Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Dynamic Loading

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Add this to the argument that a basic structural engineering degree be based
on a six year matriculation!


Peter  De Vere
JSC, Houston, Texas
peter.p.devere1(--nospam--at)jsc.nasa.gov <mailto:peter.p.devere1(--nospam--at)jsc.nasa.gov> 
281-483-2961



		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Bill Polhemus [mailto:polhemus(--nospam--at)insync.net]
		Sent:	Tuesday, June 01, 1999 8:59 AM
		To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
		Subject:	RE: Dynamic Loading

			> -----Original Message-----
			> From:	Dennis
<mailto:[mailto:dhcamilleri(--nospam--at)waldonet.net.mt]>
[mailto:dhcamilleri(--nospam--at)waldonet.net.mt]
			> Sent:	Monday, May 31, 1999 12:52 PM
			> To:	 <mailto:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
			> Subject:	Dynamic Loading
			>
			>
			> Is it not time that building
			> engineering courses become more dynamic in their
course content?

		Clever play on words.
		FWIW, I have taken a course in "Structural Dynamics" twice,
at different locations. I came away each time with a little better
understanding of the theory, but without much in the way of practical
application to show for it.
		To me, the typical structural engineer should take a course
in "Mechanical Vibrations," to start off, and then a course in "Applied
Structural Dynamics" which would take a little time to go over basic theory,
and then jump into practical applications of the theory to common problems.
		They ought to learn how to use a response spectrum, also
time-history analyses of impulse loads, wind-induced harmonic effects, etc.
		These are all things that would have benefitted me at one
time or another during my seventeen year career.