Paper ID #34066

Development of a Structural Loadings Course for ArchitecturalEngineering Students

Prof. Christina McCoy P.E., Oklahoma State University

Professor McCoy is a licensed Structural Engineer and Architect. She holds a Bachelor Degree in Archi-tectural Engineering and a Bachelor in Architecture from Oklahoma State University. She holds a Mastersof Science in Architecture from the University of Cincinnati and Masters of Civil Engineering (StructuralEmphasis) from the University of Kansas. She worked in the structural engineering profession for 10years before joining the full-time faculty at Oklahoma State University School of Architecture.

Prof. John J. Phillips, Oklahoma State University

JOHN PHILLIPS, a registered engineer and Professor of Architectural Engineering, practiced as a struc-tural engineer for nine years before returning to his alma mater to teach at Oklahoma State University. Heteaches or has taught undergraduate and graduate courses including Statics, Analysis I, Structural Load-ings, Foundations, Timbers, Steel, Concrete, Masonry, Steel II, Concrete II, Steel III, Concrete III, and inthe Comprehensive Design Studio.

Prof. Carisa H. Ramming, Oklahoma State University

Carisa Ramming is a graduate of Oklahoma State University where she obtained degrees in Architec-tural Engineering and Civil Engineering Construction Management. She worked in industry for six yearsas licensed engineer and structural consultant for Wallace Engineering in Tulsa, OK before returning toOklahoma State as a visiting faculty member in the School of Architecture. In 2009, Professor Ram-ming joined the faculty full time as an assistant professor of architectural engineering. Since that time,she has taught classes in structural analysis, timber and steel design, engineering mechanics: statics,building foundations and numerical analysis. Professor Ramming has recently been named HalliburtonOutstanding Young Faculty and the Outstanding Teacher for the College of Engineering, Architecture andTechnology. She has also published books for Project Lead the Way and a text on Numerical StructuralAnalysis. Professor Ramming enjoys spending time with the students of CEAT as the advisor of the Ar-chitectural Engineering Institute, Tau Beta Pi, Women Inspiring Successful Engineers, and CEAT StudentCouncil.

Charlotte Guyer

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

The Development of a Course on Structural

Loadings in an Architectural Engineering Curriculum

Abstract

In professional practice, a necessary initial step to any structural engineering project is to

establish loading criteria for the given conditions. Once this is established, an engineer is

expected to have a fundamental understanding of how the structure responds or is designed to

respond to these loadings. As such, architectural engineering programs have an obligation to

teach the skill set of load determination, application, and analysis within their curriculum.

Fortunately, most jurisdictions in the United States have adopted the International Building

Code [1] and thus ASCE 7 (American Society of Civil Engineering, Minimum Design Loads for

Buildings and Other Structures [2]). Based on this adoption, the ASCE 7 code is the natural

choice to use for the determination of loadings within a course that focuses on the topic of

structural loadings. However, teaching code procedures alone are not sufficient to gain an

understanding of how structures behave due to given loadings. Beyond the obligation to teach

code, architectural engineering programs should help students develop the skills to understand

structural systems, behaviors, and load paths.

This paper describes the development of a required Structural Loadings class for undergraduate

architectural engineering students. The class described aims to not only teach how to determine

structural loading, but also to give an understanding of load application and load behavior

within structural systems. Within the course, which is designed to be taken in the third year of a

four-and-a-half-year bachelor’s degree program, students cover loading topics such as tributary

area, framing layout, load distribution, structural diaphragms, and lateral systems. A literary

search is included to examine the research on this topic in similarly formatted courses.

Additionally, it will describe how the course is integrated into the curriculum, will present the

course outline and topics covered, and will discuss loading topics that were omitted in the

interest to prioritize more essential knowledge. For assessment of the course, student survey

feedback and instructor observations are used to evaluate the success of the teaching strategies

for the initial offering of this course.

