Conference PaperPDF Available

Teaching Structures to Architecture Students through Hands-On Activities


Abstract and Figures

Henry Kamphoefner's opening for Mario Salvadori's talk reveals a key historical shift in considering structures in the education of architects. He points to the Beaux-Arts school of thought and its emphasis on buildings as pictures and rendered drawings, and highlights that as students they were told by their teachers to ignore the structure, that Engineers were a dime a dozen, that almost everyone can tell them how to make it stand up. This highlights the main reason that even some of the very best architects don't understand structures, emphasizing that there has not been too much emphasis on structural knowledge in the architectural schools. This calls for a different approach in teaching structures to Architectural students than engineering students. Soft knowledge is oriented to architectonic sense, thus hard knowledge through soft methods should be facilitated. There is a gap that must be filled between the theory of structures and the art of teaching it to Architectural students. This paper first reviews some different methods in teaching structures to Architectural students. Next, it will report on the " Arch 324: Structures II " course being taught by Professor von Buelow at the University of Michigan. And finally, it will compare the undertaken methods in the aforementioned course with the array of methods reviewed earlier to identify the strengths and the ways in which it can further improve.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teaching structures to architecture students through hands-on activities
Niloufar Emami1, Peter von Buelow2
1,2Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, USA
Henry Kamphoefner’s opening for Mario Salvadori’s talk reveals a key historical shift in considering
structures in the education of architects. He points to the Beaux-Arts school of thought and its emphasis on
buildings as pictures and rendered drawings, and highlights that as students they were told by their teachers
to ignore the structure, that Engineers were a dime a dozen, that almost everyone can tell them how to make
it stand up. This highlights the main reason that even some of the very best architects don’t understand
structures, emphasizing that there has not been too much emphasis on structural knowledge in the
architectural schools. This calls for a different approach in teaching structures to Architectural students than
engineering students. Soft knowledge is oriented to architectonic sense, thus hard knowledge through soft
methods should be facilitated. There is a gap that must be filled between the theory of structures and the art
of teaching it to Architectural students. This paper first reviews some different methods in teaching
structures to Architectural students. Next, it will report on the “Arch 324: Structures II” course being taught
by Professor von Buelow at the University of Michigan. And finally, it will compare the undertaken
methods in the aforementioned course with the array of methods reviewed earlier to identify the strengths
and the ways in which it can further improve.
Keyword: Education, Teaching structure, Architecture students, Hands-on activities
1. Introduction
Salvadori (1958) considered a good knowledge of mathematics as a prerequisite to the learning of
structures, and then other technical subject areas such as mechanics, the strength of materials and structures.
He also highlights that the “importance of scale related to absolute gravity pull of the earth must be put in
the mind of the student. Otherwise, he will stumble and dream impossible structures 10,000 feet in span”
(Salvadori 1958:6). Severud (1961) expresses that there are certain fundamentals that architects should get
as the basis for thinking, and then the figures can be handled by engineers (Severud 1961). He also points
out that an education in structures should be addressed by a direct approach to “build a structure and destroy
it and then see what happens: this is by far the best means of recognizing what goes on” (Severud 1961:18).
Michael Chiuini (2008) highlights the objectives of structures courses as having an intuitive understanding
of the behavior of building systems, and the quantitative analysis skills (Chiuini 2008). Considering the
formal Architectural education in the USA, MacNamara (2012) points out that the NAAB (National
Architectural Accrediting Board) accredited Bachelor of Architecture programs are required to have two
structural courses, one focusing on analysis and another on design calculations (MacNamara 2012).
However, as Vassigh (2005) points out, architecture faculty and students struggle with a traditional
engineering-based approach to structures instruction (Vassigh 2005). Michael Chiuini (2008) lists three
main issues with structures courses in architecture schools: first, students’ struggle in understanding statics
and applying mathematical procedures to problems; second, the inadequate time to teach complex structures
to students; and third, a perceived separation between design disciplines and structures (Chiuini 2008).
Some of the issues above need to be addressed at an administrative level in the educational systems, such
as the decision about the minimum required credit hours for structural courses throughout the students’
education. This will directly affect the issues about inadequate time in the teaching process. This paper,
however, focuses on various methods to teach structural courses to architects, within the already defined
credit hours, towards making it more fruitful. Some educators have also suggested integrating structural
education with design studio courses, to reinforce the concepts learned by the students, and to fill the gap
between design discipline and structure. This subject is beyond the scope of this research, and the goal of
this paper is to identify teaching methods that help architectural students better understand statics and
structural analysis, towards establishing a basis for understanding structures throughout their future career.
