Structural Concrete 2010

Student Design Competition The Concrete Centre logo

Paper Setting Panel Dr Howard Taylor Prof Michael Dixon

Former President of the IStructE Former President of the IStructE

Dr John Cairns Heriot Watt University Dr Adam Crewe University of Bristol Mr Roger Hewitt Pell Frischmann Mr Chris Playle WSP

Dr Andrew Minson The Concrete Centre Mr Costas Georgopoulos The Concrete Centre Award Judging Panel Dr Howard Taylor Former President of the IStructE Mr Michael Dixon Former President of the IStructE Mr Roger Hewitt Pell Frischmann Mr Chris Playle WSP Dr Andrew Minson The Concrete Centre Mr Costas Georgopoulos The Concrete Centre

Competition Moderator

Prof Peter Waldron Sheffield University Contents (pagination to be revised)

Introduction 1. PROJECT BRIEF 4 2. DESIGN DATA 8

2.1 Loadings 2.2 The Site

3. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 9 3.1 Conceptual Design Report 3.2 Verification of Structural Viability 3.3 Drawings

4. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 11 4.1 Local 4.2 National

5. AWARDS 11 5.1 University Level 5.2 National Level 5.3 Presentation 5.4 Eligibility

6. RULES 12 Entry Form Calculation Sheet

INTRODUCTION Structural Concrete 2010 sets a prestigious professional challenge for all students studying structural design as part of UK University BEng, MEng and MSc degree courses in Civil and / or Structural Engineering.

This demanding student design competition aims to encourage interest and raise competence in designing with concrete. The competition offers a stimulating and fun challenge to students, while supporting the curricula of Civil and Structural Engineering Departments of UK Universities. Significant cash prizes are on offer: £1,250 for the national winner, with other prizes for second place, runners up and individual university winners, all to be presented at a special awards ceremony. There will also be a Sustainability prize for the student who demonstrates the best understanding of this subject in his/her submission. These awards reflect the significant commitment from the judges and academics who, together with The Concrete Centre, have carefully developed this year’s competition. Initiative, creativity and accuracy are called for, and will be assessed by the judges. Above all, this competition has been designed to stretch the technical competence of the students taking part.

Because it is so flexible, Structural Concrete 2010 can easily be incorporated into existing university curricula, with a content that reflects an independent project, a group project or a module assessment run over the first, second or both semesters of the academic year.

This year’s challenge… The 2010 project is a rooftop swimming pool over a car park forming part of a residential development in a southern European city. The structure is to provide parking accommodation for the linked residential apartment blocks and a recreation space for the occupants. The client, a company engaged in regeneration of inner city sites, has commissioned an initial structural design from a firm of consulting engineers. Entrants must respond as if they are part of the consultant’s team.

The Concrete Centre is the central development organisation for the UK cement and concrete industry. Our objective is to assist all those involved in design and construction to realise the full potential of concrete as an adaptable and sustainable construction material. For more information on The Concrete Centre visit www.concretecentre.com

1. PROJECT BRIEF : ‘ Minprodas‘ Development

The ‘Minprodas’ development is to be constructed on a brownfield site on the periphery of a southern European city. The brief requires off-street parking and the incorporation of leisure and recreation facilities for residents. Site density and economic factors determine that parking be provided in a multi-storey car park with leisure and recreation facilities above. The Project Developer has commissioned an initial structural design from a firm of consulting engineers. The car park/pool building is to be rectangular in plan, with residential blocks adjoining on east and west sides, Figure 1. The car park/pool building and the adjoining residential blocks are to be structurally independent. No columns may be placed within 3.0m of the boundary between car park and residential blocks, nor may any foundations extend beyond the site boundary. Access to the pool area for leisure users will be via a pedestrian link to the residential blocks at roof level. Roof level is to be at 15.0m to tie in with residential floor levels, Figure 2. The lift/stair core will provide car park access and service access to the roof area. The main swimming pool is to be 25.0m long by 14.0m wide, Figure 3, with a water depth varying from 0.9m to 2.0m, Figure 4. A smaller paddling pool of 7.0m by 12.0m with a water depth of 0.6m will be separated from the main pool by a 2.0m wide walkway. Pool design features a clearance of 0.2m between water level and pool rim. The pools are to be designed as water retaining structures with a normal operating water temperature of 28oC. The designer may decide where to locate the pool in the north-south direction. The roof level is to be surrounded by a 3.0m high parapet. Access to car parking is from the main access road to the south of the development at ground level. A service road borders the building to the north. Each parking bay is to a minimum clear width of 2.4m and a length of 4.8m. In addition, 6 disabled bays 3.2m wide are to be provided at ground floor level. Vehicle aisles and ramps are to have a minimum width of 6.0m for two-way flow and the ramp gradient must not exceed 1 in 7. A minimum clear floor-to-ceiling height of 2.1m is required. No structures or services are permitted to intrude into vehicle zones. The layout adopted must maximize the number of parking spaces available. Precast concrete cladding panels and parapet walls will be used on north and south elevations. It is expected that these will have both an aesthetic and protective role. 2. DESIGN DATA

Verification of structural viability should be carried out in accordance with current British Standards or Eurocodes. Entrants should clearly state the documents used in support of calculations. Materials specifications should be defined to current Standards.

