Salsburgh WwTW Upgrade

1. SalsburghWwTW Upgrade Environmental Engineering Design Projects 4&5 2012-2013

2. Objectives • This course is intended to: • encourage questioning and creative thinking • develop skills in problem identification and solution development • provide a realistic team working environment • develop skills of completing work on time and target • More specifically: • To give a realistic flavour of real design work in the UK Water Industry • To encourage and assess engineering communication of design ideas • Educational Benefit • ...is in doing the work, not in any marks gained!

3. The Task • SalsburghWwTW is due for an upgrade • Salsburgh is in North Lanarkshire, quite close to Airdrie • Client is Scottish Water

4. Background • Must gain an understanding of existing situation • How does the existing works function? • What are the problems with it? • Why is it being considered for upgrade? • What does the client want? • What does the client need? • CAPEX 1 • Design for option choice • Conceptually “30%” designed – ie, basic sizes of processes and how they fit, but not very detailed • CAPEX 2 • Design detailed enough for target cost calculation by Scottish Water • “70%” designed • Must clearly work in all aspects – hydraulics, site, foundation conditions, materials selected, power requirements, staffing required… • But not any structural design, no detailed drawings eg of pipe connections, specific M&E plant not completely defined…

5. Basic Tasks • Week 1: Optioneering • Design at least 3 options to CAPEX 1 • Present and select a preferred option • Week 2: Detailed Design • Design preferred option to CAPEX 2 • Include concept, process design and drawings • Does not include any structural design

6. Value Management Meeting • Standard public sector approach to option selection • Designers present a choice of options to various stakeholders • Scottish Water Management • Scottish Water Operations • SEPA • Local Authority • Perhaps others eg residents’ association, SNH, Forestry Commission, other developers • Stakeholders discuss, question, score and select preferred option for more detailed design • Each stakeholder has a different perspective • Scottish Water Management want least cost and least risk • Scottish Water Operations want easiest to maintain • SEPA want minimum environmental impact • Local Authority want a “politically acceptable” solution • Etc • Meeting needs to reconcile these • Lowest cost still almost always gets chosen – but not absolutely always… • Meeting may alter options and send you away with a new idea…

7. Value Management Meeting Presentation • Existing works (1 slide) • Growth drivers (1 slide or combine with above) • Main problems to be addressed (1 slide) • Summarize options considered (1 slide) • Discarded options with reasons (1 or 2 slides) • Developed options (2 slides each for at least 3) • Plan • Advantages/disadvantages • Scoring (see below) • Each option must be a self contained solution for the whole works, but aspects can be repeated in more than one option if necessary

8. Options Scoring Criteria • Planning and environment • Likely planning persmission problems? • Serious environmental impact? • Health and safety • During construction and operation • Maintenance and operations • Is the option going to be difficult to operate or maintain? • Design and process • Is it a proven process with this influent? • Does Scottish Water have previous experience of the process? • Buildability • Are there serious construction issues? eg site access? Component availability? • Likely cost • You cannot cost in detail – Scottish Water will do that – but it should be obvious when something is expensive relative to other options.

9. Communication • Who is who, and how do they work? What do they already know? • Scottish water is an experienced and knowledgeable client, fully aware of all processes etc • Letters • Use correct format (see example) • Keep it brief – one page is best • Keep it clear – paragraphs, bullet points • Don’t write lecture notes! • Client relations • Efficient and business like communications are key • Drawing and sketching • See next slide • Spreadsheets • Widely used by Scottish Water and utility companies generally • See example • Calculations • See example • If using a spreadsheet, format as a calculation sheet and include formulae

10. Drawing and Sketching • This is the main way engineers communicate • Increasingly, BIM and 3D visualization will play their part – but not for this project! • Drawings must be professionally prepared • Must have: • A border • A title block with title, number, date, revisions, author and checker information • A scale • Appropriate notes (eg “all dimensions in mm”) • Drawings attract most of the marks for this project and must be taken seriously • Improperly presented and insufficiently detailed drawings will attract fail marks…

11. Method of Working • Work in groups of 2 or 3 • Group must be either all BEng or all MEng • Sign up for groups on Learn • Marks will be a group mark • Unless there are exceptional circumstances • Notify immediately if anything occurs eg illness • Clearly identify who did what as part of final submission

12. Attendance Requirements • Tues 15th Jan 09:30-11:30 • Question and Answer Session • with Martin Pettinger from MWH (original design consultants) • Sanderson Building CR3 • Your chance to ask idiot questions… • Fri 18th Jan 09:00-15:00 (with breaks) • Value Management Meeting • With Martin Pettinger and Ian Lang from MWH • Groups take turns to present and score options • JCMB Teaching Studio 1206C

13. Submission Requirements Week 1 • Tues 15th Jan 09:00 • Process Flow Diagram for existing works; and • Letter indicating your understanding of the main issues to be addressed • Thurs 17th Jan 09:00 • Plan drawings for at least three options with enough detail to identify process and layout of site • Fri 18th Jan 09:00- 15:00 • Value Management Meeting including your options presentation (presentation must be submitted after the meeting)

14. Submission Requirements Week 2 • Tue 22nd Jan 09:00 • Completed options report with final scoring and preferred option from Value Management Meeting • Presented as an Excel Spreadsheet • Thur 24th Jan 09:00 • Process calculations including type of process, process flow, unit sizes and hydraulic s, showing head loss through works, pumping requirements etc • Presented as calculation sheets (can be suitably formatted spreadsheet) • Mon 28th Jan 09:00 • Final design • Must include plan, two sections across site, hydraulic profile and separate drawings for typical examples of each new process unit. • Covering letter of up to two pages summarizing the design and covering any key aspects that cannot be explained on the drawings • Statement of which person did what for every submission in both weeks • All submissions except the spreadsheets and VM presentation can be electronic via Learn or on paper; the choice is yours • Spreadsheets and presentation must be electronic files (Excel and Powerpoint)

15. Marking Scheme • PFD and Letter • 5% • Plan Drawings of Options • 20% • VM Presentation & VM Report • 25% • Does not include marks for drawings already submitted • Process Calculations for Preferred Option • 15% • Final Design • 35% • For BEng, submissions are the same but quality expectations are less by a factor of 10/11 • Marks are awarded for technical feasibility, appropriateness of solutions, and clarity, detail and conciseness of communications • You will note that no long written report is needed… • This means the drawings need a lot of work…

16. Feedback • Rapid brief feedback on PFD and letter to indicate whether appropriate standard is being achieved • Verbal feedback on options drawings if necessary (eg if one is obviously stupid) • Verbal feedback at VM meeting • Remaining aspects will be subject to written feedback after submission • This may take up to six weeks due to MWH involvement

17. Staff • Dr Martin Crapper • Academic Responsible • Will “role play” client as necessary • Make it clear whom you are asking! • Room 3.18 William Rankine Building • Away on 17th,21st & 22nd January • MWH Engineers • Martin Pettinger • Ian Lang • Can be emailed if necessary