Pacific University

1
Pacific University
School of Engineering New Construction Design
Alternatives
Architecture Katie Kozarek
Engineering Christian Heimple
Construction Debbie Sit
Apprentice Christina Cho
Owner Peter Demian
2
Presentation Outline

• General Project Information Introduction
• Discipline Constraints Goals
• Alternative 1-4 by Discipline
• Decision Matrix (Pros/Cons of each Alternative)
• Team Process Iteration Examples
• Team Dynamics
• Conclusion

3
Pacific Team Project Information

• Engineering School of Pacific University in
  Oregon
• Location
• Beautiful valley site near Pacific Ocean
• Sunny Pond of about 3000 sq.ft.
• Preservation of existing footprint
• 10,000 sq.ft. per story (3)
• 60 assignable

4
Project Constraints

• Total Budget PV 4.1 million
• Structural System Budget 330,000
• Completion Time 1 year, by September 30, 2012
• Occupancy for Lab Facility May 1, 2012
• Soil Condition Rippable Rock

5
Design Considerations

• Rebuild a 3-story building for classroom, lab,
  office, and auditorium
• Design a facility for innovative courses taking a
  team approach to engineering design
• Put forth creative ideas considering
• Architectural sense of place
• Functional use by occupants
• Listen to team members knowledge-based
  notifications to design issues

6
Topography map

• Oregon coast

• Site considerations
• Small community
• Steep topography
• Cliffs
• Sparse highway system

7
Site map
Small campus Nearby pond Overlooking cliff
8
Site photographs
Considerations Cliff Pond
9
Campus buildings
Note Brick skin Rectilinear forms
10
Structural Engineering Requirements Conditions

• System Requirements
• Steel or concrete frame
• Cast-in-place, post-tensioned, or precast
  concrete slab
• Geometric Requirements
• Height of structure limited to 30
• Footprint of structure limited to existing
  footprints

Pacific University School of Engineering
11
Structural Engineering Load Considerations

• Live Loads
• Terrace, Atrium, Storage, Stairwells 100 psf
• Corridors 80 psf
• Auditorium Lobby 60 psf
• Classrooms Offices 50 psf
• Roof 20 psf
• Dead Loads
• Lightweight concrete floor 60 psf
• Metal deck 5 psf
• Flooring, ceiling, lights 12 psf
• Ductwork 5 psf
• Partitions 20 psf
• Exterior Cladding 30 psf

Pacific University School of Engineering
12
Structural Engineering Load Considerations

• Seismic Considerations
• Moderate to high seismic activity Zone 3
• Occupancy category, I 1.0
• Rock subsurface
• Wind Considerations
• Design wind speed, V33 85 mph (38m/s)

Pacific University School of Engineering
13
Equipment
Track-type Tractor
Hydraulic Crane
Ripper
14
Site Plan L-shape
Site Boundary
Main Road Access
Site Main Entrance
Crane
Material Laydown
Material Storage
Office Trailer
Optional Site Entrance
Temporary Road Access
15
Site Plan Double Square
Optional Site Entrance
Site Boundary
Main Site Entrance
Crane
Material Laydown
Material Storage
Office Trailer
16
Alternative 1 - Architecture
Previous drawings restructured by engineer
Architectural redesign in Alternative 2
17
Alternative 1
Previous Section Elevation
18
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Steel moment resisting frame
• Composite concrete/steel deck (t 4.5)

Pacific University School of Engineering
19
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• First Floor Plan

• Third Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
20
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• Third Floor Structural Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
21
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Roof Structure

Pacific University School of Engineering
22
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Roof Structure

Pacific University School of Engineering
23
Alternative 1 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Roof Structure

Pacific University School of Engineering
24
Alternative 1 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Cast-in-place concrete frame and two-way concrete
  slab (t 6)
• Shear walls (t 10)
• Goal To address cost cost concerns of CM
  regarding rotunda

Pacific University School of Engineering
25
Alternative 1 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Plan

• Third Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
26
Alternative 1 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• Foundation Plan
• Main columns have 5x5 spread footings
• Rotunda has 10 drilled piles

Pacific University School of Engineering
27
Alternative 1 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Eccentrically braced steel frame
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Goal To address cost and constructability
  concerns of previous two options

Pacific University School of Engineering
28
Alternative 1 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• First Floor Plan

• Second Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
29
Alternative 1 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Third Floor Structural Plan

• Second Floor Structural Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
30
Alternative 1 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Gravity load distribution

• Lateral load distribution

Pacific University School of Engineering
31
Alternative 1 Construction Issues

• Space frame Construction Method
• Excavated cost for sunken auditorium (20,000 cy)
  at about 400,000, 10 of Total Cost
• Steel SMRF more labor-intensive then braced
  frame Concrete requires CIP

