,

My Definition

,

This is what I came up with…         Structural Engineering is the design of BIG things.

The know-how required to do this is immense and requires lifelong learning.  Engineers are 1% to 10% of each of the following:

  • Scientists 
  • Mathematicians
  • Computer Scientists
  • Information Seekers (State of the Art)
  • Specialists in Structural Systems
  • Experts in Construction
  • Citizens of a Locality of Construction Practices and Material Availability
  • Cost Estimators or Knowledgeable of Best Practices to Reduce Cost
  • Experts of Local Fabrication and Construction Technologies
  • Experts of  Building Codes, Specifications, Standards, Guides, and Regulations
  • Risk Evaluators and Code Interpreters
  • Experts in Structural Calculations
  • Experts in three dimensional representation in the mind
  • Experts in Synthesizing Complex/Unsolvable things to Simple/Solvable things.
  • Experts in Analysis Modeling using Software
  • Skeptics of Structural Engineering Software
  • Debaters of Efficiency and Economy and Elegance
  • Artists, Philosophers, Poets, Dreamers with Unconstrained Self Expression
  • Drafters or BIM Specialists
  • Collaborators working with Design teams
  • Listeners of Vision and Needs of Project/Client/Architect
  • Knowledgeable of Collaborator’s field
  • Users of Rules of Thumb (Heuristics)
  • Experts in the ability to make decisions under great amounts of uncertainty

Civil (Structural) Engineering is the design of big things.  Mechanical Engineering is the design of dynamic things.  Chemical Engineering the design of strange things.  Electrical Engineering is the design of invisible things.   My definition suggests Engineering is design of Big, Dynamic, Strange and Invisible things.  You might ask, well Architects design big things too don’t they?  This is correct, but they are not hired precisely because the thing is big.  We are.  This definition may contribute to a positive “rebranding” of the profession and I believe it will  improve “career appeal”, and reduce our “brain drain” if we simply and succinctly told the truth.   Why is the retention rate in engineering schools around 50%?  That is a real problem but I think it is a marketing problem.   Our educators are not good engineering mentors and they likely mislead our students into believing we engineers merely complete calculation procedures.   Engineering is so much greater than that!

,

A Completely Wrong Utterly Untrue Definition

,

This is the most common definition…

Engineers are applied scientists

No!   Scientists are applied scientists.   Our educators are applied scientists.  Scientists make sense of what exists in nature.  They test and examine nature.   Scientists discover.    Engineers take nature and make what exists outside of it.   Engineers invent, create, and make.  Engineers are makers.  Engineers are designers.  Engineers design real things.

In Alan Harris famously said in his essay Architectural Misconceptions of Engineering:

Engineering is no more applied science, than painting is applied chemestry [Harris, 1975:17]

The applied science portion of what we do is actually the easiest and most straight forward.  It is objective and has its’ own linear, step wise methodology.  That is why the young engineers are doing the calculations and the modeling, while more experienced engineers are not.   Yes, it needs to be right, so there is a lot of responsibility in this phase but that doesn’t make it difficult.   The experienced ones are doing the other 90% of what we do, the more difficult tasks, tasks that require much more than a calculation.  Design is the other 90% of engineering that is only achieved after one graduates from being a mere applied scientist (or technician) to being an engineer!

Borrowing from Donald Rumsfeld, scientific application or procedural design is about the known knowns.   Design is much more about the known unknowns.   So why do we align ourselves so closely with science?    Because it is “hard”?   Nope.  It is because we have allowed the educators of our profession to define it for us.   Our educators are not engineers, they are scientists.   That is okay, but let’s be honest about it.   Please understand, I love science, but I am as much an artist as a scientist and I suspect so are you.   They only differ from scientists in the fact that they absorb themselves in practical problems.   They are great educators and researchers and I am incredibly impressed by our educators – but they are rarely engineers.     They are really “practical” scientists.  They rarely  design big things.   Is there any other professional major where the person who is teaching the thing, does not perform the thing?  Law?  Architecture?  Medicine?  Engineering may be the only one.  Research is very different than practice but we have a system in place that rewards science and research over the richness of engineering practice.   Research is science, not engineering.   I am not saying we replace the incredible faculty we have with engineers, nor am I suggesting that the curriculum should change.   Design is learned in practice, and applied science is learned in school.   That is all fine.   I am merely describing who are educators are.  I do think our educators have the responsibility to know who we are, so this blog is for them too.

The Urgency of Engineering Education Reform by William Wulf presses this point further:

Engineering faculty are, for the most part, judged by criteria similar to the science faculty, and the practice of engineering is not one of those criteria. The faculty reward system recognizes teaching, research, and service to the profession, but it does not give the same status to delivering a marketable product or process, or designing an enduring piece of the nation's infrastructure. [Wulf, 1998]

Am I the only person who finds this strange?   Our Architecture schools are completely different.   They encourage their faculty to have their own practices.   When I interviewed for a position at an Architecture School, they asked me questions about the buildings that I designed.  The tenured faculty of architecture schools are often well known architects.   Why is it so different for us?

,

A Misleading Definition

,

Here is more of the same from the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)…

Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives.

This "application of science" notion is so pervasive that it sounds like it is pretty much all that we do and suggests that our creativity is not employed for artistry, self-expression, costs, or constructability, but solely for science.   That is just plain weird – and wrong.  This is pretty disappointing and the fact that the word "design" is missing again.  Design is the defining characteristic of engineering.

,

A Consequentialist Definition

,

The American Society of Civil Engineers unfortunately defines civil engineering (of which we structural engineers are a subset) as…  “The profession in which a knowledge of the mathematical and physical sciences gained by study, experience, and practice is applied with judgment to develop ways to utilize economically, the materials and forces of nature for the progressive well-being of humanity in creating, improving and protecting the environment, in providing facilities for community living, industry and transportation, and in providing structures for the use of humankind."   

How could a definition of engineering omit the most important word – design!  This again sounds like we are merely applied scientists, which is not the case.   It is lengthy, dull, and fails to describe what we do, instead focusing on the end product, what we make.  Saying that a cook makes cake does not describe cooking very well.   

ASCE also states:

“Civil engineers make civilization possible.”

Again, this weak definition fails to describe what we do, just the end product of our work.

,

A Flawed Definition

,

Another good but flawed definition from the British Institution of Structural Engineers, is…

Structural engineering is the science and art of designing and making, with economy and elegance, buildings, bridges, frameworks and other similar structures so that they can safely resist the forces to which they may be subjected.

This sounds pretty good, right?   Unfortunately, it fails completely in describing how one goes about designing.    Like all other definitions, it puts too great an emphasis on force resistance.    Yes, we proportion members based largely on forces, but that is only one of many design considerations – we also have to take construction practices, architectural constraints, client needs, and many other factors into account.  As Hardy Cross put it, "Strength is essential, but otherwise unimportant."

,

A Popular Definition

,

A popular but limited definition of structural engineering is…

Structural Engineering is the Art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze, so as to withstand forces we cannot really assess, in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our ignorance.  

This is from Dr. Brown in 1967 or Dr. Dykes in 1978 (For its history, see Jon Schmidt's "InFocus" column in the January 2009 issue of STRUCTURE, "The Definition of Structural Engineering.")  This is clever and fun but only addresses uncertainty of forces and materials.   What a limited understanding of what we do!   This applied science portion of engineering is what they teach in school, so it is a popular definition in the classroom.   Yes, we are experts in the ability to make decisions under great amounts of uncertainty, but that is only one aspect of our work.   Stress and strain are necessary calculations but represent only a small fraction of all that we do; otherwise, we could be completely replaced by a computer.  Those of us who do genuine engineering are never concerned about this.

Shipping Container Engineering

A shipping container uses the full depth of the corrugated metal walls to span 40 feet (much like a wide flange beam needs it's web.  It acts as a deep beam which is as deep as the height of the container.  Therefore, structurally, these walls are very important to keep.  To keep costs down, you want to "let the container be a container" and try to keep the walls.  Unfortunately that is often at odds with flexible space and leasing requirements of offices being a minimum of two containers wide.  So some walls need to go.   If the walls are fully or partially removed, the container becomes much more complicated.  It can lose almost all of its stiffness and shear capacity.  You need to introduce reinforcing (horizontal members or columns) because the small base channel cannot span very far in flexure.   You can accommodate small window openings but determining size for unreinforced or minimally reinforced openings can be complicated.  This is due to the walls having different properties in different directions - in the horizontal direction, the web is as flexible as an accordion - but in the vertical and shear orientation it is very stiff.  There is additional complexity in determining how to economically reinforce modified containers - that is, how to minimize field welding and simplify the connections to adjoining containers and foundations.  

The container can be joined the same way they are stacked on a container ship, using steel assemblies that have manual levers to lock the containers together at each of the four corner castings.  They may also need additional welded plates to tie them together horizontally.   Given all the costly reinforcing required, the only way to make a shipping container building economical is very close collaboration with the owner, architect, and builder.  This was the case on the Box Office project.

Coastal Construction in Rhode Island

Rhode Island, all new construction or substantial improvement (cost > 50% market value) shall be designed and constructed to resist flood hazards and flood loads per the following codes:

  • IBC 2009 Section 1612:  Flood Loads (IBC Highlights)
  • IRC 2009 Section R322:  Flood Resistant Construction (IRC Highlights)
  • ASCE 7-05 Chapter 5:  Flood Loads
  • ASCE 24-05 Flood Resistant Design&Construction (ASCE 24 Highlights)
  • Rhode Island Building Code SBC-1 (2010) Appendix G

The base flood elevation (BFE) will need to be determined for the project.   The BFE is the height above sea level using NGVD 29 or NGVD 88 reference datum for the 1% flood event.   Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) show special flood hazard areas (SFHA).  Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMS) have been updated for all RI communities.   For Maps, see the following links...

DIRMS have the following zones:

  • ZONE VE (commonly referred to as "V Zones" or CHHZ "Coastal High Hazard Zones")
  • ZONE AE (contains both "A Zones" and CAZ "Coastal A Zones"*)
  • ZONE X

Coastal A Zones (CAZ) are not located specifically on these maps but  are defined as zones where breaking waves are between 1.5 feet and 3 feet.   It is necessary to determine whether a structure located within Zone AE falls within CAZ. Coastal A Zones (CAZ)and V Zones (CHHZ) are areas that are subjected to high-velocity wave action and must meet the provisions of Section 4 of ASCE-24.

Recommended Reading on Engineering and Architecture

Billington, D.P.. "Robert Maillart's Bridges; The Art of Engineering" (1979)Collins, Peter.  "Concrete:  The Vision of New Architecture, A study of August Perret and his Precursors" (1958) Cross, Hardy.  "Engineers and Ivory Towers" (1952) Galileo, "Dialog Concerning Two New Sciences" Gorden, J.E.  "The New Science of Strong Materials" (1976)   Kahn, Louis "Conversation with Students" Nervi, Pier Luigi.  "Structures" (1956) Palladio, "The Four Books of Architecture" Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth.  "On Growth and Form" (1917) Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene-Emmanuel.  Lectures on Architecture in Two Volumes (1872) (1987) Vitruvius, The Ten Books on Architecture Billington, D.P., The Tower and the Bridge" (1983) Fuller, Bucky "Critical Path" King, Ross.  "Brunelleschi's Dome" Macaulay David. "Mill" McCullough, David. "The Great Bridge" Rand, Ayn.   "The Fountainhead" Rasenberger, Jim.  "High Steel"

Petroski, Henry. "Remaking the World"

Recommended Reading on Engineering and Philosophy

Addis, William.  “The Evolution of Structural Engineering Design Principles”  Addis, William. “Free Will and Determinism in the Conception of Structures” (1997)         Bulleit, William “Uncertainty in Structural Engineering”  (2008)        Goldman, Steven “The Social Captivity of Engineering”  (1991) Goldman, Steven “Why We Need a Philosophy of Engineering” (2004)      Goodman, Richard "Karl Terzaghi: The Engineer As Artist"    Ferguson, Eugene.  "Engineering and the Mind’s Eye" (1993) Florman, Samuel.  The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (1976) Hartoonian, Gevork  "Ontology of Construction" (1994) Petroski, H., "To Engineer is Human" (1992) Rice, Peter  "An Engineer Imagines" Torroja, Eduado “The Philosophy of Structures” Vick, Steven.   "Degrees of Belief"  (2002)

,

Engineering is Synthesis, not Analysis

,

Engineering is synthesis (evaluation of design options).   One particular framing system is chosen not because it is the truth, but because it is as close as the designer can get.   That is enough to discover that one system is better than another. You see, structural design is really not objective, not close. There really isn’t one answer; there never has been. The problem is that design is perceived that way and has an objective truth assigned to it.  Once you abolish this misconception, the creative possibilities are limitless.   See my article "Twilight of the Idols" in Modern Steel Construction Magazine for more on synthesis and an example design problem.

,

Engineering is Constrained Invention

,

It could be constrained by forces of nature or analytical techniques to describe nature.   It could be controlled by local construction methods, material availability, or an engineer's own ingenuity.   A design can be borne by art and uncertainty as much as it can be borne by science and certainty.   Anyone who doesn't know this is not an engineer.  Isler created the thin concrete shell, a pillowcase shape, when he viewed burlap hanging over rebar.  The artist Kenneth Snelson developed the tensegrity by playing with sticks and strings.   The artist, Ai WeiWei created the bird's nest form used for the Beijing National Stadium for the 2008 Olympics by looking at one.  Bucky Fuller created the geodesic dome through sculpture and play.   He fooled around with stuff like triangles made out of spaghetti, not math.   The inventor Theo Jansen is the master of amazingly lifelike kinetic sculptures without math or science.  Math and science rarely contribute to the creation of the design (there are very few exceptions).    So why are we engineers not making stuff in school?   Who knows!

• Settings >> Advanced >> Code Injection >> Footer