Opinion Planning

Understanding
application
structural
procedures
behaviour

Viewpoint

Structural behaviour
revisited: who will take up
the education challenge?
David Brohn laments the level of understanding of structural behaviour among civil engineering
graduates and calls on universities to address the issue in their teaching.

Introduction before computers, academics could developing in students? What should the new
In the 1970s, I published several papers on reasonably focus their efforts on formal educational paradigm be?
diagnostic testing of the conceptual methods of structural analysis because such This is an example of a general issue with a
understanding of structural behaviour of skills were required in the design office. But if paradigm shift, as the originator of this term
engineering graduates1–4 based on testing Arup nearly all computational analysis and, in the discusses6: when old certainties disappear, how
graduates. The Arup Partnership sponsored the immediate future, nearly all structural design in best should we proceed until a compelling new
development of a two-day training course, steel and reinforced concrete for conventional framework appears?
‘Understanding Structural Behaviour’, to address structures is carried out by computer, what In 2009, the Institution of Structural Engineers
this deficiency. are the skills that the academic should be addressed this educational issue and recognised
I also wrote a textbook5 which demonstrated
how qualitative understanding of structural
behaviour could be applied to conventional topics TABLE 1: Selection of Brohn test results
in structural analysis. This approach is unlike most
other published texts or books in that it takes the Ref. Course date Client No. of delegates Test score (%)
qualitative and intuitive understanding of structural
1 May 09 7 31
behaviour as the priority.
2 Dec 12 23 23
The paradigm shift in structural 3  Nov 13 17 22
engineering
4  Dec 14 20 17
In the early 1990s, there was a paradigm shift
from hand-based to computer-based calculations. 5 Mar 16 9 30
When the first reliable version of Windows 3.1 was 6 Jan 17 20 35
made available, software developers could see
7 Mar 17 IStructE 18 20
that the adoption of that system gave them a
reliable, worldwide platform. The commercial 8 Mar 19 IStructE 16 24
development of inexpensive desktop computers 9 Nov 20 9 19
also encouraged the development of a wide range
10 Dec 20 23 25
of software for the structural engineer, and in a
period of about 15 years, every engineer with 11 Dec 20 IStructE (Zoom) 20 18
access to a computer presumably became the 12 Mar 21 23 20
‘world’s greatest analyst’.
13 May 21 IStructE (Zoom) 13 23
In the case of teaching structural analysis,

íFIGURE 1: Examples of
incorrect solutions

34
September 2021 | thestructuralengineer.org
 Understanding structural behaviour Opinion

íFIGURE 2: Examples of
solutions given to questions on
statically determinate cantilevers

that the deficiency in an understanding of leaders in structural design. It is likely that the lower TABLE 2: Brohn test results,
structural behaviour was of such importance that it scores in the Zoom courses reflect the lack of December 2020
was decided to set up a committee, with Dr office contact for many newly graduated
Graham Owens, Past-President of the Institution, employees. This shows a continuing decline in an Delegate Date of Score
to implement the outcomes7. Its key objective was understanding of structural behaviour. no. graduation (%)
‘to improve understanding of structural behaviour Since the test is scored in binary (no partial
1 2011 11
at the undergraduate level’. The output has been a credit), it might be speculated that many solutions
series of Essential Knowledge Texts and an annual were close to being correct, but not exactly 2 2015 0
Academics Conference. correct. However, the reality is that many 3  2018 17
Their support for this approach is confirmed by delegates have very limited ability to even relate
4 2012 22
the Institution’s own Certificate in Structural the deflected shape to the bending moment
Behaviour8. Successful candidates report that this diagram, which shows a fundamental lack of 5 2017 33
is now sought by employers. understanding. 6 2017 50
However, this certificate has the obvious For example, the test results in Table 2 are from
7 2018 50
weakness that it tests only one part of the Brohn December 2020, and the 23 delegates are
three-part solution. There is no evidence that, say, employed by one of the world’s leading structural 8 2019 0
recognising the correct deflected shape means consultants, based in the UK (not Arup). This 9 2017 72
that candidates could solve the other parts group attended the course by Zoom. Their
10 2018 61
correctly. performance is discussed below.
The delegates had attended leading universities 11 2019 33
‘Brohn test’ results in the UK: Imperial College London, Glasgow, 12 2015 28
At the start of the two-day ‘Understanding Bristol, Sheffield, Bath, Nottingham, Cardiff, City,
Structural Behaviour’ course, the delegates are Cambridge, Surrey, UCL, Edinburgh, Leeds and 13 2014 33
given a test, with each item depicting a beam or Manchester. 14 2003 0
frame structure with a given loading configuration, 15 2019 11
and asked to sketch the shape of the moment What conclusions can we derive
diagram. In the early years of giving the test, the from the test results? 16 2012 17
mean score was about 35%, but today a similar The mean score of this group was 25%, with a 17 2017 50
group would usually not even achieve 25%. This widely varying range of 0% to 72%. The errors are
18 2018 22
worsening performance must be attributed to the often gross and reflect a poor understanding of
way in which this skill is taught in nearly all structural behaviour (Figure 1). 19 2018 0
universities. Included in the test from its initiation are two 20 2018 11
Table 1 shows a selection of results from groups ‘bankers’, statically determinate cantilevers.
21 2014 11
for which we hold the full results of the Brohn test. Surprisingly, on average 50% of the delegates
All clients, apart from one, are internally recognised produce an incorrect solution (Figure 2). 22 2015 11
23 2014 50

èFIGURE 3:
Attempts to
identify
mechanism

35
thestructuralengineer.org | September 2021
Opinion Understanding structural behaviour

íFIGURE 4: Even
best-performing students are
confused by deflected shape
and mechanisms

36
September 2021 | thestructuralengineer.org
 Understanding structural behaviour Opinion

êFIGURE 5: Solution
demonstrating Brohn
method
The identification of a mechanism seems to predictable process.
be very confused (Figure 3). Solving the Brohn test items does not have
The highest score demonstrates a a predictable sequence; the thinking required
consistent understanding of structural is circular and there is nothing to memorise.
behaviour, but there is still the confusion over The correct solution will only be determined if
the deflected shape, item 8 and the the student has a sound understanding of
mechanisms, items 10 and 15 (Figure 4). structural behaviour, and that requires
Only one delegate demonstrated the Brohn practice. The difficulty for the academic is
method, which consists of the deflected that practice and competence do not fit well
shape, reactions and bending moment into the course programme; the emphasis on
diagram, as the solution sequence (Figure 5). memorising solutions is quickly learned by
This poor performance is typical of tests the student as a reliable way of passing the
conducted over the last few years. Although examination.
the sample of all graduates is small, they have Feedback from one delegate, when asked
generally attended the best universities. This if he had studied the topic at university, was
confirms that the failure to teach a sound that they were taught to memorise a range of
understanding of structural behaviour lies with deflected shapes until he got totally bored!
those teaching the subject of structural I appreciate that this is a difficult and
analysis. sensitive issue, but I have the experience of
being an external examiner for a university. It
The narrative was an unusual department in that it had
An understanding of structural behaviour is decided to appoint only experienced
crucial at key stages in the development of the engineers to teach the structural subjects, in
final structural solution: particular Structural Analysis. But in checking
| creating the structure in collaboration with the final year examination in this subject, the
the architect and client scope of the paper was identical to a paper I
| modelling the real structure to create the had set 30 years previously at Bristol
engineering model Polytechnic: strain energy, virtual work,
| checking the computer output. flexibility, stiffness, collapse mechanisms, etc.

But if the average graduate is unable to The way forward

solve these Brohn test structures with To confirm some of the points raised above, I
confidence, it is inconceivable that they will be asked the delegates to comment on the
able to understand more complex systems scope of the teaching in the subject of
which would test the validity of the design structural analysis. Figures 6 and 7 present
decisions. This means that they use the the responses to the questionnaire.
computer as an alternative to understanding In occasional discussions I have had with
the behaviour. academic colleagues, the justification for
teaching topics that that have no practical
Why can well-qualified graduates relevance in the modern design office is that
from leading universities not solve undergraduates need to ‘know the
these problems? fundamentals’. But if those fundamentals do
The most obvious answer is that they are not not provide the skill required to draw the
taught to solve them. Feedback from the bending moment on a loaded cantilever, then
course delegates suggests that the approach that explanation is not working out very well.
was dealt with in the early years of their Perhaps this old saw is relevant: ‘It is
undergraduate studies and not mentioned easier to move a graveyard than change a
again. syllabus’.
The committee7 formed by the Institution to On the training course, in the practice
focus on this skill did not achieve that objective problems, the greatest difficulty the delegates
and the subject was relegated to one of many experience is getting stuck in the solution,
Essential Knowledge Texts9. A once-in-a- when the error would be seen by inspecting
generation opportunity was lost. another part of the solution.
But it is a problem for the academic; the But there is another possible explanation.
syllabus in structures is already overloaded and It is now generally agreed that the brain
without clear guidance from, say, the Institution hemispheres have different activities
or the Joint Board of Moderators, identifying one associated with them: the left hemisphere
method as being crucially important is difficult. addresses analytical thinking while the right
But there is a more significant issue in addresses spatial and graphical thinking.
teaching the Brohn method. Typically, topics in There are innumerable sources for this
structural analysis result in an algorithm and, discussion since the work of Sperry and
provided that the input data is appropriate, the Gazzaniga in the 1960s which led to Sperry
results will be correct. That is a linear, winning the Nobel prize.

37
thestructuralengineer.org | September 2021
Opinion Understanding structural behaviour

îFIGURE 6: Student íFIGURE 7: Student

assessment of teaching of assessment of direct value
topics on undergraduate of topics in design office
courses

îFIGURE 8: Plastic strips

help students visualise
deflected shapes

It is most notable on the training courses that

the delegates have great difficulty in visualising
the deflected shapes, but this is helped by
providing them with plastic strips so that they
can ‘feel’ the effect of the load and see the
deflected shape (Figure 8).
But this is why the taught course is so well
supported by leading consultants in their
postgraduate training programmes; that circular
thinking matches the design process.
The issue is this: without a sound, practised
and reliable understanding of structural
behaviour, the young graduate will become the
servant of the computer and not its master. Isn’t
it time our teaching institutions took up this
challenge?

 David Brohn
PhD, CEng, FIStructE
REFERENCES
David Brohn of New Paradigm Solutions Ltd is
a leading figure in the development of an
1) Brohn D.M. (1973) ‘A Test of Structural 5) Brohn D.M. (1984) Understanding Structural
understanding of structural behaviour. His
Understanding’, Concrete Objectives for Analysis, London: Granada
training courses have been given to the UK’s Education Conference, Cement and Concrete
leading consultants and his textbook, 6) Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific
Association, Slough, December
Revolutions, Chicago, IL and London:
Understanding structural analysis, is now
2) Brohn D.M. (1976) ‘The assessment of University of Chicago Press
recommended by many universities. graduate skills in the discipline of structural
Find out more about David’s training courses 7) Owens G. (2011) ‘Transforming
engineering’, Assessment in Higher
undergraduate structural engineering
at www.etrainingsystems.biz. Education, 1 (2), pp. 69–85; https://doi.
education in the 21st century’, The Structural
org/10.1080/0260293760010205
Engineer, 89 (2), pp. 18–20
3) Brohn D.M. and Cowan J. (1977) ‘Teaching
HAVE towards an improved understanding of
8) Institution of Structural Engineers (s.d.)
YOUR structural behaviour’, The Structural Engineer,
Certificate in Structural Behaviour [Online]
SAY 55 (1), pp. 9–17
Available at: www.istructe.org/training-and-
[email protected] development/qualifications/certificate-in-
4) Brohn D.M. and Cowan J. (1977) structural-behaviour/ (Accessed: August 2021)
‘Discussion on “Teaching towards an improved
9) Bather M. and Bullman P. (2016) Essential
understanding of structural behaviour”’, The
Knowledge Text No.10 Structural form:
Structural Engineer, 55 (11), pp. 496–515
@IStructE Introduction to behaviour, selection and
#TheStructuralEngineer #TheStructuralEngineer analysis, London: IStructE Ltd

38
September 2021 | thestructuralengineer.org