11: Become a Material

Talk to materials.  You can ask if bricks like to take compression.   Go ahead and ask a brick (Louis Kahn did this, we should too).   This may sound bizarre but participating in a conversation with an inanimate object is healthy.  Feel a brick (or bolt, concrete sample, etc) in your hand and discuss with it what it wants to be and where it wants to go in the building.  (For more, see my article  "Participation Mystique" May 2007 Structure Magazine).   It is important to the process of quality design to become the thing itself, by manifesting yourself on the building, beam, connection, or bolt.

I remember visiting a project where I designed all the connections for a large box truss that supporting four stories of concrete and spanned 100 feet.   The erector was proud to show me his work and described the installation, weld and details as a master craftsman would.   He wasn't self serving when describing this – he was describing the work itself.   He and I both knew the architect was going to cover it all up for no one else to see.  He was still deeply satisfied, as was I.   I realized much later that the satisfaction was not really about the truss or even the workmanship (craft).   What he was really showing me was himself, a manifestation of himself on the steel connection.  Yes, the weld was beautiful and well crafted of course and that is satisfying too, but that isn't really what he was indicating.   He was really showing me was that he was a good human being, he is quality just like the connection.   The inanimate object was him and it was beautiful.   We can learn a great deal about ourselves the same way.

I think this idea is similar to Robert Pirsig's metaphysics of quality.   In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig suggests:

You want to know how to paint a perfect painting?  It's easy.  Make yourself perfect and then just paint naturally.  That's the way all the experts do it.  The making of a painting or the fixing of a motorcycle isn't separate from the rest of your existence... the real cycle you're working on is a cycle called yourself.  The machine that appears to be "out there" and the person that appears to be "in here" are not two seperate things.   They grow toward Quality or fall away from Quality together. [Pirsig 1974: 332]

Therefore, according to Pirsig, if you want to become an expert structural engineer, make yourself an expert structural engineer and then do engineering.  This sounds very similar to my idea of living a goalless life.

How does one enter the right frame of mind to do quality work (or enter a material)?  It might be the time when the mind is at ease in the task at hand, such that it no longer feels like a task but an extension of ourselves; it becomes part of us, a feeling of closeness, connectedness.  This state has been described as flow by Csikszentmihalyi (1988).  There are moments while doing engineering that could be described as being in the flow state, such as modeling, sketching, or hand calculations.  He describes how flow is exhibited by mountain climbers: "The mountaineer does not climb in order to reach the top of the mountain, but tries to reach the summit in order to climb," which means that climbing is intrinsically rewarding regardless of whether the goal is accomplished.  Climbing is about the exhilaration of the task at hand, not the reflection on an accomplishment.  Design is the same way, and it is through flow that quality can also come about.

12: Draw with a Pen

If you don't like to write words, sketch ideas of structural systems or buildings.  Buy a sketchbook and use a pen, so you can't erase your mistakes.  Mistakes are important reminders that you are an idiot (like everyone else).  The best preparation for life as an engineer is the understanding of our ignorance.

In 1850 J. Monier, a French gardener, developed a flowerpot with reinforced concrete in the hand sketches above on his patent shown on the right.  In 1867 he patented reinforced garden tubs and, later, reinforced beams.  We engineers owe a debt of gratitude to this gardener.

In the terrific book "Structural Engineering:  The Nature and Theory of Design" William Addis states:

Up until the turn of the century, it was standard practice for engineers to keep their own notebooks containing annotated sketches of hundreds of interesting designs and details they have seen in their travels; this formed a body of knowledge upon which a designer could draw and provided an important link to the past.  Also, until the present century, engineering textbooks and encyclopedias often used to contain many examples of successful designs, both ancient and modern.   Nowadays, young engineers are generally brought up without a good knowledge of precedent and to believe that mathematics of engineering science encapsulates all they need to know. [Addis, 1990:xii]

Does this sound familiar?

13: Simplify Your Analysis Models

15

The best structural engineers do not need complicated models.   Be skeptical of computer results and don't over complicate analysis models.   It is commonly said, that computer software can be a valuable and reliable tool only to those who otherwise do not need it.   This is true.   In your work, make this true.

In the October 2011 article in Structural Engineer, the world renowned structural engineer Bill Baker of SOM is quoted discussing the importance of simple hand calculations when designing the world's tallest building (Burj Khalifa):

Simplicity is not easy.  Always returning to the intrinsic idea of the building gives the design process lucidity and direction.   It also helps one make essential decisions when confronted with the unique situation that arise when creating a building of such great size [Baker: 2011, 12]

He required his team perform the preliminary designs using conjugate beam theorey, which are simple hand calculations. Our software writers that work on integrating BIM with FEM/Analysis Models completely do not understand this (for example Revit/Robot or XSTEEL/RAM).   They think it is actually useful to model the entire building, every floor slope or offset, every little filler beam around slab openings, etc.  They believe this is how we do our work!  I tried to help reduce this misunderstanding when writing BIM and the Structural Engineering Community.     We can model everything, it would be stupid, but we can.

15a

Computers should be used as a tool to make a design decision, it shouldn't make the decision.   If it does, you are an idiot.  Stop what you are doing and talk to someone in the office that knows better and can be your mentor - you need one.  We can model base plates and foundations as shell elements, or we can do a 3-second hand calculation or quick spreadsheet.   You choose.  This is not about trying to take short cuts.   This is about knowing what the software can provide and what it can't.   If you already know the software cannot come close to mimicking reality, where do you draw the line?  We are further along than when Nervi wrote his book Structures in 1956 but his comments still resonate today:

Theoretical results are a vague and approximate image of physical reality... masonry and concrete are far from being isotropic and elastic.  Theory of structures considers our building as being out of time, in a kind of eternal stability and invariability.  But the simple and commonplace fact is that all structures decay...thus this second assumption is also unrealistic.  No soil is perfectly stable nor settles uniformly as time goes by.  All building materials flow viciously...cements and limes keep hardening for decades... theory of structures may be compared to the physiology of perfect organisms, which are permanently youthful and untouched by disease or functional deficiencies.  This kind of physiology is certainly indispensable in a school of medicine but such a school would graduate very poor doctors... the preeminence given to mathematics in our schools of engineering, persuade the young student that there is limitless potency in the theoretical calculations, and give blind faith in their results.  [Nervi: 1956, 15-16]

Is the concrete you are modeling Hookean (linear-elastic)?   Do plane sections really remain plane?  Is that foundation a true pin, a fixed point, or somewhere in between?   My point with these question is to convince those who rely to heavily on computers that these models, no matter how complex, still fail at mimicking reality.  I am not suggesting that we don't need to know about the state of the art in analytical modeling, I am just pressing the point that they will never achieve reality.   Sometime complex FEM modeling is unnecessary and does not contribute to a good design decision (for example, the modeling of a simple spread footing - don't do that).

In the book "Structural Engineering:  The Nature and Theory of Design" William Addis is concerned about how our educators may also be misleading our students when stating:

Students are now told mainly about the mathematics and engineering science relevant to engineering works, but not how to use this knowledge in design.  Nor are they taught the importance of other types of engineering knowledge in design, such as a qualitative understanding of structural behavior, precedent, empirical data and rules ('rules of thumb').  And lastly, they are poorly educated as to the limitations of theory, how and when its efficacy in design might be suspect, and when it might need to be supported, for instance, by tests or physical models.  [Addis, 1990]

David Krakauer of the Santa Fe Institute describes the m^cubed phenomenon or m^cubed mayham as confusions that arise in people minds between mathematics, mathematical models, and metaphors.  I would simplify this and call it m^squared and lump mathematics and mathematical models together as models.  In the past, I have described the FEM models we use in engineering practice differ from the real world and highlight how our models should never be assumed to mimic reality, but are simply tools for us to exercise our engineering (or moral) judgement (in my case, to design safe structures).  We should never mix up the model for what is actually happening in the real world.   This is analogous to Krakaur’s models and metaphors. 

Krakauer says in Harris’s book Making Sense

“you can talk about spring and levers and these are physical artifacts…and then there are mathematical models of spring and levers” and “there is this tendency to be epistemologically narcissistic.  We tend to take whatever current model we’re using and project that onto the natural world as the best-fitting template for how the natural world operates…for many reasons the model is imperfect, computers are not robust”.  

