9 ms·

I used to be structural engineer, and while things may have changed in the past 8 years since I left, I doubt it. The problem with structural engineering is in

I used to be structural engineer, and while things may have changed in the past 8 years since I left, I doubt it. The problem with structural engineering is incentives. It is one of the reasons that I left. Most structural engineering companies are filled with conservative, boring engineers that prefer to look up pre-designed segments and don't make full use of the steel design handbook or building codes. For example, in Canada if you have a non-load bearing brick outer face (most brick buildings in Canada) you're allowed to reduce the wind load by 10%. I was the only person I knew that knew this because I actually read the steel, concrete, and wood design handbooks front to back while I made notes. Furthermore almost nobody has read the building code "just because" they might hop to a section here or there when they need it, but they're generally not going to just sit down and read the thing. So when I would design buildings I would be able to take advantage of a lot more things than most people. This lead to my buildings being cheaper / easier to build, which of course lead to our engineering fees looking like a larger portion of the job. The problem with reinforced concrete is the same. Engineers have no financial incentive to make alterations to their designs to make the buildings last longer. It is almost trivial to make sure steel wont rust (or to double or triple a buildings life) but it makes construction costs go up 0.01% and makes engineerings fees go up 0.1% so nobody does it. Regulators are to blame too. There are amazing concretes (Ultra High Performance Concretes) we should be using in our buildings that completely lack even needing steel because they are so ductile and strong (MPa 200 for the one I was familiar with, Ductal by Lafarge), but it's impossible to use in construction in Canada because the code is so rigid.

