1. The Mountain Ridge Team
Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University Engineering Building May 15, 1998
Architect: Humberto Cavallin
Engineer: Alec Zimmer
Construction Manager: David Miller
Owner Representative: Luciana Barroso
The Mountain Ridge Team

2. The Mountain Ridge Team
Presentation Outline
The Project Statement
Early Proposed Concepts
The Idea: Product, Evolution, and Process
The Final Product
Summary: The Team Process
The Mountain Ridge Team

3. The Mountain Ridge Team
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
The Mountain Ridge Team

4. Project Definition: Physical Constraints
Must use one of 2 existing footprints
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

6. Proposed Concept - Lshape1
The Mountain Ridge Team

7. Proposed Concept - Square1
The Mountain Ridge Team

8. Proposed Concept - Lshape2
The Mountain Ridge Team

9. Proposed Concept - Square2
The Mountain Ridge Team

10. Proposed Concept - Square2
The Mountain Ridge Team

11. The Mountain Ridge Team
The Iterative Process
Square2 E C
Lshape2 A O
Square1
Lshape1
First Quarter
Second Quarter
The Mountain Ridge Team

12. The Mountain Ridge Team
Site Plan
The Mountain Ridge Team

13. The Mountain Ridge Team
The Building 1 2 3
The Mountain Ridge Team

14. The Mountain Ridge Team
Activities
Administrative
Students
Educational
The Mountain Ridge Team

15. Architectural Evaluations - Floor 1
The Mountain Ridge Team

16. Architectural Evaluations - Floor 2
The Mountain Ridge Team

17. Architectural Evaluations - Floor 3
The Mountain Ridge Team

18. Architectural Evaluations - Section
The Mountain Ridge Team

19. Architectural Evaluations - Section
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

21. Engineering Loads- Seismic and 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 = by Method A
C = 2.75 for firm soil
Rw = 8 compromise for
this dual system
Vbase = 608 kip
Mot = 9426 k-ft
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

23. Engineering Evaluations - ETABS model
Verify period with modal analysis
Evaluate deflections and interstory drift
Verify load path assumptions
Problems in model
The Mountain Ridge Team

24. Engineering Evaluations - Cross Sections at Lines 1 and 3
Note typical sections and detail references
The Mountain Ridge Team

25. Engineering Evaluations - Critical Connection Details
Third Floor Moment Frame Connection Detail
The Mountain Ridge Team

26. Engineering Evaluations - Shear Wall-Beam Connection Details
The Mountain Ridge Team

27. Engineering Evaluations - Shear Wall Design
Resist all lateral loads, both seismic and wind
Mot = k-ft per wall
Vbase = 484 k
No boundary zones
No additional moment reinforcement
Torsional effects are negligible
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

29. Engineering Evaluations - Three-Dimensional Model
The Mountain Ridge Team

30. The Mountain Ridge Team
Contractor - Site Plan
The Mountain Ridge Team

31. Contractor - Fall 2011 Schedule
The Mountain Ridge Team

32. The Mountain Ridge Team
Contractor - Spring 2012 Schedule
The Mountain Ridge Team

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 <4 months
Respite allows for coordination and planning
The Mountain Ridge Team

34. Contractor - Estimate Details
Location adjustment factor of 1.15
$160/s.f dollars ($210/s.f dollars)
6% Contractor fee
10% Architecture and Engineering fee
The Mountain Ridge Team

35. Contractor - Critical Phases of Work
Heaviest lift complete
The Mountain Ridge Team

36. Contractor - Critical Phases of Work
Floors and roof complete
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

38. Contractor - Estimate Progression
The Mountain Ridge Team

39. Contractor - Schedule Loading
2011
2012
The Mountain Ridge Team

40. Contractor - Budget Breakdown
The Mountain Ridge Team

41. Contractor - Inflation Analysis
The Mountain Ridge Team

42. Contractor - Construction Cost Index
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

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?
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

48. East Balcony and Column Locations - A/E Trade-Off Analysis
Owner requirements for a balcony
Architectural solution - cantilever
Engineer’s response with additional columns - spares moment connections
Added Columns
Plan of East Balcony
The Mountain Ridge Team

49. Window Wall and West Balcony - A/E/O Issues
The Requirements of O/A/E
The communications breakdowns
The positioning of walkway supports
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

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
The Mountain Ridge Team

52. Evaluation of Communication Media and Resources
Hardware vs. Software
Progress in the Future
The Mountain Ridge Team

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

54. Summary of Team Process
Importance of information flow transfer
Team dynamic
The role of the owner O C A E
The Mountain Ridge Team

55. Creating a Better Solution
Dave’s Axiom
2 times better process =
8 times better product!
The Mountain Ridge Team

56. The Mountain Ridge Team
We acknowledge the support of Luciana Barroso and the Course Mentors!
The Mountain Ridge Team