I recently listened to a podcast that started with a focus on the scientific advancement of man over time and then expanded to and bounced around the myriad of possible underlying explanations that included societal structure, human nature, theology, and philosophy.
The premise of the podcast was that starting in the Middle Ages, science-based achievements advanced quickly and on a sustained basis in many areas until roughly the late 1960s (around the time of the Apollo moon landings), at which time it slowed markedly. To recap, over the 100 years preceding the 1960s, mankind learned:
• How to build and live in tall structures.
• How to combat waterborne diseases by providing clean fresh water and proper waste disposal.
• How to make vaccines that greatly improved life expectancy and reduced childhood deaths.
• How to make mechanical devices, first steam engines, then the internal combustion engine and finally gas turbines, that permit long distance travel greater than the distance a horse can run/walk in a day.
• How to mechanize agricultural and industrial production.
• How to make and distribute electricity to power economical labor-saving devices in homes and factories.
• How to communicate over long distances via electromagnetic waves, first by wire, then through the earth’s atmosphere and beyond.
• How to solve mathematical problems in seconds or less, first using mechanical computing devices and later silicon chips, that used to take days or weeks or just weren’t solvable at all.
• How to fly in space and travel to the Moon and beyond.
• How to blow up the world if we don’t all learn to get along.
I had to agree with the podcast’s premise. Thinking back over the time since the late 1960s, we have improved on these prior inventions, but what entirely new inventions have been made? We travel the same ways, communicate in the same ways, cook, clean and heat our homes the same way, etc. Have we really invented everything there is to invent? Or have we stopped letting entrepreneurs invent and innovate? Have we become scared of technology? (Think of anything nuclear, genetically modified foodstuffs, artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, etc.) Have we convinced ourselves that living a pastoral life like in the pre-industrial era would be better, but of course with all of our modern creature comforts?
I think that structural engineering is not immune to stagnation. I appreciate that the profession has advanced analytical tools that allow the design of more economical structures, that construction materials are better than ever and that we have learned to design more reliable and better performing structures. But at the most basic level, what has really changed? The steel beams we use look much like those forged by Andrew Carnegie, the 1930s-era Empire State Building is still one of the tallest buildings in the world with the steel erection completed in less than 6 months, reinforced concrete is much the same as it has been since reinforcing steel was invented, we still stick frame most wood frame construction with steel nails, etc. You get the picture.
Please don’t get me wrong, I love being a structural engineer, but if you were a young person with his/her hair on fire who wanted to change the world, what course of study and profession would you choose today? In the parlance of real estate, does structural engineering still have “curb appeal” or do young people “drive on to the next house on their list without stopping to look”? Would you rather work for SpaceX and get to Mars, become a Nvidia or OpenAI millionaire working on machine learning and advanced computing or go with something tried and true? If you go with tried and true (and there is nothing wrong with that) will you be excited to regularly work on multi-story podium residential buildings (seems like most new buildings these days) or do you want to work at a firm that pushes the envelope with regard to building height, building performance or employing new materials?
I appreciate that not every project pushes the envelope, and that many parts of the design process of all buildings can seem repetitive after you have done it a few times. But if you agree that we as a profession need to focus on freshening our curb appeal, what should we do?
Here are some ideas:
Increase investment in basic research focused on developing new technologies. Decades-ago, cooperation between practicing structural engineers and university researchers led to amazing advancements that are commonplace in today’s buildings. It’s time to double down and make structural engineering exciting again. From personal experience, young engineers love getting involved in these kinds of activities.
Reduce the constraints on creativity. The NCSEA Foundation is answering this challenge with CURE (Code Updates for Reduction of Embodied-carbon), a groundbreaking initiative to modernize structural design standards while reducing material-related carbon emissions at scale. Modern buildings are engineered for strength, efficiency, and safety, but are the standards lagging behind them? Many standards haven’t been updated in over 50 years. That’s a problem.
Reduce government regulatory oversight. Just compare a copy of the Uniform Building Code from the late 1960s to the International Building Code of today to see that something is seriously amiss in my opinion. The engineering regulation portion of the 1967 UBC (Chapters 23 to 28) was 280 pages long on pages roughly 6 inches by 8-1/2 inches in size and included the design procedures and requirements for wood, masonry, concrete and steel that were also published separately by the various industry organizations. Most everything an engineer needed except the weights and dimensions of steel members was in one place. The equivalent length today of ASCE 7 (not including the commentary), ACI 318 (including the commentary), Americal Wood Council NDS, and the Masonry Design Manual total approximately 2,000 pages on 8-1/2-inch x 11-inch paper stock. Regarding AISC, let’s agree that the Manual of Steel Construction is essentially the same in scope and length as in the past, The AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, which didn’t exist in 1967, adds another 400 pages. Some increase in regulations based on new knowledge is certainly understandable, but does a trained and licensed professional really need this volume of regulations to do their job properly? Do you feel that weight on your shoulders?
Would it be possible to return to the days when engineers practiced more like doctors do, following a rational process starting with the definition of the problem, assembling the facts and data, developing a solution, discussing with colleagues and gathering second opinions and then designing a solution based on their professional judgment and experience?
At the heart of the matter, I am suggesting that we engineers practice a little closer to the edge to bring needed energy to what we do and how we serve the public. Makes me think of the famous Manfred Mann lyrics “Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun. But mama, that’s where the fun is!” ■
About the Author
John Dal Pino, SE, is a Principal with Claremont Engineers Inc., Oakland, California and the Chair of the STRUCTURE Editorial Board.