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.
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
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
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
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
What is uncomfortable is the ever increasing number of titles, laws, specifications, codes, etc...
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
Dumb
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
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
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
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
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
Thankfully, the architects are in charge.
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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 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
So, who is to blame for the general stupidity of engineers?
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
Pray like everything depends on God
Work like everything depends on you.
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
I totally agree. It is being caused by too much "reality-show" programming on the stupido-vision.
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
All of the elements you mention are taken care of by myself.
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
Regards,

Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
RE: Structural Engineers getting slammed II
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
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
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
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