School of Civil & Mechanical Engineering Assessment and Feedback Specification
Unit: Structural Design 3
Title: Report
For a detailed Assessment description and specification of work to be done refer to Instructions provided below here and on BlackBoard.
Assessment criteria and marking distribution and Engineers Australia competencies addressed Value of the assessment based on the rubric provided below.
The total assessment mark awarded is made up of the marks awarded to each element assessed. Each item of the assessment in the rubric shows the EA competencies (ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA Stage 1 competencies) to be demonstrated. ‘Level of learning’ (Levels of learning) is specified for those elements of the assignment when it is appropriate. Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs) are also numbered in the Rubric.
Detailed guidelines and feedback
This detailed assessment rubric sets out assessment expectations so that you will be aware of the competencies to be developed and the expected standards. This table will also be used for assessing your work to provide sufficient feedback on how you performed against these standards. This sheet is NOT the assignment cover sheet.
The Rubric is developed from internationally benchmarked rubrics developed by D Butorac for level C2 – third year and above.
Formative feedback and clarification of scope or interpretation of plans is provided via the online Discussion Board only
Expected time required after completion of all necessary preparation to complete this assessment 12 hours of focused work per team member.
Rubric Summary:
Item
Engineers Australia competencies
Level of Learning
ULOs
Excellent standard
Moderate Standard
Below standard
DRAWINGS
1.3. Specialist knowledge
1.5. Context
1.6. Engineering. Practice
2.3. Systematic use
ULO 1, 2
3.2. Communication
3.3. Creativity
3.6. Team work
ULO 3 Drawings are clear, extended representation of design case study outcomes and are consistent with the Reported outcomes and Calculations. Drawings are fully compliant with standard detailing practice and code requirements. Drawings represent a design that is constructible, practical and had extensive consideration of detailing requirements including bar lengths, splice lengths, ease of placement, edge/corner details. Plans and sections are consistent, correct and clear. Drawings are clear representation of design case study outcomes and are consistent with the Reported outcomes and Calculations. Drawings are generally compliant with standard detailing practice and code requirements with only minor errors or omissions. Drawings represent a design that is constructible, and had consideration of detailing requirements including bar lengths, splice lengths, ease of placement, edge/corner details. Plans and sections are correct and clear but may be deficient in quantity to express design intent. Drawings are unclear, incomplete and may be inconsistent with the Reported outcomes and Calculations. Drawings are not compliant with standard detailing practice and code requirements. Drawings represent a design that may be un-constructible, unsafe or little consideration of detailing requirements including bar lengths, splice lengths, ease of placement, edge/corner details. Plans and sections are inconsistent, incorrect and/or missing and unclear.
30
CALCULATIONS
Technical
Content
1.3. Specialist knowledge
1.5. Context
1.6. Engineering. Practice
2.3. Systematic use
ULO 1, 2 All applicable load cases and analysis correctly determined in accordance with codes. Structural systems adequately address all design criteria and are correctly analysed. All design assumptions made are reasonable with sound justification. Design process followed is correct, thorough and complete. Applicable load cases and analysis determined in accordance with the codes, but with some minor errors in calculations. Structural systems address design criteria but with minor errors or with some minor misunderstanding of how the system should work. Not all design assumptions clearly communicated or justified. Design process is largely correct, with minor areas missing or incorrectly applied. Determination of actions on the structure is incomplete or with significant errors in application. The structural systems do not adequately address all of the design criteria, and are not able to adequately support the design actions. Some design assumptions are incorrect or without any justification. Design process followed is flawed, with errors in application of the code or accepted analysis techniques. Significant areas where design is inadequate, incomplete or not apparent.
20
CALCULATIONS
Communication
3.2. Communication
3.3. Creativity
3.6. Team work
ULO 3 Calculations presented neatly on calculation paper. All pages include title, page numbers, and appropriate margins. Calculations set out with a clear logical format. Calculations annotated with comments, identifying marks, code references and sketches to explain design process. Assumptions are justified and confirmed. Final design of structure and details clearly communicated. Calculations are presented neatly, but the layout and format is not consistent. Some comments/code
references/sketches not clearly shown or missing, so that following the design process requires some effort. Assumptions stated but not verified. Some ambiguity in the final design of the structure. Calculations are not presented neatly. The format and layout of the calculations are not well considered. Insufficient descriptive comments and sketches making it difficult to follow the logic used in the design process. Unclear assumptions. Code referencing inadequate. Final design not easily discernible.
20
REPORT:
DEVELOPMENT
OF THEMES
AND
CONCEPTS –
Meeting the technical brief 1.3. Specialist knowledge
1.5. Context
1.6. Engineering. Practice
2.3. Systematic use
ULO 1, 2 Report is a clear, well-structured extended exposition of a complex proposal, highlighting the relevant points and evaluating options; expands and supports deign rationale at some length with evaluated and analysed evidence from calculations; proposal is feasible and thoroughly designed using appropriate engineering techniques including design tools which have been systematically assessed. Report is a clear, well-structured explanation of proposal, highlighting relevant points; supports points of view with evidence of design calculations however this evidence may be disjointed or limited; proposal is feasible and designed using appropriate engineering techniques though some essentials may have errors or tools are used without evaluation. Develops a proposal giving simple reasons and examples but with little explanation of design rationale. Evaluates different solutions to the problem, but not in detail or with clear linkage to calculations. Proposal (or parts of the proposal) may not be feasible and has limited, inaccurate or incorrect application of engineering techniques.
10


Overall mark awarded out of a maximum of 20
Marker comments:
REPORT:
STRUCTURE
FORMATTING
AND
REFERENCING-
Communicating the outcomes of the brief 3.2. Communication
3.3. Creativity
3.6. Team work
ULO 3 All sections present and well- constructed; work shows required layout and standard paragraphing conventions. Report is consistently formatted and expressed indicative of being collaboratively written; articulated evidence of team-work in both design and reportage of design. Report includes accurate reference list and correct formatting of tables, images, content lists and page numbers. All sections present; minor errors in required layout or standard
paragraphing conventions. Report is consistently formatted but disparate indicative of being individually written or designed with collaboration in final assemblage; little articulated evidence of team-work Report. Report may have minor errors in formatting of tables, images, content lists and page numbers. Most sections present but some may be poorly constructed; errors in layout and paragraphing. Report is an assemblage of separate parts with inconsistent formatting, ideas or structure; indicative of individual contributions written or designed separately and combined without collaboration. Report includes inaccurate referencing, and errors with formatting of tables, images, content lists and page numbers.
10
REPORT:
ACADEMIC WRITING –
Communicating the outcomes of the brief 3.2. Communication
3.3. Creativity
3.6. Team work
ULO 3 Writing shows use of an extended grammatical range that is error-free. Spelling is accurate, and writing is clear and smoothly flowing. The text is well- structured and shows controlled use of a wide range of sophisticated organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. Consistently maintains a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rare and difficult to spot. Spelling is accurate, apart from occasional minor errors. Writing is clear and smoothly flowing to produce a well-structured text, showing controlled use of a medium range of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. Shows good grammatical control. Minor errors in sentence structure may occur, but they are rare and do not lead to misunderstanding. Spelling and punctuation are reasonably accurate but may show signs of other-language influence. Uses a limited number of linking words to create a clear, coherent text, marking the relationships between ideas, although some disjointedness occurs in longer pieces o writing. f
10
Marker: …………………………………… Students..........................................................
Assessment description and specification of work:
Your task is to interpret the plans provided and complete the following design investigation. The plan, as shown in Figure 1, is part of a shopping plaza to be constructed in Perth, Western Australia.
The slabs bounded by Grids A to E and 1 to 4, as shaded in yellow in the figure, are to be redesigned. Remove the existing band beams (i.e., beams along Grids 2 and 3), keep the beams and walls along Grid 1, and then redesign the slabs (i) as flat plates, and (ii) as twoway slabs supported by beams, 600 mm wide by 600 mm deep. The surface of the connecting slabs along Grids A and E has a stepdown of 100 mm from the main slab.
The outcomes of the investigation are to be written in a Report which also includes calculations and drawings in support of the written document.
1. Assess if the currently proposed grids (spans and column locations) are suitable to enable the slabs, bounded by Grids A to E and 1 to 4, to be analysed using simplified methods of flexural analysis, as per AS3600-2009 Section 6.10, if the slab were a flat plate supported on columns, or if the slab were supported on a beam-column arrangement. If the span and/or column locations are not suitable for simplified analysis, state any proposed changes to enable the design of the whole area. Sketch the structural systems (flat plate and beam-column) and explain the concept accordingly.
2. Assess if the currently designed 220 mm slab depth is sufficient for use in the analyses and design according to the revised slab systems. Explain your choice of slab depth for the analyses.
3. Address design criteria of strength, serviceability, including durability, and fire.
4. State any assumptions made in the design.
5. Explain your design rationale, process and outcomes.
6. Evaluate which design option would be your recommended design, and summarise the overall design outcome.
7. Provide Drawings (refer to AS3600 and SRIA Detailing handbook) to show reinforcement detailing as per the design outcome of the whole slab area.
8. Draw a slab section (indicated as S-1) with reinforcement detailing according to your design outcome.
9. Outline evidence of your team collaboration and decision making processes.
Directives are instructions – their definitions are provided in Table 1.
Note: Report must be typed up to be submitted online and a printout is to be submitted to Assignment Office by the due date.
Table 1 Definition of Directives
Assess Work out the value
Address Discuss design requirements, backed by evidence
Evaluate Give your judgement, after showing the advantages and disadvantages.
Explain Make plain, interpret, and account for in detail.
Interpret Give the meaning. You give your own opinions, backed by evidence.
Justify Show why you think it is right. Give reasons for your statement or conclusion.
Outline Give a general summary of the main ideas, supported by secondary ideas. Omit minor details.
State Specify the main points in precise terms. Omit minor details.
Summarise Give a concise account of the main ideas. Omit details and examples.