Adding Breadth to a Civil Engineering Structures Track – Perspectives of
Students, Employers and Advisory Board Members
Michael J. McGinnis, Michael V. Gangone
University of Texas at Tyler
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
mmcginnis@uttyler.edu; mgangone@uttyler.edu
Abstract
In a relatively new civil engineering program, our students initially were offered only one
structural design elective – the design of steel structures. After consultation with our
constituencies, including students, alumni, our advisory board and employers of recent graduates,
we implemented a curriculum revision to revise an initial three credit course focused solely on
steel structures into a four credit experience that covered both steel and concrete learning
objectives. This paper presents lessons learned in this process, including identified synergies
between the two different topic areas and recommendations regarding streamlining this material
to follow an irreducible minimum approach. The paper provides specific information above the
resulting structures track, which combines four courses often offered at other institutions (e.g.
Structural Analysis of Determinate Structures, Indeterminate Structural Analysis, Reinforced
Concrete Design and Design of Steel Structures) into two courses: (1) Structural Analysis and (2)
Reinforced Concrete and Steel Design. Also discussed are methods of assessment, and
recommended best practices regarding communicating effectively with constituencies.
Assessment results from the transition are presented and discussed.
Program and Structures Track History
UT Tyler is a Carnegie 3 Non PhD granting institution with approximately 8000 students.
Engineering was started in 1999, with Civil Engineering (CENG) beginning in 2006 and a first
CENG graduating class of nine students in Spring 2008. The program has successfully navigated
two ABET accreditation cycles and currently has approximately 130 students taught by six full
time tenured or tenure track faculty with few courses taught by graduate students or adjunct faculty.
The curriculum is 128 credit hours, with a 42 credit core (which was 44 credits as recently as 2013)
with the number of credits mandated by the Texas Administrative code by the Texas state
legislature. Breadth in the civil engineering curriculum is provided by courses in each of seven
traditional areas of civil engineering (structural, geotechnical, transportation, environmental,
hydrology, construction management and surveying), and depth provided by at least two required
courses in five of these areas. Students have the ability to select two technical electives to round
out their educational experience. Instructional methods in the department have been strongly
influenced by the ASCE ExCEEd teaching model [1].
Initial graduates of the program received a two course structural sequence, with a first course in
structural analysis principals, CENG 3325 Structural Analysis, and a second in structural design,
CENG 4317 Structural Steel Design. These students were required to choose amongst a group of
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
design electives, and it was possible for them to opt out of CENG 4317 completely (although no
student did). All students participated in the Senior Design (Capstone) experience, a two course
culminating sequence that centers on a building and site design that includes special topics lessons
germane to the project. Among those lessons (at that time) were those focused on reinforced
concrete design and composite (steel and concrete) design.
Problem Definition and Proposed Solution
At our first major advisory board meeting after achieving accreditation in 2009, we discussed our
student’s lack of concrete fundamentals in their curriculum. At the time, our advisory board felt
strongly that our students needed more experience in design of concrete structures. Furthermore,
the advisory board indicated that the students would be well served to have their concrete design
experience actually reflected on their transcripts. After some discussion, the recommendation of
the board was to create a new course, CENG 4412 Reinforced Concrete and Steel Design, and
furthermore to make this course required of all of our students. This 4 credit course combines the
fundamentals of steel and concrete and has the course objectives and topics as outlined below.
This process itself showed the importance of a program assessment process with engaged faculty
and strong communication with an external advisory board that is well integrated with the
engineering profession.
Structures Track Description and Comparison
CENG 3325: Structural Analysis
CENG 3325: Structural Analysis is a junior level course that covers material related to the analysis
of structures (beams, frames and trusses). A typical first level structural analysis course
encompasses methods of analyzing determinate structures for internal forces as well as
displacements within the structural system. Indeterminate analysis is discussed towards the end
of the course where the flexibility method (i.e. force method) is used for analyzing beams, frames
and trusses. Often it isn’t until a second level advanced structural analysis course that students are
introduced to approximate analysis techniques as well as finite element methods such as direct
stiffness method (DSM) or slope deflection. At UT Tyler the material of these two courses is
condensed and covered in one, CENG 3325 Structural Analysis. The topics covered along with
the number of lessons of each topic are shown in Table 1, with NA representing a non-advanced
analysis topic and A representing an advanced analysis topic. The faculty believe it is important
for students to be exposed to finite element approaches to solving structural systems as this is the
approach used by structural analysis software programs like SAP2000 and STADDPro. It is
necessary for students to understand what the computer program is doing and to have some method
of confirming the final output. As a result, early activities within CENG 3325 have students use
software to solve problems, and the theory and applications of DSM and slope deflection methods
are introduced towards the end of the course, exposing students to these advanced analysis topics.
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Table 1: Topics covered in CENG 3325
Number
of
Lessons
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
1
Topic
Non-Advanced (NA),
Advanced (A)
Introduction to structural analysis principals
Stability and determinacy
ASCE 7-10 Load and ASD vs. LRFD, Load Paths
Truss stability and determinacy
Truss analysis
Shear and moment diagrams/functions
SAP 2000 computer labs
Approximate deflected shapes
Deflection using double integration method
Virtual work: Beams, frames, trusses
Flexibility method (force method)
Approximate analysis methods
Slope deflection method
Direct stiffness method
Influence lines
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
A
A
NA
Assessment
There are currently 11 course objectives for the structural analysis course. Of these 11, three
objectives are related to material traditionally covered in an advanced analysis course (C6, C9, and
C10). Nearly 96% of the evaluation data gathered in Table 2 shows a rating between “good” and
“excellent” suggesting that the objectives are adequately covered within the course. The instructor
rating, which is a cumulative assessment of the 6 years of recorded data for each objective, shows
similar findings. This would suggest that the introductory structural analysis course is capable of
not only covering the topics typically covered in such course but also some advanced topics as
well.
Table 3 provides average scores of exam questions that contain these advanced topics for the 2013
and 2014 spring semesters. Interestingly, in some cases, students appear to do better on the
advanced analysis topics compared to the remaining questions of the exam that cover traditional
structural analysis topics. In some ways, this affirms the student course assessment data in Table
2, particularly for 2013 and 2014. In Table 2 the students indicated that the advanced topics were
being covered as well as the non-advanced topics. The exam scores suggest similar retention of
material for both the advanced and non-advanced topics. The data also shows an improvement in
student performance on the exam from 2013 to 2014 with one exception on the final exam.
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Table 2: Student evaluation of the course outcomes in Structural Analysis
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
2014
Instructor
C1. Organized approach to
analysis and design.
4.3
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.5
C2. Structural behavior of
simple beam members.
4.7
4.9
4.7
4.4
4.8
4.6
5.0
C3. Structural behavior of
simple frame members.
4.4
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.5
C4.Structural behavior of
truss members.
4.2
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.7
4.4
4.5
C5. Analyze using
equilibrium.
4.3
4.9
4.6
4.5
4.8
4.4
4.5
4.1
4.8
4.6
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.0
4.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.7
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.5
C6. Analyze using
approximate methods.
C7. Analyze
determinate/indeterminate
using virtual work.
C8. Analyze using the
Force Method.
C9. Analyze using Slope
Deflection.
C10. Analyze
determinate/indeterminate
using Direct Stiffness
Method
3.6
4.7
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.4
3.8
4.7
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.4
C11. Use the SAP 2000
4.7
4.7
4.3
3.8
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
NOTE: 1=UNSATISFACTORY 2=MARGINAL 3=SATISFACTORY 4=GOOD 5=EXCELLENT
Table 3: Student average scores on advance level exam topics
Exam 2 – Question 1
Exam 2 – Question 2
Exam 2 – Remaining
Questions
Final Exam – Question 1
Final Exam – Question 3
Final Exam – Remaining
Questions
Topic
Approximate Analysis
(Portal Method)
Approximate Analysis
(Beams)
Topics on exam 2 not
related to advanced topics
Direct Stiffness Method
Slope Deflection Method
Topics on the final exam
not related to advanced
topics
2013
57.47%
2014
68.61%
49.18%
71.84%
50.56%
72.44%
64.22%
49.30%
57.77%
77.64%
62.77%
61.22%
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
CENG 4412: Reinforced Concrete and Steel Design
Table 4 shows the course topics covered in CENG 4412, with topics added from CENG 4317
noted. The course also includes a semester long design problem that gives students the opportunity
to explore concepts in a more open ended context. That experience is divided into the five
activities noted in Table 5. These activities have been classified as either group work (G – teams
of three to five), partner work (P – groups of two), or individual assignments (I).
