youngstructural
Structural
I really want input from actively consulting engineers, and particularly Structural. This is about the technical standards in our particular specialisation of the profession falling, and relates directly to Structural Engineers.
There is a great deal of debate on at the moment here in New Zealand as to whether or not the standards of Structural Engineering, Architecture, and Construction have slipped. A local Structural Engineer (John Scarry - The name is just a coincidence with what he's complaining about) wrote a 100+ page Open Letter to the Institute of
Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) regarding the sorry state of affairs and demanding changes be made to improve the situation.
I agree with him on many of his points, if not on the implication that it is a problem restricted to New Zealand. I wanted your opinions as to what the state of affairs is like where you practice, wherever that may be.
I will give you some of the main complaints of the Open Letter:
1. Fees have slipped, particularly through the 1980s period, from between 3 and 6% of total building cost to sometimes less than 1%. This creates unreasonable timelines (due to less dollars meaning less design hours) and unsustainable pressure upon the skilled professionals and tradesmen involved.
2. Detailing of structures has reduced to bare minimum
levels. Connections, flashings, cover, layouts, etc have been reduced while sections and elevations are fewer and fewer.
3. Cross checking of designs by a verifier (ie: an engineer not involved in the original design work) is nearly non-existant. This has been leading to gross oversight errors, such as lateral load systems overstressed 1000% (not an error, one THOUSAND percent) in the event of an earthquake.
4. Training of Engineers at University has been reduced from 40 to 50 hours minimum plus multiple assignments each week to between 20 and 35 hours with many fewer assignments. Where Engineering Interns were once able to count on senior engineers for guidance and additional training, tight budgets and tighter timelines have errored
te input by senior engineers and left juniors often performing works they are not prepared or qualified to handle on their own. This is further compounded by point number 3.
5. Trade apprenticeships where done away with here in the early 1980s. Now a construction worker is only as good as their foreman and experiences happen to make them. They very often do not have any clue about other trades and routinely damage, or at least negatively impact, one another's work. Leaving the Engineers and Architects to
try to clean it up.
6. Architecture was previously taught on a practical level,
concentrating on flashing and building envelope, structural layout and load systems, etc, stuff until the third year of study. Now the Architecture training has gone nearly completely Kafkaesque (John's term) with little to no content about the practicalities of putting a building together.
From my personal experience, the standards of practice are slipping. My father attended lectures Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm, and Saturday from 9am to 1pm. My degree had less than half the class time, however did have slightly more laboratory time. I really don't think that's an appropriate trade-off.
From my experience in design offices, the commercial interests do have the potential to negatively influence the practice of Structural Engineering. I have found less than adequate checking in many practices, as well as little to no formal or adhoc training of junior engineers. This is not true of every practice, however it does exist, and that is a serious problem for our profession.
I look forward to reading your replies, and hearing your thoughts on the matter,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
There is a great deal of debate on at the moment here in New Zealand as to whether or not the standards of Structural Engineering, Architecture, and Construction have slipped. A local Structural Engineer (John Scarry - The name is just a coincidence with what he's complaining about) wrote a 100+ page Open Letter to the Institute of
Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) regarding the sorry state of affairs and demanding changes be made to improve the situation.
I agree with him on many of his points, if not on the implication that it is a problem restricted to New Zealand. I wanted your opinions as to what the state of affairs is like where you practice, wherever that may be.
I will give you some of the main complaints of the Open Letter:
1. Fees have slipped, particularly through the 1980s period, from between 3 and 6% of total building cost to sometimes less than 1%. This creates unreasonable timelines (due to less dollars meaning less design hours) and unsustainable pressure upon the skilled professionals and tradesmen involved.
2. Detailing of structures has reduced to bare minimum
levels. Connections, flashings, cover, layouts, etc have been reduced while sections and elevations are fewer and fewer.
3. Cross checking of designs by a verifier (ie: an engineer not involved in the original design work) is nearly non-existant. This has been leading to gross oversight errors, such as lateral load systems overstressed 1000% (not an error, one THOUSAND percent) in the event of an earthquake.
4. Training of Engineers at University has been reduced from 40 to 50 hours minimum plus multiple assignments each week to between 20 and 35 hours with many fewer assignments. Where Engineering Interns were once able to count on senior engineers for guidance and additional training, tight budgets and tighter timelines have errored
te input by senior engineers and left juniors often performing works they are not prepared or qualified to handle on their own. This is further compounded by point number 3.
5. Trade apprenticeships where done away with here in the early 1980s. Now a construction worker is only as good as their foreman and experiences happen to make them. They very often do not have any clue about other trades and routinely damage, or at least negatively impact, one another's work. Leaving the Engineers and Architects to
try to clean it up.
6. Architecture was previously taught on a practical level,
concentrating on flashing and building envelope, structural layout and load systems, etc, stuff until the third year of study. Now the Architecture training has gone nearly completely Kafkaesque (John's term) with little to no content about the practicalities of putting a building together.
From my personal experience, the standards of practice are slipping. My father attended lectures Monday through Friday from 8am to 5pm, and Saturday from 9am to 1pm. My degree had less than half the class time, however did have slightly more laboratory time. I really don't think that's an appropriate trade-off.
From my experience in design offices, the commercial interests do have the potential to negatively influence the practice of Structural Engineering. I have found less than adequate checking in many practices, as well as little to no formal or adhoc training of junior engineers. This is not true of every practice, however it does exist, and that is a serious problem for our profession.
I look forward to reading your replies, and hearing your thoughts on the matter,
YS
B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...
lease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.