Owner: Robert Alvarado

1
Coral 2002 Final Presentation

• Owner Robert Alvarado
• Architect Priscilla Yue
• Engineer Sharon Eng
• Const. Engineer Doug Whimpey

2
Coral 2002 Team Members
Owner Robert Alvarado
Architect Priscilla Yue Cal Berkeley
Engineer Sharon Eng Stanford
Const. Engineer Doug Whimpey Stanford
3
Description

• Three-story classroom and lab facility building
• Using footprint of one of two existing buildings
  on campus
• Construction in year 2015.
• Primary constraints 30 height restriction and
  5.5 M budget

FOR MORE INFO...
Additional information on requirements can be
found at http//www.stanford.edu/group/CIFE/ce222/
aec02/call/coral.htm
4
Site Location
5
Decision matrix
Double Helix Pros simple, orthogonal
design Symmetrical Closest to budget
Double Helix CONS architecturally
uninventive Large opening in diaphragm core
area not contributory
Cone-Of-Vision Pros architecturally
interesting Structurally challenging Opportunity
for New materials
Cone-Of-Vision CONS Irregularity of
non-orthogonal walls challenging Room
Shapes Very Expensive
6
Double Helix Concept
The original footprint
The overlapping squares
7
Double Helix Concept
The enclosed center
A space In motion
8
Double Helix Concept
Motion is contained
Volumes result
9
Double Helix Concept
Double helix
Translation into core
10
Double Helix Basement
Auditorium
Mechanical
Storage
Circulation
11
Double Helix Ground
Auditorium
Labs
Large Classrooms
Restrooms
Circulation
12
Double Helix Renderings
Early sketch of the entrance
Final design of the entrance
G
13
Double Helix Renderings
Exterior Facades
G
14
Double Helix Second
Student Offices
Seminar Rooms
Small Classrooms
Lounge
Computer Room
Restrooms
Circulation
15
Double Helix Renderings
A View from the classrooms on the second floor
2
16
Double Helix Third
Faculty Offices
Administrative Offices
Secretaries
Lounge
Restrooms
Circulation
17
Double Helix Renderings
3
Looking out from a faculty office
Looking across the platform
18
Double Helix Section

• Central core of vertical movement
• Filtered light into the atrium
• Interior and exterior views

19
Double Helix Renderings
On the third floor platform, looking up at the
glass dome
20
Double Helix Renderings
From the basement looking up, seeing the double
helix staircase and platforms
21
Double Helix Renderings
Detail of the glass dome and automated moving
louvers
22
Double Helix Program
Basement First Second Third
7220 sf/10108 sf 71 10108 sf/10108 sf 100
9708 sf/10108 sf 96 10008 sf/10108 sf 99
Total 37044 sf
B
1
2
3
23
Double Helix Proximity
Private
Offices
Public
Classes
Using vertical distance as a means to increase or
decrease proximity for each programmatic
requirement
24
Double Helix Overview
An overview of the building within the site
context
25
Structural Loading

• Dead Loads
• Conc. Deck 54 psf
• Steel Framing 5 psf
• Façade 25 psf
• Partition 20 psf
• Ceiling and misc 12 psf

26
Structural Loading

• Live Loads
• Classrooms 40 psf
• Offices 50 psf
• Libraries 125 psf
• Exit Facilities 100 psf
• Computer rooms 100 psf
• Auditoriums 50 psf
• Pedestrian Walkway 100 psf
• Roof 20 psf

27
SeismicZone 2A(use equivalent force method)
Structural Loading
28
Wind80 mphExposure C
Structural Loading
29
Foundation

• Expansive clay overlying basalt lava
• Clay is 15 20 feet in depth
• 0 to 20dark brown stoney clay loam
• Unified MH-A AASHTO A-7
• 20-30 dark brown clay loam
• Unified MH-A AASHTO A-7
• 30 to 54 Stratified Clay loam and Cinders
• Unified GM-SM AASHTO A-7
• (source Steve Martel from U of H)

30
Foundation Cont.
31
Ground
2nd Floor

Structural Insights
Basement
32
PT Slab analysis
33
PT Slab analysis
Factored My Mx Max 54 kips Min -132 kips
Same since symetrical
34
PT Slab analysis(Delf.)
Deflection Min -0.337 in Max 1.830 in
35
PT Slab analysis(Layout)
First Try PT layout
Changes.
Final PT layout
36
PT Slab analysis(Defl.)
First Try PT Layout
Final PT Layout
Stresses
37
PeriodT1 0.856 sec,T2 0.632 sec,T3 0.515
sec
Frame Analysis
Total Elastic Drift 1.08 in Total Max.
Inelastic Drift 6.1 in Interstory Elastic
Drift Breakdown 3rd Floor ? 0.22 In 2nd Floor ?
0.38 In 1st Floor ? 0.45 In
Base Shear 474 Kips Breakdown 3rd Floor ?237
Kips 2nd Floor ? 158 Kips 1st Floor ? 79 Kips Max
Moment 1115 Kip-ft
Base Shear 474 Kips Story Shear Breakdown 3rd
Floor ?237 Kips 2nd Floor ? 395.1 Kips 1st Floor
? 474 Kips
237K
158K
79K
Frequency w1 1.168 rad/sec, w2 1.581
rad/sec, w3 1.942 rad/sec
38
Slab and reinf. Analysis
39
Column Analysis
40
Roof Details
TS 6 x 4 x 1/4
W16 x 40
41
Mechanical System
Automated Adjustable Louvers
Mechanical Units -30 Ton Chiller -600000 BTU
Boiler (2 units, each 60 load for redundancy
42
Mechanical Cut out Sheet
43
Acoustical Screenwall
44
Construction Equipment
45
Construction Site Layout
46
Construction Sequence
Cost 4.9 M
47
Cost Components
48
Cost vs. Budget

• automated convective air system, reducing cooling
  reqts
• Reduce basement, less excavation

49
Life Cycle Planning

• 200 KW PAFC Fuel Cell
• Initial cost 450,000
• Elec. Efficiency 32
• Annual savings 32,000
• Finance w/ performance contract
• 9 year payoff
• Natural Ventilation
• Annual Savings 9,000

50
Construction Risk Analysis Matrix

1. Subcontractor Failure/Problems
2. Permit Problems
3. Site Contamination
4. Differing Site Conditions
5. Earthquake
6. Fire
7. Highly Unusual Weather
8. Loss of Funding
9. Land Reclaimed by Government
10. Inclement Weather
11. Theft / Vandalism
12. Material Delays
13. Cost / Labor Inflation
14. Scope / Design Changes

3
14
10
2
12
Probability
4
0 (Low) 50
(High) 100
1
8
13
6
11
9
5
7
0 (Low) 5M
(High) 10M
Cost Impact
51
Risk Contingency Plans


High Risk High Probability Develop
Risk-specific contingency plans
3
14
10
2
12
0 (Low) 50
(High) 100
Probability
4
1
8
13
6
11
9
5
7
0 (Low) 5M
(High) 10M
Cost Influence
52
Risk Contingency Plans

• High Risk Low Probability
• -Or-
• Low Risk High Probability
• Traditional Risk Management Techniques
• General Insurance
• Bonding
• Guarantees

3
14
10
2
12
Probability
4
0 (Low) 50
(High) 100
1
8
13
6
11
9
5
7
0 (Low) 5M
(High) 10M
Cost Influence
53
Risk Contingency Plans


3
14
Low Risk Low Probability Manage aggregate risk
with schedule buffers and cost contingencies.
Or, rely on gut feelings and experience ignore
risk.
10
2
12
Probability
4
0 (Low) 50
(High) 100
1
8
13
6
11
9
5
7
0 (Low) 5M
(High) 10M
Cost Influence
54
AEC Interactions and concerns
-flexibility -open space -façade -Program
A
E
C
-Flat slabs -Open atrium -location of columns
-cost of materials and transportation schedule?
55
AEC Integration
Architect
Architect
Const. Eng.
Option A
Option B
56
Goals and Process Evaluation

• Goals
• More Early collaboration
• better team communication
• enjoy the process!
• New Technology

• Self-Evaluation
• Increased interaction, collaboration
• Improved Relationships communication
• Frustrating at times, but we had fun!
• Expanded toolbox

57
Appreciation
Architectural -Mr. Robert Alvaradro C.M.
Salter -Prof. Humberto Callivani Berkeley Struct
ural -Prof. Helmut Krawrinkler Stanford -Dr.
Greg Luth KLA -Prof. Eduardo
Miranda Stanford -Prof. Bob Tatum Stanford -Mr.
ChrisHakes KLA Construction -Mr. David
Parnigoni Swinerton -Prof Melody
Spradlin Stanford -Mr. Bob Whimpey BW Const.