Survey of the Structures Courses Offered By ASC School Members

S. Abdol Chini

M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction University of Florida

Gainesville, Florida

Introduction

One of the functions of the ASC Undergraduate Education Committee is the improvement of course content through the exchange of ideas among teachers of similar courses and through the development of reference lists, audiovisual aids, texts and case studies. In that regard, the committee selected Structures (design of construction elements) as a topic for the course discussion section at the 1994 National ASC Meeting in Peoria, Illinois.

To make the course discussion more productive, a list of the Structures courses being offered by the ASC school members was prepared. This list was based on the directory of the ASC undergraduate programs printed in March 1990 (see Appendix A). A questionnaire was also prepared to provide information regarding textbooks, audiovisual aids, laboratory experiments and other important issues regarding Structures courses. The questionnaire was initially sent out to a group of faculty who volunteered to help at the course discussion section at Estes Park, Colorado. The questionnaires were then modified and along with the Structures courses list shown in Appendix A were mailed to 90 ASC school members in January 1994. The schools were asked to review the list to make sure the information listed regarding their program is correct and also complete the questionnaire and mail their responses back. In March 1994, programs not responding to the first letter were sent a second letter requesting the same information. A total of 36 schools completed and returned the survey.

A summary of the results of the survey was provided to participants of the course discussion section in Peoria, Illinois. This paper presents the complete results of the survey and discusses the issues regarding course content and teaching methodology for Structures.

Results

Courses considered in the Structures category for the purpose of this survey are Statics, Mechanics of Materials, Structural Analysis and Design, Steel Design, Wood Design, Reinforced Concrete Design, and Temporary Structures including formwork. At the beginning, the directory of ASC undergraduate programs printed on March 15, 1990 that includes information regarding program title, degree offered, program objectives, graduation requirements, and curriculum outline was used to develop a list of the Structures course offered by each program. The curriculum outline for some programs does not provide number of credits for each course, or sometimes lists only upper division courses. Besides, in many cases the course title does not provide information regarding its content (for example, Structures 1, Structures 11, etc.). Therefore, the list was sent to ASC school members for necessary corrections and completion. The list shown in Appendix A is the revised list based on the responses received from 36 schools.

The questionnaire included eight questions and a section for additional comments. The first four questions were dealing with information about textbooks, audiovisual aids, computer software, and laboratory experiments. Questions 5 and 6 were designed to seek input on course content, whereas, questions 7 and 8 aimed at finding how much design is needed by a manager. Responses to each question are provided here.

Question 1.

"Please list and evaluate the textbooks you are using for Structures courses."

The Structures courses listed in this question were Statics, Strength of Materials, Structural Analysis and Design, Steel Design, Reinforced Concrete Design, Wood Design and Temporary Structures (including formwork). In addition to the tide, edition, author and publisher, the respondents were requested to provide the level of satisfaction with the textbook on the scale I to 10 (1: Not satisfied, 10: Extremely satisfied). Appendix B shows the list of the textbooks being used for Structures courses by the schools responded to the survey.

Question 2.

"Do you use videotapes (or any other audiovisual aids) in teaching Structures courses? If yes, what benefit(s) do you find with this medium? Also, please provide the list of visual aids you use."

Responses to Question 2 are shown in Figure 1. Forty seven percent of the schools responding to the survey mentioned they use some form of visual aids to supplement text illustrations. They use this medium as a visual summary of topics covered and believe it serves as a good backup to lecture materials. Also, when class time does not allow for field trips, tapes from construction projects are helpful. Following is a list of tapes used by some of the schools:

-Today's Structural Steel, American Institute of Steel Construction

-Fundamentals of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete, Portland Cement Association

-The Linn Cove Viaduct, A Bridge in Harmony with Nature, Federal Highway Administration

-Skyscraper (5th hour), Films for the Humanities and Sciences, Princeton, NJ.

-Brooklyn Bridge, PBS

-AISC Annual Educational Tapes on Steel design

-Engineered Wood System, Wood Product Promotional Council (Slides)

-McGraw-Hill Series on Structural Mechanics

-Heavy Construction Techniques, Bobbs-Merril/ MacMillan

Question 3.

"Is computer application part of your course work? If yes, what benefit(s) do you find with this medium? Also, please provide the list of software you use."

As shown in Figure 2, Fifty three percent of the respondents include computer application in their coursework. The reasons mentioned were:

-It enhances student's ability to apply the computer to solutions of real-life problems.

-It helps them to identify the "variables" and generate useful tables for analysis and design of various types of members.

-It speeds up the routine portion of structural design related to computation of shear and bending moments.

-It satisfies the student desire to have hands on experience with a computer.

Question 4

"Is laboratory work required in your Structures course? If yes, please identify the type of experiments performed."

Fig. 3 shows that only forty four percent of the schools responding require some form of experimental work. This might be due to the lack of resources and/or time. However, a clear understanding of structural mechanics should include some hands on experience of the behavior of structural elements and assemblies. It is also a fact that some of the classical theorems central to the structural mechanics are much easier to comprehend by using laboratory models. Following is the list of experiments mentioned by the respondents:

-Tension test of steel and aluminum

-Torsion test of steel

-Compression testing of concrete

-Deflection of beams

-Impact test

-Illustrating buckling concept

-Member forces in a truss

-Equilibrium of a beam

-Construct a model of truss out of wood, load to failure and compare actual failure load to predicted.

-Students pour a slab on grade (10'xl5') in groups of 4 to 6

Question 5

"Do you think design courses at the construction programs should have different formats from engineering programs? If yes, please identify the differences."

Seventy eight percent of the respondents believe that we should not be tied to the traditional engineering formats in teaching structures to our construction students (see Fig. 4). In their opinion, detailed design is not necessary and the need is more to understand concepts and concerns in dealing with the whole building system. More diverse topics should be covered with less depth, but sufficient for basic understanding. The emphasis should be placed on the "construction" aspects or implications of design problems. Other differences mentioned include:

-Some emphasis should be on field problems, i.e., forming and temporary structures. Some emphasis on practical aspects of the design, i.e., modular sizing, economy of keeping same size beams and columns. Main point to make: The structure you build has been rationally designed--build it like it's designed.

-More emphasis should be on sequencing, the complexity of system integration, and scheduling.

-There needs to be an emphasis on conceptual understanding versus mathematical manipulation.

-There should be a discussion of different systems and framing details.

-Applied principles should be stressed that allow understanding of the role of the engineer and the practical   problem solving related to construction manager responsibilities.

-Following initial design sequence, cost estimate and preliminary CPM network schedule should be prepared.

-A little bit of learning is dangerous. Any design course in a construction program should be to teach rigorous thinking and structural applications. Only basic science (Statics + Strength of materials) should be shared. Engineers and construction students should be separated for any design course.

Question 6

"Do you think constructability should be taught with structures courses? If yes, please provide any suggestions you may have."

The majority of the respondents, 70% (see Fig. 5) believe that constructability should be woven into every problem solution. This could be achieved by pointing out practical problems encountered in the field when trying to construct structural members under a pressure of time and cost. Field trips, guest speakers, and case studies from forensic engineering can provide input. In each case, alternative methods, cost and productivity should be discussed. As an example, students in a structural steel design course should be acquainted with costs of welded vs. bolted connections; in concrete design, the advantages of pre-cast vs. cast-in-place, rebar design to allow the concrete to actually flow into a column rather than a "thicket of rebar" that acts like a, "dam".

Question 7

In your opinion, what percentage of the total required credits for graduation should be devoted to structures? (Example: 10 percent, i.e., 12 credits of Structures in a program that requires 120 credits for graduation)"

Fig. 6 shows the results of the responses to this question. Forty four percent of the respondents think about 10 percent, i.e., 12 credits of Structures in a program that requires 120 credits for graduation, is reasonable. However, this percentage is program dependent and construction engineering programs normally require more structures courses than other construction programs. The average semester credit of structures courses for the schools listed in Appendix A is 12.1 semester credits.

Question 8

"Do you think your construction program should put less emphasis on the structures courses in the future? Please state your reason."

There have been some concerns by former students that much of the information presented in structures courses had little applicability to the daily problems faced in construction. Eighty four percent of the respondents to the questionnaire believed that we need to keep a strong emphasis on structures, but perhaps a different kind of emphasis which is more toward construction and less toward engineering. Anyone managing the construction process needs a basic understanding of the engineer's environment and the basic understanding of how a structure behaves. There is never enough room in the curriculum for everything, but struc­tures is complicated enough to require in-depth instruction. Other reasons mentioned in response to this question were:

-Contractors/CM are becoming more legally respon­sible for their work.

-Graduates have expressed their appreciation for the knowledge useful of understanding why they do things a certain way.

-Construction students need a strong design background so that they can talk and respond intelligently to architects and engineers in the construction process. This also might prevent a few building failures, particularly on a renovation project with no design professional present.

Additional Comments

Several respondents had additional comments, which are presented here:

-Local construction industry requested a new program, which all structures courses except Statics are substi­tuted by management courses.

-People studying "Construction Engineering" should take more than 6 hours of Structures. Others should go no more than basic science, and practical application of other professions' designs.

-We need better discipline-specific textbooks. We need to share more information between ASC schools-­specially good problems, model ideas, video clips, etc. Why not a library of digital images of construction sites, problems, examples, etc.

Conclusions

Anyone managing the construction process needs a basic understanding of the engineer's environment and the basic understanding of how a structure behaves. Constructors must be able to address a number of technical questions at the project site including structural issues that sometimes are not addressed by the design professionals. Since the safety of construction workers as well as the strength and stability of structures during the construction phase is of paramount importance, construction managers need this knowledge.

On the issue of how much design is needed by a manager, the result of the survey showed that 10 percent of an entire curriculum (12credits in a program that requires 120 credits for graduation) seems appropriate. The survey also confined the need to move away from traditional approaches of teaching structures which involve learning specific math­ematical techniques to analyze isolated building compo­nents. Rather, there should be an emphasis on conceptual understanding of the whole structural systems. The empha­sis should be more toward construction and less toward engineering. In that regard, teaching methodology is the key issue. Lecture formats should be combined with other activities such as expe4mental works, field trips, audiovi­sual aids, and guest speakers to motivate students and make materials easier to comprehend.

There seems to be a need for better discipline-specific textbooks and more context based problems/solutions. A recommendation to develop a library of digital images of construction sites, problems, examples, etc., between ASC schools seems interesting and the Committee of Under­graduate Education should look into that.

Acknowledgment

The guidance and contributions made by Professors Zaijon Baha, Howard Bashford, Neil Opfer, Kwaku Tenah, Steve Williams, and Bruce Yoakum in developing the survey questionnaire for this study is greatly appreciated.

Go to the  Home page for:

Associated Schools of Construction Proceedings of the Annual Conference.  Copyright 2003
For problems or questions regarding this web contact Tulio Sulbaran, Proceedings Editor/Publisher.
Last updated: September 09, 2004.