asce mid-pacific regional conference · concrete canoe presentation geowall design poster geowall...
TRANSCRIPT
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
[DOCUMENT TITLE]
ASCE MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL CONFERENCE
MAILER I
October 17, 2015
Mid-Pacific Regional Conference Participants,
The American Society of Civil Engineers at the University of Nevada, Reno is pleased to announce the
2016 Mid-Pacific Regional Conference! We are thrilled to have the chance to host this conference and
we are all hopeful that you will enjoy the experience and what our city has to offer you.
This mailer is the first of three that will be released over the next several months. The mailer will
concern various information regarding the competition, and will be updated with each successive
mailer. Please do not delete this mailer, as it contains valuable information for your various competition
teams. Included in this mailer are:
Receipt Confirmation
Summary of Deadlines
Tentative Conference Agenda
Competition Rules and Contacts
Please confirm you have received this mailer by emailing or mailing the enclosed form by November 7th,
2015 to the address listed. The school registration deadline is December 5th, 2015. The conference shall
take place on April 7-9, 2016. If there are any questions, or comments about the content of this mailer,
please feel free to email us at [email protected].
We are pleased to announce that we are remodeling the current Mid-Pac website! Changes will be
finalized in the coming months and you can expect to see a fresh look at the competition website:
www.ascemidpac.org
This year is going to be a lot of fun, and we are very excited to be hosting! We hope that this mailer finds
all of your chapters well and hope for your continued participation in the future. It is all of you that
make the Mid-Pac conference the amazing experience that it is! Good luck to your competition teams
and their success. We all look forward to seeing you in April!
Sincerely,
Evan Jordan
2016 Mid-Pacific Regional Conference Coordinator
DEADLINE INFORMATION
DUE DATE INFORMATION DUE
October 17, 2015 Mailer I Released
October 24, 2015 Water Treatment Rules Released
November 14, 2015 Mailer I Receipt Confirmation
December 5, 2015 School Registration
December 26, 2015 Mailer II Released
March 1, 2016 Mead Paper
March 4, 2016 Water Treatment Technical Paper (Postmark)
March 13, 2016
Concrete Canoe Technical Paper
Transportation Technical Paper
Water Research Paper
GeoWall Technical Paper
March 20, 2016 Mailer III Released
April 4, 2016
Concrete Canoe Presentation
GeoWall Design Poster
Geowall Design Paper
Professional Paper Presentation
Transportation Project Presentation
Water Research Presentation
April 5, 2016 Water Treatment Presentation
Name (First, Last) Phone Number
Email Address
RECEIPT CONFIRMATION
Fax: (775) 784-4213
Mail: American Society of Civil Engineers, Attn: MidPac
1664 North Virginia Street, Mail Stop 258
Reno, NV, 89503
Email: Evan Jordan
Please print or type the information in this form:
School Name: ______________________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Faculty Advisor: ______________________________________________________________
F.A. Contact Information: ______________________________________________________________
Student Conference Contact (For receiving conference emails)
________________________________ __________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
This receipt confirms that we have received Mailer I regarding the 2016 Mid-Pac Regional Conference.
SCHOOL REGISTRATION
School Name: ________________________________________________
We are attending the 2016 Mid-Pacific Regional Conference
We are not attending the 2016 Mid-Pacific Regional Conference
Our school will be participating in the following events:
Fees:
Concrete Canoe $100 per school
Steel Bridge $100 per school
Geo-Wall $100 per school
Water Treatment $100 per school
Transportation Project
Professional Paper
Water Research Paper
Mini-Games
Attendee Information (Optional, if you think you have a pretty solid idea)
Fees:
Total Number of Mid-Pac Attendees
______ (faculty and students) $75/Attendee
Please make checks payable to the American Society of Civil Engineers at University of Nevada, Reno
Mail to: American Society of Civil Engineers, Attn: MidPac
1664 North Virginia Street, Mail Stop 258
Reno, NV, 89503
STEEL BRIDGE
Competition Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016
Friday, April 8th, 2016
Competition Location: Lawlor Events Center
Summary:
The mission of the ASCE/AISC Student Steel Bridge Competition (SSBC) is to supplement the
education of civil engineering students with a comprehensive, student-driven project
experience from conception and design through fabrication, erection, and testing, culminating
in a steel structure that meets client specifications and optimizes performance and economy.
The SSBC increases awareness of real-world engineering issues such as spatial constraints,
material properties, strength, serviceability, fabrication and erection processes, safety,
aesthetics, and cost. Success in inter-collegiate competition requires effective teamwork and
project management. Future engineers are stimulated to innovate, practice professionalism,
and use structural steel efficiently.
Resources:
The 2016 Steel Bridge Competition rules have been posted! Below is a link to the 2016 National
Steel Bridge Competition Rules.
https://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=780
Contact:
CONCRETE CANOE
Competition Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016
Friday, April 8, 2016
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Competition Location: Sparks Marina
Summary:
This competition challenges students to improve skills in construction management, concrete
mixture design, canoe paddling, technical paper writing, professional presentation, and
teamwork. Events for this competition span both conference days.
Resources:
The 2016 Concrete Canoe Competition rules have been posted! The website link below contains
the NCCC Rules and Regulations, Standard Hull Design AutoCAD file, NCCC Hull Design
Coordinates Excel file, and Concrete Mix Table.
Contact the email address below with any questions regarding competition rules (2016 Rules
and Regulations, Section 1.7).
Submission Deadline:
All teams are required to submit 6 compact disc (CD) copies of their written technical paper to
the address below and postmarked by the submission date below (See 2016 Rules and
Regulations, Section 6.3.1 and Appendix E for further submission details.).
Technical Presentation: Each team’s PowerPoint for the technical presentation is due April 4,
2016. This will allow us to test run each PowerPoint on the computers that will be used, and it
should allow for a quick transition between each presentation. Please email the PowerPoint to
DANIEL W. MEAD PAPER
Competition Date: Thursday, April 7th, 2016
Competition Location: Silver Legacy Conference Rooms
Summary:
The National Competition was established and endowed in 1939 by Daniel W. Mead,
Hon.M.ASCE, a Society Past-President. The contest provides an opportunity for alert young civil
engineers to further their professional development and gain national attention.
Resources:
The National Student Daniel W. Mead Competition Rules have been published at the website
located below:
http://www.asce.org/mead-student/
The same topic and rules will be applied to the paper at the Mid Pacific Conference as seen on
the above website and in the topic and rules sections below.
At the Mid Pacific Conference, a Mead Paper Presentation will also be judged in this
competition.
Topic:
"When working in a foreign location, what defines the design standard which the engineer can
rely on to have met his or her ethical obligation to provide a safe and sound engineering
solution or design?"
The following can be used to stimulate, but should in no way limit, the discussion:
Engineers today in the global setting are having to evaluate different design guides, codes,
standards and practices that are available to them in the region and select the most pertinent
to their specific application that will meet their obligations as a professional engineer.
When evaluating the different codes, standards and quality requirements, how is one to
determine the minimum requirements that provide a good balance between local
practices versus global best practices?
Do the local codes and standards, which may be less stringent than the standards that
the engineer is typically accustomed to, meet his or her ethical obligation as the design
engineer?
Mead Paper Rules:
1. Papers for the Regional Competition shall (a) be limited to one paper from each Student
Organization; (b) not exceed 2,000 words in length; (c) be written by only one person;
and (d) not have previously been published in other than school or Society publications.
2. Reference citations of the papers should conform to official ASCE Journal Submission
Guidelines, which can be found on the ASCE Publications Website:
http://www.asce.org/Audience/Authors,--‐--‐Editors/Journals/Authors/Resources--‐for--
‐Authors/
3. A complete bibliography should also be included, if appropriate (Bibliography will not
count towards total word count.)
4. Authors must be undergraduate students and both ASCE Student Organization members
and ASCE national student members in good standing at the time of submission to be
considered.
Mead Presentation Rules:
1. Each entrant must formally present his or her paper at the Mid Pacific Conference.
Presentations must be 5 minutes in duration (+/- 5 seconds without penalty.) Please see
the scoring rubric for further scoring details.
2. Presentations must be accompanied by visual aids.
a. The host chapter will provide a projector and screen.
b. Any additional equipment shall be furnished by the presenter.
c. The specifications of the convention room and type of useable input for the
projector will be provided in Mailer II.
3. The host school will not provide a timer for the presenter’s use. The presenter may
have someone in the room help keep track of the time, but they shall not be a
distraction for the judges.
4. At the end of each presentation, the judges will have up to (5) minutes to ask questions.
Submittal:
The Mid Pacific Mead Paper submittal deadline will be March 1st, 2016.
A completed paper submission will consist of a single PDF file containing
1. A cover letter with the title of the paper, the author’s name, the name of the school the
author is competing for, a mailing address, and an e-mail address.
2. The paper being submitted.
The name of the file shall follow this format:
Mid-Pac Mead Paper – Author’s last name – Name of University.pdf
Submissions should be sent to [email protected] and must be received on or before
March 1st.
Please be advised, the submittal to the Mid Pacific Mead Paper Competition should not be
confused with the National Daniel W. Mead nomination. Although the two competitions have
the same topic, rules, and submittal date, they are two individual competitions with two
different submittals.
Scoring and Awards:
1. The paper and presentation carry equal weight of 50 points each, for a maximum overall
score of 100 points from each of the three judges. Please see the Mead Paper
Competition scoring rubric for further scoring details.
2. The overall scores will be the average of all three judges and ranked accordingly.
3. Awards will be as follows: 1st place - $100, 2nd place - $75, and 3rd place - $50.
Any questions regarding the Mid Pacific Mead Paper Competition may be sent to:
Presentation Scoring Criteria Score
1. Degree to which presentation addressed and supported key concepts of written paper and theme of contest
/ 10
2. Ability to communicate key concepts from written paper and to convince audience of their importance. Ability to address and answer questions effectively
/ 25
3. Personal bearing (i.e. appearance, poise, eye contact) / 5
4. Delivery style (i.e. reading, memorized, conversational) / pronunciation and proper use of technical language and grammar / enthusiasm and voice projection
/ 5
5. Time (5 minutes +/-‐ 5 seconds) (Beyond 5-‐ second allowance: 0.05 point penalty per second difference from required 5 minutes, i.e. 5:20 or 4:40 = 1 point penalty)
/5
Presentation Sub-‐Total / 50
Errors in logic or facts (up to 10 points penalty) ( )
penalty
Overall Score / 100
Paper Scoring Criteria Score
1. Adherence to topic /10
2. Presence of original ideas and research involved /10
3. Command of subject matter /10
4. Spelling and grammar / length (2,000 word maximum) /5
5. Overall clarity, organization, quality of paper and references /15
Paper Sub-Total /50
GEO-WALL COMPETITION
Competition Date: Saturday, April 9th, 2016
Competition Location: Sparks Marina
Summary:
The objective of the GI/SEI-Wall competition is to design and build a model mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall using paper reinforcement taped to a posterboard wall
facing and apply an eccentric surcharge loading using a hardwood load frame that is assembled
from smaller components.
Resources:
The Mid Pacific Conference will follow closely to the National rules. The sandbox, wall
materials, construction process and execution sections of the regional rules are intended to be
almost identical to the National Competition rules. The paper portion will be accompanied by a
poster portion and the scoring rubrics are different for these portions.
The Mid Pacific GeoWall rules can be found in this mailer and on the ASCE Mid Pacific
conference website.
The National GI/SEI-Wall Rules have been published since August 7th, 2015. The Official
National GI/SEI-Wall Competition website is located below:
http://www.mygeoworld.info/groups/profile/61033/geochallenge
The posted files of the rules, Sketchup Pro model, and an example of the National scoring sheet
have been corrupted on the GI/SEI-Wall Competition website and have been relocated to the
website below until a solution to the corruption has been found:
http://www1.pacific.edu/~smerry/
Any questions regarding the Mid Pacific Geo Wall Competition may be sent to:
Important Dates
Rules Published:
October 17th, 2015
Design Poster and
Design Report Due:
March 13th , 2016
Competition Date:
April 7th, 2016
April 9th, 2016
Revision 1.0: October 3rd, 2015
GeoWall Competition Rules
University of Nevada, Reno
MID-PACIFIC
CONFERENCE
1. Objective – The objective of the GI/SEI-Wall competition is to design and build a model mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall using paper reinforcement taped to a poster board wall facing and apply an eccentric surcharge loading using a hardwood load frame that is assembled from smaller components. The competition objectives are for students to:
a. Design a MSE wall using the least amount of reinforcement needed to support the retained soil and design loads and construct it in a cost-efficient manner;
b. Design a hardwood load frame, which can be assembled during competition and without the use of glue or metallic fasteners, for the purpose of loading the MSE wall;
c. Effectively communicate their analysis and design processes, particularly linking the geotechnical and structural engineering aspects of the competition;
d. Enjoy a friendly but spirited competition among schools; and e. Attend a world-class professional engineering conference.
2. Background – As this year’s competition brings the geotechnical and structural
engineering communities together, it provides an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that geotechnical and structural engineers must work and communicate together effectively to be successful. MSE walls have roots to prehistoric builders, who used sticks and branches to reinforce soil structures. The modern use of reinforced soils dates to the 1960s and French architect Henri Vidal’s development of the Reinforced Earth® system. In the United States, the first MSE wall was built on California SR-39 near Los Angeles in 1971. A more recent application of MSE walls is as support for bridge abutments, such as the Veteran’s Memorial Overpass in Tucson, Arizona, which supports the bridge structure at the abutments with spread footings on top of the MSE fill (Fig. 1). This year’s competition will model this application of MSE walls by requiring teams to construct a three sided wall that will then be loaded using an eccentric surcharge supported by modular hardwood piles and load frame.
Fig. 1: The Veteran’s Memorial Overpass with spread footings supporting the structure
within the MSE wall (photo via Google Maps).
3. Eligibility -- Only one team per school will be allowed to compete. A team consists of a maximum of four (4) students consisting of not more than two (2) graduate students. Each team shall designate a captain who shall be the point of contact for the team. All team members must be enrolled students at the date of the Mid-Pacific competition. Additionally, teams must compete in both the geotechnical and structural aspects of the competition, which are presented later in detail.
4. Design Report Submittal – This year’s Mid-Pacific GeoWall Competition will include a design report similar to the National GI/SEI-Challenge Design Report. The report must include:
a. Cover page with name of institution; names and status (graduate, undergraduate) of each team member; identification of team captain with email address; and name, title, and email address of faculty advisor;
b. Appendix D, E, and F (see Item (h) below); c. Material properties used in design including methods (lab tests, correlations,
assumptions) used to obtain the properties; d. Description of the engineering design and construction procedures including
assumptions and equations used; e. A complete description of the geometry and placement of all reinforcing
elements; f. Estimated mass of the reinforcing paper in grams (g) (not including facing
material or tape); g. Estimated mass of the hardwood loading frame; and h. A safety appendix, which outlines the potential risk that is reasonably associated
with each task during the competition and how the team will mitigate these risks, should be developed.
Formatting requirements:
i. Length shall be a maximum of three (3) pages long (not including tables, figures, references, cover page, or appendices (D, E, and F).
j. One inch margins, single spacing, and 12 point Times New Roman font. k. All pages after the cover page shall contain a header identifying the team and a
footer with the page number. l. Entire paper must be submitted in a single pdf format file with a filename of
2016GeoWall-<Participating School Name>.pdf. Design reports will be judged by a panel of practicing engineers and professors from the Mid-Pacific region. Judging will consider reasonableness of design equations, material properties, factors of safety, and assumptions. “Trial and error” designs will be heavily penalized. The judging rubric is presented in Appendix B part 1. Complete Design Report must be submitted in PDF format via email to the GeoWall committee, ([email protected]) by 6:00 pm PST March 23rd, 2016. Subject line must include: “2016 GeoWall Report - <Participating School Name>.” Sender will receive confirmation of receipt by e-mail. Any changes or corrections made to the design report after this time will incur a penalty (see section 14).
Due to server limitations, your design report should not exceed 10 Mb. If it does,
consider reducing the size of figures, particularly photographs. If this remains an issue,
arrangements for uploading via Dropbox can be arranged, but such arrangements must
be made prior to the deadline stated above.
