Talk:Structural engineering

Untitled
I wanted to learn more about this topic, but the page doesn't point me in interesting directions. It's done too summarily. Should talk about skyscrapers, what are the issues there, link to skyscrapers; earthquakes, what are the issues, link; history of, link; bridges, link; you get the picture. --Rmalloy 05:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

History of structural engineering
This section suddenly has a bunch of information on Sri Lanka, can someone please provide citation? --RedIsaac (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New project proposal related to this article

There is a new project proposal that some of you here may be interested in: Wikibuilder - a knowledge base covering the design and construction of the built environment, in its entirety, in all languages. See Proposals for new projects and Wikibuilder for more information, and feel free to add your comments to meta:Talk:Wikibuilder —Christiaan -  &#9742;   09:41, 18 Jan 2005

Insert some articles or links to stress analysis examples, Mohr's Circle, The famous galloping bridge in Tacoma Narrows, etc.

Write up of the structural failure of 9/11, explosion blew insulation off and structure soaked up heat from fire feuled by jet feul. Yield strength reduced and collapse like a house of cards. Impact took lower floors with the mass now accelerating (via gravity) to the ground.

Structural Engineering, while sharing many similar concepts with Mechanical Engineering, is actually a branch of Civil Engineering.

In the US, a Structural Engineer is a Civil Engineer who also has a Structural Engineering license. The additional license is required to design buildings over a certain height (in my state more than 3 stories or over 45' tall as measured from deepest footing) or (in some states) bridges over a certain span. So in the US, at least, not all engineers who design structures are Structural Enigneers. Not sure how to treat this in the article without "limiting the geographic scope", however in general I think it's fair to say that a Structural Engineer is one who speciallizes in very large structures. Toiyabe 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge
I suggest merging most (or all) of Structural engineer into Structural engineering. The rest can go into Engineer, provided that is not itself merged into Engineering: see Talk:Engineer/Archives/2012. jnestorius(talk) 22:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose useful to have separate articles... Addhoc 15:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For. My two cents: it's working fine for us in Architectural engineering.  Be sure to have redirects to your main page, however, including all variations in capitalizations. Remember the KISS principle ...  :-)  129.237.114.171 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I disagree. They should be two seperate areticles.  Structural Engineering should have information about the subject.  Structural Engineer should have information regarding the engineer's role and specific tasks, as well as qualifications, training etc.129.11.76.216 12:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose A Structural Engineer is a person who is licensed either as a Professional Engineer or a Structual Engineer to design the structural systems needed to support a building.  This would follow the model set up around architect and architecture.  By the way not all structural engineers are civil engineers some structural engineers come from an architectural engineering background or actually have degrees in structural engineering.  In addition most states do not license engineers as structural engineers.  There are less than 20 states (CA, IL, NE, NV, UT, WA, etc) with SE licensure. Engr civil 21:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Useful to distinguish training of structural engineers; not everyone who partakes in structural engineering has the same background. Dlodge 18:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For (Please note new addition to old subject) I know I'm very, very late to this issue, but is anyone else in favor of ramping up the discussion again? The more I think about it, the more combining the articles makes sense to me.  I understand they are different, but the overlap is so strong that it makes more sense, to me, to combine the articles and explain the differences, rather than have two separate articles that sort of pretend the other one isn't there.  Both articles are relatively short, there is some major overlap, and right now, no discussion on what the differences are.  A combined article could, in a few paragraphs, cover all the ground of both articles, plus address the concerns listed above by discussing the difference between what Structural Engineering is, and what it takes to be a Structural Engineer in the US, UK, Canada, NZ/AUS, etc. ,etc.  If I came too late to play, so be it, but I think it's worth re-considering. --barneca (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose After looking at the Architecture and Architect pages, I've changed my mind and agree with the consensus above. I like how that works better.  I may try to incrementally revise this article to be organized somewhat more like Architecture. --barneca (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable Structural Engineers
In the course of removing a fictional character from the list (which, off topic, I assume most others agree with?), I finally registered something that I hadn't noticed before: there is a list of notable structural engineers in both Structural Engineer and Structural Engineering. Surely one list is enough, and it seems natural that it would go in Structural Engineer rather than this article.

Anyone agree/disagree? I'm thinking of consolidating the list, removing it from Structural Engineering, and putting it in Structural Engineer. But I hate being bold, and would like some feedback first. --barneca (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I didn't know that the List of structural engineers already existed, but it does. It is much more complete than either article's list, and the natural place for such a list.  I'm removing the list from both articles, adding the 6 engineers on either list that aren't already there, and including a "See also" heading that refers you to it.  --barneca (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is SE a specialty discipline of CE?
FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Structural engineer about whether Structural Engineering should be considered, for the most part, a specialty, or sub-discipline, or whatever you want to call it, of Civil Engineering or not. --barneca (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Improvement
Fantastic improvement ! Well-organized article ! (User_talk:tigershark82007} —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be improved and revised. I don't know if some of the changes can be discussed first here and then transferred to the main document. --Ivantafur (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Materials folding and doming as structural elements?
Where does folding and stressing fit into the topic of structural engineering? (Perhaps not used in building construction specifically, but as structural elements of engineered devices/products.)

Folding of sheet steel into a column containing a large number of lengthwise folds yields a very strong shape.

Designing domes and arcs into cast/pressed objects provides crush-resistance and resilience compared to using just a flat surfaces.

For example, the bottom of an aluminim soda can is domed inward to provide deformation strength against internal gas pressure, while the folded V-edge around the dome provides can crush resistance against external loads pressing on the can.

Is there some method of calculating how much strength a fold or dome will add to a structure? Is there a method of determining what specific fold and dome placements will provide the best strength for a structural design application, or is it all just guesswork and experimentation to see what works best?

DMahalko (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Safety Factor Section Update
I suggest that somebody fixes, updates, or deletes the section "Safety Factors." It references numerical values for safety factors (1.2 for DL, 1.6 for LL and Wind Loads), but makes no reference to factored load combinations as specified by ASCE 7-05 (or even the IBC). Safety factors should not be referenced without mentioning the load combinations, and especially the section of ASCE 7-05 that controls. Saying that DLs are typically factored by 1.2 is not necessarily correct because without any other loading, the DL is factored by 1.4, etc. I will maybe try in the future to change this, but no guarantees. But it should be changed. Wadester16 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation/splitting
There's absolutely no doubt that this article is informative, relevant, interesting, notable and well-written. Its problems now relate to its style and layout. The problem is that it's absolutely filled with information! Of particular note is the sheer number of subsections&mdash;27, to be exact&mdash;and how this actually decreases readability. The article is currently 61kB; as per WP:SPINOUT, this article "probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)." Some of the sections and its subsections would be better served in list format and/or categories. "Structural engineering theory" easily merits its own article. In short, this article has reached a point where adding content is harmful. Surely an article on Structural Engineering ought to be more structured... ;) — Skittleys (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the World Trade Centre collapse section it mentioned 'creep' as a reason for the structural response of the heat from the jet fuel. Basic(instantaneous)creep is the Stress-Dependent response to initial load; the additional deformations due to heat are more likely the result of thermal expansion or changes in the material properties of the concrete (at different temperatures). - Jamahl Rigby - B.Eng Civil(Structures)(Hons) - University of Sydney - jamahlspam@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.192.165 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology box
I just removed this box, for a couple of reasons: Obviously, I'm happy to discuss if you disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the English words "structural" and "engineering" are pretty clear; no sense giving etymology of them.
 * Much of the rest has nothing to do with "etymology"; it's a re-statement of the text in the section, and of the text in the article Structural engineer.
 * The article is somewhat long, and this seems a pretty painless place to cut out some material that is covered adequately elsewhere.

structural engineering
Do structural engineering and civil engineering have same meaning? Can i understand it as one term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billylight (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Article needs help!
This article has been vandalized, and I need help fixing it. I've posted a cleanup tag for the time being, but it certainly needs more than that. Ideas?
 * Done. Reverted to the last good version. I'll keep an eye out in case there's more vandalism, but I don't think semi-protection or blocks are necessary quite yet. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)