Computer Integrated A/E/CStanford University

May 15, 1998

Background…

•Year: 2010

•Task: Design Classroom/Lab Facility for Pacific University School of Engineering, Oregon

•Facility Will Provide a Home for Innovative Courses which Take a Team Approach to Design

•Maintain Footprint of Existing Buildings

•Construction Schedule of One Year

•Budget: $4.5 million

Scheme 1

Architecture Utilize Square Foundation Bridging the Disciplines

Engineering Simple Structural Design Bearing Walls

Construction Preliminary Estimate: $4.38 million Bearing Walls allow for Fastest Construction,

Lowest Expense

Scheme 2•Architecture:

• Connectivity through View

•Engineering:

•Simple design

•Long Spans

•Construction:

•Preliminary Estimate: $4.58 million

•Schedule Constraints Easily Met

Scheme 3•Architecture:

•Innovative Design: Breaking Away From the Foundation

•Flipped L-Shape to For More Interesting Appearance

•Engineering:

• Large Cantilevers

• XXX System

•Construction:

•Preliminary Estimate: $4.58 million

• Limited Space for Large Square Footage of Material

• Difficult to Construct

Scheme 4

•Architecture

• Breaking Away From Box Shape

• Shape Fits Context of Site

•Engineering

• Large Cantilevers

• xxx System

•Construction

• Preliminary Estimate: $9.17 million

• Strange Shape Difficult to Construct

Why Schemes 3 & 4?

Preferred Architecture

Scheme Three Feasible--Safety Net

Scheme Four Best--Challenge

Scheme 3 Issues

Square footage Over-budgetMaterial Costs Schedule CantileversVertical Circulation

Scheme 4 Issues

Over-budgetScheduleLimited story heights Walls

Scheme 4 Evolutions

Over-budget Square footage Material Costs

laminated woodconcrete

Roof options Interior Systems & Finishes

Scheme 4 Evolutions

Schedule Enclosure Prefabricate Formwork Precast exterior walls Innovative Construction System Relocation of Labs

Story Heights

Post-Tensioning to control deflections

thin flat slab cost mechanical

Consistent column spacing

Scheme 4 Evolution

Walls Essential to design No shear walls! Innovative Construction Method Material options

EIFSSteel panelsconcrete panels

Pacific Project

Final Decisions

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Design Intent

School of EngineeringInnovative

in·no·va·tion1 : the introduction of something new2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY

FunctionableVistas

Structural Design

Post-Tensioning Thinner Slab Reduce Deflections Reduce Cracking Reduce Jointing

Structural Design

Slab 8” Concrete Flat Slab Span to depth ratio 44 Post-Tensioned 1/2” monostrands 4000psi concrete

No Column, No Problem?

PROBLEM... Auditorium moved to first floor and a

Column needed to be removedSolution

Use flat plate on roof to add rigidity to upper floors above the missing Column.

Structural Solution

Transfer Beam Missing column significantly increased

Stresses in SlabAddition of Transfer Beams

• Horizontally• Vertically

Transfer Beam Layout

Lateral Resistance

Ductile Frame Placement

centers of rigidity and massAvoid Torsion

No Beamslabor to form too expensivemechanical systems

Preliminary Layout

Static Load Method

Moments too high! More beams or MRF in the interior

More ductile frames cheaper less form work

Ductile Frame Detail

SAP2000

Sap2000

Capacity Checks

Moment Capacity Max Neg. = 38.2k-ft Capacity = 41.2 k-ft

ok

Max Pos. =1.7 k-ft Capacity = 30.3 k-ft

ok

Max. inelastic response disp. UBC 97’ 1630.10.2 max Displacement

Flr 2 = 2.64”Flr 3 = 5.28”Roof = 7.92”

OK

A look into the Future

MaterialsField Construction MethodsManagement Construction MethodsCommunicationsEquipmentMarket

WeatherWeather

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Sep

tem

ber

Oct

ob

er

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Ap

ril

May

Jun

e

July

Au

gu

st

Site LayoutSite Layout

Wall Systems

light cementEnergy EfficientEasy to score and snapWater-damage resistantEconomicalFire resistant

Post-Tensioned Floor System

ProsCheapLightFastConsHard to RetrofitDangerous

Equipment

Rationale . . . Scheme 4

Rationale . . . Scheme 4

Rationale . . . Scheme 4

January 15, 2012January 15, 2012

Milestones: May 1, 2012Milestones: May 1, 2012

Requirements of HVAC System

Codes: Title 24, UBC, UMC, SMACNA

Design: Space (3’6”) 24 Hour Cooling to Computer Area Compatibility with other systems Energy efficient Atheistics

Rationale: Hydronic System

Two-pipe VAV reheat system Savings in overall equipment cost,

installation, and annual operating costs Easily zoned for modulating

temperatures Design requirement of limited ceiling

height Straight forward to install

Hydronic Radiant Floor

Hydronic Radiant Floor (HRF) PEX tubing within concrete slab or

subfloor Operating costs 20%-40% lower than

Forced Air Systems Need special training to install Extra structural costs Lower water temperature required

Hydronic Radiant Ceiling

Reduced spaceSecurity/Acoustic panels availableCentrally located mechanical systemArchitecturally invisibleNo special training to installEasily zoned especially in re-

partitioned spaces

Operational Requirements

GL-180M high-silicon cast ironMinimum 122oF supply temperatureNo minimum return water temperatureNo minimum flow requirementsAvailable as factory assembled or

knocked downCombustion efficiencies of 88% on oil

and 85% on gas

Lessons learned

Architect Good design is flexible enough for

changes Good collaboration helps the design

process Early intervention critical to

architectural quality

Lessons learned

Structural Engineer Construction Methods

continuity in members

Dealing with costs in structural designs Careful not to give your architect free range Problems with structural scheme can be

solved in minutes Owner’s input used to choose paths Scheduling becomes VERY important issue!

Lessons Learned

Construction Manager Good project management is essential

for coordination Analysis of all options a must for

customer satisfaction Interactions between mentors and

students invaluable Team Dynamics

Summary of AEC Experience

Cheapest designs not always the bestCommunication and Coordination

Critical to the value of a project Affords learning opportunities Develops personal relations

Flexibility key issue in the functioning of AEC team

Experience provides insight

Thanks to all the mentors Jim Youd Thomas Neidecker Gil Masters Mike Martin

And especially our owner, Ali Alali