Main problems you encounter as a structural engineer 63

[Green Structural Engineering]

Top 3 problems you encounter and have to overcome working in structural engineering.... GO!

 

[azcats]

What is "screen blindness?" I feel like I'm missing some euphemism.

 

[skeletron]

@azcats:
Putting something on-screen and justifying it is correct.
- This could apply to a CAD drawing and not checking for readability or correctness.
- This could also apply to analysis where the result on-screen is trusted without confirmation using off-screen methods.
- This could also apply to the opposite: using off-screen methods as a lone verification without regards to on-screen results that could improve the design, or suggest that something may be missing.

 

[AaronMcD]

"Green SE, the biggest issue you'll face is people questioning what you did and why you did it. Many times these people have no clue why we do what we do."

The more I get questioned, the more detailed my answers get. That'll teach 'em.

http://www.hellodwell.design

 

[MIStructE_IRE]

Project managers... “ok, thanks for the design... now we need to value engineer it!”

THERE’S NO FAT IN IT!!! ITS Fu£kING CORRECT!!!! I CAN’T REDUCE IT!!

 

[3DDave]

I knew some EEs who took to specifically adding obvious flaws in their submittals to one program lead because if he did not see a flaw, he would start looking for anything else he could change just to feel like he contributed. Anyone turning in well thought out work got screwed over, sometimes by arbitrarily increasing performance requirements ("I know it meets what the customer wants, but if it's twice as good isn't that better?") Better to leave off a ground wire and poof - ego gratification for finding it.

 

[Settingsun]

More and more often I am getting proposed change notice pricing for less than $500. When a project goes that route, we review all of their costs with a fine toothed comb and bring them down at every chance possible.

Chicken and egg. They know they'll get screwed down on everything so claim absolutely everything.

 

[Agent666]

Architect idjits that forget about the fact they need some structure to hold up their masterpiece.

Services idjits putting holes in my structures right after I finished the design.

CadMonkey Tracer type idjits stuffing up drawing my carefully crafted masterpieces.

 

[MIStructE_IRE]

Agent, my old guys were referred to as CadMonkeys, now I have one who calls himself a BIMpanzee..

 

[phamENG]

This may be better placed in a new thread, but I can't help but draw a link between the issues being discussed here and some of the things being said in the collapse discussion about the Hard Rock. I know we're not all designing 18 story buildings in CBDs, but how can we leverage this into a positive change for our industry?

The forum has been discussing a set of "Permit Drawings" that were signed and sealed by the EOR that appear very....abnormal? It's a problem I faced on most projects. The owner is in such a rush, they want to get the permit process started early - some would say to "reserve their place in line" so they didn't have to wait when the design was finished. To put a stop to this, the localities started rejecting anything that said "not for construction" or "for permit only" (why would they review something that isn't going to be built?). You'd think our good, upstanding, and ethical profession would respond by saying ok, sorry, we'll wait until we're done. Nope. Everyone just took the NFC stamps off and submitted them even though they knew they weren't done and couldn't be safely built. I nearly got into a shouting match with my boss over it on more than one occasion. We even sent off a "permit set" only to not hear back from the architect until they sent us angry emails and RFI's from the contractor who was halfway done with the building!

I think it comes back to the schedule pressures we've been discussing. Are we going to push back as a profession because it could (we'll have to wait for the final report on the hotel to know for sure in that case) cause significant life safety risks? If so, how?

 

[Celt83]

1. $x,000.00 fee while carrying $x,000,000.00 liability
2. Everyone thinks everyone else is stupid ("if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.")
3. Not being aware of when you were/are being stupid


Open Source Structural Applications:

https://github.com/buddyd16/Structural-Engineering

 

[Ron247]

1. Scarcity of Clients who are willing to pay our fees based on how big of a hassle they are to work for. Yeah, I don't want any interior columns. When they get the estimate, "Whoa it costs that much to have no interior columns?" Redesign it but I don't feel like I should pay any more design fee. You should have known that was going to be too expensive.
2. Architects, Architects who think they are also a Structural Engineer, Architects who think they are also a prudent Contractor.
3. Lack of the engineering profession promoting the value of a well-engineered design. Engineers seem to shy away from money conversations while Architects, Lawyers and Doctors have no problem financially promoting their profession. Was financial compensation ever discussed in college? Where I live, you HAVE to hire an Architect on several types of jobs but do not have to hire an engineer for the same job. They lobbied years ago and had the codes specify you had to hire them. Architects really stretch the " Engineering Incidental to Architecture" clause after that.

 

[Lomarandil]

I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay

I do a lot of conceptual design* in a multidisciplinary environment. I'm the only structural engineer in the region. So I feel this pressure constantly. "The architects did their concept in two weeks, the civils took one. When will yours be ready?" "Do we really need geotech information?" "I already promised the client X for budget z".

(*We issue conceptual drawings, and they often get built without further input. Hazard of the climate)

So far, I've been able to push back in nearly every case. But it's tiring, and the cases where I don't push hard enough weigh on the conscience until I'm able to find some time to sharpen the pencil or clarify an assumption.

So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up.

I knew some EEs who took to specifically adding obvious flaws in their submittals to one program lead because if he did not see a flaw, he would start looking for anything else he could change just to feel like he contributed. Anyone turning in well thought out work got screwed over, sometimes by arbitrarily increasing performance requirements ("I know it meets what the customer wants, but if it's twice as good isn't that better?") Better to leave off a ground wire and poof - ego gratification for finding it.

Done this (although less critical than a ground)... Gotta let the peer reviewers justify themselves.


----
just call me Lo.

 

[KootK]

Everyone thinks everyone else is stupid...

Over the last few months, I've been reading up on all things artificial intelligence (AI). That, for two reasons:

1) Super interesting and;

2) I've long had the sense that I've fallen behind in my understanding of something that will eventually affect me and my family a great deal.

You often hear that AI will never replace structural engineers because, in the end, structural engineering isn't actually that logical of an activity. You know, once you factor in all of the required interaction with other project participants etc. This will turn out to be a fallacy.

When we imagine AI's in structural engineering, we seem to mostly imagine an updated copy of Enercalc trying to sit through a coordination meeting. It won't be anything like that. Instead, it's going to be a single AI that has spent fifteen minutes mastering all of:

a) Structural engineering
b) Mechanical engineering
c) Electrical engineering
d) Geotechnical engineering
e) Building envelope engineering
f) Quantity surveying (AI will utterly bury humans at this)
g) Construction project management
h) Construction and safety engineering
i) Real estate economics
j) Architecture

All of these different groups that formerly struggled with the dysfunction of thinking that the others were stupid will be replaced by a single entity capable of a level of seamless, interdisciplinary coordination that will be light years beyond anything that unenhanced humans are capable of.

The best bet for continuing human involvement in building construction would seem to be Architecture because there is an aesthetic component to that. Even that may turn out to be a false hope, however, given that there are already AI's composing music that human audiences prefer to that composed by contemporary human composers.

Architecture that humans find pleasing, like music that humans find pleasing, like jokes that are funny, will probably turn out to simply be a function of proportion and repeating patterns complex enough to inspire but simple enough to be recognized. At the end of the day, we humans just aren't nearly as complex as we like to think that we are.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that we are currently living through the last century of the structural engineer as far as significant human involvement is concerned. Were I a betting man, I'd wager that we'll probably be done by 2050. As this process unfolds, it will inevitably increase the commoditization of our profession which is the root source of all the other problems enumerated by others above.

Looking at it from a glass half full perspective, it'll be a fascinating and exhilarating thing to watch all of this unfold. And, of course, an honor to be part of the last few generations of human structural engineer. We'll basically be at the top of humanity's structural engineering game, technologically speaking, just before the game itself comes to an end.

 

[phamENG]

That's a sobering thought.

 

[I-beam]

Building code complexities. Takes more and more time to determine wind
and seismic loads.

 

[mbullism]

I've been working in the same office for 25 years (30+ years total), and the principle is close to retiring and closing up shop. Ten years from my own retirement, I'm giving serious consideration to doing something else to close it out.

Nuff said.

Analog spoken here...

 

[KootK]

That's a sobering thought.

I'm just getting warmed up. My musings on the present will be much more depressing than my musings on the future.

For what it's worth, I'm nowhere near as dejected about our industry as my comments here will suggest. Rather, I'm concerned for the well being of folks who are new to the profession because:

1) I feel that the root causes of frustration within our industry have more to do with higher lever, systemic issues than the day to day stuff.

2) Far more insidious, I think that senior folks in our industry semi-consciously hide the truth of the nature our industry from junior engineers in order to keep junior engineers motivated and contributing to the economic pyramid that is most structural engineering firms.

I wish to remove some wool from some eyes as I wish someone had done for me when I was just getting into the game.

 

[sandman21]

The forum has been discussing a set of "Permit Drawings" that were signed and sealed by the EOR that appear very....abnormal? It's a problem I faced on most projects. The owner is in such a rush, they want to get the permit process started early - some would say to "reserve their place in line" so they didn't have to wait when the design was finished. To put a stop to this, the localities started rejecting anything that said "not for construction" or "for permit only" (why would they review something that isn't going to be built?). You'd think our good, upstanding, and ethical profession would respond by saying ok, sorry, we'll wait until we're done. Nope. Everyone just took the NFC stamps off and submitted them even though they knew they weren't done and couldn't be safely built. I nearly got into a shouting match with my boss over it on more than one occasion. We even sent off a "permit set" only to not hear back from the architect until they sent us angry emails and RFI's from the contractor who was halfway done with the building!

I think it comes back to the schedule pressures we've been discussing. Are we going to push back as a profession because it could (we'll have to wait for the final report on the hotel to know for sure in that case) cause significant life safety risks? If so, how?

This is a lame excuse for the state of the Hard Rock drawing. Those plans do not have a complete gravity or lateral system, that was not caused by any rush.

Were I a betting man, I'd wager that we'll probably be done by 2050.

How much? Experts think AGI by 2060 and then it would have to be specialized and scaled down in both cost and power.


The same three complaints every engineer has:

1. Engineers
2. Architects
3. Contractors

 

[KootK]

Sorry, phamENG. Welcome to the world of being legally a profession, but priced as a commodity.

This dovetails nicely into a theory of my own that I'd like to table. I think that we should be viewing structural engineering as a trade rather than as a profession. Of course, this all ties back to just how one defines trade vs profession. So I'll toss out my own definition:

START KOOTK's DEFINITION OF A PROFESSION

As humans toil away, I propose that they get paid for two things:

1) The effort/labor that they put into producing their product, on a product by product basis.

2) The requisite knowledge that a practitioner must posses in order to successfully product their product.

A profession is work where compensation is dominated by knowledge rather than effort.

A trade is work where compensation is dominated by effort rather than knowledge.

Some applications of this definition.

3) Landscapers (my son last summer). 5% knowledge; 95% effort. Trade (or unskilled trade I suppose). Bodies functioning as machines.

4) The Plumber that fixes my dishwasher. 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

5) Surgeon that replaces my pacemaker. 95% knowledge; 5% effort. Profession.

6) Structural engineer?? I would say 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

But wait? Didn't I go to school for six years to get my masters? Didn't I take a dozen arcane licensing exams to prove my worth? Yeah, you did. But remember that we're not talking about what you had to do to be able to legally practice structural engineering. Instead, we're talking about what your actually getting paid for when your client contracts for your services. I submit that we're mostly getting paid for effort. In a way, structural engineering is a particularly cruel form of a trade. Imagine if plumbers had to endure six years of post secondary and endless post graduation exams and professional development?

END DEFINITION

I believe that a telltale sigh of whether you're in a profession or a trade is how typical businesses in your field must be structured in order to be profitable. And I propose that it comes down to this:

7) If you're in a profession, you can probably earn a decent, grown up living either working autonomously or mostly autonomously with an organization.

8) If you're a trade, to make significant money, you'll often have to place yourself near the top of a pyramidal hierarchy whereby effort is expended by folks at the bottom who are truly practicing your profession so that you can skim off of the top.

Some interesting examples:

9) Dentists. They're usually set up as autonomous / semi-autonomous and make a killing. Profession.

10) Accountants. Usually set up as pyramids. Trade.

11) Lawyers. Nuanced. They are often set up as pyramids because lawyers really want to clean up. But, then, the pyramid scheme is a law partner's way of making $750K, not $200K. A lawyer operating on their own can easily make &200K. Profession.

12) Structural Engineers. Usually set up as pyramids. Trade. And this is a solid indicator that the actual activity of structural design is not, in and of itself, a high value activity as far as society is concerned. Ergo structural engineering is a commodity and all of the issues with tight schedules and low fees ensue...

 

[phamENG]

sandman - I think you misunderstand me. I'm certainly not trying to excuse the state of those drawings (quite the opposite, in fact). When I refer to a rushed schedule, I'm referring to the insistence on owners and contractors to submit preliminary designs for permitting, so you end up with unstable "designs" that the engineer never intended to be built but there's a drawing out there with a seal on it implying that it can be. I have no idea if that's what happened with the Hard Rock, but it seems plausible. It's not excusable, and that's what I'm trying to point out.