Engineers only push a button 2

[peppiniello]

hi to all,

only a question about current structural and seismic engineering practice worldwide

in my Country, engineers usually design R/C structures using software that, once you've set geometry and material properties, make structural check and give you directly design drawings

in this way even an informatic engineer can design a hospital in a seismic area, just drawing members geometry, pushing "run" in a FEM package, and printing drawing output, without even making sure wheather his sections are ductile or not

when he's not sure, he only adds reinforcement to feel safe

in this way most people who do not have a BS in engineering can design structures, have their design signed by a professional engineer, and submit their project, resulting this way more competitive than who spends years understanding principles and practice and tries to do things better

there're lot of people who think PUSHOVER analysis is just pushing a button

does the same happen in your Country too?

 

[SacreBleu]

I hope this doesn't happen in the USA.
What did you mean by checking if sections are ductile? Doesn't the software check this?

 

[peppiniello]

if you add reinforcement when you're afraid your section won't be have enough resistance, you lose control of ductility

 

[jike]

In the US, we have enough trouble with high school kids or 2 year techs designing wood trusses with computer programs and codes that they do not understand. Often, their 1st submittal is incorrect or incomplete and the work must be resubmitted.

I cannot begin to imagine trying to do something like this with R/C buildings in seismic areas even if reviewed by a PE.

This, however, makes me wonder how many engineers use drafters or techs to assist them in inputting info. to large scale programs such as RAM, SAP or PCA to design buildings. Even though we have programs like these, there is still quite a few things that they won't do or that have to be modified.

What scares me is that someday a non-engineering manager will eventually make a decision to save money by using unqualified people to do design work which may possibly lead to some tragedy. Hopefully, our licensing laws in the US will prevent this, but how about other countries or offshore engineering?

 

[swine]

Here in California it is the same. In fact 30% of the engineers here are from your country and another 40% are from a country with a similar design philosophy as yours, but they do not speak english as well as you.

At least that is my experience.

 

[SacreBleu]

jike,
It is already happening. I used to work for a company that offshored engineering, and the engineering was being progressively done more by draftsmen "trained" to operate the company's "in-house" design software.
Very bad trend. The Licensing authority in my home state is very lax about these matters....

 

[cyrusr]

I believe that "canned" engineering will continue to grow and thrive until a largescale tragedy occurs.

 

[Elastic]

It has been said that engineers do for $1 what any idiot can do for $2. I would question the cost effectiveness of any design done by software only, without optimization based on the experience and judgement of a professional engineer.

 

[SacreBleu]

Elastic,
What do you mean, are engineers equivalent in knowledge to an idiot? Or is that a saying invented by some MBA?
Software can be bad or good - it all depends how much good engineering judgement, Code compliance, and input checking (anti-GIGO) went into the programming.
Before software was used, we didn't have enough time to check everything- software can make us much better engineers by freeing us of the mundane calculator-punching.
The other edge of the sword is the "Engineer-in-a-box" aspect, as this post is discussing.

 

[EddyC]

I worked for a firm that like many firms utilized FEA software. Unfortunately, they put the burden of learning the software on the individual. Even after you learn how to make the software run, you still need to know what appropriate parameters to input (Think K-factor for example). Several engineers (myself included) weren't sure which K-factor was appropriate and therefore chose the software default of 1. As any seasoned person knows, a K-factor of 1 is not always conservative. This is precisely why knowledgable people are required to perform software assisted engineering. Merely knowing how to operate the software is not enough.

 

[SacreBleu]

EddyC,
On the other hand, if you were doing the analysis manually, you would have used K=1 in the formula anyway, so using software did not create that problem.

 

[EddyC]

SacreBleu,

I think that you misunderstood what I meant. Engineers are being asked to use software in substitution of learning the subject properly. To first learn something, you start with basic theory and hand calculations. Companies now want you to skip that process entirely and go straight to the software untrained. They think that the software does the thinking for you.

 

[SacreBleu]

EddyC,
OK, I agree. The biggest example of that, to me, is the use of a certain post-tension slab design software. Push a button, and out comes the garbage.

 

[Thane]

What most non-engineers do not understand is that garbage in = garbage out. If you do not know where to begin, then you are lost before you even get started.

Unfortunately, I believe that it will take more than one tradegy to stop the practice of allowing unqualified people design structures.

 

[Ron]

Having been around since slide rule days (in engineering school...actually had an HP45 by the time I got out!), I have seen the evolution of canned engineering and pushbutton design....I use programs for analysis, because they can do much more in less time than I can do by hand; however, design and code checking are processes I have not and will likely not give up to programming.

I also still do "hand checks" against the programs for validation, even though I've been using the same software for many years.

I'm of the opinion that engineers should do the data input...it's good training. I still check it or run cross checks to validate.

 

[SacreBleu]

Ron,
Do you mean you only run a frame analysis, to output only the reactions, shears, and moments?
Engineering software packages such as Enercalc (since 1983) do a fairly credible job of design, but they do only "one piece at a time", not good for production. The more sophisticated packages (Risa, RAM, etc) are more total design oriented.
Enercalc seems to be developing the same (from reading their latest website).
I got my Bachelor's in 1974...had a Heathkit "4-banger" in my senior year. One other student had HP's first calculator at the time.

 

[DRC1]

About 10 years ago ENR had a very good article on the subject. It discussed an actual design done by young engineers of a large multi story building by FEA. The engineers could get the computer to do all sorts of neat things. Batch load data, great graphic outputs, make coffe, etc. However the concrete columns got slimmer as they approched the foundation. This escaped all the reviews except the final review. The reason the columns got slimmer as they apprached the bottom is that the input had the wrong sign ( hence the wrong direction) for gravity loads.
The point? Because we don't struggle anymore with why structures work, we are losing are ability to understand what is happening and thus our ability to engineer. Its okay for engineers who understand design but I have limited the use of computer analysis for some engineers I have hired until they had a better feel for hand analysis.

 

[SacreBleu]

DRC,
Good point. I am an employee, and am expected to do 4 times as much production as pre-software, so I have no qualms abot using software and Excell. Actually, the Excell is becoming my main method.

 

[whyun]

I would always have my engineers perform a handcalc before using a design tool. Even the company validated spreadsheet or a simple model on RISA, I would have them do a check and compare the results with the computer output. Sure it costs the company a little extra for their time, but I think it is a good training tool.

Excel is great... very dangerous at the same time. Imagine a tiny error in a formula in your commonly used design task. Just like CAD, excel is a curse and a blessing.

 

[astructurale]

I was fortunate that my first two bosses believed in hand calculations. Engineering is becoming such a fast pace industry. I've also had a boss that wanted you to produce work faster and faster, at whatever the cost (so it seemed).

I think we need to slow down and make sure that new engineers do have time to do plenty of hand calculations before introducing them to the software. And their first time on the software should be validated by hand calculations. It's so easy now days to be thrown into the deep end of the pool without a good life vest so to speak.

Generations before me have such a good grasp of theory and common sense engineering, but my generation and later (BCE 1998) aren't getting that. We don't seem to realize that most Bachelors in engineering programs DO NOT provide an engineer with enough practice and engineering judgement to just jump into design work so quickly. Even though I do not have my masters, I feel that it is becoming more and more necessary as more is demanded so quickly for new engineers. For the most part we are not training our new crop of engineers to be prepared for the road ahead, and that spells disaster. And I firmly believe that if you don't have the engineering background that you should NOT be doing the design work to begin with.