Eng-Tips is the largest forum for Engineering Professionals on the Internet.

Members share and learn making Eng-Tips Forums the best source of engineering information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations dmapguru on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Conversation starter: How heavily do you rely on computational tools?

human909

Structural
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
2,292
Location
AU
Conversation starter: How heavily do you rely on software computational tools?



In a effort to start an interesting conversation.... How heavily do you lean on computational tools. To help aid the discussion I'll try to break up the tools into categories in order of computationsal complexity: (I'm attempting to define groupings here, if things clearly don't fit feel free to let me know and I'll adjust...)
  1. 3D FEA either in 3D bodies or 3D shells (including BUCKLING ANALYSIS)
  2. 3D FEA either in 3D bodies or 3D shells
  3. 3D analysis with 1D elements (eg; typical structural analysis programs where elements are defined as lines (columns/beams) in 3D space)
    1. Member design via software
    2. Member design via hand calcs or similar
  4. EXCEL or similar calculative spreadsheets/software.
  5. HAND calcs (calculator allowed)


 
I believe I rely on computational tools more than most around here... Maybe because due to a combination of my age and the type of work I do. At a guess:
  • 40% of the design work I do is 3.1 . All the heavy lifting is done by the software. This includes members design and connections. I am relegated to being a grunt entering in loads, and watching out for gotcha traps that software doesn't cover.
  • 15% of the design work I do is 1.1. (🙏In the computer I trust.🙏) Though despite that statement there is heavy error checking and iterative work to ensure my results are suitable and trustworthy.
  • 15% of the design work I do is 2. As above, but if by inspection buckling isn't an issue then it makes life much easier.
  • 10% Excel work, including ClearCalcs for timber which is just a fancy spreadsheet made by others.
  • 10% Hand calcs. (mostly preliminary stuff, sanity checking and simple structure design)


(For context. I do plenty of work with bespoke vessels holding bulk material; eg silos and similar. FEA is a no brainer once you you into weird shapes, particularly if there is compressive buckling at play. Naturally, I've done plenty of sanity checking in the past as blinding relying on software is a recipe for trouble.)
 
Last edited:
I try to keep things simpIe and do about 60% hand calculation and 35% excel type calculations, 5% software 3D model.

Started out as young engineer that had a lot interest in 3D modelling for calculations (i.e. Spacegass, ETABS, SAFE), I did most of my calculations in 3D software around 80%. The engineer in me wanted accuracy and thought 3D modelling provides efficiency and accuracy in calculations. Once I had a good mentor that all changed. I realised simple stick models are good enough for 90% of structures being built and that 3D modelling can get inaccurate if you don't know how the software work inside out.

I still use software, most commonly for linear elastic analysis of somewhat complex framing when hand calculations will provide very conservative answer or if I need dynamic frequency analysis. Very rarely for framing buckling analysis. The type of project I do now tend to be a bit simpler compared to when I was younger, where benefits of a full ETABS/SAFE model is worth it.
 
Mainly stick model finite elementc, both 2D and 3D, and hand calcs.

Rapt for one way slabs and Plate finite element for two way concrete.

Excel for code formulas, and summing loads.
 
45-45 3 and 4 (mcad and not excel), with the rest a blend of 1 and 2. Haven't put pen to paper in years other than for studying
 
Four response so far and most significantly different! Interesting! 🤓

@SWComposites, No huge surprises that aerospace learns heavily and comprehensively on FEA. But a reminder for us simple structural folks that it has its place...

@Enhineyero, I'm slightly surprised at that supposably "backward" step away from computational assistance. But I also understand it as it depends on what you are designing. I give design guidance and certification based off span/depth calculations in my workplace. Sometimes a structural item isn't worth more than 5 minutes of "that is good enough".

@Tomfh, That is what I'd expect for the 'typical structural engineer'.

@canwesteng, Again doesn't this seem atypical. MathCad is clearly superior to excel in most applications. I need to use it more than I use Excel.
 
