For SEs and Climate Change Scientists, Predictive Ability Rests in Finite Element Quality

For any who have read my previous articles, it will be no surprise that the views I present herein might be considered heretical. But, after much thoughtful consideration of what appears to be a prevailing attitude among many of the structural engineering community regarding the global climate crisis, I feel a responsibility to present what I believe is a fair critique of what is often (in my view, incorrectly) called Settled Science. I do this because I feel it is not in the best interest of our profession to blindly accept as settled something that is not actually settled. Our reputations will suffer if we accept, without debate, hypotheses that are not proven and may be shown in the future to be wrong (particularly if we “go along” to look fashionably hip to the public or our clients). 

Alternative Building Materials

When it comes to impeding home-building growth, one does not need to look further than global supply chain issues. Closures in factories and transportation hubs have negatively affected an industry that relies on building materials sourced throughout the world. And while there is certainly no shortage of new housing demand here in the United States, there is a scarcity of the essential materials needed to build these dwellings.

I believe that embracing flexible work environments can benefit the SE industry, firms, and employees – if the industry is willing to put in the effort to incorporate the change. It is time to create a new normal. I urge SE leaders to embrace the disruption caused by the pandemic and to grow and adapt instead of trying to “return to normal.” STRUCTURE’s April 2022 Editorial suggested that it was not possible to replicate one-on-one mentoring through an internet connection. I beg to differ.

Some of us think of ethical conflicts as having an ideal resolution, where we can discuss the scenario and assign blame to someone who would dare to arrive at a different decision. This is often reinforced by ethics discussions, where we assess a scenario and scoff at how the transgressor should know better and be subjected to punishment. “How can those people be so unethical!” we think to ourselves. However, an ethical conflict is not always a situation where a clear answer is apparent. Therefore, before deciding what the “right” answer is, let’s step back and reassess. What could lead us to make another decision and, by extension, lead another person to make a choice different from ours? Could they still be behaving ethically, and if so, can we define an ethical person solely through their actions, or do we need to understand their decision process? I propose that giving some thought to these issues can be very important in understanding ethics and providing sound mentoring.

Structural engineers neglect a key tenet of their professional obligation to society – designing for sustainability. While the concept of sustainability spans the social, economic, and environmental domains (the so-called triple bottom line), immediate action in the environmental domain is required in the face of the climate crisis, specifically around greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane) are causing global temperatures to increase, resulting in increased frequency and severity of weather events, impacting infrastructure in the United States and worldwide. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all sectors, including buildings, must decarbonize (have net-zero carbon emissions) by 2050 to avoid a 1.5 degree C (2.7 degrees F) temperature rise. However, today, the manufacturing of construction materials for buildings contributes to 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, to achieve a decarbonized built environment, structural engineers must consider strength and serviceability when designing structural systems and commit to mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions.

A Key Aspect of Changing the DEI Landscape in the AEC Professions

As our industry looks for ways to change its landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), many are primarily focused on the upstream end of “the pipeline” and who enters it. While efforts to recruit from and build AEC awareness within our underrepresented communities are of critical importance, we cannot lose sight of the diverse and talented people working alongside us every day. Action is required to ensure they are supported, sponsored, and included in an authentic, meaningful way.

Lessons Learned for Planning a Successful Structural Investigation

The client is on board, the contract is signed, and all eyes are on you – how can you ensure your upcoming structural investigation is successful? After participating in many on-site investigations from coast to coast, here are some tips for successful planning and execution from the author’s perspective as a young engineer beginning to lead project teams.

On April 29, 2021, I attended a virtual meeting of SEAoNY’s President’s Breakfast Roundtable: Engineering Post-Pandemic. In my assigned break-out room, I listened to the attendees talk about the push for “sustainability” and, to achieve this goal, “optimization” of structural framing. This article discusses the evolution of engineering over the past decades and notes the consequences of misunderstanding “optimization.” It reiterates my observation that a lack of 3-D structural framing systems resulted in damage to many structures during the 1994 Northridge earthquake. These structures were pulled apart in the same manner as they were designed – that is, as a collection of two-dimensional vertical and horizontal planes of framing.

The July 2021 Structural Forum article presented the general state of ethics instruction and some shortcomings. This second article offers ideas that might better influence engineering ethics instruction.