Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
S.G. Millard & S. Jones
Department of EngineeringUniversity of Liverpool
UK
DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SKILLS THROUGH ACTIVE LEARNING
History
•Department of Civil Engineering•Department of Engineering
merged in 2006
Adopted CDIO principlesLaunch of "Liverpool Engineer" brand
Active Learning Laboratory
Active Learning Laboratory
Provides space for up to 300 students engaged in active learning
Active Learning Laboratory
Bespoke desks and seating/storage facilities
Embedment of CDIO into Civil Engineering
3 progressive Design-Build-Test projects
1. Icebreaker project
Introduction for all Engineering students
Build and test of model cardboard bridge
1. Icebreaker project
6 students, tutor group
Fabrication of members
1. Icebreaker project
Compression testing
1. Icebreaker project
Structural analysis
1. Icebreaker project
Truss assembly
1. Icebreaker project
Ceremonial testing
1. Icebreaker project
Things which went well:• Popular with students• Good networking opportunity• Good links with technical understanding
• Development of personal and professional skills
1. Icebreaker project
Problem areas :• Instructions not read !• Insufficient care taken with
component loading• Minor safety issues• Recurring factor of 2 errors• Slack/tight tension members
2. 2-Week Bridge #1
•More student input/choiceAny section widthEngineering drawings prepared
•Rolling load•Engineering costs•Geometric mis-fit deliberately
introduced
Deck truss – rolling load
2. 2-Week Bridge #1
Things which went well:All groups completed projectGroups gelled well
Problem areas :Slack/tight tension membersPoor fit / miss-fitManagement/planning…drawing bottleneck
2. 2-Week Bridge #1
Mis-fit geometry problem
2. 2-Week Bridge #1
Double the span, same rolling load
Complete freedom of design
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Most groups selected Deck Trusses and Through Trusses ….but sometimes both !!
Wide range of truss geometries
Demonstrates very early stage in the understanding of structural behaviour
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Through Truss
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Deck Truss
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Through and Deck Truss !
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Innovative concept design
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Problems Encountered
Poor connections detailed at the ends
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Problems Encountered
Lack of lateral stability
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Little effort put in to optimise the design
Problems Encountered
2. 2-Week Bridge #2
Fundamental mistakes made : • Some bridges were asymmetric. • Tension members were provided
where compression occurs. • Wrong number of cross-beams
provided to support the roadway
Common causes of failure
• Breaking of tension members due to unequal sharing of the load
• Collapse of the deck cross-beams(lack of attention to joint detail )
• Damage during set-up caused by member misfit
Collapse of the deck cross-beams
Conclusions
3 stage cardboard bridge project is a good project that works well and is very popular with the students
Recurrent costs are cardboard, paper and adhesives…very cheap to run..!!
Progressive design and building exercises with increasing design freedom
Conclusions
Ties in well with the early Year 1 Structures lectures
Students think about structural form and behaviour at a very early stage of their university academic life
Successful example of CDIO and the principles of the Liverpool Engineer in application of Active Learning
Conclusions
