External Review Whitehead ISU 17

Promotion & Tenure

EXTERNAL REVIEW DOSSIER

R ob Whi t ehea d , A IA Assistant Professor Dept. of Architecture Iowa State University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY PRS CV SCHOLARSHIP TEACHING EXTENSION RESEARCH FUTURE

R ob Whi t ehea d , A IA Assistant Professor Dept. of Architecture Iowa State University

SCHOLARSHIP SUMMARY The fundamental premise of my work is the belief that architectural richness comes from a creative and scrupulous attention to structural principles, not in spite of them.

When designers learn to appreciate, understand, and apply these principles, it enriches their ability to generate thoughtful, innovative, and technically proficient solutions to vexing problems.

Accordingly, my scholarship has focused on improving how architects create effective, efficient, and experientially rich structural designs. I study the challenges of designing and constructing innovative and expressive architectural structures in an attempt to understand how they work (or don’t) and I develop ways to convey these formative lessons in support of future design efforts. My work learns from productive

failures in historical precedents, engages in design-build experiments, and seeks to expand the traditional realm of structural design tools to better align with contemporary technical, practical, social, and cultural conditions.

My work is broadly within the domain of building sciences and architecture, but it has manifest itself as three inter-connected aspects of the structural design and construction process: Think: Structural Design Pedagogy for Architects Make: Structures in Service (Design / Build) Break: History of Formative Failures & Innovations The content of this scholarship reflects my efforts to merge my teaching, research, and extension activities together

3

in correspondence with my responsibilities and goals set forth in my PRS. The results of these inquiries have been shared with other contributors in my field at national and international settings in forms that align with these topics including: textbooks, built-works, peer-reviewed publications and presentations. Some of these efforts have received recognition for distinction at state and national levels.

Summaries outlining the content and contributions for each foci are included on the following pages and graphically represented in the following map of scholarly activities and in the SCHOLARSHIP, TEACHING, EXTENSION, and RESEARCH sections that follow. The work is on-going so I’ve included summaries of future scholarly goals for each topic.

BOOKS

BTES: EMERG. EDUC.

ACSA: CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT

USGBC*

PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS REVIEW ER / POSTER PROJECTS

OUTREACH: STRUCTURES IN SERVICE, DESIGN BUILD ACTIVITIES

AIA IOWA EDUC. AWARD

DSN INTELL. MAGAZINE

ISU: MILLER TEXTBOOK: DESIGN TECH* 2nd Ed.

NCARB*

ACSA*

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY: STRUCTURAL INNOVATIONS & FAILURES

SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING LEARNING: STRUCTURAL DESIGN PEDAGOGY

AWARDS

MAP OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES

TEXTBOOK: STP: THINK, MAKE, + BREAK

ISU: STONE ISU: SOTL

J. PER

BTES

ARCH ENG. INST.

NCBDS

AIA

CONSTR. ENVIRON.

ACSA

ACSA

STR. ENG. INSTIT.

CONSTR. HISTORY SOCIETY

ACSA

ACSA

ACSA-R

INT’L. ASSC. SP. SHELLS

INT’L. CONSTR. HISTORY

ACSA

ARCH ENG. INST.

NCBDS*

INT’L. ASSC. SP. SHELLS

NCBDS

CONSTR. HISTORY NCARB*

JCEA:R

BTES

AIA IA.

CELT-ISU

FIGGE

ACADIA

T&F: BOOK R.

CATH.U JPER: R

AEI: R+M

BTES: R+M PBS AIA IA.

BTES: CONF.

THESIS: SEISMIC CLAD* NCBDS: R+M

BTES: R+M

SUNY: R

IUCA+D

DSM PAVIL.

2008-11

CELT-ISU

NCBDS

2012

ONCEBUILT SHELTER

SUNBR. SHELTER

STRUCT. + SERVICE

S.C.C. PAVILION

S.C.C. DOCKS

DMSC STAGE*

URB. PAVILION*

2015

2016

2013

Pre-Tenure Ap p o int ment

2014

TENT FLOOR PATENT* STR + SERVICE

2017 * = collaborative

4

THINK: STRUCTURAL DESIGN PEDAGOGY Effectively teaching structural design to architecture students is an important, but complicated endeavor.

The predominant pedagogical model—one that has remained fundamentally unchanged in some schools for decades—frequently reinforces the idea that design and technology are divergent considerations by the nature of classroom activities, teaching methods, and lack of curricular connections to other courses.

These silo-based pedagogical conditions have historically had negative effects on student preparedness by creating deficiencies in applicable technical knowledge that have been regularly listed atop the complaints from practitioners and recently graduated students alike in recent National Council for Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) annual Practice Analysis of Architec-

ture reports. I knew from my 15 years of experience as a practicing architect that this condition was an unwelcome reality for recent graduates and set out to determine if new teaching models based on educational research, contemporary tools of practice, and/or modified course activities could improve these conditions.

In my scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), I’ve looked at ways to improve and implement changes to a structural design pedagogy at both the curricular level and within the classroom.

My published research has shown the value of integrating design-based (and project-based) learning activities and the efficacy of student learning and retention when haptic-based learning exercises are incorporated into classroom activities. Both strategies allow students to develop an ability to visualize, document, or otherwise

5

“feel” how forces affect the behavior of different structural proposals. I’ve designed, developed, and implemented a new five-course structural design sequence (known as Structural Technology in Practice (STP)) as part of my contribution to an overall curricular-wide redesign of our integrated building technology sequence at Iowa State’s Department of Architecture.

This work was recognized with university-level funded fellowships (SoTL Scholars & Miller Faculty Fellowship), my appointment to the ISU Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CELT) board, an NCARB Grant (with P.I., Tom Leslie) in 2009 (pre-tenure-track appointment), and an ASCA Creative Achievement award in 2013.

The ACSA jury comments described the course as: “…exemplary for its strength, integration, and accessibility

THINK: STRUCTURAL DESIGN PEDAGOGY to students..This program truly engages students and offers exposure to a set of valuable learning experiences.”

My scholarly contributions to this field have been regularly shared as peer-reviewed conference papers, workshops, and panel discussions with educators and practitioners in both architectural and engineering fields (e.g., ACSA, BTES, AEI, SEI, NCBDS, etc.).

As a result of these presentations, I’ve regularly been asked to share the results of this work with faculty at peer institutions that are interested in creating (or improving) an integrated building technology sequence (including Univ. of Utah, Univ. of Manitoba, Temple Univ., Texas Tech Univ., Mississippi State Univ., Dunwoody Architecture, etc.) and to share specific course assignments for structural labs (including Univ. of Illinois-Champ., Cal Poly, Univ. of Tennessee, Univ. Texas at Austin, UNC

Charlotte, etc.).

I’ve received awards of distinction for teaching including the 2011 Building Technology Educator’s Society Emerging Faculty Award (pretenure appointment), the AIA Iowa Educator Award, and recognition in Design Intelligence magazine, as one of the “30 Most Admired Educators for 2015.” The publication stated: “Whitehead’s ability to teach complicated information clearly as well as inspire design ideas through his lectures is admirable. He is open-minded, thinking outside of the box in a logical way, and encourages his students to do so as well.”

In 2014, Profs. T. Leslie, J. Alread, and I authored the 2nd edition of the textbook, “Design-Tech: Building Science for Architects,” published by Routledge. I was responsible for re-writing and re-illustrating Chapters 20-

6

cont’d.

28, in the Part 5: Structural Design portion of the book (40,000 words + 100 new illustrations).

FUTURE / ON-GOING: I’m currently under contract with Routledge as the author for a new textbook, “Structural Technology in Practice: Think, Make, + Break,” that features the content of the coursework that I’ve developed at ISU. These chapters will focus on to learn critical lessons about structural behavior through the use of various design and evaluation tools applied to project-based exercises. The manuscript is scheduled to be completed by September 2017. One referee described the book proposal as: “I find this book proposal to be an important and good addition to the literature within the subject area. It offers something that is rarely found.”

MAKE: STRUCTURES IN SERVICE One of the conclusions from my practice experience and research into structural design pedagogy was the necessary connection between “thinking and making.” Whenever a design-build activity occurs in a classroom, a unique set of impactful lessons becomes possible. By translating ideas from the relative abstraction of diagrams and calculations into three-dimensional models, physical prototypes, and/or digital simulations as part of the classroom activities, new lessons about forces, materials, form, and constructability are more easily accessible and more opportunities for collaborations across disciplines become evident.

Because ISU is one of the original Morrill Act landgrant institutes, outreach/ extension activities are integrated into our work.

I’ve involved students in these extension activities through two design-build course activities: Structures in

Service / Design for Disaster Relief, an option studio that explores the relationships between structural design, construction, and care in disaster relief, recovery, or rebuilding scenarios with an emphasis on full-scale prototypes, and the Service Learning/Design-Build courses for first-year graduate students (various projects for local non-profits and municipalities).

My scholarly contributions to this field have been regularly shared as peer-reviewed conference papers about these design-build activities (e.g., ACSA and NCBDS, etc.), by serving as a peer-reviewer and moderator for a design-build themed educator conference (NCBDS 2016), and as a book referee for a similarly themed proposal (Routledge). I’ve overseen three independentstudy design-build projects for disaster relief: one (pretenure appointment) was an honored finalist in the 2010 International RIBA Design

Competition, another project was accepted as a poster for the 2013 ACADIA conference, and another was recently submitted to the international Sunbrella competition.

FUTURE / ON-GOING: I am currently pursuing a patent with the Iowa State Research Foundation for a prototype that was developed in my 2017 disaster-relief course. This group will be submitting this proposal to the Fuller Challenge design competition in 2018. I plan on applying for grants and awards to help fund the development of future similar prototypes and expanding my realm of collaborators to multidisciplinary fields. I will look for options to exhibit this work in forums for designers and humanitarian organizations. Ultimately the goal is to develop certain projects to production and to present the work to the UNHCR, FEMA and relevant NGOs

BREAK: HISTORY & FORMATIVE FAILURES This third component of my scholarship is based on the dual premise that testing (or “breaking”) is an essential conclusion of “thinking and making” process and that “failure” can be productive and instructive. Evaluations can reveal more than just compliance—they generate new information that can be used to improve future proposals and as such, they are an essential stage of design. My research looks at ways designers can learn to fail productively.

As Bill Addis describes in “3000 Years of Design, Engineering, and Construction,” for centuries, designers had endured the threat of unpredictability and potential failures in structural design and so new design tools, materials, manufacturing methods, and construction processes were developed to help create and evaluate this work in

attempts to improve it. The emergence of a contemporary engineering profession was distinguished by its ability to apply the rigor of scientific method to this testing and innovation. Because this theme is so central to the historical development of the profession, this component of my research is fundamentally based on historic casestudies and precedents.

The particular subjects of my work are the long-span structural forms produced by mid-20th century architects / engineer / builder collaborations using pre-computational design and analysis tools; Eero Saarinen’s late career work with his engineers has been a frequent topic.

Looking at the structural behavior and construction challenges of these formative innovative projects, including their severe complications

8

and near collapses, serves as a microcosm to understand larger technological, practical, and cultural challenges in building practice. This work also reveals insight into the types of tools that are developed for contemporary practice, their limitations, and how they evolve.

My s ch ol a rl y c ontri b uti ons to this f i el d ha v e b een regula rl y s ha red a s p eerreview ed c onf erenc e paper s w i th ed uc a tors , his tori a ns , a nd p ra c ti ti oners in both a rc hi tec tura l a nd engine eri ng f i el d s i nc l ud i ng the Interna ti ona l C ong res s f or C o ns truc ti on Hi s tory (IC C H), the C ons truc ti on His tor y Soc i ety of A meri c a (C HSA ), a nd the Interna ti ona l A s s oc i a ti on f or Shel l a nd Spatia l Struc tures (IA SS), his tori c s truc tures w ork i ng group (W G-17).

BREAK: HISTORY & FORMATIVE FAILURES One part of this work was published in the Preservation, Education & Research Journal (pre-tenure track appointment).

As a result of these publications, I was asked to share my research information with Peter Rosen, the director of the recently-aired PBS documentary, “Eero Saarinen: The Architect Who Saw the Future,” and I was invited to evaluate and contribute to an upcoming exhibit at Drake University (with art history professor Maura Lyons). Currently, I am writing a submission for the Technology and Design (TAD) journal fall submission on the use of physical models for form-finding and behavioral confirmation and an abstract for the 2018 ICCH conference on Eero Saarinen’s primary engineering collaborators.

FUTURE / ON-GOING: I plan on submitting a paper to the Construction History Journal related to Buckminster Fuller and Frei Otto’s late career efforts to apply structural principles towards humanitarian efforts of

cont’d.

shelter and enclosure. Not all of their proposals were successful or viable but their work led to interesting innovations in design and fabrication. Although the research is still in its early stages, the synergy between this topic and my design/ build experimentations is an important benefit.

I have two potential book projects. First, I have a book proposal to Routledge currently on hold, called “Past the Breaking Point: For mative Failures in Building Design,” with coauthor Marci Uihlein. This work summarizes a great deal of work I’ve already completed I’m hopeful to revive it when my current book project is completed.

The other potential book project is a look at Eero Saarinen’s design partnerships with engineers (specifically Boyd Anderson and Fred Severud). The work is preliminarily entitled, “Eero’s Engineers” based on my years of ongoing research.

9

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRS

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

10

Architecture 146 College of Design Ames, Iowa 50011-3093 515 294-4717 515 294-1440 (Fax)

15 July 2013

Position Responsibility Statement Faculty Name and Title:

Robert Whitehead, Assistant Professor

Note: In accordance with the Faculty Handbook section 5.1.1.5, all faculty members are to have a Position Responsi-

bility Statement (PRS). While it is an elaboration of the letter of intent with respect to duties, “The position responsibility statement description itself should be general and only include the significant responsibilities of the faculty member that are important in evaluating faculty accomplishments in the promotion and tenure process for tenureeligible/tenured faculty or for advancement for non-tenure-eligible faculty.” (§ 5.1.1.5) The PRS is the benchmark document often used in additional diverse evaluation processes, e.g., annual performance, salary adjustments, mid-term and post-tenure reviews, etc.

PRSs for architecture faculty include personalized performance expectations appropriate to appointment and rank. Though listed in more detail than expected in a PRS, typical activities/inclusions in each area are noted in the referenced Faculty Handbook sections. These are further defined in collegiate and program P&T documents available on the college website.

Teaching/Advising (5.2.2.3; 5.3.1.4): Typical teaching responsibilities will be 2+2: one professional studio that may include the Rome program or Option Studios, and one seminar/lecture or equivalent with an ‘Arch’ denominator per semester; typically 18-20 course credit hours per year.

A) Courses will be within your area of scholarship expertise, but you may also be called upon to develop and deliver courses outside the central core of your work to advance the collective curricula of the program.

With your expertise in technology/structures, you will be asked to teach in structures courses or structures units in team taught courses in particular. The Department will support opportunities to develop and deliver an elective course related to structural design and construction. Assignments may include coordinating multi-section studios or other courses and/or collaborative offerings with other programs.

