Earthquake Engineering Education in Schools of

Architecture: Developments during the Last Ten Years

Including Rule-of-Thumb Software
Andrew Charleson1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A major 2006 survey of US schools of architecture identified significant problems in the way earthquake engineering design was
integrated into and taught in their curricula. More than 10 years later, this paper reviews several of the significant problems raised, and reports
on new developments in three areas. First, after acknowledging the pivotal role of the design studio in architectural education, two models of
teaching earthquake engineering by linking seismic design to design studio projects are reported. The success of the models is attributed to
both short and intense tutoring sessions by external professional engineers, coupled with the use of seismic design rule-of-thumb software.
The second area of progress has been the remedying of shortcomings in seismic design content and appropriate teaching resources. Finally,
the paper focuses on the development and use of rule-of-thumb software. This empowers students to design and size the seismic-resistant
structure their design projects require. Results from student surveys in several countries suggest the software is appropriate for its users and it
contributes positively to the seismic design education of architects. The paper concludes that an effective approach to teaching seismic design
in a school of architecture necessitates a certain minimum content being conveyed to the students, followed by application of this material to
one or more of their studio design projects. The inherent structural complexity of these projects requires tutorial advice from professional engi-
neers that can be limited and should then be taken to another level of detail by the use of rule-of-thumb software. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
AE.1943-5568.0000324. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Earthquake engineering; Seismic design; Architecture; Education; Software.

Introduction
Ten years ago, an extensive survey of professors teaching struc-
tures in accredited US schools of architecture was undertaken to
ascertain the degree to which earthquake engineering was taught
in these schools (Theodoropoulos 2006). The resulting report
acknowledged the need for schools to meet the standards set by
the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) and to pre-
pare students for the Architectural Registration Exam (ARE). It
highlighted that schools are not specifically directed to include
seismic design in their curricula, although the topic of lateral
forces is included in the structural systems section of the NAAB
standards (NAAB 2014). In contrast, the ARE documentation is
quite explicit regarding the place of seismic design. In one of its
seven exams, “Structural Systems”, lateral forces comprise up to
50% of the content, with seismic forces contributing up to 22%
NCARB 2015b). To a lesser degree, understanding of the seismic
code and structural systems of common materials are also
included in the “Building Design & Construction Systems” exam
(NCARB 2015a). Even then, the knowledge and skills required is
expressed in general terms, but includes both structural and non-
structural elements.
1
Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Victoria Univ. of
Wellington, Wellington, PO Box 600, 6140, New Zealand. Email: andrew
.charleson@vuw.ac.nz
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 22, 2017; approved
on March 27, 2018; published online on June 29, 2018. Discussion period
open until November 29, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431.
The aforementioned survey did not ascertain the extent of seis-
mic design taught to architectural students. However, a previous
survey involving almost 100 faculty members teaching building
technology subjects highlighted the wide range of seismic design
content introduced into schools (Thaddeus 2005). Less than 10%
of the respondents’ schools incorporated any seismic design in
their curricula. This low level of penetration is no doubt due to
many factors, including schools being located in areas of benign
seismicity, and the difficulty all schools face of introducing wor-
thy subject matter into already crowed curricula. Each school
decides the extent to which seismic design should be taught. No
surveys or research has been conducted to determine the optimum
content of seismic design courses, but by reviewing the tables of
contents of the seismic design textbooks discussed later in this pa-
per, this author lists the topics that might comprise a seismic
design education (Table 1).
The topics are listed in the sequence they could be introduced. It
is assumed each topic is taught qualitatively and might include a
lecture followed by an opportunity to apply the knowledge, such as
to a studio design project (Hitchcock Becker 2013).
The 2006 report identified a number of areas of seismic design
education that were classified as problematic. Several explored in
this paper are as follows:
• obstacles to teaching seismic design in design studio;
• a lack of comprehensive teaching materials appropriate to ar-
chitectural students, including case study examples and design
rules of thumb;
• little or no use of digital or physical models; and
• a lack of content regarding nonstructural elements and
retrofitting.
Others have added to this list of problems more recently. For
example, the dislike of the subject of structures, which includes

© ASCE 04018020-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020

 Table 1. Suggested seismic design topics for minimal, ideal, and maxi-
mum input
Lecture topics
Nature of earthquakes and their shaking
How buildings resist earthquakes
Horizontal structure (diaphragms, bond
beams, collectors)
Vertical structure (frames, walls, braced
frames)
Horizontal configuration (torsion and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
within other courses (structures or technologies), the impact upon
design studio time is reduced. However, it may be more challenging
Min Ideal Max for faculty with different specializations in structures and the design
studio to cooperate, and to agree that seismic design be integrated
x x x into design studio. To overcome this difficulty, one approach is for
x x x a course, in which seismic design is taught, to base its class projects
x x x and assessments on studio projects run prior to or in parallel. This
was illustrated in the following case study in which the teaching
x x x model integrated seismic design and design studio in separate
courses.
— x x ARCI421 Integrated Technologies is a fourth-year course at the

other issues) School of Architecture, Victoria University of Wellington. It repre-

Vertical configuration (soft stories and — x x sents 25% of a one-trimester workload. The course reflects the tradi-
other issues) tional compartmentalization of technologies—that is, structures,
Integrating seismic design and — x x services and construction, and design studio. Eight structures lec-
architecture
tures that build on seismic design principles introduced the previous
Nonstructural elements (that affect — x x
year are presented. The two design projects in the course are based
structure and others)
upon the students’ studio designs as recommended by Hitchcock
New technologies (including seismic — x x
Becker (2013). For the first project, students revisit their first trimes-
isolation)
ter architecture designs from a structural perspective. They identify
Seismic design approaches now and — x x
seismic design irregularities, propose solutions, and provide an
previously
adequate seismic-resistant structure using rule-of-thumb software,
Retrofitting — — x
all the while integrating structure with their architecture.
Foundations and geotechnical issues — — x
The students’ current studio design work is the focus of their
Urban planning (including tsunami and — — x
second project. Students again undertake a conceptual structural
fire)
design, including seismic resistance, for their design projects
Earthquake architecture — — x
being developed in parallel in studio. Therefore, their studio proj-
Total 4 10 14
ects become the vehicle for their structural exploration, develop-
ment, and assessment. Although there is no formal interaction
seismic design, is evidenced by less than 30% of students in a struc- between the technology and studio courses, the coordinator of the
tures class who would take the class if it were not mandatory (Mac design studio has been pleased that students integrate structure
Namara 2012), the lack of connection or integration between struc- into their designs to make them more real.
tures and design studios (Hedges 2014), and the “bitter taste of cal- Approximately four weeks into their first and second technolo-
culations” in structures classes (Hong 2011). gies projects, students have two tutorials, spaced one week apart,
Therefore, the goal of this paper is to respond to these identified with practicing structural engineers. These two sessions, where
problems associated with the teaching of structures to architecture three students are tutored together for 30 min, provide enough input
students, focusing on seismic design. The three problem areas for most students to resolve their structures, including their seismic
addressed are as follows: strengthening the link between seismic resistance, without any further advice. Rule-of-thumb software
design and the design studio; the need for suitable teaching resour- reduces the amount of structural tutoring required, but sometimes
ces; and finally, the availability of rule-of-thumb software for seis- the simplicity of the software renders it unsuitable for particularly
mic design. complex forms. In these cases, a brief report including precedents
and explanations as to how the structure works is accepted instead.
Student feedback has been very positive for this course. In 2015,
Linking Seismic Design and Design Studio 94% of survey respondents either strongly agreed or agreed they
valued highly what they learned from the course, and 83% rated the
The Theodoropoulos (2006) study acknowledged the centrality of quality of the course either excellent or very good. Ideally, at least
the design studio for both students and faculty. It noted that the sur- from the viewpoint of faculty teaching seismic design, a fully inte-
vey respondents who supported design-based learning believed the grated seismic design and studio course is the optimum. To achieve
design studio was a suitable venue for seismic design education. this most likely necessitates some degree of curriculum restructur-
The design studio is widely considered the core or heart of architec- ing, as was the case with the new course Structural Integration in
tural education. In studio, students synthesize and apply the breadth Architecture, introduced at California Polytechnic State University,
of their architectural knowledge to their design projects. Because San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) (Guthrie 2015), or as illustrated in the
the studio teaching and learning environment is so fundamental and following case study.
seen by most students as the most important part of their curricu- ARCI312 Architectural Design Integration is a third-year one-
lum, students’ studio design projects present the best opportunities trimester course at Victoria University of Wellington. Consisting
for application of seismic design knowledge. However, various of two 1-h lectures most weeks followed by 3 h of design studio,
obstacles have been identified. These include a possible lack of stu- it represents 50% of a student’s workload for that trimester. The
dents’ seismic design knowledge, a lack of cooperation between course, taken by 130 students, combines structures instruction
studio faculty, and inadequate time for teaching the subject. with studio. The expectation is that structures will not only be
The first obstacle can be overcome by course sequencing. For well integrated with the architectural design, but they will also
students to apply seismic design knowledge to a design, they need reinforce students’ design concepts. Most of the lectures are on
to have gained that skill either before or in parallel with their studio structures. Approximately 50% cover seismic design and are
design project work. If some or all of this knowledge transfer occurs intended to provide students with sufficient knowledge to complete

© ASCE 04018020-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Conceptual structural model of an earthquake museum

designed in reinforced concrete. The moment frames and shear walls
were designed using RESIST. (Image courtesy of Chris Soufflot.)

conceptual structural designs for their two studio projects. These are
typically an earthquake museum in reinforced concrete and a
national school of music of either timber or steel construction. Both
projects are located in Wellington, a region of high seismicity.
Due to the postgraduate studio tutors having limited structural
experience, students need to design, develop, and size their seismic-
resisting systems with specialist tutorial input and the rule-of-thumb
software as discussed in the previous case study. The assessed out-
comes are a physical structural model and a structural report,
including software results (Figs. 1 and 2).
An integrated course such as this requires specialized structural Fig. 2. Structural steel framework of a school of music. Seismic forces
tutors. Often students conceive complex forms that require consid- are resisted by braced frames in both directions. (Image courtesy of
erable professional expertise to resolve structurally. Structural tuto- Brittany Irvine.)
rials at the right time in the development of projects reduce the input
required and satisfy budget constraints. Although structural engi-
neers are paid for tutoring and assessing, because they find the tuto-
exemplary architecture. It was also noted that students received lit-
rials so challenging and enjoyable, in many cases they or their firms
tle, if any, instruction on the topics of seismic retrofit and nonstruc-
are open to donating their time.
tural components, which are not traditionally part of a structures
Student feedback has also been very positive for this course. In
course.
2015, 90% of survey respondents either strongly agreed or agreed
Regarding provision of rigorous seismic design material in a vis-
that they valued highly what they learned from the course, and 68%
ual format, several advances have occurred since 2006. The 2008
rated the course either excellent or very good. Although this course
publication of an entire text on seismic design that focused on the
is similar to the new course Structural Integration in Architecture at
needs of architects goes further than any of its predecessors in terms
Cal Poly, there are several significant differences. In Wellington, ar-
of rigor and architectural relevance (Charleson 2008). Included in
chitectural design and structural assessment have equal weighting,
structures lectures run in parallel with design development, no its 281 pages are chapters on seismic retrofit and nonstructural ele-
structural calculations or resolution of claddings is required, and the ments. Its approach is visual with many illustrations and images,
structural tutors are not faculty members. The other major differ- and without recourse to mathematics. However, because it contains
ence is that the rule-of-thumb software reduces reliance upon struc- only several case studies of exemplary architecture, it does not meet
tural tutors. the previously stated need for seismic design case-study examples.
An even more visual approach to communicating seismic design
principles was published after 2006 (Ching et al. 2009). The princi-
Content and Teaching Materials for Seismic Design ples and strategies of seismic design are explained through anno-
tated drawings. Inevitably, given that the section on seismic design
The 2006 study that this paper responds to identified “a pressing is only 31 pages long, many topics, including retrofit and nonstruc-
need for new and revised teaching materials that support integration tural elements, are excluded. But where the time spent on teaching
of seismic design into the broader contexts of architectural design. seismic design is limited, this text seems to meet the requirements
The available literature on seismic design is inadequate because it of faculty teaching seismic design to architectural students. Other
does not provide architectural students with information that is at an recent books with a more technical stance include entire or partial
appropriately rigorous level in a visual format” (Theodoropoulos chapters on seismic design. They take a less visual approach and
2006, p. 13). In conjunction with this need, respondents in that study suit the more technical and mathematical expectations of the ARE
requested that students have more access to case studies illustrating structural systems exam. They are referenced in the exam guide
the application of seismic design in buildings acknowledged as (NCARB 2015b, p. 20).

© ASCE 04018020-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020

 Rule-of-Thumb Software
Another of the findings of the 2006 study was that faculty (and stu-
dents) lacked design rules of thumb for seismic-resisting structures.
Faculty are well used to providing students with rules of thumb,
such as span/15, to determine beam depths, and structures books
provide more accurate rules accounting for different types of beams
and their materiality. Only one book provides such guidelines for
seismic-resisting structures (Ching et al. 2009). These guidelines
are that braced frames or shear walls should brace a minimum of
25% of all bays, and that for a moment frame, every joint should be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
rigid. These rules do at least ensure some seismic resistance, but are
very crude. No account is taken of the key factors that determine the
amount of structure a given building requires, such as seismicity,
building importance, soil conditions, materials of construction,
floor area, height, and structural ductility. Furthermore, even though
general advice is given, students lack guidance about the size of the
structural elements. How deep are the columns and beams of
moment frames? What is the thickness of shear walls and the cross-
sectional dimensions of diagonal braces and chords of braced
frames?
To provide answers to these questions that students ask, the
rule-of-thumb software RESIST was first developed over 20
years ago (Charleson 1993) and recently upgraded in 2014.
RESIST is software for preliminary structural design of buildings
for wind and earthquake loads. For use by architecture students,
engineering students, architects, and structural engineers, it is no-
table for its user friendliness and the absence of hand calculations.
RESIST is downloadable free of charge from the New Zealand
Society for Earthquake Engineering website (NZSEE 2014).
RESIST allows irregular-shaped building plans, incorporates
accurate torsion modeling, and complies with current New
Zealand Standards (Standards New Zealand 2004).
The development and application of this software has been a
major factor in the successful integration of seismic design and
Fig. 3. Start screen. At the bottom of the screen, the first set of tabs enables users to define their buildings, determine the levels of seismic and wind
loads, and then design structures to resist those loads. The second set contains feedback on the adequacy of a design in graphic form.
© ASCE
J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020
design studios. This is because without the software, students are
unable to undertake preliminary seismic designs of their own proj-
ects, and their need for advice would overwhelm structural tutors.
RESIST overcomes the powerlessness that students experience
when needing to know how much structure their designs require to
resist lateral loads. The software enables them to very quickly get a
feel for what structure is required, and to explore the various factors
that affect the size of that structure, such as increased floor plan
dimensions and different weights of construction. Because students
who use RESIST can design structural walls, moment frames, and
four different types of cross-braced frames, they become familiar
with all principal lateral load–resisting systems. Students are usu-
ally introduced to the software, where it is also used as a teaching
tool, in a lecture. After this brief introduction, they are able to use
the program for their own design projects. However, minimum pro-
fessional structural engineering oversight is still helpful to achieve
accurate models in light of the software’s limitations and complex
architectural forms.
Experience with architectural students shows that if a structural
tool, such as RESIST, is too complex and time-consuming, they
will not use it unless forced to. The input required for the program
is, therefore, kept to the bare minimum. It undertakes structural
analyses using approaches and assumptions similar to those of an
experienced structural engineer during a preliminary structural
design. RESIST’s user friendliness and compelling graphic features
make it invaluable and popular among architectural students.
Fig. 3 shows the first screen of RESIST. It shows some building
properties and an image of the default structure. Users modify all
aspects of this structure to accurately model their own structure.
The “Help” tab at the top left of the screen leads to the RESIST user
guide and a step-by-step tutorial for users, or the verification manual
(for structural engineers to see the underlying calculations).
By definition, rules of thumb are limited in their scope and
applicability. The limitations of RESIST are listed in the “Help”
section, and the user guide suggests ways of overcoming them yet
04018020-4 J. Archit. Eng.
 achieving sufficiently accurate results. Most of these limitations are
necessary to keep input and output as simple and user friendly as
possible. As a consequence, students usually have to make certain
assumptions when modeling their buildings. For example, if the
floors of a building have different areas and, therefore, weights,
then the average floor area will be modeled.
One potentially valuable application of RESIST is in nonstudio
exercises in a structures course, where some of its limitations would
not be an obstacle. The program could be used to teach a wide vari-
ety of concepts. RESIST could be used to develop a sense of scale
for lateral-resisting structure in simple buildings, outside of studio,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and then students could apply that sense of scale to more complex
buildings in the studio.
Feedback from Users of Rule-of-Thumb Software
This section describes surveys of six classes of architectural stu-
dents who have used RESIST. Three classes were from two univer-
sities in New Zealand (NZ), one from a university in Turkey, and
two from different colleges of architecture in India (India 1 and
India 2). Students completed a simple anonymous and confidential
questionnaire at the end of a design project. The questions asked
and commentary on student answers are presented here. A graphic
summary is presented in Fig. 4.
Question 1. Before using RESIST I knew how much earth-
quake-resisting structure my building required.
As expected, few students appreciated how much structure their
buildings required to resist earthquake forces. Four percent of first-
year NZ students and 3% of third-year India 1 students thought they
knew. These percentages contrasted with the 24% of third-year
Fig. 4. Percentage of each of the six classes strongly agreeing or agreeing with the question statement.
© ASCE 04018020-5
J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020
Turkish students who were designing small 2- to 3-story houses,
and perhaps assumed the structural requirements would be similar
to houses they were already familiar with. The response to this
question highlights how little appreciation students have regarding
how much earthquake-resisting structure a building needs.
Question 2. I could model my building in RESIST quite accu-
rately given the complexity of its form or special features (like
being underground).
Sixty percent of first-year NZ students agreed with this statement.
They had a simple and regular building to design. However, only
30% of most of the other classes agreed, and a low 16% of fifth-year
India 2 students agreed. The reasons for the low numbers of students
in agreement with the statement can be explained by considering
two factors. The first relates to the geometrical complexity of the
building form. The third-year NZ students had just designed a com-
plex school of music, in most cases with two embedded double-
height auditoria. Half of the fourth-year NZ students had tried to use
RESIST for their parametrically designed buildings whose forms
were far from box-like, and even though the third-year Turkish stu-
dents were designing houses, split levels and sizable floor penetra-
tions for internal courtyards were common. The third-year India 1
students had obvious problems modeling their buildings in RESIST.
Not only were their 20-story buildings far higher than the 8-story
maximum buildings RESIST can accurately analyze, but the large
numbers of re-entrant corners exceeded the capacity of the software.
The fifth-year India 2 students were designing complex forms and
were concerned that they could not model curves in RESIST.
The low agreement with the question statement reveals students’
expectations of their structural software models being as accurate
and precise as their computer-aided drawings. Although students
seemed comfortable with other structural rules of thumb, such as
J. Archit. Eng.
 the depth of a beam equaling its span divided by, say, 15, they
clearly were expecting more preciseness from the software.
Instructors must stress the rule-of-thumb nature of the software. Of
all questions asked, this question showed the least level of student
satisfaction across all nationalities.
Overall, the results from this question contradict this author’s
experience—that is, that between 90 and 95% of all students can
obtain reasonable RESIST results to inform their designs. Although
some of the students’ software models greatly simplify design com-
plexity and, therefore, lack precision, at the least an appreciation of
structural scale is obtained. This is better than doing nothing.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Question 3. After using RESIST my understanding of earth-
quake-resisting structure increased.
Irrespective of the level of class and nationality, there were high
levels of agreement with this statement, ranging from 74 to 89%. It
is perhaps not surprising that the lowest percentages were obtained
by first-year NZ students who were still being introduced to techni-
cal terminology and for whom introduction to RESIST could be
considered premature.
Question 4. I now feel more confident in designing earthquake-
resisting structure.
As with Question 3, Question 4 had a high level of agreement.
The percentages reflect a growth of confidence commensurate with
an increased understanding of the requirements for earthquake-
resisting structure.
Question 5. I found RESIST easy to follow and use.
Over three-quarters of respondents from all three nationalities
agreed with this statement. The highest percentages were obtained
by the two NZ classes who had used RESIST before. The third-year
NZ class (85%) had used RESIST for a previous design approxi-
mately six weeks earlier, and the fourth-year NZ class (87%) had
used RESIST a total of four times at the school before completing
the questionnaire.
Question 6. I made use of the “Help” material.
Apart from the fourth-year NZ class (18%) and the third-year
India 2 class (55%), approximately 40% of students claimed they
used “Help”. One would not expect students who have used the
software three times before to refer to “Help,” but it is unexpected
to have over half a class claim to use it. This high percentage may
be a case of respondents answering to please the researcher even
though they were informed before answering the questionnaire that
the survey was totally anonymous and confidential.
As well as questions that could be answered by ticking boxes,
several questions invited written answers.
Question 7 asked the students to identify the most important lesson
learned while using RESIST. There proved to be little difference in
responses considering student age and nationality. Typical comments
included “developing an understanding of structural systems such as
moment frames, braced frames, and shear walls and how they support
buildings,” “determining the numbers and sizes of structural members
necessary to resist seismic forces,” “appreciating the importance of
torsion,” “learning the basics of seismic resistance,” and “being able
to compare different structural materials and systems.”
Two other questions asked students how many structural layouts
they analyzed and designed in each plan orthogonal direction, and
how long they spent using RESIST on their last project. On average,
students said they investigated between two and three layouts in each
direction in the process of finalizing their seismic-resisting systems.
For the sake of their seismic design education, the author believes
that students should definitely consider more than two structural
options for one direction. For example, in two options, a moment
frame and shear wall option can be trialed, but no refinements are
undertaken to answer queries such as “What happens to shear wall
© ASCE 04018020-6
J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020
lengths if I increase wall numbers?” or “To what extent can my struc-
tural members be reduced in size by increasing structural symme-
try?” As for the number of hours students spend using the software
on their last project, it appeared that they spend, on average, between
2 and 4 h designing their seismic-resistant structure.
The final and open-ended question invited summary comments
about the software, especially how it can be improved. The
responses to this question very much reflected the types of build-
ings, or more specifically, the heights and geometrical complexity
of the buildings being designed at the time of the survey. Many sug-
gestions were received and can be followed up when future devel-
opment to the software is undertaken; however, the simplicity and
user-friendly quality of RESIST needs to be maintained for its suc-
cessful use at conceptual or preliminary stages of design.
Conclusions
Given the finding of the 2006 survey that the teaching of seismic
design in schools of architecture needs improvement, two teaching
models have been presented that illustrate how the most serious
problems can be satisfied. The models’ success is significantly due
to the use of rule-of-thumb software. The paper also reports on
developments in teaching materials for seismic design during the
last 10 years, but acknowledges there is still a lack of exemplary
seismic design case studies for architectural students to engage with.
Recently upgraded and freely available seismic design rule-of-
thumb software suitable for architecture students is outlined, and
feedback from students in different years from three different coun-
tries is presented. The survey results showed that most students had
little idea how much earthquake-resisting structure their design
projects required, but that using the software increased both their
understanding and confidence in providing seismic resistance to
their designs. Students reported that they found RESIST simple and
easy to use, but up to 70% stated they could not model their building
accurately enough. Many of their suggestions to improve the soft-
ware addressed this difficulty but missed the point of the software
as a user-friendly rule-of-thumb design tool. Therefore, two
improvements are required to avoid users expecting the software to
enable precise modeling. First, when the software is introduced to
students, the fact that it is a rule-of-thumb design tool needs to be
emphasized. Second, the rule-of-thumb nature of RESIST should
be more clearly communicated within its documentation.
