Hong, P. (2011, June), Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18352

\bibitem{asee_peer_18352}
  Hong, P. (2011, June), \emph{Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students}
  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
  10.18260/1-2--18352

Pyo-Yoon Hong.  "Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students".  2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2011.  https://peer.asee.org/18352 Internet.  02 Jul, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_18352}
  Pyo-Yoon Hong.
  "Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students".
  \emph{2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2011.
  https://peer.asee.org/18352 Internet.  02 Jul, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_18352
author = "Pyo-Yoon Hong"
title = "Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students"
booktitle = "2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2011"
month = "June"
address = "Vancouver, BC"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/18352}
number = {10.18260/1-2--18352}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -             Sweetening structural principles for architectural students     (An example of visual communication of structural concepts in architectural program)                                            AbstractA mathematical approach is unquestionably the most exact, effective and economical way inengineering problem solving as well as in engineering education. However, based on myexperiences as a structural engineering professor, this white-board-only teaching methodologyhas not been very effective or successful in architectural programs. Architectural students tendto be discouraged readily by this approach because of a lack of confidence in their mathematicsbackground and thus remain inactive during these mathematically intensive lectures.In engineering disciplines, the students’ ability to conceive and eventually visualize engineeringprinciples can successfully be obtained by manually solving a series of multiple engineeringproblems with progressive difficulties as most engineering textbooks are formatted. Thevisualization allows the students to obtain their own viewpoint to ‘read’ engineering problemsand thus make appropriate engineering judgments on various real situations. The results of thismathematical approach in engineering education seem to be straightforward, maybe evenobvious. In this approach, engineering students’ ability to visualize the engineering concepts isformed and matured gradually as they repeatedly solve engineering problems with the sameengineering concept.In architectural program, however, this most effective teaching methodology of structuralengineering principles seems to need some additional pedagogical consideration or “treats” tomake the students more attracted or motivated and remain focused – candy coating. With thisapproach, when structural concepts are introduced to architectural students for the first time, themathematical approach is designed to wait for their turn to be digested in a sugar capsule.Instead, visible, interactive and even tangible (if possible) approaches without “number-handling” are opted to be used as the treats. After some level of acquaintance is formed, themathematical approach can be swallowed with the minimum level of reluctance. If this approachis successful, the digested structural principles in this way will be expressed in architecturalforms by indirect fashions.This paper introduces some educational attempts in the structures classes of an architecturalprogram that focus on two-way visual communication. This approach advocates visualization ofstructural concepts as the foremost, the inevitable and, most importantly, the very first stage thatarchitectural students must start with before they start to develop their own understanding modelof the physical phenomena. The students are guided to go through a 5 stage learning process:        1. Visualizing Structural Engineering Concepts,        2. Changing Viewpoint,        3. Developing Their Own Understanding Models,        4. Testing/Completing Understanding Model and        5. Implementation of Understanding Model.The mathematical approaches are eventually introduced in Stage 4 because mathematicallytesting an understanding model is not only the most effective, economical but also the easiestway. In addition, by this stage, the architectural students will have become more comfortablewith the structural concepts and thus confident in their capabilities.Small-scale physical modeling, educational engineering simulation software, 3-dimensionalvisualization/animation demonstrators, commercial construction toys, graphical method ofanalysis and structural term projects are utilized in this approach and are demonstrated in thispaper.It is found that most current internet-based educational applicationsdo not resent 3D objects even though 3D visualization is essential in teaching most engineeringdesign principles. The authors strongly believe that if 3D objects can be presented on the Weband be interactively changed/navigated, it will be beneficial for the students' conceptualunderstanding on the domain topics.This paper describes the use of physical models for in-class demonstrations in an undergraduatestructural steel design course. The eight models described herein were developed by the authorsand have all been used successfully in the classroom for at least four consecutive semesters. Wehave found that these models significantly enhance students’ understanding of structuralbehavior and improve their ability to visualize three-dimensional structural systemsHerein lies the great challenge for the instructor in an undergraduate steel course: to fullyunderstand a particular design strength equation, the student must also understand (and be ableto visualize) the associated structural behavior. The student who cannot visualize lateral-torsional buckling, for example, generally cannot correctly apply the lateral-torsional bucklingstrength equation in the design of a beam. The student who does not understand the nature ofblock shear cannot possibly design a bolted tension connection. The instructor’s challenge, then,is to convey the nature of the structural behavior associated with each limit state. The task is notan easy one: many steel failure modes are quite complex, and the differences between them areoften subtle.We firmly believe that the best means of communicating steel member behavior in theclassroom is through the use of physical models. Thus we have designed and constructed avariety of physical models and have used them extensively in our introductory structural steeldesign course, taught at the United States Military Academy. In developing these models, wefocused on three principal objectives:- Each model must clearly illustrate the particular aspects of structural behavior most relevant tothe design of the corresponding type of member;-The models must be simple and relatively inexpensive to construct; and-The models must be durable enough to withstand rough handling by instructors and studentsthrough repeated use.
AU  - Pyo-Yoon Hong
CY  - Vancouver, BC
DA  - 2011/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Sweetening Structural Principles for Architectural Students
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/18352
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--18352
ER  -