1. Introduction RAHINAH IBRAHIM Stanford University Architect CRAIG LONG Kansas University Engineer JORGE FUENTES Stanford University Construction Manager ROXANNE ZOLIN Stanford University Owner

2. LOCATION: Sacramento, CA, USA

3. Parking Lot Levies Pedestrian Bridge Forever Road Campus Drive To Campus NORTH

4. Winter Proposal: Square Base Slender Roof Framing Traditional Framing System “Table Top” Stable Platform Concept: Golden Section Rotating Squares Defies Gravity Structural and Construction Feasibility Cost: $5.23m @ Year 2015

5. Winter Proposal: Double Square Base Structural and Construction Feasibility Concept: Golden Section Rotating Squares Defies Gravity Cast-in-Place Frame 10” Shear Wall 12” x 12” Columns 10” Inclined Slab in Auditorium Cost: $5.42m @ Year 2015

6. Design Matrix SQUARE BASE DESIGN Strong concept and space planning well integrated with the structural system. Looks complicated but can be build with current equipments and tools.

7. Unconventional design approach - Building on piers to minimize hydraulic impact. - Flexible floor space. Design Approach To create an innovative building and environment that nurtures the minds and spirits Extending artificial outdoors. Sustainable design.

8. Design Approach A suspended glass building that defies gravity.

9. Design Concept Using the Golden Section and Rotating Squares to create innovative spaces and environment Golden Section Rotating Squares

10. First Floor Plan ADMINISTRATION FACULTY LOUNGE FACULTY MEN EXPOSED CORRIDOR OPTIMIZING RIVER VIEW WOMEN TERRACE ISOMETRIC PLAN NORTH

11. AUDITORIUM SMALL CLASSROOM LARGE CLASSROOM SMALL CLASSROOM ENTRY LOBBY ENTRY PREFUNCTION ENGINEER’S CORNER DOUBLE-STORY LOBBY/PREFUNCTION v MAIN ENTRANCE MENWOMEN ISOMETRIC PLAN LARGE CLASSROOM NORTH Second Floor Plan SMALL CLASSROOM SMALL CLASSROOM

12. Third Floor Plan v NORTH ISOMETRIC PLAN OPTIMIZE VIEW AND EASTERN/SOUTHERN SOLAR EXPOSURE MAXIMIZE SOLAR PENETRATION AUDITORIUM STUDENTS’ OFFICE STUDENTS’ OFFICE INSTRUCTIONAL LAB INSTRUCTIONAL LAB EAST TERRACE SEM1 SEM2 SEM3 SEM4 STUDENTS’ OFFICE COMP MACH ROOM TECH STORE TERRACE SOUTH TERRACE MENWOMEN

13. Solar Study Equinox at 21 Mac/ September 9 am3 pm 12 noon Continuous day lighting area and sun angles during Equinox and Solstice Sacramento, Latitude at 38.5 degree.

14. Building Efficiency Compact space planning in exchange for external artificial extension Internal building efficiency: 66% Total building efficiency: 71%

15. Live Loads Terrace, Interior Atrium – 100 psf Corridors, Computer Lab – 100 psf Auditorium, Classrooms & Offices – 50 psf Roof – 20 psf Dead Loads Cast-in-Place Concrete – 150 lb/ft 3 Steel Construction – 60 psf Flooring, ceiling, lights – 15 psf HVAC – 5 psf Partitions – 20 psf Exterior Cladding – 30 psf Structural Constraints – Gravity Loads

16. Structural Constraints – Lateral Loads Seismic Constraints Moderate seismic activity; Zone 3 Occupancy category, I = 1.0 Sandy soil with subsurface rock Wind Constraints Design wind speed, V 45 = 90 mph Flood Constraints 100 year flood

17. Gravity System Exterior Walls Code Check Main Truss Main Gravity Elements

18. Cantilever System Self Balancing Cantilever Assembly Sequence

19. Structural Bay System 2 nd Level 20’ 25’ 1 st Level Architectural Overlay 3 rd Level Roof Level

20. Bay Components W12X26 W10X26 W18X55 37’-0” 25’-0” Modular Construction Composite Action Chafer

21. Lateral System V=C s V C s = < 1.2A v S RT 2/3 2.5A a R Maximum Base Shear 482 kips Shear Stresses 2 nd Level 3 rd Level Core

22. Pile Cap / Pile Array 10” Diameter typical Rebar: 5 #5 bars w/ #3 ties Drilled Pier Array 10” Diameter typical CIP Transition Piece to Shear Wall Foundation Isometric Foundations

23. Truss to Pier Detail Pier Detail Plan View Elevation View Bearing Plate Connection

24. Front Elevation 20’ Elevation Views 25’ Side Elevation

25. Dynamic Analysis Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3.79” 1. 32”.98”

26. Site (facing west) Construction

27. Site Layout Trailers Material Laydown C Const. Access Road Parking Lot Levies N Pedestrian Bridge Forever Road Campus Drive To Campus Crane American River

28. 210 ton Hydraulic Crawler Crane –Lift 9 ton truss @ 120’ from crane Loader/Excavator Concrete Boom Truck Pile Driver Manlift Equipment

29. Estimate $3.90 mil ($130.02/sf) in 2001 $US Last quarter est. = 3.62 mil. Budget = $3.89 mil (using 2.5% rate)

30. Implementation Schedule 3 rd floor computer labs complete May 1st Aug 29, 2016 Project Complete Dec 21, 2015 Dec 7, 2015

31. 3 rd Floor HVAC 2 nd Floor 1 st Floor Centralized Ventilation and Cooling on 3 rd floor –2- Trane 12.5 ton Voyager Packaged Cooling with Electric Heat Rooftop Units Centralized (radiant) heating throughout Individual Perimeter AC units on 1 st and 2 nd floors –Trane UV-D8-1 Classroom Air Conditioners

32. Construction Sequence

33. Upgrade Options Aesthetic Improvement: Upgrade interior finish in 2 nd and 3 rd floor circulation areas –California Gold Slate tiles- $7/sf –Add $44,800 (6400 sf) Reduce Life-Cycle Costs: –PV cells on roof and solar electric generator –Initial Cost: $5/watt ($1.8m, $60,000/year over 30-year period) –Life-Cycle Savings on Power: $15/watt (over 30 yrs) –Total Savings: $3.6 million for 12kW Building

34. Team Interaction: Winter vs Spring Winter Quarter (Schematic Design Phase) o Group Interaction o Synchronous Emphasized o Multiple Iteration o Very Loose

35. Team Interaction: Winter vs Spring Spring Quarter (Construction Document Phase) o Mentor interactions o Asynchronous professional work o Multiple synchronous integration o Professional design development

36. AEC Interaction - Framing Architectural Schematics is completed Budget way too high! Can we move to a steel frame? Steel framing is good - I need to reorganize the bay system I have to adjust the 1 st Floor plan to suit the new bay system. I want to erect the steel members before placing the decking. I am concerned about deflection caused by your proposed sequence.

37. AEC Interaction - HVAC Owner concerned about MEP options Develop MEP requirements Investigate current restrictions Present problem to team A – Sustainable design can decrease demand E – External ducting allow for flexibility C – Radiant heat can increase interstitial space Owner still smiling

38. Conclusions and Recommendations Lessons learned: Better and faster decisions can be made during Schematic Design Phase using AEC Integration method. Technology can be a powerful tool… when it works. How it can be improved: Critical that A-E-C students be exposed to collaborative tools and methods during their tertiary education. Future prospect: Collaborative design-build has tremendous potential, but limited now by design accountability. A-E-C Integration

39. The River2001 Team would like to acknowledge the following persons for their direct and indirect contributions throughout our discovery journey. RENATE FRUCHTER, Stanford Univesity ROXANNE ZOLIN, Stanford University ROBERT ALVARADO, CM Salter Architect SCOTT DENNIS, MBT Architect ERIC HORN, Webcor Builders BOYD PAULSON, Stanford University BOB TATUM, Stanford University KIM RODDIS, Kansas University RYAN STRAUPE, Pacific Energy Center, PG & E Staff of CIFE, and our fellow friends and colleagues. Acknowledgements