Transcript Interim Report #3

Mountain Ridge Project
• Owner: Tomo Cerovsek
• Contract: Architectural Design: Mario Sargac
Engineering Design: Michael Jewsbury
Construction Manager: Roger Lee
Apprentice:
Kit Fleming
• Location: Hope River, Lake Tahoe
• Conceptual Development Phase
– 4 Alternate Designs for Instructional Lab Facility
7/7/2015
Ridge Team
~
Architectural
I
Alternative #1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Faculty offices
Chair’s office
Senior Admin. office
Secretaries
Faculty Lounge
Student offices
Auditorium
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Large classrooms
Small classrooms
Seminar rooms
Instructional labs
computer
machine
room
Technical support
Storage
2nd
3rd
1st floor
floor plan
plan
Alternative #1
•
entrance from
Ridge View Rd
Alternative #1
•
gaining natural
light
Alternative #1
Alternative #1
•
fractionized
structure
II
Alternative #2
• room layout
• affinity /
rejection
• extra
security
Alternative #2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Faculty offices
Chair’s office
Senior Admin. office
Secretaries
Faculty Lounge
Student offices
Auditorium
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Large classrooms
Small classrooms
Seminar rooms
Insrtuctional labs
computer
machine
room
Technical support
Storage
• 2
2nd
entrances
• challenging
from N
geometry
cantilever
• room layout
2nd
3rd
1st floor
floor plan
plan
Alternative #2
•
entrance from
Ridge View Rd
Alternative #2
Alternative #2
Alternative #2
•
mountain &
river view
III
Alternative #3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Faculty offices
Chair’s office
Senior Admin. office
Secretaries
Faculty Lounge
Student offices
Auditorium
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Large classrooms
Small classrooms
Seminar rooms
Instructional labs
computer
machine
room
Technical support
Storage
2nd
3rd
1st floor
floor plan
plan
Alternative #3
•
AutoCAD 3D
model
entrance
Ridge View road
Alternative #3
• two grids /
two options
• exterior /
interior grid
utilizing
two two
gridsgrids
Alternative #3
• proposal of
extra
columns
• combined
grid
combining
extra columns
two grids
Alternative #3
•
NetMeeting
session
IV
Alternative #4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Faculty offices
Chair’s office
Senior Admin. office
Secretaries
Faculty Lounge
Student offices
Auditorium
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Large classrooms
Small classrooms
Seminar rooms
Insrtuctional labs
computer
machine
room
Technical support
Techincal
Storage
Srorage
• soft fluid
among
stones
2nd
3rd
1st floor
floor plan
plan
Alternative #4
•
sense of gravity
Alternative #4
•
entrance from
Ridge View Rd
Alternative #4
•
growing
structure
Alternative #4
Alternative #4
•
building as
balancing item
Structural
7/7/2015
INTRODUCTION
• Structural Scope
– Design Parameters
• Gravity Framing
• Seismic Framing
–
–
–
–
7/7/2015
Four Alternatives
Material Selection
Systems
MEP
4 Alternates
1
2
3
4
7/7/2015
Alternate 1
First Floor
Second Floor
Added Shear Wall
Third Floor
Alternate 2
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Alternate 2
Roof
Truss Sections
Added Bracing Tower
Alternate 3
First Floor
Second Floor
Added Support
Third Floor
Alternate 4
First Floor
7/7/2015
Second Floor
Third Floor
Alternate 4
First Floor
Second Floor
Alternate 4
Third Floor
Roof
Steel
RC
Precast
Wood
1) Overall cost
2) Constructability
Fabrication Time
3) Reliability
4) Versatility
5) Lightweight
1) Overall Cost
2) Formwork
Time to Cure
3) Reliability
4) Versatility
5) Heavy
1) Overall Cost
2) Fabrication Time
Less Formwork
3) Reliability
4) Versatility
5) Heavy
1) Overall Cost
2) Availability
Mill Time
3) Reliability
4) Versatility
5) Light
Seismic Framing for Each Alt.