5. Design Poster – Each team is to present their analysis and design on a design poster.
The 24-inch x 36-inch (maximum size) poster shall be displayed in a designated area
throughout the GeoWall competition. The poster is to help promote the competition to
other engineers to learn about and possibly participate in the following years. It does not
have to be as technical as the design paper, but should be technical enough for a peer
engineer to grasp the concepts. The design poster must include:
a. The school name and logo are to be conspicuously placed on the poster. The school name shall have at least 1-inch tall letters Cover page with name of institution;
b. Material properties used in design including methods used to obtain the properties.
c. Description of the engineering design including assumptions and equations used. d. A complete description of the geometry and placement of all reinforcing
elements. Estimated mass of the reinforcing paper in grams (not including facing material or tape).
Design posters will be judged by a panel that will include practicing engineers and may include professors. Posters will be briefly described by the team captain and up to one other team member. Judges will follow up with questions and consider quality, reasonableness, and completeness of the design, material properties and assumptions. “Trial and error” designs will be heavily penalized. The judging rubric for the design poster is presented in Appendix B part 2.
Complete Design Report must be submitted in PDF format via email to the GeoWall committee, ([email protected]) by 6:00 pm PST March 23rd, 2016. Subject line must include: “2016 GeoWall Poster - <Participating School Name>.” Sender will receive confirmation of receipt by e-mail. Any changes or corrections made to the design report after this time will incur a penalty (see section 14). Due to server limitations, your design report should not exceed 10 Mb. If it does,
consider reducing the size of figures, particularly photographs. If this remains an issue,
arrangements for uploading via Dropbox can be arranged, but such arrangements must
be made prior to the deadline stated above.
6. Interactive Sketchup Pro Model: The following sections describe the sandbox, piles,
load frame and sequencing of the competition. To assist in transmitting the many
dimensional and logistic requirements, an accurately dimensioned Sketchup Pro model
of the sandbox, piles, pile stabilizer, load frame, deflection frame, etc. has been
developed and may be downloaded from the GI/SEI-Challenge Official Information
Website. In addition to the control dimensions, this model features layered views of each
competition stage as outlined later in these rules, some notes as to the intent of the
rules, schematics of the paper reinforcement, and a schematic of the hardwood load
frame. If you have trouble obtaining Sketchup Pro, please contact your faculty advisor as
it is free to university faculty members.
7. Sandbox – The MSE wall will be constructed within an apparatus hereafter referred to
as a sandbox. Each team shall bring their own sandbox to the competition. Painting and
addition of school or sponsor logos and other decorations to the exterior of the sandbox
is highly encouraged. The sandbox shall be made up of a bottom and four vertical sides
with no top. The front panel and part of the two side panels will be removable as shown
in Fig. 2a. The removable box panels will be in place during wall construction and
removed after construction to expose the MSE wall. The sandbox will meet the following
requirements:
a. Have exteriors walls and base constructed of any grade of plywood 23/32-inch or
3/4-inch (19 mm) thick.
b. Have planar inside surfaces with the natural plywood finish. No restrictions are
placed on the exterior.
c. Have removable front and side panels as shown in Fig. 2a. Panels must be flush
with the base of the box and held in place with threaded inserts, screws, hinges,
clasps, or other easily removable fasteners.
d. Have a full-sized base such that it extends no more than 3/4 inch (19 mm)
beyond the base of the wall once the front and side panels have been removed
(the base should extend to the outside of the vertical walls so that the bottom can
be used as a deflection guide in Steps 13.e.iii and 13.e.iv).
e. Include a steel tie rod designed to keep the two fixed sides of the box parallel
during the construction phase of the competition.
f. All dimensions of the sandbox shall be as shown in Fig. 2b (see also Item 6
above).
For convenience, sandboxes may be designed so they can be transported as flat pieces and reassembled at the competition site.
Sandboxes will be checked for compliance at the pre-competition captains’ meeting.
Teams will have until the beginning of competition to correct any compliance issues. Any
team with a box out of compliance at the start of competition will be penalized.
8. Piles – Two vertical piles will be used to apply the horizontal load to the backfill behind the wall. Each team will provide their own piles. The 21-inch long piles are to be fabricated out of 1-½˝ schedule 40 PVC pipe. See the Sketchup Pro model for specific requirements on the pile locations.
9. Hardwood Load Frame – The MSE wall will be loaded by hanging an eccentric surcharge load onto a hardwood load frame, hereafter referred to as a load frame, which will be supported by piles constructed into the MSE wall backfill sand. Painting and addition of school or sponsor logos and other decorations to the load frame is highly encouraged. The load frame shall be made up of modular pieces of hardwood so that once assembled, it may be inserted into PVC piles constructed within the sandbox. The load frame must provide proper support for a bucket for the purpose of applying a load to the MSE wall.
The dimensions required of the hardwood load frame are identical those of the steel load frame that was last used in the 2014 competition. This includes the eccentricity of the bucket to the wall, the height that the bucket is suspended, and the location of the piles within the sandbox. This means that that steel load frames that may be available are well-suited for practice.
The load frame will meet the following requirements:
a. Be made of one of more species of hardwood
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_woods).
b. Be comprised of smaller components that are assembled to make the overall
load frame.
c. Be assembled at the competition during timed construction without the use of
metallic fasteners, glue, or tape.
d. Provide proper support (1/2 inch diameter hardwood rod) for the loading bucket
at specific locations (Figs. 2a and 3).
e. The lower approximately 21.5 inches of the load frame (the portion that fits into
the PVC piles and 0.75 inches above the PVC piles) are to have a uniform
external cross section (not necessarily circular). The tightness or sloppiness of
the fit into the PVC piles is at the discretion of each team. The load frame must
slip into the PVC piles during the Load Frame Assembly stage. Deviations from
the uniform cross section are permitted as required for making a connection
(such as installation of a peg to secure a joint).
(a)
(b) Fig. 2: Sandbox illustrations: a) Box with wall and backfill in place and front and
side planes removed. Note obstruction free area above the tie rod required for
placement of temporary deflection monitoring frame. Deflection monitoring frame
will be provided by conference organizers. b) Assembled box before wall
placement with dimensions.
f. When disassembled, each component must fit into a 2-inch by 2-inch by 12-inch
prism. g. Each component may be made of smaller pieces of hardwood that are glued
together (prior to the competition) to form the desired shape or function. h. Components are to connect to each other using joints that include, but are not
limited to threads, dovetail joints, mortise and tenon joints, slip joints, lap joints, or pins. The intent is to reward innovative designs and craftsmanship rather than be restrictive. However, each connection should not be able to slip apart through tension, compression, or shear. This may require additional parts, such as a wooden peg, to secure the connection.
Fig. 3: Dimensioned hardwood load frame. See Sketchup Pro model for other views.
Note: the shape of this load frame is shown schematically only.
10. Backfill Material- The backfill material will be sand provided by competition organizers on site. The sand will be a clean, dry, rounded to subrounded sand with grain size as specified in Table 1 and Fig. 4. The backfill material must be used as-is: no water, additives, or chemical stabilizers may be placed in the backfill material. Competition organizers will make reasonable efforts to ensure that the competition backfill materials meet the specifications in Table 1 and Fig. 4. Teams will be allowed to examine a sample of the competition backfill at the captains’ meeting. No backfill samples may be removed from the meeting room. Teams may modify their wall design at this time if they desire (see section 14).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 100.000
% F
iner
by
Weig
ht
Grain Diameter (mm)
Sieve Analysis
GRAVELSANDFINES
CourseCourse FineMediumFine
Estimated lower limit
Estimated upper limit
Table 1: Representative grain-size distribution for GI/SEI-Wall competition sand.
Typical
Distribution Lower Bound Upper Bound
Size
(mm)
%
Passing
Size
(mm)
%
Passing
Size
(mm)
%
Passing
2.36 100 1.30 100.0 2.50 100.0
1.70 96 1.20 96.9 2.10 96.9
1.18 20 1.15 93.7 2.00 93.7
0.85 1 0.95 38.7 1.60 38.7
0.60 1 0.83 12.7 1.30 12.7
0.70 2.0 1.10 2.0
Fig. 2: Estimated grain size distribution of backfill sand
11. Wall Materials – Materials will be provided by competition organizers on site. See
Appendix A for detailed specifications.
a. Facing – Two pieces of poster board must be joined with a lap splice. See Fig. 5 for dimensions.
b. Reinforcement – 60 lb Kraft Paper. Quantity of reinforcement will be measured by mass to the nearest 0.01g. There are no restrictions on the shape or geometry of reinforcing elements, but all reinforcement must be cut from a single sheet 24-inch × 24-inch.
c. Reinforcement Attachment to Facing – Heavy duty polypropylene packaging tape, 2-inch wide.
