Transcript Document 7457457

Introduction:
The People
• Owner: Tomo Cerovsek: Slovenia
• Contract: Architectural Design: Mario Sargac
Engineering Design: Michael Jewsbury
Construction Manager: Roger Lee
Apprentice:
Kit Fleming
• Location: Hope River, Lake Tahoe
• Detailed Design Phase
Four
Alternatives
1
2
3
4
Alternative 1
1st floor plan
2nd floor plan
3rd floor plan
Alternative 2
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Alternative 3
RC
June 10, 2012
May 22, 2012
Sept. 25, 2012
• Cantilevers
• Too Much
Steel
• Roofing
System
• Doesn’t Meet
Square
Footage
Requirement
Sept. 12, 2012
May 15, 2012
Steel
Sept. 5, 2012
Precast
Alternative 4
Pros/cons
•
•
•
•
Cost
Constructability
Challenge
Satisfaction of Owner Requirements
• Life-Cycle Costs
• Owner’s second choice
• Need for New Technology
Architect
Fakulteta za Gradbenistvo in Geodezijo
Final solution
Final solution
Architecture
• #1 Floor plan
Senior Admin
office
Chair’s office
Secretaries
Faculty offices
Faculty lounge
Architecture
• #1 Floor
cutaway
Architecture
• #2 Floor plan
Auditorioum
Instructional labs
Computer machine
room
Technical support
room
Students’ offices
Faculty offices
Architecture
• #2 floor
cutaway
Architecture
• #3 Floor plan
Auditorium
Storage
Seminar rooms
Large classrooms
Small classrooms
Architecture
• #3 floor
cutaway
Sun Study
0.00
Storage
Seminar
rooms
Large
classroom
Small
classroom
Auditorium
Technical
support
Computer
machine
Instructional
lab
Students' off
Faculty off.
Faculty
lounge
Secretaries
Chair's off.
Senior
Admin. off.
Room layout requirements
• Typical room sizes on #1, #2 and #3 floor:
required vs. designed {sq ft}
4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
required
designed
Engineer
Requirements
Structural
Seismic Design
Gravity Design
• Geometry
Alignment
• System
Design
• Component
Design
• PB-Design
Big Picture
Interations
Gravity
•
•
Structure vs.
Architecture
Integration
•
•
Gravity Design
FL = 0.244 ksf
•
•
•
•
W18X35 C=1” (40)
W18x46 C=1” (45)
W14X30 C=1/8” (22)
C9X15
Structural
Gravity
•
•
Structure vs.
Architecture
Integration
•
•
Gravity Design
FL = 0.244 ksf
•
•
•
•
W18X35 C=1” (40)
W18x46 C=1” (45)
W14X30 C=1/8” (22)
C9X15
Structural
Gravity
•
•
Structure vs.
Architecture
Integration
•
•
Gravity Design
RL = 0.588 ksf
•
•
•
•
W21X147 C=3/8”(36)
W21x101 C=1” (52)
W18X40 C=1/8” (45)
W21X160 C = 1” (40)
Iterations
Foundation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foundation
Design
Bearing=4-5ksf
Glacial
Till/Bedrock
Ring Beam
Grade Beam
Spread Footing
Structural
Gravity
System
Max 300k Factored
Auditorium
Seismic Design
•
UBC1997
Elastic/Inelastic
Spectral
Analysis
(SAP2000)
Loma Prieta
Ground Motions
for Bedrock
Sites
Nonlinear
Analysis/ P-delta
FE Shear Walls
•
•
•
•
T1 = .31 sec
T2 = .29 sec
Vx = 925 k
Vy = 1001 k
Site Response Spectra
(SEAOC Blue Book)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10% Prob. In
50 years
2% Prob. In
50 years
MCE = 7.2
Period (s)
Site Response Spectra
(Deterministic (r = 0))
Sa (g)
PGA = .4g
Elastic = .18g
Inelastic = .7g
Sa (g)
•
•
•
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.000
Sa (g)
0.500
1.000
1.500
Period (s)
2.000
2.500
Seismic Design
Drift = .42%
Shear Wall
Stress = 1ksi
Inelastic
Stress = 4 ksi
•
•
•
Shear Wall Design
Performance Based
Design
Ductile Failure in
worst case EQ-IV
SP2 Performance
(some repair)
NP2 Performance
(some Damage)
Enhanced Performance Objective 2 (SEAOC)
Shear Wall And Misc.
