Development of Civil
Engineering Design Skills
through Active Learning
Steve Jones
Department of Engineering

History
• Department of Civil Engineering
• 2006 - Merged with the Department of Engineering
• Prompted the adopted of CDIO principles
• A form of Active Learning
• Launch of the Liverpool Engineer

Other CDIO Universities
• Arizona State University • Queensland University of Technology
• California State University • Royal Institute of Technology
• Northridge University • Shantou University
• Chalmers University of Technology • Singapore Polytechnic
• Daniel Webster College • Technical University of Denmark
• École Polytechnique de Montréal • Telecom Bretagne
• Hogeschool Gent • Tsinghua University
• Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied • Turku University of Applied Sciences
Sciences • U.S. Naval Academy
• Hochschule Wismar • Umeå University
• Instituto Superior de Engenharia do • University of Auckland
Porto • University of Bristol
• Jönköping University • University of Calgary
• Lancaster University • University of Colorado, Boulder
• Linköping University • University of Leeds
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• University of Liverpool
• Metropolia University, Helsinki
• University of Manitoba
• Politecnico di Milano
• University of Pretoria
• Queen's University, Belfast
• University of Sydney
• Queen's University, Ontario

The Active Learning Lab

Active Learning Laboratory
Provides space for up to 300 students
engaged in active learning

Active Learning Laboratory
Bespoke desks and seating/storage facilities

Active Learning Laboratories

CDIO in Year 1 Civil Engineering
Three progressive Design-Build-Test projects:
1. Icebreaker project
– Introduction for all Engineering students
– Build and test of model cardboard bridge
2. Two Week Creation – Part 1
3. Two Week Creation – Part 2

Activity Timing
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
The Icebreaker Two Week Creation Two Week Creation
Part 1 Part 2
Term 1 Term 2
Exams
Note:
• Icebreaker – over 4 afternoons in Week 1
• TWC - all lectures re-arranged for these 2 weeks

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
• First week of Term 1
• Before any lectures
• Teams of 6 – typically tutor groups
Fabrication of Members

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Testing of Individual Members

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Structural Analysis

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Truss Assembly

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Ceremonial Testing

Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Things which went well:
• Popular with students
• Good opportunity to make friends
• Good links with technical understanding
• Development of personal skills
• Development of professional skills
Problem areas:
• Instructions not read!
• Insufficient care taken with component loading
• Minor safety issues
• Slack/tight tension members

Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
•Last week of Term 1
•More student input/choice
• Any section size
• Students prepare drawings
•Rolling load
•Engineering costs
•Geometric misfit deliberately introduced

Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
Deck truss – rolling load

Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
Engineering drawings

Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
Misfit geometry problem

Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
Things which went well:
• All groups completed project
• Groups gelled well
• Team leadership role emerged
Problem areas:
• Instructions still not read!
• Too slack/tight tension members
• Management/planning
• Drawings - bottleneck

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• First week of Semester 2
• Double the span
• Same rolling load
• Complete freedom of design

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• Wide range of truss geometries
• Most groups selected deck trusses and trough trusses
• Sometimes both!
• Demonstrates very early stage in understanding of
structural behaviour

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Through Truss

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Deck Truss

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Trough and Deck Truss !

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Innovative concept design

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• Problems Encountered
Poor connection details at the ends

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• Problems Encountered
Lack of lateral stability

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Things which went well:
• All groups completed project and tested the bridge
• Groups gelled well
• Team leadership role emerged
Problem areas:
• Little effort put in to optimise their design
• Some bridges were asymmetric.
• Tension members were provided where compression
occurs.
• Wrong number of cross-beams provided to support the
roadway

Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• Common causes of failure
• Breaking of tension members due to unequal sharing of the load
• Collapse of the deck cross-beams
• Damage during set-up caused by member misfit

Conclusions
• Three stage cardboard bridge project
• Good project - works well
• Very popular with students
• Cheap to run
• Progressive design and building exercise with increasing
design freedom
• Ties in well with Year 1 structures lectures
• Students think about structural form and behaviour at a
very earl stage of their university academic life

Conclusions
• Successful example of CDIO and the principles of the
Liverpool Engineer in an application of Active Learning
Any questions ?