2. Review of different methods in teaching structures in Architectural schools
There are several methods to reinforce intuitive understanding and integrate quantitative analysis skills in
teaching the structure courses to architects. Ilkovic (2014) lists two methodologies of teaching, namely PBL
(Problem-based learning), and PPBL (problem and project based learning). In these methods, the teacher
sets a problem in an assignment, which is solved by developing a project (Ilkovič et al. 2014). Reviewing
the literature, there are major techniques that can be used in addition to lectures, to teach structures to
Architectural students, including:
a) Hands-on activities in a lab-based environment, making physical models and structural testing of
b) Computer-based simulation through structural analysis and interactive programs.
c) Web-based interactive structural education.
d) Integrating Structures with design studio.
These techniques are further presented in the next sections along with related case studies.
2.1. Hands-on activities
Many educators expressed that theoretical lectures were to be complemented by other activities. Hands-on
activities such as making physical models are one of them. The possibility of physical contact with the
material, as well as immediate observation of the effects of loading, contributes to the development of
students’ structural intuition. They are also valuable since they have the potential as a conceptual design
tool in structural studies. Using physical models in structural education can cover a wide range of activities.
Vrontissi (2015) suggests several methods, namely Metaphor, which refers to examples from nature or
common experience, Analogy which is to recall and relate, In-scale precedent models, In-scale trial-and-
error experimentation, and full-scale prototypes (Vrontissi 2015). Another educator refers to Active
Learning strategy as an overarching theory for teaching structures to architecture students (Khodadadi
2015). Pawel Ogielski et al. (2015) highlight that the shaping of structural intuition can be done through
the direct observation of the structural behavior which is present in physical modeling. They used various
materials and methods to make physical models of structural systems, including the Zometool system to
make Bar Structures; wooden sticks, and thin wire ropes to make Tensile Structures; reverse modeling
technique to form-find Shell Structures and soap films for inspiring the design of Minimal Surfaces
(Ogielski et al. 2015). Estes and a colleague reported on defining a hands-on project for a whole class as to
use the K’nex toys to build a 50-foot structure that will support a one-hundred-pound concrete panel. This
project illustrates the importance of structures and relates how structure fits into the process of a large-scale
structures course (Estes & Baltimore 2014). Reviewing the above survey, educators have been using an
array of methods in making physical models, from analogy and small-scale models to full-scale prototypes
towards reinforcing students’ learning.
2.2. Computer-based simulation and virtual reality
Several tools have been developed that employ finite element analysis and numerical methods to provide
structural performance feedback to the user. Some of this software is capable of providing real-time results
including internal forces, reaction and sometimes required materials or costs. “Arcade” by Martini,
“SAP2000,” “Dr. Software” and “Force Effect” by Autodesk are a few (Mueller 2014). However, there are
some limitations associated with these tools. One limitation associated with numerical tools is that
architectural students need to spend a lot of time to learn how to work with the software, and since they
usually do not know the logic behind computational calculations, they trust the outcome without being able
to validate it with other means. Another limitation is that these software systems are mainly designed for
engineers and not for architects. This opens the avenue for integrated numerical analysis modules for
architectural modeling tools, such as Karamba, which is a plugin for the Rhino NURBS modeling tool
(Preisinger 2014). All in all, it seems that using numerical tools can be a good strategy in advanced
education of structures such as graduate courses, where students have acquired a basic knowledge of
statistics and structures, and are prepared to further develop it. Virtual reality is another tool that can be
used to train future architects and engineers by teaching them about structural concepts. The 3d Lab at the
University of Michigan possesses a 10 foot by 10-foot CAVE (Computer Assisted Virtual Environment)
(Navvab 2012). In this approach, one can place himself in a computer-generated world, and interact with
it. The students can also observe how a structure collapses from different perspectives. Observing this
complexity at the educational level can benefit students. The College of Engineering at the University of
Michigan has employed virtual reality to teach basic concepts of structures to engineering students by
allowing interaction between the students and a computer model (Sherif El-Tawil 2015).
2.3. Web-based educational support and interactive education
Another method for teaching in the digital age is through using online mediums such as web sites, to share
educational materials, as well as innovative teaching tool programs. Vassigh (2005) refers to a project that
aims to create an environment for teaching and learning structures for architectural students. This project
is composed of three components namely “Interactive Structures Software (ISS)” which is a multimedia
program, “Structures Learning Center” as the instructional support and finally “the student performance
evaluation tools” (Vassigh 2005). In addition, Martin et al. (2015) refer to innovative teaching tool
programs for teaching structural analysis to architects such as Easy Statics by Claudia Pedron and
eQUILIBRIUM created by BLOCK Research Group (Pospíšil et al. 2015). eQUILIBRIUM is an interactive
online tool that illustrates graphic statics techniques on example problems. Demi Fang and colleagues
introduced a web platform named NovoEd that hosts a variety of online courses to teach Mechanics of
Solids to students. To achieve one of the course’s learning goals, namely helping students to understand the
fundamental principles of solid mechanics, online videos that encompass worked-out problems are part of
the course’s pedagogical approach. (Fang & Adriaenssens 2015). It seems that with student’s wide access
to the internet, online teaching materials provide a great platform for putting forward teaching concepts.
