Carbon Creative Final Design

RBON A

T

I

V

E

RBON A

T

I

V

E

Proposal for The Pennsylvania State University’s

Student Enrichment Center Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

CARBON C

R

E

A

T

I

V

E

INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIVE BIM STUDIO - SPRING 2014 Team Carbon Architect Landscape Architect Construction Manager Structural Engineer Mechanical Engineer Electrical Engineer Submitted May 6, 2014

Giancarlo Rodriguez Richard Hammond Katie Gonzales Sam deVries Valerie Miller Josh Lange

The Pennsylvania State University Department of Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture Department of Architectural Engineering

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S 4

5 18 30 40 44 50 61 66 70 74

FINAL DESIGN design structure mechanical lighting/electrical integration areas estimate

SCHEMATIC DESIGN gateway conduit the u

82 84 92 119 125

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT landscape architecture

BIM EX PLAN APPENDIX

FINAL DESIGN Throughout our journey, we have argued, compromised, and at times sacrificed each discipline’s most optimal desires to meet at a preferred balance. The project presented to you here is the realization of the client’s desires for the Student Enrichment Center coupled with of all our values here at Carbon Creative. It is something that was only obtainable through early integration of different skills. The result is a project we see Penn State Harrisburg being truly proud of as it provides a beacon of light and activity at the beating heart of the campus.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

WHY?

T

he capital college is located in the Lower Swatara Township, who’s population consists of 8,150 as of 2000. Penn State Harrisburg’s campus enrolls around 4,000 students a year with an 86% acceptance rate. It also provides a variety of graduate programs due to its history as a primarily graduate school. In recent history however, the campus has begun to grow and evolve into a more lived-in community rather than commuters. The start of a large student housing development to the south-east of the campus will result in an increased number of undergraduate students. Penn State Harrisburg prides themselves in the amount of student activities, clubs, and athletics they have as well as the quality of their academics. The growth trend requires the campus to provide a “living room” for campus life as the go-to place to get information, get involved, seek services, learn, eat, and relax much like the HUB does for Penn State’s campus at University Park.

250

number of students

number of students

3500 3000

200

2500

150

2000 1500

100

1000 500 undergraduate

4

graduate

50 Full Time

Part Time

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

CONCEPT

Student Housing

Olmsted

Science and Technologies

P

enn State Harrisburg’s campus future growth and evolution asks for a new building that students and faculty can use to “house” extracurricular and social activities. The new building will serve as the campus’s “living room” serving to be the hub where orientations, fairs, organization promoters, and other student gatherings can take place as well as the go-to place to study, eat, and learn. For this reason we approached the design by taking into consideration the various activities that undergo currently at the site and enhance it for future student traffic. The strategic location of the building allows it to “capture” much of the student traffic naturally as they traverse between classes on the day-by-day basis. To facilitate circulation, the shape of the building is born out of the traffic flows cutting through the site. The connection between the EAB and student housing splits the building into two and are bridged together over the terminus of the mall. This provides a special threshold or “gateway” into the southern quad of the campus.

As students pass underneath it they will experience a moment of pressure between the wings, then release onto the plaza which then opens up onto the southern lawn. The two wings will light up the plaza at night making it glow like a fireplace at the heart of the campus.

Library

EAB

Student Housing

Olmsted

Science and Technologies

Library

EAB

Student Housing

Olmsted

Science and Technologies

Library

Student Housing

Olmsted

ms Ol ted

Science and Technologies

ive

Dr

Library

EAB

College Ave.

EAB Addition

EAB

CUB O Street

Site Analysis deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

5

LANDSCAPE

T

he landscape for the Student Enrichment Center is based around circulation with the main goal being getting students from destination to destination, but it also offers chances for students to hang out and escape from classes for a bit. The main feature of the landscape is an Apple Orchard. As Penn State Harrisburg has a history as a commuter campus, there has not been much activity within the campus.

The Apple Orchard helps create new traditions and activities on campus in response to the school’s future expansion and evolution to a live-in university. Along with the Apple Orchard the landscape also consists of an event lawn for activities to take place, people to relax in, or the bonfire to happen in. Along the southern edge of the site there is a meadow that serves as erosion control, stormwater management, and pollinator habitat for the Apple Orchard. To the north of the building is another meadow, a wooded area, and the mall lined with Black Gum trees. There is also a large courtyard “hugged� by the two wings of the building. This serves as a node where the different traffic paths intersect to provide moments of surprise encounters for different students between classes.

The courtyard reflects the program of the building. The eastern side reflects the more private aspects of the building with an intimate setting, while the western side is the more social aspects of the building.

6

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Characteristic Plants

Nyssa sylvatica

Betula nigra

Cercis canadensis

Apple Orchard

Final Design

The Apple Orchard serves as the focal point of the landscape. It helps bring new traditions to the campus, educate students, and provide relaxing places to study or hang out. It also helps Penn State Harrisburg out with food services, by being able to use the apples harvested in the dining commons.

Courtyard

The courtyard serves as both a social setting as well as a more intimate setting. The western side of the courtyard has small Plum trees and gabion seatwalls and serves as a quieter space while the other side of the courtyard serves as more social place for outdoor eating and hanging out.

Malus domestica deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

7

THEATER ENTRANCE

8

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Courtyard Detail

Concrete Brick River Rock

Gabion Seatwall; Wood Top; LEDS inside

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

9

P R O G R A M A N A LY S I S semi-public PUBLIC bookstore

PRIVATE

semi-private career services

interfaith center

theater storage

library/resource rooms meeting/conference rooms 400 person Theater

theater lobby

testing rooms

green rooms

large group tutoring

game room

small group tutoring

computer room

tutoring rooms

open seating

learning center offices

honors offices undergrad studies

counseling disability services

living room Support 3%

Bookstore

convenience store food service

student conduct offices

12%

Counseling Center

student activities

Learning Center

30%

interview rooms

international student affairs offices loading dock

12%

recycling

reception areas

Dining/Living Room lower lobbies

43%

vestibule

B

display case

efore beginning arranging spaces, we started by analyzing the programmatic elements to consider which arrangement would be most sensible. The various programs varied immensely by scale and use. A ‘gradient’ of public to private served well to align all the spaces in a manner that accommodated both faculty and student needs in a comfortable order. Even more interesting were the elements that were not so black and white; these were the moments within the project where Penn State faculty and students needed to interact. This suggested some cross-over between ‘work’ spaces and ‘play’ spaces. This study was then used to specially arrange the programs within the building, with the gradient in mind. The west wing wanted to be a more public space due to its connection with the diagonal student route and accessibility of services from College Ave. The east wing, however was tighter and more intimate so it hosted some of the more private spaces. Then from the ground floor up, both wings get more quieter and private creating a comfortable environment for all users.

10

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

private reception areas

undergrad studies

interview rooms

meeting/conference rooms

career services

counseling

testing rooms

student conduct offices

Level 4 semi-private learning center offices

tutoring rooms

small group tutoring

large group tutoring

lobby

reception areas

living room

honors offices

interfaith center

Level 3 semi-public game room

computer room reception areas

meeting/conference rooms

library/resource rooms

interfaith center

student activities

Level 2

PUBLIC bookstore

theater

open seating food service

disability services

theater lobby

international student affairs offices

loading dock

Level 1

mixed convenience store

food service

theater storage

theater

green rooms

mech/electric room

Basement deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

11

PLANS

1 2

Theater Theater storage Kitchen Convenience store Green rooms Mech/Electrical room Loading dock Bookstore Food service Dining area Theater lobby International Affairs offices x3 Disabilities services x2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

6

5

4 BASEMENT

UP

1

11 DN

8

UP

9

UP

12

13

10

UP

7

DN

5’

10’

GROUND FLOOR 12

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Open Dining

As one enters the west wing, they will be greeted by a lofty double height atrium space that holds the open seating and food services. This is the space where student organizations can put up pop-up stands to recruit others and get students involved in various activities. It also has a visual connection to the game room on the second floor. The deciduous trees adjacent to the curtain wall help shade the space during the hotter months and heat the space in the winter when the leaves fall off and let light in.

Living room The living room is tighter and more intimate so it suggested a desire for permeability for circulation between wings. The flexible arrangement of furniture lets students rearrange and make that space their own. Curtain walls are on both north and south sides of the space let it maximize the daylight penetration for reading.

Overhangs are also installed on the south for shade during the summer. Being in the space allows one to see the EAB off in the distance and the plaza design from above, thereby making this space quiet and more reflective for the user.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

13

15

14

UP

UP

20

UP

18 17

SECOND FLOOR 5’ 10’

21

27

26 25

22

22

UP

UP

20 UP

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

19

UP

Computer room Library/Resources room Student Activities offices x3 Student Conduct offices x2 Game area Meeting/Conference room Interfaith Center Learning Center offices x5 Small group tutoring rooms x3 Honors offices x4 Large group tutoring room Tutoring rooms x5 Testing rooms x2 Living Room

16

UP

23 14

24 5’

10’

THIRD FLOOR Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design 28

DN

28 29

32

Undergrad offices x9 Career Services offices x3 Interview rooms x5 Meeting/Conference rooms x2 Counseling Offices x6

28 29 30 31 32

30

DN

28

DN

DN

31

FOURTH FLOOR

Fire rated enclosed egress are located at both wings satisfying the 200’ max distance DN

4 bathroom fixtures for each gender are provided at each floor

DN

DN

DN

main vertical circulation

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

15

The multipurpose theater accommodates 400 seats.

It has the unique value of being multi-purpose by using acoustic panels on the walls. Therefore, it can easily host speakers, or orchestras.

16

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

The view as someone enters the campus on College Ave. The glass enclosure serves to light up the space at night and communicate the never ending activity within the building. The interfaith center on the east wing protrudes out to give it its own unique identity and have a closer relationship with the outside.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

17

Structural System

Material Selection

Steel Frame with Composite deck Efficiency Style Better material for cantilevers and overhangs Newer campus buildings are steel Lighter material to build with Potential for steel architectural features Achieve longer spans than regular concrete Achieve larger spans for larger spaces Schedule Sustainability Faster to erect than concrete Locally obtainable Potential for pre-fabrication of some elements Can use recycled steel 18

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Loads Live Loads were designated per space type using ASCE 7-10. Total factored loads were calculated using the live loads and approximate slab weight and mechanical weights.

The load case used was:

1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5S Based on initial studies, wind will be the controlling lateral force.

Based on ASCE 7-10, the roof snow load will be 21psf.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

19

Basement

Slab on Grade is used for the lowest levels:

will serve as a floor pad for mechanical and service spaces in the basement

20

Spread footings were chosen for the foundations:

Common for Low-Rise Buildings

More inexpensive than other types

Less Material use

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

First Floor

Layout:

-Structural Layout is uniform at this level for simpler constructability.

Final Design

Slab on Grade -used for lowest level on right wing

-Consistency with lower level on basement side of building Composite deck:

Will be used where determined beneficial to reduce beam depth, weight, cost, and increase structural efficiency.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

21

Second Floor

26’

39’ 31’

54’

22

Double Height Spaces

-Architectural coordination for column placement

-Columns were arranged so as to not interrupt public spaces

-Diagonal direction of girders was chosen to reduce girder span and allow mechanical to run perpendicular to beams, rather than under girders to reduce plenum height.

-Beam depth decreased to make pedestrian walkway thin Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Third Floor

Final Design

Spiritual Center: Theater Trusses:

-Trusses used for large span

-Trusses are again used for large span

-Trusses delivered in two pieces, welded together on-site.

-Space cantilevers out to connect the space to the

-Deep enough for mechanical ducts to pass through openings. landscaping. Deeper beams are used here to reduce deflections.

Layout Considerations:

- Theater location allows no programing above space, which reduces vibrations and noise issues, as well as reduces loads on large span. deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

23

Fourth Floor

Bridge and construction joint Due to odd building layout, building will have torsional eccentricities. Therefore, the building will be structural separated:

Two individual buildings act independently

Two columns close together, expansion joint in between

Currently exploring ability to also act as seismic joint 24

Bridge Pedestrian Walkway

-Shallow, closely spaced beams are used to give walkway a thin appearance and further open up the bridge’s lounge space.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Roof

Roof Over Spiritual Bridge:

-Roof is curved to emphasize the bridge as a transition space.

-Curved Trusses are an exposed architectural steel feature that add interest to the space.

Roof:

-A joist roof system is used to reduce construction costs/ provide an efficient system.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

25

Lateral System Braced Frames The location of the braced frames was constrained to walls without windows since it was decided that the braces would not be exposed. Therefore, braces were placed only in the theater walls, where there are no openings.

Shear Walls The layout takes advantage of the egress stairwells and uses them as shear walls for increased stiffness and lateral support.

Moment Frames Greater lateral stiffness was required in the southern portion of the west building wing, so a couple moment frames were added here for additional support.

