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 ?