Radial Desert Rose: A Vision in the Desert

1. Winston Win, Owner Chris Preciado, Architect Christina Cho, Engineer David Steinbach, Construction Mgr.

2. Project Description • Location: Desert of El Paso, Texas • Rainfall: 8.81” annually • Climate: 200 days clear days of sunshine annually and a dry climate, making it possible to enjoy most outdoor activities year-round • High 78º, Low 49º

3. Site Plan: The site is the University of Texas, El Paso. The campus is located in a dry climate with very little rainfall.

4. University of Texas at El Paso

5. The Two Alternatives Radial Desert Rose

6. Alternative Comparisons Radial Desert Rose • Initial design interaction • Input from SE & CM into pre-design. • Discontinuous geometry • Long cantilevers • Large public space • Implementing Radial elements • Grid system evolved • Symmetry followed • Simple Elegance of Building fits into rigid site context • Collaboration with SE and CM in each iteration

7. Vision • Parti: Visual Access, Permeability, Views and Vistas, Celebration of Tradition, the Sun and Earth. • The Parti revolving in and around the central elongated Public Open Space, Bringing Student and Faculty together to promote Interaction in this New School of Engineering.

8. Revisiting site context to remind the project of the notion of ‘Visual Access’ and ‘Axis’ Taking ideas from team, implementing into design, creating my first Parti Continuing with the design, the second Parti developed, the Idea of ‘Defying Gravity Naturally’ & ‘Celebration’

9. Celebrating Site Buildings in Design - Homage to Tradition

10. Influences in Design The use of cantilever roof elements for shelter and dramatic effect The idea of atriums evolved Full height glass fused with simple geometry

11. The Grid Section through Public Area 1st floor Long Section 2nd floor 3rd floor

12. As the design process continues, a grid was designed in collaboration with all disciplines to allow maximum symmetry and repetitive construction techniques.

13. Open building to allow sunlight and natural cooling.

14. Ramps and bridges connect the two sides of the building at the center of the public space, and are perpendicular to each other to provoke interaction.

15. Circulation: Horizontal Vertical Floor Plans-Circulation Open Public Space Student Offices Auditorium Class Rooms SECOND LEVEL FIRST LEVEL Faculty Offices Faculty Lounge Faculty Faculty Offices Roof Garden THIRD LEVEL ROOF LEVEL

16. The building grows out from the ground, the center of the building encased in glass provides transparency to the Cactus beyond.

17. EXPLORATION OF FLOORS 1st Level 2nd Level 3rd Level Roof Garden

18. Elevations and Sections ELEVATIONS SECTIONS

19. Open Public Area allows Interaction and a sense of Place. Revisiting the Parti of Visual Access

20. The Atrium developed further, the ‘Bridge’ or catwalk evolved The Roof Trellis system integrated into design and MEP considerations

21. Using unorthodox implications made by architect Calatrava, the trellis soon formed in response to solar orientation, the planes of the trellis positioned to deflect the suns rays during the most crucial time of the year - summer. From this notion of solar protection, the window design followed, movable elements to protect against the harsh sun. Solar Window Calatrava influence

22. The geometry of the building became symmetrical. By shifting the grid, the building then took on interesting shapes, while maintaining simplicity and elegance - a characteristic of the surrounding site context.

23. Mentor Input: Humberto Cavalli, Berkeley Circulation Open Public areas- no bridge Stairways - remove and reduce frequency Class rooms - need second egress and handicap considerations Re-visit idea of adobe use

24. Mentor Input: Robert Alvarado, San Francisco Atriums - make spaces concentric about atriums Cafe - why not re-think and make smaller? Circulation - good, but limit staircases Adobe - use symbolically as exterior non-structural cladding Elevators - turn and move into public space

25. Mentor Input: Mike Martin, Berkeley Atriums - good use of daylighting Decks - create sense of bringing the outside in Circulation - limit staircases by deleting half Make second egress for classrooms a place that students want to go and not just an exit. Security issues with second exit. Open Public area - interesting use of volume

26. Program initiated dialogue on Adobe A and O: Agreed on Use in Design E and CM: Expressed Reservations A: Devised Panel System (Cladding) CM, E, and Mentors: Could not Grasp idea - A: Re-visited Purpose of Adobe Adobe Symbolically Used, EFIS System Intergrated to E & CM Approval and Delight

27. Architectural Review Square Footage Comparison Total SF Percentage of Requirements

28. Desert Rose

29. Desert Rose

30. Structural Design Goals • To allow the architect to achieve his vision with minimal hindrances in interior and central open space • To support the green building infrastructure

31. Design Wind Speed, V33 = 80 mph, Exposure B Seismic Zone 1, Z = 0.075 Seismic Importance Factor, I = 1.00 V = 327 kips Subsurface Conditions Soft, silty clay Max. soil pressure = 3 ksf Structural Parameters

32. LIVE LOADS Office                50 psf Classrooms        40 psf Lobby                100 psf Auditorium        100 psf Labs                  50 psf Walkway 100 psf Roof Garden 10 psf DEAD LOADS Glass Roof          10 psf Flat Plate          100 psf Exterior Walls    12 psf Interior Walls     9 psf Cladding 10 psf Additional 25 psf Partitions, service, floor finishes Design Loads

33. EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finishing System) Energy efficiency Design flexibility Can be made to resemble Adobe Lightweight Economical

34. Lateral System - Perimeter Moment Frames 12”x15” beams 12”x12” square columns Corner: 8-#7 bars Others: 8-#6 bars

35. Gravity System - Flat Plate 9.25” thickness Post-tensioned Normal weight concrete Roof truss 19-27’ bays 3 2 1

36. Foundation Plan 8’x8’x15” Spread footing 10’x10’x15” Spread footing 6” slab-on-grade Retaining Wall

37. Perimeter Basement Retaining Wall

38. Columns & Stud Rails Prevent Punching Shear Without Drop Panels

39. Post-Tensioning Details

40. 10 – 15 banded tendons Max Deflection 0.2” Thank you, Shilin, Chris, and Greg at KL&A for the use of FLOOR.

41. Truss Connection Details • Standard weight 3” dia. pipe chords • Pipe slotted & inserted into plate • Fillet welded together • Prefabricated

42. SAP 2000 Analysis Drift = 0.546” < 1.12” allowable by UBC-97

43. Design Evolution E&C -> A -> C Shear walls obstruct interior MEP penetration costs under PT girders C -> E Raised MEP floor costs Redundancy vs. Cost of PT girders Expensive transfer girders? E -> A & C Negotiate 2 columns in auditorium Eliminate girders -> Perimeter OMFs Regular suspended ceilings

44. Load / Unload area 5400SF Work area 5700SF Range of tower crane Offices and Sanitation Material laydown 2x1800SF Backfill Laydown 1240CY Site Plan Main Entrance

45. 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 Construction Methods A Dividing the building into two parts Erecting the building by floor B Combination of both C

46. 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 Cost & Schedule Comparison Construction Methods • Reuse of formwork possible • No work overlap during concrete curing • 10 weeks longer schedule $26,000 more for crane • Reuse of formwork possible • Short schedule • Easy movement of formwork facilitates construction More cost and time effective • Reuse of formwork not possible $29,000 for formwork • 4 weeks faster schedule  saving of $10,400 for crane

47. 3 2 3 1 2 Schedule May-15, 2015 Total Duration: 11 months April-06, 2016

49. Cost Estimate Preliminary Cost Estimate: $3,406,000 Total Construction Cost: $3,463,000 Budget: $3,539,000

50. Equipment  130' jib 130' high 10,250 lb.  1 ½ CY  10 CY