Sustainable Structural

Engineering Education
Mara Stegaru
Overview
This proposal means to address the need for a reform and the method of its
implementation in structural engineering education to ensure that engineering students
learn to design in a way that does not adversely affect the quality of life for future
generations, or in shorter terms, design sustainably. The shift in education is necessary to
start the shift in the industry as a whole. The way the structural engineering industry can
be more sustainable is through the improvement of life-cycle performance. To improve
life-cycle performance, cost-benefit analysis must become more comprehensive and
consider more that just the initial cost of a design. The two other components that must
be considered are long-term and ecological cost. Therefore, structural engineering
courses should integrate comprehensive cost-benefit analysis into the curriculum in
order to ensure that the industry is responsible, and leaves a viable future for the
generations to come.

Sustainability
With the growing awareness of the negative impact industrialization has had on the
Earths environment, the scientific community has presented a demand for an
improvement in the ecological sustainability of our societys lifestyle. This proposal will
focus on how the structural engineering industry can work to satisfy this demand by
altering the industry at its roots, education. Before I can go into detail describing the goal
of this proposal, I must first address what it means to be sustainable. The scientific
community has come to a consensus that the definition of sustainability can be
characterized by a statement known as the Brundtland statement, which states the
following: Humanity has the ability to make development sustainableto ensure that it

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs (Carew and Mitchell). Following the logic of this statement, the
goal of this proposal must be to provide methods to alter structural design education to
ensure that the way students learn to design focuses on both efficacy and responsible
use of resources, equally. Now that we have defined sustainability, let us move on to why
it is necessary.

Unsustainable Structural Engineering Practices

At Northeastern University, introductory structural design courses focus on satisfying
either the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) or the American Concrete
Institute (ACI) codes for steel and concrete construction, respectively. The issue with
these codes is that they do not address any sustainable practices as a requirement to
satisfy code. Let us explore the implications of the industrys neglect of sustainable
practice. J. A. Oschendorf, in his paper "Sustainable Engineering: The Future of Structural
Design, makes the point that the production of Portland cement has doubled in less
than 30 years, and this exponential growth is expected to continue well into the next
century Furthermore, each ton of cement is responsible for approximately one ton of
CO2 emissions and the cement industry alone contributes about 7% of global CO2
emissions (Oschendorf). Carbon emissions have increased exponentially from 1950, and
are now 10 times what they were then (US Environmental Protection Agency). Carbon
emissions have been linked to climate change, which causes sea level rise, which, in turn,
causes intense flooding and destruction of coastal regions globally. Now, the production
of Portland cement, a key ingredient in concrete production, contributes to an entire 7%
of this detriment to the environment, as well as the eventual collapse of our entire
societys quality of life. Following only this example, it is apparent that the industry must
urgently change its practice to counteract the negative effect it has had on the
environment for decades.

Augmentation of Life-Cycle Performance and Cost-Benefit

Analysis
The best way to mitigate this effect is through the improvement of life-cycle performance
of structures through a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis. Engineers are taught

from their introductory design courses to minimize initial cost, but, while the analysis of
initial cost is important, the prioritization of low initial cost leads to the neglect of the
other facets of cost-benefit analysis in design. The three components of cost-benefit
analysis that should be considered are initial cost, long-term cost, and ecological cost.

Initial Cost
The assessment of initial cost is to analyze which materials are the most effective for the
lowest price, short-term (10 to 15 years); this is essentially the type of cost-benefit
analysis taught in introductory design courses.

Long-Term Cost
The assessment of long-term cost would be to analyze how long each material can last
before maintenance is required and how much the maintenance would cost. To give
perspective of the importance of long-term cost-benefit analysis, let us use a faade
restoration project as an example. This project deals with the restoration of a concrete
faade deteriorating all over a 12-story building initially built in the 1950s. The
restoration project has been going for three years, and is projected to go on for at least
another year. The cost for skilled laborers to make the repairs, engineers to detail and
approve the repairs, for a contractor to oversee the execution of the repairs, and the
materials specified for the repairs comes to quite a significant sum for the client. Even
with these repairs, it is likely that parts of the building will need maintenance in about 15
years, adding up another large sum on the clients bill. More attention taken in assessing
long-term cost during initial design would reduce the frequency of involved and
expensive maintenance, making the structures built today less of a burden for future
generations to maintain, allowing our industry to align itself more with the sentiments of
the Brundtland statements definition of sustainability.

Ecological Cost
The final, and perhaps most influential facet of cost-benefit analysis being neglected in
the structural engineering industry, is ecological cost-benefit analysis. Engineers must
weigh the impact the specification of materials, site location, construction methods,
comprehensive design, etc. can have on an ecosystem. If designs made now destroy an

ecosystem for future generations, then those designs are in direct conflict with the
Brundtland statement, and are irresponsible and unsustainable.

Integrating Sustainability into Education

To have the greatest effect on future engineers and their practices, we must develop
feasible methods to integrate sustainable cost-benefit analysis in the engineering
classroom. Anna L. Carew and Cynthia A. Mitchell, in their study published in the
European Journal of Engineering Education, make the point in their study that
sustainability is both a means and an end (Carew and Mitchell). Beginning with the
means, their study comes to the conclusion that we must achieve sustainability in small
steps to move the industry closer to becoming completely ecologically responsible. This
can be done in various ways, some slight alterations to the curriculum, and others
requiring more effort. Let us begin with how we can take a step towards sustainability
through the consideration of long-term cost.

