Engineering -Vs- Architecture

breadmonkey

How do architects design buildings when they don't have the necessary maths and physics to know if they'll stay up or not???(Correct me if I'm wrong on this)

sinjin_smythe

Yeah engineers rule
!!

homerhop

They dont. They go to a client and say ths is what your building is going to look like with all these lovely features. Then it is up to the engineer to actually design the building to suit the architects idea.
As for engineers rule try dealing with them like I do every day and you will get a completely different oppinion

breadmonkey

What do you mean?

CerebralCortex

ross*k wrote:

What do you mean?

He probably means they're aholes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Good one
Without us engineers(Mechanical) everyone is ####ed.

homerhop

nl wrote:

Without us engineers(Mechanical) everyone is ####ed.

Can name quiet a few who wouldnt be able to stick a pencil in a pound of butter, never mind keep a building standing.
A year on site both in the manufacturing and erecting stage should be made
part of the engineering course

p

Architects do know quite a bit about how buildings stay up. They learn an incredible amount about materials and about construction during college.

As said, they also work with engineers to get everything sorted too though, but don't make the mistake in thinking they don't understand the principles of what they're designing for.

theCzar

of course Architects get some sort of practical training, otherwise it's just some of art and design degree.

(I'd imagine) they need to know lots about mechanical buildings systems, e.g. water/AC/electrical they'ed need to know at least some rough materials science, you can't design a building to be made entirely of glass, 2 miles high 5 foot wide and then hand it to a mech to "finish off the maths"

Besides, as somebody mentioned earlier, i know plenty of mechs that couldn't play with lego without seriously injuring somebody...

breadmonkey

I tought this would be civil's department rather than mech; or is it a combination of both?

theCzar

ross*k wrote:

I tought this would be civil's department rather than mech; or is it a combination of both?

bah, mech, civil... whatever!

kadman

I have worked with architects that couldn,t, even dimension their drawings correctly. You try and design a stair case to fit in some of the stairwells that architects draw, you would be pulling your hair out. I think architects throw a concept on paper and then hand it of to the rest of the cad techs, engineers, strucad techs, and timberframers, to sort their mistakes out. Some of the architects I have worked with I would n't give them a packet of crayons.
kadman

Borzoi

kadman wrote:

I have worked with architects that couldn,t, even dimension their drawings correctly. You try and design a stair case to fit in some of the stairwells that architects draw, you would be pulling your hair out.

Not to mention the clasic
Architect: Here is my 20,000sq ft of office, anf here is your 10sq ft plant room for all the services.
Engineer: What am I, Paul f**king Daniels?

kadman

Ah yes but as Obi Whan Kenobi said
" Use the force Luke"

kadman

Dave

Anything to do with buildings etc would come under civil engineering, we don't do anything of that type of thing in mechanical.

el tel

the old chestnut:
Engineers build weapons, Architects build targets.

Firewalkwithme

Architects tend to like radical structural concepts such as SKYHOOKS while engineers tend to actually understand the concept of gravity.

homerhop

was given a contract lately where the engineers drawings were not ready, The main contractor told me to work off the architects drawings........I'm still laughing at him!!

NeoSlicerZ

That made me burst my hole laughing. gud 'un

Tar.Aldarion

its funny that architecture requires much more points.it really is.

breadmonkey

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

its funny that architecture requires much more points.it really is.

Not really. It's a common misconception that the points requirement for a course denotes how good it is. It's merely a reflection of the number of places available vs the demand for said places.

theCzar

breadmonkey wrote:

Not really. It's a common misconception that the points requirement for a course denotes how good it is. It's merely a reflection of the number of places available vs the demand for said places.

Sure electronic engineering is about 300 points or something, since demand fell through the floor, there were 4 times as many people in 4th year last year as 2nd year.

if somebody only managed 300 points in their leaving, they'd be screwed if they tried elec eng...

Capt'n Midnight

breadmonkey wrote:

How do architects design buildings when they don't have the necessary maths and physics to know if they'll stay up or not???

It's simple, Architects continue to believe in the existance of skyhooks despite every attempt by engineers to convince them they don't exist.

breadmonkey

Anyone tell me what a "skyhook" is?

(Is it like trying to hang a building off a frame or something? I saw something like that on discovery once)

Firewalkwithme

breadmonkey wrote:

Anyone tell me what a "skyhook" is?

(Is it like trying to hang a building off a frame or something? I saw something like that on discovery once)

You should be an architect :P

A skyhook is when you hang something from nothing i.e. the sky. Architects love them.

theCzar

i thought it was like a kite or something

breadmonkey

Despatch wrote:

You should be an architect :P

A skyhook is when you hang something from nothing i.e. the sky. Architects love them.

*looks embarrassed*

reduct101

Some words of wisdom on the subject posted on www.designcommunity.com

Posted by Manuel Oliveros on May 15, 2001 at 13:28:15:

In Reply to: ARCHITECTURE vs ENGINEERING posted by Rafael Vieira on May 14, 2001 at 14:27:35:

Respect the subject, well, differentiation is mostly a thing brought about (origin) in industrial revolution, from from the engine word comes the word. So it is mostly as many times a thing of division of the work. Really till the end of the XIX century most bridges quoted in one recension of those worth in Spain is seen the bredges have been undersigned by architects. Even today, I think it is extang and vigent one code of the 1930's that exacts the participation of one architect in the undersigning and safety warranting team when the bridge is in a village, town or city. So others may come it now through the environmental or heritage concerns, but we have had it all along, at least nominally all this time.
In Spain, to all practical purposes, and for maybe for over 90% of the non-industrial work, the structural calculations and many others, and even a (receding) part of the mechanical (HVAC), electricity, plumbing and so on designs are made and warranted by the architect sign under their guild seal. We are trained to calculate (those specialist in construction) and so we are to all effects the structural engineer in more than being the architect. Calatrava is in more than this a civil engineer by the swiss law, and surely has convalidated here properly, since undersigned bridges. Whilst the work is warranted properly, I am not inimical to flexible division of the work loads, but the thing is that flexibility is many times used to establish irresponsible practices. Culturally, the fields are close enough to show some interpenetration, and from the spanish practice, sincerely, I can't accept any design be but exceptionally good if it has been conceived without enough knowledge of the relevant structural and mechanical system issues.

OK... so that's that sorted then
I'm guessing Manuel's an Architect.

godtabh

reduct101 wrote:

Some words of wisdom on the subject posted on www.designcommunity.com



OK... so that's that sorted then
I'm guessing Manuel's an Architect.

engineers cant spell either

poobum

theCzar wrote:

Sure electronic engineering is about 300 points or something, since demand fell through the floor, there were 4 times as many people in 4th year last year as 2nd year.

if somebody only managed 300 points in their leaving, they'd be screwed if they tried elec eng...

in ucd electronic engineering went up 120 points this year! from 360 to 480!
but sure you could get like 300 points and be perfect for engineering! say if you took irish english and french or something and wer just crap at languages! but was very good at maths physics and applied maths or chemistry or someting! would be very easy to get like 350 points and be perfectly suited for electronic engineering! but it could go the other way! you could be amazing at languages, scrape the maths requirement with luck and only science you done was biology-this person could be horribly unsuited to engineering yet have had like 500 points!

godtabh

poobum wrote:

in ucd electronic engineering went up 120 points this year! from 360 to 480!
but sure you could get like 300 points and be perfect for engineering! say if you took irish english and french or something and wer just crap at languages! but was very good at maths physics and applied maths or chemistry or someting! would be very easy to get like 350 points and be perfectly suited for electronic engineering! but it could go the other way! you could be amazing at languages, scrape the maths requirement with luck and only science you done was biology-this person could be horribly unsuited to engineering yet have had like 500 points!

I did the whole not being crap with irish (pass) french (c3) and english (d3) and getting 445

cue

So correct me if I am wrong here. I have no interest in having a house designed. I just want one which can be built and stay upright. Would I not be better to get an engineer to design it?

godtabh

cue wrote:

So correct me if I am wrong here. I have no interest in having a house designed. I just want one which can be built and stay upright. Would I not be better to get an engineer to design it?

Sure you could nearly do it your self if you got the Homebond book.

It would give you an idea of what had to be done.

If you dont want that I'd just go with an engineer

cue

What about drawimg up plans and location maps. Is that not an architects job?

godtabh

cue wrote:

What about drawimg up plans and location maps. Is that not an architects job?

No I do that for the non architect jobs I work on. A trained autocad monkey could draw plans (for a lot of the smaller jobs)

Nehpets

theCzar wrote:

if somebody only managed 300 points in their leaving, they'd be screwed if they tried elec eng...

points do not reflect intelligence

Capt'n Midnight

AutoCAD Monkey

A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper, "I'll have an AutoCAD monkey please." The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage at the side of the shop and took out a monkey. He fitted a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be $5000." The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.

Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said, "That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only few hundred dollars. Why did that one cost so much?"

The Shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can draw in AutoCAD - very fast, clear layouts, no mistakes, well worth the money."

The tourist looked at a monkey in another cage. "That one's even more expensive! $10,000! What does it do?"

"Oh, that one's a Design monkey; it can design systems, layout projects, mark-up drawings, write specifications, some even calculate. All the really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.

The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey in its own cage. The price tag around its neck read $50,000. He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put together! What on earth does it do?"

The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything, but it says it's an Engineer."

godtabh

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

AutoCAD Monkey

A tourist walked into a pet shop and was looking at the animals on display. While he was there, another customer walked in and said to the shopkeeper, "I'll have an AutoCAD monkey please." The shopkeeper nodded, went over to a cage at the side of the shop and took out a monkey. He fitted a collar and leash, handed it to the customer, saying, "That'll be $5000." The customer paid and walked out with his monkey.

Startled, the tourist went over to the shopkeeper and said, "That was a very expensive monkey. Most of them are only few hundred dollars. Why did that one cost so much?"

The Shopkeeper answered, "Ah, that monkey can draw in AutoCAD - very fast, clear layouts, no mistakes, well worth the money."

The tourist looked at a monkey in another cage. "That one's even more expensive! $10,000! What does it do?"

"Oh, that one's a Design monkey; it can design systems, layout projects, mark-up drawings, write specifications, some even calculate. All the really useful stuff," said the shopkeeper.

The tourist looked around for a little longer and saw a third monkey in its own cage. The price tag around its neck read $50,000. He gasped to the shopkeeper, "That one costs more than all the others put together! What on earth does it do?"

The shopkeeper replied, "Well, I haven't actually seen it do anything, but it says it's an Engineer."

Wouldnt the design monkey be the same as the engineer monkey? I think you got your monkeys mixed up. I think it should have been a management monkey

cut the cost

And what about the poor QS? After the Architect and the Engineer’s are finished playing the QS has to find the money to pay for it. Architects have no value of money and Engineers oversize everything because they couldn’t be bothered work it out. Yep I can see the Engineers smile and say to them selves “ Yeaaa he knows how we work”

Tails142

Posted by Manuel Oliveros on May 15, 2001 at 13:28:15:

In Reply to: ARCHITECTURE vs ENGINEERING posted by Rafael Vieira on May 14, 2001 at 14:27:35:

Respect the subject, well, differentiation is mostly a thing brought about (origin) in industrial revolution, from from the engine word comes the word. So it is mostly as many times a thing of division of the work. Really till the end of the XIX century most bridges quoted in one recension of those worth in Spain is seen the bredges have been undersigned by architects. Even today, I think it is extang and vigent one code of the 1930's that exacts the participation of one architect in the undersigning and safety warranting team when the bridge is in a village, town or city. So others may come it now through the environmental or heritage concerns, but we have had it all along, at least nominally all this time.
In Spain, to all practical purposes, and for maybe for over 90% of the non-industrial work, the structural calculations and many others, and even a (receding) part of the mechanical (HVAC), electricity, plumbing and so on designs are made and warranted by the architect sign under their guild seal. We are trained to calculate (those specialist in construction) and so we are to all effects the structural engineer in more than being the architect. Calatrava is in more than this a civil engineer by the swiss law, and surely has convalidated here properly, since undersigned bridges. Whilst the work is warranted properly, I am not inimical to flexible division of the work loads, but the thing is that flexibility is many times used to establish irresponsible practices. Culturally, the fields are close enough to show some interpenetration, and from the spanish practice, sincerely, I can't accept any design be but exceptionally good if it has been conceived without enough knowledge of the relevant structural and mechanical system issues.

Is that supposed to be English? =P

smashey

Where does the structural engineer fit in here?

Tails142

There are many ways that a building is brought to fruition;

One way would be that the client (the person wanting to have the building built) would hire a management consultant.

The management consultant could be of many types. For example he could be a specialist and have in house engineers/architects or be a construction specialist. Lets just assume that he's purely management - the management contractor is directly responsible to the client.

The management contractor then hires an architect - architects will design the building from a social aspect. Taking into account the visual appeal of the building, the overall scheme, i.e. where the entrances/exits are, how the area is split up into different uses e.g. stairwells, offices, kitchens, all the various types of use required. The architect is usually a jack of all trades, but master of none. He has knowledge of fire requirements, construction practices, and the capabilities of building materials, i.e. he knows that he can get a beam to span 10 metres, he's just not sure exactly what beam would be needed.

The architect then passes this plan back to the management company. The management company then hires various engineers. Strutural engineers to design the structural elements, columns, beams, floor slabs etc. Building services engineers for the electrical/heating utilities, fire specialist engineers are a growing niche aswell. Mechanical engineers would generally have very little to do with the design of a building unless it had some form of moving mechanism, perhaps a swinging bridge.

All these engineers receive the architects drawings and then do what they have to do, passing their information back through the management company, who co-ordinates everything ensuring that everyones elements will work together. I.E. The building services engineers may need to run a ventialtion duct right through where there is a beam, so there will have to be a compromise made such as a web opening in the beam which has to be designed by the structural engineer.

Once the building is designed, the management company will then hire a contruction contractor who will handle all the construction. The construction contractor will also usually hire loads of contractors itself, such as steel contractors, roofing contractors, foundation specialists, electricians, all the usual stuff. Construction contractors also employ engineers of their own who work on-site ensuring that the building is being constructed as specified in the design and to address any changes which may have to be made in consultation with the engineers involved in the design.

As you can see - bringing a building into the world requires the teamwork of many people and is a collaborative effort. Yes the public generally see the architect as the person who has overall responsibility but this is almost never the case except for the situtations where the architect is acting and the managment consultant.

Architects generally recieve kudos for creating socially innovaive buildings, getting maximum effect from natural light and efficiency of space and hippy rubbish like that. Engineers usually receive their jollies from innovative construction techinques which save time/money but are of less interest to the general public...

For example, how excited would you get about a 200mm composite slab spanning 15 metres? Mmm I thought so...

Irjudge1

Tails142 wrote:

As you can see - bringing a building into the world requires the teamwork of many people and is a collaborative effort.

I thought we were in for a group hug there but then.......

Tails142 wrote:

Architects generally recieve kudos for creating socially innovaive buildings, getting maximum effect from natural light and efficiency of space and hippy rubbish like that. Engineers usually receive their jollies from innovative construction techinques which save time/money but are of less interest to the general public...

For example, how excited would you get about a 200mm composite slab spanning 15 metres? Mmm I thought so...

Oooohhhh Bitter.

I prefer to just know that without engineers everything else would fall to ****. To paraphrase Peter Rice winner of a RIBA Gold Medal " the architect decides what colour the ceiling will be, the engineer ensures that the ceiling remains there".

homerhop

I prefer to just know that without engineers everything else would fall to ****. .

Don't get me started!!!!

well since I got to deal with both Arch and Engin, allot of them should be brought to site and used to fill a hole somewhere.

Latest prime examples
Arch....ran down pipes down the web of a col despite the fact floor steel was in there.
soffit sheet with 19mm corrugations had to be replaced because...wait for it "Birds might nest in the corrugations"

As for engineers...this is what I got to deal with on a daily basis....basic 1st year stuff in metalwork or mechanical drawing....how to measure something!!!

Eng...support PFC 260 deep had to have 100mm bearing, 50mm to start of wall for fixing and 100mm into hole centres for fixing. which gives you a grand total of 250mm from the edge of the PFC to the hole centres for fixing.

odonnell

and us poor architectural technicians/technologists arent even in this equation!!! Since its us that generally have to do the running around between engineer, QS, and architect - and THEN go and draw the entire thing up whilst wrestling with all the detailing woes that come with some of said architects ideas... i would expect some respect to the techies!!!

for all you techies out there...

godtabh

Just be a civil eningeer. Not as much input from arch

smashey

odonnell wrote:

and us poor architectural technicians/technologists arent even in this equation!!! Since its us that generally have to do the running around between engineer, QS, and architect - and THEN go and draw the entire thing up whilst wrestling with all the detailing woes that come with some of said architects ideas... i would expect some respect to the techies!!!

for all you techies out there...

Well put.

Mellor

agreed,

No, you're a...

why can't we all just be friends?

civdef

I think at the end of the day one thing we have in common is that we can all bitch about the clients.