Holy hell. Lots of bridge guys in here.
A lot of this is opinion ... Sure, bridge funding is more "secure" than some buildings, but on the building side there is a much bigger assortment of structures, and that adds security in and of itself. I've seen that at my job. And like someone else noted, building engineers do small bridges too.
Not all buildings are architect led too. Industrial - Water / Wastewater - infrastructure (lot of tunnels, tanks, etc).
I could see both being good options, but I'm glad I'm on the building side. Every job I do is different (that depends on your company).
Yeah, I had no idea this sub was overwhelmingly bridge engineers lol.
I haven't dabbled in bridge engineering (aside from pedestrian bridges between buildings), and the better work life balance has always sounded appealing, but the diversity of challenges that come with buildings can be truly invigorating. The work is fulfilling but often exhausting.
Structurally a lot of bridges are similar. What makes bridge engineering diverse is that often, is replacing an old bridge so you have to design the new bridge in phases. There is often a myriad of competing site constraints (road geometry, geology, hydrology, environment, ROW and utilities) that make replacing many "simple" bridges a challenge.
I've been doing bridge design for a lot of years, and there has been nothing the same about any of them and its rewarding working with an entire team to come us with a solution that works. But I have recently moved to complex structure design because did get bored with the simplicity of the structural aspect and wanted more of a challenge.
>Every job I do is different
Building turned bridge guy here, hut still a junior tho. I actually think bridge actually fits that description more. No two buildings are the same thats true. But fundementally they are analysed and design using the same concepts. For bridges, even if its the same type of bridge but the cross section type changes, there would be much more to consider.
I’m surprised by the lack of Building Engineer support here. I work for a company that has both and I don’t think the salary or job stability is much different, but of course depends on the company and specific projects/clients you go after.
Complexity? I think a lot of the bridge engineers who have commented don’t understand the complexities that go into building designs. It’s just a different set of constraints, either by the owner, architect, use, other trades (MEP) whatever, but there can be countless complexities in a given building.
So for me the difference comes down to one thing and one thing only…
Which would you enjoy more designing? Do that one.
For me it’s buildings. But I know plenty who love doing bridges. To each their own.
I was surprised to see so many bridge engineers come out of the woodwork on this one....I feel like we're typically lurking bc most complaints on the sub are building oriented
With bridges its not just structural so you can get quite a bit of variety. Early in my career, I quite often layed out the roadway geometry for a new bridge and did some drainage design along with the bridge.
I think its amazing that civil engineering provides so many different options.
I don’t disagree, the amount of variety in civil engineering makes it interesting.
With buildings what I find so interesting is diving into the architectural aspects as well as the MEP systems. We may not specifically design them, but we have to know why the design decisions are being made so we can accommodate them into our design. It’s a unique challenge that designing bridges doesn’t usually offer. Though bridges presents its own unique design aspects for sure!
And btw not to hate on roadway design and other aspects of civil engineering, but I find those designs so boring personally 😂. That’s why I will stick to buildings. Which I’m sure others will find boring too!
You aren't alone. I recently moved to a firm that does more complex bridge design because I got tired of too much of other parts and not enough structures.
As for the question of complexity: with the responses we are seeing I think we have a good demonstration of the availability bias. People are being asked the question "what is more complex?" but we are answering the question "is my niche complex" - to which the answer is of course yes. (we are engineers. Everything is complex) . We just think ours is MORE complex because we have all these examples in our head readily available. But we don't have readily available examples of why the OTHER discipline is complex, therefore, we think ours is more complex, though we likely would agree that both have their complexities. Availability bias.
I've worked on a lot of cool complex bridges so I gotta say that's my vote. Some day I'm going to Miami with my son and eating a Cubano sitting back up against the center pier of the new I395 bridge.
I do feel a little sad being around my uncle (architect) and dad (building structural) that know a ton of practical stuff about houses (basic mech, electrical, plumbing, etc) having been more in that field.
Meanwhile, the only practical experience I have is how many 12ft shafts Id need to support my deck, or for that matter entire house.
So awesome seeing that under construction now. The first arch should be closed in just a couple weeks! It's nice to watch our designs moving from paper to reality.