• Determine the magnitude of seismic forces
• Design of Steel/Concrete/Composite
diaphragm
• Conceptualization of Lateral Force
Resisting Elements
• Details, Details, Details
7/7/2015
Seismic Loading
Floor
Height (hx)
feet
Weight (W x)
kips
hx*W x
Roof
30
1300
39000
Floor Load (Fx) Story Shear (Vx)
kips
kips
272
272
3
20
1600
32000
223
495
2
10
1700
17000
118
613
1
0
Total
UBC97
T=
0.14
Ct
Ac
0.01
81.78
\
\
\
4600
88000
613
Ca
Cv
I
R
Z
Nv
0.24
0.24
1
4.5
0.3
1
2.5CaI/R
CvI/RT
.11CaI
0.13
0.38
0.03
V/W
0.13
• Distributes shear forces to LFRs
• Static analysis showed maximum stresses to be 200
psi Maximum
• Metal deck-PCC composite on 2nd,3rd,and Roof
Shear Stud
Steel Deck
Reinforcement
Concrete
• Steel deck spans @ 10’ between beams “one-way”
• Portland cement concrete via pump-truck
• Wire mesh reinforcement and chord steel
7/7/2015
Diaphragm
• Overturning forces are not significant
• LFR Systems
– Steel
• Chevron Bracing
• Moment Frames
– Concrete
• Ductile Shear Walls
• Moment Frame
– Precast
• Ductile Shear Walls
• Post Tensioned Moment Frame
7/7/2015
Seismic Framing: CBF
WT18 X 65
WT18x65
+- 38
K
L4 X 4 X 1/2"
TOTAL
LOAD
83 K
WT18 X 65
+- 69
K
L6 X 6 X 1/2"
41.5 K
41.5 K
2L6x6x1/2
Shear
Deformation
Special PT Moment Resisting
Frame
PT Moment
Frame
Precast Sections: Moment Frame allowable in building code with special testing
7/7/2015
Construction Problems, Ductile and Safe, Allows long, open, uninterrupted spans
Structural: Seismic Framing
Shear Wall
• Cast-in-Place
• Simple
• Ductility depends on failure mechanism
• Requires Architectural Space
7/7/2015
Typical Connection Details
2" WELDED ON EITHER
SIDE OF TRUSS
METAL ROOFING
RIGID INSULATION
CORUGATED METAL DECKING
TOP FLANG OF VULCRAFT TRUSS
1/8" FILLET WELD ALONG
1" ON BOTH SIDES OF ANGLE
TO VULCRAFT TRUSS FLANGE
1/4" FLAT BAR
3/8" FILLET WELD
ALONG ENDS OF BAR
SPOT WELD DECKING TO TRUSS
VULCRAFT ROOF TRUSSES
2 X 2 X 1/8" ANGLE
VULCRAFT ROOF TRUSSES
4/12 SLOPE
W12 X 14
VULCRAFT CEILING TRUSSES
1
TRUSS CONNECTION
D-1
W14 X 43
2
TRUSS STIFFNER
D-1
3
4
ROOFING SECTION
D-1
TRUSS CONNECTION AT RIDGE
D-1
1/4" FILLET WELD ALONG
ENTIRE EDGE OF GUSSET PLATE
DIMENSIONS SAME AS
DETAIL 6
COPE BEAM
1/4" ANGLE
ALL BOLTS ARE
A490 1/2" DIAMETER
6 X 3 X 1/4"
8
BEAM COLUMN CONNECTION
1/4" FILLET WELD ALONG
ENTIRE EDGE OF
GUSSET PLATE
W14 X 48
D-1
6 X 3 X 1/4"
WELDED SHEAR STUD CONNECTIONS
3/4" EXTEND 1-1/2" ABOVE THE
TOP OF THE STEEL DECK.
1/4" ANGLE
TYPICAL EVERYWHERE DECKING
IS PRESENT ON 2ND FLOOR.
