Capstone Design Project — Fall 2026

Cardinal Square — a 4-story steel-framed office building, designed end-to-end using AISC 360-22 LRFD + ASCE 7-22 over a 12-week studio.

Groups of 3–4 students. Each week advances the same building, so every submission depends on the last. AISC section citations are required on every check.

How to read this page: Each row below is one week. It names the AISC chapter you're operating in, the design task, the deliverable you upload in the submissions panel, and the specific metrics the instructor will use to grade it. Weights sum to 100% of the capstone portion of your course grade.
Before you start · Studio primer

What structural design actually is — and everything Cardinal Square asks you to decide

Read this primer before Week 1. It frames the vocabulary the whole studio runs on: load paths, material efficiency, building geometry, lateral and foundation systems, drift limits, the project life cycle, and who is accountable at each stage.

Part 01

Definition and core concepts

Structural design is the science and art of arranging structural elements so that every load reaching the building is carried safely and continuously down to the ground.

  • Load path: Every gravity, wind, and seismic force must trace an unbroken route to the foundation. Design is the act of choosing that route, then sizing each link.
  • Safety: Strength limit states: φRn ≥ Ru under ASCE 7-22 LRFD combinations. Non-negotiable.
  • Serviceability: Deflection, drift, vibration, and cracking limits that keep the building usable, not just standing.
  • Economy: The cheapest safe structure — measured in tonnage, fabrication hours, and schedule, not member count.
  • Aesthetics: Structure that coordinates with architecture: exposed framing, clear spans, and column-free zones where they matter.
Load path diagram from roof to beams to columns to foundation
A complete load path: slab → beam → girder → column → footing → soil. A break anywhere is a collapse mechanism.
Interactive · Load-path explorer

Click a member and follow the load to the ground

Gravity path: slab to filler beam to girder to column to base plate to footing to soil. The brace shows how lateral load joins that same path at the foundation.

Wind / seismicGravity load (D + L)Soil / bearing stratumFootingColumnBraceGirderFiller beamSlab

Pick any member from the chips under the diagram. The member you choose turns orange, and every element that receives the load after it turns blue — that highlighted sequence is the load path.

Part 02

Importance of material efficiency

Efficiency means carrying the required demand with the least material, embodied carbon, and fabrication effort — while keeping every code margin intact.

  • Embodied carbon: Structure is typically 50–60% of a building's embodied carbon. Steel tonnage saved is carbon saved.
  • Member optimization: Drive utilization ratios into the 0.85–0.98 band. A beam at 0.45 is a beam you overpaid for.
  • Repetition beats theory: Fabrication and erection cost favour fewer distinct sections. Standardize across bays even at a small weight penalty.
  • Hidden cost of over-design: "Just in case" sizing inflates tonnage, foundations, and crane picks without adding meaningful reliability — β is already set by the code calibration in Chapter 2.
Efficient lightweight steel frame under construction
Efficient framing: shallow composite floors, repeated bays, and rolled shapes chosen for lb/ft, not just capacity.
Part 03

Building geometry and layout parameters

Geometry is decided before a single member is sized, and it locks in most of the structural cost.

  • Footprint area: Sets total gravity load, tributary areas, lateral exposure surface, and foundation extent.
  • Building height: Decides whether wind or seismic governs, and drives overturning moments and column axial demand at the base.
  • Bay spacing: Larger bays give spatial flexibility but deepen the floor system and add framing weight; 25–35 ft is the usual economic band for composite steel.
  • Floor-to-floor height: Every extra inch of structural depth multiplies across all stories into façade area and column length.
Framing plan with bay spacing dimensions and building elevation showing height
Footprint grid and elevation: bay spacing sets floor depth; height sets the governing lateral regime.
Part 04

Structural and foundation systems

System selection is a lateral-load problem first and a gravity problem second.

  • Moment frames: Open architecture, high ductility, expensive connections; drift usually governs member size.
  • Braced frames: Stiff and economical for low- to mid-rise; braces conflict with openings and façade planning.
  • Shear walls / cores: Very stiff, ideal around stairs and elevators; concentrates overturning into the foundation.
  • Diagrids & outriggers: Reserved for tall buildings where cantilever action dominates.
  • Shallow foundations: Spread footings or mats where allowable bearing pressure is adequate and settlement is tolerable.
  • Deep foundations: Piles or caissons when weak upper strata, high uplift, or large overturning demand transfer to competent soil or rock.
  • Drift control: Limit story drift (commonly H/400 service wind, and the ASCE 7-22 Table 12.12-1 seismic limits) to protect cladding, partitions, and occupant comfort.
Comparison of lateral systems and shallow versus deep foundations
Lateral systems and foundation types compared: stiffness must be matched to soil capacity, not chosen in isolation.
Part 05

Life cycle of design and construction

Your twelve weekly submissions mirror the real project life cycle, stage for stage.

  • Conceptual & schematic: Architectural alignment, structural typology, preliminary member depths, and grid selection.
  • Detailed design & permitting: Full load derivation, finite element modeling, limit-state checks, code review, and stamped drawings.
  • Procurement & construction: Shop drawings, mill orders, erection sequencing, site logistics, inspection, and quality control.
  • Operations: Inspection intervals, corrosion protection, and monitoring of serviceability performance.
  • End of life: Adaptive reuse, deconstruction, and recycling — steel's recovery rate is the reason it scores well on life-cycle assessments.
Timeline of project life cycle from concept to deconstruction
Concept → detailed design → permitting → construction → operations → end of life.
Part 06

Stakeholder roles and responsibilities

A design only gets built when three parties agree: the engineer who signs it, the contractor who erects it, and the authority who permits it.

  • Structural engineer of record: Designs and seals the load-bearing system, owns code compliance, and answers RFIs during construction.
  • Architect: Sets geometry, occupancy, and finishes; negotiates structural depth and column locations.
  • Contractor: Owns means, methods, sequencing, and site safety; translates drawings into an erected frame.
  • Fabricator & erector: Produce shop drawings and set steel; their feedback drives connection economy.
  • Government / authority having jurisdiction: Enforces the building code, zoning, and special inspection through plan review and permitting.
  • Owner: Funds the project and sets performance expectations, budget, and schedule.
Structural engineer, contractor, and inspector reviewing drawings on site
Design review on site: engineer of record, contractor, and building official resolving a detail together.

Cardinal Square — reference drawings

The four figures below define the building every group will design. Reference them in every weekly submission (S1–S12) so that loads, members, connections, and base plates all resolve to the same structure.

1. Typical Floor Framing Plan
N30 ft30 ft30 ft30 ft30 ft30 ft30 ftB1B2B3B4B5B6B7B8B9B10B11B12B13B14B15B16B17B18B19B20B21B22B23B24G1G2G3G4G5G6G7G8G9G10G11G12G13G14G15C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9C10C11C12C13C14C15C16C17C18C19C20Typical Floor Framing Plan — Cardinal Square (90 ft × 120 ft)3 bays E–W × 4 bays N–S @ 30 ft. Filler beams @ 10 ft o.c. (dashed). Columns C1–C20.
Filler beams B1–B24 @ 10 ft o.c. (dashed) spanning N–S between girders G1–G16 on E–W column lines. Columns C1–C20 at every grid intersection. Plan 90 ft × 120 ft.
2. Building Elevation
Building Elevation (E–W) — 4 stories × 13 ft, 3 bays × 30 ft13 ft13 ft13 ft13 ftRoofL4L3L2L130 ft30 ft30 ftHSS X-bracing in end bays (perimeter CBF) · gravity-only interior bays
Four 13 ft stories, three 30 ft bays. HSS X-braces in end bays for the lateral (CBF) system; interior bays are gravity-only with simple shear tabs.
3. Typical Composite Floor Section
Typical Composite Floor Section4.5 in normal-weight concrete (f′c = 4 ksi)3 in 20-ga composite metal deck (VLI20 or eq.)A992 W-shape filler beam (see Ch 6)¾″ Ø × 4½″ headed shear studsTotal depth (slab + beam) ≈ 22 in
4.5 in NW concrete on 3 in 20-ga composite metal deck; A992 W-shape filler beam with ¾ in × 4½ in headed studs (Chapter 11).
4. Column Base Plate Detail
Column Base Plate — Plan & Section (typical interior column)PlanN × B = 20 in × 20 in plateW12×72 columnARARARAR4 – ¾″ Ø F1554 Gr. 36 anchor rods, 12 in embedmentSection1″ grout padtp base plateW-columnBearing on f′c = 4 ksi concrete; tp from m, n, λn′ (AISC DG 1)
20 in × 20 in A572 Gr. 50 base plate with four ¾ in Ø F1554 Gr. 36 anchor rods on 1 in grout pad, bearing on f′c = 4 ksi concrete (Chapter 16 / AISC DG 1).

Group expectations

  • Groups of 3–4 students. Teams are assigned automatically from the class roster, and the four studio roles — Project Manager, Structural Analyst, Design Engineer, Drafting & Documentation Lead — rotate one step at the midterm gate (S7, Week 8, submitted Sunday Oct 25). You are emailed your team at the start of the semester and again when your role changes.
  • Week 1 (Aug 31 – Sep 6) is orientation — the brief, teams and software setup. Nothing is graded that week. The first deliverable, S1, is due Sunday Sep 13.
  • Every submission (S1–S12) is uploaded in the panel below and is due 11:59 pm on Sunday.
  • Late submissions: −5% per calendar day, no credit after 7 days.
  • All calcs hand-checked by a second group member before submission.
  • Every design check must cite the AISC 360-22 section (e.g. §F2.2, §E3, §J3.7).
  • Reuse results from prior weeks — do NOT re-derive loads mid-semester.
  • One shared Cardinal Square project across all chapters and 12 submissions.

Software you will use

This is a software-supported studio, but hand calculations come first. Every software result must be backed by a hand check that agrees within 5%, and the native analysis model is submitted with both gates.

ToolRequirement
Structural analysisSTAAD.Pro, SAP2000, ETABS, or RISA-3D — one model carried the whole semester; the native model file (.std, .sdb, .edb, or .r3d) is submitted with S8 and S12.
Design calculationsExcel or Mathcad, hand-checked first. Software results must agree with the hand calc within 5%.
DrawingsAutoCAD or Revit for framing plans, elevations, and connection details (S-100 … S-500).
DocumentsPDF only for grading — one file per slot, named CS-<Group>-<Slot>.pdf.

Weekly roadmap

S1 · Week 2 · Ch 1 — Framing & member types
Sep 7 – Sep 13, 2026
5% of capstone

Focus: Group formation, project kickoff, structural layout of Cardinal Square.

Group tasks
  • Teams of 3–4 are assigned automatically from the roster; confirm your four studio roles.
  • Sign the group charter and set up the shared file structure (calc index, sketches, references).
  • Produce a framing plan of a typical floor + roof with all members labeled.
  • Trace the gravity load path: deck → filler beam → girder → column → base plate → footing.
Evaluation metrics
  • Framing correctness (grid, spans, bay sizes)
  • Member labeling & legend
  • Load path clarity and completeness
  • Drawing quality (title block, scale, dimensions)
Submission — S1 — Framing plan PDF + 1-page load-path narrative. File name CS-<Group>-S1.pdf.
S2 · Week 3 · Ch 2 — Loads & LRFD combinations
Sep 14 – Sep 20, 2026
5% of capstone

Focus: ASCE 7-22 load takeoff and governing LRFD combos.

Group tasks
  • Tabulate D, L, Lr, S, W, E at roof and typical floor.
  • Apply live-load reduction (ASCE 7-22 §4.7) for columns and girders.
  • Report wu on a typical filler beam and Pu on a typical interior column.
  • Identify the governing combo for each member family.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct ASCE 7 load magnitudes
  • Live-load reduction applied where valid
  • Complete LRFD combo enumeration (1.4D, 1.2D+1.6L, …)
  • Traceable unit checks
Submission — S2 — Load takeoff spreadsheet (PDF export) + governing combo table.
S3 · Week 4 · Ch 3 — Materials & section properties
Sep 21 – Sep 27, 2026
5% of capstone

Focus: Materials memo and section-property calcs for trial shapes.

Group tasks
  • Justify A992 W-shapes, A572 Gr.50 plates, A500 Gr.C HSS, A325-N bolts, E70XX welds.
  • Compute Ix, Sx, Zx, shape factor for two trial W-shapes (one beam, one column).
  • Prepare a one-page materials sheet all downstream chapters will reference.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct Fy, Fu, E selections
  • Zx / Sx computed from first principles (no look-up only)
  • Shape-factor discussion, elastic vs plastic distinction
Submission — S3 — Materials memo (2 pp) + section-property calc sheet.
S4 · Week 5 · Ch 4 — Tension members
Sep 28 – Oct 4, 2026
8% of capstone

Focus: Design the CBF diagonal brace and its gusset.

Group tasks
  • Compute Tu from story shear and brace geometry.
  • Check gross-section yielding (φ = 0.90) and net-section rupture (φ = 0.75) with U from Table D3.1.
  • Verify block shear at the gusset and select the final HSS or 2L section.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct U (shear-lag) selection
  • Both limit states (Fy and Fu) evaluated
  • Block-shear geometry drawn to scale
  • Utilization ratio and final selection stated
Submission — S4 — Tension brace calc package with sketches + gusset block-shear diagram.
S5 · Week 6 · Ch 5 — Compression
Oct 5 – Oct 11, 2026
8% of capstone

Focus: Interior gravity column at Level 1.

Group tasks
  • Assemble Pu at the base with live-load reduction.
  • Pick a trial W12/W14 from Manual Table 4-1a; verify Fcr per §E3.
  • Confirm φcPn ≥ Pu and report utilization.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct K for the gravity column (0.65–1.0 discussion)
  • Inelastic vs elastic buckling regime identified
  • Complete φcPn computation, not just a table lookup
Submission — S5 — Column calc sheet + AISC Table 4-1a excerpt + KL/r diagram.
S6 · Week 7 · Ch 6 — Flexure + Ch 7 — Shear
Oct 12 – Oct 18, 2026
10% of capstone

Focus: 30 ft filler beam: gravity flexure and end shear in one package.

Group tasks
  • Compute Mu = wuL²/8 with wu from Week 2; select a W-shape from Table 3-2.
  • Verify Lb vs Lp / Lr, apply Cb, report φbMn ≥ Mu.
  • Compute Vu = wuL/2 and φvVn = 1.00·0.6·Fy·Aw·Cv1 (AISC Ch G); check h/tw < 2.24√(E/Fy).
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct Lp, Lr computation and Cb use
  • Mp = Zx·Fy from first principles
  • Correct web area Aw = d·tw and Cv1 regime
  • Both utilization ratios reported
Submission — S6 — Beam flexure + shear calc, Mn vs Lb curve annotated with the design point.
S7 · Week 8 · Ch 21 — RC materials & ACI 318-19 basis + Ch 22 — RC flexure · MIDTERM GATE
Oct 19 – Oct 25, 2026
15% of capstone

Focus: Switch the floor system to reinforced concrete — materials memo and flexural design — and roll S1–S7 up into the Design Development binder. The midterm examination sits this week (Oct 23).

Group tasks
  • Select f'c and fy; compute Ec and fr, and state the ACI 318-19 strength-design framework (φ factors, load factors §5.3).
  • Design a typical RC beam for Mu using the Whitney stress block: a, c, εt, φMn.
  • Check ρmin and ρmax (tension-controlled, εt ≥ 0.005) and select bar sizes with a cross-section sketch.
  • Compile the Design Development binder (S1–S7, indexed) and a 10-slide oral review.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct Ec, fr and material justification (ACI 318-19 §19.2)
  • Whitney stress-block derivation shown from equilibrium, not table lookup
  • ρmin / ρmax and tension-controlled check verified
  • Bar selection, cover and spacing detailed to scale
  • All prior-week calcs cross-referenced, consistent and indexed in the binder
Submission — S7 — MIDTERM GATE: RC materials memo + flexural design calc, plus the compiled Design Development binder (S1–S7, single indexed PDF), drawing set and slides. Studio roles rotate after this submission.
S8 · Week 9 · Ch 23 — RC shear & stirrup design
Oct 26 – Nov 1, 2026
7% of capstone

Focus: Shear design of the RC beam per ACI 318-19 Ch. 22, with the rotated studio roles in effect.

Group tasks
  • Compute Vu at the critical section (d from the face of support) and Vc per ACI 22.5.
  • Design vertical stirrups: required Vs, Av/s, and the governing spacing limits (§9.7.6.2).
  • Check Av,min and the upper bound Vs ≤ 8√f'c·bw·d; draw the stirrup layout along the span.
Evaluation metrics
  • Vc and critical-section location correct per ACI 318-19 §22.5
  • Stirrup spacing satisfies Av,min and maximum-spacing limits
  • Av,min and the Vs upper bound both verified
  • Stirrup layout drawing dimensioned and to scale
Submission — S8 — RC shear calc package with the stirrup layout drawn along the span.
S9 · Week 10 · Ch 12 — Bolted connections
Nov 2 – Nov 8, 2026
7% of capstone

Focus: Filler-to-girder shear tab, 3 A325-N 7/8 in bolts.

Group tasks
  • Check bolt shear φRn = 0.75·Fnv·Ab.
  • Check plate bearing and tearout per §J3.7 / §J3.11.
  • Verify edge distance and spacing minimums; produce the detail drawing.
Evaluation metrics
  • Threads-in-plane vs excluded correctly identified
  • Bearing vs tearout minimum governs
  • Detail meets AISC minimums
Submission — S9 — Shear-tab calc + detail drawing (bolts, holes, dimensions).
S10 · Week 11 · Ch 13 — Welded connections
Nov 9 – Nov 15, 2026
7% of capstone

Focus: Fillet weld of the brace gusset to the column flange.

Group tasks
  • Size the weld leg w using φRn = 0.75·0.60·FEXX·0.707·w·Lw.
  • Verify minimum weld size (Table J2.4).
  • Detail the gusset with AWS weld symbols.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct effective throat
  • Minimum weld-size compliance
  • Symbol accuracy
Submission — S10 — Weld calc + gusset detail with AWS weld symbols.
S11 · Week 12 · Ch 26 — RC compression members (columns)
Nov 16 – Nov 22, 2026
8% of capstone

Focus: Design the interior reinforced-concrete column at Level 1.

Group tasks
  • Compute φPn,max for a tied column (ACI 318-19 §22.4) and verify against Pu.
  • Build a P–M interaction diagram for the trial section and plot the (Pu, Mu) design point.
  • Detail longitudinal bars, tie size and tie spacing per ACI §25.7.2; draw the column section.
Evaluation metrics
  • Correct φ and 0.80 (tied) / 0.85 (spiral) reduction applied
  • Interaction diagram key points (pure axial, balanced, pure flexure) computed
  • ρg within 1–8% and tie spacing limits satisfied
  • Section detail drawn with cover, bar layout and ties
Submission — S11 — RC column calc + P–M interaction diagram + column detail.
S12 · Week 13–15 · Final report, drawing set & oral defense
Nov 30 – Dec 11, 2026 (finals)
15% of capstone

Focus: Integrate every check into one calc book, drawing set, and defense.

Group tasks
  • Compile S1–S11 into a single indexed calc binder; resolve all inconsistencies.
  • Produce the drawing set S-100 through S-500 (plans, elevations, typical details).
  • Peer-check with a second group (swap and mark up) before submitting.
  • Present design philosophy, framing, governing checks, connections, base plate; each member owns one chapter in Q&A.
Evaluation metrics
  • Consistency of assumptions across all chapters
  • AISC section cited for every check
  • Drawing readability and title-block completeness
  • Individual mastery of the assigned chapter during Q&A
Submission — S12 — FINAL GATE: signed calc binder (PDF) + drawing set + slide deck + analysis model file. Oral defense during finals week (Dec 11).

Weekly submissions — upload here

One PDF per slot, uploaded by any member of your team — everyone on the team sees it immediately. Every slot, weekly or gate, is due 11:59 pm on Sunday. Late: −5% per calendar day, no credit after 7 days.

How grading works. Every weekly slot is checked for completeness and feedback is returned, but points are awarded at three moments: the rolling weekly checks (55%), the midterm gate S7 — the compiled Design Development binder (15%), and the final gate S12 — the signed calc binder, drawing set, and defense (25%). You do not wait until the end of the semester: each week's calc feeds the next.
How your upload will be graded

Your file — PDF, Word document, scanned handwriting or a photo — is read page by page like an experienced structural engineering instructor would. The scan is validated first, then your reasoning, structural model, calculations, diagrams, code basis and final answers are graded on process, not just the final number. Design work is additionally reviewed against AISC 360-22 and ACI 318-19. Partial credit applies, and one early mistake carried correctly forward is only penalized once.

Before you attach the file
  • Include every page, in order and right way up — a missing page cannot earn credit.
  • Keep margins in frame: nothing cropped at the edges, especially boxed final answers.
  • Scan or photograph in good, even light — no shadows, glare or blur; 300 dpi or a steady phone scan.
  • Write in dark pen; faint pencil is the most common 'UNREADABLE — INSTRUCTOR REVIEW REQUIRED' flag.
  • Include all diagrams, FBDs, shear/moment diagrams and section sketches — label them.
  • Number each question the same way the assignment does, and note anything you skipped.
  • Show units on every line and box your final answers.
  • Combine everything into ONE file (PDF preferred; Word, JPG or PNG accepted) under 20 MB.

Sign in to upload your team's capstone deliverables.

Overall grading rubric

ComponentWeight
Weekly submissions (S1–S6, S8–S11)55%
Midterm gate — Design Development (S7)15%
Final gate — report & drawing set (S12)20%
Final oral defense5%
Peer & instructor evaluation5%
Total100%

Submission checklist (every week)

  • Cover sheet: project name, group #, week #, member names & signatures.
  • All calcs typeset (hand-written scans accepted only if legible + indexed).
  • AISC 360-22 section cited for every check (§F2.2, §E3, §H1-1a, §J3.7, …).
  • Governing limit state boxed and utilization ratio reported.
  • Assumptions consistent with prior weeks (loads, materials, geometry).
  • Peer-check sign-off line: reviewed by ____ on ____.
  • File named CS-<Group#>-<Slot>.pdf (e.g. CS-04-S6.pdf), uploaded in the submissions panel above.

Academic integrity

Every calculation must be traceable to the group. AI tools may be used for formatting, unit conversions, and study support, but every design decision, limit-state check, and final member selection must be justified by the group in the calc binder and defended orally at the final review.

Laboratory Program (Weeks 1–12)

Twelve professional-practice laboratories, each framed as a real engineering project rather than a textbook exercise. Every lab includes a client brief, AISC references, hand and software calculations, fabrication-ready deliverables, a QA/QC checklist, and an AI-assisted extension using industry tools (Tekla, Revit, IDEA StatiCa, RAM, SAP2000, STAAD.Pro).

WeekThemeIndustry Role
Wk 1Hybrid HSS Moment Connection DetailingStructural Detailer
Wk 2Structural Steel Shapes InvestigationSteel Inspector
Wk 3Build the Strongest Bolted ConnectionConnection Engineer
Wk 4Weld Design and FabricationWelding Inspector (CWI-in-training)
Wk 5Design a Tension MemberStructural Designer
Wk 6Beam Design ChallengeBuilding Engineer
Wk 7Steel Column InvestigationStability Engineer
Wk 8Beam-to-Column Connection StudioConnection Specialist
Wk 9Floor System DesignBuilding Designer
Wk 10Steel Bridge Mini ProjectBridge Engineer
Wk 11Structural Failure InvestigationForensic Engineer
Wk 12Consulting Firm Design Challenge (Capstone)Consulting Structural Engineer
Isometric detail of a hybrid HSS moment connection with blind bolts and weld symbols
Laboratory 1 · Structural Detailer

Hybrid HSS Moment Connection Detailing

Already developed

Client brief — Client: a steel fabricator has procured a hybrid HSS column–to–W beam moment frame for a mid-rise office. The connection uses blind bolts through the HSS wall combined with a shop-welded stiffener ring and a field-welded flange plate. You are the detailer producing the fabrication and erection package.

Students learn
  • Orthographic drafting: plan, elevation, section
  • Shop-work versus field-work symbol conventions
  • AWS A2.4 weld symbols (fillet, groove, backing bar)
  • Blind-bolt selection and installation clearances
  • Tracing the moment/shear load path through the joint
  • Constructability: erection sequence and fit-up tolerances
Tasks
  • Draw a 1:10 plan view of the joint region.
  • Draw a 1:5 elevation with all bolts and welds symbolized.
  • Draw two sections through the HSS at the flange plate and stiffener.
  • Overlay the moment couple + shear path in colored arrows.
  • Add a bill of materials with grades (A500 Gr. C HSS, A992 W, A325 bolts, E70XX).
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §K (HSS connections)
  • AISC 341-22 (if SMF)
  • AWS D1.1 §6 for weld details
Deliverables
  • Plan, elevation, and 2 sections (1 sheet)
  • Weld symbol schedule
  • Load-path overlay
  • Bill of materials
Software
  • Hand drafting
  • AutoCAD
  • Revit
  • Tekla Structures
QA/QC checklist
  • All welds have effective throat and length called out
  • Bolt edge distance ≥ 1.25 dₐ (Table J3.4)
  • Blind-bolt clearance verified against HSS wall thickness
Grading rubric
Drafting quality & title block20%
AWS weld symbol accuracy20%
Load-path clarity20%
AISC/AWS citations20%
Constructability commentary20%
AI-assisted extension — Model the joint in Tekla or IDEA StatiCa Connection; export the CBFEM utilization plot and compare to hand checks.
Bundles of W-shapes, HSS, channels and angles in a fabrication yard with a caliper on the floor
Laboratory 2 · Steel Inspector

Structural Steel Shapes Investigation

Client brief — A shipment of 40+ steel members arrived at the fabricator's yard but the mill tags have fallen off. As the receiving inspector, you must measure each piece, back-calculate its AISC designation, and produce a professional inspection report before the material can be released to the shop floor.

Students learn
  • Reading calipers, tape, and micrometers
  • AISC Shapes Database v15 lookup workflow
  • Distinguishing W vs M vs S vs HP profiles
  • HSS vs Pipe (round vs square) identification
  • Estimating weight from area × 3.4 lb/ft/in²
Tasks
  • Measure d, bf, tf, tw, and root radius on each specimen.
  • Classify each as W / M / HP / S / WT / C / MC / HSS / Pipe / L / 2L.
  • Look up the closest AISC designation (Table 1-1 through 1-12).
  • Compute A, Ix, Sx, Zx from measured dimensions and compare to tabulated.
  • Flag any specimen whose measured dimensions fall outside ASTM tolerance.
AISC / code references
  • AISC Manual Part 1 (Dimensions & Properties)
  • ASTM A6/A6M (mill tolerances)
  • ASTM A992, A572, A500, A53
Deliverables
  • Measured sketch per specimen
  • AISC designation & properties table
  • Estimated weight per foot
  • Non-conformance list
  • Signed inspection report
Software
  • AISC Shapes Database (Excel)
  • Bluebeam / PDF markup
QA/QC checklist
  • Two-inspector rule: each measurement checked twice
  • Report deviations ≥ ASTM A6 tolerances
  • Photograph each specimen with tag number
Grading rubric
Measurement accuracy25%
Correct AISC designation25%
Property calculations20%
Report presentation20%
Non-conformance handling10%
AI-assisted extension — Use a phone camera + a vision model to auto-suggest a candidate shape from a side-profile photo, then hand-verify with the AISC database.
Bolted steel splice with A325 high-strength bolts inside a universal testing machine
Laboratory 3 · Connection Engineer

Build the Strongest Bolted Connection

Client brief — Each team receives a fixed kit — two 3/8" plates, one gusset, 4 × A325-N 3/4" bolts, washers, and nuts. Design the strongest tension splice you can build while staying inside AISC 360-22 §J3 and RCSC spacing, edge distance, bearing, and tear-out rules. The connection is pulled to failure in a UTM.

Students learn
  • Bolt shear vs plate bearing vs tear-out vs block shear governance
  • RCSC pretension vs snug-tight installation
  • Effect of bolt pattern (2×2 vs 1×4 vs staggered) on capacity
  • Failure prediction vs observed failure mode
Tasks
  • Draw at least two candidate layouts with dimensions.
  • Compute φRn for each limit state; identify the governing failure.
  • Select and assemble the winning design; torque to snug-tight.
  • Pull to failure; log peak load and displacement.
  • Post-mortem: compare predicted vs actual failure mode.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §J3 (Bolts)
  • AISC 360-22 §J3.10 (bearing at bolt holes)
  • AISC 360-22 §J4.3 (block shear)
  • RCSC Specification (2020)
Deliverables
  • Design calc package
  • Shop drawing of the assembly
  • Written failure prediction (signed before test)
  • Post-test comparison memo
Software
  • Excel calc sheet
  • AutoCAD detail
QA/QC checklist
  • Minimum edge distance ≥ Table J3.4
  • Minimum spacing ≥ 2⅔ dₐ (preferably 3 dₐ)
  • Threads-in-plane vs excluded stated on drawing
Grading rubric
Predicted vs actual limit state match30%
Achieved peak load20%
Calculation completeness20%
Drawing quality15%
Post-mortem depth15%
AI-assisted extension — Build the layout in IDEA StatiCa Connection and compare CBFEM predicted failure load to the observed value.
Welder in PPE producing a fillet weld on a beam-to-column connection
Laboratory 4 · Welding Inspector (CWI-in-training)

Weld Design and Fabrication

Client brief — You are handed a set of shop drawings with sloppy or ambiguous weld callouts. Redraw them per AWS A2.4, size the welds per AISC §J2, then observe (or perform, if certified) fillet and groove welds and produce a visual inspection report per AWS D1.1 Table 6.1.

Students learn
  • AWS A2.4 symbol grammar (arrow/other side, tail, all-around, field)
  • Effective throat for fillet, PJP, and CJP welds
  • Minimum weld size (AISC Table J2.4) and maximum leg on plate edges
  • HAZ, distortion, and preheat concepts
  • Visual inspection: undercut, porosity, crater cracks
Tasks
  • Redraw four ambiguous weld details with correct symbols.
  • Size the fillet leg w for each: φRn = 0.75·0.60·FEXX·0.707·w·Lw ≥ Ru.
  • Observe/perform three demo welds and photograph each.
  • Perform visual inspection using an AWS gauge; log defects.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §J2 (Welds)
  • AWS A2.4 (symbols)
  • AWS D1.1 §6 (Inspection), Table 6.1 (visual acceptance)
Deliverables
  • Corrected weld drawings
  • Weld sizing calc sheet
  • Visual inspection report with pass/fail
  • Photo log
Software
  • AutoCAD
  • Bluebeam markup
QA/QC checklist
  • Every weld symbol has size, length, and pitch (if intermittent)
  • Minimum weld size verified against Table J2.4
  • Field welds flagged with the field-weld flag
Grading rubric
Symbol accuracy25%
Weld sizing calcs25%
Inspection thoroughness25%
Report clarity15%
Safety/PPE compliance10%
AI-assisted extension — Use a phone + vision model to pre-screen welds for undercut/porosity, then confirm with hand inspection.
Long-span roof with double-angle tension bracing and gusset plate connections
Laboratory 5 · Structural Designer

Design a Tension Member

Client brief — Client memo: a warehouse owner needs a new set of X-bracing for lateral wind resistance. Given Tu from the wind analysis, select a rod, HSS, double-angle, or plate, size the gusset, and verify all limit states.

Students learn
  • Gross yielding vs net rupture vs block shear governance
  • Shear-lag factor U (Table D3.1) for angles, WT, HSS
  • Gusset plate Whitmore section and buckling check
  • Sizing bolt patterns to satisfy spacing and edge distance
Tasks
  • Given Tu = 120 kip, propose two candidate sections (e.g. 2L4×3×3/8 and HSS4×4×3/8).
  • Check φTn for gross yielding (φ = 0.90) and net rupture (φ = 0.75).
  • Design the gusset: Whitmore width, gusset yielding, block shear.
  • Detail the bolt pattern and edge distances.
  • Predict controlling failure mode with a utilization chart.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §D (Tension)
  • AISC 360-22 Table D3.1 (U)
  • AISC 360-22 §J4 (block shear)
Deliverables
  • Calc package with both trial sections
  • Shop drawing of brace + gusset
  • Utilization table (Fy vs Fu vs block shear)
  • Failure-mode prediction
Software
  • Excel
  • AutoCAD
  • IDEA StatiCa
QA/QC checklist
  • U selected from correct Table D3.1 row
  • Both yielding and rupture checked
  • Whitmore width drawn to scale
Grading rubric
Correct U selection20%
Both limit states evaluated20%
Gusset design completeness25%
Drawing quality20%
Failure-mode prediction15%
AI-assisted extension — Model the gusset in IDEA StatiCa and compare Whitmore capacity to hand calc.
Steel floor framing under construction with beams, girders, and metal deck
Laboratory 6 · Building Engineer

Beam Design Challenge

Client brief — Architect gives you: 30 ft span, 8 ft tributary width, D = 40 psf, L = 100 psf, and a ceiling clearance that limits total depth to 22 in. Select a W-shape, verify flexure, shear, and deflection, and produce a beam schedule row and shop drawing.

Students learn
  • wu, Mu, Vu from tributary width
  • Selecting φbMn from Table 3-2; verifying Lb vs Lp
  • Cb amplification for non-uniform moment
  • Live-load deflection limit L/360; total-load L/240
Tasks
  • Compute wu (1.2D + 1.6L) and Mu = wuL²/8, Vu = wuL/2.
  • Pick a trial shape from Table 3-2; verify φbMn ≥ Mu.
  • Check shear φvVn (AISC §G2).
  • Check ΔL ≤ L/360 using unfactored L.
  • Detail: bearing plate at each support, shear-tab connection sizing.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §F2 (compact I-shapes)
  • AISC 360-22 §G2 (shear)
  • AISC 360-22 §L3 (serviceability, deflection)
Deliverables
  • Beam calc sheet
  • Beam schedule row
  • Bearing plate calc
  • Shear connection calc
  • 1-sheet construction drawing
Software
  • RAM Structural
  • SAP2000
  • AISC Steel Tools spreadsheets
QA/QC checklist
  • Lb < Lp confirmed or LTB explicitly checked
  • Deflection recomputed with cracked composite Ix if composite
Grading rubric
Load takeoff15%
Flexure design25%
Shear + deflection20%
Detailing20%
Drawing quality20%
AI-assisted extension — Model the beam in RISA-3D and compare deflection to hand calc (∆5wL⁴/384EI).
Corroded warehouse column with base plate being inspected by an engineer with a tablet
Laboratory 7 · Stability Engineer

Steel Column Investigation

Client brief — A warehouse column has begun to bow visibly. Owner suspects overload. As the investigating engineer, back-calculate KL/r, elastic Euler load, AISC §E3 capacity, and base plate bearing to determine whether the column is over its factored capacity.

Students learn
  • Effective length K for the four ideal end conditions + alignment charts
  • Inelastic vs elastic buckling regime (KL/r vs 4.71√(E/Fy))
  • Base plate bearing (φc·0.85·f'c·√(A2/A1))
  • Distinguishing short, intermediate, long columns
Tasks
  • Measure the column geometry and end conditions on site.
  • Compute KL/r about both axes; identify governing axis.
  • Compute Pe = π²EI/(KL)² and Fcr per §E3 (E3-2 or E3-3).
  • Report φcPn and utilization Pu/φcPn.
  • Check base plate bearing and anchor rods.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §E3 (compression)
  • AISC 360-22 Commentary Appx 7 (alignment charts)
  • AISC Design Guide 1 (base plates)
Deliverables
  • Site sketch with measurements
  • KL/r diagram both axes
  • φcPn calc
  • Base plate calc
  • Failure investigation report
Software
  • Excel
  • RISA-3D
  • STAAD.Pro
QA/QC checklist
  • Correct K discussion (0.65 vs 0.80 vs 1.0 vs 2.0)
  • Regime (inelastic vs elastic) explicitly identified
  • A2/A1 ≤ 4 checked for concrete pedestal
Grading rubric
Field data quality15%
K + KL/r20%
φcPn calc25%
Base plate20%
Report + recommendation20%
AI-assisted extension — Model the column in RISA-3D and compare eigenvalue buckling load to hand Euler.
3D BIM comparison of shear-tab, end-plate, double-angle, and seat-angle beam-to-column connections
Laboratory 8 · Connection Specialist

Beam-to-Column Connection Studio

Client brief — Each team gets a different load case (shear-only, moment-only, or combined) and must choose an appropriate connection type — shear tab, double angle, seat angle, extended end plate, or bolted-flange plate moment — then produce shop drawings, a field-erection sequence, and a 3D model.

Students learn
  • When to pick shear-only vs moment connections
  • Rotation ductility of shear tabs vs stiffness of end plates
  • Prying action in end plates
  • Erection sequence: shop-welded / field-bolted preferred workflow
Tasks
  • Select connection type with a decision matrix.
  • Perform AISC §J and §K checks on all limit states.
  • Produce shop drawing + field erection drawing.
  • Build a 3D BIM model of the joint.
  • Write a 1-page erection sequence.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §J (Connections)
  • AISC 341-22 (if seismic)
  • AISC Manual Part 10 & 12 (connection design tables)
Deliverables
  • Decision matrix
  • Calc package
  • Shop + field drawings
  • 3D BIM model (screenshots)
  • Erection sequence memo
Software
  • Tekla Structures
  • Revit
  • IDEA StatiCa
  • SDS/2
QA/QC checklist
  • Every bolt has grade + tensioning method
  • Erection stability considered (temp bracing)
  • Prying action checked for end plates
Grading rubric
Connection selection logic20%
Calc completeness25%
Drawing quality20%
BIM model15%
Erection sequence20%
AI-assisted extension — Import the 3D joint into IDEA StatiCa Connection and validate hand checks against CBFEM.
Structural framing plan with beams, girders, columns, and grid callouts
Laboratory 9 · Building Designer

Floor System Design

Client brief — Client hands you an architectural floor plan (60 ft × 90 ft, 3 in composite deck, ceiling clearance 12 ft). Lay out the framing (beam spacing, girder direction, column grid), then produce a framing plan, member schedule, and reaction summary — the exact output a consulting firm delivers.

Students learn
  • Beam vs girder direction trade-offs (span efficiency vs depth)
  • Tributary width and load takedown to columns
  • Bay optimization (deep few vs shallow many)
  • Framing plan drafting conventions
Tasks
  • Propose two framing schemes; compute total tonnage for each.
  • Pick the winner and finalize beam/girder sizes.
  • Compute all beam and girder reactions at column faces.
  • Produce a framing plan (S-201) with member callouts.
  • Produce a beam and column schedule.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §B & §F
  • AISC Design Guide 3 (Serviceability)
  • SDI composite deck manual
Deliverables
  • Scheme comparison memo
  • Framing plan (1 sheet)
  • Beam & column schedules
  • Reactions summary table
Software
  • RAM Structural
  • Revit
  • Tekla
  • Bluebeam
QA/QC checklist
  • Beam spacing within deck span capability
  • Depth checked against ceiling clearance
  • Column loads tally within 2 % of total tributary
Grading rubric
Framing logic + optimization25%
Reactions accuracy20%
Framing plan quality25%
Schedules20%
Presentation10%
AI-assisted extension — Model both schemes in RAM Structural System and compare tonnage per square foot.
Student-scale steel truss bridge on a lab table
Laboratory 10 · Bridge Engineer

Steel Bridge Mini Project

Client brief — Given a 20 ft simple-span pedestrian bridge, HL-93 pedestrian loading per AASHTO, and a fixed portal geometry, design the truss, gussets, bracing, and connections. Produce a complete fabrication drawing set — exactly like the ASCE Student Steel Bridge Competition.

Students learn
  • Truss analysis (method of joints/sections) refresher
  • Sizing tension vs compression chords + web members
  • Gusset plate design (Whitmore + buckling)
  • AASHTO LRFD load and resistance factors
Tasks
  • Analyze truss under HL-93 pedestrian load.
  • Size every member; check tension (Ch 4) and compression (Ch 5).
  • Design a typical panel-point gusset.
  • Design lateral bracing.
  • Produce fabrication drawings for one full truss + one gusset detail.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 §D, §E, §J
  • AASHTO LRFD §6
Deliverables
  • Truss analysis calc sheet
  • Member sizing table
  • Gusset detail
  • Bracing plan
  • Fabrication drawing set
Software
  • SAP2000
  • RISA-3D
  • AutoCAD
  • Tekla
QA/QC checklist
  • Compression chords checked for KL/r ≤ 120
  • Gusset plate slenderness at Whitmore section
  • AASHTO LRFD factors applied (not ASCE 7)
Grading rubric
Truss analysis20%
Member sizing20%
Gusset design20%
Bracing15%
Drawings25%
AI-assisted extension — Model the truss in SAP2000, run buckling analysis, and compare Pcr to hand Euler.
Collage of famous structural failures with red forensic annotations
Laboratory 11 · Forensic Engineer

Structural Failure Investigation

Client brief — Your team is assigned one historic failure (Hyatt Regency, FIU, Hartford Civic Center, Silver Bridge, Tacoma Narrows, Quebec Bridge, Sampoong, or I-35W). Reconstruct the failure, identify the AISC or code violation, and produce a forensic engineering report + red-lined drawing of the as-built vs the safe redesign.

Students learn
  • Root-cause analysis and fault-tree logic
  • Design-review process failures (Hyatt shop-drawing change)
  • Fatigue and fracture-critical members (Silver Bridge)
  • Aeroelastic flutter (Tacoma Narrows)
  • Progressive collapse triggers
Tasks
  • Reconstruct the geometry and loading at time of failure.
  • Compute the demand vs the as-built capacity — show the violation.
  • Propose a safe redesign; recompute capacity.
  • Produce red-lined drawing (as-built vs redesign).
  • Write forensic report with findings and recommendations.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 (relevant chapter for the failure mode)
  • ASCE Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities
Deliverables
  • Reconstruction sketch
  • Demand vs capacity calc
  • Redesign calc
  • Red-lined drawing
  • Forensic report (10 pp)
Software
  • AutoCAD
  • STAAD.Pro / SAP2000 for reconstruction
QA/QC checklist
  • Cite the specific code section that would have caught the flaw today
  • Distinguish design error vs construction error vs review error
Grading rubric
Reconstruction accuracy25%
Root-cause identification25%
Redesign quality20%
Red-lined drawing15%
Report15%
AI-assisted extension — Model the failure in SAP2000 and animate the collapse propagation; compare to eyewitness accounts.
Consulting engineers reviewing structural drawings and BIM model in a modern office
Laboratory 12 · Consulting Structural Engineer

Consulting Firm Design Challenge (Capstone)

Client brief — Everything learned in Labs 1–11 comes together. Client delivers architectural drawings, owner requirements, a $/sf budget, and a construction schedule. Your team designs, details, models, draws, prices, and presents a complete steel-framed building — including a full calc package, connection details, framing plans, schedules, erection sequence, material takeoff, and cost estimate.

Students learn
  • End-to-end firm workflow: schematic → DD → CD → shop drawings
  • Coordinating with architect / MEP
  • Constructability reviews
  • Cost estimating (tonnage × $/ton + connections + erection)
Tasks
  • SD phase: framing schemes + preliminary tonnage.
  • DD phase: member sizing, lateral analysis, seismic/wind base shears.
  • CD phase: connections, base plates, foundations reactions.
  • Shop drawings: full assembly + piece marks.
  • Erection sequence + material takeoff + cost estimate.
  • 60-min professional presentation to a mock owner panel.
AISC / code references
  • AISC 360-22 (all chapters used in course)
  • AISC 341-22 (if seismic detailing)
  • ASCE 7-22 loads
  • AISC Design Guides 1, 3, 7, 11
Deliverables
  • Complete calc package
  • Framing plans (S-100…S-500)
  • Connection details
  • Column & beam schedules
  • Erection sequence
  • Material takeoff
  • Cost estimate
  • Constructability review memo
  • Presentation deck + dry-run video
Software
  • Revit + Tekla or SDS/2
  • RAM Structural System / ETABS
  • IDEA StatiCa
  • Bluebeam
  • Excel takeoff
QA/QC checklist
  • Every check cites AISC section
  • Loads consistent with ASCE 7
  • Connections designed for computed reactions (not rules of thumb)
  • Peer review by another team before submission
Grading rubric
Design completeness20%
Calc quality + citations20%
Drawing set20%
Cost estimate + constructability15%
Presentation15%
Peer & owner-panel score10%
AI-assisted extension — Full workflow: Revit model → export to Tekla → connections in IDEA StatiCa → analysis in ETABS → estimate in Excel → present with the model live.