2.4. Integrating structure in Design Studio
Chiuini (2008) proposes to make structural systems as part of the intuitive design vocabulary of the
architecture students, by bringing it to the realm of design either by making it an integral part of the studio
problem statement or by teaching structures courses around a building design project. He teaches a
“structures project”, in which students are asked to configure a system in the context of a basic architectural
brief, and then the primary element of the system is analyzed, members are sized, and connections are
designed. The main materials are steel and wood or steel and concrete (Chiuini 2008). As noted earlier, this
can be an encouraging method to teach structures to architectural students, once students are familiar with
the basic concepts of statics and structural analysis. In another attempt, Professor Karl Daubman and
Professor von Buelow from the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of
Michigan combined structures into a design studio course, which explored wood properties by
reconstructing a bridge designed by Da Vinci.
3. Methods of Teaching Structures in the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
Many educators and researchers confirmed that quantitative scientific methods might be effectively
integrated with qualitative and conceptual methods, to transfer hard knowledge through soft methods.
Structures I and II courses at the Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning are being taught by
employing such technique. Every week, there are two lectures that are taught by the professor, and one
recitation session taught by a graduate student instructor (GSI) (actually 5 recitation sections in parallel).
During the recitation sessions, small scaled lab projects are conducted by the GSI so that the students can
better understand a structural concept or the behavior of a structural system. There is also some regular time
spent on solving sample quantitative homework problems during the recitation sessions (Fig. 1 left). Most,
if not all, of the teaching materials, such as recorded lectures and recitations, recitation notes, homework
problems, exam samples and study questions are accessible for all of the students through a web site (Fig.
1 middle). The homework that the students need to work and submit each week is of the same problem but
with different given values for each student (e.g. structural dimensions and loads). Therefore, no two
students will be solving the exact same problem. This ensures that the students work their own, individual
homework problems, while at the same time they can collaborate on the methods and process of solving
the problem with their classmates. In addition, students are given a second and even a third chance to submit
correct values for the questions. Their best attempt at the solution from the three tries is then taken for the
grade. This encourages a “try again” attitude in solving the problems. As a course project, students form
groups and design a tower. In this process they analyze the structure, make a balsa-wood model of it, and
finally test it structurally by loading it to failure. Within a certain weight limit, the tower that combines high
load capacity and greater height is ranked the best among the towers (Fig. 1 right). The following section
focuses on the experimental projects undertaken in the recitation sessions, and how they relate to reinforcing
students’ understanding of statics and structural systems.
Fig. 1: (left) a GSI teaching a recitation session; (middle) a page from the website that makes all of the teaching
resources accessible for the students; (right) The towers are made using 4 oz. of balsa wood and loaded to failure
3.1. Buckling in Columns
Demonstrating structural failure due to lack of stability is the focus of this lab experiment. The students are
required to observe a slender column under load, and to calculate the effect of its slenderness on column
capacity. The goals of this experiment are to first, observe the buckling behavior of the columns through
physical modeling; second, to find the slenderness ratios for the week and strong axes; and third to calculate
the critical buckling load for both of these axes. For this lab experiment, a 6” (15.24 cm) long basswood
stick with a cross section of 1/16” (1.5mm) by 1/4” (6.3 mm) is provided. The students are asked to first
calculate the weak and the strong slenderness ratios, and thus the critical buckling load. Then, they are
asked to approximate the actual critical buckling load using their finger. Finally, they are asked to repeat
the procedure for shorter lengths of wood including 3” (7.6 cm) and 1” (2.5 cm) sticks (Fig. 2). The learning
outcome of this lab experiment is threefold: first, students experience buckling behavior in slender elements
including columns; second, they observed the effect of cross-section on the direction of buckling; and third,
they observed the effect of the length of the element on the critical buckling load.
