Structural Engineer

domrush

Hi I'm filling out my CAO at the moment and was just wondering what does a structural engineer actually do? I'm considering the structural eng with arch course in UCD but what I actually want to do is design buildings on CAD and have some input into the creative process, rather than just picking which cement to use. Know what I mean?

bnt

There are a couple of threads on the UCD programme over on the UCD forum, and maybe a couple here too. The degree is about designing structures from the ground up (literally), which involves plenty of hairy Maths, and the only CAD you use as an undergraduate is AutoCAD, not any kind of Structural Design CAD (FEM etc.)

Picking which cement to use is frankly the least of the problems that a Structural Engineer (or student) faces. But the UCD degree seems to have been designed to give Structural Engineers some input in to the creative process, so it may be the closest to what you're after. There is some crossover with Architecture (History & Theory), and you look at the most basic structures and how they work. There's AutoCAD, and there's also pencil and paper. :pac:

Mellor

domrush wrote: »

Hi I'm filling out my CAO at the moment and was just wondering what does a structural engineer actually do? I'm considering the structural eng with arch course in UCD but what I actually want to do is design buildings on CAD and have some input into the creative process, rather than just picking which cement to use. Know what I mean?

If that's what you want then its not structural engineering. Very few struct. engineers do any atheistic design work (they obv do structural design, which is not what you refer t imo), there ae a few exceptions such as Calatrava, but he really is an exception (plus has an architecture degree)

What you are looking for is Architecture or Architectural Technology.
The two are closely linked, but fundmentally different. a good place to ask about each would be the Arch Tech forum,
or even the Architecture forum


Make a list of questions, and variosu things you want to do, and the guys there will be able to tell you which role suits your aims best.

bnt

Mellor wrote: »

If that's what you want then its not structural engineering. Very few struct. engineers do any atheistic design work (they obv do structural design, which is not what you refer t imo), there ae a few exceptions such as Calatrava, but he really is an exception (plus has an architecture degree)

That's generally correct today, but there are moves in the industry to try and change that a bit, and the UCD "Structural Engineering with Architecture" degree is part of that. I'm doing that degree, and there's traffic going the other way too i.e. UCD Architecture students are getting exposed to structural requirements in their programme.

Note the word "some" i.e. there's no suggestion of replacing architects, but Calatrava, Arup, SOM and others seem to be inspiring structural engineers to get more involved in the aesthetic design of their structures.

It depends on what the OP means by "design", I think. Design the appearance, or design the structure to do everything required of it? The latter is structural engineering and is pretty heavy on the Maths.

Ninja101

bnt wrote: »

Calatrava, Arup, SOM and others seem to be inspiring structural engineers to get more involved in the aesthetic design of their structures.

It depends on what the OP means by "design", I think. Design the appearance, or design the structure to do everything required of it? The latter is structural engineering and is pretty heavy on the Maths.

Aesthetic design? You mean choosing a 300mm slab instead of a 275mm? Look around you. Are most buildings airport terminals with giant trusses, or stadia with huge cantilevers? Unless you're Peter Rice doing some signature building most are a shed in the middle of nowhere and the structure is hidden anyway. There's very little pure design to do, most of your job is business really.

And lol at structural engineering being "heavy on the maths". You mean solving matrices (which a computer does) or something? Do a pure maths course and come back to me.

Mellor

bnt wrote: »

That's generally correct today, but there are moves in the industry to try and change that a bit, and the UCD "Structural Engineering with Architecture" degree is part of that. I'm doing that degree, and there's traffic going the other way too i.e. UCD Architecture students are getting exposed to structural requirements in their programme.

All architecture students are exposed to structural requirements.


And while the Structural engineering with architecture is a good thing, don't think you'll do anything different upon graduation

bnt

Ninja101 wrote: »

Aesthetic design? You mean choosing a 300mm slab instead of a 275mm? Look around you. Are most buildings airport terminals with giant trusses, or stadia with huge cantilevers? Unless you're Peter Rice doing some signature building most are a shed in the middle of nowhere and the structure is hidden anyway. There's very little pure design to do, most of your job is business really.

And lol at structural engineering being "heavy on the maths". You mean solving matrices (which a computer does) or something? Do a pure maths course and come back to me.

Funny you should mention Peter Rice, who was a structural engineer of the sort we're talking about here. Did he just plug numbers in to computers? You seem to be confusing "engineer" with "technician". :rolleyes:

I suggest you have a look at the syllabus of e.g. the UCD programme before you make statements like that, since you clearly have no idea what's involved. For starters, that programme includes all the Engineering Maths courses done in Engineering in their first three years (for the B.Sc). You learn to do things analytically (Calculus etc.) long before you look at any Numerical methods.