Lateral Story Forces and Base Forces 277 k

495 k

408 k

418 k

228 k

Wind Load Calculations (Controlling Case) Risk Category II Basic Wind Speed, V (mph) 115 Wind Load Parameters Kd 0.85 Exposure Category C Kzt 1 Gust Effect Factor, G 0.85 Enclosure Classification Enclosed Internal Pressure Coefficient +/- 0.18 26

Base Shear = 1826 k

Overturning Moment = 60,100 ft*k

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Braced Frame Moment Frame Shear Wall

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

27

Tr u s s e s Theater Trusses These trusses were used to accomodate the large theater span. The depth is coordinate with mechanical to allow duct work to pass through web openings.

Bridge Rounded Trusses These trusses are custom fit to the curved bridge roof, and add interest to the lounge and transition space as a structurally exposed architectural feature.

There are five trusses here total, so the additional cost of customizing trusses will not significantly affect overall building cost.

Spiritual Center Trusses Trusses were used again here to accomodate a somewhat large span. They trusses did not need to be as deep as in the theater.

28

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

29

Mechanical Design

System Overview Carbon Creative is invested in providing a comfortable and efficient environment that meets the desires of the client. When visiting the Penn State Harrisburg commonwealth campus during the Schematic Design phase, the client expressed the need for the mechanical system to conform to those used throughout the rest of the campus. This is important from a maintenance standpoint, as the efficiency of a system is only as good as it is maintained. The main air system used throughout the campus, and in the design for the Student Enrichment Center, is an Air Handling Unit (AHU) with Variable Air Volume (VAV) zone control.

The campus contains a hot water plant that supplies hot water for heating to all the buildings on campus during main heating months. This plant does not supply hot water throughout the rest of the year. Therefore, an in-house boiler is to be supplied to the building to provide hot water for reheat coils in the VAV’s. Additionally, there is no central chilled water plant for the campus. Each building must be equipped with its own separate chiller to meet the building cooling demand. A water cooled chiller was selected for this project because of its increased efficiency. For more information on system research, see Schematic Design.

Design considerations Not only were the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline requirements met through the architectural and mechanical systems design, ASHRAE 189.1 was the leading reference for design decisions. This energy efficient building baseline aided in the decision of component U-values, solar heat gain, overhang design and other architectural specifications.

A close relationship with the Lighting/Electrical Engineer and Architect allowed for a relatively low energy demand facade. Daylighting was an important design consideration, and steps were taken to incorporate a glass type that would allow for optimal daylighting while keeping the SHGC low. Overhangs were utilized on the south and west facing facades that would decrease the SHGC by 25%, per ASHRAE 90.1 standards, and protect occupants from harsh solar glare. For more information on daylighting, see the Lighting/Electrical Design section of this booklet.

Another measure taken to reduce energy consumption was through the mechanical layout design. Where possible with coordination of the structural system, round duct was utilized for its lower pressure drop over square or rectangular duct. Because round duct has a greater vertical depth than an equivalent square or round duct would, it was not possible to coordinate this with the structural layout in all spaces.

In those cases, because the structural beam and girder depths were based on economy sizes, square duct was evaluated for the space.

Where square duct still did not provide enough flexibility in the design, rectangular duct was specified.

30

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

AHU Zones: The building is split into six AHU zones, based on occupancy schedule and use. Occupancy sensors are provided in each space. The occupancy sensors allow the system to stop supplying air to a space that is unoccupied. This system alone works well in the private offices, where the occupancy density is low. However, in larger areas, such as the Theater and Interfaith Center, occupancy sensors alone are not an affective way to reduce energy consumption because they cannot judge how much outdoor air needs to be supplied for ventilation.

For instance, the 400 seat theater is equipped to supply to the ventilation demand for 400 people. When the theater is below maximum occupancy, as will often be the case, the system has no way of knowing the difference between 100 people and 400 people. Therefore it will provide ventilation for 400. If the space is also equipped with a carbon dioxide sensor, which can determine the occupancy of the space, the ventilation to that space can be reduced proportionally and energy savings will occur.

Radiant floor heating: Seen in this mechanical floor plan, the theater space contains hot water pipes for radiant floor heating. This system was selected for use in the theater because the space height would make overhead heating difficult, and supplying heat from the floor would create a more thermally comfortable environment for the occupants.

Other spaces that also utilize this system are the atrium space and the Interfaith Center.

Kitchen system: The air system for the kitchen exhaust will be handled in one of two ways: (1) A Greenheck enthalpy wheel ERV for kitchen exhaust will be placed on the hood exhaust and connected to the Food Services AHU. (2) The relief air from the dining area will be used as makeup air in the kitchen from the hood exhaust.

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

Return Duct Supply Duct Exhaust Duct

Basement deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

31

Overhangs: Overhangs were utilized on the south and west facing faces.

These overhangs are 2-1/2 feet long and reduced the SHGC of the windows by 25%.

Determine the length of the overhangs required in-depth discussion with the lighting/ electrical engineer and architect. The overhangs needed to be long enough to reduce the heat gain through the windows and reduce glare, without being too long that daylighting was negatively affected or were aesthetically displeasing.

32

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

Return Duct Supply Duct Exhaust Duct

Ground Floor

DN

UP

Egress E120 349 SF

223 SF

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

Return Duct Supply Duct Exhaust Duct

Second Floor Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

Return Duct Supply Duct Exhaust Duct

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

Return Duct Supply Duct Exhaust Duct

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Third Floor

Fourth Floor 33

Bridge The bridge is a focal point in the building, as well as a key feature for collaboration between all disciplines. This space took precise designing to make the space work.

Because of the height of the space and the emphasis on the structural trusses along the roof, it was imperative to find a way to condition the space without disrupting the aesthetics or sacrificing occupant comfort. To achieve these space goals, a special type of diffuser was selected called a Spot Diffuser, manufactured by Seiho International, Inc, shown below. These diffusers were positioned along the pedestrian bridge, coordinated with the lighting fixtures that are also placed along the edge. They are also positioned on the aluminum wall strip above the pedestrian bridge to condition that walkway directly.

The bridge is also equipped with radiant floor heating at the perimeter to assist with heating of the space.

To keep the pedestrian bridge slim, the duct runs beneath were coordinated with the structural beams to allow them to fit around them at the same elevation, as opposed to below them as they are throughout the bulk of the building.

The curtain walls in this space were also an important key in the design. To allow for the “lantern� effect the client desired, it was important to keep the facade transparent. To reduce the heat gain, overhangs were placed approximately every four feet up the south facade that matched the rest of the buildings overhangs.

34

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Atrium There was a switch from exposed ceiling to dropped ceiling for aesthetic purposes. This alteration required the switch from round duct to rectangular to fit in the ceiling plenum. The duct was, however, able to stay very close to square because the structural engineer adjusted the grid for this space so that the duct would run perpendicular to beams instead of girders, which allowed for less of a pressure drop that would accompany rectangular duct with unequal side lengths. This space also contains radiant floor heating, fintube radiators at the perimeter, and Spot Diffusers positioned along the second floor slab edge. As with the Bridge, the glass curtain wall was a strong point of collaboration. The upper half of the curtain wall has the same overhang pattern as the Bridge, while the lower half is kept clear of protrusions for safety. Originally the curtain wall was designed to be 100% glass. However, through multiple discussions with the architect, it was reduced to approximately 60% glass.

Theater The design for the theater originated with a simple overhead supply and return idea. Originally the Theater was located in the heart of the building, but it was moved to the exterior part of the building to improve architectural and structural layout in the rest of the building.

This increased the exterior walls from being one of four to three of four. Because of this adjustment, it was decided that radiant floor heating would be more appropriate than relying on overhead heating alone. To pull air through the space more easily, the return was placed at the floor, on the vertical rise of the stairs.

The overhead duct is integrated into the structural system, running perpendicular to the truss runs and through the webs. For more information on this part of the design, see the clash detection section for the Theater.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

35

Energy Analysis

BIM Tools Trace 700 was the energy analysis software used for this project. The architectural Revit model was updated to include the designed thermal properties of building materials, and then the model was exported to a gbXML format and imported into Trace 700. This imported model contained all the room tags, window properties and exterior wall data. Templates were made within the Trace 700 model for each occupancy type and assigned to the rooms.

Envelope Code Compliance Comcheck Web App was used to determine if the envelope designed met energy code compliance. This application allowed for an easy comparison of how building materials performed, and was the starting basis for determining the composition of the brick and aluminum walls.

U-Value Comparisons Vertical Glazing Walls Roof 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Max ASHRAE 90.1

0.8

Design

1

1.2

1.4

Wall Thermal Properties The U-value of both the aluminum and brick walls were approximately 0.019, compared to the ASHRAE 90.1 maximum allowed value of 0.1. The low-E glass type used followed this example and provided a U-value of approximately 0.3 in comparison to ASHRAE 90.1’s 1.2 maximum. A main contributor to the high performance U-value of the wall was the R-40 rigid insulation used. Such a high R-value insulation was selected to surpass the recommended R-30 value from ASHRAE 189.1.

Gypsum Wall - 1/2”

Vapor Retarder

Rigid Insul. - 5” Metal Studs w/ Insul. - 4” Plywood Substrate- 3/4”

Air Infiltration Barrier

36

Thermal Air Barrier - 3” Brick - 3-5/8” Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Thickness of Rigid Insulation A large factor in the R-value of the insulation was based on the thickness. A balance between thickness and decrease of heating load was evaluated. The U-value of the walls were adjusted in the Trace 700 model and calculations were run for each scenario. The resulting MBh consumptions were compared based on insulation thickness. The results of this analysis are shown at right. As the graph depicts, as the thickness increased the slope of the reduction decreased. It was determined that 5” would provide an adequate R-value without creating bulky wall.

MBh

Rigid Insulation Thickness vs. MBh 1760 1750 1740 1730 1720 1710 1700 1690 1680 1670 1660 1650 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Rigid Insulation Thickness (inches)

Metal stud vs. CMU

Cooling Tons Comparison

To verify that the use of a metal stud wall over a CMU wall was a better choice for this design, some basic energy comparisons were run in Trace 700 with the wall type proposed and a CMU wall with the same rigid insulation thickness attached.

1740

188.5

1720

188 187.5

1700 1680 1660 1640

4" metal stud

4" metal stud

CMU block

70

400

69.5

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

CMU block

Cost Comparison

EUI Comparison Cost ($1000)

The MBh consumption, cooling tons, EUI and cost were compared for the two systems and the results are shown at right. As shown, the metal studs performed better for all four points.

189

187

EUI

Because the other components of the wall would remain unchanged if metal stud and CMU were swapped, a cost comparison was created for just those components.

MBh Comparison

MBh

Cooling Tons

Early in the design phase a decision had to be made between CMU and metal stud walls. An envelope consultant suggested the use of metal studs for the building, not only being a design norm for this type of building, but also being less of a structural burden, cheaper, and quicker to construct.

69 68.5

300 200 100 0

68 4" metal stud

CMU block

4" metal stud

CMU block

37

The Solarban glass type was the one selected for our building. Although the Sungate glass type performed better on the north facade, the Solarban had better performance overall when checked against other facades. Both alternative glass types performed better than clear glass on all facades.

North Window Analysis Energy Consumption (kBtu/SF)

Window type selection In the early phases of the final design, the lighting/electrical engineer selected two window types that had adequate daylighting properties and did an energy comparison for the two types against clear glass. The analysis was done for windows facing north, south, east and west. The results for the north facing window is shown at right.

40 35 30 25 20

Clear

15

Solarban

10

Sungate

5 0

4000

Annual Heating

Annual Cooling

Cooling

3500

Heating

3000 Hours

2500

Fans

Annual Lighting

Total

The graph to the left shows the number of hours a year spent at each percentage of the design load. There are no hours spent at 100% design load because the system was designed to handle 115% of the peak load for heating and cooling.

2000 1500 1000 500 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

0

38

Percent of Design Load

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Cooling load breakdown The graph to the left displays the breakdown of the cooling coil load distribution. The largest cooling coil load comes from the occupancy and ventilation requirements.

This is good for energy savings, as these loads should be lower in the summer than designed, because the energy analysis was run with full occupancy all year round and did not include the decrease in occupancy during summer break.

40.00

Percentage of Coil Load

35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00

EUI

The Energy Use Intensity (EUI) is a single number that represents the energy use of a source or site. EUI data is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager. From this data, it was determined that the national median EUI value of an office building is 130.

The units for this value are kBtu/(yr*SF), and can be calculated by dividing the kBtu/yr output from Trace 700’s energy calculation by the total building square footage. The Design Development lower the number, the better.

Carbon Creative Design This number was evaluated during the National Median design development stage and found to be about 119, just below the national median.

ASHRAE 90.1 The alterations made during final design that decreased the energy consumption produced an EUI of 68.

140

EUI (kBtu/yr*SF)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Design Development

Carbon Creative Design

National Median

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

ASHRAE 90.1

A comparison was done against the ASHRAE 90.1 baseline model in Trace 700. The EUI for this baseline was approximately 95, 28 kBtu/(yr*sf) above the final design value.

