pacific team 2000 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pacific Team 2000 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pacific Team 2000

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 105

Pacific Team 2000 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 102 Views
  • Uploaded on

Pacific Team 2000. The Project. Year 2010 Oregon Coast Rebuild 3-story Classroom & Lab Facility Pacific University Engineering School. Project Requirements. A “showcase” building 30 ft. height limitation Maintain existing footprint $5,500,000 budget (yr. 2010 $)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Pacific Team 2000' - fred


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

The Project

  • Year 2010
  • Oregon Coast
  • Rebuild 3-story Classroom & Lab Facility
    • Pacific University Engineering School
slide3

Project Requirements

  • A “showcase” building
  • 30 ft. height limitation
  • Maintain existing footprint
  • $5,500,000 budget (yr. 2010 $)
  • One year construction duration
slide4

Architectural Requirements

  • Consider:
    • Occupancy needs, security needs, privacy needs, acoustic needs, day lighting needs, and views
  • Emphasize:
    • Circulation, light, orientation, views, scale of space, connection of functional spaces, quality of the relationship of inside and outside, color, texture, visual language of the elements
slide9

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 1

Engineering & Construction

  • Explored Structural Systems
    • Steel
    • Concrete
  • Preferred Structural System
    • Steel EBFs w/composite deck
  • Construction Cost
    • $3.8 Million
slide10

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 2

Sun Pattern Redesign

Conceptual goal to use a predefined circulation pattern and bring it into the building; structural elements exposed to capture sun shadows

slide11

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 2

Engineering & Construction

  • Explored Structural Systems
    • Steel
    • Concrete
  • Preferred Structural System
    • Exposed steel EBFs w/composite deck
  • Construction Cost
    • $4.2 Million
slide12

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 3

Puzzle Concept

Conceptual goal to create a building that speaks to connections between disciplines within

Each puzzle piece works as a functional block, symbolically representing with three materials, three disciplines

slide13

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 3

Engineering & Construction

  • Explored Structural Systems
    • Steel
    • Concrete
  • Preferred Structural System
    • Steel SMRFs w/composite deck
  • Construction Cost
    • $4.0 Million
slide14

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 4

Structural Engineering Design

  • Reverse order of roles in design process; engineer to work first with intriguing structural system, architect to layout rooms and advise
slide15

Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 4

Engineering & Construction

  • Explored Structural Systems
    • Steel
  • Preferred Structural System
    • Steel EBFs and cables w/composite deck
  • Construction Cost
    • $4.6 Million
slide16

Decision Matrix – A/E/C

PROS CONS

Dynamic, radial, curvilinear, sun pattern

Semi-regular bays sizes and layout

Easier to construct (regular layout, little welding)

Most flexible puzzle piece parti

material-functional block relationships

Braced frames have dual purpose of “backing” cantilevers & lateral load support

Most dynamic interior spaces (auditorium), sunpatterns, shadowplay

Structure integrated with architecture

Extremely interesting structural system

Regular structural patterns – many common components throughout

  • Costly atrium space
  • Vibration problems
  • May not challenge engineer
  • Long cantilevers
  • No economies of scale
  • Circulation undeveloped
  • Very irregular layout - large number of angled connections
  • Expensive to construct
  • No relationship to site or context, lack of spatial variation creating architectural limitations
  • Deep piles require lots of time & money, large overhanging portion

1

2

3

4

slide17

End of Winter Quarter

Reevaluation of Architects Role in Design Process:

  • How can the structural system meet height/program requirements?
  • How can the structural system set up by engineer create/provide meaning for the users of the space?
  • How can the structural system provide a form that upholds this meaning?
  • And how can design uphold a “high tech” feel desired by team and client?
slide18

Richard Rogers

Searching for precedent:

What other buildings have

used cables?

  • Richard Rogers buildings use cables to “pull” up a form for unhindered space
  • beneath

How can a cable system create its own form?

slide19

Santiago Calatrava

How can cable stay structure inspire form?

slide22

Goal : to create an exterior relationship with nature

while still maintaining an interior “high-tech” feel with

a cable stay system

slide23

Iteration 2: Accommodating program

Auditorium

Main building block

Large classrooms

slide24

Iteration 2 Plans

Floor1

Floor3

Floor2

slide25

Iteration 3

Grids discussed with structural engineer

slide28

First Cantilever Proposed by Architect

  • Architect:
    • Proposes cable-stayed system with ground anchors
  • Engineer:
    • Small rise creates large cable forces & overturning moments
  • Construction Manager:
    • Size of required foundations creates concerns
slide29

