Design Competition Submission Guidelines

Conceptual Design Report

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 page and three A3 size drawings. Two copies are required.

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:

i. An appraisal of two distinct and viable design solutions in structural concrete for the building, together with their associated beam, column and wall layouts. The appraisals should include sketches showing the stability of the tower, the structural wall and column locations, the structural elements and some brief notes on construction methodology.

ii. 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.

iii. 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.

iv. An outline specification for concrete and reinforcing materials, including that for the foundations.

The winning entry from each 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

• Imagination, flair, aesthetic appreciation and innovation. The interpretation of the above criteria by the award judging panel will be final and feedback will not be provided.

The ultimate limit states are divided into the following categories:

EQU Loss of equilibrium of the structure.

STR Internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure

or structural member.

GEO Failure due to excessive deformation of the ground.

FAT Fatigue failure of the structure or structural members.

The Eurocode gives different combinations for each of these ultimate limit states. For the purpose of this publication only the STR ultimate limit state will be considered.

Regardless of the method of analysis used, the following principles apply:

? Where a beam or slab is monolithic with its supports, the critical design hogging moment may be taken as that at the face of the support, but should not be taken as less than 0.65 times the full fixed end moment.

? Where a beam or slab is continuous over a support that may be considered not to provide rotational restraint, the moment calculated at the centre line of the support may be reduced by (FEd,sup t/8), where FEd,sup is the support reaction and t is the breadth of the support.

? For the design of columns the elastic moments from the frame action should be used without any redistributio