Teaching Structural Engineering
at Faculties of Architecture Markéta Vavrušková
Branch of study: Architecture, Building and Technology, Contact: [email protected],
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
Top Related