Shear Stud
Steel Deck
Diaphragm
Reinforcement
Concrete
MEP ROOF
Foundation
Site Profile
Bedrock
Settlement
Foundation
Slab on grade
Spread Footing
Construction Manager
Construction Requirements &
Challenges
•
Schedule
Limitations
•
•
Schedule
Risks
•
May 2012 - Early room occupancy
for computer lab
• September 30, 2012 - Project
completes for dedication
Winter weather during months of
January and February may affect
concrete pour
• Lead time for Structural steel and
MEP equipment
Construction Requirements &
Challenges
•
•
Budget
Limitations
Budget
Risks
•
Total Budget - $4,200,000
•
Structural Budget - $370,000
Inflation Rate - Assumed 2.5%
Production Rate - Skill labor force is
limited in Lake Tahoe area
• Winter Weather - May need to heat
concrete forms
•
•
October 3, 2011
Excavation
•
Excavate from
South to North
•
•
•
2 Weeks
180 CY/Day
$41,000
October 10, 2011
Footing and Foundation
•
Starting from
South Side
•
•
5 weeks
$24,600
November 14, 2011
Steel Frame
•
Start from east
and back out
•
•
Steel structure
Metal decking
•
•
2 weeks to erect
3 weeks to PBW
November 30, 2011
Shear Walls
•
Total Structural
System
$422,000
January 3, 2012
Milestone #1
•
Steel Structure
complete
•
Shear walls
poured
•
Start pouring
slabs from top
down to
accommodate
early occupancy
January 30, 2012
MEP Systems
•
12’
Beam Height
Consideration
Light
9’
10’
February 6, 2012
Interior
•
Glass walls vs.
Stud walls
•
•
•
$50/SF for glass
$3/SF for stud
$5/SF aerogel
February 6, 2012
Slab on Grade
Concurrent
activity with 3rd
floor interior &
MEP systems
• Place vapor
barrier & sand
with bob cat
•
•
Also finish strip
footing on west
side
February 27, 2012
Exterior Cladding
•
GFRC Panels
$384,000
•
Concurrent with
interior work at
3rd and 2nd flrs
May 14, 2012
Milestone #2 - Early Occupancy
•
2nd floor
interior partially
complete
September 10, 2012
Project Completion
•
Ahead of
schedule
SWOT Analysis for Construction
•
Strengths
Meets owner’s schedule
requirements
• Cost effective at $112/SF
•
•
Weaknesses
Heavy roof beam
Construction sequence forced by
staggered trusses system
• 4.4 Million
• High cost for interior glass wall
•
•
SWOT Analysis for Construction
•
Opportunities
Cost savings by reducing amount of
glass walls
• Cost savings with Aerogel
•
•
Threats
•
•
•
Winter weather
Lack of skill labor pool
Installation of glass walls
Materials
• Aerogel
•What is Aerogel?
•Strengths: strength/weight,
insulation
•Weaknesses: cost,
transparency
•Opportunities: insulation,
windows
•Threats: cost
Materials
• Supercritical
Ceramics
•What are supercritical
ceramics?
•Strengths: perfect
formation, strength/weight
•Weaknesses: scale,
fabrication
•Opportunities: environment
•Threats: patents
The Process
A
Iteration
Collaboration
Communication
International
C
E
Team Matrix
A
E
C
Alternate 1
“Fractalised”
objects,
cantilevers
Geometry,
cantilevers, roof
Cantilever
fabrication,
auditorium
Alternate 2
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
Hard-soft,
gravity, room
clusters
Materials
source/cost,
transport,
insulation,
Alternate 4
Geometry,
materials
TeamMatrix
• Final
Alternative
A
E
C
Hard/Soft
Vision
Materials
Materials
source/cost,
transport
Geometry
Materials
Auditorium
Gravity
Building
Orientation,
Insulation
Shear Wall
System
HVAC,
Insulation
Life Cycle
Cost
Roofing
CONCLUSION
Architecture
Engineering
Construction
Special Thanks to
Mentors
Questions?