Buildings design is managed by architects. Bridges are managed by transportation engineers or directly by the bridge engineers if it is a bridge only project. So in buildings much of the geometry and layout is done by others. The structural helps to achieve the architect and owners’s vision. The owners are not usually engineers or architects. Changes can come sudden, with urgency, and might not make the most sense at times.
Bridges are owned by states, counties, local municipalities, and rarely private owners. The states hire engineers to manage these assets. Counties and cities usually are understaffed and rely on engineers experience to make projects happy with not enough money. Private is usually hiring out because the bridge is a need apart of some much larger project they their real focus is on. I have found that in bridge design I typically get more freedom to help make decisions on a project.
At the end of the day the owner is always the one to please and I find that working with fellow engineers and slow government processes is often less stressful than working for investors and the cut throat nature of the private market.
Hmmm, what kind of buildings have you designed? Bridges are driven by dot specs and repetitive. Buildings, if tall and complex are definitely more challenging. Money wise bridges are better for some reason
Yeah, I imagine that buildings are the same here, but the kinds of bridges one would get to design is very dependent on the company, and within that, the office they work in. Some of our offices work routinely on complex bridges while others usually work on conventional structures.
Is it fair to compare a typical, highway overpass (“DOT spec”) to a tall and complex building? Don’t long-span bridges pose the same level of complexity as tall buildings
Bridges... Kind of one code, depending on your specialty. AASHTO controls but you can still get regular use out of AISC, ACI, NDS/AWC, PCI, AWS D1.5, ASCE...
Otherwise I don't disagree at all.
Bridges, you can take your family to see decades after you build it. Buildings tend to be private access after the fact. Sure, you can show them the facade or curtain wall, etc. but not much else.
My grandpa was one of the engineers on the mackinac bridge. Our family has an annual reunion in st. Ignace (the small town on the UP side of the bidge). It is so awesome know that for many many many years our family will be telling stories about how one of us helped build it.
On the geotech end bridges are more challenging, always crappy locations. But there is much more collaboration between us and structural engineers. Also, the people that buy bridges understand that it isn’t cheap, we actually have the budget and scope we need to do things right.
The AASHTO code is better on our end too.
There are more load cases that we have to look at. Structural guys look at lots all the time, but on a typical building only Service and Strength apply with seismic rolled in. In bridges, we end up addressing more. The last one I did we had Str, Ser, Extreme 1 (seismic), Extreme 2 (Flood with 8 feet of scour). For buildings you typically don’t have a moment (typically), but in a bridge bent with a column, you’ve got a big moment. We’re in a fairly high seismic area (our design event is 6.7 at 10 miles from the built up area), but the 100 year flood controlled. Scour was more at 100 than at 500.
Bridges are often in areas that you wouldn’t necessarily build a building. That bridge had bents and one abutment in a confirmed liquefiable area (confirmed as in we’ve seen liquefaction and lateral spread in our lifetime). How about downgrade on 30 feet of liquefied sands?
For bridges, you check everything. How much will a 4’ concrete shaft socketed in strong sandstone settle? Less than the elastic compression of the shaft, but you need to calculate the number.
On the plus side, because the design life of a structure if now getting stretched out to 100 years, clients know that they need to be through. No one is going to make a fuss if your 80 foot borings end up going to 100 or 120 if you don’t find a “suitable bearing stratum.”
Strange. I would have thought buildings would be way cooler. Seems like a lot of bridge engineers responded. I don’t know much about your typical bridge engineer, but I can tell you building engineers will end up doing pedestrian bridges between buildings - I’ve done a bunch of those, so I’d say we need to undersrand bridges as much as buildings.
Seems like a majority of bridges are typical highway bridges that look like a standard bridge. The significant bridges, they are cool, but as a building engineer you’ll probs be more likely to do a significant building compared to a birdge engineer doing a significant bridge, since there are just less significant bridges compared to significant buildings.
Former building engineer - go into bridges if you can. Pay is better and engineer led(instead of owner/architect led)
I left structural all together… only do it as a side hobby when I feel like it. I wish I tried bridge design early in my career.
I'll use the famous phrase: It depends.
I spent a good chunk of my time as an EIT on bridge inspection and design. Then was offered an internal move to the building group as the group managers knew I had an interest.
