Any Engineers on Here

[hobbes]

no, hence why the specifics provided was plurality.

...oof bad example, isnt the nations infrastructure crumbling? How much of it was....engineered?

I would agree. But I'd take a good doer (good contractor) before I'd take a good thinker (good engineer). We can think and meet all day, but eventually, we need to get to gettin.

Effective experience trumps effective education, at least, it used to (across the board).

Crumbling has to do with age and funding and absolutely not the original engineering, at least not in the majority of cases.

 

[Trackerbacker]

I'm sure it varies by field, and I don't work in the same one you do, but there are often different, competent contractors that disagree with each other's tactics. Both do great work, but there is usually more than one solution to a problem. No one knows everything, and we all can learn. In my world the contractor is also professional and a specialist. He is hired for what he knows just as much as for what he does.

There is a reason why design-build is so popular and successful.

I wholeheartedly agree. Some of my best projects were along side great firms, some of my other best were without firms.

Roughly, we have north of 10k clients at the AEC software company I "reside" at now. Two things we've done since my arrival that has made our company and software better, is around 100 good clients (anything from remodelers to aero engineers) AND hiring a structural engineer and software engineer.

#3 comes in q2-q3 when those engineers we've hired, will be sent sporadically for OJT to a select amount of those 100 clients.

You should see, as much as you think, and do equally, but it must be effective. Without those good effective builders, contractors, engineers, etc, our program and development wouldn't receive good input.

 

[Trackerbacker]

And John Deere hired everyone that took that class.

Bull.

Go buy a non turbo Ford v6 and change all 6 spark plugs, then, when you realize you have to take the upper intake manifold off for 3 plugs, you'll want to kick that engineers dog (preface, I am not, not a dog person)

But I'm a red fan...so I'd agree

 

[Azone]

Bull.

Go buy a non turbo Ford v6 and change all 6 spark plugs, then, when you realize you have to take the upper intake manifold off for 3 plugs, you'll want to kick that engineers dog (preface, I am not, not a dog person)

But I'm a red fan...so I'd agree

Im no engineer but in my professional opinion I would say the word Ford is where things started going wrong with that. Don’t want to derail the thread, sorry op.
I’ve been following this thread closely as I to have pondered going back to school. I’ve grown bored with fabrication in my area and am tired of listening to millionaire farmers complain about everything.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Crumbling has to do with age and funding
and absolutely not the original engineering, at least not in the majority of cases.

I'd somewhat agree. In my experience of remodels and additions (talking hospitals, schools etc not sunroom), the original building was far better engineered and far more..square..than any subsequent portion, tech be damned.

But that's a combo effect in my opinion.

One thing I hope to see someday, is an old school, hand built, hand framed house with stick roof built side by side to a modern one, and to just judge and watch the rate of decay. From footings to ridge.

Edit, yes, I can posthumously do that by looking at the ancient world to today. We can seem to have a water main last 10-15 years, yet rome..

 

[IdahoBeav]

I wholeheartedly agree. Some of my best projects were along side great firms, some of my other best were without firms.

This is another item where it varies by field. In my line of work, the contractor can't do much without my seal and signature. I'm putting my ass on the line just as much as he is.

 

[ThorM465]

In the context of my post, if I'm the contractor, and have to instruct the engineer, I made the mistake and hired the wrong firm.

In the context of your rebuttal, however, that's the failings. if the engineer has no field experience, he's accreditation along with all his cohorts has dropped in value.

But let's first go all hippie. Let's agree on one thing to start.

"Those who can't do, teach, and those who can't teach, inspect."

Any electrician, almost, thst I've hired (for my electric company), part of their probation period was to read my ac/dc theory book (electron flow theory). They didn't have to understand all or most of it, but it was a gauge into their psyche and whether they were looking for today's job or tomorrow's career.

This is absurdly ignorant.

Let's use the military as an analogy here. I'll use the infantry as the example because it's what I know, but I'm confident it still holds true for the rest of the military. Officers, particularly young officers, are appointed experienced NCOs as advisors (E.g., Platoon Commanders/Platoon Sergeants Battalion Commanders/Battalion Sergeant Majors). It's the NCO's job to advise and at times instruct that officer. Officer's who are to arrogant to accept this are the ones who give the rest a bad name. They're all but guaranteed to be a failure, a bad leader, and a detriment to the men underneath him. Your arrogance has doomed any relationship you're going to have with an engineer.

One of, if not, the hardest lessons I've learned during my career is that if I'm explaining something to someone and they don't understand, then the short coming might be mine. If you have a history of engineers who clearly don't understand what you're telling them, then the short comings might be yours. I can tell you I fixed that problem when I changed my default position to if someone doesn't understand what I'm telling them than the fault is mine and the responsibility of fixing that is mine.

 

[Trackerbacker]

This is another item where it varies by field. In my line of work, the contractor can't do much without my seal and signature. I'm putting my ass on the line just as much as he is.

