Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 131–135www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Student-centred investigation of hazards

Alan Jennings*, Pauline MackinnonCivil Engineering Department, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK

Received 7 February 1998; accepted 17 July 1999

Abstract

This paper describes how an exercise has been developed at Queen’s University, Belfast in which groups of Level 2 studentseach investigate and report on a specific hazard by researching literature on relevant disasters that have occurred. The generalformat of the exercise was based on similar exercises previously held with Level 1 students where they reported on specific disasters.The new exercise required a wider availability of disaster related literature. It was necessary to identify appropriate hazards to beinvestigated, organise the schedule of activities and prepare documentation to make students fully aware of what was required ofthem. The services of four practising engineers were also obtained, all of whom made valuable contributions to the proceedings.The paper thus describes a unique teaching activity which aimed to develop knowledge, skills and understanding very relevant toa future career as a practising civil or structural engineer. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and Civil-Comp Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

One of the main roles in engineering education hasbeen, and must remain to be, developing technical com-petence via experiment and logical deduction in a waywhich follows on naturally from school science andmathematics. However an important role which hasreceived less attention has been that of introducing stu-dents to the way in which engineering knowledge isdeveloped through practical experience. Practical experi-ence, however, is not gained just on a building site orin a design office. It is also enhanced by observation ofexisting works, studying news items relating to engineer-ing, reading relevant literature, attending engineeringinstitution meetings, etc. — but above all thinking aboutthe implications of all these information sources.

Ferguson [1] claims that ‘the real problem of engin-eering education is the implicit acceptance of the notionthat high status analytical courses are superior to thosethat encourage the students to develop an intuitive “feel”for the incalculable complexity of engineering practicein the real world’. One of the main objectives in introd-ucing a ‘Learning from Disasters’ exercise into the Level1 Civil Engineering course at Queen’s University,Belfast (QUB) in January 1994 was to provide studentswith a better understanding of the roles and responsi-

* Corresponding author.

0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and Civil-Comp Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0141-0296 (00)00029-8

bilities of civil engineers than can be obtained from thestandard engineering science type of study topics. Byintroducing this into the first year, it was hoped toimprove the motivation of students, some of whom maynot, at that stage, be completely committed to theirchosen subject. Disasters, as opposed to successfulworks, were selected for study because they invariablyprovide poignant lessons. The present paper is concernedwith the development and running of a correspondingexercise for Level 2 students which would be compatiblewith their more advanced level of study.

2. Previous experience with disasters relatedexercises

‘Learning from Disasters’ exercises were run at QUBin both 1994 and 1995 with Level 1 students. In theseexercises students were divided into groups and eachgroup was asked to investigate and report on a specificdisaster. Each group was also required to submit a mana-gerial report (in which they summarised the principalfeatures of their own investigation), question othergroups about their presentations and also peer assess theperformance of some of the other groups.

The use of student-centred activity has the follow-ing advantages:

O It provides a complete contrast to the lecture/formalexamination approach to learning.

132 A. Jennings, P. Mackinnon / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 131–135

O Students benefit by participating in searching and sift-ing information as well as learning about disasters.

O Students have freedom to emphasise factors whichappear important to them rather than having to acceptthe lecturer’s selection of material.

O Students learn about aspects of engineering practicenot normally covered in traditional university teach-ing (e.g. history, environmental and social interaction,possible weaknesses in personal and corporateprocedures).

O Students are encouraged to be inquisitive — an essen-tial ingredient for effective independent learning.

The outcome of the 1994 exercise is available in pub-lished literature [2,3].

These exercises also had an important role indeveloping communication skills and, indeed, wereincluded in the Level 1 ‘Communication Skills’ module[4,5]. However it was necessary to extend the disasterrelated exercise to include Level 2 students also so thatit could be interleaved with a ‘Mock Public Inquiry’which takes place every second year with all Level 1and 2 students taking part. A brief was sought for Level2 students which:

O was to be wider than for Level 1 studentsO was to be more technically demandingO interacted constructively with Level 1 assignmentsO aimed to identify how good practice stems from

knowledge of disastersO was straightforward in concept.

An investigation of hazards appeared to have the poten-tial for satisfying these requirements. Fig. 1 shows theanticipated ongoing sequence of student-centred learningactivities in the Levels 1 and 2 Communication Skillsmodules with the hazards investigation taking placeevery second year involving students who have not takenpart in a previous disaster related exercise. Herein isreported the first such Level 2 hazards investigationwhich took place in January 1997 alongside investi-gations of some specific disasters by Level 1 groups.

Fig. 1. Sequence of student-centred learning exercises with arrowsindicating the normal progress of students.

