THE EDUCATION OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSTS

Iain A MacLeod
Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Strathclyde

Abstract
A radical rethink about how structural analysts should be educated is needed. Establishing and
validating models, verifying results and understanding structural behaviour are key abilities which
education does little to promote. While some of the mathematics is very important much of what is
taught in relation to the solution process used in computer packages is of secondary importance.
Key Words: Education, structural engineering, structural analysis, validation, verification ,
behaviour, structural theory.

INTRODUCTION
It is traditional in education for structural analysis to set high importance on the following principles:
That if you are carrying out a structural analysis it is necessary to understand the process of
solution
That doing hand calculations is a core activity for understanding structural behaviour
If you are doing hand analysis it is, of course, essential to understand the process of solution but when
solutions are carried out by computer, the need for such understanding is significantly reduced.
Understanding of computer solution processes is not a first priority for learning except for those who
write program code. Knowledge of some features of solution process is needed, as I discuss later, but
manipulation of explicit matrices, element derivations, details of the direct stiffness method, details of
equation solutions and of back-substitution methods are now of secondary importance because they are
not used directly.
Also doing hand calculations is important but doing complicated hand calculations is not the best
strategy for understanding structural behaviour - see later section on 'Understanding Behaviour'
Key abilities for structural analysts now include:
Establish an appropriate model and validate it
Verify the results
Understand the behaviour of the system being modelled

KEY ABILITIES FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSTS

Establish the model and validate it
Traditional analysis may be defined as involving mainly linear elastic solutions including the steady
state dynamic analysis and calculation of elastic critical loads. Advanced structural analysis involves
no-linear material, non-linear geometry, fatigue, time steppting, etc.
In the pre-computer era traditional structural analysis was confined to simple frame systems and
advanced structural analysis was seldom attempted.. Now, as a result of the power of modern analysis
packages, even traditional analysis can involve a significant amount of optioneering.
The fundamental question in the choice of model is 'Is the model capable of satisfying the
requirements of the analysis?' (IStructE (2002)). This is the validation question. More succinctly the
question can be stated as 'Is it the right model?'. To validate the model it is necessary to list the
assumptions made for the model and to compare these with the behaviour of the system. Since the
fundamental purpose of the model is to investigate behaviour, validation should be a continuous
activity throughout the modelling process.

Education for structural analysis does not focus on the relationship between assumptions and the with
real behaviour of the system being modelled. Select any text on structural analysis and you find that
this topic is hardly mentioned. Such texts are deeply focused on the process which defines the
mathematical model and provide scant information about justification. For example, at a basic level,
ask the average structural engineer to describe the underlying assumption for bending theory and its
range of validity. You may get a vague statement about plane sections remaining plane but are
unlikely to get information that the theory becomes less accurate as the span to depth ratio decreases.
A main reason for this lack of knowledge is that we seldom work with deep beams but I pose the
question 'Is it more important to know about the mathematics of the derivation of bending theory than
its scope of applicability?'
A major problem is that there is a significant shortage of good published information about how to do
structural modelling. A notable exception is information available from NAFEMS - see for example
NAFEMS (19 ). A recently published report by the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE
2002) gives advice about modelling process. I wrote a paper for the Structural Engineer (MacLeod
1995) on modelling process which was republished by the Institution of Structural Engineers of New
Zealand.
Verify the Results
The verification question is: 'Do the results correspond with what is expected from the model?' or
more succinctly 'Is the model right?'
This is a question of utmost importance but again it 'more
honoured in the breach than the observance' in education. Good analysts are careful to ensure that the
model has been correctly input and take a reflective view of the output. They seek to answer questions
such as "Do the results look right?" "Can I check this result by doing a separate calculation?" There
is not a great deal of theory behind the principles of verification but should we not attempt to instil
such attitudes in our students?
Understand behaviour
Activities which stimulate understanding of the behaviour of structural systems include:
Measuring and observing the behaviour of real systems and scale models
Validating models
Verifying results
Understanding the mathematical models
Carrying out sensitivity analysis
Doing some types of calculation
Measuring and observing behaviour of real systems and scale models
This is a very important activity for a structural analyst. The best situation is to work at full scale but
scale models can provide useful insights. But even scale models are expensive. We do have
laboratory experiments in our courses but these tend to be of limited scope. Getting good experience
with physical models tends to be a matter of
chance and is severely limited by cost. We need to compromise. Virtual (i.e. video) experiments are
not as effective as being there can be much better than no experinece physical behaviour. Sharing
virtual experiments to assist in learning about behaviour would be most worthwhile.
Validating models, verifying results
The activities of model validation and results verification are ma in stimuli for developing
understanding of behaviour. Successful outcomes from these activities are highly dependent on such
understanding. For example Figure 1(a) shows a plane stress element model of a wall of a two storey
brick building. To test the effect of potential loss of foundation support, the restraints at one end were
removed. This resulted in compressive stress at the top of the wall at Point A. This was contrary to
the perception that the end of the wall would act as a cantilever. But investigation of the bending
action in the 'aprons' between the openings - Figure 1(b) - explained the anomaly and significantly
improved our knowledge of behaviour.

Point 'A'

(b) Apron between

openings in reverse bending
(a) Plane Stress Model
Figure 1 FE Model of wall with partial support

The process of validation demands understanding of the real system, of the model and how these are
related. To some extent validation promotes the quest for understanding rather than delivers it. Some
validation questions cannot be answered at the outset. For example results are needed to assess
whether or not stresses are within elastic limits. Good structural analysts constantly seek information
for validation.
Understanding the mathematical models
Although a main thesis of this paper is that the details of mathematical theory are less important than in
the past this does not mean that they are unimportant. A main problem is that some of the least
important mathematics is given the greatest prominence in education. If the mathematics does
represent the behaviour of the system then understanding the mathematics must provide insight into
behaviour. The mathematics of the constitutive relationships, the boundary conditions and the
constraints can be particularly useful in this respect.
Sensitivity Analysis
The concept of playing with models does not seem to be an appropriate activity in the commercial
climate which now prevails. But varying the model and looking for trends in behaviour is of major
importance when working with systems about which understanding is lacking. In physical modelling,
changing one parameter independently of all the others is normally either difficult, impractical or just
impossible. But the ease with which results can be produced over a range of parameter variation is a
major advantage of computational modelling. Figure 2 shows an example of my early experience of
this. I took a wall with openings first of all at each storey level (Type A) and then at alternate storey
levels (Type B) and then moved the openings off-centre. For the Type A situation the stiffness
increased when the openings were moved but the opposite was the case for Type B. I searched for
errors but found none. Eventually I realised that the type A walls behaved more like two separate
walls whereas Type B behaved like a single wall with some bits cut out of it. The variation in the
parameters led to major improvements in my understanding.
In education, it is not necessary to learn the behaviour of a range of structural types. What should be
learned is how to investigate behaviour.

(a) Type A1
= 7.2 mm

(d) Type B2
= 2.9 mm

(c) Type B1
= 2.3 mm

(b) Type A2
= 5.2 mm

= top lateral deflection

Figure 2 Shear Walls with Openings
Doing Hand Calculations
Some types of hand calculation are helpful in understanding behaviour of frames. For example
moment distribution shows how the effect of a moment dies out quickly as it traverses the joints of the
frame. However such behaviour can be more efficiently interpreted by doing a sensitivity analysis
using software. Comparing the results of hand calculations for simplified models with the results from
more complex models is a very good activity for improving understanding of behaviour.

KEY KNOWLEDGE FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSTS

Table 1 sets out needed knowledge in terms of 'essential' and 'useful' components. It is not intended to
represent a full curriculum for structural analysis but indicates the relative importance of major issues
in learning It represents a shift from focus on how computer solutions are achieved towards how
analysis should be carried out.
Table 1 Knowledge for structural analysts
Issue
Equilibrium
Compatibility
Principle of virtual
work
Constitutive
relationships
Element stiffnesses
Formation of the
structural stiffness
Solution of
equations
Back substitution
Elastic stability
Dynamics

Essential knowledge
Solid grounding in basic principles
Solid grounding in basic principles
Background knowledge

Useful Knowledge
Continuum mechanics approach
Continuum mechanics approach
Solid grounding

Basic assumptions and their validity

Derivations

How elements perform in modelling

contexts.
Basic knowledge of the principle

Derivations of for basic elements

Basic knowledge about numerical stability

and how to test for it.
Basic knowledge of the principle
Basic principles of Euler buckling. The
concept of eigenvalues.
The basic equilibrium equation including
acceleration and damping terms. The
concept of eigenvalues

Mathematics of solution processes

Direct stiffness method

Basic principles
Theory of eigenvalues
Theory of eigenvalues

While knowledge of the details of the mathematics behind element matrices may be useful, their
performance tends to be more understood by their application than by their derivation. The basic
mathematics behind beam elements is quite accessible and knowledge that the strain distribution in a
plane stress element is constant or linear can be helpful but when it comes to bending and shell
elements very few users can trace the relationship between the derivation and the performance of the
element. If you can do without derivations for higher order elements then would the same treatment
not be adequate for lower order elements?
While a basic understanding of the solution process of setting up the element stiffness matrix, solving
the equations and backsubstituting is worthwhile, details of the computational techniques need not be
stressed. For example presenting the formation of the structural stiffness matrix as in Equation 1 does
not represent software practice but does provide a clear statement of what is happening in the process:
K = CT k C
(1)
where K is the structural stiffness matrix,
CT and C are the equilibrium and compatibility 'connection' matrices respectively
k is the diagonally partitioned matrix of element stiffnesses
A basis understanding of numerical stability in the solution of equations is worthwhile but knowing
when it may occur and how to test for it should have higher priority than the mathematics behind it.
Again numerical instability is understood more by its effect than by study of the process.

CONCLUSION
The fundamental thesis that I am promoting is that in the modern world of structural analysis
knowledge of structural behaviour is more important than knowledge of the underlying theory and that
the former arises mainly from the reflective use of software.
For teachers this means that much of what is normally taught as structural analysis is of secondary
importance. Indeed quite a lot of what is taught is only of marginal importance. The prime goal of
teaching should be to develop ability to understand behaviour, to develop and validate models and to
verify results.
The conventional wisdom is that you get the basic theory at university and learn to use it in practice.
This principle is ill-conceived across the spectrum of education but it is particularly negative in
relation to structural analysis because good modelling is driven by attitudes and good work processes.
The sooner you are introduced to good approaches, the less likely that you will adopt unsatisfactory
ones. You cannot start too early to learn to do something well. If what is done in education bears
little relationship to what is needed in practice, then only those who either have an natural gift for it or
who are fortunate to work with people who are good at doing it will develop the necessary ability.
That is, the development of ability is a matter of chance.
This contrary to the major objective of
education.
A fundamental problem is that we are captives of both our genes and our experience. Teachers tend be
naturally inclined towards concepts and less interested in applications. And since we were taught
structural analysis (and many other topics) in at a dominantly conceptual level, we find it difficult to
accept that this is not the best way to do it. The teachers need to be taught.
Actions needed to move towards a more balanced learning approach include:
We need to agree that a new balance is needed.
Suitable textbooks and source material need to be made available.
Sharing of learning information via the Internet needs to be promoted.
Support is needed from practice in supplying examples and insights.

References
MacLeod I A (1995) A Strategy for the Use of Computers in Structural Engineering The Structural
Engineer Vol 73 No 21/7 November, London
IStructE (2002), The Use of Computers for Engineering Calculations ISBN 0 901297 20 8, The
Institution of Structural Engineers, London
NAFEMS (1987) A Finite Element Analysis Primer, ISBN 0 903640 17 1, NAFEMS, Glasgow