EPR CPEng PDF

Subject: Engineering Practice Report
Prepared by: Reza Lotfi , Aug. - Oct. 2009
This report reflects a brief of nine of many

projects accomplished by the author between
years 2002 and 2009. The report has been
reviewed to address the units and elements
outlined by Engineers Australia to obtain
chartered status (CPEng).

Contents:
Career Episode 1 – Sattar Khan Complex 1
Career Episode 2 – Warmington Lodge 4
Career Episode 3 – Greenway Office Building 6
Career Episode 4 – 111 Alinga Street 8
Career Episode 5 – The Cedar 11
Career Episode 6 – Kangara Waters 13
Career Episode 7 – Mitchell Office Building 15
Career Episode 8 – Quantum 17
Career Episode 9 – RGP5 18
Units and Elements addressed 20
Appendix A - Summary of CPD activities 21
Page ii
Engineering Practice Report Prepared by: Reza Lotfi , Aug. – Oct. 2009
Career Episode Title: 1) Sattar Khan Complex Competency
Location: Tabriz, Iran Element
Dates: 2002 - 2004 Claimed
The project was a residential complex design. West of Tabriz, specially the area of
this project, was generally industrial area. This project was one of the first ones
where city council started the scheme of moving the industries and factories to
recently developed industrial towns and replace them with residential
developments. The area of development introduced at that stage was 12000
square meter of land. At that time, I was working with “Beton Kaveh Azerbaijan”
Company. The company was one of the largest developers and construction
companies in North-West of Iran. One of my responsibilities in main technical office C1.1
was to observe the outsourced designs to implement the company’s interests in
construction methods and/or alternative design approaches. The project came to
company when it was at its design development stage. It had consisted of series of
4 and 5-story buildings with narrow streets between them. The company and city
council had one common interest and it was to make the project more unique and
elegant rather than ordinary development. I realized that city council was mainly
after being successful in their scheme and our company was closely monitoring the
cost plans and market demands. I understood that the existing design was not the
most satisfactory option for both parties. The designers stated that the poor soil
condition was the main driver of the maximum levels/height of buildings. My
reputation and strength was to follow scientific and engineering principles to find the
alternative and innovative structural systems and define the cost effective
construction practises to get practicality out of new alternative design.
I suggested that I could investigate the issue so I was asked to do so and was
given the preferred alternative as fewer 10-story buildings instead of the existing
design. The piles option for foundation was also suggested to be considered if
necessary. I reviewed the project documents and found out that the allowable soil
pressure was limited to 100kPa for dead and live loads and to 125kPa for 1:500
years events governed by earthquake design. There was a bridge just nearby and I
decided to review the documents for the bridge and other developments in the
area. I requested the documents from city council and Engineering Organization C3.6
who keep the records of design documents and plans for all developments. I
started from allowable soil pressures and all was around 100kPa marks. There was
a very credible and intense geotechnical investigation for the bridge project. I
reviewed the reports and design documents carefully. I classified my findings as
following:
The footing was originally introduced as piles to rock in the concept design
of the bridge. Then it was changed to big pad footings on 100kPa material.
The bedrock was at about 50m below ground and above that, there was a
layer of sandy gravel for about 10m then next 30m was layers of silt and
sandy silt.
Sandy gravel layer was not very dense and water table was above that
layer.
There are a couple of drilling refusals for boreholes at sandy gravel layer.
I, then, put together my conclusion as following:
The pile option was omitted at detail design stage of the bridge due to
relatively low strength of submerged sandy gravel layer. The sandy gravel
layer was also hard to drill through to get to the bedrock.
The soil capacity was limited mainly due to deflection and settlement
criteria.
I discussed my findings and conclusions with a geotechnical team who had done
many investigations in the area and they confirmed my findings and conclusions. C1.3
Later on, I hired them to do the geotechnical investigation for the project.
Then I reviewed a couple of footing design reference books and discovered that in
terms of deflections what governs is the relative settlement. This fact led me to C1.4
Page 1
think if I could limit the relative deflection under the columns by using a relatively
stiff and linked foundation, I could get more capacity out of existing soil. Then I
thought that a mat footing would give us the answer. Therefore, I started to
investigate the criteria of a large mat footing. I did some preliminary calculation on
the loads of a 10-storey building per column including earthquake. Then I reviewed
the relative stiffness of structure and soil. I determined that the criteria was likely
achievable. I needed additional input from an expert to confirm my ideas and
calculations. There was also one criterion in regards to rotation limits for footing
system and it could be interpreted in different ways. Therefore, I reviewed all C2.6
possibilities and determined the most critical option. My preliminary calculations
showed that the rotation criteria could be satisfied. It, however, required to be
addressed by an expert.
I reported the progress and my ideas to the project manager. We discussed the
cost implications with executive, technical and cost planning offices in meetings and
came up with the idea of 4 x 10 to 12-storey buildings on large mat footings. The
concept was also discussed with city council and finally I got the go ahead to do
further investigations.
I hired the geotechnical team, who had helped me in my preliminary investigation, E1B.1
to carry on a new geotechnical investigation on site. I also hired a well-known soil
and foundation expert who was a professor at Tabriz University (I had studied the
Foundation Engineering courses 1 and 2 with him). We decided to drill 4 test
boreholes under each proposed footings. Boreholes had to go through the sandy
gravel layer to reach to the bedrock.
I supervised the sampling and testing procedures closely. I discussed the outcome
of the geotechnical team’s report with soil/foundation expert and we conclude an
allowable pressure of soil as about 270kPa governed by rotation of the stiff footing.
The mat footing had to have about 28m minimum dimension to satisfy the rotation
criteria and had to satisfy relative stiffness criteria to limit the relative settlements as
well. Based on the outcome of investigation combined with my preliminary load
evaluations, I suggested 24m x 40m 12-story buildings with one underground level,
which was boxed with shear walls. The footing was about 28m x 42m x 1.2m deep
raft slab. Mat footing system with one boxed level satisfied the relative stiffness
criteria. The concrete structure appeared to present better outcomes in terms of
having more consistent distribution of pressure on soil.
“Beton Kaveh Azerbaijan” hired a team of architects to shape the building and
residential units. I worked closely with architects through concept design and
detailed design. I carried out the global modelling and earthquake analysis while
the architectural plans were being finalized.
The structure that I introduced was special moment resisting reinforce concrete
frame plus special reinforced concrete shear walls that required high degree of
reinforcing detail but the design earthquake loads may be reduced due to high
ductility level of structure.
During architectural design, there was a principle of having smaller units due to
market demand. Dividing the area to relatively small units left the shear walls with
shorter lever arm and more reinforcement required on the boundary elements of the
shear walls. The amount of reinforcement required larger boundary elements to
avoid congestions. Having large elements was not preferred option. Therefore, I
reviewed the codes requirements and came up with less congested reinforcement
detail with bundled bars.
I carried on with detailed design. Then I supervised the drafting and documentation. E1B.8
Next step was to get approval for the design from Engineering Organization. I had
no difficulties. There were a couple of comments as the result of the review by
Engineering Organization and I addressed them to get the design approved.
Page 2
After finalizing the documents for construction, I moved on to my next carrier
episode and started my own consulting business. I was still providing construction
services for the project.
The project was built and was a successful one and won a couple of awards as
well. The complex, now, is home for 480 families.
This project was my first large scale design project and had a fair influence to drive
my carrier towards design projects. Having site experience, I have always had a
good understanding of the construction sites, their needs and construction
methods. This helps me to have approaches that are more realistic in design and to
have practical views in providing construction services.
Signature of Candidate:
Candidate’s Verifier/s Details
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Relationship to Candidate:
Engineering Qualifications:
(or Engineers Australia Membership Number)
I verify that the above narrative is a true account
of the candidate’s own work. Signature:
Page 3
Career Episode Title: 2) Warmington Lodge Aged Care Facilities Competency
Location: Yass, NSW Element
The Warmington Lodge is a 30-bed Aged Care facility in Castor Street, Yass, NSW.
The architectural concept started where a courtyard theme was selected after
exploring several design options. The planning layout was then developed
according to best-practice aged care design that embodies a number of distinctive
qualities.
Warmington Lodge is a Class 9c nursing hostel owned by Yass Valley Council. The
structure consist of the followings:
Timber framed bedrooms area
Steel framed lounge and dining area
Steel framed canopies
Steel framed glazing in front of bedroom areas to courtyard
Steel plus timber framed dining area
Concrete framed basement with retaining walls at one side
Concrete stairs and lift walls
Steel framed terraces plus steel frames for retractable sunshades
This project was one of my first projects in Australia. The design started at early
C1.1
2006 and construction finished by mid 2007. I carried out the design, supervised
the documentation and delivered construction phase services. To achieve a
reasonable outcome, I researched common construction practices in Australia,
common section and material properties used in Australia and reviewed the
Australian codes/standards requirements to carry out the design for every single
piece of the structure. Therefore, I experienced a challenging career episode. The
project was also exciting for me as it had a wide range of different type of elements
and different materials utilized to accomplish a fairly common construction.
I had designed a timber-framed jetty earlier in my engineering life. However, timber

