By: Michael Dickson FIStructE This interesting book promotes a new way of looking at structural analysis. It suggests that the ability to work with the model (as distinct from the solution process) is a primary issue which should be formally addressed in practice and in education. The content is focussed on modelling issues and I know of no other text which does this so comprehensively. My own experience working with Buro Happold tells me that robust structural design requires the willingness to develop an understanding of structural behaviour with a questioning mind. In most consulting offices, current practice is to undertake this using finite element models of increasing complexity as understanding of the problem at hand grows. Iain MacLeod describes clearly how to build up this understanding using sensitivity analysis and simplified loadings to test validity against expectations from parallel calculation and modelling experiences. It is argued that risk will be reduced in practice if there is a rigorous analytical process that reflects the realities of current engineering practice in most offices. Most structures are of a reasonably conventional type and use well tried framing systems. Substantial experience already exists on their likely performance so hand calculations based on structural theory can be done to initiate formulation of the model or to act as a check on the results. However, even advanced classical methods struggle to model the sophistication of load paths in redundant or non linear structures where individual stiffness, material response and definition of restraint determines structural performance. In this case I have found that comparison of the output of simplified analytical results with physical models very useful as an addition to classical calculation - as advocated in the second chapter.. The book is thus both a useful reference for the practitioner and a comprehensive learning guide for the student. It builds on the publication by the Institution of Structural Engineers ‘Guidelines for the Use of Computers for Engineering Calculation’ published in 2002. Its carefully constructed content successfully redresses the imbalance in risk between the finite element process based around generally determinate calculation output which has itself been derived from a possibly non-determinate understanding of the actual modelling process. In the Introduction, the author suggests that all structural engineers and all civil engineers who use structural analysis will find the contents of the book to be useful. I think that he is right.
From: Dr M Y Rafiq, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, University of Plymouth, UK November 2005 I had the pleasure of knowing Iain MacLeod as my lecturer, supervisor and Head of Department at the University of Strathclyde, in the 1980s and I learned about his modelling approach to structural analysis at that time. I teach modelling techniques to my students at Plymouth University and have got very positive feedback practice about it. I usually refer to Iain’s 1990 book ‘Analytical Modelling of Structuralfrom from Systems’ in my lectures as an excellent source of useful information on analysis modelling, with greater emphasis on verification of computer results. Iain’s new book -
From: Matthew Petticrew, Associate, Ramboll UK, November, 2010 I was a student of Civil Engineering at Strathclyde University from 1994 to 1998, where I studied under Iain MacLeod. At graduation I joined engineering consultancy Ramboll (formerly Whitbybird) as a graduate structural Engineer. I now hold the position of Associate. From: David Mcwilliams, Structural Engineer, Ramboll Uk, November 2010 I spent the 5 years studying Architectural Engineering at the University of Strathclyde, with Prof. Macleod taking classes 3rd, 4th and 5th year (and advising on my dissertation throughout 4th year). Where the majority of classes were calculation and theory based, the new approach which was introduced by Prof. MacLeod was, personally, very well received. Where we had previously been getting bogged down with rigorous number crunching in structural analysis, we were now being taught a way of thinking, which gives far greater understanding of structural behaviour. His use of computer modelling of structures as a learning tool was greatly advantageous to us, and gives a knowledge of From: Graeme Quinn 5th Year MEng Student, University of Strathclyde. November 2010, Throughout my education years, from school up until university, the methods of teaching subjects usually have a similar form. The framework of the learning process usually follows: - Theory- the student if taught a background to a particular topic with emphasis on why it is important.
- Methodology- students are taught determinate method/s of solving problems and where these can be implemented.
- Tasks- the students learn the methods and implement them in a determinate problem in the knowledge that there is only one solution.
This method of teaching provides the student with a basic knowledge of a topic and arms them with the confidence to tackle these problems to find a unique solution. It is also fair to say from a personal perspective that if a student learns the method then he/she can solve a problem in an exam and achieve a relatively high mark without having a deep understanding of the problem. - Modelling- learning how to set up a model of a simple roof truss.
- Model Validation- to validate the model to ensure that it was implemented correctly.
- Results Verification- verifying the results output from the FEA software to ensure that they are what is expected.
By validating and verifying a model allowed us to understand the behaviour of a structure instead of just following a set out method. The form of learning provided me with the confidence to set up other models of a different form then validate it and verify the results. Understanding the modelling process required a degree of knowledge of the behaviour structures without which we would not know what was really going on.
From: Andrew Rolland, Project Engineer Civil, Network Rail When I studied Civil Engineering as an undergraduate at the University of Strathclyde I was fortunate to be introduced by Professor Iain MacLeod to the idea that structural analysis is more about working with models than about doing calculations.
A student experience A student who had taken a class which included modelling came to see me with an analysis model of a building as part of a design project. He had looked at the results and thought there was an error because the pattern of bending moments was not what he expected. We examined the situation together and found a reason to explain the behaviour that he had observed. Thus although the model was not wrong he (and I) had learned something about behaviour of that type of structure. I said to the student "I am very pleased that you asked this question. Was it because of what I had taught you in the modelling class?" He replied that this was indeed so and that he now used the modelling process questions regularly in his project work. He said that he had worked for a well known firm on a complex analysis of a building and remembered that the senior engineers working on the model tended not to look at the model and the results in this way.
From: Muhammad Ali Mian, Chief Executive, Hunermand Private Limited (HPL), Islamabad, Pakistan January 2015 I remember the introduction of the microcomputer in the 1980’s. In the company of Professor Iain Macleod at the University of Strathclyde he would emphasize structural behavior, modelling, back of envelope checks and sensitivity analysis. The era of computing made the computation of mechanics easier and allowed comparison of alternatives to provide a quantitative perspective from structural analysis. But the expertise and intuition of human cannot be replaced with the computer and Professor Iain Macleod explores, in his book, key perspectives of qualitative structural analysis; structural behavior, modelling, and back of envelop checks and sensitivity analysis. Mechanics of structures is a foundation for learning structures and structural analysis and its quantification. A balanced robust and sustainable structure is the outcome of both the qualitative and quantitative effort.
From: Andrew Weir, Director, Expedition, January 2011 Of all that I am hearing from 'academia', Iain MacLeod’s thoughts are closest to my own opinions (some of which are only just forming following finally getting to think about this stuff, despite going through the motions for the last 20 years.) I'd suggest that Iain goes further to show that the ‘model>validate> verify’ approach is highly cyclical, particularly for more simple analyses. With fast computers people will always now keep running models, adding refinement and correcting errors as necessary. The essential skill being the continual validation, verification and interpretation of the results. Iain also suggests a 'QA' approach to analysis (more so in his book) which is always true, but importantly needs to be appropriate to the design stage and the importance of what is being modelled. For example, I'll run many cycles of models with a very limited check in place other than a quick look at the deflections (and BMs and reactions), but once at an appropriate stage the check become more thorough until finally there's a full QA check. (Sensitivity studies are also carried out at appropriate times).
From: Linda Brown, University Teacher, School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, UK, July 2015.
I recently had the pleasure of delivering a short intensive course on Structural Modelling with Professor MacLeod. For this course we followed the modelling strategies he describes in his book. This was the first time I had been introduced to Professor MacLeod’s teaching methodology and I found it to be an extremely logical and well considered approach. He guides students through the steps required to create and implement an effective and accurate structural model. And at all stages he ensures that the students are adopting critical thinking, taking a step-back, and assessing their work. |