Fig. 2: Buckling in columns: 6 inch, 3 inch and 1 inch
3.2. Deflection in Cantilever Beams
This lab experiment uses observation and calculation to help students understand how a cantilever member
deflects under load. The students are required to place a basswood stick on one support. Then they load it
in the mid-span as well as at the free end, and observe the effect of load placement on the deflection. The
goal of this lab experiment is to first, demonstrate the bending behavior of a cantilever beam through
physical experiment; second, to use the diagram method to find the deflection; and third, to calculate
deflection through equations and verify the results with the experiment. For this experiment, a 1/16” by
1/2" basswood stick is placed flatwise on a 2x4 support, and the free end is loaded. Then the deflection is
measured against graph paper. The procedure is repeated for a load at the half point, as well as with two
loads, one in the middle and one at the free end (Fig. 3). The measured deflections are recorded, and then
the diagram method is used to calculate the deflection. Afterward, the deflection of the first case with the
load at the free end is calculated by using equations. Finally, the values retrieved from the experiment, the
diagram method and the equations are compared with each other. The learning outcome of this lab
experiment is threefold: first, students observe how moving the same load across the length of a beam can
affect the amount of deflection; second, they experience verifying analytical methods with experimental
results. Finally, by sharing the measured values in the class, they notice the difference between the measured
values of deflection for each group. This led to a class discussion around how material properties may be
different from their theoretical values, how one member of wood or steel may be different from another
member, and how people have different levels of precision in measuring physical phenomena.
Fig. 3: Deflection in cantilever beams
3.3. Steel Beams
This project uses observation to help students understand how unbraced compression edges and lateral
torsional buckling reduce the ultimate load capacity of steel beams. The students use a U-shape folded paper
supported on two wooden blocks, along with a wooden block and some washers for loading, to observe the
effects of loading a beam that is supported on two ends. The goal of this project is to first observe the
behavior of the unbraced edges of a section in compression, versus tension; and second, to measure the
capacity loss due to lateral torsional buckling. For this experiment, students position the U-shaped section
on the supports with the free edges on the upper side of the span. Then they place the wooden block in the
middle of the span and place the washers on top of it to determine the number of the washers that the section
will support before failure (Fig. 4). They closely observe the failure mode. Next, they repeat the procedure
with the section inverted, meaning that the U-shaped beam is placed on the supports with its free edges
downward, and they record the number of washers it takes before failure. Finally, they compare the load
level carried by each orientation of the paper beam and describe the behavior of both under load. The
learning outcome of this experiment is that the students observed the different load capacities of the two
beams, as well as their failure due to lateral buckling.
Fig. 4: Unsupported edges in steel beams
3.4. Flitched beams
This project relies on observation to develop a qualitative sense of the effect of the combined material
behavior of a flitched beam. Students are provided with one basswood plate and two pieces of styrene, as
well as a wooden block for support and some washers as loads. The goals of this project are to first, observe
the behavior of the unbraced plate alone; second, to observe the behavior of the styrene beam sections
alone; and finally, to observe the behavior of the combined materials in the flitched section. The students
were asked to place the basswood plate on one support acting as a cantilever, and to load it with three
washers at the free end. They then observe the deflection at the free end. In the next stage, they are required
to bond the two styrene beams together with some rubber bands, and load it in a similar fashion with the
same number of washers. Finally, they are asked to make a flitched section by placing the basswood plate
in the middle and the styrene on the outside, and hold the composite together with rubber bands. They then
load it at the free end with the three washers, and increase the load until it fails (Fig. 5). The learning
outcome of this project is to observe the efficiency of flitched beams in terms of having a higher capacity
with smaller deformation. The composite is actually stronger than the sum of its parts.
Fig. 5: Performance advantage of flitched beams
3.5. Continuous beams
This project uses observation to understand the behavior of continuous beams over multiple supports.
Students are provided with a 24” stick and four wooden blocks. The goal of this project is to observe the
behavior of continuous beams under different loadings, to estimate positions of contra-flexure and effective
lengths, and to determine locations of the positive and negative moment based on curvatures.
The students are asked to place the stick over three supports, and load only one span and then both spans
respectively with their fingers (Fig. 6 left). They need to hold the beam down on the reaction if it lifts up.
Next, they are asked to observe each case and draw the elastic curve, label the positive and negative
curvature as well as the points of contra-flexure. They are asked to repeat the same experiment for a
continuous beam placed over four supports (Fig. 6 middle), and to load two sequential spans first, and two
end spans second. The same observations and recordings are repeated (Fig. 6 right).
Fig. 6: A continuous beam over three supports (left), over four supports (middle), recording of the deflected shape
by the students(right)
The learning outcomes of this project are twofold: first, they observe how different spans of a continuous
beam are affected by loadings on their neighboring spans; and second, they notice how the effective length
of a beam in a specific span is affected by loadings.
