It as also a pleasure to see a fellow civil engineer on the board. I do agree with a lot of waht you said, but let me defend a little of what I said.
1. Utilitarian structures are beautiful as well. Unfortunately some architects think a beautiful structure can only be one that doesn’t look like anything that has been built before. I'm certainly not saying that architects are to design something that looks ugly. What I want them to consider is how the engineer will go about designing it. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to push the envelope, but perhaps they need to be educated just where that envelope currently resides before they try to go outside it. They shouldn't just develop the attitude, "I don't care, the engineer will figure it out later." Had the architect had a basic knowledge of supports, the architect may have kept the tube idea, but perhaps used two joined inverse hyperbolic cosine curves to form it. That is something an engineer would have understood, and that shape has been shown very effective is supporting loads.
2. I've found the primary purpose of codes is to ensure we as engineers don't screw up.
When a new structure is proposed where current codes don't currently fit, the architect is allowing an immense possibility for human error to enter the design. The design loads likely were required by law to come from a code that the engineer probably had difficulty in applying to such an unusually shaped building. Baby steps, please. Do new things on a smaller scale first to develop an understanding how that new idea works. The CDG
collapse certainly will garner a few paragraphs in concrete and masonry codes to give engineers an idea of where problem areas are and how to design for them. There is no reason those had to come from a building collapse.
|Quoting ViveLeYHZ (reply 14):|
If the architectural design is simply whacked, it is the responsibility of the Civil Engineer to tell the architects that their design concept cannot be materialized, and needs modifications.
That is certainly the case. Unfortunately, pride and ego comes into play too frequently, along with the fear your firm losing respect because another comes forward and says "It can be done."
|Quoting ViveLeYHZ (reply 14):|
These code tell us nothing about the design of high-rises, stadiums, nuclear power plants, airport terminals, ... etc.
To the contrary, codes apply in some respect to all of those structures (the physics of a nuclear plant aside). The weakness is the lack of experience in designing those mean some caveats have not yet been incorporated into the codes. Just because there is no heading "stadiums" in a code book does not mean the code does not cover it. Plus, I don't know how things work in Canada, but in the US, ASCE produces nearly exhaustive publications for snow loads, wind load, earthquake loads, and other live loads for many types of buildings.
And for things like the A380 and the like, the engineers are able to build prototypes and test them. The other day there was a pic of an A380 wing that was going to be tested to it's ultimate strength. Thus, they can push the envelope a little more because they can test it before they pack it full of people, which can't be done with a large structure. And it might be said they do have a code: the planes must meet certain standards to obtain an airworthiness certificate.
By the way, I'm not planning on going for a structural specialty. I'm looking more at water resources of transportation, so sorry if I'm not he complete expert on structural matters. I just think architects, too, should remember this little saying one of profs has: "Doctors have much easier jobs than engineers. See, we both can kill people, but doctors do it one at a time. When an engineer screws up, hundreds or thousands can die." That's why I think architects and engineers have to be careful when the push the envelope.
Sorry if I ranted a little on you, too.