See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285888108

Structural Engineering is Much More than Formulas: Introducing a New

Course on Philosophy of Structures

Article in IABSE Symposium Report · September 2014

DOI: 10.2749/222137814814067149

CITATION READS

1 2,037

2 authors, including:

Ignacio Payá-Zaforteza
Universitat Politècnica de València
94 PUBLICATIONS 1,254 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD José Alós Moya - Analysis of bridge failure due to fire. Methodology, reduced-scale outdoor tests and validation. View project

PhD Thesis - Análisis de la respuesta frente al fuego de puentes metálicos multijácena View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ignacio Payá-Zaforteza on 19 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Please, cite this paper as:

Payá-Zaforteza, I., Lázaro-Fernández, C. Structural engineering is much

more than formulas: Introducing a new course on philosophy of
structures. (2014) Report of the IABSE Symposium Madrid
2014 Engineering for Progress, Nature and People, pp. 945-952.
 Structural Engineering is Much More than Formulas: Introducing a New
Course on Philosophy of Structures

Dr Ignacio PAYÁ- Dr Carlos LÁZARO-

ZAFORTEZA FERNÁNDEZ
Civil Engineer, Associate Civil Engineer, Associate
Professor Professor
ICITECH, Depto. Ing. Depto. Mecánica Medios
Construcción, Universitat Continuos, Universitat
Politècnica de València, Politècnica de València,
Valencia, Spain Valencia, Spain
igpaza@cst.upv.es carlafer@mes.upv.es

Summary
This paper presents the objectives, contents and teaching methodologies used in a new course on
Philosophy of Structures developed at the School of Civil Engineering of the Universitat Politècnica
de Valencia in Spain. The course combines the analysis of engineers’ writings, selected case studies,
visual analysis of structures, graphic statics and field trips with the writing of a paper about a
particular structure. In their paper, the students must comment on the technical data of the structure
and on its authors, but they also have to delve into the links between structure, society, aesthetics
and architecture. Results show that the course develops students’ structural intuition and creativity
and fosters a passion for engineering.
Keywords: Philosophy of Structures, structural criticism, Structural Art, graphic statics, education,
creativity, field trips, Construction History.

1. Introduction
In 1957 Eduardo Torroja published the book “Razón y Ser de los Tipos Estructurales” [1]
(translated to English as “Philosophy of structures”). Its main goal was to explain how to choose the
more adequate and economical structural system to solve a construction problem considering that
the construction had to meet some requirements (safety, aesthetics, function...) and had to be built
with the construction materials and techniques available in a certain context. In the first chapter,
Torroja insisted in the idea that structural analysis was a mere tool to check if the forms and
dimensions of a structure were suitable to bear the loads acting on a structure and that the
extraordinary development of structural mechanics during the 19th and 20th centuries had resulted in
not paying the proper attention to the “ontological study” of the structural systems. This was
undesirable because, as Torroja pointed out, any designer who disregards this kind of study might
be “in danger of serious failures”. Torroja explained his ideas on the conceptual design of structures
in a course called “Tipología Estructural” (“Philosophy of structures”) taught at the School of Civil
Engineering of Madrid, at the time the only civil engineering school in Spain.
After Torroja, other authors have also pointed out the importance of simplified analysis methods
and conceptual design in engineering education and practice. For example, the shell designer Félix
Candela wrote “all calculations, no matter how sophisticated and complex, cannot be more than
rough approximations of the natural phenomenon they try to represent” [2] and more recently Mike
Schlaich has explained in detail the role of conceptual and structural design in the education of the
engineer [3]. Other authors have explained how creativity can be a part of the engineers’ education
(Bögle, [4]) or how case studies can be used to develop structural criticism and structural intuition
(Payá-Zaforteza, [5]).
Within this general context, this paper presents the main ideas, teaching methodologies and learning
results behind a new course on philosophy of structures taught by the authors at the Universitat
Politècnica de València (Spain). The course is an elective course within the fourth year of a
bachelor degree in Civil Engineering and was first taught during the academic year 2013-14. Thirty-
one students took the course, four of them coming from foreign countries. All the lectures were in
Spanish. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 explains the main objectives of the course, s
Section 3 details the teaching methodologies whereas Section 4 details the students’ grading and
and Section 5 the course success.

2. Objectives and contents of the course

The main goal of the course is to show the students that structural engineering is a very appealing
topic, a matter beyond formulas which is strongly linked to society and architecture and which can
be learned in a non-traditional way by focusing on the analysis of selected case studies with
simplified methods, by having a firsthand experience of the structures and a direct contact with
designers and contractors.
This general goal can be split up in the following specific objectives:
 To master the basic structural systems: the beam, the cable and the arch.
 To understand the relationship between form and forces in a structure.
 To learn how to perform simple calculations that enable to analyze or design a structure.
 To develop structural criticism.
 To study the links among structural engineering, architecture and society.
 To introduce the student to bibliographic search tools.
 To develop written and oral expression skills as well as to practice the use of scientific
English.
To reach these goals, the course covers the topics shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Topics covered in the course

Teaching unit Content of the teaching unit

Introduction, basic structural systems, engineers and architects, the

1-Introduction
ideals of Structural Art, critical and comparative analysis
Introduction, conceptual design of cable structures, strategies to solve the
2-Cable structures
problems caused in cables by live loads, an introduction to cable nets
Introduction, stone arches, arches with other materials, arches stiffening
3- Arches
systems, an introduction to vaults and shells
4- Beams Introduction, web girders, trusses, vierendeel girders, conclusions
5-Conclusions A quick review of the main findings of the course

3. Teaching methodologies
The course uses a combination of the following teaching methodologies: participative lectures,
text analysis, practical exercises solved by hand and with structural analysis software, field trips and
project based learning. These methodologies are described next.

3.1 Participative lectures

The lectures of the course are very visual and based on the analysis of selected case studies that
enable the student to understand the global behavior of the structural systems studied. The central
idea is that the student develops first his/her structural intuition by observing many case studies and,
only after that, structural analysis comes to scene. By doing so, structures and their components are
not seen as abstract items but as real objects. Lectures also make reference to the relationship
between structural engineering, architecture and society by making reference to case studies such as
those of the Millau Viaduct or Serreria Bridge [5] and by using materials from newspapers and
internet based mass media (see e.g. [6]). Lectures are very participative, i.e., the student is
encouraged to participate by answering many questions posed by the professors during the
development of the lecture.
3.2 Text analysis
The students are required to read J. Sobrino’s paper [7] on the relationship between cost, ethics and
aesthetics in bridge design and answer 17 questions which cover the main topics of the paper.
Questions are divided in three sets and force the students to express their opinions and debate; it is
not a mere question of finding the right answer within the content of Sobrino’s paper.
The activity is carried out according to the following sequence:
(1) Step 1: The students form groups of three people, each student of the group receives a
number: 1, 2 or 3.
(2) Step 2: All the students with the same number form a new group and discuss one of the three
sets of questions. Therefore three “groups of experts” are set.
(3) Step 3: The groups of experts are dissolved and the students move back to their initial
groups. The full set of questions is now discussed within the initial groups of 3 people where
each person came from a different expert group. Each group has an internal debate and
writes his answer to the 17 questions initially proposed.
(4) Step 4: The full class discusses the paper.

3.3 Detailed analysis of selected case studies. Practical exercise

The students are also required to solve using hand calculations and graphic statics different
problems such as defining the proper shape of a bridge spanning a gorge or analyze the form and
obtain the stresses in some of the case studies analyzed in the lectures. Sometimes structural
analysis software is used to check hand calculations as well as to perform a parametric study to gain
a better understanding of the behavior of the structure analyzed. A summary of the proposed
exercises is given next:

3.3.1 Exercise 1: “Design a footbridge in a mountain path to cross a river”

Students are required to design a set of girder footbridges with span lengths of 14 m and 21 m with
different boundary conditions. Then students try first cable supported solutions and then support the
deck with struts placed below the deck (Fig. 1a). They verify the relationship existing between a
cable submitted to a set of forces and an arch under the same set of loads and shaped as the inverted
cable. This exercise is based on Chapter 1 of [8]. Examples of built structures such as J. Conzett’s
Second Traversina Bridge or J. Manterola’s Puente la Reina Bridge (Fig. 1c) are used to support the
exercise as well as to show the importance of the detailing. With this exercise students learn the
basics of graphic statics (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1: Graphical analysis of a footbridge. Solution with main elements in compression: (a) Final
design, (b) Graphical analysis, (c) Reference to a built structure.

3.3.2 Exercise 2: “Design of a footbridge using structural analysis software”

The students introduce the designs produced in Exercise 1 using graphic statics in the software
Metal3D. The software does not have cable elements, so all the structural members are introduced
as bar elements and all the connections between bar elements are defined as rigid joints. When the
loads correspond to hypothesis used to shape the cable, zero bending moments appear in the bars
defining the cables and the cable shape does not suffer appreciable changes. However, when loads
change, the students verify that the cables suffer enormous deformations.

3.3.3 Exercise 3: “Design a cable roof structure”

An initial shape proposed by an imaginary architect for a cable roof spanning 61 m. and a set of
loads and geometric conditions are given to the students (Fig. 2a). Then, they are required to (a)
find the appropriate shape for the cable roof using graphic statics –Figs. 2a and 2b, (b) compare it
with the initial proposal, and (c) check the advantages and drawbacks of different conditions for the
supports that hold the cable roof. At the end of the exercise, the students discover that they have
shaped a roof very similar to Saarinen’s, Ammann’s and Whitney’s design for Dulles Airport (Fig.
2c).

Fig. 2: Graphical analysis of a long span cable roof: (a) and (b)Data and graphical analysis, (c)
Reference to a built structure. Main data for the exercise come from [9]. Source of image (c):
www.flickr.com

3.3.4 Exercise 4: “Design of a reinforced concrete arch bridge”

Given a set of loads, material and geometrical conditions the students are required to design a
reinforced concrete arch bridge with an upper deck and an approximate span of 45 m. Resulting
shapes are compared to those of Reichenau Bridge by C. Menn and to Contreras Bridge by J.
Manterola.

3.3.5 Exercise 5: “Design of a reinforced concrete arch bridge using structural analysis software”
The students solve Exercise 4 using the software Metal 3D and considering the live load acting on
the full deck. Then they verify consequences of (a) placing the live load only on half of the deck, (b)
doubling the deck thinness, and (c) using different types of connections between the deck and the
arch.
3.3.6 Exercise 6: “Design and evolution of Palladio’s Truss Bridge”.
The students obtain the internal forces in the main truss of one of Palladio’s truss bridges (Fig. 3a).
The bridge spans 30,5 m and was analyzed by Billington and Mark [10] using “classical” strength
of materials methods. Then the students modify the initial design to propose trusses of (a) equal
force in the curved chord -Fig. 3b, (b) equal force in the horizontal chord - Fig. 3c, and (c) tension
force in the bottom chord equal to the compression force in the top chord along the full bridge -Fig.
3d. The exercise is supported with examples of built structures.

Fig. 3: Evolution of the Palladio’s Truss Bridge to other bridge shapes obtained with graphic
statics (left) and correspondence of the shapes to built structures (right)

3.3.7 Why to use graphic statics in the 21st century?

In a time dominated by computers, it might seem strange to use graphic statics, a technique
developed in the 19th century. This method is is used as the basic analysis tool by the following
reasons:
 Graphic statics enables to shape an arch, a cable or a truss beam in a very easy and visual
way, without making use of formulas. In a time dominated by the use finite element
software, it is very important that the students learn to design according to the flow of forces
and reflect about the meaning of terms such as “proper form” or “funicular form”.
 Many of the best Structural Artists of the past such as Maillart or Torroja used graphic
statics as a basic tool to design their structures. Using graphic statics provides an excuse to
talk about these big names and their works what increases the students’ motivation because
they realize they are using the same tools used by their most acclaimed predecessors.
 Graphic statics analysis can be performed with very cheap tools (the cost of the required
rulers is below five Euros!). It is also important that the students become aware of the power
of these cheap tools.
  Graphical static methods are self-corrective. That means that the students immediately know
if their solution is correct because, e.g., the force polygon should close. This fact also
increases the students’ motivation.
 There are two excellent books published (Forms and forces” [8] and “Shaping Structures”
[9]) which deal with the application of graphic statics to many structural systems and
contain abundant references to built structures. These books are accessible to the students
and constitute an outstanding companion material for the course.

3.4 Project based learning: making a field trip and writing a scientific and technical paper
Finally, and as a part of their evaluation, the students must write a paper about a particular structure
and its designer. The paper has the structure of a scientific-technical paper and contains the
following items:
 Table of technical data: name of the structure, designer (engineer and architect), contractor,
cost, structural system, period of construction, materials.
 Introduction describing the general context of the work and presenting its designer.
 Explanation of the conceptual design and the analysis carried out by the designer.
 Description of the construction process.
 Structural analysis performed by the students. The students are required to use graphic
statics to check the overall behavior of the structure or to develop an alternative to the built
design. Fig. 4a contains a design developed by the students to cover the grandstands of La
Zarzuela Racecourse (designed in 1935 by Eduardo Torroja) whereas Fig. 4b shows an
example where the students obtained the overall shape of the main cables of a suspension
footbridge designed by Leonardo Fernández Troyano in Madrid.

Fig. 4: (a) Alternative design proposed by the students F. Blasco and A. Ciurana for the roof of La
Zarzuela Racecourse, (b) Footbridge over the R-3 highway: shape of the built structure (blue and
black) and shape of the main cable obtained by the student C. Marion using graphic statics (red).
 Assessment of the structure from the point of view of Structural Art. Here the students are
encouraged to criticize the structure from the point of view of its efficiency, economy, value
and elegance. The students are told that the theory of Structural Art is just a possible
framework to make the criticism but that they can use any framework they want.
 Conclusions, references and acknowledgements.
A paper [11] related to the design of Torroja’s San Nicolas Church is given to the students to guide
their work. The paper is written in English what also contributes to develop technical English skills.
Writing a paper is also a way to make the students work with bibliographic search tools and to
develop their writing skills.
Additionally, a two days field trip is organized. During the field trip the students visit the structures
studied in their papers and meet eminent engineers and contractors. In the academic year 2013-14,
Madrid was the destination of the field trip and the students could visit important structures (e.g. E.
Torroja’s La Zarzuela Racecourse, M. Schlaich’s Palacio de Comunicaciones’ Roof) as well as
Leonardo Fernández-Troyano from the company Carlos Fernández Casado S.L. and José Emilio
Herrero, chief of the bridges department at the construction company Ferrovial. The students must
prepare a draft of their papers before the trip, they present the structure when it is visited and, after
the trip, they submit a first version of the paper to the professors. The professors review the papers
and send them back to the students with comments. The students must revise their papers according
to the comments received and submit a final version. Therefore, the process is very similar to the
process followed in peer-reviewed journal or conference papers.

Fig. 5: (a) Participants in the field trip with L. Fernández Troyano at Carlos Fernández Casado S.L.
Picture by R. Piñol. (b) Students explain the grandstands of La Zarzuela Racecourse.

4. Grading
Students’ final mark depends on two components:
(1) An exam where they have to (a) comment a text written by an engineer or an architect, (b)
describe the conceptual design of a structure and criticize it, and (c) find the shape and/or
forces in a structure using graphic statics. This part provides 40% of the final grade.
(2) The grade their paper gets after all the review process. This part provides 60% of the final
grade.
Students pass the course if their final grade is above 5 points (out of 10). A minimum mark of 4 is
required to average the marks of the exam and the paper.

5. Overall evaluation of the course success

As the course was offered by the first time in the Fall term of the academic year 2013-14 and the
students polls are not available at the time of writing this paper, it is not possible to assess the
course based on the polls answers. However, several facts prove the success of the course:
(1) 87% of the students passed the course and the average grade of the students who passed the
course was 7,9 points out of 10.
(2) The students transmitted made very good personal comments to the professors during the
course. For example, one of them wrote “I am very glad to have chosen the course. I learned,
I had fun and I got very good results! What more could I ask for!”
(3) The field trip was very successful and plays an important role in the overall success of the
course. The trip was not compulsory, but 30 out of the 31 students registered for the course
 attended it. A survey was passed to the attendees and its results showed that the students
considered that the trip: (a) was very valuable for their engineering education, (b) helped
them to develop structural intuition and creativity and (c) improved their view about
structural engineering because they had a very joyful learning experience and they could see,
touch and feel the structures they had previously studied!

6. Conclusions
This paper presents a new course on Philosophy of Structures, a key discipline pioneered by the
eminent engineer Eduardo Torroja in the 1950s. The course combines several teaching
methodologies to make the students reflect on the technical aspects of structural engineering, but
also on the authors of the structures and the links between structure, society, aesthetics and
architecture. Results show that the course develops students’ structural intuition and creativity and
serves to foster a passion for engineering.

7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the School of Civil Engineering (Escuela Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos) of the UPV and its dean, Vicent Esteban, for the support
that made the field trip possible. They also want to thank Carlos Polo from Hipódromo de La
Zarzuela, Leonardo Fernández-Troyano and Lucía Fernández from the company Carlos Fernández
Casado S.L. and José Emilio Herrero from the company Ferrovial S.A. for hosting the group of
participants the field trip. Students are the key component of the course and their work, engagement
and permission to use their materials is also thanked. This work also got support from the Spanish
Ministry of Science and Innovation (Research Project BIA 2011-27104).

8. References
[1] TORROJA E., Razón y Ser de los Tipos Estructurales, Madrid, 1957, p. 391.
[2] CANDELA F. “New Architecture”, in Maillart Papers, Department of Civil and
Environmental Enginnering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (USA), 1972.
[3] SCHLAICH M., “Challenges in Education – Conceptual and Structural Design”,
Proceedings of the 15th IABSE Symposium, Budapest, September 2006.
[4] BÖGLE A. “Creative Designing - Teaching the Impossible?”, Proc. of the 17th Symposium
of IABSE, Chicago, USA, September 2008.
[5] PAYÁ-ZAFORTEZA I. “On the Development of Structural Criticism through Case Studies”.
Proc. of the IABSE Symposium, Venice, Italy, September 2010, p. 16-23.
[6] GIOVANNINI J. “Millau Viaduct. A Concrete Ribbon Through the Clouds”, The Wall Street
Journal, May 10, 2013. On line edition, accessed on 27/02/2014.
[7] SOBRINO J. “A Bridge is More Than a Bridge: Aesthetics, Cost and Ethics in Bridge
Design”, Structural Engineering International, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2013, pp. 340-345.
[8] ALLEN E., ZALEWSKI W. , Form and forces: designing efficient, expressive structures,
John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[9] ZALEWSKI W., ALLEN E., IANO J., Shaping Structures: statics, John Wiley & Sons,
1998.
[10] BILLINGTON D.P., MARK R. CEE-262. Structures and the Urban Environment.
Structural Studies, Princeton, 2004.
[11] NUÑEZ-COLLADO G., GARZÓN-ROCA J., PAYA-ZAFORTEZA I., ADAM J.M. The
San Nicolas Church in Gandia (Spain) or how Eduardo Torroja devised a new, innovative
and sustainable structural system for long-span roofs”. Eng. Structures 56:1893–1904, 2013.

View publication stats