Structural Engineering vs Building Science

[Lascaris]

Hi, right now, I live in Toronto, Canada. I've just got my BASc in civil engineering, most of my courses were in structural engineering, however I also did a bit of building science.

I've heard the building science is an emerging and fast growing field, and that you can go alot farther in it more quickly than you would in Structural Engineering, and also get better pay. Personally, I've got no idea weather or not this is true, I was wondering if anyone on this forum with experience in these fields could share their opinion on this matter.

Thanks.

-L

 

[Ron]

I do both. I've been involved in both structures and building sciences for over 30 years. I like the combination because it allows me to do structural analysis and design, but also to broaden my exposure to other features of buildings such as the waterproofing, energy efficiency, roofing, claddings, etc.

Building Science is much broader and offers more opportunities to learn a broad range of subjects. The structural background is valuable for the understanding you bring of structural interaction with building science features.

 

[abusementpark]

Who are the primary clients that in need of a building science professional?

 

[JAE]

Ron,
One question that pops up in my mind is whether you could develop and maintain your practice, as it stands now, with just the Building Science background...without a structural engineering background with it. How would you see that skill set (BSc without SE)work out by itself?

The reason I ask is that Lascaris seems to imply that they don't have a professional structural license or any structural experience as yet - only just out of school.

I'd be interested in learning the career tracks that one would take with both backgrounds, and with only Building Science. How do you develop both, get licensed with both (do you get licensed with Building Science?), etc.

 

[Ron]

JAE...excellent questions.

I'm not sure I have good answers, only anecdotal experience.

I evolved into the building sciences practice. I started in structural design of tanks and other structures, then towers, then specialty stuff. After the tank design stint, I worked in a Geotechnical/Materials Engineering firm for 18 years, with such a broad clientele that we got involved in so many different things, usually testing construction materials, but also doing specialty testing, devising tests for special applications (once had to devise a testing frame for simultaneous orthogonal testing of the umbilical boom assembly for Atlas rockets, then run the tests).

I guess I've had about the luckiest career an engineer could imagine. I've never been "pidgeon-holed". My structural analysis background has allowed porting of that skill set to many different arenas (literally and figuratively on the "arena"!). As an example, while doing structural analysis and testing on a "major amusement ride" at a "major theme park" in Central Florida, we found that vibrations from running the cars that were made to replicate a famous, but short-lived stainless steel sports car, were imparting vibrations that the building structure would have trouble tolerating, since the building was designed as a static structure, not dynamic.

Could I do what I do now with only a Building Sciences background? Emphatically...NO!

Building Science doesn't necessarily rely on a single discipline of engineering and in some cases, no engineering at all. It is part science, part conjecture, part observational experience and part voodoo. It is also extremely broad and ill-defined.

Can building science be a career exclusive of structural engineering...Yes. It is mostly practiced that way. I just think it is better to have a broader background in engineering than a strictly building science practice would offer.

To my knowledge, there is no licensing for "Building Science". It is a specialty subset of either mechanical, structural or environmental engineering, when practiced by engineers. There are many out there who do pieces and parts of Building Science practice without engineering licensure. I don't like it, but it is fairly common. One example is in Roof Consulting. Many "roof consultants" are not engineers or architects. Many are former roofers (often from the "one year of experience, 20 times" variety). They are often allowed to practice in states that would otherwise require an architect or engineering license to do such things as design a re-cover roof system without appropriate structural considerations (I've investigated one where a contractor acted as a consultant, overloaded the roof during the initial construction and caused a collapse....one died).

Like many parts of our profession, we get those who think it's as easy as just picking things from a catalog and following a few cookbook procedures to achieve the desired result. Too bad we can't collectively put them out of business. I get on a high soapbox when we talk about unlicensed practice and usurping the term "Engineer" or "Engineering" by those who are not licensed.

Ok...I'll stop before I start ranting.

I'd be interested to get your perspective on this as well....

 

[hokie66]

Interesting thread. I must admit that I hadn't even heard of "building science" as a profession. This was traditionally the work of architects, but they gradually abdicated their responsibilities in keeping water out of buildings, to the extent that "facade engineering", "envelope engineering", etc. took the place of architectural detailing, leaving architects with only the job of building layout and aesthetics. Building science as Ron described it is a lot broader than keeping the water out, and I think is properly a subset of structural engineering.

 

[Ron]

hokie66...you nailed it on the architects. The plans I've reviewed over the past 10 years have gotten progressively less detailed and in the forensic work I've done, they abdicate their responsibility to the contractor to provide the design through shop drawings....a miserable process for such commonplace issues as wall waterproofing and roofing. For specialty structural stuff, I have no problem with that being designed by other than the SEOR, but waterproofing, facade structural (including windows)and roofing should be designed by design professionals...not contractors.

 

[sprinkler1000]

Interesting thread:

being myself an architect by licence I am certainly very critic of my colleagues that put excessive dedication to esthetic issues. Architecture is a techical discipline.
Regarding the building science I agree with some of the post that doubt of a marketplace for that specialist. Building science is a broad issue, and today you have to get deep into some problems to give truly worth consulting.
It is a much broader field that structural calculations. For example to analyse a double skin facade takes a lot of multi discipline issues. Building science is more a topic or a subject to study in college that a field to dedicate since it is very broad.

 

[Ron]

sprinkler1000...I agree it is much too broad to be a college curriculum. Where would one start?

Architects and engineers should be doing all of this type of work. In almost all cases of bulk water intrusion at framed wall surfaces, I find some structural damage, whether in sheathing or the primary structural members.

The attached photo is an example of poor detailing and depending on subcontractors to do the design....

 

[sprinkler1000]

Ron :

I agree with you. Very clear picture of your point.

I believe there is a general lack of understanding of construction detailing, and it requires a lot of experience to sit down and draw and specify the right material or construction assembly.

That experience you ussually get on site, which is not a very common asset among construction professionals. I have often heard "we will deal with this on site", which is like to say "I dont know how to deal with it right now and specify the solution."

 

[hokie66]

Classic photo, Ron.

 

[JAE]

Ron - from my son the architect's viewpoint - that could be considered an "edgy" design!

 

[Ron]

JAE...it's edgy alright! Almost over the "edgy" in fact.

 

[rowingengineer]

If you want to provide solutions not just problems I think you would need to be an engineer.

My experience isn't as long or as large as Ron's, but I have become very involved with building science as of late, as you define it. It has evolved from a few poorly built building built by developers, with poor engineers and cheapest everything else to know looking at all sorts of intresting problem that are occouring on buildings.



How could you do anything so vicious? It was easy my dear, don't forget I spent two years as a building contractor. - Priscilla Presley & Ricardo Montalban