G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » Quick Board Archives » Archive through January 15, 2005 » Are we all engineers? » Archive through January 03, 2005 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 06:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Steve,

I walked right by the IMechE headquarters building in London a few years back. Very cool. I was kinda like hallowed ground for a fellow BSME.

I agree the term "engineer" has become diluted. It seems many fancy themselves an "engineer" without truly appreciating what that title really means and the level of responsibility it conveys. Much of the general public just go happily about their lives taking for granted the products of dedicated expert engineers everywhere. What fries my brain even more are the jerks who see fit to badmouth and belittle engineers. Show me someone who does that and I'll show you someone who is likely incompetent at their own job.

Rant off. : )

Happy New Year!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jprovo


Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 07:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

BSME 1999, EIT 1999

Working in the RV industry, I am one of two in the 20+ person "engineering" department with a degree in engineering, the other person being the Engineering Manager. Most people in this industry are not degreed, especially when most things are built from experience, tested, and then documented (Reverse Engineered). Luckily, my peers respect my degree and look to me for guidance in future design.

James
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Steveshakeshaft
Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 07:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

IMechE, Birdcage Walk, London. Pity you didn't take a look inside. All old leather and dark wood panelling, oil paintings of the true victorian masters of engineering as an art form as well as a science etc etc.... hallowed ground indeed. All the very best to BadWebbers the world over for a happy and indeed safe 2005. Be sure anyone, to look us up when you visit the UK.

Steve
www.ukbeg.com
steve_s@ukbeg.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

M2nc
Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Country, I would want a PE to stamp a drawing for a bridge that is going to carry my tail across it, but there are many other forms of engineering that a PE is not required. In our engineering department many are two-year tech graduates. They set up machines to manufacture parts. In the past, I designed and stamped drawings for special options to our products, no PE. My wife's step-father worked and retired from P&G as an Engineer. He designed the electrical requirements for new plants. He two had a two-year technical degree. I see your point that the term "engineer" is mis-used. Sanitation Engineer, need I say more. But until the English language is change to differientiate between a designer, a layout tech and a professional engineer, I will continue to represent myself as being an Engineer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lornce


Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 02:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

"Hey, don't knock engineers. If it wasn't for those guys and their goofy notions, we'd all be out'a work." - One Millwright to another.

: )

Lornce
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 08:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Carlos,

With what did you "stamp drawings"? : ?

Anyone can sign off on drawings internal to a corporation. The onus is upon the corporation to ensure the integrity of their product. Try and build a public bridge, any public/civil structure, roadway, foundation, electrical works, dams, etc without the stamp of a PE and or Architect as applicable. Ain't gonna happen.

When you say "stamp" that implies licensed professional approval.

Representing oneself professionally as an engineer without having the applicable professional license is simply dishonest and is illegal in every state I know.

Telling new acquaintances in answer to their casual question of "what do you do" that one is an engineer is certainly not illegal.I used to do the same myself. But I now see it as not quite 100% honest and diminishing of the title, achievements and efforts of those who truly are licensed professional engineers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mbsween


Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 08:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Hey Blake,
do you know if you have to retake the EIT exam after a period of time?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 09:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

In Texas the FE is good for around 8 years I think, but you can ask for a waiver if you go over that time before taking/passing the PPE. Not sure what the criteria for granting waivers is.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vegasbueller


Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

"Hey, don't knock engineers. If it wasn't for those guys and their goofy notions, we'd all be out'a work." - One Millwright to another.

But Lornce... how many times have you ever said: "Why in the heil did the engineer do that"?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craigster
Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 11:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

HR Professionals in (semi-conductor anyway)use the terminology of:
Assembler = builds product
Mechanic = builds installs and repairs product

Technician = fixes engineers mistakes and makes them actually work

Designer = (used to be draftsman) makes pretty 3D images of product as well as telling the Engineer what GDT is over and over again

'X' Engineer = (place Mech, Elec., software, Process etc. in the X) Gets hung for any and all delays in design and test of prototypes. Usually given a budjet of $16.00 and one week to develop something that should take 8 months and $900,000

Sr. Engineer = Been doing Engineering long enough to to know better and is usually looking for a new job

Seriously - When a company advertises for Mechanical Engineer - I'd bet fewer than 5% are PEs. Like you say Blake, it's not illegal - but I think it's also understood and accepted; If you have your degree and it's on your card - you're an engineer. If your're a PE, you can and should take credit for it.

My sister has her PhD. She's not a an MD - Does that mean we shouldn't call her doctor even if she has her doctorate?

Now that I think about it - I guess what I'm thinking is that if one is employed as an engineer - they would be an engineer. I've known several folks who have left industry to do other things and now no longer call themselves engineers, (and rightly so).

If one is a Professional Engineer they should take credit for it.

I have one patent, and several applied for. But I'm not a PE. Does that mean I didn't engineer a new solution to an existing problem? The patent would seem to argue that.

As Kevin cameron wrote: many motorcyclists spend nights in the garage 'fixing' what the factory did wrong. When motorcyclists do more than just hack a new bracket or bolt on a shiny part - When they actually look at a scenario and explore the evidence and attack the problem perhaps with some experimentation involved - and develop a new design to solve our problem - are those men not engineering? Thus they must be engineers.

please excuse the typos - my son is in my lap and has helped strike keys quite a bit during this post
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lornce


Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 11:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

But Lornce... how many times have you ever said: "Why in the heil did the engineer do that"?

Vegas, I used to say that but now just proceed straight to: "If it wasn't for those guys and their goofy notions, we'd all be out'a work."
: )

I've seen some pretty funny engineering oversights over the years. Of course human nature tends more to remember the oversights than the brilliant successes.

My hat's off to them, either way. ; )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Whodom


Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 08:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Mbsween,

In SC, there used to not be a time limit on the EIT. Not sure whether that's still true or not. I took and passed the EIT in my senior year (1978) and didn't take the PE until about 1997. Passed both on the first try.

The requirements are on line; I'm sure you can find out with a little effort.

Hugh
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rek


Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 08:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

As an ironworker I ran into an interesting engineering oversite while whorking on a dam in NM. The bottom six feet of a spillway we were building called for #11 rebar to be spaced on 2" centers. Since #11 rebar is 1.25" in diameter it was (is) physically impossible to accomplish this. The really horrible part is the general-foreman of the job insisted that we drive these 40' long sticks of #11 rebar into the wall until he heard otherwise. (read freak'n moron). It was a agonizing two days before the spec's were changed.
Rob
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shawn_9r


Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 09:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

ok... catching the tail end of this thread and too lazy to read back. Are you guys saying that just because you have a degree for some where that makes you and "Engineer"? I have deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq and it never seems to fail that I run into some "Electrical Engineer" who does not know his Buttocks from a Hole in the ground. They never want to take into consideration ampacity of cable, fucntionablity and placement of transformers. Now I don't have a degree(yet) but have installed/operated and maintained power plants and designed distribution systems 4160VAC and a distribution system for 11,000 VAC for the Army. All meeting OSHA and NEC standards and all that other HAZMAT stuff.

I guess what I am trying to say is... just because I don't have a degree(yet) does that mean I am not an Engineer? Or better yet... just because a guy attended school but has no practical experience and does have a degree (and don't know caca)does that make him "An Engineer"?

Thanks for letting me rant,
Shawn
"Army Engineers"
Essayons!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

just because I don't have a degree(yet) does that mean I am not an Engineer?
In most cases, yes. "Technician" or "designer" would usually be a better description in your case.

just because a guy attended school but has no practical experience and does have a degree (and don't know caca)does that make him "An Engineer"?
I don't know anyone with an engineering degree who doesn't "know caca"; I know some that are what I would consider lacking in technical depth of knowledge.

The answer to your question though is "absolutely not."


Rob,
That sounds like a simple typo type of mistake that should have been caught by a drawing checker. That said, engineers are human beings like everyone else and sometimes they make mistakes. BTW, #11 rebar should be 1.410" in diameter. Up to #8, rebar # is designated in 1/8 inch increments of "nominal" diameter with #8 then being 8/8"=1.000". For some reason of which I am ignorant, above #108 the rebar diameter is slightly larger than the preceding 1/8" numbering convention and thus instead of 11/8"=1.375" for #11 we have 1.410". : )

Also that type of mistake is very strange since the minimum allowable spacing of parallel strands of rebar is the greater of 1" or one diameter of free space between bars (two diameters center to center). For #11 rebar, the absolute minumum spacing any engineer or designer should ever consider is set by code to no less than 2.82" center-to-center.

As project manager if such an egregious mistake made its way onto final construction drawings, I would darn near be forced to issue a stop work pending comprehensive review of all essential structural/construction drawings, and you can bet the engineer of record would have some serious splaining to do.

Rebar spacing is also limited to a minimum of no closer than

Here's a pretty comprehensive checklist that will give you an idea of what a structural engineer must consider before putting his seal upon any drawing...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)


quote:


References

ICBO, 1994, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering

Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials,

Whittier California



ICBO, 1997, Uniform Building Code, Structural Engineering

Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials,

Whittier California



ICBO, 1994, 1994 UBC Structural CheckList, International Conference

of Building Officials, Whittier California



DPIC, 1988, Lessons In Professional Liability, Design Professionals

Insurance Company, Monterey, California








CHECKLISTS FOR THE QUALITY ASSURANCE OF CALCULATIONS, DESIGN AND

DRAWING PRODUCTION




CALCULATIONS, ANALYSIS, AND CODE



Verify the that the following items have been addressed and are

included in the calculations and Code checks:



Gravity Loading

Review and compare initial dead load assumptions with

the weights of the members chosen for final design

Are Dead Loads overly conservative, i.e. very

heavy such that wind uplift and lateral overturning

are not safe, use .85 dead load or less to resist

overturning

Dead load slope correction factors

100 psf at all exits, corridors, common areas

HVAC Loading, RTU's, suspended equipment, tanks

20 psf partition loading (UBC 94 pg 2-3)

[UBC 97 pg 2-2]

Live load reduction (UBC 94 pg 2-4)

[UBC 97 pg 2-3]

Unbalanced loading combinations

Deflection, ponding, vibration perceptibility

Hydrostatic uplift



Load Combinations (UBC 94 pg 2-2)

[UBC 97 pg 2-4]

All combinations included (preliminary design vs final)

1.33 stress increase for combinations with wind and

seismic (UBC 94 pg 2-2) [UBC 97 pg 2-5]

IF 1.33 stress increase is applied to load combos as .75,

then don't also apply 1.33 to stresses

Do not apply that .75 to deflection calculations

Clearly clarify which calculations use Working

Stress/ASD vs LRFD/ULT



Snow Loading (UBC 94 Appendix 16 pg 2-1199)

[UBC 97 pg 2-387]

Snow drift at parapets, equipment, screen walls, low

roofs, snow (Pg vs Pf), rain on snow surcharge (UBC

94 pg 2-1203) [UBC 97 pg 2-389]



Wind Loading (UBC 94 pg 2-8)

[UBC 97 pg 2-7]

Exposure, Enclosed/partially open

Wind speed: note fastest mile or 3 second gust

Pressures on walls and roof are all applied

simultaneously?

1.5 factor of safety for overturning (2/3 dead load

resisting moment), except for short, squat buildings

(UBC 94 pg 2-9) [UBC 97 pg 2-7]

Net uplift: Is assumed Dead Load appropriate for

resisting wind uplift and overturning?

Uplift forces, H clips at wood trusses, brace

bottom/compression flange of beams

Wind drift < .0025 h

Quartering wind, corner columns

Real plan torsion (UBC 94 pg 2-2)

[UBC 97 pg 2-1]

Elements and Components if < 1000 sf (UBC 94 pg

2-33) [UBC 97 pg 2-29]

5 psf interior partition loading (UBC 94 pg 2-6)

[UBC 97 pg 2-3]



Seismic Loading

Irregular structure, plan or vertical (UBC 94 pg 2-14)

[UBC 97 pg 2-12]

Simplified static procedure limitations [UBC 97 pg 2-12]

Dynamic analysis trigger (UBC 94 pg 2-14)

[UBC 97 pg 2-12]

Near-source factor [UBC 97 pg 2-11, 2-35]

Base Shear (UBC 94 pg 2-16) [UBC 97 pg 2-14]

97 UBC redundancy, overstrength factors

[UBC 97 pg 2-13]

Seismic weight:

25% of storage live load in seismic weight, (combine

Seismic lateral load with 100% of vertical live

load + dead load)

10 psf partition seismic weight to floors

(UBC 94 pg 2-16) [UBC 97 pg 2-13]

Snow load if > 30 psf

Operating weight of equipment in seismic weight

Ballpark check: Period T approximately = 0.1 x Number

of stories

Ballpark check:: For S=1.5, regular building, Ct =

0.020, T=Ct(hn)^.75; the following relationships

hold true:

C=2.75 when T < .56 sec

C=2.75 when hn < 85' (approx. 6 stories)

(UBC 94 pg 2-16)

Rw, R with height limits (UBC 94 pg 2-37)

[UBC 97 pg 2-32]

Rw, R combined along different/same axes, use lower

value (UBC 94 pg 2-18) [UBC 97 pg 2-15]

Vertical distribution of force formula (UBC 94 pg 2-18)

[UBC 97 pg 2-15]

5% accidental torsion included (UBC 94 pg 2-18)

[UBC 97 pg 2-15]

Column strength (3 Rw/8) load combinations for

irregular structures (UBC 94 pg 2-19)

[UBC 97 pg 2-16]

Calculated drift < .04/Rw & .005h ("Calculated" drift

does not include 3 Rw/8 factor) (UBC 94 pg 2-20)

[UBC 97 pg 2-16]

3 Rw/8 x deflection, pounding

Deformation Compatibility (UBC 94 pg 2-24)

Building Separations (UBC 94 pg 2-26)

Use 1.7 allowable stress increase for "strength"

calculations, but do not include 1.33 stress increase.

Coordinate with .75 factor in load combinations

Delta s vs Delta m [UBC 97 pg 2-16]

P delta (UBC 94 pg 2-20) [UBC 97 pg 2-14]

Vertical component of seismic, effects greater than 1.33

gravity?



Seismic Forces on Parts of Structure

Rigid equipment, > 400 lbs (UBC 94 pg 2-22)

[UBC 97 pg 2-18]

2/3 Fp if supported on ground (UBC 94 pg 2-22)

[UBC 97 pg 2-18 formula (32-2)]

If tank with toxic substances, Ip=1.50

(UBC 94 pg 2-35) [UBC 97 pg 2-30]



Seismic Detailed System Requirements

0.85 DL for uplift load combinations (UBC 94 pg 2-23)

[UBC 97 pg 2-19, 2-4]

Corner columns, orthogonal effects, SRSS combine

(UBC 94 pg 2-24) [UBC 97 pg 2-19]

3 Rw/8 x deflection, pounding

Deformation Compatibility (UBC 94 pg 2-24)

[UBC 97 pg 2-19]

Building Separations (UBC 94 pg 2-26)

[UBC 97 pg 2-21]

Use 1.7 allowable stress increase for "strength"

calculations, but do not include 1.33 stress increase.

Coordinate with .75 factor in load combinations

Delta s vs Delta m [UBC 97 pg 2-16]

Cladding connections (UBC 94 2-24) [UBC 97 pg 2-19]

Ties

Collectors

Anchor walls, 200 plf min (UBC 94 2-25 and 2-6)

280 plf [UBC 97 pg 2-20, 2-3]

Diaphragms: Deflection

Force equation (31-1) (UBC 94 pg 2-25)

[UBC 97 pg 2-20 eqn (33-1)]

Rw =6 if flexible diaphragm with heavy walls

Continuous crossties

No cross grain bending or nail withdrawal

If plan irregular, then no 1 1/3 stress increase for

diaphragms and collectors

Projecting wing motion out of phase

Building Separations (UBC 94 pg 2-26)

[UBC 97 pg 2-21]

Nonbuilding Structures (UBC 94 pg 2-26)

[UBC 97 pg 2-21] and Table 16-P (UBC 94 pg 2-39)

[UBC 97 pg 2-34]

Rigid structures eqn (32-1) (UBC 94 pg 2-27)

[UBC 97 pg 2-21 eqn (34-1)]

Tanks



Global Load Path

Load Path: continuous and in proportion to relative

rigidities of elements

Gravity: From roof to foundation, connections

Seismic: From each mass and/or level to foundation,

connections

Wind: From walls and roof to foundation, connections



Stability

Global

Local

Sloping members, sloping bearing surfaces: forces

accounted for?



Computer Analysis

Units consistent, ft, in, kips, degrees vs radians

Member orientation correct? Weak vs strong axis bending.

Global vs local loading direction

Positive y loading is up or down, self weight loading is

down

Check plot of model for configuration, load and reaction

direction, case by case

AISC unbraced lengths may be greater than the default

length of node to node; k, Cm, Cb defaults, x, y

directions

Global Restraints: Are global restraints appropriate? If

a large horizontal reaction is output, then the

foundation must be designed for that force.

Are mid span moments, forces, deflections reported and

critical? Or reports at nodes only?

Connection design based on load path vs reported

member end force: e.g. For a concentric braced

frame with an in-plane offset, the connection of beam

to column may need to be designed for the reported

end force plus the horizontal component of the brace.

Thermal expansion and contraction stresses (building

greater than 200' in plan)



Foundations (UBC 94 pg 2-48) [UBC 97 pg 2-43]

Allowable bearing pressures, net? Working stress?

(UBC 94 pg 2-57) [UBC 97 pg 2-49]

1.33 stress increase OK (UBC 94 pg 2-2, pg 2-56)

[UBC 97 pg 2-49]

Piling: group action reduction factors when closely

spaced

Tie piles together for 10% of axial load

(UBC 94 pg 2-52) [UBC 97 pg 2-45]

Lateral earth pressures: Active equivalent fluid pressure

or higher "at rest" pressure if top is constrained (i.e.

basement wall)

Hydrostatic pressures or adequately drained condition



Retaining Walls

Factor of Safety and minimum loads (UBC 94 pg 2-6)

[UBC 97 pg 2-4]

Surcharge loading, parking, construction equipment

Allowable bearing pressures, net? (UBC 94 pg 2-57)

[UBC 97 pg 2-49]

Check overturning stability, sliding, bearing pressure,

concrete bending/shear in wall and footing, assure

adequate development length in footing rebar.



Concrete

Include Load Factors, 1.4 DL, 1.7 LL

Include phi factors on materials

Flexure ballpark check:

As req'd (in^2) = Mu (ft-k) / [4*d (in)]

Spread footings: check bending, one way shear, punching

shear

Stirrups for torsion

Shear friction calcs: ld on each side of plane (ACI 11.7.8)

similar at construction joints

Lightweight concrete: Reduction factor, lambda, for shear, ld

Splices: factors affecting splice length: f'c, Fy, spacing,

cover, col/beam/wall/ductile, top bar, lightweight

conc, epoxy coated, excess reinforcing, class A or B,

zone 3& 4

Beam deflection, long term creep

One way slabs: crack control: "z" equation



Concrete Seismic

(UBC 94 pg 2-232) [UBC 97 pg 2-154]

Load factors, 1.4 DL , 1.7 LL, 1.4 for seismic

combinations UBC 94

1.0 x seismic for UBC 97 seismic loads

135 degree stirrups and ties @ 4" oc, ductile detailing



Anchor Bolts and Headed Studs

Reduce capacity for close spacing, edge distance. Use

conservative UBC 94 Table 19-E pg 2-267, double

tensile values if special inspection, or calculate

pullout cones as per pg 2-254.

[UBC 97 pg 2-181, 2-168]



Expansion Anchors

Reduce capacity for close spacing, edge distance



Concrete Block Masonry (CMU)

No special inspection if 1/2 stresses are used in design, E

does not get divided by 2. (UBC 94 pg 2-310)

[UBC 97 pg 2-209]

Check bond length of flexural reinforcement

Minimum 200 plf anchorage of walls to roof

(UBC 94 pg 2-6) [280 plf UBC 97 pg 2-3]

Deflection for lintel or veneer support < L/600 (UBC 94

pg 2-317) [UBC 97 pg 2-2133]



CMU Seismic

Working Stress Design (UBC 94 pg 2-320)

[UBC 97 pg 2-214]

1.5 factor for seismic loads in shearwalls, working stress

(UBC 94 pg 2-321) [UBC 97 pg 2-215]




Steel

Verify material grade used i.e. Gr 50 for shapes, but also

for plates and small angles?



Steel Beams

Brace compression flange: bottom flange for continuous

beams, net wind uplift, design brace for 2% + of

flange force

Beam stiffeners required atop steel columns for stability

Torsion accounted for?



Steel Columns

K > 1.0 if moment frame, i.e. column not braced with

shearwall or X braced frame.

Moment due to eccentricity of beam end connection used



Steel Connections

Prying Action

Eccentricities on bolt groups

Eccentricities on welds

Gusset plates: width thickness, Whitmore section

Net section

Bolt bearing on thin plates

Bolt capacities, SC or N

Collector and chord forces



Steel Seismic Allowable Stress Design

For 97 UBC, Reduce earthquake forces by E/1.4

(UBC 97 pg 2-5 and 2-255]

Member strength allowables 1.7 * allowable: do not also

include 1.33 stress increase, increase loads by 3Rw/8

(UBC 94 2-359) [UBC 97 pg 2-255]

Column strength, splices, slenderness (UBC 94 2-359)

[UBC 97 pg 2.255]

Ordinary Moment Frame requirements OMF (UBC 94

pg 2-360) [UBC 97 pg 2-256]

Special Moment Frame requirements SMRF (UBC 94 pg

2-360) [UBC 97 pg 2-256]

Connections, seismic provisions, follow Code



Steel Seismic Braced Frames

(UBC 94 pg 2-363) [UBC 97 pg 2-257]



Concentric Braced Frames (CBF)

(UBC 94 pg 2-364) [UBC 97 pg 2-257]

Slenderness minimums

Fas = B Fa for brace member

Max 70 % of braces oriented in same direction

Built-up members, stitch plates, local 1/r

Width thickness minimums

Chevron bracing requirements, 1.5 factor (UBC 94

2211.8.4.1 pg 2-365) apply to diagonal brace

member only and not to beams, columns or brace

connection [UBC 97 pg 2-258]

No K bracing, no non-concentric bracing

One and two Story buildings, OK to design for 3 Rw/8

[Omega zero] forces with relaxed requirements

Non-building Structures: Rw from Nonbuilding table

(UBC 94 pg 2-39) [UBC 97 pg 2-34], need only

comply with connection requirements for braced

frames (UBC 94 pg 2-365) [UBC 97 pg 2-258]



Steel Seismic Bracing Connections

Brace connections: Seismic*3Rw/8 < 1.7 allowable

(UBC 94 pg 2-366) [UBC 97 pg 2-258]

Net area



Special Concentric Braced Frames (SCBF) (UBC 94 pg 2-364)

[UBC 97 pg 2-258]

Slenderness minimums

Max 70 % of braces oriented in same direction

Built-up members, stitch plates, local 1/r

Width thickness minimums

Chevron bracing requirements, no 1.5 factor for SCBF's,

but check post buckle strength (UBC 94 pg 2-366)

[UBC 97 pg 2-259]



Steel Seismic Bracing Connections for SCBF's

Brace connections: Seismic*3Rw/8 < 1.7 allowable

(UBC 94 pg 2-366) [UBC 97 pg 2-259]

Net area

Gusset plates

Bracing configuration

Columns, splices (UBC 94 pg 2-367) [UBC 97 pg 2-259]



Eccentric Braced Frames

(UBC 94 pg 2-367) [UBC 97 pg 2-259]

Bottom flange of beam must be braced, hence do not

locate in exterior walls of elevator shafts, or similar.

Prescriptive, follow code



Zone 1 and 2 Steel Frames

(UBC 94 pg 2-369) [UBC 97 pg 2-261]

Relaxed requirements



Wood

Allowable stress adjustment factors for: duration, size,

repetitive member, flat use, wet use etc.

