What Do Constructors Need To Know About Structures?

Introduction

There are several factors that affect an undergraduate curriculum at schools of construction.  Among these are accreditation requirements, school program mission and objectives, and the needs of the construction industry.  Construction programs must “make sure that their curricula are timely, pertinent and meaningful.  They also must produce graduates who have skills that employers need and are willing to pay for and which will produce better projects to meet the needs of our society” (ENR, 2002).  The American Council for Construction Education (ACCE), the accrediting body for schools of construction, accredits only those baccalaureate programs that meet this requirement.  In order for a graduate to function effectively in the construction environment, ACCE requires that in addition to the construction core subject areas (estimating, scheduling, project management, safety, construction law and finance) a curriculum must contain twenty semester credit hours of construction science or peripheral subject areas.  The peripheral subject areas must include three credit hours of design theory, six of analysis and design of construction systems, six of construction methods and materials, one of construction graphics, and one of surveying.  These peripheral subject areas are to provide an understanding of the design disciplines’ processes, enabling the constructor to communicate with design professionals, participate during the planning phase of design-build projects, and to solve practical construction problems (ACCE, 2002).  The fundamentals of design theory are taught in structural mechanics courses such as statics and strength of materials.  Analysis and design of structural systems are taught in structural analysis and/or structural design course such as steel design, wood design, reinforced concrete design, and temporary structures including formwork.  ACCE does not dictate the location and appropriate extent or depth of coverage of these peripheral subject areas in a construction curriculum; it is left to the discretion of each program as it fulfills its mission (ACCE, 2002).  ACCE however does encourage accredited programs to “regularly evaluate current curricula for and develop new curricula that reflect changing construction technologies and management trends….The goals of construction programs must be related to the needs of society and the construction profession” (ACCE, 2002).  The question then to ask when evaluating curricula with regard to the peripheral structures subject areas is what do constructors or practitioners need to know about structures?

One of the goals of a construction undergraduate program curriculum is to fulfill the needs of the construction industry.  The purpose of this research study is to survey practicing construction professionals to determine the needs of the construction industry with regard to structures.  That is to ascertain what constructors need to know about structures.  The results of this research can then be used by construction programs to evaluate current curricula or to develop new curricula.

Literature Review

A literature search revealed that very little research has been performed in ascertaining the construction industry’s needs with regard to structures from the constructor’s point of view.  Majority of the research in this area has been from the academician’s point of view.  Chini (1995) conducted a survey of ASC school members to develop a resource data of textbooks, audiovisual aids, computer software, and laboratory experiments for structures courses.  The survey also asked about course content and teaching methodology.  Seventy eight percent of respondents in this study felt that detail design is not necessary and the need is to understand concepts and concerns with the whole building system.  Seventy percent believed that constructability should be taught with structures courses.  Eighty four percent felt that anyone managing the construction process needs a basic understanding of how a structure behaves.  Fifty three percent suggest including computer applications in structures coursework.

Hauck and Rockwell (1997) conducted a survey to identify which of the ten duties on the Constructor Certification Skills and Knowledge exam is the most important to professional constructors.  This certification exam was developed by the American Institute of Constructors (AIC) and the Constructor Certification Commission (CCC).  The study concluded that the ten duties listed in rank order of importance are problem solving, estimating/budgeting, project management, work with people, organize people, purchasing/procurement, cost/schedule control, staffing/subcontractor coordination, teamwork/professional development, and support operations.  One of the objectives of courses in structures is to enhance problem solving skills.

Bilbo and Avant (2000) surveyed in 1982, 1987, 1995, and 1998 Texas A&M graduates to determine if construction programs are responsive to the needs and demands of the construction industry.  Their research provided descriptive data regarding salary, employment information, employer demographics, curriculum ratings, and professional development.  Their data revealed that majority of their graduates work in the general contracting sector.  Each respondent was asked to rate the value of each course area in their curriculum in the performance of their past and present work responsibilities.  The areas of professional/managerial, estimating/scheduling, and materials/methods appeared at the top of the rankings.  Science, English/humanities, structures, and mechanical/electrical appeared at the lower end of the rankings; these subject areas were still considered to be of some value to valuable.

Senior and Hauck (2001) state that professional constructors need a deep understanding of construction codes and specifications in order to develop construction projects.  They further state that constructors need a good grasp of design theory to understand codes and specifications.  Their study looked at entire construction management program of study specifically to structures and found that a four credit hour course in statics and strength of materials is needed.  Also needed are four two credit hour design modules offered over two semesters in steel structures, concrete and masonry structures, wood and temporary structures, and soils and foundations.

 Majority of research with regard to structures has been in the delivery method of course content.  The literature shows that researchers are leaning towards computer applications to attract student interest in structures.  Slattery (2000) recommends that computer design aid programs should be incorporated in the teaching of formwork design.  Haque (2001) states that the traditional lecture base structural design education should be supplemented by web-based visualization techniques.  Williams and Sattineni (2002) suggest that computer software should be utilized for quick, accurate quantification of structural concepts.  Burt’s (2002) study suggests that students prefer technology mediated instruction to traditional lecture base instruction in mastering structural concepts.

Methodology

The procedure for this study involved finding out what is taught in structures courses and what structural subject areas are covered in professional exams, developing a survey, conducting the survey, and summarizing survey results.  Universities with a construction management (CM) program typically offer at least one course in structures.  A web search was conducted to research the content of structures courses in ACCE accredited four-year CM programs.  The number of required structures courses, total semester credit hours, course lab component, and subject matter areas/course content was recorded for each program (see Appendix A).  There are several professional certification exams for CM professionals.  Among these is the Certified Professional Constructor (CPC).  This certification is a two step process: the Constructor Qualification Examination (CQE) Level I-Construction Fundamentals and CQE Level II-Advanced Construction Applications.  CQE Level I can be taken at the senior year of college and CQE Level II can be taken after seven years of professional construction experience.  Many CM programs require their students to take the CQE Level I exam.  The structural topical content covered in these exams were determined through examination of CQE Levels I and II study guides. 

The survey on structures was developed next (see Appendix B).  The first part of the survey asked for educational and occupational background information; this part was strictly voluntary.  The second part of the survey asked practicing constructors to rate the importance of twenty structural knowledge base areas/topics covered in undergraduate CM curricula to their profession.  The rating scale was from 1 to 5; where 1 means not important at all and 5 means very important.  The results of the web and CQE study guide search were used to develop the twenty structural knowledge base areas/topics.  The third part of the survey asked how should structures be taught; the choices were acquaintanceship and nomenclature, behavioral and understanding, hands on/constructability, thorough qualitative analysis, thorough quantitative analysis, and both qualitative and quantitative analysis.  The last part of the survey asked for any comments.  The survey was given to 100 construction professionals from across the country; these individuals were selected randomly.  These professionals were either members of AIC or the American Subcontractors Association (ASA).

Results

The American Institute of Constructors Constructor Certification Commission (AICCCC) has published two study guides, one for CQE Level I exam (2001) and another for CQE Level II exam (2001).  The CQE Level I exam is designed to “measure the broad spectrum of fundamental knowledge required of an entry-level professional constructor” (2001).  This examination consists of ten major subject or knowledge areas, as shown in Table 1.  The knowledge/subject areas and the percentage of questions in each area were determined from surveys conducted of practicing constructors at entry level.

Table 1

 CQE Level I-Construction Fundamentals Examination

The Design/Engineering Concepts & Associated Mathematics and Sciences section of the exam covers questions on structures.  “This section is concerned with the application of scientific knowledge to engineering materials, soils and formwork for the safe design of systems, processes, equipment and products” (2001).  Topics include properties of engineering materials, engineering mechanics, soil mechanics and concrete formwork design.  Engineering materials refers to study of the methods and techniques for testing and designing various engineering/construction materials such as steel, concrete, wood and masonry.  Engineering mechanics is the study of the effects of static, dynamic forces and motion on materials with respect to stresses and deformations resulting from external forces.  In short, engineering mechanics covers the behavior of materials under load.  Examples include statics and strength of materials or mechanics of materials; structural analysis of steel, timber and reinforced concrete; lifting and rigging.  Specific topics include centroids, moment of inertia, concept of equilibrium and equations of equilibrium (solving for support reactions), internal forces in beams, shear and moment diagrams, truss analysis, normal stress and strains, flexural stress and shear stress in beams, modulus of elasticity and deformation, and thermal expansion and contraction.  Soil mechanics is the study of the identification testing and analysis of soils in excavation, trenching, shoring and pile driving operations.  Formwork refers to the design of concrete formwork components for walls and elevated slabs.  Specific topics include building code or standards, lateral concrete pressure, and timber formwork component design for walls.  Timber formwork wall components include the sheathing, studs, wales, ties, and bracing.  The associated mathematical topics covered under structures include system of units, conversion of units, and trigonometry.  The CQE Level II exam does not contain any questions on structures.

 Fifty-two ACCE accredited baccalaureate degree programs were researched to determine the content of their structures courses.  The results are summarized in Appendix A.  Soils and foundations were not considered as part of the structures courses.  Statics and strength of materials are taught in eighty five percent of the programs.  The treatment of statics in most programs is essentially a force analysis; understanding the manner in which external forces travel throughout a building structure and determining the corresponding internal forces produced in members of the building’s structural framework.  In the same programs, strength of materials is basically treated as the first step in structural design; understanding the relationship between the physical size of a structural member and its load carrying capacity.  Structural design of wood, steel, and concrete members is taught in seventy five percent of the programs.  The course content of the structural design courses for most these programs are designed to increase a student’s understanding of the purpose of various structural members that makeup a building; understand failure modes, building code requirements and construction tolerances; understand factors that impact structural design and constructability; and to understand how members are connected.  Formwork design/analysis/construction is taught in 45 percent of the programs.  Indeterminate structures is taught in seventeen percent of the programs.  Temporary structures, which include scaffolding, rigging, and bracing, is taught in fifteen percent of the programs.  Thirteen percent of the programs teach courses in masonry design/analysis/construction.  Computer application in structures courses is utilized in eight percent of the programs.  The design/analysis of structures for lateral forces, which includes wind and seismic forces, is taught in six percent of the programs.  Less than four percent of the programs cover moment distribution, influence lines, slope-deflection, and moment-area when analyzing indeterminate structures.  Less than two percent of the programs cover prestressed concrete design/analysis, composite steel design, heavy building construction, special structures (shells, vaults, domes), tall buildings, and constructability and buildability.

 The structures survey was given to 100 practicing construction professionals of whom 51 responded.  The educational background of the participants is given in Table 2; not all participants provided this information since it was voluntary.  A total of 48 participants responded to this part of the survey.  The schools at which the participants earned their degree are listed in Appendix C.

Table 2

Educational Background

ARCH = Arch.,  Arch. Dsgn. & Const., Arch. Engr., Arch. Engr. Tech.

CSM = Bldg. Const., Bldg. Sci., Bldg. Const. & Mgt., Const., Const. Mgt, Const. Sci., Const. Sci. & mgt., Const. Tech

BUS = Account., Bus. Admin., Bus. Mgt., Marketing

ENGR = Civil Engr., Civil Engr. Tech., Tech. Education

Other = Education, Ed. Admin., Criminal Justice, Psychology

HS = High School Diploma, 2Y = 2 yr. deg., B = Bachelors deg., M = Masters deg., D = Doctoral deg.

 The participant’s occupational background and years of experience are given in Table 3.  Some participants had experience in several types of construction which is why the total number of participants is greater than 51.  A total of 47 participants responded to this part of the survey.

Table 3

 Occupational Background and Years of Experience

Mean=16.4 yrs.       Min.=1 yr.      Max.=40 yrs.       Median=20 yrs.       Mode=20 yrs.

The results presented in Tables 2 and 3 show that the participants have various years of experience and educational backgrounds; this is typical of professionals in the construction industry.  Therefore, it can be concluded that the participants are a good representative sample of the overall population of practitioners in the construction industry.

In part two of the survey the participants were asked to rate twenty knowledge base/subject areas.  The twenty statements and the rating scale are given in Appendix B.  The results are summarized in Table 4.  The number of participants that choose each rating scale for each statement is summarized under Rating Scale.  The total number of participants that rated each statement is also given in this table.  Some participants did not rate each statement which is why the total is less than 51.  Also given in this is the mean rating for each statement.  Ratings 0 and 6 where not considered when calculating the mean; the mean rating is the weighted mean value of ratings 1 to 5.  The last column of the table addresses the question whether or not the statement/topic should be covered in a construction management program’s structures curriculum.  If the mean rating of a statement/topic is 4 or greater, then it should be covered.  If the mean rating is less than 3, then it should not be covered.  Those statement/topics that received a mean rating greater than 3 but less than 4 may be covered if there is room in the curriculum.

Statement numbers 1 to 4, 7 to 11, 13, and 14 are important; practitioners need these knowledge base areas to be successful in their profession.  In most CM programs, statements 1, 4, and 11 are covered in statics; statements 2, 3, and 11 in strength of materials; statements 7 to 11 in introductory structural design course(s) covering wood, steel, and reinforced concrete; and statements 13 and 14 in formwork design and construction.  Statements 15, 20, 6, 5, 12, 16, and 18, listed in order of importance, are somewhat important.  Statement 15 is covered in temporary structures, which is taught in 15% of CM programs.  Statements 5 and 6 are covered in structural design courses.  Statement 12 is covered in prestressed design, which is taught in less than 2% of CM programs.  Statement 16 is covered in design/analysis of structures for lateral forces, which is taught in 6% of CM programs.  Statement 18 is covered in laboratory material testing, which is taught in 20% of CM programs.  Statements 17 and 19 are less than somewhat important; practitioners do not need these knowledge base areas to be successful in their profession.  Statement 17 is covered in special structures, which is taught in less than 2% of CM programs.  Statement 19 addresses improving problem solving skills by performing analytical/rigorous calculations.

In part three of the survey the participants were asked how structures should be taught.  They were given six choices and asked to mark all those that apply.  The results are summarized in Table 5.  The preferred methods of teaching structures in ranked order are hands on, constructability; behavioral and understanding; acquaintanceship and nomenclature; and both qualitative and quantitative analysis.  The consensus was that structures should not be taught by performing thorough qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Table 4

Summary of Results for Part II of the Survey

           Note:  Y = yes     N = no     M = maybe

Table 5

 Summary of Results for Part III of the Survey

In part four of the survey the participants were asked for comments.  Only 10 out-of 51 (19.6 %) respondents provided comments.  These comments are listed verbatim in Appendix D.  Eight out of the ten comments addressed how structures should be taught.  These comments were in agreement with the results presented in Table 5.

Conclusions

An undergraduate construction management’s structures curriculum should provide students with the fundamental knowledge base or foundation that they may need in order to be successful in their profession.  Constructors or practitioners were surveyed to determine what this structural knowledge base or foundation should be.  The consensus is that practitioners need a good understanding of statics and strength of materials.  That is, they need to understand load propagation through the various structural elements of a building and to understand the relationship between physical size of a structural member and its load carrying capacity.  They need a basic understanding of structural analysis and design; enough to know the purpose of various structural members that makeup a building, to detect obvious structural problems during construction, and to know when incorrect information is received.  They need to understand factors that impact the structural design and constructability of a building.  This includes understanding construction tolerances and code compliance requirements for erection of structural members and systems.  Practitioners need to know basic structural terminology or nomenclature in order to converse intelligently with other professionals in the construction industry.  Constructors also need an understanding of basic design principles for formwork; understand concrete formwork construction sequence and operation.

 Practitioners were also asked how structures should be taught in construction management programs.  The preferred methods in ranked order were hands on, constructability; behavioral and understanding; acquaintanceship and nomenclature; and both qualitative and quantitative analysis.  The consensus was that it should not be taught by performing either thorough qualitative or quantitative analysis.

References

American Council for Construction Education, ACCE, (2002, July 27).  Form 103, Standards and Criteria for Baccalaureate Programs [WWW document].  URL http://www.acce-hq.org/Accreditation/AccredProc.htm

American Institute of Constructors Constructor Certification Commission (AICCCC) & Brayton, E. M. (2001).  Associate Constructor Study Guide Level I-Construction Fundamentals.

American Institute of Constructors Constructor Certification Commission (AICCCC) & Brayton, E. M. (2001).  Certified Professional Constructor Study Guide Level II-Advanced Construction Applications.

Bilbo, D. L. & Avant, J. (2000).  Construction Education at Texas A&M University: A Survey of Graduates from 1970-1999.  The American Professional Constructor, the Journal of the American Institute of Constructors (AIC), 24 (2), 10-15.

Burt, R. (2002).  Using Technology Mediated Instruction to Support an Introductory Structures Course for Construction Undergraduates.  Journal of Construction Education, 7 (2), 97-105.

Chini, S. A. (1995).  Survey of the Structures Courses Offered by ASC School Members.  Proceedings, ASC 31^st Annual Conference, Tempe, Arizona, 15-23.

Educators Have to Hook Industry Students Early and Often.  (2002, October 21).  Engineering News-Record, ENR, 92.

Haque, M. E. (2001).  Web-based Visualization Techniques for Structural Design Education.  Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

 Hauck, A. J. & Rockwell, Q. T. (1997).  Desirable Characteristics of the Professional Constructor: The Results of the Constructor Certification Skills and Knowledge Survey.  Journal of Construction Education, I (3), 167-183.

 Williams, S. & Sattineni, A. (2002).  A Structure for Teaching Structures.  Proceedings, ASC 38^th Annual Conference, Backsburg, Virginia, 107-114.

Senior, B. A. & Hauck, A. J. (2001).  Designing Engineering Contents for a Construction Management Program.  Journal of Construction Education, 6 (2), 65-74.

 Slattery, K. T. (2000).  Design by Analysis tool for Teaching Formwork Design.  Proceedings, ASC 36^th Annual Conference, West Lafayette, Indiana, 21-26.

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D