Competition organizers will make reasonable efforts to ensure the wall materials meet
the specifications in Appendix A. Teams will be provided small samples of the reinforcing
material at the captains’ meeting. Teams may modify their wall design at any time prior
to the actual competition; see Paragraph 14 below.
Fig. 5: Dimensions of the posterboard wall facing (not to scale)
12. Construction Tools - The following construction tools may be used and must be provided by the competing team (quantities of these items shall not be restricted):
a. Pencils, pens, and markers b. Rulers and straight edges c. Levels d. Manually operated cutting instruments, including scissors, paper cutting tools,
and hole punches. Open bladed utility knives or razor blades will not be permitted. See Safety section for additional information on this.
e. Cutting boards or mats f. Design notes, calculations and drawings
g. Material handling and compaction tools consisting of any hand operated devices. h. Screwdrivers (battery operated drills or screwdrivers may be used, but only to
remove fasteners when removing the facing panels) i. Temporary templates for use in any stage of competition. May be made of any
material, must not have any moving parts, must be removed at the end of any stage in which they are used.
Buckets and shovels will be provided by the competition organizers.
13. Execution – Construction and testing of the wall will be done in the following stages:
a. Reinforcement Fabrication Stage – Each team will be provided with a single
sheet of 60 lb Kraft paper approximately 24˝ × 24˝. The team must fabricate their
reinforcing elements from this sheet using authorized construction tools. Teams
will be timed for this stage with overtime charges when fifteen (15) minutes has
been exceeded. After the reinforcing elements are fabricated, excess material
will be disposed of and the judges will weigh the reinforcing elements to the
nearest 0.01 grams.
b. Wall Assembly Stage – After each team’s reinforcing elements have been
fabricated and weighed, the team will be provided with two sheets of poster-
board (22 inches × 28 inches) and a roll of packaging tape. The team must
assemble their wall using these materials and authorized construction tools.
Dimensions for the wall facing are shown in Fig. 5.
i. Tape may be used for only two purposes: 1) to join the two poster-board
sheets to form the wall facing and 2) to attach reinforcement to wall
facing. The poster-board sheets must be joined using a single lap splice
not exceeding 1 inch to form the wall facing. A single continuous strip of
tape may be used on each side of the poster-board to join the poster-
board sheets. The tape must be in contact with only the two poster-board
sheets. No other adhesives may be used to join the poster-boards.
ii. Tape used to attach reinforcement to the wall facing must be used in
individual pieces no larger than 2 inches × 2 inches. The adhesive side of
each piece of tape must be in contact with both the wall facing and a
reinforcing element. Tape pieces may not overlap one another, although
they may overlap the tape forming the poster-board lap splice. All tape
pieces must be placed on one of the three vertical planes forming the wall
facing.
iii. Tape may not be used for any other purpose, including but not limited to:
sealing corners of facing material, joining two or more reinforcing
elements, anchoring facing material or reinforcement to the box.
iv. The wall should be trial-fitted to the sandbox during this stage. Any
portion of the wall that rises above an imaginary line that is 3/16 inch
below the top of the sandbox must be trimmed off. The assembly stage is
complete when the facing material is properly folded and trimmed, the
reinforcing elements are attached to the facing, the wall is placed in the
sandbox, and the PVC pile sleeves are installed and stabilized. No sand
is added to the box in this stage. Twenty (20) minutes will be allotted for
this stage. Teams will be penalized for time exceeding the time limit.
Judges will check to ensure the wall is properly assembled.
c. Construction Stage – After the wall is assembled and checked by the judges,
the judges will instruct the team to start construction. During this stage the team
fills the box with sand so that the sand fill line (see Fig. 2b) is covered and the
backfill is level. The facing material must be in direct contact with the inside of the
sandbox at all times during this stage. Temporary templates or guides may be
used during this stage so long as they are removed before the end of the stage.
The construction stage is complete when the wall is in place, the sand backfill
covers the sand fill line and is level, and any temporary templates or guides have
been removed (including the PVC pile stabilizer). A maximum of twenty five (25)
minutes will be allotted for this stage, but teams may finish early (see scoring). At
the end of the phase, judges will check fill and pile placement to ensure they
meet requirements.
d. Load Frame Assembly Stage – This stage is completed just prior to the
Loading Stage. The components will be weighed to the nearest 0.1 grams. The
team should have the components of their load frame laid out along with the two
S-hooks and the empty surcharge bucket. The Load Frame Assembly Stage is
complete with the load frame is assembled and installed into the PVC piles, and
the surcharge loading bucket with 5 pounds (lbs) sand within the bucket is placed
on the S-hooks. The intent of the 5-lbs of sand is to take up any slack in the
hardwood load frame prior to zeroing the deflection gauge. This step is timed –
see Equation 3.
e. Loading Stage – This stage occurs in three steps: 1) loading of the load frame
with placement of a vertical surcharge, 2) removal of that vertical surcharge
followed by removal of front & side panels, and 3) placement of a second vertical
surcharge. Prior to the first step, the deflection will be zeroed. During the second
step, only the load frame will be checked for deflection criteria. For the two final
steps, the wall and load frame will be checked for the following four criteria: 1)
excessive deformation (any portion of the wall extending outside imaginary
planes extending vertically from base of sandbox), 2) excessive soil leakage
(more than 30 cm3 of sand passing out of the sandbox), 3) catastrophic failure,
and 4) excessive deflection of the load frame and/or vertical surcharge bucket.
The team will be penalized for poor performance in each of these four areas.
i. With the surcharge bucket and 5-lb sand supported by the load frame, the
vertical deflection gauge is zeroed.
ii. When directed by a judge, the team shall place 55 lbs of sand in the
vertical surcharge bucket that is supported by the load frame. The team
will have one (1) minute to place the load. After the load is placed, the
judge will wait one (1) minute and then check the deflection of the
hardwood load frame. Once the judge checks the deflection, the team will
remove the vertical surcharge load and place a second surcharge loading
bucket with 5 lbs of sand back on the hardwood load frame.
If a load frame breaks at this stage, the score will be computed based on
this step and loading Steps (iii) and (iv) are not completed.
iii. When directed by judge, the team shall remove the front and side panels
of the sandbox. After the panels are removed, the stopwatch will be
started and then the judges will clamp the deflection frame to the
sandbox. At the end of one (1) minute, the judges will check the four
criteria.
If the wall fails at this stage, the score will be computed based on this
step and loading Step (iv) is not completed.
iv. If the wall does not fail catastrophically, the team will then place 25 lbs of
sand in the vertical surcharge bucket that is suspended from the
hardwood load frame. The team will have one (1) minute to place the
load. After the load is placed, the judge will wait one (1) minute and then
check the four criteria.
14. Design Changes – Teams may change their design between the time the design report is submitted and the wall is tested. The adjusted mass of the reinforcing material used for scoring, M, will be computed as:
𝑀 = 𝑚𝐴 + (𝑚𝐷 −𝑚𝐴 + 0.50)2 (1) where
𝑀 = rounded and then truncated (2 decimals) mass reinforcing score;
𝑚𝐷 = reinforcing mass reported in design report; and
𝑚𝐴 = actual reinforcing mass used during competition
15. Scoring – The raw geotechnical and structural scores will be normalized by the highest ranking school of each category, respectfully (as a percent), and then the overall score computed as the weighted sum of the two categories. The geotechnical portion will be weighted by 60 percent and the structural category weighted by 40 percent. Note that scores can become negative.
Geotechnical Contribution: After completion of the loading stage, the raw geotechnical score for each team will be computed using the following formula:
Raw Geo Score 11min 4020240102015 FDTNNMR maj (2)
where
R = report score out of 60 points
M = adjusted mass of the reinforcement material in grams
minN = number of minor rules violations
majN = number of major rules violations
T = total number of minutes over time limit for all phases rounded up to nearest minute
1D = deflection rating
0 if load frame fails deflection criterion during Step 13.e.ii; 5 if wall fails deflection criterion during Step 13.e.iii; 3 if wall fails deflection criterion during Step 13.e.iv; and 0 if wall passes deflection criterion for all loading phases.