3.6. Combined Stress
This project uses observation of a physical trial to see the effect of flexure combined with tension or
compression. Students are provided with a wooden stick, two wooden blocks for supports and washers for
loading. The goals of this experience were to observe the behavior of tension plus flexure; then to observe
the behavior of compression plus flexure; and finally, to estimate the addition of combined stress profiles.
Students are provided with a 12” wood stick with a cross section of 1/16” by 1/2”. Then four washers are
put in the mid-span which causes the beam to deflect. The flexure of the beam is calculated through
equations. Next, an additional axial tension force (approximately 10 pounds) is applied to the stick which
pulls on it and causes the deflection to be reduced. This additional axial stress is calculated along with a
sketch showing the addition of the stress profiles of flexure plus tension. In the next stage, the
aforementioned process is repeated, but instead of an axial tension force, an axial compression force is
applied to the beam. The change in deflection is noted, and the combined axial stress is calculated (Fig. 7).
The learning outcome of this project is seeing how loads (flexure and compression) may work together to
increase the deflection, or work against each other (flexure and tension) to decrease the deflection.
Fig. 7: Combined stresses in beams: flexure only (left), flexure + tension (middle), flexure + compression (right)
4. Results and Discussion
There are different approaches in teaching structures to architectural students. The overarching approaches
are categorized as hands-on activities, computer-based methods, web-based educational platforms and
integrating structures into the design studios. Reviewing the structures course in the Taubman College of
Architecture, it mainly employs the first three strategies in educating architects summarized in Table 1.
Reviewing the table, reveals that there is a strong emphasis on conducting hands-on activities in this course,
through making, analyzing and loading the “tower project”, as well as mini projects and experiments
conducted in the lectures and recitation courses. These activities increase the intuitive understanding of the
structural behavior of systems and help student remember the concepts.
Table 1: Different methods in teaching Structures to Architectural Students
Structures I and II in TCAUP
Hands-on activities Metaphor and analogy Yes, through lab-based recitation sessions
In-scale precedent models No
In-scale trial-and-error
experimentation/ models
Yes, through term project of making a tower out of balsa
and testing it
Full-scale prototypes No
Computer-based methods Computational Simulation Yes, students are encouraged to work with Dr. Software
to test their tower models
Web-based educational
Yes, online weekly problems are shared through the
website, as well as the recorded lectures and notes.
Integrating structures with
design studio
Teaching and learning are a multi-faceted activity that need to be addressed through various approaches.
Different strategies complement one another. However, teaching hard knowledge through soft methods
helps architects to intuitively comprehend the subject matter. In this regard, hands-on activities in which
students use trial and error with some materials to understand the concept, can greatly complement the
lectures. Hands-on activities such as small lab experiments, making scaled models, loading them and
observing their failure, all contribute to the strategy above. Putting students in groups helps them to
exchange ideas and ultimately better absorb the theory. Class discussions around the hands-on activities
can further help them to analyze the process and the outcome, and to guide them to pay attention to the
points which they might have missed. One important point is that analogy combined with the hands-on
activities can be a great strategy to help them remember the concept throughout their future studies and
later on throughout their career. Analogy links the structural concept to a real-world, every-day
phenomenon. All in all, hands-on activities are an effective strategy to be employed in teaching structural
courses to architectural students.
Chiuini, M., 2008. Less Is More: A Design-oriented Approach to Teaching Structures in Architecture. In
Proceedings of the 2006 Building Technology Educators’ Symposium: August 3-5, 2006, University of
Maryland, School of Architecture Planning and Preservation. p. 205.
Estes, A.C. & Baltimore, C., 2014. Using K ’ nex to Teach Large Scale Structures to Architects and Construction
Students. American.
Fang, D.L. & Adriaenssens, S., 2015. The digital engineering classroom : collaborative structural engineering design
space and supplementary educational material.
Ilkovič, J., Ilkovičová, Ľ. & Špaček, R., 2014. To think in architecture, to feel in structure: Teaching Structural
Design in the Faculty of Architecture. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 16(2), pp.59–65.
Khodadadi, A., 2015. Active Learning Approach in Teaching Structural Concepts to Architecture Students
University of Michigan. In IASS.
MacNamara, S., 2012. Bringing Engineering into the Studio : Design Assignments for Teaching Structures to
Architects. American Society of Engineering Education.
Mueller, C.T., 2014. Computational exploration of the structural design space. MIT.
Navvab, M., 2012. Measurable Domain For Colour Differences Within a Virtual Environmnet. Light and
Engineering, 20(3), pp.71–81.
Ogielski, P., Pelczarski, M. & Tarczewski, R., 2015. Formation of structural intuition of architecture students
through physical modeling. In IASS.
