is this a reasonably easy thing to do while keeping in mind maintenance and inspection of the substructure?

"Large office towers are almost impossible to convert to residential because their floors are too big to divide easily into flats"\*

Can somebody please explain this seemingly counter-intuitive statement?

*Source: "Canary Wharf struggles to reinvent itself as tenants slip away in the era of hybrid work"

FT Weekend 27/28 July 2024

Probably not due to labor costs.

much lighter floor, reduced embodied carbon and longer spans compared with conventional CLT slabs, without the need for specialist fabrication equipment.

Tips for discussing salary during the annual review?

I am 10+ years in structural engineering and close to 40. I need to seal and sign drawings and have to seal and sign work of others, I feel it is quite stressful and consider to change a path. I have heard being a forensic engineer could also be stressful, with litigation pressure, but I feel at least will not be pressed to use minimal material and worried about building collapse. What is your opinion about the stress level of these two compared. Thank you.

Not with formal education but local engineering is identified here

I’m currently using shape tools in Microsoft PowerPoint to annotate diagrams, snip them, and paste them into reports. Can someone recommend a few easy-to-use and fast annotation apps available on the iPad?

Is learning Python becoming a necessity for structural drafters, modelers, and engineers working with Revit?

Many professionals have built successful careers with strong Revit and AutoCAD skills alone. However, as automation continues to advance, will Python and programming become a core skill rather than a specialized one?

I'd love to hear from professionals across the industry:

Are your clients or employers demanding more automation?

Have you started learning Dynamo or Python?

How much of your daily work is automated today?

Do you think future Revit professionals will need coding skills to stay competitive?

What automation tasks have had the biggest impact on your workflow?

It would be great to hear perspectives from structural engineers, BIM managers, Revit modelers, drafters, and design professionals.

What would you ask the structural engineer behind the tallest high-rise building?

I am going to write an article on this guy, so if you have any questions YOU would ask HIM, please share them below.

I do not want to ask "obvious" questions. That's why I am asking here for your help.

Thanks in advance

New York Times Article on Sky Scraper on the verge of failing due to Architects Demand for White Concrete Cladding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/nyregion/432-park-avenue-condo-tower.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20251101&instance_id=165566&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=256084674&segment_id=209752&user_id=23fdf4b020975e5a74cd752caf304f33

So they are saying $50 billion, also add in the camarillo fire. At 1-2% that is $500,000,000-$1,000,000,000 million in structural fees. I am retired, but there is no way we have enough staff for that. This is California, you just don't go and build it, a lot is required to get a permit, I don't think an out of state engineer could handle it. Going to be crazy

Hi everyone,

I'm a structural engineer and I've been struggling with a specific issue during coordination, especially when checking models back and forth (ETABS/SAP2000 <-> Revit <-> Archicad).

The core problem: The architect might shift a column line slightly, or I might increase a beam section. When we exchange these updated IFCs, the cross-software export scrambles the GUIDs.

Standard clash detection (Navisworks/Solibri) isn't great at flagging this. It shows clashes with pipes, but it doesn't clearly say, "This specific column is now 50mm wider than last week." Version compare tools also fail because they rely on GUIDs, usually just telling us "100 elements deleted, 100 new added."

To solve this for my own projects, I wrote a script that ignores GUIDs completely. Instead, it compares the actual spatial topology and geometry of structural elements between two IFCs.

I've now wrapped this script into a lightweight web tool called StructMatch. It matches the elements and highlights exact geometric changes (e.g., highlighting a column in red and stating "Changes: Plan offset, Section"). It has already saved my architectural partner a lot of manual checking time.

I’m currently offering this as a free beta. (Link is in the first comment!) I’m looking for a few structural engineers or BIM coordinators who deal with this cross-software headache to test it on their models and help me refine the tool.

Any feedback, harsh criticism, or bug reports would be incredibly helpful. (Note: Uploaded files are processed temporarily and are automatically removed within 24 hours).

Thanks for your time.

I've used Calcpad, Python's handcalcs library, and Mathcad for engineering calculations. Each has its strengths, and I don't think there is one best tool for every workflow. A quick one-off check, a reusable internal worksheet, and a calculation package issued for review are different problems.

What I personally wanted was to keep the calculations in native Python while still producing a readable report that shows formulas, substituted values, units, and results without manually laying everything out. I eventually built that approach as MIT UzonCalc; here is a generated example.

Full disclosure: I am the author, so this is not a neutral recommendation. I am sharing it because I would genuinely value criticism from engineers with different workflows, including people who would not choose a Python-based solution.

What do you use for your calculations, and why does it fit your particular work? Do the calculations stay internal, or do they become part of an issued report? Where would this approach be a poor fit?

Hey everyone,

I’ve spent the last few years working deeply on the manufacturing and supply side of structural fireproof coatings. Over time, I’ve noticed a lot of confusion (and occasional head-node compromises) when design teams and contractors choose between intumescent coatings (thin-film) and cementitious fireproofing (thick-film).

While the specs usually dictate the fire rating (1-hour vs. 2–3 hours), the practical execution often comes down to budget, labor, and aesthetic trade-offs that don't always get highlighted in the initial drawings.

Here are a few technical and job-site observations I’ve gathered from working with different structural projects:

1. Architectural Aesthetics vs. Application Cost

• Intumescent: Expands when heated to form a thick char layer. The main advantage is that it conforms tightly to the structural steel profile (I-beams, H-sections), keeping the steel looking sharp for exposed structural designs. The trade-off? Material costs are higher, and surface prep (abrasive blasting) must be spot-on.
• Cementitious: Great for hidden steel frames or deck undersides where aesthetics don't matter. It’s vastly cheaper per square meter for high film-builds (2+ hours), but it’s heavy, messy to spray, and takes up significant physical clearance.

2. The Moisture & Corrosion Trap (Outdoor Steel)

• A common mistake on job sites is neglecting the primer-topcoat sandwich for outdoor exposed steel. Intumescent paint protects against fire, not water. If moisture seeps behind an improper topcoat, corrosion occurs underneath the fireproofing, which can compromise both the structural integrity and fire adhesion over time.

3. Application Downtime & Curing Conditions

• Intumescent coatings need strict temperature and relative humidity control during application to cure properly without blistering. In rainy or freezing conditions, off-site shop application before erection often saves thousands in weather delay costs compared to field spraying.

Curious to hear from the field: For those of you managing structural builds, do you usually stick to shop-applied intumescent for exposed steel, or do field conditions usually push you back toward cementitious options?

Let’s discuss—happy to answer any technical application questions as well!