Second Option: More Cables

  • Architect:
    • Structures do not relate to interior activities
  • Engineer:
    • Compromise between aesthetics & structural functionality sought
slide30

Third Option: The Propped Cantilever

  • Architect:
    • How can volume be maintained and have a feasible structure?
  • Engineer:
    • Depth needed for king-post truss interferes with interior
  • Construction Manager:
    • Good constructability, capabilities for prefab
slide31

Fourth Option: Cables w/ Buttress Wall

  • Architect:
    • Reintroduced cable stayed system
  • Engineer:
    • Earthquake forces require large number of cables
  • Construction Manager:
    • Concern over constructability expressed
slide32

Final Option: Steel Truss Cantilever

  • Architect:
    • Volume maintained and enhanced through truss system
  • Engineer:
    • Provides for a very efficient and clean system
  • Construction Manager:
    • Steel truss w/prefab risers minimizes construction time
slide39

Circulation:

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

slide47

Specifications:

For fireproofing exposed interior structure: intumescent paints

  • 100% asbestos-free; thin film; lightweight
  • Factory formulated; no onsite mixing
  • Aesthetically pleasing, architectural finish
  • 3 1/2 hour fire protection
slide48

Specifications:

Under floor mechanical system

  • Benefits of under floor air distribution system:
    • significantly reduced energy costs
    • downsizing of conventional plant equipment
    • reduced cooling-energy requirements when compared withconventional HVAC systems
structural design goals

~5o Shift

Structural Design Goals
  • At first....
    • To reflect the main axis shift of the architecture in the structure
    • To incorporate the cable-stayed concept from Alternative #4
structural design goals1
Structural Design Goals
  • After cost & time issues were considered....
    • To use a simple, shop fabricated system for the 60 ft. cantilevers
    • To use an orthogonal grid for the main block of the building and to expose the structure where necessary
structural parameters
Structural Parameters
  • Seismic Zone 3
    • Moderate to high levels of seismic activity
  • Design Wind Speed, V33 = 85 mph (38 ms)
  • Rock Subsurface
    • qallow = 4 ksf
design loads gravity
Design Loads - Gravity
  • Live Loads
      • Roof: 20 psf
      • Classrooms, auditoriums, & offices: 50 psf
      • Hallways: 80 psf
      • Stairwells & storage: 100 psf
  • Dead Loads
      • Floors: 90 psf
        • Includes deck, partitions, MEP, etc.
      • Cladding: 45 psf
design loads seismic
Design Loads - Seismic

N-S

  • Static Lateral Force Procedure
    • Total seismic weight, W = 1,816 kips
    • North-South Frames – EBFs
      • Seismic reduction factor, R = 7.0
      • Period, T = 0.26s
      • Total Base shear, V = 195 kips
    • East-West Frames – SMRFs w/Shear Walls
      • Seismic reduction factor, R = 8.5
      • Period, T = 0.45s
      • Total Base shear, V = 142 kips
  • Dynamic Lateral Force Procedure

E-W

structural system description
Structural System Description

Main Block of Structure

  • Traditional Steel Framing w/ Shear walls
  • Composite concrete floors

Cantilevered Auditorium & Classrooms

Steel truss cantilever

Metal deck & steel joist roof

Precast concrete risers

structural system main block

N

Structural System - Main Block

SMRF

Shear Walls

EBFs

EBFs

SMRF

structural system main block2
Structural System - Main Block

Floor Structure

  • Composite concrete deck
    • 3”, 20 gage corrugated steel deck
    • Designed for un-shored construction w/lightweight conc. & 12.5 ft. spans
    • Concrete thickness = 5.5”
structural system main block7
Structural System - Main Block
  • Braced Frame Details

30” Shear Link

Stiffeners @ 10” O.C.

