. INSTRUCTIONS Cable-stayed bridge Design Need to Design statements and justification of your design choices. Sample file is attached in reference Please do check that Page limit for Report is 40 pages Single spaced do work in UK standard Use Revit Software/n Assessment Brief Module Code and Title: Module Leader: Assignment set by: Assignment Title: Assignment Type: Assignment Weighting: Set Date Submission Date: Submission Place: Feedback Date: Type of Feedback: CIVE3860 Integrated Design Project 3 (IDP3) Prof Fleur Loveridge Dr Emilio Garcia-Taengua Part 3: Bridge design report (programme-specific) Summative, individual submission 33% of module marks Online submission (Minerva / Turnitln) Submission annotated with feedback Rationale This brief is concerned with the submission of a report on a bridge design project which is connected to the design problems articulating the module already addressed in Parts 1 and 2. It is programme-specific, that is, tailored to the specific needs of students on the Civil Engineering and the Civil and Structural Engineering programmes. The report you submit needs to include the necessary information as per sections 3 and 5 of this brief. Learning outcomes On successful completion of the assignment, you should have: 1. Been able to apply some of the knowledge and understanding from previous learning to produce a design developed to a sufficient level of detail so that it satisfies the requirements of the brief. 2. Been able to reinforce some aspects of previous learning. 3. Developed a solution to an engineering problem into a set of detailed drawings from analysis and design calculations. 4. Improved your knowledge and understanding of safe working practices. 5. Improved your ability to learn independently using various learning and information resources. 6. Improved time management skills. 7. Improved written and drawing communication skills. Assessment Criteria All students in one group will receive the same marks for this report. You will be marked against the following criteria: Design statements and justification of your design choices. Technical quality of the drawings and models. Adequacy of design assumptions. Appropriateness of design/analysis methods and correctness of calculations. Presentation and structure. Assessment rubric/grid The assessment rubric/grid for this assessment can be found at the end of the brief. Academic misconduct and plagiarism 1 Leeds students are part of an academic community that shares ideas and develops new ones. You need to learn how to work with others, how to interpret and present other people's ideas, and how to produce your own independent academic work. It is essential that you can distinguish between other people's work and your own, and correctly acknowledge other people's work. All students new to the University are expected to complete an online Academic Integrity tutorial and test, and all Leeds students should ensure that they are aware of the principles of Academic integrity. When you submit work for assessment it is expected that it will meet the University's academic integrity standards. IDP3 Integrated Design Project III Horsforth to Leeds/Bradford Airport Light Railway Link 1.0 2.0 Introduction Part 1 of this 30-credit module consisted of a feasibility study to investigate possible options for constructing a new light railway from Horsforth, near Leeds, to Leeds/Bradford Airport. Part 2 of the module consisted of a group design exercise. In this, as a group, you produced a detailed civil engineering design for this new railway. Part 3 relates to subject matters specific to the programme you are enrolled on. This is an individual piece of coursework and is worth one third of the module mark. The guidance on study time is that you should allocate approximately 100 hours to this part of the module, inclusive of contact time. It is imperative that you carefully plan your work to ensure you leave yourselves sufficient time to complete all elements of the project. Everyone is different and has different circumstances: you are advised to plan their use of time. Supervision and expectations This element of the IDP will be supervised by Dr Emilio Garcia-Taengua (office in room 1.01, e-mail address: e.garcia-taengua@leeds.ac.uk). There is no direct teaching associated with this element of the IDP. Assistance will be provided via weekly consultation sessions held from 09:00-11:00 on Thursdays. In some weeks, additional sessions on Tuesdays have also been timetabled. Please note that you should not expect a response to queries related to the content of your work or design/calculation issues submitted by email: this is what the consultation sessions are for. Come to these sessions prepared: bring your laptops as well as any sketches, drawings and calculations with you, as well as a list of aspects you would like to ask or discuss. 2 3.0 Please check your e-mails regularly. Depending on the needs of the cohort, with time new information or additional reading/resources may be uploaded to Minerva. In those occasions, an announcement will be posted and you will get notified by email. Design Brief 3.1 Design problem The design of a new viaduct to replace the existing one that currently carries the Leeds to Harrogate railway line over the River Aire and Leeds to Liverpool Canal in Kirkstall, Leeds. A plan showing the length of viaduct to be replaced together with a 3D illustration of the existing viaduct are available on Minerva. 3.2 Deliverables You are required to produce the conceptual design for the new viaduct. This requires you to fully explain the aspects that underpin your thinking and design choices in relation to the structure and its contextual integration. Concept drawings, sketches or preliminary drawings should support your reasoning. You will then undertake the structural design of the following bridge elements: Structural design of the key elements of the superstructure Structural design of one of the piers Structural design of the foundation of one of the piers You are also required to produce general arrangement drawings for the new bridge as well as any other drawings (e.g. reinforcement drawings in the case of concrete elements) for the key structural elements. 3.2 Design codes You must use the European Design Codes for structures. The Geotechnical calculations must be carried out in accordance with BS EN 1997-1 and load appraisal with relevant parts of BS EN 1991. 3.3 Design data The information given below is not complete. Where appropriate you should make reasonable assumptions, clearly stated in the report. Concrete in the ground should assume to be subject to a moderately aggressive chemical environment according to BS EN 206-1, Table 2. All structural elements to be designed for a 1 hour fire rating. The bridge is to be designed to support vertical loading in accordance with Load Model 71 of BS EN 1991-2. ● ● Load from wind, water (i.e. river load onto piers) and vehicle acceleration can be ignored for the purposes of this assignment: it is assumed that the conceptual design is driven by gravity loads. Ground conditions: make an assessment of the ground conditions in the vicinity of your viaduct from available BGS information. Based on this, decide on a foundation type (i.e. spread footing/piled etc.) and design your foundations to support the loads from the viaduct structure above. 3 4.0 5.0 5.1 3.4 Design calculations Calculations can be either hand-written or typed. In any case, they should be presented in a professional manner, explained, and clearly organised. Sketches should be provided where appropriate to illustrate your calculations and make them easy to follow. If structural software is used, then approximate hand calculations must also be submitted to demonstrate their validity and understanding. If spreadsheets are used, then a set of verification calculations must be appended. 3.5 Drawings In line with current professional practice, technical drawings must be produced electronically (e.g. AutoCAD or Revit). All drawings should contain a title block containing all pertinent information (drawing scales etc). Drawings must be self-explanatory and fully annotated with dimensions. Materials and material properties assumed in the design should also appear in the drawings. Learning Resources The IDP is meant to be a vehicle by which you can demonstrate your ability to work independently. You should consider the tasks in hand and look to apply what you have learnt in your theory based modules across Levels 1, 2 & 3. There are, however, two hours per week of scheduled contact time. Submission, Marking Schedule, Feedback Reports are expected to include the following: A cover page or title sheet Table of contents The following sections (tentative titles for reference): Rationale and concept drawings O Structural design of superstructure elements O Structural design of the substructure: piers / towers O Substructure: foundations O Technical drawings: general arrangement, detailing Outline of the marking schedule -refer to the rubric for details. Design rationale and concept drawings Design of superstructure elements Design of substructure: piers/towers Design of substructure: foundations Technical drawings Presentation, formatting and writing style ● Maximum Mark 25 25 10 10 20 10 Assessment rubric/grid Criteria and relative weight Design rationale and concept drawings (25%) Design of superstructure (25%) Design of substructure: piers/towers (10%) Design of substructure: foundations (10%) Technical drawings (20%) Presentation and structure (10%) Fail The description of the solution and how it satisfies the brief lacks clarity, is incomplete and incoherent. Calculations and assumptions are very weak, incorrect, incomplete, and badly explained. The geometry of the solution in the context of its surroundings cannot be understood. Poor quality drawings, incompletely annotated. Poor formatting, disorganised, lacks cohesion and there is no connectedness. Pass The description of the solution is sufficient but too general. It only partially covers some aspects of the brief. Calculations and assumptions somewhat justify the design adopted for key elements but they are incomplete, lacking justification, or partially incorrect. An overall view of the geometry of the solution is provided through acceptable drawings, but they are very basic and often incomplete. Acceptable formatting, somewhat structured and partially coherent. Good The adopted solution is adequately defined and the rationale behind the design considerations are well conveyed graphically and in writing. Specifications regarding the key elements are justified and well described. Checks are mostly correct, but some important aspects are not well justified. An overall view of the geometry of the solution in the context of its surroundings is provided in good quality drawings, but some dimensions or key features are missing. Adequate formatting, generally well structured, coherent report. 5 Very Good A very clear and complete description of the adopted solution is provided, adequately addressing most of the aspects in the brief. All the required calculations, checks and loading assumptions are correct, completely justified and well explained. Only a few minor mistakes. Good drawings, fully annotated, providing a complete picture of the adopted solution and how it connects to the public realm, albeit with some minor mistakes. Well formatted and well structured report, with a clear narrative and logical organisation. Excellent Very clear and detailed description of the adopted solution. All determining aspects are well described graphically and in writing. Excellent, complete and very clear report of all calculations and checks regarding the key elements and their specification. Excellent, high-quality drawings which provide a complete and very clear picture of all key features of the adopted solution and how it relates to its surroundings. Outstanding, professional formatting. Excellent structure, clear and logical, very good narrative and coherence.

Fig: 1