32
Alternative 1 Option 3 Schedule Estimate
Total 3.8 Million
Structural 420,000
33
Alternative 2 - Parti

• Parti
• Redevelopment of last years idea

How can the design pattern laid above the space
be incorporated and brought into the
building? Can circulation systems become the
pattern? Can the pattern be highlighted with
structure? Can the structure reflect the
patterns form and in turn cause sunshadows to
develop in the interior spaces?
34
Alternative 2 - Plans

• Initial plans

More Finalized plans
35
Alternative 2 Model Views
Auditorium space underground Pattern defined by
structure and pathways Structure filters and
captures sunlight
36
Alternative 2

• Section

Section through building bringing truss down
through building above stairwells Question to
engineer? Can you make this a load bearing
element in your structural considerations?
37
Alternative 2 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Eccentrically braced steel frame
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Basement auditorium (steel space frame or
  concrete dome roof)
• Goal To meet architects challenge of a radial
  layout with the structure integrated into the
  north buildings radial hallways

Pacific University School of Engineering
38
Alternative 2 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• First Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
39
Alternative 2 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Special moment resisting steel frame
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Basement auditorium (steel space frame or
  concrete dome roof with compression ring)
• Goal To eliminate structural conflicts with
  architecture

Pacific University School of Engineering
40
Alternative 2 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• First Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
41
Alternative 2 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Steel frame with shear walls
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Basement auditorium (steel space frame or
  concrete dome roof with compression ring)
• Goal To explore a shear wall alternative

Pacific University School of Engineering
42
Alternative 2 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• First Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
43
Alternative 2 Option 4 Structural Proposal

• North Building visible braced frames along main
  corridors
• South Building eccentrically braced frames on
  exterior walls
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Basement auditorium (steel space frame or
  concrete dome roof)
• Goal To integrate functional braced frames into
  the north buildings hallways

Pacific University School of Engineering
44
Alternative 2 Option 4 Structural Proposal

• First Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
45
Alternative 2 Construction Issues

• Building is separated into two parts
• Cost Consideration for duplication of MEP
  systems
• Connecting the two parts by 3rd floor skywalk
  Potential savings 20 of total cost
• Enclosed or Open Radial hallways Life-cycle
  Costs
• Constructability issues Curved Walls Angled
  Connections

46
Alternative 2 Schedule Estimate
Milestone 3 Project completion
Milestone 1 Structural System Erected
Milestone 2 Building enclosed
MEP .2.2 Million
Total 6.0 Million
Structural 590,000
47
Alternative 2 Revised Estimate
MEP 1.1Million
Total 4.2 Million
Structural400,000
48
Alternative 3

• parti sketches

Organically growing plans and elevations moving
out from footprint representing natural growth
of coastal habitat provisions for experimental
growth
49
Alternative 3 Puzzle Concept

• Option 1 First set of plans

50
Alternative 3 Option 1

• Second set of plans

Changes include moving auditorium to first and
second floor instead of excavation
consequential redesign of some interior spaces
51
Alternative 3 Elevation
52
Alternative 3 Option 2

• Option 2 involves the L-shaped plan for the site
• It is still working with the puzzle concept
  showing its versatility

53
Material selection

• 3 materials
• 5 blocks

Each block has own material skin Considered in
construction and structural process
Computer block brick to match surrounding
buildings Administration block wood Student
block wood Auditorium concrete Classroom block
concrete
54
Alternative 3 Model
Suggestions made to construction manager and
engineer think about how can we think of this
design as being constructed in separate
functional blocks? Can prefabrication be an
option?
Classroom block Computer block Student
block Faculty block Auditorium
PUZZLE PIECE AS INTERCONNECTING BLOCKS
55
Alternative 3 - Interior examples

• Isozaki/
• Kurokawa

how can elements from puzzle concept enter into
interior spaces?
56
Alternative 3 - Exterior examples

• Isozaki/
• Kurokawa
• How can elements of form
• create interesting spaces?
• Can structure be pushed into
• stipulating form?
• Can functional blocks merge
• to create a whole?

57
Alternative 3 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Steel frame w/ shear walls (t 8)
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)

Pacific University School of Engineering
58
Alternative 3 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• First Floor Plan

• Second Floor Structural Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
59
Alternative 3 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Cantilever Details

Pacific University School of Engineering
60
Alternative 3 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Concrete frame w/ shear walls (t 8)
• C-I-P two-way beam supported slab (t 5)
• Post-tensioned cantilever beams and slab
• Goal To explore concrete alternatives

Pacific University School of Engineering
61
Alternative 3 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

• Cantilever Details

Pacific University School of Engineering
62
Alternative 3 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Eccentrically braced steel frame
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)
• Preferred option for Alternative 2
• Goal A cost and time efficient, constructible
  alternative

