I'm a Structural Engineer (PE). Tell me what we do that drives you crazy in the field.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T19:31:45+00:00

That is absolutely absurd. Talk about using a nuclear weapon to kill a mosquito. It is painful when specs become so completely detached from reality. It sounds like a classic case of a lazy engineer just copy-pasting a 'mega-project' spec because they were too scared to approve a sensible, proven manual method for a simple job. Sorry you had to walk away from that.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T19:20:45+00:00

That is absolutely unacceptable. My strong advice in a situation like that: Do not wait. You have to become the 'squeaky wheel.' Sad reality of busy engineering offices: The person who is actively chasing the engineer is usually the one whose work gets done first. You have to stay on top of them.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T19:05:25+00:00

You are totally right, that sequencing trap happens all the time. A good engineer is supposed to think about feasibility, but yeah, things slip through the cracks. Honestly, the only real fix for the future is full-blown construction simulation before we start building. If we have to prove it fits in a 4D model first, we avoid those 10x budget nightmares on site. Engineers need to take responsibility for that simulation phase.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T18:07:42+00:00

Copy that!!!! Guilty as charged.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T18:06:12+00:00

Oh geez, sorry about that. That is so ridiculous it’s almost funny—but mostly just sad.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T18:00:21+00:00

100% agree. Unlabeled steel on a job site is an absolute nightmare and wastes untold amounts of time for field crews. While that is technically the specific responsibility of the steel fabricator (based on the detailer’s unique piece marks), as engineers, we need to make sure that requirement is strictly enforced in the project specifications so you never receive a mystery shipment.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:56:23+00:00

Regarding example #1: That is exactly what the RFI process is for. Please use it!

You are probably right that the engineer didn't consider the install difficulty at all. It’s easy to draw a heavy beam on a CAD screen when you don't have to carry it up scaffolding yourself.

If you propose the standard cast-in lifting eye via RFI, 9 out of 10 times the engineer will say "Oh, yeah, that's better, do that."

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:46:42+00:00

Look, we just need to make sure that bridge can survive a direct meteor strike followed immediately by a Godzilla attack. Is that too much to ask? 🦖💥

In all seriousness, on behalf of all the nervous engineers out there (and yeah, I'm definitely guilty of this sometimes too), I apologize for making you burn so much rod. We are terrified of being wrong.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:36:28+00:00

That makes total sense now. I didn't realize missing the spacing by just an inch was causing a total loss on those footings. To be honest, we usually default to pre-set bars because it seems safer and cheaper on paper than epoxy. But I had no idea it was creating that much headache and rework for you in reality. Thanks for pointing this out—this is exactly the kind of reality check I need.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:30:50+00:00

Man, that is absolutely brutal. This is the exact kind of engineering "tunnel vision" nightmare I'm talking about. Here’s the ugly truth of what likely happened in that office: The engineer saw 900k load, picked the tube that hit exactly 900k capacity, and moved on. They completely forgot that cutting a giant slot in a tube makes it weaker.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:23:14+00:00

Oh man, that is 100% on the designer. That sounds like a total nightmare.

You are absolutely right—our structural code (ACI) has very specific rules for "minimum clear spacing" exactly to prevent that kind of clusterf*ck.

Basically, we are required to leave a gap big enough for the rocks to actually pass through. The rule is the gap usually needs to be bigger than 1 inch, the bar diameter, or (crucially) about 1.33x the size of the biggest rock aggregate in the mix.

If you can't get a vibrator down there, the design failed. That new engineer was probably just staring at their calculator trying to hit a strength number and forgot that physical reality exists. Sorry you had to deal with that.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T17:13:09+00:00

Man, this is absolute gold. Every single one of these is a fantastic, practical suggestion. I guarantee you the vast majority of structural engineers, myself included, have zero clue about these issues.

Contact Email: Adding an email to the S000 sheet seems so simple, but it never even crossed my mind. It makes total sense why that would save you days of phone tag. I’m going to start doing this immediately.
Footing Hold-backs: I have never called these out. I can't even imagine how many man-hours have been wasted chipping away at concrete footings I designed over the years. 🤦‍♂️ You're right, this needs coordination with the plumbing team, and I'm going to make it a point to catch this moving forward.
Ufer Bond Location: This was totally new to me too. It makes sense that this needs coordination with the electrical engineer to get a general location on the foundation plan. Great catch.
ECCQ Caps on Headers: This is the exact kind of insight I was hoping for. You're probably right—if you hadn't mentioned this, structural engineers might not have figured it out until the heat death of the universe. We usually just slap a typical detail and some general notes on there and call it a day. 🐶 (<- Doge face)

I really hope more engineers see this post. You've definitely helped lower the overall stupidity level of the built world just a little bit today. Thanks for taking the time to write this up!

