Teaching Structural Engineering

at Faculties of Architecture Markéta Vavrušková

Branch of study: Architecture, Building and Technology, Contact: vavrumar@fa.cvut.cz,

Supervisor: Ing.Martin Pospíšil, PhD.,

Affiliation: Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Loadbearing Structures

ANNOTATION

MAIN OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH

Strategic Target

• comparison of teaching Structural Engineering and range of related subjects at selected European /

world universities

Tactical Targets

• quantitative comparison of teaching Structural Engineering - share of Structural Engineering in

curricula (formulating and testing hypothesis)

• qualitative comparison of teaching Structural Engineering– detailed analysis of the content of

courses and ways of teaching it (focus on innovative ways of teaching)

• studying articles from international conferences (with the specialization on teaching at universities)

• sociological research in the form of Structured Questionnaire / Structured Interview (with an

exchange students)

RELATED STUDIES

1. QUINN, K. A. and ALBANO, L. D., Problem-Based Learning in Structural Engineering Education,

In: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, October 2008, Vol.134,

no.4

2. MILLS, J.E., The Effectiveness of project-based learning in structural engineering, 2002

3. JOYES, G., An evaluation model for supporting higher education lecturers in the integration of new

learning technologies, Educational Technology and Society 3(4), 2000

4. The Bologna Declaration and Engineering Education in Europe [online]

5. SEEGY, R., Beitrag zur Didaktik – Auf dem Gebiet der Tragwerkslehre fur Architekturstudenten,

Universitat Stuttgart, 1977 (Inspirational research mapping the situation in Germany)

METHODOLOGY

APPLIED RESEARCH

• for practical use (teaching Structural Engineering at Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical

University in Prague)

• following methods applied:

1.Comparison

• statistical data comparison - creating charts in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet application (percentage

share of Structural Engineering subjects in curricula, number of ECTS credits in curricula)

• verbal comparison of content of Structural Engineering courses with possible additional illustrating

databases (e.g.topics covered by particular course/curriculum)

2.Observation (Empirical Explanation Method)

• finding out the types of methods of teaching at selected universities (e.g. “frontal”, “learning by

doing” – description, percentage share in courses)

3. Analysis (Empirical Common Theoretical Method)

• sorting and classifying input data (spreadsheets, charts, databases...)

• verbal comment (advantages vs. disadvantages of particular methods…)

• classifying outputs of sociological research

• formulating and testing (verification vs. falsification) hypothesis

4.Sociological Research

• creating and conducting Structured Questionnaire / Structured Interview

Useful online sources of information:

1. European Network of Heads of School of Architecture – ENHSA

2. European Society for Engineering Education – SEFI

3. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

4. European Journal of Engineering Education

-

Acknowledgements Research described in the paper was supervised by Ing.Martin

Pospíšil, PhD, FA CTU in Prague. This study has been conducted at

the Faculty of Architecture, CTU in Prague, within the framework of

the research project SGS14/211/OHK1/3T/15

WORKSHOP I – May 15, 2014, Prague, Czech Republic

TEACHING STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

TRADITIONAL TEACHING

Traditional approach led to introducing sophisticated mathematic models into the educational process.

However adequate it might be for civil engineering students, it is less appropriate for students of

architecture, who are used to learn in visual, creative way. It has been observed, that some students

apply the methods as a routine and get into difficulties when they need to apply the knowledge in a

different context, because they do not understand how structures work. In order to meet students’ needs

and increase their interest, it is advisable for teachers to adopt alternative ways of teaching Structural

Analysis.

INNOVATIVE WAYS OF TEACHING

1.“Hands-on” Experiments

The main purpose of experiments with a real small scale structures is to bring the visual aspect of

learning into the learning process. ETH Zurich, Switzerland, uses series of special designed “hands-

on” experiments. As described by Pedron (2006), some of the class demonstrations are:

Simple beam structures

A wooden beam is supported at both ends with one horizontally moveable support and loaded in the

middle. Students observe how the beam bends when the moveable support moves. In a further step, by

increasing the loads, they notice the linear proportionality between displacements and loads. To

compare elastic behavior, beams from different materials are submitted to the same conditions.

Simple frames

An experiment shows comparison between behaviour of a three-hinged, a two-hinged and a fixed

wooden frame vertically loaded in the middle of the cross bar and then only horizontally loaded in one

corner. Students can observe that the deformations of the three frames are different under the same load

conditions. In the case of vertical load, the deformations of fixed frame are much smaller than those of

the other two frames. The largest deformations can be observed in the three-hinged frame. Considering

the horizontal load, the deformations of the hinged frames are more or less the same whereas the fixed

frame deforms least.

Arches

An experiment on a wooden arch loaded vertically is performed with the aim of demonstrating that the

arch acts in compression and that an interior chain connected to and retaining the base supports acts in

tension

Trusses

A wooden truss is set up firstly without diagonals. Students should observe that the truss is unstable and

it becomes stable only if diagonals are inserted in each rectangular field. Then, when some wooden

diagonal bars are replaced with steel wires, students can observe that local instability occurs if the steel

diagonals are stressed in compression. Displacements of trusses of different height can also be

measured and compared.

Despite a high educative value, “hands-on” experiments have some limitations:

• number of experiments is limited to a few examples

• setting up each experiment is relatively time consuming

• students tend to be passive during the demonstration

One way to tackle passivity is to involve students in creating “hands-on” experiments. At London

Imperial College, United Kingdom, students are given the task of building a bridge of given length

using the least material possible. The final experiment is conducted by the professor who has to walk

over the student’s bridge. Two prizes are awarded for the least weight and deformation solutions.

Another interesting project takes part at the College of Architecture in Madrid, Spain, where students

have to build a structure with small timber bars cut by themselves using only glue to join the elements.

At the University Jaume I de Castellon, Spain, students are asked to build a physical model using

bars and plastic joints. As described by Museros (2002), with a help of SAP 2000 computer program,

they keep improving the structure until the optimum design is reached.

In another task, they need to design a structure from balsa wood (span 1.2m, max height 1m, depth

0.3m) with a better ratio “ultimate load/weight ofthe structure”. Modifying the model with the help of

computer followsresulting in final design, which they build and use for presentation where

they explain to the others the behaviour of their structure and the improvements made.

2. Modern Software Technologies

According to didactic studies, using software technologies stimulates learning. They allow interactivity,

simulations, animations and virtual reality, which helps students visualize abstract concepts and overall

leads to better understanding of structural behaviour. Modern computer tools should in no way replace a

traditional class course, but represents an appropriate supplement to it. They should help students

learning more efficiently and review the subject outside the class.

Easy Statics, developed exclusively for teaching purposes by Ms. Pedron at ETH Zurich between the

years 2001-2006, has been designed as a kind of “laboratory” where students can create simple plane

and truss structures with no predefined geometry, under arbitrary load and support conditions and with

elements of different sizes and materials, by which after any model change, the results are computed

and immediately shown. According to Pedron (2006), students can improve their understanding of

structures by observing how parameters change affect structural behavior. Interactive manipulation with

the model let students compare different structural situations and make a judgement, why one design

appears to be better than another.

eQuilibrium is an interactive, graphic statics-based learning platform for structural design created in

2010 by BLOCK Research Group at ETH Zurich. It has been created with the support of GeoGebra

software, which allows users making graphic statics constructions without programming skills. The

elements that make up the drawing can be dynamically changed afterwards to interactively explore the

relation between form and forces with real-time visual feedback. It provides an interesting and engaging

way to illustrate and explain the behavior of structures and allows users to quickly start making their

own drawings for their structural analyses and design explorations.

3. Graphic Methods

Graphic methods, popular in the 19th century, are nowadays finding their place back in the courses of

Structural Analysis. They allow designers to visualize the flow of forces throughout a given structure

along with providing a direct link between structural behaviour and structural shape. Forces in

structures are calculated by drawing lines on paper corresponding to the magnitude and direction of the

vector representing the forces.

Karl Culmann (1821-1881), professor at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich since 1855, a

pioneer of graphical methods in engineering, published a book on the subject in 1865. He had a

profound influence on a generation of engineers. His followers (Wilhelm Ritter (1876-1956), Pierre

Lardy (1903-1958)) who stressed the importance of graphostatics in their pedagogical approach,

brought up many widely recognized great designers of the 20th century (Maillard, Ammann, Isler,

Menn).

Computer revolution of the last few decades had a big impact on Structural Analysis, which is now

done by computer programs. A knowledge of structures is therefore needed to operate such programs

and the understanding of how the structures behave is very important even for an architect who want to

create a functional design. For this purpose graphical methods suit perfectly, despite being seen as of

little relevance when compared to the possibilities of a computational outputs available.

Contemporary advocate for graphostatics methods for lecturing on structures is the team of Karl-Eugen

Kurrer (2003), according to whom the clarity of graphical techniques has a high didactic value, since

interdependencies, e.g. between forces and structural geometry, can be directly experienced visually.

Bibliography

1. PEDRON, C.: An Innovative Tool for Teaching Structural Analysis and Design, ETH Zurich, 2006

2. BLOCK Research Group. eQuilibrium [online], last revision 2012 [cit.2014-02-05].Availble at:

http://block.arch.ethz.ch/equilibrium/

3. GERHARDT, R., KURRER, K.-E., PICHLER, G. : The methods of graphical statics and their

relation to the structural form, Proceedings of the First International Congress on Construction

History, Madrid, 20th-24th January 2003

4. ROMERO, M., L., MUSEROS, P. : Structural analysis education through model experiments and

computer simulation. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice,

128:170–175

SHARE OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING IN CURRICULA

AT SELECTED EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES

An introductory study (accepted for ICQH Conference 2013, Sakarya, Turkey) analyzing share of

structural engineering in curricula at selected European universities has been made at the Faculty of

Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague. The main objective of the studywas to analyse the

importance of Structural Engineering in university courses of Civil Engineering and Architecture. The

study compared Czech Technical University with leading European universities on this criteria

(percentual share of Structural Engineering in curricula, volume of ECTS credits devoted to Structural

Engineering). For the initial comparison, four leading German and English speaking European

universities were taken into account. (CTU – Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic,

TUM– Technical University of Munich, Germany, ETH – ETH Technical University of Zurich,

Switzerland, UB – University of Bath, United Kingdom, ICL- London Imperial College, United

Kingdom).

The selection was conducted on the basis of several rankings listed at the end of this article. Following

observations has been made:

1. Structural Engineering represents around 20-40% of Civil Engineering curricula

2. In Architecture Courses, it represents less than 15% of bachelors and 0-5% of masters curricula.

3. Architectural Engineering (combination of Architecture Design and Civil Engineering) is available

only at University of Bath (where share of Structural Engineering in combined courses corresponds

to such share in Civil Engineering, i.e. it is between 20-40% across the length of the study, with its

share growing in the master courses) and at the Czech Technical University in Prague (where

Structural Engineering is not lectured in its master combined courses at all).

4. London Imperial College has the highest share of Structural Engineering in Civil Engineering

across duration of all its courses (42% bachelor, 36 % master), closely followed by Technical

University of Munich (30% bachelor, 40% master). Technical University Munich also displays the

highest share of Structural Engineering for its Architectural Design courses (12% bachelor, 5%

master).

5. The Czech Technical University in Prague has the lowest share of Structural Engineering in its

Civil Engineering courses (22% bachelor-26%master). In Architectural Design Courses, Structural

Engineering has relatively low share on curriculum at each stage of the study out of the universities

that teach Structural Engineering as part of those courses. However, it is the only university out of

our sample that teaches structural engineering both in bachelor and master courses in architecture.

As is widely known, Structural Engineering plays reduced role in Architecture Courses in comparison

to Civil Engineering Courses. However, relatively high percentage of Structural engineering in

curricula of some universities might reflect the setting trend of putting bigger impact on its deeper

understanding. To validate this hypothesis, further analysis (e.g. detailed content of the courses or issue

of putting different emphasis on teaching different subject and explaining why) is currently undergoing

with the specialization on architectural courses only and broadening the number of selected universities

to twenty.

SOURCES OF RESEARCH

Universities Ranking

1. Indobase.com. Study abroad [online], last revision 2014, Available at

http://www.indobase.com/study-abroad/countries/germany/topuniversities- in-germany.html

2. Mayfield University Consultants. The Complete University Guide [online], last revision 2014.

Available at http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk

3. Guardian News and Media Limited. University Guide 2014:University league table.[online], last

revision 2014, Available at

http://www.theguardian.com/education/table/2013/jun/03/universityleague- table-2014

4. TSL Education Ltd. The World University Rankings [online], last revision 2014, Available at

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/

5. QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited. QS Top Universities [online], last revision 2014, Available at

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings

6. Zeit Online. CHE University Rankings [online]. last revision 2014, Available at

http://ranking.zeit.de/che2013/en/

Universities

1. University of Bath. Faculty of Engineering and Design [online], last revision 2014, Available at

http://www.bath.ac.uk

2. Eidgenosische Technische Hochschule Zurich. Course Catalogue [online], last revision 2014,

Available at https://www.ethz.ch/en.html

3. FA ČVUT. Studium [online], last revision 2014, Available at http://www.fa.cvut.cz/En

4. ČVUT v Praze, Fakulta stavební. Informace pro studenty [online], last revision 2014, Available at

http://fsv.cvut.cz

5. TUM. Degree programs [online], last revision 2014, Available at http://www.tum.de/en/homepage/

Imperial College London. Courses [online] , last revision 2014, Available at

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk