Structures Workshop invests in New Software

We bought 4 licences of Tedds to help us supplement our in-house calculation packages.  In addition, we bought 3 licenses of Bluebeam which help us easily mark-up PDF drawings and coordinate drawings in real time online with multiple users (it is Adobe Pro on steriods).   We are also considering buying SDS/2 Connect after our 30 day trial to help us coordinate 3d steel connection design within Revit.     These new programs, along with out current licenses of Etabs and Revit allow us to be at the state of the art in the engineering community.

,

Engineering Beginnings

,
Future Engineers?

Future Engineers?

When I was about two-three years old, my parents were concerned because I did not talk. I struggled in social situations and preferred being on my own with building blocks or trucks. I didn’t have a picture of myself, but here you can see my 3 boys doing essentially what I was doing – playing with things that have wheels.  Anything with wheels or toys for building were the most appealing.

I learned much later that I was considered a "non-verbal" thinker. I did not do well in kindergarten or first grade and flunked second grade.  I was given speech therapy and slowly caught up to others my age, but it really was not until high school that I felt comfortable reading and comprehending what I was reading.  What I lacked in social skills, writing, or reading was offset by considerable skill in making stuff. I built pretty amazing castles and boats out of wood blocks and LEGOs. While upbringing specifics will obviously vary from Engineer to Engineer, I have yet to meet one who wasn't the master of LEGOS on the block.

,

Engineering predates Science

,

We were designing and building things long before we had a “scientific” methods and mathematical solution techniques – and we still do today.  We can actually do engineering without science (Pantheon is an example), but science does indeed help and is absolutely necessary today.  A calculator helps too.  Did we need to wait for mathematical understanding of a hanging chain before we could build catenaries?  Of course not.   We didn't need to wait for Galileo and Bernoulli to create architecture.   We didn't need Euler to design columns.  This “pre-science” type of engineering is design and it is still 90% of what we do today.  Have you witnessed the architect August Perret's Church of Notre Dame du Raincy?   Were the methods of proportion used in the past flawed?   Sure.   Did they work?   Sure, sometimes.  Are current state-of-the- art methods that are good at mimicking nature still flawed?    Absolutely, less so, yes, but certainly flawed.  We as structural engineers should recognize that while science and math are critically important to what we do, they do not define us - and history tells us, they never did.  How can we be defined as applied scientists when engineering predates science?

,

Art Without Craft?

,

The New York Times published a bunch of wonderfully funny "doodles" by the artist David Shrigley.   Here is one of them:

‘‘I’m not trying to draw badly,’’ says Shrigley, who graduated from the Glasgow School of Art. ‘‘I’m just trying to draw without any consideration of craft."

I wonder what architecture (or engineering) looks like without consideration of craft.

The Stone Pulls the Horse

Newton's Third Law We think of this as F = F, or "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", but Newton expressed this differently than the way we learned this in school.   In his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published in 1687, there were no equations in his laws, and they were grounded in concrete reality.  He added a physical description one could envision in the mind, rather than the abstract way we think of it:

If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. [Newton, 1687]

Why didn't my teacher ask me how the little stone can pull a horse with as much force as the horse pulls the stone?   "It is the tension in the rope!" would have been something fun to discover in high school.  Instead, I just read "action = reaction".

,

Indeed, Socrates, I do not know.

,

Is it a good idea to teach a class that is new like “Sustainability in Civil Structures” or the highly technical “Advanced Matrix Analysis” and replace classes that reinforce the basics?   There are only so many hours in the current curriculum.   Regardless of which class we may add (and consequently which class we remove), every class needs to foster enquiry.   We need to resist cramming their heads with more and more knowledge (whether it is more mathematics, new theory based on a particular research agenda or trends in the marketplace).  This may numb the minds of our future engineers.  Teaching should be about assisting the student in discovery (a liberal education), not supplying the knowledge or listing the latest facts.  Let’s turn to what liberal learning means from the master of inquiry, Socrates.Socrates can best help us understand the importance of a liberal education.  He is someone who literally lost his life in defense of the spirit of inquiry (read the Apology or Crito).   I think his most telling debate on the importance of inquiry is in the dialog Meno.   It is in the work written by Plato where we find Socrates asking fundamental questions about learning itself.   I am going to borrow and edit heavily the entire dialog (even replace words for the heck of it) because I think this is exactly the type of dialog that should exist in all of our classrooms.

Meno.  Can you tell me, Socrates, whether structural engineering is acquired by theory or by practice; or if neither, then whether it comes to man through testing nature, or in what other way?