Introduction

The introduction of a Structural Loadings course into the Architectural Engineering

curriculum at Oklahoma State University (OSU) aims to teach three objectives: 1) the ability

to understand how loads move through structures 2) the understanding of how systems

handle certain loadings and assessment of how these systems are applied in structures 3) the

understanding of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) methods to determine the

appropriate loading criteria for structural design. An emphasis of this course aims to teach

students how to use their understanding of structural systems as a tool for creative problem

solving, and to shift thinking away from structural engineering as a series of operational

steps. This strategy is achieved by integrating a series of active learning exercises

intermingled with lecture materials. Further, real-world examples are woven into the lectures

and exercises to forge connection between the diagrammatic way engineers talk about

loading and real-world scenarios.

Precedent Review

Approaches to teaching loading mechanics and code-prescribed loading varies among

architectural engineering curricula. Some schools prefer to incorporate these topics in a

Structural Analysis class, some integrate them into material design classes (such as steel or

concrete), and some choose to offer them as a stand-alone course. A look at the National

Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA) recommended curriculum [3] shows a

series of three classes: Analysis 1, Analysis 2, and Matrix Methods as the initial coursework

on the education path to become a structural engineer. The topics of these classes range from

the concept of stress to the Stiffness Method. Incorporating the entire scope of these topics

into a curriculum is no small task. In a student survey conducted by Derks, et al in “Design

and Implementation of Experiential Learning Modules for Structural Analysis” [4], it was

found that of the NCSEA’s recommended topics, students found load paths as the most

challenging topic.

Methodologies for teaching such topics vary as well. As James Guthrie presents in the paper

“Structural Engineering for Architecture and construction Management Students: Teaching

Methods and Changing Needs,” [5] a blend of methods such as graphic analysis, computer

analysis, structural system design, and projects can be effective. In addition, strategies of

active learning can be quite impactful to student learning and retention, as illustrated by

Lanning, et al. [6] This study emphasizes the balance that must be struck between teaching

code procedures and structural principles. While a familiarity of the building code is

important, an understanding of structural behavior is essential to avoid the “plug and chug”

approach into which students can fall.

Perhaps one reason students find the topic of load paths and force transfer so difficult is not

due to any complexity in the topic itself, but rather the tendency of instructors to skip past it or

move through it quickly. Lanning [6] warns of this “expert blindness”; while a trained

engineer believes load paths to be second nature, the novice must train their brain to think with

this logic. In addition, engineering students may be used to problems where there is one

correct answer, not the multitude of possible correct answers that the configuration of

structures allows. This is further discussed by Lanning [6], mentioning the importance of

creative problem solving that occurs when an engineer can visualize load paths. This problem

is compounded when structural engineering classes are taught to evaluate building

components without considering their role in the larger structural system. A solution to this

issue is explored in Solonosky [7], wherein the instructional strategy shifts focus to a project-

based model.

Course format and organization

Introduction of the loadings course coincides with a shift in the degree requirements for the

OSU Architectural Engineering (AE) program. The duration of the program is currently

transitioning from a five-year accredited bachelors to a four-and-a half-year accredited

bachelors. Included in these changes is a shift of the Steel II and Concrete II courses from 4

credit-hour to 3 credit-hour classes. These classes previously included instruction on ASCE

loadings in the initial weeks of classes. Given the addition of the Structural Loadings class

and the decrease in contact hours for the Steel II and Concrete II classes, it is logical to shift

the ASCE content to the Structural Loadings course.

This course is to be offered in the first semester of the third year of the AE program,

concurrent with Structural Analysis. Students will therefore get the benefit of learning

analysis topics such as interdeterminacy and mathematical methods of analysis alongside the

Structural Loadings class’ more practical discussion about how this these topics are applied in

built structures and fit into a larger structural system.

The structural loadings class was broken up into three “modules” to separate topics. The first

module contained an introduction to load paths and gravity loads and systems. The other

modules were wind and seismic, respectively. Further detail on the topics within these

modules is discussed later in this paper. Each module was taught by a different instructor from

the Architectural Angineering faculty, with a consistent teaching assistant throughout. While

this will not be the instructional assignments going forward, since this was the first offering of

the course, it gave the benefit of varied feedback from multiple perspectives. It should also be

noted that in this initial offering the course was open as an elective and included enrollment of

3rd, 4th, and 5th year students. Its intention and placement in the new curriculum position it as a

required class for 3rd year students going forward.