39

Lighting/Electrical Key Concepts

In correlation with the goals of the design as a whole, the lighting design for this building strove for efficiency, simple maintenance, and durability. The lighting design maximizes energy efficiency by utilizing as much daylight as possible while limiting unwanted thermal gains through the use of low e glazing, overhangs, and orientations. Whenever possible, automatic dimming is utilized to reduce energy use as much as possible. The luminaires that were specified are either LED or linear fluorescent and are high efficacy, high efficiency, and have a long life. The electrical system was designed for efficiency of both energy and material. Some key concepts were locating the main switchgear near the utility transformer, utilizing 277 volts for the lighting, and locating distribution panelboards throughout the building; particularly near the high load areas like the kitchen and theatre.

Cost Benefit Analysis

LPD’s

The LPD’s for the spaces were calculated in order to show compliance with ASHRAE 90.1.

However, because energy efficiency was a primary goal of the lighting design the LPD’s for many of the spaces were far below the maximum allowed.

When the pricing for the lighting fixtures began; it was discovered that the LED downlights for the theatre were very expensive. As a result, an analysis was performed to determine the payback period for using LED luminaires instead of halogen luminaires. The analysis included fixture cost, replacement lamp cost, and electric costs. The analysis showed that the LED luminaires would pay for themselves after about 5 years. This payback would be even faster if energy savings from HVAC load reduction and lamp replacement labor were included.

LED vs Halogen Payback

3

2000 2.5

Allowed LPD

1800

Design LPD

1600

2

Halogen LED

LPD (Watts/SF)

1400 Cost ($)

1.5

1

1200 1000 800 600 400

0.5

200 0

0

Theatre

40

Office 431

Atrium

Living Room

0

10

20

30

40 50 Time (Months)

60

70

80

90

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

Lighting Fixture Schedule Type

D1

D2

D3

Manufacturer Product Line Catalog Number Prescolite LF6LEDG4-6LFLED7G4-30K

Prescolite Architektur MD8LED9L30K8-8MD9LWFL45

Cooper Metalux 2GR-LD1-38-A-UNV-L830-CD1-U

Fixture description

Lamp

Lamp Life (hours)

Mounting

Voltage

Recessed Circular LED Downlight

LED Wattage:26.5 CCT: 3000K CRI: 80 Lumens: 2000

50,000 L70

Recessed

277V

Recessed Circular LED Downlight

LED Wattage:126 CCT: 3000K CRI: >80 Lumens: 9000

50,000 L70

Recessed

277V

Recessed linear 2x4 LED Downlight

LED Wattage:38 CCT: 3000K CRI: 85 Lumens: 3800

60,000 L70

Recessed

277V

Wall

277V

E1

Philips 55 Line 55LA-1-12/27-G

Wall Exit Sign

LED Wattage:4

P1

Louis Poulsen LP Circle Suspended LP-CIRC-SUSP

LED Pendant

LED Wattage: 30 CCT:3000K CRI:80

50,000 L70

Suspended

277V

S1

Cooper Iridium Perf I2-WD-2T8-1C-UNV-04

Linear FL direct indirect

F32T8/TL830/XLL/ALTO Wattage:32 CCT: 3000K CRI: 80 Lumens:762

40,000

Suspended

277V

T1

Juno Lighting Hudson Pendant T265L-3k-N-BL

Aimable Track Light

LED Wattage: 39 CCT: 3000K CRI: >80 Lumens: 2601

50,000 L70

Track

120V

W1

Cooper Iridium Perf IW-SP-2T8-12T-UNV-SU-WA

Linear FL semi indirect

F32T8/TL830/XLL/ALTO Wattage:32 CCT: 3000K CRI: 80 Lumens:762

40,000

Wall

277V

W2

Juno Lighting LC4 Series LC4 B-08 30 U-W-LDI

Wall Sconce

LED Wattage:40 CCT: 3000K CRI: >80 Lumens:800

50,000 L70

Wall

277V

W3

Lumen Pulse Lumen Facade LOGi-RO-277-48-30k-30x60-UMAS-WH-DIM

Linear LED Wall Wash

LED Wattage:34 CCT: 3000K CRI: 80 Lumens:1236

120,000 L70

Wall

277V

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Image

41

First Floor

W2

W2 E1

W2

S1

W2

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

D1 W1 S1 D1

D3

D3 D3

D3 S1

D3

D3

D1

D1 D1

D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1

E1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1

S1 D3

D3

Two Luminaires per office with a single luminaires dimmed zone to maximize efficiency

W1

S1

S1

D3

D3

D1 W1

S1

S1

D3 D1

W1

E1

S1 S1

S1

S1 S1

S1

Learning Center OďŹƒces

Living Room

Counceling Center OďŹƒces

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

S1 S1

S1 S1 S1

W1

D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1

Distributed Panelboards for greater efficiency

42

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Second Floor

High output Recessed LED’s allow the theatre to be far under max LPD D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

DN

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

D2

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1 S1

S1 S1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

S1 S1

D1

D1 D1 D1 D1

S1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

D1

S1

W1 S1 D1

223 SF

D1 D1

D1

D1

S1 D1

D1

D1 D1

D1

D1

D2 P1

D1 D1

D1

P1

D1

D1 D1

D1

P1 D2

D2 P1 D1 P1 P1 D1 P1 P1 D2 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1

P1

P1

P1

P1

D2 P1

D1

D1

D1

P1

P1

D1

D1

D1

D1

W1 P1

D1 D1

S1

W1

Wall mounted multilamp linear fluorescent fixture for automatic switching

P1

P1

S1

P1

UP

D2

P1

P1

S1 S1 S1

D2

P1 D2

D2 D2

W1 Egress E120 349 SF

Learning Center Offices

Living Room

Counceling Center Offices

Spirtual Center

Theater

Food services and retail

S1 S1

S1

S1

LED pendants suspended at various lengths from the second story

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

43

Bridge Clash Detection

44

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Highlighted Coordination Point

Final Design

Structural and Mechanical In order to keep the deck for the third floor walkway as slender in the vertical direction as possible the mechanical and structural systems were coordinated to allow the duct work to run between the beams on the inside and parallel to the beams on the outside. The ductwork on the outside of the walkway allows for directional diffusers to be placed on the side of the walkway in order to disperse the air near the occupants.

Mechanical and Structural To add consistency to the space lighting fixtures were placed on the walkway in an alternating pattern with the aimable diffusers.

Lighting and Structural In order to accent the custom trusses, linear wash lights were placed at the ends of every truss. These lights illuminate both the trusses and ceiling and provided much of the general illumination for the space.

Clash detection was performed in order to make sure that all of the systems functioned together as designed.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

45

Atrium Clash Detection Because of initial coordination and layout strategies, we did not have any issues with clashes in the atrium. Mechanical and structural layouts took into consideration the limited plenum height when designing the systems in that area.

Structural and Mechanical As mentioned previously, the structural girder direction was turned on a diagonal so that they run parallel to the atrium. This was done so that architecturally, the space could have more columns, and thus be more open and welcoming as a lobby and seating space for students and faculty. Because of this, the mechanical duct work, which runs parallel down the middle of the atrium, also runs parallel to the girders and perpendicular under the beams. Since the beams are only 16� deep, there was no issue with fitting the mechanical and structural systems in a small plenum height.

Mechanical, Lighting, and Structural Most of the lighting in the atrium is composed of pendant lighting, which hangs below the ceiling. This decreased the amount of coordination required in the plenum space, freeing up room for the structural and mechanical systems. Where recessed light fixtures are included, they are located on the edges of the atrium, past the portion with the mechanical system, leaving the lighting plenty of room to fit in the plenum space under the structural beams.

Landscape The specific location of vegetation helps shade the curtain wall during the summer when the leaves are in full bloom. Over the winter it lets light penetrate it. The shrubs planted at the gravel ground next to the curtain wall help take in the stormwater coming off the facade, and provides spacing between pedestrians and the curtain wall base.

46

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

47

T H E AT E R I N T E G R AT I O N

For more information on the acoustical analysis, see the Acoustic Appendix.

Reverberation Time

Acoustics The design of the theater had to be one that could accomodate a speech auditorium and a performance theater. Both spaces require different amounts of reverberation to perform well. The target Reverberation Time (RT) for the classroom/auditorium was 0.8, and the target for a performance theater was estimated to be about 1.2. To achieve the goals for both space types, a variable acoustics design was implemented. This design uses variable acoustic panels. These panels Classroom/Auditorium Performance Theater work like cabinets, with a hinge on one end, and can be opened and Classroom/Auditorium Target Performance Theater Target closed as needed. When in the closed position, a 1� reflective panel 1.4 is exposed. This panel covers 35% of the wall around the seating 1.2 area and achieves the performance theater criteria. When open, a 1�

1 absorptive panel is exposed to cover 70% of the wall to achieve the 0.8 classroom/auditorium criteria.

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Frequency (Hz)

48

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Clash Detection

Final Design

Structural and Mechanical Due to the placement of egress stairs to the south of the theater, the mechanical duct had to run perpendicular to the trusses above the theater seating. This required that the specific truss for construction be created to ensure it could accomodate the duct work running through the webs. Using round duct allowed for easier fitting inside of the triangular voids of the webs, and a diffuser layout was generated based on the spacing of the trusses. The spacing between the trusses also had to be worked out to accomodate the width of the duct and turning radius, so the duct could make the turn from the mechanical chase into the theater, which takes place above the theater lobby. As seen on the right, a clash detection simulation of the lobby displayed a point where the duct running parallel to the truss length intersected the webs of the truss. This was easily fixed by shifting the duct run to be centered between the truss runs.

Lighting, Structural and Mechanical A lighting grid was set-up that avoided placing lights underneath of the truss members or the duct runs. This grid was worked out with the mechanical engineer to determine diffuser placement.

DN

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

49

E S T I M AT E

T

his is a summary of the final estimate performed for the Student Enrichment Center. Most of the estimate is an array of a detailed, assembly, or percentage estimate from RS Means. A detailed takeoff of the steel allowed a more accurate estimate of the structural system. Some of the estimates that were a percentage of the total include the plumbing and fire protection system. The miscellaneous information includes the elevators in the building. The general conditions of the system were also more accurately depicted in this final stage as seen in the following pages. Refer to the appendix for the assemblies estimate information.

Total Square Footage: 70,340 SF Net = 61% Gross Equipment Demo Site 5% <1% 7%

MEP 22%

GC 8%

Interiors 10% Other 17% Structure 15%

50

Enclosure 16%

Demolition Structure Enclosure Interiors Services

$105,800 $2,949,510 $3,139,730 $2,006,400

$2,243,760 $273,600 $1,559,310 $228,000 $236,660 Equipment/Furnishings $1,001,180 Sitework/Landscaping $1,433,600 Subtotal $15,177,550 General Conditions $1,571,820 OHP $1,517,760 Contingency (10%) $1,517,760 Bond (2%) $303,550 Mechanical Plumbing Electrical Fire Protection Miscellaneous

Total $20,088,440 Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design

GEN E RConditions A L CCost OEstimate NDITIONS General

Description

Unit

Project Executive Senior Project Manager Superintendent MEP Coordinator Estimator/Scheduler Project Manager Asst. Superintendent Project Engineer

WK

14.6

5000

73000

WK

36.5

3000

109500

WK

73

2100

153300

WK

25

1800

45000

WK

15

1800

27000

WK

73

2100

153300

WK

65

1300

84500

WK

73

1300

94900

Temporary Heat Temporary Power Temporary Water Temporary phone & Data Temporary Fencing Final Cleaning Temporary Restrooms Temporary Signage Dumpsters

MO

5

25000

125000

MO

11

20000

220000

MO

11

68

748

MO

15

89

1335

Field Office & Furnishings Office Equipment General Office Supplies Lights and HVAC Drawings and Specs

Project Management

Quantity

Cost/Unit Cost ($)

Subtotal

$740,500.00

Site Conditions

LF

1000

7.2

7200

MSF

70.34

94.5

6647.13

EA

6

300

1800

SF

600

29.5

17700

MO

15

1800

27000

EA

1

15200

15200

MO

17

600

10200

MO

17

300

5100

MO

17

167

2839

EA

25

300

7500

Progress Photos

Set

15

520

7800

Mobile Phones Vehicle Allowance Office Water Cooler Main Office Expense

EA

8

200

1600

Job

1

40000

40000

Field Office Supplies

EA

1

500

500

Job

20000000

0.10%

20000

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Construction Supplies 80-ton Crane Mobilization Small Tools Testing and Inspecting

Day

PPE's First Aid + Monthly Upkeep Fall Protection Safety Program and Training Drug Testing Fire Extinguishers Permits

Safety

Miscellaneous $407,430.13

105

1365

5

239

1195

2230000

0.50%

11150

1

33100

33100

Staff

25

200

5000

MO

17

600

10200

MO

17

200

3400

MO

17

100

1700

EA

10

300

3000

EA

12

90

1080

Job

20000000

0.50%

100000

EA Total Project

143325 $188,770.00

$24,380.00

100000

GRAND TOTAL $1,571,819.13

T

he general conditions estimate is based on RS Means data. Carbon utilized knowledge of the schedule duration and a site analysis to compile this information.

The general conditions does not include bond, OHP or contingency.

