Location

1
Introduction
RAHINAH IBRAHIM Stanford University Architect
CRAIG LONG Kansas University Engineer
ROXANNE ZOLIN Stanford University Owner
JORGE FUENTES Stanford University Construction
Manager
River 2001
2
LOCATION Sacramento, CA, USA
3
LOCATION Sacramento, CA, USA
Levies
Forever Road
Pedestrian Bridge
Parking Lot
Campus Drive
To Campus
NORTH
4
Winter Proposal Square Base
Concept Golden Section Rotating Squares Defies
Gravity
Slender Roof Framing
Traditional Framing System
Cost 5.23m _at_ Year 2015
Table Top Stable Platform
Structural and Construction Feasibility
5
Winter Proposal Double Square Base
Concept Golden Section Rotating Squares Defies
Gravity
10 Inclined Slab in Auditorium

• Cast-in-Place Frame
• 10 Shear Wall
• 12 x 12 Columns

Cost 5.42m _at_ Year 2015
Structural and Construction Feasibility
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
Design Approach
Unconventional design approach - Building on
piers to minimize hydraulic impact. - Flexible
floor space.
Extending artificial outdoors. Sustainable design.
To create an innovative building and
environment that nurtures the minds and spirits
8
Design Approach
A suspended glass building that defies gravity.
9
Design Concept
Golden Section
Rotating Squares
Using the Golden Section and Rotating
Squares to create innovative spaces
and environment
10
First Floor Plan
OPTIMIZING RIVER VIEW
TERRACE
TERRACE
FACULTY
FACULTY
ADMINISTRATION
TERRACE
TERRACE
FACULTY
FACULTY
EXPOSED CORRIDOR
TERRACE
TERRACE
MEN
WOMEN
FACULTY LOUNGE
FACULTY
FACULTY
TERRACE
TERRACE
ISOMETRIC PLAN
NORTH
11
Second Floor Plan
MAIN ENTRANCE
SMALL CLASSROOM
SMALL CLASSROOM
AUDITORIUM
LARGE CLASSROOM
ISOMETRIC PLAN
ENGINEERS CORNER
PREFUNCTION
LARGE CLASSROOM
v
MEN
WOMEN
ENTRY LOBBY
SMALL CLASSROOM
SMALL CLASSROOM
DOUBLE-STORY LOBBY/PREFUNCTION
ENTRY
NORTH
12
Third Floor Plan
ISOMETRIC PLAN
STUDENTS OFFICE
AUDITORIUM
STUDENTS OFFICE
INSTRUCTIONAL LAB
OPTIMIZE VIEW AND EASTERN/SOUTHERN SOLAR EXPOSURE
EAST TERRACE
SEM1
v
INSTRUCTIONAL LAB
SEM2
MEN
WOMEN
TECH
SEM3
STUDENTS OFFICE
COMP MACH ROOM
STORE
SEM4
TERRACE
SOUTH TERRACE
MAXIMIZE SOLAR PENETRATION
NORTH
13
Solar Study
Continuous day lighting area and sun angles
during Equinox and Solstice Sacramento, Latitude
at 38.5 degree.
12 noon
9 am
3 pm
Equinox at 21 Mac/ September
14
Building Efficiency
Internal building efficiency 66 Total building
efficiency 71
Compact space planning in exchange for external
artificial extension
15
Structural Constraints Gravity Loads

• 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/ft3 Steel Construction 60 psf
  Flooring, ceiling, lights 15 psf HVAC 5
  psf Partitions 20 psf Exterior Cladding
  30 psf

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, V45 90
  mph
• Flood Constraints
• 100 year flood

17
Gravity System
Exterior Walls
Code Check
Main Gravity Elements
Main Truss
18
Cantilever System
Self Balancing Cantilever
Assembly Sequence
19
Structural Bay System
2nd Level
3rd Level
25
Roof Level
20
1st Level
20
Bay Components

• Modular Construction
• Composite Action
• Chafer

W10X26
W12X26
25-0
W18X55
37-0
21
Lateral System
2nd Level
3rd Level
Core
VCsV Cs lt
Maximum Base Shear 482 kips
1.2AvS
2.5Aa
RT2/3
R
Shear Stresses
22
Foundations
23
Truss to Pier Detail
Pier Detail
Plan View
Elevation View
Bearing Plate Connection
24
Elevation Views
Front Elevation
20
Side Elevation
25
25
Dynamic Analysis
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
.79
Mode 1
1. 32
Mode 2
Mode 3
.98
26
Site (facing west)
Construction
27
Site Layout
28
Equipment

• 210 ton Hydraulic Crawler Crane
• Lift 9 ton truss _at_ 120 from crane
• Loader/Excavator
• Concrete Boom Truck
• Pile Driver
• Manlift

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
Aug 29, 2016 Project Complete
Dec 21, 2015
3rd floor computer labs complete May 1st
Dec 7, 2015
31
HVAC

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

32
Construction Sequence
33
Upgrade Options

• Aesthetic Improvement Upgrade interior finish in
  2nd and 3rd 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)

• Group Interaction
• Synchronous Emphasized
• Multiple Iteration
• Very Loose

35
Team Interaction Winter vs Spring
Spring Quarter
(Construction Document Phase)

• Mentor interactions
• Asynchronous professional work
• Multiple synchronous integration
• Professional design development

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

• 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.