duddingston loch pier

8/10/2019 Duddingston Loch Pier

1/32


2/32

CONTENTS

1: VISUALREPRESENTATIONOFDESIGN

2: DESIGNCONEPT

3: BOARDWALKINCONTEXT

4: SITEPLAN

5. FLOORPLAN

6: CONCEPTDIAGRAM

7: EXPLODEDAXONOMETRIC

8-11: CALCULATIONS- POSTANDPRIMARYBEAMS

12-14: DETAILDRAWINGS

15-16: CALCULATIONS- SECONDARYBEAM

17-19: SECTIONS

20-21: RENDERS

22: ELEVATION

23-25: SECONDSTORY

26: SECONDSTORVISUAL

27-28: WILLOWWEAVE-NAILS

29: RENDER30: CREDITS


3/32

1


4/32

Our primary interests were in traditional wooden construction and designing with wooden joints, principly inspired by Crannogs vernacular

architecture. We then researched more modern examples including the mathematical bridge in Cambridge which we felt was apt due to its

mathematical focus of the project. A sculptural piece by Ai WeiWei built out of old temple parts was also an inspiration for its

traditional oriental joinery.

A key feature in our design was to get people as close to the water as possible, close enough on a lower level to engage and touch it. On

top of this we created a pond space to allow for a closer interaction with the wildlife. As a sight of natural beauty, we chose the site taking

into account the present habitat of the birds. We also desired to get out into the centre of the loch to envoke a sense of awe at the beautiful

stillness and topography.

Its trajectory into the loch was taken so you would view the most picturesque areas of wildlife to the east. However, we wanted areas

providing panoramic views which were accomodated by a raised platform.

2


5/32

3


6/32

1:1250 Site Plan 4


7/32

1:200 Plan 5


8/32

A key aspect of our design was to create a series of view points. We decided on three areas, focusing on different

elements of the loch and surrounding scenery. The principle walkway runs continuously at the same level allowing

access for all users. The design steps down at the end of the boardwalk bringing users closer to the water and the

birds.

6


9/32

Exploded Axonometric 7


10/32

COLUMNS

Check loading on column A

The chosen column dimension 200 x 200 mm (200 x 195 in Table 12:Geometrical properties of regularised softwood)

Total area of floor carried by column = 2.2 x 1.575 = 3.47 m

2

(column carries half of the adjacent spans).Therefore, the total load carried by each column P = 3.47 x 5.5 (+4.5 pedestrian load) = 23.59 kN

For stress class D40, the compressive strength parallel to the grain fc,0,k= 26 N/mm2

Consider actual construction details and conditions in determining effective

length Lefor buckling (the height the column can buckle):

Le = 3000 mm

From Table 3:Strength classes and characteristic values for common timbers(Table 1 from BS EN 338:2003)):

E0.05= 9.4 kN/mm2, therefore

The slenderness ratio , where the radius of gyration about the axis of the section

x-x rxx= 56.3mm (from Table 12: Geometrical properties of regularised softwoods).

Using these values (Table 14: Values for the slenderness modification factor kc,yin HARDWOODS in

terms of the material properties of the stress class and the slenderness of the column), for D40

strength, the slenderness modification factor is obtained k c,y= 0.7471

The permissible stress in the column f c,0,dis:

kc,90= 1 as there is no increase the bearing strength because the applied length of the uniformly

distributed load qis 3000 mm > 150 mm (typical value for most beams under UDL)

The actual compressive stress

The check fo r buck li ng s trength is suf fi ci en t when and the co lumn is the re fo re safe

against buckling.

Therefore the column is safe against buckling.

E0.05

fc,0,k=

9400

26=361.5

y =Le

rxx=

3000

56.3= 53.3

fc,0,d=

kmod

kc,90 klsfc,0,k

M

=

0.50 1.0 1.126

1.3=11.0N/ mm

2

c=

P

A=

23.59 103

200 200=0.590 N/mm

2

c kc,y fc,0,d

c =

0.590

kc,y

fc,0,d=

0.747111.0 =8.22N/ mm2

0.590 8.22N/mm2

1:500 Post Plan 8


11/32


12/32

Spans and heig hts

PR IMARY BEAM

LOADING

Domestic; long term action

Live load (impose) 5.0 kN/m2

Self weight (planks) 0.5 kN/m2

Total q 5.5 kN/m2

FLOOR JOIST S IZE

1. Mechanical Propert ies

We have chosen a hardwood, green oak, with Strength Class D40.

The grade stresses for D40 were taken from Table 3:Strength classes and characteristic values for

common timbers (Table 1 from BS EN 338:2003).

Bending, fmk 40 N/mm2

Compression parallel fc0k 26 N/mm2

Compression perp fc90k 8.8 N/mm2

Shear fvk 3.8 N/mm2

Mean Elasticity Modulus E 11000 N/mm2

2 . Sect ion

Rectangular section 100 x 295 mm

From Table 12: Geometrical properties of regularised softwoods:

Area A = 29.5 x 103 mm2

Second moment of inertia Ixx= 213.94 x 106 mm4

Section modulus Zxx= 1450.4 x103mm3

1:500 Primary Beam Plan 10


13/32


14/32


15/32

This is the most complicated joint implemented in our scheme. We had to use large timber

posts which easily stay within the safety regulations. This large sizing was neccessary toallow for the joints we chose to work. The beams themselves had to be of a certain

diameter for the mortice and tenon (2) and bridle joints (1) to work.

Here the purple lines show where these connections take place.

2.

1.

1.

2.

1:10 Connection Details 13


16/32

These connections involving two primary beams and a secondary beam

are used in four locations on our boardwalk. The secondary connections

throughout our design use a mortise and tenon joint with a dowel fixing.

Once again the coloured line shows where these connections take

place within our design.

1.

2.

1.

2.

1:10 Connection Details14


17/32

SECONDARY BEAM

LOADING

Domestic; long term action

Live load (impose) 5.0 kN/m2

Self weight (planks) 0.5 kN/m2

Total q 5.5 kN/m2

FL OOR JOIST SIZE

1. Mech anical Propert ies

The grade stresses for D40 (green oak) were taken from Table 3: Strength classes andcharacteristic values for common timbers (Table 1 from BS EN 338:2003).

Bending, fmk 40 N/mm2

Compression parallel fc0k 26 N/mm2

Compression perp fc90k 8.8 N/mm2

Shear fvk 3.8 N/mm2

Mean Elasticity Modulus E 11000 N/mm2

2. Sect ion

Rectangular section 75 x 147 mm

From Table 12:Geometrical properties of regularised softwoods:

Area A = 11.03 x 103 mm2

Second moment of inertia Ixx= 19.85 x 106 mm4

Section modulus Zxx= 270.1 x103mm3

3. Modif icat ion factors

Strength modif icat ion factor kmod

Service Class 3: external uses, fully exposed (Table 7:Service Classes (Table NA.2 from NAD))

Load duration: permanent

Material: solid timber

Therefore (from Table 6: Strength modification factor kmod(Table 3.1 from EN 1995-1-1:2004)), kmod= 0.50

Size factor kh

d = 147 mm

k! = min !"#

!

!.!

= min !"#

!"#

!.!

= 1.004

(From Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5)

Therefore kh= 1.0

Instabi l i ty facto r kcr it

Full torsional constraint of the beam, therefore kcrit=1.0

The load sharing fac tor k is is assumed to be 1.1 as the beam (floor joists) span 2.1 m, which is less

than 6m apart (from Table 9:Description of assemblies and load distribution systems)

1:500 Secondary Beam Plan 15


18/32


19/32


20/32

1:20 Section BB

B

B

To ensure that the primary beam was efficient in its use of materials,

with minimum excess in cross section, we alternated the secondarybeam connections. This layout can be seen in the diagram above.

18


21/32


22/32

20


23/32

21


24/32

221:200 North Elevation


25/32


26/32

1:50 Section DD

D

D

This section shows the configuration of the secondary

platform and its relationship with the orignal.

24


27/32

251:200 North Elevation


28/32

26


29/32


30/32

To attach the decking to the secondary beams we have employed wrought

hand made iron nails. This furthers our theme of heritage as these nails

have been used for thousands of years on projects such as the Mary Rose.

28


31/32

29


32/32

CREDITS

GROUPWORK:

JUSTIFICATION

LAYOUTDRAWINGS

SECTIONDRAWINGS

DISCUSSIONOFTHEDESIGN

INDIVIDUALWORK:

1. DETAILDRAWINGSANDSECTIONS- JACKCRIPPSS1118304

2. SCHEDULEOFCALCULATIONSWITHDIAGRAMSANDPLANS- MATTPEPPERS1105037 ANDRACHELBRAUDES1115488

3. AXONOMETRICDRAWINGAND3DRENDERS- MARTINSKARBACKS1142587

30

duddingston loch pier

Documents