Design Week 2016 | Archives | 2016 | November

Summary (the good, the bad and the ugly)

Date November 13, 2016

Comments0

In conclusion to the week, I think my team did a good job but time management was our biggest issue. A way we could’ve have done better is by creating a plan within the group on the first day that way, we could have been more organised with individual and group tasks. That way everyone would know what to do each day and if individual tasks were set out to meet everyone’s strength, I believe we could have done a better job as everyone would have been bringing their own individual strength.

But it was a great opportunity to work people you would not automatically put yourself in a group with; giving me some sort of world experience as, in the industry you are working in groups with all different types of personalities and being able to work efficiently within these groups is important. That is a positive I’m taking from this, that the week has helped me work within a group while voicing my opinion.

The project also allowed me to spot my weaknesses and highlight my strengths which are; I need to further my drawing skills, and can leave the architect type of thinking of design and getting carried away with ideas and start to think of build-ability of the design I am coming up with, like looking at the materials and building regulations. One of my strengths has always been my leadership skills, which came in handy, when I was working with the college students as I worked closely with them throughout the week; when buying materials, making the model or just simply just showing them how to use the equipment.

Even though the week was extremely stressful, I am glad I did it as it was my first time completing an AT project from start to finish and has definably solidified, that I am doing the right course. Moving forward I will be bring everything I’ve learnt from the week into my future projects.

Humber Day 5(we did it, well sort of)

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Mwaka Musuumba

Comments0

WE MADE IT

Friday that day we were all waiting for, the day our bridge’s fate would be sealed as we would have to present in front of the Poorang, Noel, the collage staff and Kristy.

We all got started early to start putting the final touches on the poster and model. The presentation was meant to begin at 11am and we started at 9am so it would be a pretty tight run, but we did not anticipate how tight of a squeeze it would be.

Our leader had us create levels so that we could show how the bridge would be positioned by Mithras house, car park and road as they all have different levels. We started making the nets for which we would turn into cubes as this would be easier to glue and place onto out base saving time. Once this was done the columns were meant to be stuck onto the base of the bridge model but unfortunately there wasn’t any time to do so, so we had to just place the different parts in the position.

Lucky our poster was done on time and had everyone’s input placed on.

The pictures below show the different parts of the poster.

As you can see above that shows our finished idea showcasing the; tunnel, ramps and of course our WOW factor the donut.

And of course couldn’t finish without showing our sort of finished model.

And like that it was time to do our presentation, this was nerve racking as we didn’t get proper briefing form the team leader of what we were going to say or the order. We just knew we had to talk, so we pretty much winged. But our group is great at winging it, unfortunately as we didn’t complete the model our WOW bridge wasn’t quite wow.

Menai • Day #1 • Introduction

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Ashwaq Alabdi

Comments0

First day of the week we was given the brief of the assignment. The design week was combined with a sixth form college and there were assigned to be apart of this design week but they were only in 3 days of the week.
On the arrival of the college students they were assigned a group and in my team we had 3 university students including myself and 3 college students.

We had our first group meeting once we were allocated into groups; we introduced ourselves and went over the Brief to get an idea of what is asked from us.

After the break, we headed out to site to get an idea of what were working with and come with with different ideas on where we should locate our bridge.

After the afternoon lecture, we had another group meeting just bouncing ideas of where it should be located and also ideas of any designs.

As group leader, I gave each team member tasks to do at home and to bring it in for the next day.

Tasks included –
~ precedent studies
~ initial ideas
~ reviewing digimap
~ gathering material

Humber Day 4(Opps, and trying to meet the deadline)

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Mwaka Musuumba

Comments0

On day 4 we thought we were pretty set but little did we know, that wasn’t the case, as we went for a 1:200 scale we later found out this would be too small for making the detail, which needed to be done.

So, as you can imagine everyone was feeling stressed and pressed for time, so we had to start the modelling process again.

The new chosen scale was 1:100 as this would be bigger and would allow us to make a clear detailed drawing and model, showing what the bridge is made from.

As you can see this is the final model that was created, to the right scale.

A 1:10 detail had to be made to show how the bridge would be made and held together; through research online we found a detail with all the components and from that I could start building a model.

As you can tell the bridge is made from, a 65x205mm clay paver, 20mm class 1 mortar, 60mm of dense basecourse bituminous macadam and 150mm compacted DTp1 Granular sub-base.

At the end of this day we were ready but still panicking as we had a model and poster to finish for Friday.