3. Planning for investigations of hazards

Level 3 students undertaking research projects haveprovided valuable assistance with the investigation ofavailable literature and possible assignments. The identi-fication of suitable hazard topics and also sufficient rel-evant disasters has been based on the work of nine stu-dents undertaking Level 3 research projects over a fiveyear period. Table 1 shows the list of hazards that wereassigned to 15 groups of five or six Level 2 students. Inaddition a list of more than 60 disasters was compiledfrom which each group should be able to identify at leastfour disasters of relevance to their assigned hazard. Itwas necessary to compile this list of disasters in orderthat literature relevant to the disasters could be collectedby the library and made available for the 5 day periodof the exercise. The students were not constrained, how-ever, to use only disasters on the list. The list was thereto ensure that no group had insufficient informationavailable to perform their assignment effectively.

Reference sources can be grouped as follows:

(a) Engineering news magazines: these were parti-cularly good to identify appropriate disasters to usein the exercise. They can also be easily accessed bystudents taking part.(b) Reports of inquiries and disaster investigations:where available these will give a comprehensive sur-vey of the disaster being investigated so should beobtained wherever possible.(c) Journal papers: computer search facilities can beuseful in locating relevant journal publications.Whereas most such papers will be published withinabout 5 years of a disaster taking place, some mayappear much later. For instance the publication dateof a paper by Silby and Walker [6] which discussesfour bridge collapses bears no relationship to whenthese collapses occurred which were between 37 and132 years beforehand.(d) Books: books may provide very valuable infor-mation and commentary. Some may be useful in

Table 1List of hazards

Environmental Stability and strength Human factors

Earthwork Lack of1 Earthquake 6 11

failure knowledgeCollapse during

2 Wind 7 12 Poor designerection

Lack of3 Flood 8 Collision 13

communicationPoor work

4 Fire 9 Fatigue 14practice

Progressive Poor safety5 Explosion 10 15

collapse procedures

133A. Jennings, P. Mackinnon / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 131–135

extending the list of disasters. Also some books givea good overview of the whole subject by discussingimplications of disasters as regards engineering ormanagement policies. Some may provide simpleexplanations ideal for clarifying student’s understand-ing of technical factors. However, because there hasnot been a regular sale of books about disasters tosupply educational needs, they do not necessarily stayin print for a long time. Hence it is important to ident-ify and purchase them when they are newly published.For instance, a book by Smith entitled, “Catastrophesand Disasters” published in 1992 [7] was out of printat the time of the 1997 exercise and when a copy ofthe book “Failed Technology” by Freiman andSchlager published in 1995 [8] was requested, nocopy was available in the UK for inter-library loan.

Apart from publications about disasters, it is also usefulto identify publications which discuss one or more haz-ards in a more general way (such as Alexander’s book,“Natural Disasters” [9]) and ones which describe theafter effects of specific disasters [10,11]. The Internet,being so young, was found to be of use only in a fewassignments, but its value is increasing as time passes.Videos made from relevant television programmes werefound to be particularly valuable because they deal withhuman as well as technical aspects of disasters andexplain technical factors very clearly. Unfortunatelysuch videos tend to be difficult to obtain unless tapedwhen broadcast.

The success of the hazards exercise depended substan-tially on the strength of the library facilities in relationto the disasters to be investigated. It was fortunate thatthe QUB library was reasonably good in this area. Theinterest and support of library staff in the preparationsfor this exercise was vital.

4. Schedule for the exercise

As with previous disaster exercises, the 1997 ‘Disas-ters and Hazards’ exercise was scheduled to take just 1week. By using the last week of the first semester exam-ination period, it was possible to ensure that none ofthe students had any conflicting assignments. Attendancewas nearly 100%.

The Level 1 and 2 students were all present for theintroductory session where the group assignments wereallocated. The presentations were scheduled for the last2 days. The assignments for Level 1 and Level 2 werearranged in such a way that each group could benefit byinteraction with at least one group from the other level.Thus, the Level 2 group reporting on ‘earthquakes’ as ahazard could seek out and discuss with the Level 1 groupreporting on the Mexico earthquake in 1985. Indeed theycould delegate a team member to hear their presentation.

Similarly, the Level 1 group reporting on ‘Ronan Point1968’ could confer with Level 2 groups reporting on‘Progressive Collapse’ or other hazards to find out whichthey consider to be relevant. However, in practice, notmuch discussion did take place between groups becauseof the difficulty of locating members of other groupswho were often scattered throughout the library ratherthan in the base room.

