Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University

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

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

Project Definition • Facility: A new 30, 000 sf 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

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

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

Proposed Concept - Lshape 1 The Mountain Ridge Team

Proposed Concept - Square 1 The Mountain Ridge Team

Proposed Concept - Lshape 2 The Mountain Ridge Team

Proposed Concept - Square 2 The Mountain Ridge Team

Proposed Concept - Square 2 The Mountain Ridge Team

The Iterative Process Square 2 Lshape 2 E C A O Square 1 Lshape 1 First Quarter Second Quarter The Mountain Ridge Team

Site Plan The Mountain Ridge Team

The Building 1 2 3 The Mountain Ridge Team

Activities • Administrative • Students • Educational The Mountain Ridge Team

Architectural Evaluations - Floor 1 The Mountain Ridge Team

Architectural Evaluations - Floor 2 The Mountain Ridge Team

Architectural Evaluations - Floor 3 The Mountain Ridge Team

Architectural Evaluations - Section The Mountain Ridge Team

Architectural Evaluations - Section The Mountain Ridge Team

Engineering Loads. Gravity Loads Dead Loads Including Live Loads Including 25 psf floor & partitions 10 psf MEP equipment 83. 5 psf for 6. 5” slab and metal deck 100 psf in halls & library 50 psf in offices 40 psf in classrooms 109. 6 psf total (205 psf is seismically effective) The Mountain Ridge Team

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 = 0. 203 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

Engineering Evaluations Floor Details and Load Path • Composite steel deck - concrete slab • Shallow beam sections • Typical Sections: – Beams sizes from W 10 x 12 to W 12 x 30, unshored construction – All columns W 12 x 40 to facilitate connections – Shear connections only Cross Beam: W 10 x 19, Typ. Ext. Girder: W 10 x 22, Typ. Vertical Gravity Load Transfer Column: W 12 x 40, Typ. 12” Shearwalls Resist All Lateral Loads Second Floor Beams - Plan View The Mountain Ridge Team

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

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

Engineering Evaluations Critical Connection Details • Third Floor Moment Frame Connection Detail The Mountain Ridge Team

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

Engineering Evaluations Shear Wall Design • Resist all lateral loads, both seismic and wind • Mot = 1061. 9 k-ft per wall • Vbase = 484 k • No boundary zones • No additional moment reinforcement • Torsional effects are negligible The Mountain Ridge Team

Engineering Evaluations MEP Assumptions • Steam heat and chilled water from central facility • 15’ x 15’ 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

Engineering Evaluations Three-Dimensional Model The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Site Plan The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Fall 2011 Schedule The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Spring 2012 Schedule The Mountain Ridge Team

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

Contractor - Estimate Details • Location adjustment factor of 1. 15 • $160/s. f. 1998 dollars ($210/s. f. 2010 dollars) • 6% Contractor fee • 10% Architecture and Engineering fee The Mountain Ridge Team

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

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

Contractor - Equipment • Crane selection for steel erection – 50 T hydraulic rough terrain crane with 65’ boom – Critical lift: 4 ton beam at 60’ radius • Gradall material handlers The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Estimate Progression The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Schedule Loading 2011 The Mountain Ridge Team 2012

Contractor - Budget Breakdown The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Inflation Analysis The Mountain Ridge Team

Contractor - Construction Cost Index The Mountain Ridge Team

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 3 rd floor Shearwall Entrance façade column locations A/C/O Cladding Excavation costs The Mountain Ridge Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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