Fire resistance of 2 hours is required. 2.1 Loadings Dead loads of structural elements: as found. Cladding: an average value of 2.4kN/m2 of elevation for the precast concrete cladding and parapet on the northern and southern elevations of the building.

Imposed loadings: - Pool surround 2.5kN/m2 - Car park and ramps 2.5kN/m2 - Stairs 5.0kN/m2

These loadings include an allowance for services. All values are characteristic values.

2.2 The Site Exposure conditions The site is flat, and situated on the periphery of a city.. The basic site wind speed, Vb should be taken as 22 m/sec (based on the mean hourly wind speed as given in BS6399-1:1996), or the value of fundamental basic wind velocity, vb,map, should be taken as 23 m/sec (based on BS EN 1991-1-4:2005). Snow loading may be neglected. Ground Conditions See borehole logs in Appendix A. Locations of test boreholes are shown on Figure 1

Ground water level should be taken as 1.0m below ground level.

Figure 1: Site Plan

Figure 2: Section A-A

Figure 3: Roof Plan

Figure 4: Pool detail

3. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

The submission is to comprise four components: 3.1 a conceptual design report 3.2 an appendix containing design calculations to verify the viability of the selected

scheme 3.3 drawings. 3.4 An outline sustainability plan

The submission must not exceed 60 single sided A4 pages and three A3 size drawings. Only one copy is needed.

3.1 Conceptual Design Report

A maximum of 30 pages, of either 1.5 line spaced text in a maximum 11pt font, or neatly hand written in black ink, which should include:

vi. An appraisal of two distinct and viable design solutions in structural concrete for the building, together with their associated beam/column/wall layouts. The appraisals should comprise sketches of a typical car park floor and of the pool level with supporting notes, outlining the intended load transfer mechanisms, framing and stability functions, and some brief notes on construction methodology.

vii. An evaluation of the merits and disadvantages of the two solutions. The evaluation should identify significant differences such as cost or buildability between the two alternatives, and make a recommendation in favour of one solution.

viii. A description of the foundation scheme adopted for the preferred solution, with a rationale for the selection. A fully detailed design for the foundation scheme is not required.

ix. An outline specification for the materials used in pool finishes. x. An outline specification for concrete and reinforcing materials. xi. A method statement for a safe construction procedure for the building. xii. A statement of how robustness to avoid disproportionate collapse is satisfied. xiii. After completion of your design, the client acquires a second and similar

development site, this time in a seismically active area, and initially proposes to use the existing design for its construction. Write a letter to the client outlining the modifications necessary to the first design for a similar building at the second site.

3.2 Verification of Structural Viability

The verification of structural viability of the selected scheme should be demonstrated in Appendices to the conceptual design report to make up the balance of the report. (The maximum total length of the design report, sustainability appraisal plus Appendix is 60 pages A4).

The Appendices should contain sufficient design calculations by hand (calculation sheet included may be used) to establish the form and size of all structural elements for the chosen scheme. Entrants should decide how best to convey this information within the space constraints imposed. Calculations for individual elements should enable a checker to clearly understand their contribution to the strength and stability of the whole structure, and the load paths assumed. Hence, if computer output is presented, validation by (approximate) hand calculations is also required. Consideration should be given to performance at both Serviceability and Ultimate Limit States.

Outline the procedure to be adopted for testing the watertightness of the pool and the remedial action to be taken should minor leaks be evident (maximum 1 page). Note: calculations are not required for stairs, cladding and parapet components, and protective barriers in the car park. 3.3 Drawings

A total of three A3 drawings should be included. Drawings may be prepared using appropriate CAD software, or by hand. In either case, notes and dimensions should not be smaller than the equivalent of an 11pt font. Two of the A3 drawings should be used to present general arrangements, sections and elevations of the building to show the layout, disposition and dimensions of structural elements for estimation purposes. Drawings should be to an appropriate scale and must be dimensioned. Reinforcement details should not be shown on these two drawings. The third drawing should show:

a) the reinforcement detail at the junction between pool floor and pool walls, b) the reinforcement detail at the junctions between a horizontal pool support

member and the vertical components which support it. c) the detail of the fixing arrangement for a precast concrete cladding panel.

together with sketches and notes as appropriate to describe the completed construction. The sketches should be approximately to scale but need not be fully dimensioned. 3.4 Sustainability Plan Effective maintenance of constructed assets to maintain them in serviceable condition is a key aspect of sustainable construction as well as in control of life cycle costs. The client therefore requires a ‘User Manual’ for the building, to be transmitted to the asset maintenance manager, outlining the steps to be taken to monitor and maintain the

structure in serviceable condition. Prepare a bullet list of contents of the ‘User Manual’ (maximum 2 pages) covering all significant issues to be addressed in a maintenance plan for the reinforced concrete structure, indicating the intervals at which monitoring of each item should be undertaken. [The ‘User Manual’ for the structure is not to cover items of plant or services]

4. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

4.1 Local The competition will operate at two levels. All submissions made at each University will first be judged locally by the academic tutor(s) involved with the project. The winning submission from each University should be entered for the national level of the competition by the tutor. Only one entry from each University can go forward for final judging at a national level. 4.2 National The winning entry from each individual participating university will be judged at national level using the following generic assessment criteria:

- Compliance with the project brief - Safety, function, stability and robustness - Buildability, constructability and maintainability - Speed of construction and cost effectiveness - Appreciation of issues to be addressed in extending the useful life of a structure - Imagination, flair and innovation

The interpretation of the above criteria by the Award judging panel will be final and feedback will not be provided.

5. AWARDS

5.1 University Level The winning entry from each University will receive a prize of £250. The winning entry will go forward to compete at national level. 5.2 National Level The winner(s) of the competition will receive a certificate(s) and a prize of £1,250. Runner(s) up will also receive a certificate(s) and a prize of £750. A Third Prize of £250 may also be awarded, although if any additional awards are deemed necessary by the Judges (e.g. Joint, First, Joint Second or Joint Third Prizes), then the total of the above prize money will be divided up by the Judging Panel at their discretion. A Special Commendation and prize of £250 will also be available for the best Sustainability Plan. The winners’ Universities will also receive certificates.

5.3 Presentation

The prizes will be presented at a combined awards ceremony to be held in July 2010. All entrants will be notified of further details on entry to the national level of the Structural

Concrete Competition. The identity of the winners will remain a secret until the awards ceremony.

5.4 Eligibility

Structural Concrete 2010 is open only to students studying for a degree at a UK University. Entries can be single, joint, or from teams of up to 4 students.

Although the competition is aimed at students in their final years of underegraduate study, entries from any other appropriate undergraduate and/or postgraduate stages will also be considered at the discretion of the academic tutor(s).

6. RULES

I. To enter the competition the University academic tutor(s) should register their intention to participate by emailing The Concrete Centre at Design_Competition@concretecentre.com. Registration will enable The Concrete Centre to provide supplementary information and/or assistance if needed, and to issue an Entry reference number.

II. The completed Entry Form (see Appendix) naming the local winners should reach the competition organiser at the address given below by … June 2010.

III. Design entries must be received by the final deadline of 4pm on … June 2010. The entry reference number should be marked clearly on all items forming the design entry, and on the outside of the package. No other form of identification or distinguishing mark should appear on any part of the submission.

IV. A successful competitor must be able to satisfy the judges that he or she is the bona fide author of the design that he or she has submitted.

V. Competitors should retain the originals of the designs and drawings submitted. The organisers cannot be held responsible for loss or damage to submissions which may occur either in transit or during exhibition, storage or packing.

VI. The award judging panel will meet to review all submissions and agree the winning entries on 6 July 2007.

VII. The winning designs submitted from each of the short listed Universities will be exhibited at the awards ceremony to be held on … July 2010.

VIII. Any entry shall be excluded from the competition if:

- The competitor does not meet the eligibility requirements detailed in Section 5.4 - The entry is received after the competition closing date in rule number III above - The competitor shall in any way disclose his or her identity or that of the

University - The competitor attempts to influence either directly or indirectly the decision of

the award judging panel Only one copy of each competitor(s)’ design is to be sent in a single package to:

Structural Concrete 2010 Education Department, The Concrete Centre Riverside House, 4 Meadows Business Park Station Approach, Blackwater Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB

Back Cover The Concrete Centre Riverside House 4 Meadows Business Park Station Approach, Blackwater Camberley, Surrey GU17 9AB Free National Helpline 0700 4 500 500 www.concretecentre.com C The Concrete Centre