Transcript Pacific University

Pacific University
School of Engineering – New Construction Design
Alternatives
Architecture
Engineering
Construction
Apprentice
Owner
Katie Kozarek
Christian Heimple
Debbie Sit
Christina Cho
Peter Demian
Presentation Outline:

General Project Information & Introduction
 Discipline Constraints & Goals
 Alternative 1-4 by Discipline
 Decision Matrix (Pros/Cons of each Alternative)
 Team Process – Iteration Examples
 Team Dynamics
 Conclusion
A
E
C
Pacific Team & Project Information
 Engineering School
of Pacific University in
Oregon
 Location:
 Beautiful
valley site near Pacific Ocean
 “Sunny Pond” of about 3000 sq.ft.
 Preservation
of existing footprint
 10,000 sq.ft. per story (3)
 60%
assignable
A
E
C
Project Constraints
 Total
Budget: PV = $4.1 million
 Structural System Budget: $330,000
 Completion Time: 1 year, by September 30,
2012
 Occupancy for Lab Facility: May 1, 2012
 Soil Condition: Rippable Rock
Design Considerations:

Rebuild a 3-story building for classroom, lab,
office, and auditorium
 Design a facility for innovative courses taking a
team approach to engineering design
 Put forth creative ideas considering:



Architectural sense of place
Functional use by occupants
Listen to team members knowledge-based
notifications to design issues
Topography map
Oregon coast
Site
considerations:
•Small
community
•Steep topography
•Cliffs
•Sparse highway
system
Site map
Small campus
Nearby pond
Overlooking cliff
Site photographs
Considerations:
Cliff & Pond
Campus buildings
Note:
Brick skin & Rectilinear forms
Structural Engineering – Requirements &
Conditions

System Requirements



Steel or concrete frame
Cast-in-place, post-tensioned, or precast concrete
slab
Geometric Requirements


Height of structure limited to 30’
Footprint of structure limited to existing
footprints
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Structural Engineering – Load Considerations


Live Loads
 Terrace, Atrium, Storage, & Stairwells – 100 psf
 Corridors – 80 psf
 Auditorium & Lobby – 60 psf
 Classrooms & Offices – 50 psf
 Roof – 20 psf
Dead Loads
 Lightweight concrete floor – 60 psf
 Metal deck – 5 psf
 Flooring, ceiling, lights – 12 psf
 Ductwork – 5 psf
 Partitions – 20 psf
 Exterior Cladding – 30 psf
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Structural Engineering – Load Considerations

Seismic Considerations




Moderate to high seismic activity; Zone 3
Occupancy category, I = 1.0
Rock subsurface
Wind Considerations

Design wind speed, V33 = 85 mph (38m/s)
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Equipment
Track-type Tractor
Hydraulic Crane
Ripper
Site Plan: L-shape
Main Road Access
Site Boundary
Site Main Entrance
Crane
Material Laydown
Material Storage
Office Trailer
Temporary Road Access
Optional Site Entrance
Site Plan: Double Square
Optional Site Entrance
Site Boundary
Main Site Entrance
Crane
Material Laydown
Material Storage
Office Trailer
Alternative 1 - Architecture
Previous drawings restructured by engineer:
Architectural redesign in Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Previous Section & Elevation
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Steel moment resisting frame
 Composite concrete/steel deck (t = 4.5”)
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
Laboratory

Outdoor Terrace
First Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
W14x61
6x6 tube
W12x45

Second Floor Structural Plan

Third Floor Structural Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Roof Structure
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Roof Structure
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Roof Structure
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 2 Structural Proposal



Cast-in-place concrete frame and two-way concrete slab (t = 6”)
Shear walls (t = 10”)
Goal: To address cost cost concerns of CM regarding rotunda
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 2 Structural Proposal
Outdoor Terrace
Storage

Second Floor Plan

Third Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 2 Structural Proposal
10”x10”
Complex
connection
10”x15”

Second Floor Structural Plan

Foundation Plan


Main columns have 5’x5’ spread
footings
Rotunda has 10” drilled piles
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal



Eccentrically braced steel frame
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Goal: To address cost and constructability concerns of
previous two options
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
No conflicts with architecture

First Floor Plan

Second Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
Fewer columns than with original
concept (A/E/C)
W14x61
W14x61
W12x45

Third Floor Structural Plan
W12x45

Second Floor Structural Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal

Gravity load distribution

Lateral load distribution
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 1 – Construction Issues

