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.

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

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. 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. The Active Learning Lab

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

7. Active Learning Laboratory
Bespoke desks and seating/storage facilities

8. Active Learning Laboratories

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Testing of Individual Members

14. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Structural Analysis

15. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Truss Assembly

16. Stage 1 – The Icebreaker
Ceremonial Testing

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. Stage 2 – Two Week Creation – Part 1
Engineering drawings

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

22. 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

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

24. 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

25. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Through Truss

26. Stage 3 – Two Week Creation – Part 2
Deck Truss

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

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

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

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

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