1. S.G. Millard & S. Jones Department of Engineering University of Liverpool UK DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN SKILLS THROUGH ACTIVE LEARNING

2. History Department of Civil Engineering Department of Engineering merged in 2006 Adopted CDIO principles Launch of "Liverpool Engineer" brand

3. Active Learning Laboratory

4. Provides space for up to 300 students engaged in active learning

5. Active Learning Laboratory Bespoke desks and seating/storage facilities

6. Embedment of CDIO into Civil Engineering 3 progressive Design-Build-Test projects 1.Icebreaker project Introduction for all Engineering students Build and test of model cardboard bridge

7. 1.Icebreaker project 6 students, tutor group Fabrication of members

8. 1.Icebreaker project Compression testing

9. 1.Icebreaker project Structural analysis

10. 1.Icebreaker project Truss assembly

11. 1.Icebreaker project Ceremonial testing

12. 1.Icebreaker project Things which went well: Popular with students Good networking opportunity Good links with technical understanding Development of personal and professional skills

13. 1.Icebreaker project Problem areas : Instructions not read ! Insufficient care taken with component loading Minor safety issues Recurring factor of 2 errors Slack/tight tension members

14. 2.2-Week Bridge #1 More student input/choice Any section width Engineering drawings prepared Rolling load Engineering costs Geometric mis-fit deliberately introduced

15. Deck truss – rolling load 2.2-Week Bridge #1

16. Things which went well: All groups completed project Groups gelled well Problem areas : Slack/tight tension members Poor fit / miss-fit Management/planning …drawing bottleneck 2.2-Week Bridge #1

17. Mis-fit geometry problem 2.2-Week Bridge #1

18. Double the span, same rolling load Complete freedom of design 2.2-Week Bridge #2

19. Most groups selected Deck Trusses and Through Trusses ….but sometimes both !! Wide range of truss geometries Demonstrates very early stage in the understanding of structural behaviour 2.2-Week Bridge #2

20. Through Truss 2.2-Week Bridge #2

21. Deck Truss 2.2-Week Bridge #2

22. Through and Deck Truss ! 2.2-Week Bridge #2

23. Innovative concept design 2.2-Week Bridge #2

24. Problems Encountered Poor connections detailed at the ends 2.2-Week Bridge #2

25. Problems Encountered Lack of lateral stability 2.2-Week Bridge #2

26. Little effort put in to optimise the design Problems Encountered 2.2-Week Bridge #2

27. Fundamental mistakes made : Some bridges were asymmetric. Tension members were provided where compression occurs. Wrong number of cross-beams provided to support the roadway

28. Common causes of failure Breaking of tension members due to unequal sharing of the load Collapse of the deck cross-beams (lack of attention to joint detail ) Damage during set-up caused by member misfit

29. Collapse of the deck cross-beams

30. Conclusions 3 stage cardboard bridge project is a good project that works well and is very popular with the students Recurrent costs are cardboard, paper and adhesives…very cheap to run..!!

31. Progressive design and building exercises with increasing design freedom Conclusions Ties in well with the early Year 1 Structures lectures Students think about structural form and behaviour at a very early stage of their university academic life

32. Successful example of CDIO and the principles of the Liverpool Engineer in application of Active Learning Conclusions

33. Any questions ? Prof Steve Millard University of Liverpool ec96@liv.ac.uk 0151 794 5224