$110,739.00

51

COST TRENDING 20,000,000.00

Other

18,000,000.00

GC Site Equipment Interiors

16,000,000.00 14,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 10,000,000.00

MEP

8,000,000.00 6,000,000.00

Enclosure

4,000,000.00 2,000,000.00

S

-­‐

SD

chematic Design: Through the process of developing an estimate, there was a large increase in cost from the schematic development stage to the final design. This can be attributed to the type of estimate performed at each stage. A square foot estimate in schematic design was performed, using the floor to floor height, perimeter and square footage of the building for the estimate. Other considerations included type of building and location. This led to a shockingly low number of around 9 million dollars. Carbon knew that at that stage the estimate should have been double that original number, as seen in the following estimates.

52

D

DD

esign Development: The next stage moved into an assemblies approach, dividing the estimate into trades. In the areas where the design was either not in the scope of this project or still within a schematic design stage, a percentage of the total cost of the project was used to accommodate those trades. The greatly increased the cost of the project to about 18.6 million.

F

Structure Demo

FD

inal Design: Moving from design development to the final design, one major area that reduced in cost was the MEP system. This is due to the reduction in overall square footage as well as the smaller atrium sizes in the final design.

Although the overall square footage decreased, there were many elements of the estimate that increased as the design progressed. A detailed estimate of the structural system and understanding of the enclosure allowed for a more accurate estimate in these areas.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

G AU

L JU

N JU

AY M

R

Interiors and Finishes- 12 wks Commissioning- 7 wks Punchlist- 3 wks

AP

AR M

B FE

N JA

C DE

V O N

T C O

P

Superstructure- 9 wks Enclosure- 23 wks MEP Rough-In- 25 wks

SE

G AU

L JU

N

JU

M

AY

Excavation- 8 wks Foundations- 15 wks

2015 2016

Total Duration: 15 Months

T

he construction schedule has a 15-month duration to take advantage of the student schedule on campus. Starting in May at the beginning of summer break, the job utilizes the summer to excavate and set foundations while most students are not on campus. Also, it is scheduled to be complete by August of 2016 for Harrisburg’s 50th anniversary. Each phase runs various durations depending on how extensive the system is. Because our building has two distinct wings, it allows for stacked phasing. The means that foundations can start to be poured while the basement is still being excavated in the west wing.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

53

SITE LOGISTICS Temporary Sidewalk

Port-a-Johns

Subcontractor Storage

Port-a-Johns Dumpsters

Material Laydown

Material Laydown

Temporary Sidewalk: The safety of the students is the most important constraint to consider when determining a site logistics layout. The temporary sidewalk will allow access from the main mall to either the EAB or the parking lot to the east of the site. This is because the current sidewalk that serves that purpose will be enclosed within the site fence.

54

Site Trailers

Contractor Parking

Material Delivery:

Deliveries of materials on site will follow the truck route coming from the north. The main entrance is the one located in the middle of the site on the west end. There is enough room on site for a truck to successfully turn around and return out the same gate that was entered. The entrance to the northwest is to access the loading dock for large mechanical equipment.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design O

ne major area of concern with this site logistics is the change in elevation of about 12-14 feet on the west side. Because the truck route runs along College Ave, also known as First Ave, Carbon wanted to take advantage of the traffic while minimizing the large truck presence on other roads. This change elevation is the driver behind why a good portion of that space within the fence line can be used only for storage of the excavated dirt on site. Careful planning will make sure there is a safe gradation of the asphalt for the material deliveries.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

55

4D MODELING Construction Phasing

T

he building is sequenced into 4 phases based on the crane radius, as seen on the next page. Every stage of construction from foundations to the enclosure follow this four phase format. Navisworks was used to help convey the sequencing, shown in the images on this page. The first stage is the theater, which is only two stories high.

Following that, the mobile crane relocates to the other side of the building and systematically works its way from west to east.

56

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Temporary Sidewalk

Port-a-Johns

1 4

2

3

Subcontractor Storage

Port-a-Johns Dumpsters

Material Laydown

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Material Laydown

Site Trailers

Contractor Parking

57

VA L U E E N G I N E E R I N G

VE

Transformer Location There was a lot of discussion concerning the location of the transformer in a building where there are little to no areas to hide large equipment outside. A central location for the transformer would be right next to the main path of the mall and the main entrances to both wings, so that option aesthetically was quickly ruled out. The transformer was ultimately decided to be adjacent to the theater, which allowed the main electrical room to be placed in the basement under the theater. Sharing this exterior wall allows for minimal length of some of the largest wires in an electrical layout.

Prefabricated Trusses vs. On Site Fabrication With three truss locations within this building, there was great opportunity for discussion as to how these trusses would come to the site. Since both the theater and the interfaith center span more than 53 feet, which is the usual length of a truck bed, the entire roof truss could not be prefabricated at once. It was decided to prefabricate each truss into two pieces to take advantage of the reduction of cost to erect and quality control that occurs offsite. The bridge truss seen on the left can also be prefabricated and delivered in one piece.

LED

Halogen vs. LED Theatrical Lighting As mentioned previously, the fast payback of these fixtures allow for a decrease in the maintenance of the product as well as an overall increase in quality.

Halogen 58

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Final Design Cost/SF 256.32

285.59

317.32

CMU vs. Metal Studs As mentioned previously, the comparison of these two materials for a wall was a major integration point between all trades. After the energy model was performed, it was clear which system would be the better option to choose.

175.94

SD

DD

FD

Feasibility

Overall Square Footage 77,910

70,340 54,400

51,500

SD

DD

FD

Square Footage After the design development stage, Carbon knew there was a lot of work to be done to reduce the overall square footage of the building. One major area that this occurred was in the basement. The mechanical room in the basement at the design development stage had not yet been developed. When the equipment was finally sized, there was ample space to remove, reducing the square footage by about 5,000 SF in the basement alone.

Other areas included reorganizing the program of the theater and interfaith center to improve the efficiency of the circulation around the building.

Looking at the two graphs to the left, this is a representation of how the building developed and how the overall cost per SF of the building changed throughout this process.

One thing to note is although the cost per SF of the feasibility study is high, it only includes program and does not take into account circulation of the building.

Feasibility

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

59

thank you!

60

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

S C H E M AT I C D E S I G N The process of designing the Student Enrichment Center started with a deep investigation of client desires coupled with our own goals. From the start the client emitted an excitement of tackling on a new project at the heart of the campus, with the ultimate goal of giving Penn State Harrisburg a new hub for campus activities. The consideration of program adjacencies helped each of the three schemes pursue the ultimate goal of the project in different ways. Some of the most pivotal programmatic elements were rearranged to provide different experiences for each option.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Precedent Studies

UC Lab School

Valerio Dewalt Train Associates , FGM Architects 5800 South Stony Island Avenue, Chicago, IL 60649

Large cantilevers are prevalent in many building designs today. This example has many elements of particular interest to Carbon Creative. The cantilever supports multiple stories as well as highlights the structural supports through the glass facade and the lower levels of the building. The roof and sides of the building are slopes which gives a variable loading condition on the structure. Finally, the building has a large backspan to accomodate the cantilever.

Photograph by Karant + Associates, Matt Dula 62

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design Robert and Arlene Kogod Courtyard Foster + Partners Eighth and F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. 20001

The inner courtyard of a building serves several purposes.

It allows occupants to interact with nature as well as compliments daylighting within the space. Kogod Courtyard has a glass and steel roof structure that integrates light while restricting the elements from impeding in the courtyard.

Photograph by Viator Travel Team

The New York Times Building- Lobby Garden Renzo Piano Building Workshop and FXFowle Architects 620 8th Ave, New York, NY 1001

This garden is the focal point of the building, with views looking into the space from every angle. Visitors have the option to experience the area from inside of the building as well as within the courtyard itself. It is open to the elements which makes the vegetation low maintenance.

Photograph by HM White Site Architects deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

63

Petronas Towers

Foster + Partners 50088 Kuala Lumpus, Malaysia

Bridges provide a connection between two points that encourage users to travel from one space to the next. The Petronas Towers is a more dramatic example that bridges two identical skyscrapers at about the halfway point of the structure. There is a lot of potential uses for bridges within a building the Carbon Creative is considering for the design.

Linked Hybrid

Steven Holl Architects Beijing, China

These arrangement of bridges provide a unique display of the interaction between buildings. Also, the architect used bold colors to accent the walkways and openings.

Photograph by Wikipedia Commons

64

Photograph by Steven Holl Architects

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design Program Analysis Dining/Living Room 16,050 ft2

400 person Theater

Counseling Center 11,175 ft2 career services counseling disability services

computer room convenience store

game room green rooms living room

open seating

honors offices

international student affairs offices library/resource rooms meeting/conference rooms reception areas

theater storage

Support 1,000 ft2

display case loading dock

large group tutoring small group tutoring

recycling

learning center offices lower lobbies

Support 3%

Bookstore 12%

tutoring rooms vestibule

Counseling Center

Learning Center

30%

12%

interfaith center student activities

theater lobby

Bookstore 4,500 ft2

undergrad studies

interview rooms food service

Learning Center 4,675 ft2

student conduct offices

Dining/Living Room 43%

testing rooms

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

65

T H E G AT E W AY

nter

ling ce

counse

ing rn ter a le en c in ce terf nt ait er h ing

liv

The Gateway

m

o ro

T

his idea treats the entrance to the south quad of the campus as a special threshold. The facades are angled in such a way so that student traffic can continue uninterrupted in all the naturally taken paths. The orientation of the masses frame a triangular plaza that opens up to the lawn and shimmers under southern daylight.

47,500 ft2 $8,333,000 66

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

theater storage

Schematic Design ep

tio

n

bookstore

rec

theater lobby

theater

off

ice

ep tio n

s

rec

food services

open seating

ground floor

offices off

ice

theater

s

offices

interfaith center

libra

ry

me roo eting m

living room

res

ou

rce

me roo eting m

Entrance 2nd floor tutoring rooms

interfaith center

group tutoring rooms

learning offices

section

n

MEP

ep tio

theater lobby

rec

open seating

offices

rin g

tutoring rooms

tut o

living room

inte

rvie

w

inte

rvie

w

inte

rvie

w

tes

ting

3rd floor deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

67

T H E G AT E W AY Skate or Die

S

kate or Die is the landscape design relating to The Gateway. The design incorporates a large open lawn space meant to be used as an open program space.

This lawn would be framed by a mixed use pedestrian pathway/skatepark. The chaos of walking through this path could add some thrill into the students daily life while also providing a skate spot for students.

68

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design Micropolis by Janne Saario Located in Helsinki, Finland, this public park incorporates skate boarding into the over design of the park. Instead of being a public park with a skatepark or simply a skatepark, Micropolis integrates skating in a way that non skaters can still use the space safely and enjoy themselves

Lemvig Skatepark by EFFEKT Like Micropolis, this is another example of a way to successfully integrate skating into a multi use park environment.

South Lawn at University of Melbourne The Lawn at the University of Melbourne is simply a large patch of turf grass framed by a walkway. Students make use of the space as they please and the lawn can also be used for events. On a sunny day, the lawn is usually too crowded for late arrivals to find a space.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

69

THE CONDUIT

int e ce rfait nt h er

es offic the

ate r

ces

offi seling

coun

r

ente ing c

learn open seating

The Conduit

re

ksto

boo

The driving force of this scheme was to connect the mall traffic with the east-west passage by using the diagonal path to connect it to an outdoor plaza that would spill out from the building interior.

The interfaith center becomes its own divine entity letting be closer to nature. The east-west traffic across the site stays intact

51,300ft2 $9,061,000 70

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

theater storage

Schematic Design bookstore

theater lobby

theater

food service

convenience store

ou

tdo

or

se

ati

ng

open seating

living room

interfaith center

ground floor

group tutoring rooms

library resource

tutoring rooms

test

ing

meeting room

meeting room

en

gre

ms

roo

learning center offices

theater

offices offices offices offices computer room

Entrance

game room

interfaith center

2nd floor

offices interfaith center

open seating

theather lobby interview rooms

counseling

section

offices

offices

3rd floor deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

71

THE CONDUIT Garden Grove

G

arden Grove is the landscape design relating to The Conduit. The design is based around a large apple orchard located in the center of campus. The apple orchard would provide recreational and educational opportunities to students as well as create an environment for students to create other opportunities in. The design would also have a meadow providing habitat for native pollinators, as well as contemplative space for the separate interfaith center.

72

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design MUSC Urban Farm by Urban Edge Studio This is an example of urban agriculture on a college campus. Students and community members take part in maintaining this garden at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Lurie Garden by Piet Oudolf Lurie Garden is a meadow located in Millennium Park in Chicago. This design shows what a possible meadow at Harrisburg might look like.

