Talk:Civil engineering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Engineering, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, join the project, visit the project portal, and contribute to the project discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Archive 1 Jan 14, 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Structural Wiki - Wiki Entirely Devoted to Civil/Structural Engineering
Hi, I am webmaster of BridgeArt.net, which is a civil/structural engineering portal with Structural Wiki. I recently launched a questionnaire whether there would be interest to set up wiki specifically for civil engineers. It would permit more types of content when compared to Wikipedia whose content is strictly encyclopedic: such as design examples, standard details, possibly latest research coordination, galery of inspection photos, etc. If you have some content that you would like to share, but is not appropriate for Wikipedia, you are welcome to join Structural Wiki!
I am already getting some interesting feedback, but I plan to deliver the questionnaire to many more people from different corners of the profession (students, construction people, designers, academia, researchers, research, ...) - it will be interesting to see opinion of each of these groups on wiki. -- Andrewok 05:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Given the rather thin coverage of civil engineering topics here, compared to the coverage of computer topics, politics, and various fan-cruft, I don't know that there's much interest in the civil engineering community in contributing to such a thing.
- A few issues may deter engineers from contributing to Wikipedia, another wiki, or your wiki in general:
- The licensing requirement may be a deterrent; you should look into whether you really want everything to be GFDL instead of some other license, and whether that would make a difference.
- Engineers seem to be more prone to contributing to existing, established organizations, like ASCE or NSPE.
- The chaotic nature of Wikipedia, especially when anonymous contributions are allowed. Look at the Citizendium Statement of Principles for a possible alternative to the open free-for-all model which Wikipedia follows.
- Don't call it "Structural Wiki" if you want civil engineers who practice in specialties other than structural engineering to feel good about contributing. I'm a Geotechnical Engineer. Why should I contribute to a "Structural" wiki?
- Argyriou (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Argyriou hit it right on the button with that last comment: I'm primarily transportation other than a few dabblings in other disciplines. Perhaps it is just a local thing, but there tends to be a bit of animosity between the transport and structural folks :P --Thisisbossi 23:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Argyriou, I definitely agree with you that the civil engineering community has lower interest in wiki than may be the case for some other topics. While ASCE and NSPE are established organizations, I imagine that wiki-sort of site could provide more streamlined access to the resources they offer. Plus there are many other professional organization (ACI, AISC, IAI, PCI, AASHTO, NHI, fip, ...) whose resources could be referenced from a single wiki site. Finally, the goal of Structural Wiki is to be small niche wiki, focused primarily on structural engineering, that's why I would like to stick with the name Structural Wiki. It would still contain some inter-discipline topics, such as determination of pile lateral capacity (geotechnical) or determination of roadway profiles (transportation), etc. that are closely related to structural engineering. I think that this niche orientation (similarly we could have geotechnical wiki and transportation wiki) would enable to maintain the wiki more manageable - you can check Wikitravel to see what I mean. -- Andrewok 01:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Largest CE Program
I reverted the edit by 66.133.214.16 as we now have two universities both claiming to have the largest program: Texas A&M and also Cal Poly Pomona. I reverted to Texas A&M for the following reasons:
- It was the original post for a disputed entry.
- While it has a smaller undergrad population, it has more faculty.
- Cal Poly Pomona offers only MS degrees as a graduate program. Texas offers additional degrees and is a HUGE destination for graduate students. I am quite sure Texas has Cal Poly Pomona beat on this, but Cal Poly Pomona fails to produce any evidence (that I could find) indicating the graduate student population.
The burden is therefore upon an individual to locate the graduate student population, at which point it may be up to debate as to which is truly largest; or perhaps we should include both. As an engineer and also a student, I'd definitely say Texas is at least the more prominent, by a large margin (I never even heard of Poly Pomona until now). --Thisisbossi 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion of both schools might be the safe course for now; these numbers are not static. A third-party source would also be most appropriate for a citation on any one school "claiming" the title. ZueJay (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Works for me until a reputable NPOV source can be found. --Thisisbossi 08:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a fair compromise. We should probably list both universities, since it is too close to call (at the undergraduate level). In my original post, I stated that Texas A&M had 1,081 undergraduate CE students. That was in the 2005-2006 school year. That number has since risen to 1,099 CE undergraduates (2006-2007 school year). Texas A&M also has 133 and 176 masters degree and Ph.D. candidates, respectively, bringing the grand total to 1,408 CE students. There are 67 faculty members (58 tenured or on the tenure track). The TAMU statistical data is available at www.civil.tamu/downloads/About Us/CivilFactSheet.pdf -- User:Caracaskid08:22, 23 April 2007
[edit] Environmental Eng.
Environmental Engineering is an other branch of Engineering, not a sub-title of Civil Engineering therefore should be excluded in the list of CE sub-titles. SEY01 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are alternate sides to this, none of which is correct; or both of which are correct. My civil engineering background includes environmental engineering and is treated as another discipline. What exactly falls under the umbrella of "civil" can always be debated, particularly as most engineering professions were at one time considered "civil". --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 12:31, 6 March 2007
(UTC)
- For instance, my background does not include. Env.Eng. is still a separate dept. in the Faculty of Eng. in my university, that's why I wanted to add that previous comment.
SEY01 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sub-disciplines
There has been discussion on the sub-disciplines of CE before, but I don't think we have ever really hammered out a final version based on reliable sources. I found two websites which listed CE disciplines and they both seem to be similar: University of Florida ASCE. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Paul Fisher just removed Urban planning from the list of subdisciplines in the introduction via this edit. Transportation engineers are very involved with urban planning, just as non-engineers and architects trained in urban planning are becoming increasingly familiar with aspects of civil engineering. I am aware of several universities which have shared courses and faculty between the departments, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of Maryland. Land use is based on transportation and transportation is based on land use. Any further thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there are many overlaps between civil (transport) engineering and urban planning, but I feel they are distinct disciplines. Certainly here in Australia, they are distinct and one is not regarded as a sub-set of the other. (I'm a civil / transport engineer by the way). Paul Fisher (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Paul Fisher just removed Urban planning from the list of subdisciplines in the introduction via this edit. Transportation engineers are very involved with urban planning, just as non-engineers and architects trained in urban planning are becoming increasingly familiar with aspects of civil engineering. I am aware of several universities which have shared courses and faculty between the departments, including UC Berkeley, UCLA, and the University of Maryland. Land use is based on transportation and transportation is based on land use. Any further thoughts? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sources
I am having a hard time finding sources for writing this article. I'm just putting this up here in case someone else has some good sources. The only ones I have found are quoted in the article, and they aren't very good. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 03:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scope of licensing
Right now there is a lot of specific information on licensing requirements for the US. I think it might be appropriate to pare this down to generalities since we are supposed to have a worldwide view on Wikipedia. We could create a separate article like "professional engineer licensing in the United States" or something. What do you think? -- Basar (talk · contribs) 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed some of the country-specific information to here. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In the [[United States]], one must become a licensed [[Professional Engineer]] to do any civil engineering work affecting the public or to legally represent oneself as a civil engineer. Licensure requirements vary slightly by state, but in all cases entail passing two licensure exams, the [[Fundamentals of Engineering exam]] (also know as the Engineer in Training or EIT exam) and the Principles and Practice exam (commonly called the PE), and completing a state-mandated number of years of work under the supervision of a licensed Professional Engineer. In addition, an educational requirement must often be met. All states accept a four year [[Bachelor of Science]] (BS) or [[Bachelor of Engineering]] (BEng) degree in Civil Engineering, from an [http://www.abet.org ABET]-accredited program, for their educational requirement. The acceptability of degrees in other fields varies by state; some states allow a person to substitute additional years of supervised work experience for the degree requirement. Although the [[American Society of Civil Engineers]] encourages states to raise the educational requirement to a graduate degree, advanced degrees are currently optional for civil engineers in the United States. Graduate study may lead either to a [[Master of Engineering]], which is a [[Professional Master's degree]], or to a [[Master of Science]] degree, sometimes followed by a [[PhD]] in civil engineering or a sub-discipline. In the [[United States of America|United States]], [[California State Polytechnic University, Pomona|Cal Poly Pomona]] in [[Pomona, California|Pomona]], [[California]] and [[Texas A&M University]] in [[College Station, Texas|College Station]], [[Texas]] have the largest civil engineering departments with approximately 1,100 students.<ref>[http://www.csupomona.edu/~ce/Prospective/Index.html Prospective BSCE Students]. Accessed [[2 March]] [[2007]].</ref><ref>[http://www.civil.tamu.edu/about.html Number of undergraduate students enrolled in Texas A&M's civil engineering department]. Accessed [[10 February]] [[2007]].</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]] current graduates require a MSc, MEng or BEng (Hons) in order to become chartered through the [[Institution of Civil Engineers]]. The Institution also allows entrants with substantial experience to apply without this level of formal academic achievement. In practice, most civil engineers in the United Kingdom work without chartered status. Unlike in many other European countries, the term 'Engineer' is not legally protected within the United Kingdom. In [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]], requirements are typically a four year [[Bachelor of Engineering]] (BE or BEng) degree, equivalent to the British MEng,{{Fact|date=February 2007}} and approximately three years experience.
[edit] Photo for structural engineering
I argue that London Millennium Bridge is not the best representation of what structural engineering is. It is mainly a (not so successful) work designed by architects that cost massive amount of money both in construction and in retrofitting. I propose structures such as the Golden Gate Bridge, or CN Tower. Emancipator (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are wrong in thinking that the Millennium Bridge was mainly designed by an architect. Foster & Partners were involved in the design, but the lead designers were Arup, and specifically Chris Wise (now of Expedition Engineering). The structural design is very challenging because the bridge has very little height. The structural story of the bridge only becomes more interesting when you consider its problems. They were a previously little known structural phenomenon of biological positive feedback causing horizontal dynamic excitation of the bridge. This was researched extensively by Arup and others (http://www.morgenthal.org/MillenniumBridge/, and solved using tuned mass and viscous dampers under the leadership of structural engineer Tony Fitzpatrick. I included this photo precisely because it is so representative of structural engineering. However, there are many different highly notable structures out there, any of which could take the place of this photo - up to you...Tkn20 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the explaining your intention. While I totally agree with you that this bridge is a significant structure in its uniqueness, I was just thinking of a more "classic" structure. But I think the photo of the millennium bridge makes a lot of sense too. Emancipator (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Careers
"Engineers are in high demand at banks, financial institutions and management consultancies because of their analytical skills." ? What is this all about? -- Ucla90024 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's exactly as it says. Any engineering recruitment fair at a university will have banks and management consultancies there, and as an example, over 50% of the engineering graduates from Cambridge University go into banking and engineering consultancy, rather than engineering. Engineers are popular with these organisations because they know the mathematics necessary, and also are taught management and accounting skills. Tkn20 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
