r/StructuralEngineering

I think everyone in this thread would agree that structural engineers are underpaid.

In general I’ve noticed there are certain subsets of engineering (heavy design, forensic, theoretical, etc.) that get compensated differently. I make a good wage with bonus on the forensic side, but I am a PE and looking to possibly make a move. I’ve always had a knack for heavier design but for those of you doing it, is it worth it?

Obviously money isn’t everything, but it helps.

What areas of structural engineering are you guys seeing the most fair compensation for? Regardless of location, but for reference I live in a relatively average COL mid-tier city.

My friend in software engineering are already seriously struggling. He says his work has been sped up by 70%, so much now that they can't afford to keep him working full time and now he has only four days per week.

AI is only two years old at this point and while I can see structural engineering enduring for longer than other professions, I don't see it being irreplaceable beyond 10 years from now, nevermind retirement age (40 years from now!).

What are your thoughts on the job security of structural engineers in the coming struggles? Does anyone here think we could endure longer than I have so bleakly speculated in this post?

Hi everyone,

I’m a doctoral researcher at the University of Cambridge conducting a study on how structural optimisation is applied in practice, particularly for structural efficiency and embodied carbon reduction.

The survey is intended for people working in structural/civil engineering, construction, infrastructure, sustainability, or related research.

Survey link:
https://cambridge.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3IggsmWy1VjB6dM

It takes about 15-25 minutes to complete and has received ethical approval from the University of Cambridge.

I would really appreciate input from practitioners and researchers. I’m also happy to share a summary of the findings when the study is complete.

Thank you.

I have been using STAAD.Pro for a long time, and we rely heavily on group commands in our workflow. Our templates are efficient enough that creating a new model often only requires updating a few group nodes and members. One of the biggest advantages is that STAAD can run the analysis and automatically export deflection checks, base reactions, and connection checks directly into printable template. I have heard RISA-3D is very user-friendly, but I have only limited experience with it. How do you typically handle deflection checks and connection calculations in RISA? Do you have another RISA program or use mathcad?

Going to try and make a long story short.

We are adding onto our home which the existing is single story, tearing down a non-load bearing wall with a gable end, and opening it up for our addition.

Initially, we didn’t have a soil boring test done, that was until the proposed footing depth on the addition went beyond the called for 4’ stem wall as it was about 5’5” down from the floor elevation due to the grade of the property.

Soil borings were completed. Boring taken near the house showed red clay about 4’ down and they hit limestone at 15’. Second boring at the opposite corner/furthest point from existing but a couple feet from the addition showed no clay until 6’ down and no limestone was hit all the way to 20’ down.

Plans called for a 2x2 pad thats 16” thick to support the load for a 6x6 post that will carry 50% of the load of the addition. Now structural engineer is backtracking saying that pad needs to be 4x4 and 18” thick, and after communication with the geotech they’ve concluded that helical piles need to be drilled into the existing foundation to support the load of the header because the existing is too close to the clay and that’s the only way to beef it up.

My only other option is to change the truss layout, which has already been built and I’d be out about $10k, so that the addition ties into a gable ending versus a hip and the load is more evenly distributed across the new stem wall. I’m leaning more towards that option, but my foundation guy says in all his time building foundations he has never had two engineers go so far down a rabbit hole like this and has never heard of helical piles outside of marshy areas or coastal regions.

I am mostly venting because I will never, no matter what, ever do a home addition again. Were over 10 months in and have gotten basically nowhere, and have spent hours on the phone with engineers.

I plan to seek out analysis from another geotech firm as well and see if they might be willing to conduct their own independent analysis and foundation recommendations based on the borings that I have.

Hello, engineer powers, I have a question: Is there someone who put crane foundation in the middle floor on the building? It's not placed on Building foundation, crane foundation will be on the 3th floor above the ground zero. They want to re-support the foundation till the Building foundation, but still is there some practical advises? What I should expect, what i should be very careful about ? Okey just to clarify my boss want crane to steps on Foundation about 120cm thick on 4 columns from the building 40x40cm 6m to 6m between columns.

I’ve been working as a structural engineer for about 5 years. EVERYTIME the topic of structural analysis softwares comes up there is always a bad sentiment towards RAM/Bentley and their business practices and software bugs/UI funkiness. I always wonder why no one has created a software to replace RAMSS. At my firm, RAMSS is the go to software for composite design and I get why. Their composite designer is very powerful and using the same model for lateral design just fits with the flow. however, the UI blackboxiness and the overall stability of the software is well.. rough.
I can’t help but think there’s gotta be a better way. I am aware of ETABS and RISA Floors ability to do composite design, but I find the softwares to be a little too advanced for just composite gravity design.
Rant over. Would love to hear peoples thoughts. And I wonder with the advancements in AI when will there be a RAM replacement.

A lot of structural analysis reviews treat FEA/test correlation like a pass/fail check:

Simulation close to test result = model validated.

But sometimes the model matches because it’s wrong in two ways that cancel each other out.

Examples:

• Boundary conditions too stiff, but material modulus too low
• Bonded contact too stiff, but fixture compliance missing
• Missing bolt preload offset by friction set too high
• Coarse mesh hiding stress peaks while over-constrained supports inflate stress elsewhere

Each can make one metric look “right.” Peak displacement matches. Max stress looks reasonable. The contour plot looks convincing.

But the load path can still be wrong.

That’s the dangerous part. The model may match the first test, then fail on the next design change because it never captured the real physics.

A better check is to perturb assumptions one at a time: fixture stiffness, friction range, contact behavior, preload, mesh density. If several different assumption sets can all be tuned to match the same test number, that number didn’t really validate the model.

Good correlation should be pattern-based, not just scalar-based. It’s much harder to fake displacement, strain distribution, reaction forces, failure location, and deformation shape all at once.

The better question is not “does the number match?”

It’s “which assumption is driving the mismatch?”

Matching one test result should be the start of validation, not the end.

What I’m really trying to understand is the sequence of calculations/checks. I am not a structural engineer but I know what a load path is... and that's where my brain loses the plot.