TC50285E Sustainable Civil Engineering
[ad_1]
ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
Sustainable Civil Engineering
Module Code: TC50285E
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF WEST LONDON
Written Report
Weighting and word count
Hand in date
Part 1: Group Report Writing (40%)
NOTE: This part of the assignment is considered as a group activity, so you can work
with the same group you’ve been working with previously for your group presentation.
Please be aware you need to submit your work individually through Blackboard,
however for Part 1, you must mention the names of all group members in the report
cover sheet.
This part of the report involves analysing an observation/scenario-based activity/case
study relevant to your proposed research and then writing up a critical review of your
findings in the form of a report. The emphasis of this task is to explore and understand
the interrelationship between the term sustainability and the built environment from
social, environmental and economic perspectives. The research may be carried out
considering the issues such as:
Policies, regulations, strategies for sustainable construction
| | Objective of good design: buildable, fit for purpose, resource efficient, sustainable, resilient, adaptable and attractive Sustainable solutions for the construction industry |
| | |
| Environmental and sustainability effects of infrastructural projects such as | |
| Nuclear Power Plant, etc. Sustainable Waste Management and Recycling |
|
Recent progress in sustainable civil engineering.
| Written Report | Word count | Weight |
| Part 1: Group Report Writing | 1000 – 1500 words | 40% |
| Part 2: Individual Report Writing | 2500 words | 60% |
Wednesday, 20 May 2020, by midnight. The work is required to be submitted through
Blackboard.
Part 2: Individual Report Writing (60%)
Learning outcomes
Develop in-depth understanding of the key infrastructure rating systems namely
Envision and CEEQUAL.
| | Critically analysis the main sustainable rating systems to identify their advantage and disadvantage to various problems encountered in infrastructure projects. Critically analyse the economic, social, environmental effects used to promote and |
| |
implement sustainable development themes which are aligned with targets
promoted by Government and other organisations.
Introduction
The last two decades have seen the development and use of many sustainable building
rating systems in major leading countries. These have enhanced the importance of
sustainable development in the building industry. There is currently the development
and implementation of infrastructure tools to promote the three dimensions (or pillars)
of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental). This assignment aims to offer
a critical analysis of the two mainstream infrastructure rating frameworks Envision
(USA) and Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Awards Scheme
(CEEQUAL) (UK) from the perspective of the Triple Bottom Line (economy,
environment and society).
Objectives
Critically discuss sustainability assessment systems including Envision and the
Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment (CEEQUAL). The
examination must include the holistic concept of the three dimensions (or pillars/
Triple Bottom Line (TBL)) of sustainability and the future challenges of these
assessment systems.
Develop a methodology to evaluate Envision and CEEQUAL infrastructure rating
system. The methodology should be demonstrated in a flowchart format.
Critically analyse the Envision and CEEQUAL infrastructure rating systems. This
analysis should be accomplished by collecting data for both methods and
assessing them according to the methodology developed in the previous section.
Draw conclusion about both rating system and recommend the preferred option
which meet the sustainability considerations more effectively.
Report format
The document should have clear layout, title, headings, sub-headings and diagrams
(where appropriate). Be spell checked and proof read prior to submission.
Word count:
Part 1: 1000 – 1500 words (±10%)
Part 2: 2500 words (±10%)
Abstract
A summary (abstract) of approximately 100 -150 words. This should cover the
objectives and conclusions of your submission and explain its relevance to civil
engineering practice. It should not include references, mentions of illustrations or
abbreviations.
General
Make your text as short and concise as possible, excluding anything that is not directly
relevant to the subject. Please include any associated safety, environmental or ethical
issues. The text should be in the third person and should be readily understandable by
a civil engineer.
Please do not refer to the names of individuals, organisations, products or services
unless it is essential to understanding your submission. You should not be gratuitously
complimentary or in any way derogatory about any person or organisation.
Italicise publication titles, legal cases, vessel names and non-English words (include
a translation though); do not use italics for emphasis or quotes.
Figures and Tables
Your submission should be illustrated with graphs, photographs and/or drawings. To
ensure these illustrations (figures) are suitable for publication, they should each be
submitted as high-quality.
All figures and tables should:
be numbered in a consecutive sequence (however figures and tables should be
numbered as two different sets e.g. Figure 1, Table 1),
be referred to in the text,
have self-explanatory but brief captions, which include the figure/table number.
Mathematical equations
Please make any equations clear and easy to understand for a civil engineer. Number
them in your text and place each one on a new line. Only relevant equations should be
shown in the main body of the text – any development of an equation should appear, if
essential, as an appendix.
Guideline for references
The references and citations should follow a Harvard Referencing System. Please
see UWL HARVARD SYSTEM for more details
Reading resources
Proceedings of the ICE – Engineering Sustainability- ICE Virtual Library can be
accessed online through the UWL library:
http://library.uwl.ac.uk/eresources/atozlist.jsp?id=I
Griffiths, K., Boyle, C., and Henning, T.F.P., (2018) Beyond the Certification
Badge—How Infrastructure Sustainability Rating Tools Impact on Individual,
Organizational, and Industry Practice, Sustainability, MDPI
Xia et al (2015) Comparison of sustainable community rating tools in Australia,
Journal of Cleaner Production
Diaz-Sarachaga et al (2016) Evaluation of existing sustainable infrastructure
rating systems for their application in developing countries, Ecological Indicators
| | Griffiths, K. Boyle, C., and Henning, T.F.P., (2017) Comparative assessment of infrastructure sustainability rating tools, |
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315738452
Willetts, R.et al (2010) Fostering sustainability in infrastructure development
schemes, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers Engineering
Sustainability 163, September 2010 Issue ES3, Pages 159–166, doi:
10.1680/ensu.2010.163.3.159
Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., Jato-Espino, D., and Castro-Fresno, D. (2018) Evaluation
of LEED for Neighbourhood Development and Envision Rating Frameworks for
Their Implementation in Poorer Countries, Sustainability, MDPI
Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M., (2016) THE ROLE OF SUSTAINABLE
INFRASTRUCTURE RATING SYSTEMS IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296647048
.
Marking Criteria
| ORGANISATION AND COHERENCE | 20 | 0-8 | 9-14 | 15-20 |
| The study must be clearly structured and presented. The introduction must state an aim and explicitly identify the relevant arguments and areas to be addressed. These areas, once identified must be followed up logically in the main body of the study. There must be a firm conclusion of the areas discussed. To develop the ability to plan and conduct a substantial investigation or task within a limited timescale |
Poor organisation and structure. Limited discussion |
Some attention paid to the structure and organisation/coherenc e. Evidence of discussion. |
Good structure, presentation and coherently expressed. Widely discussed. |
|
| CONTENT | 35 | 0-13 | 14-24 | 25-35 |
| To show a deep and broad technical understanding of a topic |
Limited relevance to the area of study and practice. Does not meet the theoretical learning outcomes. |
Addressed the aims of the area of study with some originality and creativity. Applied to practice. Just meets all the theoretical learning outcomes. |
Clearly relevant. Original and creative. Application and integration of knowledge to practice. Clearly meets all the theoretical learning outcomes. |
|
| CLARITY OF EXPRESSION | 15 | 0-4 | 5-10 | 11-15 |
| To bring together newly acquired knowledge in an interactive manner, using appropriate technical terminology To demonstrate effective written communication |
Vague, over simplistic, unclear. Poor spelling and grammar. Poor calculations and logic |
Communication clear. Spelling and/or grammar needs some improvement. Calculations and logic needs some improvement |
Articulate and fluent. Good spelling and grammar. Good calculations and logic |
|
| LEVEL OF ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS | 10 | 0-4 | 5-7 | 8-10 |
| There should be a clear critical analysis and synthesis of issues, which are well integrated and evaluated, as appropriate. |
Wholly or mainly descriptive. |
Shows some critical thinking and the beginnings of synthesis and evaluation. |
Well integrated study with clear evidence of critical analysis/synthesis, and evaluation relevant to the area of study. |
|
| USE OF LITERATURE SHOWING KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING |
10 | 0-4 | 5-7 | 8-10 |
| The study must demonstrate an appropriate use of academic literature/research, which is appropriate to the study. |
Limited use of academic literature/research evidence. |
Moderate range but depth and complexity appropriate to area of study. |
Extensive range, depth and complexity, which is appropriate to the area of study. |
|
| QUALITY OF REFERENCING | 10 | 0-4 | 5-7 | 8-10 |
| All key sources must be cited, and a consistent and accurate use of Harvard referencing system must be maintained. |
Main key sources not cited. Limited or no use of an accepted referencing system. |
Most sources cited using an accepted referencing system. |
All key sources cited. Consistent and accurate use of an accepted referencing system. |
|
| 100 |
[Button id=”1″]
[ad_2]
Source link
"96% of our customers have reported a 90% and above score. You might want to place an order with us."
