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

net/publication/259633470

Form finding & structural optimization

Article  in  Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization · January 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s00158-013-1021-7

CITATIONS READS

3 726

3 authors, including:

Tine Tysmans Evy Verwimp

Vrije Universiteit Brussel Vrije Universiteit Brussel
75 PUBLICATIONS   508 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

CeComStruct (Cementitious Composite Structures) View project

Conceptual design of lightweight façade system for renovation and new buildings View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tine Tysmans on 17 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Form finding & structural optimization

Rajan Filomeno Coelho, Tine Tysmans &

Evy Verwimp

Structural and Multidisciplinary

Optimization

ISSN 1615-147X

Struct Multidisc Optim

DOI 10.1007/s00158-013-1021-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Struct Multidisc Optim
DOI 10.1007/s00158-013-1021-7
EDUCATIONAL ARTICLE
Form finding & structural optimization
A project-based course for graduate students in civil and architectural engineering
Rajan Filomeno Coelho · Tine Tysmans · Evy Verwimp
Received: 17 July 2013 / Revised: 30 October 2013 / Accepted: 5 November 2013
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013
Abstract Nowadays, accreditation organizations for engi-
neering programs put more and more emphasis on learning
outcomes integrating multifaceted competences (scientific
and technical skills, but also teamwork, communication,
etc.). In this context, this paper discusses the relevance
of project-based learning initiatives for teaching structural
optimization, in the light of recent literature on the sub-
ject, as well as based on our experience in a course on form
finding and structural optimization at the Brussels Faculty
of Engineering. Although each project-based course has its
specificities related to the teachers, their expertise, and the
curriculum philosophy, some general guidelines are pro-
posed, stressing the importance of a proper understanding of
the mathematical and physical concepts, but also underlin-
ing the need to ensure sufficient room for creativity among
the students.
Keywords Form finding · Structural optimization ·
Project-based learning
R. Filomeno Coelho ()
BATir Department, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB),
Avenue F. D. Roosevelt, 50 (CP 194/2), 1050 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: rfilomen@ulb.ac.be
T. Tysmans
Department of Mechanics of Materials and Constructions
(MeMC) Faculty of Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
(VUB), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: ttysmans@vub.ac.be
E. Verwimp
VUB–MeMC, Brussels, Belgium
e-mail: everwimp@vub.ac.be
1 Introduction
1.1 General context
Modern engineering profession has become inherently mul-
tidisciplinary: in addition to scientific and technical skills,
engineers have to deal with financial, social, environmen-
tal, and legal issues, they have to develop human skills
(communication, teamwork, leadership, human resource
management), and they must evolve in a dynamic con-
text with scarce, incomplete, and uncertain information
(Felder et al. 2000). Consequently, accreditation organiza-
tions for engineering programs put more and more empha-
sis on learning outcomes attempting to include all these
aspects, as described in the 2004 ABET report “Sustain-
ing the Change”,1 or other agencies (European Network
for Accreditation of Engineering Education,2 the Common-
wealth Engineers’ Council,3 etc.).
Another growing phenomenon to take into account is the
familiarity of the younger generations with IT devices (lap-
tops, tablets, etc.), implying a desire for interactivity which
may question the traditional “chalk and talk” way of teach-
ing (Bloebaum and Mesmer 2013). Therefore, the academic
world must reconsider the manner in which courses are
taught in order to address these specificities, and also help
meeting the needs of the industry (Grolinger 2011; Toropov
2013).
Structural design through form finding and optimiza-
tion is a paradigmatic example of this challenge: despite
its increasing popularity among academia and industry, it is
still a (relatively) young and active research field. Therefore,
1 http://www.abet.org
2 http://www.enaee.eu
3 http://cec.ice.org.uk/
 Author's personal copy
R. Filomeno Coelho et al.

capitalizing on best practices to transfer knowledge and
competences to future engineers is of utmost importance for
our community.
Table 1 lists–with no claim to be exhaustive–a few past
and present courses dedicated to structural optimization and
form finding. All courses mentioned in this list contain theo-
retical sessions and involve–in one way or another–projects
or assignments, with different degrees of autonomy left to
the students. However, there are a series of valuable stud-
ies in project-based learning in engineering education (see
Section 1.2) that can be fruitfully exploited to carry out more
efficient project-based initiatives.
Therefore, in the light of recent studies in the field of
project-based learning and taking benefit of our own expe-
rience in teaching a course on form finding and structural
optimization, this paper will address the following points:
- reviewing formal definitions and concepts regarding
project-based learning;
- presenting our course “Form finding & structural opti-
mization” intended for graduate students in civil and
architectural engineering at the Brussels Faculty of
Engineering, with realizations accomplished by the stu-
dents during the 2012-2013 academic year;
- based on an analysis of engineering education literature
enriched by our experience, discussing the relevance of
teaching structural optimization through project-based
learning.
1.2 Project-based learning
As pointed out by (Mills and Treagust 2003), the main-
stream engineering courses are still often taught through
a “chalk and talk” approach, with a focus on the con-
tent (“what is being taught?”) instead of the learning itself
(“what is being learnt?”). On the other side, project-based
learning, albeit attractive, is not the panacea and also suffers
from drawbacks and limitations. The purpose of this sec-
tion is to formally characterize project-based learning, and
emphasize its salient features.
As a matter of fact, the term “project” has been used for
decades in engineering (and more generally in industry) as a
unit of work, a task defined on the basis of the client (Mills
and Treagust 2003). In education, project-based learning
can be summarized by four aspects:
- theoretical courses, seminars, lectures usually accom-
pany the project itself;

Table 1 Non-exhaustive list of past and present courses in structural optimization

Course name Teacher/responsible Institution

General concepts of structural optimization

Structural Optimization Z. Gürdal Virginia Tech
Structural Optimization I. Kuder ETH Zürich
Topology Optimization–Theory and Applications O. Sigmund et al. DTU
Structural optimization in mechanical engineering
Structural Optimization in FE Analysis T. Abbey NAFEMS
Structural Optimization R.T. Haftka University of Forida
Strukturoptimering FHLN01 M. Wallin Lund University
Structural Optimization (TMMS20) P.W. Christensen, Linköpings universitet
A. Klarbring
Optimisation mécanique C. Vayssade UT Compiègne
Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (SMA06) P. Breitkopf UT Compiègne
Structural Optimisation V.V. Toropov University of Bradford
Composite structure optimization R. Le Riche Collège de Polytechnique
Form finding and structural optimization in civil and architectural engineering
Short Course on Optimum Structural Design S. Hernandez Wessex IT
Structural optimization and form finding K.-U. Bletzinger TU München
Form-Finding and Structural Optimization: E. Demaine et al. MIT
Gaudi Workshop
Form Finding of Structural Surfaces S. Adriaenssens Princeton University
Form-Finding and Structural Optimization T. Tysmans, VUB/ULB
R. Filomeno Coelho
 Author's personal copy
Form finding & structural optimization

- the project work is oriented toward the application of 2 Form finding and structural optimization
knowledge, but also its acquisition;
- a project is usually performed by a small group of 2.1 Context
students (three to five students);
- self-direction and management of time and resources by The Faculties of Engineering of the French-speaking Uni-
the students is a key aspect of successful projects. versité libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and Dutch-speaking Vrije
Universiteit Brussel (VUB) have joined their forces in 2011
Problem-based learning, on the other hand, differs from
to propose new Master programs taught in English, under
project-based learning by starting with an identified prob-
the BRUFACE label (BRUssels FACulty of Engineering).5
lem or situation from which the students will direct their
The “Form finding & structural optimization” course is
own research, by lending itself on rather long-term projects,
offered to second-year Master students in civil engineering
and by allowing for more open ended outcomes. For exam-
and in architectural engineering. While almost all schools
ple, at MIT, (Brodeur et al. 2002) propose an Introduction
or faculties of engineering in the world offer civil engi-
to Aerospace and Design where students have to design,
neering programs, architectural engineering is not encoun-
build, and fly radio-controlled lighter-than-air (LTA) vehi-
tered in every country. It can be considered as somewhere
cles. While a few institutions have devoted a significant part
between civil engineering and architecture; in comparison
of their education system to problem-based learning (e.g.,
with architecture, a higher concern for structural aspects is
Monash University, Aalborg University), most of the engi-
promoted, reflected for instance by an emphasis on the rela-
neering courses involving projects–due to time and human
tion between shape and forces, as investigated by the work
resources, as well as for pedagogical reasons–can be labeled
of Laurent Ney (Adriaenssens et al. 2010).
under the project-based learning denomination.
In this context, this course is one of the rare initiations
Even within this area, (Graham and Crawley 2010), in a
to structural design through numerical techniques such as
review of many project-based courses in the UK, observe
form finding and structural optimization. Whenever pos-
that best practices in one course are not easily transferable to
sible, groups mixing civil and architectural engineering
another, mainly because each project-based course is highly
students are favored, since both bring a different expertise
dependent on the personal involvement and expertise of the
to project design, either on the calculation side, or on the
teaching staff. However, because of the similarity between
design side.
the process of designing and optimizing a structure and the
The students’ prerequisites include structural analysis,
way projects are conceptualized and actually performed by
finite element analysis, and programming (in M ATLAB.6 )
students, we believe that project-based learning is ideally
The remainder of this description refers to the 2012-
adapted to structural optimization, and that general guide-
2013 academic year where this course was first taught7 .
lines for structural optimization project-based teaching can
The teaching staff is composed of two professors (Tysmans,
be advocated (Section 3.4).
Coelho) and one teaching assistant (Verwimp).
When focusing on the literature dedicated to education
As an aside, Table 1 also shows that while optimiza-
issues in structural optimization, two papers and a website4
tion is a popular and entirely accepted field in mechanical
related to a course entitled “Approximation and Optimiza-
engineering (especially among automotive and aerospace
tion in Engineering” provide an interesting insight on best
curricula), to the author’s knowledge the subject is still less
practices gained for almost two decades at the University
common in civil engineering. However, there is a growing
of Florida (Haftka and Jenkins 1998; Siorek and Haftka
need for improving the design of buildings to save material
1998). The topic of the course is to introduce students to the
cost, improve safety (reliability-based design), etc., dur-
use of approximation-based optimization for design rely-
ing their life cycle. Moreover, optimization skills developed
ing both on analytical models and experiments (e.g., for
for structures can also be extended to other fields of con-
lap joint testing, paper helicopters), and contain similarities
struction (e.g., for maximizing the energy performance of
and differences with our approach which will be detailed in
Section 3.4.
To base arguments on a practical return of experience,
a project-based course in form finding and structural opti-
mization will be presented in the next section. 5 http://www.bruface.eu
6 http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab
7 As a remark, it can be noticed that several project-based initia-
tives have been developed for a decade at the ULB, but mostly for
undergraduate students, as introductions to general fields like physics
4 http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/haftka/eoed/ (Blondeau and et al 2009)
 Author's personal copy
buildings), so we strongly believe that structural optimiza-
tion is likely to gain increasing importance in this sector,
which will be reflected in the academic programs.
2.2 Methodology
Our methodology is articulated as follows:
- Goal: allow for a better understanding of form finding
and structural optimization concepts and methods by
means of practical projects.
- Theory (1 ECTS)8 : seminars are given in form find-
ing (3 × 2 h: basic principles, dynamic relaxation, force
density method) and structural optimization (3 × 2 h:
optimization formulation and algorithms, sizing, shape,