Pospíšil, M., Vavrušková, M. & Veřtátová, E., 2015. New Ways of Teaching Statics and Applied Structural
Mechanics to Architects. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 732, pp.417–420.
Preisinger, C., 2014. Parametric structural modeling. , pp.1–104.
Salvadori, M., 1958. Teaching Structures to Architects. Journal of Architectural Education, 13(1), pp.5–8.
Severud, F.N., 1961. Structures—The Feel of Things. Journal of Architectural Education, 16(2), pp.18–22.
Vassigh, S., 2005. A Comprehensive Approach to Teaching Structures Using Multimedia. , pp.132–144.
Vrontissi, M., 2015. The physical model in structural studies within architecture education : paradigms of an analytic
rationale ? In IASS.
... The verification of this difficulty has led to different methods have been proposed over time to undertake the study of structures in generalist careers related to building construction such as Architecture, Quantity Surveyor, Building Engineering… Some different approaches to overcome this difficulty, such as those in Salvadori [1], [2] which proposes examples of physical models in Antuña et al. [3], [4] using virtual models computerized, in Khodadadi, [5] through an "Active learning approach", in Alcorn [6] through "Experiential Learning", in Emami [7] through "hands-on activities", in Vrontissi [8], Holmes & Mullen [9] or Estes & Baltimore [10] by using physical scale models, have been reviewed. ...
... The structure must have the necessary extra length to be properly subjected. 7 The group that tries to go one-step further with its structural model and maintaining the same conditions, support the structure in three points will have a special assessment-They must look forward the asymmetry and the twisting reinforcement (Fig. 3). To fulfill this, the model should be supplemented using new pieces, the model, in order to resist the strain and the twisting break. ...
... We can cite different approaches to overcome this difficulty, as Salvadori [1], [2] that proposes examples of physical models. Antuña et al. [3], [4] through computerized virtual models, Khodadadi, [5] through an "Active learning approach", Alcorn [6] through "Experiential Learning", Emami [7] through "hands-on activities", and Vrontissi [8], Holmes & Mullen [ 9] or Estes & Baltimore [10] through the use of physical models at scale. ...
... The structure will be based on simple external supports (2, 3 or 4) without horizontal constraints and it will leave a free span (not axes, or including supports) of 81 cm.6 The structure must include a load element in the centre of the bay from which the loads will be hung for the mandatory load tests.7 The teams must register in advance, indicating name and surname, school, registration number and email address of each participant. ...
... Alas, this is true until today, and it has a great consequence when a civil engineer accepts to enter a School of Architecture to teach structures. Making distinction between soft and hard knowledge about structures, Emami and Buelow [2] state that the role of the engineer teaching at an Architecture School is to find an approach where the hard knowledge about structures is facilitated through soft methods of teaching. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper describes a 'learning by doing' experience conducted during an undergraduate course on Structural Systems at the Faculty of Architecture at the University of São Paulo. The experience was inspired on the educational project 'Design, Assemble and Dismantle (DAD Project)' devised by S.A. Behnejad at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Surrey. Like DAD Project, the experiment aimed to foster students' skills in design, teamwork, communication, and problem solving, in a scheme were the design of one group of students is passed through documentation to another group, in charge of construction. However, contrary to DAD (which is based on full-scale models, with a relatively reduced number of members), our experiment considered tabletop-size models, produced from simple materials, but with many hundreds of members, to allow greater geometric freedom. The produced models were surprisingly light and robust. Overall, they showed high quality of making and dimensional precision. Students reported that by making these models they gained understanding on how forces flow within in a spatial truss.
... These methods include practical training on computer-based activities and methods and educational platforms on the Internet. Practical training activities' strategy is the most effective as it works to help students use trial, error, and intuitive understanding [24]. ...
... Despite the large number of studies related to the use of digital and physical modelling in the framework of the architectural design studio, the number of these studies in the framework of the construction studio is much less. Some studies have reviewed these tools in terms of a specific topic such as "structure" [5] or "spatial understanding" [6] or "preferences and attitudes" toward the use of each of the two tools [7]. Other studies have considered a very limited number of learning outcomes [8], while some had only discussed the final model as the final outcome [9]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
There are a variety of methods and tools used by educators to teach building construction to architecture students. These methods and tools aim to cover the many and complex skills and knowledge associated with this course. Modelling is a tool that is commonly being used during project-based learning within building construction courses. This research aims to: (1) Examine the potentials of digital and physical modelling as tools for project-based learning. (2) Detect the relative ability between the two tools to enhance learning outcomes. The results of this research shall help educators make better decisions when choosing learning tools according to their educational goals. After reviewing the literature related to each tool, a comprehensive list for educational realms and learning outcomes related to building construction courses was developed. Based on this list, a questionnaire and investigative interviews were conducted with two groups, one of them had used digital modelling while the other had used physical modelling within two different projects. It was found that learning outcomes relate not only to the use of the tool itself, but also to the individual/ teamwork setting of the experience, in addition to the size and complexity of the project, and the diversity of its details, materials, and systems. The findings illustrate how these tools and settings can enhance learning outcomes.
