1. Pacific University Architecture Katie Kozarek EngineeringChristian Heimple ConstructionDebbie Sit ApprenticeChristina Cho OwnerPeter Demian School of Engineering – New Construction Design Alternatives

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 C A E

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 C A E

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, V 33 = 85 mph (38m/s) Pacific University – School of Engineering

13. Equipment Track-type Tractor Ripper Hydraulic Crane

14. Site Plan: L-shape Material Laydown Material Storage Office Trailer Crane Temporary Road Access Main Road Access Site Main Entrance Optional Site Entrance Site Boundary

15. Site Plan: Double Square Material Laydown Material Storage Office Trailer Crane Main Site Entrance Site Boundary Optional Site Entrance

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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  Steel moment resisting frame  Composite concrete/steel deck (t = 4.5”)

19. Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal  First Floor Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering  Third Floor Plan Outdoor Terrace Laboratory

20. Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal  Second Floor Structural Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering W12x45 W14x61 6x6 tube  Third Floor Structural Plan

21.  Roof Structure Pacific University – School of Engineering Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal

22.  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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  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

25. Alternative 1 – Option 2 Structural Proposal  Second Floor Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering  Third Floor Plan Outdoor Terrace Storage

26. Alternative 1 – Option 2 Structural Proposal  Second Floor Structural Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering  Foundation Plan  Main columns have 5’x5’ spread footings  Rotunda has 10” drilled piles 10”x15” 10”x10” Complex connection

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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  Second Floor Plan No conflicts with architecture

29. Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal  Third Floor Structural Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering W12x45 W14x61  Second Floor Structural Plan W14x61 Fewer columns than with original concept (A/E/C) W12x45

30. Alternative 1 – Option 3 Structural Proposal  Gravity load distribution Pacific University – School of Engineering  Lateral load distribution

31.  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 Alternative 1 – Construction Issues

32. Alternative 1: Option 3 Schedule & Estimate Total: $3.8 Million Structural: $420,000

33. Alternative 2 - Parti Parti: Redevelopment of last year’s 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 pattern’s 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 architect’s challenge of a radial layout with the structure integrated into the north building’s radial hallways Pacific University – School of Engineering

38. Alternative 2 – Option 1 Structural Proposal  Second Floor Structural Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering W12x45 W14x61  First Floor Plan Laboratory

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  First Floor Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering W12x45 W14x61  Second Floor Structural Plan No conflicts w/architecture

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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  First Floor Plan No conflicts w/architecture

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 building’s hallways Pacific University – School of Engineering

44. Alternative 2 – Option 4 Structural Proposal Pacific University – School of Engineering  First Floor Plan W12x45 W14x61

45. Alternative 2 – Construction Issues  Building is separated into two parts: Cost Consideration for duplication of MEP systems  Connecting the two parts by 3 rd floor skywalk: Potential savings: ~20% of total cost  Enclosed or Open Radial hallways: Life-cycle Costs  Constructability issues: Curved Walls & Angled Connections

46. Milestone 1: Structural System Erected Milestone 2: Building enclosed Milestone 3: Project completion Total: $6.0 Million Structural: $590,000 MEP: $.2.2 Million Alternative 2: Schedule & Estimate

47. Alternative 2: Revised Estimate MEP: $1.1Million Structural:$400,000 Total: $4.2 Million

48. parti sketches Alternative 3 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. Option 2 involves the L-shaped plan for the site It is still working with the puzzle concept – showing its versatility Alternative 3: Option 2

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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  Steel frame w/ shear walls (t = 8”)  Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)

58. Alternative 3 – Option 1 Structural Proposal  First Floor Plan Pacific University – School of Engineering W14x90 W12x65  Second Floor Structural Plan Instructional Laboratory

59. Alternative 3 – Option 1 Structural Proposal  Cantilever Details Pacific University – School of Engineering Tube Section (6x6)

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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  Cantilever Details

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 Moment frames used to integrate structure with architecture

64. W12x45 W14x61 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 > E > 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 Pacific University – School of Engineering  Eccentrically braced steel frame  Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) 8x8 tube steel hanging columns

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 architect’s revisions Pacific University – School of Engineering

77. Alternative 4 – Option 3 Structural Proposal Pacific University – School of Engineering Northeast shoulder removed to accommodate footprint constraint

78. Pacific University – School of Engineering Footprint 2 nd Floor Structural Plan Alternative 4 – Option 3 Structural Proposal

79. Alternative 4  Structurally very dynamic, yet repetition aids in cutting construction costs  Cable-stayed system requires deep pile foundation  2 nd and 3 rd 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 Total: $4.6 Million Structural: $560,000

81. Cost Comparisons

82. Decision Matrix AEC 1 2 3 4 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 Design speaks to engineering and structure Extremely interesting structural system Regular structural patterns – many common components throughout 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

83. Team Process – Iteration Examples  Alternative 1 A->E->C->A->E->C  Predetermined, old architectural drawings redesigned  Alternative 2 A->E->C  Developed architecturally but needs more structural and construction advice due to issues of constructability  Alternative 3 A->E->C->E->A->C  Redesign of Alternative 1  E&C advised architect against irregular, oblique layout  Expensive, angled connections  A challenges E&C to integrate their systems into the architecture (e.g. exposed structural system)  Alternative 4 E->A->C->A->E->C  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: C A E  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 C A E