So I know what you’re thinking: it’s been seven hours and ten damn months since you left without saying anything. Where were you when the budget was decided? When they put the M6 Toll up for sale? When the Force Awoken? How can you just waltz back into my life and expect me to occasionally peruse your ramblings ever again?!

OK, so you’re probably not literally thinking that. But you might be wondering where I’ve been. And maybe even wondering why I’m back.

Well, the truth is I’ve taken a sabbatical from the wonderful world of civil and structural engineering. I love engineering the built environment, but it was bringing me down. So when one of the myriad of recruiters on LinkedIn totally failed to read my profile and offered me a year’s contract in a different engineering discipline, I said yes.

So what does that mean for this site? Well, Brunel worked in much more than the civil discipline, at the very least he was just as much a mechanical engineer and a civil one; so I’m sure he wouldn’t begrudge my continuing being Brunel. In fact, I didn’t actually mean to stop writing, I just got bogged down long enough when switching jobs to get out of the habit. Long story short, expect a flurry of posts as I try and catch-up with my traditional end-of-brunel-year-mad-rush-season.

And what does that mean for me? Well, these days I occupy something in the chasm between heavy engineering and tech, and it’s a fun place to be. But I won’t pretend that I haven’t got half an eye open on something combining engineering, tech and the built environment. So expect the tone to change slightly to insights I’m gaining from leaving the safety of my native discipline and articles about construction tech. That and structural gingerbread houses. I’ve had that on my list for a while.

I aten’t dead.

The post An Explanation appeared first on Being Brunel.

I doubt it’ll come as a surprise to anyone (what with the title of the post an’ all), but I’m a fairly massive Terry Pratchett fan- in fact, for those of you who have been paying attention these last few years, there’s at least three Pratchett quotes littered through Being Brunel. So as the author of the books I have read more times (by a significant factor) than any other, I was sorry to hear that he had passed away last Thursday.

While those of you who are of a more technical persuasion might note that Being Brunel is one of the many sites keeping his name alive in the overhead; I thought a more obvious tribute would be in order. I’ll make the confession now; I had initially aimed to come up with my top ten Pratchett quotes who’s sentiment should be all too familiar to practising engineers- but despite a good few hours of whittling, I’ve only managed to get it down to 21.

Pratchett Quotes for Engineers

Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on. (Hogfather)

Although his body had been around quite a lot, his mind had never gone further than the inside of his own head. (Equal Rites)

“We’ve got a lot of experience of not having any experience” “But the point is… the point is… the point is we’ve not been experienced for a lot longer than you.” (Witches Abroad)

Around the Godde there forms a Shelle of prayers and Ceremonies and Buildings and Priestes and Authority, until at Laste the Godde Dies. Ande this maye notte be noticed. (Small Gods)

His progress through life was hampered by his tremendous sense of his own ignorance, a disability which affects all too few people. (Maskerade)

Anything anyone is still trying to explain to you after two minutes is probably important and anything they give up after a mere minute or so is almost certainly something they shouldn’t have been bothering you with in the first place. (Reaper Man)

Of course, Ankh-Morpork’s citizens had always claimed that the river water was incredibly pure in any case. Any water that had passed through so many kidneys, they reasoned, had to be very pure indeed. (Sourcery)

‘No one knows how to do officering, Fred. That’s why they’re officers. If they’d knew anything, they’d be sergeants.’ (Guards! Guards!)

“As simple as that? You didn’t use magic?” “Only common sense. It’s a lot more reliable in the long run.” (Maskerade)

You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although “synergistically” had probably been a whore from the start (Going Postal)

A hint was to Esk what a mosquito bite was to the average rhino because she was already learning that if you ignore the rules people will, half the time, quietly rewrite them so that they don’t apply to you. (Equal Rites)

Demons were like genies or philosophy professors — if you didn’t word things exactly right, they delighted in giving you absolutely accurate and completely misleading answers. (Wyrd Sisters)

It wasn’t that he was unhelpful, but he had the kind of vague, cheerful helpfulness that serious men soon learn to dread. (Mort)

‘The great General Tacticus says that in dangerous times the commander must be like the eagle and see the whole, and yet still be like the hawk and see every detail.’ ‘Yessir,’ said Jackrum, gliding the razor down a cheek. ‘And if he acts like a common tit, sir, he can hang upside down all day and eat fat bacon.’ ‘Er…well said, sergeant.’ (Monstrous Regiment)

Putting up a statue to someone who tried to stop a war is not very, um, statuesque. Of course, if you had butchered five hundred of your own men out of arrogant carelessness, we’d be melting the bronze already. (Jingo)

Every single one of them wanted to be involved in the decision-making process without necessarily going through the intelligence-using process first. (The Last Hero)

Albert grunted. “Do you know what happens to lads who ask too many questions?” Mort thought for a moment. “No,” he said eventually, “what?” There was silence. Then Albert straightened up and said, “Damned if I know. Probably they get answers, and serve ’em right.” (Mort)

You can’t go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it’s just a cage. (Witches Abroad)

You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was “but we’ve always done it this way.” A million dead people can’t have been wrong, can they? (The Fifth Elephant)

Asking someone to repeat a phrase you’d not only heard very clearly but were also exceedingly angry about was around Defcon II in the lexicon of squabble. (Witches Abroad)

One of the universal rules of happiness is: always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual. (Jingo)

If you’ve never picked up a Pratchett book; I’d highly recommend it. It’s all a matter of preference, but I’d say start with a mid-series book (they’re only loosely dependent on each other) like Witches Abroad or Soul Music. They’re all great, but the first ones are in a slightly different style, and the later ones aren’t always as strong…

What can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man?  (Reaper Man)

The post Terry Pratchett appeared first on Being Brunel.

It’s here! We finally have an Engineering Stack Exchange!

It feels a bit like I’ve been talking about this forever– so it is fantastic to see a community finally form and begin to create something. But now we’ve got it, we have to use it- and prove that engineering is just as, if not more, important than coffee, home brewing and emacs, so that those masters of Stack Exchange will promote us from beta to fully fledged members…

What is it?

The Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer website devoted to that wonderful and diverse field that is engineering. It is built on the simple, but powerful, and well proven Stack Exchange platform, which promotes good quality questions and answers through a comprehensive reputation system (by adding a touch of gamification; making the whole process a rewarding, if not addicting, one).

Why Not X

It’s a sorry thing, but when promoting an idea- there’s often a feeling that the success of one thing must come at the expense of another. The three biggest engineering communities out there, that I know of, are the Eng-Tips forums, twitter and reddit; and I’d say that a Stack Exchange of our very own should squeeze in without too much displacement.

Forums are a place for discussion; responses are displayed chronologically, and, with exception of a touch of moderation, there is no real review of submissions. This is fantastic for emulating conversation, asking opinions and talking through recommendations, but its not great for forming coherent collections of knowledge. The format doesn’t lend itself to clearly pairing questions and accepted answers, or easily measuring the authority of contributors.

Reddit and twitter are aggregators; ways of sharing and discussing content. And they’re great for that; I’ve lost count of the amount of interesting stuff I’ve stumbled upon from both sources. While they do provide a rudimentary way of measuring contributions, they are terrible for persistence; with reddit posts being lost after six months and twitter only just making it on a Google search.

Conversely, Stack Exchange actively discourages discussions and calls for subjective recommendations; instead it requires that everything is either a question or an answer (or a comment when either is in need of suggestions and corrections). This means that when you find a question in Stack Exchange, you find the answer clearly marked- and the community that develops exists solely to provide solutions to problems.

What Do I Have To Do?

However the most important thing is to keep heart and try and get as involved as you can- our presence on Stack Exchange is still in its infancy, and there will be some teething troubles. If you want to do more, you can start curating as an editor or moderator; or get involved with the meta site and help shape how the our exchange develops.

So give it a few months, and engineering will have a brilliant new resource to help make us all better, multidisciplinary, professionals.

Join the Engineering Stack Exchange

The post Engineering On Stack Exchange appeared first on Being Brunel.

About the Author

Elgan Ellis

• Elgan Ellis is a senior contracts manager at Jones Bros Civil Engineering. He gained his degree in civil engineering from the Bolton Institute and during his time at Jones Bros, has worked on many projects, particularly in the renewables sector.
  He has gained considerable expertise in developing infrastructure for wind farms, having led on many schemes, especially in Scotland.
• Find out more: Jones Bros Civil Engineering

The beauty of a completed wind farm, with its streamlined turbines standing tall and proud, often belies the challenges and delicate balancing act involved in ensuring the design and construction runs smoothly from start to finish.

There can be many challenges to overcome when developing a wind farm and I have experienced most of them, having worked in the sector for almost 13 years, from apprentice, to qualified civil engineer to senior contracts manager.

For me, the trickiest challenges come from a lack of relevant information before the job even starts; starting a job in the winter months and managing the working relationships between the disparate teams involved.

One of the most problematic areas has to be the ground investigation report, which should be prepared well in advance. Work cannot begin without it; but the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the report has to be spot on. High quality information on clay, rock, bedrock, shale, groundwater and contamination conditions is needed to ensure economic design and safe construction. We need to know the kind of materials that lie in the ground to determine whether we can use it in the building process and if not, how we dispose of it.

The accuracy of the information informs the entire construction process, and determines how the whole job will progress. Incomplete information will inevitably cause delays later in the programme of works. Having learned the hard way just how crucial accurate information is, I can’t emphasise strongly enough how important a thorough, comprehensive ground investigation report is to ensure the smooth running of a project schedule- and how critical it is to stress this to a client that might not see the immediate value in apparently “costly” investigations!

Another challenge when building infrastructure for a wind farm is the weather, and, in particular, winter weather. The winter months are generally windier and wetter, making the scheduling of activities such as turbine lifts difficult. Increased quantities of water on site (especially during snow melts) can mean that very careful consideration will need to be given to drainage and water management.

Snow and ice cover will restrict access to site and increase risks, factors we have had to contend with many times, having developed infrastructure for wind farms in some of the harshest, most unforgiving terrains in the UK. We would always advise our clients against starting a project during the winter months for the reasons stated and while some take it on board, others will insist we go ahead. It may be that they have no choice in this as they could be receiving funding for a set period, so the work must go ahead.

If this is the case, we make allowances in our schedule, something we had to do when building Crystal Rig II, in the Scottish borders. Our engineers overcame very severe weather and a remote environment to create one of the UK’s largest wind farms. This was helped considerably by our on site concrete batching plant which meant we had more control and weren’t hampered by concrete trucks not being able to get to site due to poor weather.

Another challenge is ensuring that the different groups of people working on the site at any open time are working together and the lines of communication are fully open. This is critical for health and safety as everyone must know what everyone else is doing and it makes a daily project management meeting essential.

Like any workplace, you do get clashes of personality and a lot of egos, making it important for civil engineers to have people management skills as well as technical know how. I’ve project managed many wind farm projects and have learned the importance of not letting disagreements and difficulties get to you, these things should never be taken personally.

The post Building A Wind Farm appeared first on Being Brunel.

Interesting fact: I’ve worked for small, medium and large engineering companies. This is something I realised while I was watching my tonsils return to their normal size over the course of a few drug filled days (sorry for the radio silence last week!). The question of what size company is the best for civil engineers to work for is something that I see get asked a lot; and it turns out, I can answer the question.

So here is a tour-de-force of engineering life in different company sizes, drawing from my, and others’, experience; with some posturing about the advantages and disadvantages of working for them, and what sort of engineer they best suit. As with all good business articles, however, you’ll ultimately have to decide for yourself!

Life in a Small Engineering Company

I’ve actually worked for two small companies- if you include some pre-university work experience. A small company is defined as one where you can wonder around and personally invite everyone to the pub. While that’s probably not the official HMRC definition; it works. And that pretty much sums up the ‘feel’ of a small company; not too much structure- which can be bit of a mixed blessing.

Small companies typically survive by being niche businesses. If you want to know absolutely everything about a specific area of engineering, then a small company is the best place to be. This is fantastic if you want to be a specialist, as you’ll get some amazing exposure and are likely to find yourself meeting, if not working with, leaders in that field. To me, it’s the difference between reading the NCE and The Structural Engineer.

Depending on your outlook, however, smaller companies are likely to be limiting for a graduate’s development; as the view of the institutions is that a ‘good’ engineer is someone who can do half of a lot of things– rather than someone who can do one thing really well. To a certain type of person, small companies also tend to be a bit low on prospects; you’re in it because you’re already doing what you’ve always wanted to do. But then- not everyone wants to become a project manager; and why not spend your life doing what you like?

Working As A Part of A Big Company

A big company is defined as an entity that tells you what its core values are during the induction. Interestingly I don’t think I’ve ever seen a big company that has called itself a big company. Every large company is a global enterprise of important individuals that prides itself on maintaining its genuine ‘small company’ feel. I suspect this is because big corporations have a bad rap- I mean, it’s never an Small/Medium Enterprise trying to destroy the Muppet Theatre is it…

Big engineering companies pretty much have to be multidisciplinary giants, capable of delivering everything from giant structures to penguin enclosures. This means that you can be exposed to some weird and wonderful disciplines. Until recently I had no idea that anyone cared enough about building acoustics to do a whole degree in it- let alone justify a whole department dedicated to it. I think this really is useful to graduates; and it’s something I regret missing out on; engineering is an industry of niches- and big companies give you a real chance to try them all.

It might sound a bit obvious, but big companies deal with much larger cash-flows than smaller ones. Aside from socials with free bars and larger training budgets- an unexpected upshot is that they can also afford more esoteric pastimes; this means that if you want to try something new- or have an innovative idea- it’s large companies that will have the research grants and time allowance to let you to pursue it. From what I’ve seen however, this is a double edged sword- and larger companies are often the first to start cutting staff when times get tough.

From my experience (and maybe I just haven’t found the right role), it’s a bit of a misnomer that working for a large international company means fantastic travel prospects; most large companies get so through acquisition, and thus the international offices aren’t exactly begging for staff. They also don’t hold the monopoly on mega-structures. That said- for someone who knows exactly where they want to go, or what type of projects they want to work on- larger companies will already have the frameworks in place to take you there.

Medium Engineering Enterprises

I started out in a medium company; and I loved it. A medium company is defined as one where the owners still do some engineering, but don’t come to the pub with the graduates. There is a bit of a distinction, however, between ‘big little companies’ and ‘little big companies‘; typically around about the 150 employee mark. The former offering the best experience for younger engineers, and the latter for younger business’eers [ed. totally a word.].

Medium companies are typically single discipline, and do not afford specialists. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing- in fact, it’s fantastic for those who want are broader view of specific ‘sectors’ (read: bridges, rail, geoetechnics, etc.) but can be a bit limiting to those who are unsure, or who want to explore the all the niches in this wonderful world of engineering.

For graduates, I think that medium sized companies offers the fastest route to responsibility. Like the rest of the industry, everyone will be overworked- and the size of the company means that the majority of projects will be small and intricate- ideal for off-loading to younger engineers. This means that the chance to deliver your own project within your first year is a real possibility- ideal for those racing towards chartership.

Medium companies do have a bit of an awkward pubescent phase however; when they pass the magical 150 mark (science fact). This is where I think medium companies can suffer- as they become big enough to have big company problems, but are too small to have the cash-flow to cope with them. Normally this exhibits itself in increased work-pressures and a decline in the social aspects- something that shouldn’t be underestimated. Many will sell-up at this point, and you’ll end up working for a big company in any case.

For engineers looking to hone their business skills however, the transition from big-little to little-big yields one of the more unique opportunities a medium sized business offers: You could legitimately end up with a controlling interest. Smaller companies neither afford or require more than a couple of people at the top- and large companies are mostly share-holder led. Medium firms, however, tend to be partner owned- and with growth will come a chance to become an owner too.

To use the cliché- size isn’t everything; and even similar sized companies working in the same fields will have widely varying ethoses and approaches. Looking back at my time so far; I think the most crucial difference between them all is the level of exposure; and having a good think about whether you want to be a technical specialist, a mega-project deliverer, or something in-between is definitely worth while.

The post Big, Medium Or Small Companies? appeared first on Being Brunel.

Around two years ago I wrote a post rhapsodising on the benefits of Stack Exchange, about how it was the best thing in the world and why Civil Engineers should totally have a presence there. It finished with a link to the petition, which needed X amount of signatures to get it off the ground.

It turns out, however, that civils weren’t the only engineering discipline attempting to float this idea. Those few of us who had seen our hopes and dreams of a better future for our metaphorical children banded together on an island of “Engineering”; and like a phoenix from the flames the stack grew to the point where it will now be given a chance…

For those of you who aren’t long term readers or are particularly adverse to following links to previous posts- a Stack Exchange is a Question and Answer site. In fact, for a few disciplines (and software engineering comes to mind here) it is the Question and Answer site.

And why would it be the best thing since sliced bread for Engineers to get their own Stack Exchange?

Well, apart from the amazing potential for knowledge sharing and the growth of a community of people willing to chip-in and answer all those difficult questions- it is also brilliant promotion. It’s hard to imagine anything more accessible than a public site where engineers meet to ask and answer real questions from the profession for those who are curious.

But we’re not safe yet: Before Engineering is granted space on the Stack Exchange, we need to prove that there really is a big enough community out there to kick-off by asking and answering questions and maintain activity during the crucial early stages of the site’s life.

And that’s where you can help. I’m not asking you to devote your life to engineering (especially because you probably already have), but to register your commitment to actually use the site when it enters the beta stage. Let’s face it- who wouldn’t want to?

It’s really easy, just click this button:

The post Engineering Stack Exchange appeared first on Being Brunel.

As part of the small minority of people that actually takes an interest in the NCE Graduate of the Year Award (read: previous winners, and the parents of this year’s batch) I’ve been finding it hard to ignore a certain pattern that persists between the years: The consultant always wins (especially if he works for Arup). However whilst the male/female divide over the last ten years of victors has been largely representative of the slow-balancing equality across the industry, the consultant, contractor and (dare I mention,) client distribution has left a lot to be desired.

In fact, Harry Potter would have had enough to time to find out he was a wizard, kill that guy from In Bruges and complete a masters in Horse Psychology since the last Contractor won the NCE’s Graduate of the Year Award. (That’s a year short of a decade, for those of you without the knowledge of some-what popular culture). In my year, in fact, we didn’t even have a contractor in the final six…

As a direct statement the trend reads: Graduates in consulting enjoy more notable achievements than their contracting contemporaries- or to put it more succinctly:

Actually, from my own observations it seems that contracting graduates win less awards entirely. Falling back on stereotypes, the guess is that consultants tend towards the academic while contractors have a habit of being more practical. I suspect that this means the entry form is in the favour of a consultant, with half the challenge focusing on a essay of the hypothetical.

Anecdotally one of the excuses I’ve had suggested by friends who are contractors is that they just don’t have the time. I know that in the year I entered, only 19% of the entrants were contractors. In fact, the contractors appear under represented all round; noting that, even being charitable with the designation of more specialist firms, the number of sponsoring (and therefore judging) companies that are consultants outnumber the contractors two to one.

All things being equal, if one fifth of the entrants were contractors there should have been at least one finalist in my year, and the gap between site-based victors somewhat shorter. This is a statement that begs a question; and indeed it might well be worth answering: Why do Arup dominate the NCE Graduate of the Year Award?

Arup, as a consultancy, focus on prestige and are large enough to support a broad range of esoteric disciplines and intrigues. Graduates at Arup, it seems, are typically exposed to either high-profile projects, or smaller intricate designs of obvious technical merit. Next to that a railway siding and some off-the-cuff hardstanding design is unlikely to hold much sway. Moreover, winning consultants typically get some interesting contracting experience in a philanthropic way.

My suspicion is that the risks involved for contracting firms on high-profile projects make it hard to delegate the same degree of technical responsibility to their graduate than a consultancy, and that the length of the projects contractors are exposed to are typically longer than that of the average designer. This means that, on paper at least, the achievements of a consulting graduate will tend to look better.

Personally, however, I’m a little dubious about whether contracting really is less interesting than consulting. Although I’ve spent most of my career, thus far, on the technicalities of design- I’ve done enough time on site to get my boots dirty, and from what I’ve seen it’s not as dull as all that…

I’d like to finish by saying a big congratulations to this year’s winners, but next year I really want to see a Contractor on the top spot!

The post Contracting Is Boring appeared first on Being Brunel.

Last week my bike chain broke midway along my commute; 45 minutes from the nearest station. In an unbelievable twist of fate, however, it turned out that the man fishing next to where I skidded to a halt happened to be a mechanic, with the tools to get me far enough to go and shout at Halfords for selling me this dam BSO. It seems apt this week, therefore, to discuss some engineering structures that live in infamy; noteworthy in their failure rather than their success.

Ronan Point (1968)

Ronan Point

Younger engineers may not know Ronan Point by name, I certainly didn’t. But anyone who’s ever applied a UDL of 34kN/m² (5psi) in a disproportionate collapse calculation has felt its effects. Ms Ivy Hodge sparked the gas explosion making her morning tea on the stove; taking out the load bearing wall of her apartment and, in turn, the corner of the whole tower of flats. As well as shaking confidence in Large Panel Systems (a modular/prefabricated concrete construction), the back calculated force of the blast (34kN/m²) became canon for all future checks. Apparently she took the offending stove to her new address; if it still survives today, I motion it be displayed as a piece of engineering history.

First Quebec Bridge (1907)

The First Quebec Bridge

When I was in Canada I was told about the iron rings given to Graduate Engineers; that they were made from the unused steel of the collapsed Quebec Bridge as a reminder of the responsibility behind the profession. In writing this article, however, I’ve discovered that this is a myth, much to my disappointment. The story of the Quebec bridge failure is all too common, preliminary design calculations unchecked, the bridge design later changed and the calculations not revisited, inexperienced site engineer… the bridge failed during construction under it’s own dead-load. Ominously the second attempt in 1916 met with similar fate as the hoisting devices failed and the central span fell into the river; to this day, its still there.

Brimscombe Lane Development (2011)

Although definitely not the most iconic structure; the failure of a trail pit for the housing development brought the first corporate manslaughter charge for construction in the UK. Left to work alone in an unshored 3.5m deep trench, geologist Alexander Wright died when the pit collapsed. Cotsword Geotechnical Holdings was fined £385,000, ultimately liquidating the company, with the director Peter Eaton avoiding charges only due to ill health.

World Trade Centre (2001)

World Trade Centre

Although by no means the first structure to be the focus of a terrorist attack (indeed, it had already been the subject of a bombing in 1993), the WTC makes the list of infamous structures for two counts. Firstly because it cemented terrorism as a design case in every engineer’s mind and secondly (perhaps more interestingly), because the failure mechanism is still up for debate. Personally I think such things are chaotic; structures are complex and modelling behaviour riddled with assumptions- yet, however, conspiracy theories abound.

Tacoma Narrows Bridge (1940)

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen Barney Elliott’s video. Enough times, at least, to float a conspiracy theory that it was the work of Physics teachers desperate for a good example of resonance. And although the only fatality was a dog (named Tubby); that no discussion of dynamics is without an introductory picture of this bridge makes it indubitably one of the most famous bridge collapse in the world.

The post Infamous Engineering Structures appeared first on Being Brunel.

Let me start by pointing out that the following story is, obviously, not literally true. Over the last few weeks, however, I have had the fun of taking my bike back-and-forward to Halfords; and with every altercation I’ve had with their engineers(/technicians) I’ve thought: “Am I ever like that?- is this how clients feel all the time, like dears in some reinforced concrete emitting headlight?”.

Taking my Bridge in for Repairs

I’ve had my bridge for 20 years now, no problems. Well, that’s not strictly true: About five years ago the surfacing had worn so thin that it started to crumble- or something like that. I went back to the firm that had built it, but you wouldn’t believe how much they were going to charge. Luckily I found some other guys that would sort it out for half the price; tarmac is tarmac, right?

A few weeks ago, however, some tit drove straight into the parapet, taking a chunk out of the bridge wall. No surprises- the insurance won’t cover it, they say the structure should have been able to take it and I’ll have to chase up the original designers. I called them up, however, and it turns out they were one of the victims of the recession.

I asked about, and found a reasonable firm to do it. They quoted me just under £200k, which isn’t too bad. However, when I sent them the drawings they told me that they were in the old BIM 1.0 formats, which no one can open anymore. I argued that when I brought the bridge the designers had assured me BIM was the future, but with a pained expression the engineer attempted to explain to me that it was the ‘wrong sort of BIM’, and that with preliminary works we’d be looking closer to £250k.

Feeling a little put out, but acknowledging that I no longer had any options- I consented. About half a month later I get a call; “How often do you paint your bridge?”. “Never,” I admitted, attempting to defend myself: “I knew it was looking a bit shabby, but I just don’t have the money to repaint it all the time”. “Ah- you see you’ve got to paint your bridge every five years, sir,” he says, “else you’ll get pitting.” “Pitting?” I reply, thinking that I know no one who painted their bridge regularly. “Yeah, we’ve found some serious pitting when we took a look under it”.

I mentioned it looked alright to me, but the engineer just shook his head: “Well, it’s hard to see, but at this rate I’d only give the bridge another five years”. Alarmed, I asked for an estimate. He said it’d be another 50k, so I went online to see if I could do it myself. Turns out there’s this putty you can use, that’ll fill the void and provides some galvanic protection, so I resolved to get my hands dirty and do it myself. Problem was, before the bridge could be re-opened I needed approval from the council, and that meant I needed a series of tests- can’t even recall the name- and they basically had to be done by an engineer.

Imagine my despondency when I called the firm back, explained where I had got to, just to be told that what I’d used wasn’t really compatible with those tests. “Yeah,” he agrees “it will stop it, but you can’t be sure how long, better just to do a full blast and clean- find out where the water’s getting through.” Suddenly this repair’s nearing half of a million, but by now I just want it over with; I’m haemorrhaging money by keeping my bridge closed for as long as I’ve had to.

The next week though, “we’ve found your problem, you’re waterproofing’s bust; gotta replace the whole surface”. “But-” I lamented, “I’ve only just had that done five years ago,” and I sent him through the details. “Yeah,” he said; “but you didn’t specify that they should re-patch the waterproofing, that’s why they didn’t do it.” “How was I supposed to know that, I don’t evening know what a re-patch is?!” I cried in exasperation; “it doesn’t say anything like that in the Maintenance Manual”.

“Ahh,” he replies, “it’s in the Operational Risk Assessment appendix of the hand-over documentation.” – That 500 page document, written in engineering, and hidden somewhere in the massive pile of paperwork that accompanies the ‘amazing’ (and now, it seems, unopenable) digital model that included “everything you needed to know”, apart from, it turns out, this.

– And there I thought bridges were supposed to last 120 years.

So while this story has been crammed into a non-too-subtle metaphor, and rearranged to include other people’s experiences too; I hope it still serves as a bit of a reminder to the key considerations civil engineers should approach when dealing with clients. Maybe it’ll also help seeds of a few lessons in empathy; especially after the 70^th design change…

The post Clients and Civil Engineers appeared first on Being Brunel.

Engineers like books. Having your own private desk-library is a given for any consultant; usually stocked with tomes artificially thickened with the detritus of cryptic post-it notes, and folded-in print-outs.

Despite their Times best-seller status Civil Engineering books never seem to make the Tesco lost-leader list, and developing a collection can get expensive. So to help new students and graduates out, here are the top five books I’d expect to find on another engineer’s desk… (no advertising commission though!)

Structural Engineer’s Pocket Book

F. Cobb, Butterworth-Heinemann [Amazon]

Harking back to an older (and better…) time where tables where the principle mechanism of design; this book for big pockets collects together most of the useful facts, figures and generics of structural engineering. What else would you reach for when you wanted to know the structural area of an M20 bolt, the maximum bending moment of a fixed beam and a quick outline of timber design?

Craig’s Soil Mechanics

R.F. Craig, Spon Press [Amazon]

Perhaps a bit controversial, as I know most people who went to Southampton university will prefer Powries, but when it comes to Soil Mechanics it’s hard to do better than Craig’s. In-depth enough to tell you what you need, but accessible enough to flick-through without a Masters in Geotechnics; and forever up-to-date (as it nears it’s first double-figure edition).

Bridge Deck Behaviour

E. Hambly, John Wiley & Sons [Amazon]

Like it or lump it- Grillages are here to stay, and it seems (despite being dead these last 18 years) Hambly still has the last word. Covering all of the major bridge types, and with enough theory to give insight without being drier than a cinnamon challenge- it’s easy to see why Hambly remains the definitive authority for grillage design (even if I think FEA is better!)

Foundation Design and Construction

M.J. Tomlinson, Prentice Hall [Amazon]

While Craig’s provides a reference for anything that’ll get your hi-vis dirty- Tomlinson really shines when it comes to foundation design. His litany of each (and seemingly every) foundation type provides enough information to get on and design the for most common structures.

Concise Eurocodes

Various- although most can be found at the [BSI Shop]

Although guaranteed to tell you just enough to know you’ve got to learn more- the ‘Concise Guides’ appearing for the Eurocodes provide a great base to get something done before you drown in sub-scripted multi-referenced ignorance.

For anyone looking for a single ‘Concise Guide to all the damn Eurocodes,’ the Structural Elements Design Manual by DrayCott and Bullman (Pub. Butterworth-Heinemann) [Amazon] is probably the closest I’ve found to something usable enough to be complete, without being long enough to require lifting assessments.

After writing this I realised that what you’d expect to find on a British engineer’s desk is unlikely to make it round the world- so why not share where you’re from and what books you’d expect to find on another engineer’s desk?

The post 5 Books on Every Engineer’s Desk appeared first on Being Brunel.