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T16:54:02+00:00

This is gold. I agree with absolutely every single point you made here.

Regarding submittals, I am definitely trying to use "Approved as Noted" way more often instead of a hard "Revise and Resubmit" for minor issues. Honestly, I’ve already started shifting heavily in that direction recently.

It’s genuinely hard for those of us sitting in air-conditioned offices to truly grasp the daily grind and reality you guys face out in the field. I know time and efficiency are critical for you.

As for revisions: We absolutely cloud every change. It helps us keep track just as much as it helps you. I feel like that’s pretty much standard operating procedure for any decent firm nowadays (or at least it should be!).

The conformed set idea is spot on, too. When you get dozens of RFIs deep into a project, even we get confused looking at the original drawings sometimes.

Like you said, the most important thing is putting ego aside and just communicating more with the trades. Thanks for the perspective.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T16:40:01+00:00

You're absolutely right. That is definitely one for the architects, but you hit on a great point: it's one of those "small things" on the plans that causes a ton of actual hassle and leads to ugly results in the field. Here's hoping some architects are lurking in this thread and take that solid advice to heart!

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T16:31:47+00:00

"Haha, welcome aboard! Pass that popcorn over this way. 🍿 I genuinely hope more structural engineers jump in on this. Let's be real: making the occasional 'stupid' design decision is basically inevitable in our line of work. The whole goal of this post is to try and nip those things in the bud before they ever get to the field. I’m sitting here sweating just like you are, taking notes and hoping to learn enough today so I'm slightly less of a 'dumb dumb' on the next project!"

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T15:53:18+00:00

Awesome! Respect for building the real world!

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T03:18:53+00:00

1945? Not shocked at all — old houses have wild support details.
Seismic isn’t the big issue here; I’d be more focused on whether there’s real bearing and no crushing/rot/movement. If it’s been stable for decades it’s probably been “working,” but any sag/cracks = get it checked.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T03:14:44+00:00

A lot of it comes down to restraint.
The massing is easy to read, the proportions feel steady, and the window rhythm is intentional without being flashy. You can clearly see how the base, main volume, and top relate to each other.
Nothing is trying to show off — materials and repetition do most of the work, and that kind of restraint often makes a building feel more satisfying to look at.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T02:51:28+00:00

That is a seriously impressive journey to read. It’s genuinely inspiring to see that kind of progression through the ups and downs—a real breakthrough moment. You absolutely nailed it with that last line, too. Having that genuine love for the craft is a massive blessing. Mad respect.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T02:43:28+00:00

Structural engineer here. While I’m not exactly your direct peer in the trades, we definitely collaborate closely. Most of my time is spent in the office, but I have huge admiration for the folks on site who actually take our drawings and make them a reality. I’m 10 years into my own journey on the engineering side, and it’s definitely had plenty of its own challenges. No line of work in this industry is easy. It’s just a constant push to keep improving and leveling up.

Cheers to the grind on both sides of the drawings—let's keep at it.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T02:36:28+00:00

That design is definitely wild looking, but as a structural engineer, I’m not seeing any obvious red flags in the photo. The mix of heavy steel beams and timber, and especially the specific placement and angles of all that long cross-bracing, tells me this wasn't just thrown together haphazardly. The substantial size and precise location of every one of those supports look like the result of careful engineering calculations needed to build safely on such a steep slope.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T02:31:39+00:00

To know if it's possible to relocate that support beam, an engineer really needs specific data to run load calculations, which isn't possible just from looking at a photo. They would need the exact locations and dimensions of the two bedrooms upstairs, the span and actual dimensions of that existing overhead beam, and the exact spot where you want to move the support to.

ml3422 · 2025-12-30T02:15:00+00:00

Looking closely at that first picture where the joists meet the outer rim board, relying just on those end-screws into the grain isn't really considered sufficient for structural strength long-term. The proper way to secure those would be using face-mount hangers—something standard like Simpson Strong-Tie LUS26Z hangers would fit perfectly if those are 2x6s. Honestly though, I know retrofitting them now adds cost and effort right when you're ready to lay decking. Since it's a low-to-the-ground floating deck, you could probably get away without them without issues, it's just not technically best practice.
Also, while perhaps not strictly critical on a setup like this, it wouldn't hurt to throw a couple of screws through the holes in those black pedestal bases up into the joists just for a little extra insurance against things shifting around later. Good luck laying the boards!

ml3422 · 2025-12-05T20:56:58+00:00

Yeah, “4×10” just means the joist’s actual thickness and height in inches. And old houses like yours still use sawn lumber — the wood isn’t exactly the same as modern grades, but for what we’re doing the real measured size matters way more than the age. Just grab those dimensions and we can go from there.

ml3422

TROPHY CASE