×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Structural Engineers getting slammed II
9

Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Structural Engineers getting slammed II

(OP)
All,

Having already read a thread where structural engineers have found themselves at the ire of one industry, I didn't know if I should dare post this little editorial.

I do think it would be good for all of us to vent on this topic...

STRUCTURE Magazine, a joint publication of NCSEA, CASE, and SEI April 2005 regenerates that age old arguement over architects doing structural engineer's work.  The magazine lists www.structure.org for the website.

I can't for the life of me, understand how any architect in good judgement can do structural engineering work unless he or she is also educated as a structural engineer and in possesion of a PE or SE license.

On the flipside, I rarely see of any engineers being accused of practicing architecture.  And why would we want to?!

There should be a clear line drawn so that architects cannont practice structural engineering unless they meet the criteria noted above.  Heck I know of civil engineers who wouldn't dare practice structural engineering.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

2
The other day, I was called to look at a very, very simple building. It was designed by an architect only. My initial look at the drawings revealed number of structural problems.


The State Boards seem unwilling to tackle this polictically sensitive issue and I am sure that the AIA lobbies to maintain the status quo. The only way that it seems that it will getted solved is thru lawsuits and public awareness of this issue.

The temptation for the Architect is to earn more money and not have to hire a consultant. This is a self defeating attitude since if the Architect hired a consultant then he would have more time to market and take on additional projects.

Unfortunately, the unsophisticated clients are the ones that will get burned. The sophisticated clients generally want to know the qualifications and ability of each team member.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I have to agree with jike.  Having seen the level of structural education given to most architects (I tutored a few in college), very few are qualified to make an entire structural design for a building.  Not necessarily from an analysis standpoint, but more likely from a code enforcement and practicality/constructability standpoint.

Chances are nothing will change until something collapses or somebody rich gets burned on a design.  Remember, SE's didn't have to be registered in Illinois until almost all of Chicago burned down!

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

It was not too long ago, when there weren't any structural engineers, greatest of architects roamed the earth.  By no means were they trained to perform non-linear analysis.  They still were able to build magnificent structures all around the world.

Where did they all go?

One solution is to elevate the level of structural portion of the architectural exams.  Less competent ones will surely be weeded out, the ones who passes through the sieve will certainly be an asset to the modern-day structural engineer's career advancement.  No more silly questions about how to attach a handrail bracket.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I feel very safe when I walk into a building.  Apparently architects are doing a good job designing buildings.

What is uncomfortable is the ever increasing number of titles, laws, specifications, codes, etc...


RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Most of the buildings that architects perform the structural design are wood frame and simple steel framing. The common problem areas are usually things related to lateral loads or uplift. Shear walls, collectors, drag struts, diaphragm chords, eave blocking, holdowns, proper load path, etc. are often ignored. Many times, they simply specify that "the truss supplier shall design for the governing code" with no load diagrams for drifted snow or value for wind uplift given. I have seen wood floor framing for an office with no partition allowance!

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

whyun,

   A major reason that old stuff impresses us with its quality is that all the sloppy crap they made back then has fallen apart.  For example, several medieval cathedrals fell down during or shortly after construction.

                          JHG

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Architects doing structural design? If i need an appendectomy, would I go to a chiropractor?
Frank Lloyd Wright despised structural engineers. He did his own engineering. Read all about the failing cantilever concrete beams in his Falling Waters masterpiece.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

While I've had situations with architects influencing good structural design, most of my experience has been in heavy industry where the structural engineer is under a more difficult microscope.

In a plant environment, the scrutiny is by plant personnel (all "experts" in steel and concrete, after all, they built their own; garage/shed/outhouse, sometime in the past), other disciplines: I had an electrical engineer tell me that a building brace was unnecessary, because when he had the contractor cut through it, the building didn't fall down and of course project management: too expensive/too time consuming.

Unfortunately, since the structure (building or foundation) doesn't actually add to the plant production, it is one of those necessary evils.  Death, taxes and the building doesn't fall down (no matter how many fork trucks crash into it) are the three inescapable facts in an industrial environment.

