P ACIFIC T EAM SPRING Q UARTER P RESENTATION

1. PACIFIC TEAM SPRINGQUARTER PRESENTATION

2. TEAMMEMBERS TONIE GARZA ARCHITECT PETER DEMIAN STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JOHN ENGSTROM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Owners ASAKO AKAZAWA APPRENTICE Robert Alvarado Industry Owner Mr. Kozakai Japan

3. Outline of Presentation Project Introduction Winter Quarter Alternatives A-E-C Iterations and Resolutions Architectural Review Structural Review Construction Review Collaboration and Group Dynamics

4. A E C Team Dynamics • Lessons from Winter Quarter • Be more honest in our interactions • Meet more frequently • Increase the team’s interaction with the owner

5. Team Dynamics • Spring Quarter Improvements? • Interaction was more active • The group met more frequently (at least twice per week) • Interactions with the owner were not increased significantly • The group developed a better understanding of the disciplines • Our individual project decisions were more disciplined based

6. Project Information The Engineering School of Pacific University Location: Oregon Coast Year: 2010 Square Footage: 30,000 sf. Budget: $5,500,000

7. A E C Site Layout

8. PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker A E C Design Alternatives

9. PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer A E C Design Alternatives • Good forms. • Slightly predictable. • No clear architectural intent. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVES • Simple Frame. • Potential problems with columns. E C • $4.8M

10. PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag A E C Design Alternatives Large beam span in auditorium may pose some significant challenges. Standard grid allows for little variation in building skin. A C Concurrent construction $4.8M E Simple layout due to grid format

11. PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker DESIGN ALTERNATIES A E C Design Alternatives A • Initial reaction to conceptual beginning. Challenging and intriguing structural system. Exceeds structural budget. $5.9M C E

12. PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace A E C Design Alternatives Remains close to conceptual ideas while at the same time addressing programmatic requirements A Best combination of structural and architectural requirements. Presents challenges to all disciplines while staying within the budget. $5.5M C E

13. A E C Proposal Recommendation PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace

14. The Design

15. 1st Floor: Plan & Layout

16. 2nd Floor: Plan & Layout

17. 3rd Floor: Plan & Layout

18. Programmatic Changes Iteration 1 Iteration 2

19. Circulation vs. Used Space circulation used Iteration 1 Iteration 2

20. Area Designated by Use

21. Privacy/Security Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

22. Atrium Lighting Evening light study Morning light study

23. 3D Renderings • Building main entry • -Evening and afternoon light

24. 3D Renderings Northeast façade & Overhangs

25. Future Design Proposal

26. A E C Structural Concept • Concrete - to reflect architectural ‘bunker’ concept • Post-tensioned flat slab with drop panels • Shear walls - seismic Zone 3, lateral strength for earthquake loads • large spans: span/depth=38 • gravity loads: dead 100 psf live 50 psf (office) 100 psf (computer lab) earthquake load: UBC 94 Zone 3 Design Spectrum

27. Overall Structure • Put picture of structure here

28. Load Path Diagram

29. A E C Structural Concept PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker Columns / Foundations • Interior columns • circular, 20” diameter, 3% reinforcement, carries axial load, very small moments • drop panels 3’ diameter by 8” deep • Exterior columns (corners and sides) • 24” square, 6-8% reinforcement • drop panels 4’ square by 8” deep

30. A E C Structural Concept Slab • 12 in thick PT slab • PT details here • shear moment

31. A E C Structural Concept Column to Slab Connection

32. A E C Structural Concept Shear Walls • 4 exterior walls 20” thick by 12’ long • thick than necessary to compliment architectural concept • shear wall combined with adjacent column. ‘Column’ acts as a column for out-of-plane bending, and as a shear wall boundary element for in-plane bending. • Connection subtleties

33. A E C Structural Concept Shear Wall to Slab Connection

34. A E C Structural Concept Old Atrium Moment resisting Frames Complex joint between two different slab systems Roof/ slab interaction Struts for lateral support

35. A E C Structural Concept Atrium New

36. A E C Structural Concept Seismic Analysis Floor Displacements and Drifts • UBC 94 Design Spectra – not site-specific • Period of structure 0.3 seconds

37. A E C Structural Concept Slab Deflections, Vibrations - Potential Problem? • Large spans - large deflections • UBC limit: l/480  1in • Max displacement from approximate computer model: 2 in • Vibrations: more difficult to analyze. Further investigation required.

38. A E C Construction Construction Summary • Concrete CIP Structure • Rock Excavation • Slab Overhangs and Pre-cast • Atrium Glass Curtain Wall

39. A E C Site Layout

40. A E C Estimate Cost = $4.9M ($161/sf)

41. A E C Excavation Costs • Discovery of Rock on Site significantly increased the unit cost of excavation. • This was mitigated by: • Reducing floor-to-floor heights and eliminating a submerged 1st level. • This reduced the amount of excavation by over half (still need auditorium and large classrooms • Ancillary effect was to reduce the size of footings

42. A E C Slab Costs $/sf

43. A E C Schedule Completion September 12, 2012

44. A E C Milestones Exterior Closure May 24, 2012 Superstructure April 12, 2012 (5.5 Months)

45. A E C MEP Systems • Mild Climate • Exposed system important for architecture • Standard Design • Air Handler, Chiller, Boiler configuration

46. A E C HVAC Distribution A-C Iteration MEP Rooms centrally located E-C Iteration Holes in the Slab Next to Elevator Shaft

48. AEC Interaction A E/ C Atrium AEC Interaction E/ C A Overhangs A E Shear Walls

49. AEC Interaction A E/ C Atrium AEC Interaction

50. AEC Interaction E/ C A Overhangs AEC Interaction