UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS

Evaluation Report
CIVE3160 Constructionarium Site Fieldcourse
Daniel Gilmore
[Pick the date]

Brewery Wharf
Table of Contents
1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2
2 - Execution .............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 – By project team ............................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 – Planning phase ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 – Construction phase ................................................................................................. 3
2.2 – By myself ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 – Planning Phase ....................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 – Construction Phase................................................................................................. 3
3 – Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 – Project Team ................................................................................................................. 4
3.1.1 – Strengths ................................................................................................................ 4
3.1.2 – Weaknesses ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 – Improve execution ........................................................................................................ 5
3.3 – Improve design.............................................................................................................. 5
3.4 – The other two projects .................................................................................................. 8
3.4.1 – Ravenspurn Oil Rig................................................................................................ 8
3.4.2 – Millau Viaduct ....................................................................................................... 8
3.5 – My learning ................................................................................................................... 8
3.5.1 – My Pre-existing skills ............................................................................................ 8
3.5.2 - Things I learnt from the fieldcourse ....................................................................... 9
3.6 – Enhancements ............................................................................................................... 9
4 – Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 9
5 – Word count........................................................................................................................... 9

1
1 – Introduction
This report looks into the evaluation of the constructionarium site fieldcourse in particular the
Brewery Wharf project. This report will in particular look into the execution of the project by
the project team and myself, evaluate the project team and suggest improvements to help with
execution and design. There will also be a part reflecting on the other two projects and my
learning.

The Brewery Wharf bridge was fully erected as shown in figure 1, however due to time
constraints the A-Frame couldn’t be grouted so the push pull props still needed to be in place
during its completion and there was some honeycombing in bridge deck section 1 (the
smaller section) which by the time of lifting the remedial grout was still setting so the bridge
deck section 1 was cordoned off so couldn’t be completed.

Figure 1 – The bridge containing most of the team (Source: Gilmore. D, 2014)
2 - Execution
2.1 – By project team
2.1.1 – Planning phase
In the planning phase we did most of our work before the fieldcourse. Before we started the
fieldcourse a construction plan had been created as well as the method statements and the
accompanying risk assessments for the precast construction of the A-Frame and bridge deck,
foundations, setting out and the Ground bearing slab were completed.

We completed most work in the week before the fieldcourse with a series of meetings with
some of the group members over the whole week and on the Sunday of the fieldcourse.
However during the fieldcourse the paperwork for the lifting operations for the A-Frame and
the Bridge deck still needed to be completed as well amendments to the paperwork as advised

2
by the client manager Roy were done and amendments to the construction programme after
reviewing the day’s progress.

The main problem for the planning phase was the unexpected amount of work required for
the lifting documents.

2.1.2 – Construction phase

The construction phase was largely successful; we managed to fully erect the bridge as shown
in figure 1. However, we were unable to walk the whole way across the bridge due to
honeycombing in bridge deck section 1 and were unable to remove the push pull props as we
needed to lift and grout the A-Frame on the Thursday but the lifting was only done on Friday.

The team first started work on the pre-cast bridge deck and A-frame in the prefabrication
with the concrete pouring of the A-Frame and the Bridge deck section 2 taking place on
Tuesday with bridge deck section 1 being poured on Wednesday. After Tuesday, we started
to construct the foundations starting with foundation 2 and 2/3 of the ground bearing slab
with the concrete pour happening on Wednesday, this was then followed by foundation type
3 and 1 which had their concrete pour on Thursday. On Friday, the A-Frame and Bridge deck
sections were lifted into place and secured.

The main problems during the construction phase was concreting the bridge deck sections
and setting out.

2.2 – By myself
For the fieldcourse my role was project manager, planner and initially Concreting foreman I
have had no previous construction experience.

2.2.1 – Planning Phase

For the planning phase I organised the series of meetings over the week before
constructionarium in a goal to get most if not all of the method statements completed and a
final construction plan.

During the week fieldcourse I was the one responsible for getting the paperwork completed
and signed off, the main problem during this week for the planning phase was getting the
documents for the lifting operations completed and signed off.

2.2.2 – Construction Phase

In the construction phase due to the amount of paperwork to complete I had a small role on-
site doing occasional jobs. The main jobs I did were the concreting for bridge deck section 2,
excavating foundation type 1 and constructing the formwork for the A-frame and the bridge
deck.

The main problems I experienced were my uncertainty of being on-site due to the paperwork.

3
3 – Evaluation
3.1 – Project Team
Overall, our project team worked very well and completed the job even considering we had
the smallest team on site (15).

