Timber Design for Structural?

College Majors Engineering Majors
1

<p>I have the option of taking this as one of my electives. Does anyone think this would be useful? I was completely against going into design a while back but after 5 weeks in steel, I don't think it'd be such a bad thing.</p>

<p>I think it would be interesting to take it so that I could build my own patio decks, or whatever small project I want to undertake that can be done with wood. I'm taking steel now, but I can't really go to Home Depot and get some I beams for building.</p>

<p>The only concern is that I also need to take Geotech or Seismic, and I decided on Geotech (with the help from others on this board). Unfortunately, they are both offered this coming quarter, and I already have 3 other classes I need to take.</p>

<p>It seems like I have to choose between Geotech or Timber. Taking Timber means taking Seismic in Spring. Taking Geotech means I find something else as an elective.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

2

<p>It depends on your emphasis.
Take all of them if possible.</p>

<p>Geotech, timber, seismic and even masonry were required classes for my undergrad, and I liked them all. Then again it depends on what you want to do with it.</p>

3

<p>You don't need timber or masonry. You can figure that stuff out later if you need it. Also, while it would be cool to design a deck, it's a pain in the rear. If you decide later that you really want to, you'll be able to figure out timber design. It's not that hard. Code design is based upon general strength design principles and if you've taken steel and concrete you'll be able to piece together what you need to know with few problems.</p>

<p>You can't take all of them, as you said. Geotech is probably the best thing to take, and it'll give you a good basis for what you need to know if you're a structural... It'll give you an appreciation of the guesswork involved in foundation design. It's far more of an art than it is a science.</p>

<p>Seismic isn't necessary. It's nice, but you can take it in grad school. Many structural engineers get by without taking a seismic course. Having been a grad student at the Mid-America Earthquake Center, I'd say you probably ought to take a seismic course sometime, but it's not something you really need during undergrad, and certainly it wouldn't be something you'd need if you don't intend to work in a seismically active area.</p>

4

<p>I agree with aibarr. Geotech and foundations is pretty different from the design of superstructures, so it's good to at least take an introductory course in it. It'll do you good especially considering that all your designs will sit on a foundation.</p>

5

<p>Well, that's pretty much what I ended up doing. It came down to knowing that Geotech would be more useful than timber, and if I really wanted to build something with wood I could probably find a class somewhere, or as aibarr said pick it up based off what I know.</p>

<p>This brought up another issue I have in mind. Looking at the description for Geotech, it is really just soil mechanics.</p>

<p>"General introduction to physical and engineering properties of soils. Soil classification and identification methods. Total and effective stress. Permeability, seepage, and consolidation phenomena. Shear strength of sand and clay"</p>

<p>There is a Foundations Engineering class offered in spring quarter, and that one seems to have the meat and potatoes.</p>

<p>"Application of soil mechanics to the analysis, design, and construction of foundations for structures. Soil exploration, sampling, and in-situ testing techniques. Stress distribution and settlement of structures, bearing capacities of shallow foundations. Axial and lateral capacity of deep foundations, earth pressures on retaining walls."</p>

<p>I assume that taking Geotech, but not Foundations, is a waste because I never apply what I learned. Is that right? There is a rehabilitation course also offered in spring that I was looking forward to taking.</p>

<p>" Identification of structural distress, lessons from past history, materials and structural concepts related to rehabilitation, seismic retrofit. Strengthening of beams, slabs and walls, design detailing, safety factors, fabrication/installation methods"</p>

<p>Do I have to sacrifice this class to take foundations, or is this one of those "it all depends on what you want to do with your degree" decisions?</p>

6

<p>The first thing I should say is that when you go into industry, by no means do you stop learning. I learned pretty much everything in your rehabilitation course from my first job, which was in diagnostics, and I learned how to design foundations in my second job, which is in design. All of school is pretty much just giving you the tools you need in order to later learn how to implement them-- this is why you can't just go out and practice engineering. You have to accrue qualifying experience.</p>

<p>So, it's not a waste. You'll eventually apply what you learn, it'll just depend upon when you find that you need to design a foundation. Don't worry about unapplied knowledge.</p>

<p>Take whichever one sounds interesting. It's all stuff you'll probably use later, anyhow, so either would be applicable. Likewise, it'd all be stuff that your job would teach you, if you end up wanting to learn it.</p>

<p>If you're interested in structural diagnostics, and working for a diagnostics firm like Exponent or WJE, the rehab course might be a draw for them (but it's all stuff that a diagnostics firm would teach you so it'd be kind of optional). If you're interested in structural design, and working for a firm like Thornton-Tomasetti or Skidmore Owings Merrill or Walter P Moore, then the foundations course might be a draw for <em>them</em> (but it's all stuff that a design firm would teach you so it'd be kind of optional).</p>

7

<p>Thanks for clearing that up aibarr! That makes the decision a lot easier.</p>

<p>You two should start charging for advice. =)</p>

8

<p>Found this article a while back. You might be interested in what it says aibarr. It contradicts your thoughts on not needing to take timber, although it does not address the % of engineers that face difficulty in learning the material later on.</p>