Wind: 1.6 duration factor in lieu of 1.33; members only,

not connections (UBC 94 pg 2-810)

[UBC 97 pg 2-291]

SPF studs, low allowable shear and E

Dead load slope correction factors



Wood Connections

Bolts: Min edge distance, end dist, spacing

Nails: Adequate penetration, reductions for wet use

Increases for metal side plates

No cross grain tension or bending stresses

No heel cuts or bottom notches near bearing

(UBC 94 pg 2-813) [UBC 97 pg 2-292]

Adequate bearing area for engineered products, LVL,

PSL



Wood Seismic

Ties

Collectors

Chords

Anchorage to heavy walls, 200 plf min (UBC 94 2-25 and 2-6)

[UBC 97 pg 2-3 and 2-20]

Diaphragms: Flexible, Deflection

Force equation (31-1) (UBC 94 pg 2-25)

[UBC 97 pg 2-20, eqn (33-1)]

Rw =6 if flexible diaphragm with heavy walls

Continuous cross ties

Large diaphragm openings detailed (UBC 94 pg 2-825)

[UBC 97 pg 2-279]



Calculation Epilogue

Review and compare initial dead load assumptions with

those of the members chosen for final design.

Check camber calculations, check self weight of truss and

self weight of gusset plates.

Key plans accurate and up to date

Verify that engineers show units in all equations

Building Department calculations for: Stairs,

handrail/guardrail, ceiling assemblies, interior

partitions, suspended equipment etc.

Title sheet with project identification for Building

Department use: Project name, project address,

permit number, scope of work.

Design Basis: for Building Department use: Code used,

wind speed, see general notes above.

Index and cross reference calculation sections, pages

Sign and seal calculations




DESIGN AND DRAWING PRODUCTION



Verify the that the following information has been adequately

defined:



All Drawings, General

Title block, project name, drawn by, checked by

Sheet number (matches architect's system)

Sheet title (matches architect's index)

Issue date (updated)

Stamped "PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, FOR BID", etc.

Autocad plot Time and Date stamp

Revisions ballooned, w/ triangle, dated, revision block

description

Firm Logo and job #



All Plans, General

North Arrow, scale shown, bar scale

Not to scale items labeled NTS

Grid lines and dimensions shown and consistent at each

level, all extents dimensioned

Existing construction shown as double dashed line or

labeled "(E)" or "EXISTING"

New construction located with respect to existing

"Field verify" dimensions clearly noted and reasonable

Recessed areas defined or noted



Foundation Plans

Datum elevation defined, coordinated with civil, architect

Pipe penetrations through footings, slab; sleeved

Compaction and quality of fill defined



Floor Framing Plans

Elevations: Top of steel, top of concrete, finished floor,

joist bearing, top of plywood, top of column

Does fabricator have enough information to determine

length of steel beams and columns? Rebar?

HVAC duct openings shown, located and framed

Vertical Bracing locations shown, type

Moment connections locations shown



Roof Framing Plans

Roof drainage accounted for, built up insulation or

sloping top of steel, slopes, work points

HVAC openings shown, framed

Weight of roof top equipment shown on drawing



General Notes

Abbreviation list, symbols and marks defined

Safety and means and methods of construction disclaimer

Shore and protect existing



Design Basis: Code used (i.e. UBC `97)

Clearly clarify which loads are Working

Stress level /ASD and which are Ultimate,

LRFD/USD

Live load listed

Snow load, exposure, rain on snow surcharge

Wind speed (fastest mile or 3 second gust), exposure,

enclosed/partially open, Importance factor

Seismic zone, Z, R/Rw, I, S, C



Material Specifications: Concrete, Steel etc., See below

Coordinate with specifications

No proprietary product names on Government jobs



Soils report referenced

Basis of foundation design noted, allowable bearing

pressure, equivalent fluid pressure etc.

Geotechnical site presence and soils verification defined

Submittals defined (shop drawings, etc.)

Field testing defined (compaction, concrete, UT)

Special Inspection, list types required

(periodic/continuous)

Structural Observation



Concrete



Concrete Notes

f'c, regular weight, w/c ratio, slump, fly ash, admixtures

Air entrained 5 to 7 % where subject to frost

Rebar: Grade 40/60, A706 where welded

Concrete cover

Splice lengths called out

Hook dimensions



Concrete Plans

All slab rebar called out

All beam marks labeled

Top of concrete elevation

Show where slopes to drain, recesses



Concrete Detailing

Adequate hook embedment

Adequate development length

Rebar spacing large enough to allow flow of concrete

between bars, at splice locations also

Add bars at openings, reentrant corners

Corner bars at wall and beam intersections

Section cuts are consistent for layering of bars (walls,

slabs, beams)

Construction joints are located, type (keyed, rough etc.)



Steel Embed Plates

Adequate thickness if field welded (prevent concrete

popping)

Adequate room or weep holes to allow concrete to flow

under horizontal plates

Nelson studs in specifications

Stud or anchor bolt locations compatible with rebar



Spread Footings

All footings have ID mark, or sizes and detail callout

Detail and schedule

Plan dimensions, location, thickness, bottom of footing

elevation

Bottom below frost depth, or below soils report

recommendation

Sleeve holes for utilities, max size allowed, add bars

Step continuous footing where elevation changes



Retaining Walls

Contraction and construction joints

Allow movement at top to occur

Drainage behind wall, drain rock with geotextile fabric

Detail length of lap splice between vertical bars in wall

and footing dowels



Drilled Piers, Caissons

Plan showing location with individual piers numbered

Tip elevation, top elevation,

6" socket into rock

Reinforcing called out

Spiral lap splice length

If the doweled rebars protruding from top of pier have

hooks, are they compatible with casing removal?

Hooked bars compatible with grade beam rebar?