... Social media, professional associations, and online learning centers such as LinkedIn Learning, Coursera, Education @USGBC provide online courses using instructional videos. In the recent years, teachers who employ an active learning approach [5,6] in their classes seem to have a significant tendency to require students to make videos themselves as a leaning output [7]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In several fields of studies, audiovisual tutorials have been employed to convey teaching materials to students. Video tutorials significantly contribute to demonstration-based training where the student acquires the knowledge, skills, and attitudes by observing some easy-to-follow examples of performing a task. Although video tutorials are widely used and disseminated nowadays, still little is known about the effectiveness of the produced videos as well as the design characteristics of an effective tutorial. This paper aims to provide guidelines for the creation of software training tutorials. Specific needs and backgrounds of architecture students are considered in the preparation of the guidelines. This study begins with describing the theoretical research on the measures that can support students' attention, retention, production, and motivation within a demonstration-based training. Then, three series of open-access, well-known, high-quality instructional videos are selected for evaluation using the measures. These case studies include tutorials for Rhinoceros which is a NURBS modeling CAD software, the tutorials for the DIVA 4.0 plugin for Grasshopper which is used for daylighting analysis, and tutorials on Karamba3D plugin for Grasshopper respectively. The main objective of the evaluations is to highlight the potentials for improvement of these tutorial series and production of similar instructional videos to serve architecture students better. In the end, a series of video tutorials on configuration processing of spatial structures using Grasshopper is introduced.
Today, architectural deliberations on structural form and structural systems unfortunately play a minor role in developing the architectural design of most buildings. This is particularly true for multistory buildings of the most common type; those for housing and for commercial purposes. Consequently, spatial, and programmatic qualities that might have emerged from an architectural study of the load-bearing structure, as well as visual and tactile experiences linked to these very fundamental tectonic elements, are in danger of being lost. Besides, a resilient and versatile load-bearing structure of a high quality may increase the building’s prospects for survival over time and is hence a strong environmental argument. To counteract this present-day limitation of the structure’s architectural significance, and to investigate what can be achieved by an increased architectural awareness of the spatial potential of structural form, these problems are studied in an academic context. The Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO) addresses in its curriculum what is here identified as a weakness in current architectural practices and offers courses on these very topics.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper describes how NovoEd, a web platform that hosts a variety of online courses, was used to enhance an introductory course (taught at Princeton University (USA) during the fall of 2014) with a structural engineering design component. Though the project was implemented in a solid mechanics course, the project’s aims and objectives are applicable to other courses including those for the teaching of spatial and shell structures. The project’s aims included increasing students’ understanding and retention of solid mechanics concepts, shared learning experiences, engagement with the course, and interest in the structural engineering profession. The project objectives were to create an interactive design space to allow students to share, develop, and critique design ideas with each other and to enhance course content with supplementary digital material. This project built on previous course revisions that incorporated engineering design into the traditional solid mechanics curriculum and supplemented lectures with videos illustrating problem solutions. Previously, each student completed all design assignments in his or her own sketchbook, turning the sketchbook in to the instructor periodically over the course of the semester. The NovoEd platform expanded the conversation from one between student and instructor to one among the student’s peers; students could view their classmates’ designs for inspiration, give feedback, and receive feedback in return. The result was an environment that better represented the collaborative workplace of engineering design professions. Most students agreed that the collaborative features of NovoEd were particularly useful and appropriate for the majority of the interactive tasks that were required of them, such as giving feedback on peer assignments. NovoEd’s features also allowed for the improvement of supplemental videos. The platform supports embedded questions in the videos, through which students could self-test their understanding of certain topics with immediate feedback. A majority of students cited these online supplementary videos as helpful, sometimes for their content, but particularly for the embedded questions feature.
Full-text available
The College of Architecture and Environmental Design at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly SLO) is the only college in the nation that includes architecture (ARCH), architectural engineering (ARCE) and construction management (CM) programs in the same college. Given the unique mix of disciplines and the emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, the ARCH and CM students take a five-course structural engineering sequence from the ARCE department. A challenge of these courses is to maintain some degree of computational rigor while offering a broader perspective that will benefit the ARCH and CM students. This paper reports on one means of accomplishing this using K’nex toys to illustrate the entire design -construction sequence and relate how structure fits into this process during the sequence’s culminating course.
