Trying to explain to non-engineers that it may be OVERKILL, but it is NECESSARY 38

[Forgot2Yield]

I constantly here non-engineers complaining about how everything structural engineers design is so unnecessary and overkill. It is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with design codes and engineering theory why certain members need to be sized the way they are sized even if using a smaller member (or no member at all) would not cause the structure to fall down.

I am wondering if anyone has had any discussions with members of the non-engineering community around this topic, and how you explained to them that the seemingly unnecessary sizes of the components are indeed necessary.

My personal explanation includes three main reasons. Please add to this if you have more.

1) Proof
any design that you come up with, you have to be able to show or prove what the forces in the members will be. and If you don't have all the information to start out with (ex. proper loads) then you have to make educated approximations of this missing information that will almost always be conservative. People always say, "it's not going to fall down, it's common sense, just look at it, others were built just like it and they are still standing". But if you can't prove it through applied scientific principles or scientific models, you can't just say its fine no matter how overkill it looks.

2) Time
For most of the designs that I work on, there are very short timelines for projects. These short timelines mean that there is not enough time to do proper analysis on the entire structure so some vary broad assumptions get made. And the broader the assumption, the more conservative it has to be. The less time that is available to analyze, the more excessive the design becomes

3) Code
Specifications like the ANSI/AISC 360, CSA S16, ACI 318, CSA A23 which get incorporated into building codes specify exactly what strengths you are allowed to assign to members. Given that inelastic and plastic analysis is allowed to be used, time often only permits the use of linear elastic analysis in my case. This is one item that always gets brought up. In a linear elastic analysis the member fails, but in reality the forces will be redistributed throughout the structure to different members. If you don't have the time, tools, or expertise to do more complex analysis, and you are stuck with first order linear elastic, you can't rely on the force being redistributed, because you can't show it.

 

[Forgot2Yield]

What I do not understand is why you stay

Funny you should bring that up Brad805. I actually left this job before when I was earlier in my EIT journey for the reasons we are currently discussing. At the time I left we did not even have a PEng working and I could not get any legitimate experience. I kept in contact with my boss and after a while of working at an actual engineering firm, he told me that they hired a PEng that I could work under and the door was always open if I wanted to come back. All in all despite the complete lack of respect for the engineering discipline, the people I worked directly with were great and the job was one of the better ones. With hopes of things possibly being able to change I talked with him about what would have to happen if I were to come back working as an engineer. We had a pretty long heated discussion about what was required and not required and how things needed to change if I were to ever work for them as a PEng. We didn’t really resolve our differences during that discussion, but I at least got the sense that he was willing to try to do things differently and have me be a main component to implementing all this change. Add an increase in salary and I was pretty optimistic about everything going back.

I will admit there has been some change since I’ve been back, mostly because i now have a PEng working with me who is able to back me on stuff and check over my work, but I think he also feels like he has been put in some compromising positions with the way things are done. Both of us are constantly fighting to get things done properly, but there is still a long way to go as I have experienced since being back. I know my boss is trying to be accommodating to what I am requesting needs to be done on certain jobs, but I get the sense it is not because it is what he believes in and he is just trying to keep me happy. There are certain things I think I know he will not budge on. I think I will find out very soon whether there is a future for me at this company or not.

 

[Forgot2Yield]

driftLimiter, that is a great point about documenting everything. I plan to start documenting more thoroughly everything that does not get done that should be done through emails

 

[human909]

Sorry to here that matty54.

Ya so my situation is a bit different than having to explain to the owner/client. It is having to explain to management and colleagues. In the company I work for 99% of the employees/managers are not engineers....
Also 99% of the designs and drawings do not get stamped because client doesn't require it because most projects are built out in the more rural areas where there aren't strict or any reinforcement of building code.

I totally get that. The company I work for, WAS operating in the same manner when I joined. Yeah the 'big' stuff got signed off on by external engineering consultants. But 95% of the stuff designed wasn't being engineered.

Thankfully things have changed since I started. In the beginning there was some push back against me when I spoke up. But then people listened... Meanwhile the company has grown and is now regularly BIG things need all the suitable engineering.

 

[Brad805]

From you other post it appears you are working in the timber industry. In my experience that industry is very cost conscious and far more interested in the process side of projects. These clients tend not to be overly interested in your part of the project beyond cost, schedule or if something goes wrong. By the time you have started your bosses have committed to a price, and what you add beyond their quote causes them headaches. I have seen some provide quotes based on RFP's that one can barely provide more than a budget price. Some have a team to fight about extra's, but others seem to try to absorb the costs.

The fundamental problem here lies at the top as well as the customer list. If this is a problem you deal with on a daily basis I do not see it improving. If it is something that comes up every so often for more complicated projects, then it is fixable. We all deal with owners or clients that do not want to spend more $$. Just keep in mind we are held to the highest standard of care, so when something goes wrong we get asked questions. The professional above you has the more concerning position based on what you have shared.

 

[canadiancastor]

@matty54
I've found myself in your situation at my last job, and I was thankful that I had some experience under my belt. Being less experienced would probably have lead me to take on work that I was not prepared for and would have lead me down a road of problematic ethics. There are some jobs that are sort of long term traps, where you have people who would like to have the best of two worlds: Being able to sign plans when required AND doing business as usual for the rest of the time without the engineering hassle. Some people in this thread act as if doing no engineering on a building is somehow inappropriate, but here in Canada we do have a prescriptive part of the code that is part 9, and I would argue that it's quite a good thing. In my view, this is because ACTUAL engineering of small buildings is a shit-show of over-designing because of limits in our theories which can't capture the complexity of these buildings, but that's a subject for another post.

So you might find yourself in a firm which wants to pursue both engineered and non-engineering buildings. In my view, that's where the core issue lies, because long term, there can be no in between, at least not once you start HIRING engineers. It's not going to be possible for you ignore some of the details or practices that are used in the other "non-engineered" projects. You seldom see contractors having engineers onboard for this precise reason, they want to be able to cherry-pick which practices needs to be approved by the engineer and what doesn't, which I would also argue can be a good thing. So this is a hard discussion to be had at the interview or not too long after with your supervisor, which is what direction is the business going? Are they looking to step up and have an engineering approved way of doing things, or do we want to keep business as usual with engineering for some cherry picked projects?

If they are looking for business as usual, there is an appropriate way for them to do this, and it's with the use of contractor engineers for the engineered projects only. This can even be something that you offer to them. This limits your liability as an engineer to the projects that need engineering, while allowing them to keep business as usual for the rest. I would argue that it's going to be a tight rope to walk if you are in the same offices, because you will hear / see things that you might have to act on, and that wont make you any friends.

The other option is to aim at having full engineered projects in the future. If you choose to accept this responsibility, be prepared for regular conflicts and hard discussions. However, I do believe that some firms want to take things to the next level, and there needs to be people who step up to give them a hand. A couple of things that I would add if this is what they SAY they want:
1. You need to have full support from the company direction for any decision that you will take, full stop. If you consider any practice or detail dangerous, you need to be able to have it modified and changed. If you are not listened to, you need make it clear that you will report dangerous behavior and quit your functions immediately.
2. You will need to have a concrete plan showing how the change will take place with a realistic timeline. If milestones are missed, there needs to be a discussion as to why. If progress stalls, you need to be ready to bail.
3. You will need to have some experience with the engineering to understand how to classify things into "importance" categories. I don't think you can come at this problem as an unexperienced engineer. Sometimes you will have to run models and do physical tests to classify the issues in your own mind, because there is not "standard" that will help you with this. You need to have guaranteed approval that there will be money and time for you to run these tests. With time, your categories will become more concrete and you will start to have a larger and larger number of issues sorted into the categories. Example of categories can be:
a) Dangerous I'm reporting this and bailing if it's not addressed
b) Problematic and needs to be addressed within X timeframe
c) Problematic, less of a concern

If they do not agree to either of these options, as others have said, I would start looking elsewhere.

Best of luck!

 

[canadiancastor]

I guess something that's not discussed often is how hiring an engineer is a double edged sword for businesses. Sure, you can get better insight into how things work and get things approved, but it's by no means a simple or easy process. It will take time and effort, and you will lose some of the flexibility you had previously. If you are the boss, you wont always have the last say on how things are done anymore, so you need to be ready to relinquish some of your authority.

If you are about to get hired as the first engineer in a business, I would bring this up as soon as possible. Both sides need to be informed and willing to go through with the implications.

 

[SE2607]

The phrase I hear is "over engineered", usually expressed ironically by non-engineers.

My favorite (and latest) response is:
"Every structure standing today is over engineered".

If they are still in the conversation, I go on to explain to them (contractors mostly) about the "invisible" loads we must consider in our design. They only see the dead load and some construction live load. I mention a banker's box full of paper is about 10 PSF and that a residential floor is designed to have banker boxes full of paper four levels deep over every square inch of the floor, 6 on a balcony. I then explain there are 2 levels of banker boxes on the roof. I go on to explain that we also have to consider a wind blowing at a constant 110 MPH, excluding gusts, a velocity never seen by their grandfather's grandfather. I also mention the guard rail at the balcony must support someone bigger than me impacting the rail at more than 1 g. Most of my audience is shaking their heads at this time. Finally, I mention that I need to consider a combination of all those loads and then shake the building more than I've ever seen or even read about. Most of my audience is familiar with the Northridge, Landers, Big Bear and Whittier quakes, but I tell them that, if the San Andreas lets go as predicted it may, that would be 100 times worse. That's when they usually ask me to "continue on". Thank God I don't have to explain snow drift to them.

 

[JAE]

SE26087,
What they also don't see are the safety factors on those banker boxes that we use to ensure variability of loads, and of strength calculations, aren't exceeded.

 

[FloydLloyd]

Great discussion, lots of good ideas here.
Short answer is best.
My answer these days is "we design for extreme events, not everyday [service] loads."
But my favorite comment, from an engineer I used to work with, "When someone tells me my structure is overdesigned, I take that as a compliment."

 

[KootK]

Fundamentally, this has two parts for me.

Part 1 - The Campsite Rule - Leave it as good or better than you found it.

When a client of mine works with another engineer in then future, I want that client's respect for our profession to meet or exceed the level that it was at when they were my client. I don't want any "But KootK said that shear wall hold downs are ridiculous". This requires a degree of professional solidarity which we seem to be generally terrible at.

Part 2 - A Consultant Sells Competence First

Unless you intend to compete on price alone, like Walmart, the most important thing that you're selling is your own competence. Sales books say this uniformly and all of the best business developers that I know do this as a matter of course.

When you take a risk and do something bold:

1) You present that as something that you can do better than your competition because you're smarter, more creative, more efficient... whatever.

2) You don't present it as "meh, it's all just bullshit anyhow".

#1 often is bullshit in my experience. People deliberately taking risks without the extra rigor that probably should entail. But at least it's bullshit that helps to elevate the profession rather than encouraging outsiders to dismiss it.

Think of every boastful LinkedIn post you've ever seen regarding a structural project. Was it:

1) We were able to make this ridiculously massed skyscraper straddle a tunnel because we have the most talented engineers and the best technology. Math! Performance based design!

OR

2) We were able to make this ridiculously massed skyscraper straddle a tunnel because we think that load combination are silly anyways.

 

[Tomfh]

But KootK said that shear wall hold downs are ridiculous". This requires a degree of professional solidarity which we seem to be generally terrible at.

Real world: “I’m sorry to tell you, Mr Possible Client, but Johnson and Co. Engineering has a reputation for producing unnecessarily expensive designs. But it’s not too late. With our design, we can save you 40% on your footing costs”

 

[StrEng007]

Think of every boastful LinkedIn post you've ever seen regarding a structural project.

I can't trust anything I see on LinkedIn. I can't tell you how many times I've seen some individuals I've personally encountered and worked with, celebrating their accomplishments and describing themselves as experts in the industry. It's maddening. Also the further away from the engineering content they seem to get, the bigger the ego.

No matter how well I know something, it still feels wrong to say "Yeah, well I'm an expert".

Meanwhile, I know some amazing engineers who keep their heads down, work hard at their business, train like hell on their own time, and spend hours posting anonymously on engineering forums to better their understanding of things.

 

[Forgot2Yield]

So an update,
this discussion basically stemmed from a recent post I made on modifications needed to an existing building. After scanning through existing pics and scan data I found multiple deficiencies in the existing building. Bent columns, removed bracing, modifications. Originally my boss had told me we were going to have the modification drawings that I was working on stamped by a PEng, but just recently about half way through the project he changed his mind for some reason and said he didn't think that we needed any stamped drawings. I had a heated 2 hour discussion/debate with my boss today about who's call this is and trying to get him to realize he does not decide if something needs stamped or not. I thank you all for all these great posts because I used all of it. candiancastor I found yours especially applicable and helpful and used many of your points. He ultimately agreed to have this outsourced and stamped by a PEng, but it took a lot. After our heated discussion he shook my hand and said that he did not want any hard feelings, which speaks volumes to the kind of boss he is and is what makes it so hard to leave despite him being so against all the necessary engineering requirements when they don't line up with the timeline or budget. I feel like there is small progress that is being made, but it takes that constant fight and effort and I'm not sure if it will be enough in the end because the way things are done are so engrained in this business.

 

[KootK]

I can't trust anything I see on LinkedIn.

Right?? If LinkedIn is to believed, I'm now the the only structural engineer alive who is not a specialist in either:

a) Sexy mass timber or;

b) Performance based design of megastructures.

Given that I seem to be singlehandedly responsible for every one story shack in the northern hemisphere, you'd think that I'd be reaping some serious supply and demand benefit on account of my seeming monopoly on unglamorous work. Complete. Market. Dominance!

It's a sad commentary on my fundamental nature that I get more FOMO from LinkedIn than I do Facebook. I couldn't give a rat's ass if I'm the only person that I know who hasn't been to Europe yet.

 

[RPGs]

Well done then, matty54. You've won the battle but there's plenty of war left to be fought it seems. You have a good head on your shoulders. It makes me sad that you are encountering so much resistance against doing what you (and most of us) believe is appropriate in our profession. I know there's a structural firm out there somewhere that'd be happy to have you.

Sexy mass timber

This should probably be it's own thread, but why is so much of what I see on LinkedIn mass timber related now? It's odd and I'm not sold. Is it really The Future like they all claim?

 

[KootK]

This should probably be it's own thread, but why is so much of what I see on LinkedIn mass timber related now?

It's because innovation in structural engineering happens at a glacial pace. Mass timber is the first new development since Newton rocked our worlds. Everybody wants to pile on for marketing purposes and show their architect clients that they can deliver the "sexy" that is a warm feeling, environmentally friendly, exposed ceiling.

Fire schmire. If you gotta die anyhow, why not die in blazing inferno that makes you feel woke and closer to nature?

 

[RPGs]

Fire schmire. If you gotta die anyhow, why not die in blazing inferno that makes you feel woke and closer to nature?

Thanks for the laugh. I've noticed the mass timber folks are very sensitive and defensive (perhaps necessarily) in regard to the fire problem. I've seen some very interesting comment sections on LinkedIn about it... I've only set foot in one mass timber building and it sure was pretty and one of the nicer places to meet my maker

 

[KootK]

Humor aside, I'm a fan of mass timber. I'm a native son of British Columbia, the epicenter of that world, so I kind of have to be. A lot of my people derive their living from harvesting forest products.

I feel that the fire issues are mostly resolved. Yeah, it is a bit unnerving to have the bulk of a structure made from something that is considered "fuel". That said, just as with load combos and everything else, I believe that fire has been resolved from the perspective of reliability. And, really, that's the only perspective that matters (scientific method and such).

I do believe that all of the mass timber hype is over done for what is, effectively, plywood infused with exogenous testosterone. Were one to guage things based on the flurry of mass timber activity on LinkedIn, you'd think that we'd solved time travel or something.

 

[Lomarandil]

Mass timber will get my support as environmentally friendly when they stop cladding it in glass to show it off and burn all the benefits in heating and cooling costs. Talk about virtue signaling.

 

[RontheRedneck]

Seems like this subject hit a nerve.

I'm not an engineer,but I certainly have my share of people who don't want to believe what I tell them. I get lines like:

"I'm sure it's fine"

"I'll take full responsibility".

"Don't worry about it".

Sometimes I try to explain things to people. And some of them understand. Others never will. To them i just say "NO" and leave it at that. No amount of explaining will change their mind when they have an idea in their head.

I get a lot of "It lasted 10 years, so it must be O.K." I ask them if they can drive down the interstate with their eyes closed. You can do it for a while. But sooner or later it will catch up with you.