B) Teaching assignments may include team teaching with partial credit hour assignment based upon course and semester share. The credit hours should not extend above 20 credits in a two semester fall-spring academic year.

C) You may also be invited to direct or serve on graduate thesis committees, oversee undergraduate student initiated projects, and/or guide independent studies, pending your approval/acceptance of the invitations, in addition to base teaching assignments.

D) Courses offered during the summer session will be separately negotiated and compensated.

E) Advising: You will have a normal complement of undergraduate advisees, and may be called upon to assist advising graduate students.

Research/Creative Work (5.2.2.4; 5.3.1.4): Broadly this work is intended to contribute to the larger field of knowledge in building practices by exploring the relationship between the design and construction of architectural structures. One form of this research will include case studies that examine how various architectural structures designed and constructed under constrained conditions can result in illustrative innovations, instructive failures, or other significant technical adjustments.

A corresponding realm of pedagogical research will be produced in support of these practice-related research themes that is specifically focused upon structural design coursework for architectural students. The research is intended to advance the field by examining and illustrating effective pedagogical alternatives to traditional curricular content, delivery mechanisms, learning objectives, and assessment/evaluation methodologies. It is anticipated that this pedagogical research will include traditional published research formats PRS: Rob Whitehead; D#1; 12/20/12

1

11

(e.g., case studies, lab reports, etc.) and resulting expressions of creative work (e.g., constructed prototypes, competition entries, etc.).

Extension/Professional Practice (5.2.2.5; 5.3.1.4): Active roles in national and international organizations related to my field of expertise are anticipated. This may include: American Institute of Architects (AIA), Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), Building Technology Educator Society (BTES), Architectural Engineering Institute (AEI), National Conference on Beginning Design Student (NCBDS), Construction History Society (CHS) professional registration boards, National Council for Building Sciences, collegiate education organizations, etc. Anticipated activities might include: paper reviews, conference chair and/or session moderator, invited lecturer and/or advisor at peer-institutions.

Involvement in professional “practice-based� student development organizations (e.g., AIAS,) and servicebased student organizations (e.g., Design Across Boundaries and Architecture for Humanity) is anticipated.

This work may include extension opportunities through the direction of student-based design-build teams.

Scholarship (5.2.2.2; 5.3.1.3): The goal is to produce a body of peer-reviewed scholarship for national and international groups (such as papers, journal articles, book chapters, invited lectures, poster presentations, proceedings, etc.) related to the expressed fields of research. Other forms of scholarship and influence may include the publication of a textbook (or portions of a textbook), national recognition in the form of teaching awards, and/or design awards.

Pursuit of external funding to support research and scholarship is anticipated.

Due to the multi-disciplinary nature of the research goals (structures, sustainability, and construction) coupled with the collaborative integrative cross-disciplinary model of our technology teaching model, it is anticipated that portions of the scholarship would be developed collaboratively with colleagues within, and outside of, the college and the University.

Institutional Service (5.2.2.6; 5.3.1.4): Institutional service will be commensurate with the assistant professor position in accordance with departmental governance document. Service may include invited, assigned and elected positions at the departmental, collegiate and university level.

Robert Whitehead, Assistant Professor

Gregory Palermo, Interim Chair

Date

Date

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRS: Rob Whitehead; D#1; 12/20/12

2

12

CV

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

30

SCHOLARSHIP books awards papers competition posters

note: hyperlinks are provided for access to additional information; click on LINK provided

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

31

TEXTBOOK: “THINK, MAKE, BREAK�

Structural Technology in Practice: Think, Make, + Break ,

Routledge Books (Taylor & Francis).

Under Contract, Manuscript Due Summer 2017.

Sole Author & Primary Illustrator, 100,000 words + 625 images.

Efficient and effective structural designs frequently seek to optimize the relationship between a structural for m, material, and the forces to which it is subjected. This book will demonstrate how the principles of structural design behavior can be directly applied to various architectural solutions. The chapters use a projectbased lear ning for mat to demonstrate different ways that structural designs can be developed, tested, and analyzed from an architectural and structural perspective.

32

TEXTBOOK: “THINK, MAKE, BREAK”

cont’d.

The book will present these practical, creative, and accessible lessons by using a Think, Make, + Break reiterative design process. This process will involve a broad range of design activities including sketching, model making, and model breaking.

This book’s format will be based on the classification of structural systems conjoining form and behavior: Form-Active, Vector-Active, SectionActive, and Surface-Active.

Two additional sections will be added: Introductory Structural Information and Lateral Forces (HeightActive systems) .

LINK TO BOOK PROPOSAL LINK TO SAMPLE CHAPTER

33

TEXTBOOK: DESIGN-TECH DESIGN-TECH: Building Science for Architects, 2nd Edition; Routledge 2014, Authors: Jason Alread, Tom Leslie, & Rob Whitehead CONTRIBUTIONS: Re-wrote, re-illustrated, Part 5: Structural Design, Chapters 20-28,(75,000 words, 110 images).

OVERVIEW: Part 5, Structural Design takes a holistic approach to presenting structures as part of a collective body of knowledge to be understood and integrated with heightened design sensitivity. Information ranges from introductory (Forces & Loads) to advanced (Long Span systems). The information is comprehensive enough to serve as a classroom textbook and a professional reference guidebook.

It covers the general categories of structural concepts, gives examples of calculation-based problems to solve, and summarizes frequently asked questions after every chapter.

LINK TO SAMPLE CHAPTER

34

TEXTBOOK: DESIGN-TECH

Rigid Frame: Section-Resistant

Arch: Form-Resistant

cont’d.

Trussed Arch: Vector-Resistant

Suspension: Form-Resistant

Plane Load

Shells: Surface-Resistant

of Be nding

Causin

g Bend

ing

Membrane: Form & Surface-Resistant

Com

pressio

Reaction

ion

ect

sS

ros fC

o xis

Tens

ion

al A

utr

Ne

Bending Stress on Cross Section

Plane Load

Dome: Surface-Resistant

of Be nding

Causin

g Bend

ing

Pneumatic: Surface-Resistant

Com

pressio

xis

lA tra

of

os Cr

ion

ect

sS

Reaction

u

Ne

Tens

ion Bending Stress on Cross Section

I m ages: St ructu ral Form s & Forces , S p a t i a l E v o l u t i o n o f E l e me n t s, Be a m S h a p e & B e n d i n g

35

n

n

Rob Whitehead

Iowa State University

AWARD: ACSA CREATIVE ACHIEVEMENT Ass oc i at i on C ol l e g i at e Sch ool s of A rc h i t e c t u re ( AC S A ) , C re at i v e A c h i e v e m e n t Aw ard , 2 0 1 3

THINK, MAKE, BREAK + EVALUATE STP: Structural Technology in Practice is one-third of Iowa State University’s new integrated undergraduate building technology course sequence. The courses consist of five separate, sequential semesters of classes, with each semester equally divided into three, five-week modules (structures, environmental systems, and materials & assemblies). By combining all modules together, longer class periods than traditional curricula were possible, offering the opportunity to implement both lecture and labs during the same class—this format provides a unique opportunity to present a diversity of teaching methods, offers students passive and active learning opportunities, and encourages in-depth explorations of each topic.

Ju ro r C o m m e n ts : “ Thi s p ro g ra m i s e x em p l a ry f o r i ts st ren g th , i n te g ra ti o n , a n d a cc e s s i b i l i ty to s tu d e n ts .

Th e c re a ti v e te a c h i n g mo d u l e s f o c u s e s h e a v i l y on physical, hands-on e x p e ri m e n ta ti o n a n d i d e a ti o n , wh i c h p ro m p ts st u d e n ts to c o n n e c t t e c h n i c a l c o u rs e s wi th d e s i g n p ra c ti c e s . T h i s p rog ra m tru l y e n g a g e s st u d e n ts a n d o ff e rs e x p o s u re to a s e t o f va l u a b l e l e a rn i n g e x p e ri e n c e s . ”

The course’s organization, teaching methods, and learning objectives are based off the simple idea that structures should be taught as a design course. The course’s pedagogical theme, Think, Make, Break, + Evaluate is used to demonstrate how structural design could be explored and integrated critically into design projects through a reiterative and experimental process.

ACSA Creative Achievement

The course format rejects the traditional structural pedagogy based primarily on formulae, abstract diagrams, and right/wrong calculationbased assessment. Instead, it presents structural design as an integral part of an architectural exploration. The lecture topics become the basis for design-centric lab “problems” that the students set out to solve—typically through the design and construction of a structural solution. These creations are tested, often to failure as a means of effectively assessing their respective limits of behavior. The performance of the system is evaluated by the students in a set of laboratory reports that often involve descriptions of their design process and final creations alongside technical diagrams, calculations (when possible), and a summary of “lessons learned” about the topic.

At the end of the sequence, students were expected to understand a diverse range structural behavior, develop responsive forms, understand the relationship between materials and constructability and structures, and demonstrate ways that structures can be discussed and designed in a sustainable manner.

LINK TO ACSA AWARD SUBMISSION

Juror Comments: This program is exemplary for its strength, integration, and accessibility to students. The creative teaching modules focuses heavily on physical, hands-on experimentation and ideation, which prompts students to connect technical courses with design practices. This program truly engages students and offers exposure to a set of valuable learning experiences.

47

36

LINK TO AIA IOWA AWARD SUBMISSION

AWARDS: BTES, AIA, DESIGN INTELLIGENCE

Building Technology Educators Society Emerging Faculty Award, 2011

AIA Iowa Chapter: Education Award, 2014

37

Design Intelligence: 30 Most Admired Educators, 2015

ICCH: FORMATIVE FAILURES (SAARINEN) PAP E R : “ F or mat i v e E x pe r i e n c e s : S aar i n e n ’s Shell s an d t h e E v o lu t i on ar y I mp ac t of Co ns t r u c t i on C h al l e n g e s , ” 5 t h In te rn a ti o n a l C o n g re s s o n C o n s tru c ti o n H i s to ry ( 5 I CC H ) , C o n s tru c ti o n Hi st o ry S o c i e ty o f A m e ri c a , Ch i ca g o , J u n e 2 0 1 5 .

LINK TO PAPER

38

IASS: EVOLUTION OF SAARINEN’S SHELLS PAP E R : “ S aar i n e n ’s Shell s : T h e E v ol u t i on of E ngin e e r i n g I n f l u e n c e , ”

International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures + 6th Latin-American Symposium on Tension Structures, (IASS-SLTE 2014), Historical Spatial Structures Working Group (WG 17), Brasilia, Brazil, Sept. 2014.

LINK TO PAPER

39

ACSA: PHYSICAL PROTOTYPES

PAP E R: “ M o del B eha v ior : T h e E v ol v i n g U s e o f P hy sica l P ro t o t y pes i n S t r u c t u r al S h e l l D esign, 1 9 5 9 - 1 9 7 4 , ”

104th Association for Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, March 2016. “Structures and Design” Panel.

LINK TO PAPER

40

CHSA, ACSA, & PER: HISTORIC “FAILURES”

“Saarinen’s Seating and Sculptural Shells: The Enduring Influences of Early Furniture Designs,” Construction History Society of America, CHSA, 5th Biennial Mtg., 2016

“ Tect oni cs , Tol er ances , and Time: Eero Saarinen and Mi es v an der Rohe at Dr ake University,” Preservation, Educa t ion & Res ea rch Jour nal, Vol. 2, 2009 ( *pre-appt. ) .

LINK TO PAPER

“ Im pedi m ent s t o Int egr at i on: The Diverg ent I ntentions and Conv ergent Expres s i ons of the Dymaxion House and Dem ount abl e Space St ructural Desig ns,” 2012 ACSA Fa ll Conference, LINK TO PAPER

41

IASS & ACSA: D. JUDD SHELL “FAILURES”

PA PER: “ Ten Concret e B ui l d ing s: Donald Jud d ’s Incom pl et e Int egr at i ons of Art & Eng ineering ,” I nter na tio na l A sso cia tio n f o r Shell and Spatial Structures ( I A SS) , Sympo sium 2015, Future V is ions , A msterda m. LINK TO PAPER PA PER: “ Maki ng Mar fa: Technic al Enc umb ranc es and Creat i v e Res i s t ance i n Donald Jud d ’s Ten C onc rete B ui l di ngs ” 2009 A CSA So uth eas t Regional Fall Co nf erence, A rt + A rchitectu re, Savanna, G A (*prea ppt.)

42

NCBDS: THE LORE OF DESIGN BUILD

PA PER: R. Whitehead & S . Doyl e, “The L o re o f B uilding E x per ience: D eco nstr u c t i n g De s i g n B u i ld ,” 33rd Annual, National Conference on the Beginning Design Student (NCBDS), Univ. of Utah, 2017 Abstract and paper accepted for publication and presentation following blind peer reviews.

LIN K TO PAPER

43

NCBDS: DYNAMICS OF DESIGN-BUILD PAP E R: R . W h i t e h e a d & C . R o g e rs , “ All Ha nds o n D eck: I n s t r u c t or s a s Co lla bo r a t o r s a n d t h e Mod i f i e d D y na m ics o f D esig n Bu i l d I n s t r u c t i on , ” 32nd Annual, National Conference on the Beginning Design Student (NCBDS), University of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 2017.

LINK TO PAPER

44

STR. CONGRESS & ACSA: HAPTIC-LEARNING

A B S T R ACATBS SFTORRACPTESE RR EPVEIEE F OR

T ROD U C T I ON

NOLOGY FOR E STUDENTS

S T R US CT TR UU RC AT U L R TA EL C H T EN COHL NO OGL YO GI YN

DITS DITS DITS DITS DITS

IPNR AP CR TA IC CT EI C (E S T( SP T) P )

BRICK BY BRICK: BRICK BY BRICK: Improved Outcomes ImprovedThrough OutcomesLinked ThrougL 2014 National re nceConference for the B e 2014C onfe National

“We must work to“We connect effects must the worksometimes to connectabsurd the sometim by (the) integration of all integration different elements. ” Ove Arup by (the) of all different elem

The practice of designing high-performing, technical The practice of designing high-perform ed manner has increased inhas importance frequen ed manner increased(and in importanc for measurable building performance standards.

Hows for measurable building performance for building technology education have education done littlehav to for building technology upon outdated modes for the classroom co upon outdated modes forstructure, the classroom

Unique to an architectural education, building technob Unique to an architectural education, specific, and often divergent of divergent technical set acumen specific, and set often of tech order to criticallyorder incorporate it into their overall desth to critically incorporate it into nology courses are rarelycourses taughtare in rarely an integrated nology taught inman an devices to find, and make, critical associations betwee to find, and make, critical asso this information devices is conveyed ineffectively, a critical op this understanding information is conveyed develop an intuitive about theineffectiv relation develop an intuitive understanding abo and potentially responsive architectural forms. and potentially responsive architectura These deficiencies hit beginning design students part These it deficiencies beginning design classes aren’t effective, adversely hit impacts enthusiasm classes aren’t effective, it adversely imp their education and their retention of information.