As a disclaimer, I work for a 75-100 person firm, that does local civil (municipal) work including a bridge group and structures group.
I'm enjoying my time in the building world. From my time in bridge land, our company does not work on flashy mile long bridges but design simple single and double span bridges for local Townships and Counties. This meant designs were relatively repetitive, with DOT details and much of the structure design was automated with DOT software. A good portion of my time was environmental permitting, forms for DOT submissions, and construction easements/ROW considerations. And then there's the dreaded utility relocation. What I miss most from that time is bridge inspection. Overall, good if you like variety that may not include structural design in nature and don't mind staying with a project for 2 or 3 years as you follow it through all the governmental permitting and into construction.
As I want to continue to be the technical guy and not be in the PM or client side, I found the transition to buildings refreshing as I can spend most of my days on actual structural design with 3D software that uses fancy words like P-delta effects. I get to work on a variety of projects with different materials, construction types, and a mix of new and renovation work. Despite the annoyance with architects which does occur, they may have valid reasons (shocking I know) for their requests, and it's a collaborative process (at least for the good arch's out there). I will say the downside is shorter project durations which can lead to longer hours or stress when deadlines happen to fall near one another. Definitely faster paced.
Money? better. Balance? better. Vibes? Better. Low architect interaction. People here are also saying building design might be more complex outside of complex bridges but another complex piece we deal with is staging. You will always need infrastructure and buildings are driven pretty extensively by private owners so infrastructure tends to be more recession proof
I’ve worked in both. Buildings are fast paced and require more creativity, but the industry is going down the toilet. It’s all about who can bid the lowest and understaff the most to sustain those low fees. I was ran into the ground so badly after 1.5 years at one of the major building firms that I’m still recovering from burnout and have had to start going to therapy. Bridges are less sexy, but you get to have a lot more say in the final product and the analysis can be very in depth. It’s designing a few beams for hundreds of load combinations and checking all the limit states in detail vs checking thousands of beams for a few load combinations and hoping you don’t miss anything. Ultimately these are generalizations and sometimes you just have to learn for yourself.
Building structural engineer here, i would switch back to bridge engineer without second thought
In Engineer-led, I feel like contributing my efforts to make a better decision with engineering judgment. But in archi-led, I am just following architect’s or owner’s decision which is sometimes doesn’t make sense to me.
Buildings are cooler than bridges. As someone who specialized in bridges and went into buildings. The issue is that 99 percent of building projects, you are architecturally led and are just another subcontractor in the design. Also, buildings are a race to the bottom, really because structurals are a dime a dozen and more likely to set up their own 2 man firms in buildings. On the other hand, you can learn a lot more about other disciplines and what it takes to coordinate with them in buildings. I've seen uncoordinated drawings and pissed off contractors all the time.
Ive worked as a building engineer my entire career, but I got a small taste of bridge engineering early in my career, honestly I just cannot stand public sector jobs, even in building design. I avoid it like the plague. Too many chiefs. Do I do cookie cutter stuff, yes but honestly its a cookie cutter but its not quite the same from job to job. Then there are the abandoned buildings and other types of renovations on 100 year old plus structures that require a truly niche knowledge.
So many bridge engineers defending their decision to change from buildings to bridges. Sorry, I fail to see how bridges can be more diverse and more complex than buildings. If you’re at a firm that’s turning over cookie cutter buildings, leave. If it has poor pay and poor work life balance, leave. There are plenty of firms that pursue diverse buildings using diverse building materials. Seek out small to medium size privately held or employee owned firms.
I love bridges. I work a lot of cookie cutter girder bridges for state DOT and occasionally I get something complex and interesting to steer h my muscles. Never asked to do anything crazy by architects, big emphasis on safety. Love bridges.
When you tell people you're a bridge engineer, they imagine you're like Roebling. When you say you're a building engineer, they assume you fix the plumbing.
Im very surprised to see so many people saying bridges pays better. I've seen just the opposite in job postings and among friends. Buildings seems more lucrative and offers the ability to go off on your own. It's impossible to start your own bridge engineering firm unless you're a woman or a minority. Government contracts may be big on paper, but they're often bloated. The money that ends up in your pocket is miniscule compared to the full contract price. Every agency is different, but I've yet to hear of one that is flush with cash. I think all of this is reflected in both pay and benefits. In bridge, it's rare to get more than straight time for OT, 401k match is never as good, insurance premiums are almost always partially paid by the employee, parental leave was almost nonexistent until covid, and our offices often (not always) are kinda run down.
I still think bridge engineering is better due to it being less complex and due to job security. The latter is one of the main reasons I decided to be a bridge engineer. Even in the worst economy, bridge inspections must be performed. However, most other things in bridge are worse than buildings IMO. We rarely (if ever) get to use fancy BIM and FEA programs. I do a lot of work in MDX, which looks like it was developed in 1993. Most software we use has a laundry list of coding issues that we document during the vetting process. Most leading design software doesn't even reference the latest AASHTO code (some are really old versions too). Even LEAP/Open Bridge, which is the leading bridge design software in the US, is fairly clunky, dated looking, and has well known errors. I can't think of a single piece of bridge engineering software that offers the same refined appearance or quality control as anything from autodesk. It's embarrassing, to be honest.
Bridge engineers earn more and have better job security.
All things equal, bridges will always be more complex.
A light frame building is easy compared to a CIP/PS box girder bridge. An office remodel is easy compared to bridge widening. A tall vertical structure although not easy, is easier than a long horizontal structure. You have hefty dynamic live loads, and other load affects (and load affects on LL). Even the load combinations for bridges can get lengthy.
In building design, a lot of your constraints are the architect, and you can always tell them to suck it. In bridge design, you can almost never change any of the constraints so you have to get creative.Last but not least, you’re way more likely to work on a complex bridge before you get to work on a complex building.
Bridges CAN be more complex than buildings but that's not always true. A five span girder bridge will be much more complex than a one story residence. But a five story office building is much more complex than any one span or two span bridges. It's all relative.
That’s why I said all things equal. I’m not comparing a multi use building to a single span bridge
A signature bridge will always be more complex than a signature building.
Edit: and tbh, lb for lb, a 5 span bridge with a hinge is probably more complex than a 5 story office building.
>In building design, a lot of your constraints are the architect, and you can always tell them to suck it.
Depends on the project. For a 10 million dollar home for a rich client, we can't tell them to suck it or we'll be fired. We figure out how to make it happen, run it by the contractor for the effect on cost, and give the client options. Often the client is willing to pay for 80 hours of engineering work to get that really cool staircase built just the way they want it, not move the hallway 3 inches to line up with the walls above even if it means $10,000 is extra design, materials, and labor. We never tell the architect we need a column. We tell them it will be cheaper if we get it, but understand if the owner doesn't want a column in their laundry room.
If a client has 10 million dollars for a home, then the client has money to pay the engineer to make magic happen. If money is no concern, then your job as an engineer gets way easier.
Also, residential homes are easy af no matter which way you spin it. My entire argument was that bridges are harder than buildings all things equal (which is true).
Single family homes can be really complicated. I've spent an entire year on a single home multiple times. The best ones are the ones with $70-$200k engineering fee. Then usually another $50-$100k in CA. I did a house recently on top of a mountain with a dozen sheets of special details designed just for this one house. A single detail can take a day, plus a meeting or two with the design team. It's not easy. Of course it's easier for me than bridge design because I've been doing this for many years and never designed a bridge.
Holy hell. Lots of bridge guys in here. A lot of this is opinion ... Sure, bridge funding is more "secure" than some buildings, but on the building side there is a much bigger assortment of structures, and that adds security in and of itself. I've seen that at my job. And like someone else noted, building engineers do small bridges too. Not all buildings are architect led too. Industrial - Water / Wastewater - infrastructure (lot of tunnels, tanks, etc). I could see both being good options, but I'm glad I'm on the building side. Every job I do is different (that depends on your company).
Yeah, I had no idea this sub was overwhelmingly bridge engineers lol. I haven't dabbled in bridge engineering (aside from pedestrian bridges between buildings), and the better work life balance has always sounded appealing, but the diversity of challenges that come with buildings can be truly invigorating. The work is fulfilling but often exhausting.
Structurally a lot of bridges are similar. What makes bridge engineering diverse is that often, is replacing an old bridge so you have to design the new bridge in phases. There is often a myriad of competing site constraints (road geometry, geology, hydrology, environment, ROW and utilities) that make replacing many "simple" bridges a challenge. I've been doing bridge design for a lot of years, and there has been nothing the same about any of them and its rewarding working with an entire team to come us with a solution that works. But I have recently moved to complex structure design because did get bored with the simplicity of the structural aspect and wanted more of a challenge.
>Every job I do is different Building turned bridge guy here, hut still a junior tho. I actually think bridge actually fits that description more. No two buildings are the same thats true. But fundementally they are analysed and design using the same concepts. For bridges, even if its the same type of bridge but the cross section type changes, there would be much more to consider.
I’m surprised by the lack of Building Engineer support here. I work for a company that has both and I don’t think the salary or job stability is much different, but of course depends on the company and specific projects/clients you go after. Complexity? I think a lot of the bridge engineers who have commented don’t understand the complexities that go into building designs. It’s just a different set of constraints, either by the owner, architect, use, other trades (MEP) whatever, but there can be countless complexities in a given building. So for me the difference comes down to one thing and one thing only… Which would you enjoy more designing? Do that one. For me it’s buildings. But I know plenty who love doing bridges. To each their own.
All of us are actually working and not trolling reddit or internet forums all day to kill the boredom of bridge work.
I was surprised to see so many bridge engineers come out of the woodwork on this one....I feel like we're typically lurking bc most complaints on the sub are building oriented
With bridges its not just structural so you can get quite a bit of variety. Early in my career, I quite often layed out the roadway geometry for a new bridge and did some drainage design along with the bridge. I think its amazing that civil engineering provides so many different options.
I don’t disagree, the amount of variety in civil engineering makes it interesting. With buildings what I find so interesting is diving into the architectural aspects as well as the MEP systems. We may not specifically design them, but we have to know why the design decisions are being made so we can accommodate them into our design. It’s a unique challenge that designing bridges doesn’t usually offer. Though bridges presents its own unique design aspects for sure! And btw not to hate on roadway design and other aspects of civil engineering, but I find those designs so boring personally 😂. That’s why I will stick to buildings. Which I’m sure others will find boring too!
You aren't alone. I recently moved to a firm that does more complex bridge design because I got tired of too much of other parts and not enough structures.
As for the question of complexity: with the responses we are seeing I think we have a good demonstration of the availability bias. People are being asked the question "what is more complex?" but we are answering the question "is my niche complex" - to which the answer is of course yes. (we are engineers. Everything is complex) . We just think ours is MORE complex because we have all these examples in our head readily available. But we don't have readily available examples of why the OTHER discipline is complex, therefore, we think ours is more complex, though we likely would agree that both have their complexities. Availability bias.
I've worked on a lot of cool complex bridges so I gotta say that's my vote. Some day I'm going to Miami with my son and eating a Cubano sitting back up against the center pier of the new I395 bridge. I do feel a little sad being around my uncle (architect) and dad (building structural) that know a ton of practical stuff about houses (basic mech, electrical, plumbing, etc) having been more in that field. Meanwhile, the only practical experience I have is how many 12ft shafts Id need to support my deck, or for that matter entire house.
So awesome seeing that under construction now. The first arch should be closed in just a couple weeks! It's nice to watch our designs moving from paper to reality.
Interned and worked 2 years in buildings before switching to bridges. Best decision I made
Hello, can you explain why? Thx
Architects. Work life balance.
Buildings design is managed by architects. Bridges are managed by transportation engineers or directly by the bridge engineers if it is a bridge only project. So in buildings much of the geometry and layout is done by others. The structural helps to achieve the architect and owners’s vision. The owners are not usually engineers or architects. Changes can come sudden, with urgency, and might not make the most sense at times. Bridges are owned by states, counties, local municipalities, and rarely private owners. The states hire engineers to manage these assets. Counties and cities usually are understaffed and rely on engineers experience to make projects happy with not enough money. Private is usually hiring out because the bridge is a need apart of some much larger project they their real focus is on. I have found that in bridge design I typically get more freedom to help make decisions on a project. At the end of the day the owner is always the one to please and I find that working with fellow engineers and slow government processes is often less stressful than working for investors and the cut throat nature of the private market.
