Iterating Structures: Teaching Engineering as Design
Publication: Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 20, Issue 3
Abstract
When structural engineering is taught as a design discipline, engineering and architecture students can understand the open-ended potential of structural engineering solutions and gain a better understanding of the opportunities for structure to shape and reinforce architectural concepts. By formalizing the iterative aspect of design processes common in architecture design studios, structural engineering courses can integrate design without requiring a radical configuration of the conventional lecture class structure. This paper outlines models that include design and analysis iterations in structures lecture courses. Developed for undergraduate and graduate architecture students, this model could be applied to engineering education as well. Student work from these exercises demonstrates integration of architecture and structural engineering. Three examples of iterations are presented to highlight a range of applications, including (1) iteration of method of spanning (e.g., truss, arch, and cable beam) in a structural fundamentals course, (2) iteration of structural configuration within lectures for an advanced structures class for architects, and (3) iteration of structural solutions from engineering and architectural perspectives. Each example is presented as a case study that includes a statement of learning objectives, a description of the projects and teaching methods used, and an assessment of the outcomes. Breaking from the traditional problem-set coursework where sizing a beam is considered structural design helps students to focus on the distinct tasks of analysis and assessment and enables informed design decision making. Students develop understanding of the relationship between structural form and force, recognize the variety of structural design options for a specific architectural proposal, and evaluate the effectiveness of a specific structural scheme, helping students to understand that there is more than one right answer to a structural design problem with the goal of encouraging students to attempt and rigorously evaluate unconventional structural solutions both within the structures curriculum and within the studio.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Allen, E. (1997). “Second studio: A model for technical teaching.” J. Architect. Ed., 51(2), 92–95.
Allen, E., and Iano, J. (2011). Architect’s studio companion: Rules of thumb for preliminary design, 5th Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Allen, E., Zalewski, W., and Boston Structures Group. (2010). Form and forces: Designing efficient, expressive structures, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Arkitektgruppen Lille Froen. (2010a). “Kousentrert Langs Kollen.” Arkitektur N Magazine, 92(1), 56–61.
Arkitektgruppen Lille Froen. (2010b). “Nytt Og Gammelti Samspill.” Arkitektur N Magazine, 92(1), 50–55.
Bovill, C., Gardner, A., and Wiedmann, G. (1997). “Intention, form, and execution: A comprehensive studio curriculum.” J. Architect. Ed., 51(2), 84–89.
Dong, K., Doerfler, J., and Fowler, T. (2013). “The interdisciplinary design studio: Identifying collaboration.” Proc., Building Technology Educators Society Conf., Building Technology Educators' Society, Moscow, ID, 141–148.
Dossick, C. S., Neff, G., and Pena, R. (2011). “Messy talk and clean technology: Communication, problem-solving, and collaboration using building information modelling.” Eng. Project Org. J., 1(2), 83–93.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Ozgur, E., Frey, D. D., and Leifer, L. J. (2005). “Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning.” J. Eng. Ed., 94(1), 103–120.
Kuhn, S. (2001). “Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project based pedagogy.” Int. J. Eng. Ed., 17(3–4), 349–352.
Liu, G., and Ren, Y. (2010). “An assignment project based approach for engineering education.” Proc., 2010 IEEE Int. Conf. on Information and Automation, IEEE, New York, 191–194.
Nepal, K. P., and Jenkins, G. A. (2011). “Blended project-based learning and traditional lecture-tutorial-based teaching approaches in engineering design courses.” Proc., 22nd Annual AAEE Conf. on Engineering Education, Engineers Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia, 338–343.
Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K., and Paulino, L. R. (2008). “A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance.” Perform. Improv. Q., 21(3), 7–21.
Simonen, K., and Dossick, C. S. (2013). “Iteration for integration: Techniques for integrating building technology and design.” Proc., Building Technol. Educators Society Conf., Building Technology Educators' Society, Moscow, ID, 123–130.
Wetzel, C. (2012). “Integrating structures and design in the first-year studio.” J. Architect. Ed., 66(1), 107–114.
Zalewski, W., and Allen, E. (1998). Shaping structures: Statics, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 20 • Issue 3 • September 2014
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jul 17, 2013
Accepted: Feb 7, 2014
Published online: Apr 8, 2014
Published in print: Sep 1, 2014
Discussion open until: Sep 8, 2014
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.