Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 2 - April 2008

Waterfront Development

by Dr Peter Gardner

The information provided should be seen as an interpretation of the brief and a possible solution to a past question offered by
an experienced engineer with knowledge of the examiners’ expectations (i.e. it's an individual's interpretation of the brief
leading to one of a number of possible solutions rather than the definitive "correct" or "model" answer).
CM Exam 08:Layout 1 16/5/08 10:06 Page 9

Question 2. Waterfront Development

Client’s requirements
1. A 4-storey residential development, with a ground floor restaurant; see Figure Q2. The development is located on
the edge of a tidal river. The apartments are accessed by means of a system of elevated walkways contained within
a glazed atrium which extends from level two to the roof. The entire development is to project over the river,
except for the rear part of the service cores. The river level varies from 2.0m to 8.0m below ground level, depending
upon the state of the tide.
2. The overall plan size of the building is 50.0m by 16.0m, with an 8.0m wide terrace at level 1 extending in front of
the restaurant for the full width of the building; see Figure Q2. A 2.0m wide balcony is located at floor levels 2,3
and 4. There are 7 apartments at each of the 3 upper levels, with each apartment having a minimum clear
internal width of 6.5m. No columns are permitted within the individual apartments and only 1 row of internal
columns is permitted within the restaurant at level 1, with the level 1 internal columns being located at a
minimum spacing of 8.0m.
3. The front elevation of the building that faces the river is to be fully glazed. The rear and side elevations of the
apartments are to be masonry clad. The roof is to be clad in metal decking.
4. Level 1 is to have a minimum clear floor to ceiling height of 3.5m, with a structure-free ceiling zone of 500mm.
Reasonable access is required beneath level 1 for inspection and maintenance and to avoid unduly impeding the
river flow. The upper floors are to have a minimum clear floor to ceiling height of 2.7m, with a structure-free
ceiling zone of 200mm.
5. There is a busy public road adjacent to the site.

Imposed Loading
6. Roof 1.5kN/m2
Level 1 5.0kN/m2
Upper floors, walkways and balconies 3.0kN/m2
Terrace 7.5kN/m2
Loadings include an allowance for partitions, finishes, services and ceilings.

Site Conditions
7. The site is flat and is located 10km from the sea on the edge of a small city.
Basic wind speed is 46m/s based on a 3 second gust; the equivalent mean hourly wind speed is 23m/s.
8. Ground conditions
Borehole 1 Ground –5.0m Made ground (fill)
5.0m-6.0m Very soft silty clay. C=10kN/m2
Below 6.0m Mudstone. Allowable bearing pressure = 500kN/m2
Borehole 2 Riverbed-8.0m Very soft silts and sands. N=0. Riverbed located at 7.0m
below site ground level.
8.0m-9.0m Stiff clay with some gravel. C = 80kN/m2
9.0m-11.0m Mudstone. Allowable bearing pressure = 500kN/m2
Below 11.0m Rock. Allowable bearing pressure = 1500kN/m2
Ground conditions vary linearly between the two boreholes and apply for the length of the site. The groundwater
level in borehole 1 fluctuates between 2.0m and 8.0m below ground level.

Omit from consideration

9. Detailed design of staircase and lifts within service cores.

continued overleaf

9
CM Exam 08:Layout 1 16/5/08 10:06 Page 11

SECTION 1 (50 marks)

a. Prepare a design appraisal with appropriate sketches indicating two distinct and viable solutions for the proposed
structure including the foundations. Indicate clearly the functional framing, load transfer and stability aspects of
each scheme. Identify the solution you recommend, giving reasons for your choice. (40 marks)
b. After the design has been completed, the Client advises you that he wishes to add a further two levels of
apartments to the development. Write a letter to the Client explaining how this might be achieved. (10 marks)

SECTION 2 (50 marks)

For the solution recommended in Section 1(a):
c. Prepare sufficient design calculations to establish the form and size of all the principal structural elements
including the foundations. (20 marks)
d. Prepare general arrangement plans, sections and elevations to show the dimensions, layout and disposition of the
structural elements and critical details for estimating purposes. (20 marks)
e. Prepare a detailed method statement for the safe construction of the building and an outline construction
programme. (10 marks)

11
CM Exam 08:Layout 1 16/5/08 10:06 Page 8

8
Introduction

This is an interesting question concerning a waterfront development of apartments and a

restaurant. The building is of a scale and type that would be familiar to most graduate
engineers working on this form of construction. It has some interesting features, which have
structural implications and need thinking through, but nothing that is going to be
insurmountable.

The structure consists of a four-storey development: three levels of apartments and a

ground floor restaurant, the whole of which projects over a tidal river. There are service
cores that may or may not aid the building's overall stability.

The issues

• Tidal river. Saline environment.

• Glazed rear wall (and roof) of atrium

• Fully glazed front elevation

• Two service cores

• Access via walkways
• Side elevations clad in masonry

• Minimum restaurant clear floor to ceiling height of 3.5 metres, structural free zone of
500 mm.
• Minimum apartment clear floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres, structural free zone of
200 mm.

• Seven apartments on each level, each with a minimum clear internal width of 6.5
metres.
• No columns are permitted within the individual apartments.
• One row of internal columns is permitted within the restaurant, with a minimum
spacing of 8 metres

• Very soft material above mudstone and rock.

• Lateral loads on piles

ISE Q2 2008
Interpretation of the brief and development of solutions

Probably the place to start with this question is to sort out the geometry and the potential
locations of any ground floor columns. The question is very clear about the spacing of the
seven apartments - common sense would suggest starting with an equal spacing of just
over seven metres for each. This automatically satisfies the need for an internal width of 6.5
metres even allowing for a partition wall or column. As far as the restaurant is concerned,
one row of internal columns is permitted but with a minimum spacing of 8 metres. This
precludes the use of columns positioned directly under the apartment walls and thus
necessitates some form of transfer structure. Although this may initially seem a
complication/inconvenience, I always look at these things differently, in the sense that this
type of requirement allows variation, and an opportunity to demonstrate your ability to deal
with situations that are out-of-the-ordinary. The accompanying diagrams show possible
layouts.

There are different ways of spacing the restaurant columns in relation to the apartment
partition walls, but these alternative layouts are just variations on a theme, not distinct
schemes in their own right. There are other ways to frame the structure and these should be
investigated as part of the design appraisal.

Although construction depths are specified in the question there is no overall height
requirement, therefore we have the option of proposing relatively deep floors to the level-
two apartments. These could span front to back with down-stands or up-stands. An
extension to this idea would be make the apartment dividing walls act as deep beams
running through one or more levels of the apartments, which would effectively support the
restaurant ceiling over 12 metres. The columns could then be placed under the rear
apartment wall (4 metres in from the rear elevation).

Another option would be to make the whole rear wall of the apartments act as a deep beam;
either a truss (allowing for apartment doors) or vierendeels spanning all or part of the 50m
length of the building.

An alternative method of supporting the apartment floors would be to have trusses in the
roof spanning 16 metres from front to back picking up the apartment floors via hangers
buried in the partition walls. This would provide a completely column-free restaurant (see
accompanying diagrams).

As far as the overall construction method is concerned; one scheme could be based around
steel or RC frames with infill partition walls, the other with concrete floors supported by
masonry walls. The rear walkways will assist the horizontal stability of the rear glazed
elevation.

Probably the best options to present in an answer would be:

• Level two floor with beams supporting the apartment walls above and columns
below at no less than 8m c/c
• Trusses at roof level with hangers supporting the apartment floors.

ISE Q2 2008
Stability

There are various issues relating to stability of the proposed schemes.

The front and rear elevations are fully glazed, which may limit the use of traditional bracing,
but the question doesn't say that the glazing explicitly precluding bracing/diagonals. It
however seems reasonable to assume that the front elevation should be free of diagonals
(as this forms a central part of each apartment with views of the river and access to the
balconies) and that perhaps we have more latitude on the rear elevation (but that any
exposed structural elements should not be visually intrusive).