Shenyang Architectural University by Turenscape While not an apple orchard, Shenyang Architectural University highlights how successful urban agriculture on a college campus can be. At this spaces are created by rice paddies which the students take part in harvesting.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

73

THE U

int ce erfai nte th r

s

ce

offi

le c ar

w vie er s t in om ro

en nin ga te g co me r m ro up o ut m er ro om

b

re

sto

k oo

74

r

ng

by

re

n

tio

m ro eeti om ng m s ro eeti om ng n io s pt e c re

p ce

liv

51,500ft2 $9,265,000

ori

ate

lob

ing

The U

tut

the

m

o ro

T

he ‘U’ treats the node where the 2 axis of traffic meet with a outdoor courtyard, hugged with occupant circulation, which then branches off into different programmatic elements of the building. The courtyard opens up to the Harrisburg lawn and separates quiet, more intimate programs from the noisy, more populated spaces.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design

food service

convenience store

bookstore

lower lobby

reception

reception

theater lobby

theater open seating theater storage

ground floor

interview rooms

green rooms

meeting room

meeting room

offices

offices

offices

large tutor group

counseling

theater

reception area

living room

Entrance

offices

offices

small tutoring group

game room

tutoring group

computer room

2nd floor interfaith center meeting food service

meeting

theater

tutor

open seating MEP

section interfaith center

3rd floor deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

75

THE U Yin and Yang

Y

in and Yang is the landscape design relating to The U. As the building architecture was more formal the path network also became more formal, however these paths provide the orderly frames for the messy ecosystem of a restored forest system. This forest would be a quiet, secluded, study spot for students in contrast to the open lawn space on the other side of the site.

76

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design New York Times Courtyard New York Times Building Courtyard is a great example of what a courtyard in a busy college campus might look like. It’s a space for people to get away from their stress and relax.

Pierce’s Woods by W. Gary Smith Pierce’s Woods located at Longwood Gardens is a great example of how to design a woodland environment offering exploration and quieter spaces together.

South Lawn at University of Melbourne The Lawn at the University of Melbourne is simply a large patch of turf grass framed by a walkway. Students make use of the space as they please and the lawn can also be used for events. On a sunny day, the lawn is usually too crowded for late arrivals to find a space.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

77

S PA N N I N G C O N C E P T S

S

ince all three schemes have long spans in some spaces, cantilever spans, or bridges between portions of the building, the diagram to the right shows options for these achieving the spans. The diagrams depict cantilevers, but the same concepts apply to bridges and large space spans.

Brace Frame Truss The first system incorporates the lateral system and use braced frame elements on the exterior sides of the spans so that they do not interfere with space planning. This option could be fabricated on site, or for schedule, they could be pre-fabricated. If pre-fabricated, lead time and shipping size will be considered.

Deep Beam The second system involves using a deeper beam and a longer backspan to achieve the span. This option would be the easiest to hide and work around architectural spaces, but it will require more coordination with mechanical and electrical to limit floor thickness. This option will be careful to limit beam length and weight to limit transportation challenges.

Suspender Cables The third option considers that the client would like the campus to look less like an old military base. It is inspired by a suspension bridge and would use a similar structure to support cantilever or bridge elements. This option considers that the column supporting the suspensor cables or rods will be larger which affects the architectural space planning.

78

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Structural Highlights

Schematic Design

The Gateway With the two main portions of the building connected only at the bridge, each portion will be treated as individual structures with a construction joint in the bridge. This portion contains a bridge and several overhangs.

The Conduit Every entrance in this scheme has an overhang. These overhangs have a short enough span and available backspan to make use of the deep beam option.

The U This scheme contains a couple cantilevered sections and a bridge that is incorporated in a courtyard. The bridge here may be an interesting location to use the suspensor cables as an architectural feature as it would bring interest to the courtyard.

Material Selection Steel Frame with Composite deck

Efficiency Style Better material for cantilevers and overhangs Newer campus buildings are steel Lighter material to build with Potential for steel architectural features Achieve longer spans than regular concrete Achieve larger spans for larger spaces Schedule Sustainability Faster to erect than concrete Locally obtainable Potential for pre-fabrication of some elements Can use recycled steel

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

79

Lighting/Electrical The schematic design phase is when the orientation and general layout of the building are chosen. These two factors have a crucial role in the potential to daylight a building and maximize energy efficiency. Before these decisions can be made understanding the path of the sun at the site throughout the year is crucial.

The site for this project is located at 40.27째 N which means that during the winter the sun travels low in the southern sky from approximately south east to south west and during the summer the sun travels high in the southern sky from north east to north west. The next page illustrates the sun path and sun altitude throughout the year.

Certain spaces have orientations that they are well suited for and certain orientations that they are ill suited for. One such space is the theatre; it will not be naturally lit and therefore it would not be well suited for the north facade because it would not take advantage of the even light available there. Transition spaces are better suited for locations against facades that will receive direct sunlight for portions of the day than offices or other spaces that require people to sit in one place for extended amounts of time are.

There are various options for shading glazing in order to minimize direct sunlight penetration. These options include external overhangs, fins and screens and internal lightshelves and shades.

Overhangs

hendrickarchproducts.com

80

Fins

Screens

hendrickarchproducts.com

hendrickarchproducts.com

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Schematic Design

Mechanical

Campus analysis and client wants: he utility available for mechanical system use on site is natural gas. The campus contains a hot water plant that services campus buildings during the peak heating months of the year. Most buildings also contain their own boiler for off-peak heating months and reheat coils. There is no central chilled water plant; instead, each building that provides cooling has its own separate chilled water system, which include chillers and cooling towers. The client expressed interest in sizing the equipment for the hot water and chilled water systems to provide service to future buildings located in the quad. However, this is not a focus for the client and is not a request made by the client.

The client did expressed the need for mechanical equipment that would require little to no extra training for their maintenance crews. The air distribution systems currently found on campus include multi-zone Air Handling Units with VAV and reheat coils, as well as heat pump’s that

T

Chiller Option 1: Vapor Compression Chiller • Vapor Compression cycle uses a compressor to move refrigerant through the system • Possible types: reciprocating, scroll, helical-rotary, centrifugal • Electric motors common and cheaper to install • Natural gas motors are more expensive to install but heat recovery is possible; generally used with reciprocating chillers

Chiller Option 2: Absorption Refrigeration • Heat driven • Burning of natural gas to create the heat would be wasteful unless another use for heat is found • Possible to pair an absorption chiller with a photovoltaic system in place of natural gas

Air Distribution Option 1: AHU with VAV and RHC • Client’s first option for air distribution systems • Outdoor air and conditioning requirements all met at AHU location • VAV’s allow for a multi-zone system by responding to multiple thermostat requirements, which also improves occupant comfort compared to a constant volume system

Air Distribution Option 2: Variable Refrigerant Flow • Less favorable to client than AHU air distribution option • Localized units for conditioning air • Outdoor air duct is smaller than AHU supply air duct • Pipe for hot water and chilled water is significantly smaller than supply air ducts and easier to coordinate with disciplines • Can be paired with an energy recovery ventilator to condition the outdoor air

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Photovoltaic system uses: • A Photovoltaic may be paired with an absorption chiller to increase efficiency of the systems by reducing the need for the burning of natural gas • Photovoltaic systems may also be used to create hot water and increase the efficiency of the hot water boiler system • Example: Johnson Controls has integrated Cogenra Solar’s photovoltaic systems into their absorption ciller technology, suggesting that they can convert 75% of the sun’s rays ito energy Energy Recovery Ventilator • Enthalpy wheel has highest efficiency of the Energy Recovery Ventilators options and transfers sensible and latent heat, significantly lowering dehumidification costs in the summer • Paired with variable refrigerant flow system increases occupant comfort through latent heat transfer

81

Gateway his scheme allows for a mechanical basement in the west wing, located where the current bookstore loading dock exists, containing the hot water and chilled water system equipment below the food services and open seating areas, which is acoustically preferable.

The grouping of common use spaces allows for easier placement of AHU’s. AHU’s could be placed in the mechanical basement for zones in the west wing of the building. Piping would need to be run from the mechanical room to the east wing of the building for use in the air distribution systems there. If AHU’s are selected over a variable refrigerant flow system, the AHU’s to serve the east wing would best be placed on the roof of the offices. This would require a different medium for the cooling system to be used in place of water, such as glycol, to prevent freezing. If a variable refrigerant flow system is used, chilled water would be sufficient.

T

nter

ling ce

counse

ing rn r lea ente c

in ce terf nt ait er h

ing

liv

m

o ro

The Conduit ike the first scheme, this scheme locates a basement mechanical room below the open seating and food services area. Running duct work through this scheme may be more challenging due to the looser grouping of program spaces and tighter first floor plan, which might make it difficult to find space for a mechanical chase. This suggests that the use of a variable refrigerant flow system might be a better option. If AHU’s are used, they would need to be located in the basement mechanical room as well as on the roof of each section to decrease the duct sizes that must run between floors. The separate spiritual center also poses increased difficulty for the mechanical systems. Piping would need to be run subgrade to supply the spiritual center. An AHU would be placed on the roof of the building, and radiant floor heating may be used.

L int e ce rfait nt h er

ces

offi the

ate

es g offic

selin

coun

ing

learn

open seating

bo

int th ce erfait eate nte h r r

s

lea ga ce rnin co me nter g mu ro pu om ter re

sto

ok

bo

offi

lob

by

lob

m ro eeti om ng m s ro eeti om ng s

by

ing

liv

82

m

o ro

tut

orin

ter

cen

re oksto

ce

w vie er int oms ro

r

g

The U gain, this scheme provides a basement mechanical room below the open seating and food service area in the west wing. The split of the building into an east and west wing suggests that a mechanical corridor located sub-grade might be the best option for running duct work and piping from this basement mechanical room to the east wing of the building.

This would allow for AHU’s to be located in the basement mechanical room and would remove the need of a glycol system that would be required for roof top units. However, running duct up to the 3rd floor for the interfaith center could pose difficulties, so a roof top unit or variable refrigerant fluid system would be suggested in that space.

A

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Moving forward, we continued toward our pursuit to provide the best possible project for Penn State Harrisburg by developing the Gateway design to the point where we can conduct some analysis. Our design decisions were better informed and backed by data gathered from sophisticated tools. Mechanical systems, structural member sizes, program orientations, and even glazing envelope ratios were all analyzed at this stage. Everyone’s unique abilities and knowledge backgrounds played a pivotal role to refine the building for maximum efficiency, not only to meet Penn State standards but our own as well.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

LANDSCAPE

84

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Event Lawn The event lawn serves as a multi-use, open program space for Penn State Harrisburg. On the lawn students can do as they please, but it also provides space for university events as well as allowing for activities such as the bonfire to continue.

Apple Orchard As Penn State Harrisburg has traditionally been a commuter school and a school aimed more towards graduate students, it’s important for the university to have traditions and events. The apple orchard can provide this, while also creating educational and recreational opportunities.

Meadow The meadow serves as erosion control as well as providing habitat to native pollinators for the orchard. Its use of native plants serves as a sustainable practice while also creating educational opportunities.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

85

TRAFFIC ROUTES

86

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

ENTRANCES

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Design Development

87

NIGHT LIGHTING

88

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

SITE SECTIONS

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Design Development

89

APPLE ORCHARD PATH 90

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development

FROM NORTHERN MALL deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

91

learning learning learning learning center center center center office office office office

tutoring rooms learning center lobby loading area small group tutoring

green room

up

bookstore

learning center office

janitor’s closet testing testing

honors offices

green room green room

small group tutoring

theater storage

large group tutoring

interfaith center mech room

theater

meeting/conference co

un off selin ice g s

small group tutoring

stu

up

a de me ctivitie nt eti ng s /co nfe

ren

ce up

jan ito clo r’s se t

mech room

computer lab area kitchen area

game area

living room

5’ 5’

10’

10’

20’

20’

Basement

Mezzanine

First Floor

Second Floor

learning learning learning learning center center center center office office office office

convenience store

learning center lobby

bookstore

up

up

small group tutoring

dis se abilit rvic y es

small group tutoring dis se abilit rvic y es

at th e

up

janitor’s closet testing testing

learning center office

honors offices

large group tutoring

interfaith center

meeting/conference

co

un off selin ice g s

small group tutoring

er

lob

by

janitorial closet

tutoring rooms

rec

ep are tion a

up

up

me

eti

open seating

/co

nfe

ren

ce up

up

food service

ng

computer lab area

5’

92

10’

20’

5’

10’

20’

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

down

Design Development

undergrad studies

student conduct

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

ca se reer rvic es

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

ca se reer rvic es

ca se reer rvic es

undergrad studies

down

undergrad studies

student conduct

al ation intern airs aff

inte

rna aff tion al air s

do

wn

al ation intern airs aff

interview interview interview interview interview interview

Third Floor

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

93

THEATER SECTION

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

small group tutoring

roof 424’-0”

interfaith center

reception area

learning center lobby

meeting/conference

3rd 412’-0” 2nd 400’-0”

theater theater lobby

ground 376’-0” mechanical

5’

10’

basement 364’-0” 20’

SOUTH ELEVATION

roof 424’-0” 3rd 412’-0” 2nd 400’-0” mezz 388’-0” ground 376’-0” basement 364’-0”

94

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development EAST SECTION

international affairs

meeting/conference

roof 424’-0” bathroom

3rd 412’-0”

bathroom

student activities

student activities

student activities

2nd 400’-0”

janitor’s closet

mezz 388’-0”

janitor’s closet

ground 376’-0”

mech room

5’

10’

20’

basement 364’-0” NORTH ELEVATION

roof 424’-0” 3rd 412’-0” 2nd 400’-0” mezz 388’-0” ground 376’-0” basement 364’-0”

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

95

OPEN SEATING

96

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development

LIVING ROOM

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

97

THIRD FLOOR

98

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Brick is important Stone is a

natural material Penn State uses frequently and can be adopted to emphasize the idea of this structure being a solid that got sliced by paths.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

as it is part of Penn State’s “uniform” for its buildings.

