News Detail

ACI and Engineering Education

1/1/1999

A frequent topic of conversation at recent ACI meetings such as the fall convention in Los Angeles, Calif., has been the proposal to expand university/ college curricula from four to five years. Specifically, this change would be for civil engineering students. At the end of the five-year program, the students would receive a degree equivalent to a Master’s rather than a Bachelor’s now awarded to those who complete the current four-year program.

This appeared to be a matter of considerable import to ACI members gathered in Los Angeles, especially to those in academia who would be directly impacted by any curricula expansion. The consensus among our colleagues in academia seems to be that the volume of recent research data is so overwhelming that it is impossible to pass it along to students during a four-year program already crammed with standard courses.

Is this something with which ACI should directly concern itself? Moreover, what should ACI be doing about continuing education for its members? Does ACI need to better assist its members in understanding the new knowledge that has evolved in recent years? Should the Institute adopt policies pertaining to engineering education?

The American Society of Civil Engineers has for many years urged an expansion to a five-year program leading to a Master’s degree for those completing the civil engineering curricula. In addition, ASCE has recommended that Engineering Registration Boards in all of the states rewrite registration requirements so that a Master’s from an accredited university would be a prerequisite before the necessary tests for licensing are given.

There are varying schools of thought on this subject. Having been a consulting engineer nearly all of my adult life, and not part of the academic world, I look upon this matter somewhat differently than others might. In my way of thinking, engineering education, regardless of the length of time this consumes, must be followed by practical design experience for those who choose the design path in their careers.

During my student days at Oregon State College in the late 1940s, I and my classmates graduated with the idea that we were ready to begin actual design of buildings and bridges, or at least the necessary structural components. After all, we had taken the "conventional" courses in engineering and had mastered the textbook Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, authored by Professor Dean Peabody of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which used such "strange" terms as concrete elastic deformation, plastic deformation (now known as creep and shrinkage), and plastic strain. The 1946 edition of Peabody’s textbook contained detailed information on the design of prestressed concrete pipes, tanks, and beams in addition to the standard data about reinforced concrete design. Excerpts from ACI’s Building Code, 1941 edition, were also in Peabody’s book.

After graduating from Oregon State, I later joined the Freyssinet firm, a U.S. company then based in New York City, and I quickly learned that what I had been taught in engineering school had been superseded by more recent research, experiences, and changes in the Building Code. I soon realized that keeping up-to-date would be absolutely essential if I were to make a living in the consulting business.

In recent years, government agencies have funded needed research to learn more about long-term, time-dependent creep and shrinkage volume changes that take place in prestressed concrete bridges and other structures. Researchers have reported finding time-dependent creep and shrinkage deformations larger than those that have been routinely assumed to be the upper bounds in contemporary practice. This finding has prompted a re-examination of current design practices with respect to time-dependent deformation. This is only one example of ongoing research with results that need to be passed on to engineering students as well as consultants and other practicing engineers.

Again, the basic concern here is that the current undergraduate programs in the nation’s engineering schools are not adequate now to pass along the knowledge gained from research. In this regard, Adam Neville’s paper "Concrete Technology — An Essential Element of Structural Design" (Concrete International, July 1998, pp. 39-41) is recommended reading for those desiring more information on this subject.

A five-year graduate degree for engineering students? Is this necessary? Or would this be duplicating "on the job" experience? Let us know your thoughts on this subject. As members of the Board of Direction, we welcome your input!

James R. Libby
President
American Concrete Institute

Back to Past-Presidents' Memo List