The two end elevations are masonry, which enables us to use them as stiff diaphragms or
to employ traditional bracing.

The “obvious” stability system is therefore stiff end elevations (bracing or a diaphragm), with
the floors acting as transfer diaphragms. In the other direction the building’s frame should
be designed to act as portal bracing in the front elevation (providing a visually unimpeded
front elevation) with a mirror system in the rear elevation, or with exposed cross bracing
provided as an architectural feature (eg stainless steel tension bracing).

An alternative would be to use the cores. This solution would provide stability in both
directions as long as the torsional effect was recognised.

The foundation system (presumably piles) initially passes through fresh-air, then through
tidal water then through a thick layer of made ground and/or very soft silty clay. It is
therefore going to be impossible to transmit lateral loads into the ground with a simple
system of vertical piles, necessitating a specially engineered solution (raking piles or some
form of bracing between the piles). Alternatively, if the cores, in combination with the floors
acting as diaphragms, are designed to resist all lateral loads, then the piles only take
vertical loads (overcoming this difficulty) (see diagrams).

The implication of the tidal water needs to be considered. The saline environment, with
cyclical wetting and drying, necessitates some form of appropriate specification for the
materials used in the foundation system (and the underside of the ground floor slab, and
terrace).

Foundation system

Clearly the made ground and the very soft silty clay is completely inappropriate for any
foundation system. Between six metres and nine metres there is mudstone with a good
ground bearing pressure, but two metres into the mudstone there is rock with a ground
pressure of 1500 kN/m2. The rock is not mentioned in borehole one, so it's a matter of
interpretation whether it's reasonable to expect rock a few metres into the mudstone, or
whether that's an indication that the rock is only apparent on one side of the site. This is a
critical assumption. If you assume the rock is not apparent in borehole one, then you may
potentially be founding one side of the building on rock and the other site on mudstone,
which you may judge to be inappropriate. If you assume there is rock in both boreholes, it
would probably be much safer to found on the rock (it's only two metres through the
mudstone in the location of borehole two).

ISE Q2 2008
The letter

After the design has been completed the client wishes to add a further two levels of
apartments. This is fairly straightforward in the sense that the requirement doesn't add any
fundamental difficulty to the structure nor change the load paths (in the way that perhaps
removing columns from the ground floor might), so the letter should be a diplomatic and
thorough exploration of the proposal.

Obviously the principal consequence is a significant increase in load, which will necessitate
a redesign of the whole structure. The additional two floors could have an impact on any
deflection critical elements such as the portal bracing. The possibility of trying to reduce the
overall weight of the construction (using a fundamentally different approach) and the
implications for progressive collapse should be discussed.

It would also be worth including a comment about the implications of the restriction on the
ground floor column spacing. Clearly if the client wishes to retain the relatively column free
restaurant area this can be accommodated in the design, but if this requirement is not
critical, then a more efficient structure could be provided with additional supports in the
restaurant area.

Summary

This building is of a scale and complexity that should be within most graduate engineer’s
experience. Although there are a few elements of the brief that introduce some complexity
(therefore require some careful thought), if anything they lead to natural variation between
the schemes (which is the exactly what we are looking for).

The brief allows development of two clearly different structures, with a mix-and-match of
column layouts, transfers structures, construction types (framed and RC slabs supported on
masonry), stability systems (and possibly the foundations), which would give the two distinct
and viable schemes that the question requires.

The only significant danger is that the implications of stability (especially, but not
exclusively, below ground floor level) are not realised. This is an easy aspect to miss or
underestimate in the heat of an examination, which is why I stress that very often a bit more
thinking (even if it's at the expense of an additional detailed calculation) can be time very
well spent. It's very unlikely that having insufficient time to produce that last calculation is
going to be the difference between a pass and a fail, whereas missing a point of substance
(in this case a significant element of the stability of the structure) could well result in a
significant loss of marks!

ISE Q2 2008