I'm just wondering, do any of you know structural analysis or do you just pawn your little designs off to engineers? Or do you just waste materials?
senjohnblutarsky
Sep 27, 17 5:03 pm
Came here angry, didn't you?
Your beef isn't with us. It's with whatever architect you're not naming.
I'm perfectly capable of doing structural analysis. But our structural engineers do it every day and can do it in 1/4 the time. Likewise, they can probably do quite a bit of architectural detailing. But I can do it a whole hell of a lot faster than they can. It makes business sense to put the job in the hands of the people who can do it quickly and correctly.
joseffischer
Sep 27, 17 5:13 pm
I could probably still do residential, though I'm pretty rusty right now. Commercial work requires a structural engineer. Mid-level architects seem to be able to guess the sizes of beams and columns, thicknesses of slabs, etc, based on precedent, and if anything, when the structural engineer comes back, his sizes are smaller... so you could say if we were allowed to do it ourselves, we'd just waste materials. I don't know of any architect who actually runs calcs or using the programs. Our structural engineers are in-house, but I can't name what programs they use (though I know what they look like since we sit at the screen together often to discuss detailing).
Non Sequitur
Sep 27, 17 5:14 pm
I can but for the obvious reason already mentioned, it's not worth my time to do so. I can however clearly speak about structure to clients and my p.eng so that keeps the bullshit and half-assness at bay.
JLC-1
Sep 27, 17 5:15 pm
two licenses? are you nuts?
joseffischer
Sep 27, 17 5:17 pm
To keep the ball rolling, our electrical engineers (also in-house) don't check footcandles or otherwise layout lighting anymore. All the reps do it for free (of course providing their product lines as basis of design) and while I personally might be against this concept, the higher-ups can't ignore the advantage of free work, which allows the highest paid employees at the firm to stick to doing their panels, specs, generators, etc. They also seem to farm out low-voltage a lot, but that doesn't always come back for free.
citizen
Sep 27, 17 5:34 pm
Glad you asked!
I spend the same exact amount of time on structural analysis as my engineer does on programming, area calculations, space planning, composition of massing & articulation, facades & fenestration, materials selection, circulation, fixture layout, finish detailing, waterproofing details, solar orientation, and conformance to zoning regulations and building code rules.
I know: coincidence, right?
tduds
Sep 27, 17 5:39 pm
What were you hoping to gain from this thread?
Miles Jaffe
Sep 27, 17 9:32 pm
Recently heard a story about a PE speccing a solid 8" steel column. In a house.
JLC-1
Sep 28, 17 10:28 am
a bit short for my taste, but to each its own. (I would love to have seen the face of the gc and the fabricator)
randomised
Sep 27, 17 11:28 pm
Yes.
archietechie
Sep 28, 17 12:27 am
I do too...if you're willing to pay for it.
senjohnblutarsky
Sep 28, 17 8:49 am
Now that I've come back to this thread...
Generally, structural engineers oversize things. It's actually a running joke in my office. Even our clients make jokes about their buildings being over done.
Non Sequitur
Sep 28, 17 9:03 am
Breaking news: It's not just in your office.
x-jla
Sep 28, 17 8:57 am
the op took a dump and left.
Miles Jaffe
Sep 28, 17 9:01 am
Third time.
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 28, 17 10:21 am
The thing is, it's not nearly as difficult as some people think it is. Even engineers use simplifications because that is good enough. Not an exact science. Doing what has been done before gets you 80% of the answer anyways.
Architects design the building structure (not foundations/footings but the rest of it) before engineers get involved most of the time anyways. Then it is a joint coordination event where many things are considered, not just mass of material compared to cost as you suggest. Structure must designed with usability and comfort in mind. That is why you don't have a column in your parking spot.
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 28, 17 10:29 am
However, it is my experience that engineers are extremely efficient insofar as they don't lift a finger more than they have to!
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 28, 17 10:42 am
And insurance.
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 28, 17 10:40 am
Do you even have a wind tunnel, bro?
Non Sequitur
Sep 28, 17 12:16 pm
I'd love to have a wind tunnel but I'd get zero work done since I'd spend all my time testing everything I could find.
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 29, 17 11:07 am
If I had a wind tunnel, I'd test toupees.
Everyday Architect
Sep 28, 17 12:08 pm
My favorite part of the thread is the title calling out B.Archs. Is the implication that with the extra year or two, and thousands more in student debt, that M.Archs do it all?
thatsthat
Sep 28, 17 2:12 pm
Maybe the OP was under the impression that a BArch would teach them all they need to know about being an architect! No experience necessary! :-P
Chuck71
Sep 29, 17 10:34 am
I think the OP has had a bad experience.
Anyway, I'm not trained in any Engineering discipline, whether it is Civil, Structural, Electrical or Mechanical, and working in Architecture firms without the PI cover to do any of those disciplines, I'd be crazy to take on what I'm not skilled at and expose the Directors to the potential for negligence claims.
I would in my home country (Australia) happily apply some design guides e.g. timber frame construction, as that is within the scope of my competence, but that is about it.
That isn't to say I don't get mixed up in an awful lot of Engineering work, often enough figuring out what everyone else (inexperienced Engineers on my current project) missed in their reviews of contractor submissions for materials, calculations and method statements.
There is a lot to be said for having an experienced Architect on a project, but expecting one to do everything? Specialisation doesn't work like that, unless the Architecture firm concerned also has Engineers on staff.
Wilma Buttfit
Sep 29, 17 11:06 am
I used to work for an engineer. I know much, much more about engineering than any of the engineers knew about architecture. There is a reason the engineers work for the architects and not the other way around.
archi_dude
Sep 29, 17 4:02 pm
Why would you stop at structural analysis? Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what relevant information BArch's and MArch's learn.
joseffischer
Sep 29, 17 5:02 pm
That last one's really important, but usually involve the first one. I don't know what you're talking about copying notes for, only interns do that.
I'm just wondering, do any of you know structural analysis or do you just pawn your little designs off to engineers? Or do you just waste materials?
Came here angry, didn't you?
Your beef isn't with us. It's with whatever architect you're not naming.
I'm perfectly capable of doing structural analysis. But our structural engineers do it every day and can do it in 1/4 the time. Likewise, they can probably do quite a bit of architectural detailing. But I can do it a whole hell of a lot faster than they can. It makes business sense to put the job in the hands of the people who can do it quickly and correctly.
I could probably still do residential, though I'm pretty rusty right now. Commercial work requires a structural engineer. Mid-level architects seem to be able to guess the sizes of beams and columns, thicknesses of slabs, etc, based on precedent, and if anything, when the structural engineer comes back, his sizes are smaller... so you could say if we were allowed to do it ourselves, we'd just waste materials. I don't know of any architect who actually runs calcs or using the programs. Our structural engineers are in-house, but I can't name what programs they use (though I know what they look like since we sit at the screen together often to discuss detailing).
I can but for the obvious reason already mentioned, it's not worth my time to do so. I can however clearly speak about structure to clients and my p.eng so that keeps the bullshit and half-assness at bay.
two licenses? are you nuts?
To keep the ball rolling, our electrical engineers (also in-house) don't check footcandles or otherwise layout lighting anymore. All the reps do it for free (of course providing their product lines as basis of design) and while I personally might be against this concept, the higher-ups can't ignore the advantage of free work, which allows the highest paid employees at the firm to stick to doing their panels, specs, generators, etc. They also seem to farm out low-voltage a lot, but that doesn't always come back for free.
Glad you asked!
I spend the same exact amount of time on structural analysis as my engineer does on programming, area calculations, space planning, composition of massing & articulation, facades & fenestration, materials selection, circulation, fixture layout, finish detailing, waterproofing details, solar orientation, and conformance to zoning regulations and building code rules.
I know: coincidence, right?
What were you hoping to gain from this thread?
Recently heard a story about a PE speccing a solid 8" steel column. In a house.
a bit short for my taste, but to each its own. (I would love to have seen the face of the gc and the fabricator)
Yes.
I do too...if you're willing to pay for it.
Now that I've come back to this thread...
Generally, structural engineers oversize things. It's actually a running joke in my office. Even our clients make jokes about their buildings being over done.
Breaking news: It's not just in your office.
the op took a dump and left.
Third time.
The thing is, it's not nearly as difficult as some people think it is. Even engineers use simplifications because that is good enough. Not an exact science. Doing what has been done before gets you 80% of the answer anyways.
Architects design the building structure (not foundations/footings but the rest of it) before engineers get involved most of the time anyways. Then it is a joint coordination event where many things are considered, not just mass of material compared to cost as you suggest. Structure must designed with usability and comfort in mind. That is why you don't have a column in your parking spot.
However, it is my experience that engineers are extremely efficient insofar as they don't lift a finger more than they have to!
And insurance.
Do you even have a wind tunnel, bro?
I'd love to have a wind tunnel but I'd get zero work done since I'd spend all my time testing everything I could find.
If I had a wind tunnel, I'd test toupees.
My favorite part of the thread is the title calling out B.Archs. Is the implication that with the extra year or two, and thousands more in student debt, that M.Archs do it all?
Maybe the OP was under the impression that a BArch would teach them all they need to know about being an architect! No experience necessary! :-P
I think the OP has had a bad experience.
Anyway, I'm not trained in any Engineering discipline, whether it is Civil, Structural, Electrical or Mechanical, and working in Architecture firms without the PI cover to do any of those disciplines, I'd be crazy to take on what I'm not skilled at and expose the Directors to the potential for negligence claims.
I would in my home country (Australia) happily apply some design guides e.g. timber frame construction, as that is within the scope of my competence, but that is about it.
That isn't to say I don't get mixed up in an awful lot of Engineering work, often enough figuring out what everyone else (inexperienced Engineers on my current project) missed in their reviews of contractor submissions for materials, calculations and method statements.
There is a lot to be said for having an experienced Architect on a project, but expecting one to do everything? Specialisation doesn't work like that, unless the Architecture firm concerned also has Engineers on staff.
I used to work for an engineer. I know much, much more about engineering than any of the engineers knew about architecture. There is a reason the engineers work for the architects and not the other way around.
Why would you stop at structural analysis? Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what relevant information BArch's and MArch's learn.
That last one's really important, but usually involve the first one. I don't know what you're talking about copying notes for, only interns do that.