Pacific University School of Engineering
63
Alternative 3 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• First Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
64
Alternative 3 Option 3 Structural Proposal

• Second Floor Structural Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
65
Alternative 3

• Computer Room Instructional Lab located on
  different floors Construction Sequence
• Trailer rental costs 10,000 vs Late move-in
  penalty 37,500
• Pre-cast concrete allows fast erection, yet
  relatively expensive for small-scale projects

66
Alternative 3 - Option 3 Schedule Estimate
Total 4.0 Million
Structural 460,000
67
Alternative 4 - Architecture

• CAD model sent by structural engineer

68
Alternative 4

• Breaking down massing
• to make for more usable interior
• spaces outside
• of auditorium

Working on unfolding building to consider
spatial issues
69
Alternative 4

• Potential
• for new
• spaces

Creating circulation
70
Alternative 4
How can floating column be replaced to show
load transfer?

• Conceptual plan how can this form fit into the
  site? needs to be broken down

71
Alternative 4 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• 60 Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff
• Composite steel/concrete deck with eccentrically
  braced frame

Pacific University School of Engineering
72
Alternative 4 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Structural Concept based on TWA hangar in
  Philadelphia and American hangar at San Francisco
  International
• Design started with engineer to break out of A gt
  E gt C pattern and to overcome prior structural
  difficulties with previous alternatives

Pacific University School of Engineering
73
Alternative 4 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Cantilevered portion of structure

Pacific University School of Engineering
74
Alternative 4 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Eccentrically braced steel frame
• Composite steel/concrete deck (t 4.5)

Pacific University School of Engineering
75
Alternative 4 Option 1 Structural Proposal

• Third Floor Plan

Pacific University School of Engineering
76
Alternative 4 Option 2 Structural Proposal

• 60 Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff
• Shear walls and post-tensioned slab (t 5)
• Cantilevered portions remain steel
• Goal Reduce mast height and reflect architects
  revisions

Pacific University School of Engineering
77
Alternative 4 Option 3 Structural Proposal
Northeast shoulder removed to accommodate
footprint constraint
Pacific University School of Engineering
78
Alternative 4 Option 3 Structural Proposal
2nd Floor Structural Plan
Footprint
Pacific University School of Engineering
79
Alternative 4

• Structurally very dynamic, yet repetition aids in
  cutting construction costs
• Cable-stayed system requires deep pile foundation
• 2nd and 3rd floor cantilever hanging over cliff
  require temporary platform for efficient
  construction of the exterior wall
• Design still young construction input in
  structure/materials/method can possibly drive
  cost and schedule down

80
Alternative 4 Schedule Estimate
81
Cost Comparisons
82
Decision Matrix AEC
PROS CONS

• Cantilevered walkway over atrium susceptible to
  vibration and imposes large moments in connecting
  column
• Costly atrium space
• May not challenge engineer
• Long cantilevers may be susceptible to vibration
  problems
• No economies of scale with so many materials
• Circulation undeveloped
• Very irregular layout resulting in a large number
  of angled connections
• Expensive to construct (curved walls, angled
  connections)
• No relationship to site or context, lack of
  spatial variation creating architectural
  limitations
• Exceeds height limit and footprint (under review)
• Deep piles require lots of time money, large
  overhanging portion

1

• 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
• Design speaks to engineering and structure
• Extremely interesting structural system
• Regular structural patterns many common
  components throughout

2
3
4
83
Team Process Iteration Examples

• Alternative 1 A-gtE-gtC-gtA-gtE-gtC
• Predetermined, old architectural drawings
  redesigned
• Alternative 2 A-gtE-gtC
• Developed architecturally but needs more
  structural and construction advice due to issues
  of constructability
• Alternative 3 A-gtE-gtC-gtE-gtA-gtC
• Redesign of Alternative 1
• EC advised architect against irregular, oblique
  layout
• Expensive, angled connections
• A challenges EC to integrate their systems into
  the architecture (e.g. exposed structural system)
• Alternative 4 E-gtA-gtC-gtA-gtE-gtC
• Design started with engineer

84
Team Dynamics

• INTERACTION WITH OWNER
• Very understanding, sensitive, informative b/c
  has engineering
• Encouraging of ideas outside original scope
• INTERACTION WITH TEAM
• Initial lack of conceptual understanding of each
  others fields and roles
• Challenge to meet new expectations for next
  semester by being informative and understanding
  of different expectations and considerations in
  the design process
• Challenge to be more communicative and outspoken
  during the design process

85
Consideration of Alternative 4 Redesign as Final
Solution

• Challenging Structural Design
• Feasible in Time and Cost for Construction
  without current considerations for material
• Architecturally lacks spatial concept and
  connection to context

86
CONCLUSION

• Considering a fifth alternative
• that can challenge all fields equally