Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University Engineering Building May 15, 1998 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University Engineering Building May 15, 1998

Description:

... Lightweight concrete? ... of information flow transfer Team dynamic The role of the owner O E A C 2 times better process ... Ribbed Precast Concrete. Each. – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:307
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 57
Provided by: sergi178
Learn more at: http://pbl.stanford.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University Engineering Building May 15, 1998


1
Mountain Ridge Team Final PresentationThe
Ridge University Engineering BuildingMay 15, 1998
Architect Humberto Cavallin Engineer Alec
Zimmer Construction Manager David Miller Owner
Representative Luciana Barroso
2
Presentation Outline
  • The Project Statement
  • Early Proposed Concepts
  • The Idea Product, Evolution, and Process
  • The Final Product
  • Summary The Team Process

3
Project Definition
  • Facility A new 30,000sf academic building for
    The Ridge University School of Engineering with
    classrooms, labs, offices and auditorium
  • Year 2010
  • Location Tahoe City, California

4
Project Definition Physical Constraints
  • Must use one of 2 existing footprints

5
Project Definition Physical Constraints
  • Must use one of 2 existing footprints
  • 35 height restriction
  • Very heavy snow loads
  • Moderate to high seismicity (Zone 3)
  • Remote site with limited access

6
Proposed Concept - Lshape1
7
Proposed Concept - Square1
8
Proposed Concept - Lshape2
9
Proposed Concept - Square2
10
Proposed Concept - Square2
11
The Iterative Process
Square2
E
C
Lshape2
A
O
Square1
Lshape1
First Quarter
Second Quarter
12
Site Plan
13
The Building
1
2
3
14
Activities
  • Administrative
  • Students
  • Educational

15
Architectural Evaluations - Floor 1
16
Architectural Evaluations - Floor 2
17
Architectural Evaluations - Floor 3
18
Architectural Evaluations - Section
19
Architectural Evaluations - Section
20
Engineering Loads-Gravity Loads
  • Dead Loads Including
  • 25 psf floor partitions
  • 10 psf MEP equipment
  • 83.5 psf for 6.5 slab
  • and metal deck
  • 109.6 psf total
  • (205 psf is seismically effective)

Live Loads Including 100 psf in halls
library 50 psf in offices 40 psf in classrooms
21
Engineering Loads-Seismic and Snow Loads
Snow Loads 223 psf Ground Snow 1.0 Importance
Factor 0.6 Exposure D Factor Nominally Flat
Roof 133 psf roof snow load (75 is
seismically effective)
Seismic Loads from 1994 UBC Z 0.3 Seismic
Zone 3 T 0.203 by Method A C 2.75 for
firm soil Rw 8 compromise for this
dual system Vbase 608 kip Mot 9426 k-ft
22
Engineering Evaluations - Floor Details and Load
Path
  • Composite steel deck - concrete slab
  • Shallow beam sections
  • Typical Sections
  • Beams sizes from W10x12 to W12x30, unshored
    construction
  • All columns W12x40 to facilitate connections
  • Shear connections only

Cross Beam W10x19, Typ.
Ext. Girder W10x22, Typ.
Typ. Vertical Gravity Load Transfer
Column W12x40, Typ.
12 Shearwalls Resist All Lateral Loads
Second Floor Beams - Plan View
23
Engineering Evaluations -ETABS model
  • Verify period with modal analysis
  • Evaluate deflections and interstory drift
  • Verify load path assumptions
  • Problems in model

24
Engineering Evaluations - Cross Sections at
Lines 1 and 3
  • Note typical sections and detail references

25
Engineering Evaluations - Critical Connection
Details
  • Third Floor Moment Frame Connection Detail

26
Engineering Evaluations -Shear Wall-Beam
Connection Details
27
Engineering Evaluations -Shear Wall Design
  • Resist all lateral loads, both seismic and wind
  • Mot 1061.9 k-ft per wall
  • Vbase 484 k
  • No boundary zones
  • No additional moment reinforcement
  • Torsional effects are negligible

28
Engineering Evaluations - MEP Assumptions
  • Steam heat and chilled water from central
    facility
  • 15 x15 room provided on ground floor for
    equipment
  • Circular ducts standard throughout with
    rectangular ducts in congested areas, 18 max.
  • Small equipment rooms provided on all floors for
    advanced communications equipment
  • Air requirements in auditorium are 20
    CF/person/minute, given an approximate capacity
    of 250 people

