From: "Maria I. Falconi" <maisabel(--nospam--at)ecua.net.ec>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:12:47 -0500
I couldn't agree more with Bill Polhemus. My Structural Dynamics graduate
course was 98% complicated theory and 2% practical stuff. I have only
really used the 2% ever since. Please don't ask me to rework those matrices
or differential eq's again.
De: Bill Polhemus <polhemus(--nospam--at)insync.net>
Para: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Fecha: Martes 1 de Junio de 1999 09:00 AM
Asunto: RE: Dynamic Loading
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis [mailto:dhcamilleri(--nospam--at)waldonet.net.mt]
>> Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 12:52 PM
>> To: 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
>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.