As a rural, mainly residential Australian engineer my brake down is roughly…

3 = 40%
4 = 40%
5 = 20%

Currently using Inducta suite of programmes, Spacegass, personally made excel spreadsheets (this is my go to for learning bulk material, so I have a lot for routine calculations) and hand calculation.
 
Four response so far and most significantly different! Interesting! 🤓

@Enhineyero, I'm slightly surprised at that supposably "backward" step away from computational assistance. But I also understand it as it depends on what you are designing. I give design guidance and certification based off span/depth calculations in my workplace. Sometimes a structural item isn't worth more than 5 minutes of "that is good enough".
I was suprised as well. Spent heaps of hours learning each software I get my hands as a young engineer. Then got bosses who are old school (these are engineers who do not know how to use 3D software but know that there is a modelling error just by looking at results). Started using charts, tables, and simplified analysis more and more (side effect of working with old school engineers). It also helps that understanding of structures improve as you gain experience. In hindsight, many of us junior engineers then tried to make up for our lack in experience with knowledge in the latest structual engineering software.
 
I am mainly in the residential, light commercial space. I probably use my HP11C for 75-90%. The rest is basically Excel and a 35 year old, 2D frame program.
 
I do specialized dynamic analyses and forensics mostly, not design.

#1/#2, FEA: 0.3

#4, Excel, Mathcad: 0.6

#4a, "engineering" programming/coding: 0.1

A few years ago, I would've included #5, manual calcs, but no longer. I'm down to probably under 10 minutes per week doing those. Mathcad is very good for ad hoc calcs. I can type a lot faster than I can write, and with a lot less fatigue. I'm old enough to have poor near vision. It is easier to keep looking at the screen because it is always the same distance away. For that same reason, I have almost completely broken free from paper copies of references -- Bluebeam is almost always on the screen.

As an aside to anybody who is irritated by PTC/Mathcad. Maple Flow 2025 looks like a big improvement over their 2024 version. I'd say it's approximately on-par with MC. They are one step away -- adding sig figs or split screen from being a clearly better option. They are working on sig figs. They offer perpetual licenses. It might be worth checking out a free trial.
 
Last edited:
1: 0%
2: 0%
3: 10%
4: 30%
5: 60%

Most of my stuff is one off weird things in existing structures where modelling accurately is difficult and setting up sheets for automation takes longer than to do it by hand. Plus one off so will never use it again.

Instead of excel though I use R for my automated tasks. I have formal training in statistics so it's my preferred language.
 
4. 90%
5. 10%.
The 10% is to check the 90%. I do mostly residential work and I put an entire project in one workbook. I haven't published hand calcs in more than 15 years. I tried RISA3D in the hopes of area loads would be faster. I found that, even if I developed my modeling skills, it would be difficult to be faster than the way I've setup my spreadsheets. A while back, I tried MathCad. The problem with MathCad is that, the more complicated the calculations get, the more difficult it is to follow, review the results. Yes, it's easier to verify the algorithms, but very messy. MathCad is GREAT for arrays as in M = wL2/8 where W = [D Lr L 0.6w+ 0.6W- 0.7E]. Excel is GREAT at looking up values in a table. I've nearly worn out my VLOOKUP key. The other benefit is a dreaded business decision, in that I'm pretty sure I will always have Excel and that Excel will most likely be around longer than I will. If I were starting from scratch, I would probably use Clear Calcs. Maybe.
 
SE2607: The problem with MathCad is that, the more complicated the calculations get, the more difficult it is to follow, review the results. Yes, it's easier to verify the algorithms, but very messy.
I'm interested in the details of this. What features/deficiencies of MC cause this in your work?
 
I'm interested in the details of this. What features/deficiencies of MC cause this in your work?
As I said, the more complicated the expression, the more difficult it is to follow by a reviewer, not the author.
 
Of the days when I did a lot of calcs:
1 & 2 0%; Never had a project that needed that much analysis
3 50% Simple 2D and 3D frames, some tanks
4 30% Repetitious work that it was worth creating a spreadsheet for
5 20% Foundations and Connections
 

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top