Space frame: Construction Method
 Excavated cost for sunken auditorium (20,000 cy)
at about $400,000, ~10% of Total Cost
 Steel SMRF more labor-intensive then braced
frame; Concrete requires CIP
$480,000
$480,000
$470,000
$460,000
$460,000
$450,000
$440,000
$420,000
$430,000
$420,000
$410,000
$400,000
$390,000
S1
Steel
Concrete
Braced
CIP
Frame
Steel
SMRF
Alternative 1: Option 3 Schedule & Estimate
Total: $3.8 Million
Structural: $420,000
Alternative 2 - Parti
Parti:
Redevelopment of last year’s idea
How can the design
pattern laid above the
space be incorporated
and brought into the
building?
Can circulation systems
become the pattern?
Can the pattern be
highlighted with
structure?
Can the structure
reflect the pattern’s
form and in turn cause
sunshadows to develop
in the interior spaces?
Alternative 2 - Plans
Initial plans
More Finalized
plans
Alternative 2 – Model Views
Auditorium space underground
Pattern defined by structure and pathways
Structure filters and captures sunlight
Alternative 2
Section through building
Section
bringing truss down through
building above stairwells
Question to engineer? Can you
make this a load bearing element
in your structural considerations?
Alternative 2 – Option 1 Structural Proposal




Eccentrically braced steel frame
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof)
Goal: To meet architect’s challenge of a radial layout with the structure
integrated into the north building’s radial hallways
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
Laboratory
W14x61
W12x45

Second Floor Structural Plan

First Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 2 Structural Proposal




Special moment resisting steel frame
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof
with compression ring)
Goal: To eliminate structural conflicts with architecture
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 2 Structural Proposal
No conflicts
w/architecture
W14x61
W12x45

Second Floor Structural Plan

First Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 3 Structural Proposal




Steel frame with shear walls
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof
with compression ring)
Goal: To explore a shear wall alternative
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
No conflicts
w/architecture

Second Floor Structural Plan

First Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 4 Structural Proposal





North Building – visible braced frames along main corridors
South Building – eccentrically braced frames on exterior walls
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof)
Goal: To integrate functional braced frames into the north building’s
hallways
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Option 4 Structural Proposal
W14x61
W12x45

First Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 2 – Construction Issues

Building is separated into two parts:
Cost Consideration for duplication of MEP
systems
 Connecting the two parts by 3rd floor skywalk:
Potential savings: ~20% of total cost
 Enclosed or Open Radial hallways: Life-cycle
Costs
 Constructability issues: Curved Walls & Angled
Connections
Alternative 2: Schedule & Estimate
Milestone 1:
Structural
System Erected
Milestone 3:
Project
completion
Milestone 2:
Building enclosed
MEP: $.2.2 Million
Total: $6.0 Million
Structural: $590,000
Alternative 2: Revised Estimate
MEP: $1.1Million
Total: $4.2 Million
Structural:$400,000
Alternative 3
parti sketches
Organically
growing plans
and elevations
moving out from
footprint:
representing
natural growth
of coastal
habitat ;
provisions for
experimental
growth
Alternative 3: Puzzle Concept
Option 1 – First set of plans
Alternative 3: Option 1
Second set of plans:
Changes include moving
auditorium to first and second
floor instead of excavation –
consequential redesign of some
interior spaces
Alternative 3: Elevation
Alternative 3: Option 2
Option 2 involves the L-shaped plan for the site
It is still working with the puzzle concept – showing
its versatility
Material selection
3 materials
5 blocks
Each block has
own material skin
Considered in
construction and
structural process
Computer block: brick to match
surrounding buildings
Administration block : wood
Student block: wood
Auditorium: concrete
Classroom block: concrete
Alternative 3: Model
Suggestions made to construction manager and
engineer: think about how can we think of this
design as being constructed in separate functional
blocks? Can prefabrication be an option?
Classroom block
Computer block
Student block
Faculty block
Auditorium
PUZZLE PIECE AS
INTERCONNECTING
BLOCKS
Alternative 3 - Interior examples
Isozaki/
Kurokawa
how can
elements from
puzzle concept
enter into
interior spaces?
Alternative 3 - Exterior examples
Isozaki/
Kurokawa

How can elements of form
create interesting spaces?
 Can structure be pushed into
stipulating form?
 Can functional blocks merge
to create a whole?
Alternative 3 – Option 1 Structural Proposal


Steel frame w/ shear walls (t = 8”)
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
Instructional
Laboratory

First Floor Plan
W12x65
W14x90

Second Floor Structural Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
Tube
Section
(6x6)

Cantilever Details
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 2 Structural Proposal
Concrete frame w/ shear walls (t = 8”)
 C-I-P two-way beam supported slab (t = 5”)
 Post-tensioned cantilever beams and slab
 Goal: To explore concrete alternatives

Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 2 Structural Proposal

Second Floor Structural Plan

Cantilever Details
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 3 Structural Proposal