Across the three culturally diverse countries, RESIST was
well accepted and considered very helpful to the students. No sig-
nificant cultural issues that limited its effectiveness were high-
lighted, although minor improvements can be made. Therefore, it
is reasonable to expect that the software is suitable in other earth-
quake-prone areas of the world as well. However, although not
reflected in the questionnaire results, aspects of RESIST can be
improved for more widespread use, especially in developing coun-
tries. First, there needs to be a more direct way to input seismic haz-
ard factors and wind speeds appropriate for sites outside New
Zealand. Then, there needs to be a mechanism to adjust seismic base
shears to more closely follow those obtained through application of
local codes. Adjustments for local variations in material codes, such
as those for reinforced concrete, could also be made, but it is unlikely
the New Zealand codes vary greatly from their overseas counter-
parts. Ideally, the software should be customized to US codes of
practice and construction culture. The software would also be more
encompassing if it included confined masonry construction as a type
of shear wall, as well as warnings that conventional masonry infills
greatly, and sometimes adversely, affect the seismic performance of
moment frame structures.
J. Archit. Eng.
 The final conclusion of this paper is that each school of architec-
ture should incorporate at least a minimum amount of seismic
design content in its curriculum, and this knowledge should be
applied to selected studio design projects. Such projects invariably
result in complex architectural forms, which can require excessive
structural tutoring. However, this can be mitigated by short and
intense tutorials from practicing structural engineers followed by
the use of rule-of-thumb software so students can refine their struc-
tural systems and size structural members.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Christ University - Faculty of Engineering on 12/14/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Charleson, A. W. 1993. “Vertical lateral load resisting elements for low to
medium rise buildings—Information for architect.” Bull. N. Z. Soc.
Earthquake Eng. 26 (3): 356–366.
Charleson, A. W. 2008. Seismic design for architects: Outwitting the quake.
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Ching, F. D. K., B. S. Onouye, and D. Zuberbuhler. 2009. Building struc-
tures illustrated: Patterns, systems, and design. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Guthrie, J. B. 2015. “Structural engineering integration into architecture stu-
dios.” 2015 ASEE Annual Conf. & Exposition. Accessed October 20,
2016. https://peer.asee.org/24744.
Hedges, K. E. 2014. “Introduction to architectural structures: Lessons
learned from parti pris pedagogy.” 2014 ASEE Annual Conf.
& Exposition. Accessed October 20, 2016. https://peer.asee.org/20707.
Hitchcock Becker, H. 2013. “The structures—Design studio link.” 2013
ASEE Annual Conf. & Exposition. Accessed September 13, 2017.
https://peer.asee.org/22620.
© ASCE
J. Archit. Eng., 2018, 24(3): 04018020
Hong, P. 2011. “Sweetening structural principles for architectural students.”
2011 ASEE Annual Conf. & Exposition. Accessed October 20, 2016.
https://peer.asee.org/18352.
Mac Namara, S. C. 2012. “Bringing engineering into the studio: Design
assignments for teaching structures to architects.” 2012 ASEE Annual
Conf. & Exposition. Accessed October 20, 2016. https://peer.asee.org
/21028.
NAAB (National Architectural Accrediting Board). 2014. “2014
Conditions for accreditation.” Accessed October 20, 2016. www.naab
.org/wp-content/uploads/01_Final-Approved-2014-NAAB-Conditions
-for-Accreditation.pdf.
NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards). 2015a.
“ARE exam guide—Building design and construction systems.”
Accessed June 22, 2018. www.ncarb.org/sites/default/files/BDCS
_Exam_Guide.pdf.
NCARB (National Council of Architectural Registration Boards). 2015b.
“ARE exam guide—Structural systems.” Accessed June 22, October
2018. https://www.ncarb.org/sites/default/files/SS_Exam_Guide.pdf.
NZSEE (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering). 2014.
“RESIST software for preliminary design of wind and seismic load
resisting structure.” Accessed October 20, 2016. www.nzsee.org.nz
/publications/other-publications/resist/.
Standards New Zealand. 2004. Structural design actions—Part 5:
Earthquake actions. NZS 1170.5:2004. Wellington, New Zealand:
Standards New Zealand.
Thaddeus, D. J. 2005. Technology education in colleges of architecture in
North America: American Institute of Steel Construction project report.
Chicago: American Institute of Steel Construction.
Theodoropoulos, C. 2006. “Seismic design education in schools of architec-
ture.” In Proc., 2006 ASEE Annual Conf. & Exposition. Accessed
October 20, 2016. https://peer.asee.org/1016.
04018020-7 J. Archit. Eng.