22.742.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Generalizing the Particular:Rethinking the Role of the Case Study in Building Technology Courses Page 22.742.2 In many ways my argument is best made as a tale of two textbooks (and for this audience Iwill assume well-known textbooks) in the development of two different building systemscourses that were started in a nine lecture-hours per week trial by fire in the summer of 2003.The first text is Norbert Lechner’s Heating, Cooling, Lighting (HCL), at last now moreconfidently subtitled in its third edition, Sustainable Design Methods for Architects.1 Secondwe have the quintessential all-systems tome, Mechanical and
wherestudents apply concepts and technologies of current lighting trends in energy efficiency to thepractice of implementing and maintaining successful lighting systems. The project focuses on: 1. Identifying current LEED Platinum certification for Homes, 2. Correlating LEED standards to appropriate lighting design strategies, 3. Designing an energy efficient lighting system for new Habitat for Humanity construction, and 4. Creating and delivering consumer education for homeowners to successfully maintain their lighting system.The pedagogical discussion focuses on the appropriate combination of the art and science oflighting so that students design functionally effective lighting systems that are also
how to draw a plan,section, elevation and axonometric. Page 22.823.2In this paper, quantitative spatial reasoning test results and qualitative data of students‘perception of a model project will be presented. This study is a follow-up to the author‘s studyof the use of visual aids in classrooms that are not supplemented with a laboratory component forhands-on learning.Background:Spatial reasoning is ―the mental manipulation of objects and their parts in 2D and 3D space.‖1 Ithas also been defined as concerning the locations of objects, their shapers, their relations to eachother, and the paths they take as they move.2 Research has shown
of the building systems, as well as the use of advanced energy simulationprograms such as, Visual-DOE, eQuest and EnergyPlus for energy prediction purposes.The results of a number of experimental studies, such as duct blaster testing, blower door testing andinfrared thermography has been demonstrated. Also, we show how these techniques have been used toimprove the students’ understanding of different concepts and techniques, such as pressurization, pressureand airflow measurements, duct leakages and building tightness, temperature and humidity distributionwithin building envelop and HVAC systems. 1. Design Project:This course is the final course in the building mechanical systems sequence. It incorporates elements ofprevious design
level Architectural Page 22.222.3Engineering. More specifically, the content of the curriculum takes the following form. 2011 ASEE Annual ConferenceOur objective is to have four professional specialization areas are listed under architecturalengineering. These are: (1) building mechanical and energy; (2) building electricity; (3)Plumbing, fire protection and life safety; and (4) structural engineering.Department of Civil & Architectural Engineering, 2010-2011, Mechanical Option (132 CreditHours)FRESHMAN YEAR, FALL SEMESTERES 1000 Orientation to Engr. Study I
symbolizes the transferof knowledge from the Phu Yai to the Phu Noi and is emblematic of the educational processitself. A simple, concise, and visual representation of architectural education.Reflective Comments from a Student PerspectiveThis part of the discussion focuses upon the Thai teacher/student interrelationship and how thisvaries and compares to what one of our students (at the graduate level) has experienced in theUnited States. The following is his contribution to this dialogue and is spoken in his words,supported by his scholarly research into the topic:The goals herein were to describe and discuss what I saw/heard/tasted from a student‟sperspective with respect to the following two specific scenarios:1. The architectural class we
difficult challenge. A key questionhas been the size or number of units of the proposed course as the course had to fit into eachdepartment’s existing curriculum. Because the ABET accreditation criteria for engineeringprograms 1 requires that every student be able to function on multi-disciplinary teams, a largeenrollment default course was needed. A five unit studio laboratory during a single quarter wasultimately chosen for the new course. The change and approval process was easiest for ARCHbecause it fit within their existing curriculum structure, no curriculum changes or faculty votewere required. The CM department was already in the process of a major curriculum renovationwhich involved a transition to studio labs, so making this new course
itspossibilities that newly-trained engineers lack, making it all the more vital that architectscan argue persuasively and competently for innovative structural solutions in their designwork. Page 22.1509.2 1 Although they receive a rigorous technical education, engineers are not formally trainedto understand the goals and ideals of the architect. Salvadori observed that while there isan enthusiasm to work together the two groups simply do not share a commonvocabulary.4 Obviously there are notable exceptions to this argument, and engineeringand architectural
significant difference between the capacity of studentengineers and engineering practitioners in “problem scoping” and “informationgathering” at the start of a design project, and argue that engineering students wouldbenefit from teaching methods designed to model that process for them.1 In the 1990sfirst-year design courses were widely introduced in engineering programs in an attempt tointroduce students to the nature of their chosen profession earlier in their college careers.2Dym et al identify a host of institutions (Harvey Mudd, Purdue, Northwestern, PennState, Colorado School of the Mines, University of Alabama, Columbia, Cooper Union,Drexel, NJIT, Ohio State, Polytechnic South Carolina, USC, Carnegie Mellon, Universityof Colorado at Boulder
/Urban Design. McKibben + Cooper specializes in sustainable urban design, architecture and site technologies, including master planning. Page 22.1629.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011 Using Building Performance Modeling as a Vehicle for Re-IntegrationSection 1 IntroductionSection 1.1 The Challenge One of the biggest challenges in today’s building design industry revolves around themanagement of an integrated design team. This issue is particularly painted by the need for deepenergy savings in buildings. An integrated team