The placement of brick juxtaposed against stone is how we could emphasis the slicing idea.

Glass is going to

be a very important issue to tackle with in this building.

Its usage will be intended to enhance the idea that this place is a “hub” by showing activity and lighting up the plaza

99

Basement

Slab on Grade is used for the lowest levels: will serve as a floor pad for mechanical and service spaces in the basement

100

Spread footings for foundations: • Common for Low-Rise Buildings • More inexpensive than other types • Less Material use

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Lower Level

Theater girders Slab on Grade Slanted to follow seating raking: • used for lowest level on right wing Will result in less space loss in basement for mechanical coordination • Consistency with lower level on basement side of building • Composite deck:Will be used where determined beneficial to reduce beam depth, weight, cost, and increase structural Layout Considerations: efficiency.

• Limited to 24 inches maximum for better mechanical coordination • Close joist spacing for lower moments on long spans

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

101

Second Floor

Cantilevers: â&#x20AC;˘ Shaded regions indicate two cantilever that are long when combined for the backspan available. Several options are being considered:

Castellated beams

Tapered Beam

Hanging some load from roof where there are smaller loads initially than the floor

Welded pipe truss

Welded plate girder 102

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Roof

Roof Over Spiritual Center: Roof pops up. Structure may be exposed to emphasize the uniqueness and spirituality of the space.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Roof Over Bridge:

Roof raised up here as well

Flat roof

One bay raise up on stub columns

103

MECHANICAL Living room areas 20%

AHU cooling load (tons) by zone

Learning Center workrooms 8%

Bookstore: 8% Counceling Center offices: 10% Interfaith center and auditorium 23%

Learning Center offices: 21%

Food services kitchen 10%

Square Feet per Cooling Ton 600 500

Cooling Tons

400 300 200 100 0

Bookstore Counceling Interfaith Center center and offices auditorium 104

Food services kitchen

An energy model was created in Trace 700. For this model, the building was split up into 7 zones based on the anticipated occupancy schedules to decrease the hours an air handling unit must be run.

The following are anticipated values for cooling and heating: • 10-20 Btu/SF for heating • 200 tons of cooling The following outputs were determined from this model: • Building energy consumption: ~117 MBTU/ yr*SF • 16.6 Btu/SF • 175 tons of cooling There are a few points that must be taken into account to interpret this energy model: • No overhangs were modeled in Trace 700, but overhangs will exist on the final design • A Low E glass type was used for the entire building model; however, a different glass type is still being explored for the south facing facade.

This is because Low E glass reduces cooling loads but increases heating loads, and the site is located in a heating controlled region.

• 10 foot ceilings were modeled, but the final room height has not been set for all typical spaces.

Learning Learning Living Center Center room areas offices: workrooms Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development 15 foot wall space to mountfire suppres-

(2) main mechanical chases which penetrate all floors loading area

green room

Mechanical Rooms Mechanical Fire Protection System Major Duct Runs

green room green room

theater storage

mech room

theater

mech room kitchen area

Secondary mechanical room to service food services only

Main mechanical room contents: (1) 200 ton centrifugal chiller, connected to a water-to-water cooling tower on roof.

• chosen over (2) 100 ton reciprocating chillers for the increased efficiency.

Boiler to service reheat coils in VAV boxes AHU’s for all zones, except food

Mechanical chase to service food services only Basement

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

105

Bookstore Living

convenience store

IFC/Audit. bookstore

Counseling Center Zone

janitorial closet

dis se abilit rvi ce y s

dis se abilit rvi ce y s

th

ea

te

rl

ob

by

Food Services Zone

rec

ep are tion a

open seating food service

First Floor

106

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Bookstore Zone Living Room Zone IFC/Audit.

Zone

bookstore

Counseling Center Zone

stu ac den tivi t tie s

jan it clo or ’s se t

game area

living room

Mezzanine

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

107

Learning Center office Zone

tutoring

tutoring

tutoring

learning center office

learning center office

learning center office

Living Room Zone

learning center office

IFC/Audit.

Zone

reception area learning center lobby tutoring

tutoring

tutoring up

janitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s closet

testing

testing

small group tutoring

Counceling Center Zone

learning center office

mech chase small group tutoring

large group tutoring

interfaith center

honors office

honors honors honors office office office

meeting/conference

me

ch

ch

Learning Center Study Zone

co

un s off eling ice

as

e

co

un s off eling ice

co

un s off eling ice

co

un s off eling ice

small group tutoring

co

un s off eling ice

co

un s off eling ice

up

me

eti

ng

/co

nfe

ren

ce

mech chase

up

computer lab area

Second Floor

108

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Living Room Zone IFC/Audit.

Zone Counceling Center Zone down

Learning Center Study Zone student student conduct conduct

undergrad studies

interfaith center ca se reer rvi ce s

int

do

wn

down

ern a aff tion al air s

interview

Third Floor

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

109

Lighting Electrical

crucial part in the design development phase of a project is making sure that appropriate daylighting is considered for every space. In order to check the suitability of the design for daylighting an analysis was performed on a ‘sample’ room from the building. The room chosen was one of the interview rooms located on the south side of the building. The ‘south’ wall of the room is oriented 18 degrees east of south. undergrad studies

student conduct

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

ca serv reer ice s

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

undergrad studies

ca serv reer ice s

ca serv reer ice s

undergrad studies

down

undergrad studies

interview interview interview interview interview interview

Summer Solstice

Base Case

student conduct

Right: A Daysim daylight autonomy plot for the office being considered. The result shows that there is not sufficient glazing in order to achieve suitable daylighting. The window size and location will be adjusted to improve the performance.

Below: A sun penetration study performed using AGI32 shows the reduction in summer sun penetration accomplished through the use of a 2 foot overhang.

Fall Equinox

l ationa intern irs affa

inte

l ationa intern irs affa

rn affa ationa l irs

do wn

A

down

Daylighting Analysis

Daylight Autonomy

DA500LUX = 20%

Winter Solstice

Noon Summer Solstice Minimum angle for sun penetration Noon Winter Solstice

With Over-

110

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Code Analysis

There are many codes and standards that a lighting and electrical design must comply with and the sooner that the applicable codes and standards are incorporated into the design the more smoothly the project will go. Several of the lighting and electrical codes and standards that pertain to this project are outlined below.

Electrical System Sizing Lighting Loads

Illuminance Levels

The National electric code specifies the minimum amount of power that the electrical system must be designed to accommodate based on the space type. These requirements far exceed the amount of lighting power allowed by the IECC. See the table below for sample calculations for 3 of the space types in the design.

The OPP Design and Construction Standards require illuminance levels to comply with the recommendations in the IES Lighting Handbook.

The Handbook organizes its recommendations based on the type of building and the activity in the building. See the table below for sample calculations for 3 of the space types in the design.

Lighting Power Density The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) specifies the maximum power that is permitted to be used for lighting based on the classification of the space. The Space by Space method was used to analyze the spaces in this project. See the table below for sample values for 3 of the space types in the design.

Space Description ROOM NAME

NUMBER

GSF/UNIT

Power SUBTOTAL (SF)

Space by Space Category

NEC Lighting Loads (VA/SF)

Total Light Load (VA)

Allowed LPD (Watts/SF)

LPD Total (Watts)

Interview Room

6

150

900

Office - Enclosed

3.5

3150

1.1

990

400 Seat Theater

2

4250

8500

Audience/seating area – permanent, For performing arts

1

8500

2.6

22100

Tutoring Room

6

100

600

Audience/seating area – permanent Classroom/lecture/training

3

1800

1.3

780

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Light Recommended Illuminance Space

Horizontal

Vertical

Office Facilities, Administrative, Interviews, Formal

400

150

400

150

400

150

Education Facilities, Auditoria, Testing, Paper only Education Facilities, Classrooms, General Classrooms, Hardcopy and Writing

111

85 KW 480/277V Standby Generator Standby generator (80KW)

loading area

green room

up

green room

Building Transformer Transformer 480/277V

green room

theater storage

mech room

theater

Electrical Room Main Room (1600Electrical amp)

mech room kitchen area

Sized in compliance with NEC 2011.

Contains a 1600 amp switchboard with sub-breakers for the various divisions of the building and a

Basement

112

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Legend

Legend Circular Downlight Linear Suspended Direct-Indirect

Circular Downlight up

Linear Suspended Direct-Indirect

bookstore

Electrical Panel Board

up

Electrical Panel

stu ac den tivi t tie s

Electrical Electrical Panel Board Panel

game area

jan it clo or ’s se t

up

up

up

living room

Mezz. Floor deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

113

Legend

Legend

Circular Downlight

Circular Downlight

Linear Suspended Direct-Indirect

Linear Suspended Direct-IndirectLinear Recessed Dire

Electrical

Electrical Panel Panel Board

Linear Recessed

Electrical Electrical Panel Board Panel Board

Electrical

ElectricalPanel Panel Board

Electrical

Electrical Panel Board Panel Board

First Floor

114

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development Legend

Legend Circular Downlight

Electrical Electrical Panel Board Panel

tutoring rooms

Linear Suspended Circular Downlight Direct-Indirect

Linear Suspended Direct-Indirect

learning center offices

learning center lobby janitor’s closet testing testing

small group tutoring

small group tutoring

Electrical Electrical Panel Panel Board

learning center office

honors offices

large group tutoring

interfaith center

meeting/conference co

un off selin ice g s

small group tutoring

me

eti

Electrical Panel Board

ng

/co

nfe

ren

ce

computer lab area

Second Floor deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

115

Site Logistics

116

For the site logistics of this building, there are a few challenges that come with this site. The main entry point for deliveries along College Avenue lies at the basement level, about 12-14 feet below the slab on grade of the building.

Because of this, it was decided that the trucks would enter the site from College Avenue and penetrate the whole site, exiting on Olmsted Street and circling back to College Avenue.

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Design Development T

he crane location will pose some difficulties throughout the project. It has two main locations, one in the northwest corner of the site as well as the other at the bridge section of the building. The placement of each crane is fairly close the building in the image for the long reaching items in the center of the west mass. Once those items have been set, it can back its way out farther from the edge of the building footprint. At the bridge section, there is more freedom for the crane to move to the desired locations.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

117

T

he estimate utilized RS Means assembly cost data as well as rough percentages for items that have not quite been developed yet. The largest cost spurs from the mechanical systems, which is most likely due to the amount of large atrium spaces that will require massive amounts of heating and cooling. At 78,000 SF, this building has room to develop and areas to decrease square footage. The estimate comes out to a total of $18,265,000.

E S T I M AT E Demolition Substructure Shell Interiors Services

$49,420 $477,000 $4,508,800 $1,760,000

$2,977,490 $240,000 Total Square Footage: $1,492,040 77,910 SF $200,000 $229,130 Equipment/Furnishings $1,135,520 Sitework/Landscaping $1,257,550 Subtotal GC/OHP (15%) $2,149,040 *For information on the design Contingency (14%) $2,005,770 development schedule, please see the Bond (1%) $143,270 final design schedule.

Mechanical Plumbing Electrical Fire Protection Miscellaneous

Total $18,265,020 118

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

BIM EXECUTION PLAN This execution plan is designed to aid the project team in defining the role of BIM throughout the design process. Through integrated project delivery, the BIM execution plan promotes collaboration and improves on the traditional design-bid-build method. This will allow the team to gain a better understanding of their role in the project team and how it relates to others. Through this design process, the BIM execution plan will remain a living document that will mold itself according to the needs of the project team and will help guide the team toward a valuable design solution.

