Simplicity Approaching Functional Perfection 19

[jheidt2543]

“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?

 

[271828]

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.

I remember thinking along these lines as I “retired” from design and became a professor. There are several problems with giving more than a scant treatment of loads.

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.

 

[a2mfk]

Nice to hear a professor on the subject, and one who has worked and understands the industry. Even though I am about to do some bitching, I don't think there is some huge problem in our education system, and I went to a mediocre at best engineering school. You as a student get what you take from an education, though my opportunities were a bit limited when it came to structural engineering related coursework. This likely will always be a profession that requires a LOT of on-the-job training. I get training every day I read this message board....

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

 

[hokie66]

a2mfk,
You would be surprised how much flack that would create. Some of us like "e" just the way he is.

 

[271828]

a2mfr, my stock would go down with a user name change as hokie66 indicated, LOL.

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.

 

[csd72]

a2mfk,

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!

 

[hokie66]

The only course I think should be added to csd72's list is English grammar...not for him, but for some of the more challenged among us. Thinking back, though, the psychology course I had to take did provide me with some extra sleep time.

 

[rowingengineer]

I'm still trying to work out what happend to SEIT and this new lion06 bloke seemed to show up at the same time whio is he?.

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.”

 

[csd72]

Hokie,

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.

 

[hokie66]

Agreed. I was just trying to emphasize that written communication skill is just as importance as technical competence.

 

[Teguci]

The best approach I've found as a structural engineer is to read about the history of structural failures and the reasons for those failures (ACI had a good one, "why buidings fail", etc...). Then, applying those failures to the structure at hand, make sure they are all excluded by calculations and details. The calculations that exclude those failures can be as complex or simple as needed. Simple, of course, takes less time.

 

[csd72]

hokie, I strongly disagree with that. What makes you an engineer is your technical competence. If you had excellent technical competence but no communication skills then you could still give a great contribution in an organisation as long as someone else is capable of being the client facing one.

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.

 

[epitome1170]

CSD72 -

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.

 

[271828]

I'm mostly with CSD on this one. Most engineers I know can write well enough to do what they need to do: write notes on structural drawings, write a memo, letter, or short report. A lot would have trouble writing a journal manuscript, but most probably won't be doing that anyway because they're busy on more important tasks like making money.

If a guy is not strong technically, then he's in bad shape.

 

[csd72]

epitome,

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.

 

[hokie66]

Let me put it another way...I can quite quickly judge a person's written communication skill, but as to technical competence, I can sometimes be fooled for a while. If they can't write, I don't hire. If they don't get hired, they can't practice engineering.

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.

 

[rowingengineer]

I am someone who's written communication is poor, I always think to myself, if only I was better.... I envy people with good communication skills, while it doesn’t make the engineer, if you can’t ask a reasonable question as a grad you will never get a reasonable answer, communication is the heart of learning.

ANY FOOL CAN DESIGN A STRUCTURE. IT TAKES AN ENGINEER TO DESIGN A CONNECTION.”

 

[hokie66]

RE,
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.

 

[rowingengineer]

Hokie,
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.”

 

[hetgen]

I’m one of those who can’t communicate well.

… If they can't write, I don't hire. If they don't get hired, they can't practice engineering.

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.

 

[epitome1170]

CSD

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.