Eccentrically braced steel frame
 Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
 Preferred option for Alternative 2
 Goal: A cost and time efficient, constructible alternative
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
Moment frames
used to integrate
structure with
architecture

First Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
W14x61
W12x45

Second Floor Structural Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 3

Computer Room & Instructional Lab located on
different floors: Construction Sequence
 Trailer rental costs $10,000 vs Late move-in
penalty $37,500
 Pre-cast concrete allows fast erection, yet
relatively expensive for small-scale projects
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
$590,000 $610,000
$460,000
Steel
SMFR
S1
Concrete
CIP
Steel
braced
frame
Alternative 3 - Option 3 Schedule & Estimate
Total: $4.0 Million
Structural: $460,000
Alternative 4 - Architecture
CAD model sent by structural engineer…
Alternative 4
Breaking down massing
to make for more usable interior
spaces outside
of auditorium
Working on
unfolding
building to
consider
spatial issues
Alternative 4
Potential
for new
spaces
Creating
circulation
Alternative 4
How can “floating column” be replaced to show load
transfer?
•
Conceptual plan – how can this form fit into
the site? – needs to be broken down
Alternative 4 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
60’ Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff
 Composite steel/concrete deck with eccentrically
braced frame

Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Structural Concept based on TWA hangar in Philadelphia
and American hangar at San Francisco International
 Design started with engineer to break out of A > E > C
pattern and to overcome prior structural difficulties with
previous alternatives
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
Cantilevered portion
of structure
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 1 Structural Proposal
8x8 tube steel
hanging columns


Eccentrically braced steel frame
Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

Third Floor Plan
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 2 Structural Proposal
60’ Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff
 Shear walls and post-tensioned slab (t = 5”)
 Cantilevered portions remain steel
 Goal: Reduce mast height and reflect architect’s
revisions

Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
Northeast shoulder
removed to
accommodate
footprint constraint
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4 – Option 3 Structural Proposal
2nd Floor Structural Plan
Footprint
Pacific University – School of Engineering
Alternative 4

Structurally very dynamic, yet repetition aids in
cutting construction costs
 Cable-stayed system requires deep pile foundation
 2nd and 3rd floor cantilever hanging over cliff:
require temporary platform for efficient
construction of the exterior wall
 Design still young; construction input in
structure/materials/method can possibly drive cost
and schedule down
Alternative 4: Schedule & Estimate
Total: $4.6 Million
Structural: $560,000
Cost Comparisons
Decision Matrix AEC
PROS
1
2
•Dynamic, radial, curvilinear, sun pattern
•Semi-regular bays sizes and layout
•Easier to construct (regular layout, little welding)
•Cantilevered walkway over atrium
susceptible to vibration and imposes
large moments in connecting column
•Costly atrium space
•Most flexible puzzle piece parti
•material-functional block relationships
•Braced frames have dual purpose of “backing”
cantilevers & lateral load support
•May not challenge engineer
•Long cantilevers may be
susceptible to vibration problems
•No economies of scale with so
many materials
•Most dynamic interior spaces (auditorium),
sunpatterns, shadowplay
•Structure integrated with architecture
•Circulation undeveloped
•Very irregular layout resulting in a
large number of angled connections
•Expensive to construct (curved
walls, angled connections)
3
4
CONS
•Design speaks to engineering and structure
•Extremely interesting structural system
•Regular structural patterns – many common
components throughout
•No relationship to site or context,
lack of spatial variation creating
architectural limitations
•Exceeds height limit and footprint
(under review)
•Deep piles require lots of time &
money, large overhanging portion
Team Process – Iteration Examples

Alternative 1 A->E->C->A->E->C


Alternative 2 A->E->C


Predetermined, old architectural drawings redesigned
Developed architecturally but needs more structural and
construction advice due to issues of constructability
Alternative 3 A->E->C->E->A->C


Redesign of Alternative 1
E&C advised architect against irregular, oblique layout



Expensive, angled connections
A challenges E&C to integrate their systems into the architecture
(e.g. exposed structural system)
Alternative 4 E->A->C->A->E->C

Design started with engineer
Team Dynamics

INTERACTION WITH OWNER:



Very understanding, sensitive, & informative b/c has
engineering
Encouraging of ideas outside original scope
INTERACTION WITH TEAM:



Initial lack of conceptual understanding of each
others’ fields and roles
Challenge to meet new expectations for next semester
by being informative and understanding of different
expectations and considerations in the design process
Challenge to be more communicative and outspoken
during the design process
Consideration of Alternative 4 Redesign
as Final Solution:

Challenging Structural Design
 Feasible in Time and Cost for
Construction without current
considerations for material
 Architecturally lacks spatial
concept and connection to context
A
E
C
CONCLUSION
 Considering a
fifth alternative
that can challenge all fields equally
A
C
E