Absolutely. Too many variables and fields and etc etc etc.

But that's a different topic. I don't need a permit to build, yet, I'm required to have one. The requirement only guarantees that structure to code minimums. Honestly think about it.

You and me could go off and design|build a 5 floor hospital. And you know who ultimately approves our work?

A cog. An individual whose experience in our fields is at best, a reviewer. No better, no worse than the 10s of millions on Amazon for any given product.

How much of today's world is a problem looking for a solution, or a reason to justify "x"?

Esg scores over ebitda
Color over merit
Experience over paper
Etc
Etc
Etc

Edit-il thro this out there.

Go read 2019-2020-2021 investor relations papers from ADSK directly. Tell me what jumps out to you year-year

 

[hobbes]

Anyone that's worked on a car has raised hell about the dumbass engineer that came up with something or another. I know I have. Usually my knuckles are bleeding. Try to replace a belt on a 2003 Saturn Ion (my daughter's car), you'll know the true meaning of "dumbass engineer".

I'm in the civil Construction/engineering field. We have our own engineers and use consultants engineers some and award construction contracts. DB has worked well for us. If I had my way we would use CMGC on more of our larger complicated projects. Bringing a contractor in early is always a huge plus and saves money and headache in the long run, at least in most cases.

There's good and bad on both sides. The really good/fun projects are when the good from both sides are paired together and they combine their experience to solve complicated problems.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Anyone that's worked on a car has raised hell about the dumbass engineer that came up with something or another. I know I have. Usually my knuckles are bleeding. Try to replace a belt on a 2003 Saturn Ion (my daughter's car), you'll know the true meaning of "dumbass engineer".

I'm in the civil Construction/engineering field. We have our own engineers and use consultants engineers some and award construction contracts. DB has worked well for us. If I had my way we would use CMGC on more of our larger complicated projects. Bringing a contractor in early is always a huge plus and saves money and headache in the long run, at least in most cases.

There's good and bad on both sides. The really good/fun projects are when the good from both sides are paired together and they combine their experience to solve complicated problems.

Troof

 

[ThorM465]

Crumbling has to do with age and funding and absolutely not the original engineering, at least not in the majority of cases.

That's not true at all. We design for specified loads, environments, and life cycles. The problem with the crumbling infrastructure is by en large two parts. Part 1 the infrastructure in the majority of these cases are working beyond what it was designed for. The reason we don't have cars that last forever is not because it's not possible, it's because it would be to d**m expensive. Part 2 future environments are not always foreseeable. It's one of the many reasons we design in margin.

 

[Trackerbacker]

This is absurdly ignorant.

Let's use the military as an analogy here. I'll use the infantry as the example because it's what I know, but I'm confident it still holds true for the rest of the military. Officers, particularly young officers, are appointed experienced NCOs as advisors (E.g., Platoon Commanders/Platoon Sergeants Battalion Commanders/Battalion Sergeant Majors). It's the NCO's job to advise and at times instruct that officer. Officer's who are to arrogant to accept this are the ones who give the rest a bad name. They're all but guaranteed to be a failure, a bad leader, and a detriment to the men underneath him. Your arrogance has doomed any relationship you're going to have with an engineer.

One of, if not, the hardest lessons I've learned during my career is that if I'm explaining something to someone and they don't understand, then the short coming might be mine. If you have a history of engineers who clearly don't understand what you're telling them, then the short comings might be yours. I can tell you I fixed that problem when I changed my default position to if someone doesn't understand what I'm telling them than the fault is mine and the responsibility of fixing that is mine.

I know them army guys can be a bit..

I'll rephrase.

If I have to instruct someone how to do the job I hired them for, I made a mistake.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Absolutely. Too many variables and fields and etc etc etc.

But that's a different topic. I don't need a permit to build, yet, I'm required to have one. The requirement only guarantees that structure to code minimums. Honestly think about it.

You and me could go off and design|build a 5 floor hospital. And you know who ultimately approves our work?

A cog. An individual whose experience in our fields is at best, a reviewer. No better, no worse than the 10s of millions on Amazon for any given product.

How much of today's world is a problem looking for a solution, or a reason to justify "x"?

Esg scores over ebitda
Color over merit
Experience over paper
Etc
Etc
Etc

I disagree with that. I've often designed over code minimums because I didn't feel it was sufficient, and being that the majority of my work is private infrastructure, there is a significant portion of the site improvements that are not reviewed or approved by an AHJ. If there is a problem later, the record drawings and reports point to me. By putting seal and signature on a set of plans, I am liable, both professionally and personally, and if we're going to get into multi-story buildings and SE licensure; the education, requirements, life safety risk, etc. are extremely magnified. As a PE, I can't even imagine the education and licensure requirements for that. At the highest level, it's seemingly almost comparable to that of a medical doctor.

 

[ThorM465]

One thing I hope to see someday, is an old school, hand built, hand framed house with stick roof built side by side to a modern one, and to just judge and watch the rate of decay. From footings to ridge.

Edit, yes, I can posthumously do that by looking at the ancient world to today. We can seem to have a water main last 10-15 years, yet rome..

It wouldn't even be close. I'd dare say something like only 1% of homes built between 1700 and 1920 are still standing. Most have fallen to the ground and have been demolish due to their decay. Yes, you still have some house from master craftsman still in good shape, but they're not the norm. 300 years from now I'll be surprised if more than 15% of existing homes are still standing and it'll only be the ones built by our best engineers and master craftsmen.

 

[Trackerbacker]

I disagree with that. I've often designed over code minimums because I didn't feel it was sufficient, and being that the majority of my work is private infrastructure, there is a significant portion of the site improvements that are not reviewed or approved by an AHJ. If there is a problem later, the record drawings and reports point to me. By putting seal and signature on a set of plans, I am liable, both professionally and personally, and if we're going to get into multi-story buildings and SE licensure; the education, requirements, life safety risk, etc. are extremely magnified. As a PE, I can't even imagine the education and licensure requirements for that. At the highest level, it's seemingly almost comparable to that of a medical doctor.

Sorry, I wasn't concise enough.

Codes are a bare minimum standards. The permitting/ahj/authority approves to (generally) codes. Which again, are your minimum standards.

Nothing says you can't be above. But everything (generally) can't be below that.

 

[ThorM465]

I know them army guys can be a bit..

I'll rephrase.

If I have to instruct someone how to do the job I hired them for, I made a mistake.

Okay now it's personal. I was no d**n soldier. I was a Marine. HAHA

 

[Trackerbacker]

It wouldn't even be close. I'd dare say something like only 1% of homes built between 1700 and 1920 are still standing. Most have fallen to the ground and have been demolish due to their decay. Yes, you still have some house from master craftsman still in good shape, but they're not the norm. 300 years from now I'll be surprised if more than 15% of existing homes are still standing and it'll only be the ones built by our best engineers and master craftsmen.

That's the comp though, the master (oldschool) vs the master (new school) to the exact same scope. Let's just say the old school one room schoolhouse. One built modern, one built old-school, each by masters of industry.

Example with even modern stuff:

TJI vs 2x12(nominal) vs 2x12(old world). There's a reason (not all inclusive) firecodes are the way they are now.

 

[ThorM465]

Sorry, I wasn't concise enough.

Codes are a bare minimum standards. The permitting/ahj/authority approves to (generally) codes. Which again, are your minimum standards.

Nothing says you can't be above. But everything (generally) can't be below that.

I completely agree with this except the nothing says. Everyone with a financial interests tends to say "if the requirement is meant then why isn't it good enough." This is common of program managers (engineers) and contractors. My job exists for this very reason.

I do top down failure analysis. It's my job to qualitatively assess risks and work to mitigate those risks, That commonly means driving requirements that exceed minimum standard where and when needed.

 

[ThorM465]

That's the comp though, the master (oldschool) vs the master (new school) to the exact same scope. Let's just say the old school one room schoolhouse. One built modern, one built old-school, each by masters of industry.

Example with even modern stuff:

TJI vs 2x12(nominal) vs 2x12(old world). There's a reason (not all inclusive) firecodes are the way they are now.

Oh that's fair. I'd still put all of my money of modern builds. The material to your point was absolutely better and stronger back in the day, but modern materials are still plenty strong and then you add modern sheathing. The factor of safety designed into occupied structures and bridges are extremely high relative to aerospace engineering. It's something like 5x to 1.25x in some cases. Now we do spend a lot more on engineering, analysis, and testing in aerospace.

The difference maker here is which does a better job standing up to wind, rain, and wildlife of the insect variety. In this respect modern high end building techniques blow away old-school building. If you can't keep a frame and foundation dry and intact it doesn't matter how strong it was originally.

 

[Trackerbacker]

Oh that's fair. I'd still put all of my money of modern builds. The material to your point was absolutely better and stronger back in the day, but modern materials are still plenty strong and then you add modern sheathing. The factor of safety designed into occupied structures and bridges are extremely high relative to aerospace engineering. It's something like 5x to 1.25x in some cases. Now we do spend a lot more on engineering, analysis, and testing in aerospace.

Yes and no. I think 2 different thoughts on it. I'll use automotive.

Body on frame vs uniframe vehicle. The uniframe as a whole is stronger and more efficient use id guesstimate, but the body on frame is of better construction, if I'm saying that right?

The difference maker here is which does a better job standing up to wind, rain, and wildlife of the insect variety. In this respect modern high end building techniques blow away old-school building. If you can't keep a frame and foundation dry and intact it doesn't matter how strong it was originally.

Pffft. Gimme ICF with engineered joists (not I joists or nominal) and foam insulation (attic), air exchanger etc etc. Any day over what is being built conventionally.