Full-text available
The structure of education within the Faculty of Architecture, Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia, is a standing topic of discussion. The authors have tried to perfect a model, which could join knowledge of architecture, civil engineering, statics and material in a natural way. The structure is an element, which has the power to connect them. It connects the thought with matter in education and in real architecture. Integration of the knowledge of structures and civil engineering is a part of the study programmes in subjects from the studio creation group. The first part is a theoretical preparation in individual blocks of compulsory subjects with a focus on structure, which confirms the need to direct the education by encouraging analytical thinking, understanding of structural principles and, finally, attempting to try something new and unconventional (an experiment) in the studio. This system is being tested, but it follows the line from mechanical absorption and gathering the knowledge to constructional creativity. This is the only way to confirm the motto To think in architecture, to feel in structure. The motto is broad and offers freedom of creativity, and encourages exploration, cooperation and discussion in the multi-genre science in which architecture is located.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In a quest for a means to develop conceptual structural awareness within a creative design scope, this article discusses the presence and use of the physical model in various teaching and learning practices related to structural studies (analysis or synthesis studies) within architecture education. The work is based on the hypothesis that structural engineering is a design discipline and modelling is one of the distinctive methods of inquiry appropriate to the culture of design. Following this line of thought, the role of the physical model – as an instance of modelling – in structural studies is discussed as a reflection on the way of reasoning in structural design.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Learning architectural design is usually a cooperative and problem based activity. The major proportion of a student's curriculum includes courses which are taught with a similar approach. In contrast, some other courses like structures tend to be more theoretical and lecture based. Studies have indicated that the students cannot maintain their attention during such lectures effectively (Prince [1]), and that some meaningful activities are required to develop a positive learning attitude. In the case of teaching advanced subjects, like structural form finding, some model making practices or simulations are suggested to engage the students. However, in the case of teaching basic concepts of structures such as forces and reactions in beams, behaviour of arches and cables, moment capacity and shear stress, a few practical activities can be introduced. This study describes some practices based on active learning strategies to teach basic concepts of structures to architecture students. By the use of this approach, students and instructors are placed side-by-side, working together. Students observe the results of experiments and analyse them to precisely comprehend the lecture material. The exercises were designed for the course of " Structure I " and were carried out by students of the undergraduate and the 3-year master program at the University of Michigan. In this paper, first, active learning is generally defined, and its characteristics are explained. Second, the structural topics that were taught to students and the relevant exercises are described. Finally, students' experiences are reviewed to conclude the effectiveness of an active learning approach in teaching structures. In addition, some cautions are mentioned for instructors to consider in using such a strategy.
Full-text available
This dissertation focuses on computational strategies for incorporating structural considerations into the earliest stages of the architectural design process. Because structural behavior is most affected by geometric form, the greatest potential for structural efficiency and a harmony of design goals occurs when global formal design decisions are made, in conceptual design. However, most existing computational tools and approaches lack the features necessary to take advantage of this potential: architectural modeling tools address geometry in absence of performance, and structural analysis tools require an already determined geometrical form. There is a need for new computational approaches that allow designers to explore the structural design space, which links geometric variation and performance, in a free and interactive manner. The dissertation addresses this need by proposing three new design space strategies. The first strategy, an interactive evolutionary framework, balances creative navigation of the design space with a focus on performance. The original contributions of this strategy center on enhanced opportunities for designer interaction and control. The second strategy introduces structural grammars, which allow for the formulation of broad and diverse design spaces that span across typologies. This strategy extends existing work in geometry-based shape grammars by incorporating structural behavior in novel ways. Finally, the third strategy is a surrogate modeling approach that approximates the design space to enable fast and responsive design environments. This strategy contributes new ways for non-experts to use this machine-learning-based methodology in conceptual design. These three complementary strategies can be applied independently or in combination, and the dissertation includes a discussion about possibilities and techniques for integrating them. Finally, the dissertation concludes by reflecting on its potential impact on design in practice, and by outlining important areas for future work. Key words: conceptual structural design, design space exploration, structural optimization, interactive evolutionary algorithm, structural grammar, surrogate modeling, structural design tools
Education of exact and technical subjects at traditional schools of architecture faces a difficult task to bring these disciplines to students of significantly lower technical perception, now. For this reason, at the Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague, a series of seminars containing the design of physical and virtual models completed by measuring and static calculations to supplement existing education of statics and applied structural mechanics is currently prepared.