Structural Engineers Getting Slammed 30

[JAE]

Structural Engineers Getting Slammed in the latest edition of Modern Steel Construction:

Modern Steel Construction Letter to Editor

 

[UcfSE]

He's right. In the two firms I've worked for in my short 3 years I've seen nothing but mistake after mistake and inconsistency on drawings that have gone out. If I say something or try to fix the problem, I get the "we've done it that way for years" BFS. It's lousy mediocre "engineers" who can't find their butt with both hands getting very stuck in the status quo. What's worse is they seem to have an overbig helping of the arrogance we're known for. If the youngest least experienced person in the company can paint your drawings red then you have a problem IMHO. Anyway, I'm sure this isn't confined to where I'm at and is obviously elsewhere as well. All I do is make sure what I do is right to the best of my ability. I'm sure that everyone isn't that bad because I have seen some very good drawings by other companines. The problem is it doesn't take a lot of bad apples to make us look bad as a whole. It's not enough to have a degree, you must have the knowledge and the drive to be better than what you are and be the best you can, not put in your 8 and go home.

 

[blake989]

I agree UcfSE. I would like to add that sufficient time is also a major factor in poor drawings. Ever seen a project run out of money/time and everyone just starts releasing incomplete drawings. I do not agree with the "we'll handle it with field/supplemental details" attitude.

 

[haynewp]

I don't like the incomplete drawings either but I don't have time to address every situation and I make that known at the beginning, yet I am still given the job with the same low budget.

For the details I do come up with, they are thorough, but I absolutely do not have time to address all that I would like to. And this is typical of every place I have worked and most I know feel the same way.

 

[JAE]

haynewp - this article was brought up by a local structural engineer who is now working for an erector. One other structural engineer responded that much of the lowering of detail is also due to a huge increase in pressures on engineers to produce designs in incredibly short time periods.

I remember working on a major library project in the early 80's. I probably worked on the concrete beam and joist designs for at least 3 or 4 months. Today, I know a similar project would require final designs in 30 days or less. I've got one project on right now where the structural "package" is due in 2 weeks.

I agree that a lot of structural drawings are not as detailed as in previous years, but to be honest, I've reviewed countless structural drawings from the "good old days" that this guy seems to think happened once upon a time, and they included two or three sheets for a major building. Today, we put out 20 to 30 sheets for that same structure. The difference is that construction/detailing personnel have no specific standards to take a rough design and finish it. There's way too many types of systems, materials, standards, etc.

 

[UcfSE]

I definitely agree that we aren't given as much time as should be allocated to projects typically. Who is to blame though? Do we blame unrealistic owners and architects or is it our boss' or our own fault for agreeing to an unreasonable date?

 

[JAE]

Its an overall cultural thing where the practice of engineering is fast devolving into a commodity instead of a profession.

 

[71corvette]

I agree, short design deadlines are a major cause for these problems. I find it amazing that owners/architects can take 2 years deciding whether to construct something or how it will look, but expect the design and construction to be finished within 6 months.

Like it or not, there will always be another engineering firm out there willing to take the owners measley design fee. Until this changes (I'm not holding my breath) we'll all be lowered to their level.

 

[casseopeia]

A star for you JAE for pointing out that engineering has been commoditized. But this goes for other services as well, including architectural and related design services.

I've worked for firms that were open about sending incomplete and seriously flawed drawings out for bid, often saying that what the contractors don't catch, we won't have t fix. I worked in the construction administration department, so it became my job to figure out a way to make the design work (without admitting fault).

I quit one place after I was reprimanded for pointing out that a set of hospital drawings had been sent out to bid where the architectural team in Chicago used different column spacing dimensions than the structural team did in Florida. I told my boss at the time that it was a design flaw I could not 'fix.' I was told I had a bad attitude.

 

[UcfSE]

That's BS casseopia. I got an eye opener once when I was told not to worry about fixing some of the steel details before we sent them out. "We'll get it in the shop drawings". That ain't right!

 

[SacreBleu]

I have always suspected architects of holding secret meetings to discuss ways of paying their structural consultants less and less fees <sarcasm>. With the modern architecture now, they are changing things more right up to the deadline. Engineers have to spend less time on a given project, but architects spend just about the same time they have over the years. Now that we have canned computer solutions, we spend far less time on given project, but profits are not increasing because of much higher overhead to run a company. Therefore jobs are "slopped out". Well, all that sounds really negative...but perhaps engineering is becoming this.

 

[JStephen]

"I find it amazing that owners/architects can take 2 years deciding whether to construct something or how it will look, but expect the design and construction to be finished within 6 months." You forgot to mention that they will then expect it to be built in 3 months!

It seems to me a lot of the poor engineering that I have seen wasn't so much a lack of competence or time, but a matter of attitude. "Everyone is ignorant- only on different subjects." Someone uses that on their posts. But we run across some engineers who, though ignorant on a subject, feel the need to play the expert once the job is contracted. It makes for a bad situation, especially for the poor owner that pays for whatever foolishness gets designed up.

 

[haynewp]

Lately, we're lucky if we can get the architects to pay us for what we've done.

 

[SacreBleu]

JStephen,
From my experience, what I have seen: most consulting engineering companies are driven to slop projects out in a hurry, just to make a profit. The office "atmosphere" is becoming more hectic, like a newsroom. There is little mentoring of new engineers, and very little in-house peer review. This Eng-Tips is actually the modern way to exchange info...it is getting impossible to even ask my boss any technical questions, since he is on the road all the time.

 

[bridgebuster]

It sounds like a lot of us work in the same office.

One thing I see that's changed is we no longer give priority to engineering a project; it's managing the project that counts. In the 70's it seems that most offices had chief engineers. I don't see that much these days.

In my office, we have no full-time chief engineers but a lot of project managers (some with two years experience; gimme a f-----g break.) There's no uniformity; no office standards; what ever the PM decides is fine. I should keep a list of the stupid questions I'm asked on a daily basis but it wouldn't be right; these people just don't know any better. Managing the budget is more important than learning to be an engineer. We have two "Stuctural Directors". They're both semi-retired and up in years. They don't add much value to a project. Their attitude was summed up by UcfSE: "we've done it that way for years". Unfortunately, time has passed them by but management doesn't see this.

We have non-structural engineers managing strucutral projects; "done by - checked by", is a thing of the past, we don't start checking calculations until the drawings are finished; the all-purpose "QAQC Review" has replaced checking drawings.

That's my $0.02 worth for now.

 

[haynewp]

Bridgebuster I feel the same way, it almost seems like when I am running the numbers, I feel like I am doing the grunt work. Everybody wants to manage and nobody wants to design, project management is where the money and recognition is. Unfortunately I enjoy designing.

 

[Lutfi]

What I am going to say will echo some of the points raised by my colleagues. This subject is dear to my heart because I am an engineer and I used to be a steel detailer many years ago. I used to detail on the board before the computer days. I saw and almost touched every detail on my drawings. Therefore, I can speak for both sides.

I must agree with Steve’s statement regarding the state and quality of the design drawings these days. The black eye is not limited to structural engineering drawings only. The ugly head of poor drawings reaches deep into mechanical and electrical plans as well. I do not claim to have the answer or solution to this problem. However, I can offer my observations that may shed some light into why these things happen. Then we may be able to take an action to avoid them. I speak about this matter because I own my engineering firm that provides structural and MEP. Therefore, I consider myself to have first hand knowledge of some the issues at hand. Here are some of my observations:

1. The engineers are not getting the right fees. My partner and I just completed a paper that we intend on publishing and presenting in several forums on state and national level. Engineers are being paid fees based on curves that were established in the 1930s! This is if they are lucky to get a chance and negotiate them, after competing based on qualifications, with government entity. If you are so unlucky and have to negotiate with an architect, you may as well forget it. They have been squeezed and they do their turn to squeeze the engineers. I am not saying that lack of proper fee justifies poor qualify. However, in order for business to compete and survive, some details may be left out (or left up to the contractor) to save time and effort.
2. Clients are driven by different motives than the designers. Often times they come to the designers with unrealistic schedules. This leaves the engineers, who are working on several projects simultaneously, no time to do a quality design and QC check. I also found out that many firms will not try to elaborate on the design process and what will it take to perform a decent design package to their clients. I found out in many cases that my clients did appreciate me explaining to them the design process and what it takes to complete designs. When appropriate, ask to stretch the schedule. We also mention the positives of receiving a good quality design package. It saves lots of RFIS and change orders as well. I get the feeling that most firms will accept whatever is thrown at them schedule wise. This may lead to poor quality drawings. By the way, it has been my experience that some clients can impact schedule and expect the dead line to remain. I requested an extension from one particular client because he held us up for a week. We were told point blank not to bother is submitting your request because it would be denied. We opted not to make waves and proceeded. The alternative would not been so nice for neither company.
3. I have not met an engineer who works 40 hours per week. At least not yet and including yours truly. In my case I have to do some design, QC, marketing and administrative. At least this is my excuse. It has been my experience whenever a human works past 12 hours a day; he becomes vulnerable to making mistakes let alone fatigue and frustration. We do all of this for the sake of meeting schedules based on my comments under item number 2 above.
4. The new generation engineers are not trained properly in college for the market. This is an age-old issue. I was one of those engineers who graduated and when I entered the work place, I found myself knowing nothing! I was overwhelmed. Sure I knew the steel manual and ACI code. However, college did not train me on how design drawings are prepared, how engineers convey their design to the contractors, how to write specifications and engineering reports. I like the colleges that offer Co-Op. I think every engineer should spend at least one year in the field (engineering office and construction site equally). They get the chance to see and hear the good and the bad, what to do and that not to do. This will better prepare engineers entering the profession.
5. CAD! I can talk all day about CAD. While it is a blessing, I find it to be equally scary. It introduced to our profession a new layer I call it “CAD operators”. In the old days, drafters were designers of sorts. I have known drafters who would layout-framing plans, cut sections and develop details for me. In some instances, they were able to size beams. Majority of CAD drafters these days are no more than input operators. They are not trained well enough to understand the building construction, the skills, materials, techniques, and discipline interaction involved in the design and construction of a building. I get drawings with missing data, wrong terminology, layers turned on or off. In our office, we established a procedure that no drawings leave without my partner or I checking it. We scan for missing layers and or ones that are turned on when they should not be.
6. Contractor’s expectations are too high from the engineering plans. It amazes me to know that some of the worlds most significant structures that were built in the middle ages and I dare to say in the turn of the century were done with minimum drawings and details; why? Because contractors understood the profession and they worked as a team and in many cases they were one entity. For some reason, lawyers got the profession scared to death of law suites and liability. Contractors are forced to bid competitively based on the low bid concept that I dislike. This process is a wide-open invitation to contractors to bid strictly “what is on the plans” instead of thinking of what will it take to construct the project properly. Therefore, the design professional and the contractor are in adversarial position form the get go. This not a healthy situation.

I think we need to evaluate our position, all parties’ talk about issues openly. I think engineers, and architects too, should be compensated properly for their efforts. Engineering firms should invest in a good quality control plan because when all said and done, it is our duty to provide a safe, economical and good designs for our clients.

My two cents worth and I hope I did not make anyone mad.


Lutfi

http://www.cdeco.com

 

[HgTX]

Get it right in the shop drawings?? From what I've seen the designers are allowed a few days to review a stack of drawings several inches thicks. Nothing but the grossest of errors will get caught there.

But designers are also just plain ignorant about certain things. In my world, it's weld symbols (weld-all-around probably isn't what you think it is) and what "fracture-critical" really means. (If you take the easy way out and just designate an entire structure FC, you create problems down the road with the need to shut the structure down for federally mandated inspection, not to mention shop expense AND owner QA time wasted. I'm having major bad attitude right now because of a structure I'm dealing with designed by MEs who didn't bother to find out a damn thing about bridge codes. They say they're very sorry.)

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines: faq731-376

 

[Qshake]

As Lufti has noted, I will echo many of the same sentiments already offered by our colleagues. But I feel it's important to sound off on this issue since it is fast becoming (or has become) a major problem.

Structural Engineers are increasingly being driven by fast tracked projects or even design build. If you hestitate, you're out the door and the next readily available victim is chosen to do the structural engineering.

This seems to push us to use other entities (reviewers, steel detailers, etc) to review our drawings. This is not good.

Someone has got to get it through to clients, architects and owners that the fastest is not always the best. In my estimate this will only happen when a tragedy occurs.



Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

 

[pba]

I've worked with some very good CAD operators over the years. I'll freely admit that the drawings sent out under my name lack both the drawing and engineering detail of those produced in the past. I believe that they contain all that is reasonable for the following trades (fabricators and contractors)to understand the design intention. It is now usual for our drawing inforamtion to be submitted in phases as the work is completed.

I have found that the details we receive back are uniformly poor (but presumably fit for purpose). I don't complain about this. I purposely give fabricators as little information as I can and don't expect miracles. I suspect that better details from us would NOT be greeted with improved fabrication drawings.

I agree with other posts. Engineering fees are being squeezed by Clients and Architects. It seems only right in these circumstances that we pass on some of the pressure.

We are now looking to compete in a world market. The company I work for is starting to package design information for processing in India. When this happens there will be yet another stage of interpretation (or misinterpretation). I guess we will then start tolook on the current situation as 'the god old days'.