Development of Civil Engineering Design Skills through Active Learning
Steve JonesDepartment 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
• California State University
• Northridge University
• Chalmers University of Technology
• Daniel Webster College
• École Polytechnique de Montréal
• Hogeschool Gent
• Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences
• Hochschule Wismar
• Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto
• Jönköping University
• Lancaster University
• Linköping University
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Metropolia University, Helsinki
• Politecnico di Milano
• Queen's University, Belfast
• Queen's University, Ontario
• Queensland University of Technology
• Royal Institute of Technology
• Shantou University
• Singapore Polytechnic
• Technical University of Denmark
• Telecom Bretagne
• Tsinghua University
• Turku University of Applied Sciences
• U.S. Naval Academy
• Umeå University
• University of Auckland
• University of Bristol
• University of Calgary
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• University of Leeds
• University of Liverpool• University of Manitoba
• University of Pretoria
• University of Sydney
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
Term 1 Term 2
Stage 1The Icebreaker
Stage 2Two Week CreationPart 1
Stage 3Two Week CreationPart 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 ?