29
Engineering Evaluations - Three-Dimensional Model
30
Contractor - Site Plan
31
Contractor - Fall 2011 Schedule
32
Contractor - Spring 2012 Schedule
33
Contractor - Winter Respite Analysis
  • Impractical to weatherproof before winter weather
    hits
  • Either shut job down during winter or rent tent
    for 42,000 per month
  • Project can still be completed comfortably if
    dormant for lt4 months
  • Respite allows for coordination and planning

34
Contractor - Estimate Details
  • Location adjustment factor of 1.15
  • 160/s.f. 1998 dollars (210/s.f. 2010 dollars)
  • 6 Contractor fee
  • 10 Architecture and Engineering fee

35
Contractor - Critical Phases of Work
Heaviest lift complete
36
Contractor - Critical Phases of Work
Floors and roof complete
37
Contractor - Equipment
  • Crane selection for steel erection
  • 50T hydraulic rough terrain crane with 65 boom
  • Critical lift 4 ton beam at 60 radius
  • Gradall material handlers

38
Contractor - Estimate Progression
39
Contractor - Schedule Loading
2011
2012
40
Contractor - Budget Breakdown
41
Contractor - Inflation Analysis
42
Contractor - Construction Cost Index
43
Product, Evolution, and Process
  • A/E/C/O
  • Height variance
  • Ramp in rear of building
  • 2 plane vs. 4 plane roof system
  • C/E
  • Beam spacing
  • Floor system
  • A/E/O
  • Window wall
  • Balcony in rear
  • 3rd floor Shearwall
  • Entrance façade column locations
  • A/C/O
  • Cladding
  • Excavation costs

44
Floor and Structural Systems -E/C Trade-off
Analysis
  • Concrete for floor decks
  • Lightweight concrete?
  • Normal weight concrete?
  • Steel Framing
  • Moment resistant frames - shop welded?
  • Eccentrically braced frames?
  • Simple gravity frames?

45
Beam Spacing -E/C Trade-off Analysis
  • 20 column grid
  • Beams can be spaced at 10 or 20 on center?
  • Larger beam spacing means fewer pieces, fewer
    connections and thus faster construction.
  • But, also requires deeper slabs
  • Cost basically unaffected
  • Long-term usability chosen over short-term
    construction schedule benefits

46
Basement Layout vs. Excavation -A/E/C/O
Trade-Off Analysis
  • Building Functioning
  • Space allocation slope floor, owner requirement
  • Costs
  • Activities and program requirements
  • O/A Evaluation

47
Ramp in Rear of Building -A/E/C/O Trade-Off
Analysis
  • Relationship with the excavation
  • Development of the option
  • Rejection of the ramp alternative

48
East Balcony and Column Locations -A/E Trade-Off
Analysis
  • Owner requirements for a balcony
  • Architectural solution - cantilever
  • Engineers response with additional columns -
    spares moment connections

Added Columns
Plan of East Balcony
49
Window Wall and West Balcony -A/E/O Issues
  • The Requirements of O/A/E
  • The communications breakdowns
  • The positioning of walkway supports

50
Exterior Cladding - A/C/O Cost vs. Appearance
Concerns
  • Plaster or stone
  • Stone more has institutional, timeless appearance
  • Stone 1 million than plaster
  • Stone/plaster combination chosen

51
Product, Evolution, and Process
  • The building solution is the PRODUCT
  • The A/E/C team interaction is the PROCESS
  • The iterations along the way are EVOLUTION
  • Process is the Cause
  • Evolution is the Effect
  • Product is Summation of those effects

52
Evaluation of Communication Media and Resources
  • Hardware vs. Software
  • Progress in the Future

53
At the Core of Our Process...
  • Complementing skills
  • Sharing points of view
  • Mutual concern for cross disciplinary problems
  • Mentor Interaction

54
Summary of Team Process
  • Importance of information flow transfer
  • Team dynamic
  • The role of the owner

O
C
A
E
55
Creating a Better Solution
Daves Axiom
2 times better process
8 times better product!
56
We acknowledge the support of Luciana Barroso and
the Course Mentors!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com