AI-Assisted Structural Design Iterations

Taxonomy Dimensions

Primary Purpose: Process Augmentation, Skill Development
Integration Depth: Transformative Redesign
Student Agency: Full Autonomy
Assessment Alignment: Process Documentation, Comparative Analysis
Technical Implementation: Tool Selection, Integration Infrastructure
Ethics & Professional Development: Professional Norms, Responsible Use

Course Context

Senior-level structural design course where students typically spend excessive time on routine calculations and documentation, limiting their ability to explore multiple design alternatives and develop creative solutions.

Implementation Description

Activity Overview

Students use AI to accelerate the iterative design process for structural components, allowing exploration of more design alternatives, optimization strategies, and sustainability considerations than traditionally possible in a semester-long course.

Step-by-Step Implementation

Foundation Phase (Weeks 1-2):
- Students complete traditional manual design process for a simple structural element
- Learn to document design decisions and engineering judgment
- Establish verification protocols for structural calculations
AI Augmentation Training (Weeks 3-4):
- Introduction to AI tools for structural engineering tasks
- Practice translating design requirements into effective prompts
- Verification methods for AI-generated structural calculations
- Ethics training for appropriate professional use of AI
Multi-Alternative Design Project (Weeks 5-8):
- Students develop multiple design alternatives for a complex structure
- Use AI to accelerate calculations and documentation
- Compare alternatives based on performance, cost, sustainability
- Document design reasoning and decision process
- Verify critical elements with traditional methods
Optimization Exploration (Weeks 9-10):
- Students select best alternative and explore optimization
- Use AI to generate optimization strategies and perform analyses
- Evaluate material efficiency, carbon footprint, and lifecycle costs
- Document trade-offs and final design rationale
Professional Presentation (Weeks 11-12):
- Students prepare comprehensive design documentation
- Include transparent attribution of AI contributions
- Present to industry panel on design process and outcomes
- Reflect on how AI affected their design exploration

Example Prompts

Design Alternative Generation Prompt

I'm designing a steel moment frame for a 5-story office building in Seattle (Seismic Zone D). 
Building dimensions: 120ft x 80ft, story height 13ft, grid spacing 20ft.
Design loads: Dead load = 20 psf (roof) and 80 psf (floors), Live load = 20 psf (roof) and 50 psf (floors)
Wind: 110 mph, Exposure C
Seismic: Site Class D

Please help me generate three distinctly different design approaches for the lateral force resisting system:

1. Generate a conventional moment frame design
2. Propose an eccentric braced frame alternative
3. Suggest a dual system approach

For each alternative:
- Suggest appropriate member sizes for a typical frame
- Estimate lateral displacement under design loads
- Identify key advantages and disadvantages
- Suggest areas for potential optimization
- Note verification priorities for each approach

Focus on conceptual design decisions rather than detailed calculations at this stage.

Design Optimization Prompt

Based on my preliminary design of a concrete beam (details below), please help me optimize the design considering:
1. Minimizing embodied carbon
2. Reducing material costs
3. Improving constructability
4. Maintaining required performance

Current design:
- Simply supported beam, 30 ft span
- 16 inch wide x 28 inch deep
- Reinforcement: 3 #8 bars bottom, 2 #7 bars top
- Concrete strength: 5000 psi
- Steel yield strength: 60 ksi
- Design moment: 150 ft-kips
- Design shear: 20 kips
- Deflection limit: L/360

For your optimized alternatives:
- Suggest 3 different design options
- Calculate percentage reduction in embodied carbon
- Estimate cost impacts
- Identify constructability improvements
- Verify capacity and serviceability requirements are still met
- Explain the design trade-offs associated with each option

Sustainability Analysis Prompt

I'm comparing two structural systems for a 3-story educational building:
1. Steel moment frame with composite metal deck
2. Cast-in-place concrete frame with two-way slab

Please help me conduct a comprehensive sustainability analysis including:
1. Embodied carbon comparison (initial construction)
2. Operational energy implications
3. Material resource efficiency
4. End-of-life considerations
5. Resilience to natural hazards
6. Adaptability for future use changes

For each system, provide:
- Estimated ranges for embodied carbon (kg CO2e/m²)
- Key strategies to reduce environmental impact during construction
- Suggestions for how to incorporate recycled/renewable materials
- Design considerations that would improve lifecycle performance
- Quantitative metrics to include in my comparative analysis
- Documentation required for LEED certification

Base your analysis on typical values for commercial construction in North America.

Assessment Strategies

Design Process Portfolio (40%):
- Documentation of iterative design process
- Clear articulation of design decisions and rationale
- Evidence of verification for critical elements
- Reflection on AI's role in expanding design exploration
- Transparent attribution of AI contributions
Comparative Analysis Report (25%):
- Analysis of multiple design alternatives
- Quantitative comparison of performance metrics
- Cost and sustainability considerations
- Justification for selected alternative
- Evidence of optimization efforts
Technical Verification Exercise (15%):
- Independent verification of critical calculations
- Identification of limitations in AI-assisted design
- Demonstration of engineering judgment
- Documentation of verification protocols
Professional Practice Integration (20%):
- Final presentation to industry panel
- Discussion of how AI integration aligns with professional practice
- Responsible use documentation
- Reflection on skills developed through the process

Implementation Considerations

Required Resources

Access to AI tools with structural engineering capabilities
Integration with structural analysis/design software
Verification tools for structural calculations
Industry partnerships for professional input
Documentation system for design process

Common Challenges

Ensuring students understand underlying structural principles
Verifying accuracy of AI-generated calculations
Maintaining focus on design thinking rather than prompt engineering
Balancing efficiency gains with development of critical skills
Managing expectations about AI capabilities and limitations

Integration Tips

Establish clear guidelines for when verification is required
Develop rubrics that reward exploration and iteration, not just final designs
Create documentation templates for AI-assisted design process
Regular reflection sessions on AI's impact on design thinking
Involve industry practitioners to ensure relevance to professional practice

Faculty Experience Required

Understanding of structural design principles and codes
Familiarity with AI tools and their limitations for structural applications
Ability to evaluate appropriateness of AI-generated design alternatives
Understanding of professional practice norms regarding computational tools
Willingness to focus more on design process than traditional calculation skills

This example was developed as part of the "Strategies for Integrating Generative AI in Engineering Education" workshop materials.

Structural Design Iterations with AI