1F = Failure rating (in addition to the appropriate deflection rating)
8 if load frame fails during Step 13.e.ii; 6 if wall fails catastrophically during Step 13.e.iii; 3 if wall fails catastrophically during Step 13.e.iv; and 0 if wall never fails catastrophically.
a. Minor Penalties
i. Box dimension out of spec; ii. Pile location out of spec; iii. Improper use of adhesive tape (overlapping) resulting from sloppiness of
construction; iv. Improper placement of reinforcement strips resulting from sloppiness of
construction (they should avoid the gray areas as presented in Fig. 5); v. Any addendum to the design report required by judges that simply
clarifies content but does not change the design; and vi. Any other rule violation that in the opinion of the judges that has the
potential to provide the team with a measureable but minor advantage.
b. Major Penalties i. Soil leakage greater than 30 cm3 (volume of standard 1 oz plastic
medicine cup); ii. Improper use of adhesive tape (overlapping) resulting from design flaw,
such as designing the reinforcement strips too close together; iii. Improper placement of reinforcement strips by design (they should avoid
the gray areas as presented in Fig. 5); iv. Any addendum to the design report required by judges that results in a
significant change to the design; and v. Any other rule violation that in the opinion of the judges has the potential
to provide the team with a significant advantage, but does not warrant disqualification.
c. Disqualification – Teams may be disqualified for the following: i. Failure to send a representative to the pre-competition captains’ meeting; ii. Unsafe practices, including use of open blade knives; and iii. Design or construction techniques that violate the spirit of the competition
and provide a large and/or unfair advantage. Once all of the raw geotechnical scores are posted, they will be normalized by the highest raw geotechnical score. The normalizations will be multiplied by 60. Hence, the highest possible score from this category is 60. There is no lower limit for a score.
Geotechnical Scoring Example: Assume a team constructs a wall with following characteristics
• Report Score: 48/60, R = 48 • Design report specifies 8.57 g. Actual reinforcement used is 8.25 g.
92.850.025.857.825.8M2
• Minor deduction for tape overlapping on wall, minN = 1
• Execution times were:
Reinforcement fabrication: 15:18 (18 sec over allotted time, round up to 1min)
Wall assembly: 16:05 (1:05 over allotted time, round up to 2 min)
Construction: 24:27 (under allotted time)
Total time over: 3 min , T = 3 Note: Only times over limit during each stage are counted. Teams get no benefit for times under the limit of any individual stage.
• Wall passed deflection test in first loading phase (Step 13.e.iii) but failed deflection test during
second loading phase (Step 13.e.iv), 1D = 3, 1F = 0
Using Eq. 1, the raw geotechnical score is
Raw Geo Score
20.1380403203204011092.8201548
Suppose that at the end of the competition, the highest raw geotechnical score of all of the teams is 272.82. Thus, the final geotechnical score for this example team is:
Corrected Geo Score 39.306082.272
20.138
Structural Contribution: After completion of the loading stage, the raw structural score for each team will be computed using the following formula:
Raw Structural Score 222 5001752543200 FDNMZCPL maj,comp (3)
where
L = mass of the hardwood load frame in grams
P = number of people for the load frame assembly at any time during its assembly. This includes any type of work sharing (one person does first half, another the second – still two people);
C = overall time for construction of the load frame in seconds (independent of the
number of people used);
Z = 1.0 if C is less than 300, otherwise Z will be 1.1
compM = total mass of component(s) not meeting specifications
2maj,N = number of major deductions
2D = deflection rating (as the wall, the deflection criteria is ¾-inch vertical as
measured at the dowel rod) 3 if load frame fails deflection criterion during Step 13.e.ii; 2 if load frame fails deflection criterion during Step 13.e.iii; and 1 if load frame fails deflection criterion before or during Step 13.e.iv; and 0 if load frame passes deflection criterion for all loading phases.
2F = Failure rating (in addition to the appropriate deflection rating)
2 if load frame fails during Step 13.e.ii; 1 if wall fails during Step 13.e.iii; 1 if load frame fails during Steps 13.e.iii or 13.e.iv; and 0 if load frame never fails.
Failure of the load frame is defined as either a catastrophic failure or such deflection that the supported load is no longer supported by the piles alone (e.g., the bucket makes contact with the floor). This means that if your wall fails during Step 13.e.iv, the bucket will contact the floor creating a load frame failure.
a. Major Penalties
i. Load frame components may not slip apart from each other in shear, tension, or compression. For example, if two adjacent components can be
disassembled by tension alone, then 2maj,N = 1 for these two component
alone.
b. Disqualification – Teams may be disqualified for the following: i. Load frame does not disassemble or is not present; ii. Unsafe practices; and iii. Design or construction techniques that violate the spirit of the competition
and provide a large and/or unfair advantage.
Once all of the raw structural scores are posted, they will be normalized by the highest raw
structural score. The normalizations will be multiplied by 40. Hence, the highest possible score
from this category is 40. There is no lower limit for a score.
Structural Scoring Example: Assume a team constructs a wall with following characteristics • The team’s load frame has a total mass of 1359.2 grams • One component did not fit into the prism. The mass of this one component is 78.5
grams. • During the assembly, one person did the majority of the work, but a second person
was needed for 15 seconds to align two components for assembly. The person doing the majority of the work took a total of 63 seconds for assembly of the load frame.
P = 2
C = 63
Z = 1.0
• Each of the component connections could not be disassembled through shear,
tension, or compression alone. Hence, 2maj,N = 0.
• The load frame passed deflection test in first loading phase but failed deflection (likely due to the wall deflection) test during the placement of the 25 lbs of sand.
Hence, 2D = 1, 2F = 0
Using Eq. 3, the raw structural score is:
Raw Structural Score
8.1225050011750255.7840.16322.13593200
At the end of the competition, the highest raw structural score of all of the teams is 2167.5. Thus, the final structural score for this example team is:
Corrected Structural Score 62.22405.2167
8.1225
Hence, the total overall score for this team is 30.39 + 22.62 = 53.02 The judges will follow the rules as published using reasonable judgment and interpretation. The
head judge will be the arbiter of any disputes, which are to be brought forth solely by the Team
Captain. Decisions of the head judge are final. Results posted at the competition are not subject
to review after the competition.
See Appendix C for scoring checklists.
16. Pre-Competition Team Captains’ Meeting – A team captains’ meeting will be held prior to the competition for the purposes of: checking sandboxes and load frames for compliance, establishing competition order, and disseminating any logistical or administrative information. This is a MANDATORY meeting. Each team must have the team captain (or designee) present. All team members are encouraged to attend. Specific meeting time and location will be announced in Mailer 3 before the conference. Teams without a representative at the captains’ meeting will be disqualified. Teams should bring their sandboxes, load frames, piles, pile stabilizers, and any hardware or tools needed for assembly. Sandboxes, piles, and load frames will be assembled and checked for compliance at the meeting. Teams will have until one hour prior to the beginning of the competition to correct any compliance issues identified during the captains’ meeting (any sandboxes, piles, or load frames found out of compliance at the captains’ meeting will be rechecked April 9th before the construction portion of the competition).
Appendices
Appendix A: Material Specifications
• Sand:
Clean sand with grain size distribution as specified in Table 1 and Fig. 4
Grain shape will be rounded to sub-rounded
• Sandbox Material:
Walls and Base: 23/32 or ¾-inch thick plywood, any grade
Tie Rod: ¼-inch diameter threaded steel rod with washers and nuts as needed
With the exception of the tie rod itself, hardware on the inside of the box (e.g., nuts and washers for the tierod) should be countersunk
Fasteners: any suitable wood fasteners
• Facing Material:
Poster Board, 22 inches x 28 inches, White
Grammage: 194 g/m2, 0.125 g/in2
Office Depot® Item # 858277 (Pack Of 10)
• Reinforcing Material:
60 lb Kraft Paper
Grammage: 97.7 g/m2, 0.063 g/in2
Office Depot® Postal Wrap Item # 444835 (2 feet x 50 feet roll)
• Adhesive Material:
Heavy duty, clear, 2 inches wide, polypropylene package tape
Scotch® 142-B Super Strength Mailing Tape, clear
Office Depot® Item #650457, 2 inches x 22.2 yards with dispenser
• Load Frame Material:
Hardwood meeting wood type and size criteria
Bucket Support rod: ½-inch diameter hardwood
Appendix B part 1: Design Report Judging Rubric Mid-Pacific GeoWall Design Paper – Scoring Form
Reviewer Guidelines:
1) Place weight on the team ability for engineering reasoning not technical knowledge
2) Place weight on team communication skills on procedures, findings and observations
3) Score in 0.5-point increments
4) Team to be awarded a higher score if verifying design parameters beyond assumptions and references
Criterion Max Actual Notes
1) Formatting, Mechanics, Grammar & Safety
a. Paper length, margins & font are acceptable 1 Paper complies with specifications
b. Layout, or structure, of paper is logical 1 Paper organization is clear and supports the message.
c. Grammar and punctuation are correct 1 Error free paper with writing that clearly presents design.
d. Figures & tables are clear, properly numbered, captioned and
referenced in the text 1
Good choice of tables vs. figures, clear presentation of
data.
e. References are reasonably formatted and complete 1 Quantity appropriate with correct citations and
references
f. Appendix A and Safety appendix complete with reasonable
controls 1
Clearly identifies key safety concerns and provides viable
plans to keep team safe during competition.
