction alternativesConcrete vs Concrete/Steel CompositeEstimate and schedule

Square Alternatives Schedule Comparisons

Square Alternatives Cost Breakdown

85474

687439

288361

85474

607950

217721

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

Concrete Alternative ($3.70M) Steel/Concrete Alternative ($3.62M)

(in 2001 $US)

ElevatingStructureLandscaping

Electrical

Mechanical

Conveying

Int. Const.

Roofing

Exterior Closure

OtherSuperstructureSubstructures

Site Work

Square Design Constructibility Issues & Alternatives

Long span members

Constructing 1st level- before or after 2nd level

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN- Concept

GOLDEN SECTION- for floor expansion- for vertical expansion

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN- Plans

Administration


Classrooms/Lab

Terrace

Restroom

Circulation

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN- Section & Elevation

Lobby Atrium

Exposed Corridor

Balconies

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN: AEC 1

More columns for structural stability

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN- AEC 2

Core Placement Study

Fulfilling fire egress requirements

•Minimum distance between exits is 80ft.•Minimum egress width is 5’-6”.•Minimum 20ft atrium opening.•Minimum 3 exits at 2nd Floor, others 2 nos.•Sprinklered egress on all floors.

Structural Options 1


Laterally Braced Frame

•4.5” Steel-Concrete Slab

•Columns W18x40 typ

External Bracing Conflicts

with Architect’s Vision

Composite Column Below Waterline



Cast-in-Place Frame

•10” Shear Wall

•12” x 12” Columns Typ.

Complex Framing Requirements

Conflict with CM Budget

10” Inclined Slab in Auditorium



Composite Steel-Concrete

•SMRF at Exterior Frame

•Bracing Auditorium Framing

Double Square Alternatives Schedule Comparisons

Double Square Alternatives Cost Breakdown

66018

911701

167660

66018

753171

337352

74869

1029200

193608

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

Concrete MRF Alternative ($3.83M)

All Steel Braced Frame Alternative($3.84M)

Steel MRF w/ Concrete CoreAlternative ($3.98M)

(in 2001 $US)

ElevatingStructureLandscaping

Electrical

Mechanical

Conveying

Int. Const.

Roofing

Exterior Closure

OtherSuperstructureSubstructures

Site Work

Double Square Contractibility Issues & Alternatives

Complex structure- more uncertainty, more riskHeight limit- 20’ on equipment

Comparison of Estimates to Budget

3892500

5500000

4463485

6306787

4437344

6269851

3703077

5232350

3624245

5120964

3826177

5406288

3837246

5421929

3977216

5619702

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

BUDGET Redesign 1 Redesign 2 Square 1 Square 2 DoubleSquare 1

DoubleSquare 2

DoubleSquare 3

2001 Cost ($US)

2015 [email protected]% ($US)

Site Layouts

accessaccess

TC

TC trailers

trailers

Mat’l laydown

Mat’l laydown

20’ Clearance

EQUIPMENT SELECTION

Construction Trade-off Analysis

Adv Disadv

Redesign Traditional const built on floodplainexpensive

Square Base Long-span beams

Double Square Complex-more uncertainty

DECISION MATRIX

SQUARE BASE DESIGN•Strong concept and good interior plan.•The structural system is integral in the building aesthetic.•Looks complicated but can be build with current equipment and tools.

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN•Weaker concept with too much columns going to the ground.•Structural analysis is complicated and time consuming.•More foundation works and complex auditorium construction

DOUBLE SQUARE DESIGN•Most inhibited rooms have good external view.•Has more columns to pass building loads to the ground.•Has bigger staging area to work with.

SQUARE BASE DESIGN•Requires effort to work around the fire requirements.•Long huge spans to support building loads.•Requires precise sequencing of tasks during construction.

REDESIGNNeed to have less angular smaller rooms.•Auditorium causes less flexible 3rd Floor layout.•Most expensive among these three options.

REDESIGN•Better quality learning and working spaces.•Less complicated to framing system.•Conventional construction method.

PROS CONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

We are recommending the Square Base Design for further development:

A- The quality of space and the overall design is good while building is able to satisfy all technical requirements.

E- The structural system is simple yet elegant and plays an integral part of the design.

C- Even though it looked complicated, it is actually cheaper and simpler to build.

TEAM DYNAMICS

C- Build an Offshore Oil Rig

E- Design a Bridge

A- Design A Highrise2. SHIFT IN DESIGN APPROACH

1. DUAL BACKGROUND PROFESSIONALSArchitect is also Construction ManagerEngineer is also ArchitectConstruction Manager is also Engineer

3. HAVING GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER

VALUABLE LESSONS

So far, we have learned:

A- It is better to start collaborating earlier in design.

E- Solutions only work through communication

C- Time management is very crucial.

Thank you

In Spring 2001:

A- Use IT tools more efficiently.

E- Be more assertive in communicating structural necessities

C- Managing time and scheduling teamwork.

rahinah ibrahim stanford university architect craig long kansas university engineer jorge fuentes...

Documents

cost itemquantityunitcost

us2015 cost

sacramento location

faculty lounge

addtl heating cooling1800sf13

addtl heating cooling1000sf13

cafeteria enclosure1100sf10

lighting power fixtures