mini-project explorations to develop steel and concrete ... · core undergraduate steel and...
Post on 31-Mar-2021
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Paper ID #28711
Mini-Project Explorations to Develop Steel and Concrete Gravity SystemDesign Skills
Dr. Ryan Solnosky P.E., Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Ryan Solnosky is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Architectural Engineering atThe Pennsylvania State University at University Park. Dr. Solnosky started at Penn State in July of2013 and has taught courses for Architectural Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Pre-Major Freshmanin Engineering. He received his integrated Professional Bachelor of Architectural Engineering/Master ofArchitectural Engineering (BAE/MAE) degrees in architectural engineering from The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA, in 2009, and his Ph.D. in architectural engineering from The PennsylvaniaState University, University Park, PA in 2013. Dr. Solnosky is also a licensed Professional Engineer in PA.Ryan is also an advisor for Penn State’s National AEI Student Competition teams. His research interestsinclude: integrated structural design methodologies and processes; Innovative methods for enhancingengineering education; and high performing wall enclosures. These three areas look towards the nextgeneration of building engineering, including how systems are selected, configured and designed.
c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2020
Mini-Project Explorations to Develop Steel and Concrete Gravity System
Design Skills
Abstract
Core undergraduate steel and concrete courses focus their content on the fundamentals of
analyzing and designing members. While this builds core knowledge in future structural engineers,
many times these examples, homework, and exams approach isolated systems and/or members to
convey topics. It is often up to the capstone to connect members to systems; yet, there is often a
gap between offerings. If larger picture systems can adopted earlier, then stronger connections to
the topic while also informing students of real project complexity has potential. This paper
discusses a two offerings of a yearlong piloted approach to introduce a simplified yet realistic set
of mini-projects across two back-to-back semester structural courses. Here, these mini-projects
were developed based on best-practice design papers and rules of thumb for design in each
material, including procedures used to teach architecture students structures. To limit complexity
and align with the course topics, gravity bays were the focus of the mini-projects while
implementing a real campus building. Through teams of two students, these mini-projects have
students cycle through conceptual layouts and sizing of gravity systems in both steel and concrete,
then at the end of the year, they try to evaluate which systems are most applicable. Results to date
have shown that this approach does fill in the gap between design courses and capstones without
getting too detailed in the calculations that a capstone might require. The evaluation discussed
includes student survey data on their experiences that will be correlated to assessment grades. This
paper will also provide suggestions for others in how to formulate and adopt such mini-projects.
Introduction
Educators are tasked with preparing undergraduate students to become professionals who are
knowledgeable about and engaged in dealing with the challenges of today’s society [1]. That said,
many undergraduates at graduation are limitedly capable of formulating creative solutions to real
world messy problems they have never seen before [2-3]. A major component of this limitation is
that undergraduate engineering programs do not necessarily expose students to open-ended design
problems, allowing them to express their creativity and, ultimately, make independent decisions
[4].
In the rapidly advancing built environment there is an emergent need for structural engineering
students to know even more about design and other fields that they will work with [5]. There is
increasingly higher demand for engineers who have these skills that go well beyond the technical
knowledge gained through a typical engineering curriculum [6]. Civil Engineering, Architectural
Engineering, and Construction Management programs are under pressure by industry to add
content into the curriculum that address the changing nature of the engineering marketplace [1].
Many of these relevant practical components cannot be achieved with current teaching techniques
[7] or there is limited room in already cramped curricula [8].
In an effort to start to address these demands and deficiencies, a study was undertaken to start to
expose students in structural design to more realistic and complex applications without taking a
significant amount of classroom time while being broad to connect systems thinking to technical
limit states. This paper discusses two offerings of a yearlong piloted approach to introduce a
simplified yet realistic set of mini-projects across two back-to-back semester structural courses
alongside providing suggestions for others in how to formulate and adopt such mini-projects.
Difficulties in Structural Education
There exists common themes that must be taught in all structural engineering classes mainly:
structural analysis and structural design. Plata [5] has documented that structural engineers are
driven by analysis and are not always educated to understand the broad vision of how a whole
building project comes together. This notion is supported in that core undergraduate steel and
concrete courses focus their content on the fundamentals of analyzing and designing largely
individual members. While this builds the core knowledge of a structural engineer, many times the
examples, homework, and exams look at isolated systems and/or members to convey these topics.
There remains an oversimplification of scenarios when compared to problems engineers deal with
in practice [5, 9-10]. Difficulties remain due to existing pedagogical approaches mired in lower-
order cognitive skills [11] coupled with passive learning environments and a dated topical
emphasis. Assessment techniques often implement problems similar to those discussed in class
thus supporting regurgitation of knowledge instead of application and synthesis of that knowledge
[12-13]. In such cases, student learning potential is limited to the "Apply" level of Bloom [14].
Bennett et al. [1] and Weick & Sutcliffe [15] argue that we need more sense-making skills (or the
process of decision-making) incorporated into our structural courses.
It is often up to the capstone to connect members to systems; yet, there is often a gap between
offerings. If larger picture systems can be adopted earlier, then stronger connections to the topic
while also informing students of real project complexity has potential.
Support for Project Adoption
Problem-based and project-based learning (both PBL) are now well established as teaching
mechanisms that engage and deepen learning more effectively than traditional lecture-based
approaches [16-17] that are achieved around organizing learning towards more open-ended
scenarios [18]. Problem-based learning begins when students are confronted with an open-ended,
ill-structured, authentic (real-world) problem. Here, students can work in teams to identify learning
needs and develop a viable solution, with instructors acting as facilitators [19]. In comparison,
project-based learning begins with an assignment to carry out one or more designs and arrive at
one final design. For compositions of PBL, the classroom roles shift from teacher focused to
student-centered learning models that more self-directed [20]. In both cases, studies have shown
that PBL has led to improved student performance, higher quality of peer interactions, and more
positive student attitudes [6].
Many researchers such as Snyman and Kroon [21], Barragán et al. [22], Mativo et al. [17] and
Balkos et al. [4] have found that a more broadly scoped “comprehensive” projects can provide an
innovative mechanism for learning. Most projects in PBL typically require students to analyze a
problem, evaluate design alternatives and apply a collective team knowledge to arrive at an
acceptable final solution [4]. Project scopes can be small or large, authentic or scholastic, and
practical or theoretical, etc. [23]. Ghanat et al. [24] suggest the following attributes regarding
formulating projects:
Focus on questions or problems that “drive” students to encounter (and struggle with) the
central concepts and principles of a discipline
Involve students in a constructive investigation
Student driven approach process to some varying extent.
Are realistic, not idealized
Hmelo-Silver et. al. [25] has acknowledged that PBL results in students making more errors and
at time lower scores; however, they also create more elaborate explanations suggesting PBL
deepens student learning [4] and many of these errors can be flushed out over iterative design. A
reason for lower grades could be that students in traditional environments leverage existing
solution sets that bypasses the “struggle” that is required to engage the higher cognitive domains.
The effectiveness of PBL developed projects can be strengthened by employing horizontal and/or
vertical integration [27]. Horizontal integration uses concurrently taught content across courses
whereas, vertical integration builds on knowledge in different semester and years in a program [4,
28]. Advantages to both style of integration are that at various in stages, specific disciplines
increase in difficulty and complexity can be delivered [4, 21, 29].
Research Study Design
This study looked into PBL’s effectiveness in impacting broader and bigger picture learning for
structural students. By adopting a mini-project approach, the study sought to explore the following
areas of student learning:
1) deepen student comprehension of why and how building structural steel systems are the
way they are
2) develop skills to quickly estimate and select the best system for a project.
This study hypothesized that by deploying mini-gravity design case study projects will better
heighten student learning outcomes to better prepare them for professional applications.
Our study was deployed with two courses at Penn State in structural classes within architectural
engineering, AE 401 which is basic steel design and AE 431 which is advanced concrete design.
Both courses heavily focus on gravity systems’ analysis and design. All students were 4th year
standing in 5-year program. None of the students in either offering had taken either classes
previously and all were architectural engineering majors with a structural focus. Also, the same
set of students were mandated to take both classes in their 4th year. As such, the student population
is identical from one class to the next which allowed for identical teams in both semesters. This
research study has had two deployed iterations, the first was in the 2017-2018 academic year while
the second was in the 2018-2019 academic year. The evaluation included student survey data on
their experiences that was correlated to assessment grades.
Course Structure Composition
The goal of introductory steel design (AE 401) is threefold: 1) take on the role of a designer and
create structural solutions in steel, 2) apply knowledge to evaluate limit states to see if members
that were designed have sufficient capacity, and 3) prepare you for advanced systems design.
Advanced concrete design (AE 431) has three goals: 1) take on the role of a designer and create
structural solutions in reinforced concrete, 2) apply knowledge and reference standards to verify
design performance, and 3) prepare students for capstone where they apply concrete gravity and
lateral design. While each course has learning objectives that encompass all of the materials,
specific learning objectives relatable to the mini-project study are:
Develop skills that promote critical thinking of how a structural system integrates with other
building systems.
Develop skills that permit students to layout a gravity system to be able to get to the detailed
math analysis.
Develop skills to objectively select the best gravity system for a set of goals/metrics.
AE 401 meets three times a week for 50 minutes each session for a total of 45 meetings over the
15-week semester. AE 431 meets twice a week for 75 minutes each time for a total of 30 meetings
over the 15-week semester. No class periods were spent on exams. AE 401 is gravity focused
members while AE 431 has a significant component dedicated to two-way slab design. Classroom
topics for both classes are listed in Table 1 along with their duration.
Table 1: Breakdown of Topics and Durations
AE 401 Topics # of
classes AE 431 Topics # of
classes Steel Systems and Materials 2 Beam Deflections 2
Intro to Codes and Loads Review 2 Beams in Torsion 3
Tension Member 5 Planer Shear walls 4
Compression Members 8 Slender Column Members 2
Non-Composite Beams 8 Conceptual Layout of Lateral Systems 2
Steel Decking 3 Two Slab Analysis (DDM) 3
Steel Joists and Joist Girders 3 Two-way Slab Analysis (EFM) 2
Composite Beams 7 Two-way Slab Flexural Detailing 2
Conceptual Layout of Gravity Systems 3 Two-way Slab Shear and Deflection 4
Bolt and Weld Limit States 4 Moment Shear Transfer 2
Conceptual Layout of Gravity Systems 3
Modeling of Slabs 2
Note: AE 401 was 3-50min classes a week
AE 431 was 2-75min classes a week
Demographics
Basic student demographics were collected and are presented here. During the 2017-2018
academic year, both AE 401 and AE 431 had 22 students, five of which were female and the
remaining 17 were male. From an ethnic standpoint, 19 students were Caucasian, one student was
African American, and two students were Chinese. During the 2018-2019 academic year, AE 401
and AE 431 had the following student distributions: 20 total students of which five were female
and 15 were male. From an ethnic standpoint in 2018-2019, all 20 students were Caucasian. Very
similar male to female ratios were present in both offering, this ratio is typical in our department.
Ethically, year two was slightly out of the department’s standard for diversity. This data was not
utilized further in this study to compare performances.
These student cohorts were the same for each class in each academic offering since both are
mandatory classes and are only offered once a year. In each of the studied offerings, students were
placed in teams of two students for two reasons: 1) to get exposure collaborating on design
activities and 2) to cut down the amount of work per student. In the event there as an uneven
number of students, a team of three was permitted. Mini-Gravity Project Creation
Implementing these mini-projects in tightly packed (content wise) courses posed a difficult
barrier when the study was first started. The primary issue was the difficult balance of topics to
ensure technical depth was mastered in existing content while also developing larger picture
critical thinking skills with the new mini-project. Here, the focus became to utilize PBL for the
broader aspects of gravity design that the literature promoted. Support for teaching broadly in
conjunction with technical mastery can be summarized by Plata [5] who states: “…that design is
the creation of a concept or idea for that goes beyond methodical structural investigation to
include fundamentals of visual perception and principles systems integration...”. When
developing these mini-projects, to limit their complexity and to align their topics with the courses,
gravity bays became the focus. To differentiate between a traditional class project and a mini-
project, the following guiding principals were adopted:
Focus on the process and knowing when and why to do things over the mathematical
correctness (warnings were given along the way that real designs must have higher
technical rigor).
Project scope was narrowed to a single floor then narrowed further to a single bay
depending on the specific part of the assignment.
Simplifications were permitted even if they violated some of the underlying theory (i.e.
applicability of methods like Direct Design Method (DDM) in slabs).
Worse case design iterations were permitted to cut down on time (i.e. columns with the
largest load from bay were used for all four columns).
For grading, incorrect errors were only graded once even if that mistake was implemented
in multiple parts of the project (allowed to assume the prior was correct).
Software and industry books were permitted to be used that were covered in class
(SPcolumn and slab, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) Design Handbook, etc.).
Connecting the project to industry was important to capture broader thinking. To do this, these
mini-projects have students cycle through conceptual layout and sizing of gravity systems in both
steel and concrete. After sets of designs were completed, students evaluated which systems were
most applicable. This was developed to simulate how a structural engineer would decide which
early conceptual designs should move forward to the larger scale building. As the projects focused
on early larger conceptual design of gravity systems, many of the calculations were centered on
implementing industry best-practice design procedures. These included items such as: rules-of-
thumb for design (i.e. span-to-depth ratios and min. thicknesses) in each material, including
procedures and charts used to teach architecture students structures.
Both steel and concrete mini-projects were broken down into 4 Parts for each course (Table 2).
Part 1 had students determine gravity loading and establish a logical load path based on ASCE 7-
10, IBC 2018, and from the architectural drawings. Part 2 had students select a single floor and
provide a full system column grid layout with justifications. From here, students selected a single
bay to use for the remainder of Parts 3 and 4. In Part 3, students had to establish configurations
and sizes for a single bay members’ composition. Members were checked for strength and
serviceability. Lastly, Part 4 had students compare the different solutions against metrics they
selected and justified. The objective selection of picking the best was done through product design
decision making tool: the Pugh Chart matrix.
Table 2: Overview of Mini-Project Requirements Part Overall Description Expected Competency Permitted Simplifications Differences in Materials
1 This part focused on
determining applicable
loadings for the gravity
system along with defining a
load path.
Calculate dead and live
loadings
Formulate a possible load
path
Clearly indicate where
different loads are located
Change dead loads only in
critical and highly
different areas.
Use closest matching Live
loads.
Focus only on 1 floor.
All are the same for both
steel and concrete
2 Determine a grid system for
bay layouts and select a
logical bay to study in detail
along with its design
assumptions and
requirements.
Layout a justifiable and
logical grid.
Properly select constrains
and design considerations.
Select a representative bay
that is typical of that floor.
Focus only on 1 floor
Select only one bay to
move forward.
Don’t change architecture
to make it work.
All are the same for both
steel and concrete
3 Design three different single
bay solutions with a single
column design that worked
for all. In this they had to
logically lay out the
orientations based on other
trades.
Steel Systems were:
Open web joists on W-
shape Girder
Non-composite beams and
girders
Composite beams and
girders
Concrete Systems were:
One-way slabs and beams
Flat plate slab system
Flat slab system with drop
panels
Apply proper technical
provisions for member
strength
Apply proper technical
provisions for member
serviceability
Understand applicable
reasoning for member
layout/orientation
Select systems with proper
fire protection
Design Basis
Design just a single infill
beam (assuming they are
the same) design each
unique girder
Assume all internal bays
around it are similar.
A single column with the
highest load.
Techniques
Spreadsheets, tables and
software is permitted.
All design basis techniques
permitted are the same for
steel and concrete
For concrete:
Assume DDM method is
acceptable and verify
one a single MS and CS
for each design (1
direction).
Develop complementary
models to support results
Technical Guides:
Steel: Steel Manual and
Design Guides
Concrete: ACI 318 and
CRSI Design Handbook
4 This was a comparison
evaluation, rating, and
selection of the alternative
for the most applicable steel
solution.
Be able to pick metrics that
helped select systems
Justify values in selecting
systems
Perform an objective
selection
Utilize a single objective
selection method.
Simple math (quantities,
etc) only to justify ratings.
All are the same for both
steel and concrete.
Some metrics may be
different in the techniques.
Once the mini-project parts were defined, appropriate buildings were selected. While it was
possible and feasible to implement an “idealized” / “fake” project, real campus projects were
adopted so to allow students to work on a realistic “challenge” while also having the ability to
easily visit the building. Table 3 indicated the projects that were utilized. Buildings with
architectural programs that would equally lend themselves to both steel and concrete solutions are
best as they allow for a “level the playing field” for both materials to be realistically utilized
without say forcing a steel design on a building that was specifically designed and configured for
concrete. Students were not given the real structural designs, only the architectural design and
program. Other items given to the students included:
Floor plans with room layouts and dimensions
Building elevations and cross sections to show how the floors stack and the placed MEP
spaces
Typical design details showing partitions and exterior wall construction
General notes including: construction type, material finishes, and building uses
Table 3: Mini-Project Building Statistics
Building Stats Offering 1 Offering 2 Project Name Health and Human Development (HHD) Earth and Engineering Science
(EES)
Building Use Educational and Office Educational, Office, Research
Project Location University Campus University Campus
Number of Stories 4 5
Real Gravity System Composite Steel beams and girders Composite Steel beams and girders
Supplemental Project Instructional Lecturing
During the 2017-2018 offering of the mini-projects, limited additional lectures were presented on
how to conceptually layout a solution. Resources and guides were available and posted online for
teams, along with two lectures on general layout guideline best practices. Based on the results and
student feedback from this iteration, it was clear that students struggled to self-grasp the topic
through the given resources. As such, for the 2018-2019, additional layout lectures/discussions
were taught (four classes for steel and four classes for concrete). This lecturing was possible
partially due to readjusting the delivery method in the classes to being partially flipped. Results
from different emphasis levels on learning is discussed later.
Sample Student Results
To showcase what is possible that students can create from the mini-projects, Figure 1 gives a
sample representation. Here Figure 1 is a composite image of a single team’s work that has been
labeled by the authors to point out key aspects. Many students document loads and assumptions in
tables and/or directly on floor plans so they are easily identifiable for later designs. Most teams
created these visuals overlaid in either PPT or a PDF editor. Additionally, most of the teams opted
to select the single bay (for later design) based on the largest (as over designs will be smaller), the
heaviest loaded (again to see worse case depths), and/or with the simplest live load patterns (to
simplify the changing of loads in calculations) rather than the most typical bay size.
Figure 1: Sample example of student work
Study Assessment Strategy
A mixed method approach was taken to assess impacts that the mini-projects had on student
learning. This study utilized a pre- and post-survey alongside completed rubrics and casual
observations. The pre-survey was administered on the first day of class while the post-survey was
administered on the last day of class for both offerings. Relevant to the mini-projects, the two
bulleted areas below capture a broad perspective with the surveys. In addition to these, open-ended
questions were included to allow students to provide additional thoughts.
Students’ perceived level of knowledge on topics relating to project areas
Students’ level of agreement on project learning preferences
For knowledge, a 10-point Likert scale of 1 (I know nothing), 4 (average knowledge), to 10 (expert
level knowledge). Learning preferences adopted two different scales based on a new literature
study. Year 1 implemented a 7-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree), 4 (neither agree nor
disagree), to 7 (strongly agree). Year two had a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (strongly disagree), 3
(neither agree nor disagree), to 5 (strongly agree).
Four different rubrics (one for each Part) that explicitly describe performance expectations and
resulting design quality were created for both the steel and concrete mini-projects. With the design
of the mini-projects having many similarities in both steel and concrete, the same foundational
aspects of the rubrics were reused with adjustments being only made for the specific materials as
appropriate. Each rubric identified: criteria, descriptors, and performance levels for each rating
scale. The rubric scales in each part varied depending on the assessment item but were consistent
for both steel and concrete systems.
Results and their Discussions
For the 17-18 year, a total of 17 students (77.3%) completed the pre-survey; while 15 (68.2%)
completed the post-survey. Here these students formulated 9 teams. For the 18-19 year, a total of
20 students (90.9%) completed the pre-survey; while 18 (81.8%) completed the post-survey. In
18-19, students formulated 10 teams. In semester-to-semester rubric comparisons (same cohort),
the author adopted paired t-tests. For year-to-year within a material (different cohorts), non-paired
t-Tests assuming non-equal variances were utilized due to different groups and sample sizes. An
alpha of 0.05 was utilized in all cases. In each of the following three sub-sections, results are
discussed around: rubric data, knowledge data, and learning preferences data. Year 1 refers to
2017-2018 academic year and Year 2 refers to 2018-2019 academic year.
Rubrics Results
Each student submitted digital pdf copies of the reports for ease of rubric deployment in the course
management system: Canvas. Two tables were shown to help identify the details and differences
in the sub-categories within each part of the mini-projects. Table 3 provides the means, standard
deviation, and standard error mean per project part but also for the cumulative grade. Additionally,
Table 4 provides point values for each part’s sub-categories alongside the mean scores and
standard deviations for each offering. In looking at the overall performance of the mini-project,
Steel had a total score of 83.7% in Year 1 and 89.3% in Year 2. Overall total score for Concrete
was 84.9% in Year 1 and 90.9% in Year 2.
Table 3: Rubric Grading Scores on Mini-Projects at the Part Level
Year
Steel Concrete
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Part 1 2018-19 10 90.5 7.31 2.31 94.40 3.27278 1.03494
2017-18 9 88.7 6.93 2.31 87.78 3.03223 1.01074
Part 2 2018-19 10 90.8 5.11 1.61 82.80 11.10578 3.51195
2017-18 9 80.7 10.64 3.55 81.11 9.31695 3.10565
Part 3 2018-19 10 88.3 3.76 1.19 91.65 4.32724 1.36839
2017-18 9 84.7 8.94 2.98 86.89 6.61805 2.20602
Part 4 2018-19 10 89.1 5.20 1.64 91.50 4.36208 1.37941
2017-18 9 70.4 15.28 5.09 74.03 10.82131 3.60710
Total 2018-19 10 89.3 2.85 0.90 90.99 3.51014 1.11000
2017-18 9 83.7 7.33 2.44 84.95 5.06674 1.68891
More specifically, For Part 1 of the project (focus was on loads), five assessment metrics were
evaluated (Table 4). Each of these five had a scale of: 10pts = correct and clear, 8pts = minor errors
but clear, 6 = errors and unclear, 3 = major errors, 0 = missing. For concrete Part 1 in Year 1, there
was a range of 73.9-98.9% across the different assessments with an overall average for Part 1 of
at 87.7 %. In concrete Year 2 Part 1, averages ranged from 82-100% with an overall average of
94.4%. For steel year 1, there was a range of 82.2-97.8% across the different assessments with an
overall average for Part 1 of at 88.7%. Similarly, for steel Year 2, the average range was 81.5-97%
with a 90.5% overall average. In general for Part 1, it was observed that the lowest averages were
in either dead load calculation or load paths (this was the case for concrete). The highest was either
live load determinations or floor loading diagrams. These make sense based on the difficulty level
of calculations of each and the students’ prior exposure to these topics. In looking at steel mini-
projects from Year 1 to Year 2, two metrics increased (LL determination, and load paths) while
two decreased (enclosure dead load and loading diagrams). Overall, when the values decreased,
the shifts were minimal.
For Part 2 of the project (focus was on conceptual layout), four assessment metrics were evaluated.
Each of these had the same number of ratings but the ratings were doubled for two items based on
their importance. The scales are 5 or 10pts = correct and clear, 4 or 8pts = minor errors but clear,
3 or 6pts = errors and unclear, 1.5 or 3pts = major errors, 0pts = missing. For steel, the different
assessments had an overall average of at 80.7% in Year 1 and 90.8% for Year 2. Here there was a
significant jump in values. For concrete, the different assessments had an overall average of at
81.1% in Year 1 and 82.8% in Year 2.
Table 4: Rubric Grading Scores on Mini-Projects Item by Item
Total
Possible
Points
Steel Mini-Projects Conc. Mini-Projects
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19 Avg
%
Std
Dev.
Avg
%
Std
Dev.
Avg
%
Std
Dev.
Avg
%
Std
Dev.
Part 1 Live Load Determination (ASCE 7 and IBC) 10 89 1.37 97 0.67 98 0.33 100 0
Floor Dead Loads (Materials and Arch
Drawings) 10 82 1.47 82 1.23 83 0.83 90 0.88
Enclosure Dead Loads (Arch Drawings) 10 84 1.26 82 2.08 87 0.71 100 0
Load Paths (floors and exterior enclosure) 10 84 0.84 95 0.82 74 0.99 82 0.98
Floor Loading Diagrams 10 98 0.63 97 0.63 97 0.50 100 0
Part 2
Entire Single Floor Layout of Columns 10 65 1.78 85 0.97 73 0.44 79 0.77
Single Bay Selection and Justification for Part 3 5 82 1.29 95 0.35 82 0.94 78 0.96
Assumptions for Future Bay Designs 10 85 1.27 95 0.53 88 0.97 87 1.16
Checklist of Required Calculations 5 82 0.87 90 0.53 80 1.04 86 1.04
Part 3
Loading 6 92.6 0.71 78.3 1.08 92.6 0.46 98.3 0.32
Layout of Solution A1 8 77.8 1.52 97.5 0.63 76.4 1.32 87.5 1.15
Select of Fire Protection 2 10 86.1 2.67 75.5 2.69 91.1 0.78 82 1.75
Strength and Service Design of Solution A1 15 85.9 2.59 86.7 1.49 90 1.27 92.3 1.15
Layout of Solution B3 8 81.9 1.10 96.9 0.54 79.2 1.30 92.5 1.05
Strength and Service Design of Solution B3 15 86.7 2.11 92 1.81 91.5 0.44 94.3 1.15
Layout of Solution C4 8 82.6 1.15 98.7 0.32 79.2 1.22 96.9 0.42
Strength and Service Design of Solution C4 15 87.8 1.83 84.7 0.82 91.1 0.90 96 1.07
Column Design 15 80.7 2.21 87.3 1.97 83.7 2.50 86.7 0.82
Part 4
Selected Methodology to Narrow Designs 2.5 82.2 0.81 88.3 0 83.3 0.43 92 0.26
Appropriate selection of criteria. 7.5 74.1 1.16 100 0.66 74.8 0.86 96.7 0.26
Selection Calculations 7.5 55.9 1.18 90.7 0.86 64.4 1.27 84.7 0.69
Final Selection and Justification 2.5 91.1 0.36 81.7 0.21 91.1 0.26 96 0.21
Note: 1 = for steel was Joists, for conc. was one-way slabs and beams
2 = for steel was Deck and fireproofing, for conc. was clear cover
3 = for steel was Non-composite beams and girders, for conc. was Two-way Flat Plate
4 = for steel was Composite Beams, for conc. was Two-way flat slab with drops and beams
Looking at data from Part 3 (bay design for strength and serviceability), observable trends were
identified. Each of the nine assessment metrics had the same number of ratings for an item but had
vastly different point values. The associated number of total possible points is listed in Table 4
with each metric following the trend: full pts = Excellent design (logical and complete), -2 to -3
off the max. pts good design (mostly logical and minor errors), -5 to -8 off of the max. pts. = poor
(many errors, missing content, bad designs), 0 pts. = not complete/correct/misread instructions. In
looking at steel mini-projects, an overall average of 84.7% was achieved in Year 1 and an overall
average of 88.3% for Year 2. From offering 1 to 2, student performance did increase in many areas
but for others it declined (Table 4 averages). For concrete mini-projects they had an overall average
of 86.8% in Year 1 and 91.6% in Year 2.
Lastly, Part 4 (selecting an objective design) had four assessment metrics with collected data. Two
metrics only used a scale with two ratings: 2.5pts = reasonable method/logical solution and 1pt =
poor method/improper design. The other two metrics used four ratings of: 7.5pts = correct, clear,
and thorough; 5pts = minor errors but clear, 2pts = lacking reasoning and unclear, 0pts = missing.
In looking at steel min-projects, an overall average of 70.4% in year 1 and 89.1% in year 2 was
calculated. From offering 1 to 2 did increase in many areas but other declined (Table 4 averages).
For concrete in Year 1, the overall average was 74.1% and for Year 2 it was 91.5%.
Statistical Difference Testing of Mini-Projects
In looking at the steel for the 2017 to 2018 comparison, Part 2 and Part 4 are significantly different
between the two semesters. Here, 2018 Steel was significantly higher than 2017 Steel. For the
total score, equal variances were not assumed, as the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
suggests that the variance is not equal between the two semesters (See Table 5). Additionally, an
alpha of 0.05 with a non-paired t-testing (due to different cohorts) was implemented. In applying
the equal variances not being assumed in the t-test, the results between the two semesters are not
significant. Concrete comparisons were also conducted (Table 6). Here, a comparison between
2017 vs. 2018 Concrete was performed. Results showed that Part 1 and Part 4 are significantly
different between the two groups. The total score is also significantly different. For these variables,
the 2018 average scores are significantly higher than the 2017 scores.
Table 5: Independent Samples Test: Steel
Equal var.
assumed?
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Part 1 Yes 0.059 0.811 0.560 17 0.583 1.83 3.27 -5.08 8.75
No 0.561 16.9 0.582 1.83 3.27 -5.06 8.73
Part 2 Yes 3.367 0.084 2.681 17 0.016 10.09 3.76 2.15 18.03
No 2.589 11.2 0.025 10.09 3.89 1.53 18.65
Part 3 Yes 13.472 0.002 1.160 17 0.262 3.58 3.08 -2.93 10.09
No 1.115 10.5 0.290 3.58 3.21 -3.52 10.68
Part 4 Yes 2.000 0.175 3.652 17 0.002 18.71 5.12 7.90 29.51
No 3.494 9.6 0.006 18.71 5.35 6.72 30.69
Total Score Yes 6.176 0.024 2.254 17 0.038 5.63 2.49 0.36 10.90
No 2.163 10.1 0.055 5.63 2.60 -0.16 11.42
Not having statistical differences in certain project parts from year-to-year has both good and bad
aspects to it. Positively, it is revealed that while the projects change from each offering, the overall
performance didn’t, confirming that carefully selected buildings for the mini-projects that are
architecturally different will give similar results assuming the established guidelines are followed.
Surprisingly from Year 1 to Year 2 (in steel), there was not an improvement even though there
were additional lectures were provided. Casual observations, the class teaching schedule, and a
review of the reports showed supporting evidence for these results. While year two had more
teaching content, perhaps its location in the schedule was less than idea (close to the deadline).
Additionally, students who utilized the new content, approximately 35% were not applying it
correctly, perhaps indicating they did not get enough practice before this application.
Table 6: Independent Samples Test: Concrete
Equal var.
assumed?
Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Part 1 Yes 0.000 0.990 4.558 17 .000 6.62 1.45 3.56 9.68
No 4.578 16.9 .000 6.62 1.44 3.57 9.67
Part 2 Yes 0.016 0.900 0.357 17 .726 1.69 4.73 -8.29 11.67
No 0.360 16.9 .723 1.69 4.68 -8.20 11.58
Part 3 Yes 2.750 0.116 1.876 17 .078 4.76 2.53 -0.59 10.12
No 1.834 13.5 .089 4.76 2.59 -0.824 10.34
Part 4 Yes 10.133 0.005 4.710 17 .000 17.47 3.70 9.64 25.30
No 4.524 10.3 .001 17.47 3.86 8.90 26.04
Total Score Yes 1.320 0.267 3.046 17 .007 6.04 1.98 1.85 10.22
No 2.987 14.1 .010 6.04 2.02 1.70 10.37
Knowledge Data
Student knowledge of the class topics in AE 401 and AE 431 was surveyed at the beginning and
end of their respective semesters. Their perceived knowledge in their ability was assessed with
four questions listed here. All question focus on broader aspects of the structural design of gravity
systems. Note that these questions were the same but were directed to each specific material (steel
and concrete):
Q1: The process or steps needed to select a correct (material) gravity system
Q2: The process or steps needed to design (material) gravity system
Q3: Correctly mapping a load path throughout the structure
Q4: Ability to design (material) floor system
Figure 2 shows the changes in perceived knowledge from pre- to post evaluations. Looking at steel
mini-projects, means increase from beginning to end of semester between 3.73 to 4.93 in Year 1
and 2.83 to 4.06 in Year 2. The largest positive change in steel Year 1 was Q4 that deals with
actually designing the gravity systems. In Year 2 for steel however, Q2: regarding the process to
design steel systems was highest whereas designing steel floors was a close second. With steel
mini-projects, Q3 (load path) for Years 1 and 2 increased the least which could be attributed to
students having had two other classes with exposure to load paths. In looking at concrete, several
trends can be observed. First for concrete Year 1, the largest change in knowledge was recorded
for actual floor system design while the smallest change is load path again (Q3). These follow the
steel patterns in Years 1 and 2. What is unique here is that Q1-Q3 are significantly smaller in
change differences as compared to steel. Concrete Q1-Q3 was recorded between 1.13 to 1.79 in
Year 1 and 1.33 to 2.46 in Year 2. It is possible these are lower in that the looking at the larger
picture of processes, steel and concrete are similar until you look at specific techniques.
Figure 2: Pre- to Post-Survey Change in Perceived Knowledge Averages
Pearson’s Correlation was also utilized to look at possible trends between actual performance and
perceived knowledge related to broad gravity design thinking. In the actual performance,
numerical grades from the rubrics were utilized. From a topical knowledge standpoint with the 4
categories, the r values for each question and their associated grades are listed in Table 7. Here, 3
of the 4 questions had weak relationships with several switching from positive to negative. The
highest correlation was correctly mapping a load path with R = -0.4 and +0.41. While strong, one
correlation was negative. A possible explanation for the negative relationship was that in Year 2,
the project had a slightly more unique architecture (precast panels) that gave student difficulty in
determining parts of the load path compared to a more traditional enclosure wall.
Table 7: Graded Assessment vs. Perceived Knowledge Correlation.
Questions
Steel Concrete
All Grades Project Only All Grades Project Only
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 1 Yr 2 Only Post-Knowledge Correlation
Q1: The process or steps needed to select a
correct (material) gravity system -0.19 0.01 -0.09 0.12 -0.36 N/A -0.54 N/A
Q2: The process or steps needed to design
(material) gravity system 0.08 -0.04 0.06 -0.13 -0.53 N/A -0.57 N/A
Q3: Correctly mapping a load path throughout
the structure 0.57 -0.39 0.61 -0.41 0.05 N/A 0.08 N/A
Q4: Ability to Design (material) Floor System 0.06 0.15 -0.02 0.17 -0.43 N/A -0.47 N/A
Change in Pre- to Post-Knowledge Correlation
Q1: The process or steps needed to select a
correct (material) gravity system 0.03 -0.45 0.1 -0.24 -0.20 N/A -0.40 N/A
Q2: The process or steps needed to design
(material) gravity system 0.24 -0.54 0.28 -0.18 -0.22 N/A -0.25 N/A
Q3: Correctly mapping a load path throughout
the structure 0.24 -0.66 0.11 -0.64 0.54 N/A 0.01 N/A
Q4: Ability to Design (material) Floor System 0.25 -0.02 -0.01 0.26 -0.35 N/A -0.32 N/A
Note: Year 2 Concrete data was not analyzed at the time of writing
Learning Preferences Data and Discussion
To understand the student perceptions of the mini-projects, they were asked to rate their learning
style preferences for different types of assignments and abilities. Only questions regarding the
class mini-projects are discussed here (Table 8). As mentioned earlier, Year 1 and Year 2 utilized
different Likert scales. Year 1 had two questions while Year 2 had five questions. The questions
were expanded in an attempt to look into the responses at a deeper level. End of year responses for
Year 1 are plotted in Figure 3a while Year 2 is plotted in Figure 3b. Positively, students stated that
project was a success in that agree and strongly agree made up the majority of the responses.
Table 8: Project Learning Preference Questions Year 1 Year 2
Q1 A project increases my ability to design structural
systems
The project better prepared me for developing realistic design solutions
Q2 A project increases my ability to identify and select proper systems
The project resulted in me comprehending the complexity of real projects
Q3 N/A By doing the project I gained new understanding of other disciplines in design
and construction
Q4 N/A By doing the project I gained greater respect for other disciplines in design
and construction
Q5 N/A The project size and complexity was the right scale for me to gain a better
understanding of the design.
For Q1 in Year 1, Steel had 6 (40%) students who agreed and 3 (20%) who strongly agreed that
the project increased their ability to design a gravity system. Similarly, Concrete had 6 (40%) who
agreed and 5 (33.3%) who strongly agreed in Year 1. For Q2 in Year 1, Steel had 6 (40%) who
agreed and 3 (20%) who strongly agreed the project increased their ability to identify and select
the proper steel systems. Similarly, Concrete had 6 (40%) who agreed and 4 (26.6%) who strongly
agreed in Year 2. These two sets of responses support the observations that the project immersed
the students in opportunities to better understand, layout, and design gravity solutions. In
comparing steel to concrete in Year 1, the values and distributions are nearly identical except that
steel has a one student with slight disagreement (reason is unknown why). Year 1 did a pre- and
post- ask of this question. While there was an increase in agreement in the project from pre- to
post- for steel, the amount was minimal (0.60 mean increase for ability to design systems, and 0.53
mean increase to identify and select systems). These initial project scores were lower than
homework scores until the post-survey which then the project was preferred over homework to aid
learning design and selecting systems.
a) Year 1 b) Year 2
Figure 3: Steel and Concrete Learning Preferences in Years 1 and 2
Moving to Year 2 (Figure 3b), five questions are asked, four related to understanding and
comprehending designing (Q1-4) while one was asking about correct scale of the project (Q5), all
implemented a 5pt Likert Scale. For Q1 to Q4 in Year 2, steel mini-projects averaged a 3.78 to
4.56 across all four design and understanding questions with a range of 23.3 to 61.1% who agreed
and 27.8-61.1% who strongly agreed. The highest combine agree and strongly agree was in Q1.
Here, all 18 students fell into these two groups. According to students, this shows, that they felt
the project positively contributes to them being prepared for realistic designs given the simplistic
yet real scope of the mini-project. The largest strongly agree was with Q2 where 61.1% (n=11) felt
strongly that the project allowed them to properly comprehend a complex steel project. Q5
averaged a response of 4.39 with 33.3% (n= 6) for agree and 55.6% (n=10) for strongly agree.
These values for Q5 indicate that students felt the project was not too complex to learn and
approach in their efforts. This was important to the faculty member as utilizing real projects risk
overwhelming students.
Deployment and Adoption Strategies for Other Educators
These mini-projects discussed here are simplifications to larger scale capstone like projects. In
reflecting back into delivering these mini-projects, there are several takeaways that other faculty
can try, if these mini-projects are of interest. Three categories cover many of the assumptions,
simplifications and practices undertaken to make these a success, they are:
Building Project:
Select a campus or other close by project that are easy to get drawings for.
Do not give out the structural drawing, only architecture or else the students will tend to
gravitate toward replicating that solution and miss critical thinking skills on exploring
alternatives.
The project shouldn’t be too complex and the drawings need to be easily read by students.
This is especially true if students have never seen drawings before. Floor plans, building
section cuts, and enclosure details are the most important.
The floor plan architecture should lend itself to both concrete and steel solutions. More
square and rectangular building with less creative architecture (floor to floor) are good
choices. That said do provide a building that has real defined rooms and have some LL and
DL variabilities (not a core and shell or open office building as critical integration concepts
are missed)
Course Workload:
The mini-projects in this study’s deployment accounted for 15% of the total class grade.
Based on each part breakdown, parts range from 1.5% to 7.5 % of the total grade.
Depending on how heavily loaded your current course is, you may want to consider
reducing another assessment method to make room. Here, we reduced the number of
homework by 2 to make up for these.
An alternative to calling it a project would be to integrate the techniques of larger picture
items into current homework by making 1-2 problems in every homework a build upon
problem that gets refined and added with each assessment and the answer given to the
former solution.
Implementation Techniques
Clearly state what simplifications and techniques can be done for full credit as this is a
relatively new concept for most structural classes to look a broader layout and design.
Reduce the number of calculations when possible. Examples include: only one infill beam,
typical beams and columns only, worse case members that drive design integration (largest
and smallest).
If possible, provide a lecture or two on layout discussions. There are many good resources
out there are conceptualization of systems. Some include: Ching et al. [30], Boothby [31],
Allen and Iano [32].
The project only implemented Live and Dead Loading with a little flat roof snow. If
possible teach those before this class in an analysis course for example so as to not waste
time here.
Focus a portion of the grade (in this study approx. 20% per part), on the critical thinking
and broader strategies and less emphasis on the math correctness. We found that other
homework and exams can properly assess the technical.
Summary and Recommendations to Educators
Through the data results, several takeaways here are possible for the continuation of this
educational model both for the author and also for other interested adopters. Students were exposed
to more realistic and complex applications structural design without taking a significant amount
of classroom time through simplification of the technical work. The simplifications created for
each material mini-project did not separate the performance quality of the resulting work students
generated. This is relevant as it is often perceived by students (and even by faculty) that concrete
gravity system are more difficult and students do worse on them. Here changing the building from
year to year did not affect performance as long as projects have the ability and architectural layout
to support both types of material system.
In providing the same project back-to-back semesters with the same teams, allowed students to
appreciate their designs and how they best fit the needs of the project. Based on the presented
results from this two-year study, mini-gravity design projects are equal to or better in certain
aspects of learning. The two main goals of this study were: 1) deepen student comprehension of
why and how building structural steel systems are the way they are and 2) develop skills to quickly
estimate and select the best system for a project. When properly constructed, students will be
exposed to thinking of how a structural system integrates with other building systems alongside
with proper layout of these integrated systems. Rubrics should reflect this is to ensure those
constraints are assessed. In each of these, either direct observations of student work or grade results
showed that students were starting to get a better grasp on broad structural knowledge.
References
[1] Bennett, V., Abdoun, T., Harteveld, C., McMartin, F.P., and Shamy, U. (2017). “Classroom
implementation of game-based module for geotechnical engineering Education” Proceedings
of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.
[2] Nehdi, M. (2002). “Crisis of Civil Engineering Education in Information Technology Age:
Analysis and Prospects,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, Vol. 128, Issue 3
[3] Teng, J.G., Song, C.Y., and Yuan, X.F. (2004). “Fostering Creativity in Students in the
Teaching of Structural Analysis,” Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 96-102
[4] Balkos, K.D., Dow, B., Shams, S., Al-Hammoud, R., Emelko, M.B., Walbridge, S., and
Bachmann, C. (2017). “Pedagogical Skill Development Through the Horizontal Integration
of a Second-Year Engineering Curriculum” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, 2017.
[5] Plata, A. (2017). “Origins of the Profession: The Role of History and Design in the Education
of Structural Engineers” Structures Congress 2017 April 6–8, 2017 | Denver, Colorado
[6] Bhatia, A. and Chen, C. (2015). “Active Learning Pedagogies Promoting the Art of Structural
and Civil Engineering” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2015.
[7] Pellegrino, J.W., & Hilton, M.L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing
transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
[8] Roberts, M.W., Jones, A.M., and Thompson, M.K. (2014). “Work in Progress: Using
Outcomes-Based Assessment in an Introductory Structural Engineering Course”
Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014.
[9] Phelps, A., Sliger, L., Degracia, S., and Ganzerli, S. (2008). “Integration of New Teaching
Methodologies into a Laboratory Based Course.” 18th Analysis and Computation Specialty
Conference, 1-11.
[10] ASCE, (2008). Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century; Preparing the
Civil Engineer for the Future. Second Edition, Reston, VA, ASCE.
[11] Schokker, A.J. and Scanlon, A. (2001). “Integration of Analysis and Design in the Structural
Engineering Curriculum.” Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,
1-8
[12] Figueiredo J. (2017). “Learning Engineering Through Teams.” In: Auer M., Guralnick D.,
Uhomoibhi J. (eds) Interactive Collaborative Learning. ICL 2016. Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing, vol 544. Springer, Cham
[13] Gary, K. (2015). Project-Based Learning. Computer, 48(9), 98-100.
[14] Noordin, M. K., Nasir, A. N., Ali, D. F., & Nordin, M. S. (2011). Problem-Based Learning
(PBL) and Project-Based Learning (PjBL) in engineering education: a comparison.
Proceedings of the IETEC, 11.
[15] Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). “Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance
in an age of uncertainty (2nd ed.).” San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[16] Savin-Baden, M. Problem-based learning in higher education: untold stories. The Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, 2000
[17] Mativo, J.M., Sochacka, N.W., Youngblood, K.M., Brouillard, D., and Walther, J. (2017).
“Developing Real-life Problem-based Learning (PBL) Activities through Partnership with
Industry” American Society for Engineering Education, Proceedings of the ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, 2017.
[18] Bhatti, M.A. and Nixon, W. (2004). “Structural Analysis and Design in Tomorrow's Civil
Engineering Curriculum” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2004.
[19] Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). “Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,
comparisons, and research bases.” Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.
[20] Barrows, H. S. (1996). " Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview."
New directions for teaching and learning 68(3-12).
[21] Snyman, W. D., & Kroon, J. (2005). Vertical and horizontal integration of knowledge and
skills- a working model. European Journal of Dental Education, 9, 26.
[22] Barragán, E. I., Mercado, A., & De Hoyos, G. (2005). Horizontal integration in teaching
within a biomedical department. Medical education, 39(11), 1148-1149.
[23] Graaff, E. & Kolmos, A. (2007). Management of change implementation of problem-based
and project-based learning in engineering. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
[24] Ghanat, S.T., Kaklamanos, J., Selvaraj, S.I., Walton-Macaulay, C., and Sleep, M. (2017).
“Assessment of Students’ Prior Knowledge and Learning in an Undergraduate Foundation
Engineering Course” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.
[25] Hmelo-Silver,C. E., Duncan,R. G., and Chinn, C. A., Scaffolding and Achievement in
Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006),
Educational Psychologist,42(2), 99–107, 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[26] Schmidt, D.E., Sanchez, D., and Dickerson, S.J. (2017). “Increasing Student Engagement and
Motivation by Replacing Homework with Assignment-Quizzes.” Proceedings of the ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition, 2017.
[27] Hassan, S. (2013). Concepts of vertical and horizontal integration as an approach to integrated
curriculum. Education in Medicine Journal, 5, 5.
[28] Aparicio, A.C. and Ruiz-Teran, A.M. (2007). “Tradition and Innovation in Teaching
Structural Design in Civil Engineering”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, 133(4), 340–349
[29] Orkwis, P. D., Walker, B. K., Jeng, S. M., Khosla, P. K., Slater, G. L., and Simitses, G. J.
(1997). Horizontal and vertical integration of design: an approach to curriculum revision.
International Journal of Engineering Education, 13, 220-226.
[30] Ching, F., Onouye, B., Zuberbuhler, D. (2014). “Building Structures Illustrated: Patterns,
Systems, and Design 2nd Ed.” Wiley Publishing.
[31] Boothby, T. (2018). “Empirical Structural Design for Architects, Engineers and Builders.” Ice
Publishing.
[32] Allen and Iano (2012). “The Architects Studio Companion: Rules of Thumb for Preliminary
Design 5th Edition.” Wiley Publishing.
top related