Building Superstructure Report CIVL 3016
- Subject Code :
CIVL-3016
- University :
Western Sydney University Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
CIVL 3016 Building Superstructure - Report 1 outline
Weighting: 30% Length: 2000 words Due date: Monday 14th April 11:59pm (week 7)
Project selection
Students are work individually to study a medium/large construction project with focus on the structural design considerations. You may select a project from the case study folders in vUWS, or if you are employed at a contractor on a project of suitable scope, you may report on the project that you are working on. If you are choosing your own project, it must be approved by the Subject Coordinator and within this scope:
- A low-rise steel-framed industrial/warehouse/light commercial building where the structural system is a steel portal frame, or
- Multi-storey building consisting of a conventional RC/prestressed concrete frame, structural steel frame, mass timber structure or a hybrid/composite structure, or
- Other structure as approved by Subject
- Typical domestic construction is not
The report is required to cover the following sections:
- Overview of the structure
- Building materials
- Design loads
- Types of structural members
- Structural resistance of the frame
The report 1 template will guide you through the required content in each section.
A detailed rubric is given in the table below.
Report requirements:
Building Superstructure is listed in the recommended program sequence for students to take in their 5th university semester, so a professional report standard is expected.
All tables and figures must be captioned, and the source of the table/figure must be included. See report template page 1 for more info.
Students must report solely on the chosen industry case study project. This should be aided by supporting discussion and research from open literature. Discussions produced by generative artificial intelligence (AI) would not address the report requirements and will be graded unsatisfactory.
Use of AI tools to brainstorm ideas, summarise reading material, or to edit your submission is permitted. The content of your final submission must be your original work. Be aware that the output from generative AI tools may be incorrect, incomplete or biased. Working with another person or technology in order to gain an unfair advantage in assessment or improperly obtaining answers from a third party including generative AI to questions in an examination or other form of assessment may lead to sanctions under the Student Misconduct Rule. Use of generative AI tools will be detected. More information is available on the Library web page.
You are required to provide in-text references to support discussions using Harvard WesternSydneyU referencing style.
Do not attach any large full drawings or any lengthy project documentation as appendices to the report. The report document must be A4 size throughout. Students studying one of the provided case studies need only take screenshots of the documentation and the VR site tour.
- Anything sourced from the case study folders (documentation, images, and the VR tours) doesnt need to be uploaded as supporting Just take screenshots relevant to the discussion and caption your images appropriately.
- Anything obtained from a publicly accessible internet link which is used to provide additional sources for your discussions just needs suitable Harvard WSU citation as normal.
- Anything not publicly accessible (e.g. drawing files for your approved self-sourced project) will need to be submitted through the link provided in the report 1 folder in If youre studying one of the provided case studies, you can ignore this link.
Submission:
The report submission should be approximately 2000 words but submissions exceeding this word count will be accepted without penalty. Tables, references, appendices, and captions are all excluded from the word count.
A file format of .docx is preferred where file size allows. .pdf format accepted for larger documents.
The report will be submitted through Turnitin. You should aim to submit early, view the originality report, and are encouraged to edit and resubmit before the due date. Similarity and the use of generative AI will be scrutinised.
Criteria |
Report section |
Unsatisfactory <50> |
Pass 50-65% |
Credit 65-75% |
Distinction 75-85% |
High distinction >85% |
1: Overview 5% 2: Building Materials 15% |
Unsatisfactory evidence of project understanding. Frequent incorrect project information or industry terminology. No project images or documentation are used to support. |
Report addresses all required sections and presents an adequate overall discussion that may lack depth or accuracy in a few areas. |
Report addresses all required sections and presents a good overall discussion and analysis of the project. |
Report addresses all required sections and presents an excellent overall discussion and analysis of the project. |
Report presents an outstanding - or flawless - discussion and analysis of the project in every section of the report content. |
|
Report discussion and analysis 70% |
3: Design Loads 20% 4: Members 15% 5: Frame 15% |
Adequate discussions using industry terminology displays satisfactory understanding of the project. Photos/screenshots are taken of some available project elements and used adequately to support discussion. |
Correct discussions using industry terminology displays clear understanding of the project. Photos/screenshots are taken of most available project elements and used adequately with some annotations to convey good understanding. |
Correct discussions using industry terminology displays clear understanding of the project. Photos/screenshots are taken of all available project elements and used well with some annotations to convey excellent understanding. |
Clear and concise discussions using correct terminology displays very clear understanding of the project. Photos/screenshots are taken of all available project elements and used expertly with clear annotations to convey outstanding understanding. |
|
Report |
Academic writing and/or presentation is unacceptable. Unsatisfactory or no attempt at independent research |
Acceptable academic writing and |
Good academic writing and report |
Contains excellent executive |
Contains clear and concise |
|
presentation, |
report presentation with genuine |
presentation with some common |
summary. Excellent report |
executive summary. Outstanding |
||
academic |
attempt at creating a professional |
acceptable mistakes throughout. |
presentation, report formatting and |
academic writing and professional |
||
writing, and supporting research 30% |
report. Some professional document formatting observed. Adequate use of captions and cross referencing for tables/figures. Some attempt made at independent research. Non-academic |
Consistent and professional document formatting. Consistent and ideal use of captions and cross referencing for tables/figures. Good use of Harvard WSU in-text |
academic writing with a few acceptable mistakes. Consistent use of captions and cross referencing for tables/figures. Excellent use of Harvard WSU in-text referencing. |
report presentation. Consistent and professional document formatting, captions, and cross referencing for tables/figures. Perfect use of Harvard WSU in-text referencing. |
||
references are used. i.e. wiki. |
referencing. Good coverage and |
Excellent depth of research. |
Outstanding coverage, depth, |
|||
depth of research. Predominantly |
Predominantly academic references |
quality and understanding of |
||||
non-academic websites used as |
are used. |
independent research. |
||||
references. |