C3.6
framed residential building was a new concept for me. I studied the AS 1684.4 for
connections, details, bracing systems etc. I also investigated common practices
and systems used by local contractors. I implemented the outcome of my
researches in my design and achieved a reasonable design.
The basement of the building was architecturally designed to have walls against
C2.3
soil at the back and sides. The structure system that I used to retain the soil was
concrete walls spanning top to bottom. I chose this option because it was superior
in terms of cost to the other options like cantilever walls or horizontally spanning
retaining walls. As support at bottom, the footing was designed to carry the load
and reviewed for sliding as well. I also designed the ground floor’s slab to act as a
diaphragm at top and take the lateral soil pressure exerted on retaining face to
perpendicular walls. However, to speed up the construction, I realized that the walls
needed to be backfilled before the suspended slab was in place. Therefore, I
introduced temporary propping system to enable the contractor to achieve a
sensible construction sequences.
The lounge was architecturally designed to be a large (about 16m x 12m) column
C1.4
free area with high-pitched roof. I introduced a large steel section to span 16m and
support 12m spanning rafters. The problem was to introduce a decent bracing
system along the 16m beam as there was a diagonal corridor underneath the beam
and the far side of the lounge had glazing parallel to the main beam. I designed the
framing along the glazing as steel portal frame. However, that was not sufficient to
carry the wind load on large gable end of the building. Then I introduced the L
shape block wall of the corridor to be reinforced and core filled with concrete plus a
cap plate on top to engage the main steel beam with reinforced block shear wall.
The implemented system provided an appropriate bracing for the area.
Page 4
The footings for ground floor had to span over the backfill of the retaining walls
around the basement. The backfill was about 4.5m in height and 6m perpendicular
to wall in horizontal plane. Spanning the distance between good foundation
material and the wall would incorporate an impractical footing system. Therefore, I
reviewed the geotechnical conditions and initiated piles to divide the span of the
footing beams. The piles option ended up being a more cost efficient, easier to
construct and more reliable scheme in terms of settlements.
Yass Valley Council, the client, requested us to provide an intense construction