It is not that computers are not robust, they can be robust, it is that they don’t need to be – we humans need to be robust. We need to better understand computer models (and output) and not be subjects to its authority.   This is a actually a question of dominion – we need never forget that we rule over it. Also, to Krakaur’s point, we need recognize when we are being epistemologically narcissistic - it happens all the time and it is really lazy thinking.  This will make us better engineers.  We need to constantly question our models. Again models serve us, not the other way around.

14: Get into the Details

Become super technical (root pass tolerances of CJP bevel welds or stirrup spacings for example) because actively understanding our codes and science is essential.   It is also unlimited.  Yes it is knowledge, but knowledge is an inevitable result of doing engineering (knowledge is mainly the experience portion of our know-how).  

I have found that E-Readers are great for getting into the details of codes.    We cannot possibly know all that is in the endless codes we need to use.   So, you can add them all in PDF on your E-Reader (Kindle, Nook, etc) and read in bed.    If you have trouble sleeping, there is nothing better!   Also, you wake up with new knowledge (experience).

Memorization is less important since engineering is not knowledge based, it is know-how based (See "What is Engieering exactly?").   Knowledge like "A490N bolts cannot be galvanized" is important but this knowledge simple comes through experience, through process, through work.   The know-how of where to look for knowledge is more important than knowledge or facts themselves.   The other way to gain knowledge is through ignorance and knowing when you need help.   With understanding of your own ignorance, comes desire to learn.  That is really all you need.

15: Constantly Prod Yourself

We need to constantly prod those around us to wakefulness by asking questions like "why did you chose this over that" or "what factors led to the decision to do that?" etc.   These should be internal questions too.  If no one is around to prod you, prod yourself.   If you need a poker to prod yourself, buy one.   Don't get lost in the codes, details, loads prior to looking at the full picture.  If you have trouble looking at the structure as a whole (or connection as a whole, weld as a whole), then you are not effectively managing your time.  You will have trouble seeing what you need to focus on.   You need to determine which areas of the project need special attention and which do not.   After all...

What we see depends mainly on what we look for.  [John Lubbock]

16: Know Engineering and Architecture History

Knowing our history, our leaders, our heroes, our world's architecture is not something that needs an explanation.   How is this not part of the curriculum? History helps us use our long tradition of building structures to push new boundaries in our workplaces.  We can stand on the structures of the past and learn to improve future design.   We need to try to work daily towards rejecting the status quo but only after we fully understand why.  History will help us.

In Henry Petroski's book Remaking the World he states:

Engineering ideas and designs are seldom of themselves. Historically, they came out of the oral traditions of the crafts, in which nonliterary thinking abounded, and out of the pictorial catalogs of devises and structures that comprised the notebooks of early engineers...the creative engineer owes a debt to earlier engineers, for it is the wealth of clever artifacts , machines, and schemes they have left for us to climb upon and use that serve as the bases of ideas for the present and future.  [Petroski, 1997:47]

Eladio Dieste is shown above, born in Uruguay, created stunning structures with his revolutionary approach to building with reinforced masonry.  We need to know him.

17: Do Not Seek Beauty, Let it just Become

How do structural engineers design beautiful works of "structural art"?  Nervi and Salvadori give us some clues.  In the forward to Nervi's inspiring and wonderful book Structures, Mario Salvadori reminds the readers:

Nervi's results are not achieved by consciously trying to meet aesthetic demands, but by tackling the fundamental structural problems from the outset, and giving them an obvious and clearly articulated solution.  Beauty, says Nervi, is an unavoidable by-product of this search for satisfactory structural solutions.  [Salvadori 1956:  vi]

Nervi states the importance of structural honesty or correctness:

Every improvement in the functionality and the technical efficiency of a product brings out an improvement in its aesthetic quality...there is no doubt that any product of high efficiency is always aesthetically satisfying.   In the field of architecture, in which functional, statical, and economic needs are intimately mixed, truthfulness is an indispensable condition of good aesthetic results... architecture that satisfies these conditions - that is, a correct work - may be aesthetically insignificant or expressively beautiful, depending on the actual and unconscious capacity of its designer, but will never be aggressively annoying.  [Nervi 1956:  26-27]

If you have been reading this blog, one recurring theme is that idea that engineering is more of an art than a science.   Not art as beauty or aesthetic vision, not at all.   We should not consciously drive toward beauty, since beauty is a by-product of working well.  Instead of trying to create structural art, work honestly in the present ...similar to my idea of living a goalless life.  About 4 years ago prior to reading Nervi's Structures, I was so inspired by Nervi that I wrote this poem with the following last line:

Truth in form as the means, and beauty as the end.

It is not the unattainable "truth" that is useful here, it is simply avoiding that which is not structural correct or appropriate.  and living in it and with it, beauty just becomes.  There is something called “design science” (bio-mimicry, form finding, geodesic geometry, etc) which has mathematical, scientific, and objective procedures to create form.  So “truth in form” is okay in the poem -  but again, it rare that good design is driven by scientific methods.   It can be, but often not.   So, if I could re-write this, I would replace “truth in form as a means”, with “quality as the means”.   Quality, is by definition, process.   As Pirsig (the father of the metaphysics of Quality) would say, quality is “the knife edge of experience”, and living in it and with it, beauty just becomes.

I also tried to write an article about the importance of using Plato's trinity (truth, beauty, and goodness) to drive better design, not sure I succeeded but if interested, see Architects are from Plato.

18: Throw Away Your Alarm Clock

I admit, this is sort of a luxury I have.  I haven't needed an alarm clock for 15 years.   The most important part of my day as an engineer is lying in bed awake for about 20 minutes or so after slowly and naturally waking up from sleep.  The reason it is so important is that I am honestly the most creative and inventive at this time.   Not only do I lay out my work day, I literally solve engineering problems in my head.  I can view the entire project, rotate it in my mind, find problems with the design, prioritize where I need to focus on the project, and improve the design.

The picture above is a project we designed two years ago and is the largest commercial building in the US made out of shipping containers (35 total).  This was partially conceived in the morning waking up from sleep (the 1/3 cantilever and 2/3 backspan).  I can think better then because part of my subconscious is still present consciously.  It hasn't scurried to the back of my brain yet.  Also, it is super quite at 5am or 6am (my 3 boys are still sleeping).  I think the combination of the fact that I was dreaming about many structural engineering issues and then waking up naturally in a peaceful and quiet state creates this clarity of thought.  Throwing away my alarm clock helped me be a better engineer.  It might be the secret to creativity or inventiveness.   If you need an alarm clock, try to go to bed earlier.   Waking up abruptly to a loud noise must be awful, I can't believe I did that through college.   I know this is a luxury that mostly older people have, but it could be incredible useful for everyone.

I am grateful for projects that last more than one day because I will be able to sort them out in the morning.   Try not to finish deadlines at 6pm, finish them at 6am the next day (or 8am).

In Gorden Glegg's The Design of Design we find the following:

History tells us that in fifteen creative artists in various fields from music to mathematics, their key inspiration came suddenly and unexpectedly and never when they were working at it.   This is what they were doing at the time:

• Half asleep in bed - 4
• Out walking or riding - 3
• Traveling - 3
• In church - 2
• At a state dinner - 1
• Sitting in front of fire - 2

Concentration and then relaxation is the common pattern behind most creative thinking."  [Glegg 1969: 18-19]

So, make sure you have time for reflection (not "working") and it will be the best work you did that day.

The Simone de Beauvoir footbridge by PR firm in Paris is shown above.   My guess is this was conceived around 6am.

19: Succeed in Reducing Idiocy

Robert Pirsig complained about a bad motorcycle mechanic when writing Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance after dropping off his bike at a shop after the engine had ceased up and caused the rear wheel to lock up. When walking into the shop, a radio was going full blast and the mechanics were clowning around and talking and did not seem to notice him. When one of them finally did, they immediately misdiagnosed the problem. This caused three overhauls and the original problem became a much larger problem. Then Robert Pirsig describes the mechanics next move:

He brought a hammer and cold chisel and started to pound something loose. The chisel punched through the aluminum cover and I could see he was pounding the chisel right into the engine head. On the next blow he missed the chisel completely and struck the engine with the hammer, breaking of a portion of two of the cooling fins. [Pirsig]

Then Pirsig later thinks to himself:

Why did they butcher it so? That sat down to do a job and they performed like chimpanzees. Nothing personal in it…they were good natured, friendly, easygoing – and uninvolved. They were like spectators. You had the feeling they had just wondered in there themselves and somebody had handed them a wrench. There was no identification with the job. No saying “I am a mechanic” [Pirsig]

What Pirsig is suggesting is that this guy was not a mechanic and should not call himself one. He was an idiot. Just like engineers, we have amongst us plenty of idiots, plenty of spectators that follow procedures or slaves to the status quo, non-thinkers. But Engineers are not spectators. Engineers 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 an idiot:

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, 98]

So knowledge itself is not what separates an engineer, or mechanic, from an idiot. The idiot actually did know how to work on a bike and had some knowledge. The most important difference is not knowledge acquisition but the recognition of ignorance. An engineer, like a master mechanic, is self reflective and constantly aware of the possibility of making a mistake.   Mistakes are going to be made, whether you are an idiot or an expert.   So that is not the issue.   After all, it was Niels Bohr who famously said:

 An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.  [Niels Bohr, Danish physicist]

Before taking a hammer to the problem, the engineer (or master mechanic) reflects and asks questions regarding the design solution. Questions such as “is this the best solution of all the possibilities” or “is this the right material choice” or “am I correct in assuming this can be treated as in this simplified fashion”.

Mistakes will still reveal themselves in projects, but engineering is not about past projects, it is about taking action now on the current project and taking it to a lower state of imperfection. Since problems in engineering are rarely simple or straightforward, it takes a high level of self reflection, teamwork, and attentiveness. Since our mistakes live as long as us, it also takes great deal of humility. The best of us recognize that these mistakes are lifelong reminders that we are at times idiots too, just like everyone else.   So we need to succeed in reducing idiocy by being attentive and by participating actively in every project.

This picture above is the worlds second largest portable hammock we designed last year that brings people together to a public park.  I think we succeeded in reducing idiocy on this project, and that is the definition of success.

20: Worry Often

Worrying about your design will make you better.   You will be better able to prioritize which part of the project needs more attention and hopefully this worry comes prior to construction so it can be corrected if needed.  James Gorden in his book Structures writes:

When you have got as far as working drawings, if the structure you propose to have made is an important one, the next thing to do, and a very right and proper thing, is to worry about it like blazes...it is confidence that causes accidents and worry that prevents them."  [Gorden]

In Henry Petroski's book Remaking the World, he states:

Many engineers see to have spent so many sleepless nights while their designs were progressing from the back of an envelope through increasingly complex nd detailed calculations anddrawings to the realization in an artifact upon whose safety the lives of so many depend.  If engineers do sleep, it is often with a pad and pencil nearby.  They are there to record not dreams, but nightmares, nightmares about collapses and explosions to be checked upon waking against the realty of a design.  And it is a good thing, for otherwise there might be more tragedies than we can imagine." [Petroski: 1997, 68]

21: Draw 1 to 1 Scale

Plato believes what is central to the production of beautiful artifacts is one’s ability to understand the nature of measure (what we now may think of as proportion).  The engineer, according to Plato, must know the nature of measure or proper portioning of structures (artistic as well as scientific).  “Basic to any art, is the art of measure without which there can be no art at all.  For to know the proper size of a column, proportion of a window, the proper organization of language in a poem, is to command the art of measurement.”  Measure then for Plato, is essential to quality and is the fundamental principle that defines quality.  “There are accomplished men, Socrates, who say…the art of measurement is universal, and has to do with all things.” (Plato, Statesman 285b)  So if we think we succeeded in the proper form by creating something well proportioned, how do we know we are right?  How do we judge quality? Drawing 1 to 1 will help you make a better design decision on a particular component of a project.   Try drawing a 6x6 wood post on paper with the joist hanger, or a L4x4x5/16 steel framing angle with bolts to scale.   See if the bolts will fit and get into the code on bolt length (shank, threads, TC bolt tips, etc).   Drawing 1 to 1 will help you better understand proportions and with that, you will be able to use your intuition on the member size.

Here is an example of something we do in the office (comparing HSS members for columns on an 8 1/2 x 11)...

22: Buy Samples of Typical Structural Components

Go to Home Depot and buy structural components (and ask a fabricator/builder).  These items should be in your office while you design on the computer.   Having the material in your hand is the best way to proportion members later on the computer.  I recommended:

• Wood Sizes (2x4, 2x6, 4x4 and 6x6 minimum, 1 foot length is fine)
• Joist Hangers and Hurricane Ties  (Several Sizes)
• 8" CMU (1)
• #3 and #4 Rebar (1 foot length is fine)
• An Expansion and Epoxy Bolt
• Also ask a local fabricator for a foot of a W12x19
• Shear Tab and Clip Angle  (5" Wide x 3/8 tab and a L4x4x3/8 angle,1 foot length is fine)
• 3/4 dia A325N and A325-TC and 7/8 dia A490 bolts
• Ask a concrete inspector for a 8" dia. concrete cylinder.
• Get all the typical nails and screws (8d, 10d, #12 etc)
• Etc

Display these proudly in the office for all engineers to see.    These real samples are vital to be able to make informed structural design decisions.

23: Build Physical Models

The computer will never replace the importance of a physical model out of cardboard, balsa wood, paper, glue, etc.   Architects build these all the time, we should too.

A design can be borne by art and uncertainty more than by science and certainty.   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 Wei Wei 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!

24: Feel and Flex Materials with Hands

Mathematical abstraction or physical laws are secondary to the primary feel (direct apprehension) and intuition of structures.   If you don't believe me, please read from our greatest engineers like Peter Rice’s An Engineer Imagines, Eduado Torroja’s The Philosophy of Structures, or Pier Luigi Nervi’s Structures (or Maillart, Torroja, Eads, Eiffel, Schlaich, Isler, Sobek, etc). Pier Luigi Nervi, one of the greatest structural engineers of all time, put it this way in has seminal work Structures (1956):

The pre-eminence given to mathematics in our schools of engineering, the purely analytical basis of the theory of elasticity, and its intrinsic difficulties persuade the young student that there is limitless potency in theoretical calculations, and give him blind faith in their results.  Under these conditions neither the students nor teachers try to understand and to feel intuitively the physical reality of a structure, how it moves under load, and how the various elements of a statically indeterminate structure react among themselves.  Today everything is done by theoretical calculations.  That student is rated best who best knows how to set up and solve mathematical equations... the mastering of structural knowledge is not knowledge of those mathematical developments which today constitute the theory of structures.  It is a result of a physical understanding of the complex behavior of a building, coupled with an intuitive interpretation of theoretical calculations.  [Nervi, 1956]

Nigel Cross, widely recognized as the leading figure in design research and teaching, summed up the importance of intuition this way in his book "Designerly Ways of Knowing" (2006):

Conventional wisdom about problem-solving seems often to be contradicted by the behavior of expert designers. But designing has many differences from conventional problem-solving.   Empirical studies of design activity have frequently found intuitive features of design ability to be the most effective and relevant to the intrinsic nature of design.  [N. Cross, 2006]

The way we think and feel about structures is more important than the abstract mathematical models or analytical techniques we use when solving problems.  Hardy Cross, our brilliant developer of the moment distribution method, once said:

Design involves sound judgement as well as stress analysis; and judgement is more important.  [H. Cross cited in Addis, 1990: 72]

I recently read an article on "The Genius of Steve Jobs" by Walter Issacson (Oct 30, NY Times) regarding the importance of intuition:

Steve jobs success dramatizes an interesting distinction between intelligence and genius.  His imaginative leaps were instinctive, unexpected, and at times magical.  They were sparked by intuition, not analytic rigor... he didn't study data or crunch numbers but like a pathfinder, he could sniff the winds and sense what lay ahead...when he  wandered around India after dropping out of college, (Jobs said) "The people of the Indian countryside do not use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead.   Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect."  [Issacson; NY Times Oct 30, 2011]

25: Don't Not Do It

“Just do it” from Nike is fine but it seems to be about finishing something you need to finish, not necessarily because you want to finish ("Just do it" is similar to avoiding procrastination).  So that isn’t enough.  “Don’t not do it” is about doing something you want to do but are afraid (worried because it is different, or maybe slightly embarrassing, or risky, etc).  It may be already finished or easy to finish but you are scared.   These are the things you need to do.   If you purge these mental roadblocks, you will benefit yourself.  You will never be “better than the rest” if you don’t allow yourself to complete something because of worry or risk – you will be the rest.  Don’t be the rest.  Don’t not do it.

"Action is a great restorer and builder of confidence. Inaction is not only the result, but the cause, of fear." [Norman Vincent Peale, author]

26: Take a Welding Class

Why should engineers weld?   Because we design welds, and actually doing welding will help us understand and possibly design them better.  We need to understand the tools and the lingo (for example, saying "MIG" is more common than than engineer's GMAW). Here is the MIG welding machine:  The gases, argon and CO2, in the GMAW method create the shield to protect the weld wire from the atmosphere.Try finding a local workshop or welding class in your area.   Use an oxy-acetyline torch to cut through steel or bend steel, then use grinders to cut or smooth the edges.   Use a steel chop saw and sander, or a sand blaster to clean the mill scale.  Weld joints together using stick or MIG welding, adjust the voltage and wire speed to determine how to lay down quality welds.  Weld butt joints, t-joints, even flare bevel groove joints to determine which method and electrode orientation is best.   Create a sculpture, add and weld pieces to it.  Even bolt members together or learn how tap plates (drill holes and add threads).  If possible, use a plasma cutter and add letters to your sculpture and cut curves.

Here is a alien-robot I created at a recent welding workshop...

Here I am practicing GMAW:

Here is a jig I used to be able to cold-bend a piece of 1/2 bar...

I learned that welding poorly is really easy, and welding well is incredibly hard.  You won't be a welder after a couple classes, but you will certainly understand welding a bit better, and with this understanding you will become better at designing and inspecting welds.

27: Sketch Poorly and Sketch Often

Drawing quick sketches is essential to being able to make informed engineering decisions.  Drawings help us determine which elements are relevant and which may be safely ignored.  These daily hand sketches are needed to help us make subtle discriminations about proportion, member orientation, constructibility, connectivity, etc. So we need to sketch and sketch often, but do we need to sketch well?  (For this debate, well = pretty).  Does the sketch need to be nice looking with straight lines and perfectly to scale?  No.  Or should they be those cool architect type with soft and purposeful squiggly lines?  No, don't be cool - that is a waste of time.   Also don't show hand drawings to anyone where you focused on making them pretty instead of making them clear and useful.  Should they be on fancy black paper?  No.  They can be on any paper and with any pen.

The sketch can and should look like a 6 year old's drawing.  If you are better at drawing, of course, don't degrade your sketch by following this advice - but if you are average, don't be intimidated by others who waste their time making pretty sketches.  You need to sketch anyway, and all the time, constantly.  This is the most important action we do.  Sketches should only meet one criteria - they are to be useful to you and your team to communicate a design and to help with decision making about the design.  Feel free to sketch well as a hobby - by all means - add water color even, but for daily engineering, sketch poorly and sketch often.

Here is a sketch I did today that is too pretty but serves as an example of what we should constantly be doing prior to, or along with, using the computer...

28: Email Well (Less Words, More Pics)

As a design community we email poorly - way too many words, not enough pictures/sketches/details/screen shots.   It is still the coordination tool of choice today, but there isn't one way to email.  Add lots of screen shots! Here is a bad email...

"Erik,  On grid line 8 east of wall A, near the dining room wall, there is a post that needs to be moved 6" to the north.   Remember, north is to the left on the PDF set you have.  Sincerely, Bobby Cantemail"

Here is a good email...

29: Stand instead of Sit

Add a standing desk to the office (or ask for one!).   Engineers typically spend 80%-90% of their time in an office sitting in front of a computer.  Not much we can do about this, but adding a standing desk to the office as an optional work location can help mix things up...where you can go and work while standing and stretching.

We added this work station with a desk with adjustable height   We also have the option of leaning back on this FOCAL bike seat we bought - which is between sitting and standing (like the comfortable kitchen counter at home).   As an aside, this should be obvious by now in 2013, but all engineering work stations should have 2 monitors each a min 23 inches (24/27 preferable) so you can work on BIM on one side, calcs on the other.

Lincoln Center Theater

Just stumbled upon some great pictures of our Lincoln Center project.  We were the erection engineers for this long span roof truss....

This included determining each pick, how to hang entire truss on existing wall, reinforcing of existing roof for construction loads, reinforcing existing retaining wall for the crane loads, rigging, full construction sequencing etc.

Here is one portion of our 30+ drawings...

Final Building (Long Span Truss above building)...

In the foreground you can see the green roof that is hyperbolic.   We were also involved in that project (Arup was EOR) back in 2009.  We designed all the connections for that roof.