Structural Engineers getting slammed II 9

[HgTX]

I know a number of people I think of as civil engineers who got their degrees in ArchE. After a few years on the job, there's no difference.

I thought about doing ArchE but was told I'd wind up being no good as either an architect or an engineer, and should pick one.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[JAE]

I think a lot of people get confused about that degree, thinking it is some kind of architectural and engineering degree combined. In reality, it is truly an engineering degree (at least at Penn St., Kansas St, etc.).

What it is trying to do is take what normally would be a Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical Engineering degree, subtract all elements that do not have anything to do with buildings, and then focus the major on building design.

Most programs are 5 years, where for one or two years everyone takes the general front-end courses, and then after that, they identify their focus (structural, electrical or mechanical) and finish out. Only a few courses are taken in Architecture simply to educate them on what architects do - similar to architects taking a structures class.

 

[SacreBleu]

I wonder why most universities don't offer engineering degrees specializing in structural design of buildings. The young engineer that I am mentoring at work has been filled with all sorts of information having to do with LRFD factors, and yet he had no idea that Load Duration Factor for wood framing with snow loading was 1.15. Even more amazing: he asked me "Where do you input the snow load?" I told him as live load. He looked surprised. Yegads!

 

[whyun]

For many years, I wanted to see a change in the universities to separate the Structural Engineering from the Civil Engineering Major. Many of the civil graduates get a brief exposure to structural analysis and design. When you take away surveying, transportation engineering, environmental engineering and other "required courses" for a civil degree and replace them with structural courses (not only design/analysis but also introduction to the real world) and call it a Structural Engineering Major, we could expect some improvements.

 

[JAE]

whyun - I once asked my major professor why I was taking Hydrology, Wastewater, etc. if I knew I wanted to be a structural engineer (I was getting a B.S. in Civil Engineering at the time).

He stated that the whole concept of a "university" is that the education you get there, while specialized, is meant to be at least somewhat "universal"...i.e. the classical concept of education was that you went to a university to get a whole education, encompassing all of life...and not a technical trade education that focused on a very small microcosm of life on planet earth.

Over the years, the "universal" education has slowly eroded towards that technical trade education - probably out of simply demand from the outside "real world" for people better versed in a particular field. So learning wastewater treatment, or even agronomy (an elective I took) didn't directly help my structural knowledge, but it did give me wider dimensions of knowledge that has sublty helped over the years - that and I went on and got a Masters in Structures later.

 

[mshimko]

This reminds me of a talk I heard from a mechanical engineer employed by the Disney Corporation.

In that field, the "artists" would dream up some display or ride, and the engineers had to find a way to build it!

I sometimes think today's Archetects are primarily "artist", and very little technician or engineer.

 

[RARWOOD]

When I worked in Iowa, in 1978 it was my understanding that architects could do structural engineering, that was incidental to a project. My experience in the last couple of years with projects in Iowa makes me wonder if that is still the case.

Several years ago the company I work for was supplying the glulam roof system for a project in Iowa. At that time I called the architect to find out who was his structural engineer. I did so, because I wanted to learn more about the "structural glass" which was bracing the building.

The architect told me that I was the structural engineer. I then had to explain to him what the role of a material supplier was. There are times when the company I work,is very involved in the building design. However on this project that was not the case. Also the drawings and specifications did not require the submittal of certified design calculations or drawings.

The architect still had a hard time understanding what was in our scope and what was not. I remember discussing the attachment of a glulam lateral brace to the buildings outside stud wall. The architect keep insisting it was my problem not his. I explained that I had no problem transfering the load out of the glulam into the double top plate. The problem was the attachment of the double top plate to the wall to prevent it from just breaking away.

 

[whyun]

We would need one architect to about 10 engineers if that's the case. In reality, the numbers are reversed... More work for us engineers, I guess. Only if we can get paid...

 

[EddyC]

I think that the Colleges/Universities intend for their students to go into masters programs for specializations. A 4 year undergraduate program simply doesn't have enough available time to focus on discipline subgroups.

 

[LPPE]

Another example of architects "brilliance"-

My structural design for a project is done. Just waiting for the word from the architect on when to send out the drawings. I get in from a meeting at 2:30 today. Architect says that the drawings are being sent out today. OK, no problem. And then adds "Oh, and you've got to move the whole drive-up canopy 3'-0 5/8".". So I say "When was that change made?" and they go "Today". I just laughed (that 3' move screws up a bunch of connections).

What else can you do but laugh?

 

[JAE]

RARSWC - are you sure that was an architect you were talking to and not a doorknob?

Dumb

 

[whyun]

For a quick history lesson on the field of structural engineering, I thought y'all may be interested in this link:

http://www.seaonc.org/public/about/origin.html

 

[JStephen]

"I wonder why most universities don't offer engineering degrees specializing in structural design of buildings."

Would you have a separate degree in non-building structural engineering? Or would that degree encompass all of structural engineering?

 

[SacreBleu]

JStephen,
For example: I graduated with a BSCE; my technical electives, mostly offered in the 4th year, consisted mostly of structural courses. They were very "generic", meaning the professors probably had little real-world experience in building design. In the 1st thru 3rd years, there were the usual mix of civil engneering required classes: thermodynamics, environmental engineering, etc.
In contrast, some universities offer Architectural Engineering degrees.
I am amazed at the new graduates...they are full of all the load factors theory, which the Code tweaks on a regular basis (is live load multiplied by 1.7, or is it 1.65 this year?), and yet, when they need to design a simply-supported steel beam as the first assignment at work, they end up needing to learn ASD.
When I attended college, fortunately, my professors taught both methods, and pointed out the background.
There is very little real understanding of what is really going on. Witness all the Code Confusion posts in these fora.

 

[JStephen]

My point was that you'll always have a conflict betweeen the needs of industry and what colleges can teach. It is to the advantage of industry to have people trained in exactly the one specific application that the person will work in. It is to the advantage of colleges to teach the same subjects to a wide range of students. There is no easy to way to resolve these two requirements.

As soon as you narrow a degree from civil engineering to structural engineering, you limit the prospects of the candidates you are turning out. When you narrow it from structural engineering to structural engineering of buildings, you've narrowed it even farther. You could go farther and offer a degree in "structural design of precast multi-story industrial buildings in high seismic zones". But at some point, you have to question whether you are really doing the candidates a favor by narrowing the program down. You're turning out people that are more and more qualified for fewer and fewer job openings.

My education is in mechanical engineering. It seems in ME, you have the same problem, only worse- with more different diverse fields all shoehorned into "mechanical" engineering. I took electives primarily in the heat transfer and fluids areas. I'm now working in an industry that just has nothing to do with heat transfer. Fortunately, my choice of electives wasn't formalized into a degree program that would have limited my opportunities.

I have noticed in the past that one of the weaknesses of American industry is an unwillingness to invest in their people. I remember several years ago reading that the aerospace industry was having a hard time finding "qualified" employees. But they used "qualified" to mean "experienced at doing exactly whatever it is to be done". But at the very moment when they were complaining about the lack of qualified employees, they seemed to have absolutely no provision to get anyone qualified or trained in any way, either. Little wonder that they were having trouble. Ultimately, in whatever field it is, a good part of the training of an engineer ought to come from the employer.

 

[SacreBleu]

JStephen-
Good discussion. Now, perhaps requirements for a Bachelor's degree in any field of engineering should be expanded to maybe one or two more semesters, with much more industry-related coursework.

 

[HgTX]

JStephen--
I don't think separating various kinds of structures is all that necessary at an undergraduate level (we didn't even really do that in my structural grad program), but there's a lot to be said for an undergrad SE degree (of which there are some in the US). Cut the environmental & hydraulics (but keep the geotech because of foundations), add in more structural design. Many programs (both of mine included) don't have *anything* for masonry or wood design. My undergrad program didn't offer prestressed concrete. Connection design is almost totally neglected in civil engineering classes. Et cetera.

SacreBleu--5 years...been done. The first undergrad program I went to had converted from 5 years to 4 years some years before because of what basically boils down to marketing pressure. They couldn't attract students vs. other universities who had 4-year programs. They crammed as much as they could into those 4 years, though. Courseload was typically one more course per semester than non-engineers. Over the four years, that's eight more classes--in other words, another year.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[oldrunner]

This is one of the better discusions I've read in a long time. All of the architectural-engineering students who took the structural option in their senior year in my class are all now California S.E.'s. The points that many you have been bringing have been in effect in the Arch.E. curriculum at Cal Poly for over 50 years. For example, steel, timber and concrete were taught in our JUNIOR year. We were even taught prestressed concrete and bridge design in our senior year along with a soils course. There were many hands-on project, i.e. the first geodesic dome on the west coast in 1951. Plywood hyperbolic paraboloids and tension structures were senior projects. Check out this web site:

http://www.caed.calpoly.edu/arce.html.

 

[MikeT14]

Great discussion so I figured I'd add my two cents:

A few points . . .

1) I took part in a discussion of SE vs. CE-Structural that occurred a few years ago at the ASCE National Convention in Washington, D.C. that stemmed from a presentation on requiring structural engineering testing and certification on a national level, like the FE and PE. The board members were reps from the certification boards from CA and ILL. The question I had, and that wasn't really answered, was whether I was wasting my time getting a BA CE degree if when I graduated I was already behind the eight-ball with knowledge necessary to become a SE. Should I have gone to a university that offered a structural engineering degree instead? They felt that the internship period was where all the "real learning" occurred, and I agree to a point. The question of specializing the degrees toward structural engineering runs the risk of pigeon-holing universities (and their graduates) who do/don't have the separate degree, but who may be entirely equal in knowledge in skill, both before and after the internship period.

2) I was a student at the time and had heard on several occasions that the students coming out of the universities "don't know anything" and aren't taking enough classes for what they were going to be doing in their career. I didn't agree with a lot of those people, but they were on the outside, I wasn't. Industry is requiring more and more skills for a recent graduate. While I was in school they added technical writing and similar courses at the request of the industry leaders in the state. That's three-to-six more hours of courses over your college career. Where are those hours going to come from? They were required, so something had to go. It’s never an English course, its something in the major (I still don’t understand why I couldn’t drop Physics III – prisms and circuits??) I agree with the above, colleges can’t remain competitive while adding courses that the industry deems necessary, unless it’s across the board.

3) My program was already a "four-year program that takes five." In my case, anyone trying to get a specialization in structures didn't have the time to take anything but steel and concrete design. No wood, masonry, or precast/prestressed design. That's why there is a movement in ASCE to require a Masters (or equivalent experience) to be considered a "professional." Consequently, that's why I got my Masters. I got to take timber design, advanced foundations, matrix methods of analysis, structural reliability, structural dynamics, etc. at the Master's level. I would NEVER have gotten that knowledge or even the opportunity for that knowledge, in a bachelor’s program. I don’t know if this is the case throughout the country, but I don’t know a lot of CE’s who got timber and masonry design in school.

4) The firm I work for is mostly Architectural Engineers. They are very knowledgeable about the design of buildings and have had the masonry and timber classes at a bachelor’s level. They can’t design retaining walls, but otherwise same amount of knowledge as me. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BUILDING CODES!! I didn’t have the knowledge of how to obtain loading and enforce code requirements that they did fresh out of school. To me, that is the only difference between Arch E’s and CE/SE from an education standpoint.

Sorry so long . . .

 

[SacreBleu]

Since most consulting companies are total failures at mentoring their just-graduated new hires, it frightens me to know that a typical 4-year egineering program teaches so little real-world engineering. I have been in this biz since 1974, and I have seen plenty of chaff along with the wheat. At least doctors get plenty of mentoring as the intern at a hospital. Since our business involves the prevention of potentially life-threatening situations, it amazes me that we are not more "prepared" than an egineer designing a wastewater treatment process.
And lest I get too high on my horse, yes, I have made mistakes.
Considering the complexity of the Code and its totally confusing format (read any one of these fora for proof), it becomes more of a concern.