×
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

who doesn't use manual computations anymore?
5

who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

(OP)

More than half of local structural engineers I know doesn't use manual computations anymore. They reason it's long process to get for example the biaxial interaction diagram, moments of each columns and beams and their interactions especially if they are designing very tall stories. So they rely on ETABs for example which is complete package and can even produce complex spectrum seismic analysis that would take 3 weeks for just one projects. As you know ETABs can automatically calculate all the moments and shears of each element and their combinations that you may miss out manually. So who amongst you also use such package and no longer do every process manually? And for those who do manually and spend 3 weeks for just one project writing dozens or hundreds of handwritten paper, what do you think the ETABS folks can miss out when they don't do each member manually?

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I don't do all the engineering by hand on anything other than a small or unusual structure. On most structures, though, you'd never go through the process of sizing each member even if you did the whole process by hand. You'd identify the possible worst cases members and only end up sizing a handful of members.

No matter the size of the project, I pretty much always do preliminary sizing entirely by hand and have a pretty good idea what it'll all be before I put it into software, at least for strength governed cases. The engineer generally has a pretty good idea on what the governing case will be and where the worst member(s) will be. Doing those by hand to start means that the structure's mostly designed. You can do simplified or conservative capacity checks on those pretty easily. Then, when the computer does it's check, it acts to confirm what you already knew.

You either do it that way, or you do it in reverse where you do the model and then check by hand. I just find it faster to figure out member spacing and general parameters by hand on a piece of paper rather than having to remodel to optimize things.

Even on complete finite element models I wouldn't be comfortable doing something entirely by computer.

I'm a young engineer, so none of the above is because I'm not comfortable with computers. I just recognize their limitations. Computer models are difficult to check comprehensively. There can also be issues with software where it doesn't act how you think it's going to act because your assumptions are different than those of the software developers.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

If an engineer doesn't use BOTH manual and computer aided calculations, he is not doing his job adequately. I would add in the "cookbook" as well, as lots of design aids are available to make life easier.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I do my hand calculations on the computer.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Design aids and programs will take you so far, but they will not help you understand underlying engineering principals. I too perform preliminary design by hand and confirm them with software/aids or I stick my design loads into the ‘blackbox’ and check some critical results it spits out by hand.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Quote:

Design aids and programs will take you so far, but they will not help you understand underlying engineering principals. I too perform preliminary design by hand and confirm them with software/aids or I stick my design loads into the ‘blackbox’ and check some critical results it spits out by hand.

I disagree, I think "hand calculations" vs "computer calculations" is a false dichotomy. It's quite possible to follow a pre-defined "hand calculation" without gaining any understanding of whether it is appropriate, and it's also quite possible to use computer tools to investigate how a structure will behave under different assumptions, and to obtain a better understanding of the problem than would be practicable using purely manual methods. I'd say the question should be: do you use automated design processes, or do you think about it?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

All my calculatins are done by hand, computer or otherwise.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

It's not the hand that matters, it's the brain.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

(OP)

For those who haven't used ETABS. Try putting just a simple beam supported on a column. Enter the uniform load or point load in the program. You will find out the moments produced by the program is the same as when you calculate it using manual formulas. Now add it it many elements and the manual computations would be taxing. This is why ETABS and STAADs are so popular because they are just formulas put on graphical interface. I wonder how many percentage of you use ETABS and STAADS. What other softwares are like them? It is a known fact that engineers above 50 years old are not familiar with them because these software are not available when hokia66 (who is 66 years old) and BAretired (who is above 60 years old too as he is retired) for example are in their younger years (and only Atari or Apple II computer available).

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

LOL

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Not true...it is not a "known fact". I am more than 66 years old. I have used computers throughout my career, and have written programs. I have used ETABS, but more often have interpreted the output. I don't resist using computers. But the key is to know approximately what the output should look like before you start inputting. Just plugging into a black box and blindly accepting the results won't make you an engineer. It won't even make you a good technician.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I'm 77 and retired, but I've been using computer programs since 1970, mainframes and desktops. I roughed out my member sizes and estimated the load paths so I could speed up the de-bugging if I got a different output.