Table 4: CENG 4412 Reinforced Concrete gand Steel Design
p Course Topics
Focus Topic
Basic Structural Fundamentals (building lay-out, beams vs. girders, reading structural design drawings,
B
types of lateral load resisting systems)
B
Principles of LRFD Design (load and resistance factors, safety and reliability)
S
Tension Members (topics include yielding, fracture, block shear, use of AISC design aids)
Compression Members (topics include the AISC column curve, local buckling, built-up members,
S
strong axis flexural buckling, weak axis flexural buckling, flexural torsional buckling, torsional buckling,
use of AISC design aids)
Flexural Members (coverage includes only wide flange members with topics including plastic moment,
S
moment capacity versus unbraced length, Cb, local buckling, web crippling, web yielding, use of AISC
design aids)
nd
S
S
S
C
C
C
C
Members with Combined Loading (beam columns) (topics include 2 Order effects, Interaction, the
AISC B1/B2 method of approximate analysis, Direct Analysis, use of AISC design aids)
Bolts (topics include basic bolt shear, base metal tear-out, base metal bearing, constructability
concerns, use of AISC design aids)
Welds (topics include types of welds, basic fillet weld shear, base metal strength for fillet welds,
constructability concerns for fillet welds)
Beams (topics include bending capacity, shear, T-beams, bearing capacity, deflections)
Concrete Beam Lab (we break and discuss three beams, one with no reinforcement, one with only
tension reinforcement, and one with tension and shear reinforcement))
Columns (topics include no-moment short columns, creation and use of interaction diagrams for
columns with moments)
Development Length (calculation and use of basic tension development length)
nd
C
C
Long Columns (only braced long columns are covered with topics including slenderness checks, 2
order effects and moment magnification)
Slabs (only one way slabs are covered, with treatment limited to required thickness to control
deflections, checking for the appropriateness of using the ACI approximate moment and shear
coefficients and then using them)
S = Coverage of Steel Topics; C = Coverage of Concrete Topics; B = Coverage of Both Materials
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Type
G
G
G
P
I
g
g Table
g 5: Engineering
y Design Problem Key Features
Task
Problem and load definition, finalize architectural and structural layout of a low rise building
(a) Slab and joist deign
(b) Steel gravity system beam and girder design
(c) Concrete gravity system beam and girder design
Steel truss and steel / concrete gravity system column design
Lateral load system (beam column) design
Concrete slab design
Assessment
g
j
Table 6: Course Learning Objective Assessment
CENG 4317
Focus
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
C
C
C
C
Learning Objective
If given a set of functional req'm and an architectural concept, I can
design a low-rise bldg
I can explain and apply the stages/phases of the engineering design
process model.
I can perform a load analysis using ASCE 7-05 for dead load, live
load, snow load, roof live load, and wind load.
I can use the LRFD load case combination equations to develop
load case combinations for structural analysis.
I can apply the LRFD methodology
I can reduce a real-world 3 dimensional frame to a 2-dimensional
model accounting for applied loads, connected members and out of
plane behavior.
I can use modern engineering software to solve problems
I can function effectively as a member of a design team
I can describe the characcteristics and behavior of structural steel
I can describe the advantages and disadvantages of using structural
steel as a building material
I can model braced and rigid frames as lateral load-resisting
systems.
I can analyze and design a structural steel tension member assembly
(tension member and connecting element)
I can analyze and design a structural steel compression member
I can analyze and design a structrual steel beam and girder
I can analyze and design a structural steel beam and column
I can design/analyze a simple bolted or welded connection
I can describe the advantages and disadvantages of using
reinforced concrete as a building material
I can analyze and design a reinforced concrete beam.
I can analyze and design a reinforced concrete column
I can analyze and design a reinforced concrete beam-column
I can analyze and design a reinforced concrete slab
Compare
CENG 4412
2007 2008 2009 Before 2010 2013 2014
3.5
After
Difference
3.8
-0.5
4.2
-0.3
4.1
4.6
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.4
4.1
4.9
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
-0.6
4.9
4.9
4.7
4.8
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.2
-0.7
4.4
4.9
4.5
4.6
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.1
-0.5
4.2
4.7
4.0
4.3
4.1
3.5
3.9
3.8
-0.5
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.9
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.4
3.5
4.6
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.4
4.2
-0.4
0.0
-0.4
4.0
4.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.2
-0.2
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.9
-0.3
4.2
5.0
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.2
-0.4
4.1
4.4
4.2
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.5
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.6
4.5
4.5
3.6
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
4.2
4.1
4.0
3.7
Table 6 shows the assessment of course learning objectives as measured through student feedback.
Three years of data was collected for the CENG 4317 offerings, and contrasted with three years of
data from the CENG 4412 offerings. On average, both the course objectives that covered both
steel and concrete topics (such as applying the LRFD methodology), and those that covered only
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
steel topics (such as designing a steel beam) dropped by approximately 0.4 points on the Likert
scale. For the additional coverage of concrete, this seems a reasonable trade-off if accurate, and
several other factors other than the change in the course focus could explain the drop. As just one
example, the instructor of this course has not changed, but the workload outside of this course for
that instructor has increased steadily since the department was founded, and it may simply be that
the student feedback numbers have fallen in line with this factor. Also, the size of the department
has grown, with the early classes in the table having approximately 15 students on average, while
the later ones had approximately 25 – students may feel the drop in personal attention that this
class size change represents.