W14 FLOOR BEAMS
2ND FLOOR
ALL BOLTS ARE
A490 1/2" DIAMETER
ALL BOLTS ARE
A490 1/2" DIAMETER
5
D-1
9
FLOOR SYSTEM CONNECTION
7/7/2015
D-1
BEAM CONNECTION
COPE BEAM
6
D-1
BEAM CONNECTION
Typical Connection Details
Column
Foundation
Column Beam
7/7/2015
Confinement
Foundation System
• Function of our foundation system
– Handle vertical loads
– Resist lateral forces
• Site Profile
– Bedrock
• Very high bearing capacity
• Very low settlements
• Shallow Foundation
– Bearing pressures 5 kips/sq.ft.
– 4’x4’ Footings under columns
– 12”-18” strip footing (Perimeter and LFRs)
• Floor Systems
Slab on Grade
– Slab on grade under bulk of structure
• 6” thick, reinforced, expansion joints, chord steel
• Moisture prevention- vapor barrier and poorly
graded gravel. Perimeter insulation
MEP Considerations
Steel MEP
Concrete MEP
Light
Light
11.5’
10.5’
10’
7/7/2015
9’
10’
9’
Construction
7/7/2015
General Construction Issues:
• Budget (in 2000):
– Total Budget…$4,200,000
– Structural Budget…$370,000
• Schedule
– Mobilize on Site…October 3, 2011
– Early Occupancy Requirement…May 1, 2012
– Completion Date…September 28, 2012
7/7/2015
Threats:
Steel MEP
Concrete MEP
Light
Light
11.5’
10.5’
10’
7/7/2015
9’
10’
9’
General Site Condition:
Ell vs. Square Footprint
7/7/2015
Equipment Requirements:
7/7/2015
Alternative #1:
Square Footprint w/ 21,400SF
$158 / SF
Reinforced
Concrete
$161 / SF
Steel Frame
$165 / SF
Precast
Concrete
$0.00
$0.32
$3.38
$0.39
$3.45
$0.45
$3.52
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Cost in Millions
Total Budget Cost
7/7/2015
Structural System
$5.00
Alternative #1:
Construction Schedule
RC
June 15, 2012
Sept. 28, 2012
June 1, 2012
May 29, 2012
Steel
Sept. 21, 2012
7/7/2015
Sept. 19, 2012
Precast
Alt #1: Strengths,Weaknesses,
Opportunities & Threats
SWOT Analysis
Alternative #1
Reinforced
Concrete
Steel Frame
Pre-Cast
Concrete
Strengths
More flexible
forms; Within
Budget
Faster erection
than RC
Faster erection &
better integrity
than RC
Weaknesses
Schedule;
Concrete pour
Shortage of SF;
Odd angles
Over budget
Opportunities
Could use
exterior wall
panel as form
Threats
7/7/2015
Winter weather;
Excavation
Increase SF to
lower per SF
cost
Winter weather;
Excavation
Winter weather;
Excavation
Alternative #2:
Ell Footprint w/ 30,300 SF
$144 / SF
Reinforced
Concrete
$148 / SF
Steel Frame
$149 / SF
Steel w/
Shear Walls
$0.00
$0.53
$4.35
$0.52
$4.49
$0.55
$4.50
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Cost in Millions
Total Budget Cost
7/7/2015
Structural System
$5.00
Alternative #2:
Construction Schedule
RC
June 1, 2012
Sept. 14, 2012
May 22, 2012
May 30, 2012
Shear Wall
Steel
Sept. 12, 2012
7/7/2015
Sept. 19, 2012
Alt #2: Strengths,Weaknesses,
Opportunities & Threats
SWOT Analysis
Alternative #2
Strengths
Reinforced
Concrete
Steel Frame
Reduced interior Reduced interior Reduced interior
columns
columns
columns
Concrete pour:
CIP vs. Prefab
Early
Occupancy
Opportunities
Structurally
Challenging
Construct lab
area first
Threats
Hope River;
Excavation
Hope River;
Excavation
Weaknesses
7/7/2015
Steel Frame w/
Shear Wall
Over budget
Hope River;
Excavation
EC-Alternative:
Ell Footprint w/ 23,350 SF