While this venting doesn't answer the original thread, I appreciate an opportunity to vent.

JJF

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Point I wanted to make was that architects' abilities have declines over the last century.  I am a structural engineer and I do agree with everyone's concern about how little architects know etc.  Yes, in this millenium, I would not rely on an architect alone to design anything but single family homes, if that.  I think that's a shame.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

My employer had a project where the Architect wanted as few columns as possible. The Architect created his layout (with columns) and passed it over to our structural group. The structural group had to go through iterations of design ($$$$, uncompensated) before they got something to work. They had to use large fixed footings, moment connections and very deep beams. All this on a town house complex. There is now so little space between the beams and the ceiling that the HVAC engineer had to go through design iterations of his own in order to get his part of the design to work (3 inch deep ducts). The plumbing system was affected as well, with the need to cut holes on the beam webs for the piping. All this nonsense was because the architect wanted too few columns. Lets see what happens when it goes into construction.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I think that todays architects do not realize the consequences of their elaborate design.  Not only does it effect structure sizes and layouts, but also HVAC, plumbing, etc.  Where I work, there's not one engineer here who doesnt hate the architects.  And we've even tried to have kick-off meetings to discuss whats reasonable, and at the meeting, the architects will agree, and then a month later we get the plans and they completely ignored what we had initially discussed.  For instance, I have an existing shearwall.  The architect asked how much of it they could remove for windows.   I gave them a round figure of 30%.  I saw the floor plan yesterday - 95% of shearwall is gone.
Granted, there are some smart, intelligent, well thought architects out there.  However, it seems to me that a 95% of them are dumb as rocks.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

LPPE-
Architects are egotistical, and do whatever pleases the client. Anything the structural engineer does "spoils" their party. They couldn't care less about lack of shear. I have learned to deal with it.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

4
I guess this is "dump on architects" day.  But I will agree with what has been dumped above, but also add a bit of a counter to it all...  I've worked with some good architects in the past (and currently) who have a fantastic general understanding of many disciplines and even have a bit of empathy for the design requirements of each.

What I think does happen is that an architect has his/her own set of pressures to produce the best design, under the budget, and coordinate all the disciplines as well.  

So I think that many of them enter the equation with the attitude that "everyone has needs and is pulling on their rope...I'd better pull on my rope or I'll get screwed".  They push as far as they can to get what they want, assuming that the engineer has the moxie to fight back when it "just can't happen".  Many of us structurals, I think, don't fight back but, being the problem solvers that we are, sometimes relish a difficult problem and spend lots of time on it to see if it can work.  

So maybe we need to use our instincts more and say "no way" prior to doing all the calculations to prove it can't happen.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

The problems that we face are not all created by architects, many of them are created by us! The general public often thinks that architects do structural design. What are we doing to change this perception?

Until only recently, I have seen architects many times being interviewed, in the media, trying to explain a building collapse or damage during an earthquake.

I have also worked with some excellent architects on some large projects that are a true pleasure to work with. These architects, in turn, respect the experience and knowledge that I can bring to their project. It is usually only the small time architects that think that know more than you do and consider you an unnecessary evil.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

JAE:

I agree with your comment about sometimes using your best intuition for determining feasibility up to a point. Some simpler decisions can be based on experience and good engineering judgement. Other decisions need preliminary calculations such as "how many floors can be added to this building?".

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Although in my profession I design bridges and have little to do with architects, my experience with them is poor.  The ones I have worked with draw a pretty picture and then say the details of how it is to be constructed or the potential costs are not 'What he does.'  I thought architects were professionals and expected to give professional advice.

To also echo something said earlier, I am always working with other (licensed) Civil Engineers, and they are always quite up front that they aren't going to offer any direct advice concerning structural design.  The most they usually do is ask why we recommend it be built a particular way, why is it so thick, so heavy, whatever.

Getting back to architects doing structural work . . .
I think they are nuts because of the liability.  I review calculations where structural engineers screw up royally.  I can't imagine a non-structural engineer trying their hand at it.  Yes, I know there are exceptions, and I hope to run into one of these fellows someday.  But in general, I can't fathom what they are thinking.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

In many good architectural firms, there is a division of labor where some of the archies are in a "design" group and the rest in a "production" group.