No, it's not "Pure Maths", for a reason: Engineers actually make things, and if you think structural engineering has been boiled down to choosing between different packages or options, you need to talk to someone at e.g. Arup or Happold, who are blurring the line between architecture and structural engineering. I'm not interested in arguing the merits of different disciplines, but a statement as ignorant as the above needs some response, since prospective structural engineers might look at that and get the wrong idea. There's still plenty of envelope to push, if you have the right attitude.

dan_d

Em. Not meaning to be smart, but if structural engineering is "not heavy on the maths" then what IS it heavy on?? And pure maths is all theory with very few numbers - almost no numbers in fact. Which, if you look at any structural engineering book, is the exact opposite. We use numbers to build , as opposed to proving why numbers do what they do - ie why does 1+0=1

OP, if you do engineering, you will use a lot of different computer programmes after graduation. Prior to graduation however, you will have to do 3/4 years (depending on college and course) of maths based structural design and theory of structures, among other subjects. This basically involves analysing the different aspects of a building and sizing the members (columns/slabs) in such a way that they make the building stand and hoepfully, work with what the architect intends to do. (Simplified description)

Engineers have very little input into the aesthetics of a building, so if that's what you're really interested in maybe you should investigate the structural engineering with architecture course as suggested. To be honest though, from my experience you work as either one or the other. I would imagine it's difficult enough to get a job in an architectural practice with a sturctural degree....correct me if I'm wrong.
There are those rare people out there, such as Calatrava, who have both degrees and are lucky enough to be able to practice in both professions. As for computer programmes it depends on what you specialise in. Autocad tends to be basically taught to civil engineers; your skill after that will probably be based on how much you use it in everyday working life.

Ninja101

bnt wrote: »

Funny you should mention Peter Rice, who was a structural engineer of the sort we're talking about here. Did he just plug numbers in to computers? You seem to be confusing "engineer" with "technician". :rolleyes:

I suggest you have a look at the syllabus of e.g. the UCD programme before you make statements like that, since you clearly have no idea what's involved. For starters, that programme includes all the Engineering Maths courses done in Engineering in their first three years (for the B.Sc). You learn to do things analytically (Calculus etc.) long before you look at any Numerical methods.

No, it's not "Pure Maths", for a reason: Engineers actually make things, and if you think structural engineering has been boiled down to choosing between different packages or options, you need to talk to someone at e.g. Arup or Happold, who are blurring the line between architecture and structural engineering. I'm not interested in arguing the merits of different disciplines, but a statement as ignorant as the above needs some response, since prospective structural engineers might look at that and get the wrong idea. There's still plenty of envelope to push, if you have the right attitude.

You'll note that I mentioned Peter Rice as an exception, most structural engineers aren't working on the Sydney Opera House or the Pompidou Centre. He started in the 1950s when computers were in their infancy, and Moment Distribution and other hand methods were used. A few differential equations would have been the hardest maths involved. He was involved in Arup's own development of computer programs as far as I know. Modern SE's use computers extensively and for all intents and purposes are "technicians" in many ways.

Many of the coursework in Structural Engineering degrees is never used in the workplace, and is arguably not needed. (I think that much of it is padding to justify University's exorbitant fees, but thats another discussion.) Much of the engineering maths isn't either. Fourier Theory for example.

For the majority of SE's who aren't at Arup or Happold, bread and butter buildings are what they will work on for their whole career. Typically apartments, offices, and warehouses. They won't get the chance to "blur the line between Architecture and Engineering" as you say. I assume you're referring to the culture and pomposity surrounding "elegant" design. I'm not too worried how slim a beam in some basement is, but some Peter Rice wannabe's engineers (working on sheds) are.

And there isn't really much envelope to push. I suggest you take a look at IStructE exam papers, where scheme design of buildings is done. Even then the buildings are unusual types that most engineers will probably never face. The choice is nearly always Steel or Concrete. Whoopee!

Mellor

bnt wrote: »

No, it's not "Pure Maths", for a reason: Engineers actually make things, and if you think structural engineering has been boiled down to choosing between different packages or options, you need to talk to someone at e.g. Arup or Happold, who are blurring the line between architecture and structural engineering.

first of all, Arup's (for example) aren't an "engineering firm". They have an engineering department, and an architectural department. Which gives them
much more control in this aspect.

Secondly, how many Irish companies are using a similar approach, ie blurring the lines. The simple fact is, structural design can also be part of the building aesthetic, but it just is common yet.

John368

I am a structural engineer. There is a great deal of creativity in structural engineering, but a structural engineer will often work in the background unnoticed. If you are the type of person who wants your name in lights then do not become a structural engineer.

John368

Mellor wrote: »

first of all, Arup's (for example) aren't an "engineering firm". They have an engineering department, and an architectural department. Which gives them
much more control in this aspect.
QUOTE]

Arup are actually a firm of Civil and Structural Engineers and Architects.

Ove Arup was a successful structural engineer who became famous for his designs in reinforced concrete in the 1920's onwards and was a very big influence in structural engineering in Britain, Ireland and around the world. His training and early career started in the Continent, but he built up a large and very influential firm in Britain with his firm of consulting engineers started in the 1940's and still going very strong today.

I am not sure of when he started to employ architect's as well as engineers so that he could offer the whole design package to clients, but I think Arup was proabably one of the first firms to become what is known as a multi-discplinary. Today multi-discplinary firms are fairly common in the design of buildings where, engineers, surveyor, architects, environmental consultants etc etc all work for the same firm. This is opposed to all those people being employed separately by the owner of the prople building to come up with a design. With the traditional way of designing buildings, that is by not using a multidisclinary firm' it is not uncommon for 10 different cansultants (ie. structural enginerr, M&E engineer, architect, QS etc etc) from ten different firms to be employed in the design of a very large building project. The multidiscplinary approach seems the obvious way to design buildings, but it can have some disadvantages as it is putting perhaps all you eggs in one basket so to speak. Often projects are designed by a combination of multidiscplinary and traditional firms of specialist consultants.

By the way I do not work for Arup.

JOhn

miss no stars

Ninja101 wrote: »

A few differential equations would have been the hardest maths involved. He was involved in Arup's own development of computer programs as far as I know. Modern SE's use computers extensively and for all intents and purposes are "technicians" in many ways.

Just regarding the "heavy on the maths" debate here. I'm a 3rd year student and for maths, the structural stream is merged with all the other streams in my college. Even lecturers have said that the structural students tend to do better in maths than the other streams.
Now, I don't put that down to there being a hoard of mathematical genuises in structural. It's more a case that up until now, we've USED the maths more.
Calculus remained abstract for the other streams, while structural learned to use it to describe a beam under certain loading conditions. We actually got to SEE what it does! Not just as a concept, actually used it and now I actually look at something and go "Oh that's easy! I can just write a differential equation and..."
Last year we taught ourselves double integration because we needed it for mechanics of materials. This year it's on the maths course

So ok, the maths might not TECHNICALLY be the most difficult in the world and we probably won't produce someone able to prove fermat's last theorem or anything BUT... EVERY subject we do has maths in it. Heck, even PD has maths in it now. Every subject requires either number crunching (easy enough), numerical derivations or theoretical derivations. So in that sense, yes, it IS a maths heavy course. It's not the most difficult maths in the world, it's certainly do-able but there is a lot of it, as opposed to say architecture which would have classes to do with history, theory, design, civilisation etc etc.

Scoffing engineering and saying "Oh go do pure maths and then tell me what's maths heavy"... well duh. The clue is in the name.... But it is reasonable to point out to someone who is trying to decide between architecture and structural engineering that SE IS going to be maths heavy, while architecture will have more artsy type stuff going on as well as the maths.

bnt

I can see how a typical working structural engineer might almost never be called on to provide analytical solutions to problems using advanced Calculus. However, the original question was partly about the UCD program, which most definitely does have that kind of Maths, and you're not going to get to work as a structural engineer without it.

Look at it this way: if the field is bad-mouthed and denigrated as "button-pushing" by "real engineers", why does it have stars such as Peter Rice or Cecil Balmond, and where are their successors going to come from? If you think it's a small pond, and you're a big fish ... come on it, the water's lovely. :pac:

sprinkles

John368 wrote: »

I am a structural engineer. There is a great deal of creativity in structural engineering, but a structural engineer will often work in the background unnoticed. If you are the type of person who wants your name in lights then do not become a structural engineer.

Agreed. There are plenty of opportunities for Structural Engineers to impact on the aesthetics of a building. Personally I find the challenges presented by architects in terms of achieving a "crazy" design the most interesting part of the job. It involves preparing a few schemes (workable options) and getting rough sizes for the structure and then going back to the architect to discuss and eventually agree on a solution.

On a side note, in my experience the Engineer is very much an overlooked and undervalued member of the design team. While the Architect has the creative licence for the project nothing will work unless the Engineer is equally creative in his/her design.

Anyway, the job involves a good deal of Maths, spacial awareness (being able to pictures things in 3D) and a great deal of problem solving. If you can throw some leadership skills and communication skills in with that then you'll be on the way to stardom

Mellor

John368 wrote: »

[Q
Arup are actually a firm of Civil and Structural Engineers and Architects.

I know.

Read my post again. That's exactly what I said, they aren't engineers.
A bit confused by your "explanation"