$148 / SF
Reinforced
Concrete
$153 / SF
Steel Frame
$152 / SF
Precast
Concrete PT
$0.00
$0.32
$3.45
$0.35
$3.58
$0.42
$3.56
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Cost in Millions
Total Budget Cost
7/7/2015
Structural System
$5.00
EC-Alternative:
Construction Schedule
RC
June 10, 2012
Sept. 25, 2012
May 15, 2012
May 22, 2012
Steel
Sept. 5, 2012
7/7/2015
Sept. 12, 2012
Precast
EC-Alt: Strengths,Weaknesses,
Opportunities & Threats
Reinforced
Concrete
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
7/7/2015
Steel Frame
Pre-Cast
Concrete
Within budget;
Meets final
delivery date
Faster erection
than RC; within
budget
Faster erection &
better integrity
than RC
Not enough SF
Lab rooms on
2nd floor
Over structural
budget
More efficient
use of SF
New column
grid
Hope River;
Excavation
Hope River;
Excavation
Hope River;
Excavation
A-Alternative:
Square Footprint w/ 38,800SF
$119 / SF
Reinforced
Concrete
$120 / SF
Steel Frame
$121 / SF
Steel w/
Shear Walls
$0.00
$0.38
$4.63
$0.41
$4.66
$0.44
$4.70
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
Cost in Millions
Total Budget Cost
7/7/2015
Structural System
$5.00
A-Alternative:
Construction Schedule
RC
June 15, 2012
Sept. 28, 2012
June 8, 2012
June 13, 2012
Shear Wall
Steel
Sept. 28, 2012
7/7/2015
Oct. 3, 2012
A-Alt: Strengths,Weaknesses,
Opportunities & Threats
SWOT Analysis
A-Alternative
Reinforced
Concrete
Steel Frame
Steel Frame w/
Shear Wall
Strengths
Can have finish
quality surface
Cost efficient &
over SF
requirements
Weaknesses
Pour schedule;
Over budget
Schedule;
High life cycle
Inefficient use of cost due to open
interior walls
space
Opportunities
Reduce cost by
cutting back SF
Realign interior
walls
Threats
Winter weather;
Excavation
Winter weather;
Excavation
7/7/2015
Relatively
uniform spacing
Winter weather;
Excavation
Overall Opportunities:
• Re-use of existing structure  Savings
on construction schedule & cost
• Use of existing facade as temporary
enclosure  reduced weather risk
• Earlier start date  reduced winter
weather risk
7/7/2015
Material and Team Matrix
7/7/2015
MATERIALS: AEROGEL
• What is Aerogel?
• Strengths: strength/weight,
insulation
• Weaknesses: cost,
transparency
• Opportunities: insulation,
windows
• Threats: cost
7/7/2015
MATERIALS: SUPERCRITICAL
CERAMICS
7/7/2015
• What are supercritical
ceramics?
• Strengths: perfect
formation,
strength/weight
• Weaknesses: scale,
fabrication
• Opportunities:
environment
• Threats: patents
TEAM MATRIX
A
C
7/7/2015
E
TEAM MATRIX
A
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
7/7/2015
E
C
“Fractalised”
objects,
cantilevers
Geometry,
cantilevers, roof
Cantilever
fabrication,
auditorium
Balance with
location
CANTILEVER
Cantilever, cost,
transport,
fabrication, egress,
fire exits
Alternate 3
Reorientation of Torsion, roof,
rooms for
cantilevers
structural system
Egress, sf, ceiling
heights, cycle costs,
roof
Alternate 4
Hard-soft,
gravity, room
clusters
Materials
source/cost,
transport,
insulation,
Geometry,
materials
FINAL SELECTION
?
Alternate 2: steel frame and
truss system, steel bracing
towers
Alternate 4: dual system,
concrete shear walls, steel
frame
Owner approval pending