Details of the organisation of the exercise includingthe information given to the students, the requirementfor groups to submit managerial reports and arrange-ments for assessment are given in the original conferencepaper [12].

Some funding was provided for this exercise througha Northern Ireland Training and Employment Agencygrant to stimulate project-based learning. Apart fromhelping to enhance library facilities, this mainly wenttowards obtaining the assistance of four leading civil andstructural engineers all of whom contributed well beyondwhat could have been expected from the consultationfees provided. Their main involvements were:

O attending two plannings,O joining with members of staff to form consulting

panels to discussO assignments with student groups,O questioning and assessing groups during the presen-

tation sessions,O attending the “post-mortem” meeting of the plan-

ning committee.

5. Student presentations

A 10 minute limit for each group presentation wasimposed to allow time for questioning and to enable 15presentations to be completed by 4 p.m. It was hopedthat the time restriction would encourage brevity andconcentration on the most significant findings. In prac-tice, groups spent more time than was anticipatedreviewing individual disasters and not enough trying toidentify underlying factors. However, many importantaspects of specific disasters were emphasised and somegroups did discuss their allocated hazard in a more gen-eral way. The depth of knowledge (or in a few caseslack of it), became apparent when they had to answerquestions about their presentations.

Some factors highlighted in the presentations wereas follows:

O Historic progressionwas most recognised by thegroup investigating ‘wind’. At the time of the Taybridge disaster in 1879 there was not firm informationavailable about wind forces. However, despite muchimproved knowledge about wind forces, accidents

134 A. Jennings, P. Mackinnon / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 131–135

still occur. The main cause of 20 billion dollars worthof damage and some loss of life when Hurricane And-rew struck Florida in 1992 was attributed to non-com-pliance with the stringent codes of practice.

O Safety vs financewas repeatedly identified as an areawhere conflicting interests needed to be weighedagainst each other taking account of risk assessment.This was particularly relevant to the design of struc-tures to withstand earthquakes and flood defences.Falling masonry was recognised as one of the maincauses of fatalities due to earthquakes and wind — afact which should have a strong bearing on the choiceof materials and structural design of housing inregions prone to these hazards. However it was alsorecognised that developing nations have a particularfinancial problem in trying to reduce their vulner-ability.

O Scheduling pressureswere reported as contributing tothe ChallengerSpace Shuttle disaster and the Zeeb-rugge ferry disaster in particular.

O Politics was recognised as being of importance attimes. For instance the design of nuclear reactors suchas the one at Chernobyl would probably have beenimproved if the Cold War had not restricted com-munication across the Iron Curtain.

O Innovationcould also lead to disasters in cases wheresufficient research into behaviour has not been carriedout or allowance made for lack of experience. TheQuebec bridge disaster in 1907 and the Heathrow tun-nel collapse in 1994 were identified as two disasterswhere innovative methods appear not to have beensufficiently well understood.

O Care in designcould clearly have prevented manydisasters. The layout of the Piper Alpha oil platformwas mentioned as an instance where greater separ-ation of the accommodation area from the workingareas of the rig would, in hindsight, have reduced veryconsiderably the danger to workers in the event of anexplosion or fire. It was also felt that designers shouldbe careful to develop independent checks where poss-ible, e.g. checking computer solutions by usingmodel analyses.

O The importance of careful checkingwas emphasisedby the group studying progressive collapse. They sug-gested that checking of a design should be inde-pendent of the design team and should adopt a troub-leshooting ‘what if’ approach.

O Communication problemswere extensively cited ascontributing factors to many of the disasters. Thenegative reporting system where the ferry captain atZeebrugge assumed the bow doors were closed unlessadvised otherwise was given as an example. Lack ofcommunication between disciplines such as thatbetween aeronautical and civil engineers at the timeof the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure in 1940 wasquoted as another example. Unlike civil engineers,

aeronautical engineers at that time were well awareof the possibilities of dynamic instability due to windand how to guard against it. The group investigating‘collapse during construction’ suggested that consult-ant–contractor communication problems are muchreduced with design and build forms of contract. Itwas recognised, however, by the group investigating‘lack of communication’ that the desire for commer-cial secrecy mitigates against the free flow of infor-mation.

O Adoption of Quality Assurance schemeswas identifiedby the group investigating ‘poor work practices’ as away of reducing the likelihood of disasters such as atZeebrugge or at Camelford in 1988 (where aluminiumsulphate was discharged into the wrong tank at awater treatment works).

