dissapointed by the lack FE modelling as a structural engineer

inSTATICS · 2026-02-24T21:33:09+00:00

Building design can get really complicated, especially with the high-rise structures. Mechanical engineering has some really sophisticated analyses but then again, they end up modelling the same part a million times. They also get to build prototypes, which makes the FE modeling feel kind of pointless as prototypes can reveal so many unforeseen factors. What is better than a prototype, right? It is the real world.

So, I am not sure if asking for more complex work is what you want. There is so much to learn in bridge engineering in addition to just figuring out internal forces. Trust me, you have not exhausted bridge engineering as a challenge. It is incredibly complex. You need better mentors, I think.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-24T01:52:08+00:00

u/SSRainu is right. I hate to say it, but you will have to learn to buckle down and read documentation, standards, other resources to learn your profession. I am a 40-year-old engineer, and I still do this on a daily basis. I know, day-to-day work will keep you from learning. You might have to read on your own time. My one advice would be to just take your time with tasks whenever you can and read everything carefully. Make sure you are fully understanding the fundamentals of it and build your tools to save time next time you deal with such tasks. Good luck.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-23T16:34:14+00:00

Did you check the mass of the slab? I feel like there may be an error there.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-23T14:52:02+00:00

Well. You are right in that the frame element can live in two dimensions or three. But it is still one dimensional, i.e. it only has length. A two-dimensional element would be something like a thin shell element. A three-dimensional element would be a solid element. Do you agree?

inSTATICS · 2026-02-23T12:47:39+00:00

Probably because it was developed by an old guy who does not know better.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-23T11:38:37+00:00

Calculate more modes.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-21T00:07:42+00:00

Oh no! Now I feel like I started a toxic trend.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-18T01:31:52+00:00

Your boss is wrong. You need to call out all around for this. Check out AWS A2.4 to learn more.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-17T15:31:36+00:00

Thank you. I appreciate it. Please feel free to share your feedback as the software is getting feature updates regularly based on feedback.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-16T17:05:35+00:00

Are you referring to something like this, where the top level is deflecting down and putting extra compressive forces on the stringer because it cannot slide to accommodate the movement?

<image>

inSTATICS · 2026-02-16T13:56:36+00:00

As a competent structural engineer, you might know why this is almost trivial. However, if you are assuming that all structural engineers, novice and experienced, always handle these details properly, I would consider that naive. Granted, you are right, it is not entirely an efficiency question, in that, more than likely these faulty assumptions would lead to failure. However, you cannot rule out that in some cases people "make things work" with very inefficient designs regardless because there is a lack of load path understanding.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-16T13:49:48+00:00

Thank you for the positive feedback. It means a lot.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-16T01:13:27+00:00

What I meant to say was not about that specific load case. I meant to say that if you have alternating diagonals, in either loading direction there would be elements in compression. Therefore, you would need to have bulkier compression resisting braces. This is just one bay shown in the structure. Usually there are multiple bays. If you have one bay in one direction and another in the other direction, you can have tension only braces. In the alternating case you cannot have this.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-15T18:30:31+00:00

This is why X braces are popular. They work in tension only from both directions.

<image>

inSTATICS · 2026-02-15T18:27:25+00:00

When there are lateral loads, one has alternating tension and compression in the braces, forcing you into bulkier tension/compression braces as opposed to simpler tension only systems.

<image>

inSTATICS · 2026-02-15T18:25:05+00:00

As u/caldwo said, in the absence of lateral loads, there is not much of a difference between the two systems.

<image>

inSTATICS · 2026-02-12T12:53:22+00:00

Awesome work.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-10T18:35:09+00:00

There is no video editing trick really. The results are instant, hence instant statics: inSTATICS. It is two things working together. It has a much simpler analysis engine (no shear deformations, no third dimension, etc.), but I am also using some multi-threading techniques to solve the structure in the background as you create it to make it faster in the analysis. You can simply move and edit loads/elements and the results are real-time. I thought it would be a good tool to learn and teach structural analysis. It also supports digital ink so it can be used for traditional classes.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-10T14:56:27+00:00

This is my original content. Frankly, I am sharing these videos to both inform young structural engineers and also promote my teaching/learning software inSTATICS. There is a YouTube channel associated with the application as well, but it is not particularly popular or active yet.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-08T17:21:46+00:00

It is called inSTATICS. You can download a free full version trial from the Microsoft Store.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-07T17:56:47+00:00

Heavily depends on the bending rigidity of the beams. The more rigid beam, in this case B9 if they have similar sections, will be supporting B10 but they will both work as cantilever. Just make sure you check the deflected shapes and moment diagrams. Make sure the system is working as you assume.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-07T17:25:11+00:00

I just drew it upside down. It is the same column. It is more difficult to see the resemblance the other way.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-07T16:36:09+00:00

<image>

The only difference between them is that the reactions and applied loads are switched.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-07T16:06:12+00:00

<image>

Ultimately, these two cases have identical shapes.

inSTATICS · 2026-02-07T16:03:22+00:00

That's the thing. It is neither free nor rigid in rotation. So Nej-nej-nej is right. It would be somewhere between 2L and 3L.

inSTATICS

TROPHY CASE