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.