3.1.1 – Strengths
My team were all very motivated and committed and hardworking with people working
beyond the 6pm closing time which allowed us to get the bridge built. One of our strengths is
that we created concrete, reinforcement and formwork gangs so that as the week progressed
and they gained more experience the jobs could be done faster, it also improved our
relationship with the tradespeople as they were talking to the same people as oppose to a new,
inexperienced person every day.

A strength in the team was that we all knew the whole picture which helped people
understand why they were doing this job at that time; this made them more committed to the
job and improved the effectiveness, also it helped as people would delegate themselves to a
different task if it was seen to be falling behind.

Also, out team did morning and evening briefings which helped people understand what was
going on today and tomorrow and what tasks still needed to be sorted out, the evening
briefing allowed people to state comments on the day about positives and negatives and
things we could do to improve it so that we could be more effective the next day.

3.1.2 – Weaknesses
One problem was that a full analysis of the skills wasn’t done before the site which meant
that some roles were neglected e.g. one of the surveying engineers was also the formwork
foreman and had experience in formwork making and so most of their time was spent on
constructing formwork as oppose to setting out leaving the other surveying engineer to do the
work with an unexperienced colleague.

Another problem was that some people didn’t perform fully to their job roles which led to
problems with a small number of people spending a large proportion of time in the site cabin
and a small amount of time on-site.

Also, towards the end, completing and signing off the method statements started to restrict
work, this was due to a lack of preparation which meant that people had to spend a large
amount of time in the site cabin preparing the work to be signed off, also some of the
paperwork completed was unnecessary e.g. We did a method statements and risk assessments
for each of the three foundations instead of just doing one for all of them, which wasted time.

Finally, there was a bit of difficulty in the setting out process as the setting out engineer
didn’t understand what was required so that we could locate the SOPs’ again, this led to a
large overrunning of the setting out task to around 2 days when it was only planned to take
half a day.

4
 3.2 – Improve execution
To improve our execution, we should have done a full analysis of each role and looked at
everyone’s skills and also looking at the jobs which will be the most time consuming so that
people doing multiple roles weren’t neglecting one job over another.

Another way to improve execution would have been to plan out working the paperwork like
method statements and the bill of quantities so that I and the quantity surveyor could have
been on site more regularly and be submitting or preparing work well before it was required
for the construction/meetings.

Another way would have been to talk to everyone about their roles and get everyone to do
their roles; this would have allowed everyone to have a fair share of on-site and in the site
cabin work so that people could experience both sides of the work.

Also, before the fieldcourse it would have been better if we made a complete list of all the
method statements and risk assessments required for the construction and checked this with
the constructionarium staff to verify so that we weren’t wasting time making needless
paperwork.

Finally, due to the problems with setting out it would have been better if the setting out team
before the fieldcourse did a trial run of setting out the bridge, so that when on site the setting
out team can get to work straight away.

3.3 – Improve design

To improve the design, removing the kickers from the bridge deck (as shown in figure 2)
would ease the complexity of concreting the bridge deck as concreting the bridge deck
required people to shovel concrete from the lower middle section into the kickers it also
required the vibrating of the concrete in the kickers to be done quickly to avoid concrete
flowing away from the kickers which makes it more easy to produce defects such as
honeycombing which is what happened on bridge deck section 1 (as shown in figure 3). This
would improve the constructability and reduce the constructionarium and student costs as less
concrete, formwork and reinforcement would be required and also for the student costs less
time would be spent on the bridge deck.

5
 Kickers

Figure 2 - The Bridge deck section 2 the day after concreting (Source: Richardson, D. 2014)

Figure 3 - Showing the honeycombing on Bridge deck section 1 (Bridge deck section 1 on the
left section 2 on the right) (shown in black as grout placed over it) (source: Richardson. D,
2014)
Another thing to improve the design would be to increase the adjustability of the cables
which are attached to the bridge deck (The cables are shown in figure 4). This would allow
for a greater margin of error in placing the A-frame at the correct rake as we had to readjust
the rake of the A-Frame to ensure all the cables were fully tensioned to get the correct pre-
camber. This would improve the constructability of the erection process.

Also, although it would be difficult to design, reducing the rake on the A-Frame (the A-
Frame, foundation type 3 and 2 is shown in figure 4) when it is inserted so that it is vertical
would allow the erection phase to be quicker as the A-Frame would be simply placed onto
foundation type 2 as oppose to using a plywood set square and trying to get it to the correct
angle. This would also improve the H&S as you could minimise the time of people around
the A-frame whilst it is being lifted by the crane which would minimise the risk of something
going wrong and would also reduce the student construction costs as we would require less
time for the lifting operation, reducing the equipment cost and also the cost for direct action

6
of constructionarium staff and also the cost and complexity of building the formwork for
foundation type 2 would be reduced. However the constructionarium cost would increase as
the new design would possibly require either larger members for the A-frame to resist
bending and also a larger foundation type 3 as there would be more force acting through the
cables as the A-Frames’ weight will no longer reduce the force on cables going to foundation
type 3, also this design might increase the student cost as more time may be spent on
concreting, formwork and reinforcement.

Foundation type 3

Cables

A-Frame

Foundation type 2

Figure 4 - The A-Frame, cables and Foundations type 2 & 3 during the lifting of bridge deck
section 2 (Source: Richardson, D. 2014)

To further reduce costs for both the constructionarium and the student project cost if
foundation type 1 (as shown in figure 5) could be made of compacted earth instead of
concrete it would save time and money preparing formwork and ordering concrete, it would
also improve the health and safety of the site as the risks associated with preparing formwork
and concreting wouldn’t exist, however the risks associated with excavating soil and
compacting it would have to be included, also there is a risk that the soil may be incapable of
carrying the bridge deck resulting in a higher risk of collapse in the erection phase.

7
Figure 5 - Foundation type 1 (Source: Richardson. D, 2014)

3.4 – The other two projects

3.4.1 – Ravenspurn Oil Rig
Ravenspurn oil rig had an effective project manager who led their team to be the only team to
successfully complete their project so that they could stand on all areas of it. However, in the
team there were some members of the team who weren’t working as effectively and were in
conflict with the project manager as well with other members of their team which led to a few
confrontations which slowed the team down and negatively affected the effectiveness of the
whole team and their experience.

3.4.2 – Millau Viaduct

Millau viaduct seemed to have a very organised structure with most of the people on their
team doing their job role. However, a few on the team seemed to not work effectively and
from my visits to their site were seen to be idle instead of doing anything.

3.5 – My learning
3.5.1 – My Pre-existing skills
My most useful skills for the team were my organisational and leadership skills. The
organisational skills proved most useful during the planning stages were I arranged meetings
in the week before the fieldcourse to get most of the method statements and risk assessments
completed, on-site my organisational skills were mainly used managing paperwork and
ensuring that jobs such as ordering concrete and the pre-pour inspection sheets were
completed.

My leadership skills were mainly required during the fieldcourse in directing the morning and
evening briefing sessions and assigning roles to people for the work on the day and assigning
people to additional tasks outside of the plan such as site tidy up and erecting site fences.
During the planning phase I assigned certain goals and targets for the meetings so that we
were tacking most of the work and could come into the fieldcourse with at least a start on all

8
the paperwork such as the plan, method statements, risk assessments and the bill of
quantities.

3.5.2 - Things I learnt from the fieldcourse

Over the fieldcourse I learnt a lot of practical skills such as preparing formwork and
concreting which will aid me in assigning on the constructability of a structure. Also the field
course has also helped with my management skills and made me more assertive, as on the
fieldcourse you needed to manage all the planned work and also deal with problems and
unexpected workloads such as the health and safety inspection and assign people to doing
these jobs.

3.6 – Enhancements
To enhance the experience of the module I would suggest that following comments from the
constructionarium staff it would be better if we were more prepared with the method
statements and risk assessments as due to the exams we were left with a week and a reduced
and tired team to work on them. To be better prepared I would either stage the
constructionarium at the end of the summer vacation or midway through to give people time
to prepare the documents.

The module and fieldcourse could be improved by having people in beforehand in the
university explaining to us how to construct formwork, reinforcement and how to concrete.
This would mean that people with no construction experience can be better prepared for the
fieldcourse and that we can work more effectively in the first few days as we won’t be
relying as much on the tradespeople.

To improve the module having people who previously done the module and the projects
talking to us and providing comments about our team roles and the construction process
before the fieldcourse would improve our effectiveness as a team and give us some
preliminary knowledge before the fieldcourse about how to construct it and what each team
member should be doing.

4 – Conclusion
In conclusion I found the fieldcourse to be enjoyable and also rewarding. It taught me a lot
about the workings on a construction site and also the construction of civil engineering
projects which will aid in my studies in designing constructible structures. I found my team to
be very hard working and motivated which ensured that we completed the bridge on-time and
the only issues that existed were minor and wouldn’t have made much of a difference.

5 – Word count
Word count = 2,825