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

119

PROJECT PROCESS MAP

Develop Site Logistics Plan CM

Perform Cost Estimate CM

cost estimation

Create Existing Conditions Model

Start Process

Architect

Begin Precedent Study Architect

Site Analysis

existing conditions

Develop Virtual Model Architect

3D models

Perform Various Analysis Engineer

engineering analysis

Review Schematic Design ALL

design review

Perform Cost Estimate

Perform Cost Estimate CM

CM

cost estimation

Perform 3D Coordination CM

Architect

3D models

Create 4D Model Contractor

4D modeling

Perform Engineering Analysis Engineer

engineering analysis

detailed map

Perform 3D Coordination CM

3D coordination

Develop Virtual Model

construction sys. design

Author Construction Documents ALL

design review

3D coordination

End Process

Develop Virtual Model Architect

3D models

Edit 4D Model Contractor

4D modeling

Perform Engineering Analysis Engineer

engineering analysis

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

BIM EX PLAN TEAM PROCESS MAP

BIM Process Collaboration

Start Process

ALL

Site Analysis

Precedent Study

Presentation Assembly

BIM Ex Plan Presentation

Schematic Design Models

Schematic Design Collaboration

Presentation Assembly

Schematic Design Presentation

Architect

Architect

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

Design Deliverable Presentation

Presentation Assembly

Coordinate Design

Design Development Models

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

Team Charter ALL

End Process

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

Final Design Models

Coordinate Design

Presentation Assembly

Design Deliverable Presentation

ALL

ALL

ALL

ALL

121

PROJECT DELIVERABLES

Mission Communication Procedures Member roles BIM Process

Programming 3 Design layouts Material ideas

BIM Execution Plan

3 screen presentation PDF

122

Architectural design MEP system selection Structural system selection Lighting development Landscape development Construction Schedule Cost estimate

3 screen presentation Architectural model

Schematic Design

Design drawings Energy model Structural model Revit model

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

BIM EX PLAN

Architectural design MEP design Structural design Lighting design Landscape design Construction Schedule Cost estimate

Design Development

Design drawings

Construction Documents Energy Model Cost Analysis Construction Schedule Cost Estimate

Final Design

Documentation

Project Book

Energy model Structural model Revit model

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

123

C O M M U N I C AT I O N T O O L S

124

SALA Drive

Facebook group

PSU Box

GroupMe

Google Drive

Trello

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

APPENDIX

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

125

Existing Grading 370’ 365’

375’ 370’

380’

365’

360’

126

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

Final Grading 365’ 370’

370’

FFE: 371.5’

380’ 375’

370’ 375’

365’

360’

360’

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

365’

370’

375’

1

Existing Stormwater

Existing Runoff Peak Flow Rate

Area

2

#

(describe cover/slope)

Runoff Storm Coefficient Intensity (C) (i)

Area (A)

Quantity (Q)cfs

5.5

5.79

13.18185

Sub -sect.

1

Roof

0.87

5.5

0.18

0.8613

Sub -sect.

2

Paved Surface

0.85

5.5

0.45

2.10375

Sub -sect.

3

Rolling Pasture

0.36

5.5

5.16

10.2168

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

Final Stormwater

Proposed Runoff Peak Flow Rate

Area

#

(describe cover/slope)

Runoff Storm Coefficient Intensity (C) (i)

Area (A)

Quantity (Q)cfs

5

5.79

14.0365

Sub -sect.

1

Roof

0.87

5

0.59

2.5665

Sub -sect.

2

Paved Surface

0.85

5

0.9

3.825

Sub -sect.

3

Rolling Pasture

0.36

5

2.4

4.32

Sub -sect.

4

Woodland

0.35

5

1.9

3.325

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

3

Planting Plan

4

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

Grasses:

Meadow Mix

25% Sorghastrum nutans / Indiangrass 25% Schizachyrium scoparium / Little Bluestem 50%

Forbs:

2% Antennaria neglecta / Field Pussytoes 1% Apocynum cannabinum / Indian Hemp 5% Asclepias syriaca / Common Milkweed 5% Asclepias tuberosa / Butterfly Milkweed 2% Aster pilosus / Heath Aster 3% Chamaecrista fasciculata / Partridge Pea 3% Chrysanthemum leucanthemum / Ox Eye Daisy 2% Coreopsis tripteris / Tall Coreopsis 3% Eupatorium fistulosum / Joe-Pye Weed 3% Heliopsis helianthoides / Ox Eye Sunflower 5% Lathyrus latifolius / Perennial Sweet Pea 2% Liatris spicata / Spiked Gayfeater 2% Lotus corniculatus / Bird’s Foot Trefoil 1% Monarda fistulosa / Wild Bergamot 1% Oenothera biennis / Evening Primrose 1% Oenothera fruticosa / Narrow Leaved Sundrops 3% Parthenium intergrifolium / Wild Quinnine 2% Penstemon digitalis / Tall White Beard Tongue 2% Rudbeckia triloba / Brown Eyed Susan 2% Solidago canadensis / Canada Goldenrod 50%

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

5

A S S E M B L I E S E S T I M AT E AMT

MAT/UNT MAT

Bookstore Demolition

SF

6200

A.1 Substructure A1010 110 2500 A1010 210 7650 A2010 110 4680 A2020 110 7240

Strip Footings: load 5.1 KLF, soil capacity 3 KSF, 24ʺ wide x 12ʺ deep, reinf Spread Footings: load 200 K, soil capacity 3 KSF, 8'6" square x 20" deep Excav and fill, 10000 SF, 16' deep, sand gravel or common earch, on site storage Basement Walls, 12' height, pumped, 10" thickness

LF EA SF LF

869.5 67 11333 481.25

16.10 670.00

84 7223 616 2968 1386 486 1467 330 1104 247 4188 10 19 5 2583.25 98.33333 900.2917 242.2593 900.2917 242.2593 89955

38.00 58.50 58.50 80.00 125.00 64.00 80.00 90.50 136.00 90.50 74.50

B Shell: Superstructure 05 12 23.75 1500 Structural Steel Beams, W12x26 05 12 23.75 3100 Structural Steel Beams, W16x40 05 12 23.75 3500 Structural Steel Beams, W18x40 05 12 23.75 3900 Structural Steel Beams, W18x55 05 12 23.75 3960 Structural Steel Beams, W18x86 05 12 23.75 4100 Structural Steel Beams, W21x44 05 12 23.75 4400 Structural Steel Beams, W21x55 05 12 23.75 4500 Structural Steel Beams, W21x62 05 12 23.75 4740 Structural Steel Beams, W21x93 05 12 23.75 5100 Structural Steel Beams, W24x62 05 12 23.17 7000 Columns: W10x39 05 05 00 Nuts, Bolts Plates, Washers, connection angles, plates-Add 10% to total steel 05 21 23.50 7106 Joist Girders: Theater/Bridge 19 ton 05 21 23.50 7107 Joist Girders: Interfaith 5 ton 05 21 19.10 0180 Roof Joists: 14K6 05 21 19.10 0200 Roof Joists: 16K3 03 31 05.30 0300 Normal weight concrete, 4000 psi, elevated slab 03 31 05.30 0300 Normal weight concrete, 4000 psi, SOG 03 31 05.70 1400 Placing concrete, elevated slab, pumped, less than 6" thick 03 31 05.70 4300 Placing concrete, SOG, up to 6" thick, direct chute 05 30 13.5 2200 Steel Decking, 20 gauge, 50 to 500 squares 1-1/2" deep

LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF Percent Ton Ton LF LF CY CY CY CY SF

B Shell: Enclosure B2020 134 1120 Online Online Online B2030 110 6500 B3010 105 2900

SF EA EA SF EA SF

C Interiors

6

UNT

A.0 Demolition Website

Brick on 6" block with cavity Aluminum Windows: 4x4 Aluminum Windows: 5x5 Curtain Wall Exterior Doors: Alum and glass, full vision, 3'x7' Built up roofing

29912 54 57 18127 10 26310

Elevators- Use SF amount

D Plumbing D2010

Plumbing- Percentage (1.2%)

D HVAC D3010 520 2040 D3010 530 1880 D3020 106 1100 D3030 115 4600 D3040 112 1020* D3040 112 1040* D3040 112 1010* D3030 140 1010*

Fin Tube: 100,000 SF, three floors Unit Heater: 1000 SF, one floor (stairwells and mech rm) Boiler: Gas, HW, 2856 MBH Chilled Water: schools and colleges, 60000 SF, 230 ton (cooling tower) Central Station AHU, 10000 CFM Central Station AHU, 20000 CFM Central Station AHU, 5000 CFM Centrifugal Chiller, water cooled 215 ton

D Fire Protection D40

Fire Protection (1%)

TOT/UNT

14.97

70.50

2665.00 2050.00 6.10 6.40 106.00 106.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 8.65 0.00 0.00 2500.00 1.04

Percentage (8%)

Miscellaneaous D1010 150

INST/UNT

70340 3756 1 70340 3 2 1 1

92,814.00 92,810.00

105,800.00

375,790.00

38.60 1,420.00 7.90 231.50 Subtotal:

33,562.70 95,140.00 89,530.70 111,409.38 329,640.00

3192.00 422545.50 36036.00 237440.00 173250.00 31104.00 117360.00 29865.00 150144.00 22353.50 312006.00 0.00 50635.00 10250.00 15757.83 629.33 95430.92 25679.48 0.00 0.00 179910.00 0.00

4.93 5.42 5.96 6.27 6.36 5.38 5.38 5.52 5.72 5.16 4.05

42.93 63.92 64.46 86.27 131.36 69.38 85.38 96.02 141.72 95.66 78.55

415.00 415.00 3.69 3.08 0.00 0.00 21.15 15.34 0.33

3,080.00 2,465.00 9.79 9.48 106.00 106.00 21.15 15.34 2.33 Subtotal:

3,606.12 461,694.16 39,707.36 256,049.36 182,064.96 33,718.68 125,252.46 31,686.60 156,458.88 23,628.02 328,967.40 164,283.40 58,520.00 12,325.00 25,290.02 932.20 95,430.92 25,679.48 19,041.17 3,716.26 209,595.15 2,257,650.00

2,573,720.00

29.65 886,890.80 880.00 47,520.00 1,375.00 78,375.00 90.00 1,631,430.00 1600.00 4,100.00 41,000.00 1.58 2.62 68,932.20 Subtotal: 2,754,150.00

3,139,730.00

1,760,000.00 1,760,000.00

2,006,400.00

207,600.00 Subtotal:

207,600.00 207,600.00

236,660.00

0.00

240,000.00 240,000.00

273,600.00

258738.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 25000.00 27362.40 0.00

0.00

2.10 17.40 45600.00 9.05 21900.00 37500.00 16500.00 96500.00

14.97

22.50 750.00 7.90 161.00

147714.00 65354.40 45600.00 636577.00 65700.00 75000.00 16500.00 96500.00 0.00

v

2949510

21.00 0.00 0.00

Subtotal: 207600.00

0.00 SF SF EA SF EA EA EA EA

Time (1.14)

13998.95 44890.00 0.00 33928.13 0.00

0.00 0.00 1

Subtotal:

TOT

Subtotal: 2.41 13.20 22100.00 6.75 10900.00 17100.00 7875.00 28500.00

4.51 317,233.40 30.60 114,933.60 67,700.00 67,700.00 15.80 1,111,372.00 32,800.00 98,400.00 54,600.00 109,200.00 24,375.00 24,375.00 125,000.00 125,000.00 Subtotal: 1,968,210.00 Subtotal:

0.00

200,000.00 200,000.00

1760000

240000

4541330

2,243,760.00 228,000.00

200000

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

D Electrical D5010 120 0280 D5010 120 0400 D5010 240 0280 D5020 110 0440 D5020 130 0320 D5020 135 0440 D5020 140 0280 D5020 165 0200 D5020 208 1600 D5030 920 0104 D5030 910 0456 D5030 910 0462 D5030 910 0480 D5090 210 0360

Electric Service: 3 phase, 200 A, add 25% for 277/480V Electric Service: 3 phase, 800 A, add 25% for 277/480V Switchgear: 800 A Receptacles: 8 per 1000 SF Wall Switches: 2.5 per 1000 SF Power: 2 Watts Central AC Power: 4 Watts Safety Switch Fluorescent Fixtures: Type D, 8 fixtures per 400 SF Data comm: 4 Data/voice per 1000 SF Alarm Systems: Fire detection, addressable, 100 detectors Alarm Systems: Fire alarm command center, addressable Alarm Systems: Intercom systems, 6 stations Generator: 80 kW

EA EA EA SF SF SF SF EA SF MSF EA EA EA kW

8 1 1 70340 70340 70340 70340 3 70340 70.34 1 1 1 80

1925.00 10600.00 17200.00 0.61 0.13 0.13 0.19 173.00 3.94 355.00 33900.00 10100.00 4025.00 385.00

1775.00 5250.00 7500.00 2.10 0.45 0.40 0.42 201.00 6.80 900.00 39800.00 1700.00 5325.00 52.50

E Equipment and Furnishings E1020 310 0260 Theater: Sound System E1020 310 0280 Theater: Projection Screen E1020 310 0400 Theater: Stage Equipment E1020 310 0420 Theater: Spotlights E1030 310 0110 Loading Dock Bumpers E1090 350 0000 Food Service E2010 510 0500 Auditorium Seating E1020 210 1001 Library Equipment: metal, economy E2010 320 0120 Window Treatment: blinds, interior 2" slats E2020 210 0500 Office Furniture: standard employee set Other FFE

15400.00 10600.00 17200.00 42907.40 9144.20 9144.20 13364.60 519.00 277139.60 24970.70 33900.00 10100.00 4025.00 30800.00 0.00

4,625.00 37,000.00 19,812.50 19,812.50 24,700.00 24,700.00 2.71 190,621.40 0.58 40,797.20 0.53 37,280.20 0.61 42,907.40 374.00 1,122.00 10.74 755,451.60 1,255.00 88,276.70 73,700.00 73,700.00 11,800.00 11,800.00 9,350.00 9,350.00 437.50 35,000.00 Subtotal: 1,367,820.00

