New not always better

I very much enjoyed your editorial and information on the bridge collapse ["Bridge collapse investigation continues," September 2007 issue of Structural Engineer].

It brings to mind two things that have become apparent over a 40-year career in structures.

As you point out, there are 147,913 bridges that are deficient. How many currently standing over what period of time have actually collapsed? Are the classifications woefully deficient in degrees of problem accounting for the number? What percentage [of] collapses that we read about are "new" bridges, never mind that one half of them were built before 1964. What does this say about our technical expertise today when compared to the "primitive design methods" that I was taught so many years ago?

My career has often been involved in forensic work in looking at problems in old buildings. While there are problems, it is amazing what they can withstand for abuse without failure. It is the newer structures that so often give up the ghost and collapse outright, schools, shopping malls, etc.

I do believe that the ivory hall theoreticians with tenure and hosts of computers, in the interest and argument for more cost-effective designs, too often miss the essence of real-life conditions. Ultimately, they under-design our new structures.

Gary E. Tilton, P.E., S.E.
Via e-mail

How can we solve the crisis?

In your editorial ["Bridge collapse investigation continues"] in the September 2007 issue of Structural Engineer magazine, I believe there is an important distinction you failed to make. In stating that 24.52 percent of U.S. bridges are deficient, you failed to distinguish between structurally deficient (SD) and functionally obsolete (FO) bridges. The 24.52 percent is comprised of both SD and FO bridges, with approximately 13 percent being FO and 12 percent being SD.

Therefore, you make the number of structurally deficient bridges appear to be
twice as bad as it really is. Only 12 percent are structurally deficient, not 24.52 percent.

George Clendenin, P.E.
Via e-mail

Perceptions are fact

Richard Weingardt, courageously and wisely, "hit the nail on the head" when he challenged us ("Dressing for engineering success," September 2007) to reflect on how we present ourselves, literally, in how we dress, and figuratively, in our conduct. This is one area in which we engineers are, hands down, our own worst enemies.

We complain, Rodney Dangerfield style, that "we get no respect" and earn too little relative to attorneys, bankers, stockbrokers, medical doctors, and others. Then we show up for meetings with and presentations to these individuals dressed and behaving as though we worked for them rather than with them. Our PowerPoint presentation is first rate while our personal presentation is second rate. The professional work that we describe or provide when meeting with other professionals is conscientiously and competently prepared, but is judged as being less than that because of the perception we create.

"Perception is fact" and "you only get one chance to make a good first impression" are more than trite statements. Like it or not, first impressions increasingly matter in our fast-paced world.

Think also how the manner in which we present ourselves in public settings influences the way others view the engineering profession vis-à-vis other professions. Those "others" include the general public and, more importantly, bright young people trying to select a profession. Like it or not, we and our profession are continuously being judged by our dress and demeanor.

The good news is that if any of us see a need to improve how we present ourselves, the solution lies entirely with us. To paraphrase Richard Weingardt, if you’ve never studied or been coached in how to dress well and present yourself for success, do so the first chance you get.

Stuart G. Walesh, Ph.D., P.E., Hon.M.ASCE
Valparaiso, Ind.

Knowing the part more important than dressing the part

Whereas Mr. Weingardt ["Dressing for engineering success," September 2007] does make some valid points on how a professional "should" present oneself and look to others, let’s not miss the boat entirely on our "noble profession." I grew up in a small Montana town where the start of school signaled the end of summer, and usually the start of winter. Many of the kids in our school found it difficult to put two socks together of the same color, much less even think of it as a time "to wear chic, new school clothes." It is not simply enough to dress nice to have pride in being an engineer, or to "deserve the respect and high regard" of others. Nor will it come from "knowing you belong to a noble profession."

I wonder how many suit and ties accepted the alternative recommendation to institute an observation and maintenance program for the collapsed Minneapolis bridge, in lieu of repairing the bridge. Such a noble decision.

In lieu of relying on a good first impression, what if we focused on our abilities to engineer, to make good engineering decisions, to understand structural engineering. What a novel idea. Are the younger engineers of today being trained to engineer and understand structures, or is it more important to look good, to have great Internet skills, to be able to draft their own designs, and to know how to program Excel spreadsheets?

I contend that understanding the strength and performance of structures carries slightly more weight toward one’s pride and self-esteem in the long run, than does a nice three-piece, pin-stripe suit and tie. But maybe looking good in a courtroom is better than not looking good out of a courtroom. I don’t think so.

Rick A. Ehlert, P.E.
Conifer, Colo.