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
Top Related