the return.Other multizone hot water recirculation systems exist, such as those with multiple dedicated heaters, orwith a single or multiple pumps.Drainage/venting: Terminal velocity: The drainage is a gravity system, where the water drainage flow (1/3) tends to attach to the piping wall forming a hollow cylinder of water, with a core of air (2/3) in the center, and opposed by the friction forces applied by the pipe asperity. These opposite forces limit the water drainage velocity to the value given by the following equation: 2/5 q Vt 3.0 d (1
increasing number of students bring their architectural ideas for their studioprojects to my attention for structural consulting during schematic design stage even though astructural feasibility check is not a requirement of the studio course or a part of final grade. Thisis a very promising sign that the architectural students become more capable of speaking somestructural language to communicate with structural engineers.Conclusions. 1. The use of architects’ language in a structure class, visualization and models, encourages architectural students to open their mind to the seemingly esoteric subjects of structural principles and to get ready for fuller engagement. 2. ‘Playing’ with engineering concepts without the bitter taste of
. According toCrawley, et. al. although many users rely on a single tool for design decisions, it may be moreproductive to use multiple tools. Additional tools can be used to provide information that asingle tool could not provide, or they can be used as “second opinions” to build confidence in adesign decision7.Building SelectionThe design and floor plan of thebuilding used in the modules arebased on the First Jacobs House8(Figure 1), a 1550 square footresidential building designed byFrank Lloyd Wright in 1936. TheFirst Jacobs House was part ofWright’s Usonia movement. Thebuilding, located in Madison,Wisconsin, was chosen for two mainreasons. One, its smaller size as aresidential building made it moretractable for the purpose of a Figure 1
semester.ConclusionsTeaching ethics sometimes becomes very difficult depending on the composition of students andtheir background. There is not a single pedagogy to teach ethics. It can be taught many waysdepending on instructor, and availability of resources of the department.References 1) Altschuler, GC. “Batting the cheats. Education Life Supplemental. New York Times. Sunday, Jan 7, 2001, section 4A, Page 15, Column1. 2) American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE), www. asce.org. 3) Daniel Calhoun, “Goals in the Teaching of Ethics,” in Ethics Teaching in Higher Education. ed. by Daniel Callahan and Sissela Bok (New York: Plenum 1980). 4) Hardigan, Patrick. “ First and Third-Year Pharmacy Students’ Attitudes towards Cheating Behaviors
in each model. Page 22.682.2Case StudyThe students investigated Unit 5 of the Engineering West Building 21 (EWB Unit 5) located onthe campus of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (see Figure 1). The two-story building is rectangular in plan with dimensions of 60′ in the north-south (short) directionand 160′ in the east-west (long) direction. The floor and roof diaphragms are 4½" thick concreteslabs. The shear walls in the north-south direction are composed of reinforced masonry. Theshear wall in the east-west direction is composed of reinforced concrete. After reviewing theplans for the building, the students walked
analyzed. c) Data Analysis Data were analyzed with assessment elements for each portfolio: 1) for pencil portfolio usingsix assessment variables (contour drawing, negative space drawing, value drawing, one-point ortwo-point perspective field sketching, line qualities in pencil master drawing and value in pencilmaster drawing). 2) for ink portfolio using three assessment variables (ink drawing with dots, inkdrawing with crosshatching and ink perspective drawing) 3) for color portfolio using fourassessment variables ( line qualities, value, media combination and perspective). Data werecalculated by frequency distributions method. Since the objective of this study is to evaluatefreshmen’s drawing ability with different media, the assessment
StudyAbstractThis paper documents design strategies using Grasshopper and Rhino 3D as an instructional toolfor conceptual design. It discusses the underlying concepts of generative design and includesexamples using Grasshopper with Rhino 3D for both massing and for basic structural layouts. Italso discusses the necessary skill set, beyond that associated with the operation of the underlyingCAD applications, required for students to utilize these applications. It then proposes aframework for incorporating generative design into CAD courses utilizing a 2-D to 3-D sequenceof instructional activities.Part 1: IntroductionThe digital revolution and its associated discourse is increasingly influencing all of the designfields, particularly architecture [1]. In his
increasingly been recognized as a mechanism for synthesizing real-world experience with academic course content. In recent years, it has been widelyacknowledged that classes designed by utilizing PBL Project - Based Learning are effective inenhancing the problem-solving ability of university students. [1] First coming to prominence inthe 1990’s, effectively structured project-based learning exercises provide a framework in whichstudents are required to draw on their prior coursework to develop solutions for “real world”problems. In a project based learning environment the learners are “actively engaged in workingat tasks and activities which are authentic to the environment in which they would be used” witha focus on “learners as constructors of their
semester of 2010, the total enrollment of the INTR 225 class was 13 students, ofwhich 12 were females and 1 was male. Since this sample group was not balanced in terms ofgender and could not represent the target user population, students were instructed to find andmeasure one opposite-gender person outside the class roster. In the end, the sample group wasequalized with a total of 26 people.Due to privacy concerns, results of the anthropometric and ergonomic data gathered in this studywill not be shared in this paper.The third task of the first benchmark was to create concepts. Students used freehand sketching,digital and traditional mass studies, and other concept development techniques. In this stage, theyalso used their own data, which they had