Assessment of the Combined Structures Track
FE and Gateway Exam
The Fundamentals of Engineers (FE) exam results are shown in Fig. 1 to illustrate the knowledge
obtained for not only the general civil engineering topics (Fig. 1a) but also the structures areas
(Fig. 1b). The structures areas included in this data are mechanics of materials, structural analysis
and structural design. The results from UT Tyler students are compared to the national and
Carnegie 3 averages. In nearly every cases, UT Tyler students did better than the national and
Carnegie III averages. The UT Tyler averages for the civil specific topics and the structures area
were very similar, averaging around 60%. Also noticed on these figures is the “Gateway Exam
Data” results. The Gateway Exam was developed in 2008 and tests students on many of the content
areas covered on the FE exam using questions developed by the CENG faculty. The Gateway
Exam is multiple choice and given during the spring semester of the student’s junior year,
approximately 7 months prior to taking the FE exam. As seen from the data it is generally a good
predictor of the performance on the FE exam. The FE results also support the assertion that the
combination of four courses (at some institutions) into two (at UT Tyler) does not have a strong
negative impact on student learning.
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
0
2010
2011
2012
Gateway Exam Data
UT Tyler
(a)
2013
National
2014
Carnegie III
0
2010
2011
Gateway Exam
2012
UT Tyler
2013
National
2014
Carnegie III
(b)
Fig. 1: FE results for: (a) CE afternoon content areas, (b) structural content areas (mechanics of materials,
structural analysis and structural design)
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Advisory Board Feedback
In 2013, the faculty at UT Tyler presented the results of the switch in course focus (CENG 4317
to CENG 4412) back to the program’s advisory board. Based on a presentation of information
similar to that presented herein, the instructor of the course concluded (and presented to the
advisory board) with the following quote: “I believe that the transition has worked well. The
course likely covers the material that other institutions cover in two 3 credit courses. This means
our students who are interested in the structural field are in great shape moving forward. We have
had a small number of students go on to graduate school at TAMU who were required to level in
either concrete or steel and they breezed through. However, with this much material, the course
is absolutely packed. Students get essentially one homework on each topic, rather than several, so
repetition doesn’t happen a lot. For those students who aren’t interested in structures, the course
is very challenging.” After reviewing all of the material presented, the advisory board was
unanimous in their approval to move forward with the new 4 credit course (CENG 4412).
In January of 2015, the course instructor conducted a phone interview with a member of the
advisory board who has also hired two graduates of the structures track at UT Tyler, one who
experienced the CENG 4317 course, one who completed the CENG 4412 course. The following
are direct quotes from that conversation:
 “The graduates that we have hired definitely have the entry level knowledge necessary to
do the work.”
 “Although detailed design can be overwhelming with the amount of information that is out
there, the students seem to have the fundamentals to begin and get started, and the ability
from there to expand their knowledge.”
 The hires have the ability to learn and your program seems to foster a continued learning
mentality.”
 “Currently, UT Tyler is my preferred supplier for our entry level structural engineers.”
Summary and Conclusions
This paper discusses the structural engineering track at UT Tyler and how it has transformed since
the inception of the CENG program in 2006. The paper looks at the effect of taking content
typically covered in 4 undergraduate courses and covering it in 2. First, CENG 3325 Structural
Analysis encompasses material taught in both Determinate Structural Analysis and Indeterminate
Structural Analysis courses. Course data is presented to show that there does not appear to be a
negative impact on student learning as a result of consolidating the material into one course. The
second part of this paper discusses how the program transitioned from a single 3 credit hour
Structural Steel Design course (CENG 4317) into a 4 credit hour Reinforced Concrete and Steel
Design course (CENG 4412). This course was developed such that it covers all topics typically
found in a Reinforced Concrete Design and Steel Design course. Assessment of the learning
objectives from course evaluations show that students feel they are not understanding the material
as well with the new format (CENG 4412) as they did with CENG 4317. While the drop is small
the reasons are possibly due to the increased workload of the instructor outside of his teaching
responsibilities as well as less one-on-one student attention due to increased class size. FE and
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education
Gateway Exam results indicate that students have a better understanding of the material then they
think. FE results in particular show that UT Tyler students are out performing both the national
and Carnegie III averages within the structures track. Furthermore, a recent interview with an
employer of UT Tyler CENG graduates, who is also a member of the CENG advisory board, has
expressed great satisfaction with the knowledge graduates are receiving.
References
[1]
Estes, A.C., Welch, R.W., and Ressler, S.J., ''The ExCEEd Teaching Model'',
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 131(4): 218–222,
(2005).
______________________________________________
Proceedings of the 2015 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference
Organized by The University of Texas at San Antonio
Copyright © 2015, American Society for Engineering Education