Socrates. O Meno, I am certain that if you were to ask anyone this, he would laugh in your face, and say: "Stranger, you have far too good an opinion of me, if you think that I can answer your question. For I literally do not know what structural engineering is, and much less how it is acquired”.  And I myself, Meno, I confess with shame that I know literally nothing about engineering.

Meno.  And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know?  How do we learn something that we have no knowledge of?

Soc. I will tell you how: all enquiry and all learning is but recollection.  We do not learn, we recollect.

Men. What do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of recollection? Can you teach me how this is?

Soc. I told you, Meno, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will involve me in a contradiction!

Men. Indeed, Socrates, I protest that I had no such intention. I only asked the question from habit; but if you can prove to me that what you say is true, I wish that you would.

Soc. It will be no easy matter, but I will try to please you to the utmost of my power. Suppose that you call one of your numerous uneducated slaves, that I may demonstrate on him – the question of learning is recollection.   We will have to get to what structural engineering is another day – and concentrate on how one knows things.  I will however use the area of a column as an example - something I am sure is used by the structural engineer.

Men. Certainly. Come hither, boy.

Soc. Meno please attend now to the questions which I askthis boy, and observe whether he learns of me or only remembers.

Men. I will.

Soc. Tell me, boy, do you know that a figure like this section of a column.   Is it not a square?

Boy. Yes, I do.  It is a square.

Soc. And you know that a square figure has these four lines equal?

Boy. Certainly.

Soc. And these lines which I have drawn through the middle of the square are also equal?

s1

s1

Boy. Yes.

Soc. A square may be of any size?  So a column may be of any size?

Boy. Certainly.

Soc. And if one side of the column be of two feet, and the other side be of two feet, how much are will the whole column be? Let me explain: if in one direction the column was of two feet, and in other direction of one foot, the whole would be of two feet taken once?

Boy. Yes. So two by two would be four square feet.

Soc.  Good.  And might there not be another square column with an area twice as large as this? And what is the area of that doubled column?

Boy. Eight square feet of course.

Soc.  Correct.  And now try and tell me what is the length each side if the area of the square column is eight?

Boy. Clearly, Socrates, it will be double the length of the side, so each side will be four.

Soc. Do you observe, Meno, that I am not teaching the boy anything, but only asking him questions; and now he fancies that he knows how long the side of the column is necessary in order to produce a column of eight square feet; does he not?  And does he really know?

Men. Certainly not.

Soc. Observe him while he recalls the steps in regular order. (To the Boy.) Tell me, boy, do you assert that double the area comes from doubling the side? Remember that I am not speaking of an oblong, but of a figure equal every way, and I want to know whether you still say that a double square comes from double line?

s2

s2

Boy. Yes

Soc. But does not this line become doubled if we add another such line here?

Boy. Certainly.

Soc. And are there not these four divisions in the figure, each of which is equal to the figure of four feet?

Boy. True.

Soc. And four times is not double is it?

Boy. No, indeed. It is four times as much.   Sixteen!   Oh no - that column is huge!

Soc. So what side length would give you a space of eight square feet?   Is not a space of eight, half the size of sixteen?

Boy. Certainly.

Soc. Then the line which forms the side of eight square feet ought to be more than this line of two feet, and less than the other of four feet?

Boy. It ought.

Soc. Try and see if you can tell me how much it will be.

s3

s3

Boy. Three feet.

Soc. And how much are three times three feet?

Boy. I am counting and I am close but nine is not eight.  So I was wrong again!

Soc. But from what length of line would give you eight square feet?  Tell me exactly; and if you would rather not reckon, try and show me the line.

Boy. Indeed, Socrates, I do not know.

Soc. Do you see, Meno, what advances he has made in his power of recollection? He did not know at first, and he does not know now, what is the side of a column of eight square feet: but then he thought that he knew, and answered confidently as if he knew, and had no difficulty; now he has a difficulty, and neither knows nor fancies that he knows.

Men. True.

Soc. Is he not better off in knowing his ignorance?   If we have made him doubt, and given him the "torpedo's shock," have we done him any harm?  We have certainly, as would seem, assisted him in some degree to the discovery of the truth; and now he will wish to remedy his ignorance, but then he would have been ready to tell all the world again and again that the double the area should have a double side.   He would of lived his entire life with false knowledge - and this is just area stuff, I haven't even discussed buckling!

Men. True.

Soc. But do you suppose that he would ever have enquired into or learned what he fancied that he knew, though he was really ignorant of it, until he had fallen into perplexity under the idea that he did not know, and had desired to know?

