Talk:Structural engineer

Archives (Index)

2012 2014 2015 2018

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Is SE a subset of CE?

I am, I hope, not stepping on any toes here, but I've taken the liberty of copying the discussion below from Kvetner's talk page so a wider audience can participate. It concerns the 3-4 reverts of the last sentence of the first paragraph.

Start copy of discussion from Kvetner talk page

structural engineer

hi, do you think all the structural engineers from civil engineering background ? i don't think it is ! -- unsigned comment by 218.111.173.221

No, but I think structural engineering is a subset of civil engineering in as much as pretty much all civil engineers are taught how to design structures, while most structural engineers study only a subset of civil engineering. Essentially, civils design infrastructure, which includes structures, while structural engineers design structures only - it's a speciality in exactly the same way as drainage engineering or highway engineering is. -- Kvetner 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your reply !

Perhaps, i think you make some mistake ! civil engineers are taught to design civil structures but it does not cover architectural structures, mechanical structures and industrial structures ! Please be remind, the structural engineering we talk about is an overall structural engineering but not the one only cover within civil structures topics ! i admits traditionally, it view as part of civil engineering but in modern day, this concept is out dated ! so please don't attempt to squeeze structural engineering into civil engineering anymore !

If you still feel doubt about my point, please refer to the curriculum of B.S. in structural engineering program offer by University of California - San Deigo and Nagasaki University. -- unsigned comment by 218.111.175.215

Thank you for your comments, but you will see that I am reverting the structural engineer page yet again. I am a structural engineer myself, and a Chartered Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Many of the greatest structural engineers of all time (Eiffel, Maillart, Telford, Brunel) have also been civil engineers. I don't really need to look at any curricula - I am both a civil and structural engineer and deeply involved in this area every day. I was taught how to design "architectural structures" (i.e. buildings) and mechanical structures, yet I remain a civil engineer - and the same is true for every civil engineer I have ever met, which is quite a few! I suggest you refer to the page on civil engineering where you will note that structural engineering is indeed commonly seen as a sub-discipline. I accept that some structural engineers are not civil engineers, and the wording on the structural engineer page reflects that.

Can I ask that to avoid a constant edit battle you discuss the issue further on Talk:Structural engineer so that others may offer their opinions? Also, I would ask that you sign your comments on talk pages using the "sign your username" option. -- Kvetner 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments ! I am also a structural engineer but not a civil engineer because i am graduate from structural engineering degree. what is the point for you to keep squeezing structural engineering into civil engineering ? sturctural engineering remain structural engineering whereas civil engineering remain civil engineering ! is totally two independent engineering disciplines ! civil engineering can't representing structural engineering in term of interests, professionals and others. A person can be civil engineer and structural engineer but this does not mean the both professions are same. Dont tell me an aerospace engineering graduate now is working as a structural engineer in aerospace industry also a civil engineer ! i will never give way for this unlogical reasons because this is not only misleading the readers and also ommitted the respect of a structural engineer !

Kvetner and Hwachang82, do you mind if I copy this thread over to Talk:Structural engineering so everyone can participate? Actually, rather than wait for an answer, I'll just tell you that that is what I'm doing. In the mean time, being level-headed engineers, I assume we can all be civil enough to hold off on edit warring and saying things like "I will never give way" over this; let's just leave it as is, while we build a consensus. (I'm sorry, that sounds patronizing, I don't mean it to be) --barneca (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

rats, I meant Structural engineer. --barneca (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

End copy from Kvetner talk page --barneca (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Barneca, not a problem, I will continue the discussion here by reference to 218.111.175.215's last paragraph above.

There are a number of points mixed in here, so I'll take them in turn.

1. Why do I keep "squeezing structural engineering into civil engineering"? Well, for a start, structural engineering is already defined as a specialism of civil engineering on the civil engineering page. I regard that as uncontroversial, but I guess you disagree. I am a qualified Civil Engineer and have been for many years. I was taught structural engineering as only one amongst many subjects, such as fluid mechanics, contract law etc. My entire work is as a structural engineer - to be precise, I'm a bridge engineer. But being a structural engineer doesn't stop me being a civil engineer - I'm definitely a civil engineer first and foremost, that's the title of my degree and what it says on my business card. What I object to here is the desire to state that structural engineering and civil engineering are separate - they aren't, and my interest in this was prompted by amendments made to other pages such as the one on Eugène Freyssinet, to change his description from civil to structural engineer - personally I thought this was misleading, given that he was one of the greatest civil engineers of the 20th century.
2. "I am also a structural engineer but not a civil engineer because i am graduate from structural engineering degree." I acknowledge that there are structural engineers who are not also civil engineers, and my most recent proposed wording sought to recognise this: '"Structural engineers are often regarded as a specialist type of civil engineer, although many structural engineers work outside the civil engineering industry and hence regard themselves as a separate profession."' Please let me know if you object to that wording, I think it is fairly reasonable. We could probably come up with something better between us - see below.
3. "sturctural engineering remain structural engineering whereas civil engineering remain civil engineering !" I disagree, and the civil engineering article doesn't support it. If you look at the definition of civil engineering, it includes the design of both infrastructure and structures, and this has been true for as long as civil engineering has been a separate discipline to military engineering. Brunel, Telford, Rennie, Eiffel etc were all civil engineers (two of them the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers (I.C.E.), no less) who were also structural engineers. It clearly remains true since bridge engineers can be described in either way.
4. "civil engineering can't representing structural engineering in term of interests, professionals and others." The page isn't mainly about organisations, but clearly civil engineering organisations do represent structural engineers - a very large proportion of the membership of the I.C.E. are structural engineers, like myself.
5. "Dont tell me an aerospace engineering graduate now is working as a structural engineer in aerospace industry also a civil engineer !" I haven't said that and my last proposed wording doesn't imply it either. Again, sSee below.
6. I suggest the following new wording in the hope that you can agree with it: '"Many structural engineers are also civil engineers, as structural engineering is one of the specialist disciplines within civil engineering. However, many structural engineers work in other areas, including for example the building and aerospace industries."' -- Kvetner 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a structural engineer in the US. I can safely say that everyone I know thinks of structural engineering as a specialty field of civil engineering, although it is not a perfect fit. That is, Hwachang82 is correct that there are some structural engineers who are not civil engineers. But not many. I think they are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself.

Kvetner is actually a little more generous in his proposed wording than I would be. I would say:

"Many structural engineers are also civil engineers, as structural engineering is one of the specialized (or, specialty) disciplines within civil engineering. However, many some structural engineers work in other areas, including for example the building and aerospace industry."

In the US, which licenses engineers differently in every state, some states have a separate Structural Engineering license. But most do not; a structural engineer gets a Civil Engineering license. Even in the states with their own SE license, it is usually gained after getting a "regular" CE license. I don't have an SE license, I have a PE in Civil Engineering, and all I do is design buildings. Kvetner is in the UK, and if I understand him correctly, he seems to be saying something similar for the situation there.

Similarly, look at engineering schools. Hwachang82, you mention that UCSD has a Department of Structural Engineering, but you must know that this is an exception to the rule. In every other US University that I know of, SE is a discipline inside the Dept. of Civil Engineering. Almost every CE graduate has been required to take structural courses. If necessary, we could look at where the SE discipline is housed in various universities, worldwide, but I think you'll agree we already know the result, while not unanimous, is going to be that it's in the equivalent of a Dept. of CE.

In short, it is certainly possible to be an SE and not a CE, but it is uncommon, and i think Kvetner's proposed wording addresses that. Hwachang82, you seem to be arguing more for how it should be, rather than how it is. In an encyclopedia, how it is wins.

Finally, I fail to see how SE being a specialty of CE somehow degrades the reputation of SE's. I am not saying any CE could do what I do, just like I could not design a water supply system. Everyone has their specialty, and our specialty is no "better" or "worse" than someone else's. --barneca (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank for all of your comments and apologize for using some impolite word heading Kvether, because I am really a bit up sat due this matter.

Honestly, most of the things I still disagree what you all had told me.

“But being a structural engineer doesn't stop me being a civil engineer” > Agree ! A person can be a civil engineer and also structural engineer, but this does not mean both professions are same.

I don't think I'm suggesting that they are the same, and none of the recent wording suggested by myself or Barneca suggest that they are. But I would continue to say that structural engineering remains only one part of civil engineering - while the reverse is clearly not true.

“I acknowledge that there are structural engineers who are not also civil engineers, and my most recent proposed wording sought to recognise this: '"Structural engineers are often regarded as a specialist type of civil engineer, although many structural engineers work outside the civil engineering industry and hence regard themselves as a separate profession."' Please let me know if you object to that wording, I think it is fairly reasonable. We could probably come up with something better between us - see below.” > The “Structural Engineering” and “Structural Engineer” from your point of view are always from civil engineering field and also only play around with “Civil Structures” design. I only can be tolerant for this “Traditionally, structural engineer was view as specialist of civil engineer, nevertheless, recently many other industrial sectors also require input of structural engineer and the increasing of structures complexity results a trench toward independent status for structural engineer such separate license and additional education” what you think about this ?

No, I don't think structural engineers are always from the civil field - I've recognised that there are structural engineers in other fields, and in the UK, most building structural engineers join only the IStructE, not the ICE. However, if you look at any definition of civil engineering, it is clear that structural engineering is a part of it - this is also true historically. I don't agree with your proposed statement because I don't see any trend towards change. Most of the structural engineers who I know outside of civil engineering (basically, building engineers) know considerably less than I do about structural engineering, and I'm a civil engineer, so I find the suggestion that pure structural engineers need additional education to be unlikely.

Hwachang82: if you wanna date back to the history, civil engineering almost the oldest engineering among the others, thus for George Stephenson, the first president of Institution of Mechanical Engineers was once regard as greatest civil engineer, hence you might then go for wording "Mechanical engineering is a specialist discipline within civil engineering, but is also often studied in its own right." in article of mechanical engineering. furthermore, how can you be so sure that most of the structural engineers know considerably less than you did about structural engineering ? Are you already met all talent structural engineers around the world ? Your stories remain to your stories, no one know whether they are true or not !

“What I object to here is the desire to state that structural engineering and civil engineering are separate - they aren't” > civil engineering interest usually more focus on whole construction progress, they are more concern onto “CIVIL SYSTEM” (e.g. Infra-system, Water Resource System, Ecologic System and others) and they seldom go into very detail for structural engineering topics which is typically “STRUCTURAL SYSTEM”. Furthermore, for mechanical structures and industrial structures, civil engineering degree never covers for these two disciplines. I agree part of structural engineering is specialist of civil engineering which is “civil structures” part, but can never be a whole structural engineering is a specialist of civil engineering.

I don't agree. My friends in the building industry who would call themselves structural engineers rather than civil engineers are just as interested in the whole construction process as I am. And my friends who like me are civil engineers who happen to do mainly structural engineering (I know literally dozens of bridge engineers) go into considerably more detail in the principles of engineering than do those who work in the building industry - outside of stadium engineering, I've never met someone who calls themselves a "structural engineer" who knows half as much about their subject as I do. And I'm a civil engineer. I would also note that I have a civil engineering degree and I'm perfectly well qualified to design mechanical and industrial structures - the principles are the same and the details of the codes and standards very similar. I think you are wrong to separate out "civil structures" - my education as a civil engineer has prepared me to design any structures.

Hwachang82:Your friends called themself as structural engineers, are they entitled to hold this title(e.g. chartered by Institution of Structural Engineers or equivalent)? You already mentioned the examples you give to me just around your friend ! What about my friends ? do you wanna know about my friends ? all my friends called themself structural engineers are everywhere industrial sectors ! You never met someone who calls themselves a "structural engineer" who knows half as much about thier subject as you do, this is your own story does not applied to everyone, please keep for your own reference, i afriads this is not for public ! Your are qualified to design mechanical structures or your education has prepared you to design any structures that is your own stories, maybe you have additional training in mechanical engineering topics, who know! As general and also fact, civil engineering education does not trains to design mechanical and industrial structures please refer to engineering program accredited by Institution of Civil Engineers.

For Eugene Freyssinet and Robert Mailert, I never know or perhaps they were civil engineers, but what I understood for their contributions are mostly in the field of structural engineering. You can say they are civil engineers and structural engineers but civil engineers alone, I don’t think this is appropriate!

They were best known for their bridge engineering. The overwhelming majority of bridge engineers, in any country, describe themselves as civil engineers (they may also call themselves structural engineers but I've never met one who would deny they are a civil engineer). I think you are simply mistaken to say that they could not be described as civil engineers alone. Telford, Britain's greatest bridge engineer, was the President of the I.C.E. - he was a civil engineer and never described himself as a structural engineer. Along with many other civil engineers since then, he knew that being a civil engineer was enough to describe his involvement in structural design.

“Hwachang82, you seem to be arguing more for how it should be, rather than how it is. In an encyclopedia, how it is wins” > I am here to show how it is ! Perhaps you are more concern on the opinion of majority and minority but not how it is !

“That is, Hwachang82 is correct that there are some structural engineers who are not civil engineers. But not many. I think they are the exception to the rule, rather than the rule itself” > Exception to the rule doesn’t mean we can ignore it and replace it with majority opinion. Fact is fact, UCSD can offer a program integrating all architectural, civil, mechanical, industrial structures and approved with the named of “Structural Engineering” by ABET (Accredited Board of Engineering Technology) and also until recently this program is the only structural engineering program in United States accredited by ABET , thus straight away indicating this program representing structural engineering as whole.

I don't believe that one course indicates a trend. In the UK, there are a number of courses in civil engineering, in civil and structural engineering, and in pure structural engineering. From what has been said here, we probably have more structural engineering courses than in the USA - we also have the IStructE as an institution. But none of this gets away from the fact that structural engineering is historically a subset of civil engineering. I don't think you can regard one degree programme in one college in one country as representing structural engineering as a whole.

Hwachang82:You dont believe this trend is your foresight matter. In Uk, most of structural or civil and structural program are developed from civil engineering program, they usually have strong tight to civil engineering whereas for the program offer by UCSD is totally new found program which is particularly focus on various structural analysis and design for element and system. As long as there is a kind of degree program which is accredited by ABET (member of WASHINGTON ACCORD)and more appropriate for the title compare to the others, straight away indicating this program representing structural engineering as whole, why we need to care about whether it is only offer by one college of one nation ! Are you more concerns in majority and minority (e.g. majority win and minority loss) rather fact and fake ?

”In every other US University that I know of, SE is a discipline inside the Dept. of Civil Engineering. Almost every CE graduate has been required to take structural courses.” > For the structural courses taken by civil engineering student are “civil structures” courses, so with part of structural engineering knowledge under civil engineering discipline, structural engineering has to consider as subset of civil engineering, then what about mechanical engineering and architectural engineering ? Is it also subset of both disciplines since there are also mechanical structures and architectural structures ?

Again, I disagree. I know for sure that I know more about structural engineering than most of the people I've met who call themselves structural engineers. It's simply wrong to suggest that civil engineering students only study "civil structures". At university, the only structures I studied were buildings.

Hwachang82: Again, HaHaHaHa ! please bring you stories back to your juniors ! they will be more interested than readers ! Your experience does not apply to everyone ! we here talk about fact with evidences!

“In the US, which licenses engineers differently in every state, some states have a separate Structural Engineering license. But most do not; a structural engineer gets a Civil Engineering license. Even in the states with their own SE license, it is usually gained after getting a "regular" CE license. I don't have an SE license, I have a PE in Civil Engineering, and all I do is design buildings.” > For this issue, I refuse to make any comment due to it is relating to government policy of individual states, but just want to highlight with this licensing system, clients can never know whether the profession they engaged is competent to the job (they might end up with environmental specialist design the bridge structures if that profession purposely refuse to follow the ethic for money making purpose)

Clients are quite capable of looking at the CVs (US: resumes) of engineers they employ and deciding whether they are suitable qualified. They don't rely solely on a title or qualification.

Hwachang82: I hope they will !

This is from CASE

The Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE) defines a structural engineer as: "An engineer with specialized knowledge, training, and experience in the sciences and mathematics relating to analyzing and designing force-resisting systems for buildings and other structures." -- unsigned contribution by Hwachang82 at 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, it seems even more clear to me that a structural engineer must be a civil engineer, because all the civil engineers I know have the specialised knowledge described in that definition.

To be constructive, here's another fresh attempt at something that maybe we can agree upon:

"Structural engineering is a specialist discipline within civil engineering, but is also often studied in its own right. In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently qualified as civil engineers, but the situation varies internationally. For example, in the UK, most structural engineers in the building industry are members of the Institution of Structural Engineers rather than the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structural engineers are also found in industries other than construction.

Hwachang82: i just wanna straight to you ! Any sentence that purposely emphasis that structural engineering is subset civil engineering, I WILL NEVER AGREE ! dont tell me anything about your "grandfather or grandmother stories" this is not convincing ! history remains histroy ! civil engineering is a umbrella for all engineerings not only structural engineering but also mechanical engineering and others, and that is the fact ! but nowaday, engineering is expanding, you can never stop it from developing, not only structural engineering but other engineering diciplines will independent from civil engineering when they are mature enough ! As structural engineering is developing and one day will be just like the case where mechanical engineering did ! But you can edit what you want that is your right !

Hwachang, I hope you don't mind I have reformatted your response as I think this will keep the discussion easy to follow. -- Kvetner 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hwachang82: Up to you !

Hwachang, you're simply wrong. You haven't provided any evidence that people in the aerospace industry who do structural design of airframes are considered "structural engineers" rather than "aerospace engineers" (or "mechanical engineers"). Structural engineering, like geotechnical engineering, is a specialty within civil engineering. Structural engineers, as opposed to aerospace engineers or mechanical engineers, need to have some knowledge of other areas within civil engineering, and do not need the specialized metallurgical or materials science knowledge that a structural designer in aerospace or mechanical engineering needs. Structural engineers are economically a part of the construction industry, whose engineers are civil engineers. Αργυριου (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe you can refer to recruitment page of boeing company website, i think you can get some information regarding to what so called "structural engineer" in aerospace industry ! More commonly, they use refer as structural designer, analyst or aircraft structural engineer ! Again ! Civil Engineering is a UMBRELLA for most engineering disciplines nowaday and that is fact ! If you want be so "Specifically" on the heading of "bla bla bla engineering is a subset of civil engineering" i afraid most of engineering disciplines need to add in this sentence in thier articles ! Argyriou, your comment even worst "Structural engineer are economically a part of the construction industry" i afraid that only the profession who works in construction industry can only allow to address he or she a structural engineer. Anyway, i think most of you will simply think that structural engineering straight away subset of civil engineering ! Your mind set already fixed, no point for me to argue anymore !

Thank you ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwachang82 (talk • contribs)

Hwachang82, I really do see your point that not every single person doing structural engineering, or calling themselves a structural engineer, is a civil engineer. But I'll say again, a vast majority of structural engineering does fall under the larger civil engineering umbrella. You may not like it, and you may think it should be different, and you may even think it is gradually changing, but that is how it is, and it would not be honest to ignore this fact. I refer again to my sources, which are all unfortunately US-centric:

• ASCE, the American Society of Engineers, has a Structural Engineering Institute, a Geotechnical Institute, and (I think) other discipline-specific institutes.
• A very large majority of State Licensing Boards consider structural engineering to be a specialty field of civil engineering, and all of them allow someone with a Civil Engineering license to practice structural engineering. Structural Engineering licenses, when they exist, are all considered specialized version of the CE license.
• With the exception of UCSD, I know of no other US university anywhere that offers a structural engineering degree outside of some version of a Civil Engineering department. There may be places I don't know about that offer structural engineering courses in the Mechanical Engineering department, but that would hardly prove your point.

Those are not my "stories", they are facts. They are facts about education, licensing, and professional organization. So far, you have offered nothing concrete beyond the Structural Engineering program of UCSD, and your own "stories". The existence of CASE (in the US) or ISE (in the UK) does not prove that SE is not part of CE; it is simply evidence that the specialists in this discipline band together to talk about their specialty.

If Kvetner was proposing to ignore your point, you would have reason to complain and use lots of exclamation points. But he is bending over backwards to accomodate your point. Taking Kvetner's latest proposed phrasing as a starting point, I would modify it to:

"Structural engineering is usually considered a specialty discipline within civil engineering, but it can also be studied in its own right. In the US, most practising structural engineers are currently licensed as civil engineers, but the situation varies from state to state. In the UK, most structural engineers in the building industry are members of the Institution of Structural Engineers rather than the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structural engineers are also found in industries other than construction.

--barneca (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be leaving this one for a few days, there seems a strong majority in one direction at present, but it would be worth waiting to see if anyone else offers a view. I think there is little point hoping for consensus given the very rude tone of some of the discussion. -- Kvetner 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hwachang, you mentioned that the Boeing jobs website refers to what you call structural engineers mostly as "structural designers" or "aircraft structural engineers". That's not the same thing as calling them "structural engineers". Your assertion that "Civil Engineering" is an umbrella for all sorts of engineering disciplines is simply wrong. All forms of chemical engineering, most mechanical engineering, all computer engineering, all electrical engineering, are considered to not be civil engineering. There are some overlaps in the knowledge required - mechanical engineers need to know the same sorts of things about structural analysis as civil engineers, but it doesn't mean that they're doing civil engineering when they design the framing for a car or airplane. Αργυριου (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the page to try and improve it - I've left the controversial first paragraph alone for now, but it still needs to be revisited at some point. Hopefully the bits I've changed are not controversial, but if they are, please discuss below! -- Kvetner 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that paragraph isn't truly controversial, and the editor that doesn't agree has said above they don't want to discuss it anymore. I have yet to come up with a wording that I truly like, so I suggest you do what you think best; any of your proposed wordings is fine with me. But further discussion would not be productive. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Barneca, i got some infomation regarding to structural engineering history and its simple definition would like to share with those people, but i am not going to comment anything ! Please refer to this website "http://ceae.colorado.edu/~saouma/Lecture-Notes/se.pdf" just a lecture note from Professor Victor Sauoma from University of Colorado in Boulder. Hope this will clear up what i have been argued ! Thank you !

I have never realized how heated the debate is about structural engineering. I would like to share my view point. The term structural engineer souly encompasses what the engineer does. Meaning they are called structural engineers because the work in structures discipline. However, there are structural subsets of not only civil engineering, but also mechanical and aerospace engineering. A structural engineer title doesn't necessarily mean that they are confined to civil engineering and design structures as most people would label (buildings, bridges, etc.). Take structural engineers in the aerospace industry for example. One of the many jobs they do is optomizing strength of materials used in aerospace vehicles (aeronautical and astronautical alike) while minimizing the cost and weight. A lot of structural engineers in aerospace have aerospace degrees and specialize in structures, giving a firm grasp on aerospace applications to better understand the discipline, but expertise in structural design. San Diego State University (a different school from UCSD!) offers Aerospace degrees with structural engineering emphasis. There are many universities out there that do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.191.162.124 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

structural engineer

what is the quality of this job of structural engineer? which kind of software need to know for this job? 103.238.230.194 (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)