The important role that disaster investigations play inimproving knowledge and work practices was alsorecognised. For instance, the group investigating ‘colli-sions’ reported safety improvements for shipping afterthe sinking of the Titanic (leading to lifeboat provisionfor all on board and re-routing of shipping away fromiceberg hazard areas). Also the group investigating ‘Fati-gue’ noted that the Silver Bridge disaster in 1967 led tosystematic bridge inspection in the USA.

Whereas many, if not all, of these points may be fam-iliar or obvious to practising engineers, they were gener-ally new as far as the students were concerned.

6. Outcome

Replies to the student questionnaire for Level 2 indi-cated that, with few exceptions, they have improved theirknowledge and abilities in areas which should be ofdirect benefit to their study of civil engineering and poss-ible later employment. One of the interesting aspects ofthis exercise is how the emphasis in all the investigationsgravitated towards the way people interact with tech-nology, which is a topic not generally given very muchattention in engineering curricula.

The following are some comments written in thegroup managerial reports:

It is not earthquakes that kill people but fallingbuildings. It reinforces how important is good designand construction practice.

We enjoyed the benefits of working closelytogether as a team.

The project was useful because it emphasised theknowledge we have gained through the year in lec-tures.

135A. Jennings, P. Mackinnon / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 131–135

Visiting engineers were helpful and informative.Overall a very successful exercise as it highlightsareas of the industry which need serious attention.

It was particularly useful and interesting to listento the views and ideas of the staff and engineers inrespect of the topic. Each offered differing viewpointsand ideas for the group to research and consider.

Generally all members of the group showed initiat-ive when allocated a topic.

The actual work involved reducing information topresentation size was enormous and everyone workedvery hard.

Comparisons with the Level 1 exercise on specific disas-ters carried out in parallel were useful. The greater free-dom given to Level 2 students in the interpretation oftheir brief meant that some groups were able to show alot of initiative. However it was also possible for groupsto find one or two good summaries within the literatureand avoid having to research in depth. The good per-formance of the groups that were most diligent andinquisitive should have been noted by all students. Oneof the main benefits is that students have been encour-aged to hear, read and think about the way in whichsafety matters are treated by practising engineers andothers.

The role of the practising engineers was very usefulfor several reasons:

O They were good at pointing groups to the generalissues and helping them to appreciate practicalities atthe consultation stage of the exercise.

O Their presence helped to emphasise the vital rel-evance of the issues discussed.

O They have given the staff more confidence in theefficacy of the exercise through encouragement andsupport.

Also they remarked how different this exercise was fromanything that they did themselves as a student.

Replies to the student questionnaire, comments on themanagerial report forms and also comments by engineersand staff have highlighted some weaker aspects of the

exercise. Hence, by taking account of these, it has beenpossible to make improvements in the next exercise.

7. Conclusion

The investigation of hazards by reviewing associateddisasters has been found to be a useful exercise for Level2 civil engineering students. By asking groups of stu-dents each to report on a specific hazard it has been poss-ible to combine the development of group and communi-cation skills with that of improving their awareness ofthe roles and responsibilities of practising engineers. Inorder to carry out such an exercise it has been necessaryto have good library facilities, to plan carefully and tohave clear documentation. The assistance of practisingengineers also contributed substantially to the success ofthe exercise.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all those who havecontributed to the success of the exercise and the North-ern Ireland Training and Employment Agency and theQUB Enterprise Unit for supporting this project.

References

[1] Ferguson ES. Engineering and the Mind’s Eye. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1993.

[2] Jennings A. Learning from disasters. In: Smith AJ, editor.Increasing Student Participation. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam Uni-versity, 1994:315–9.

[3] Jennings A. Disasters and their role in engineering education. TheStructural Engineer 1995;73:297–300.

[4] Jennings A, Ferguson JD. Focusing of communication skills inengineering education. Studies in Higher Education1995;20:305–14.

[5] Jennings A, Ferguson JD. Integrating communication skills intocivil engineering education. Proc ICE, Civil Engineering1996;114:73–80.

[6] Silby PG, Walker AC. Structural accidents and their causes. ProcICE 1977;62:191–208.

[7] Smith R. Catastrophes and Disasters. Edinburgh: Chambers,1992.

[8] Freiman FL, Schlager N. Failed Technology (2 vols.). New York:UXL, 1995.

[9] Alexander D. Natural Disasters. London: UCL Press, 1993.[10] McKechnie Thompson G, Rodin S. Colliery spoil tips — after

Aberfan. ICE Paper No. 7522, 1972.[11] Luder O, editor. Sports stadia after Hillsborough. RIBA, 1990.[12] Jennings A, Mackinnon P. Student-centred investigation of haz-

ards. Mouchel Centenary Conference, Cambridge University,1997.