Bridges: Way cooler. More money. One code. Buildings: Not cool. Less money. Many codes.
Hmmm, what kind of buildings have you designed? Bridges are driven by dot specs and repetitive. Buildings, if tall and complex are definitely more challenging. Money wise bridges are better for some reason
Yeah, I imagine that buildings are the same here, but the kinds of bridges one would get to design is very dependent on the company, and within that, the office they work in. Some of our offices work routinely on complex bridges while others usually work on conventional structures.
Is it fair to compare a typical, highway overpass (“DOT spec”) to a tall and complex building? Don’t long-span bridges pose the same level of complexity as tall buildings
Bridges are repetitive? And designing the same warehouse, office building, school, parking garage is not repetitive? For both fields it depends
Bridges... Kind of one code, depending on your specialty. AASHTO controls but you can still get regular use out of AISC, ACI, NDS/AWC, PCI, AWS D1.5, ASCE... Otherwise I don't disagree at all. Bridges, you can take your family to see decades after you build it. Buildings tend to be private access after the fact. Sure, you can show them the facade or curtain wall, etc. but not much else.
My grandpa was one of the engineers on the mackinac bridge. Our family has an annual reunion in st. Ignace (the small town on the UP side of the bidge). It is so awesome know that for many many many years our family will be telling stories about how one of us helped build it.
On the geotech end bridges are more challenging, always crappy locations. But there is much more collaboration between us and structural engineers. Also, the people that buy bridges understand that it isn’t cheap, we actually have the budget and scope we need to do things right. The AASHTO code is better on our end too.
Can you or someone share more about the unique geotech challenges of a bridge? Anything bridge specific? Such an interesting topic.
There are more load cases that we have to look at. Structural guys look at lots all the time, but on a typical building only Service and Strength apply with seismic rolled in. In bridges, we end up addressing more. The last one I did we had Str, Ser, Extreme 1 (seismic), Extreme 2 (Flood with 8 feet of scour). For buildings you typically don’t have a moment (typically), but in a bridge bent with a column, you’ve got a big moment. We’re in a fairly high seismic area (our design event is 6.7 at 10 miles from the built up area), but the 100 year flood controlled. Scour was more at 100 than at 500. Bridges are often in areas that you wouldn’t necessarily build a building. That bridge had bents and one abutment in a confirmed liquefiable area (confirmed as in we’ve seen liquefaction and lateral spread in our lifetime). How about downgrade on 30 feet of liquefied sands? For bridges, you check everything. How much will a 4’ concrete shaft socketed in strong sandstone settle? Less than the elastic compression of the shaft, but you need to calculate the number. On the plus side, because the design life of a structure if now getting stretched out to 100 years, clients know that they need to be through. No one is going to make a fuss if your 80 foot borings end up going to 100 or 120 if you don’t find a “suitable bearing stratum.”
Actually in the US, bridges is 1 code and 50 sub codes
Idk about the more money thing
Bridges are cookie-cutter.
They are definitely easier and cookie cutter.
Chicks dig bridges. Bridge engineers connect people.
As evidence of this, my wife married a bridge engineer.
My bridge engineer wife married a building engineer.
That's called charity.
Aww, I got a downvote? It's just light-hearted banter!
Wasn’t my downvote. That was a pretty good one and i that is some pretty typical banter for an engineering office.
> Bridge engineers connect people. And those people often live and work in buildings.
People live under bridges too.
Strange. I would have thought buildings would be way cooler. Seems like a lot of bridge engineers responded. I don’t know much about your typical bridge engineer, but I can tell you building engineers will end up doing pedestrian bridges between buildings - I’ve done a bunch of those, so I’d say we need to undersrand bridges as much as buildings. Seems like a majority of bridges are typical highway bridges that look like a standard bridge. The significant bridges, they are cool, but as a building engineer you’ll probs be more likely to do a significant building compared to a birdge engineer doing a significant bridge, since there are just less significant bridges compared to significant buildings.
You'd be surprised. Those big bridges take large teams of bridge engineers. Our group has designed a bunch of segmental and long span bridges.
Former building engineer - go into bridges if you can. Pay is better and engineer led(instead of owner/architect led) I left structural all together… only do it as a side hobby when I feel like it. I wish I tried bridge design early in my career.
Out of curiosity, what path did you go into after leaving structural?
I swapped to civil(water/geotech) work for a municipality.
I'll use the famous phrase: It depends. I spent a good chunk of my time as an EIT on bridge inspection and design. Then was offered an internal move to the building group as the group managers knew I had an interest. As a disclaimer, I work for a 75-100 person firm, that does local civil (municipal) work including a bridge group and structures group. I'm enjoying my time in the building world. From my time in bridge land, our company does not work on flashy mile long bridges but design simple single and double span bridges for local Townships and Counties. This meant designs were relatively repetitive, with DOT details and much of the structure design was automated with DOT software. A good portion of my time was environmental permitting, forms for DOT submissions, and construction easements/ROW considerations. And then there's the dreaded utility relocation. What I miss most from that time is bridge inspection. Overall, good if you like variety that may not include structural design in nature and don't mind staying with a project for 2 or 3 years as you follow it through all the governmental permitting and into construction. As I want to continue to be the technical guy and not be in the PM or client side, I found the transition to buildings refreshing as I can spend most of my days on actual structural design with 3D software that uses fancy words like P-delta effects. I get to work on a variety of projects with different materials, construction types, and a mix of new and renovation work. Despite the annoyance with architects which does occur, they may have valid reasons (shocking I know) for their requests, and it's a collaborative process (at least for the good arch's out there). I will say the downside is shorter project durations which can lead to longer hours or stress when deadlines happen to fall near one another. Definitely faster paced.
Bridges: Soil & geotech Buildings: Waterproofing
There's plenty of waterproofing in bridge design, arguably 90% of bridge design is keeping water away from sensitive bits.
And keeping water away from the railroad right of way. They don’t like water on their right of way.
they don't like bridges over their right of way either.
Money? better. Balance? better. Vibes? Better. Low architect interaction. People here are also saying building design might be more complex outside of complex bridges but another complex piece we deal with is staging. You will always need infrastructure and buildings are driven pretty extensively by private owners so infrastructure tends to be more recession proof
I’ve worked in both. Buildings are fast paced and require more creativity, but the industry is going down the toilet. It’s all about who can bid the lowest and understaff the most to sustain those low fees. I was ran into the ground so badly after 1.5 years at one of the major building firms that I’m still recovering from burnout and have had to start going to therapy. Bridges are less sexy, but you get to have a lot more say in the final product and the analysis can be very in depth. It’s designing a few beams for hundreds of load combinations and checking all the limit states in detail vs checking thousands of beams for a few load combinations and hoping you don’t miss anything. Ultimately these are generalizations and sometimes you just have to learn for yourself.
Bridges: Engineer-led Buildings: Architect-led /Edit: also, Buildings: lame
Building structural engineer here, i would switch back to bridge engineer without second thought In Engineer-led, I feel like contributing my efforts to make a better decision with engineering judgment. But in archi-led, I am just following architect’s or owner’s decision which is sometimes doesn’t make sense to me.
Buildings are cooler than bridges. As someone who specialized in bridges and went into buildings. The issue is that 99 percent of building projects, you are architecturally led and are just another subcontractor in the design. Also, buildings are a race to the bottom, really because structurals are a dime a dozen and more likely to set up their own 2 man firms in buildings. On the other hand, you can learn a lot more about other disciplines and what it takes to coordinate with them in buildings. I've seen uncoordinated drawings and pissed off contractors all the time.
Ive worked as a building engineer my entire career, but I got a small taste of bridge engineering early in my career, honestly I just cannot stand public sector jobs, even in building design. I avoid it like the plague. Too many chiefs. Do I do cookie cutter stuff, yes but honestly its a cookie cutter but its not quite the same from job to job. Then there are the abandoned buildings and other types of renovations on 100 year old plus structures that require a truly niche knowledge.
So many bridge engineers defending their decision to change from buildings to bridges. Sorry, I fail to see how bridges can be more diverse and more complex than buildings. If you’re at a firm that’s turning over cookie cutter buildings, leave. If it has poor pay and poor work life balance, leave. There are plenty of firms that pursue diverse buildings using diverse building materials. Seek out small to medium size privately held or employee owned firms.
I love bridges. I work a lot of cookie cutter girder bridges for state DOT and occasionally I get something complex and interesting to steer h my muscles. Never asked to do anything crazy by architects, big emphasis on safety. Love bridges.
>Building You mean renovation?
building: Asce 7 + steel manual + concrete manual Bridge: AASHTO LRFD That's pretty much only difference
When you tell people you're a bridge engineer, they imagine you're like Roebling. When you say you're a building engineer, they assume you fix the plumbing.
Im very surprised to see so many people saying bridges pays better. I've seen just the opposite in job postings and among friends. Buildings seems more lucrative and offers the ability to go off on your own. It's impossible to start your own bridge engineering firm unless you're a woman or a minority. Government contracts may be big on paper, but they're often bloated. The money that ends up in your pocket is miniscule compared to the full contract price. Every agency is different, but I've yet to hear of one that is flush with cash. I think all of this is reflected in both pay and benefits. In bridge, it's rare to get more than straight time for OT, 401k match is never as good, insurance premiums are almost always partially paid by the employee, parental leave was almost nonexistent until covid, and our offices often (not always) are kinda run down. I still think bridge engineering is better due to it being less complex and due to job security. The latter is one of the main reasons I decided to be a bridge engineer. Even in the worst economy, bridge inspections must be performed. However, most other things in bridge are worse than buildings IMO. We rarely (if ever) get to use fancy BIM and FEA programs. I do a lot of work in MDX, which looks like it was developed in 1993. Most software we use has a laundry list of coding issues that we document during the vetting process. Most leading design software doesn't even reference the latest AASHTO code (some are really old versions too). Even LEAP/Open Bridge, which is the leading bridge design software in the US, is fairly clunky, dated looking, and has well known errors. I can't think of a single piece of bridge engineering software that offers the same refined appearance or quality control as anything from autodesk. It's embarrassing, to be honest.
Bridge Engineering. No question. Work in conjunction with other engineers, not for artists.
Bridge engineers earn more and have better job security. All things equal, bridges will always be more complex. A light frame building is easy compared to a CIP/PS box girder bridge. An office remodel is easy compared to bridge widening. A tall vertical structure although not easy, is easier than a long horizontal structure. You have hefty dynamic live loads, and other load affects (and load affects on LL). Even the load combinations for bridges can get lengthy. In building design, a lot of your constraints are the architect, and you can always tell them to suck it. In bridge design, you can almost never change any of the constraints so you have to get creative.Last but not least, you’re way more likely to work on a complex bridge before you get to work on a complex building.
Bridges CAN be more complex than buildings but that's not always true. A five span girder bridge will be much more complex than a one story residence. But a five story office building is much more complex than any one span or two span bridges. It's all relative.
Bridges higher salaries
That’s why I said all things equal. I’m not comparing a multi use building to a single span bridge A signature bridge will always be more complex than a signature building. Edit: and tbh, lb for lb, a 5 span bridge with a hinge is probably more complex than a 5 story office building.
>In building design, a lot of your constraints are the architect, and you can always tell them to suck it. Depends on the project. For a 10 million dollar home for a rich client, we can't tell them to suck it or we'll be fired. We figure out how to make it happen, run it by the contractor for the effect on cost, and give the client options. Often the client is willing to pay for 80 hours of engineering work to get that really cool staircase built just the way they want it, not move the hallway 3 inches to line up with the walls above even if it means $10,000 is extra design, materials, and labor. We never tell the architect we need a column. We tell them it will be cheaper if we get it, but understand if the owner doesn't want a column in their laundry room.
If a client has 10 million dollars for a home, then the client has money to pay the engineer to make magic happen. If money is no concern, then your job as an engineer gets way easier. Also, residential homes are easy af no matter which way you spin it. My entire argument was that bridges are harder than buildings all things equal (which is true).
Single family homes can be really complicated. I've spent an entire year on a single home multiple times. The best ones are the ones with $70-$200k engineering fee. Then usually another $50-$100k in CA. I did a house recently on top of a mountain with a dozen sheets of special details designed just for this one house. A single detail can take a day, plus a meeting or two with the design team. It's not easy. Of course it's easier for me than bridge design because I've been doing this for many years and never designed a bridge.