Part 3 – Design Considerations

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Kieran Mclean

Comments0

The next step was to make note of all the parameters of our given site.

We firstly researched the required dimensions, starting with the width needed on the decking to accommodate all users. The Department for Transport suggest a minimum width of 3 metres for a two-way cycle path, and 2 metres for a pedestrian path with the view to accommodating wheelchair users, as laid out in Local Transport Note 1/12 (page 40).

Secondly, we looked at the height needed to successfully clear all vehicular traffic. The tallest vehicle which uses Lewes Road is the double-decker bus, which stands at approx. 4.3 metres tall. However, the Highways Agency requires a headroom of 5.7 metres for footbridges. Part 2.8 of Approved Document K states that ramps should have a maximum gradient of 1:12, meaning the subsequent ramp must be at least 68.4 metres.

Next, we had a look at external influences, the main one being the tree obstructions. In an attempt to find out if any of the trees in question were protected, we searched the Brighton & Hove Council website for Tree Preservation Orders. Unfortunately, the council charge over £30 to release the documents, so we were unable to acquire the necessary information.

A key consideration,as briefly mentioned on the opening day, is the redevelopment of Preston Barracks. As this is due to form an addition part of the University of Brighton’s Mouslecoomb campus, it is highly likely that the client is hoping to use the new footbridge to integrate this land with the existing university buildings. Our research (eventually) led us to the official website for the redevelopment, Momentum for Lewes Road (www.momentumlewesroad.com). Here we found the ‘Masterplan’, the proposed layout of the renovated area:

The new buildings situated in what is currently Mithras Car park meant that we were not able to stretch the bridge from the steps immediately outside of Mithras House, which would have cleared the road height by around 7 metres. Instead, we would have to use some land much nearer to, if not part of, the existing pathway. Another observation we made is that the renovators plan on removing some trees in order to install a footbridge of their own, which implies that we wouldn’t have a problem removing any obstructing trees for our bridge.

Resources:

DMRB Volume 6 Section 1 Part 2 – TD 27/05 – Cross Sections and Headrooms: http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol6/section1/td2705.pdf

Momentum Lewes Road Masterplan: http://www.momentumlewesroad.com/plans/masterplan-2/

Tree Preservation Orders (Brighton and Hove City Council): http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/parks-and-green-spaces/tree-preservation-orders

Building Regulations 2010: Approved Document K: Protection from falling, collision and impact

Third day, A steady start

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Jeanne Faustino

Comments0

Well, we’ve made it to the third day of the the week.

So now the designs are somewhat refined and we have our measurements and details for the whole project.

We have a basic idea of what our model to look like so we wanted to get started. I divided the team, three will work on the model one will get the poster ready and I was doing an in depth look into building regulations to make sure the design we chose doesn’t cause any issues.

There were alot of information to sift through and not alot of specifics that I seem to unexpectedly need such as the requirements for a length between a wall and a cyclist.

Some other information that I found useful was the helpful is having a friend and getting his opinion on the matter.

He answered that the important thing for a cyclist is the movement and deviation. This means that the path we need to design needs to be so that cyclist can maintain their flow of movement and do sharp turns to lessen accidents.

We also need to allow for deviation movement with a comfortable space of 400mm. Having this space means that cyclist can move freely without risk or fear of bumping onto another.

I borrowed some extra books from our library about building regulations on ramps and structures.

It was written that for every 10m of ramp a landing must be provided. So we changed our design slightly to suit this requirement.

The next, if the width of the path is more than 3.5 m, which it is, a railing must be added at the center of the pathway acting as some sort of barrier. This will lessen crashes and accidents and helps as a support for people who needs it.

Doing alot of in depth research was difficult since we chose a very quirky design. But we still managed to comply with building regulations in the end.

Second day, Book learning

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Jeanne Faustino

Comments0

This is the post for my second day as group leader of Humber.

So far the design we’ve agreed on was very vague and needed some refining. We made some adjustments where we bounce ideas back and forth. And at the end of the we have created four design ideas in total.

The design we created was based around a roundabout idea, this would allow a natural flow of traffic and some sort of control. I will go in depth in a later post.

Around noon we separated the task on completing the project between the five of us.

For my contribution I went and secluded myself in the library to borrow some books. The books I borrowed are the construction of steel and concrete bridges for the contructability. A bridge design book for the aesthetic and look. A book showing previous bridges for precedent studies. And one about principles on bridges such as parts and components of a bridge.