The design group tends to be very artsy, imaginative, etc. and usually work in the initial stages of the project with the owner.

The production group are focused on producing the plans, details, and specifications.  They tend to be more practical, identifying constructability issues, etc. as well as working with the engineers.

At least this is the general standard I've seen.  Guess which group works better with engineers?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

JAE,

I agree with design/production division within an architectural firm.  Experience I had a while ago: A firm had an inexperienced design architect and a very seasoned production architect on a project.  The design architect had very little sense of reality.  The production architect would complain about the design architect to me (a consultant)!  I mean, they were supposed to be on the SAME SIDE.  I should be the outsider.

Structural firms suffer from similar situation when a "talker" gets promoted a bit too fast in his career and becomes a project manager leading a group of engineers who are more technically competent.

I do value strong management skills, however, ones who lead should at least have a certain level of competency.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I'm just curious, where do Architectural Engineers fit into this mix?

My alma mater offers degrees in Architecture, Civil Engineering (Structural concentration), and Architectural Engineering (through the school of Architecture).

I never spoke to any of them but always wondered about the ArchE folks.

--------------------
Bring back the HP-15
www.hp15c.org
--------------------

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I know a number of people I think of as civil engineers who got their degrees in ArchE.  After a few years on the job, there's no difference.

I thought about doing ArchE but was told I'd wind up being no good as either an architect or an engineer, and should pick one.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I think a lot of people get confused about that degree, thinking it is some kind of architectural and engineering degree combined.  In reality, it is truly an engineering degree (at least at Penn St., Kansas St, etc.).

What it is trying to do is take what normally would be a Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical Engineering degree, subtract all elements that do not have anything to do with buildings, and then focus the major on building design.

Most programs are 5 years, where for one or two years everyone takes the general front-end courses, and then after that, they identify their focus (structural, electrical or mechanical) and finish out.  Only a few courses are taken in Architecture simply to educate them on what architects do - similar to architects taking a structures class.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I wonder why most universities don't offer engineering degrees specializing in structural design of buildings. The young engineer that I am mentoring at work has been filled with all sorts of information having to do with LRFD factors, and yet he had no idea that Load Duration Factor for wood framing with snow loading was 1.15. Even more amazing: he asked me "Where do you input the snow load?" I told him as live load. He looked surprised. Yegads!

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

For many years, I wanted to see a change in the universities to separate the Structural Engineering from the Civil Engineering Major.  Many of the civil graduates get a brief exposure to structural analysis and design.  When you take away surveying, transportation engineering, environmental engineering and other "required courses" for a civil degree and replace them with structural courses (not only design/analysis but also introduction to the real world) and call it a Structural Engineering Major, we could expect some improvements.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

whyun - I once asked my major professor why I was taking Hydrology, Wastewater, etc. if I knew I wanted to be a structural engineer (I was getting a B.S. in Civil Engineering at the time).

He stated that the whole concept of a "university" is that the education you get there, while specialized, is meant to be at least somewhat "universal"...i.e. the classical concept of education was that you went to a university to get a whole education, encompassing all of life...and not a technical trade education that focused on a very small microcosm of life on planet earth.

Over the years, the "universal" education has slowly eroded towards that technical trade education - probably out of simply demand from the outside "real world" for people better versed in a particular field.  So learning wastewater treatment, or even agronomy (an elective I took) didn't directly help my structural knowledge, but it did give me wider dimensions of knowledge that has sublty helped over the years - that and I went on and got a Masters in Structures later.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

This reminds me of a talk I heard from a mechanical engineer employed by the Disney Corporation.

In that field,  the "artists" would dream up some display or ride, and the engineers had to find a way to build it!

I sometimes think today's Archetects are primarily "artist", and very little technician or engineer.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

When I worked in Iowa, in 1978 it was my understanding that architects could do structural engineering, that was incidental to a project.  My experience in the last couple of years with projects in Iowa makes me wonder if that is still the case.

Several years ago the company I work for was supplying the glulam roof system for a project in Iowa.  At that time I called the architect to find out who was his structural engineer.  I did so, because I wanted to learn more about the "structural glass" which was bracing the building.  

The architect told me that I was the structural engineer.  I then had to explain to him what the role of a material supplier was.  There are times when the company I work,is very involved in the building design.  However on this project that was not the case. Also the drawings and specifications did not require the submittal of certified design calculations or drawings.

The architect still had a hard time understanding what was in our scope and what was not.  I remember discussing the attachment of a glulam lateral brace to the buildings outside stud wall.  The architect keep insisting it was my problem not his.  I explained that I had no problem transfering the load out of the glulam into the double top plate.  The problem was the attachment of the double top plate to the wall to prevent it from just breaking away.

  

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

We would need one architect to about 10 engineers if that's the case.  In reality, the numbers are reversed...  More work for us engineers, I guess.  Only if we can get paid...

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I think that the Colleges/Universities intend for their students to go into masters programs for specializations. A 4 year undergraduate program simply doesn't have enough available time to focus on discipline subgroups.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Another example of architects "brilliance"-

My structural design for a project is done.  Just waiting for the word from the architect on when to send out the drawings.  I get in from a meeting at 2:30 today.  Architect says that the drawings are being sent out today.  OK, no problem.  And then adds "Oh, and you've got to move the whole drive-up canopy 3'-0 5/8".".  So I say "When was that change made?" and they go "Today".  I just laughed (that 3' move screws up a bunch of connections).

What else can you do but laugh?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

RARSWC - are you sure that was an architect you were talking to and not a doorknob?

Dumb

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

"I wonder why most universities don't offer engineering degrees specializing in structural design of buildings."

Would you have a separate degree in non-building structural engineering?  Or would that degree encompass all of structural engineering?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

JStephen,
For example: I graduated with a BSCE; my technical electives, mostly offered in the 4th year, consisted mostly of structural courses. They were very "generic", meaning the professors probably had little real-world experience in building design. In the 1st thru 3rd years, there were the usual mix of civil engneering required classes: thermodynamics, environmental engineering, etc.
In contrast, some universities offer Architectural Engineering degrees.
I am amazed at the new graduates...they are full of all the load factors theory, which the Code tweaks on a regular basis (is live load multiplied by 1.7, or is it 1.65 this year?), and yet, when they need to design a simply-supported steel beam as the first assignment at work, they end up needing to learn ASD.
When I attended college, fortunately, my professors taught both methods, and pointed out the background.
There is very little real understanding of what is really going on. Witness all the Code Confusion posts in these fora.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

My point was that you'll always have a conflict betweeen the needs of industry and what colleges can teach.  It is to the advantage of industry to have people trained in exactly the one specific application that the person will work in.  It is to the advantage of colleges to teach the same subjects to a wide range of students.  There is no easy to way to resolve these two requirements.

As soon as you narrow a degree from civil engineering to structural engineering, you limit the prospects of the candidates you are turning out.  When you narrow it from structural engineering to structural engineering of buildings, you've narrowed it even farther.  You could go farther and offer a degree in "structural design of precast multi-story industrial buildings in high seismic zones".  But at some point, you have to question whether you are really doing the candidates a favor by narrowing the program down.  You're turning out people that are more and more qualified for fewer and fewer job openings.

My education is in mechanical engineering.  It seems in ME, you have the same problem, only worse- with more different diverse fields all shoehorned into "mechanical" engineering.  I took electives primarily in the heat transfer and fluids areas.  I'm now working in an industry that just has nothing to do with heat transfer.  Fortunately, my choice of electives wasn't formalized into a degree program that would have limited my opportunities.

I have noticed in the past that one of the weaknesses of American industry is an unwillingness to invest in their people.  I remember several years ago reading that the aerospace industry was having a hard time finding "qualified" employees.  But they used "qualified" to mean "experienced at doing exactly whatever it is to be done".  But at the very moment when they were complaining about the lack of qualified employees, they seemed to have absolutely no provision to get anyone qualified or trained in any way, either.  Little wonder that they were having trouble.  Ultimately, in whatever field it is, a good part of the training of an engineer ought to come from the employer.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

JStephen-
Good discussion. Now, perhaps requirements for a  Bachelor's degree in any field of engineering should be expanded to maybe one or two more semesters, with much more industry-related coursework.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

JStephen--
I don't think separating various kinds of structures is all that necessary at an undergraduate level (we didn't even really do that in my structural grad program), but there's a lot to be said for an undergrad SE degree (of which there are some in the US).  Cut the environmental & hydraulics (but keep the geotech because of foundations), add in more structural design.  Many programs (both of mine included) don't have *anything* for masonry or wood design.  My undergrad program didn't offer prestressed concrete.  Connection design is almost totally neglected in civil engineering classes.  Et cetera.

SacreBleu--5 years...been done.  The first undergrad program I went to had converted from 5 years to 4 years some years before because of what basically boils down to marketing pressure.  They couldn't attract students vs. other universities who had 4-year programs.  They crammed as much as they could into those 4 years, though.  Courseload was typically one more course per semester than non-engineers.  Over the four years, that's eight more classes--in other words, another year.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

This is one of the better discusions I've read in a long time. All of the architectural-engineering students who took the structural option in their senior year in my class are all now California S.E.'s.  The points that many you have been bringing have been in effect in the Arch.E. curriculum at Cal Poly for over 50 years.  For example, steel, timber and concrete were taught in our JUNIOR year.  We were even taught prestressed concrete and bridge design in our senior year along with a soils course.  There were many hands-on project, i.e. the first geodesic dome on the west coast in 1951.  Plywood hyperbolic paraboloids and tension structures were senior projects.  Check out this web site:  http://www.caed.calpoly.edu/arce.html.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Great discussion so I figured I'd add my two cents:

A few points . . .

1) I took part in a discussion of SE vs. CE-Structural that occurred a few years ago at the ASCE National Convention in Washington, D.C. that stemmed from a presentation on requiring structural engineering testing and certification on a national level, like the FE and PE.  The board members were reps from the certification boards from CA and ILL.  The question I had, and that wasn't really answered, was whether I was wasting my time getting a BA CE degree if when I graduated I was already behind the eight-ball with knowledge necessary to become a SE.  Should I have gone to a university that offered a structural engineering degree instead? They felt that the internship period was where all the "real learning" occurred, and I agree to a point.  The question of specializing the degrees toward structural engineering runs the risk of pigeon-holing universities (and their graduates) who do/don't have the separate degree, but who may be entirely equal in knowledge in skill, both before and after the internship period.

2) I was a student at the time and had heard on several occasions that the students coming out of the universities "don't know anything" and aren't taking enough classes for what they were going to be doing in their career.  I didn't agree with a lot of those people, but they were on the outside, I wasn't.  Industry is requiring more and more skills for a recent graduate.  While I was in school they added technical writing and similar courses at the request of the industry leaders in the state.  That's three-to-six more hours of courses over your college career. Where are those hours going to come from?  They were required, so something had to go. It’s never an English course, its something in the major (I still don’t understand why I couldn’t drop Physics III – prisms and circuits??) I agree with the above, colleges can’t remain competitive while adding courses that the industry deems necessary, unless it’s across the board.

3) My program was already a "four-year program that takes five."  In my case, anyone trying to get a specialization in structures didn't have the time to take anything but steel and concrete design. No wood, masonry, or precast/prestressed design.  That's why there is a movement in ASCE to require a Masters (or equivalent experience) to be considered a "professional."  Consequently, that's why I got my Masters.  I got to take timber design, advanced foundations, matrix methods of analysis, structural reliability, structural dynamics, etc. at the Master's level.  I would NEVER have gotten that knowledge or even the opportunity for that knowledge, in a bachelor’s program.  I don’t know if this is the case throughout the country, but I don’t know a lot of CE’s who got timber and masonry design in school.

4) The firm I work for is mostly Architectural Engineers.  They are very knowledgeable about the design of buildings and have had the masonry and timber classes at a bachelor’s level.  They can’t design retaining walls, but otherwise same amount of knowledge as me.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BUILDING CODES!! I didn’t have the knowledge of how to obtain loading and enforce code requirements that they did fresh out of school.  To me, that is the only difference between Arch E’s and CE/SE from an education standpoint.

Sorry so long . . .

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Since most consulting companies are total failures at mentoring their just-graduated new hires, it frightens me to know that a typical 4-year egineering program teaches so little real-world engineering. I have been in this biz since 1974, and I have seen plenty of chaff along with the wheat. At least doctors get plenty of mentoring as the intern at a hospital. Since our business involves the prevention of potentially life-threatening situations, it amazes me that we are not more "prepared" than an egineer designing a wastewater treatment process.
And lest I get too high on my horse, yes, I have made mistakes.
Considering the complexity of the Code and its totally confusing format (read any one of these fora for proof), it becomes more of a concern.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

An additional $0.02 - Maybe adding more hours or classes to an engineering curiculum (in which to get my BS in engineering i had to have over 20 more credit hours than any othe major at my school needed to get a bachelors...), maybe the way the classes are taught would help.

For instance, take an example out of a basic steel design course.  The problem will say "Design a beam spaning 25 feet uniformly loaded with 3 kips/ft".  Why not make the problem "Design a typical floor beam spanning 25 feet in an office at 10'-0" center to center spacings".  That way at least it would force the students to get familiar with the building code and figuring out live loads, dead loads, etc.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

LPPE
Exactly correct. Also, ask for the girder design, so that they would get the bending moment correct for once. A girder with 2, 3, or 4 beams equally spaced, framed to it should not be designed as uniformly loaded.
In contrast, a wood glulam beam (girder) for a house is designed as uniformly loaded because there isn't 2000 LF of girder to save money on, and wood design includes much higher Factors of Safety.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

This thread is disturbing and narrow-minded.

Thankfully, the architects are in charge.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

LPPE,

the reason profs do not write the questions as you say is becasue 99% of profs at university have never really designed anything in their lives. they are not rewared for being good teachers or for having experiance designing. they are rewarded for being researchers; which are essentially scientists not engineers.

so the net effect is you have scientist trying to teach people be to be engineers which they reaaly are not themselves.

Swine,

if you are going to call a conversation narrow monded please expound on you thoughs and provide some basis for you statement

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

TFL,
Many of my professors had short-lived jobs in the real world. They generally made very negative remarks about their experience there. The professors who had no job experience at all were much more comfortable as professors.

That is not to say they were poor professors. Most were good at laying the theoretical foundations.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

I'm an ArchE from Oklahoma State. Its basically a structural engineering course with a bunch of design work thrown in. Looking back it at - the program is a joke (I thought it was worthwhile at the time). While I do appreciate a better understanding of the arch. design process, I could have learned about this without the uselessness of college arch. design.

I think the university Arch. programs are to blame for the general stupidity of architects. They push students to coe up with the least practical, far-out, and just plain wacky designs - as long as they have a 'concept'. They then graduate with no practical architectural experience and no idea how to really put a building together. Most arch. students I graduated with couldn't care less about the engineering classes and, in fact, copied the majority of the homework from the engineering students...

Pray like everything depends on God
Work like everything depends on you.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Okay,
So, who is to blame for the general stupidity of engineers?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Breweries?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Electro-magnetic radiation from the plethora of gadgets an engineer has hanging from his clothing at any given moment?

Pray like everything depends on God
Work like everything depends on you.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

swine,

I think that engineers are the shining stars of the universe as far as intelligence goes. I am continually amazed at the lack of intelligence that the general public has regarding almost any issue. And I'm from an urban area where people are usually a bit more intelligent than average. I'm beginning to think that stupidity is being bred on purpose.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

EddyC,
I totally agree. It is being caused by too much "reality-show"  programming on the stupido-vision.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

CEGG,

I have to agree with your comments regarding the education of architects.  The architecture school at my university pushed CONCEPT CONCEPT CONCEPT!!!  Practical knowledge was secondary to the ART of architecture.  The profs in the architecture school emphasized this to a fault.  They would reward crazy designs that had no chance of being built over the practical, and still exciting, designs.  That only rewards the dreamers and salesmen, not the  practitioners.

This is th example I give to illustrate my point:  While working as a student assistant at the architecture library, I had a sophmore or junior level architecture student ask me if there was a book describing how to put brick on a ceiling . . . Somehow I don't think I would feel very safe in that building.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

Getting back to the OP, I feel that Architects should be totally prohibited from practicing Structural Engineering.
It is very common, at least in my area, for an architect to provide structural engineering for the gravity framing (beams, headers, posts) of a custom house structure. The methods (and sizes they come up with)use are of great concern to me.
They expect me to do only the shearwall analysis. This is because the Plans Check Dept (poor misguided souls) require an  Engineer stamp on the shear wall design only.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

SacreBleu:

Are the architects, that you work for, capable of doing the other lateral members that feed the shear walls? For example:

Diaphragm, chords, collectors, drag struts, eave blocking, truss holdowns, gable end truss bracing, etc.

I would be careful because you may get sucked into a lawsuit involving the structural integrity if they are unqualified to handle the whole design. I

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

jike,
All of the elements you mention are taken care of by myself.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

(OP)
One thing that drew me into the original article that I read and posted here was that in Illinois which has an SE license, it is entirely OK for them to seal our work but not OK for us to seal theirs.  Not that I want to by any stretch of the imagination.  But I think this is an ill-fated political point on the part of architects, not to mention arrogant, that they can seal our plans.  Why?

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

After reading so many responses on this very popular topic, I thought I'd take a minute to put my two cents in.  In my very early experience as an engineer, I had the unpleasant task of retrieving the architects plans and delivering them to the permit office for my construction company (I guess I was still paying my "dues" at the time).  The architect looked me in the eye and told me how to meet what he thought was the required fire-rating for this renovation project, etc (long story, which I won't discuss here).  Being a natural skeptic-- and one who has too much time to read a lot of ambiguous code literature-- I wasn't sold on his advice.  He was offended by my non-compliance and condescendingly accused me of having inside connections at the permit office.  I don't, and as it turned out the permit went through one week later...  I've been slightly jaded ever since then about the unnecessary competition between engineers and architects.  Can't we all just get along?

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

A few years ago in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area a building was destroyed by high wind.  However, it was the only building to be even remotely harmed, and guess what type of profession designed it w/o a structural engineer.

Also, I am an architecture reject and smartened up and switched to Structures, but before I left I read a book by Le Corbusier named "Towards a New Architecture," and in this book Le Corbusier (a very famous architect) said the next great architects would be engineers, because for many reasons, one being engineers keep things simple, and do not try to over design the most mundane aspects.  Thought that was interesting when comparing the two professional fields.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

In the course of designing and building construction, I, as a structural engineer, first deal with the architect. Typically, he/she is a snotty, arrogant twerp, totally divorced from reality. They are usually young, inexperienced, but know all the latest buzzwords.
During the construction phase, I am dealing with the shop detailers, superintendents, etc. Entirely different mindset. In the background, I hear the constant whine of Mr. Peachfuzz Archie, constantly complaining that he wasn't kept copied on the RFI's (I guess our Office Manager forgets that occasionally).

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

One of my pet-peeve is the architect who doesn't recognize which discipline should review a submittal issued by the contractor.  One time, I received a submittal forwarded to me by an architect related to the COLOR of grout in a masonry wall construction.

I have a feeling that they don't even LOOK to see what it is!  Common solution for most is "Send it to the structural.  They will sort out everything."  Our fees are not enough to do all of THEIR work!

I do recognize that there are some very competent and respectful architects out there... but was it you, SacreBleu, who said 98% of the bad ones make the other 2% look bad?  It is true with the architectural profession just the same.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

whyun,
I got that joke about lawyers from a builder. IMHO, on a scale of 1 to 10, the lawyers get a 10, and the Archies get a 7. Car dealers are in the 8-9 range.

RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II

What about us structural engineers?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources