Category Archives: Civil Engineering

Need Help-CEE 213—Deformable Solids


Need Help-CEE 213—Deformable Solids

The Mechanics Project Arizona State University CP 4—Plane Beam 1

Computing Project 4 Plane Beam

The computing project Plane Beam concerns the solution of the problem of a prismatic beam subjected to a variable transverse load. The goal is to write a MATLAB program that will allow the solution for a variety of load distributions and for all possible boundary conditions (i.e., fixed, simple, slide, or free at either end). The theory needed to execute this project is contained in the set of notes (entitled CP 4— Plane Beam) that accompany this problem statement. Those notes provide an introduction to each aspect of the computation required to solve the problem. This project is very similar to CP 1—Axial Bar, and it would be a very good idea to use the code for that project as the starting point for this one. The general steps are as follows: 1. Develop a routine based upon Simpson’s Rule to numerically integrate the applied loading terms that produce the quantities I0, I1, I2, and I3 that are mentioned in the CP4 notes. To get this part working dust off the Simpson code segment from CP1 and add the new pieces (i.e., I2, and I3). Verify the numerical integration by comparing with integrals you can do by hand. 2. Develop a routine to set up and solve the system of equations that allow for the determination of the state variables (w, , M, and V) at both ends of the bar. This step will require some logic to make it work easily for different boundary condition cases (it should cover all of them). Debug your code with a problem that you can solve by hand (e.g., beam fixed at one end with a uniformly distributed load). 3. Develop a routine to integrate the governing equations from the left end to the right end using generalized trapezoidal rule to do the integration numerically. Store the results at each step along the axis and provide a plot of the applied load q, the transverse displacement w, the rotation of the cross section , the bending moment M, and the net shear force V as functions of x. A good way to verify this step is to just plot the functions and verify that they go to the right values at x=L. 4. Generate a library of load forms, including some simple ones (e.g., uniform load) to verify the code. You should be able to use your MATLAB function LoadFunctionCP.m for this task with little or no change. 5. Use the library to explore aspects of the problem. For example: CEE 213—Deformable Solids The Mechanics Project Arizona State University CP 4—Plane Beam 2 a. Explore how the distribution of load affects the displacement, rotation, moment and shear along the length of the beam. b. Investigate a distributed load over a small segment of the bar (with no load over the rest of it) to see how a distributed load in the limit does the same thing as a concentrated load. Make sure to increase the amplitude of the distributed load as you decrease the length of its action so that the total force is equal to a fixed value (i.e., the value of the concentrated force you are comparing it to). What happens to the shear diagram? What does the moment diagram look like? c. Explore how the state variables work to meet the boundary conditions (e.g., the slope of the rotation function should go to zero at a free end). d. Explore any other feature of the problem that you find interesting. Write a report documenting your work and the results (in accord with the specification given in the document Guidelines for Doing Computing Projects). Post it to the Critviz website prior to the deadline. Please consult the document Evaluation of Computing Projects to see how your project will be evaluated to make sure that you can get full marks. Note that there is no peer review process for reports in this course.