Having an array of books I shared this with my group members so that they don’t feel left out on the information I found.

Later on I was adviced to look more into the requirements and regulations of our design and, shockingly, found it falling short to the standards.

So for my next step I will be looking into the regulations and standards.

First day, getting started.

Date November 13, 2016

Posted by Jeanne Faustino

Comments0

The first day of the design week, I was introduced to my fellow group members that I will be working with for the whole week. We were also introduced to our project, which was to create a bridge for people and cyclist to use crossing the Lewes Road to or from mithras.

After being acquainted with one another we took a short sit visit to mithras house to get a feel of the size of the site so we can make our project.

I took photos of the site being more focused on the aesthetic and technicalities of the site, seeing how things move and flow throughout the place.

After the site visit we gathered around and have a brief discussion about design ideas and how we want to move forward. I took notes and observed some of my groups ideas. I basically questioned the ideas and design to make sure that we don’t create a design that isn’t constructable or acceptable.

After having a vague idea of what to do, I took my free time to do some research on bridges and some design ideas so I can share that with the other members.

Part 2 – Case Studies

Date November 12, 2016

Posted by Kieran Mclean

Comments0

1. Ponte Segunda Circular

Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Designers: Maximina Almeida & Telmo Cruz

As referenced in the title, this steel structure crosses the Second Circular Road in Lisbon, and is accessible by cyclists and pedestrians. This bridge is held up by two columns either side of the road, and is therefore void of structural support on the road itself, which is beneficial as the road would not have had to be fully closed for construction, nor would it be for maintenance. There are 5 methods of access, 4 ramps and 1 set of stairs. Although the bridge has an inclusive design, it is unfortunate that it couldn’t be entirely step free. It is possible that the steps were installed by choice as there are enough wheelchair access routes, and a quicker route by foot was desired.

The parapets are below shoulder height, leaving cyclists somewhat vulnerable to falling over the side in the event of a collision.I am particularly drawn to this bridge due to its network of connections, which utilise the land footprint to provide multiple potential routes for users, depending on their destination. This consideration would be appropriate for the given brief as university students often have to travel between the buildings, and destinations can vary both student to student and day to day.

Jan Waaijer Bridge

Location: Westerpark, Netherlands

Syb van Breda & Co. Architects

The primary element of this bridge which sticks out is the segregated, differentiated paving for cyclists and pedestrians. The different pavings provide subtle instruction for users, removing the need for aesthetically hindering barriers.

Like the previous, this bridge also accommodates the need to access more than two destinations, and allows users to peel off in their desired directions seamlessly.

The lampposts, which also act as structural members, have drawn their form from the surrounding forestry, an effective method of townscaping.

Melkwegbridge

Location: Purmerend, Netherlands

NEXT Architects and Rietveld Landscape

This bridge offers an alternate solution to giving pedestrians and cyclists designated spaces; cyclists (and wheelchair users) are provided with a flat zig-zagged deck while pedestrians walk over a steep, arched upper level.

Humber Day 3 (Changes and model making)

Date November 12, 2016

Posted by Mwaka Musuumba

Comments0

After concluding, the day before that we would need to change our design to make it lighter and adapt more with the existing environment; we decided to remove the two smaller dome and make those landings, we kept the big donut one in the middle as that would be our “WOW” point of the bridge making it memorable for anyone who would use it. By removing the two smaller domes, this meant that we would be using ramp and not elevators.

We had to start looking at ramp requirements, to make sure our bridge met the restrictions but we did not want the ramp to be too steep for cyclists, due to market research we found that the desired steepness was 4%.

Most of day was spent considering how we could build a bridge that would meet the ramping restrictions which we found out that for every 10m a landing is needed.

The drawing above shows the development drawing, of the bridge once we decided to go for the ramps. We also had to look at the diameter of the donut we went for 8m radius, to accommodate, for both cyclists and pedestrians.

We went for arches supporting the donut shape as this would allow vehicles to pass through under as well as not take too much space on the path, as we are trying to cause the least amount of distribution when installing the bridge. The donut would need to be 5m off the ground, as this is the recommended height for bridges. We came up with covering the path with hardened glass, as it’s transparent and durable people would be able to appreciate the surroundings, and be protected from weathering and any accidents.

Later, in the day we started making the model of our bridge we decided to make our model 1:200 thinking it could work but little did we know we would be wrong……..

The image above shows our 1:200 model.

Page 5 of 10‹ Previous 1 2 3 456 7 8 9 Next ›Last »