Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 844 de 957
Figure 3. Structural design process according to Frank Newby. (Addis, 2001).
On the other hand, Edmund Happold’s design process is presented as an alternative to the
traditional cyclical system, which establishes a series of phases (analysis, synthesis,
evaluation and communication) which are repeated in the different stages of the process,
delving deeper into the definition of the project in each cycle (Happold, 1976). However,
Happold proposes a step by step system, which he calls “convergent”, and which consists
of successive four stages, meaning that each stage is not reached until all the objectives of
the previous stage have been met, which is checked using a system known as Merit
Control, a continuous control mechanism, looking ahead to possible future requirements
or developments, and looking back at the objectives (Figure 4). A significant example of
this method is the roof structure for the Manheim exhibition hall, by Frei Otto and Ove
Arup & Partners.
Figure 4. Structural design process according to Edmund Happold. (Happold, 1976).
This process is not contrary to the four stages of the creative process, although it presents
some issues which may differ from other creative processes and methods and which are
fundamental in the case of structural design, and must therefore be taken into
consideration in this context.
Firstly, it stresses the fact that, contrary to what tends to occur in artistic processes and
certain scientific research processes, the project for a structure does not depend on, and is
not controlled by a single person, but is a joint activity closely connected to the role of the
architect, the client and the contractor.
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011