2) Experimental Methods, Analyses and Design:
a. Methods to obtain soil properties 2 Experimental methods are reasonable and clearly
described
b. Methods to determine reinforcement properties 2 Experimental methods are reasonable and clearly
described
c. Methods to determine backfill-reinforcement interaction 2 Experimental methods are reasonable and clearly
described
d. Engineering properties are reasonable 2 Backfill unit weight, friction angle, interface friction angle,
reinforcement strength are compared to typical values
e. Earth-pressure calculations 2 Calculations for both backfill and surcharge are correct
and presented in a logical, readily followed format
f. Method used to account for 3-D wall geometry 2 Method and assumptions are reasonable
g. Design of reinforcement length 2 Model accounting for 3-D geometry is reasonable and
appropriate
i. Design of reinforcement spacing 2 Method and assumptions are reasonable
j. Evaluation of connection strength 2 Method and assumptions are reasonable
k. Methods to obtain hardwood properties 2 Referenced or experimental
l. Detail to connections of modular components 2 Discussed with attention to function and ease of
assembly
m. Structural analysis of load frame 2 Model accounting for 3-D geometry and misfit is
reasonable and appropriate
3) Engineering Reasoning and Communication
The report is, on the whole, clear, precise, and well-reasoned.
Engineering terms and distinctions are used effectively and in
keeping with established professional usage. The report
demonstrates a clear and precise analysis of the MSE wall and load
frame design problem, very little or no irrelevant information is
presented, key assumptions are identified, and key concepts are
clarified. The authors have shown, through their report, excellent
engineering reasoning and problem-solving skills.
10
Scores may range from 0 to 10. It is the opinion of the
reviewer as to how the overall report measures up to the
criteria listed under item 3 "engineering reasoning and
communication".
Design Paper Sub Total 40
Appendix B Part 2: Design Poster Judging Rubric
Mid-Pacific GeoWall Design Poster – Scoring Form
Reviewer Guidelines:
1) Place weight on the team ability for engineering reasoning not technical knowledge
2) Place weight on team communication skills on procedures, findings and observations
3) Score in 0.5-point increments
4) Team to be awarded a higher score if verifying design parameters beyond assumptions and references
Criterion Max Actual Notes
1) Formatting, Mechanics, Grammar & Safety
a. Poster size (24x36” max), headings, fonts, margins and layout 1 Poster complies with specifications
c. Grammar and punctuation are correct 1 Error free paper with writing that clearly presents design.
d. Figures & tables are clear, properly numbered, captioned and
referenced in the text 1
Good choice of tables vs. figures, clear presentation of
data.
e. References are reasonably formatted and complete 1 Quantity appropriate with correct citations and
references
2) Experimental Methods, Analyses and Design:
a. Conveys the Experimental Methods, Analyses and Design steps
used to plan the GeoWall construction 3
Experimental methods, analyses, and design of the
project are displayed. This is not as in-depth as the
report, but technical enough for another engineer to
grasp the concepts and gain an understanding of the
GeoWall Competition.
3) Engineering Reasoning and Communication
a. The poster is, on the whole, clear, precise, and well-reasoned.
Engineering terms and distinctions are used effectively and in
keeping with established professional usage. The poster
demonstrates a clear and precise analysis of the MSE wall and
load frame design problem, very little or no irrelevant
information is presented, key assumptions are identified, and
key concepts are clarified. The authors have shown, through
their poster, excellent engineering reasoning and problem-
solving skills.
3
Scores may range from 0 to 2. It is the opinion of the
reviewer as to how the overall report measures up to the
criteria listed under item 3 "engineering reasoning and
communication".
b. Answering judges questions 10 This score reflects the team’s ability to professionally answer
the judge’s questions and clearly explain the material.
Design Poster Sub Total 20
Mid-Pacific GeoWall Design Paper and Poster – Scoring Form
Criterion Max Actual Notes
Design Paper and Poster Combined Total 60 Add together Design Paper and Poster Sub Totals to be used
in the geotechnical raw scoring.
Appendix C: Judges Scoring Checklist for GeoWall Competition
C1: Captains Meeting – Box Check Team School: Deductions
Item Instruction Minor Major
Sandbox
Plywood 23/32 or ¾-inch or 19 mm thickness
Inside surfaces planar and natural
Box dimensions Within tolerance
Sand fill height marked
Facing panels Flush to box base
Base extends to outside of vertical facing panels
Removable fasteners
Tie rod ¼-inch dia
Located within tolerances
Piles 1-½ inch Sch 40 PVC
Length in tolerance
Base guides ≤ ¼-inch thick
Locations in tolerance
Upper pile template easily removable
Deflection frame
attachment
Frame fits properly on box
Tools Only authorized tools used
Other minor, explain:
Other major, explain:
Disqualification, explain:
Hardwood Load Frame
Materials Constructed of hardwood
No metallic or other reinforcement
Frame Dimensions Eccentricity
Height
Width at bucket support
Bucket support rod is ½ inch diameter
Components Components fit into prism (see C5) g
Full Assemblage Components cannot be disassembled with shear, tension, or compression of joints alone
Wooden pins used for securing components excepted from this
No non-wooden fasteners
Disqualification, explain:
Total deductions
C2: Reinforcement Fabrication Item Instruction Time
Total
> 15:00 (Min:sec )
Time Give start command. Time ends when all elements cut to size and shape
Mass (g)
Design Actual
Mass Weigh reinforcement to nearest 0.01 g
Compute official Mass, M, using Equation 2 M =
Deductions
Deductions Minor Major
Tools Only authorized tools used, especially no open blade knives
Safety No mishaps
Other, explain
Total deductions
C3: Wall Assembly Team School:
Item Instruction Time
Total
> 20:00 (Min:sec )
Time Give start command. Time ends when wall is assembled and trial fit to box (NO SAND PLACED DURING THIS PHASE)
Deductions
Minor Major
Facing construction Single lap joint 1 inch wide
Trimmed ~3/16 inch below top of wall
Reinforcement attachment
Each tape piece ≤ (2 inches 2 inches)
On vertical front/side planes only
Not overlapping (see 15.a-b)
Touch both wall and reinforcement
Tools Only authorized tools used
Safety No mishaps
Total deductions
C4: Construction
Item Instruction Time
Total
> 25:00 (Min:sec )
Time Give start command. Time ends when soil filled to line and students signal end (hands up)
Deductions
Minor Major
Backfill Level
Filled to fill line
Tools Only authorized tools used
Safety No mishaps
Total deductions
C5: Load Frame Assembly Item Instruction
Time Give start command. Time ends when the load frame is assembled, installed in the piles, and the bucket is in place
C = sec
Persons # persons completing assemblage P =
Mass (g)
Mass Weigh components to nearest 0.1 g. This measurement to be made just prior to Load Frame Assembly.
L =
Mass (g)
Total mass of components that do not fit into the 2-inch x 2-inch x 12-inch prism Mcomp =
Deductions from C1 # of components that can slip apart without pin or other being removed
Nmaj,2 =
Other, explain
Total deductions
C6: Loading Team School:
Item Instruction
Stage i Bucket with 5-lbs sand supported. Zero out vertical deflection gauge on dowel rod
Stage ii: Load Frame Loading
Bucket preweighed with 55 lbs of sand should be ready.
At judge’s direction students add 55 lbs of sand to surcharge bucket. Students have one minute to complete loading.
Once load is placed start 1 min wait period
At end of 1 min make following checks
Remove surcharge bucket.
Check vertical deflection at end of load frame support.
Pass Fail D2 = 3
Failure (frame breaks or bucket transmits load)
Pass
Fail D1 = 0
Fail F1 = 8
Fail D2 = 3
Fail F2 = 2
Stage iii: Backfill only
Replace a new surcharge bucket with 5-lbs sand
Place clean posterboard on floor in front and sides of box
At judge’s direction students remove panels from box. Electric drills/screwdriver may be used to remove fasteners.
Once panels are completely removed start 1 min wait period
Attach measuring frame
At end of 1 min make following checks
Swipe front wall front and sides with straight edge to check wall deflection
Pass Fail D1 = 5
Less than 30 cm3 sand leaked from box onto floor Pass Fail Major Ded
Catastrophic failure of the wall.
Pass
Fail D1 = 5
Fail F1 = 6
Fail D2 = 2
Fail F2 = 2
Check vertical deflection at load frame support. Pass Fail, D2 = 2
Stage iv: Eccentric Vertical Surcharge
Bucket preweighed with 25 lbs of sand should be ready.
At judge’s direction students add 25 lbs of sand to surcharge bucket. Students have one minute to complete loading.
Once load is placed start 1 min wait period
At end of 1 min make following checks
Loading complete within 1 minute Yes No Minor Ded
Swipe front wall face with straight edge to check wall deflection
Pass Fail D1 = 3
Less than 30 cm3 sand leaked from box onto floor Pass Fail Major Ded
Catastrophic failure of the MSE wall Pass
Fail D1 = 3
Fail F1 = 3
Check vertical deflection at load frame support. Pass Fail, D2 = 1
Load frame breaks or bucket touches floor Pass
Fail D2 = 1
Fail F2 = 1
C7: Raw Scoring
Raw Geotechnical Score 11majmin F40D20T2N40N10M2015R
Adjusted mass, M, computed by
2ADA 50.0mmmM (round and truncate M to two decimal places)
Team School:
Item Score Weight Extended
Report and poster score out of 60, R 1
Reinforcement mass score, enter as (20 – M) 15
Total # of minor deductions, Nmin -10
Total # of major deductions, Nmaj -40
Total time over limit rounded up to nearest whole minute, T -2
Deflection rating, D1 (see Appendix D6)
-20
Failure rating, F1 (see Appendix D6)
-40
Geotechnical Final Raw Score
Raw Structural Score 222,majcomp F500D175N25M4ZCPL3200
Item Score Weight Extended
Load frame mass, L -1
Assembly time (use Z = 1.0 if C < 300, else 1.1), enter as PCZ -1
Total mass of large components, Mcomp -4
Total # of major deductions, Nmaj,2 -25
Deflection rating, D2 (See Appendix D6)
-175
Failure rating, F2 (see Appendix D6)
-500
Structural Final Raw Score
Notes:
C8: Final Scoring
Item Weight Quotient
Raw Geotechnical Score (RGS)
Highest Overall Raw Geotechnical Score
Value Weight Extension
Quotient from above: 60
Item Weight Quotient
Raw Structural Score
Highest Overall Raw Structural Score
Value Weight Extension
Quotient from above 40
Extension Extension
Total Score (sum of corrected scores)
Appendix D: Safety
This section is intended for each team to consider the competition steps and manage the safety risk. Use rows as necessary.
Title Work Task Hazards Controls
Notes:
1) Due to cuts during the 2014 and 2015 competitions, open-bladed knives or utility razors, including those by Martor, will not be allowed at all this year. There are a number of possible substitutions, including
Paper trimmers (http://www2.fiskars.com/Products/Crafting-and-Sewing/Paper-Trimmers/Portable-Rotary-Paper-Trimmer-12 )
Scissors
Spagetti Cutters (http://www.amazon.com/Marcato-Atlas-Wellness-Pasta-Stainless/dp/B0009U5OSO )
2) Safety mishaps that result in bleeding will be classified as “major”.
Appendix E: Bio-form to be completed by each team captain and submitted to the chief judge at the
pre-competition meeting
Geotechnical & Structural Engineering Congress 2016
GI/SEI-Wall Competition Bios
Team School:
Team Mascot:
No. of Years Competing at Nationals:
Team Advisor:
Team Captain:
Current Year in School (junior, senior, MS, or PhD):
Hometown (City and State or Country)
Other School Activities:
Interests/Hobbies:
Future Plans, e.g., graduate school, consulting, government, other?
Geographical preferences?
Appendix F: Bio-form to be completed by each team member and submitted to the chief judge at the
pre-competition meeting
Geotechnical & Structural Engineering Congress 2016
GI/SEI-Wall Competition Bios
Team School:
Team Mascot:
No. of Years Competing at Nationals:
Team Advisor:
Team Member:
Current Year in School (junior, senior, MS, or PhD):
Hometown (City and State or Country)
Other School Activities:
Interests/Hobbies:
Future Plans, e.g., graduate school, consulting, government, other?
Geographical preferences?
WATER RESEARCH
Competition Date: Thursday April 7, 2016
Competition Location: Silver Legacy Conference Rooms
Submission Deadline:
Please submit your paper (in PDF format) by March 13, 2016 and oral presentation PowerPoint (or
equivalent) by April 4th, 2016 to [email protected].
For questions regarding the water research competition contact:
Joe Perreira
Water Research
Introduction The Mid-Pac Student Water Research Competition is an initiative to promote the education of
undergraduate/graduate students in various water and wastewater related topics. Winners of the
competition receive a cash prize.
Topic This year’s topics should focus on research relating to treatment processes for wastewater from mines.
Examples include:
- Research findings, including literature reviews, laboratory or field studies, or mathematical
modeling studies on treatment processes.
- Papers describing treatment processes that would improve water quality from sites in
perpetuity.
- Innovative treatment systems for the capture and treatment of runoff from tailings ponds.
- A preliminary engineering design report describing a design project, including a description of
the problem, development of the basis of design, and selection of the recommended solution
integrating treatment methods, with appropriate figures.
Paper The paper must include/will be:
- Limited to 10 total typed pages of less than 5,000 words
- An appendix, if included, will not count against either the final page or word count;
however, the appendix should be clearly marked as such in the report in order to ensure
this.
- A references section would also be excluded from the final page and word count.
- Use an 11 point font and line spacing set to 1.5.
- A descriptive title.
- Author’s full name, department and university address, and email.
- An abstract of less than 350 words.
The paper should generally include the following, although not all may be applicable to a given topic:
- An introduction, which should include citations of published related work to assess previous
research and identify the gaps in knowledge, as well as a statement of the objectives of the
work.
- Sections on methodology, results, discussion and conclusions, and an appendix.
- Again, appendices will not count against page or word count.
- An acknowledgment section following the conclusions, which may include any credits for
funding or for assistance in the study. Faculty advisors cannot be listed as coauthors; however,
they may act in an advisory capacity, and should be listed in an acknowledgment.
- A list of references, alphabetized by the last name of the first author cited. Students are
encouraged to use Water Environment Research reference formatting guidelines, which can be
found at the following website:
http:/www.wef.org/Publications/page.aspx?id=2834
- Again, a references section will not count against the final page or word count.
Oral Presentation - Each paper must be formally presented at the conference.
- Presentations must be no longer than 5 minutes in duration (± 10 seconds without penalty).
- Presentations that go beyond the 10 second allowance will receive a 0.05 point penalty
per second difference from the buffer, i.e. a final time of 5:30 or 4:30 would each
receive a 1 point deduction for being 20 seconds outside of the buffer.
- A 5 minute question and answer period will immediately follow the presentation.
- Presentations should be accompanied by a visual aid of some kind (e.g. PowerPoint).
Competition Scoring Please submit your paper (in PDF format) by March 13, 2016 and oral presentation PowerPoint (or
equivalent) by April 4, 2016 to [email protected].
Scoring will be out of 100 points total with a maximum of 75 points for the paper and a maximum of 25
points for the oral presentation. This breaks down as follows:
Paper Scoring Criteria Score
1. Originality /20
2. Technical content /20
3. Clarity, professional quality, and references /15
4. Relevancy to topic /5
5. Abstract /10
6. Spelling and grammar /5
Paper Sub-Total /75
Presentation Scoring Criteria Score
1. Addressing the paper’s main points /10
2. Convincing support /5
3. Delivery /5
4. Question and Answer /5
Deduction for time (5 minutes ± 10 seconds) (beyond
10 second allowance: 0.05 point penalty per second difference from the buffer, i.e. 5:30 or 4:30 = 1 point deduction)
Presentation Sub-Total /25
Overall Score /100
Awards The overall scores will be tallied and the papers ranked accordingly. Top placing papers will be awarded
cash prizes
1st place: $100
2nd place: $75
3rd place: $50
Authorship and Submission Requirements Authorship
The paper and presentation are to be done individually. Only one contestant from each participating
school may enter the competition and write the paper Faculty advisors should be listed in an
acknowledgement section. Entrants must be a current undergraduate/graduate student to be eligible
for this competition. Faculty advisors cannot be listed as coauthors.
Submission Requirements
To be eligible for the Mid-Pac 2015 Student Research Competition, the paper shall be sent electronically
(PDF format) to [email protected], by March 13, 2016.
WATER TREATMENT COMPETITION
Date of Competition: April 7, 2016
April 8, 2016
Competition Location: Lawlor Events Center
Summary:
The ASCE Water Treatment Competition is an undergraduate project that gives students with civil and
environmental engineering and related majors a chance to gain hands-on experience with the research,
design, and lab testing involved with water treatment principles as well as an opportunity to develop
professional skills such as technical writing and presenting. Teams from California, Nevada, Hawaii,
Canada and China participate to design a filter made of materials bought in a hardware store that treats
a standardized wastewater based on the real-world scenario presented in the competition rules.
The project is judged based on (1) filter construction, (2) water quality results, (3) a design report, (4) a
poster, and (5) an oral presentation. Students are encouraged to work closely with university faculty and
local engineering professionals to create a practical and innovate method of addressing the problem
statement. The Water Treatment Competition occurs at the Mid-Pacific Conference, which will be hosted
at the University of Nevada, Reno this school year on the weekend of April 7 – 9, 2016.
Important Deadlines:
Registration – Postmarked by Friday, November 20, 2015
Questions and materials requests – Emailed by Sunday, December 6, 2015
Design report – Electronic PDF emailed (by midnight) and bound copy postmarked by Friday,
March 4, 2016
Presentation – Slide show emailed electronically (by midnight) Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Contact and Submission Information:
Send submissions and questions via email to: [email protected]
Send submissions via mail to:
University of Nevada, Reno
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, MS 258
Attn: ASCE Student Chapter
1664 North Virginia Street
Reno, Nevada 89557
*Failure to comply with the deadlines listed above will result in your team’s immediate disqualification
in the competition.
TRANSPORTATION COMPETITION
Date of Competition: April 8, 2016
Location of Competition: Lawlor Events Center
Summary:
The purpose of the Transportation Competition is to provide students with a practical transportation
engineering problem. This challenge requires students to apply methods of intersection design, geometric
design, pavement design, and traffic engineering along with the application of surveying and drafting
techniques.
For any questions related to the Transportation Competition, please contact:
Brian Echevarria
University of Nevada, Reno [2016 MID PACIFIC CONFERENCE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT]
1
Rules Purpose
The purpose of this project is to provide students with a practical transportation engineering
problem. This challenge requires students to apply methods of intersection design, geometric
design, pavement design, and traffic engineering along with the application of surveying and
drafting techniques.
Problem Statement
Markham Malls is building a mega mall in the Reno area and has requested the conceptual designs
and plans from several consulting firms. Each consulting firm is to design the most efficient and
cost effective signalized intersection for the mall’s main entrance. The design must include
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, striping, signage, pavement cross sections, standard details, and
signal timing.
Requirements
All participants must follow the guidelines and requirements of this project in order to be
considered for the contract.
Specifications
Existing topography and right-of-way limits are provided in the Civil 3D CAD file,
“Mega_Mall_topo.dwg” . This drawing should be referenced in your plans (do not make any changes
to the existing surface or right-of-way limits).
Posted Speed Limit 35 mph
Expected Design Level-of-Service C
Traffic Growth 2% Annually
Design Life 20 years
University of Nevada, Reno [2016 MID PACIFIC CONFERENCE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT]
2
2016 Projected Traffic Volumes:
Submittals
The 100% plan documents, written summary, calculations, and opinion of probable cost should be
combined into one .pdf and submitted by March 13, 2016 at 5:00 pm PST to
[email protected] and include the following:
Site Plan of the proposed intersection
Roadway profiles
Cut and Fill / Grading plan
Signal timing and phasing Figure
Detail sheet(s) including cross sectional details and standard construction details.
Opinion of Probable Cost
Calculations
Written summary
All figures and plans must be computer drafted in the format of ANSI B (11”x17”).
All request for Information (RFI) should be sent to [email protected] prior to
February 1, 2016.
University of Nevada, Reno [2016 MID PACIFIC CONFERENCE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT]
3
Site Plan
The site plan should show the designed intersection with roadways extending at least 100’ from the
stop bar in each direction (North, South, East, and West). Two centerlines (North-South direction
and East-West direction) should be derived. All medians, turn pockets, sign locations, striping, and
bike and pedestrian facilities should be clearly displayed. Additionally, any necessary detail callouts
and dimensions should be shown on the plan(s). The Site Plan may be split up into multiple sheets
with appropriate matchline callouts. Displaying landscaping features are optional.
Roadway Profiles
The profile plan should show two profiles, one for the north-south roadway alignment and one for
the east-west roadway alignment of the designed intersection. The profile views should clearly
display the existing ground and the designed finished grade profile. Grades, grade breaks, points of
vertical intersection, and vertical curve dimensions should be clearly labeled on the finished grade
profile lines.
Grading Plan
The grading plan should clearly display existing and finished grade contours. The design should
aim for a near balance of cut and fill and the locations of each should be clearly defined. Also, be
sure to provide sufficient elevation points at areas that are not covered by a specific detail.
Signal Timing and Phasing
The signal timing and phasing figure should clearly display the appropriate movements for each
phase, the time for each phase, and total cycle length. Any formulas and assumptions should be
clearly shown.
University of Nevada, Reno [2016 MID PACIFIC CONFERENCE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT]
4
Detail Sheet(s)
Standard detail drawings should be combined onto the appropriate number of sheets. The details
should be thorough enough to ensure that the contractor can correctly construct the designed
intersection and roadways. A list of standard City of Reno details can be found at:
http://www.reno.gov/government/government/departments/public-works/forms-
publications/construction-standard-details. Any other details must be designed by the consulting
firm and comply with any ADA standards as necessary. Additionally, roadway cross sections should
be designed and displayed in this area. Be sure to make the appropriate call outs on the site plan
that refers to the details using an organized detail numbering system (Example: See detail 3 on
sheet DT-01)
Opinion of Probable Cost
A construction cost estimate for the project should be established via an excel spreadsheet. All
variables associated with the construction of the new intersection should be considered with an
assumed cost (in USD).
Calculations
The calculations sheet should be organized and clearly labeled with a title and numbered steps for
each formula. All appropriate calculations should be conducted for the intersection to ensure a
sufficiently designed intersection. The level of service calculation should be clearly displayed and
should be appropriately backed up by a transportation engineering computer software calculation.
Any assumptions should be clearly noted. The intersection must obtain a level minimum of a level
C by the end of the 20 year design life.
Written Summary
The written summary should be no greater than 8 pages, double spaced, using 12 point Times
New Roman font. The citations, cover page, table of contents, and appendices are NOT
INCLUDED in the 8-page length.
The summary should review the entire project and also explain the following:
University of Nevada, Reno [2016 MID PACIFIC CONFERENCE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT]
5
Functionality of the intersection
Efficiencies and benefits to the overall design
Explanation of the chosen signal timing and phasing sequence
Explain any innovative features of the intersection
Discuss the traffic and pedestrian safety aspects of the design
Poster Session
All participating schools should prepare a poster that outlines the design around a final conceptual
drawing of the intersection. Each poster must display (at the minimum) the school name, each
participating member’s name, roadway cross section(s), phasing and signal timing diagram, and
total cost estimate. The posters will be displayed on April 8, 2016. Please provide your own poster
stand. Additionally, judges may ask questions for clarifications about the design at this time and
will count towards the final poster scoring.
Judging
The judging criteria are as follows:
Site Plan 15
Roadway profiles 10
Cut and Fill/ Grading plan 5
Figure displaying Site triangles 5
Figure displaying signal timing and phases 10
Detail sheet(s) 10
Opinion of Probable Cost 10
Level of Service calculations 5
Written summary 15
Poster 10
Overall Formatting/Completeness 5
Total Points 100
All calculations and assumptions should be in reference with the most recent MUTCD, AASHTO
and HDM.