Addressing Long-Term Cost

Materials Testing
We know that initial cost-benefit analysis is already taught in introductory design courses,
so the first facet of cost-benefit analysis is covered. Long-term cost is something that now
must be emphasized in the classroom as well. Design courses can do this by teaching
students to interpret and predict the life-cycle performance of their designs. As an
example of how to do this, let us consider a single structural element, a concrete beam,
in a building over time. The ACI specifications give engineers requirements for beam
design strength and the placement and quantity of reinforcement to ensure an
acceptable level of safety against failure when the design is initially constructed, but it
does not guarantee that the beam will maintain these initial qualities over longer periods
of time. Concrete weathers, reinforcing bars rust, the beam becomes compromised, and
maintenance is required. Material and design courses should include the prediction of
when this maintenance will be necessary in design. Structural engineering labs can

perform cyclic loading tests, which can predict the life-cycle of our beam through the
oscillation of both compression and tension on the beam to emulate the kinds of
stresses and deformations the beam would undergo over its life-cycle. When the beam
fails in a cyclic loading test, it can be correlated to when the beam would fail in real life.
Using only the data from these tests, students could begin to assess whether more
strength is necessary in certain situations to try and minimize the cost of maintenance for
the future building owners.
Addressing Ecological Cost

I will now propose two different additions that can be made to the curriculum that would
fulfill the requirement for the facet of ecological cost-benefit analysis.

Recycled Materials
First, I propose that materials study courses focus more on the analysis and specification
of recycled and salvaged building materials in design. Mining for aggregate and ore
destroys the ecosystems in which they are mined and produce a high level of carbon
emissions. In order to ensure that future generations can still have a livable environment,
we must take steps to become less dependent on mining. Copper is an example of a
material that is actually more present in the built environment than in the natural one
(Oschendorf). Salvaging the copper from demolition of the already built environment
would ensure that engineers could still use copper in designs while also protecting the
environment from the negative effects of mining. To address the concern of performance
of salvaged and recycled materials, three members of the Department for Civil
Engineering at the University of Belgrade did a study showing that recycled concrete
performed just as well in lab testing as non-recycled concrete. Therefore, we can make
the conclusion that the use of recycled materials is both a safe and ecologically
responsible way to design, ensuring that every measure is taken by the industry to
adhere to the Brundtland statement.
Ecological Engineering

Now, moving to perhaps both my most intensive and most productive proposed addition
to the curriculum, I propose that structural engineering students should be required to

take at least one course in ecological engineering. The principles of ecological

engineering are analyzing energy signature, recognition that a number of different
energy sources affect ecosystems, self-organization, a form of natural selection of species
that reach a site through dispersal, and preadaptation, adaptations that arise through
natural selection for one set of environmental conditions that also happen to be adaptive
to a different set of environmental conditions to which the organism had not been
previously exposed (Kangas). While these may seem unrelated to the field of structural
engineering, construction can have effects on every aspect described in the principles of
ecological engineering. Construction and simply the existence of a structure come with
inherent energy inputs into the environment. It is important for structural engineers to
understand that any sort of structure they design will become part of an ecosystem.
Once the structure becomes part of the ecosystem, self-organization and preadaptation
come into play. In order to ensure that we as an industry are not destroying an
ecosystem, we must try to design in a way that allows self-organization and
preadaptation to occur. If an organism wanders into the ecosystem where we have put
up a structure, ideally, the organism will be able to self-organize or will already have the
proper adaptations to thrive in said ecosystem. The goal is to be able to integrate
ecological engineering practices into structural design in order to create designs that can
work with ecosystems rather than in spite of them, and, in turn, assure a healthy
ecosystem for future generations.

Intended Effects
Now we come back to sustainability as an end. As an end it is an holistic vision, which
calls for fundamental restructuring of the social, economic, political and cultural
frameworks upon which our society is built (Carew and Mitchell). What better way to
restructure the understanding of structural design than from where that understanding
stems. Changing the curriculum to more aptly address the issue of both economical and
ecological responsibility in future engineers provides students with the ability to apply
that knowledge appropriately to contextualized decision-making, and be adept at judging
the ethics and sustainability of ones decisions and decision outcomes (Carew and
Mitchell). The call to prioritize the responsible use of resources and preservation of the
environment which we as humans depend on for survival is prominent throughout the
6

scientific community, and with some additions, alterations, and opportunities provided at
the university level, the industry could rapidly change for the better.

References
ASTM International. N.p., n.d. Web.
Carew, Anna L., and Cynthia A. Mitchell. "Characterizing Undergraduate Engineering
Students' Understanding of Sustainability." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
Kangas, Patrick C. "Ecological Engineering: Principles and Practice." (n.d.): n. Pag.
Web.
"Monotonic and Cyclic Material Testing." MTS. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
Ochsedorf, J.A. "Sustainable Engineering: The Future of Structural
Design." Sustainable Engineering: The Future of Structural Design (2005): n.
pag. Web.