Th their education and their of li multi-semester sequence of courses with retention graduating multi-semester sequence of coursesand wi necessary expectation of accumulated knowledge expectation of accumulated In order to betternecessary prepare architecture students for ev In order to better prepare architecture grated contemporary practice environment in which contemporary environm to be understoodgrated and integrated into practice high-performan understood and integrated into h traditional meanstoofbeeducating architectural students must also evolve.traditional means of educating architec must also evolve.

This paper will present a case-study lab that is assigne This paper will present a case-study lab undergraduate architectural study at Iowa State Unive undergraduate architectural study at Io the unique pedagogy offered in the newly re-formatte the unique pedagogy offered the new ogy course. For this assignment, students areinrequired Formasonry this assignment, stude using a commonogy loadcourse. bearing wall from two using a common load bearing spectives of design education—specifically themasonr materi of design education—specific modules. This labspectives challenges the traditional presentat modules.

Thison labthe challenges the tradit environment standards based hypothesis that environment standards based on theinh methodologies and project-based design exercises methodologies and project-based desig more effective way forward in educating architects ab more effective way forward in educatin gies. The results of multiple student submissions will resultslearning of multiple student su in comparison togies. the The different specific learni in comparison to the different learning educational goals. educational goals.

G TECHNOLOGY

AL FORCES SSEMBLY ESIGN

AUGHT IN PER MODULE TING FOR FIVE G SEMESTERS

RCHITECTURE ATION FOR COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF ARCHITECTURE E ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

NCEPTS ON & FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS ne-third of in Practice is one-third of al Technology dergraduniversity’s new integrated undergraduThe courstechnology course sequence. The coursesters of five separate, sequential semesters of d into three, each semester equally divided into three, ntal sysodules (structures, environmental sysmbining all terials & assemblies). By combining all n traditionther, longer class periods than traditionportunity were possible, offering the opportunity the same t both lecture and labs during the same rtunity to rmat provides a unique opportunity to ffers stuersity of teaching methods, offers stunities, and and active learning opportunities, and topic. The n-depth explorations of each topic. The al design ed represents all five structural design etween its weeks of classes) completed between its ion in the the Fall 2010 and its completion in the

PEDAGOGICAL PROGRESSIONS: PEDAGOGICAL PROGRESSI Reflections from an “Integrated” Tech from anBuilding “Integr 2014 NationalReflections ACSA Conference: 2014 National ACSA Conferenc

Finding effective ways of integrating building technol Finding effective integrating bg enhances the architectural designways and of performance enhances the design and effort and experimentation inarchitectural practice. Unfortunately effort and experimentation practice teaching these technologies have remained in relatively teaching these technologies rema outdated modes for the classroom structure,have content, outdated modes for the classroom stru technology courses are often isolated from each other technology courses are often isolated architectural curriculum.

These pedagogical choices fh curriculum.

These pedag preparedness by architectural creating deficiencies in technical acu by in creating deficiencies topics as a centralpreparedness consideration a collaborative desi topics as a central consideration in a co This paper will outline a series of dramatic wholesale paper will outline a series of dram nology sequenceThis for architecture students at Iowa Sta nology sequence for architecture stude idea that teaching how to critically integrate building idea that teaching how to critically inte best done in a collaborative and integrative pedagogic best done in a collaborative and integr The means, methods, challenges, and benefits of this means, methods, challenges, and b will be discussedThe in relation to two specific, but repre will be discussed relation to two spe sequence; one integrated exercisein from the sequence’s sequence; one integrated exercise of from The case studies will demonstrate the challenges cr The case studies will demonstrate technological complexity and escalating measuresthe of c technological and escalatin mark the end points to an arc complexity of student learning and mark end points an arc of studen bilities throughout thethe sequence.

Anto assessment of th bilities throughout the sequence.

An a and the overall sequence will be presented including suggestions for future improvements. and the overall sequence will be presen suggestions for future improvements.

s, and learnorganization, teaching methods, and learnthat strucarecourse based off the simple idea that struche be taught edagog y as a design course. The course s the traditional structural pedagogy agrams, and vely on formulas, abstract diagrams, and . Instead, calculation-based assessment. Instead, part of an ructural design as an integral part of an cs become The lecture topics become ” exploration. that the design-centric lab “problems” that the h the deout solve—typically through the deion.toThese struction means of of a structural solution. These often to failure as a means of s tested, of behavsessingbytheir respective limits of behavuated ormance of the system is evaluated by that often in a set of laborator y reports that often ss and final iptions of their design process and final lculations ngside technical diagrams, calculations ns learned” le), and a summar y of “lessons learned” pic.

(RE) COVERING SHELTER: (RE) COVERING SHELTER:by De Enhancing Structural Design Pedagogy 2 0 1 3 A C S AEnhancing R e g i o n aStructural l C o n f eDesign r e n c ePed 2 0 1 3 AC S A R e g i o n a l C o n

This paper will describe the results of a week long, int exercise completed architecture students in which Thisbypaper will describe the results of a structurally responsive designed for rapid dep exerciseshelter completed by architecture stu material optimization, sturdyresponsive performance (not just a structurally shelter designe for inhabitation.”material optimization, sturdy perform for inhabitation.”

This paper will discuss the important synergistic relat gogical approachThis to used towill teach the structures cours paper discuss the important and the fascinating, albeit complex, set oftosocial gogical approach to used teachand the st scope of exploration.

Several examples of complex, student wor and the fascinating, albeit set the exercise including: experiments pneumatics (fo scope of exploration.inSeveral examples work), thin shell the structures fromexperiments parametrically exercisemade including: in triangulated panels thatthin create folded plate made structures work), shell structures from ing flat-pack panels. triangulated panels that create folded p ing flat-pack panels.

There are profoundly unique social and technical ben into the structural design youngsocial architec There are education profoundlyofunique an tecture/structuresinto canthe make a difference, they lea structural design but education of design interventions are inextricably thei tecture/structures canlinked make awith differenc range of technicaldesign encumbrances such the fabricati interventions areasinextricably li tural performance of the shelter—it is a meaningful range of technical encumbrances suchd design objectives.tural As aperformance result, this portion of the mod of the shelter—it is consternation from the objectives. students—but design As a most result,importan this port broader design principles thanfrom is typically found in a consternation the students—but broader design principles than is typic

ke, Break, his nts ideology of em- led to a Think, Make, Break, ethodology with four main points of emdeveloping pstanding betweenstructural behavior, developing rms, establishing a relationship between how strucdinable constructability, and finally how strucmandiscussed formance,and design in a sustainable manffficiency project, / effectiveness of per formance, ofile of materiality, life-span of project,

T H I N TK H I N+K

M+ A K M E A K +E

+B R E BA RKE A K+

T EA T E + E V AE LV UA AL U

BREAKING (A)WAY: The Role of Productive Failures in a New Stru BREAKING (A)WAY: 2013 NationalThe ACSA Role Conference; of ProductiveBuilding Failures in 2013 National ACSA Conferenc

At its most basic level, structural design is about crea efficiently combining range of materials and shapes At itsamost basic level, structural desig stresses created by “spanning and stacking” efficiently combining a rangeelements. of materi on the potential richness of design that can emerge fr stresses created by “spanning and stack and quantitative on choices, many structural the potential richness ofdesign designcour tha neering-based teaching methodschoices, that favor abstract r and quantitative many structu calculation-basedneering-based analysis, andteaching assessments of studen methods that f of those calculations.

In these courses, because learni calculation-based analysis, and assessm understanding ofofquantitative information, follows those calculations.

In theseit courses, be filled primarily with mathematical analysisinforma and siz understanding of quantitative diversity of problem-solving methods aimed at develo be filled primarily with mathematical a prove a structure’s design of and performance, methods right and diversity problem-solving measure of understanding and “failures” be avo prove a structure’s design are andtoperform measure of understanding and “failure This is understandable to a certain extent, of course, b responsibilities ofThis protecting the health,tosafety, andexte w is understandable a certain heavily on an assured and stableofstructure. structur responsibilities protectingIfthe health answers that are either right or wrong, then students heavily on an assured and stable struct sity to risk and experimentation.

If young answers that are either rightarchitects or wrong,a options in structural design, lestexperimentation. they inadvertently “f sity to risk and If you as a realm for innovation and experimentation—a ha options in structural design,nature lest they to deal with the inter-active and synergetic of i as a realm for innovation andis,experim This paper will argue that structural design at its es to deal with theright inter-active synergo promote the search for several answersand instead This paper will argue that structural de gration of progressive and innovative structural solut promote theprocessing, search for several right an the methods of presenting, and integratin of progressive and innovative s students must begration done using a more effective pedagog the methods presenting, processing motes the productive value ofoflearning by through fai students must be done using a more eff motes the productive value of learning

PAING PER a Framework: R:D ES “B k ing e GRHolPER e of M ANC E. C R EAT E FCREATING F: IC“Bui IE N T, lding PEFFICIENT, RO F I CI ENT, A ND EX P ERAND I ENTEXPERIENTIALLY IRet A L LYhink RI C H ing D ES RICH I G NS DESIGNS

BY CO NSPAP I D ECONSIDERING RI E NG I Grea N DESIGN F RO M PFROM RO( A) D UPRODUCTION CwTIay ON: TT Hh ROU PROFICIENT, BY THROUGHFOR PERFORMANCE.

uence, and of structural a lab setting topics in the sequence, and al manner eslie (Iowaof presentation in a lab setting dy in with Tom Leslie (Iowa St.,conjunction San ity) and Dong (Cal Poly St., San l receiptKevin of result of our successful receipt of n as of the PracARB Grant chedule wasfor the Integration of Praccation the Academy (this schedule was ation).inThe during course integration). The e refined was done he overall lrike Passecurricular sequence was done ionpresentwith Bruce Bassler and Ulrike Passe nt University). opment and All course content presentbmission,byincluding the development and mpleted ctures and labs, has been completed by ad.

S tr u ct ur a l D es ign in an Architect ur a l Cu r r ic ulum ”

P ro duct iv e Fa ilures in a N e w S t r u c t u r al D esign P eda go gy ”

Structures Congress 2015, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Portland, OR, 2015.

101st Association for Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2013.

LINK TO PAPER

LINK TO PAPER

VA L UAT I O N C O M M E N T S e topic. I love asm measenjoy the class and the topic. I love d is makes still just istakes into a learning experience and is still just as hat em.”made the engaging way to teach structures…that made the ck learning ks. ” course…helps me learn twice as quick learning lass—he ds on rather than just out of the books.” s engineering of what we friend what we did in class—he nted to take the class. He was jealous of what we I didn’t mind anding of both interesting and time consuming, but I didn’t mind es. .” a lot. I have a better understanding of both earned structural dthe design aspects of creating structures. .” his interactions at enthusiasm for teaching us about the structural . we’re .” designing, which is shown in his interactions nderstand. aching and”talking to us one on one. .” ally ng & impleexperimentation helped us to understand.” sked to learn is something I will actually implend slabs. gns, well ”taught.” xercises that and making beams and slabs.” g with concrete we learncreating in the assignments and exercises that d about Rigid Frame: Section-Resistant

Arch: Form-Resistant

Trussed Arch: Vector-Resistant

Rigid Frame: Section-Resistant

Trussed Arch: Vector-Resistant

Suspension: Form-Resistant

Shells: Surface-Resistant

Membrane: Form & Surface-Resistant

Dome: Surface-Resistant

Pneumatic: Surface-Resistant

Arch: Form-Resistant

Suspension: Form-Resistant

Shells: Surface-Resistant

Membrane: Form & Surface-Resistant

Dome: Surface-Resistant

Pneumatic: Surface-Resistant

45

SUPPORTING STUDENTS STRUCTURALL Encouraging SUPPORTING Haptic Learning and Product STUDENTS STR ArchitecturalEncouraging EngineeringHaptic Education Learning a 2 0 1 3 ArchitArchitectural e c t ural EngEngineering in e e r ing In st Edu 0 1 often 3 Architec tural Eng inet Structural design2has been ineffectively taught

using traditional, engineering-based systems of abstra Structural design hasbased oftenprimarily been ineffeo mula-rich lectures and assessments using traditional, engineering-based an intuitive understanding about the relationship betsy mula-rich lectures architectural and assessments ba the array of potentially responsive forms an intuitive understanding about the r themodel array of responsive arch A new educational is potentially needed to better reinforc hand examples will be shown which demonstrate how new educational model and is needed to exercises, haptic A learning methodologies projecthand examples will be shown which ry setting can provide a more effective way forward de in exercises, haptic learningtomethodologi ing structures. Because initial exposure complex to ry setting can provide a more difference in long-term learning efficacy, this effective paper w structures.

Because initial lab project in theing sequence, an ergonomic labexposur in whic difference in long-term learning explore basic structural principles related to the efficac relati lab project in the sequence, an ergonom explore basicstructural structuralconditions principles rela By constructing lightweight ind students developed an ability to analyze and describe By constructing lightweight structural were enduring, including their first conscious exposu students developed an ability to analyz stood structural limitations their bodies navigate dail wererepresented, enduring, including theirand firstcriti con students graphically calculated, structural limitations their bodie terms of the basicstood S-words of structural behavior (stre ty, and shape). students graphically represented, calcu terms of the basic S-words of structura ty, and shape).

Finally, by encouraging students to safely push the ph certain exercises, they were able to learn critical and i Finally, encouraging students to in saf about the limitations andbyinternal stresses present certainand exercises, they were able to lear reports, photographs, other supporting course co aboutlearned the limitations and internal stres including the lessons from students in their o reports, photographs, and other suppo including the lessons learned from stu MAKING AND BREAKING:

Integrating Productive Failures in the MAKING AND BREAKING: Surface-Active Structural Systems Integrating Productive 2012 International Conference on Fail the Surface-Active Structural S International Confere The limitations of2012 conventional structural pedagogica

unfortunately excludes many fascinating, albeit comp The limitations of conventional structu such as surface-active systems because it is erroneous unfortunately many of fascinatin understand structural systemsexcludes with a degree mathe

NCBDS & AEI: BODY STRUCTURES

PAP E R: “S upporting Students : Using Anth ro po m orphic Structures to Enha nce E arly Stru ctures Education,”

PAP E R: “Body Structures: Engaging Architectural Students in Structurally Oriented Haptic Learning Exercises,”

32nd Annual, National Conference on the Beginning Design Student (NCBDS), University of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, 2016.

AEI 2013, 5th Biennial Professional Conference for Architectural Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Penn State University, 2013.

LINK TO PAPER

LINK TO PAPER

46

BTES / ACSA: INTEGRATION CHALLENGES

“Pe d a g o g ic a l Progres sions: Ref lect io ns fro m a n “ I nt egr a t ed” Techno lo gy Se q u e n c e , ” P resent ed, 102nd Association for Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) Annual Meeting, Miami, FL.,

& Building Technology Educators Society (BTES), 2015 International Conference, Salt Lake, UT, June, 2015; LINK TO PAPER

47

RELIEF SHELTER DESIGN COMPETITIONS

To p: “ Cho m bo : M icro - c re d i t l oan p rog r am an d m o bile m a r k et dist r ibu t i on p rog r am, ” Place and Displacement: A Marketplace in Refugee Settlements Competition, Entry #6262 with DSN S 546. 201; LINK TO ENTRY

L eft : “ M a nifo ld Sy st em of F l e xi b l e E n c l os u re , ” Sunbrella Fabric, The Future of Shade Design Competition, Design collaboration with Bart Phillips and Mark Jongman-Serano ; LINK TO ENTRY

48

ACADIA: PARAMETRIC SHELL PROTOTYPE

P OST ER : Se lected Exhibitor (with B a r t P hillips & Na t ha n Sco t t ) , “ Once B uil t S t r u c t u re , ” A CAD IA 2013 Confe rence “Adapti v e Arch i t e ct u re , ” 2 0 1 3 , LINK TO ENTRY 49

A C T I V E C O L L A B O R AT I O N S F O R S U S TA I N A B L E T E C H N O L O G I C A L I N T E G R AT I O N PROJECT PARTICIPANTS: ROB WHITEHEAD, ASST. PROF., ARCHITECTURE (P.I.), ULRIKE PASSE, ASSOC. PROF., ARCHITECTURE, ANDREA WHEELER, ASST. PROF., ARCHITECTURE, & KRIS NELSON, LECTURER, ARCHITECTURE

D E PA RT M E N T O F A RC H I T E C T U R E , CO L L E G E O F D E S I G N

2015 CELT MILLER FACULTY FELLOWSHIP

Purpose: Implement integrated sustainable design exercises across multiple learning modules throughout the architectural design curriculum.

FIRST YEAR

2012 NCARB Practice Analysis of Architecture

P RO J E C T S I G N I F I C A N C E : There is a prevalent and consistently reported difficiency in the preparedness of recent architectural graduates nationwide related to the integration of sustainable building technologies into design.*

Identified Areas Needing Greater Emphasis in Education (2 of 8 listed):

The project is significant because it focuses on the types of improvements that can be made to an architectural education that specifically target these difficiencies.

To more effectively teach design integration, in 2010,FIRST YEAR the Dept. of Architecture made the following changes: CORE -Integrate the technology courses together.

CLASSES -Coordinate learning objectives between technology courses (and design studio).

-Teach with active-learning “design lab” activities.

-Sustainability “...accredited education could better support students in developing this area of expertise.”

-Technology Knowledge is overwhelming obtained in internships more than education & “...more of these knowledge/ skills should be acquired through completion of education.”

* (Source: NCARB 2012 Practice Analysis of Architecture)

Conventional Architectural Curricula, (ISU Architecture pre-2010).

Separate courses with no explicit integration between courses or design studio.

I M P L E M E N T E D I M P ROV E M E N T S : Even though architectural practioners spend a great deal of effort critically integrating building technologies into their designs, these types of challenges are compromised in conventional curricula by the nature of course “silos.”

SECOND YEAR

Design Studio

R E S E A RC H Q U E S T I O N S :

History Culture

Structures

Environ.

Forces/ Systems

Materials/ Assembly

THIRD YEAR

FOURTH YEAR

STUDIO

STUDIO

STUDIO

STUDIO

COMP. STUDIO

Material & Assembly – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Env. Forces & Systems – 3 cr.

Env. Forces & Systems – 3 cr.

SECOND YEAR

The project team wondered: FIRST YEAR -How specifically can the integration between OPTION STUDIO course modules be improved?

CORE CLASSES -Would student learning about sustainable design and technology integration be improved with coordinated assignments and learning objectives?

-What are student opinions about the course?

FIFTH YEAR

OPTION STUDIO

COMP. STUDIO

Material & Assembly – 3 cr.

THIRD YEAR

FOURTH YEAR

FIFTH YEAR

Current STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO COMP. OPTION COMP. STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO Curriculum: Combine three Design History Structures Structures Structures Material & Culture – 3 cr.

– 3 cr. Studio – 3 cr. Structures Assembly separate courses – 3 cr. into one course Env. Material & sequence Env. Forces Forces Assembly Environ. & Systems & Systems – 3 cr. spread across Materials/ Forces/ – 3 cr.

– 3 cr.

Assembly five semesters.

Systems Integrate between modules and studio.

REVISED UNDERGRADUATE ARCHITECTURAL CURRICULUM + TECH SEQUENCE

CORE CLASSES

This integrated building technology course sequence (the first of its kind nationwide) was recognized nationally by NCARB, the U.S. Green Building Council, and the Assoc. for Collegiate Schools of Architecture, but these courses were still operating like silos.

SECOND YEAR

STUDIO

THIRD YEAR

STUDIO

STUDIO

FOURTH YEAR

STUDIO

COMP. STUDIO

P RO J E C T P L A N : OPTION STUDIO

The project team identified four inter-related phases of work:

PHASE ONE: Develop Student Survey & Analyze Results PHASE TWO: Assess Course Sequence

FIFTH YEAR

OPTION STUDIO

COMP. STUDIO

PHASE THREE: Identify Opportunities for New OPTION Integrated Exercises Between Modules STUDIO PHASE FOUR: Implement New Exercises & Assess Student Learning.

REVISED UNDERGRADUATE ARCHITECTURAL CURRICULUM + TECH SEQUENCE

P H A S E O N E : STUDENT SURVEY

FIRST YEAR

Question: In your experience, how well do you think the three technology topics are covered in the course sequence?

A survey was developed to hear student perspectives about the current course sequence, the effectiveness of course activities, and the importance of building technology and sustainable design topics in their education.

Every class for all three modules in the five semester sequence was reviewed, mapped, and categorized. The categories were intended to identify certain classes within the existing course sequence that could be better integrated, either with other modules or with design studio. These courses were initially categorized to include “sustainable” exercises, but this term applied to so many exercises that it was an ineffective mapping tool. The color coded categories included: Design Exercise

Integration with Studio

Data Collection

THIRD YEAR

FOURTH YEAR

FIFTH YEAR

Question: InOPTION your opinion, have these COMP. COMP. OPTION STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO courses haveSTUDIO prepared you for a future in architectural practice?

43%

51%

33%

6%

41%

Environmental Forces Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Investigation and Experience of Environmental forces Precedent studies

Preparation for visual comfort and solar radiation studies

Daylight on days with sunlight and days with overcast skys

Air Flow Assessment

Activity: Find Climate information

Activity: Use Solar Geometry to understand the effects of light in precedent studies.

Activity: Build a daylight test box

Activity: Analyze the prevailing winds of your precedent Study

Lab 2

Lab 3

Structural Criteria Ergonomics & Material Strength and System Structural Systemand size Axial Selection Analysis Loading Activity: Observe and report on selected building

Activity: Use selectActivity: Solve ed chair to demonloading diagram strate understanding and design column of structrual system structure

Lab 4

Lab 2

Lab 3

Site

Anthropometrics and Ergonomics

Code

Lab 4

Lab 6

Tensile Pavilion

Arch Experiments

Activity: Design funicular shape and show understanding of stability

Activity: Design a tent membrane for a temporary studio space

Lab 6

Wood Framing

Masonry

Activity: Propose design for building from code lab

Activity: Design and build a 300 brick structure

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Masonry Lab

Roofing Lab

Glazing Lab

Lab 8

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4

Observing and Learning

Anthropomorphic Structures

Form and Forces

Form and Forces 2

Form and Components

Node Exercise

Node Exercise 2

Activity: Use your teams bodies to achieve various structures

Activity: Make structures with larger teams

Activity: Build and test models

Activity: Use your brick structure to design a bus stateion

Activity: Make and test 1-story node structure

Activity: Test variation of 1 story node structure

PHASE THREE & FOUR: IDENTIFY & IMPLEMENT NEW INTEGRATED EXERCISES

The project team developed a proposal to have at least one shared integrated activity during every semester and to maintain (and enhance) the existing shared exercises currently in the program. We called these integrated exercises the “Fourth Module.” The group identified different types of classroom activities that could meet this Integrated Design objective including:

Short Term Design Exercises: Lab activities are completed in separate modules but based on the same building technology topic.

Lab 8

Lab 9

Systems

Activity: Create cho- Activity: Experiment sen arch to set size and test Shell Structures

Lab 1 Building Assessment Overview

Field Trip Site Visit Group Activity:

Activity: Use the IBC to analyze your assigned building

Lab 3 Concrete Panel/ Support Device

Lab 7

Lab 9

Lab 10

Node Exercise 3

Node Exercise 4

Activity: Make 3 Activity: Make 2 story node structure story node structure and test and test

Lab 1

Lab 2

Heat Transfer

Heat Transfer

Activity: Calculate the heat transfer of your building envelope

Activity: Chose one persons studio project and calculate

Lab 6

Lab 7

Stair and Ramp Lab

Accessability Lab

Layered Wall Animation

Activity: Using the IBC and the given buildings design a stair connector

Activity: Use the college of design to locate doors that are both compliant and non compliante with the ADA

Activity: Use the graphic standards to research and propose a wall system

Short-term Design Exercises:

In Arch 245, during their first semester in the program, students are required to engage a simple design problem using a common load bearing masonry wall from two distinct, yet interconnected perspectives—the materials/assembly and structural design modules.

Students are not initially told this wall would also be eventually used as the basis for a structure in the upcoming module. Although it does not explicitly present integrated design prorities at the beginning of the assignment, it eventually becomes a central consideration in the labs.

Both labs focus on sustainable design concepts of resource management and material performance.

Lab 3 Thermal Concempts and Heat Gain Concepts for A precedent project

Activity: Calculate and draw diagrams for comprehensive design strategies

Lab 4 Concrete Panel/ Support Device Activity: Assess the design fabrication and installation of your panel.

Lab 1 Equilibrium and Materiality Activity: Calculate various loading and support diagrams.

Demonstrate

Lab 2

Lab 3

Shear, Moment, Bending Diagrams

Activity: find reactions for all loading situations below and draw diagrams

Beam Performance Activity: In teams build a series of highly efficient beams

ARCH 343, 5 CREDITS, SPRING SEMESTER, 3rd Yr. Lab 1

Lab 2a

Lab 2b

Structural Criteria and System Selection

Structural Criteria and System Selection

Structural Design Selection and Integration

Activity: Observe and Activity: Use assigned Activity: Use studio report on assigned project type to devel- project, Set structural buildings structure goals, formulate op a set of schematic options related to structural criteria structure, Evaluate

Lab 3 Concrete Design Selection Behavior and Integration

Activity: Use knowledge of cast in place concrete to evaluate and select appropriate components and placements

Lab 5&6 Slab Lab

Lab 7

Lab 8

Column Design

Foundation Design

Activity: Solve given problems for load calculations of a column

Activity: Solve given problems for sizing a foundation

Lab 9 Comprehensive Structural Considerations

Activity: Using structural consideration design an observation tower

Lab 4

Lab 5

Evaluating Daylight Concepts

Solar Cubic Triathalon

Lab 1a

Lab 1b

Lab 2a

Lab 2b

Lab 3

Lab 4

Lab 5

Energy Efficient Design strategies

Energy Efficient Design strategies

Solar Thermal and Radiant Heat Calculation

Solar Thermal and Radiant Heat Calculation

Roof Drainage and Water Collection

Acoustics

Artificial Lighting Calculations

During the next semester, in Arch 341, the students tour the Reimann Gardens buildings. They hear about the building’s performance and design from the clients and building users and use tools to measure the building’s energy performance. Students are led on tours by the different building technology instructors and shown how certain specific topics (like glass curtainwalls) can have dramatic effects on all three building technology topics.

In a combined lab assignment, students answer questions about all three technology topics and their integration.

Activity:Integrate structural considerations of lateral system stability into your studio project

Lab 6

Lab 8

Lab 9

Steel Structures

Recovering Shelter Process and

Studio Integration lab and Documentation

Activity: Apply knowlComponents edge of Structural Activity: Research two properties of Steel types of emergency in a section active shelter designs and system propose a new type of shelter

Activity: Use your studio project and show the representation. Consider the mechanical strategies as well

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3a

Lab 3b

Lab 5

Truss Platform

Abstract Review

Diverse Long Span Structural System Proposal

Diverse Long Span Structural System Proposal

Comprehensive Research project

Activity: Design a lightweight platform Activity: In teams decide on a research Activity: Research assigned Structural Activity: Design new innovation center that span’s 3 feet System using your assigned structural system project and write an abstract

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Restrooms Public

Restrooms Detail

Ceilings

Long-term Design Exercises:

Lab 1

Lab 2

Case study Documentation and Design Analysis

Case Study Analysis of Energy related Strategies

Activity: Select a building on campus analyze the main spaces for active environmental control systems. Evaluate and document the performance

In Arch 343 and Arch 445, students are asked to develop detailed building information about the energy performance, materials, and stuctural framing of a hypothetical classroom project. Because these students return to this project across different semesters, it allows them to integrate more information as their skills and knowledge progress.

In these exercises, students are asked to integrate technology into their designs and to document these integrations in a professional manner.

Activity: Select a building and create a comprehensive study of the performance of the building. Present in poster format

Activity: Research, Analyze comprehensive considerations of chosen project

Environmental Forces

Lab 4 Precast Activity: Use the PCI reference guides and the requirements stated design a front facade for the provided base. Create renderings and a narrative to explain your resoning

Lab 5

Lab 6

Material Palette

Wall Section

Activity: Design a small off the Activity: Use a studio project of grid sleeping unit for 6 months of your choice and select 3 mentor the year. Show and explain your projects to inform your work on a research for site and your materiwall detail for the project al choices for the building

Lab 1

Lab 2

Energy Performance using Safira

Improving Daylighting

Lab 3

Activity: Use safira to analyze and improve your Activity: Use classroom space propose a way to buildings current systems improve daylight and use ecotect to analyze the efficency of the space

Lab 4

Integrated Heating Cooling and lighting

Noise Transmission

Activity: Collect data to help you develop an HVAC concept and calculate size. Use to choose and layout system

Activity: Evaluate the placement of mechanical systems and the noise transmission

Materials and Assemblies

Environmental Forces

Activity: Design a shading Activity: Evaluate the King Activity: Design and size Activity: Estimate size Activity: Determine the Activity: Analyze your roof Activity: Design a proposal device for the hallway of Pavillion and decide if it a solar thermal energy needed for a photovoltaic and design the watershed, for acoustics of spaces in number of fixtures needed the king pavillion then could be cooled by night collector for a small project array for a 4 person house in a classroom size the drainage and the Armory calculate the results ventilation of thermal mass from your portfolio in Ames rainwater collection

Field Trip & Analysis:

Lab 5

Lateral Stability Integration

Activity:Use the IBC to determine Activity: Determine which type Activity: Consider requirements the size and layout needed for of bathroom is needed for your for ceiling heights and decide for a public restroom in your studio studio bathroom and design it your retreat space. Also consider project mechanical and Electrical allowances and structural Elements

Environmental Forces

Activity: Fill out the daylight worksheet Activity: Take given requirements and for King Pavillion and for your current prepare project report studio project

ARCH 445, 3 CREDITS, FALL SEMESTER, 4th Yr. Structures

Lab 4 Pre Cast Concrete Activity: Use Knowledge of Pre Cast Concrete to evaluate and select appropriate components and placements

Materials and Assemblies

Lab 4 Beam layout and sizing

Activity: Select design and construct approActivity: Solve given problems for allowable priate slab for museum pavillions with different load, Tributary area, footprints Beam sizing, Deflection, Shear

59%

13%

Structures

Lab 2 Concrete Panel/ Support Device

22%

Shared between modules

22%

Structures Lab 5

Stone Lab Activity: Research different types of local stone and propose a new transit stop for you hometown

Question: In your experience what is your preference for the nature of the integrated design exercises?

65%

Activity: Write and sketch your understanding of Activity: Sketch and dimension the bracket and your teams concept for the project frame system note the materials you will use and other fabrication concerns

Environmental Forces

Activity: Find the 5 “s”

Integration with other Modules

Activity: Design a bridge using archs and test

Lab 4

Activity: Pick masonry building Activity: Design Low slope Activity: Use your Boathouse on main street analyze and moderate slope and high slope and propose glazing addition propose addition roof and analyze to improve the space

Structures Lab 5

Lab 7

Arch Experiments Structural Surface

Materials and Assemblies Lab 5

Code 2 Activity: Use the IBC to determine the needs of the building given

7%

Question: In your experience, which of these types of exercises do you feel have been effective in integrating technology topics together in the sequence? Check all that apply:

Materials and Assemblies

Lab 5

Rope and Chain Lab

Materials and Assemblies Lab 1

Activity: Analyze given site and Activity: Measure your group Activity: Use the IBC to decide come up with a scheme and set desks to be ergonomi- the size to design a building cally comfortable

7%

66%

ARCH 342, 5 CREDITS, FALL SEMESTER, 3rd Yr.

Structures Lab 1

Lab 1 Investigation and Experience of Environmental forces Activity: Measure illumination

28%

94%

ARCH 341, 5 CREDITS, SPRING SEMESTER, 2nd Yr.

ARCH 245, 3 CREDITS, FALL SEMESTER, 2nd. Yr.

Question: In your experience, how influential is the content of these courses to your design work?

STUDIO

15% 11%

A 13 question, online survey (ISU Qualtrics) was sent to 320 students currently enrolled in the architecture program (2nd year to 5th year students), 25% of possible respondents have finished the course sequence, but the survey didn’t ask students to identify themselves by year. The survey had a 16% response rate (54 students).

PHASE TWO: ASSESS COURSE SEQUENCE

SECOND YEAR

Integration of buildingSTUDIO technology topics STUDIO STUDIO CORE CLASSES is an important aspect of sustainable design education for architects.

Question: How well have the technology topics have been integrated together with each-other in the sequence?

Lab 3

Lab 4

Campus Energy: Guest Lecture

Cooling Load Calculation and Duct Sizing

Activity: Answer the given questions and Activity: Calculate the maximum cooling create a diagram of your understanding load for the 3 given conditions. Then of energy strategies used in an ISU size the main suppoy duct for them classroom

Lab 5 Ventilation and Cooling Strategies and Sizing

Activity: Design a classroom building using the given requirements and size the ducts then evaluate and explain your reasoning

Lab 1

Lab 2

Lab 3

Lab 4a

Facades

Opaque Envelope Design

Transparent Envelope Design

Stair Calculations

Activity: Use mentor projects to decide Activity: Cut a Section perspective Activity: Cut a Section perspective of Activity: Use the IBC to calculate on an order to use for a facade for of an opaque wall in your classroom a transparent wall in your classroom the requirements of egress in your classroom building then create collage building and lay out elements of detail building and lay out elements of detail building. Determine the height and showing how you are achieving this for that wall. Analyze and compare to for that wall. Analyze and compare to number of stairs existing projects existing projects

Design Studio Integration:

In Arch 342, Arch 343, and Arch 445, lab assignments were coordinated with design studio activities. These assignments are the most direct translation into a professional practice experience of critically integrating sustainable building technologies into their designs.

The exercises include: Developing & detailing a three-dimensional structural framing module, analyzing the effect of building orientation or energy performance, detailing a building skin based on projected insulated values, and showing all building systems integrated together in drawings.

Lab 4b Stair Design Activity: Using your logic from the facade lab design and layout a monumental stair for your classroom building

R E S U LT S :

The student survey results indicate that the majority of students agree that the building technology topics are important, that the topics are adequately covered, and that these lessons have prepared them for future practice. The modules were not seen as well integrated with each-other (but adequately).

There is a preference for integrating these exercises in their design work (like studio) but they also listed research projects and field trips as effective alternatives to design-based exercises.

R E S U LT S :

The mapping identified certain areas within the course sequence that could support a partial re-alignment for the sake of better integrating similar topics together in the same semester (e.g., concrete materials/assembly and concrete structures could be taught back to back during Arch 343).

There are large gaps in the middle of the sequence that didn’t include any explicit integrated exercises.

Certain semesters had more frequent lab exercises associated with design studios than others. These activities are often clustered within a single module as opposed to studio integration across three modules.

PROJECT RESULTS & ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT The project team was able to complete most of the initial goals set forward in the proposal. The student survey and course sequence categorization exercises were completed according to plan. The implementation of integrated exercises is a work in progress--new exercises are being introduced while existing exercises are being reworked as needed to improve their level of integration.

IMPACT: As a result of looking at the sequence holistically from this perspective, it was determined that our graduate building technology courses could be combined with the undergraduate courses--a change that was implemented beginning in Fall 2015.

Long-Term Design Exercises: Students develop a hypothetical design for weeks across separate modules with topic specific emphasis and detailed development.

Field Trip with Existing Building Assessment & Analysis: All three module instructors lead tours through construction sites and/ or existing buildings discussing how systems are integrated. Shared assignments for observation and analysis are issued.

OUTSTANDING WORK: Our proposal called for a more detailed study that measured the relative effectiveness of student learning as a result of these changes. However, because not all changes have been implemented, this work has yet to be developed. The nature of this assessment is still to be determined--ideally it may eventually be measured by the rate of professional registration success of the course graduates.

Research Projects: Integrate classroom activities that involve the detailed study of exemplary existing buildings. Include explicit criteria to examine the integration of all building technologies together and sustainable design principles.

Studio Integration: Students are asked to apply course lessons directly to their design studio projects. This includes documentation of all building technologies and how they are integrated together.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: One of the project team members, Ms. Nelson, took a job at another institution. Her absence limited the ability to effectively integrate these changes into the Materials and Assembly portion of the course.

This graph represents our first attempt at identifying the different integrated exercises within the sequence.

Some exercises are shared between two modules while others are shared between all three. These exercises can happen during the semester or at the end of the semester as needed.

CONCLUSION: Certain targeted changes can now be made to the technology sequence as needed. By emphasizing the benefits of building technology integration from multiple perspectives, and applying this learning to design projects, the learning objectives and activities throughout the curriculum can be better aligned and evaluated.

P O ST E R: Miller Faculty Fellows hip , “ Act iv e Co lla bo r a t io n fo r Sust a ina ble Te c hn o lo gica l Integration.” Rob Whitehead (P.I.), with U. Passe, A. Wheeler, and K. Nelson (ISU). Selected by ISU Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) Board of Directors;

LINK TO POSTER

50

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEACHING narrative curricular contributions evaluations studios structure courses

note: design/build courses shown in EXTENSION portion of dossier

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

51

TEACHING: NARRATIVE T h e g o a l o f an e ffe c ti ve e d u ca t o r i s to en ab l e stu d e n t s t o b ec o m e we l l in f o r me d , i ntere sti n g , and c a p a b l e cr i ti c al thi nke rs.

Eff e ct i v e t eac he rs i d eal l y fin d w a y s o f i m p art imp o r t a n t s ki l l s and p rac ti c al kn o w l e d g e wi th i n a l arg e r c ul t u r a l a n d p hi l o so p h i c al fr a me w o r k . Ul ti m atel y the go a l i s t o h el p stud en ts be co me l i f e-l o n g l e arn e rs t h a t ca n i d enti fy an d so l ve v a r i o u s p ro b l e m s wi th pa s s i o n , cu ri o si ty, an d di l i g e n ce . T hro ug h m y e x p e r i e n ce s i n p rac ti c e an d a ca d e mi a I’ve c o m e to h o l d t h e f o l l o wi ng i d eas as fo u n d a t i o n al c o n c ep ts th at I b e l i e v e a re b o th ti m e l ess an d t i m e l y : Des i g n i s Ref lec tive, s o Think Des i g n i s a n A c tivity, so Make Des i g n i s Reitera tive, s o B re a k Awa y … R ep e a t a s N eeded

T his teaching philos ophy, like my pers onal and prof es s ional interes ts in architecture, has been f ocus ed on cultivating the neces s ary interplay between thinking and making—s pecif ically, the central role that building technologies mus t play in a des ign proces s to eff ectively trans f orm architecture f rom conception to cons truction.

I believe that the creation of environmentally res pons ible des igns inf us ed with rich experiential qualities and clarity of expres s ion happens not in s pite of technical encumbrances , but becaus e of a willingnes s to addres s and integrate thes e challenges as part of a larger f ramework of des ign cons iderations .

T hes e are diff icult s kills to cultivate and they require a commitment to reiterative and ref lective learning experiences .

52 52

T hes e a re a l l a s p i ra ti ona l goals , b ut a tea c hi ng philos op hy need s to b e bols tered b y a f unc ti ona l , and tr a ns l a ta b l e s et of teaching s k i l l s i nf ormed b y res earc h a nd ex p eri enc e.

I s et out to b etter unders ta nd w ha t s p ec i f i c actions , a c ti v i ti es , tool s , and intera c ti ons c a n b e emplo y ed to p romote more eff ect i v e thi nk i ng a nd retent i on? How c a n one develo p tea c hi ng s k i l l s tha t have a re a d a p ta b l e to the divers i ty of s tud ent l ea rni ng pref erenc es w hen the s ub j ec t matter i s q ua nti ta ti v e a nd qualita ti v e? Fi na l l y, how can on e d etermi ne w hether or not the tea c hi ng ha s been e ff ec ti v e i n the l ong term a nd s hort term? To ans we r thes e q ues ti ons , I’ve dev el op ed ha s b een a s eries of p a p ers f oc us ed on the Sc hol a rs hi p of Tea c hi ng and Le a rni ng (SoTL ). L i nk s to thes e a re p rov i d ed i n the Schola rs hi p s ec ti on.

TEACHING: NARRATIVE

(abridged)

-Start early/stay late.

-Be a constant and important presence in their education.

-Link lear ning objectives across courses -Embrace the diversity of lear ning preferences; ask students to embrace this too -Increase expectations and complexity (aim high) -Model the behavior you are promoting -Be collegial and collaborative with EVERYONE From “Pedagogical Progressions� presentation at 102nd ACSA Annual Meeting

53 53

CURRICULUM: BLDG TECH SEQUENCE “When the activity of building was split between a number of different specialty professions and businesses, building came to lose its humanity…We must work to connect the sometimes absurd effects of multiple design responsibilities…by (the) integration of all different elements.” Ove Arup, “Aims and Means,” 1970.

In the decades following Ove Arup’s call for Total Design, building technology considerations have increased in their complexity, scope, and overall importance. This ability to critically integrate structural, environmental, and material/ assemblies into building design necessitates the coordinated efforts of a well-informed and collaborative team of designers.

Integration isn’t simply achieved through a collaboration of specialists; participants must also possess a broad foundation of technical acumen across multiple disciplines in order to productively

54

evaluate these collective technical constraints and propose holistic solutions that can enhance architectural designs. As buildings increase in their technological complexity with a correspondingly integrated set of performancedriven standards of evaluation, architectural curricula should aspire to adjust accordingly.

But unfortunately, traditional architectural educational models haven’t been taught in an integrated way. The three major building technology topics have been separated into separate course silos. Within these silos, specialized information related to the particular subject matter is favored; technology topics are rarely integrated with each other and there is very little, if any, coordination with design studios.

In 2009, the building technology teaching team at Iowa State, Profs. Leslie, Bassler, Passe, and Whitehead redesigned our technology curriculum.

CURRICULUM: BLDG TECH SEQUENCE THIRD YEAR

STUDIO

STUDIO

STUDIO

STUDIO

Material & Assembly – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Structures – 3 cr.

Env. Forces & Systems – 3 cr.

Env. Forces & Systems – 3 cr.

FOURTH YEAR

COMP. STUDIO

In an attem p t to a d d res s thes e def iciencies , the s ol uti on w a s to cons olidate the und erg ra d ua te OPTION STUDIOtechnology c ours es f or architecture s tud ents a nd dramatically rec onf i g ure them into a s ingl e “ i nteg ra ted ” c ours e s equence.

FIFTH YEAR

OPTION STUDIO

COMP. STUDIO

Material & Assembly – 3 cr.

INTEGRATED, 2014

REVISED, 2009

CORE CLASSES

SECOND YEAR

PREVIOUS

FIRST YEAR

cont’d.

Integrated Design

55

T he cours es c ons i s t of f i v e s eparate, s eq uenti a l s emes ters of clas s es , w i th ea c h s emes ter equally div i d ed i nto three, f ive- week mod ul es (s truc tures , environmen ta l s y s tems , a nd materials & a s s emb l i es ). See F igure. By c omb i ni ng a l l mod ul es together, lo ng er c l a s s p eri od s than traditi ona l c urri c ul a w ere pos s ible, off eri ng the op p ortuni ty to implement b oth l ec ture a nd labs during the s a me c l a s s — this f ormat p rov i d es a uni q ue opportunity to p res ent a d i v ers i ty of teaching method s , off ers s tudents pa s s i v e a nd a c ti v e learning op p ortuni ti es , a nd encourages i n-d ep th ex p l ora ti ons of each top i c .

CURRICULUM: BLDG TECH SEQUENCE The g o al of this approach was to he l p students develop the n e c essary knowledge, problemso l vi n g strategies , analytical an d rep res entational aptitudes n e c essary to meaningf ully i nte g rated building technologies to g e th e r and in concert with o veral l d es ign development.

In an N CARB application, Rod Kru se, FA IA des cribed the p ro g ram ’s benef its as : “The c urre n t collaborative tea c hing mode l for th e undergradu ate te ch n ology sequenc e h as made a pos itive impro veme n t in th e e du cation o f the stude n ts ove r th e las t severa l y e ars …th e propos e d metho ds move “te ch n ology” ou t o f the semin ar room an d in to th e ha nds-o n cre ative e n viron me n t o f design wh e re it is fou n d in pra c tic e.”

The seq uence was f ully integrated an d i m p l emented upon the c o m p l eti on of the f irs t round of

56

cont’d.

f ive cours e s i n the f a l l of 2012. In the ens uing y ea rs , the g ra d ua te building tec hnol og y s eq uenc e has been in teg ra ted w i th the undergradu a te s eq uenc e.

In 2014, af ter rec ei v i ng the Miller F acul ty Fel l ow s hi p , the teaching tea m s et out to f i nd more f orma l i nteg ra ted ex erc i s es that bridge d b etw een mod ul es and cours es . Thi s c ours e f orma t provided op p ortuni ti es f or thi s to occur with a n es c a l a ti ng l ev el of complexity a nd s c op e throug hout.

C O NT RIBUTIO NS: The red es i g n of th e ove r a l l c ur r i c ul a r s e qu e n ce wa s d one i n collaborati on wi t h P rofs . T. Le s lie , B. Ba s s l er a nd U . P a s s e (Iowa S tate U ni v er s i t y ). A l l cou rs e con t ent p res ent ed i n th is s u bmiss i on, i nc l ud i ng t he de ve lopment a nd d el i v er y of s tru ctu ral l ec t ures a nd l a b s , h as be e n comp l et ed b y R ob Wh ite h e ad .

TEACHING: COURSE EVALUATIONS ARCH 445: TECH V

FALL ‘12

72 students, 44% resp.

FALL ‘13

77 students, 55% resp.

FALL ‘14

80 students, 51% resp.

(abridged)

FALL ‘15

75 students, 41% resp.

FALL ‘16

78 students, 32% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

SPRING ‘13

ARCH 343: TECH IV

77 students, 53% resp.

SPRING ‘14

75 students, 61% resp.

SPRING ‘15

78 students, 38% resp.

SPRING ‘16

75 students, 57% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

ARCH 342: TECH III

FALL ‘12

79 students, 68% resp.

FALL ‘13

77 students, 38% resp.

FALL ‘14

80 students, 56% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

57

FALL ‘15

77 students, 53% resp.

FALL ‘16

74 students, 56% resp.

TEACHING: COURSE EVALUATIONS SPRING ‘13

ARCH 341: TECH II

77 students, 48% resp.

SPRING ‘14

62 students, 52% resp.

(abridged)

SPRING ‘15

78 students, 59% resp.

SPRING ‘16

80 students, 51% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

ARCH 245: TECH I

FALL ‘12

79 students, 68% resp.

FALL ‘13

77 students, 38% resp.

FALL ‘14

80 students, 56% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

ARCH 581: DB

SUMMER ‘15

8 students, 25% resp.

SUMMER ‘16

8 students, 63% resp.

Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn: Rate the effectiveness of the interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn: I was treated with consideration in this class: What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness:

58

FALL ‘15

77 students, 53% resp.

FALL ‘16

74 students, 56% resp.

TEACHING: COURSE EVALUATIONS ARCH 403 / 603 INT. STUDIO

Course Dept College

FALL ‘14

14 students, 50% resp.

FALL ‘15

22 students, 68% resp.

Questions: Scale, 1 (min.) to 5 (max.)

1.1) The selected readings and/or textbooks used in this course are: 1.2) Rate the usefulness of the assignments in helping you learn.

1.3) Rate the usefulness of class lectures in helping you learn.

1.4) Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn.

1.5) Rate the effectiveness of interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn.

1.6) Rate how well the various elements of the course have worked together to help you learn.

1.7) Rate how well the syllabus helped you understand the course goals and requirements.

2.1) My educational background prepared me with the skills and information I need to achieve success in this course.

2.2) I worked up to my potential in the course.

3.1) I believe what I was asked to learn in this course is important.

3.2) How much do you think you have learned in this course?

3.3) I was treated with consideration in this class.

3.4) What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness?

3.5) What is your overall rating of this course?

59

(abridged)

FALL ‘16

18 students, 67% resp.

TEACHING: COURSE EVALUATIONS ARCH 302 & DSN S 546

Course Dept College

302, SPRING ‘13 16 students, 66% resp.

302, SPRING ‘14 16 students, 40% resp.

Questions: Scale, 1 (min.) to 5 (max.)

1.1) The selected readings and/or textbooks used in this course are: 1.2) Rate the usefulness of the assignments in helping you learn.

1.3) Rate the usefulness of class lectures in helping you learn.

1.4) Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn.

1.5) Rate the effectiveness of interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn.

1.6) Rate how well the various elements of the course have worked together to help you learn.

1.7) Rate how well the syllabus helped you understand the course goals and requirements.

2.1) My educational background prepared me with the skills and information I need to achieve success in this course.

2.2) I worked up to my potential in the course.

3.1) I believe what I was asked to learn in this course is important.

3.2) How much do you think you have learned in this course?

3.3) I was treated with consideration in this class.

3.4) What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness?

3.5) What is your overall rating of this course?

60

(abridged)

546, SPRING ‘15 16 students, 56% resp.

TEACHING: COURSE EVALUATIONS ARCH 401: STUDIO

Course Dept College

FALL ‘13

FALL ‘12

(abridged)

16 students, 40% resp.

14 students, 50% resp.

Questions: Scale, 1 (min.) to 5 (max.)

1.1) The selected readings and/or textbooks used in this course are: 1.2) Rate the usefulness of the assignments in helping you learn.

1.3) Rate the usefulness of class lectures in helping you learn.

1.4) Rate the effectiveness of the instructor’s individual interactions with you in helping you learn.

1.5) Rate the effectiveness of interactions between the instructor and the class in helping you learn.

1.6) Rate how well the various elements of the course have worked together to help you learn.

1.7) Rate how well the syllabus helped you understand the course goals and requirements.

2.1) My educational background prepared me with the skills and information I need to achieve success in this course.

2.2) I worked up to my potential in the course.

3.1) I believe what I was asked to learn in this course is important.

3.2) How much do you think you have learned in this course?

3.3) I was treated with consideration in this class.

3.4) What is your overall rating of this instructor’s teaching effectiveness?

3.5) What is your overall rating of this course?

61

STUDIO: DESIGN FOR DISASTER RELIEF

STORE FLOOR: Elevated Tent Flooring and Storage System, Sp. 2017

Store Floor provides a solution that is an adjustable elevated floor

There are currently 3.5 million people living in tents worldwide. These

that doubles as a storage space within the floor itself. Store Floor is a

tents are purposed for emergency housing, with an intended 6-month

modular system that is adaptable to tent size and is easy to assemble-

lifespan. In most cases, emergency housing situations last much longer

-it is designed for immediate integration into the standard UNHCR tent

than their intended impact and 6-months turns to 6-years of living in the

systems used worldwide. It is fabricated out of recycled structural plastic

tents. But, the tents do not include any floor. This becomes problematic

with a metal frame to ensure that the floor is stable and supportive of the

for the average person who spends 16-20 hours a day on their shelter

appropriate weight. The space within the floor provides a secure space

floor. Living on the bare earth causes higher risk for parasitic infection,

for storing personal belongings. Store Floor brings sense of security, pre-

anemia, diarrhea, lower development rates, suicide and depression, flash

vents diseases, increases overall quality of life, and creates more resilient

flooding risks and hypothermia.

living environments. LINK TO FINAL PROPOSAL

62

STUDIO: DESIGN FOR DISASTER RELIEF

F L E X F O L D

D E P L OYA B L E

JOINT LOCK

S H E LT E R

FABRIC PANEL

cont’d.

DEPLOYABLE SCHOOL

CHARGING STATION

PARTITION WALL

WATER HARVESTING

Chalk/White Board Surface

Flexfold is an emergency shelter, designed for NGO’s who would deploy the system for the use of those suffering from a disaster. It is a lightweight and quickly deployable structure, which would serve various functions including a shading device, water collecting system, charging station, and a classroom with a configurable partition wall. It could be used all over the world, especially in dry and warmer climates where people have to wait in queue for food and water. FlexFold uses an origami (Yoshimura Pattern) form to create a Prismoidal (Triangular) folded plate structure. The paradox of the folded plate is how it wants to be a solid monolithic form, however, we are using the form to create a deployable form that is able to move to aid with disaster relief.

Hinge Rigid Plastic Board Bent PVC Frame Hinged PVC Brace (Presentation) PVC Snap Clamp

Recycled Fabric Hinged PVC Brace (Work Table)

Solar Power Panel FlexFold Frame Cables Linking Power Panel, Transmitter, and Charging Pad

PVC Snap Clamp

Wireless Battery Charging Pad

PVC Curtain Rod

PVC Valley Gutter

PVC Water Filter

FlexFold Lock Solar Power Transmitter Battery

45 Gallon Plastic Water Tank

Presentation Board

PVC Water Pump + Spigot

Wrap Around Frame Fix With Velcro or Button

Work Table

Wireless Battery Charging Pad Solar Power Transmitter Battery

PROBLEMS ADDRESSED

JOINT LOCK

FABRIC PANEL

DEPLOYMENT

DEPLOYABLE SCHOOL

CHARGING STATION

PARTITION WALL

WATER HARVESTING

PLASTIC PANEL AND HINGE ASSEMBLY

NotchLock ForNotches Locks

PVCHinges Hinges PVC Plastic

PHONE CHARGING SHADE SHELTER

Stamped Plastic Panel Stamped Plastic Panels

Hinge Rotation Notch Notch For Hinge Rotation

FOLDED PLATE PATTERN

Fold Down (Valley) OUTLINE OF PANELS Outline of (Valley) Panels Fold Down

Outline of Panels Outline of Panels

FOLD DOWN (VALLEY) Fold Up (Ridge) Fold Down (Valley)

Fold Up (Ridge) Fold (Valley) Outline FoldDown Upof(Ridge) Panels

FOLD UP (RIDGE) Fold Up (Ridge)

FLEXFOLD MODIFICATIONS

DEPLOYABLE SCHOOL

DEPLOYMENT top f9f9f9 Right e8e8e8 Left c9c9c9 People 474747

FLEXFOLD: Deployable Folded Plate Shelter, Spring 2017

frame in-filled with corrugated plastic panels that gives the structure

FlexFold is a lightweight, easily assembled, and deployable system that

rigidity. The folded plate structure allows for the enclosure to be self-

uses an origami (Yoshimura Pattern) form to create a Prismoidal (Trian-

supporting without internal supports, leaving an open floor plan for a

gular) folded plate structure. The FlexFold system is designed to be

variety of programs.

deployed almost directly after disaster hits. It allows a variety of uses for

Targeted programs for the system include: shaded space for food and

various post disaster relief efforts. It needs to be easily deployed and

water distribution, remote education spaces, post disaster community

lightweight so it can be set up by only a few people.

organization outposts, and family location centers, among many other

Different from a conventional tent, this structure is supported by a PVC

potential uses. LINK TO FINAL PROPOSAL

63

Community Collective

Marsabit, Kenya

Rebecca Baldus - Zach Lefeber - Krista Zeman

The right to life with dignity

The goal for the rainwater collection system is to provide a village of 70 enough clean water for drinking and cooking, about 50% of their daily need. Providing a clean water source within the village reduces the amount of time needed for traveling to distant sources and allows villagers to pursue other endeavors.

STUDIO: DESIGN FOR DISASTER RELIEF

cont’d.

Recreation Center

Cooking

Storage

Pavilion

Storage

Water Tanks

0

5

10

20

40

Solar Panels

Roof Plan

Below the massive water collecting roof are a series of spaces used for community activities. A large, recessed, central floor promotes recreational activities, cultural events, and educational sessions addressing topics such as clean water and new building techniques. Other portions of the center provide spaces for smaller gatherings and community cooking, which promotes water and fuel conservation.

Community Center Exterior View

Four months of drought were taken into account when sizing the roof and water cisterns.

In ideal conditions, the center will collect a surplus of water in the rainy months and store it to continue providing clean water through the months of drought.

South Elevation

4’

Velcro straps

4’ Metal compression ring Metal compression funnel

Polyester fabric

Plastic barb Velcro straps

3.5’ Vinyl hose

2” pvc pipe

Custom pvc joints

0” 1” 2” 3”

9”

Educational session

0”

.5’

1’

2’

Recreation Facility

Outdoor Community Cooking, Water Collection, and Recreation Center, Bamboo Space Frame with 3d printed joints, Spring 2016.

Cool School, Design Competition Entry, Remote classroom for Mongolian Herder Families, Spring 2016. LINK TO FINAL PROPOSAL

64

STUDIO: INTEGRATED STUDIO, ARCH 403

Seat t le A q u a t ic Av i a ti on a n d Ma ri ti me Mus eum , Cons tru c tio n S p e c i f i e r ’s In s t i t u t e ( C S I) P ri ze: 2 nd pl ace, Ben Kruse & Bra ndo n Fettes, 2015

65

STUDIO: INTEGRATED STUDIO, ARCH 403

cont’d.

Ci t y o f B o st o n Mu s e u m, N orth e r n Av e n u e B ri dge, 2 0 1 6 Construction Specifier’s Institute (CSI) Prize: 2nd place, C. Niess, MJ Johnson, and J. Vandercar, LINK TO FINAL BOARDS

66

STUDIO: INTEGRATED STUDIO, ARCH 403

cont’d.

D e s ig n M a r f a Hou s i n g C omp e ti ti on E n try, Ma r fa , TX 2015, Ra mmed Ea r t h “ D og Trot ” H ous ing Complex Jon B a rtk o w ic z & D i l l on We i t l , F a l l 2 0 1 5

67

STUDIO: COMPREHENSIVE, ARCH 401

Mus e u m f o r In n ov a ti v e O b j e c ts of D e s i g n, Col um bus , I ndi ana Isab e lle L e y s e n s , F a l l 2 0 1 3

68

STUDIO: COMPREHENSIVE, ARCH 401

cont’d.

Mus e u m f o r In n ov a ti v e O b j e c ts of D e s i g n, Columbus , India na El issa B ru e g gm an , F a l l 2 0 1 2 , S e l e c t e d f or Exhi bi t i on at Fi gge A r t Mus eum Com m uni t y A r t G allery

69

STRUCTURAL COURSE I, ARCH 245 Arch 245, Structural Technology in Practice I, Introduction to Structural Design Principles, Cour s e Des cr i ption: This cour s e is the f irst semester of a multiyea r s equence c overing the subjec ts of a rchit ect ur a l building tec hnologies. As the int roduct or y course in the sequence, there will be a n emphasis on the f undamentals of t he building t echnologies: environmental s ys t ems , ma t erials/assembly, and building s t r uct ures .

L ear ni ng Out c omes: - Under s t a nd ho w f oundational struc tural cr it er ia : s t rength, stiff ness, stability, s er vicea bilit y and shape aff ec ts struc tural per for ma nce.

- Under s t a nd forc es, loads, and equilibrium a nd how t hes e c oncepts are f ound in certain loa ding condit ions.

- D emons t r a t e the ability to design/test/ a nd a s s es s s t r uc tural lab problems with s cient ifica lly- based evaluation methods.

- Funda ment a l understanding of lateral loa ding condit ions, f orce transf er through a building fr a m e, and responsive design opt ions t o es t ablish stability ( pin v. moment connect ions , s hear walls, diaphragms, etc . ) .

“A mu c h m o re e n g a g i n g w a y t o t e a c h st r uct ures …t hat m ade t he cour s e fu n .” – S tu d e n t E v a l u a t i on C omme n t

70

STRUCTURAL COURSE I, ARCH 245

“Lov e th e n e w c ou r s e … h e l p s me l e a r n t w i ce as qui ck lear n in g e v e ryth i n g h a n d s on r a t h e r t h a n j us t out of t he book s .” – S tu d e n t E v a l u a t i on C omme n t .

71

cont’d.

STRUCTURAL COURSE II, ARCH 341 Arch 341, Structural Technology in Practice II, Structural Selection/Evaluation & FormActive Systems Course Description: As a follow-up to the introductory course in the sequence, this course builds upon foundational skills and knowledge established in the previous semester’s course work.

Elevated expectations for technical acumen, analytic methods, and technical documentation are integrated into course activities. Focus is on Form-Active systems.

Lear ning Outcomes: -Understand structural system classifications in terms of materiality, constructability, and formal/spatial consequences in architecture.

-Develop an ability to accurately identify and graphically represent different discrete components of various structural systems.

-Demonstrate an ability to design Form-Active structures and their discrete components including cable-based systems and arched structures).

-Have the ability to calculate critical stress levels of axially loaded components and size “The labs were interesting and time consuming, but I didn’t mind that because I learned a lot. I have a better understanding of both the technical and design aspects of creating structures. .” – Student Evaluation Comment.

72

them accordingly.

STRUCTURAL COURSE II, ARCH 341

cont’d.

Arch 245, Structural Technology in Practice I, Introduction to Structural Design Principles, Cour s e Des cr i p tion: This cour s e is the f irst semester of a multiyea r s equence c overing the subjec ts of a rchit ect ur a l building technologies. As the int roduct or y co urse in the sequenc e, there will be a n emphasis on the f undamentals of t he building t e c hnologies: environmental s ys t ems , ma t erials/assembly, and building s t r uct ures .

L ear ni ng Out comes: - Under s t a nd how f oundational struc tural cr it er ia : s t rength, stiff ness, stability, s er vicea bilit y and shape aff ec ts struc tural per for ma nce.

- Under s t a nd fo rces, loads, and equilibrium a nd how t hes e concepts are f ound in certain loa ding conditions.

- D emons t r a t e the ability to design/test/ a nd a s s es s s t r u ctural lab problems with s cient ifica lly- based evaluation methods.

- Funda ment a l u nderstanding of lateral loa ding conditions, f orce transf er through a building fr a me, and responsive design opt ions t o es t ablish stability ( pin v. moment connect ions , s h ear walls, diaphragms, etc. ) .

“I t o ld m y c ivil e n g i n e e r i n g f r i e n d w h a t w e di d i n cl as s —he s ai d t hat he w ant ed t o t ake t he class. He was jealous of what we lea r n e d !.” – S t u d e n t E ma i l C omme n t .

73

STRUCTURAL COURSE III, ARCH 342 Arch 342, Structural Technology in Practice III, Structural Analysis & Section-Active systems.

Course Description: As the third semester out of five in the sequence, this course focuses on SectionResistant systems (beam, slabs, columns, foundations, etc.) and the ways of sizing and arranging these elements together.

342 Lear ning Outcomes: -Develop a detailed understanding of material and mathematical considerations in the evaluation of “shape” and “strength” in relation to certain Section-Resistant structural elements (beams, columns, etc.).

-Understand a range of information about beams, slabs, and columns, from conceptual design qualities, the logic of their behaviors, and detailed analysis techniques that select and size members. Understand pros/cons of different construction methods.

-Demonstrated ability to apply structural knowledge to lab problems. Use of proper terminology, understanding of critical calculations & design factors, and ability to complete structural layouts/documentation of proposed designs.

“Lov e d wo rk in g w i t h c on c re t e a n d ma k i n g beam s and s l abs . ” – St udent Eva lua tio n Co m me n t .

74

STRUCTURAL COURSE III, ARCH 342

cont’d.

Arch 245, Structural Technology in Practice I, Introduction to Structural Design Principles, Cour s e Des cr i ption: This cour s e is the f irst semester of a multiyea r s equence c overing the subjec ts of a rchit ect ur a l building tec hnologies. As the int roduct or y course in the sequence, there will be a n emphasis on the f undamentals of t he building t echnologies: environmental s ys t ems , ma t erials/assembly, and building s t r uct ures .

L ear ni ng Out c omes: - Under s t a nd ho w f oundational struc tural cr it er ia : s t rength, stiff ness, stability, s er vicea bilit y and shape aff ec ts struc tural per for ma nce.

- Under s t a nd forc es, loads, and equilibrium a nd how t hes e c oncepts are f ound in certain loa ding condit ions.

- D emons t r a t e the ability to design/test/ a nd a s s es s s t r uc tural lab problems with s cient ifica lly- based evaluation methods.

- Funda ment a l understanding of lateral loa ding condit ions, f orce transf er through a building fr a m e, and responsive design opt ions t o es t ablish stability ( pin v. moment connect ions , s hear walls, diaphragms, etc . ) .

“Wh a t I wa s a s k ed t o l e a r n i s some t h i n g I w i l l act ual l y i m pl em ent i n m y des i gns , w el l t aught .”

– S tu d e n t E v a lu a t i on C omme n t .

75

STRUCTURAL COURSE IV, ARCH 343 Arch 343, Structural Technology in Practice IV, Advanced Structural Design and Construction Systems.

Course Description: As the fourth semester out of five in the sequence, this semester presents advanced structural considerations for multi-story structures.

343 Learning Outcomes: -Understand how lateral forces affect the framing, connections, and layout of midrise and high-rise structures. Calculate and analyze affect of lateral forces (wind and seismic) on building structures.

-Demonstrated ability to apply structural knowledge about framing and lateral stability system in the design of a multi-story building typology.

-Ability to evaluate and design different structural framing systems based on a given set of criteria (e.g., steel versus concrete).

-Demonstrate an ability to reconfigure and re-evaluate different design options as criteria change (e.g., bay sizes, heights, configurations).

-Size different components associated with various structural systems (in plan, section,

“Actu a lly le a r n e d a b ou t st r u c t u re s . S u p e r organi zed. Great

and three dimensions) in different materials.

a ssign m e n ts . ” – S t u d e n t E v a l u a t i on C omment

76

STRUCTURAL COURSE IV, ARCH 343

cont’d.

“I app la u d th e e ffor t s t o i n t e g r a t e ou r s t u d i o proj ect s i nt o l ab . ” – St udent Ev al uat i on Com m ent.

77

STRUCTURAL COURSE V, ARCH 445 Arch 445, Structural Technology in Practice V, Long Span Systems & Advanced Structural Design and Construction Systems.

Course Description: This course is the fifth and final semester.

Synthesis of advanced considerations of material, environmental, and structural systems are expected.

Learning Outcomes: -Ability to select, compare, evaluate, and assess the pros/cons of various long span structural systems (trusses, rigid frames, shells, membrane structures, pneumatics, etc.) including the ability to understand the relationship between each system’s inherent efficiencies and the resulting form.

-Research and present information about a building’s structural systems, associated construction challenges, and the ecological consequences, and overall relationship with other architectural considerations (form, space, serviceability, etc.).

-Using basic formulas and testing of 3D models, develop an ability to understand and assess lateral behavior in structures (including “I can s e e th e fai l u re a n d s e e w h a t I d i d w rong and how i t coul d be imp ro v e d.” – S tud e n t E v a l u a t i on C omme nt .

high-rises) caused by wind and/or seismic activity and capacity to locate stabilizing building elements to withstand these forces.

78

STRUCTURAL COURSE V, ARCH 445

cont’d.

“Wow! W hat a b eautiful failure. Althoug h our system held the 50 lb s. when the ic e was over the footing s, when the b ag s were p lac ed in the center, the system slowly failed … failing slowly is a d esig n c hoice that p revents c atastrop hes in b uild ing failure...The failure was seen most evid ently in the c ross b racing of the system in the c omp ressive memb ers, where the b rac ing severely b ent and eventually snap p ed in half. I t was interesting however, to see c learly where the load was b eing transferred to, b ecause you could track it from the load p lac ed on top all the way to the footing s and p oints of failure.” – Stud ent Lab R ep ort

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

79

EXTENSION narrative design / build creative projects

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

80

EXTENSION / PRACTICE: NARRATIVE

T h e p r i m a r y e xp ressi o n o f m y e x t e n s i on / p ro fessi o n al pr a ct i ce i s f o un d i n a seri es o f d e s i g n / b ui l d p ro j e c ts.

M a n y o f t h e se p ro j ec ts h ave be e n co mp le te d as p art o f m y ro l e a s the i nstruc to r ( a n d p ro j e c t arc hi tec t) fo r t h e d e s i g n / b ui l d c o urses fo r f i r s t - y e ar g rad u ate arch i t e ct u re stud en ts. As pa r t o f t h e se c o u rses, we fo rg e p a r t n e rshi p s wi th lo ca l n o n - p ro fi ts to p ro vi d e de s i g n / b u i l d se rvi c e s fo r pro j e ct t h e y ne e d b u t m ay n o t b e a b l e to c o m m i ssi o n o r a ff o rd u n d er trad i ti o n al c i rcu ms t a n ces.

M y i n i t i a l resp o n si b i l i ti es in cl u d e t h e so l i c i tati o n o f pro j e ct o p p o rtun i ti e s and fu n d i n g f o r eac h p ro j ec t wel l in a d v a n ce o f th e c o u rse’s be g i n n i n g . Ad d i ti o n al l y, be ca u s e t h ese are ac tual pro j e ct s t h at are u sed b y th e pu b l i c, m y re sp o nsi b i l i ti es fo r e a ch p roj ec t i n c l u d e th e ro l e o f p ro j ec t arc h i tec t

and architect- of - record f or permit drawings (I am a regis tered architect).

T hes e projects are des igned as collaboratively as pos s ible along with the s tudents , but there heath/s af ety/ welf are ris ks as s ociated with the work that require prof es s ional overs ight. A s noted in the ens uing project s heets , I’ve collaborated with colleagues f or two of thes e projects .

Student activities include the development and ref inement of a des ign s cheme, pres ent the des ign and budget to a client group, meet with cons ultants (as req’d.), res earch available materials and cos ts , develop a f inal s et of permitted cons truction documents that match a given budget (us ually a very meager budget under $5,000). During cons truction, s tudents participate in all phas es of work whenever

81

pos s ib l e, i nc l ud i ng s i te work, f ound a ti ons , f ra mi ng , roof in g , a nd f urni s hi ng and eq ui p ment d es i g n a nd implementa ti on. Freq uentl y there a re l i mi ts of ti me a nd availabl e tool s s o s tud ents coordi na te w i th ei ther l oc a l contra c tors c ommi s s i oned to help or c l i ents w i th cons truc ti on s p ec i a l ti es .

O ne s tud ent s umma ri zed the experienc e b y s ta ti ng : “De s ig n/ b ui l d offer s uni q ue h an ds - on ex p er i enc e wi t h th e phy s i c a l p roc es s of con s tr uc t i ng our i nt el l ec t ua l de s igns . From s i t e pe r mit t i ng , c l i ent rel a t i ons an d ma t er i a l s s ourc i ng to h au l i ng d i r t , p our i ng con cret e a nd c l i mb i ng s caffo l d s , t hi s c our s e offer s a ‘lived ’ t y p e of l ea r ni ng th at is el us i v e i n t he more traditi ona l a c a d emi c d es i g n world ,”

DESIGN / BUILD: BISHOP SHELTER Arch 581: Design / Build Service Learning, Summer 2016, Project Design by R. Whitehead, S. Doyle, & Arch 581 Students. (Stamped by R. Whitehead). Budget: $70,000. LINK TO ARTICLE The Bishop Family Shelter is the first structure built in the recently inaugurated Dunlap Park Arboretum in Urbandale, Iowa. The design and construction work for the shelter was completed as part of a service learning/design build course for the Master of Architecture program at ISU. The small group students worked with the community to ensure that the 16’ x 40’ covered park shelter could accommodate both community recreational and educational activities. The project’s location on the site, the simple form, and the refined level of detail in the benches, shelves, and tables reflects a purposeful approach to design that sees elegance in the interplay of these basic and profound elements.

The constrained selection of materials (cedar and galvanized steel) when combined with basic principles of structures, sunlight, and construction creates a beautiful and simple composition.

This overall simplicity helps focus the attention and experience of most users to the most highly crafting areas of the project--the places where people physically interact with the pavilion.

82

DESIGN / BUILD: BISHOP SHELTER

83

cont’d.

DESIGN / BUILD: DM SOCIAL CLUB Arch 581: Design / Build Service Learning, Summer 2016, Project Design by R. Whitehead, C. Rogers, & Arch 581 Students. (Stamped by R. Whitehead). Budget: $4,500.

As part Prof. Rogers’ work with the Community Design Lab at ISU, a local non-profit, the Des Moines Social Club (DMSC) needed an outdoor performance venue and gathering space in their existing parking lot. In anticipation of outdoor performance events, the client had already built three large skewed concrete walls in the corner of the courtyard and wanted to add a permanent stage in front of the walls to complete the project. The client was open to the idea that the final project could include additional projects proposed by the Community Design Lab project such as seating, shelters, outdoor display areas, and/or community garden spaces.

Student activities included the development and refinement of a design scheme, present the design and budget to a client group, meet with consultants (as req’d.), research available materials and costs, develop a final set of permitted construction documents that match a given budget (a very meager $4,500). During construction, students participate in all phases of work whenever possible. Some of the work was completed off-site (prototype and pre-fab).

84

DESIGN / BUILD: DM SOCIAL CLUB

85

cont’d.

DESIGN / BUILD: STORY COUNTY CONSERV. Arch 581: Design / Build Service Learning, Summer 2013-14, Project Design by R. Whitehead & Arch 581 Students. (Stamped by R. Whitehead).

Story County Conservation Parks: West Peterson Park and Hickory Grove Park. Arch 581.

Sighted Shelter, Information Kiosk, & Fishing Docks #1 & 2. Budget: $2,000 & $2,500.

Story County desired a unique, cost-effective, beautiful and sustainable shelter for a somewhat remote site within the park--across the pond adjacent to a somewhat isolated pedestrian path. They had a tight time line for the work and very little money budgeted--a perfect opportunity for architectural ingenuity. The shelter was placed on a small open outcropping of land that stuck into the lake. Because this location was far away from the park entry and parking lot, it had to have a visually striking presence upon first viewing from a distance and it had to be built out of small pieces that could be transported to the remote site. Students gathered on site and selected the exact location of the shelter after analyzing the best views, the easiest access to the adjacent trailway. They proposed a height and overhang for the shelter to provide maximum comfort from harsh summer sun and to capture prevailing winds.

86

DESIGN / BUILD: STORY COUNTY CONSERV.

87

cont’d.

DESIGN / BUILD: STORY COUNTY CONSERV.

cont’d.

Because of the incredibly restricted

passing pedestrians.

budget of $2,000, only a wooden

structure could be used and each

FISHING DOCKS: After the success of

piece of wood was selected to match

the Sighted Shelter project from the

nominal lengths to reduce waste.

previous summer, we were invited back

Underneath the lightweight wooden

to work with Story County for a second

structure, the class constructed

consecutive year. Story County wanted

rammed-earth benches to create

two new fishing docks set in the

three separate “rooms” on the site-

Peterson Pits lake. For the designs,

-one facing inward under the roof

the students argued that people use

with others facing out to the unique

docks for many reasons and that the

views offered of the park. These

physical attributes of the dock should

rammed earth benches are uniquely

be designed in a way that enhances

modified to meet the environmental

these activities. As such they designed

challenges of an Iowa climate (select

an L-shape dock that allowed for a

soil types, 10% Portland cement, etc.).

boat dock along the open edge, a

Stabilized rammed earth is a beautiful,

continuous bench for sunbathing

low-impact and affordable solution

and relaxing, and dedicated “Fishing

to providing permanent outdoor

Stations” at the front of the dock with

seating for the park shelter--it was

places for tackle boxes, supplies, and

also quite affordable. Finally, students

a built-in pole holder. A second dock

crafted custom screens for bench

was designed and built right next to

backrests and used a translucent roof

the Sighted Shelter from 2013. This

material for the shelter to create a

completed the master plan idea from

unique environment for park patrons-

the previous year that the shelter

-elements that also benefited the

space would provide a full range of

environmental responsiveness of the

recreational options. This design also

structure. A custom fixed table was

accommodated a boat dock, a leaning

placed in the middle of the shelter,

rail for fishing, and free-standing

instantly announcing its purpose to

benches for resting.

88

DESIGN / BUILD: STORY COUNTY CONSERV.

cont’d.

“I wanted to thank you and your group for doing such a wonderful job on the picnic shelter. I think it looks great and really adds a lot to the park. Your group’s hard work is greatly appreciated. With projects like this that are coordinated between two groups there are often challenges. I thought this project went well and your group’s flexibility made a difference in making the end date in time. With our schedule being all over the board timing and coordinating work and supplies is often difficult, we hope we met your expectations on the project. We are definitely interested in continuing this partnership moving forward...

Again, great job.” -Ryan Wiemold, Story County Park Ranger

89

DESIGN / BUILD: FREE LITTLE LIBRARY

Designer / fabricator, “Free Little Library,” Tigerwood & Lasercut Plexiglass; Digital Design & Fabrication, Auctioned for charity (Des Moines Public Schools), 2015.

90

DESIGN / BUILD: “SINGLE-PLY” SEATING

Designer / fabricator, “Single-Ply Chair & Ottoman,” Cherry Veneer Plywood; Digital Design & Fabrication (CNC Router), The challenge was to design a chair and ottoman from a single sheet of 48 x 96 plywood. Digital design was used to define the different curves for the seats and backs for ergonomics. Auctioned for charity (Des Moines Public Schools), 2013.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

91

RESEARCH narrative projects

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

92

RESEARCH: NARRATIVE

My research is broadly based in the building sciences, with a focus on the design and construction of architectural structures. The work looks at the ways that structural designers learn to develop, evaluate, and innovate their designs.

More specifically, this research is fundamentally concerned with how innovations emerge from two separate, but often related, scenarios: Projects that aspired to innovate but didn’t perform as intended (“failing” in an illustrative manner) and/or structures that had to innovate as a result of a constrained conditions of time, resources, tools, or technical limitations.

In both cases, lessons about the nature of experimentation and innovation in the design and construction process are extracted from the case-studies and used to illuminate contemporary practice and educational chal-

lenges. Ultimately both lines of inquiry return back to how architectural designers learn to design, evaluate, and integrate structural principles in their designs so structural pedagogy is a third research theme.

Selecting illustrative examples of the types of failures to study is important--the intent isn’t to be scientifically forensic. Instead, I’ve looked for examples of projects that were intended to be innovative in how they were designed, built, meant to perform, etc.; then I look at the reasons why the building didn’t perform as intended and try to explain these reasons to others. These examples serve as a microcosm to a larger discussion about educational & practice models, the efficacy of tools we develop and use.

As demonstrated in many of scholarly expressions of this research, I have developed a large body of research relat-

93

ed to Eero Saarinen’s career during the most structurally experimental portion of his career (1955-61). Many of these projects required significant adjustments by the engineers to accommodate Saarinen’s often misplaced structural expressions. These projects emerged from a pre-computational practice in which models, calculations, and new tools were developed to solve these problems (physical models were useful). A particular point of emphasis is the relatively unpublished relationship between Saarinen and his structural engineering consultants as it involves larger questions about practice, design/analysis tools, and the evolving construction industry of the 1950-60s.

My research also looks at two other figures, Buckminster Fuller and Frei Otto, who were also experimenting with innovative structural designs during this same era.

RESEARCH: NARRATIVE

Like Saarinen, their projects emerged from a pre-computational practice in which physical models were combined with new evaluation tools that were developed to help solve these problems.

Looking at the failures and innovations that resulted from these experiments are particularly illustrative to understand current trends in form-finding and behavioral confirmation. But unlike Saarinen, Otto and Fuller’s proposals were more aspirational; they saw structural innovations as a way of helping solve pressing humanitarian problems.

Otto and Fuller saw the significant demands for viable, deployable, longer spanning and resilient structures in locations around the world.

Because these problems require specific attention to structural form, materials, and deployment, they realized they could offer important insights about structural efficiency, construction, and

overall effectiveness that are central to these endeavors.

Otto described his attempt to solve larger humanitarian issues in his late career work as, “one of my duties.”

Their efforts weren’t universally effective and had many “failures” that affected their implementations.

Studying these historic research projects led me to the second focus of my research agenda: role of innovative structural designs for disaster relief or recovery efforts.

Under these difficult conditions, innovations can follow the constrained conditions of time, budget, and technical limitations of materials and construction methods.

There are several innovative contemporary proposals for digital design and fabrication techniques that seem to promise radically new opportunities (3d printed houses, robotic construction, concrete fabric, etc.) so my initial research agenda looked

94

at these proposals skeptically through the lens of “experimentation, innovation, and failures.” As these problems are traditionally more vexing than simply technical constraints (e.g., economic, environmental, and cultural reasons a 3D printed house won’t work), it is helpful to take a broader perspective.

These research topics ultimately lead back to the question of how designers learn to create and evaluate architectural structures so it is important to supplement this work with research that looks at ways to improve structural design pedagogy.

This relationship between thinking about structures, making design proposals, and evaluating their effectiveness will continue be a primary focus of the “deeper dive” research projects discussed in the FUTURE section of the dossier.

RESEARCH: BOOK PROPOSAL

“PAST THE BREAKING POINT: FORMATIVE FAILURES IN DESIGN,” with co-author Marci Uihlein Completed Book Proposal to Routledge, 2015. On hold by authors.

systems that inherently have a degree of analytical uncertainty and elevated levels of expected expertise and practice collaboration (structural shells, lightweight structures, and long spans).

OVERVIEW: There is a fine line between failure and innovation in architectural design. Learning from failures isn’t simply a matter of reiteration or reflection--it frequently requires new tools, perspectives, and perseverance to move past the problem.

PROPOSAL EXCERPT: Designing innovative structures that are longer, taller, thinner, and more lightweight than conventional standards is inherently risky. Even though the threat of potential failure is eminent, innovative designers run towards these potential failures, approaching the edge of uncertainty, and seeking the informative lessons found at the project’s limits. Unfortunately, not all failures can be found and fixed before they are built and some of these buildings have sagged, swayed, and even collapsed. But even though these mistakes are unfortunate, professionals find ways to learn from these failures to innovate and improve their practices.

Many of the key lessons are found in what happens AFTER the failures occur.

This book, simply put, is about how architects and engineers learn to move past setbacks and failures in design. The book will look at the critical lessons learned in collaborative practice relationship between architects and structural engineering design teams resulting from formative failures they’ve endured (or avoided) in their work. The projects featured would be complex structural

95

RESEARCH: SAARINEN DESIGN PROCESS

SAARINEN DESIGN PROCESS & ANALYTICAL TOOLS: This part of the Saarinen research looks at the relationship between Saarinen and his collaborating engineers at Ammann & Whitney. Specifically this looks at the tools that were used by Saarinen to design the work, how these were conveyed to the engineers and the tools the engineers developed to test, confirm, and document the projects. A dramatic change occurred in ten years between Kresge Auditorium and Dulles; I argue as the result of Boyd Anderson.

96

RESEARCH: SAARINEN DESIGN PROCESS

97

cont’d.

RESEARCH: SAARINEN SHELLS CONSTR. SAARINEN SHELLS: This part of the Saarinen research looks at the emerging influence exerted on Saarinen from his engineering team and the specific constraints of construction. In these slides the failures of the Kresge shell can be seen as influencing the overall design of the TWA models (e.g. changing one shell into four) and the resulting innovations in construction.

98

RESEARCH: PHYSICAL MODELS “FAILURES” PHYSICAL MODELS: This portion of my research looks at the history of design and evaluation tools in precomputational practice, specifically the value of physical models for both form-finding and performance confirmation.

These projects are typically long span innovative projects that defy traditional calculation and analysis (e.g., indeterminate, monolithic material behavior, etc.). The models provided correlative evidence to computational / analytical methods.

But other physical models were also able to be used for form-finding AND confirmation, including projects by Heinz Isler, Frei Otto, and Ove Arup.

At a certain point, the double-curvature of the models proved increasingly more difficult to analyze and document, leading to the first use of “automatic drafting machine.”

LINK TO PRESENTATION

99

RESEARCH: OTTO & FULLER EXPERIMENTS ARCTIC CITY: This project looks at the history of early design experiments completed

by Buckminster Fuller and Frei Otto that envisioned the potential for long-span “mega-structures” that could potentially be used for humanitarian purposes.

In the Arctic City proposal of 1971, Frei Otto and Ewald Bubner (with Kenzo Tange and Ove Arup) developed the Arctic City study based loosely on Fuller’s 1960 Dome Over Manhattan proposal. A 1:2000 scale model of PVC, foil and fishnet was built with a blower system to produce the internal pressure.

These proposals, including ones shown on the ensuing pages were speculative, but were intended to be technically viable.

My research work looks specifically at the technical aspects of this work and the limitations (materials, fabrication, etc.).

Journal proposal forthcoming.

100

RESEARCH: OTTO & FULLER EXPERIMENTS

cont’d.

DYMAXION HOUSE: Fuller developed a philosophy of industrialization that concluded with the belief that humankind could actively evolve by transforming our patterns of “making” to create more possible efficiencies by harnessing our available technology.

One of Fuller’s most prominent failed experiments was the development and implementation of the Dymaxion House. This research looks at Fuller’s motivations and the technical limits of his proposals.

Specifically this research examines the viability of the structural principles of this “house on a pole,” including the pneumatic floor pillows and pre-fab core elements.

The work tries to discern the viability of the proposal’s technical merits and how these contributed to the compromises of the Wichita House construction.

101

RESEARCH: WACHSMANN JOINT STUDY

“Digital & Physical Simulations of Konrad Wachsmann’s, USAF Proposal,” This research looked at the technical aspects of the Wachsmann’s 1951 USAF proposal (joints and proposed construction sequencing). Digital and physical models were used to test the viability of the proposal (sequencing claims were suspicious).

With assistance from RAs: Abulimiti Aikebai & MJ Johnson, 2013-15.

102

RESEARCH: DISASTER RELIEF FAILURES FAILURES IN DISASTER DESIGNS: This work represents a casestudy of several high-profile and notable “failures” in disaster relief / recovery structures that I’ve studied including: the FEMA trailers, the UNHCR tents (and tent cities), and IKEA’s Disaster Relief Shelter (paradoxically named Design Museum’s 2016 Design of the Year).

IKEA SHELTER COMPLICATIONS, 2017 Summary: The first version of the flat-pack disaster shelter has been plagued with more difficult deployment than anticapted, poor ventilation, poor lighting, and a weaker frame and panel system than desired. The shelters have no floor and can’t be placed on irregular grade. Fewer modifications are possible than anticipated.

My research is focused on the specific technical and design problems of transportation, deployment, durability, and materiality (off-gassing).

Further, this work looks at how to add specific information about design environments, shelters, and deployment techniques into the most common operational and training manuals for global NGOs, including the Sphere Project. I’ve made contact with the Sphere Project and my students and I have prepared several examples of potential ways to include this information as case-studies.

POST-DISASTER COMMUNICATION SHELTER & OPERATIONS: With Devika Tandon, 2015

103

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESEARCH: DISASTER RELIEF PROTOTYPES DESIGN FOR DISASTER RELIEF & DEPLOYABLE STRUCTURES: My research into structural applications for deployable structures is an attempt to join a larger community of researchers at institutions world-wide (including Oxford’s Deployable Structures group, MIT’s M.Arch “Fast, Cheap, and Out of the Box” option studio, ETH Zurich, and others).

A large portion of this design-based research work has already been shown in the SCHOLARSHIP and TEACHING sections of the dossier. The work represents an ongoing research projects for a deployable folded plate structure (or alternatively a lamella structure). The folded plate project was initially proposed and developed by students in my option studio but my research is focused on developing it further with digital design and fabrication techniques.

FLEXFOLD JOINT AND PANEL DEVELOPMENT, Digital model, 3d printed joint options, 2017.

104

FUTURE

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

105

FUTURE: NARRATIVE

SUMMARY: I believe that promotion to tenure would be an opportunity to extend my research opportunities into longer term projects—deeper dives into selected topics with the potential for more influential and sustaining results. My final goal isn’t tenure, it’s impact.

Throughout this dossier and within the CV, I have described specific on-going and future scholarly projects including books, journal papers, constructed prototypes / patents, etc. that I plan on pursuing. Clearly my work will continue to examine the relationship between the design and construction of innovative architectural structures with a particular emphasis on learning from failures and incorporating an expanding range of design and evaluative tools.

I’ve set forth an ambitious set of goals that will require prioritizing some efforts over

others.

I believe my best opportunity for impactful and sustaining work will come from the nexus of case-study analysis and design-build activities centered around deployable structures / disaster relief and recovery efforts. These structures have particular challenges in design, deployment, and implementation that fit well with the “Think, Make, Break” methodologies I’ve pursued in my work.

These projects will hopefully lead to a broader network of collaborators across many disciplines in and outside of academic circles. Additionally, these efforts, if approached collaboratively should lead to funding opportunities from diverse sources that are also interested in supporting this work.

Of course, I will continue to participate in SoTL work as the pursuit of scholarly teaching is both my obligation and my pleasure.

106

As a final note, I wanted to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing my work. I appreciate the value of critical discourse and sincerely look forward hearing any recommendations or reservations that you have about my work so I can continue to improve my efforts.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

THANK YOU

107

Rob Whitehead, AIA Assistant Professor Dept. of Architecture Iowa State University