Kitty Chan UC Berkeley

Kitty ChanUC Berkeley

arc

hite

ct

Chad S. GreenStanford University

Yuning WangStanford University

eng

ine

er

con

tra

cto

r

ow

ner Robert Alvarado

•Mission: To work together as AEC in creating a meaningful space for the users in 2010.

Site

• The site is at Central University in Los Angeles, California

• University of San Francisco is picked as the reference site.

Site Layout

Vision for 2010

• Students and Faculty interfacing with computers in their daily functions in the department.

Design Alternates

SQUARE

TOWERS

ZIGZAG

SUNDIAL

Design Review – Construction

•Slanted columns difficult to install;precast members easier

•Masts expensive, difficult to install;expensive to excavate basement

•More connections due to zigzag shape;irregular formwork needed

•Economic design;good constructibility

Design Review – Engineer

•Torsion issues;long spans; no place to fit shear walls

•Long cantilever;low redundancy;

large point load above auditorium

•Rigid & symmetric;issues with torsion

•Good lateral support;unchallenging design

Design Review – Architect

•Relates to religion, nature, and spatial

•Good interiors, interaction space

•Interesting exterior, atrium

•Uninteresting exterior, poor circulation

Preferred Alternate

SUNDIAL

Exterior View

morning noon afternoon

Elevation

• Using surrounding context to define the building

• Reading the building from the inside

East Elevation South Elevation

Basement

• Viewing the Mechanical Room

• Seeing the structure of the auditorium

Basement (cont’d)

1st Floor

• Dual Usage– Auditorium– Hallway

1st Floor (cont’d)

2nd Floor

• Hallways as telescope

2nd Floor (cont’d)

Before After

3rd Floor

• Faculty & Student Offices

3rd Floor (cont’d)

Program Requirements

ProgramDesign

Program Requirements (cont’d)

Natural Ventilation

• Using the wind for natural ventilation for the building

• Cone serving as a greenhouse on the exterior layer

Solar Power

• Los Angeles Weather

• Solar Power for Daytime Electrical Use

• Skylights for Natural Lighting

Interaction with Architectural Program

First Floor

AuditoriumLarge Classroom

Large Classroom

Interaction with Architectural Program

Second Floor

Small Classroom

Small Classroom

Computer Room

Interaction with Architectural Program

Office Space

Office Space

Third Floor

Interaction with Architectural Program

Iterations – AEC

Beams

Floor Slabs Hanging from Beams

AE

A

C

E

AC

Iterations – A&C

• Discussion on how HVAC will run through the building

• Location of Utility Floor

– Top vs. Bottom

Iterations – A&E

Dome Structure Layout Changed to Fit Architectural Program

Iterations – A&E

Slanted Walls Caused Columns to Be Moved In

Northridge Earthquake

1994

6.7 magnitude

9,000 injured;51 fatalities

$44 billion in damages(costliest in US history)

29,000 buildings yellow- orred-tagged

Steel SMRF experiencedunexpected cracks

PHMRF System

BENEFITS:

Faster delivery time

Increased safety

Structure retains value

Typical Structural Members

•Floor Slabs:8X20 Double Tee50’ max span2” topping

•Beams:24X20 L-Beam24X32 Inverted T-Beam30’ max span

•Columns:12X12 Interior24X24 Exterior/Momentmax M = 525 k-ft

Computer Analysis

Earthquake Design –Weight of Structure, W = 4100 kBase Shear, V = 472 kStory Shear, Fx = 118 kMax Deflection = 1”

Max M = 572 k-ft Max P = 486 k

Max M = 852 k-ft Max P = 652 k

Computer Analysis

Earthquake Design –Weight of Structure, W = 4100 kBase Shear, V = 472 kStory Shear, Fx = 118 kMax Deflection = 1”

Max M = 572 k-ft Max P = 486 k

Max M = 852 k-ft Max P = 652 k

Structural Details

•Steel Reinforcing in Dome Floor Slabs & Elevator Core

Six #14 Bars

18” spacing

Develop. Length = 72”

Structural Details

Cantilever of Precast Double Tee Slabs

Structural Details

Span of the Dome Structure

18”20’

Foundation

•Sandy Soil

•Likely Low Water Table

•Earthquake and Liquefaction

Max Column Axial Load = 486k

Soil Bearing Capacity = 4ksf

Footing Area = 120 sqft

Footing = 11’ X 11’

Max Uplift Force = 118k

Load Paths

Construction Cost

• Total Cost– Present Value:

$4,270,936– 2010 Value:

$5,663,944– 3% over budget

• Structural System: $582,959– 72% over budget

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Cost Breakdown

Other

Fire Protection

Plumping System

Electrical System

Mechanical System

Sitework

Doors/Frames/Hardware

Thermal MoistureProtection andWaterproofingFinishes andAccousticaltreatmentConcrete -Slabs andGrout

Interior and Ceiling

Exterior and Roofing

Structural

Site Work

Exterior

Structural System

Construction Schedule

Mon. Sept. 6, 2010Mon. Sept. 6, 2010

Fri. May. 11, 2011Fri. May. 11, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011Jan. 31, 2011

Resource Usage in Erection

Construction Equipment

• Terrain Crane, 40 ton• Backhoe Loader, 48 H. P.• Dump Truck, 16 ton• F. E. Loader T. M. 2.5 C.Y.• Truck• Gas Engine Vibrator• Gas Welding Machine

Construction Sequence

Cone is cast-in-place

Construct cone first

I.

II.

Cone Construction

MEP Layout

•Solar Energy system–Saves energy costs during life cycle–Issue of heat loss

•Utility floor–Solves floor height problem–Saves life cycle cost of further expansion–Structural system + Wall: about $280,000

Horizontal Distribution

Structural System Evaluation

• Largely Precast Concrete– Saving labor– Few shear walls– Shipping cost: approximately $80,000– Lead time: detail shop drawing, pre-casting– Re-stressing cables over life cycle

• Slanted columns in Cone

Team Interaction

Whiteboard Sketches

NetMeeting Videoconferencing

Discussion Forum

Team Process

Most iterations triggered by A

C improved on being more vocal early on in design decisions

E and C more reactionary than A

A attempted to design with E and C in mind

Although E and C were able to appreciate the goals of A and integrate well with one another, not yet able to think and design in A’s terms

Thank You Mentors!!

Thank you to all mentors for their invaluable support and time investment in the PBL program and Central Team 2000!

Robert Alvarado, CM Salter AssocScott Dennis, NBTJohn Hoeppner, Dillingham BuildersRon Hoyle, Pankow BuildersShilin Jiang, KL&AGreg Luth, KL&AChuck Madewell, HabitatBob Tatum, Stanford

Central University – Los Angeles, CA