and topology optimization, advanced topics as multi-
objective optimization or design under uncertainty, real-
life applications). The emphasis is on lightweight struc-
tures (trusses, rigid frames, and gridshells).
- Material: the slides of the lectures were provided, as
well as reference books (Christensen and Klarbring
2009; Cavazzuti 2013).
- Practice (3 ECTS): projects were performed by groups
of three to four students. The aim was to design canopies
covering small areas of various possible shapes (see
Fig. 1). Only basic geometry and boundary conditions
were provided, in order to allow for freedom among the
groups. Indeed, all the other parameters of the study had
to be determined by the students themselves: the loading
(according to the Eurocodes, but simplified for prelimi-
nary design), as well as the sizing, shape, and topology
of the truss-like structure.
- The assessment was performed only through the project,
via a mid-term evaluation (with no grades), a final report
(50 % of the mark), and an oral presentation of the
project in front of the classroom (50 % of the mark).
3 Projects
3.1 Realizations
The general objective of the design project was to create
a material-efficient gridshell geometry using a combination
of form finding and optimization algorithms.
8 ECTS stands for European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System,
and constitutes the unit of measure for all courses in the European
Union since the Bologna Process. One ECTS corresponds to 25 to 30
h of work by the student. Usually, it corresponds to 12 h of lectures or
12 h of exercises (notwithstanding the personal work by the student).
R. Filomeno Coelho et al.
As investigated by the authors in Descamps et al. (2011,
2013), form finding–whose goal is to obtain shapes in equi-
librium with external loads–can be seen as a particular case
of structural optimization involving specific design vari-
ables (e.g., the ratio’s between normal forces and element
lengths in the force density method applied to trusses).
However, both fields have been developed concurrently
by distinct communities (form finding in architecture and
architectural engineering vs. structural optimization in com-
putational mechanics).
Based on their respective advantages, the main pedagog-
ical motivation for proposing a sequential design process
is to focus first the attention of the students to the link
between shape and equilibrium in lightweight structures
(through form finding), and then to have a more detailed
analysis of the structure by accounting for most of the
design constraints (ultimate and serviceability limit states,
multiple loading, etc., through structural optimization). This
sequential process corresponds to a widespread practice in
architectural engineering projects (Richardson et al. 2013).
Form finding In a first stage, the students determined the
overall shape of their designs by form finding because this
numerical method allows the designer to quickly generate
and compare various force-efficient shapes. These designs
were structurally analyzed and compared to reference struc-
tures (such as a plate and a parabolic gridshell) in S CIA
ESA-PT9 finite element software. In the second design
stage, they optimized the dimensions of their gridshell by
sizing optimization.
The objective of the form finding process is to deter-
mine the shape of the roof that experiences a uniform
membrane stress state considering geometrical design limits
(span, minimum and maximum heights), boundary condi-
tions (location of supports), and dominant load case(s). For
this objective, the students performed the form finding of
their gridshell by analogy with the inverted hanging model,
like for e.g., Gaudi’s Colònia Güell Chapel (1898-1916, see
Block 2009), using the force density method (Schek 1974;
Linkwitzm 1999), a numerical form finding tool widely
used for membrane structures and commercially available
in the software package E ASY (version 9.2).
The shape design process was an iterative process in
which the students explored the design space. Only a few
restrictions applied: the in-plane geometry of the structure
was given (see Fig. 1), in which some of the shell bound-
aries were fixed. The parameters that could be varied in the
form finding process were: the shape of the free edge(s), the
9 http://nemetschek-scia.com
 Author's personal copy
Form finding & structural optimization
Fig. 1 Project definitions:
geometry and boundary a b
conditions in plan view
c d
grid lay-out, the force density of bars (size as well as rela-
tive distribution over surface), and the choice of load under
which form finding is performed (and thus under which the
obtained shape experiences solely membrane action). By
adjusting these parameters, the shape of the gridshell could
be manipulated into numerous creations.
Structural optimization Once the shape had been defined,
the nodal coordinates could be stored for further use in the
optimization process. Due to the limited amount of time
devoted to the projects, only the cross-sections of the grid-
shell elements were optimized. Before that, a structural
analysis of the shape (with standard cross-section values)
had to be performed, to better understand the behavior of the
structure and guide the choice for the bounds of the design
variables. M ATLAB codes for the optimization (based on
NSGA-II, (Deb et al. 2002)) and for the structural finite
element analysis (Ferreira 2009) were provided to the stu-
dents, along with a test function (a six-storey rigid frame).
A genetic algorithm was chosen for its flexibility (single- or
multi-objective optimization, possibility to deal with contin-
uous or discrete variables from catalogs of profiles). While
Fig. 2 Camel-shaped design
(the color reflects the level of
absolute axial stress, from low
[green] to high [red])
the students had all the tools at their disposal, the choice of
loads, the formulation of the optimization problem, and the
coupling of the optimization and finite element codes, were
left to them.
3.1.1 Project 1: the camel back
The first project team chose geometry d as design bound-
ary conditions (see Fig. 1), i.e. a rectangular shape in plan
view, with two longest opposite edges fixed to the ground,
the other two opposite edges free in all three coordinates.
The final design, a kind of camel-shape, resulted from their
own creativity. Form finding was performed under a load
of 1.5 kN/m2 evenly distributed over the surface area (self-
weight + additional surface load). The students varied the
number of zones with different force densities, and the rela-
tive values of the latter, by “trial and error” to come up with
their final shape design: a waved surface with five distinct
zones of different curvature along the x-axis (Fig. 2).
The students evaluated the structural performance of their
shape (in S CIA ESA-PT) compared with both a flat roof
and a single curved, parabolic arch gridshell (cf. Fig. 3).
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 3 Camel-shaped design
(left): comparison with planar
(middle) and parabolic (right)
designs
Analyzing the load-bearing behavior under a distributed
load, the students could verify whether the gridshell effec-
tively only experiences membrane action and no bending,
in contrast to the flat roof. Next, they studied the effect
of the wind load acting on the load-bearing behavior and
horizontal displacements of the structure.
The wind specifications for vaulted roofs and domes
(from Eurocode 1) were used to get the pressure values on
distinct zones of the structure; to their surprise, the students
realized that for their lightweight structure, the effect of
horizontal loads was very significant, and this observation
had a direct impact on the way the optimization problem
was formulated. Indeed, in order to get an overview on the
range of potential designs, they launcheda multi-objective
optimization with the mass and the maximum horizontal
displacement as objectives, along with a constraint on the
maximum axial stress (including the risk of local buckling).
The best compromise was found by imposing a maximum
horizontal displacement of 2 cm, which corresponds to the
deformation limit of span/250 proposed by the European
Standards.
3.1.2 Project 2: the frog and the snail
The second project started from geometry c (see Fig. 1), i.e.
a trapezium shape with three sides fixed to the ground, and
one side free in shape and height. In the form finding stage,
the students designed two different animal-like designs, the
“frog” (Fig. 4) and the “snail” (Fig. 5), formally inspired by
existing projects, respectively the “octopus” (Fig. 6 [left],
the winning design for the Czech National Library by Jan
Kaplický in 2007, but the project was not executed), and
the Chapel Lomas de Cuernavaca (Fig. 6 [right], concrete
shell designed by Félix Candela in 1958). For both designs,
the form-found shape was achieved by starting from a plane
orthogonal mesh. The in-plane shape of the one free edge
was defined, and then fixed in the x − y plane, while keep-
ing the z-coordinates (height) free. The form finding was
performed under self-weight load (0.4 kN/m2 ).
The two designs differ in the shape definition of the
edge(s) and the variation of the force densities over the
surface. In order to obtain the frog-shape, the variation of
curvature was achieved by dividing the surface along the
x-axis into five (axisymmetric) zones with different force
densities (from left to right 0.2–5.0–0.4–5.0–0.2). To obtain
R. Filomeno Coelho et al.
the snail-like shape, the force densities were varied in three
zones along the y-axis this time, with a low force density
in zones 1 (0.5) and 3 (0.7), and an increased force density
in zone 2 (2) limiting deformations and thereby ensuring a
reduced height in the central area.
After some curvature smoothing in R HINOCEROS,10 the
students evaluated the structural performance of both shapes
by mutual comparison as well as with a simple parabolic
shape, using S CIA ESA-PT, considering self-weight load
only. This analysis allowed them to verify the effect of the
form finding on the load-bearing behavior of the structure.
Taking into account mass, deflections, and efficiency in
material use (with weighing factors), the snail was chosen
as best overall shape.
Next, a detailed structural analysis was performed with
S CIA ESA-PT on the selected shape. As in project 1, a
realistic determination of the loads was a critical aspect,
wind loads playing a significant role. Before launching the
multi-objective optimization, a preliminary material selec-
tion was performed between steel and timber. For several
criteria including (simple approximations of) the cost and
the environmental impact, timber was selected as the build-
ing material. It was assumed that the influence of the
connections could be neglected for the preliminary design,
although in reality steel nodes could significantly increase
the total weight of the structure.
In the next stage, the students formulated the opti-
mization problem by minimizing the mass and maximum
deflection, with stress and vertical displacement constraints,
by modifying the width and height of the cross-section
(the same cross-section was used for all elements). After
a few numerical tests, they realized that the constraint on
the vertical displacement was critical for the dimensioning,
emphasizing the importance of serviceability limit states
(displacements, etc.) for lightweight structures.
3.2 Development of competences
From the follow-up and assessment of the students, several
competences were developed:
– a better understanding of the design process for
lightweight structures;
10 http://www.rhino3d.com
 Author's personal copy
Form finding & structural optimization

Fig. 4 Frog-shaped design:

initial form finding planar grid
with distinct force densities
assigned to distinct zones
[indicated by different colors]
(left), and 3D view (right)

– the development of programming skills, especially the
coupling between different codes (crucial in multidisci-
plinary design optimization);
– the relative importance of the actions (self-weight, wind
loads, etc.);
– the understanding of the back and forth process nec-
essary between form finding and optimization: this is
very similar to the real-life design process in engineer-
ing offices, where new data or requirements from the
clients lead to constant adaptations of the design;
– a first initiation to research (this expertise was fruitfully
used by the students during their Master’s theses).
3.3 Opinion survey
At the end of the course, an opinion survey was conducted
among the students by the Faculty authorities responsible
for the student evaluation of the courses, anonymously and
independently of the teaching staff. The survey consisted of
nine standard questions, related to the lectures, the explana-
tions provided by the teachers, the project sessions, etc.
Of course, due to the small number of students (seven),
and the results limited to one year, no meaningful statisti-
cal analysis can be carried out, but on a qualitative point of
view, it is interesting to note that the students appreciated
the different aspects of the projects, except the progress and
rhythm of the sessions. This can be explained by the short
time devoted to the whole course (only seven weeks), with
lectures interwoven with the project. While this may be suit-
able for encyclopaedic knowledge where distinct parts can
be learnt separately with no harm, this is less suitable for
hierarchical fields requiring the concepts to be introduced
in a sequential order, as underlined by Mills and Treagust
(2003).
In the future, we will attempt to give most of the the-
oretical lectures before the beginning of the project. This
would also help the students to have a more integrated view
of the entire design process from the very start, i.e. mak-
ing appropriate decisions during the form finding step in the
perspective of the eventual application of optimization tools.
3.4 Discussion on the efficiency of the projects
for the anticipated learning outcomes
By combining form finding and optimization into a sin-
gle course and project, the students experienced the (dis-)
advantages of both methods for the design of lightweight
structures, i.e. form finding as a fast tool to explore the
design space yet limited to determining the funicular shape
for a given edge geometry under a given load case, and

Fig. 5 Snail-shaped design:

initial form finding planar grid
with distinct force densities
assigned to distinct zones
[indicated by different colors]
(left), and 3D view (right)
 Author's personal copy
Fig. 6 Inspirations from
existing buildings (project 2):
Project for the Czech National
Library in Prague by Kaplický
(left, credits: http://www.
openbuildings.com); Chapel
Lomas de Cuernavaca, Mexico
by Candela (right, credits: http://
www.princeton.edu)
optimization as a powerful tool for taking multiple loads,
objectives and constraints into account, yet particularly
time-efficient when the overall shape of the structure is
already defined. The combination of both techniques was,
however, strictly sequential in both projects.
In the future a better interaction between both methods
should be stimulated. Even though the project definitions
were basic, giving simple in-plane boundary conditions
and few restrictions, the students clearly did not automat-
ically choose the easiest solution. They wanted to create
something unique. The creativity of the students’ designs
challenged them in the application of the numerical meth-
ods, thereby enhancing their understanding of the methods.
This ensured that the learning objectives were achieved.
As it appears, the students can handle the high degree
of freedom offered by the project-based form finding and
structural optimization course.
In project 2, the students found inspiration in existing
projects and tried to design similar–and thus predefined–
shapes. In this way, the students learned to manipulate their
own shape and direct the form finding process rather than
just evaluating the effect of varying input on the final shape
and picking the most “aesthetic” design (as in project 1).
From this experience, the suggestion for future courses is
to allow the students freedom in their creativity yet advise
them to fix one or more defined shapes before initiating
the form finding process, such that they learn to control the
numerical software and direct their design. The comparison
of their own design(s) with simple structural shapes proved
to be highly valuable from an educational perspective as
it enhanced their structural insight. The comparison with a
flat roof taught them the different load-bearing behaviors
of flat elements in bending versus curved structures under
membrane action. Comparison of their “free form” design
with a singly curved parabolic gridshell created a frame
of reference to evaluate the structural efficiency of their
own designs (i.e. funicular behavior under uniform load-
ing, improved performance of double curved shell under
non-funicular loads as the wind load).
After performing the form finding under a evenly dis-
tributed load (self-weight), the students also took the wind
R. Filomeno Coelho et al.
load into account for the structural analysis and optimiza-
tion of the structure. Considering this additional load in the
second design stage made them realize the large relative
importance of wind loading on lightweight structures such
as gridshells. In the lightweight gridshell designs, the stu-
dents were confronted with aiming for a minimum mass
while designing for local buckling and serviceability limit
state of deformations rather than designing for ultimate
strength as is often the case with conventional structures.
These multiple criteria naturally led to the exploration of
multi-objective optimization, and critical thinking about
their choice of these criteria as objective function(s) versus
constraint(s). Generally speaking, we noticed that the stu-
dents acquire a better understanding of the importance of
the problem formulation when they are directly confronted
with a practical design example.
For all these reasons, the lightweight gridshells show to
be very effective project subjects to achieve the learning
objectives, which can be summarized as follows:
1. being able to carry out a global preliminary design pro-
cess including form finding and structural optimization;
2. mastering physical and mathematical concepts (force
densities, Pareto set and Pareto front, etc.);
3. getting an insight on the structural behavior of light-
weight structures, including the impact of actions (wind
loads, live loads, etc.).
In terms of resources, for two groups of three or four stu-
dents, the projects required two professors and one teaching
assistant, whose time in contact with the students was dis-
tributed in 12 hours of lectures, and approximately 36 hours
of guidance and evaluation of the projects (these figures
correspond quite well to the ECTS standards). With similar
teaching staff, we would recommend a maximum of five to
six groups of students.
As mentioned in the introduction, a project-based course
taught at the University of Florida (UFL) (Haftka and
Jenkins 1998; Siorek and Haftka 1998) contains similari-
ties and differences with our course which are interesting
to discuss. Both approaches are based on theoretical lec-
tures followed by projects, with three students per team, and
 Author's personal copy
Form finding & structural optimization
are focused on design. However, these courses differ on the
following aspects:
– the main difference is probably the narrow link between
analytical design and experiments characterizing the
UFL course, while our course is only based on numeri-
cal methods;
– the audience of the UFL course is open to undergrad-
uate students with limited or even no background in
mechanics of materials, while our course requires pre-
requisites in strength of materials and finite element
analysis;
– there is no explicit competition involved in our course,
contrarily to the UFL course;
– there are individual homework problems and mid-term
exams in the UFL course (60 % of the total mark),
while at the ULB/VUB the assessment is only based
on the projects through the team report and the oral
assessment. However, we test that all students have a
sufficient knowledge of the theoretical concepts. Each
of them is questioned individually during the oral eval-
uation to verify his/her competences in the field.
Despite the limited time devoted to the course, we would
like in the future to borrow the idea of making experi-
ments (for instance by building small-scale wooden models
of the gridshells) coupled to the numerical design, in order
to improve the understanding of the mechanical behavior of
lightweight structures.
As a final remark, the link with research is encouraged
and promoted in two ways: first through the content of
the course itself (with constant references made during the
lectures and the project guiding sessions to state-of-the-art
methods), and secondly by the type of reasoning and critical
thinking required from the students.
4 Conclusions and future prospects
In this paper, project-based learning for form finding and
structural optimization has been presented and illustrated
through a course taught to graduate students in civil and in
architectural engineering at the Brussels Faculty of Engi-
neering. The success of the projects undertaken by the
students (in terms of outputs and learning outcomes) has
motivated us to share our experience in the field, by propos-
ing guidelines for courses in structural optimization that can
be briefly summarized in four points:
1. proposing simple problem definitions, giving room for
creativity;
2. insisting on a proper understanding of the mathematical
formulation of the optimization problems;
3. favoring the link between shape and force, and more
generally stressing on the physical interpretation of the
results obtained by form finding and structural opti-
mization;
4. if within the teachers’ expertise, combining form
finding and structural optimization methods into one
project.
The main impediment to project-based learning is clearly
related to the time and resources necessary to supervise such
courses, although the direct feedback from the students is
also a nice reward for the work done.
As already mentioned earlier, future prospects will
include a better integration of the form finding and structural
optimization parts. Moreover, if time and budget permit it,
real scale models or 3D printing would ideally complement
the numerical design analysis.
Acknowledgments Writing this paper has been largely motivated
by the active participation of the students who followed the course in
2012-2013, namely: Amin Ben Ayad, Ikram Cherradi, Farhat Fazeli,
Anna Popova, Salma Saadi, Ana Sánchez Corujo, and Florentin
Serdenciuc. Their enthusiasm and energy in working on the projects
have been highly appreciated.
Part of this paper was written during a visiting stay by the first
author at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
(Princeton University), for which Prof. Sigrid Adriaenssens is deeply
acknowledged.
Finally, the authors are grateful to the Editor and Reviewers
for their fruitful and interesting comments, as well as to James N.
Richardson for his careful reading of the paper.
References
Adriaenssens S, Devoldere S, Ney L, Strauven I (2010) Shaping
forces: Laurent Ney. A+Editions
Block P (2009) Thrust network analysis: exploring three-dimen
sional equilibrium, PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
Bloebaum CL, Mesmer BL (2013) Teaching multidisciplinary design
optimization (MDO) in a reconfigurable interactive classroom. In:
10th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimiza-
tion (WCSMO 10), Orlando, May 19-24
Blondeau M et al (2009) Apprentissage par projet: réalisation
d’une éolienne urbaine en matériaux de récupération. J3eA 8
(HS 1)
Brodeur DR, Young PW, Blair KB (2002) Problem-based learning
in aerospace engineering education. In: Proceedings of the 2002
american society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
& Exposition, Montreal, June 19-23
Cavazzuti M (2013) Optimization methods–from theory to design.
Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg
Christensen PW, Klarbring A (2009) An introduction to structural
optimization. Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and eli-
tist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol
Comput 6(2):182–197
 Author's personal copy
Descamps B, Filomeno CR (2013) A lower-bound formulation for
the geometry and topology optimization of truss structures under
multiple loading. Struct Multidiscip Optim 48(1):49–58
Descamps B, Filomeno CR, Ney L, Bouillard P (2011) Multicriteria
optimization of lightweight bridge structures with a constrained
force density method. Comput Struct 89:277–284
Felder RM, Woods DR, Stice JE, Rugarcia A (2000) The future of
engineering education II: teaching methods that work. Chem Eng
Educ 34(1):26–39
Ferreira AJM (2009) MATLAB codes for finite element analy-
sis: solids and structures. Solid mechanics and its applications,
Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Graham R, Crawley E (2010) Making projects work: a review of
transferable best practice approaches to engineering project-based
learning in the UK. Eng Educ 5(2):41–49
Grolinger K (2011) Problem based learning in engineering education:
meeting the needs of industry. Teach Innov Proj 1(2):2
Haftka RT, Jenkins DA (1998) Classroom project in analytical and
experimental optimization. Struct Optim 15(1):63–67
View publication stats
R. Filomeno Coelho et al.
Linkwitzm K (1999) About form finding of double-curved structures.
Eng Struct 21:709–718
Mills JE, Treagust DF (2003) Engineering education–is problem-based
or project-based learning the answer? Australas J Eng Educ
Richardson JN, Adriaenssens S, Filomeno CR, Bouillard P (2013)
Coupled form finding and grid optimization approach for single
layer grid shell. Eng Struct 52:230–239
Schek HJ (1974) The force density method for form finding and com-
putation of general networks. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
3:115–134
Siorek TL, Haftka RT (1998) Paper helicopter–experimental
optimum engineering design classroom problem. In: 7th
AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary
analysis and optimization, St. Louis, Missouri, September 2-4.
AIAA paper 98–4963, pp 2013–2020
Toropov VV (2013) A design optimisation course with a focus on
industrial applications. In: 10th world congress on structural and
multidisciplinary optimization (WCSMO 10), Orlando, May 19-
24