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 ...
Other CDIO Universities
•   Arizona State University                    •   Queensland University of Technology
•   Califo...
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
          – Intr...
Activity Timing


Stage 1           Stage 2                  Stage 3
The Icebreaker    Two Week Creation        Two Week C...
Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
• First week of Term 1
• Before any lectures
• Teams of 6 – typically tutor groups




          ...
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 lin...
Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1




   •Last week of Term 1
   •More student input/choice
     • Any section size
   ...
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
 • Tea...
Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2




•   First week of Semester 2
•   Double the span
•   Same rolling load
•   Comple...
Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
•    Wide range of truss geometries
•    Most groups selected deck trusses and trough...
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...
Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
• Common causes of failure
  •   Breaking of tension members due to unequal sharing o...
Conclusions

•   Three stage cardboard bridge project
•   Good project - works well
•   Very popular with students
•   Che...
Conclusions

• Successful example of CDIO and the principles of the
  Liverpool Engineer in an application of Active Learn...
Steve Jones - Development of Civil Engineering Design skills through active learning
Steve Jones - Development of Civil Engineering Design skills through active learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Steve Jones - Development of Civil Engineering Design skills through active learning

2,924

Published on

Steve Jones presents "Development of Civil Engineering Design skills through active learning" at the University of Liverpool Learning and Teaching Conference 2009.

In 2008 the Department of Engineering launched the Liverpool Engineer initiative, which comprises an educational framework incorporating the principles of CDIO to develop multifaceted engineers ready to meet the professional needs of the 21st century. Active learning is at the core of the Liverpool Engineer learning and teaching philosophy. For Civil Engineering students the development of open minded design skills is fostered through a series of three Design-Build-Test projects, introduced in the first year of their academic studies. Students work in groups to develop a model cardboard bridge. The new Active Learning Laboratory was completed in 2008 and provides an ideal facility for these projects.

The structured progression of the bridge design projects allows students to explore the properties of tension and compression members fabricated from cardboard. Their findings are compared with member properties derived from computer structural analyses to allow them to develop a complete bridge structure with the specified factor of safety. The truss geometry and member properties of the first "Icebreaker" bridge are tightly constrained. For the second and third bridges the student groups have increasing freedom to develop their own concepts and structural solutions to the problem.

The presentation will focus on the student experience and some problems and pitfalls encountered with their understanding of structural behaviour.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
2 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Steve
    I want to build a truss bridge out of cardboard,I want to use vector,moment,enertia,center of gravity as a way of calculating how much weight it will support. I want the bridge to include a sub-structure.I want the bridge to be six-feet long/3-feet wide and to support a hundred pound person.HELP
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • IT'S FUN! I LIKE THIS! STRUCTURAL THEORY
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,924
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
110
Comments
2
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Steve Jones - Development of Civil Engineering Design skills through active learning"

  1. 1. Development of Civil Engineering Design Skills through Active Learning Steve Jones Department of Engineering
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. The Active Learning Lab
  5. 5. Active Learning Laboratory Provides space for up to 300 students engaged in active learning
  6. 6. Active Learning Laboratory Bespoke desks and seating/storage facilities
  7. 7. Active Learning Laboratories
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker • First week of Term 1 • Before any lectures • Teams of 6 – typically tutor groups Fabrication of Members
  11. 11. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker Testing of Individual Members
  12. 12. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker Structural Analysis
  13. 13. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker Truss Assembly
  14. 14. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker Ceremonial Testing
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1 Deck truss – rolling load
  18. 18. Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1 Engineering drawings
  19. 19. Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1 Misfit geometry problem
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 • First week of Semester 2 • Double the span • Same rolling load • Complete freedom of design
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 Through Truss
  24. 24. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 Deck Truss
  25. 25. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 Trough and Deck Truss !
  26. 26. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 Innovative concept design
  27. 27. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 • Problems Encountered Poor connection details at the ends
  28. 28. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2 • Problems Encountered Lack of lateral stability
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. Conclusions • Successful example of CDIO and the principles of the Liverpool Engineer in an application of Active Learning Any questions ?
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×