colanderman 10y ago
> Most structural engineering companies are filled with conservative, boring engineers that prefer to look up pre-designed segments and don't make full use of the steel design handbook or building codes. I dare say the same is true of software engineering. I, nominally a backend engineer, know (and apply) more about HTTP than most front-end devs and architects I've met, simply because I sat down one day and read the HTTP spec. (It's not a difficult read!)
- sitkack 10y ago
  How many of us actually read the documentation and the source for the systems we use? All the options and flags for jq, wget, socat, ssh, rsync, etc. I am trying to spend about 5 minutes a day just reading man pages, esp about things I THINK I know but actually don't.
  - jonaf 10y ago
    In my personal experience, the best engineers I've encountered (and learned from) have understood every system, subsystem, and interaction, all the way down to the most fundamental foundational level. And this understanding allows them to make the best decisions (because they're equipped with the best information). This knowledge doesn't come by sitting down and studying how CPU architecture works when you're building a web application. But it does come from diving as deep as is required for any given task. So maybe if you're dealing with a web app performance bug and you have to crack open Chrome source code, trace it down to something that is compute-intensive, learn whatever C++ code is involved, understand how it utilizes the CPU, and learn about the specific architecture you're using that exhibits the problem, then you have ultimately obtained a significant depth and breadth of information, but at the end of it, you know and understand exactly why your web app performs the way it does, how to workaround it in your app, how to fix it in Chrome (or why you shouldn't), and how the CPU architecture affects the Chrome source code. Now you can apply Chrome, CPU architecture, and C++ to anything that is built upon any one of them (independently or otherwise). That's not to say you know everything about each of them, but you've learned things that will help you in the future in some cases. The most important skill here is being able to diagnose a problem and fearlessly, relentlessly employ the engineering discipline of solving whatever problem/task is at hand, and not because of observed symptoms ("hey, I turned that knob and everything was OK! I don't know why, but I can close this JIRA ticket and move on with my life. I'm a 10X engineer!") but because you understand precisely what's happening. I made the mistake of the first decade of my software engineering career learning from trial/error and observations, and while those skills are useful in some cases, the best engineers are extremely disciplined about understanding the full depth of a problem before writing a line of code. In a nutshell, I guess what I'm advocating for is do not blindly study man pages. The reason is because without a practical application for the knowledge, it seeps out of your brain and you forget it quickly. The exception (case in point, GP's example) is when what you're studying does have a practical application or is relevant to what you spend your time doing. This has always been my problem with academic curricula (sure, some people can learn well this way, and there's definitely a minimum foundation necessary that must simply be committed to memory). Even in basic subjects like maths -- the work is rote, and we maybe get a passing grade, but often without the understanding (or the depth of understanding) that is really the most important aspect of learning the subject matter.
cm3 10y ago
If most are unaware of it, is it then good practice (aka insurance) for you to cite the relevant codes in your plans, in order to avoid trouble by inspectors due to the differences, or is it safe to expect an inspector to know the codes A-Z?
- abduhl 10y ago
  Inspectors do not typically check plans and calculations for adherence to the code, they check whether the work matches the plans. Checks for whether the plans match the code are generally done by the reviewing agency, to varying degrees of effort. For example, an agency will check for adherence to their design manuals (which are the governing code for their work): Caltrans against their manuals, railroads against AREMA, building departments against the building code, etc. And yes, it is good practice to cite the code as appropriate but it isn't necessary - any questions by the agency will be sent as comments and approval will not be granted until they are satisfied.
BurningFrog 10y ago
That's one problem with government regulations. Even when they're actually well designed and impartial, they don't get updated when technology changes. After a few decades, the once great regulations are often way out of date.
- gkop 10y ago
  Does the International Building Code that many jurisdictions in the US use help here at all? It's revised every 3 years. But I could also see it being overly conservative and holding back local innovation.
- guelo 10y ago
  Well yea but they have to exist because of a failure in the free market. Without the regulations the free market doesn't have a good way to prevent cheap unsafe construction, especially when the problems aren't evident for a couple decades.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    There might be alternatives. For example, requiring large and excessive liability insurance. The insurance companies then have a huge incentive to make sure buildings are safe and last long term. But the laws about what building materials you can use aren't set in stone, and different companies can have different rules.
    - guelo 10y ago
      I suppose. Though I'm sure requiring excessive insurance would be attacked as too much regulation.
      - chroma 10y ago
        You could have both regulation paths: Either you build according to code, or you build whatever you want so long as it has plenty of liability insurance. As a side note, I really wish more of these sorts of alternate regulations existed. They would be very useful fallbacks for when regulations become outdated or overly restrictive. Another concrete example of this is automobiles. Right now in the US, you can't bring a consumer car to market without extensive crash testing from the NHTSA and fuel economy tests from the EPA. These high fixed costs eliminate enthusiast and niche manufacturers. If the law said, "Any model that doesn't pass these tests incurs a $10k (or 25% or whatever is onerous enough) tax on each vehicle.", it would allow for new manufacturers to enter the market with far less capital.
guard-of-terra 10y ago
"This lead to my buildings being cheaper / easier to build, which of course lead to our engineering fees looking like a larger portion of the job." I propose you could start a consulting gig and maybe your own firm. Can't be that there aren't people who want their buildings to be cheaper for the same quality.
- Retra 10y ago
  It may not be cheaper if you're paying a consultant.
  - guard-of-terra 10y ago
    You're paying more for the project but spend less on construction. And construction is the expensive part, is it not?
    - erichocean 10y ago
      For whatever reason, people in general prefer to pay for things, not knowledge. It's much easier to ask for $10K more of materials than it is for $8K more of consulting, even if the latter is actually 20% cheaper. Human nature.
      - Rexxar 10y ago
        The real problem is information asymmetry, it's more difficult to know that the consulting was good than to check that we have more materials.
      - guard-of-terra 10y ago
        It depends on how you spin it. People happily pay premium for smart offerings. They just have to see the reputation working.
dghughes 10y ago
I'm not in construction or an engineer but when I was watching Mike Holmes he said the "code" (building code) really means minimum building code. I had never really thought of it like that before it was a good point why strive for minimum? You can build better there's no reason you can't (cost obviously) but most people just aim to barely pass minimum building code.
- kerryfalk 10y ago
  That's a bit misleading. Yes, new construction must at least meet the building code. But it's not like it's been designed to be just enough. There's a heavy safety factor in the codes. In some cases they work to reduce the code because it's too much.
  - dghughes 10y ago
    Isn't that the mantra of engineers to make something within budget that just barely doesn't collapse. Maybe it's an inside joke I didn't quite get.
    - kerryfalk 10y ago
      My experience within the North American precast concrete industry is its almost unanimously over-engineered. However, I am not a Structural Engineer.
kevin_nisbet 10y ago
While in general I agree with you. I'd just like to mention one counter argument, which the rigidity of the code in some cases will help to protect against developers from using cheaper materials, or new materials that on paper seem better, but in reality may not be better. An example I've heard of but am having trouble searching for the exact name, is in condo buildings here in Canada they started using a new piping material, to do the water deliver inside the units. The problem was, while I think in theory the material was better, it has the property that when it fails it fails catastrophically, due to either a manufacturing or installation defect. So instead of just having a small pinhole leak, the piping will split when compromised, and you have many thousands of dollars in damages to multiple units. Buildings with this material can no longer be insured in Canada. So I don't know that I would really trust giving developers a wide latitude in selecting materials, even if they sound great on paper. I don't know what the solution is, because I agree we need to be more flexible, and have a way to introduce new and better technologies, but we also have to be diligent, in ensuring that the new technologies and processes work the way we expect them to, and have the desired effects.
- 3pt14159 10y ago
  In Canada we use what is called limit states design and it handles the sudden failure vs gradual failure already. Essentially if you want to use a member or a material that suddenly fails you must design it to fail one tenth as often. In practice engineers go even more overboard because nobody wants blood on their hands and gradual failure greatly decreases the odds of that from happening. In terms of construction materials in condos failing (glass and piping) I actually put the blame for those two failures on the individual testing companies. Engineers in Canada don't understand statistics properly because most aren't taught materials testing properly in university. But we don't live in a utopia either. It is expected that things will go wrong sometimes and that we'll have to update our building codes to address those shortcomings. My issue with Canada is that we don't have a (or at least I'm not aware of there being a) structured materials testing code. Sure we'll regulate materials and connections for our main structural elements, but there will always be that last mile where someone will want to do something weird (like build part of the building under railway or if someone over bent some reinforcement bar and you need to authorize them rolling it back) and you're pretty much out on your own once you come to those scenarios. It's doubly unfortunate because most of the engineers that just look things up in tables are basically helpless because they don't remember or use the basics day-to-day. So they end up being extremely conservative - unnecessarily wasting money and material for all of us.
paulsutter 10y ago
You've identified a fantastic application of AI, when the technology gets there. A machine can read all the codes with better retention and would have the patience to make these optimizations. A human in the loop could offload some of the judgement-intensive aspects. I wonder what's the MVP?
- guelo 10y ago
  Why don't you have that AI read all manuals not just construction ones. Also all legal texts, all medical texts and all computer texts. It could optimize everything! /sarcasm
  - adrianN 10y ago
    > The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.
    - crazy2be 10y ago
      From "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" by Douglas Adams, for anyone curious to read the whole story: http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    You joke, but that is a great idea. IBMs Watson was helpful to doctors by being able to reference huge amounts of medical literature. Basically a domain specific natural language search engine. I've read about similar software for lawyers searching for relevant laws and cases. The AI doesn't need to be so good it can replace the doctor/engineer/lawyer. It just needs to be a helpful tool for finding relevant documents. NLP and QA is just starting to get good and available to the public, so I think this will be a big thing soon.
spraak 10y ago
Thanks for sharing your experience. What do you do now?
WalterBright 10y ago
I don't really understand why you left. I would have loved to employ someone like you back when I needed a structural engineer. You had an opportunity to make a lot of money by shining head and shoulders above your competition. The only problem I see is a marketing issue - being able to get the message out to your customers of the advantages of going with your firm.
- 3pt14159 10y ago
  The City of Toronto blacklisted us because our engineering fees were over 25% of the construction cost. If you're still in engineering and want to meet send me an email. I think there is loads of opportunity to make building buildings more efficient and I would love to combine my undergrad with computer science.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
"...which of course lead to our engineering fees looking like a larger portion of the job." So there you go. Mismeasurement is 99% of all business problems. I've been laid off before because I didn't generate the (apparently) required level of software defects and missed a gate or two by a day or two doing it. I was actually told I didn't look busy enough.