1,559,310.00

EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA SF EA

1 1 1 2 6 1 400 10 70340 46

3625.00 325.00 13500.00 144.00 56.00

685.00 109.00 615.00 154.00 21.00 15000.00 49.50 109.00 0.92 0.00

G Building Sitework and Landscape 02510 270 Portland Cement Concrete Paving, 6" reinforced 02930 155 Baron Kentucky Bluegrass (40lb/acre) 02950 130 4" Caliper 02950 120 3" Caliper 02950 480 Shrub Building Sitework (5%)

3625.00 325.00 13500.00 288.00 336.00 0.00 80800.00 2760.00 147010.60 27140.00 0.00 0.00

4,310.00 434.00 14,115.00 298.00 77.00 15,000.00 251.50 385.00 3.01 590.00 0.00 Subtotal:

4,310.00 434.00 14,115.00 596.00 462.00 15,000.00 100,600.00 3,850.00 211,723.40 27,140.00 500,000.00 878,230.00

1,001,180.00

SY LB EA EA EA

42.70 135,651.92 2.56 285.70 375.00 7,125.00 235.00 14,100.00 9.50 380.00 0.00 1,100,000.00 Subtotal: 1,257,540.00

1,433,600.00

SUBTOTAL General Conditions OHP Contingency (10%) Bond (2%)

15177550 1,571,820 1,517,760 1,517,760 303,550

Grand Total:

20088440

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

3176.86 111.6 19 60 40

202.00 276.00 2.09 590.00

42.70 2.56 375.00 235.00 9.50

135651.92 285.70 7125.00 14100.00 380.00

7

D E TA I L E D S T E E L TA K E O F F BEAM

Weight/LF LF

TTL LF

8

55

22.50

180.00

W18x86

9

86

66.29

596.63

W21x93

2

93

22.50

45.00

W21x55

2

55

91.33

182.67

W16x40

1

40

99.42

99.42

W16x40

2

40

7.00

14.00

W18x55

1

55

27.92

27.92

*

W16x40

53

40

30.67

1625.33

*

W18x55

46

55 338.33 15563.33

W21x93

1

93 233.08

W18x55

1

55

24.83

24.83

W18x55

1

55

15.33

15.33

W16x40

66

40

34.33

2266.00

W16x40

1

40

26.00

26.00

W16x40

1

40

18.17

18.17

W16x40

1

40

10.25

10.25

W21x44

5

44

78.50

392.50

W18x55

1

55 103.42

103.42

*

*

233.08

W18x55

1

55

29.33

29.33

*1

W16x40

2

40

22.50

45.00

*2

W16x40

1

40

19.42

19.42

*3

W16x40

2

40

16.92

33.83

*4

W16x40

2

40

14.17

28.33

*5

W16x40

2

40

11.33

22.67

*6

W16x40

2

40

8.00

16.00

LVL 2 W18x55

1

55 112.50

112.50

W18x55

2

55

66.29

132.58

W21x44

1

44 112.17

112.17

1

W16x40

1

40

27.67

27.67

2

W16x40

1

40

24.67

24.67

3

W16x40

1

40

21.58

21.58

4

W16x40

1

40

18.50

18.50

5

W16x40

1

40

15.42

15.42

W16x40 W16x40 W16x40 W16x40 W16x40 W18x55 W21x93 W21x93 W18x55 W18x55 W18x55 W18x55 W18x55

1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

40 40 40 40 40 55 93 93 55 55 55 55 55

12.42 9.33 6.25 17.17 24.58 28.38 91.67 68.50 26.50 18.50 10.42 47.83 8.75

12.42 9.33 6.25 68.67 24.58 28.38 91.67 68.50 26.50 18.50 10.42 47.83 35.00

6 7 8

8

Amt

LVL 1 W21x55

W18x55 W12x26 W21x55 W16x40 W21x55 W21x55 W21x55 W21x55 W21x55 * W21x55 W16x40 W16x40 * W16x40 * W21x55 * W21x93 * W16x40 W16x40 W21x55 W16x40 W16x40 LVL 3 W18x40 W24x62 W21x93 W18x55 W16x40 W18x55 W18x55 W16x40 W21x55 W18x55 *1-5 W21x62 W21x55 W16x40 W16x40 * W21x55 W18x55 LVL 4 W18x40 W21x62 W16x40 W16x40 W16x40 W16x40 W24x62 W16x40 W21x55 W16x40 W18x55 W16x40 ROOF W21x55 W16x40 W18x55 W24x62 W21x55 W16x40 W21x93

2 12 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 5 8 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 2 1 2 14 20 1 12 1 13 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 1 3 5 1

55 26 55 40 55 55 55 55 55 55 40 40 40 55 93 40 40 55 40 40 40 62 93 55 40 55 55 40 55 55 62 55 40 40 55 55 40 62 40 40 40 40 62 40 55 40 55 40 55 40 55 62 55 40 93

37.33 6.75 103.42 31.33 35.67 7.00 27.92 15.08 24.67 29.42 49.58 130.92 18.50 25.75 36.17 60.00 18.33 13.83 36.33 12.58 112.50 112.50 160.13 34.33 59.83 59.83 122.08 480.27 160.50 34.92 199.38 127.50 18.50 150.92 29.17 11.50 551.42 68.46 20.67 30.67 345.17 15.42 10.00 25.42 309.42 178.29 186.67 31.08 202.33 504.04 134.67 4.83 25.75 60.00 25.75

74.67 81.00 103.42 62.67 35.67 14.00 27.92 15.08 24.67 29.42 49.58 130.92 148.00 25.75 180.83 480.00 55.00 13.83 36.33 12.58 112.50 112.50 160.13 34.33 59.83 59.83 122.08 480.27 160.50 69.83 199.38 127.50 129.50 150.92 29.17 23.00 551.42 136.92 289.33 613.33 345.17 185.00 10.00 330.42 309.42 178.29 186.67 746.00 202.33 504.04 134.67 4.83 77.25 300.00 25.75

Summary

Type

BEAM

W8x67

0

W10x60

0

156

W12x26

81.00

84.00

1.05

W16x40

7097.43

7223.00

141.95

COL

TTL LF

663.92

616.00

13.28

W18x55

16817.29

2968.00

462.48

W18x86

596.63

1386.00

25.65

W21x44

504.67

486.00

11.10

W21x55

1691.33

1467.00

46.51

W21x62

336.29

330.00

10.43

W21x93

776.96

1104.00

36.13

W24x62

127.33

247.00

3.95

TOTAL

28692.85

15911

W10x39

1820.00

W10x54

616.00

W10x77

392.00

W10x100

1232.00

W18x55 ROOF SUBTRACT W16x40

COL

231

W18x40

TOTAL

ROOF JOISTS

TTL LF RV TTL TON

4060 62 2,681.58

14K6

2,583.25

16K3

98.33

Amt Weight/LF LF

TTL LF

W10x100

44

100 28.00 1232.00

W10x54

44

54

14

W10x39

45

39

28 1260.00

W10x77

14

77

28

392.00

W10x39

20

39

28

560.00

616.00

Concrete

CF

CY

Elevated Slab 24307.88 900.29 SOG

6541 242.26

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Appendix

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

9

Acoustics Appendix Classroom/Auditorium Wall North/So uth ‐ seating North/So uth‐ seating East East

Surface Description

Surface Area, S (ft2)

fabric wrapped acoustical panels

2037.872

painted gypsum

873.374

Material Description

0.070

0.290

0.670

0.930

1.020

1.000

0.127

0.072

0.056

0.049

0.045

0.041

0.070

0.290

0.670

0.930

1.020

1.000

0.127

0.072

0.056

0.049

0.045

0.041

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.620

0.720

0.800

0.830

0.840

0.850

0.020

0.060

0.140

0.370

0.600

0.650

0.150

0.110

0.100

0.070

0.060

0.070

Gypsum board, 1+2 @ 5/8" on ins

fabric wrapped acoustical panels

643.370

painted gypsum

275.730

Gypsum board, 1+2 @ 5/8" on ins

1527.676

painted concrete block

401.408

painted concrete block

401.408

painted concrete block

5546.112

reflective ceiling panel

1132.463

absorptive ceiling tile, AcousTech

1" absorptive panel

North ‐ stage South ‐ stage Seating ceiling Stage ceiling Seats

Fixed seating

3282.500

Moderately upholstered seating, occupied

carpet

1641.250

Carpet, heavy, on concrete

wood

1318.909

Wood flooring on joists

Seating floor Stage floor

142.651 590.983 1365.374 1895.220 2078.629 2037.872

1" absorptive panel

painted concrete painted concrete painted concrete reflective ceiling panel absorptive ceiling tile

West

Sound Absorption Coefficient, α S*α (sabins ‐ ft2) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) 125.000 250.000 500.000 1000.000 2000.000 4000.000 125.000 250.000 500.000 1000.000 2000.000 4000.000

110.918

62.883

48.909

42.795

39.302

45.036

186.577 431.058 598.334 656.237 643.370

35.018

19.853

15.441

13.511

152.768

76.384

91.661

106.937 137.491 122.214

40.141

20.070

24.084

28.099

36.127

32.113

40.141

20.070

24.084

28.099

36.127

32.113

12.408

35.808

11.305

1331.067 1053.761 776.456 499.150 720.995 554.611 271.791 215.168 158.545 101.922 147.220 113.246 2035.150 2363.400 2626.000 2724.475 2757.300 2790.125 32.825

98.475

229.775 607.263 984.750 1066.813

197.836 145.080 131.891

92.324

79.135

92.324

∑Sα= 4435.341 4852.704 5923.277 6738.128 7685.719 7531.913 0.310 0.353 0.403 0.395 Avg. α= 0.232 0.254 Air absorption constant for 20°C and 40% RH, m 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.83E‐04 3.26E‐04 7.86E‐14 2.56E‐03 Sabine Reverb Time: (s) RT = Norris‐Eyring Reverb Time: (s) RT =

10

1.347 1.183

1.231 1.067

0.994 0.853

0.866 0.733

0.777 0.607

0.680 0.717

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Studio - Spring 2014

Acoustics Appendix Performance Theater Wall

Surface Description

Surface Area, S (ft2)

Material Description

Sound Absorption Coefficient, α Frequency (Hz) 125.000 250.000 500.000 1000.000 2000.000 4000.000 125.000

250.000

S*α (sabins ‐ ft2) Frequency (Hz) 500.000 1000.000 2000.000 4000.000

244.545

193.598

142.651

91.704

132.462

101.894

240.323

136.246

105.969

92.723

85.154

77.585

77.204

61.120

45.036

28.952

41.819

32.169

75.872

43.014

33.455

29.273

26.884

24.494

152.768

76.384

91.661

106.937

137.491

122.214

40.141

20.070

24.084

28.099

36.127

32.113

40.141

20.070

24.084

28.099

36.127

32.113

1331.067 1053.761 776.456

499.150

720.995

554.611

271.791

101.922

147.220

113.246

North/South ‐ reflective panel seating

1018.936

North/South‐ painted gypsum seating

1892.309

East

reflective panel

321.685

1" reflective panel

East

painted gypsum

597.415

Gypsum board, 1+2 @ 5/8" on ins.

West

painted concrete

1527.676

painted concrete block

North ‐ stage

painted concrete

401.408

painted concrete block

South ‐ stage

painted concrete

401.408

painted concrete block

5546.112

reflective ceiling panel

1132.463

absorptive ceiling tile, AcousTech A

Seating ceiling Stage ceiling

reflective ceiling panel absorptive ceiling tile

1" reflective panel 0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.127

0.072

0.056

0.049

0.045

0.041

0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.127

0.072

0.056

0.049

0.045

0.041

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.100

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.090

0.080

0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.240

0.190

0.140

0.090

0.130

0.100

0.620

0.720

0.800

0.830

0.840

0.850

0.020

0.060

0.140

0.370

0.600

0.650

0.150

0.110

0.100

0.070

0.060

0.070

Gypsum board, 1+2 @ 5/8" on ins.

Seats

Fixed seating

3282.500

Moderately upholstered seating, occupied

Seating floor

carpet

1641.250

Carpet, heavy, on concrete

Stage floor

wood

1318.909

Wood flooring on joists

215.168

158.545

2035.150 2363.400 2626.000 2724.475 2757.300 2790.125 32.825

98.475

229.775

607.263

984.750 1066.813

197.836

145.080

131.891

92.324

79.135

92.324

∑Sα= 4739.662 4426.387 4389.607 4430.919 5185.462 5039.699 Avg. α= 0.248 0.232 0.230 0.232 0.272 0.264 Air absorption constant for 20°C and 40% RH, m 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.83E‐04 3.26E‐04 7.86E‐14 2.56E‐03 Sabine Reverb Time: (s) RT = Norris‐Eyring Reverb Time: (s) RT =

deVries • Gonzales • Hammond • Lange • Miller • Rodriguez

1.260 1.096

1.350 1.186

1.334 1.219

1.302 1.223

1.152 0.987

0.950 1.298