Structural Engineering Skills

[jester86403]

I posted this topic under a different title earlier and did not get a lot of responses. I thought many people might just be skipping it because it did not catch their interest. Anyway, if you have any more input please let me know.

I was wondering if someone is a structural engineer working on bridges/non-architectural structures can they easily make the switch to designing buildings without a huge learning curve and vice versa?

I know that you would have to familiarize yourself with different codes, and different software, but are the software similar? Do they have the same idea just different features for the applications of bridge design vs. building design?

 

[NHstructural]

jester,

I am a structural engineer who switched from bridges to buildings. I spent my first three years or so exclusively on bridges and over the course of the next five to six years transitioned slowly, and somewhat unintentionally, to buildings. However, the buildings I have worked on are only three stories and are usually wood framed structures, not commericial high rises, or anything particularly glamorous.

I have found that a good structural engineer can become familiar with the required codes in both fields. I enjoy using the variety of codes as opposed to the old days when it was almost exclusively AASHTO too. But as for skills - I think if you are good at following load paths, and recognizing the details required to communicate through your plans then the transition can be done. With buildings, unlike most bridges, uplift is a real concern and a lot of connection details are required. Also, with houses in particular there are always some unique parts of the structure that require some intuition and extrapolation from the examples in the books.

So, the short answer is I believe it's possible because I have done it.

If you intend to work on residential structures I'd suggest getting a Simpson catolog and attending some of their free classes. The breadth of products Simpson makes will give you an idea of all the connections required in a structure.

Good Luck

 

[tngolfer]

I agree with NHstructural. It is definitely possible. (I'm a building guy for the record.)

In studying for the PE earlier this year, I realized how poorly the AASHTO code is laid out. If you have figured out the AASHTO code, the IBC will be a piece of cake. I hope you are going to be working with someone as you will definitely have questions regarding the IBC and building design in general. You will also find working for/with an architect that there are going to be a lot of things that are done for aesthetics. You will suggest/argue for something that makes more economical or structural sense but you will lose 90% of the time.

Good luck though. Post your questions here and we'll do our best to answer them.

 

[csd72]

The earlier you switch the less difference it will make.

Yes there is a learning curve, but there would also be one switching from domestic to industrial e.t.c.

There are also many things such as reading drawings, engineering procedures e.t.c. that are exactly the smae for both.

My first employer started on bridges and he now runs a firm of 15 people that does work for very prestigious architects.

I would suggest though, that you need to do all the work you can to ensure you hit the ground running. Start on your university notes and then look through the internet for good sites to learn up on things(this site is a good start).
I have changed countries twice and this is what I do whn I start on new codes e.t.c.

Look up the pdh websites for some good building design references.

I would not think software should be an issue for you. The fundamentals are generally the same.

 

[lrhg]

With a good solid SE education and experience, I think it really boils down to a passion for what you do. If you don't like bridges - switch. We building SE's find ourselves on a constant learning curve - keeping up with code changes, proposed code changes, research, even software. With building design, even switching from designing 10-15 story office buildings for an architect to designing industrial buildings for a contractor can seem like a change in direction of your career.

If you don't have a Master's - getting one now could facilite the change. In our area, SE's with Master Degrees are the most sought after in building design.

 

[trainguy]

As stated by NHstructural,

I'll rephrase in 6 words:

Load path, load path, load path!

If you understand these, there's nothing you can't design.

(I'm designing railcar structures now, and it still applies)

tg

 

[msquared48]

If you do decide to switch, just remember - Don't burn your Bridges.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[jester86403]

I have been wondering this for a while as well, do you think it would be easier from bridges to buildings or buildings to bridges?

 

[csd72]

msquared48,

If the bridges are properly fire rated then this shouldnt be an issue.

 

[ron9876]

I worked for a bridge company while in school as a draftsman. Not my cup of tea. A senior engineer told me then that if I thought that I wanted to design buildings that I should get out then because you can get trapped. To me bridge design was more of a cookbook approach and the mentality is heavier is better. Building design is just the opposite. Too heavy stands out and you have to design for minimum cost of material. As an employer I certainly wouldn't pay an engineer with 5 years of bridge experience as much as an engineer with the same level of building experience because there would be a steep learning curve.

Switching shouldn't be a problem but be prepared for a pay cut at the beginning. But if you want to switch do it now.

 

[buening]

I guess I can appreciate my company because I do both buildings and bridges. I'll go from a typical bridge to a smaller single story building project and then maybe to a retaining wall design or a building retrofit. Keeping up with codes is definitely my challenge, as I have to know where to find the info on both sides of the spectrum. Due to the lack of in-depth knowledge of buildings, I typically stick to single story buildings that don't get too complex.

 

[kmead]

One thing to keep in mind is that when you switch from one to the other, the pace is different. Building design is much faster and you get quicker satisfaction out of seeing your design being built in a much shorter time. While bridge design is a much slower process and can be aggravating, and it may take years for you to see your design.

So, it can be done but it's a huge adjustment process more than a learning curve. The longer you've been in one discipline, the harder it gets to switch.

 

[gwynn]

I've heard the comment about time differences before, but this is not always the case. Yes, it seems that bridges built with public funds tend to take a long time, but in some areas there are plenty of industrial access bridges (for mining, logging, oil, gas, etc. sites) or ones being funded by developers for access to new residential areas. These tend to go in much faster, especially industrial ones (2-3 months from start of design to completion of construction is not uncommon).

 

[theonlynamenottaken]

My two cents: (warning, this is a generalization - I do realize there are lots of exceptions to the following)

Bridge Engineering is normally very refined, meticulous, accurate and detailed. Building Engineering is more wham-bam, driven by economy (for the firm due to low fees) and schedule (because lenders and accountants drive developers to think everything can, and has to be done in half time sanity dictates).

Also, you can do just about anything your creative mind can conjure with bridges. With buildings, if you specify something that the contractor's laborers haven't done a thousand times - you're asking for field errors. So, you have to know common practices, nominal sizes, common errors, etc.