Career change to Bridge Engineering 3

[swivel63]

i've tried to do a search on structural engineers changing from building engineering to bridge engineering, however to no avail. for some reason, the search isn't pulling them up.

anyhow, i was wondering what SEs have to say in regards to changing from a career (6 years, PE, SE) in buildings to designing bridges. is it an easy transition? can i move back if i wanted to? i know i'd be basically an entry level guy again because of my lack of bridge knowledge, but i wanted to know what the guys who have done it have to say. or if it's not recommended?

any help would be great.

 

[kelowna]

I have only known one guy that switched from building to bridge engineering (about 12 years ago), intermediate level. He seemed to have had no problems.

I also know of two engineers who switched from bridges to buildings and they went back to bridges within a year, I asked one of them and he said that he had a hard time and it was not worth it. He was quite senior.

I would not know what to think myself, I have always worked on bridges.

Good luck

 

[abusementpark]

I am pretty young (E.I.) and made the switch from bridge to building in very short time, but here is what I disliked about bridge work.

-AASHTO LRFD Manual is a beast. Have you ever seen it? It's huge. There's no way possible to get a firm grasp on the equations in the steel section. Each equation has about 10 different variables that need to be determined from other longer, iterative equations. Long story short: you will flip through the whole steel section just to successfully complete one equation. Basically, as I was once told by someone with the DOT: you better have some good computer programs if you want to use this code. For a young engineer, I hated being so heavily reliant on computers to do my analysis for a bunch of code equations that were hard to get a good physical grasp of.

- Bridge work also involved a lot of number crunching. It seemed to me like less of an art form. Everything pretty much has a set process and solution. Once you have done one typical prestressed concrete girder bridge, you have done them all, etc.

-Also, the DOT has a too tight a grip on you. They are very restrictive about what should be used and what's acceptable, which is probably a good thing for QC, but ties back into my claim of one process, one solution.

Be sure you know what you are getting into. AASHTO code is what drove me away from bridge engineering. Everything is standardized by the state DOT, there is no room for creative solutions. Bridge work is more geared towards number crunching. I like building work a whole lot better because there is more need more brainstorming sessions. Of course, there is a good degree of standards in building work, but very often you find yourself needing to come up with an imaginative solution to something.

What makes you want to make the switch in the first place??

 

[swivel63]

the economy, LOL. from what i see, building work is down.

 

[COEngineeer]

I just made a switch from building to bridge and I LOVE IT. We get a lot of work right now. Plus, I hated the coordination with the architect and mech. engineer. Too many factors that can change your design. It is easier to spit out construction document on bridges I think

Never, but never question engineer's judgement

 

[plasgears]

I went from mechanical equipt design to field engineering on a constr project. I was the owner's rep. Worked out fine; learned much about field constr. This led to plant engineering. Suggest you get into a bridge field job to pay your dues and learn.

I personally would have like that since I was a recipient of a Steinman Fund grant. I got a nice letter back from DB Steinman when I paid it back. He died a year later.

 

[crossframe]

The biggest challenge I see in trying to train building guys (or girls) to be bridge guys (or girls) is breaking them of their "creativity" and impressing upon them that back-of-the-napkin calculations are not acceptable to most DOT's.

Abusementpark is right on: The DOT's know how they want it done and how they want it shown, and you will be expected to comply. In my neck of the woods, calcultions are usually submitted and often actually reviewed. You can't just leave the connection design up to the fabricator.

DOT's are large, slow-moving, bureacratic beasts. Building work is often much more fast-paced. Building guys (or girls) usually "love" AASHTO, too. Just because you did it that way before with your 1963 ACI code doesn't hold much water. Bridge calculations seems much more rigorous, but are much more straight-forward, once you become familiar with AASHTO. After all, it's just a handful of parallel beams with a concrete deck - much more linear and two-dimensional than a building. And besides, the whole thing is outside. (What do you mean, vapor barrier?)

Most importantly, not dealing with architects... priceless!

 

[swivel63]

you guys are great. thanks a lot of for the info. do you know of any folks who switched back?