Architect Registration
- This topic has 63 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Look, I just can’t agree – insofar as I can make out anything like a coherent
view coming from you. It seems like you didn’t even compare the syllabuses
of the DIT and CIT courses with your own.To me if you want to become a structural engineer you have to learn as much
about that area as you can — not just as to structures here in Ireland but all
over the world : earthquake-zone structural practice, wind loading in tornado
belts, analysis methods for complex architectural forms, use of novel/natural/
indigeneous materials for load-bearing elements — and, not least, at least one
major world language like Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese or Russian.
If you want a successful career in structures, you have to pack up and go abroad.On the other hand, you just want to get an oul job in Ireland then take the sort
of general course given in UCC or UCD.
Just like so many more chameleons in our council engineering departments.
“Roads” for a few years; then “water” for a while; then “waste”; then “traffic”;
then a “manager” of something or other.
Our cities and counties are a shabby monument to their lack of real expertise.
Apart from being confidently expert in always hanging on to their old number.
And the big stupid jeep going with it.Firstly Teak, you obviously did not understand my previous points, I explicitly informed the discussion that the syllabus you viewed on the website is not exactly in line with what is taught. The notion of trying to study structures through a keyhole and not covering a broad field is ridiculous, I’m sorry but that assertion could only come from someone who is not a structural engineer.
You must understand that structures intertwine with all areas of engineering and architecture. To design a water retaining structure, you must have an understanding of fluid mechanics, to design waste water treatment networks, then you must have an understanding of geo-technics. The idea of academic training is not to produce working products, but to prepare practitioners by arming them with the fundamental knowledge to specialise in certain fields.
You should not need to work in Germany or France or Australia to become a talented engineer, the mathematics for all buildings is the same albeit shell or dome structures are a little more complex or maybe it just seems that way as we are not that familiar with them. Our arch bridges are no different from their suspension bridges, they are just upside down and do not span as far. It is just as complicated to design a 1m spanning beam as it is to design a 10m spanning beam. The foundations for an Irish house are every bit as troublesome as the foundations for the Sydney Opera House, that is the case of course if the person designing them truly knows what he/she is doing and is in search of the most economic design.
I am beginning to think that Bolton St. is getting a bit like Trinity and spending a lot of time selling themselves like a cut throat commercial entity, advertising USP’s , having the I.struct.E. set up base there. The name of the course being structural engineering is exactly just that, it is only a name, it has to be as their graduates would be insufficiently trained if they only had acquired knowledge in that field.The foundations for an Irish house are every bit as troublesome as the foundations for the Sydney Opera House
I love it ! :clap:
@teak wrote:
The foundations for an Irish house are every bit as troublesome as the foundations for the Sydney Opera House
I love it ! :clap:
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or what but the underlying principle is that mechanics do not respect the attributes of aestetics, a load load from a party wall creates the same bending stresses as a load from a shell.
I think the trigger word in that quote was ‘Irish’ . . . . :thumbup:
Unfortunately, at times it’s almost true . . .
. . . because of the lack of official guidline documents on anything other than strip foundations.
Not to mention the unfamiliarity of so many builders with non-strip foundations.I think the trigger word in that quote was ‘Irish’ . . . . :thumbup:
Unfortunately, at times it’s almost true . . .
. . . because of the lack of official guidline documents on anything other than strip foundations.
Not to mention the unfamiliarity of so many builders with non-strip foundations.You should have a read of Structural Foundations by Curtain and Shaw, they have design methods for numerous foundations, its quite daunting really, the variety of solutions.
Structural Foundation Designers’ Manual by W. G. Curtin, Gerry Shaw, Gary Parkinson and J. Golding
you will find it on amazonSure, I’ve looked through other foundation options.
But if someone go outside what’s in the building regs, they may need to
get the “new” structural elements signed off by an engineer.
This, of course, adds to the costs for the home builder and gives him more
to ponder on — both undesirable facets to the people getting a house built.To my view, the whole question of house foundations should be tidied up by
the Dept of Environment drafting more comprehensive regulations that reflect
the increased desirability of other foundations methods, particularly those
which allow better insulation to underfloor & external wall foundation legs.Somehow, I do not anticipate any significant Gormley-style initiatives on
construction design from Mr Hogan . . . . :yawn:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Structural-Foundation-Designers-Manual-Curtin/dp/140513044X
You should have a look through this design manual, you will be amazed at all the different types of foundations to suit different conditions.
It is extremely difficult to prepare a design code for foundations that covers a broad area and have a good balance with economy at the same time.
The government will never take responsibility as foundattions are too volatile.You have to have an engineer to sign off on all structural elements anyway, so you are as well to get him to design the foundations. A good engineer will save his fee in reduced costs of materials and labour, so you will get it cheaper as well as it being insured. I recently designed a slab foundation for a nursing home that cost just 60% (in materials) of a traditional strip. Its not that the ground was particularly good or the loads were light, its just that I took the time to carry out the calcs.
My fee was in the region of 10% of the cost, so they were up 30% with insurance……. a good deal
You have to have an engineer to sign off on all structural elements anyway
No, you do not need an engineer’s signing off on elements within the building regs.
Only for those elements outside of it.
Otherwise why have such specific regulations.I do not propose any changes other than the addition of alternative design specs
for a small number of other common foundation types, e.g. raft, raft + ringbeam,
beam-linked piles, etc.
I don’t think that such regulations as may be appropriate to this group of house
foundation systems on Irish ground would be too hard to set up.
Looking at the existing situation, strip foundations are applied to a vast array of
ground types, some of them being more suited to other kinds of foundation.
And of course, the existing foundation regulations were developed at a time when
insulation and other “green” aspects of house design had little or no status.
Rather than going to an engineer to devise a specific foundation type, the builders
who use that foundation – some of them have been patented – have already had the
system in general approved for particular ground conditions and load ranges.I’m not against bespoke foundations being devised for a significant buildings by
structural engineers. As you say, it may well be cost effective to do this.
But for a < 2,000 sq ft house, really, devising customised foundations would not
be cost effective. It would be be another case of roasting the homesteader. :thumbdown:I fully agree with Paul, complex subject tho’ – personal opinion & a separate issue but the registration should be a separate body from the Institute (as in UK)
Mark Stephens
http://markstephensarchitects.comUtter nonsense, a conventional foundation for a standard 2000 sq ft house will cost in the region of 25k, to advise the homeowner that there are no savings to be made here is the real “roasting”. How can you possibly think that there is a standard layout for a raft or ground beam, you are off the radar when it comes to this subject. They are structural members that distribute load differently every 2 metres, you cannot possibly place a caveat for every possible situation or even a general one. It can only be designed by a qualified practitioner. I would compare it to trying to create a caveat to replace your GP…..impossible.
Read your building regs more carefully , they are not advising you on what strips to use, they redirect you to the British Standards, the building regs are only indicative on structural issues. You should never bury money in the ground when you dont have to. You need any span over 5m signed off, you are supposed to be able to back up any structure by calculation if required to by building control.Teak, there are no general soil types in this country, they are all a mixture of sand, silt and clay, you have to treat each one as you find it. I spend nearly half my time as expert witness in litigation prosecuting and defending these attitudes, the “arrah it will do” ones, the kind of guys that you described who work in the councils, I am surprised hearing this from you.
The architects I work with have beautiful open plans, vaulted roofs, split levels, major point loads ect, they could not possibly have there house completed successfully without the input of a structural engineer.
Its all about a perfect balance between safety and economy, I provide my clients with savings that dwarf my fees.
I have to concur with Paul.
I recently responded to a poster on http://www.askaboutmoney.com who stated that her architect had referred her builder to the building regulations when detailing cavity wall junctions using Quinn-Lite AAC Blocks.A fine product when used and retailed correctly and protected from site damage, the suggestion that the building regulations Part A was sufficient guideline with which to detail a building built with AAC blocks seemed like poor advice to me.
For the record, I always involve an engineer in domestic work and I don’t mean “Even on Extensions”, I mean “Especially on Extensions”.
Extensions are potential disasters waiting to happen as the loads on settled strip foundations can be multiplied by a factor to a point where pads or piles can be needed by the latest “no masonry return at openings” detail.
Builders seldom employ feedback loops to assess the results of their handiwork, especially where they have overloaded corner points, and laypeople simply have no idea of the resolution of stresses involved at ground level at corner junctions.
How much less clued in are the current crop of “iconic” designers who seem to think nothing of creating massive cantilevered overhangs without adequate foundation level support and distribution of forces, in order that their latest “storey-height fill-width folding door detail” looks good.
Excellence in design is one thing, but you need a deep understanding of materials and structure to
(i) achieve it on the first place and
(ii) ensure it stands the test of time.FWIW
ONQ.
Absolutely and very well stated. Extensions are always a potential disaster, taking out large opes in walls to create open plans sends all that load to 2 corners that could have already been near a point of incipient failure. Also, all new structures will settle to some degree, you cannot defy physics, but what about the building that it is now attached to, that building probably finished settling over 20 years ago….. sounds like differential settlement could be on the way. Obviously, there are numerous ways to deal with these issues, but to give your client real value for money, you need a good structural engineer to who will get hi/her teeth stuck into it. Likewise, when the architect is deciding the size, form and interior, they will go to great lengths to balance and harmonise the new design with the house on the relevant budget.
I do not propose any changes other than the addition of alternative design specs
for a small number of other common foundation types, e.g. raft, raft + ringbeam,
beam-linked piles, etc.I should have said design guidelines, rather than design specs.
Apologies.By that I mean that self-builders ought be made aware within the DoEnv guidelines
of foundation types other than the strip foundations, so that they may choose for
themselves a foundation best suited to their site, house and pocket.Specialist foundations contractors would usually be aware of the specific arrangements
needed for a given type of house. But it’s hard for the ordinary Joe to catch them out
in the act of overdesign.
Then there are the patented foundation systems which come in a limited set of sizes,
each corresponding to a range of loadings. These people won’t customise as it would
take away most of their margin.In commercial practice, I think you’d need a stronger base for your pitch than
simply saying that a structural eng consultation will produce an adequate foundation
for, say, 20% less than the strip foundation estimate for that same house spec.
Because I’d see 10% of that saving going to the struct engineer.
The 10% left is well within the competition margin amongst contractors.But I wish you well in your efforts for your local house-building clients.
It would be interesting to see a struct engineer’s comparative breakdowns of quantities
needed for several foundation systems for an “average” rural house to a modern specification.We must not forget, of course, that while the structural analysis input to the architecture
courses is not comprehensive, and even if most architects are not au fait with blending
efficient structural support with good building design, there really are some architects
who are adept at this.But we really have gone way off course with this. :angel:
Have your rejoinder and over and out.For the record Teak, I am competent at structural design, having usually achieved “B” grades (70-84%) in college and I still use a Structural & Civil engineer.
ONQ.
. . . . and I still use a Structural & Civil engineer
For fairly conventional new houses ?
Ok guys, my apologies, I have been in Spain for the past 3 weeks with the kids, a well deserved and earned break.
Firstly, Teak, you are missing the point, Builders, Architects, Quantity Surveyors, Draftsmen etc cannot design structural elements, their courses only explain an appreciation of an extremely complex topic. You seem to think that there is a special range for foundations, in other words, that if you spend lots of money you will guarantee yourself sound footings and if you try and economise, you might push the boat out too far, I hate to be non diplomatic, but you are not aware of the basic principles, honestly read the first few pages of those manuals and you will get an overview of how it works. You cannot even begin to design even basic elements without being competent at quantitative analysis and there is no profession other than structural engineering that can perform this branch of analysis. The engineers are trained in this in their 1st year. The architecture and quantity surveying course does the basics of it but their treatment of it is far too simple to use in real life. And as I say that is only the beginning of design.
I hate to be making negative posts but I find the comments disrespectful to my profession and the fact that they could not be further off the mark makes them even more annoying.
SORRY
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