Auger Cast Piles

No rebar cages within pile



Concrete Driven Piles

Precast performance specification

Dowels to grade beams



Slab on Grade (SOG)

Top of Concrete (TOC) elevation, thickness, reinforcing

or mesh called out

2" sand, membrane, 4" drain rock

Support for mesh or rebar, height, type and spacing

Joints: spacing, type: contraction, construction

weakened plane, keyed, thickened edge, greased

dowel

Sawcut within 12 hours of pour, or plastic strip

Expansion joint material at walls or existing

construction (floating slab), or dowels for tied

together construction

Expansion joint material around steel columns

Sump in pits, specify rebar

Edge detail: with steel angle, guardrails



Concrete Floors

Finish: Hard Trowel/Broom, F number

Recesses, slopes, drains, openings shown on structural

Curbs, housekeeping pads; locate and detail



Concrete Beams and Cols

Stirrup and tie spacing and size, type of hook 90/135

Corner bars at corners and intersections

Intersecting bars are compatible and layered

Rebar spacing large enough to allow flow of concrete

between bars, at splice locations also

Avoid hooking both ends of a continuos bar, accurate

length problems

Chamfer corners

"Top bar" splice length values for horz top bars



Concrete Walls

Add bars at openings and re-entrant corners

Corner bars at wall intersections and corners

Add bars around handrail post sleeves

Damproofing, bituminous coating (basements)

Construction joints: keyed, waterstops, chemical/jet fuel

resistant material

Foundation dowel lap length

"Top bar" splice length values for horz top bars

#3 rebar on each side of handrail sleeves



Tilt-up

Wall h/t < 42

Chord bar connection

Continuous cross ties



Precast

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator

Allowable camber, deflection, weight

Detail shear transfer and load path

Wall panels, see UBC 94 pg 2-216, and Cladding UBC

94 pg 2-24 [UBC 97 pg 2-144 and 2-19]




Concrete Masonry Units (CMU)



CMU Notes

Block grade N, lightweight or normal weight if exposed to

weather, moisture controlled, compressive strength

Rebar grade, lap splice 40+ bar diameters

Horizontal bed joint reinforcement, size, type, spacing

Mortar type M if below grade, otherwise type S

Grout 3/8" max aggregate size, f'g, 8 to 10" slump

f'm (=1500 psi), bond pattern (running/stack)



CMU Reinforcing

Vertical bar size and spacing, foundation dowels to

match, show lap splice length and hook

Horizontal bond beams, locations and max spacing, size

Additional rebar: corners, wall intersections, door and

window openings (extend 24" beyond openings),

below beam bearings

Define which cells to grout (cells w/ rebar only, or all cells)

Note if 1/2 stresses were used and No Special Inspection

required



CMU Plans

Dimension to only one face of wall (nominal dimension

problems)

Wall joint spacing, type



CMU Details

Joint types, cut rebar and joint reinforcement at joints

except at floor and roof bond beams

Lateral bracing at top of non-bearing walls, with vertical

slots



CMU Lintels

Bottom of lintel elevation, minimum depth, reinforcing

Bearing condition, extend bars 8"+ beyond opening



Structural Steel



Steel Notes

Grade of Steel (A36, Gr50) Shapes, Plates, Tubes, Pipes

High strength bolts (A325, A490), Anchor bolts (A307)

Weld electrode(E70)

Surface prep (SSPC-SP6 etc.)

Paint: None/primer/galvanize/galvanize and paint,

surface prep (none if fireproofed)

UT testing for complete penetration welds

Procedures for welding SMRF's

All grout to be non-shrink, cementitious, flowable

Expansion anchor (i.e. Hilti...), Epoxy, Headed studs

Powder Actuated Fasteners (i.e. Hilti...) size, penetration



Steel Framing Plans

Top of steel defined

Edge of deck condition, edge angles defined

Cladding connection detail

Framing for roof screen columns and braces

Vertical bracing locations shown, type

Moment connections located



Steel Beams

All beam sizes are labeled

Camber, composite stud size, length and spacing



Steel Columns

All columns have ID or size shown, orientation, schedule

Top of col, bottom of baseplate elevation

Splice elevation and type

Baseplate type called out, detailed



Steel Tubes

Slot tube with plate, or less costly shear tab



Steel Bracing

Spacing of double angle spacers, stitch plates

Verify locations do not conflict with windows, louvers etc



Steel Details, Connections

Work points defined

Weld sizes, lengths, symbols, electrodes, procedures,

inspections

Bolt sizes, quantity, type (A325N, A325SC, A307),

scheduled per beam depth or location

Hole types: STD, OVS, short or long slots and orientation

of slot

Snug tight, fully pretensioned or slip critical; inspection

Faying surfaces for SC bolts, no paint

Erection sequence, plausibility (shop weld, field bolt)

Special detail for W6 and C6 connections w/ 2 bolts

Allowance for k fillet, coping, wrench clearance

Web stiffeners req'd for steel beams continuous over tops

of columns for stability.

Web stiffeners req'd for handrail posts at steel beams?

If fabricator is to design any connections, then provide

performance specification, define which members,

provide all loads, define scope and responsibility,

require fabricator's seal.



Steel Baseplates

Plan dimensions, thickness

Anchor bolts; length, embedment, projection, threads, min

edge distance, minimum of 4 bolts for erection safety

(OSHA requirement)

L bolts or nut with plate washer

Oversized holes OK, std holes, shear key req'd?,

embedded studs

Weld to column (avoid fillet welds in tension for high

seismic loads in critical locations)

Grout: "non-shrink", thickness, relief holes for large

baseplates

Bracing work points defined



Open Web Steel Joists

Joist bearing elevation

2 1/2" bearing depth compatible with adjacent and

parallel steel beam connections

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator

Bridging design by fabricator, connection to building by

designer, detail connection

Define loads for design, including dead load to be used,

equipment, roof screens, snow (Pg vs Pf), snow drift,

rain on snow surcharge, live load reduction

Define collector loading

Specify deflection criteria, vibration

Paint (primer/none)

2 1/2" tall hat or tube steel between joist bearings for

shear transfer (between metal deck and collector

beam), weld size and spacing

Bolted connections required at top of column locations

(OSHA requirement)

Joist girder bottom chord stabilization plate, label "do not

weld"



Metal Deck

Depth, Gauge, Manufacturer, Section properties

Galvanized or painted, vented, WWF

Welding: Size, type and spacing; ends, edges, sidelaps

Direction of span shown

Minimum gage thickness of end dam material

Reinforcement at openings, Support at column openings

Detail connections in load path from diaphragm to

vertical shear resisting elements



Steel Stairs

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator

Slotted holes at connection to floor slab



Steel Bar Grating

Galvanized/painted, thickness, size, attachment to

framing

Span direction, support at large holes



Steel Piling

See trade association guidelines



Cold Formed Steel

Gauge, size, section properties, grade

Punched webs OK? stiffened flanges

Weld lengths, screw size and quantity

Bridging (walls and roof/floors)

Strap bracing locations, details



Expansion Anchors

Diameter, Embedment, Min edge distance, spacing



Epoxy Anchors

Diameter, Embedment, Min edge distance, spacing

Use only if non-rated construction and less than 130

degrees F.



Wood



Wood Notes

Plywood (roof, floor, shearwall) thickness, span rating,

exposure, finish, T&G, Blocked/unblocked, nailing

pattern

Equivalent OSB OK?

Glue to floor plywood to joist (adhesive AFG-01)

Framing material and grade( DF#2, SP #2, SPF #2) for

joists, rafters, studs, beams, columns, sills

Plates in contact with concrete are Preservative Treated

Framing hardware (Simpson, Kant-Sag) note to fill all

holes with nails or bolts

Nails Common/box, lengths, galvanized if exterior

Anchor bolts, through bolts, lag screws (A307)



Wood Framing Plans

Top of plate or joist bearing elevation

Differentiate bearing walls from non-bearing walls

Continuous cross ties for roof of concrete tilt-up or CMU

wall building

Shearwall locations shown

Shearwall nailing, sill nailing/bolting, anchor bolts

Hold downs dimensioned adequately for concrete workers

to locate

Hold Down size, bolts, embedment, post size

Dimensions are to face of stud UNO

Typ door and window headers called out

Large diaphragm openings detailed (UBC 94 pg 2-825)

[UBC 97 pg 2-279]



Wood Details

Shrinkage considered

Minimum bolt edge and end distance (4d and 7d)

No cross grain tension or bending stresses

No nails in withdrawal

Detail connection load path from diaphragm to vertical

shear resisting elements

Blocking at 4' oc at walls parallel to joists

Continuous 2x6 studs at tall walls

Note to "edge nail" shearwall plywood to hold down post

Minimum distance of wood above earth, exterior and

crawl space (UBC 94 pg 2-829) [UBC 97 pg 2-276]



Manufactured Wood Products

Floor stiffness, vibration, perceptibility

Allowable Fb, E, Wet-use

Hanger type, size and nail quantity, web stiffeners

Glulam beam camber

Adequate nailer thickness for top mounted hangers



Prefabricated Wood Trusses

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator

Bridging and connection responsibility

Define loads for design, including dead load to be used,

equipment, snow (Pg vs Pf), snow drift, rain on snow

surcharge, live load reduction

Dead load should be realistic for net wind uplift condition



Specify deflection criteria, inter-panel deflection

Roof slope, ceiling profile

Define bearing type, dimensions, and cantilever/overhang

dimensions

Define "no bearing" partition walls

H clips at net wind uplift conditions

Show plywood sheathing below valley trusses and

below "California Framing"



Wood Piling

Preservative treated above water table



Metal Buildings

Wind columns are (or are not) allowed

Rebar in slab (hair pins) for outward horz forces at column bases

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator



Architectural Interface

Intra-discipline coordination; Architectural, civil, mechanical,

electrical etc

Partitions: Top of wall: lateral bracing and vertical slotted

connection

At sloping roofs, do horizontal or large members protrude

through ceiling or roof.

Parapets secure for wind, window washers

Heavy items connected to structure?

Brick veneer ties



Cladding and Windows

Performance specification, design responsibility, seal by

fabricator

Diagonal brace to top of windows



Constructability

Can it be built without skyhooks?

Sequence of construction

Rebar congestion

Bolt tightening access

Likely locations of construction joints









Drawing Production Epilogue

Review "follow-up list"

Has information been called out in more than one location

on the drawings? If so, is it consistent and/or is it

necessary to show the item in more than one location.

Are all section callouts cut or noted from plans?

Do Specifications match drawing notes?



Final Review and Plotting

Issue date (updated)

Stamped "PRELIMINARY, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, FOR BID", etc.

Revisions ballooned, w/ triangle, dated, revision block

description

Engineer's seal and signature



Heausler Structural Engineers


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 11:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Also, I've seen too many cases where the preliminary drawings, so marked as being "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION/FABRICATION" from a bid package made their way to the shop floor or construction site while the actual construction drawings were filed away back at the construction manager's office. :/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Court
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I just finished building a 138kV/13.8kV ConEd Substation off drawings clearly marked "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION".

Time dictated they be used for construction lest Westchester County be supplied by trailer mounted generators for 9 months.

It worked but the local utility paid $$$M through the nose as a result of very poor planning.

Court
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mr_grumpy


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 06:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Is this a particularly American view of Engineers? I find it a trifle blinkered to say that you can only call yourself an engineer if you have a certain piece of paper saying so.
How long has this been the case?
It must be a recent developement, as unless I'm mistaken, steam locomotives, (which weren't phased out that long ago) were driven by Engineers!
Ships have Engineers too.
I realise what Blake is saying, that if you've spent the time & money to get qualified in an engineering capacity you might feel agreived that others who haven't can also call themselves engineers, but I don't see how you can disbar people from calling themselves an engineer if engineering what they do, as has historically been the case, qualified or not.
I served an apprenticeship & Qualified with City & Guilds Certificates as a Motor Vehicle Engineer in the '70s.
I was entitled to join the institute with those qualifications, (don't know if I still am) still a car mechanic though even with ImechE after my name.
I still have officially recognised certificates that say I'm an engineer.
I know I'm an engineer although I can't put PE after my name.
If an animal has four legs, fur, & barks, at you, You generally think it's a dog, whether or not it has a pedigree is something else, but you can't say it's not a dog because it's not pure bred.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lornce


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 08:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Grumper,
Think you've hit the nail on the head, here: We're dealing with the semantics of regional idiom.

In my native England the term "engineer" and "engineering" has broader use than N. America's PE delineation. For example, machining and machine fabrication are referred to as engineering in the UK. Likewise, machine shops are referred to as engineering shops and machinists engineers.

Much more latitude in the term and much good historical reason for it, too, as engineers were, more often than not, recruited from the ranks of trade apprentices. Apprentices who showed aptitude for maths etc. were sent off to night school until they qualified as engineers.