services and review most of the structural elements for the building on site. I visited C3.4
the site almost twice a week and discussed the issues with site manager. During
each visit, I reviewed the structural components under construction, prepared
written site instructions on site and discussed the work method statements with site
manager. I also discussed the upcoming construction stages on site and advised
the next site appointment.
During construction stage, one of the addressed issues was as following:

A penetration through suspended ground floor had originally been designed to be C2.5
installed through the slab area. However, due to a architectural change to a room
layout, the penetration happened to go through reinforced concrete beam close to
an intermediate column terminating a couple of top reinforcement. The
reinforcement placement was nearly finished and the concrete was on its way. I
reviewed the beam as a T beam with narrower compression area (penetration
excluded from the web) and came up with a new design on site with bars added on
top of T beam in slab. I issued the site instruction for the design and brought my
calculations back to the office, document them appropriately and got the as built
drawings revised.
The facility has been in service since 2007. The design satisfied the performance of
the building and architectural design within allocated budget range. I consider it as
a successful project. I had significant achievements as I have successfully
advanced my familiarity with structural engineering in Australia through this
challenging episode of my career.
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 5
Career Episode Title: 3) Greenway office building, Haridemos Competency
Location: Greenway, ACT Element
The project was a two-storey office building including ground floor plus first floor
with a total office area of about 3000 square meter. I was responsible for structural
design, documentation and construction phase services for this project.
The proposed structure for the building was in situ reinforced concrete columns up
to the first floor plus conventionally reinforced concrete slabs for ground and first
floors plus steel roof supported off the steel columns of first floor. The columns
were at about 8m x 8m grids.
I was requested by the client to investigate the first floor suspended slab as a flat C2.2
plate slab without drop panels. The justification behind this request was costing.
The client was in contact with contractors and it had been determined that a flat
soffit slab would significantly reduce the cost of formwork. After the brief, I started to
investigate punching shear in slab. I reviewed reinforcing products to deal with the
shear problem in slab/column connections. I noted that “stud rails” have been
successfully used in projects. I contacted the manufacturer and investigated some
technical information on their product.
I reviewed the capacity of the “stud rails” against the preliminary loads. When I
became confident that the design could be achieved, I discussed preliminary design
with the client. The flat soffit option was still attractive to them despite the extra cost
of the “stud rails” plus additional reinforcement bars in the slab.
The software that I used to analyse the slab was Slabs software by Inducta. For all C2.4
new softwares that I start using, firstly, I define a simple element then run the
software and compare the results with hand calculations to get familiar with the
software, interface and the way that the package presents the results. I did the
same in here, as this project was my first attempt to use Slabs package. I started
with a one-way slab spanning two bays over three walls. Then I reviewed the
results comparing to hand calculations. I documented this calibration as a part of
project calculations. Then after being confident in using the package, I started to
utilize it in the project. As the final stage, I also review the results by doing a quick
hand calculation to make sure they are in a reliable range. In this instance, I used
AS3600 method for slab analysis then prepared a calculation package including
induction, loads, assumptions, codes and criteria, set of prints of software results,
calibration calculations and finally results review hand calculations. The comments
from internal review were also addressed and documented.
The architect wanted perimeter of the building to be glazing. He also wanted open C3.3
areas as much as possible. I used the lift shaft, a corridor wall and wall to the
services as bracing to ground floor. Bracing to the first floor was not sufficient as it
had only the lift shaft as bracing element. I suggested continuing some of the
columns through first floor up to the roof to be incorporated as part of bracing
system. Architect and the client welcomed my suggestion.
During this project, I became more familiar with Australian standards especially with C1.2
steel and concrete codes.
The project successfully designed and documented within the specified time and
budget. I also provided construction services for this project. Construction services C3.5
were based on hourly rates. However, an informal limit was discussed with the
client and I managed to deliver adequate construction phase services within the
budget. I reviewed most of the structural elements during construction and issued
site instructions / notes for each visit. The instructions were prepared in a simple
and practical way to make contractors aware of critical points or enable them to
rectify and address the construction issues.
Page 6
At construction stage, I managed a respectful relation with the contractors during
the site visits. I also developed a very strong relationship with the client and
secured future cooperation.
The building was finished and it is in service now. I consider this project as a
successful one due to following values:
My technical and professional growth and achievements
I provided satisfactory technical input to achieve the desired results
I developed valuable relationships
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 7
Career Episode Title: 4) 111 Alinga Street, Bridge Competency
Location: Canberra, ACT Element
Dates: 2007 Claimed
The project was design of two similar walkway bridges between two existing
building through the courtyard. My engagement with the refurbishment of these two
buildings (111 Alinga St. and 62 Northborne Ave.) started at 2006 when I designed
a new stair and penetrations through the existing floor slabs. Then I continued to C3.2
provide design services and construction advises for opening new doors through
the walls, new penetrations, supports for services, new roller doors supports etc. for
these buildings. My services were based on hourly rates. During these services, I
gained familiarity with the structures of the buildings and developed relationships
with architects and the client. Then there was a need to provide access between
these two different building. There was a courtyard between two buildings and the
brief was to provide two bridges at two different levels for access. My role in this
new task was to work closely with architectural team and design the bridges
between two buildings.
Both buildings had conventionally reinforced framing and floor slabs. Many shear C2.1
walls incorporated in framing of the structures to provide lateral stability for the
buildings. The floors were generally flat slabs with drop panels and edge beams.
Floors of these two buildings had different RLs and the walkway had to be on a
slope going from one building to another. After series of meetings and discussions
between client, architects, BCA advisor and I, the longest distance between two
buildings was chosen for the bridge. This option mainly derived by limited slope for
the access walkway. It was also decided to provide a design with minimum on site
construction to avoid the interruption of buildings’ usage.
I defined the following tasks for myself:

C3.1
Review existing designs in detail
Rationalize the capacity of elements in existing structures
Review the services and their existing situation on site
Assess the risks and allow for contingencies
Estimate the loads
Consider connections
Design the bridge structure
Design the connections
Determine the possible relative movements
Design bearings
Review connections and define adequate keeper plates
Define construction procedures and tolerances
Design the construction stage
Refine the entire design for coordination
These tasks became more complicated when I classified the scopes/criteria as E1B.2
following:
The bridge is required to be fabricated in shop

The installation relies on craning the bridge from the street over the roof of
eight story buildings and down to the courtyard.
The tolerances during construction are critical as the bridge spans diagonal
and longest length of the courtyard
The architectural design suggests two buttresses, one each end
The span is 16m which represents a fairly large span in relation to the
scope and criteria
Light structure is desirable
The walkway will be fully enclosed and part of the buildings
Page 8
After defining the tasks and setting the requirement, I realized that my design is C1.3
highly depended on craning activities. Therefore, I suggested getting advice from a
craning specialist. I discussed the issue with our principal and he introduced a
trusty craning company who were capable of managing the risk. I invited their
specialist to one of our meetings. The meeting was productive one as we discussed
the installation and outlined a work method statement. I also discussed the
tolerances/limits that I could have in the dimensions of the bridge especially the
length and the weight.
At this stage, I had enough information and a clear vision about the final product to
enable myself to enter to detailed design phase. I picked the full height truss option
from three different options that I had suggested in preliminary design stage for the
main structure. The three options were:
Main load bearing beams plus columns to support the walls and roof
Shallow trusses (bottom chord at deck level and top chord at handrail level)
plus stub columns to roof
Full height truss (bottom chord at deck level and top chord at roof level)
I reviewed the architectural requirement for buttresses. I assessed the risks and
benefits of having buttresses. I reviewed the existing structures in detail carefully C1.5
and concluded that eliminating one of the buttresses, which was going to require
complex connections to existing structure, would reduce the risk significantly with
minor impact on other criteria. I brought up the issue in one of the meetings and
discussed the safety risks during the installation and reliability of final product to
tackle with abnormal conditions such as fire and relative movements of two
buildings under service earthquake. I successfully convinced the client and
architects and my proposal to remove the buttress in one end was accepted in the
meeting.
Two bridges were architecturally identical. However, the structural conditions of

existing buildings were not similar, so different type of connections required. During
the design, I systematically followed the above tasks, which I had defined before.
I also discussed the bearing design with bearing manufacturers and covered my
design by sufficient notations on drawings to enable the bearing specialists to C1.3
design the adequate bearings for the project.
It was decided to outsource the review process. I classified the comments from
review into two groups. Ones that I agreed and incorporated. I highlighted the C2.4
second group as the comments that I felt they need a discussion or clarification. I
discussed them with one of my experienced colleges to get a second opinion then I
addressed them in a meeting with verifier. The mark-ups and comments all agreed
on and documented.
Client’s representative also carried out a review and verification process.

