1. Final Presentation of Bay Engineer Yang, Yao-Hung ConstructionManager David Walthall Architect Cindy Chan

2. Project Introduction Engineer School of the Bay University in San Francisco 3-story building with a total of 30,000 sq. ft Provided innovative facilities with access to Internet and Telecommunication

3. Site Constrain Earthquake Zone Humidity Control -Sea Fog Heating/Cooling Degree ( 1921/23 below 65 o F)

4. Architectural Constraint 30’ height limit Maintain the existing footprint, circulation and transportation route

5. San Francisco State University

6. Spine Project Information Resource Center Act of Recording, Analyzing, and Storing located at the spine area

7. Curve Project The curve generates the movement physically, visually, and conceptually

8. CURVE Core +Steel MRF and lightweight concrete slab and steel deck SPINE Core + Brace+ Steel SMRF Structure Alternatives

9. Structural Challenges Auditorium Cantilever Part Core wall Steel SMRF system Core wall Cantilever Auditorium

10. Moment connectionMoment connection Steel SMRF W24 resist two NS-EW seismic forceW24 resist two NS-EW seismic force W24x229 I-Beam W24x131 I-Beam

11. Core Wall Cast in place 10Cast in place 10 inch core wall. inch core wall. Connect with gravityConnect with gravity system system C-shape core decreases torsion momentC-shape core decreases torsion moment Share the vertical loadingShare the vertical loading

12. Cantilever 10 ft 20 ft Sap Modeling 10ft span Sap Modeling 20ft Moment ConnectionMoment Connection

13. Auditorium Add balcony to increase seats

14. Modeling Curve with SAP 2000

15. – Water table - 16-20’ – Soil Friction angle - 20 – Cohesion - 250 lb/Ft 2 Foundation Df square=4' (Depth under the soil) Bsquare=3.6' (Width of the footing) Dthick=1' (thickness of the footing) 4X4 spread footing

16. Evaluation Pro A: Clear conceptual approach E: Uniform structural system C: Large amount of repetition, symmetry Con A: Exceeding height limit, form is too rigid E: Eccentric moment issue C: Large amount of glass structure Pro A: Multi spatial movement E: Simple gravity system C: Re-assembly of materials Con A: Lack of informal social space E: Complicated concrete beams C: Non-Uniform beam

17. Vision of the Engineering Building Encourage informal social interaction between faculty and student Ecological and Climate Responsive design to maximize building life cycle, increase user comfort and save energy cost

18. 1 st Floor Main Entrance 2 nd Entrance Parking

20. 2 nd Floor

21. Open Student Discussion Space Cantilever Structure 2 nd Floor Balcony

22. Basement

23. Section Faculty Office S. Class Room Comp. Lab Auditorium

24. Interaction - Auditorium A - 40’ span E – Curve wall and 2 columns inside the auditorium provide structural stability A – Column space become aisle. Idea: Balcony floor A+Mentor Circulation Security Issues A+E+C Structural Supports MEP Location

25. Auditorium - circulation

26. Roofing PV Modules – Photo Wall PV 750-80 + Power Guard Structural system Daylight: North facing roof monitor with clear glass panel Energy: Photovoltaic panels facing south Natural ventilation: Operable glass panel

27. HVAC Minimize AC Controlled AC zone, Bring in outside cool air Thermal Mass Curve and West wall are Built by mass concrete wall to Natural Ventilation Between Floor slab Large open Window

28. Layout Crane Radius Site

29. Total length of project = 8.5 months Most Congested Concrete work done

30. SeptOctNovDecJan 4D Construction Sequence

31. Budget Factors San Francisco area factor of 124% Inflation of 2.5 – 3 % Translates into a 5.5 million dollar donation in 2015 being worth 3.2 million dollars in 2001

32. Budget

33. Access flooring Electrical Mechanical Fire Protection Plumbing

34. Average Educational building consumes: 575.3 kWh/day 104 PV Panels generate 332.4 kWh/day At $0.12 per kWh, building saves $958.47 per day $349,839.86 per year Projected Savings

35. Computer Integrated A/E/C Take advantage from web based technologies –MSN –NetMeeting –Email –Discussion Forums (PBL) –Group web space (PBL)

36. Group Assessment Collaborative Successes –Strong integration of structure and architecture on design stage –Friendly relationship –Systematically achieve project requirement through interactive design process Collaborative Inadequacies –Need to have more portions of product model shared –Time Control

37. Lessons learned Through sharing 3D models –Save time and increases efficiency –Easily to figure out and solve conflictions Everyone should use compatible technology Formatting correct communication protocols –Understand what other discipline needs –Properly propose what you need Take necessary courses needed

38. Thank you.. Mentors