STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, SIMPLY DEFINED

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, SIMPLY DEFINED

          Structural Engineering is quite a very broad topic encompassing many disciplines. One “online” definition states that “Structural engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering in which structural engineers are trained to design the ‘bones and muscles’ that create the form and shape of man made structures.” Quite “poetic” in a sense.

          To better understand the scope and complexity of this science, we must first need to know the rootword of the term – structure.

          What is a “structure?” If you consult the standard dictionary, the standard answer would be “something or the manner something is composed or constructed,” which in essence would include a variety of things from the atom to languages, to songs and orchestral pieces, to toy cars, to edifices and bridges, to geologic formations, etc.

 

          In relation to architecture and engineering, the definition would suddenly contract to a more specific and physical aspect.

          During my early days as an engineer, I was asked to tutor a group of architecture and civil engineering graduates, to prepare them for their board examinations. Common to their interests is Structural Engineering Design.

          Before going to the intricacies of the matter, the formulas, the design procedures, the computations and all that, I told them that the basic item of this subject is the common bond that connects architecture with engineering – that is, structure!

          The lecture began with a precursor: Define (this) structure in simplest term (as an architect and as an engineer).

          “It’s a building!” One answered.

          “Correct, but too obvious and simplified!” Me, acting as Yoda, then said: “So, you would not consider air airplane, a ship, or a yacht for example, as a structure?”

          “It is considered as a structure, Sir!” One exclaimed showing a page of a very large and thick architectural book.

          “Indeed, it is! Architects design the aesthetics of a yacht and the structural engineer design the frames that make up the yacht.”

          “Sir, a structure is anything that is built or constructed!” Then came the succeeding answer.

          “Good, you’re getting there! But what if I construct a paper fan, would you call it a structure?”

          The over-eager graduates began talking to each other, pondering for another adventurous reply.

          “The structure must be for habitation!” Came another wondering answer.

          “Okay! But what about dams, aqueducts, bridges, billboards, transmission towers and water tanks? Even satellites, missiles and jet fighters are structures. They are not for habitation.” I retorted back. “What about the ziggurats and pyramids? They are some of the earliest structures built by man, but the former were built as shrines and the latter as tombs and not for habitation.”

          I told them to think as engineers and architects, to define it in relation to their chosen profession.

          “Structures are those physical things that are constructed for human use!”

          “Finally!” I snapped my fingers.

          Indeed, a definition that hit the mark: A structure, in relation to architecture or engineering design, may be simply (or otherwise broadly) define as anything built or constructed for private or public use.

          From this basic but fully bordered understanding, and knowing all the parameters connected to the subject, we can derive the “simple” definition of Structural Engineering – “The science concerning putting empirical knowledge to practical application in the design and formation of integral and durable physical constructs such as buildings, bridges, towers, reservoirs, ships, and the likes, particularly the arrangement and interrelation of all parts of their frames, and the forces acting within and upon them.”

          Whew! In my own thinking, this was one aspect of my chosen profession that I learned (and never forgotten) from one of my instructors when I myself was still in college, quite a long time ago.

WALL PHOTO INFO:

The Magat Dam.

It is one of President Ferdinand Marcos’ landmark infrastructures. Southeast Asia’s first large multi-purpose water reservoir. Construction started in 1978 and it was completed in 1982.

Height: 114 meters

Crest Length: 4,160 meters

Surface Area: 11.7 square kilometers

Maximum Water Depth: 193 meters

Reservoir Storage Capacity: 1.08 billion cubic meters

Spillway Length: 500 meters

Spillway width: 164 meters

Spillway Discharge Capacity: 30,600 cubic meters

Diversion Tunnel Length: Two 2-meter-diameter, 630 meters

Installed Power Generation Capacity: 360 megawatts

Here are some interesting information with regards to the cost of building the dam, where you can apply the principle of “Mathematics don’t lie.”

World Bank financing = $150 million. Foreign funds from the government of Bahrain = $9 million. Funds from USAID = $25 million (estimated). Total national government allocation for the 7-year project = $680 million. Funds from local government components & subsidiaries = $4.2 million. Funds from local financing (the average taken from various sources) = $26.55 million. Other funds (local and foreign donations and contributions, the average taken from various sources) = $137.32 million. Total available funds = $1.03207 billion. Total project cost (based on dollar exchange rates, 1975-1985) = $3.273 billion. So, where did Marcos get the $2.24093 billion shortfall? Now you do the math and the researching.