Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
(OP)
"The highest attainment in design is a simplicity approaching functional perfection."
- Linton E. Grinter, Ph.D., C.E.
"Nothing discredits the usefulness of theory as a practical design tool so much as the use of theoretical toys. It is often true that theory tends to become an end in itself instead of a tool for practical use. The literature is full of formulas, graphs, and mathematical studies that are of interest mainly because of their intricacy. This criticism is in no way intended to discredit sound analytical studies, however complex. Mathematics should neither be avoided nor displayed."
- Linton E. Grinter, Ph.D., C.E.
Vice President and Dean of the Graduate School,
Illinois Institute of Technology in
Design of Modern Steel Structures
The MacMillan Company, 1941, p. 3
I wonder what Professor Grinter would say about structural design today, some 70 years after making the above statement? He saw the future and didn't know it! The problem today, as I see it, is the compounding of the "theoretical toys" mixing with the evolution of extremely complex building codes that change every 3 to 5 years.
I'm just wondering what others have to say about Professor Grinter's comment and what, if anything we can do about it?
- Linton E. Grinter, Ph.D., C.E.
"Nothing discredits the usefulness of theory as a practical design tool so much as the use of theoretical toys. It is often true that theory tends to become an end in itself instead of a tool for practical use. The literature is full of formulas, graphs, and mathematical studies that are of interest mainly because of their intricacy. This criticism is in no way intended to discredit sound analytical studies, however complex. Mathematics should neither be avoided nor displayed."
- Linton E. Grinter, Ph.D., C.E.
Vice President and Dean of the Graduate School,
Illinois Institute of Technology in
Design of Modern Steel Structures
The MacMillan Company, 1941, p. 3
I wonder what Professor Grinter would say about structural design today, some 70 years after making the above statement? He saw the future and didn't know it! The problem today, as I see it, is the compounding of the "theoretical toys" mixing with the evolution of extremely complex building codes that change every 3 to 5 years.
I'm just wondering what others have to say about Professor Grinter's comment and what, if anything we can do about it?






RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Yes, current analysis is getting more complicated, not simpler. Is that because we need further understanding? Is it because we need greater accuracy? Is is because we need rationalization and justification for our existence? Are we as a public and a profession better for it?
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I'd like to note that some of our structures are getting more complex as the industry continues to push the envelop. On the other hand, I do see a lot of young engineers with too much dependency on the computer to solve problems that can be, and often were, rationalized by simplifying assumptions and solved with hand calculations. Having said that I believe some of the complexity is industry driven and the rest is on the engineering community for replacing solid understanding of structural theory with emphasis on computer analysis.
As to whether we're better for it, I beleive we'll ultimately have a better understanding of some things but this will come at the expense of others and may take more time. It's as though we came to where we were by the methodology of Grinter only to be taken back several years with the re-invention of structural analysis on the computer.
Rather than replacing the old methods with the new emphasis on computers, the computer methods should have remained a natural extention of the methods and understanding we once had. That would place computer methods in grad school in academia and under well experienced engineers in practice. Not with newbies.
Happy 4th.
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I look at computers and computer analysis much in the same way that I look at a camera to a photographer. A good photographer can take a good photograph with a cheap camera. A bad photo is not made better by an expensive camera...only clearer. Composition is in the eye of the photographer, not the "eye" of the camera.
As with a camera, the computer and computer analysis are just tools. If we don't know how to use them, they do nothing to enhance our "product"...in fact they can give a detrimental false sense of accuracy and correctness. When the perceived correctness of sterile computation replaces a logical problem-solving thought process, we have problems.
Q, I share your concern about some of the younger set. It can be seen clearly in some of the posts.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I like the current crop of programs that allow me to minimize time doing tedious hand calculations and maximize time solving framing, detailing and general design challenges.
However, It is SO important for any engineer to have a good understanding of what the dang program is doing with your input. The disconnect is always between the engineer and the programming company providing the software.
I was reminded of this recently with a program that does 3D and finite element solutions. I (wrongly) assumed that the program did second order PDelta solutions with not only beams, but finite elements. I found out that it DIDN'T do so with finite elements. I also discovered that it didn't use a routine that iteratively re-set nodal coordinates but rather added member shears to mimic the second order effects. I was therefore uncomfortably surprised to realize a disconnect between me and the program.
Software companies, and we engineers, perhaps need to spend more time in educating each other in the use of these software monsters.
There are many younger engineers that know what they are doing, and are careful to test their program outputs, etc. There are, I'm sure, other younger engineers that respond to Obe-Wan-Kenobee's voice: "Luke....let go.....feel the program...use the program....don't trust yourself....let go".
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
By then I learned to estimate behavior and to really understand what i was after and what the program can do for me.
Like you, with today's computer programs, I am also at a distinct disadvantage in not having time to understand the nuances of each and every new program on the market. I work hard to understand better the ones I do know.
And believe me it's not that I'm down on the younger generation. I don't think they can help it as the focus is now on universities providing hiring firms what they want. And a good many, unfortunately, want engineers that can make the model sing. I think they are the same lot that are surprised when that young engineer regrettably notes he doesn't really know if the mode shape, or reactions really make sense.
IMHO, I beleive we should go back to structural analysis by hand and encourage those given to structural interest to go to grad school and learn advanced techniques.
Of course, there's no easy answer.
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
It seems that every time there is a two bit advancement in methods or knowledge, the people who are driving our train these days, think this advancement must be codified, instead of just showing up in the tech. lit. for our edification and testing over an extended period of time. That's how you sell new code books and that's what is most important to those drivers. At some much longer rewrite interval, these advancements could be melded into a new edition of the codes. And, just like Grinter's comments about good design and analysis being all the better when it is also clean and simple and functional without a lot of appended crap, a good code change would simplify the process rather than add layers of complexity when it doesn't really improve the final product.
As for today's computer software, we are in the same pickle, what do they have to sell you next year if it isn't more complex, never mind that the newer version doesn't really do anything more for you, those bells and whistles are appealing to some. You still will have spent much money and then the time needed to learn the new tricks and idiosyncracies of the new version for no real gain in the finished product or your productivity. They're fatter and happier for the transaction and you're poorer and no smarter for it. The only way we'll tame these beasts, be they codes or software, is to let them sit with the next couple editions, and force them to spend the money to recycle the paper or plastic they were printed on. This may involve our explaining to our legislators or building officials/depts. that there is little evidence that they will get better end products by adopting that latest version of the codes being pushed by those publishers. Furthermore, structures or products are not going to start failing or falling down around us if they give us enough time to learn to use the current editions. In fact, for the confusion of each change or new edition, the opposite might be true. Witness the number of discussions about the interpretation of many new details of the latest code, when in the same OP there appears to be some lack of basic understanding of the problem. Interpreting the code or software output has become an end in itself, never mind understanding the fundamentals well enough to know that the output reaction is in the wrong direction.
As for the educational system, young engineers shouldn't be allowed to use computer programs for their work until they prove to their superiors that they understand structural concepts. And, if the Uni's don't want to teach these basics we are going to be in one hell of a mess, but we are now for lack of these basics in the hands of many younger practitioners. I agree with JAE that my matrix analysis and FEA courses were absolutely essential to where I'm at today; but I like much better the way Qshake said it, and that is that these became essential tools and analysis aids once he had the fundamentals down pat, and understood structures well enough so he understood what the program was doing and spitting out. And, all of Ron's questions in his first post should be answered before we buy another code or software package.
One of my std. preachings to young engineers has been that sometimes good clean design may actually take a little longer, and invariably it doesn't have the same 'wow factor' as the more complex (Rube Goldberg) design or analysis, but it is almost always a better solution; as long as you haven't neglected something in your simplification. In fact, many times, the simpler design looks so clean that others can't imagine why it might take a bit longer. And, I doubt that Grinter would disagree with that. What he said in my 1949 ed. of his books is "Of all things, but proverbially so in mechanics, the supreme excellence is simplicity."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Perhaps we will get some input from the younger set after the July 4th revels are finished.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Kieran
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
What I see today is not so much an expansion of theory but an expansion of detail.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
My thought in starting this tread was not so much to bash computers, I think we all agree they are a necessary part of the engineering landscape. I still remember the hours upon hours of number crunching that we don't have to do anymore. BUT, one of the problems is the "black box mentality" that destroys the thought process in design. Back in the slide ruler day, those long hours of calculation allowed a design to "gestate", the engineer developed a "feel" for the structure. Now, because of time constraints, the tendency is to take the black box output and plug it in, we get a solution but something doesn't "feel" just right.
I liken it to the push for the conversion to metric units. Yes, it is just a ratio between SI units and metric and should be autmatic, but I know what 100 psf "feels" like, I have no "feel" for 488.2 kilogram/meter^2 assuming that's the correct conversion.
The big knock on computers is the false sense of precision it gives. What good is a solution to three decimal points, when we don't know the loads within 10%? So, now we have statistically generated loads and safety factors!
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
In most of my experience older engineer's gave vague responses to any difficult question and very little direction except do this faster and cheaper. The idea of learning structures and increasing output seem to be at odds with one another. How can I learn to do elegant and simple design if more experienced engineers decline to teach it.
Maybe I am an isolated case, but I have encounted others that are in similar situations. If posts from younger engineers make it appear that there is a disconnect between new and the experienced, than there must be an issue in those offices with the older not mentoring the younger. If some questions appear to be so basic to base engineering knowledge that it is surprising that they would be posted. Should it not be considered even more surprising that no experienced engineer was available to answer the question in house.
Be satisfied you had a mentor, and show some understanding to those of us who didn't.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Shoot, I am out of time from all my efficient modeling. Better delegate connection design to some other schlub who will have to guess at my intent and reactions, and some field coordinate notes, and a few typical details I have no time to check and then BAM, out the door the drawings fly!
And it never would get built unless it is in BIM so better do that too, even though I'm not getting any more fee to do that, and probably have craploads more liability, but again, the pretty colors in the picture are mesmerizing so it must be better. And you can spin the model in any direction, which is just TOO COOL!
Throw in some scrap steel and some fly ash, get that LEED rating, oops, almost forgot about that. Saving the planet one building at a time, feeling good.
YEAH PROGRESS! WHOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!!!!!
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Sadly, you are not an isolated case. The mentors are not there...they quit in disgust because practical engineering has been overtaken by agenda driven academic code writers and clueless management types. I don't know the answer, but your post will discourage me from being dismissive of basic questions.
a2mfk,
Watch it, your post sounds like dhengr. Only better.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
My intent was not to pick on old engineers or young ones either, but the state of the profession. Our profession is being driven by the code writers, both computer code and building code; along with the legislators. Where are our engineering associations? They are planning and producing continuing education programs, at $1,000/ea, so we can keep up the code changes!
a2mfk is not exagerating much in his rant! In an economy that produces little work at even smaller margins, where do we get the time and money to sit on the engineering association committees and government advisory boards? Some how we have to get more practicing engineers to do it if we are ever going to get more workable codes.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
At last count I think there are over 129 million books published .1% of them structural, this makes for a lot of books to reference or digest. While a book may not get you there, it will get you close to the mark if it is the right book. Then there is 100's of thousands of building to review in your capital city.
Hell if you can't get a good idea of how a steel building goes together by just walking around a few warehouses, there is something wrong with your eyes. Have you talked to the local steel fabricator, he could probably guess the sizes better than you could. There are so many different places you can get the gold from not just your mentor.
Just today I called a guy from bremick about some 14g screws, found out that a tight thread can screw thru thicker material were as a course thread is better for thin material.
If a young bloke comes and asks me a basic question, sure I don't say P*SS off, but I do ask what he has done before coming to my desk? If he says this is his first stop, I tell him to get back on the train and stop by once he has opened a book or read a technical article or look at some previous designs. You got to do the leg work.
ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
As a2mfk pointed out, the amount of time required to chase down insignificant details, to try and make sense or engineering logic out of the opaque reasoning often found in the codes today...all for a 4% gain??.Besides being a waste of time and resources, it is also inherently dangerous. The more time an engineer spends chasing down insignificant details, the less time he has to concentrate and address the really important elements in the design.
Even the ASCE code which I always believed was probably among the best written codes out there is beginning to catch the dreaded disease as evidenced in there treatment of wind loading.
It would really be helpful, if this site could provide a section where the codes could be rated by practicing engineers and perhaps the opportunity to sign a petition to rein in this code sytem that has run amuck.
At least it would provide some feedback to the code committees.This whining amongst ourselves may make us feel good but,in reality, is not very effective.
I feel better already.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
What you say is what I did. I have dozens and dozens of textbooks and reference material, and without them I would not be capable of doing many of the things that I do everyday.
Also, I appreciate all the excellent and concise responses that are posted on the forum that help me get out of pickles. Engineers like Ron, JAE, hokie66, and many others help me resolve problems. I am glad such a website exists and that excellent experienced engineers contribute to it.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I can tell you this: the folks at AISC to read and reply to the AISC forum here and have made some comments regarding their material. However, if you visit that forum you'll see the inherent downside to this sort of open forum endless critizism.
What is needed regarding the codes is more practioners to partake in the process. That begins by getting involved, really involved, in ASCE, NCSEA, etc. I've seen the process, seen how it works and believe that the engineers involved really believe what they are doing is helpful to the practicing engineer. However more input is needed.
And yes, we all know how little time we have.
Regards,
![[pipe] pipe](https://www.tipmaster.com/images/pipe.gif)
Qshake
Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
This rating could be performed in a professional and not an emotional manner, ie:
Say a rating from 1 to 10 for the following catagories:
clarity
engineering logic
continuity
usefulness
revision cycles
etc.
The survey should have the cability to accumulate the average rating in each catagory.
This is meant to be a constructive mechanism and not a license to rant which is the only option available at the moment. We are all professionals here and, more often than not, will perform in a professional manner, given the opportunity.
A section on this site providing this type of survey could also open up this site to more engineers as we spread the word amongst our collegues and engineering contacts and encourage them to take this survey.
Instead of becoming frustrated and floundering around in the this maze, it might actually lead to some needed changes in the manner of which the codes are written and published.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
So who is at fault?
Most consulting companies are owned by old experienced engineers, the economy could be bad out there with fierce computations from Asia, but they are the one employing cheap inexperienced engineer with a super gadget who can perform faster at minimal cost. Input – run analysis – output...
The worst will happen once those experienced retire; structures will be sealed with a license agreement that states that the creator is not liable for any damages that may result from the use of their product? Alike to RISA / CSi products.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I agree with Qshake, get out there and join a committee or review panel, make comments when drafts are published. Yes it takes time, but it also takes time to complain.
I can't see any real reason for having a survey for codes on this site; this site is international that is a lot of codes that most people wouldn't have even heard of. Just think there are over a 100 counties with different codes (if you don't cover the euro countries with the euro code just yet), each of these will generally have a loading, concrete and steel code as a bare minimum. The codes are generally based off the American, British, FIB, Australian (wind only) or German codes. Most only adopt about 80% of the original code, with 20% local content or changes to safety factors ect. Making for an interesting read each time you pick up a new code. And we are only talking bout structural codes.
Ash060,
Having all those tests books and looking to the big guys for help makes you more aware than an engineer who has been spoon feed, and hopefully you will never have to use my favourite saying "that is how we have always done it"
ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Agree 100%, the current status is due to my peers and their seniors who have been pushing the universities for ready cooked engineers that can be plugged straight into the latest analysis machines.
The same people have no respect for the value of their feloow engineers experience and therefore push all the experienced engineers into management as the only viable career path.
Thus you have junior engineers who have not had enough time to develop and Experienced engineers that are pulled away from the tasks they are expert at and deprived of any capacity to mentor their juniors.
When machines were invented, workers wages went up as they could produce so much more in the same time. When the same thing happened with engineers and computer analysis we passed the whole saving onto the client not even holding enough back to allow for quality control.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
a) why do we need such complexity for "run of the mill" projects? Doing bearing capacity equations in LRFD that are meaningless in that the serviceability limits govern the applied safe pressure.
b) Many engineers (typically young - and we have seen them in the various forums on this site) who don't even know what the underlying basis for a particular variable is in a computer programme ("Hey, guys, what is the "E" value?)
c) Use of 4th order analyses with their complexities and still using first order data for input (as a soils engineer I am talking the SPT "N" valule, for instance - a great piece of data if properly used) - or the design strength of concrete vs the actual strength in the field - and how that affects the design behaviour.
d) Why does ASTM and others force you to buy a whole book of standards (look at the D series) each year when they change only 4 or 5 specifications - look at all the trees we lose! It is all pushed by money . . . (look at the cost of the 1 PDH hour from ASCE at $349 per pop).
e) I was fortunate to have one of Canada's pioneering geotechnical engineers as a mentor - saw him go to a site with a failing slope (oops, a slope undergoing a somewhat vigorous distress) and he gave a "thumb in front of the eye" solution - then the engineers in the office after a large investigation programme and many hours of analysis came up with the same design (or very darn close to it).
f) many engineers are forgetting their history . . .
In the end, to add to the quotes that Jim started with, I particularly like one by H.Q. Golder (yes of Golder's fame) who was quite a reknowned geotechnical engineer in the UK before heading to the Dominion:
"For the engineer, ... , there are many possible answers, all of which are compromises of truth and time, for the engineer must have an answer now; his answer must be sufficient for a given purpose, even if not true. For this reason an engineer must make assumptions he knows to be not strictly correct – but which will enable him to arrive at an answer which is sufficiently true for the immediate purpose."(1948)
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
As for computer usage, if I had a quarter for every time I discussed verification of computer output, I could buy a steak dinner or three. I even have several horror stories that they hear over and over again.
Here's some irony for you guys to consider LOL. We hire an excellent local engineer with about 25-30 years of experience to teach one of our classes on building overall behavior. The idea is to bring real-world experience and insight. Know what he does? Spends the entire semester teaching the students how to use a couple of computer programs. No behavior. No insight. Four months of computer program tutorial. We're trying to figure out how to "steer" him another direction, but people get testy when their teaching is commented upon. He doesn't understand the MASSIVE difference between training and education. He's just thinking about the skills he wants his new engineers to have on Day 1.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I am a fairly young engineer (30) that started out in railroad bridges so had very little experience with buildings and codes until I switched companies five years ago. When I did, I was lucky enough to be under the supervision of someone that was not a "computer person" (I am... in fact I love computers). He could work with the analysis programs (and spreadhsheets), but at the time preferred to things by hand a lot more. So as we dove into buildings and he began training me, he never allowed me to use spreadsheets or analysis software. Obviously, this took more time, but it developed that "gut feel" for loadings and capacities of members. After I had done a half dozen or so buildings was I only then able to use spreadsheets, but for the first few times I used them I had to do it by hand as well in order to verify its accuracy to myself. Similarly, the same process was taken for analysis software.
Now obviously, this created a lot of inefficiencies, but it allowed me to build a fantastic foundation for my knowledge. Now I use the computer more than hand calculations, but at the same time there have been numerous occasions that I did not click a button here or switch something on in the program and not realize it until I look at the member sizes and loadings. Without that background, a "new, fresh faced" engineer would not have known the inaccuracies. Computer programs are dumb, they are only as smart as the person inputting the information. They are extremely valuable though to a business in order to become more efficient.
At this point in my career, when I train a new engineer, I make them undergo the same type of hand calculations that I went through.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
271828..... Your story is an indication of the sad state of the educational system today. The students need a much better grounding in Strength of Materials, Statics, Physics, etc. before they get to your class, and they really need 5 years instead of 4 to get it all, with the last 3 digging much deeper into structures and basic concepts, and with the computer only being used to do the arithmetic, after they understand the classical methods. Then, finally appreciating how the computer sets us free to do the fun part of engineering instead of the complex drudgery, once we understand structures, but not as a replacement or substitute for that understanding. I can kinda understand the engineer/teacher story too, but with all my rants to the contrary, I don't think I would like teaching the way he did. If you take your stories and Epitome's story together and marry them; you take them for the first 4-5 years, then the final year they pay me the same tuition they've been paying you, so they can learn what Epitome claims to have acquired.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
"claims to have aquired"? Hmm... :)
The "problem" with the educational system for structural engineers is that they do not seem ever really address how a building is designed from start to finish. I went to an albeit small, but well known (and highly ranked) civil/structural engineering university for my B.S. and M.S. and in all of the courses I took I only remember two that ever even touched on code loads and how they are derived. Typically, you were given the loads and then could determine the capacities.
There is some valuable insight lost on how the loads are actually derived along with the fact that a student when coming out of college has so much knowledge, but (quite frankly) does not need a majority of it except as a background. Although valuable, the knowledge in college does not always translate to the "real" world applications.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I don't think we are not on the same wavelength, or at least not understanding Grinter's statement in the same way. First, I agree, "mathematics displayed through a structure can be very edifying", as the structures you mentioned clearly show.
"Art without engineering is dreaming;
Engineering without art is calculating."
- Unknown
In my understanding, "simplicity approaching functional perfection" does not mean trivial designs, rather avoidance of complexity for complexity's sake. BigH notes the same thing regarding soils engineering, how do you justify using complex mathematical formulas with field data that is accurate to only one place?
I think the point of all this is that the engineering tools, specifications or codes should match the precision of the data we are using and the project we are working on. Rewriting building codes every three or five years for small but complex changes is foolish and expensive – there are a lot of people making a good living doing so. There are times when I think some in our profession have lost sight of what it is we are trying to accomplish. Just because we have the fancy tools and complex equations does not mean they are required for every instance – engineering judgment should still prevail. As I noted above, a lot of engineering works were done with a slideruler.
Another thought provoking quote:
"Engineers tend to develop tools for the pleasure of developing tools, not to induce nature to yield its secrets. It so happens that some of these tools bring us more knowledge; because of the silent evidence effect, we forget to consider tools that accomplished nothing but keeping engineers off the streets. Tools lead to unexpected discoveries, which themselves lead to other unexpected discoveries. But rarely do our tools seem to work as intended; it is only the engineer's gusto and love for the building of toys and machines that contribute to the augmentation of our knowledge. Knowledge does not progress from tools designed to verify or help theories, but rather the opposite."
-"The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable"
By Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Random House Paperback, 2010 p. 169
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
During school, I tried to take every possible structural engineering course that I could in order to prepare me for work the real world. Did it help? I'll let you know when I retire. Fortunate for me that the only time that I used a computer for analysis in school was during a structural anlaysis class. We used Risa 2D for a whopping one class and in one homework assignment. The rest of the time was spend on hand methods (moment-area method, conjugate beam method, slope-deflection method, moment-distribution, approximate methods,etc). I also took and FEA course to give me a better understanding on what that program is doing with all those lines and dots. It gave me the tools to do a "reality check" when I analyze something by computer.
Now, after saying that, I see 2 problems. First, is the education system today. With constranints on budget and other factors, modern day universities are in a push to try to graduate a student in less time then that would be actually needed to adequately educate a new engineer. In addtition to that, I look back on all of those general ed course that I took to be a "well rounded student." 5 years out and glad to report that I haven't used anything from those courses. Why did I need to take courses that I don't need and take the additional structural courses that I could have used? I don't know, but at least I am a "well rounded person" (cough cough). Same with the other engineering courses I took. I haven't done anything related to thermodynamics, fluids, water resources, or transportation since college.
Second is the on the job. We are constantly being pushed to get work out the door faster and faster. Design-build, IPD-BIM, 3D, etc, etc, etc. I think that, because we are pushed for less and less analysis and design time, we are beginning to rely on computers more and more. Maybe having blind faith in the analysis if you are really crunched. Just hoping that everything "looks right." It's just the sign of the times.
Begin Rant. Don't get me wrong, as I am not using either of these as an excuse. If you want to get a feel for a structure, take 2 minutes look at how your structure is defined and loaded. Look at a shear-moment diagram. Look at your deflections. These tell you everything about how your structure is behaving. If you get a moment diagram that look like one for a fixed condition and you should be getting one for a simply supported condtition, then that should tell you something is up and you need to check it out. There are countless references that are out there to help you with the design and detatiling of a structure. If you are stumped then there is nothing wrong with asking for help. I agree mentoring provides a young engineer with priceless insight, but come on there are basic things that we all were taught to help us get that feel. And in time, that feel will get better. It just takes a bit of effort.
End rant...please excuse me as the womens World Cup between is on ESPN right now. That should help to put me to sleep.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Still using punch cards and main frames, we had a class in Matrix Analysis that the Professor taught along with a Moment Distribution textbook (Gere) as they were both stiffness methods. Moment Distribution became the primary way I looked at indeterminate structures.
All of those extra classes set me a little above my contemporaries, many who had only the basic analysis, steel and concrete design classes.
I had tremendous mentors in my first two jobs. So even today, that fundamental knowledge and experience gets my first run member sizes in the ballpark. I do try to pass on any insight I have gained to the younger engineers in our department.
Got re-introduced to computers in the mid '80's and did not become somewhat proficient until I started working on a Masters degree in 2000. I rely on younger engineers to help me get the most out of the computer.
My observations about the Codes and the analysis methods are similar to many of those expressed above. Are buildings really better with diagonal wind loads, wind loads with torsional components, DAM, etc.? Seismic here in the upper mid-west where it could maybe happen but probably won't? I doubt it.
gjc
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
On the seismic question the answer is no if the earthquake does not happen and yes if the earthquake does happen.
There is no doubt that recently designed buildings are much more robust to earthquake loading (or extreme wind loading for that matter) than typical older buildings.
Einstein used to say that things should be simplified as far as possible, but no further. Experience has shown that in some respects old codes were too simplified to give reliable results in some circumstances, or the simplified methods required excessive conservatism.
It's possible that modern codes have gone too far the other way, but we can be certain that achieving the optimum balance between scientific rigour and simplicity is not just a matter of returning to the Good Old Days.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
In reality, what you're arguing for is a structural engineering degree instead of being a part of civil. I've been saying that for years. I'm with you: In 10 years of industry experience before becoming a professor, I never had even the first use for surveying, fluids, transportation, environmental, etc. Could've sure used an extra class or two in mechanics of materials, vibrations, concrete, wood, and steel, though, but there's no room.
As a strange aside, I actually see more use in the general education classes than the non-structural civil classes. I didn't until I crossed 40, but I very often find myself wishing I knew more about biology, history, and a slew of other subjects.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
First, there is almost no room. What would you have us delete to make room for loads? Basic structural analysis, steel, or concrete? We have a hard enough time fighting the rest of the CE faculty to keep all three of those.
Second, we're trying to give the future engineer an education to last him a lifetime, so it must be as well rounded and grounded in behavior as possible. Loads change all the time. If you learned wind per the 1993 ASCE 7, you'd be close to back at zero in 1995. Same with EQ going from the 1997 codes to the IBC 2000. Sure, the behavioral aspects are there, but there's also a LOT of empirical stuff going on there.
Third, how long do you think it would take to cover loads?! I've thought about this and preliminarily planned the course. I think to adequately "cover" this subject would take two semesters. Otherwise we're still at survey level and people would complain that their new grads don't know the subject deeply enough.
Fourth, honestly this sounds cowardly, but it would be a bear for most professors to teach such a course. The codes change frequently and we're talking about a half-dozen different subjects: dead, live, roof live, snow, wind, and earthquake. I know I would never volunteer for such a course! Professors don't make the rules on % of time spent on different activities: we only spend a little % on instruction. I hate that, but it's a fact and isn't going to change until money starts growing on trees. I imagine that it'd take 3x as much effort to keep up with such a course as the others. That is, if you want something more than survey level. In other words, digging into all of the underlying background every darn time the code changes and making it a REAL course.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
As far as I know it, the US is one of the only countries to use the liberal arts education system. Most European and Latin American countries, in my experience, start you out in your major from day 1. The biggest disadvantage with this system is if you don't have a major or want to change, you usually must start from scratch. The philosophy I believe is more geared toward job and career training, then a philosophy of a well-rounded education. They sort of assume you got that in high school or you can get on your own, and I concur.
Think of how much you could put into a 4-5 year engineering degree if you were taking physics and math first semester instead of English and history? You wouldn't have this talk of a required masters degree because we'd get the equivalent of a BS and a MS in 4-5 years max. I am all for being well rounded, but leave that to me to get on my own. That is what History and Discovery channel are for :)
I don't think formal education makes you well-rounded anyway. I went to college for one main purpose: to get a much better job than working at a grocery store, which was my job in high school. You leave my life goals and cultural pursuits up to me. I can read a book on a history topic, go to a play or a museum, and travel when I want to expand my arts and cultural knowledge.
And more universities should offer more architectural/structural engineering degrees for those of us who knew what we wanted to study, instead of this general BS in Civil. I think universities are somewhat tied to the ABET/EIT model and requirements when offering degree options. If I know I want to be a structural engineer, why did I need to take these classes, which I did: hydraulics, environmental engineering, thermo, electrical, and a couple of nonsense engineering concept and drafting classes. Replace those with more structural or architectural classes and I would have been a year ahead. Then we would have had a year for that code class :) A building systems (MEP) class and some architectural training would have saved some growing pains too.
I have a friend who got his Masters in Building Engineering in Scotland, and it was a 5 year program, and it was a lot like I described above- architectural, basic MEP, and then a lot of structural. Very little to no Civil, no liberal arts. FWIW, he is one of the most well-rounded people I know despite his lack of an American liberal arts degree ;)
BTW, worse "name" ever, come on!! Nobody will give you flack if you go with "The Professor" or Mr PHD...
Just busting chops :)
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
You would be surprised how much flack that would create. Some of us like "e" just the way he is.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I think I agree with all you've typed on the subject of curriculum. One answer is to have a "structural engineering" BS degree separate from CE. Actually, I think there is another very good option at some schools: get the BS in engineering mechanics and MS in CE, specialized in structural. If I had it to do over, that's what I'd do.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
You are right about the US education system:
My first year at an australian university consisted of:
Mathematics
Chemistry
Physics
materials
statics
geotechnics
Construction methods and management
all engineering topics.
What is this nonesense about making 'well rounded' students. This is patronising and infers that someone cannot be well rounded without a degree. It is nonesense aimed at universities getting more money from students.
People go to a univeristy to get a qualification in their chosen field. The fact that after a year if you change degree you have to start from scratch is not a bad thing, it actually means that you have spent that last year being educated in the degree you specifically chose and not just general waffle.
In Australia and the UK there are degrees that focus on Structural Engineering though I believe it is more a specialisation of Civil than a separate degree.
As a result of all this, my 4 year Bachelors degree from Australia is counted as equivalent to a US masters degree under the Washington Accord. What other proof do you need!
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I bat both sides of the civil and structural. I think I wouldn't change a thing about my degree, I got it, I work hard, I learn every day, I would hate to have graduated knowing everything. I would ahve got bored after one day and decided to become a punkin farmer. what I really love is some reason people pay me to do what I do, so I can't complain.
ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Maybe something aimed towards specification writing rather than grammar may be the way to go. Technical english is often different to that of normal literature.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
But if you have great communication skills without the technical competence then you are probably not much use in this industry.
I just think that we are trying to make our graduates all things to everyone where learning the engineering properly is a hard enough task as it is.
Organisations that really thrive make the most out of the different personalities and skills of the individuals working for them. I often think that the complaints about graduates not fitting in to organisations is a result of the older engineers being poor people managers rather than any inadequacy of the graduate.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I disagree with you (not strongly though)...
Communication is a valuable commodity and necessity of any great engineer. Yes, you could be an engineer that just sits in a cube and crunches numbers, but they will never advance in a career and as long as they are fine with that... ok, I guess, but I would call you more of a scientist at that point because you are not really putting into practice the art of engineering... that is
"Engineering is the discipline, art, skill and profession of acquiring and applying scientific, mathematical, economic, social, and practical knowledge, in order to design and build structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes that safely realize improvements to the lives of people."
-wikipedia (haha)
In my opinion, a competent engineer must be able to express his opinion to others in a lucid manner. Engineering takes communication so that ideas and are applied in an economical manner and to satisfy the clients.
Also (and I may be in the minority here), but engineering to most of us is not THAT difficult. Sure some concepts and theories take some definite knowledge, but for highly logical people (engineers) it is not an overly hard task to learn. So for the students that want to be engineers they can pretty easily garner this knowledge much easier than being a competent communicator. That is why I think technical writing should be stressed more than the one blow off course in the already skimpy curriculm.
As for the older engineers being poor managers, (one that will get a lot of grief as I have seen in another thread) I think there is a reason that SOME engineers (young or old) are poor managers.... they don't want to or know how to. Let's be honest... in general, engineers are not great at communicating, but if you want to advance in a career you have to get into management and due to our highly logical backgrounds we make a good manager in that aspect. Without communication skills though (see above as we come full circle), we fail as a manager and end up hurting ourselves and employees more than intended.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
If a guy is not strong technically, then he's in bad shape.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Nothing you have said in your response gives me any reason to rethink my statement.
Yes, communication is important and necessary for advancement but you have said nothing that convinces me that it is anywhere near as important as technical skill. Without the technical skill, you are not an engineer! Nothing that strong can be said about communication.
Also I believe that the necessity of communication skills for advancement is just a symptom of the lack of respect we have for engineering experience within our own profession. The smartest engineer I ever met worked in the background specialising in vibration of sensitive structures long before this became mainstream. This guy was really adding to the company in a greater way than any of the senior engineers.
As for your comment regarding engineering not being that difficult, well all I can say is that you obviously have not been challenged too much recently. Most engineers are still learning things after 40 years of working.
Compared to other professions such as law and accounting we have a much broader spectrum on which we need to have skills. Mathematics, materials, physics, construction just to mention a few.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
This site has examples every day of the importance of written communication in engineering. We see poorly defined problems, and conversely misunderstanding of well defined problems. Even allowing for some English as second language issues, the reading and writing of some of our contributors is not too good. Of course, some of them are not engineers at all, so this may not be a representative sample.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I wouldn't say your written communication is poor. Your writing gets your point across, but is a bit clumsy at times, so I wouldn't make you my chief report writer. But in the other part of communication, comprehension, you are excellent.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
You only see the writing after it has been though a Microsoft grammar and spelling check, sometimes a Google search plus a review or two. If my verbal communication hadn't been up to scratch I wouldn't have made it in engineering.
ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION."
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Hokiee, you are not the only one hiring out there. Those who can't communicate well do practice!!
You shouldn't be narrow-minded; we all don't have a luxury to practice in a place where we can communicate well. I have worked with multiple consulting companies across continents what serve me the most is my technical ability not my communication skill.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I did not say that communication is more important than the technical aspect. I said it is just a very valuable one because you seemed to indicate that you didn't think it was.
Obviously, you have to know the technical side to be an engineer... that is a given. What I am saying is what good is it if you can't communicate?
And as for the "not that difficult" comment, I was simply conveying that it is not so difficult that you cannot take some time to learn proper grammar and communication skills (again as you suggested).
And to insinuate that I have not been challenged because of the above state is just ignorance. Just because you are learning does not make a job difficult. Of course, I (and all engineers) learn virtually everyday and of course it is challenging, but hopefully it is a profession you have a passion for and so that eases the difficulty because you WANT to learn it. A difficult task is one in which you have to learn something in which you have little or no passion in... such as communication. Those are the things that people need to stress in learning because on your own you wouldn't ever garner that knowledge.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
my original comment was aimed at hokie who said that communication was just as important as technical skill.
As a raw graduate you need to understand the technical side and one would hope that the senior engineer above you would understand the technicalities so they could explain them to your client.
You have a few years as a graduate engineer before you normally would need to front up to clients and this is plenty of time to develop communication skills.
Why are we one of the only professions that believes that we can grow competence without any on the job training?
As I do not know you personally I can only go by what you say in your post and I meant no insult. There are actually engineers out there that do only simple structures and dont do anything more complicated than wl^2/8 but I take it that you are not one of them.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Agree that we need to understand the technical side and gather more knowledge from our senior engineers. My thought though is that the communication skills is what is lost and never really learned. I feel like that is much more difficult to gain out of college than if we began to learn more of it in college.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Do you guys actually know a structural engineer who cannot orally communicate well enough that it's holding him back on the job?
Do you guys actually know a structural engineer who cannot write a memo, letter, short report, write notes on structural drawings, or edit project manuals and it's affecting his ability to do well?
I'll go ahead and answer from my experience: No and no. My experience is that every structural engineer with a MS can do these and the ones who climb the ladder are the ones with the best combo of technical expertise, time management (they don't waste time), willingness to work extra hours when necessary, and good personality. Maybe I'm the weird one.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Having said that do I know someone where it holds them back? Absolutely!
Is he incapable to communicating? No, but he definitely does not do it very well and clients have gone out of their way to request me over this other guy because they do not perceive that he is as intelligent (he has 15 years of experience on me and is more than capable to satisfy their engineering needs). This perception is due to his "inability to effectively communicate". Consulting engineering is more than just reports and memos along with the engineering aspect. You HAVE to be able to convey your points to clients that no nothing about engineering (and without making them feel stupid in the process).
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Are you sure that's not what they're referring to. (yes, I know I ended a sentence with "to"! I type good.)
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
Positive that is not what they are referencing.
Put simply, some engineers do not know how to convey their ideas well.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
I know first hand from discussing (or trying to) field conditions over the phone with contractors, fabricators etc. Describing how something needs to be built over the phone is 100X tougher than preparing a drawing set and writing specs. This is one type of communication that is especially difficult for non-native speakers, although I've seen a good number of native speakers who are terrible at it. Written communication is in general comes much easier for everyone.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection
How about people who are speaking English as their native language? I know people who could probably never write a jnl manuscript, but a memo?! A letter or ten page report?! I guess they're out there, but I don't know any of them.
RE: Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection