Synergy or accuracy

I usually do not comment on things that I see in publications, even if I don’t agree with them. However, I found a statement in the article, "Structural synergy: Integrated design and analysis tools earn an A+ on a fast-track high school project" [printed in the March issue of Structural Engineer, page 40] that I can’t let pass. I have met author Melanie Lawson, P.E., a couple of times and I do not believe the statement is truly her view.

The article discusses the advantages of using the Ram Structural software products (now owned by Bentley). I myself have used Ram Advanse for years and have found it to be quite useful, as I am sure is true of their other programs. However, the article states that, "There is no longer any need to verify [my emphasis] coordination between the structural model and the drawings." Am I missing something here? There was a saying in my youth regarding computers, "GIGO," garbage in, garbage out. This was true when we were punching paper cards for an IBM 1130 or with the most sophisticated software of today. No computer that I know of can read the engineer’s mind.

I only mention this because some of our young, enthusiastic, and brilliant engineers might believe that there is no need to verify what (you think) you have done. There is and will always be that need.

Sam S. White, P.E.


It was never my intent to express that engineers not be responsible for their work or the information they put into computer programs. As a past practicing structural engineer, I know this is certainly not the case. The statement you refer to in the article was in a paragraph where I was discussing the redline review process. The sentence prior to that one is, "By eliminating the need to mark-up plans and have them drafted, KNA not only cut down on production time, but also on quality-assurance time." Therefore, the statement was referring to this process and not the complete design or construction document process of a structure. Since KNA was able to create drawings directly from the design model, this eliminated the need to mark-up drawings created independent from the design model and verify these mark-ups.

I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to clarify this.

Melanie Lawson, P.E.


Keep up the great message

Thanks to Richard Weingardt, P.E., for his insights to our profession, both historic and current. My parents told me over and over to dress for success, and now that I’m an engineer, I understand why. I appreciate his comments [in "Be a ’mover and shaker’ in today’s global workplace," published in the February issue of Structural Engineer] about showing up and being heard—something else I’ve heard from my parents. Thanks for the encouragement to keep showing up and speaking up.

Brad Larsen


No Ph.D. required

I read with interest Harold V. Anderson’s letter on "Field experience required" in the February 2008 issue of Structural Engineer. He addresses succinctly and without rancor what is a major flaw in the engineering educational system: a Ph.D. always trumps extensive field experience as a qualifier of professional competence. What struck a particularly strong note to me was that one of Mr. Anderson’s books, Underwater Construction Using Cofferdams (2001), is the most practical—and therefore useful—reference work on cofferdam construction since A. Brinton Carson’s Foundation Construction (1965). Anderson details years of practical experience that would be of benefit to anyone engaged or hoping to engage in the construction of a cofferdam for any purpose. He certainly doesn’t need a Ph.D. to earn my respect, he wrote the book.

Alan D. Fisher, P.E.