Active learning was a part of the conception of course exercises and learning. Some of the

planned activities had to be scaled back due to pandemic distancing guidelines, but will be re-

incorporated as cautionary measures allow. These include hands-on exercises wherein student

emulate structural mechanics principles with readily available materials, and also in-class

examples for activities such as devising framing for a given floor plan.

Module 1: Gravity Loads and Systems

Table I includes an overview of the gravity topics covered in Module 1. For this first module

of the class, the initial meetings included big picture concepts so that students understand the

concept of load transfer and the code logic behind strength design and stress design. The

course aims to pick up where Strength of Materials course topics left off, focusing now on

mechanical principles as applied to architectural structures.

Table I: Module 1 Topics

Topic Description

Introduction to load paths Basics of tributary width and load transfer

Translating real-world structures

to Free Body Diagrams

Studying what moment fixity and pinned conditions look

like in building connections, the illustration of supports

such as walls, cables, and columns, force vectors from

real-world examples Strength design Load factoring, the concept of demand vs capacity

Dead loads Understanding the connection between material density

and floor loading, using ASCE 7 as a reference for

material weights, calculating self-weight

Live loads Understanding what qualifies as live load, using ASCE 7

as a reference for live loading

Gravity Systems Wall stress and stability, arch mechanics, beam and

flexural mechanics, one-way framing, trusses

ASCE 7 procedures live load reduction, calculation of structure self weight

based on material densities, flat and sloped roof snow

calculation, snow drift calculation

Topics that were not covered include ASCE procedures for rain, ice, temperature, tsunami,

and floods. Also certain systems such as tensegrity structures were excluded in an effort to

start with “the basics,” although the introduction of unique systems may be incorporated in

later years to demonstrate mechanical principles and spark student interest. Live load

patterning was not introduced; currently the Steel 2 and Concrete 2 classes retain that content.

Although trusses were covered, the coverage was not in-depth, and could be expanded upon in

future years. Considering their coverage in the Structural Analysis class using Method of

Sections and Method of Joints, opportunity exists to create more lasting impressions by

concurrently covering loading and behavior in the Loadings course as a spanning strategy in

the context of a larger structural system.

Module 2: Wind Topics and Lateral Systems and Loads

Before diving into wind topics, it was necessary to introduce the class to lateral loading

concepts in general, as they had not covered this beyond an intuitive principle in studio

courses prior to this course. This included an overview of systems, along with their respective

free body diagrams. After that, the details of ASCE 7 wind procedures were covered in depth.

Table II outlines the topics covered in this module.

Table II: Module 2 Topics

Topic Description

Lateral systems Shear walls, braced frames, moment frames, diaphragms

Lateral load paths Tributary principles, distribution to lateral systems

ASCE 7 wind topics Main Wind Force Resisting Systems and Components and

Cladding procedures

The coverage of ASCE 7 wind topics included several examples, as students are

being introduced to a more involved multi-step code procedure with wind loadings.

Module 3: Seismic Topics

Seismic topics were covered on an introductory level. As this was the students’ first experience

with this complex topic, an effort was made to explain seismic principles in simple terms before

introducing the code procedures. As seen in Table III, seismic topics were introduced as

concepts prior to introducing a code procedure.

Table III: Module 3 Topics

Topic Description

Structure vibration Frequency, period, resonance, the analogy of dynamic to

static forces from a code perspective, determining

approximate period per ASCE 7

Torsion Torsion and eccentricity, finding center of mass and

center of gravity, inherent torsion and accidental torsion

of a structure Seismic vocabulary Lumped mass, rigid diaphragm, flexible diaphragm, etc

Redundancy Seismic load factors per ASCE 7

Site factors effecting seismic

force

Determination of Seismic Design Category per ASCE 7,

discussion of what factors are within the control of the

structural engineer in establishing seismic force ASCE 7 ELFP Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure (ELFP)

The class stopped short of seismic analysis beyond the ELFP, as the topics were deemed too

advanced for this student level.

Class exercises

As mentioned, an incorporation of active learning exercises was a major pedagogical strategy in

the development of the course. This paired with force diagrams and images of real-life

structural scenarios helped make the connections between loading principles and their

applications. These exercises are described in Table V.

Table IV: Class Exercises

“Smarties” Exercise

The goal of this exercise was to demonstrate the concept of load transfer and teach tributary

width. Students are given a floor plan printed on a piece of paper with a grid imposed on top

at scaled 1’x1’ increment. They are also given Smarties candy (any stackable candy or object

could be used here; Smarties were chosen for their size). The students distribute the candy,

one piece per grid space onto the paper. Since each grid space is a “square foot” scaled, the

smarties represent a loading. This illustrates the “pounds per square foot” idea. The instructor

then guides the students to transfer the candies from their grid space to be stacked on the

beams according to the appropriate tributary width, thus transforming the “pounds per square

foot” to a “pounds per lineal foot”. The exercise continues with a similar transfer from beams to girders, then girders to columns.

Fixed or Pinned Quiz

As an introduction to the transformation of structural scenarios to free body diagrams, students

are shown a series of photos wherein they vote on whether the image displays a “fixed” or

“pinned” connection. The demonstration can take on a game-show aspect with prizes or

bragging rights.

FBD-ganza

Combining what students are taught about tributary principles and statics diagrams, this

exercise endeavors to take plans and sections from a real-life structure and prompt the students

to make free body diagrams in class. For this exercise, drawing of Renzo Piano’s addition to

the Kimbell Art Museum were used, along with an instructor-developed worksheet, to guide

the students through load distribution and free body diagram creation for roof beams and

girders.

Hermoscopium House Homework

This was not an in-class exercise, but rather a homework wherein students could apply their

skills of understanding free body diagrams and load transfer. The architectural firm Ensamble

Studio provided construction drawings for their much-published Hermoscopium House.

Students were given load information and the drawings, and prompted to generate free

body diagrams for each structural member. See Figure 1.

MOLA

Throughout the course, the MOLA1 tool proved to be a great, easy way to demonstrate

structural behavior. Using a combination of magnetized balls, plates, and springs, students

can easily build models that emulate the behavior of building structures. These kits were

used to demonstrate trusses as well as lateral frames for a quick, easy in-class learning

exercise. See Figure 2.

Cardboard diaphragm activity2

This activity involves a large sheet of cardboard in demonstration of structural lateral systems.

Several class members are recruited to support the cardboard, holding it with open palms

facing upward. They represent “gravity columns” and the card- board is the structural

diaphragm. Two students are then instructed to grasp the cardboard, creating lateral resistance.

Then, a student pushes the cardboard horizontally. This simple exercise introduces the students

to the concept of lateral resistance and the idea that such resistance is usually created by

certain, intentionally- designed elements of the structural system, while other elements do not

participate.

Framing exercises

The students are given architectural floor plans and work together in class to devise a framing

scheme for them. This is most successful if students can work in teams with each team having

the same floor plan and then presenting their solution to the class. The point is made by the

instructor that more than one answer exists.

Lifesaver activity

This activity demonstrates the principles of natural frequency and vibration. A lifesaver is

attached to a string that is able to swing back in forth in the students’ hands to act as a “lumped

mass”. For step 1, students “flick” the lifesaver and count the amount of revolutions in a given

time frame. This tells them the natural frequency of their “structure”. In step 2, students swing

the “lumped mass” in a side-to-side motion, and are then asked to change the frequency of

swinging. The lifesaver does not oscillate easily at the new frequency, thus demonstrating that

shaking is minimized if the forcing frequency is different than the building frequency.

Step 3 has two parts. First, a “hard flick” then a “soft flick” the resulting frequency should be

approximately the same, illustrating the point that it’s not so much the force behind the forcing

frequency, but the frequency itself that causes shaking. For the fourth demonstration students

do a similar exercise, once using a short string then a long string. From this an analogy can be

made between tall and short buildings and the tendency for short buildings to have a higher

frequency and longer period. This is repeated with free vibration and a discussion is had about

energy dissipation, making the point that shorter buildings dissipate energy more quickly.

1 Available at https://molamodel.com/

2 This exercise was not utilized in Fall 2020 due to COVID-19 social distancing precautions. However, it has been implemented

in past courses and is included in this paper, as it was a part of the course development and is planned to be used once distancing

measures are not in place.

Figure 1: Hermoscopium House model by Ensamble Studio; Ensamble Studio provided structural drawings for class use.

Homework included drawing free body diagrams of the large concrete members. Image from

https://archinect.com/features/article/86350/showcase-heme

Figure 2: Students using the MOLA kit to model frame behavior. Photo by author.

In addition to these hands-on exercises, the course dedicates some class time to introducing

students to helpful programs that they will utilize as an architectural engineer. Students bring

laptops to class while the instructor guides them through some exercises to guide them through

program features. The exercises and programs are described in Table V.

Table V: Software Exercises Introduced in Course

Excel

Students create several Excel sheets in class. Firstly, they set up an interpolation spreadsheet

to familiarize themselves with cell referencing and equations. Other exercises build on this,

while adding code-equations, to illustrate how the capabilities of Excel can automate code

procedures. These include load factoring and finding a “Zmin” for the design of a steel beam

given a span length and loading. Lastly, Table 3-22c from the AISC [8] manual is used to program with lookup and index/match functions.

RISA

The structural analysis program RISA is used in the upper level structural design courses to

analyze building structures in a 3D analytical software. Two brief activities demonstrate

modeling in RISA on a 2D, introductory level. Students can familiarize themselves with the

interface by creating continuous beam structures and lateral frames in class. A homework

assignment tasks them with creating a truss structure and a portal frame. Herein a link is made

with the Structural Analysis class, as the same structures are analyzed using matrix analysis in

that class. Mathcad

The in-class Mathcad demonstration guides students through AISC column design equations,

which coincides with concurrent coverage in their Steel 1 class. A homework assignment

utilizes Mathcad to find the seismic force coefficient Cs using ASCE procedures.

Student Feedback

Two surveys were conducted throughout the semester to gather student feedback. The results of

these are shown in Table VI. These results are separated into 3rd-year feedback, which is the

intended focus group going forward, and 4th and 5th year student feedback, students who have

previously had this material in some form. Results from the gravity portion show a strong

understanding of tributary areas and load factors and a mid-range confidence in live load

reduction and snow drift. In addition, essay responses indicated a high appreciation for the

coverage of framing layout.

For the lateral systems, students indicated a strong level of confidence in understanding of

lateral systems and a mid-range understanding of structural diaphragms, wind loading, and

seismic motion. Student feedback for the course overall showed appreciation for the software

introduction and the use of real-life examples. One suggestion included conducting a field trip

to a venue with exposed structure and discussing load paths.

Table VI: Student Survey Results

Student Assessment Survey

3rd Year Class

Average Response

4th/5th Year Class

Average Response

Gravity Topics

Rate your confidence in your understanding of

tributary area 4.33 5.00

Rate your confidence in your ability to apply

ASCE load factors. 4.17 4.63

Rate your confidence in your ability to identify

pinned and fixed conditions from real-world

scenarios. 3.25 3.88

Rate your confidence in your ability to calculate

dead load based on given material information. 4.17 4.63

Rate your confidence in your understanding of live

load reduction. 3.50 4.13

Rate your confidence in your ability to calculate

ASCE snow load for a drift condition. 2.83 3.63

Lateral Topics

Rate your confidence in understanding how a

structural diaphragm works. 3.71 4.00

Rate your confidence in calculating ASCE wind

load for a given building. 4.00 4.50

Rate your understanding of how seismic motion

translates to forces in a building. 3.00 4.00

Rate your confidence in understanding seismic

load combinations. 3.29 4.00

Rate your confidence in calculating stress within a

shear wall. 3.71 3.50

Rate your confidence in calculating forces within

members of a braced frame. 4.29 4.50

Rate your confidence in modeling structural

systems in RISA. 3.86 4.00

* Ratings are on a 5-point scale, with 5 being the highest

**Survey results have been parsed to reflect third-year student data separately, as the intent going

forward is to position this class as a third year course within the new curriculum. 4th and 5th year

students took this course as an elective, and had covered much of the material previously in other

courses.

Instructor observations

The three instructors and teaching assistant conducted a high-level review of the successes and

challenges that the course presented. In future semesters, more time will be dedicated to

introducing students to structural drawings, as many exercises rely on the ability to read and

create plans. To the trained eye, this is second nature but for the students this is like learning a

new language. In addition, the framing exercises could be expanded to include a more in-depth

explanation of the structural grid, how to frame openings, and how to approach cantilevers.

This is covered in upper-level courses, but students naturally inquire on these topics at this

level. Some seismic topics as well as snow drift should be introduced slowly. These are

complicated aspects of ASCE, and students can be intimidated by the language of the code.

A second observation pertained to the fact that this is an introductory course for building

structural loads, and that only an introduction to each of the topics discussed in the course

could be covered - a consistent depth of knowledge for each of the topics could not be

achieved. This concern of limited exposure to the topics must include the consideration that

each will be covered in other structural courses in the curriculum, thus perhaps eliminating the

need of this being a concern. For example, the introduction of ASCE7 wind design to students

brings about a complex set of requirements that need to be presented in a format that will not

overwhelm the students, while at the same time giving them enough basic information to be

able to understand the topic. In this course, though the four available methods for calculating

wind forces are reviewed, only the Analytical Method was explored in depth and utilized in

examples and assignments. However, this topic will be addressed in subsequent structural

design courses within the curriculum, so this too should not be a concern.

A third observation involved the introduction of the three-dimensional modeling software

used in the AE program for the analysis and design of structural systems. The software

(RISA-3D) involves a very detailed set of input necessary to completely and correctly model

a structural system correctly. Prior to this course being required in the curriculum, this tool

had to be introduced and taught in upper level courses, taking time away from their focus.

With the introduction of RISA-3D in this course, students have a resource going forward with

which they can help to verify their hand calculations for structural analysis and design

problems and projects. The inclusion of this topic in this introductory course has been a good

decision and students will be able to utilize it fully in many of their other courses.

Conclusions

From the initial run, the course found many successes. Students seemed overwhelmingly

positive about their understanding of load paths and were appreciative of the link made

between course material and real-world examples. As far as content, it was found that in the

beginning weeks instruction seemed pressed for time as there were several topics that

warranted discussion. However in the final weeks of the semester, due to a hesitancy to get too

“into the weeds” with seismic design, there seemed to be more time to spare. Future semesters

may shift content to include more framing exercises and systems coverage to allow more time

for reiteration of key points and reflection in the early weeks. In addition, as the course

becomes a permanent fixture in the curriculum, situated to be concurrent with the Structural

Analysis that covers classical analysis methods, opportunities will be explored to create a

stronger connection between the course material. There is a lot to be gained by teaching

mathematical procedures alongside real-world practical applications.

References

[1] International Code Council, Inc., International Building Code (IBC) 2018, Country

Club Hills, IL

[2] American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7, 2016 – Minimum Design Loads For

Buildings and Other Structures, SEI/ASCE 7-16. Reston, VA..

[3] "National Council of Structural Engineers Associations Recommended Structural

Engineering Curriculum." http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/committee/docs/NCSEA

Recommended Structural Engineering Curriculum.pdf (accessed 2020).

[4] A. Derks, J. Carroll, J. Hanson, M. Lovell, and K. Kershaw, "Design and

Implementation of Experiential Learning Modules for Structural Analysis," presented

at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings, Virtual

On line, 2020/06/22, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/34393.

[5] J. Guthrie, "Structural Engineering for Architecture and Construction Management

Students: Teaching Methods and Changing Needs," presented at the 2012 ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, 2012/06/10,

2012. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/21938.

[6] J. Lanning and M. Roberts, "Fighting “Plug and Chug” Structural Design

through Effective and Experiential Demonstrations," presented at the 2019 ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings, Tampa, Florida, 2019/06/15,

2019. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/32839.

[7] R. Solnosky, "Mini-Project Explorations to Develop Steel and Concrete Gravity

System Design Skills," presented at the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference

Content Access Proceedings, Virtual On line, 2020/06/22, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/34975.

[8] American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, 15th

Edition. Chicago: AISC, 2017