Friday

Smita had finished the final model just in time, the poster was ready and the section detail was also ready it was time to put all our hard work on show.

Workshop with Poster and Model

We went around each workshop presenting our bridges, posters, and models. It was very interesting to see everyone’s hard work and different ideas. it seemed like everyone had worked very hard and all had different visions, ideas and focuses.

We presented our workshop last it went well but could have gone better. The problem with only having one week to come up with all this work is that you do not get enough time to do everything perfect, we could have done with a practice presentation but just did not have the time. The model, research and poster all went so well but our presentation could have gone better.

Overall design week has been brilliant by working with another student and someone with industry experience it has really given me a taste for what is required on a project like this. I feel that I have grown and that i am ready to tackle my next project even better with the skills I have picked up from Smita. Although the week has been stressful it has been so nice to see the final product.

If we were to do this project again the only think I would change is the amount of time we had, I would have like to have practices the presentation before presenting but other than this I think Design week had been a huge success.

Final Model with Team

Tuesday

Concept Sketches (by Smita & Damian)

After a morning of sketching ideas inspired by my precedent studies the night it was time to meet Smita. We spent the morning discussing our research and putting our ideas together. It was safe to say we both agreed on the idea of a cantilevered design as it gave us the freedom to design over the road with minimal construction in the road.

After our discussion Smita and I had a conceptual idea of what we wanted to create now it was time to go through the Design Development stage. Luckily as well as putting together sketches Smita had done some researching into Building Regulations Part A, H, K, M, N and the Design Manual for Road and Bridges Part 8 – Design Criteria for Footbridges. These two documents were vital in determining if our bridge design could be built.

We had 3 main issues with our design after researching through the Design Development Stage they were…

• Design Manual for Road and Bridges Part 8 – Design Criteria for Footbridges Section 6.14-16 states a gradient ramp higher than 1 in 20 will require landings at every 650mm. Any gradient ramps at 1 in 20 will only require landings at 2.5m.

This is something we did not allow for, these standards meant that our ramps now needed to change in gradient effecting their placement and location that they were to be installed so that we only required one landing.

• The Design Manual for Road and Bridges Part 8 – Design Criteria for Footbridges Chapter 12.4 states that for a cycle track to also be incorporated into the bridge footpath it needs to be segregated by at least 1.5m for pedestrians and 1.5 for cyclist.

This requirement was minor as all it required was for the bridge to be increased in width slightly to accommodate both paths.

• The Design Manual for Road and Bridges Part 8 – Design Criteria for Footbridges Chapter 7.1 (e) states that if glass is used it shall be laminated and toughened to reduce risk of glass being smashed onto the roads below.

This effects the specification of our glazing to the bridge which is not much of an issue but may become more expensive.

We were easily able to design these all out but the biggest issue was the ramps and landings. The issue with tramps and landings were now determine where our bridge and ramps could go.

Sketch of Proposed Location

Originally we wanted our bridge to go diagonally across the cross road and have ramps go either side across the two smaller roads as this would mean that pedestrians could get to the 4 different parts of the path. But we needed a clearance of 4.8m from the road to the underside of our bridge which meant we would no longer be able to proceed with our idea. This ultimately determined the final location of our bridge.

We had now determined the location and the requirements for our bridge it was time to work out the details and finishes of our bridge. We spend the afternoon sketching and developing our ideas into scaled sketches playing around with ideas and bouncing ideas and information of each other.

Sketches of Finish’s/Detail

We had finalised our ideas by the end of the afternoon with a few main points of our design…

• Prefabricated steel design
• Laminated glazing
• Slim design
• Two 23m cantilever spans meeting in the middle to create a 46m span
• Supported from cables either side

It was now time to prepare for the model making, the Hazlewick students would be back tomorrow and we needed to utilise their time to make maximise production of our bridge. We had agreed what materials we needed to get and would gather them together for the morning. It was agreed I would work on the detailed model at a scale of 1:10 with Joe and Smita would work on the main model with Katie and Taylor.