My father earned engineering qualifications in Britain's aerospace industry after starting off at 16 sweeping a machine shop floor. One of the benefits of socialist state policy? My father, war orphaned from a poor family with no hope of ever going to privately funded university, given the opportunity to advance himself AND become more useful to Britain's aerospace industry.

Just a small example of the sort of win win that sound social policy can foster.

But I digress....
Lornce
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 08:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

My grandfather went from a job even worse then that at steel mill to a chemist "engineer" with (as seems to be implied) "an unsound social policy". He had his 50th year with the company anniversary 3 years *before* he retired at age 65.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Country


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Blake,

lighten up. you got a broom stuck someplace that needs adjusting. i.e. removal
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Country


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

ps I mean that in the nicest way.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Shawn_9r


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 01:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

If you look up the word engineer... I don't see where it says you need to have a degree. http://dict.die.net/engineer/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Don (Country),
"Blake,

You got a broom stuck someplace that needs adjusting. i.e. removal"


How so, considering that I am not an engineer?

It is a simple concept really... Just like how trademark infringement dilutes the value of that trademark to its true holder, the widespread unjustified use of the term "engineer" to describes one's vocation dilutes the meaning and value of that term.

I agree that saying that you "work in engineering" for company "X" is perfectly fine. The engineering group's secretary works in the engineering department. She is not an engineer.

The corporations who are concerned with the integrity of their organisation no longer permit their employees who are not registered professional engineers to entitle themselves as "engineer." New terms being used are "designer", "analyst", along with descriptors like "mechanical", "structural", "electrical" or "integration", etcetera.

Not all corporations have adopted this new, more honest convention. They will.

Interesting how this same problem does not exist in anyway near the same magnitude in the fields of architecture, medicine, law, or surveying.

I don't see it as arrogance to demand that one first meet minimal professional prerequisites in order to publicly represent oneself as an "engineer."

Are nurses able to call themselves "doctors"?

Can a designer of common single family residential dwellings call himself/herself an "architect"?

In each case above,the professional in question may posess many of the applicable qualifications and expert knowledge, but without the proper and complete educational and professional certifications, they are not able to refer to themselves as "architect" or "doctor", are they? The same goes for paralegals calling themselves "lawer" or "attorney".

The problem I see is the erosion of value/meaning of the characterization of "engineer". If anyone can call themselves an "engineer", the term has lost any real meaning in a professional capacity.

Yes the qualifications for what exactly constitutes an "engineer" has changed and evolved over the years. Like other professional credentials, the qualifications have become more substantial and more rigorous.
Barbers used to call themselves physicians; didn't make it wrong then, but it certainly doesn't mean that doing so is acceptable now.

The "PE" is the clarifier needed to distinguish one from the other.

Maybe the engineering profession should adopt a scheme similar to that of the medical profession where an abbreviated suffix is used to indicate what type of "doctor" one is, medical, dental, ophthalmological, obstetrical, osteopathic, chiropractic,... etc.

I can give a darn good massage. I cannot call myself a "massuer."

According to popular beliefs, apparently the public demands a much less rigorous professional standard for engineers than we do for massage therapists.

I find that troubling.

Especially when such a scenario remains just so we don't hurt the feelings of those wanting to refer to themselves professionally as an "engineer."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Court,
Don't get me started! The amount of waste generated by poor planning, haste, and procrastination is astounding.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dsergison


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Well, I don't have one. and I am not one. but if I wemt to M.I.T. and got a BSME or EE the would be a degree of mechanical engineer, or electrical engineer. That would suggest to me the the person has passed the rigors of 4 years of school in engineering and as such they are engineers.

they are stil not Professional Engineers with the legal stamp of total responsibility.

that's what the initials P.E. are for, you get to put them on your card. on your business billboard, etc....

they don't call it a degree in bachelors of science in mechanical designering. : )

I did go to M.I.T. morrison institute of technology. :P I got a associates in mechanical engineering technology. no engineer in that title. I call myself a designer. and when confronted with a blank stare I say "sort of an engineer"

I think it's good fair and just to elevate the P.E..... whatever.

4 yr degreed engineers are never going to give up their engineer title. none that I know of anyway. that is here to stay.


---off to get another start sewn to my belly so I can be in the in crowd. :P
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bomber


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The number of professions that are practicing defensive naming practices is alarming, amusing, or both. Many of these professions hang their choice of nomenclature soley on a degree -- some use a series of tests -- still others use both

in any event, none of these gates assure much in the way of competance --

the most humorous in my recollection is the professional society that was attempting to move itself and it's members uptown by creating a "Certification Program." The tests bore little relation to real world practices, you could pass the tests after as little (it seems I cannot use the numeral representing the value of five -- I'm sure it is offensive in some society somewhere) hours of study with the appropriate (expensive) study guide, and, best of all, the professional organization offered long-term members a grandfather clause to give em certs regardless of their actual experience (this was based on years of membership soley).

(I'm not refering to the project management folks, though they ARE a prime example of a for-profit organization creating it's own profession and demand for t's products at the same time).

Ah well -- it's a big deal to some --

that said, I ai'nt gonna make my own trusses to span my 30 foot garage -- I'll also not hire someone with just paper -- I'd rather someone with the demonstrated skill and experiance, if you know what I mean ;-}
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 04:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

4 yr degreed engineers are never going to give up their engineer title. none that I know of anyway. that is here to stay.

This one did and many of my honest degreed friends have done the same.

Your reasoning is not sound as there is no mere graduate of a medical degree program that may refer to themselves as a "doctor", the same is true for graduates of law schools; they must pass the bar before referring to themselves as attorneys. Those who have obtained architecture degrees may not ever refer to themselves as an architect until they have met the requisite standards for BOTH experience and professional licensure. The should be true for an engineer.

For some reason the public views engineering as not worthy of the same level of professional integrity/respect. It is wrong, and it is dangerous, and it certainly dilutes the meaning/value of the word.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

2k4xb12


Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 07:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Are nurses able to call themselves "doctors"?

No, but they don't cut you open or prescribe drugs either. An engineer can be a draftsman, but a draftsman isn't necessarily an engineer...
« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration