Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
There is much work going on to draw the various strands
together, and we can expect these will be linked into a single
coherent approach. At which point there will be a commercial
imperative to deal effectively with the physical relationship
between the structure and the environment, within a holistic
architectural proposition, from cradle to grave. Structural engi-
neers will need to develop a much broader contextual aware-
ness if they are to play a meaningful part in this new order.
To my mind this relationship is key to the evolution of all
three professions going forward, a close-knit group of structure,
environment and architecture, although we need to develop a
much better mutual understanding. I can see in the not too dis-
tant future a time when they become one profession with a
series of internal specialisms. Arise, the building technologist.
automated. Nothing lasts forever. Look at Hi-tech architecture,
once the sexiest thing on the planet and characterised by the
marriage of architect and structural engineer, vibrant for 40
years from say 1960-2000…but now no more. I can see this
reflected in our nominally structural office when we get one
person who wants to go to a tall building conference, but 10
who want to attend a conference on green buildings or infra-
structure. Our engineers are voting with their feet, and choos-
ing some sorts of knowledge over others, by thinking funda-
mentally about what they hold to be of value.
2.7.1 What engineers are 1: The Artist, the Artisan, and
the Philosopher (2007)
As an engineering designer, how do you work? It appears there
is more than one answer to this question, and while running the
RSA's Royal Designers Summer School a few years ago we devel-
oped some understanding of the various approaches. Observing
the behaviour of a broad spectrum group of designers of items
from scarves to cars to towers, theatre designer Tim O'Brien and
environmental engineer Ed McCann derived a suite of designer
personality traits which together seemed to cover everyone
they were studying. Reflecting on this, they identified three key
generic personality types within the projects, each defined by the
way they approached their work. Structural engineers, also being
designers, fit into this gallery, and you can take the simple test in
Table 2.4
to find out which type of designer you are. The answers
for each personality type are towards the end of the chapter.
There are three possibilities: characterised by O'Brien and
McCann as the Artist, the Artisan and the Philosopher. First,
the 'Artist', motivated by interest, who finds it easy to start, but
hard to stop. Their projects, as represented in
Figure 2.2
, do
not follow a straight line. An Artist will change direction often
as something captures his or her interest. He is not precious
about today's position, is full of ideas, and often ends up some-
where unexpected. There is risk and pleasure in equal measure
in working with an Artist.
Next, the 'Artisan', who seeks perfection of form, but can't
begin without a pre-existing concept, and then incrementally
seeks to improve it. The Artisan doesn't like to go into the
unknown, so their projects (as shown in
Figure 2.3
) are rooted
strongly in precedent, or codes. You are likely to get exactly
what you asked for with an Artisan, so they are loved by well-
established commercial sectors.
Last but not least, the 'Philosopher', who seeks meaning,
and needs to work very hard to get perfection of the proposi-
tion. They attempt to understand all the key project informa-
tion before beginning anything at all. Philosophers find it ter-
ribly hard to start and agonise about changing circumstances,
having invested so much effort in perfecting the original mean-
ing. Once they eventually start, they expect the outcome to
have great intrinsic integrity. They can be stubborn if asked to
change course, and need to feel in command of the intellectual
part of the project process.
Figure 2.4
shows a Philosopher's
view of a project.
2.7 Technique
Good technique comes first on a map of your own capability to
your aspirations - no matter how much you want it, it's no use
trying to be Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers if you have two left
feet. But although we may have been trained for a few years as
structural engineers and so are apparently different from those
who have trained as shoe-designers, at heart we are all humans
and we all have brains, arms and legs, and our experience of
life unites us much more than it separates us.
A surprising amount of this life experience fits very well
to the knowledge needed by a structural engineer. Of course
we have some specialist knowledge which is occasionally wel-
comed - how to work out the bending at the root of a canti-
lever, for example. But we also develop skills that enable us
to handle many other situations for which we haven't been
explicitly trained, at least since early childhood. Perhaps one
of the most useful is what we might call 'getting your own
way'. This is a raft of tactics and techniques that we use to cir-
cumvent opposition so that in the end our proposition sees the
light of day. This example is important to structural engineers
who are regularly confronted by naivety on the part of those
such as clients and architects to whom we are formally and
contractually beholden. Knowing how to get your own way
without boring everyone or imposing a loss of face on the part
of the uninformed is a key part of the structural engineer's per-
sona. This is because the consequences of unintelligent struc-
tural engineering are at best damaging to the environment in
terms of embodied energy, or because they are downright ugly.
At worst, letting others ignore structural advice can be danger-
ous and even life-threatening.
Structural engineers have historically occupied a spectrum
from the bridge hero grappling with waves, wind, dynamics,
fatigues, fracture mechanics and complex erection (but possi-
bly not aesthetics), to those who enable dreams to be fulfilled,
like the talented archi-structural engineer Peter Rice. Most
engineers sit somewhere in the middle and it is this area that
has most to fear as it may well largely disappear. Routine work
is already threatened by a combination of cheap engineer-
ing labour elsewhere, and even that work will soon become