Today has been a very important day for me in my learning on this project, working with Smita has been very beneficial for me as she has opened my eyes to what is required and the process in how it is done. I like the way she values the importance of Regulations to insure the bridge can be built as this is how it would be done in industry.

Monday

Monday marked the beginnings of Design Week, we had been given a brief that nobody knew what was involved. it a was fast paced day of lectures and getting to know each other as just after 9am we were joined by 3 students from Hazlewick School. Our team now included Smita (our team leader), Joe, Taylor, Katie, and myself (Damian). We started by getting to know one another and we shared email so that we could stay in contact as Joe, Taylor, and Katie would only be in University Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

Now that we had introduced ourselves it was time to outline the brief between us so that we could ensure that all of us understood exactly what was expect. The brief stated that we were to design a pedestrian foot bridge linking the two sides of Mithras House and Mouslecomb Buildings. The bridge was to be a design that could easily be installed without disruption to the road, safe, sustainable, functional, and finally aesthetically pleasing. The bridge also needed to be installed in a location that would support the new development around the area and benefit students/pedestrians the most.

The next part of the morning included a site visit to Mithras house, this was to look at our site and get some inspiration as to what to do for our bridge. Together our team got prepared and headed out to Mithras House.

Mithras House Site Visit

At this point while out on the walk I was now starting to have visions and ideas, this walk had benefitted me and the team as we could all see the real-life situation and task at hand which could now feed our concept ideas.

Crane in University Building Site

One interesting experience I had on our walk was the site of the crane located on the building site next to the University. Earlier Smita had mentioned Kings Gate Bridge and how it was constructed in two sections then rotated into place, at this point I was yet to research it but the crane had given me inspiration into an idea of building the bridge in a crane like section at two ends of the road and rotating them into place thus solving a made part of this brief (minimal disruption to the road).

The walk had also given us an idea of the location of where our bridge should go and the awareness of space we had for our design proposal either side of the road.

After lunch we returned to the studio, by this point we did not get much of a chance to discuss between us what we had thought about on the walk as we had lectures planned, so Smita assigned the 3 Hazlewick students the job of doing 3 precedent studies on bridges after having the walk as inspiration into their concept ideas.

Over the afternoon we had lectures from Noel Painting, Dr Pierfancesco, and Dr Poorang. The lectures were perfect to give us knowledge, inspiration and ideas for our research. I felt by this point I was on the right track to fuel my research for the evening.

By the end of the afternoon the Hazlewick students had left early so Dr Poorang took us for an induction in the workshop. The workshop was important as tomorrow we would be starting our models for the bridge.

Once we had finished with the workshop induction Smita and myself discussed what we were going to do for our studies this evening and once we had finished our discussion it was time to go home for an evening of precedent studies.

My evening at home had included research on the following precedent studies…

Millau Viaduct

Millau Viaduct Launching System – http://www.slideshare.net/paurinshah3/millau-viaduct-35054304 

What I liked about this study is the deck launching system, with the deck launching system it meant that the bridge could be built over a large span without the requirement for scaffolding. This idea could be incorporated into our project reducing the need to shut the road. The only problem I had here is the cost and time although this idea worked great on a large-scale project, for a small project like ours it would not suit the clients brief.

Forth Bridge

Forth Bridge Annotated (By Damian Bolton), 07/11/16, (image) https://wayzgooseways.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/a-peninsular-walk/

What was interesting about this study is the span, it was the second largest cantilever span in the world which made me think we could use the same design idea for our bridge to limit construction in the road.

Kings Gate Bridge

This is the project Smita had mentioned which sounded very interesting and I can confirm it was very interesting a design by Arup which was unique and different. It involved designing two cantilever bridge sections then rotating them into place which meant there was no requirement for scaffolding or anything below.