Men. I think not, Socrates.

Soc. Mark now the farther development. I shall only ask him, and not teach him, and he shall share the enquiry with me: and do you watch and see if you find me telling or explaining anything to him, instead of eliciting his opinion. Tell me, boy, is not this a square of four feet which I have drawn?

Boy. Yes.

Soc. And how many times larger is this space than this other?

Boy. Four times.

Soc. But it ought to have been twice only, as you will remember.  And does not this line, reaching from corner to corner, bisect each of these spaces?

Boy. Yes.

s4

s4

Soc. And how many spaces are there in this section?

Boy. Two.

Soc. And four is how many times two?

Boy. Twice.

Soc. And this space is of how many feet?

Boy. Of eight feet.

Soc. And from what line do you get this figure?

Boy. From this.

Soc. That is, from the line which extends from corner to corner of the figure of four square feet?

Boy. Yes.

Soc. And that is the line which the learned call the diagonal. And if this is the proper name, then you, boy, are prepared to affirm that in order to double the area of the column, you would square the diagonal?

Boy. Certainly, Socrates.

Soc. What do you say of him, Meno? Were not all these answers given out of his own head?

Men. Yes, they were all his own.

Soc. And yet, as we were just now saying, he did not know?

Men. True.

Soc. But still he had in him those notions of his-had he not?

Men. Yes.

Soc. Then he who does not know may still have true notions of that which he does not know?   Without any one teaching him he will recover his knowledge for himself, if he is only asked questions?  And this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is recollection?

Men. True.

Soc. And this knowledge which he now has must he not either have acquired or always possessed?

Men. Yes.

Soc. But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.

Men. And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

Soc. And if there have been always true thoughts in him, both at the time when he was and was not a man, which only need to be awakened into knowledge by putting questions to him, his soul must have always possessed this knowledge, for he always either was or was not a man? .

Men. I feel, somehow, that I like what you are saying.

Soc. And, Meno, I like what I am saying. Then, as we are agreed that a man should enquire about that which he does not know; that is a theme upon which I am ready to fight, in word and deed, to the utmost of my power.

In other words, we should want our students to acquire the freedom that allows them to acknowledge the one certainty in life: “Indeed, Socrates, I do not know.” Recognition of that certainty, we are all ignorant, is the pathway to learning.   Then learning things will belong to them, instead of just repeating things that belong to others (memorization of facts, test taking, etc).  Future engineers need to process the tools resulting from a liberal education to help them to listen and to read attentively and deeply, to express themselves intelligibly and precisely, to measure and question the world, and to seek truth.   This will help them become lifelong learners.  Another useful result, it will make them better at understanding the highly technical and theoretical aspects of engineering too.     We don’t want engineers who regurgitate what they have been taught and memorized.  We want them to struggle and to engage the world and people in a meaningful ways.  We want engineers with a spirit of inquiry and love of learning that will last a lifetime.   So even if we add classes that submit to trends in the marketplace or wrongly decide our students need more mathematics, we better make sure that Socrates joins every class.

Structures Workshop wins 1st Prize for AFH Canopy

We won 1st prize in the 3Form contest for the AYH Canopy today!  The new entry canopy was designed to give Artists for Humanity a more profound presence in their building and their neighborhood, and to provide shelter and visibility at their entry. The canopy was designed and built by high school students in the AFH program in conjunction with designLAB, Arrowstreet, Structures Workshop, and graduate architecture students from the Massachusetts College of Art + Design. We were #1 out of a total of 18 entries, click below for link to website...

,

Very Good But Long Definition of Structural Engineering

,

"Structural engineering is the art of protecting human lives and property by exercising practical judgment to use physical principles and time-tested heuristics in the intentional conception, description, and justification of an arrangement of materials in a building, bridge, or other structure that safely resists anticipated forces and satisfies other applicable performance requirements with efficiency, economy, and elegance."  [SEphil Yahoo Group]

,

Engineers want and have Meaning

,

I think for the most part Engineers are pragmatists and want to work to provide value for humanity. Engineering itself has obvious meaning.  The final construction of the building, highway, or treatment plant is useful and therefore meaningful. Since the built thing has meaning, we have meaning. There are many professions that lack this, but we choose this profession partly because of this. Living a meaningful life is critical to one’s well-being. Engineers, at a minimum, are visual thinkers, artists, scientists, risk takers, worriers, and self-reflective professionals who value intuition, logic, and living meaningful lives. We are in constant search for the knowledge to be able to do things (know-how) not necessarily knowledge itself (know-that). We want to actively participate in creating a better built world. These are some of the common traits that make us who we are.

,

Engineers are Rigorously Logical Creative Artists

,

The most important trait is curiosity about the built world, the will to tackle difficult problems, and self-reflective methodology. The will is strengthened by confidence in using logic as a method to solve problems. Engineers are rigorously logical and independent thinkers.  We do not just want to understand the system, but also to improve it. We want to know how and why things work, and how we can get them to work better.  That is why we also invent new things, we are in a constant surprise at how much the built world could be improved. It is not uncommon for an engineer to think "Why in the world is this the way this thing is?  It could be so much better if I just change this and add that." We are rational problem solvers who like to analyze things to understand how they work and how they can work better.

Engineering is more of an art than a science; not in the sense that it is uncertain, but because the design process is a true art, not unlike that of an artist/sculptor/poet.  In Engineering and the Mind's Eye, Ferguson (1992) concludes:

Necessary as the analytical tools of science and mathematics most certainly are, more important is the development in student and neophyte engineers of sound judgment an intuitive sense of fitness and adequacy.  No matter how vigorously a "science" of design may be pushed, the successful design of real things in a contingent world will always be based more on art than on science.  Unqualifiable judgments and choices are the elements that determine the way a design comes together.  Engineering design is simply that kind of process. It always has been; it always will be. [Ferguson]

,

Engineers are Self-Reflective

,

Most engineers at a young age are unusually self-reflective.  This is a necessary trait to be able to solve puzzles, build towers from blocks, or fix things.  The curiosity to start a problem needs to be maintained by self-reflection and patience, and to complete the task takes a strong will.

Engineers are not spectators; we have to diagnose the problem and self-reflect to create ideas to help find the solution. We actively engage projects to reveal solutions to problems or yield new ideas.  Matthew Crawford, in the terrific book Shop Class is Soulcraft, describes the difference between an expert mechanic and a procedural thinker:

"The forensic perceptual expertise of the engine builder is active in the sense that he knows what he is looking for.  But with the idiot we see the result of a premature conceit of knowledge” (Crawford 2009).

Thus knowledge itself is not what separates an engineer, or a mechanic, from an idiot.  The most important difference is the humility to recognize one’s own ignorance, combined with a good amount of skill acquisition through experience. An engineer, like a master mechanic, is self-reflective and constantly aware of the possibility of making a mistake.  Before taking a hammer to the problem, the engineer (or master mechanic) reflects and asks questions regarding the solution such as, “Is this the best solution of all the possibilities?” or “Is this the right material choice?” or “Am I correct in assuming that this can be treated in this simplified fashion?”

Being skeptical of our own thoughts and that of others is another common characteristic. We are proud of ourselves when we see our own ingenuity and analytic skills improve something or shape something properly or solve a forensic problem.  Mistakes will still reveal themselves in projects, but engineering is not about that past, it is about taking action now and bringing the project to a lower state of imperfection. Experience is necessary to be able to see a few good potential solutions to a problem within an infinite amount of options.  Our intuition is strengthened every year of our careers. Since problems in engineering are rarely simple or straightforward, it takes a high level of self-reflection and intuition to tackle them.

,

Are Chefs Applied Non-Burners?

,

No doubt safely resisting forces is the most important thing we do (the applied science portion of engineering) – but that doesn’t make it the defining thing.   Saying Structural Engineering is about safely resisting forces is like saying “Chefs are Applied Non-Burners”.  The most important thing for a chef is to make sure they do not burn the food (or undercook).  Obviously this is not a defining characteristic of being a Chef.  Stress and Strain calcs are actually the easiest part and account for a small portion of our time (10-20%) - so similarly, we are not applied scientists.  If an engineer tells me “Not true, I spend 30 hours a week on FEM or Calculations so I am doing science and spending my day resisting forces”.   I would say, “Are you really doing science?  That is an enormous amount of time spent on analysis – but what is it really that you are doing in those 30 hours?  In your Etabs model, why did you choose a steel channel?   Is that because of the stress?  Why did you use an HSS brace?  Because of the forces or because it has worked pretty well in the past in this type of building in this location, etc.  Did the deflection cause the structural system, or vice versa?   If vice versa, what caused the structural system?   How did it become?  It became because you made it become, not by science or numbers, but by a creative force formed by know-how experience.  

“Engineering is a community of people who are practitioners of a creative form of cognition, engineering design, akin to that practiced by artists.” [Layton, 1984] 

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