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!

 

[KootK]

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

All my money, a child, and a thumb. I think it's game over once the general AI is created as the general should go singularity and just partition itself off to handle the specialized.

 

[MotorCity]

Not my top 3, but challenging nonetheless,

1. Keeping water out
2. Keeping water in
3. Fixes for when 1. or 2. don't happen

 

[KootK]

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.

Yes, issues with schedules, fees, and quality are the day to day nuisances. But, then, why do these things bother me really? All that just falls under the umbrella of "work", right? For me, these things are bothersome because they put me at odds with my own integrity almost constantly. Since we're talking big threes:

1) If an alien landed on earth and read all of our codes and design guides, they would have one impression of what structural engineers should be doing in regard to detail and rigor in design. Then, if they observed what practicing structural engineers actually do, they'd be horribly disappointing and confused. We take shortcuts. And lots of them. In fact, this is one of the first difficult lessons that new structural engineers must learn in a hurry. For me, this discrepancy between what I feel that I should be doing and what I'm actually doing is a challenge to my integrity. I tell the world that I'm delivering one product in terms of rigor and safety and then I turn around and deliver something quite different. I'm lying to the world in this respect.

2) As pointed out above, we have to commit to very aggressive schedule in order to keep winning work. This inevitably leads to agreeing to unrealistic schedules that give little account to reasonable contingencies. Yet I agree to these schedules because I feel that I have to to survive. This is me knowingly committing to delivering something that I know that I often wont be able to deliver. This is me lying to my clients and fellow project participants.

3) It is the low paid efforts of junior engineers that make our business model go 'round. Since most structural engineers get into the game to satisfy their inner nerd, the only way to keep such engineers motivated is to perpetuate their misunderstanding that society places a high value on the activity that is structural design. As a senior structural engineer, I'm guilty of this on a near constant basis. You can't very well motivate a junior by telling them "the only way to make any money at this is to get out of design and into management or sales as fast as you can". Again, this is me lying... now to junior engineers.

As structural engineers, we like to facetiously toss around the concept that we lose sleep over our work. You know, stuff falling down and crushing baby carriages etc. The truth is that none of that costs me any sleep. What does cost me sleep is my being constantly at odds with my own integrity as I've described. I think that a practicing structural engineer would actually be well served by some degree of sociopath in this respect. And, indeed, I know of some mild sociopaths that are wildly successful in structural engineering and make it look easy.

 

[phamENG]

KootK - eloquently put, and tough to argue with. I will try though, even if only with my own anecdotal evidence that you'll surely eviscerate.

In any profession or trade, knowledge is worthless without effort. A law scholar could have the whole history of jurisprudence memorized, but if he can't stand in a courtroom and argue (applying his knowledge through effort), he's not going to be making that $200k. The more clients he can bring in, and the faster he can argue his cases in court, the more money he makes. Meanwhile, he has an army of paralegals and interns running around doing his research and preparing briefs. It's hierarchical, but with little to no upward mobility for those at the bottom (the paralegal doesn't have a JD).

For structural engineers, we come out of school with little to no experience. Most programs don't require an internship. My state has EITs - Engineers in Training. I think some of the other states have it right with EIs - Engineering Interns. That period between school and licensure where you go from useless to knowledgeable asset. Consider MDs - they go through 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and they come out to another 4 years of residency making less than I made at my first engineering job out of college. Granted, their salary growth curve goes up a lot faster than ours does, but now as a licensed engineer I enjoy much more than a living wage, and my family can live comfortably on my salary alone (that's becoming more rare these days).

Look at the hierarchy of a structural engineering firm (at least one that I'm used to): President of the firm makes the strategic decisions and handles business aspects of the firm's operation; principal engineers oversee design, set policy, and manage QC; Engineers run the projects - run analysis, direct support staff, manage production of final product (drawings, specs, reports, etc.). Then, below the engineer, is a group of individuals doing the leg work - EITs running calcs and learning to do the engineer's job, CAD staff drawing and compiling documents, etc. Maybe its just me, but this sounds a lot like what the Law office is doing.

I think the commodity pricing is a result of how we interact with the market. Yes, we're probably not perceived in the same light as other professions, but is that because we don't deserve to be, or because we suck at PR?

 

[WinelandV]

KootK,

I'm inclined to agree with your synopsis on profession vs. trade, except you haven't actually dealt with the licensure and liability (possibly criminal, as opposed to a warranty) that comes along with it. Aside from that, it may just be that there are now too many engineers for our sector to operate as professionals.

Not sure what my point is, but you did get me thinking - I'm going to place the blame in your lap.

Concerning AI, just like with self-driving cars, who's picking up the liability/risk in the event of catastrophe ? If it's going to take over the industry, then I don't think the standard "this software is a tool" disclaimer is going to cut it. More food for thought - can't spend any more time on this post, my effort is needed on a design.

 

[sandman21]

All my money, a child, and a thumb. I think it's game over once the general AI is created as the general should go singularity and just partition itself off to handle the specialized.

CAD or US?

 

[Agent666]

Somewhat related to the post going off on the current tangent, this argument sort of blew my mind a while back when I came across it. With the comparison between engineering and the real estate profession, showing in a way how structural engineering has lost its way, and how other professions have solved the money problem.

We design a building once in its design life for 1% for 6 months work, real estate agent gets 4% every time they sell it over the design life of the building for a weeks worth of work.... Compelling argument for the race to the bottom in structural consulting.

 

[EZBuilding]

You're getting 1%? We generally look at between .35 and .45% of the CONSTRUCTION cost. Recall that the real estate agent gets 6% of the sold price of the unit. This includes all land costs, design fee + permitting fees, profit across several layers of clients, etc... At a recent project the "sold" cost of the project was close to twice that of the construction cost. Off the immediate 1st time the building get's sold the real estate agents are making close to 24 times what the structural engineer made on the project.

 

[Teguci]

1. too much time on eng-tips
2. get stuck fiddling with calcs that I want to do for fun but will have little impact on final cost
3. arrogance

That AI thing is pretty exciting to me. Of course Tekla - click on beam - click on column - voila connection is detailed - press print shop drawing thing seemed pretty exciting 15 years ago. The "BIM everyone coordinates in 3D" was pretty exciting until I actually participated in a 3D "coordination" session.

All in all I'm grateful. Being able to deal with smart functional people doesn't happen in most fields. Structural engineering is allergic to non-smart dysfunctional people. Although, my schadenfreude is looking forwarded to the postmodernist movement hitting the engineering field. Its a sickness, I know.

 

[kmart30]

Agents make more $$$ per building with much less risk but there are also alot more agents than structural engineers. They dont get a pay check every week and have to grind there arse off (on the weekends too) to make there 3% (6% is what the owner pays and the listing agent has to split it with the buyers agent) and then give their broker his cut. The grass isn't always greener on the other side believe me...however the level of knowledge needed to "get by" as an agent isn't even close to what is minimally asked by us as structural engineers.

A good agent will sell your house quickly and for more than the "comparable value"; this is directly tied to the pockets of the person paying for the service. This is easy for owners to understand and compare results with. A good structural engineer will value engineer a project that will save money but how does the person paying the bill know your design truly saved him money? They would need a design from another engineer to compare to right? Who is paying our bills? The architect? Owner? Contractor? At the end of the day we are only worth the value we bring to the market....he who is closest to the money always has the upperhand.

 

[mtu1972]

This thread has become very interesting. My take is unless your name is on the wall, you are a commodity. I made it to the level of project manager and/or principal engineer in corporate structures, but was downsized out when those two companies were bought by foreign competitors. Last time resulted in a 20% cut in pay going to work for a consulting engineering firm that serviced that industry. It took 3 jobs and 13 years to get back to my previous salary.

I rarely had problems with schedules. Working extra hours to get there was not a problem, even when I was not totally compensated for the hours.

Keeping up with changing technology was an issue. Started work with a slide rule and hand drafting. Worked up through calculators, CAD, and some limited computer access.

Working on my MS through a distant learning program in 2001 and my professor told me that if I stayed with my hand-calcs I would have trouble getting through his steel design class. Forced me to become somewhat computer literate. Continued to learn through retirement in 2013.

At that time 3D drafting was making advances in that company. I left just in time.

gjc

 

[RPMG]

I like the architects, contractors, RFI's, schedules, and everything, but
1) I don't get paid enough
2) Structural engineers aren't paid enough to encourage talented young people to pursue a career in structural engineering
3) Engineering professors teach math, and their students do algebra instead of sketching a section with a free-body-diagram

 

[phamENG]

Engineering professors teach math, and their students do algebra instead of sketching a section with a free-body-diagram

Ha - my structural analysis professor actually said at the beginning of the course: "There is an engineering way to do this, and a mathematical way to do this. I will teach you.....the mathematical way." Thanks for nothing... How I ever managed to teach myself enough to get my first structural job I'm still not sure.

 

[TheDW]

Just want to point out in regards to the structural fee compared to real estate agent fee...we're splitting up the cut of design fee with the architect and all other consultants. Google is telling me architects charge between 5%-15% of construction cost, which is at least more comparable to a real estate agent...but is even more hilarious because one real estate agent is making more in a week than multiple teams at multiple companies for a fraction of a fraction of the work. Sigh. I started this post to try and make myself feel better. Didn't work.

Edit: And I guess thats not even applicable to residential stuff that doesn't require a whole team of disciplines.

 

[Tomfh]

Regarding engineering fees - We only have ourselves to blame. We race each other to the bottom and then complain we’re not getting paid enough.

 

[AaronMcD]

How are real estate agents still a thing in 2019?

http://www.hellodwell.design

 

[AaronMcD]

"Somewhat related to the post going off on the current tangent, this argument sort of blew my mind a while back when I came across it."

When I was at Stanford that guy came to give a talk and was handing out free stuff like Halloween candy. He asked someone to volunteer to come up and sing katy perry with him. My classmate went up and came back with a free iPad. I didn't get one, all I got his book on modeling

http://www.hellodwell.design

 

[XR250]

Regarding engineering fees - We only have ourselves to blame. We race each other to the bottom and then complain we’re not getting paid enough.

My thoughts exactly. Seems like an opportunity for some good ole' collusion!

 

[KootK]

1) I don't think that our industry's problems are a result of our just sucking at business and self promotion. My impression is that we're at least as shrewd as many of our cohorts in other, more lucrative professions. I think this humble pie, good guy, money-tard self image that we have is a delusion that we tell ourselves because it's more palatable than the truth which is that there a serious, structural issue with our service market.

2) I don't think that our industry's problems are a result of our racing each other to the bottom in terms of fees or services. Those things are just a function of our existing within a free and competitive marketplace where competition is encouraged. What needs to change is the underlying nature of service market, not how individuals play the game within that market.

3) As much as I liked Ashraf's Christmas light coat, I didn't feel as though he actually said much. Talent follows money and we'd all like a 700% raise. Any hillbilly could have told us that in sweats and a wife beater. As for the real estate agent example, it's based on a spurious underlying assumption: that structural engineering is as valuable of a service as real estate agency from a client's perspective. If a client chooses a crappy structural engineer what is the likely consequence? Nuttin'. If a client chooses a crappy real estate agent what is the likely consequence? The loss of sacks and sacks of gold doubloons. And that's all that you need to know about structural engineers vs real estate agents.

4) I believe that the real problem with our industry is that shoddy structural engineering has few tangible consequences for clients and, therefore, good structural engineering has little real value to society. All of the other crap shakes out from that. I've copied some verbiage below from another thread where I elaborated on this in greater detail and proposed the only solution that I can think of.

I believe if more buildings actually fell down we would be much richer men!

While I'm sure that this was meant rather facetiously, I believe it to be an important part of this problem. In a statistical sense, the quality of structural engineering work truly does NOT have meaningful consequences. So why should clients pay for good work? I have exactly one idea for how this might get fixed without going to straight protectionism. It's based on my expectation that, baring frequent earthquakes, only a structural engineer can really parse out good structural engineering work from bad. So I'd like to see all jurisdictions legislate a mandatory, anonymous, 3rd party peer review for all structural works of any significance. Set the fees at 15% of the EOR fees or something. I feel that this would lead to several desirable outcomes:

1) Higher quality structural work.

2) More volume of structural work available.

3) Crap structural work would hold up permits etc and cause delays. At long last... consequences.

Some of the seismic jurisdictions like California and New Zealand have already taken meaningful steps in this direction which I feel is great.

 

[Tomfh]

If a client chooses a crappy structural engineer what is the likely consequence? Nuttin'. If a client chooses a crappy real estate agent what is the likely consequence? The loss of sacks and sacks of gold doubloons.

If that's true then the idea that we're worth something is just a delusion.


I don't believe it myself. I think poor structural engineering is more costly than poor real estate agents. Property sells itself at whatever the market if offering. Agents come along for the ride, selling themselves to vendors by promising a bigger sack of gold than the next agent.