structural engineers getting slammed ii

huangyhg

structural engineers getting slammed ii
all,
having already read a thread where structural engineers have found themselves at the ire of one industry, i didn't know if i should dare post this little editorial.
i do think it would be good for all of us to vent on this topic...
structure magazine, a joint publication of ncsea, case, and sei april 2005 regenerates that age old arguement over architects doing structural engineer's work.  the magazine lists
the other day, i was called to look at a very, very simple building. it was designed by an architect only. my initial look at the drawings revealed number of structural problems.
the state boards seem unwilling to tackle this polictically sensitive issue and i am sure that the aia lobbies to maintain the status quo. the only way that it seems that it will getted solved is thru lawsuits and public awareness of this issue.
the temptation for the architect is to earn more money and not have to hire a consultant. this is a self defeating attitude since if the architect hired a consultant then he would have more time to market and take on additional projects.
unfortunately, the unsophisticated clients are the ones that will get burned. the sophisticated clients generally want to know the qualifications and ability of each team   
i have to agree with jike.  having seen the level of structural education given to most architects (i tutored a few in college), very few are qualified to make an entire structural design for a building.  not necessarily from an analysis standpoint, but more likely from a code enforcement and practicality/constructability standpoint.
chances are nothing will change until something collapses or somebody rich gets burned on a design.  re  
it was not too long ago, when there weren't any structural engineers, greatest of architects roamed the earth.  by no means were they trained to perform non-linear analysis.  they still were able to build magnificent structures all around the world.
where did they all go?
one solution is to elevate the level of structural portion of the architectural exams.  less competent ones will surely be weeded out, the ones who passes through the sieve will certainly be an asset to the modern-day structural engineer's career advancement.  no more silly questions about how to attach a handrail bracket.
i feel very safe when i walk into a building.  apparently architects are doing a good job designing buildings.
what is uncomfortable is the ever increasing number of titles, laws, specifications, codes, etc...
most of the buildings that architects perform the structural design are wood frame and simple steel framing. the common problem areas are usually things related to lateral loads or uplift. shear walls, collectors, drag struts, diaphragm chords, eave blocking, holdowns, proper load path, etc. are often ignored. many times, they simply specify that "the truss supplier shall design for the governing code" with no load diagrams for drifted snow or value for wind uplift given. i have seen wood floor framing for an office with no partition allowance!
whyun,
   a major reason that old stuff impresses us with its quality is that all the sloppy crap they made back then has fallen apart.  for example, several medieval cathedrals fell down during or shortly after construction.
                          jhg
architects doing structural design? if i need an appendectomy, would i go to a chiropractor?
frank lloyd wright despised structural engineers. he did his own engineering. read all about the failing cantilever concrete beams in his falling waters masterpiece.
while i've had situations with architects influencing good structural design, most of my experience has been in heavy industry where the structural engineer is under a more difficult microscope.
in a plant environment, the scrutiny is by plant personnel (all "experts" in steel and concrete, after all, they built their own; garage/shed/outhouse, sometime in the past), other disciplines: i had an electrical engineer tell me that a building brace was unnecessary, because when he had the contractor cut through it, the building didn't fall down and of course project management: too expensive/too time consuming.
unfortunately, since the structure (building or foundation) doesn't actually add to the plant production, it is one of those necessary evils.  death, taxes and the building doesn't fall down (no matter how many fork trucks crash into it) are the three inescapable facts in an industrial environment.
while this venting doesn't answer the original thread, i appreciate an opportunity to vent.
jjf
point i wanted to make was that architects' abilities have declines over the last century.  i am a structural engineer and i do agree with everyone's concern about how little architects know etc.  yes, in this millenium, i would not rely on an architect alone to design anything but single family homes, if that.  i think that's a shame.
my employer had a project where the architect wanted as few columns as possible. the architect created his layout (with columns) and passed it over to our structural group. the structural group had to go through iterations of design ($$$$, uncompensated) before they got something to work. they had to use large fixed footings, moment connections and very deep beams. all this on a town house complex. there is now so little space between the beams and the ceiling that the hvac engineer had to go through design iterations of his own in order to get his part of the design to work (3 inch deep ducts). the plumbing system was affected as well, with the need to cut holes on the beam webs for the piping. all this nonsense was because the architect wanted too few columns. lets see what happens when it goes into construction.