Please don't make unsubstantiated assertions about we experienced engineers.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

The only "known Fact" in this thread is that Pattontom has heard some very poor advice and is probably to young to know it.

The computer is only as good as the user, if the engineer doesn't know how to model the beam correctly than the computer isn't going to do this for you. The computer can help you as long as you tell it how to. Sure you can probably do all your calcs on the computer, but if you think that one program is going to handle all these calcs than that would be foolish. You must have ways to ensure the program is correct.

lets review the problem put forward, a beam supported by a column, will real life match my model? Give we are only suggesting one column and one beam so the beam must be cantilevered evenly each side of the column. As such the column must take moment to the foundation for your patterned live load as a minimum, Did we size the foundation for this moment or just uplift.





http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

In the case of engineering, computers (and the software on them) can be seen as 'amplifiers' in that they allow experienced and competent engineers to do more work, quicker and more consistently.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

pattontom:

I guess I'm over the hill too at 64, the young one in the bunch here. I've dealt with computers since 1966, and, obviously am more convinced of their programming limitations than you are.

I guess someone needs to hire you while you still know everything. I think you just may have lost a lot of expert mentorship on this forum. Good luck.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

(OP)

I'm asking this because a company which designs 20-50 storey buiilding and above used entirely ETABS outputs in their calculation sheet. They don't put any formulas.

When doing 2-storey. Of course I use formulas in excel. I don't rely entirely on ETABs. But for the 20-39 storey designers. They just use ETABS.

Anyway.I wonder who amongst you design 30 storey too? The period of tall stories are bigger hence they can withstand seismic better... so is it a general case that maybe short 3-storey are more seismically challenging to design than 30 storey? No. I won't try 30 storey. Just asking. Thanks.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I am also a youngster and out of my experience I have realized that the more senior guys are the limitations to a design program. The reason for this is that they have a set way, of doing a design and using the program all these years and when new features are added they still rather use the "older" method of analysis on the same program which they are comfortable with.

Which is fine in my opinion but there designs are a lot more conservative at times. Example when a 3D method of analysis is added they still prefer to use 2 planes only but the third plane will also help in the stability of the structure.

I guess its fine but I personally like to be as economic as possible. Please don’t get me wrong I respect the more experienced guys as the teach me a lot.

I only use hand calculations for my loading and the programs for the rest but also have a tight relationship with the program designer’s technical team.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Pattontom,
If I was supplying calcs to someone, I would only provide computer generated outputs generally, however this wouldn't be a true reflection of all my calcs. Reason for this is that I would only provide the major analysis components, not my checking or non-typical calcs. And yes I do design building over 30 stories, but find that the complexities don't really start until you get over 55 stories.

"The period of tall stories are bigger hence they can withstand seismic better... so is it a general case that maybe short 3-storey are more seismically challenging to design than 30 storey? No" I recommend you read up about soft stories and a few books on medium building complexities in design.

Parrapit,
Please don't lump all senior engineers into the same area. Most of us are update with our programs. I found a fault in a very common program only the other day that the developers admitted that it had been there from day dot. my normal rule of thumb is that a new design feature will take 6 months to be fully tested before you can trust it with any confidence and then I always do a quick check

http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Quote:

Please don’t get me wrong I respect the more experienced guys as the teach me a lot.

I'd hate to see how you talk about people you don't respect then.

FWIW, I'm another one in the right side of 60 club (i.e. born pre-53), have used computers all my working life, and have a methodology similar to that described by rowingengineer.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Obviously, I'm not in this industry, but I use tools in accordance with their application. There are calculations where I have created Mathcad worksheets with manual equations; and there are calculations where manual calculations are impractical. No building height limitations here, just tedious and repetitive calculations that would require about 100 times longer to do the calculations manually.

I expect that all engineering disciplines have a similar situation. My ME cohorts would readily agree that almost all their stress calculations for our products must be performed with FEA, based on meshed networks generated from CAD models. Almost nothing that they design are amenable to manual calculations, because the shapes and geometries are too complex and are not readily describable with simple equations. Thermal analysis can be performed piecewise using manual calculations, but the system level calculations can only be done with application specific thermal analysis packages, since the designs invariably would require massive matrix operations.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

pattontom

I am not a structural engineer and I never designed a static structure bigger than a garage and then I had a structural guy check my beams and footings, however a computer is a computer and a calc is a calc and some rules are universal.

I have successfully designed a few structures that have wheels and are towed along roads at some speed, all by hand and rule of thumb and dead reckoning. None ever catastrophically failed and all where substantially lighter than commercially available products. I had them built and running before a computer only jock would have finished the drawings.

I have also used computers since they occupied several floors of a large office block which was obviously some time ago.

I have also been around long enough to appreciate that electronic devices can and do make mistakes. I mean give me a break, just how many silicon layers at a nano thick are in a computer chip and how many chips and possible routes are there for an electron to travel around all the boards and through all the chips. It's actually incredible that they don't all get lost or diverted to the wrong spot or the right spot at the wrong time.

When was it that Intel had the floating point problem.

I know I personally had a simple pocket calculator way back when that repeatedly gave a very obviously incorrect result to a particular simple calculation. Lucky is was wrong enough so that a simple thought process identified the error. It was the type of thing like say working out the area of a circle say 3.something inch dia and the answer came out to thousands of sq inches.

I repeated it at least 5 times and gave it to several colleagues to check. We all got the same patently wrong answer from the same input. A simple change of one character in the input gave correct results, but going back to the original calculation even after other correct but different calcs still produced the same error.

As a result, I always check my calcs by several methods including a rough in the head to test for ballpark accuracy. Anyone who does not is well on the way to landing face first in the mud. One of your mentors actually needs to give you a little trip and a firm push so you learn the hard way as that seems the only way you will learn.



Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &
http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm
for site rules

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I use transient hydraulic programs and never see any calculations done by hand. I wouldn't believe one if I did. It's not about the process you use to do a design, it's how you use the tools at your disposal to maximum effect in reaching a solution in which you have confidence. I'm not interested in producing e-paper just so I can sell it by e-ream weight. I sell the solution.

"People will work for you with blood and sweat and tears if they work for what they believe in......" - Simon Sinek

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Quote (pattontom)

This is why ETABS and STAADs are so popular because they are just formulas put on graphical interface

I think you will find that these programs are not just a collection of formulae. How many would they need to cover every single eventuality?

Pretty much all analysis programs give wrong results. They lie to you. You just have to determine if the results are close enough for your purpose. That is where your judgement comes in.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I am 62 years old and try not to do any calculations by hand if I don't have to. I use VisualAnalysis and TEDDS and Excel spreadsheets. Even simple beams and columns can be done by modifying a "saved" model by changing the size, lengths, loads, etc. I print out load, shear, and moment diagrams along with the final design view showing the allowable design ratios. I am proud to be a "Black-Box" Engineer.

I have done way too many hand calculations in my day. But that experience usually gives me some insight as to what my first trial sizes should be. We don't to 30 story structures, but we do model large industrial facilities with 2 to 3 floors and lots of differing equipment loads.

I too have been using computers since 1970 - of course they were main frames with punch cards. My first matrix analysis and finite element classes were in 1973. My biggest pet peeve is people that refer to matrix frame analysis programs as Finite Element Analysis. Two different animals.

My next pet peeve is trying to model everything: girts, purlins, stair stringers, etc. That is absolutely nuts.

So I try to be computer literate, but I still design with ASD and the 8th Edition AISC manual on my desk. It sits on top of the 13th Edition which gets opened far fewer times. But since the programs design the members per the Codes I specify, it is not necessary to dig too deeply in the manuals any longer.

gjc

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Just my two cents...

I guess you can consider me a "youngster." I'm in my early thirties, but I'm no spring chicken, either. I echo the sentements of many of the engineers that have commented, including the engineers who are over 50.

I use computer analysis software almost on a daily basis. But, I always back up the results it spits at me with some form of hand calc. Why? Because very smart and experienced engineers taught me not to trust them.

When you are working with a large structure (or any structure for that matter), how do you know your analysis is correct? How do you know if you have proper load paths? How do you know if your structure's dynamics is in the ballpark? How do you know if your software is giving you a "correct" deflection for a beam? Do you even know what your software is doing or how its doing it? I'm not saying that you need to do everything twice. What I am saying is a responsible engineer would verify his/her work to ensure that what the computer spits out is accurate, even if it's just a bunch of scribbles on a piece of scrap paper.

There is nothing wrong with soley including computer inputs and outputs in your calculation package. I do that all the time. I make sure that I am 10,000% comfortable with what I am putting in.

Just a tip, the engineers who are over 50 (as you describe them) can offer you insights to engineering in ways that no code book or textbook can. Instead of insulting someone because they are "old," I suggest you show a little respect and listen to what they have to say.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

One pitfall that I've seen with over-reliance on modeling software is improperly fixing joints that should be pinned. That is, modeling a joint in the software as fixed when in reality it behaves liked a pinned connection. It can make for some very squirrely designs...

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Quote:

My biggest pet peeve is people that refer to matrix frame analysis programs as Finite Element Analysis. Two different animals.

Not really important, but I'm just curious why that peeves you. The way I see it, a beam in a frame analysis is just a particular type of finite element, so it is finite element analysis, just as much as models with plate or brick elements, or any combination of the three.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I agree with IDS - a finite element can have two joints, three joints, etc. All are solved by matrix analysis no matter how many joints there are per member/element.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

A humorous post at the least!!

I am an "older engineer". As Mike McCann noted, he has been using computers since about 1966...I'm not far behind him. Early 70's for me.

In high school, I taught my math class to use a slide rule....went through engineering school with one until my senior year. Amazing how many times over the years I've calculated things in my head that were within a few percent of the answer obtained by more accurate means. Sorry you younger ones have missed out on such thought provoking processes. Did it just today with my younger protege.

I'm also no stranger to sophisticated computer analysis....but my prior "training" has taught me to be suspicious of the output and to look at it critically. Computers are tools of the profession....they don't provide the engineering judgment...just the mathmatical manipulation. If you depend on them to solve engineering problems, you are using them incorrectly. If you depend on them for expedience in the mathmatical process...then you have the right idea.

Though an expensive camera can show a scene in its proper context, it takes a photographer to compose a photo that captures the nuances of the scene. A piano can render all the notes of a musical scale, but it takes a composer to assemble those notes into a palatable melody. The engineer must compose on the computer.....his instrument, his tool, his canvas.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Several years ago, it was found that one software program mentioned in this thread improperly applied and distributed parapet wind loads (this was for a high-rise project that was in design.) Shortly thereafter in a different firm, we found that another program improperly computed base shear. These were only found because we took time to verify our results with hand computations and/or comparison between various packages. It is not at all unusual for certain inputs to result in strange outputs. And it is always possible that a mis-entered value is not what one intended to type. While it seems easy enough to verify the software itself, you have not lived until you had to run a verification routine for each piece of software, on each computer, each day it is used, and keep a log of the date, time, user, and version, along with a copy of the relevant printout. And then found that minor version revisions resulted in slight differences in results in some computations, but not in the computation routine run for the verifications.

Hand calcs and other design aids, such as books and tables, allow rough design to be done as a sanity check. Randomly verifying things like single beam moment and shear values using quick hand computations help identify where problems might be. Simple tributary area and loading computations, combined with span information make sure that loads were applied properly. If things don't add up, you need to find out why. Blind reliance on the blackbox is not a good idea, but neither is doing every calc twice by hand, to verify the verification. In safety or reliability analysis, the human is the weak link vs a machine, so don't make the mistake of blindly accepting hand calcs, either.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

My fear is that engineering will become a slave to computer programs and that there will be those engineers who cannot, even if they wanted, to be able to cross-check the computer output - even for a ball-park figure. I've seen slope stability analyses in a few cases by others that would be laughable if I wasn't crying so much - results that never could be in nature. Another comment is that any computer/calculator device may provide one a false sense of precision . . . as Ron knows, 3 sigfigs or 4 is about the best one can expect - but far too many just post/report the numbers without questioning precision. I once saw a pile capacity - based on the Davisson "failure criteria" (graphical on a pile load test) - reported to the nearest 0.01 kN. Pretty precise, eh? By the way, I was only 2 when Vic Wertz was robbed by Willie Mays in the World Series.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

having come to the conclusion that computers/computer programs are here to stay(as long as the power grid holds up), I chucked my 24" slide rule a few months back...feel vulnerable w/o it..anyway, engineering is more of an art than a science, imo....

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Ron, BigH, Sail3,

Regarding slide rules, my mentor told me that whe he was starting out his mentor had a slide rule with a broken cursor - apparently it was only able to read to two digits worth of accuracy. He didn't replace it because, as he explained, that's all you need. My mentor told me that that left quite an impression on him. It's a shame those dudes didn't realise they need 14 digits worth of "accuracy".

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

In the recent past a certain very popular PT slab program overstated punching shear capacities at corner columns by a fair amount. Computers are always correct (except when my old SegaGenesis cheated at Madden Football), it is the programming and input that are the problem.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Doug - it bugs me because lots of small things bug me and they really aren't the same. Yes FEA does use Matrix Methods to solve for its answers, but the fundamental set ups are different.

For structural members, the stiffness matrix is comprised of the terms that relate the internal forces in the member with joint displacements - such as PA/L, 12EI/L^3, 4EI/L, etc. Then the structure is solved like a complex spring where [P] = [K][d]. Joint displacements are solved for first and then member internal forces are found using the assembled stiffness matrix and the applied loads.

For finite element analysis my interpretation is; the relative displacements of the nodes on a particular element are defined with respect to one another (i.e. it's internal element stiffness); an overall stiffness matrix is developed, the displacements of nodes are solved for; and then the internal stresses of the elements are solved for using the internal stiffness fomulations that were used to define the element.

Here is a much better answer from thread earlier this year (thread507-323635: Finite element analysis)

PowersPE80 (Civil/Environmental) 10 Jun 12 9:59
Hello, Can someone please explain to me, without getting overly technical, what exactly a finite element analysis is?

Thanks.

. . .

JAE (Structural)
10 Jun 12 12:33
Powers - very tough to do that well without knowing what you do know.

Are you are familiar with frame analysis programs where you have beams and columns represented by "stick" members - a member that has a joint at either end? You connect all these into a frame or other representation of a structure and by knowing the deflection-force relationship between the two joints you can analyze the structure.

These two-joint "sticks" are two-joint finite elements. They are essentially a member/entity that creates a relationship between two joints. If you move one joint, the other responds with a defined force.

Each joint, typically - in 3D models - represents six degrees of freedom - X, Y, and Z direction translation and X, Y and Z direction rotations.

Now if you expand that two-joint member into a three or more joint member, the member now becomes either a planar flat element (triangle or rectangle) or perhaps even a solid element with multiple joints that all are related to each other in terms of displacement and force.

The analysis/solution is similar to the two-joint member except there is a problem. The two-joint beam type members can be analyzed such that both equilibrium and deformation compatibility are satisfied (Sum of forces/moments = 0 and the deflection of element A at a common joint with element B is the same). However, with more than two joints, you can't satisfy both of these - only one. Most all finite element solutions choose to satisfy the deformation compatibility and then by keeping the size of the elements small, minimize the sum of forces error in the model.

And then the mesh can be refined to determine if you are honing in on the approximate answer.

gjc

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I haven't done a calculation on paper since I got a TI-55 programmable calculator, a very long time ago.

I haven't stopped checking calculating machines' output since I discovered that some of the TI-55's user registers were also used by the machine for intermediate results of some of its built-in functions.


In the meantime, I've learned to program microprocessors right down on the silicon, and gotten pretty good at it, I think.

I still don't trust the damn things.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

All they are is a tool. You still have to think, or should at least.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Is it impractical to combine TXStructural's solution (two splices instead of one) but weld instead of bolting - this way you will have the beam look like it should and work like it should?
If welding is impractical at all, even in places with smaller forces, can slip-critical bolts be used in order to avoid the reduction of capacity due to bolt holes?

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Yeah but you see the Atari had wood grain so that trumps your BIM/Revit/ETABS/Wii U.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

When it comes to computers, Ronald Reagan said it best: "Trust, but verify."

Anyone that relies solely on hand calcs at this point will get left in the dust in terms of schedules and budgets.
Anyone that relies solely on what the computer says is not doing engineering, they are doing data entry.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

more on the 24" slide rule before it disappears into obscurity...it had the following drawbacks listed in no particular order...
1. difficult to hang on one's belt...kept interfering with normal gait...

2. immediately placed more pressure on the engineer...everyone expected a more accurate design up to three decimal places in some cases..

3. had a tendency to bind-up under times of extreme pressure/tension like when you found out you were 4 weeks behind schedule with 2 weeks left to deadline...probably as a result of that death-grip...

4. had same design/member sizes as the 12" slide rule and in my opinion was under-designed..they probably used LRFD in the design to whack the last 0.2oz out of it and as a result had the common deflection problems...

5. not easy to carry...as a result, one would tend to carry it either as a cutting-edge engineering tool or as a stick...in fact, both came in handy at times depending on the make-up of your design office...

6. had no well-defined sweet spot so, as a result, one could loose 0.1 seconds in a normal engineering calculation which over the life of the engineer could really add up..


I could go on but I think you get the picture..

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I haven't read it but apparently there's a book about unintended consequences. Among the examples I remember were:

* As football helments became stronger players started using their heads as battering rams thereby causing neck injuries.

* As tennis rackets became larger professional games turned into little more than serving contests and viewership declined.

I'm sure there were many non-sports examples as well. But in our industry, as computation machines improved there came with it some unintended and undesirable consequences. The main one, in my opinion, is that the building and material code writers seem compelled to keep up with them. Honestly, what firm could comply with the various codes without "black box" software to grind through all the requirements...and still stay in business? You don't even have to get past Ch. 2 of ASCE-2 to see that. Finding the worst load combination for each member by hand would take 1.2 Days + 1.6 Weeks + .5(Lightyears or Something Rediculous)...so off to the black box we go. (And remember, the affects of one or more of those factors not acting must also be considered and it's easy to get lost in all the numbers. And that's just to get started.)

Then there becomes the problem of people not having much clue how the output they are using was generated...

Seasoned engineers who saw this all slowly evolve on their watch don't usually have too much of a problem with it...one change at a time isn't hard to take and they can make their own real world sanity check without the computer. For the new engineers, on the other hand, it's a much different situation and their dependence on black box computer software is much greater. The situation does the whole profession a disservice, in my opinion.

All of which brings me back to the topic at hand. That is, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the licensing exam required the use of slide rules and disallowed even simple electronic calculators. Maybe then there would be some push back to the Rube Goldberg philosophy of code writing.





RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

2
Yeah, this isn't a thing that done by old engineers. It's a thing that's done by diligent engineers. I'm in my late twenties. Also, people have used computers to simplify work since they became available. I have my grandfather's punchcards that he used decades ago for p-delta checks on bridge structures sitting somewhere.

Confirming things by hand, or doing preliminary sizing by hand (where 'by hand' could include spreadsheets or things like mathCAD) doesn't take a lot of time.

It's not a question of not trusting computer programs. It's a question of not fully trusting anything. Fear is an engineer's friend. It shouldn't keep you from taking action, but it should be there in the back of your head reminding you of the consequences of what you're doing. You have to understand the action of your structure and be able to take responsibility for the actual math that went into it. With experience you can get the understanding of the structure from a computer model. That's great, it speeds things up and can let you do things that aren't reasonable by hand. There are two places where there are issues though. In the first case, you could have a situation where you become complacent and treat it as a black box without actually understanding the structure. This is dangerous. In the second case, there could be an error in the way the actual math, model or assumptions are implemented.

You have to be able to look at the structure and the results and be completely sure you understand why the reactions and stresses are what they are in each component. If you ever hit a situation where you look at something like the force distribution in a structure and don't immediately understand why it looks like it does and your response isn't to sit down and figure out why it looks like that, you're not actually engineering anything. If someone asks you why some critical load or reaction is what it is, and your answer is that the computer reported it, you've done something wrong. That's the first situation above.

In the second case, it's a question of verifying because it's not a perfect world and people screw up. It can be anything, but you have to be more careful with things like computer software because you didn't actually write it. If you don't check it, you're implicitly taking responsibility for the work of the software company. If your structure breaks because of an error in the software, they're still going to blame the engineer.

It's not like anyone goes and does a computer model and then checks it with a check of all the load cases and using all the special case code formulas on a piece of paper. You're going to use tables and simplified assumptions and formulas that you've simplified from the code or from other sources. I, personally, like to put pen to paper as much as I can, but it's personal preference more than anything. Nobody's going through the world checking things by doing hand checks for the code check on a beam-column using the full steel interaction formula on a piece of paper for every item in the structure. First off, people are really only doing math for items that could reasonably be critical. Secondly, they're either using a spreadsheet that they've verified or they're using a simplified formula (My/Myr+Mx/Mxr+C/Cr at the simple end, or incorporating as many additional factors as are reasonable) and then seeing if they're close enough to call it okay. If a case exists where it's reasonable to use the full code formula and you're doing things on paper, you're just doing it in the case that actually requires all the factors.

Doing enough math to make sure you're not getting a catastrophic failure and that your numbers are reasonable, when combined with some degree of judgement takes very little time. Hell, proper checking generally saves time because you're going to catch things that would be difficult to fix in the field.

Also, nobody's including any of this in their calculation package. Generally, a calculation package is the minimum necessary information required to satisfy people that the code has been appropriately applied and adhered to and that some degree of due diligence has been done. Additional information is confusing and takes time to prepare. I'm not going to write paragraphs in my checking calcs or my preliminary calcs to ensure it's clear to a code checker what my assumptions are. I'll write in simplified explanations that would make sense to another engineer that took a proper look at them, but anything more than that's a waste of time.

This is ignoring the things I'll do entirely by hand because it's just faster that way.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Yeah, I think you missed the point of my post.

Any good engineer will perform a reality check but whereas you used to do it to confirm the provisions of the code now you do it despite them. For example, how many engineers simply apply a 20 psf (or whatever) wind load and design the structure vs. pouring through all the gyrations the code requires? Plenty, I bet.

And yes, some software providers do indeed include code provisions in their packages...in fact, I think most of them do at this point.

And no, I'm not a young engineer any more so it's less of an issue for me...I've watched a lot of these things morph into their current Frankenstein-like forms so I've been able to absorb many of them one step at a time. But I feel bad for the recent graduates. I've seen some that I think would have made good design engineers but were too intimidated by it to try and instead migrated over to the project management side of the house. It amounted to a loss of good talent due to code intimidation. A shame, really.

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all, although I can see how you could read my response as a comment on your post. It was actually a response to the original poster. I agree with some of the sentiments of what you were saying in your previous posts. While I appreciate the more comprehensive checks being part of the codes when they're necessary I think a lot could be simplified if the more conservative checks that many people do were made part of codes as simplified methods with exceptions, leaving the option to use the full method when it's beneficial. The concrete code already does this in some cases. This could remove the situation where you do the structure design pretty much completely, and then do additional code checks that you already know don't govern.

I'm going to avoid going into it more than that, because we've all seen what happens to threads where we start the 'codes are too complicated' conversation :p

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Who? Me? smile

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Whoops, sorry, I thought you were responding to me.

I guess I'm too new here to have seen the 'codes are too complicated' threads; maybe I'll do a search for them...

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

It's not that I trust one method over another, just that without verification using at least a couple of methods, how can we trust any method. The simplest solution is to design using engineering judgement, compute using software and other tools, and verify a few small numbers (beam stresses and sizing) and the big numbers (base shear, foundation loading) with hand/calculator/spreadsheet/slide rule computations.

Quote (Archie)

Maybe then there would be some push back to the Rube Goldberg philosophy of code writing.
Don't confuse code compliance with design. Never the two shall meet. But all too often, designers think "it meets code, so I'm done."

RE: who doesn't use manual computations anymore?

Quote:

Don't confuse code compliance with design. Never the two shall meet. But all too often, designers think "it meets code, so I'm done."

Oh, you needent worry that I will confuse the two; in fact, that speaks to a point I made on the thread related to the New Zealand earthquake thread in that an argument can be made that building codes reduce our safety rather than enhancing it.

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