InFocus: How We Know and What It Means
September 2009
Not having read Lonergan's book, I do not know if the author defined what he means by knowledge (and ignorance). According to some, there is nothing we can know for certain. Everything we know are just possibilities. The randomness fools the reasearcher as patterns of reliable order. We have to change our codes all the time. Each time I see a building that I designed or that was designed by an ancient unknown Engineer, I wonder how it all has worked despite the odds against its working; and of course, that is true of my own being, as well. Today I see a donut-like shape on the walk outside my home made of small particles of sand with a tiny hole in the middle, and on closer examination, I see many ants busy working to create this nearly perfect work of art. How did they engineer this? Did they follow the author's method for knowing?
-Jay Alagia
Born Again Engineer
August 2009
What is the proper role of building codes and software? What is the design responsibility of non-licensed technicians using proprietary software? John Mercer’s question and article could not be timelier (possibly even timeless). I am a structural engineer that specializes in high-end residential structures in southwestern Fairfield County, Connecticut. It is clear to me that we have a big problem in this state. I have written letters to the local building officials, the State Attorney General, the State Building Official and the State Board of Engineers. The result thus far can be characterized with the phrase “not so successful.”
Engineered wood products are widely used in the residential market. These wood products offer interesting options to the construction industry. However, to help market and sell these products, manufacturers have developed proprietary software to analyze, design, and specify structural elements on Layout and Material Drawings, from beams and metal connectors to braced wall panels and anchorage.
My concern is a matter of consumer protection, as well as protecting the practice of engineering. It has been my observation that, over my years of practice, I am competing against lumber yards that distribute Layout and Material Drawings as engineered plans. Property owners do not know the difference. Building officials accept these drawings instead of requiring a licensed professional engineer. And, builders and framers use them instead of the official construction documents, sometimes resulting in significant deviations from the structural design developed by my office.
The Connecticut residential building code is prescriptive in nature. The code provides guidelines for the selection of certain structural elements. However, it is my understanding that structural elements not explicitly prescribed in the codes must be specified by a design professional licensed by the state Department of Consumer Protection. Connecticut General Statutes and the Department of Consumer Protection, the Department of Public Safety (Office of the State Building Official) and local building officials are in place to protect the life safety and interests of consumers. Engineered wood products offer interesting options to the construction industry. These products are proprietary and do not fall within the envelope of what is in the building codes. As in the case of a steel beam, these wood products cannot be selected without the involvement of a professional engineer.
An analogy is in the medical healthcare system. An aspirin is an over the counter medication that anyone can select. You can go to any store and buy it. Other pharmaceutical products require a prescription written by a doctor licensed to practice medicine in the state. Pharmacists do not examine patients, and then diagnose and prescribe medication to sell to the patient. The Lumber yards are like pharmacists. They can sell 2x8 lumber to people, but they should not analyze, design, specify and then sell structural elements of a building without the involvement of an engineer to assure that the building is designed safely. If the structural component is clearly prescribed by the building code, then fine, they can supply the material without engineering.
In my area, one particular lumber yard has, for years, openly advertised that they provide engineering. Another lumber yard subcontracts the analysis, design, and specification to a company in another state, but still distributes the design documents to customers in Connecticut for projects in Connecticut. Neither of the lumber yards employs engineers and, I suspect due to the lack of an engineer’s seal, the sub-contractor does not employ a licensed engineer either.
In letter responses to my inquiries, both lumber yards have basically admitted that they do not directly employ licensed professional engineers nor hold a corporate engineering license. One that advertised that they offered engineering now states that they do not offer engineering but instead “design[s] complex CADD drawings,” and that they “offer unique design services on a sophisticated design system.” What does this mean? Does changing how they phrase it make the activity exempt from being a violation of the general statutes? The other lumber yard states that they do not use software; yet, in actuality, they provide drawings to consumers. Does hiring someone else to break the law exempt you from being held responsible for the unlawful activity? It seems that both are side stepping the issue.
It is my estimation that these two lumber yards are not the sole violators in my area. I am not trying to focus attention on them specifically. I am just providing them as examples. I am sure many lumber yards in Connecticut are either directly or indirectly providing analysis, design and specification services to consumers using proprietary software. My goal is to bring attention to this topic.
It is my understanding that the analysis, design, and specification of structural elements is the practice of engineering. Connecticut General Statute Chapter 391 limits individuals and businesses that can engage in the practice of engineering. The use of software for the production of documents that analyze, design, and specify structural elements must be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Professional Engineer. Otherwise, it is a violation of state law, is it not?
The real goal is not to inhibit the lumber companies, but to protect the consumers. The lumber yards are, in my opinion, guilty of violating the Connecticut General Statute on engineering services; however, they are simply the middle men in this issue. The state (and engineering professional societies) needs to focus attention on the big corporations. They are supplying the proprietary software and training the technicians.
Unless a business is licensed (and insured) to practice engineering in the State of Connecticut, they cannot provide analysis, design and specification services. Construction documents, CADD drawing, etc. are the tools by which Professional Engineers express their expert knowledge. We do not sell drawings; we sell intellectual property, expert knowledge and experience. Anyone can draw a line. It is the licensed Professional Engineer that makes the line meaningful. The lumber company’s statement that they “design complex CADD drawings” seems to me to be inconsistent with the Connecticut General Statute.
I would be interested to learn more about how other Professional Engineers view the practice of engineering and the side stepping of the Connecticut General Statues and the Department of Consumer Protection in this manner. When a software program analyzes, designs and specifies structural elements, is the user exempt from the law simply because the software helps them sell more product? If so, maybe we can solve the nation’s healthcare problem by creating more software to replace expensive doctors. Wal-Mart can use it to examine, diagnose, and prescribe medication to customers.
The Layout and Material Drawings documents produced at or for lumber yards by unlicensed, under-qualified technicians and salesman should not be passed off as engineered drawings. These documents should not be accepted by building departments. And, consumers should be warned that these computer generated printouts are not engineered drawings.
I cannot tell you how many times I have found builders, framers, and project owners using Layout and Material Drawings in place of my engineered drawings. On many occasions, since the Layout and Material Drawings are not complete engineering designs, problems arise as a result of the misuse.
This is not just about the protection of the consumer, although that is the most important aspect of the issue. It is also about protecting the profession of Engineering. Engineers are important to our society. Everyday engineers silently contribute to the advancement of our way of life, culture, and standard of living. There is not a moment in the day that you are not experiencing part of an engineer’s creation.
Engineers are the cornerstone of America. But, regrettably, unlike doctors and pharmacists, we are under compensated for our contribution. Part of this is because non-professionals undermined the value of our contribution. Non-professionals who believe they can “design complex CADD drawings” for a fraction of the fee are causing the collective degradation of engineering remuneration. When this occurs, engineers cannot afford to practice. They cannot afford professional liability insurance. They cannot afford to spend time and provide the due diligence to extend the appropriate standard of care. Engineers leave the profession and the general public suffers. The end result will be the crumbling of our society.
Most engineers belong to professional societies. I am a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The ASCE Code of Ethics states that professional “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of [our] professional duties.” What code of ethics do technicians or salesmen prescribe to when delivering engineering services without a license?
This is also a matter of state commerce. If engineering can be performed by computers and out-of-state, unlicensed, under-qualified technicians, then why would engineers continue to reside in Connecticut? It is expensive to live and run a business in this state. If we cannot make a living here, then we cannot afford the high cost of Connecticut. The result will be increased number of out-of-state absentee engineers, as in the L'Ambiance Plaza collapse in Bridgeport where the out-of-state engineer rarely stepped foot on the job site.
Embodied in its statutes, it is clear that the legislature of this state has established its intent to regulate the building industry. The statutory requirements for professional engineers and the adoption of building codes by the state indicate that it is the will of the people to protect the consumer and preserve the professional status of engineers.
We need more engineers to speak up, to write to the Office of the State Attorney General, the State Department of Consumer Protection, the Department of Public Safety (Office of the State Building Official), and local building officials. It is our duty to try to protect the life safety and interests of consumers.
Respectfully Submitted,
Peter J. Cloudas, PE
The Definition of Structural Engineering
January 2009
Jon Schmidt's InFocus article in the January issue of STRUCTURE magazine was very well done and interesting. I have read it three or four times now. I, like him, take pride in our profession and occasionally like to see us with tongue in cheek when we talk about our accomplishments.
However, I think we also need to express the definition in a serious way. Using the various quotes he cited as a model, I would like to take “tongue out of cheek” and offer the following definition of structural engineering:
“Structural engineering is the science of modeling materials of variable properties that we do not completely understand into shapes and sizes we cannot precisely analyse to withstand forces that are at best intelligent estimates in such a way that the public at large will be able to function in safe facilities. And while doing all of this, structural engineers still enable the architect’s aesthetic vision.”
I am sure you know Richard Weingardt, who is more eloquent than anyone I have read about the structural engineering profession and rightfully expresses our need to beat our own drum more often. I am sure he could improve on this “tongue out of cheek” definition (he probably already has at some point done this) of what we as structural engineers do for society. I urge you to solicit a clear definition from him.
I hope that other structural engineers offer some serious perspectives and you have the opportunity to share them in another InFocus article in the future.
Helmuth Wilden, P.E.
Thank you for your comments. As noted in the "Your Turn" box that accompanied my InFocus column, I consider the definition that I discussed to be only somewhat tongue-in-cheek; I believe that there is a lot of truth to it. For example, I stand by the use of the term "art", rather than "science" as you suggest. In my opinion, the widespread confusion of engineering with applied science has been, on the whole, detrimental; so we need to do what we can to maintain a clear distinction between the two fields. Other than that, I would say that your definition just adds some specifics about why the three types of models that we must create for every project--materials, geometry, and loads--are always only approximations of reality.
Jon A. Schmidt, PE, SECB
I have strong feelings on how our profession should be defined, many of which have been previously stated in a wide array of venues in the past. To start, I truly believe in the statement attributed to the great aerospace scientist/engineer, Theodore von Karman: "A Scientist discovers that which exists. An Engineer [structurals included] creates that which never was."
Mr. Wilden''s definition of structural engineering is clever and insightful, and could be wordsmithed to be even better, but it is a little long-winded; I tend to go for the shorter stuff. Structural engineering is the profession of making buildings, bridges, towers, and all other types of structures stand up safely, economically, and with permanence, able to resist all forces of nature and man.
Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
What Is a Profession?
November 2008
I came upon this succinct and excellent article when doing a Google search on historical perspectives on the meaning of the words profession and professional. I am currently teaching students in a professional development program on therapeutic horticulture and horticultural therapy(HT)at VanDusen Botanical Garden in BC, Canada. HT is often referred to as an "emerging" profession in the US and Canada. Professional registration is voluntary and administered by the AHTA in the US.
I would be grateful to Jon Schmidt and InFocus for permission to print a dozen copies of his article for distribution to my students in their next course, "The Practice of Horticultural Therapy" as it would provide a great starting point for discussion and further research.
I am the daughter of an engineer,delighted to have discovered InFocus magazine, and am recommending its on-line link to various colleagues and friends.
Regards,
Ann Kent BA Dip Ed HTM
Registered Horticultural Therapist
Structural Art
March 2009
Happy day, I just read the term "Structural Art" in STRUCTURE magazine! As an educator I believe the concept of
structural art is incredibly powerful, and have seen the benefits unfold in front of me as students mature. I teach a course
here at Johns Hopkins (www.ce.jhu.edu/perspectives) that is based on Billington's "Structures and the Urban Environment" at
Princeton. It makes me proud beyond measure to see Mr. Schmidt bring this conversation to the profession as well. As far as
today's structural artists, it is a harder question to answer than one might at first think; however, the work of Joerg
Schlaich certainly deserves greater attention in the U.S. than it has generally received.
Ben Schafer
I appreciate Dr. Schafer's kind words. The April 2008 issue of STRUCTURE magazine included a "Great Achievements" article about the Stuttgart School of Building Design, including Joerg Schlaich.
Jon A. Schmidt, PE, SECB
Voided Two-Way Flat Plate Slabs
April 2009
In regards to the above article, please explain the main/major difference
between the so called new "voided slab" system and the old "waffle slab"
system. Both are light weigh, both are effective in two directions, and
both have "voids" within the main body of the slab.
What is the benefit of the flat bottom voided slab over the open bottom
waffle slab? In fact, it would appear that the voided system will be
even more expensive than the waffle system in that it requires specially
fabricated plastic globes that are a permanent part of the system and
cost while the waffle slab uses removable and reusable forms to form the
voids.
Sincerely,
Raphael A. Marotta, Jr. P.E.
The voided slab is clearly less expensive because it relies on the formwork similar to a flat plate while the waffle relies on domes to form the voids which is an additinal forming item that either has to be purchased or rented out and this is part of the reason why waffle slabs are no longer economical systems. Also, there is an additonal cost in the formwork and labor for the waffle associated with removal of the domes which you do not have to do with this system.
I hope this answers your question.
Design Revolutions
July 2009
An interesting and detailed reference for historical design development is the book "History of Strength of Materials" by Timoshenko, first published in 1953. It puts faces on all those names attached to various theories and formulas, and goes to some length to prove or disprove the concepts, if you are don’t mind partial differential equations. Bill Blackmon P.E. (ret.)