W 14 x 53

TS 6 x 6 x 3/8

1” Gusset Plate

W 12 x 35

structural system main block8
Structural System - Main Block
  • Frame Connection Details

Moment connection with top and bottom plates

Simple shear connection

Elevation View

structural system main block9
Structural System - Main Block
  • Frame Connection Details

Moment connection with top and bottom plates

Plan View

Simple shear connection

structural system main block10
Structural System - Main Block
  • Column Base Moment Connection Details

C-channel w/ stiffeners

W14 column

Concrete column & grade beam

structural system main block11
Structural System - Main Block
  • Foundation
    • Perimeter retaining walls
    • 6” slab on grade
    • Footings
      • Interior Columns & Cantilevers: 10 ft x 10 ft x 14 in
      • Exterior Columns: 6.5 ft x 6.5 ft x 14 in
structural system main block12

Shear wall

Retaining Wall

10 ft x 10 ft x 14 in

6.5 ft x 6.5 ft x 14 in

6” Slab on Grade

Shear wall

Structural System - Main Block
  • Foundation Plan
structural system main block13
Structural System - Main Block
  • Perimeter retaining walls

12” retaining wall

Sand backfill

Slab on Grade

structural system main block14
Structural System - Main Block
  • A-C Influence on Design
    • W14 columns larger than necessary in some cases but used to emphasize exposed structural elements
    • Selection of type of braced frame
    • Emphasis on cost due to expensive cantilevers
slide70

Iteration with structural engineer about brace frames

Can we create a triangular relationship with the truss through these brace frames?

structural system cantilevers
Structural System - Cantilevers
  • Cantilevers
    • Exposed steel truss
    • Bolted gusset plate connections
  • Roof
    • Open Web Steel Joists (OWSJ); 30” depth
    • 3” Lightweight, acoustically insulated metal deck (20 gage)
  • Risers
    • 38 ft., precast, L-shaped concrete members
structural system cantilevers2
Structural System - Cantilevers

Open Web Steel Joist Connections

analysis results
Analysis Results
  • Results
    • Without shear walls, deflections in E-W direction reaches 4” @ roof level
    • Shear walls added in two locations – reduced deflections by 70% in E-W direction
analysis results vibration modes
Analysis Results – Vibration Modes

Mode 2

T = 0.63 s

Mode 1

T = 0.78 s

analysis results ebf loads
Analysis Results – EBF Loads

Max. Shear in Link = 19 kips

Max. Axial Force in Brace = 32 kips

Max. Column Moment = 950 kip-in

Max. Drift = 0.26 in

slide77

Construction Objectives

  • Budget: $5.5 Million in 2011
  • Time Constraints:
    • 1 year (start Oct 1 )
    • Computer Lab Occupied by May 30
  • Preserve Architecture
  • Faster, Cheaper, Better
slide79

Construction Equipment

Dozer

Hydraulic Crane

Ripper blade

Hauling Truck

Pump Truck

slide81

Schedule - Milestones

M1: Foundation, Nov 3

M2: Steel Erection Completed, Nov 24

M3: Bldg Watertight, Jan 17

M4: Lab Occupied, June 3

M5: Project Complete, July 9

slide82

Schedule Analysis

  • Total Duration: 9 months
  • Time Savings achieved in:
    • Simple Foundation
    • Prefabricated Steel

(2 Weeks for Erection)

    • Pre-cast Concrete Risers & Panels:
    • Serving Both A/E Functions
slide96

Estimate

Total Construction Cost: $ 4,294,000

slide99

Cost Analysis

Minimized Costs in:

  • Simple Foundation Design
  • Reclaim Excavated Materials
  • Simple Interior Construction
  • Risers serve as cladding

Structural System

  • Total: $370,000

Trusses alone ~40%

  • Regular Grid and Common Component Sizes for Main Block
slide100

MEP Design

  • Mechanical Systems:
    • HVAC
    • Plumbing & Sanitation
    • Fire Protection
  • Electrical Systems:
    • Telecommunications
    • Power
    • Lighting

Concerns

  • Ceiling Height Allowance?
  • Central Utilities on Campus?
  • Room for Equipments and their loads?
slide101

MEP Design

Shaft next to elevator

  • Exposed Ducts along Girders, 2.5 ft Allowance
  • Air Handler/Cooling Tower on Roof

structural grid

Distribution System

MEP Room

slide102

Raised Floor System vs. Conventional System

  • Advantages/Limits
    • Improved Thermal Comfort
    • Energy Efficiency
    • Maximum Flexibility
    • 2 Sprinkler Systems
    • Cost increase 25%

Conventional

Raised Floor

lessons learned
Lessons Learned
  • Professional objectives need to be identified and shared
  • Nothing replaces face-to-face communication
  • Look for ways to make ideas work
  • Shared 3D models enhance communications
  • Early Involvement in Design  no surprises
  • Competency gained with Experience
and finally
And finally......

Thanks to:

Greg Luth, James Bartone, Scott Dennis, Robert Alvarado, Eric Elsesser, Chuck Madewell

And all of the other mentors and faculty that made this project a success!!