Simba13:
Many, many things which we build and manufacture for general use need some Structural Engineering, stress analysis, manufacturing engineering study for them to be practically built and safely utilized. What keeps airplanes together in flight if not Structural Engineering? What about the strength and durability of Caterpillar’s entire line of equipment? What about cranes, cars, ships, containers, railcars and rail equipment, etc. etc.? If you think only bridges and building, that is certainly pretty narrow minded. After you’ve designed a few thousand simple, fixed or canti. beams, in whatever material, there just isn’t much difference btwn. a 16’ or 20’ beam with a slightly different loading. We aren’t (many of us) thinking engineers any longer, really understanding our domain and its various elements, and how they really work and interact, the computer tells us what the answer should be, and many of us don’t question that, or look for a better, more economical, more practical solution. We just go along and collect our pay check. Many products for the general public and for general consumption tend to be conceived and then tested until they don’t fail any longer, rather than to have any significant stress analysis and manufacturing engineering employed in their development.
For the first 10 years of my career I did just a little bridge work, early on, and a whole bunch of buildings. 22 stories max. height, half a dozen in that range; acres and acres of warehousing; churches, schools, armories, manuf. bldgs. public bldgs. thousands of units of low-rise housing, single family homes, etc. etc. That was back at a time when the bldg. codes (the whole bldg. system, AHJ’s, etc.) actually allowed you to be a real Structural Engineer applying your knowledge, experience and judgement to create a structural design, instead of a cookbook follower and applier. This was also a time when you could be reasonably proficient in designing in any of the bldg. materials, and we did. Now, my contact with bldgs. is primarily on a forensic basis, when things have started to go wrong, for lack of attention to detail. Now, who’s at fault, and how to fix it, and who pays for it, is the issue. Then, a mentor asked me for some help on an unusual structural design project/problem; do a stress analysis on this thing, member sizing, deflections, buckling potential, welding, assembly and manufacturing, etc. I liked this more theoretical approach to engineering, Theory of Elasticity and Structures, etc., my grad. school background, and I was hooked on the no-code, unusual product design kinda engineering, the trouble shooting when things go wrong on a product, etc. I have always kept in close contact with AISC, ACI, NDS, ASTM, etc. for their wealth of knowledge and experience in their areas, as this might influence my work, I’ve always done a fair amount of tech, journal reading, etc., but I sure have done a bunch of stuff which I really had no specific bldg. code paragraph to point to, on that particular detail or condition. Because of my background and experience and continued learning, I’ve always felt comfortable about working within my area of expertise, and have felt that I would be able to defend my work. Given the rabid competition from inexperienced, cut-throat, engineers on the run-of-the-mill engineering these days, it may be wise to find a more narrow nitch in which to practice.