Comments from this review addressed and documented as wall.
Through this project, I started to use AS5100 series of Australian Standards and C1.2
got valuable familiarity with Australian bridge standards.
The project designed and documented successfully. I practiced a challenging

project with many details and criteria involved in it. I gained valuable achievements
during this project and improved my technical skills as well.
Page 9
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 10
Career Episode Title: 5) The Cedar, Fire Report Competency
Location: Griffith, ACT Element
Dates: October 2007 – May 2008 Claimed
The project was a fire rating report for a residential complex. Then, the client
extended the engagement to include the implementation of the reports outcome. E4B.1
The client was the body corporate of the complex. This job came to me through the
body corporate representative. I had done two reports on this complex for a
damaged brick wall on top of the retaining wall and corrosion in one of the columns
in basement before.
The brief was to investigate the fire-rating situation of structural elements for the
building in accordance to BCA. I prepared the fee proposal and submitted to the E4B.2
body corporate and owners’ council of the complex. After the acceptance of the
proposal, I requested a set of documents and drawings for the building. I visited the
site and reviewed the documents. My observations were:
The construction was a four storey residential occupancy above basement
car park.
The structural system was load bearing masonry construction with
concrete floors on top of steel framed transfer level.
The area of investigation was the car park.
Building approval was granted on November 1995 therefore the applicable
BCA was BCA 1990.
I reviewed BCA 1990, the outcome was:

Class 2 building, type A construction. E4B.3
FRL required for beams and columns are 90/-/-
The basement car park fits into the open deck car park definition.
Therefore, if steel beams and columns could satisfy a certain exposed surface
area to mass ratio (ESA/M) then the FRL required was -/-/-.
Therefore, the structure satisfied the applicable BCA.
I reviewed the BCA 2007 and started from classifications and definitions.
Building classified as class 2 with a compartment as class 7a
Type A construction
Basement as open deck car park
Beams require FRL as 60/-/- or ESA/M criteria satisfied
Columns require FRL as 60/-/-, no concession applies
The outcome was that the columns require an FRL of 60/-/-
I discussed my readings of BCA with our principal and a BCA certifier and agreed E4B.1
on the outcome. Then I reviewed the columns FRL in accordance to AS4100. The
columns did not satisfy the requirement of BCA 2007.
I researched the possible ways of improving the fire rating of the columns and E4B.4
found that core filling option as the most suitable option for this building. I finalized
the report and submitted. The report was discussed in owners and body corporate
meeting and it was decided to improve the fire rating to satisfy the current BCA at
the time of report (BCA 2007).
I carried out the detailed design, prepared the specifications, and supervised the
preparation of drawings for a tender. We have also been proposed to administrate C2.3
the contract as well. I prepared tender documents. After appointing the contractor, I
administrated the contract and visited the site during construction. I also carried out
the final inspection. For final inspection at completion of the work, I invited the body
corporate representative to inspect the work done as well. To finish, I prepared a
certification of compliance.
Page 11
This was a successful project, with some challenges in reading the BCAs.
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 12
Career Episode Title: 6) Kangara Waters Competency
Location: ACT Element
The project was the concept and detailed design and construction phase of an
aged care facility comprising of apartment blocks including 3 x 5-storey + 1 x 4-
storey + 1 x 3-storey buildings, community building, hydrotherapy building and 50
units of villas and townhouses. In addition, there was a doughnut shape building in
the middle of the village called RCF (residential care facility). External works and
many retaining walls were included in the scope as well. This was my first large
scale project in Australia and I was the lead structural engineer. I managed through
the concept and detailed design and construction phase of this project.
I gained a high level of competency in design of steel, timber, masonry and

concrete structures utilizing Australian standards and Australian common practices
through this project.
My tasks to accomplish this project could be classified as following:

Concept design
Attend the meeting with client, architects and other consultants
Negotiate the design in meetings
Detail design
Documentation
Attend value management meetings
Review the alternative designs
Construction phase services
I carried out the concept design for all the buildings and supervised the drafting
C2.2
team of 3 to produce preliminary sketch plans. Our design was based on
architectural preliminary plans, which was approved by client. I attend to the
meetings with architect and client to discuss the different options for main
structures of the buildings. I understood the sensitivity of the issues and asked for
our structural principal’s companionship in some meetings. The preliminary
structural design was approved then we moved on to the next stage. I carried on
with the design of the structures. I used one of my senior college’s expertness to
interpret the geotechnical report. I finalized the design of the main structures and
footing systems for all buildings.
The main structure for the RCF was concrete slabs and band beams supported off
the ground and first floors’ columns. The top floor framing was a mix of concrete
and steel columns to support the timber trussed roof structure. Ground floor of the
building was slab on ground for half of the building. In other half, the ground floor
was a suspended slab over the basement. The building had three-story parts where
the two half of building joined at corners. I introduced a mixed footing system
C1.5
including pads to lower side and piers to higher side. Some retaining walls were
essential for the lower side of the building. The top level had many architectural
features such as open and column free areas, frame less corners in glazing, lower
and higher roofs with full glazing at sides. I worked very closely with architects to
design the top floor and roof structure.
The community building was a single story building including a large area divided
C3.5
by operable doors and glazing to the perimeter. Architects’ preference was a very
thin roof sandwich. I introduced cranked beams, purlins in between beams and rod
bracings to roof to achieve thin roof details. Steel framing with bracings in the walls
was the main structure for the building. I carefully reviewed and designed a couple
of fine architectural details that needed additional engineering inputs such as finely
detailed circular stubs on top of large circular columns and stubs had to disappear
in the thin roof to support the main beams. I constantly discussed the details with
architects to achieve the desirable details.
Page 13
Hydrotherapy building originally designed as a one-story building with two pools, C2.1
one indoor and one outdoor. Then during the design development towards the final
sketch plans, there was a need to contain large amount of water for the facilities.
The water tanks were originally proposed as plastic water tanks outside the
buildings. However, during design development, in one of consulting meetings we
decided to install the tanks inside the buildings. I had already design the pools to sit
on piles to the rock. The water tanks were going to be installed underneath the
pools instead of piles to rock. I assessed the option, prepared the sketches and
issued them to architects and client prior to the next meeting. I discussed the option
in the meeting and it was decided to go ahead with tanks under the pools. This
change made the hydrotherapy building an exciting and challenging structure.
I developed the design of towers as concrete structures with slabs and band beams
for final sketch plans. I also designed the single-storey villas as brick veneer. There
were some two-storey townhouses that I designed concrete slabs for first floor.
I took charge of documentation for final sketch plans and I supervised the drafting
team to complete the drawings for FSP (final sketch plan) issue.
In detailed design stage, I had two engineers and four draftees in my team. I E1B.3
managed the group through the detailed design stage. I progressively discussed
the details with architects and provided details and guides for the team. I also used
my senior colleges expertness in critical area especially our principal’s skills on
detailing the RCF building and villas to achieve better results. I carried out the detail
design for many top restrained retaining walls around the buildings and cantilever
retaining walls to the roads, backyard etc. I managed the project through tender
documentation and then towards construction.
I was the construction services manager for the project. I carried out 3 or 4 site C2.5
visits per week. I issued site instructions / notes on each visit. I followed up an
appropriate documentation procedure for site instructions. I handed a hardcopy to
project or site manager on site. I kept the site instructions specific to buildings and
issued two or three of them on each visit as required making them easy to be
followed. Then back in the office, I got them scanned and emailed to architect and
client. I also stored an electronic copy in the system and filed the hardcopies.
This project is under construction at its final stages now and it has been a
successful project. I have developed valuable skills in various areas through this
project.
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 14
Career Episode Title: 7) Mitchell office building Competency
Location: Mitchell, ACT Element
Dates: 2008 Claimed
The project was a four-story office building in recently developed commercial area
in ACT. I was the lead structural engineer for the project. I carried out conceptual
design as following:
Concrete framing (concrete columns plus reinforced core filled block shear
walls)
Concrete floors with drop panels and edge beams
Precast concrete walls to perimeter of the building for fire rating in some
areas and soil retaining in one side
Some steel framed architectural features, awnings and glazing
The basement was the car park for the building and the first floor was to be
designed as a bulky good retailer and storage with high loads. The first floor was C1.4
also the transfer level for floors above as some columns had to sit on transfer
beams. I reviewed the preliminary architectural design, which was endorsed by
client. I noticed that there were some critical areas especially in transfer floor with
heavily loaded columns sitting on beams span a fair distance between columns. I
carried out very preliminary calculations and determined the depth of the beams
and all the slabs. I was also aware of the fact that there was restriction on height of
the building due to city council’s requirement. I reviewed the minimum floor to
ceiling space required and the minimum ceiling space needed for mechanical
equipments. The height of building pushed the limits. Then I reviewed the post
tensioning option to achieve thinner structures. The height of building was just right
with thinner post tensioned floors. I prepared the options to present to architect and
the client to discuss the issues and finalize the structure.
The preliminary structural design and the options were discussed with client and
architect. The post tensioned option was chosen.
The company policy was to outsource the post tensioning design. By that time, I
had a good view to the local engineering market. I analysed the market and past
experiences and came to the point that it would be a good idea to start the in house
post tensioning design. I discussed the issue with my colleagues and our principal
and after some discussions, it was agreed that we should start to carry out the post
tensioning designs in house rather than outsourcing them.
The post tensioned floors for this project ware the first post tensioning design for
the company. As I mentioned before, there was a critical area at transfer floor E1B.5
where a heavily loaded column carrying 3 levels above was supported off the two
cross transfer beams with large spans. I assessed the design of these two transfer
beams as a risky area to be designed as first post tensioning experience. I
discussed the issue with our principal and he introduced one of his friends who was
experienced post tensioning designer. I extracted a simple system of two cross
beams and the load on them out of the transfer floor to be reviewed and
commented by post tensioning expert. He assessed the structure and evaluated it
as a doable system with the beam sizes that I proposed based on my preliminary
calculation.
In the design of precast units, I negotiated with precast manufacturers and C1.3
assessed the number of panel and their weights as critical areas in costing. I
investigated the hollow core precast units and discussed the width of the panels
with architect to achieve the optimum design to minimize the cost.
I carried out the design phase of the project and supervised the documentation
phase towards tender. The project was successfully designed and documented E1B.8
within the specified time frame and budget.
Page 15
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 16
Career Episode Title: 8) Quantum tender design Competency
Location: Port Hedland, WA Element
Dates: November 2008 – February 2009 Claimed
The project was a tender design for an iron ore port including wharf, dolphins, jetty,
transfer platform and abutment. I was a member of design team. My responsibilities
were:
Design of piles and headstocks for approach jetty
Design of typical precast deck planks
Design of deck areas with topping + precast
Review of the wharf main girder and fatigue assessment
As this was my first maritime project, I had expected various challenges ahead of
myself. Therefore, I prepared myself for the challenges. Firstly, I ordered a set of C1.2
print of construction set of a similar project and started to review the design and
objectives carefully. During my review, I started to get familiar with maritime codes
(Australian and British) and investigate the requirements and provisions for
structures in harsh marine environment. The environmental loads on structures
were part of my responsibilities as well. Therefore, I started to learn about the wave
loads on structures. I investigated different literatures and discussed the principles
with our environment team.
In order to design the headstocks and piles for the jetty, I was provided the
SpaceGass file to extract the loads from roadway and conveyor trusses and apply C2.6
them on structure in my design area. My approach was to review and check the
sensibility of the reactions. I discussed the loads with truss design team where the
loads did not appear to be appropriate then I reviewed the potential area of problem
with truss designers and suggested rectification methods as required in some
cases.
There were other challenges as well. At that stage, the concept design was not
finalized yet. In addition, there were different construction methods, which had C2.5
different loadings on structure. I predicted that there were going to be many
options. Therefore, I defined the main structures once then for each change or each
different loading system, I duplicated the files and calculations. Then I produced
different packages for each case. As a result of this practice, the outcomes were
simpler to evaluate the implications and to be presented in meetings. Finally, it was
easier for cost estimations and achieving more cost and performance efficient
results.
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 17
Career Episode Title: 9) RGP5 detail design Competency
Location: Port Hedland, WA Element
Dates: 2010 Claimed
The project is detailed design of two iron ore ship-loading wharves. The project is
mainly divided to two stages as Harriet point and Nelson point. Our scope starts
from abutment and includes all structures in the sea like approach roadway and
trestles, transfer platform, heavy lift pier, wharf and dolphins. My responsibilities
are:
Design of Abutment for Approach Trestle and Heavy Lift Pier
Design of Approach Trestle
Design of Take-up Tower
Design of Transfer Platform
Design of Walkways and Cable Ladders supports for entire project
Design of Concrete Decks for entire Project including staged constructions
and prestressed planks (pre tensioned)
Design of the corbels and joints between different compartments
Finite element models
Review global modellings
Review of Conveyor Support Trestles
Main contact in head office for offshore drafting scheme
I expected to face many challenges through this project. Due to the relatively high E1B.1
loads, following up the load paths requires special attention to local effects and
detailing every single structural piece. There is also an intense documentation
requirement in accordance to BHP policies. I started the design by carefully
reviewing all specifications and design criteria issued by client. These specification
and criteria outlines the design and documentation procedures. There is a set of
standard details called BHP standard details that I have to address in my design
area and adopt them as required. I continued by assessing the standard details.
Then I followed my design procedures by evaluating the concept design provided
by client’s representative and assessing the feasibility and constructions
procedures considering details. Then I present my comments and details to the
design manager of the project and discuss the details with him. Then we present
our proposals to client and get the revised concept approved by client.
My design areas are at their final stages and I am managing through finalizing the E1B.3
design and documentation. Through this project, I have been managing four
engineers and five draftees in various times depending on schedules and
deliverables provided by project manager and design manager. The technical side
of this project requires a lot of efforts and focusing on detail. I consider simplicity as
priority in detailing as any complex detail has significant effects on construction of
structural components of this project.
I constantly prioritized my tasks and updated my agenda to address management’s C3.4

programs and deadlines. This activity also included planning the resources required
for each task and discussing them with project management to arrange the needs. I
encouraged live communications between team members and between different
teams in order to achieve a better performance and improve productivity.
Being efficient has been one of my main goals through this project. For example in
prestressed deck planks design, there was an in house developed prestressing C3.1
design spreadsheet. I reviewed the package against principals and compared the
results with my hand calculations to make sure that its results are reliable. Then I
revised the interface and revised the way that package gets inputs and presents
outputs. This revision resulted in having a simple, user friendly and easy to use
package. The design time for prestressed plank and staged construction for one
plank was about 30 minutes before, then after revision it came down to under 10
minutes. I have also added some extra capabilities to the package such as bursting
Page 18
design, development length design for strands and shear evaluation based on
Australian codes and American codes.
The common practice in abutment design is to provide loadings and pile layout to
geotechnical engineers and they carry out a soil / structure interaction analysis to C3.3
estimate the internal loads on piles. I reviewed the procedure with geotechnical
team and realized that their software has limited capabilities in defining the
abutment itself. The abutment that I was responsible for the design of it had a crank
in plane and a complex pile layout. I discussed the issues with geotechnical team
and suggested that I define the structure in structural design package and define
spring for soil modelling and use geotechnical input for spring stiffness. It has been
agreed that this method would be more efficient and would result in more accurate
outcome in this instance.
In some instances, during the design, I carefully review the mechanical drawings C2.4
and carry out the energy analysis to estimate the loads on structures.
I am responsible for the deck designs and details for entire project. I also designed
the joints between different compartments. To accomplish a reliable design for C3.2
these areas, I have to negotiate the loads and details with different teams, and then
reflect the details and requirements to my team. This procedure dominates my
duties towards having efficient teamwork and communication skills.
I have been managing through all these challenges in this project and progressing
through final stages. The construction of my early designs has already been
started. I consider this as a successful project as my achievements are countless.
Name:
Phone/email:
Position:
Page 19
Unite and Elements addressed:
UNIT C1 ENGINEERING PRACTICE Career

ELEMENTS: Episode
C1.1 Presents and Develops a Professional Image 1,2
C1.2 Pursues Continuing Professional Development 3,4,8
C1.3 Integrates Engineering with other Professional Input 1,4,7
C1.4 Develops Engineering Solutions 1,2,7
C1.5 Identifies constraints on Potential Engineering Solutions 4,6
UNIT C2 ENGINEERING PLANNING AND DESIGN Career
ELEMENTS: Episode
C2.1 Interprets and Scopes Design Requirements 4,6
C2.2 Prepares Concept Proposal and seeks advice on latest Technology 3,6
C2.3 Implements Planning and Design Process 2,5
C2.4 Reviews the Design to Achieve Acceptance 3,4,9
C2.5 Prepares and Maintains Documentation during the Design Process 2,6,8
C2.6 Validates Design 1,8
UNIT C3 SELF MANAGEMENT IN THE ENGINEERING WORKPLACE Career
ELEMENTS: Episode
C3.1 Manages Self 4,9
C3.2 Works Effectively with people 4,9
C3.3 Facilitates and capitalises on change and innovation 3,9
C3.4 Plans and manages work priorities and resources 2,9
C3.5 Maintains customer focus and relationships with clients/stakeholders etc 3,6
C3.6 Manages Information 1,2
UNIT E1B ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT Career

ELEMENTS: AT LEAST FIVE ELEMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED Episode
E1B.1 Develops Project Integration 1,9
E1B.2 Scopes the Project 4
E1B.3 Manages People 6,9
E1B.4 Manages the Physical Resources within the Project -
E1B.5 Manages quality, safety, environment and risk 7
E1B.6 Manages cost and procurement -
E1B.7 Manages time and progress -
E1B.8 Finalises the Project 1,7
UNIT E4B INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING Career
ELEMENTS: ALL ELEMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED Episode
E4B.1 Responds to/Identifies Problems 5
E4B.2 Plans the Investigation 5
E4B.3 Carries out the Investigation 5
E4B.4 Draws Conclusions and makes Recommendations 5
Page 20
Appendix A – Summary of CPD (Continuing Professional Development) activities:
Time (hours)
Ref Date Type CPD activity / topic / provider Actual Weight Weighted
No. factor hours
1 2006 ~ 09 B On the job Learning - Northrop Min. 75 1 75
2 2006 ~ 09 B Private study Min.150 0.5 75
3 2006 ~ 08 C 6 x BSFA seminars, Canberra 12 1 12
4 2007 C Company seminar - Northrop 12 1 12
5 2007 C Bridge inspection, Canberra 2 1 2
6 2006 C SpaceGass course, Sydney 8 1 8
7 2007 C RAPT course, Northrop, Sydney 6 1 6
8 2007 C 1170.2 wind loads, SAI GLOBAL 7 1 7
9 2008 C RC Buildings course, Sydney 14 1 14
10 2008 C ASEC, EA, Melbourne 14 1 14
11 2008 C Microsoft Outlook course, ACT 3 1 3
12 2009 C ACE Platform, EA, Perth 1 1 1
13 2009 C Concrete seminar, CIA, Perth 2 1 2
14 2009 D Technical materials for website Min. 6 5 30
Total: 261 hrs
NIT E4B INVESTIGATION AND REPORTING Self-Assessment
Page 21

EPR CPEng PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EPR CPEng PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subject: Engineering Practice Report

Prepared by: Reza Lotfi , Aug. - Oct. 2009

This report reflects a brief of nine of many

Career Episode 1 – Sattar Khan Complex 1

Career Episode 2 – Warmington Lodge 4

Career Episode 3 – Greenway Office Building 6

Career Episode 4 – 111 Alinga Street 8

Career Episode 5 – The Cedar 11

Career Episode 6 – Kangara Waters 13

Career Episode 7 – Mitchell Office Building 15

Career Episode 8 – Quantum 17

Career Episode 9 – RGP5 18

Units and Elements addressed 20

Appendix A - Summary of CPD activities 21

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

I had designed a timber-framed jetty earlier in my engineering life. However, timber

Yass Valley Council, the client, requested us to provide an intense construction

During construction stage, one of the addressed issues was as following:

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

I defined the following tasks for myself:

The bridge is required to be fabricated in shop

Two bridges were architecturally identical. However, the structural conditions of

Client’s representative also carried out a review and verification process.

The project designed and documented successfully. I practiced a challenging

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

I reviewed BCA 1990, the outcome was:

Therefore, the structure satisfied the applicable BCA.

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

I gained a high level of competency in design of steel, timber, masonry and

My tasks to accomplish this project could be classified as following:

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

I constantly prioritized my tasks and updated my agenda to address management’s C3.4

Candidate’s Verifier/s Details

UNIT C1 ENGINEERING PRACTICE Career

UNIT E1B ENGINEERING PROJECT MANAGEMENT Career

You might also like