colanderman 10y ago

> Most structural engineering companies are filled with conservative, boring engineers that prefer to look up pre-designed segments and don't make full use of the steel design handbook or building codes. I dare say the same is true of software engineering. I, nominally a backend engineer, know (and apply) more about HTTP than most front-end devs and architects I've met, simply because I sat down one day and read the HTTP spec. (It's not a difficult read!)

sitkack 10y ago
How many of us actually read the documentation and the source for the systems we use? All the options and flags for jq, wget, socat, ssh, rsync, etc. I am trying to spend about 5 minutes a day just reading man pages, esp about things I THINK I know but actually don't.
- jonaf 10y ago
  In my personal experience, the best engineers I've encountered (and learned from) have understood every system, subsystem, and interaction, all the way down to the most fundamental foundational level. And this understanding allows them to make the best decisions (because they're equipped with the best information). This knowledge doesn't come by sitting down and studying how CPU architecture works when you're building a web application. But it does come from diving as deep as is required for any given task. So maybe if you're dealing with a web app performance bug and you have to crack open Chrome source code, trace it down to something that is compute-intensive, learn whatever C++ code is involved, understand how it utilizes the CPU, and learn about the specific architecture you're using that exhibits the problem, then you have ultimately obtained a significant depth and breadth of information, but at the end of it, you know and understand exactly why your web app performs the way it does, how to workaround it in your app, how to fix it in Chrome (or why you shouldn't), and how the CPU architecture affects the Chrome source code. Now you can apply Chrome, CPU architecture, and C++ to anything that is built upon any one of them (independently or otherwise). That's not to say you know everything about each of them, but you've learned things that will help you in the future in some cases. The most important skill here is being able to diagnose a problem and fearlessly, relentlessly employ the engineering discipline of solving whatever problem/task is at hand, and not because of observed symptoms ("hey, I turned that knob and everything was OK! I don't know why, but I can close this JIRA ticket and move on with my life. I'm a 10X engineer!") but because you understand precisely what's happening. I made the mistake of the first decade of my software engineering career learning from trial/error and observations, and while those skills are useful in some cases, the best engineers are extremely disciplined about understanding the full depth of a problem before writing a line of code. In a nutshell, I guess what I'm advocating for is do not blindly study man pages. The reason is because without a practical application for the knowledge, it seeps out of your brain and you forget it quickly. The exception (case in point, GP's example) is when what you're studying does have a practical application or is relevant to what you spend your time doing. This has always been my problem with academic curricula (sure, some people can learn well this way, and there's definitely a minimum foundation necessary that must simply be committed to memory). Even in basic subjects like maths -- the work is rote, and we maybe get a passing grade, but often without the understanding (or the depth of understanding) that is really the most important aspect of learning the subject matter.

cm3 10y ago

If most are unaware of it, is it then good practice (aka insurance) for you to cite the relevant codes in your plans, in order to avoid trouble by inspectors due to the differences, or is it safe to expect an inspector to know the codes A-Z?

abduhl 10y ago
Inspectors do not typically check plans and calculations for adherence to the code, they check whether the work matches the plans. Checks for whether the plans match the code are generally done by the reviewing agency, to varying degrees of effort. For example, an agency will check for adherence to their design manuals (which are the governing code for their work): Caltrans against their manuals, railroads against AREMA, building departments against the building code, etc. And yes, it is good practice to cite the code as appropriate but it isn't necessary - any questions by the agency will be sent as comments and approval will not be granted until they are satisfied.

BurningFrog 10y ago

That's one problem with government regulations. Even when they're actually well designed and impartial, they don't get updated when technology changes. After a few decades, the once great regulations are often way out of date.

gkop 10y ago
Does the International Building Code that many jurisdictions in the US use help here at all? It's revised every 3 years. But I could also see it being overly conservative and holding back local innovation.
guelo 10y ago
Well yea but they have to exist because of a failure in the free market. Without the regulations the free market doesn't have a good way to prevent cheap unsafe construction, especially when the problems aren't evident for a couple decades.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  There might be alternatives. For example, requiring large and excessive liability insurance. The insurance companies then have a huge incentive to make sure buildings are safe and last long term. But the laws about what building materials you can use aren't set in stone, and different companies can have different rules.
  - guelo 10y ago
    I suppose. Though I'm sure requiring excessive insurance would be attacked as too much regulation.
    - chroma 10y ago
      You could have both regulation paths: Either you build according to code, or you build whatever you want so long as it has plenty of liability insurance. As a side note, I really wish more of these sorts of alternate regulations existed. They would be very useful fallbacks for when regulations become outdated or overly restrictive. Another concrete example of this is automobiles. Right now in the US, you can't bring a consumer car to market without extensive crash testing from the NHTSA and fuel economy tests from the EPA. These high fixed costs eliminate enthusiast and niche manufacturers. If the law said, "Any model that doesn't pass these tests incurs a $10k (or 25% or whatever is onerous enough) tax on each vehicle.", it would allow for new manufacturers to enter the market with far less capital.

guard-of-terra 10y ago

"This lead to my buildings being cheaper / easier to build, which of course lead to our engineering fees looking like a larger portion of the job." I propose you could start a consulting gig and maybe your own firm. Can't be that there aren't people who want their buildings to be cheaper for the same quality.

Retra 10y ago
It may not be cheaper if you're paying a consultant.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  You're paying more for the project but spend less on construction. And construction is the expensive part, is it not?
  - erichocean 10y ago
    For whatever reason, people in general prefer to pay for things, not knowledge. It's much easier to ask for $10K more of materials than it is for $8K more of consulting, even if the latter is actually 20% cheaper. Human nature.
    - Rexxar 10y ago
      The real problem is information asymmetry, it's more difficult to know that the consulting was good than to check that we have more materials.
    - guard-of-terra 10y ago
      It depends on how you spin it. People happily pay premium for smart offerings. They just have to see the reputation working.

dghughes 10y ago

I'm not in construction or an engineer but when I was watching Mike Holmes he said the "code" (building code) really means minimum building code. I had never really thought of it like that before it was a good point why strive for minimum? You can build better there's no reason you can't (cost obviously) but most people just aim to barely pass minimum building code.

kerryfalk 10y ago
That's a bit misleading. Yes, new construction must at least meet the building code. But it's not like it's been designed to be just enough. There's a heavy safety factor in the codes. In some cases they work to reduce the code because it's too much.
- dghughes 10y ago
  Isn't that the mantra of engineers to make something within budget that just barely doesn't collapse. Maybe it's an inside joke I didn't quite get.
  - kerryfalk 10y ago
    My experience within the North American precast concrete industry is its almost unanimously over-engineered. However, I am not a Structural Engineer.

kevin_nisbet 10y ago

While in general I agree with you. I'd just like to mention one counter argument, which the rigidity of the code in some cases will help to protect against developers from using cheaper materials, or new materials that on paper seem better, but in reality may not be better. An example I've heard of but am having trouble searching for the exact name, is in condo buildings here in Canada they started using a new piping material, to do the water deliver inside the units. The problem was, while I think in theory the material was better, it has the property that when it fails it fails catastrophically, due to either a manufacturing or installation defect. So instead of just having a small pinhole leak, the piping will split when compromised, and you have many thousands of dollars in damages to multiple units. Buildings with this material can no longer be insured in Canada. So I don't know that I would really trust giving developers a wide latitude in selecting materials, even if they sound great on paper. I don't know what the solution is, because I agree we need to be more flexible, and have a way to introduce new and better technologies, but we also have to be diligent, in ensuring that the new technologies and processes work the way we expect them to, and have the desired effects.

3pt14159 10y ago
In Canada we use what is called limit states design and it handles the sudden failure vs gradual failure already. Essentially if you want to use a member or a material that suddenly fails you must design it to fail one tenth as often. In practice engineers go even more overboard because nobody wants blood on their hands and gradual failure greatly decreases the odds of that from happening. In terms of construction materials in condos failing (glass and piping) I actually put the blame for those two failures on the individual testing companies. Engineers in Canada don't understand statistics properly because most aren't taught materials testing properly in university. But we don't live in a utopia either. It is expected that things will go wrong sometimes and that we'll have to update our building codes to address those shortcomings. My issue with Canada is that we don't have a (or at least I'm not aware of there being a) structured materials testing code. Sure we'll regulate materials and connections for our main structural elements, but there will always be that last mile where someone will want to do something weird (like build part of the building under railway or if someone over bent some reinforcement bar and you need to authorize them rolling it back) and you're pretty much out on your own once you come to those scenarios. It's doubly unfortunate because most of the engineers that just look things up in tables are basically helpless because they don't remember or use the basics day-to-day. So they end up being extremely conservative - unnecessarily wasting money and material for all of us.

paulsutter 10y ago

You've identified a fantastic application of AI, when the technology gets there. A machine can read all the codes with better retention and would have the patience to make these optimizations. A human in the loop could offload some of the judgement-intensive aspects. I wonder what's the MVP?

guelo 10y ago
Why don't you have that AI read all manuals not just construction ones. Also all legal texts, all medical texts and all computer texts. It could optimize everything! /sarcasm
- adrianN 10y ago
  > The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.
  - crazy2be 10y ago
    From "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" by Douglas Adams, for anyone curious to read the whole story: http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html http://theelectricmonk.com/ElectricMonk.html
- Houshalter 10y ago
  You joke, but that is a great idea. IBMs Watson was helpful to doctors by being able to reference huge amounts of medical literature. Basically a domain specific natural language search engine. I've read about similar software for lawyers searching for relevant laws and cases. The AI doesn't need to be so good it can replace the doctor/engineer/lawyer. It just needs to be a helpful tool for finding relevant documents. NLP and QA is just starting to get good and available to the public, so I think this will be a big thing soon.

spraak 10y ago

Thanks for sharing your experience. What do you do now?

WalterBright 10y ago

I don't really understand why you left. I would have loved to employ someone like you back when I needed a structural engineer. You had an opportunity to make a lot of money by shining head and shoulders above your competition. The only problem I see is a marketing issue - being able to get the message out to your customers of the advantages of going with your firm.

3pt14159 10y ago
The City of Toronto blacklisted us because our engineering fees were over 25% of the construction cost. If you're still in engineering and want to meet send me an email. I think there is loads of opportunity to make building buildings more efficient and I would love to combine my undergrad with computer science.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

"...which of course lead to our engineering fees looking like a larger portion of the job." So there you go. Mismeasurement is 99% of all business problems. I've been laid off before because I didn't generate the (apparently) required level of software defects and missed a gate or two by a day or two doing it. I was actually told I didn't look busy enough.