<p><a href="http://woodscience.oregonstate.edu/faculty/gupta/PDF/The%20Status%20of%20Wood%20Design%20Education%20in%20American%20Universities.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://woodscience.oregonstate.edu/faculty/gupta/PDF/The%20Status%20of%20Wood%20Design%20Education%20in%20American%20Universities.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

9

<p>If you plan to work in North America after you graduate then I think timber design will be very useful for you. Many countries (ie. most countries in Asia) do not use timber at all, so it really depends on where you plan to work :)</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Found this article a while back. You might be interested in what it says aibarr. It contradicts your thoughts on not needing to take timber, although it does not address the % of engineers that face difficulty in learning the material later on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm always really wary of articles about how the industry is setting itself upon an epically disastrous collision course with destiny by not teaching (WhateverSubject) in our universities... particularly when the articles may be found in the (WhateverSubject) Journal. It's an interesting article, but take it with a grain of salt.</p>

11

<p>Don't worry, I followed your advice. Just wanted to know whether the article was for real or not.</p>

12

<p>I don't see it as being as big of a problem as the wood industry does.</p>

<p>I mean, sure, the National Forest Products Association would <em>love</em> to see wood design experts churning out of the universities, and from their perspective, it IS a major building material, but for the most part, you're not going to be doing much design with wood unless you seek it out as a niche specialty, or unless you decide to go into residential construction (and I'm not talking high-rise condos).</p>

<p>I took Wood Design in grad school; it was an interesting course, but it's one of those things I think I could've picked up at work if I really needed it. It wasn't that it was a waste of my time, it's just that I don't think it was the most critical thing that I could've taken. It's certainly understandable that the forestry industry disagrees with me!</p>

<p>(Incidentally... that's kind of something to start watching for as you move into industry. Start paging through the trade journals for the different building materials-- Modern Steel Construction, the ACI journals, the wood journals-- you'll see that they're all spectacularly biased towards their product, which makes good marketing sense. You'll also start seeing that they're all constantly up on their soapboxes subtly arguing with one another as to whose product is better, and is more suited towards everyday practices. It's necessary for their products' marketing, and it contributes towards healthy competition, but as engineers, it's good for us to recognize that they're all very biased, and approach their editorials as though we were college admissions committees reading letters of recommendation that were written by an applicant's mom. Seriously, it gets that ridiculous.)</p>

13

<p>Wow, never knew that concrete and steel were playing the game as well. From what I've read it seems that wood is the one that cries out for the attention. Maybe it's because the industry knows it is losing the battle, hehe. Plus, a lot can be said for the types of projects constructed with steel and concrete. I haven't seen wood in those "we're gonna entrance the world" structures in Dubai, so I'm guessing not many people have a desire to use it. Like you said, "...unless you seek it out as a niche specialty or go into residential construction". Tract homes. <em>shudder</em></p>

<p>Almost all the engineers' quotes I've read in the articles say something along the lines of "I ask for 36 ksi steel, I always get that steel, no delays, with wood what was a product 2 months ago or 1 year ago may not be around, or since there is no standard universal code I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting.....timber is more complicated and really requires paying attention to detailing and connections.....It would have been nice to experience some of this at the undergrad level".</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
with wood what was a product 2 months ago or 1 year ago may not be around, or since there is no standard universal code I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, it's that way with a lot of things, though. We all say the exact same thing about steel decking and Simpson/Hilti/Power type anchors and fasteners, too. They're always changing things and phasing things out in a lot of different cases... it's just that way with any manufactured product (and presumably, you're talking about glulam beams or prefab trusses... a Southern Pine 4x4 post is gonna be the same no matter what way you turn it; trees are trees are trees, to a point).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Wow, never knew that concrete and steel were playing the game as well.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Boy do they ever! They throw sucker punches at one another all the time. They're currently in a big snit about who's more sustainable. Last spring, ASHRAE (Amer. Soc. of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers) proposed a standard for the design of high-performance green buildings. It was pretty biased towards concrete, for whatever reason. The following month, Modern Steel Construction, the trade journal of the American Institute of Steel Construction, included in its monthly editorial the following:</p>

<p>"The proposed standard also contains some of the most convoluted reasoning I've heard outside of my kid's kindergarten classroom."
"What's the bone-headed reasoning behind this baffling conclusion?"
"...Steel is so inherently green that it doesn't need any incentive to be the premier sustainable material. Concrete, on the other hand, presents so many environmental issues that it's critical to give it every push possible on the sustainability front."
"I urge you to protest ASHRAE's absurd, misguided, and misinformed intrustion into the structural marketplace."</p>

<p>As we say down here, them's fightin' words! One of them is always slinging mud at the other side. All's fair in love and war, and the marketplace is really competitive right now.</p>

15

<p>It's not so much that wood design isn't helpful; it is to a certain extent. The question is what's the tradeoff? Do you get rid of another course from the curriculum? If so, what course in the civil engineering curriculum do you take out that is less useful than wood design? Do you add it to the existing curriculum? If so, at what point do you stop adding courses? I'm sure there are plenty of other topics that are as useful or more useful that aren't part of the standard curriculum.</p>

<p>What I got out of the article was that they need money. Money money money! It's what makes the world go 'round. They want money for research. They want money for scholarships. They want money to create educational programs. Not once does it mention how the industry can improve itself to demonstrate its relative usefulness compared to steel and concrete.</p>