Advertisements

SEV210 – Preliminary Tender Document Summative Assessment Task 1


SEV210 – Preliminary Tender Document
Summative Assessment Task 1
High Level Project Cost Estimate
Project:
CONSTRUCTION OF
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING 2
Deakin University – Waurn Ponds Campus
Brief for High-Level Project Cost Estimate
Project: Construction of Carbon Revolution Building 2
DEAKIN UNIVERSTY WAURN PONDS CAMPUS
1. BACKGROUND
Introduction
You are members of the Capital Projects Team of Facility Services Department at Deakin
University who are assigned to undertake work encompassing a high level estimate of
building cost of the Structural Works for the Carbon Revolution Building 2, located in the
Waurn Ponds campus of Deakin University.
2. THE DESIGN BRIEF & SCOPE
The work for this project is to be advertised for tender in the near future. To date, some of the
design drawings have been completed. For this stage, a high level cost estimate is required
for the owner estimate of the cost of the project. The following scope of work has been
assigned for the high level project cost estimate.
– The site location is as indicated (Appendix A)
– The design drawings are provided (Appendix B)
– Additional drawings may be released during the design progress
– The cost estimate is only for foundation and structure of the building
– The Bill of Quantities is to be completed (Appendix C)
– The cost of work is to be estimated based on published construction rates (e.g.
Rawlinsons Construction Handbook, Cordell Building Cost Guide, Aust. Institute of
Quantity Surveyors, etc.)
– Any assumptions, notes or disclaimers regarding your cost estimate should be
documented in your Assessment 1 report submission and in your Journal Diary
You may insert additional rows under ‘D. MISCELLANEOUS’ section for other costs you
can identify from the drawings, as well as providing some brief details on each of these
additional items.
3. CONDUCT OF WORK
The Deakin University rules and regulations apply to this work.
4. SITE INSPECTIONS
At this stage, site inspections are not required. Employees may use satellite image to acquaint
themselves with the site where any work is to be undertaken. Refer to Appendix A.
5. EXTENT OF WORK
A. The overall works to be undertaken includes:
– Undertaking high-level (rough) estimate of works quantity based on provided design
drawings of the project
– Undertaking research on the unit rates (unit price) to conduct construction works for
the project
– Provision of completed Bill of Quantities with prices
– Clearly specifying the source of data and additional information about justification as
required, conditions, inclusions or limitation of the rates
B. This Assessment should be submitted as a group report.
C. A table indicating group members’ contribution to the works should be submitted with
the report.
D. Only 1 report per group is to be submitted via CloudDeakin.
E. Groups will be allocated in Week 1 Seminars or via CloudDeakin for off-campus
students.
6. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Please address each of the following evaluation criteria in your submission.
Evaluation Criteria
Preliminary
Tender
Documents
Your Preliminary Tender Documents shall demonstrate that:
(1) team agreement that states the delegation of tasks among the group,
the due date and the completion date, enable the team to keep each
other accountable (10%)
(2) estimates of work quantities are reasonable and justified by
calculation (40%)
(3) unit rates for construction works are properly selected for each work
item, and are supported by credible references with a provided
justification as required (40%)
(4) conditions/limitations of the high level cost estimate are identified and
stated (10%)
Journal
Diary
All work and communication should be documented in your Journal Diary
7. LODGEMENT DETAILS
Submissions should be electronic and lodged into the SEV210 CloudDeakin assignment
dropbox by 11.00pm AEST, 29th July 2016.
8. NOTIFICATION OF RESULT
After successful completion of High Level Project Cost Estimate, you will be provided with
feedback on the submitted Preliminary Tender Documents.
Appendix A
Project site location:
Proposed Site
Appendix B
Drawings
Project: Construction of Carbon Revolution Building 2
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1/05/2014 10:25:43 AM C:\Users\dcomben\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_dcomben.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S001
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
T. BUTLER*
COVER SHEET & DRAWING INDEX
31-31154
01.05.2014
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL
0
0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.05.14
CONSTRUCTION
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
STRUCTURAL DRAWING LIST
DRG NO.
PROJECT No. SHEET Sheet Name Line 2 DRAWING TITLE
31-31154 S001 STRUCTURAL COVER SHEET & DRAWING INDEX
31-31154 S002 STRUCTURAL GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES 1 OF 3
31-31154 S003 STRUCTURAL GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES 2 OF 3
31-31154 S004 STRUCTURAL GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES 3 OF 3
31-31154 S100 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS SLAB & FOOTING PLAN
31-31154 S101 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK ROOF FRAMING PLANS
31-31154 S200 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS SECTIONS & DETAILS – SHEET 1
31-31154 S201 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS SECTIONS & DETAILS – SHEET 2
31-31154 S300 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FRAMING ELEVATIONS – SHEET 1
31-31154 S301 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FRAMING ELEVATIONS – SHEET 2
31-31154 S310 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FRAMING SECTIONS – SHEET 1
31-31154 S311 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK FRAMING SECTIONS – SHEET 2
31-31154 S320 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK CONNECTION DETAILS – SHEET 1
31-31154 S321 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK CONNECTION DETAILS – SHEET 2
31-31154 S322 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK CONNECTION DETAILS – SHEET 3
31-31154 S324 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK CONNECTION DETAILS – SHEET 4
31-31154 S325 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK TRUSS ELEVATIONS &DETAILS
31-31154 S326 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK BASE PLATE HD BOLTS DETAILS
31-31154 S327 STRUCTURAL STEELWORK CONNECTION DETAIL SHEET
31-31154 S600 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS PRECAST ELEVATIONS
31-31154 S601 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS PRECAST PANEL DETAILS
1 2 3 4 5 6 8
A B C D E
7
G
SB1
SB1
F
PF1
PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1
PF4
PF3
PF3
PF2
PF3
PF3
PF1
PF1 PF1
PF1
PF1 PF1
EB1
EB1
EB1
PF3 SB1
EB1
EB1
EB1
EB1
EB1
PF3
PF3
PF5
PF3
PF4
PF2 PF2
EB1
EB1
EB1
EB1
150
SC SC SC SC SC SC
SC SC SC SC SC SC
CJ
SC SC SC CJ SC SC
SC SC SC SC SC
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
CJ
SC SC SC SC SC SC
SC SC SC SC SC SC
CJ CJ CJ CJ CJ
SC SC SC SC
SC SC SC SC SC SC
125
EB1
125
PROVIDE SLAB SETDOWN
TO WET AREAS. LOCATIONS
AS DETAILED ON
ARCHITECTURAL DWGS.
125 THK SLAB SL92 TOP
1 LAYER OF 0.2mm IMPERVEOUS
MEMBRANE ON 50 SAND BED
125 THK SLAB SL92 TOP.
1 LAYER OF 0.2mm IMPERVEOUS
MEMBRANE ON 50 SAND BED
150 THK SLAB SL92 MESH TOP.
2 LAYERS OF 0.2mm IMPERVEOUS
MEMBRANE ON 175 CLASS 4
CRUSHED ROCK
PROVIDE DANLEY 10mm
DIAMOND DOWELS @
600mm CTS GALVANISED
TO ST1 ON GRID 1
SC
SC
CJ
SC
SC
CJ
SC
SC
SC
SC
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
SC
SC
SC
SC
CJ
CJ
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
CJ
CJ
CJ
ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1
ST1
ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1 ST1
SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1
ST1 SF1
FILL ANY OVER EXCAVATION
BETWEEN EB1 BEAMS AS REQUIRED
SF1
SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1 SF1
ST1
ST1
EB1 EB1 EB1 EB1 SF1
EB1
150 THK SLAB SL92 MESH, TOP.
2 LAYERS OF 0.2mm IMPERVEOUS
MEMBRANE ON 175 CLASS 4
CRUSHED ROCK
ST1
ST1 SF1 ST1 SF1 ST1 SF1 ST1 SF1 ST1 SF1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
PROVIDE R20 x 450 LONG
DOWELS @ 600mm CTS @
DOOR THRESHOLDS.
GREASE ONE END
PROVIDE R20 x 450 LONG
HOP DIP GALVANISED DOWELS @
600mm CTS @ DOOR THRESHOLDS.
GREASE ONE END
.
.
WHERE EB1 SIDE FACE IS EXPOSED,
PROVIDE 5-L12TM TO VERTICAL
EXTERNAL FACE
NOMINAL 150×150 KERB
REFER CIVIL DWGS FOR PROFILE DETAILS.
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
ST1
PROVIDE 2-N12 RENTRANT BARS,
1000 LONG AT SETDOWN
CORNERS, TYPICAL
2-N12 RE-ENTRANT BARS, 1500 LONG
TIED TO UNDERSIDE OF TOP MESH
AT 100 CRS (TYP). BEND BAR AT SLAB
EDGE. REFER 31-31154-S201 FOR
TYPICAL DETAILS
PROVIDE 2-N12 RENTRANT BARS,
1500 LONG TIED TO UNDERSIDE OF
TOP MESH AT 100 CRS, TYPICAL
ST1
PROVIDE SLAB REBATE FOR ENTRY
MAT. LOCATION AS DETAILED ON
ARCHITECTURAL DWGS.
PROVIDE THICKENING OF SLAB AND
FOUNDATION TO SUIT RAKING WALL LINE
PROVIDE THICKENING OF SLAB AND
FOUNDATION TO SUIT RAKING WALL LINE
WHERE EB1 SIDE FACE IS EXPOSED,
PROVIDE 5-L12TM TO VERTICAL
EXTERNAL FACE
A
S201
__________
CJ
250 THK SLAB 2/SL92 MESH TOP.
2 LAYERS OF 0.2mm IMPERVEOUS
MEMBRANE ON 175 CLASS 4
CRUSHED ROCK
SC
250
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 200
4/06/2014 4:58:04 PM C:\Users\jcdejesus\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_jcdejesus.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S100
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
T. BUTLER*
SLAB & FOOTING PLAN
31-31154
01.05.2014
B. PICTON*
JDJ DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS
1
0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.05.14
1 REVISED TO 250mm THICK SLAB SECTION AS CLOUDED 04.06.14
CONSTRUCTION
SCALE 1 : 200
SLAB & FOOTING PLAN 0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000mm
200
PAD FOOTING SCHEDULE
MARK DEPTH LENGTH WIDTH REINFORCEMENT
PF1 600 2800 2800 N20-200 BARS EW T&B. TOP OF FTG 250 BELOW SLAB
PF2 600 3200 3200 N20-200 BARS EW T&B. TOP OF FTG 250 BELOW SLAB
PF3 600 1500 1500 N20-200 BARS EW T&B. TOP OF FTG 250 BELOW SLAB
PF4 600 2900 2900 N20-200 BARS EW T&B. TOP OF FTG 250 BELOW SLAB
PF5 600 2200 2200 N20-200 BARS EW T&B. TOP OF FTG 250 BELOW SLAB
STRIP FOOTING SCHEDULE
MARK WIDTH DEPTH REINFORCEMENT
EB1 350 700 3-L12TM BOTTOM
SB1 350 700 3-L12TM BOTTOM
SF1 350 600 3-N16 T&B WITH R10 LIGS @ 450 CRS
ST1 800 250
NOTES
LEGEND
CJ DENOTES CONSTRUCTION JOINT
SJ DENOTES SAW CUT JOINT
1. REFER TO GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES ON DRAWINGS 31-31154-S002 TO S004
2. CONCRETE STRENTGTH FOR FOOTINGS AND SLABS TO BE = 32 (f’c = 32 MPa)
3. REFER TO TABLE ON DRAWING 31-31154-S003 FOR CONCRETE COVER TO REINFORCEMENT
4. REFER TO CIVIL DWGS FOR CONCRETE PATHS AND FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
5. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS EXTERNAL SLAB LEVEL, GRADES, CONCRETE KERBS AND PITS
1 2 3 4 5 6
A B C D E
7
G
B
S310
__________
C
S310
__________
D
S311
__________
E
S311
__________
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
S1
S1
S1
S1
S2
S2
S2 S2 S2 S2
RB1
RB1
RB1
RB1
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
S1
S1
S1
S1
RB3
C2
(C4)
C2
C2
C2
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
(C4)
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
(C4)
C3
C3
TR1 TR1 TR1
RB3
S4
S4
B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B2
B3 B3 B3 B3 B3 B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
RB3
RB3
RB3
S3
RB2 S3
(BR1)
(BR1)
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
RB3 RB3 RB3 RB3 RB3
(BR1)
RB1 RB1 RB1
RB1 RB1
RB1 RB1
RB1 RB1 RB1
RB1 RB1
RB1 RB1 RB1
RB1
RB1
SP
B2
(BR1) (BR1)
B3
?
F
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
fb fb fb fb fb fb fb
C9
C9
C9
M1
M1
SP SP SP SP SP SP
SP SP SP SP SP SP SP
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
P1
P3
P2 P2 P2 P1
P5
P5
P5
P5
P3
P3
P5
P5
P5
P5
P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
P2
P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3
P3
PROVIDE 50×3 FLAT STRAP TO
TOP OF PURLINS, TYPICAL
TO CANOPIES
5
S327
__________
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2 P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P3
7 8
RB2
BR2
BR2
RB2
RB2
RB2
RB2
RB2
BR2
BR2
S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C6
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
C3
C3
TR2 TR3
TR2 TR3
S3
S2 S2 S2 S2 S2 S2
WH1 WH1
C5
S3
(C5)
WH1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
C5
S3
S2
BR1
S2
BR1
BR1
A
S310
__________
C7 WH1
C7
B2
BR1
B2
7 8
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P2
P1
P1
P1
P1
P3
P1
P3
P2 P3
P2
P2 P3 P1 P3
P3
P2 P2 P2 P1
P2
P2
P2
P2
P3
P2 P3
P1 P2
P1
P1
P1
P1
P3
P1 P3
P1
P4
P4
P3
P3
P3
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
P4
REFER TO NOTE 5
FOR THIS SHEET
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 200
9/04/2014 10:02:09 AM C:\Users\jcdejesus\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_jcdejesus.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S101
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
ROOF FRAMING PLANS
31-31154
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
C
A ISSUED FOR TENDER 01.04.14
B RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER 03.04.14
C RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER, CHANGES CLOUDED 08.04.14
TENDER
SCALE 1 : 200
UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN
SCALE 1 : 200
UPPER ROOF PURLIN PLAN
STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
C1 530UB82 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT
C2 310UB40.4 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT ON GRID 1
C3 250UB25.7
C4 200UC59.5
C5 100×4.0 SHS
C6 89×5.0SHS
C7 89×3.5 SHS
C9 250UB31.4 STUB COLUMN TO TOP OF C4 AT TRUSS
CONNECTION
M1 200 PFC ROLLER DOOR MULLION
M2 200C19 DOOR MULLION
SCALE 1 : 200
LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN
SCALE 1 : 200
LOWER ROOF PURLIN PLAN
STEEL FRAMING SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
B1 200UB22.3
B2 200 PFC
B3 150 PFC
BR1 RB 25 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
BR2 RB 16 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
RB1 530UB82 PROVIDE HAUNCHES AT END & CENTRE AS
DETAILED. PRECAMBER 30mm
RB2 360UB50.7
RB3 250UB25.7
S1 168.3×6.4 CHS
S2 150×5.0 SHS
S3 250 PFC FSBW AT CRANKS AS DETAILED
S4 114.3×4.5 CHS
WH1 150x50x3 RHS
GIRT & PURLIN SCHEDULE
MARK SIZE COMMENTS
G1 200Z19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
G2 200C19
G2 200C19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
P1 200Z24 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P2 200Z19 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P3 200C19
P4 200Z19 @ 300 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING. FUTURE PLANT
PLATFORM SUPPORT.
P5 200Z19 @ 900 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000mm
200
TRUSS SCHEDULE
MARK COMMENTS
TR1 – TR3 REFER DWG 31-31154-S325 FOR ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS
NOTE:
1. (C**) DENOTES COLUMN UNDER.
2. (B**) DENOTES MEMBER UNDER OR BEYOND.
3. REFER TO DRAWING 31-31154-S002 TO 31-31154-S004 FOR GENERAL NOTES
4. PROVIDE ROOF EXPANSION JOINT OVER GRID D. UP-SLOPE PURLINS FROM GRID
D TO BE 15mm HIGHER. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
5. PROVIDE 19mm THICK F11 STRUCTURAL FLY FLOORING OVER P4 PURLINS TO
DESIGNATED PLANT AREA. PROVIDE PROPRIETARY HANDRAIL SYSTEM TO
ENCLOSE PLANT AREA TO AS1657. ACCESS STAIRS COMPLIANT WITH AS1657 TO
BE PROVIDED ON DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT BASIS. FLOOR AREA DESIGN FOR
5.0kPa IMPOSED LOAD AND 4.5kN POINT LOAD.
600
LOCALLY THICKEN SLAB OVER PF1
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER PAD
FOOTING AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 300 MIN.
INTO NATURAL STIFF CLAY (200kPa MIN.
BEARING CAPACITY) OR 1200 MIN. BELOW
FINISHED SURFACE LEVEL (WHICH EVER IS
GREATER)
N20-200 T&B EW
ST1
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN TOP OF
FOOTING AND U/S SLAB, TYPICAL.
PF1
COORDINATE WITH ROOF DRAINAGE
SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR INSTALLATION
OF DOWN PIPE THROUGH PF1’S TO
SOUTHERN SIDE. PLACE DOWNPIPES
CENTRALLY THROUGH FOOTING, WITH
FLEXIBLE CONNECTION BEYOND
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND COLUMNS
STOP REINFORCEMENT 50mm SHORT
(SB1)
600
PF2
LOCALLY THICKEN SLAB OVER TOP OF PF2
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE
UNDER PAD FOOTING AS REQUIRED
TO FOUND 300 MIN. INTO NATURAL
STIFF CLAY (200kPa MIN. BEARING
CAPACITY) OR 1200 MIN. BELOW
FINISHED SURFACE LEVEL (WHICH
EVER IS GREATER)
N20-200 T&B EW
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN TOP OF
FOOTING AND U/S SLAB, TYPICAL.
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND COLUMNS
STOP REINFORCEMENT 50mm SHORT
250
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER
PAD FOOTING AS REQUIRED TO
FOUND 300 MIN. INTO NATURAL STIFF
CLAY (200kPa MIN. BEARING
CAPACITY) OR 1200 MIN. BELOW
FINISHED SURFACE LEVEL (WHICH
EVER IS GREATER)
PF3
LOCALLY THICKEN SLAB
OVER PF3
N20-200 T&B EW
ST1
EXTERNAL INTERNAL
REFER CIVIL DWGS
R20 x 450 LONG HOT DIP
GALVANISED DOWELS BARS @
600 CTRS. GREASE ONE END
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN
TOP OF FOOTING AND U/S SLAB,
TYPICAL.
3mm WIDE x25mm DEEP REBATE SEAL
WITH INDUSTRIAL GRADE
ELASTOMERIC SELANT . PAINT
CONCRETE FACE WITH BITUMEN
PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND
COLUMNS STOP REINFORCEMENT
50mm SHORT
N20-200 T&B EW
600
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER PAD
FOOTING AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 300 MIN.
INTO NATURAL STIFF CLAY (200kPa MIN.
BEARING CAPACITY) OR 1200 MIN. BELOW
FINISHED SURFACE LEVEL (WHICH EVER IS
GREATER)
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN TOP OF
FOOTING AND U/S SLAB, TYPICAL.
ST1
(SF1)
LOCALLY THICKEN SLAB OVER TOP OF PF4
PF4
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND COLUMNS
STOP REINFORCEMENT 50mm SHORT
COORDINATE WITH ROOF DRAINAGE
SUB-CONTRACTOR FOR INSTALLATION
OF DOWN PIPE THROUGH PF4’S TO
SOUTHERN SIDE. PLACE DOWNPIPES
CENTRALLY THROUGH FOOTING, WITH
FLEXIBLE CONNECTION BEYOND
SF1 SF1
ST1
600
EXTEND SF1 REINFORCEMENT
INTO PAD FOOTINGS
PF#
600
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER BEAM
AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 100 MIN. INTO
NATURAL STIFF CLAY (150kPa MIN. BEARING
CAPACITY)
R10-450 LIGS
3-N16-TOP
AND BOTTOM
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN TOP OF
FOOTING AND U/S SLAB, TYPICAL.
SF1
ST1
EXTERNAL INTERNAL
ST1
800
R20 x 450 LONG HOT DIP
GALVANISED DOWELS BARS @
600 CTRS. GREASE ONE END
250
PF5
(EB1)
SB1
PRODUCTION AREA OFFICES
N20-200 T&B EW
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER
PAD FOOTING AS REQUIRED TO FOUND
300 MIN. INTO NATURAL STIFF CLAY
(200kPa MIN. BEARING CAPACITY) OR 1200
MIN. BELOW FINISHED SURFACE LEVEL
(WHICH EVER IS GREATER)
EXTEND MEMBRANE BETWEEN TOP
OF FOOTING AND U/S SLAB, TYPICAL.
LOCALLY THICKEN SLAB OVER TOP OF PF5
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND COLUMNS
STOP REINFORCEMENT 50mm SHORT
PRODUCTION AREA
OFFICES
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER
EDGE BEAM AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 100
MIN. INTO NATURAL STIFF CLAY (150kPa
MIN. BEARING CAPACITY)
EB1
R20 x 450 LONG HOT DIP
GALVANISED DOWELS @ 600
CTRS. GREASE ONE END
700
3-L12TM
N12-1000 ‘Z’ BARS
10mm WIDE x 10mm DEEP REBATE SEAL WITH
INDUSTRIAL GRADE ELASTOMERIC
SEALANT PAINT CONCRETE FACE WITH
BITUMEN PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER
EDGE BEAM AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 100
MIN. INTO NATURAL STIFF CLAY (150kPa
MIN. BEARING CAPACITY)
R20 x 450 LONG HOT
DIP GALVANISED
DOWELS @ 600 CTRS.
GREASE ONE END
N12-1000 ‘Z’ BARS
EB1 EB1
3-L12TM
10mm WIDE x 10mm DEEP REBATE SEAL
WITH INDUSTRIAL GRADE ELASTOMERIC
SEALANT PAINT CONCRETE FACE WITH
BITUMEN PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
EB1 EB1
3-N12 ‘Z’ BARS LAPPED WITH SLAB
MESH & EB1 TRENCH MESH. 300 COGS.
PF#
CUT CROSS BARS TO TRENCH
MESH AND EXTEND 600 MIN INTO
PAD FOOTING
PROVIDE BLINDING CONCRETE UNDER INTERNAL
BEAM AS REQUIRED TO FOUND 100 MIN. INTO
NATURAL STIFF CLAY (150kPa MIN. BEARING
CAPACITY)
3-L12TM
N12-1000 ‘Z’ BARS
ALTERNATE DIRECTION
SB1
ST1
2-N12 LONGITUDINAL BARS
N12-300 TIED TO UNDERSIDE
OF SLAB MESH, LAP 600
REFER TO CIVIL DWGS FOR
KERB TYPE/PROFILE AND
BACK OF KERB DRAINAGE
4
1
CONSTRUCTION JOINT,
ROUGHEN, CLEAN AND WET
JOINT PRIOR TO SUBSEQUENT
POUR
800
ST1
PAD FOOTING
PRECAST PANEL
THERMOMASS WALL
REFER ARCHITECTURAL
DWGS FOR DETAIL
10mm ABELEFLEX. PROVIDE 10 x 10
REBATE FOR SELANT. SEAL WITH
EXTERNAL GRADE ELASTOMERIC SELANT
SF1
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 20
30/04/2014 6:40:08 PM C:\Users\BPicton\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_bpicton.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S200
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
T. BUTLER*
SECTIONS & DETAILS – SHEET 1
31-31154
01.05.2014
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS
0
0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.05.14
CONSTRUCTION
SCALE 1 : 20
PF1 TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 : 20
PF2 TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 : 20
PF3 TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 : 20
PF4 TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL PAD FOOTING / SF1 INTERSECTION DETAIL (ELEVATION)
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL SF1 / ST1 DETAIL BETWEEN PRECAST PANELS
SCALE 1 : 20
PF5 TYPICAL SECTION
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL EB1 / SLAB CONNECTION DETAIL
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL EB1 / EB1 DETAIL
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL PAD FOOTING / EB1 INTERSECTION DETAIL (ELEVATION)
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL SB1 DETAIL
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL EXTERNAL ST1 / KERB DETAIL
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
200 400 600 800 1000mm
20
SCALE 1 : 20
TYPICAL ST1 / SB1 / PAD FOOTING DETAIL @ PRECAST WALL LOCATIONS
REFER TO DRAWING 31-31154-S328 FOR
HOLD DOWN BOLTS 10mm GROUTING
AND BASE PLATE DETAILS
NOTE:
SAWN JOINT 3mm WIDE x 40mm DEEP. CUT
TO BE MADE AS SOON AS SLAB IS
TRAFFICABLE. SEAL WITH INDUSTRIAL
GRADE ELASTOMERIC SEALANT
CUT AND REMOVE FABRIC
75mm EITHER SIDE OF JOINT
R20x450 LONG HOT DIP
GALVANISED BARS AT 600
CTS. LOCATED CENTRAlLY
150
50
FFL
REFER PLAN
300
REFER PLAN
STOP FABRIC 50mm
EACH SIDE OF
JOINT
R20 x 450 LONG DOWEL BARS @
600 CTS. GREASE ONE END
PAINT CONCRETE FACE WITH BITUMEN
PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
N12 TRIMMER BAR
TO PERIMETER 50 x 6 EA HOT DIPPED GALVANISED
CONTINUOUS WITH R10 x 300 LONG TAG
BARS AT 300 CTS
3-N12 ‘L’ BARS (BTM)
LAPPED WITH
LONGITUDINAL WIRES
TRENCH MESH
(BOTTOM)
300 MIN.
PLAN – TEE PLAN – CORNER
2-N12 ‘L’ BARS (BTM)
LAPPED WITH
LONGITUDINAL WIRES
300 MIN.
300 MIN.
300 MIN.
TRENCH MESH
(BOTTOM)
CJ / SC
CONCRETE INFILL
SURROUND TO COLUMN
SLAB EDGE
75 MINIMUM COVER TO STEEL WORKS
STOP MESH 50 SHORT
OF BLOCKOUT
CJ CJ.
CJ CJ
CONCRETE INFILL
SURROUND TO COLUMN
75 MIN COVER TO STEELWORK
STOP MESH 50 SHORT
OF BLOCKOUT
CORNER
CORNER
COVER TO STEELWORK
75 MIIN
STOP MESH 50 SHORT
OF BLOCKOUT
2-N12 RE-ENTRANT
BARS, 1500 LONG TIED
TO UNDERSIDE OF
TOP MESH AT 100
CTS tYP.)
SLAB EDGE
THERMOMASS PANEL
STOP FABRIC 50mm
EACH SIDE OF JOINT
R20 x 450 LONG DOWEL BARS @
600 CTS. GREASE ONE END
PAINT CONCRETE FACE WITH BITUMEN
PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
N12 TRIMMER BAR
TO PERIMETER
3mm WIDE x 25 DEEP REBATE SEAL WITH
INDUSTRIAL GRADE ELASTOMERIC SEALANT
STOP FABRIC 50mm
EACH SIDE OF
JOINT
N12 TRIMMER BAR
TO PERIMETER
R20 x 450 LONG DOWEL BARS @
600 CTS. GREASE ONE END
PAINT CONCRETE FACE WITH BITUMEN
PRIOR TO SECOND POUR
50 x 6 EA HOT DIPPED GALVANISED
CONTINUOUS WITH R10 x 300 LONG TAG
BARS AT 300 CTS
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 10
4/06/2014 4:57:38 PM C:\Users\jcdejesus\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_jcdejesus.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S201
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
T. BUTLER*
SECTIONS & DETAILS – SHEET 2
31-31154
01.05.2014
B. PICTON*
JDJ DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE WORKS
1
0 ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 01.05.14
1 REVISED TO 250mm THICK SLAB SECTION AS CLOUDED 04.06.14
CONSTRUCTION
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL SAWN JOINT DETAIL (SC)
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL SETDOWN DETAIL
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL INTERNAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT (CJ)
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL FOOTING INTERSECTION
SCALE 1 : 10
SLAB BLOCKOUT AROUND PERIMETER COLUMNS
SCALE 1 : 10
SLAB BLOCKOUT AT INTERNAL COLUMNS
SCALE 1 : 10
SLAB BLOCKOUT AT CORNER COLUMNS
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
100 200 300 400 500 mm
10
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL RE-ENTRANT BAR AT THERMOMASS PANEL END
SCALE 1 : 10
TYPICAL EXTERNAL CONSTRUCTION JOINT (CJ)
SCALE
SECTION
1 : 10
S100
A
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C3
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
(S2) (S2) (S2) (S2) (S2) (S2)
PF4 PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1
BR1
BR1
BR1
G1 BR1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1 G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
BR G1
1 B
R1
BR1
BR1
RB3
RB3
S4
S4
S3 S3
S3
S2
M1
M1
G2
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
G1
P3
RB2
S2
S2
G1 G1 G1 G1 G1 G1
B2
S3
PROVIDE STRAMIT 40mm TOP HAT
BATTENS (3 SPAN CONTINUOUS)
TO ALL METAL CLAD WALLS AT
1.5m MAX. CTS
M2
M2
A B C D E G
C1
C2
C2
C4
C2
C2
C1
RB1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2 G1 B3 G2
G1
G1
RB1 RB1 RB1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
P3
F
PF1 PF2 PF1
C9
RB1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C1
C3
RB2
C6
(S2) (S2) (S2) (S2) (S2) (S2)
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G2
G1
G1
G1 G1
G1
G1
G2
G1
G1
G2
G2
G1
G1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
G2 G2 G2 G2
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
WH1 WH1 WH1
M1
M1
C7
C7
S3 S3 S3 S3
S3
B3
S2
B3 B3 B3
S3
B3
BR1
BR1
B3
S3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
B3
S4
S4
S2
G2 G
1 P
1
P1
P1
P1
P1
P3
P3
P1
G1
P1
G1
G1
G1
G1
PROPRIETARY VERTICAL STEEL
STUD FRAMING INFILL DESIGNED
AND CERTIFIED BY SUPPLIER
WH1
PROVIDE STRAMIT 40mm TOP HAT
BATTENS (3 SPAN CONTINUOUS) TO ALL
METAL CLAD WALLS AT 1.5m MAX. CTS
PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1 PF1 PF4
G2
M2
M2
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 100
9/04/2014 9:02:02 AM C:\Users\BPicton\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_bpicton.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S300
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
FRAMING ELEVATIONS – SHEET 1
31-31154
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
C
A ISSUED FOR TENDER 01.04.14
B RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER 03.04.14
C RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER, CHANGES CLOUDED 08.04.14
TENDER
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID A
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID 1
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID G
STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
C1 530UB82 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT
C2 310UB40.4 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT ON GRID 1
C3 250UB25.7
C4 200UC59.5
C5 100×4.0 SHS
C6 89×5.0SHS
C7 89×3.5 SHS
C9 250UB31.4 STUB COLUMN TO TOP OF C4 AT TRUSS
CONNECTION
M1 200 PFC ROLLER DOOR MULLION
M2 200C19 DOOR MULLION
STEEL FRAMING SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
B1 200UB22.3
B2 200 PFC
B3 150 PFC
BR1 RB 25 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
BR2 RB 16 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
RB1 530UB82 PROVIDE HAUNCHES AT END & CENTRE AS
DETAILED. PRECAMBER 30mm
RB2 360UB50.7
RB3 250UB25.7
S1 168.3×6.4 CHS
S2 150×5.0 SHS
S3 250 PFC FSBW AT CRANKS AS DETAILED
S4 114.3×4.5 CHS
WH1 150x50x3 RHS
GIRT & PURLIN SCHEDULE
MARK SIZE COMMENTS
G1 200Z19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
G2 200C19
G2 200C19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
P1 200Z24 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P2 200Z19 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P3 200C19
P4 200Z19 @ 300 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING. FUTURE PLANT
PLATFORM SUPPORT.
P5 200Z19 @ 900 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000mm
100
NOTE:
1. (C**) DENOTES COLUMN UNDER.
2. (B**) DENOTES MEMBER UNDER OR BEYOND.
3. REFER TO DRAWING 31-31154-S002 TO 31-31154-S004 FOR GENERAL NOTES
4. PROVIDE ROOF EXPANSION JOINT OVER GRID D. UP-SLOPE PURLINS FROM GRID
D TO BE 15mm HIGHER. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
(TOP HAT BATTENS DELETED)
G E D C B A
C3
C2
C2
RB2
RB2
C2
C2
RB2
C2 R
B2
C3
RB2
RB2
RB3
2
S321
P3
S3
S2
BR2 S2 S2 S2
RB3 RB3 RB3 RB3
BR1
BR1
RB3
P1
P3
P3
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
B3
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B2
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
BR1
G1
BR2 S2 BR2
P4
BR2
S2
P4 P4 P4 P4
5
S327
F
G E D C B
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(C6)
(S3) (S3) (S3) (S3) (S3)
C5
(BR2) (BR2)
(RB2)
(RB2)
(RB2)
(BR2)
C5
WH1
C5
C5
(WH1)
B2
F
FOR FASCIA TRUSS
DETAILS REFER TO
DRAWINGS 31-31154-S325
(RB2)
(RB2)
(RB2)
(BR2)
G E D C B A
4
S321
3
S321
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1 G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1 G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
S3
S3
C6 C6
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
B1
RB2
RB2
RB2
RB2
RB2
RB2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
BR2 BR2
G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2
S3
G1 G1 G1 G1 G1
G1
B3
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
WH1
P3
RB2 BR2
F
PROVIDE STRAMIT 40mm TOP
HAT BATTENS (3 SPAN
CONTINUOUS) TO ALL METAL
CLAD WALLS AT 1.5m MAX. CTS
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 100
9/04/2014 9:02:03 AM C:\Users\BPicton\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_bpicton.rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S301
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
FRAMING ELEVATIONS – SHEET 2
31-31154
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
C
A ISSUED FOR TENDER 01.04.14
B RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER 03.04.14
C RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER, CHANGES CLOUDED 08.04.14
TENDER
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID 7
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID 8
SCALE 1 : 100
FRAMING ELEVATION – GRID 7 (OFFSET FOR RAKING WALL)
STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
C1 530UB82 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT
C2 310UB40.4 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT ON GRID 1
C3 250UB25.7
C4 200UC59.5
C5 100×4.0 SHS
C6 89×5.0SHS
C7 89×3.5 SHS
C9 250UB31.4 STUB COLUMN TO TOP OF C4 AT TRUSS
CONNECTION
M1 200 PFC ROLLER DOOR MULLION
M2 200C19 DOOR MULLION
STEEL FRAMING SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
B1 200UB22.3
B2 200 PFC
B3 150 PFC
BR1 RB 25 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
BR2 RB 16 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
RB1 530UB82 PROVIDE HAUNCHES AT END & CENTRE AS
DETAILED. PRECAMBER 30mm
RB2 360UB50.7
RB3 250UB25.7
S1 168.3×6.4 CHS
S2 150×5.0 SHS
S3 250 PFC FSBW AT CRANKS AS DETAILED
S4 114.3×4.5 CHS
WH1 150x50x3 RHS
GIRT & PURLIN SCHEDULE
MARK SIZE COMMENTS
G1 200Z19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
G2 200C19
G2 200C19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
P1 200Z24 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P2 200Z19 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P3 200C19
P4 200Z19 @ 300 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING. FUTURE PLANT
PLATFORM SUPPORT.
P5 200Z19 @ 900 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000mm
100
NOTE:
1. (C**) DENOTES COLUMN UNDER.
2. (B**) DENOTES MEMBER UNDER OR BEYOND.
3. REFER TO DRAWING 31-31154-S002 TO 31-31154-S004 FOR GENERAL NOTES
4. PROVIDE ROOF EXPANSION JOINT OVER GRID D. UP-SLOPE PURLINS FROM GRID D
TO BE 15mm HIGHER. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
G E D C B A
G1
G1
G1
P3
S2

P2
P3
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1

BR1 S1BR1 RB1 BR1 BR1 RB1
S1
BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1 BR1
BR1
S3
BR1 BR1 S2 BR1 BR1
RB3
S4
BR1
G1
1
S320
TR1
S1
S1
F
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb fb
G E D C B A
C1
C1
PF1 PF1
RB1 RB1 RB1
P2
P3
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
G1
2S G1
G2
TR1
F
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
fb
No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Job Project Date
Conditions of Use.
This document may only be used by
GHD’s client (and any other person who
GHD has agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it was prepared
and must not be used by any other
person or for any other purpose. Scale
Drawn
Drafting
Approved
Date
Check
Designer
Design
Check
DO NOT SCALE Client
Project
Title
Original Size
A1 Drawing No: Rev:
This Drawing must not be
used for Construction unless
signed as Approved
Plot Date: Cad File No:

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111
E melmail@ghd.com W http://www.ghd.com
Manager Director
(Project Director)
1 : 100
9/04/2014 12:13:56 PM C:\Users\BPicton\Documents\31-31154-Carbon Building_2_bpicton(Recovery).rvt
COCKRAM CONSTRUCTIONS
CARBON REVOLUTION BUILDING
S311
B. SACAYANAN F. PINEDA
D. WEARNE*
FRAMING SECTIONS – SHEET 2
31-31154
B. PICTON*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
BS DW* TB*
STRUCTURAL STEELWORK
C
A ISSUED FOR TENDER 01.04.14
B RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER 03.04.14
C RE-ISSUED FOR TENDER, CHANGES CLOUDED 08.04.14
TENDER
SCALE
SECTION
1 : 100
S101
E
SCALE
SECTION
1 : 100
S101
D
STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
C1 530UB82 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT
C2 310UB40.4 FLYBRACE AT MIDHEIGHT GIRT ON GRID 1
C3 250UB25.7
C4 200UC59.5
C5 100×4.0 SHS
C6 89×5.0SHS
C7 89×3.5 SHS
C9 250UB31.4 STUB COLUMN TO TOP OF C4 AT TRUSS
CONNECTION
M1 200 PFC ROLLER DOOR MULLION
M2 200C19 DOOR MULLION
STEEL FRAMING SCHEDULE
SIZE MARK SIZE COMMENTS
B1 200UB22.3
B2 200 PFC
B3 150 PFC
BR1 RB 25 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
BR2 RB 16 SPEEDIBOLT BRACING. INSTALL TO
MANUFACTURERS DETAILS
RB1 530UB82 PROVIDE HAUNCHES AT END & CENTRE AS
DETAILED. PRECAMBER 30mm
RB2 360UB50.7
RB3 250UB25.7
S1 168.3×6.4 CHS
S2 150×5.0 SHS
S3 250 PFC FSBW AT CRANKS AS DETAILED
S4 114.3×4.5 CHS
WH1 150x50x3 RHS
GIRT & PURLIN SCHEDULE
MARK SIZE COMMENTS
G1 200Z19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
G2 200C19
G2 200C19 LAPPED @ 900 CTS, 1 ROW OF BRIDGING. PROVIDE
ANTI-SAG DEVICES TO LYSAGHT DETAILS
P1 200Z24 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P2 200Z19 1200 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
P3 200C19
P4 200Z19 @ 300 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING. FUTURE PLANT
PLATFORM SUPPORT.
P5 200Z19 @ 900 CTS, 2 ROWS OF BRIDGING
0
SCALE 1: AT ORIGINAL SIZE
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000mm
100
NOTE:
1. (C**) DENOTES COLUMN UNDER.
2. (B**) DENOTES MEMBER UNDER OR BEYOND.
3. REFER TO DRAWING 31-31154-S002 TO 31-31154-S004 FOR GENERAL NOTES
4. PROVIDE ROOF EXPANSION JOINT OVER GRID D. UP-SLOPE PURLINS FROM GRID D
TO BE 15mm HIGHER. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.
Appendix C
Bill of Quantities
Project: Construction of Carbon Revolution Building 2
No. Description Unit Qty Unit Rate Total
A FOUNDATION
A.1 Blinding concrete under pad footings (assumed
H=600 mm)
m3
A.2 Concrete pad footings, with 150kg/m3 steel
bar reinforcement
m3
A.3 Blinding concrete under beams (assumed
H=400 mm)
m3
A.4 Concrete beams, with 100kg/m3 steel bar
reinforcement, and 8m2/m3 formwork
m3
B SLAB
B.1 Compacted crush rock under slabs m3
B.2 Impervious membrane 0.2 mm 2 layer on crush
rock
m2
B.3 Concrete slabs with 100kg/m3 steel bar
reinforcement
m3
B.4 Impervious membrane 0.2 mm 1 layer on sand
bed
m2
B.5 Concrete slabs with 75kg/m3 steel bar
reinforcement
m3
C STEEL STRUCTURE
C.1 Steel columns, with 5% allowance for fitting
and connection
kg
C.2 Concrete infill surround to column, with
8m2/m3 formwork
m3
C.3 Steel framing, with 5% allowance for fitting
and connection
kg
C.4 Steel truss, with 5% allowance for fitting and
connection
kg
C.5 Steel girt, with 5% allowance for fitting and
connection
kg
C.6 Steel purlin, with 5% allowance for fitting and
connection
kg
D MISCELLANEOUS
D.1 Others, allowance 15% of total price Ls 1.00
SUB TOTAL
G.S.T
T O T A L

Roadway Intersection


Roadway Intersection

[The roadway intersection at Birch Avenue and Leroux Street has the same intersection geometry as other nearby intersections in downtown Flagstaff, Arizona. Leroux Street is a two-way road with stop control at the intersection of Birch Avenue. Birch Avenue is an uncontrolled, two-lane one-way road with heavier average daily traffic.] [According to a network screening conducted by the City of Flagstaff, the intersection of Birch Avenue and Leroux Street has an estimated collision rate of 2.1 collisions per every million entering vehicles. This estimated collision rate is greater than the industry standard acceptable collision rate of 1.0 collisions (or less) per million entering vehicles. Due to a collision rate of 2.1, the City of Flagstaff has identified Birch Avenue and Leroux Street as the most dangerous intersection within the network screening study limits.] [If Birch Avenue and Leroux Street do not undergo the redesign process, the intersection will continue experiencing a high collision rate that could potentially cause economic and physical harm to intersection users.] [This preliminary proposal report outlines the strategy that the Traffic Engineering Team, or Team, will use to redesign the intersection to improve its overall safety. Within acceptable safety limits, the Team will also optimize traffic efficiency. The Team will make a primary and secondary redesign recommendation in a final report.] To choose appropriate design recommendations, the Team reviewed the guidelines of the traffic engineering industry and the City of Flagstaff’s standards and policies. The Team will collect data on the current state of the intersection of Birch Avenue and Leroux Street and will analyze the data to assess the intersection’s current conditions. The Traffic Engineering Team will conduct a warrant analysis to mitigate the City of Flagstaff’s legal liability and will conduct a cost analysis to meet the City’s budgetary needs. Finally, the Team will choose appropriate primary and secondary redesign recommendations to submit to the City of Flagstaff. Some early design concepts for the intersection’s traffic control device are an all-way stop, a roundabout, or a traffic signal.

 

 

 

Common Ground | Destabilizing Condition | Costs & Benefits | Main Purpose

 

Peer Critique – Final Report Draft: Proposal Peer review


Proposal Peer review

Peer Critique – Final Report Draft

Read each review question before beginning your critique.  After completing the critique, assign points for each category in the table provided.

Reviewer’s Name: _________________________________________

Title of Reviewed Proposal: __________________________________

  1. Briefly, summarize the main points of the design proposal (in your own words).
  1. Does the overall document demonstrate proper coherency/flow? Is the information easy to follow/understand? Mention specific document sections where coherency/flow is lacking.
  1. Look at the entire paper for organizational headings and evaluate the figures and tables.
    1. Do headings provide details about each section? Explain.
  1. Are the figures and tables easy to understand? Explain.
  1. Do the figures and tables help clarify and make the paper more concise? Explain.
  1. Reread the entire paper. Focus on the details, such as grammar, spelling, active verbs, sentence structure, vague words (or phrases), consistency, clarity, citations (in-text with footnotes or reference list), etc.
  2. Mark the actual paper.
  3. Make constructive suggestions for ways to improve the paper.
  4. Provide any additional concerns here:
  1. What are the most notable strengths of this document? What did the authors do well?
  1. List the two most important things the authors should do to improve this paper during revision. Be specific.

 

Design of high Durability Concrete


Design of high Durability Concrete

Write about the concrete durability in general. Search for the materials that affect on the concrete durability and how can we increase the concrete durability etc, and then choose one case and write about it

Paper Structure

Introduction
Literature Review
Case Studies
Conclusion
Reference/Bibliography
Appendices

GEN 200 Engineering Economy


GEN 200  Engineering Economy

PROJECT Instructions

  1. Please select one of the case studies given below.
  2. You can use spreadsheet solutions IF required or you are free to choose hand method instead of spreadsheet, if both solutions are possible.
  3. Prepare a 15-minutes PowerPoint presentation

Case  One

THE CHANGING SCENE OF AN ANNUAL WORTH ANALYSIS

Background and Information

Harry, owner of an automobile battery distributorship in

Atlanta, Georgia, performed an economic analysis 3 years ago when he decided to place surge protectors in-line for all his major pieces of testing equipment. The estimates used and the annual worth analysis at MARR = 15% are summarized below. Two different manufacturers’ protectors were compared.

The spreadsheet in Figure 6–9 is the one Harry used to make the decision. Lloyd’s was the clear choice due to its substantially larger AW value. The Lloyd’s protectors were installed.

During a quick review this last year (year 3 of operation), it was obvious that the maintenance costs and repair savings have not followed (and will not follow) the estimates made 3 years ago. In fact, the maintenance contract cost (which includes quarterly inspection) is going from $300 to $1200 per year next year and will then increase 10% per year for the next 10 years. Also, the repair savings for the last 3 years were $35,000, $32,000, and $28,000, as best as Harry can determine. He believes savings will decrease by $2000 per year hereafter. Finally, these 3-year-old protectors are worth nothing on the market now, so the salvage in 7 years is zero, not $3000.

Case Study Exercises

  1. Plot a graph of the newly estimated maintenance costs and repair savings projections, assuming the protectors last for 7 more years.
  2. With these new estimates, what is the recalculated AW for the Lloyd’s protectors? Use the old first cost and maintenance cost estimates for the first 3 years. If these estimates had been made 3 years ago, would Lloyd’s still have been the economic choice?
  3. How has the capital recovery amount changed for the Lloyd’s protectors with these new estimates?

Case Study two

ROR ANALYSIS WITH ESTIMATED LIVES THAT VARY

 Background

Make-to-Specs is a software system under development by ABC Corporation. It will be able to translate digital versions of three-dimensional computer models, containing a wide variety of part shapes with machined and highly finished (ultra smooth) surfaces. The product of the system is the numerically controlled (NC) machine code for the part’s manufacturing.

Additionally, Make-to-Specs will build the code for superfine finishing of surfaces with continuous control of the finishing machines.

 Information

There are two alternative computers that can provide the server function for the software interfaces and shared database updates on the manufacturing floor while Make-to- Specs is operating in parallel mode. The server first cost and estimated contribution to annual net cash flow are summarized below.

 

  Server 1 Server 2
First cost, $ 100,000 200,000
Net cash flow, $/year 35,000 50,000 year 1, plus 5000 per years 2, 3, and 4 (gradient)

70,000 maximum for years 5 on, even if the server is replaced

Life, years 3 or 4 5 or 8

The life estimates were developed by two different individuals: a design engineer and a manufacturing manager. They have asked that, at this stage of the project, all analyses be performed using both life estimates for each system.

Case Study Exercises

Use spreadsheet analysis to determine the following:

  • If the MARR = 12%, which server should be selected? Use the PW or AW method to make the selection.
  • Use incremental ROR analysis to decide between the servers at MARR = 12%.
  • Use any method of economic analysis to display on the spreadsheet the value of the incremental ROR between server 2 with a life estimate of 5 years and a life estimate of 8 years.

Case Study 3

COMPARING B/C ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REDUCTION

 

Background

This case study compares benefit/cost analysis and cost effectiveness analysis on the same information about highway lighting and its role in accident reduction. Poor highway lighting may be one reason that proportionately more traffic accidents occur at night. Traffic accidents are categorized into six types by severity and value. For example, an accident with a fatality is valued at approximately $4 million, while an accident in which there is property damage (to the car and contents) is valued at $6000. One method by which the impact of lighting is measured compares day and night accident rates for lighted and unlighted highway sections with similar characteristics. Observed reductions in accidents seemingly caused by too low lighting can be translated into either monetary estimates of the benefits B of lighting or used as the effectiveness measure E of lighting.

 Information

Freeway accident data were collected in a 5-year study. The property damage category is commonly the largest based on the accident rate. The number of accidents recorded on a section of highway is presented here.

 

  Number of Accidents Recorded
  Unlighted Lighted
Accident Type Day Night Day Night
Property damage 379 199 2069 839

 

The ratios of night to day accidents involving property damage for the unlighted and lighted freeway sections are 199/379 = 0.525 and 839/2069 = 0.406, respectively.  These results indicate that the lighting was beneficial. To quantify the benefit, the accident rate ratio from the unlighted section will be applied to the lighted section. This will yield the number of accidents that were prevented.  Thus, there would have been  accidents instead of 839 if there had not been lights on the freeway. This is a difference of 247 accidents.

At a cost of $6000 per accident, this results in a net annual benefit of

For an effectiveness measure of number of accidents prevented, this results in E = 247.

To determine the cost of the lighting, it will be assumed that the light poles are center poles 67 meters apart with 2 bulbs each. The bulb size is 400 watts, and the installation cost is $3500 per pole. Since these data were collected over 87.8 kilometers of lighted freeway, the installed cost of the lighting is (with number of poles rounded off):

Installation cost = $3500 (87.8/ 0.067)

=3500(1310)

= $4,585,000

 

There are a total of 87.8/0.067=1310 poles, and electricity costs $0.10 per kWh.

Therefore, the annual power cost is:

Annual power cost

The data were collected over a 5-year period. Therefore, the annualized cost C at i = 6% per year is

Total annual cost =$4,585,000 (A/P, 6%, 5)

+459,024

= $1,547,503

If a benefit/cost analysis is the basis for a decision on additional lighting, the B/C ratio is

Since B/C< 1.0, the lighting is not justified. Consideration of other categories of accidents is necessary to obtain a better basis for decisions. If a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is applied, due to a judgment that the monetary estimates for lighting’s benefit is not accurate, the C/E ratio is

This can serve as a base ratio for comparison when an incremental CEA is performed for additional accident reduction proposals.

These preliminary B/C and C/E analyses prompted the development of four lighting options:

  1. W) Implement the plan as detailed above; light poles every 67 meters at a cost of $3500 per pole.
  2. X) Install poles at twice the distance apart (134 meters). This is estimated to cause the accident prevention benefit to decrease by 40%.
  3. Y) Install cheaper poles and surrounding safety guards, plus slightly lowered lumen bulbs (350 watts) at a cost of $2500 per pole; place the poles 67 meters apart. This is estimated to reduce the benefit by 25%.
  4. Z) Install cheaper equipment for $2500 per pole with 350-watt light bulbs and place them 134 meters apart.

This plan is estimated to reduce the accident prevention measure by 50% from 247 to 124.

Case Study Exercises

Determine if a definitive decision on lighting can be determined by doing the following:

  1. Use a benefit/cost analysis to compare the four alternatives to determine if any are economically justified.
  2. Use a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the four alternatives.

From an understanding viewpoint, consider the following:

  1. How many property-damage accidents could be prevented on the unlighted portion if it were lighted?
  2. What would the lighted, night-to-day accident ratio have to be to make alternative Z economically justified by the B/C ratio?
  3. Discuss the analysis approaches of B/C and C/E. Does one seem more appropriate in this type of situation than the other? Why? Can you think of other bases that might be better for decisions for public projects such as this one?

Case Study four

DEVELOPING AND SELLING AN INNOVATIVE IDEA

 Background

Three engineers who worked for Mitchell Engineering, a company specializing in public housing development, went to lunch together several times a week. Over time they decided to work on solar energy production ideas. After a lot of weekend time over several years, they had designed and developed a prototype of a low-cost, scalable solar energy plant for use in multifamily dwellings on the low end and medium sized manufacturing facilities on the upper end. For residential applications, the collector could be mounted alongside a TV dish and be programmed to track the sun. The generator and additional equipment are installed in a closet-sized area in an apartment or on a floor for multiple-apartment supply. The system serves as a supplement to the electricity provided by the local power company. After some 6 months of testing, it was agreed that the system was ready to market and reliably state that an electricity bill in high-rises could be reduced by approximately 40% per month. This was great news for low income dwellers on government subsidy that are required to pay their own utility bills.

 Information

With a hefty bank loan and $200,000 of their own capital, they were able to install demonstration sites in three cities in the sunbelt. Net cash flow after all expenses, loan repayment, and taxes for the first 4 years was acceptable; $55,000 at the end of the first year, increasing by 5% each year thereafter. A business acquaintance introduced them to a potential buyer of the patent rights and current subscriber base with estimated $500,000 net cash out after only these 4 years of ownership. However, after serious discussion replaced the initial excitement of the sales offer, the trio decided to not sell at this time. They wanted to stay in the business for a while longer to develop some enhancement ideas and to see how much revenue may increase over the next few years.

During the next year, the fifth year of the partnership, the engineer who had received the patents upon which the collector and generator designs were based became very displeased with the partnering arrangements and left the trio to go into partnership with an international firm in the energy business. With new research and development funds and the patent rights, a competing design was soon on the market and took much of the business away from the original two developers. Net cash flow dropped to $40,000 in year 5 and continued to decrease by $5000 per year. Another offer to sell in year 8 was presented, but it was only for $100,000 net cash. This was considered too much of a loss, so the two owners did not accept. Instead, they decided to put $200,000 more of their own savings into the company to develop additional applications in the housing market.

It is now 12 years since the system was publicly launched. With increased advertising and development, net cash flow has been positive the last 4 years, starting at $5000 in year 9 and increasing by $5000 each year until now.

 Case Study Exercises

It is now 12 years after the products were developed, and the engineers invested most of their savings in an innovative idea. However, the question of “When do we sell?” is always present in these situations. To help with the analysis, determine the following:

  1. The rate of return at the end of year 4 for two situations: (a) The business is sold for the net cash amount of $500,000 and (b) No sale.
  2. The rate of return at the end of year 8 for two situations: (a) The business is sold for the net cash amount of$100,000 and (b) No sale.
  3. The rate of return now at the end of year 12.
  4. Consider the cash flow series over the 12 years. Is there any indication that multiple rates of return may be present?

If so, use the spreadsheet already developed to search for ROR values in the range _100% other than the one determined in exercise 3 above.

  1. Assume you are an investor with a large amount of ready cash, looking for an innovative solar energy product.

What amount would you be willing to offer for the business at this point (end of year 12) if you require a 12% per year return on all your investments and, if purchased, you plan to own the business for 12 additional years? To help make the decision, assume the current NCF series continues increasing at $5000 per year for the years you would own it. Explain your logic for offering this amount.

Lab Experiment 4: Torsion


Lab Experiment 4: Torsion

Due to prior to the start of lab

Objectives:

The objective of this lab is to study the torque-twist relationship of various materials, and to compare experimental and theoretical torques that will cause shear yielding of a prismatic bar subjected to torsion.

 

Procedure:

Three different torsion members will be tested to failure.  The three different members are made of A36 Steel, Gray 20 Cast Iron, and 6061-T6 Aluminum.  Each torsion member will be placed in the Tinius-Olsen torsion testing machine (TOTTM) and a torque will be applied to the member.  The twist of the member will be recorded in two different ways:

  1. Using the scale on the TOTTM, and
  2. Using lasers attached to each end of the member.

In both cases, students will record by hand the torque and the data required to determine the relative twist angle between the member ends.  Testing and data collection will continue until yielding and failure of each torsion member.

 

Analysis:

  1. Plot the experimental torque-twist relationship along with (i.e. on the same plot) the theoretical torque-twist relationship for each member. Create two plots: one for steel and one for cast iron.  For steel, you should also print out a zoomed-in version of your figure, focusing on the elastic region.
  2. How does changing the material alter the torsion response of member? Which material could hold the largest torque?  Which had the largest yield torque?  Which could twist the most?
  3. Compare the results from the TOTTM and from the lasers. Comment on the method you think is more accurate for small twist angles.
  4. Identify the experimental torque that will cause the section to yield in shear on your experimental torque-twist plot.
  5. Calculate the theoretical yield torque that will cause shear yielding of the extreme fibers. Assume shear yielding will occur at 60% of the tensile yield stress (i.e. use 60% of the yield stress obtained in Lab #2 or from a source of your choice.  Be sure to clearly state your source).  Comment on any differences between the theoretical and experimental values.
  6. Comment on possible sources of error/inaccuracies in this experiment. Comment on anything that looks strange or unexpected.

 

Note:  See the table on the inside back cover of the textbook for tabulated values of the shear modulus (G) for each material.

Format:

  • This lab assignment will be a formal laboratory report, following the format and rubric distributed in lab and posted on Blackboard.
  • You may work alone or in groups of 2-3 students; however, your group should consist of different students than those you have previously worked with on prior labs this semester.
  • Because the write-ups for this lab report will be more substantial than prior labs, your grade for this lab assignment will count 5 times more than an ordinary lab assignment, i.e. your grade will be out of 15 possible points instead of 10 possible points.

 

Developing a Green Design Guide; Civil Engineering


Subject or discipline: Civil Engineering
Title: Writer’s choice
Number of sources: 0
Provide digital sources used: No
Paper format: MLA
# of pages: 7
Spacing: Double spaced
# of words: 1925
Your assignment is to take one of the sample plans for a house provided (or make your own design) and develop a Green Design Guide. This will be an instruction manual on how to build this house to LEED for Homes standards. The guide/report will show how each credit category will/can be achieved. You will also select materials and equipment recommendations as necessary. This guide should be easy to follow and graphically and visually appealing so it is easy to understand. Make changes and corrections on the plans as needed. I would recommend using Microsoft Publisher. The guide should be in 8.5×11 landscape and 11×17 sheets can be inserted as needed.

(Note: Interior Design students or anyone else, can use the ReGreen standards for remodeling if desired, see me for more info)

Your report should include the following at a minimum and will be graded not only on the completeness of the writing but on the graphic/visual presentation and the organization.
1.Ttile Page (your name, class name, etc.)
2.Building info (name, location, size)
3.Building Drawings
4.Introduction to project (why green homes are important and what they can contribute.)
5.LEED rating goal of Silver or Better
6.LEED credit areas (brief description of how the building will achieve points in each of the LEED H credit areas)
7.LEED Homes scoresheet
8.Include photos/graphics etc. to better explain each of the credit areas.
9.Summary/Conclusion

Report can be stapled on the short end or bound.

You will also upload a PDF version of your report to Canvas.

Come to my office for advice and to see past examples.

Sample Plans

CE 3361 ANNUALWORTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON THE IMPREGILLO OPTION


CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                              DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

DUE: 19 APRIL 2016

 

GROUP B: IMPREGILLO COMPANY

 

IN ORDER TO COMPARE THE BIDS BY CATERPILLER AND IMPREGILLO, KIEWIT HAS ASKED ITS STAFF TO CARRYOUT AN ECONOMIC STUDY BASED IN PRESENT WORTH, ANNUAL WORTH AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES.  IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ONLY ON YOUR ASSIGNED ALTERNATIVE: IN THIS CASE IMPREGILLO.  USE THE TABLES PROVIDED IN THIS ASSIGNMENT. NO OTHER SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED.  THE FOLLOWING COST/REVENUE SCHEDULE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE IMPREGILLO OPTION BY OUR ACCOUNTANT:

 

IMPERGILLO

 

INITIAL                                                   $600,000

COST

 

DELIVERY                                                 $15,000

COST

 

OPERATION/                                          $3000/YR

MAINTANENCE

 

UPGRADE/                                              $1000 EVERY 2TH

PARTS                                                        YEAR

 

INSURANCE                                                 $600/YR

 

FIRST YEAR INCOME                          $120000/YR

INCOME INCREASE                            $20,000/YR

 

SALVAGE                                                  $120000

 

LIFE                                                              4 YR

 

INTEREST

 

COST                                      2%/QUARTER CP MONTHLY

REVENUE                                                3%/YR

-2-

CE 3361                                                                   NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                           DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

  1. PERFORM A PRESENT WORTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON IMPREGILLO OPTION: FILL IN TABLES NEATLY

 

IMPREGILLO OPTION

 

PRESENT WORTH: PW                                                                  i  =  8.300%/YR

COST                                                                                                n = 0 TO 12 YEARS

 

 ELEMENT TIME            P/F            P/A AMOUNT     SOURCE
   -$600,000      1.0000  -$600.000        Eq.
   -$  15,000    0
   -$600,000
   -$ 15,000      0.72692  -$  10,904        Eq.
   -$600,000
   -$ 15,000
   -$   1,000
   -$   1,000              – -$      727
   -$   1,000   6
   -$   1,000      0.52841
   -$   1,000
   -$   1,000             –
   -$   3,000           –
   -$      600  12           –
      TOTAL

 

 

    TIME    (1 + i)n   1/(1 + i)n (1 + i)n – 1   i  ∙   (1 + i)n       P/F     P/A
        2
        4
        6
        8
       10
       12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-3-

 

CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                              DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

IMPREGILLO OPTION

 

PRESENT WORTH: PW                                                                i  =  3%/YR

n = 4 TO 12 YEARS

REVENUE

 

  ELEMENT TIME       P/A       P/G      P/F    AMOUNT   SOURCE
   $120,000    12         – $1,194,480   TABLE 8
   $  20,000   51.2482
   $120,000            –   0.8885
   $120,000      8
   $120,000
  TOTAL

 

 

 

DETERMINE NET PRESENT WORTH:

 

REVENUE:______________

COST:      _______________

NET PW:_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-4-

CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                              DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

  1. PERFORM AN ANNUALWORTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON THE IMPREGILLO OPTION: FILL IN TABLES NEATLY

 

IMPREGILLO OPTION

 

ANNUAL WORTH: AW                                                                  i  =  8.300%/YR

COST                                                                                                n =  12 YEARS

 

 ELEMENT     N         PW           A/P  AMOUNT     SOURCE
   -$600,000   12    -$600,000   -$80,854        Eq.
   -$  15,000
   -$600,000      0.134764
   -$ 15,000   12   -$   10,904        Eq.
   -$600,000
   -$ 15,000
   -$   1,000
   -$   1,000 -$        98
   -$   1,000     0.134764
   -$   1,000
   -$   1,000
   -$   1,000
   -$   3,000 -$     3000
   -$      600  12
      TOTAL

 

 

 

    TIME    (1 + i)n (1 + i)n – 1   i  ∙   (1 + i)n     A/P
       12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-5-

 

CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                              DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

IMPREGILLO OPTION

 

ANNUAL WORTH: AW                                                                i  =  3%/YR

n = 12 YEARS

REVENUE

 

  ELEMENT     n       PW      A/P    AMOUNT   SOURCE
   $120,000    12   $120,000
   $  20,000   TABLE 8
   $120,000   0.10046
   $120,000    12
   $120,000
  TOTAL

 

 

 

DETERMINE NET ANNUAL WORTH:

 

REVENUE:___________

COST:_______________

NET:_________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-6-

CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III                                                              DATE:_____________________

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

  1. GIVEN THE FOLLOWING ANNUAL WORTH FOR ONE LIFE CYCLE. DETERMINE THE PAYBACK PERIOD OF THE IMPREGILLO OPTION FOR A 0% RATE OF RETURN:

 

IMPREGILLO OPTION

 

 

ANNUAL WORTH: AW                                                                  i  =  8.300%/YR

COST                                                                                                n =  4 YEARS

 

 ELEMENT    n AMOUNT     SOURCE
   -$600,000    4   -$182,364        Eq.
   -$  15,000    4   -$   4,559        Eq.
   -$   1,000    4   -$     259        Eq.
   -$   1,000    4   -$     221        Eq.
   -$   3,000    4   -$   3,000        Eq.
   -$      600    4   -$     600        Eq.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                              

REVENUE                                                                                      i =  3%/YR

n =   4 YEARS

 

 

 

 

  ELEMENT     n    AMOUNT     SOURCE
   $120,000     4     $120,000    TABLE 8
   $  20,000     4     $  29,261    TABLE 8
   $120,000     4     $  28,684    TABLE 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-7-

CE 3361                                                                      NAME:____________________

PROJECT III

SHOW ALL WORK AND CALCULATIONS

 

 

PAYBACK PERIOD CALCULATION: nP

SHOW CALCULATIONS

 

COST                                                                     REVENUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AW NCF

AWREVENUE                = ___________

AWCOST                        = ___________

AW NET CASH FLOW = ___________

 

 

 

nP = ________________

 

 

DOES THE IMPREGILLO OPTION PAYBACK PERIOD EXCEED WITHIN

THE USEFUL LIFE OF DRILL: CHOOSE ALL CORRECT ANSWERS

 

 

YES                                                      NO

 

 

ONLY AFTER                                     NOT IMPORTANT

SALVAGE

 

 

NAME _____________________________________

 

 

SIGNATURE:_______________________________

 

 

BY SIGNING THIS PAGE, I CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NOT GIVEN

OR RECEIVED HELP FROM ANY OTHER STUDENT

 

CENE 333L – LAB #8 Stormwater


CENE 333L – LAB #8 Stormwater
All new development causes changes to the stormwater characteristics including; increased
surface runoff flow, locations of concentrated flow, volume of runoff, stretching or narrowing
the hydrograph, changing the timing of the peak flow, erosion problems, and pollution runoff. As
such the design for and control of these stormwater changes has become a significant part of civil
and environmental engineering (CENE) projects that change the conditions of site. For this lab
we will be verifying and designing infrastructure to handle flows generated for parking lots P62,
P62A, and P62B.
For this lab you will be designing a system to handle the stormwater generated on site as well as
offsite stormwater that needs to be routed around your project area.
RESOURCES:
 Coconino County Engineering Design and Construction Manual and Drainage Design
Manual; http://www.coconino.az.gov/index.aspx?NID=838
 City of Flagstaff Low Impact Development (LID) Requirements
http://www.flagstaffstormwater.com/index.aspx?nid=86
 Maricopa Association of Governments Uniform Standard Details found here
http://www.azmag.gov/communications/specs_and_details/
OBJECTIVES:
1. Utilize existing design standards for analysis
2. Explain what the rational method and its parameters are
3. Understand what LID is and why it is used
4. Understand the criteria needed for a storm water pipe design
LAB:
Part 1: Stormwater Runoff Analysis
Using the data provided in the “Sub-Basin Information” spreadsheet you will determine the
runoff from each sub-basin for the 5, 10, 50 and 100-yr storms. To determine these flows you
will use a modified rational equation found in the Coconino County Drainage Design Manual
which is already setup in the “Sub-Basin Information” excel file. To complete the analysis you
will need to determine the area of each sub-basin using the AutoCAD drawing, the rainfall
intensity using the NOAA 14 data for 10-minute duration (based on minimum time of
concentration), and curve number values as determined from the Coconino standards.
You report must address the process used to determine runoff, why a weighted curve number
was generated, what the weighted curves numbers were, limitations of rational equation, how
and why the rational equation we used was modified, what NOAA 14 is and why we used it,
what the time of concentration is and why we used 10-minutes, and the total flow for each storm
generated for the entire watershed.
Part 2: Onsite Low Impact Development
LID is a fairly new stormwater design requirement for CENE projects. LID is necessary to help
reduce two things; changes to the hydrograph, and capturing the first flush to reduce pollutants
that enter streams. Since LID is a new item it is not yet required by all municipalities but it is
quickly becoming required by the majority of municipalities and is also required for any LEED
certified projects. Typically LID is applied as a retention design to capture a specified rainfall
depth of the first part of a storm falling on any increased impervious area. For Flagstaff we need
to design for the first 1” of rainfall falling on all new impervious surface. For the sake of this lab
we will use the impervious surface identified in the “Sub-Basin Information” spreadsheet and
determine the volume of runoff generated by the first 1” of rainfall on 10% of this area.
Impervious surfaces are surfaces that prohibit the majority of the rainfall from penetrating into
the surface, instead it runs off into storm water management infrastructure, examples are metal,
asphalt, concrete, plastic, clays, masonry, etc.
The runoff volume is technically going to be detained but shall be detained in such a way that the
flow increase from the impervious area will not enter local stream ways until the peak flow of
the hydrograph has passed. It is typically accepted that if water is detained for 12 hours then the
increase in flow will not enter streams until after the peak flow therefore the flow will not
contribute to potential flooding peaks.
For the design of your LID system you will need to design three (3) identical basins to hold
100% of the volume, with 1 foot of free-board. You will need to calculate your volumes by hand.
The basin needs to utilize an underdrain system with a perforated pipe that will drain the entire
volume of water in the basin in 12-hours. To determine this you need to use your volume of
water in the basin, 12-hour requirement and convert those to a cfs flow. The pipe design can be
done by hand or in the software of your choice. The basins shall be trapezoidal in shape, have a
minimum bottom width of 4 ft, banks sloped at 4:1, and cannot have a ponding depth greater
than 18”. Final design must also comply with the City of Flagstaff LID standards.
You report must address your final design volume, provide the final design volume calculations
showing volume required and verifying design meets those requirements, the overall depth,
ponding depth, length, ponding volume, total basin volume and plan view area. You also need to
discuss the City of Flagstaff LID requirements and how your design meets them.
DELIVERABLES:
Prepare a lab report individually following the provided guidelines. Lab report is due by
the start of class on 05/04/2016 by 5 pm to your instructor’s office for both sections

%d bloggers like this: