Making the choice between Bridges and Buildings 4

[pittguy12]

This is less technical and more professional development in nature but I respect the people who contribute on this forum and therefore wanted to pitch the question to everyone.

What are some perspectives on choosing a career in bridges versus buildings?

What is interesting, when I pitch this question to friends, I usually get the same answer..."I work in _______ because it's the more innovative and creative of the two!". The bridge guys see building engineers as being ruled by the architects and with little chance to make the important decisions on a project. The building guys see bridges cramped within the confines of AASHTO and DOT's.

It's just an interesting situation to me and I as I think about the future for my own career, I am curious what a broader audience thinks about making this choice.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I'd say buildings strictly because they're more frequent and more variable. Either way there are always non-building structures. Industrial work will get you the weirdest jobs that you can really enjoy (and no architects will be involved ).

So, with that I say go into structural consulting. Try to get a little of everything.

Maine EIT, Civil/Structural. Going to take the 1st part of the 16-hour SE test in October, wish me luck!

 

[Lion06]

I thought about this early on in my career, too. I can't say I had a great reason for deciding on buildings, but I'm glad I did.

To say that building engineers are constrained by architects might be a little misleading. In a good working relationship, it's a collaboration. Sure the architect leads the way, but it's their job to make the building look pretty. It's our job to make sure the pretty building stands up. I don't see that as a constraint. If you could put a column anywhere you want it on every project, the profession would get very boring very quickly.

Additionally, as others have noted, I enjoy working with a lot of different materials.

 

[abusementpark]

I started out in bridges, but made the switch to building work in fairly short time. Here is what I disliked about bridge work.

-The 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 complex code equations. It was hard to get a good physical grasp of what I was actually doing.

- 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.

-A lot of times you have to deal with complex geometry, for example, on complex bridge interchanges. I found that to be a nuisance void of any reward.

-The DOT performed most of the on-site construction administration services. So, there wasn't much opportunity to get out in the field and see your designs come to life.

The main thing for me was the new AASHTO LRFD. I used AASHTO standard specs for a brief period and may have given bridge work a longer chance if that remained the preferred code.

Building work is a lot more of an imaginative process. You often have to come up with creative solutions in designing a structure that is compatible with an architect's desired building form. Every job seems to have at least some unique aspect. Also, it is satisfying to work with a wide range of materials and products.

There are definitely some cons as well. It can be tough to work with some architects. I think you are much more likely to deal with a crappy contractor in building work. Quality control could be a lot better. A lot of times you are up against unrealistic deadlines. So, I wouldn't say it is the land of milk and honey. But, it is definitely better fit for me as a structural engineer.

 

[bridgebuster]

abusementpark - when I started in the bridge business the AASHTO specs were contained in a book that was 6"x 8 1/2" x 1" & LRFD was unheard of; the current LRFD (6th ed.) is 8 1/2" x 11" x 3 3/4". LRFD is cumbersome because of computers. The original code writers didn't intend for designs to be done by hand.

Not every bridge or building project requires a lot of imagination. The project I'm on now is a deck replacement - doesn't sound very exciting or imaginative on the surface - but it requires a lot of imagination to bring the structure up to current standards and to keep the price within the owner's $250 million budget, while also keeping 100,000 vehicles per day moving.

 

[Qshake]

Kudos to Graybeach and Bridgebuster for dispelling the old myth about cookie-cutter bridges. There are many challenges in bridge engineering and even more so when alternate delivery methods like Design Build and P3 are used.

So enough about buildings are better than bridges or vice versa and my dad can kick your dad's ass.

I suspect the arguement transcends the industry to include where you work. So please give that some thought. At the company I work at I've been involved in major/minor bridges, major/minor marine facilities, and even test stands for rocket engines. All this comes from an ability to do structural engineering and read codes, any codes.

So when your considering what to practice give some thought to where and who you'll practice for. A more deversified company will allow for more professional breadth and growth. A less deversified company and you'll become an expert in one area and more likely to become a PM or executive quicker. All have their benefits.

Good luck.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[ToadJones]

I'll just chip in and say that if you dont want to deal with architects, and want to do "buildings" find work with a firm that does industrial design. The work is insanely challenging and rewarding.
The first firm I worked for had two architects. It was funny as hell to watch them do renderings of power plants and chemical facilities. Nothing like perfectly shading identical corrugated siding on all the plant buildings!!! They were grumpy as hell!

 

[StructuralEd]

Having done both I try to avoid bridges because they take so long to get through due to all the bureaucratic red tape and paperwork.
In our state there is a middleman Engineering liaison so we not only get to deal with the government but also the whims of the liaison's.
If you don't mind spending a year or years on designing a job that you could do in a month, then bridges and highways would be for you.

On the other hand, if you like feeling accomplishment, go for buildings.

 

[Qshake]

Again, I'm compelled to note that long periods of time for bridges is a function of where and who you work for.

Last year, within a 10 month span, our company (our office) designed 26 bridges for one DOT/Contractor as part of a Design Build Project.

Sure we have those projects that held up for years, especially those dealing with RR. But it's not always like that.

So, again, consider who the company, of interest, works for. If they work for traditional clients and non-traditional clients like Contractors that's a good thing. The more diversified you are these days the better off you are.

When considering diversity in a company, look to make sure the company doesn't work for a single client a greater percentage of its time. If it does and if the market is crappy (as it is now) chances are you'll not have work, when the owner decides to hold capital improvement projects (Buildings) or can't get funding (DOT).

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[JedClampett]

Why do you have to choose right out of school? I got a chance to scan a bunch of resumes a few years ago, when we were thinking about hiring a new graduate. After I threw away the ones who wanted to do bridges, the ones who wanted to do high rises and the ones who wanted to live in either Seattle or Portland, there were none left.
If you're a new graduate, why don't you take a job that feels interesting and comfortable and see where it leads you? I know with the massive amount of knowledge that a college degree imparts, you think that you can set your life path, but there's twists and turns out there. Don't the universities inform you that there's other structural engineering work besides bridges and high rises?

 

[pittguy12]

Yes, I think colleges do a pretty good job of exposing the many areas of structural engineering overall. I have been in the industry for a few years and am facing a change in direction of career (from miscellaneous type structural work to either bridges or buildings). In my quest to decide, I discovered that the industry itself seems to designate between the two. Meaning you have companies that focus solely on bridges and some that do buildings...I just found it an interesting issue and wondered how others faced that decision.

As it was mentioned before, I consider myself a structural engineer...not a building engineer, not a bridge engineer. I have been involved in small versions of both projects. However, it seems that at some point I will need to make the choice between the two to move forward in the industry.

 

[bridgebuster]

pittguy12 - I ended up in bridge work because in the late 70's that's where the jobs were. Over the years I've done three building designs, a few minor building renovations, a couple of pumping stations, etc.

Don't think you have to make a choice of either one or the other. Don't think you can fully control your future. As President Lincoln said "I have not controlled events, rather, events have controlled me." Sometimes it's the hand of fate.

 

[Once20036]

I recently talked to a company that was disappointed I only had building experience. They wanted someone who could bounce back and forth between buildings and bridges depending on the work load they had that week. A company like that is always an option as well - get some experience with both.