I fully agree with Mr Phil Wardle that structural engineering should be subdivision of the Institute of Civil Engineers and the term Civil Engineer should be used. I came to the UK six years ago (originally from Poland). To be honest three things shocked me: 1. The use of term ‘engineer’ and its public perception. I was shocked when our secretary said: ‘an engineer is coming to service a copier’ or watching a tv advert showing an engineer fixing the washing mashine! In Poland (as well as Germany where I have got family and friends; and possibly in whole continental Europe) being an ‘engineer’ is very prestigious; as prestigious as being a lawyer or doctor. 2. The use of term ‘civil engineer’. Again I was shocked how many independent and narrow construction professions exist in the UK where in Poland (or Germany) they are just specialisations within a strong civil engineering profession. All British structural engineers, civil engineers, building surveyors, construction/site managers are just called ‘civil enginners’, are part of one institute and just choose a field they want to specialise in. That creates a very strong, recognisable profession with high public respect. 3. No protection of function. In Poland to be allowed to design or to be a site manager you need to have a degree (in civil engineering) + spent some years in the office and on site + pass an exam. Without that you can not sign any project and you can not be a site manager.

Mr Karwowski, thank you for your support. To any Engineers who share Mr Hoare’s point of view, perhaps we could pass concerns directly to Wikipedia, as it is their definition of a Structural engineer that implies we are a subdivision, not mine. My suggestion was that IStructE could embrace that, and be part of a united Civil Engineering profession that has increased status and binds its members to its professional code of conduct in the same way other, seemingly more valued, professions do. Some Engineers achieve both M.I.Struct.E and M.I.C.E, so perhaps they might be in favour of a unified Engineering Institution? What ever is the case, it is apparent on this forum and in other areas that some IStructE members have no hesitation in slating the institution for lack of direction and purpose, and for not doing more. That itself is demoralising and degrading, particularly if we agree that I.Struct.E is simply a learned profession, but no one seems to mind and little is done to stamp it out. Surely we should all be 100% behind IStructE and promote its values despite commercial pressures. It would also seem appropriate to consider the possibility that there may be an equal number of Civil Engineers who are insulted that Structural Engineers would want to disassociate themselves with M.I.C.E? It suggests a fragmented profession so I have to ask why would it be such a demoralising turn of events to rebrand all Construction type Engineering under one global “Civil Engineering” banner? Could we all be Civil Engineers with a specialism in a chosen field? M.I.Struct.E status wouldn’t have to be lost - and quite possibly it could add greater definition to our specialism. My comments on this issue stem from members on this thread who clearly want to differentiate between professionally qualify as Engineers, and those who upgrade their menial work activities with an engineering designation. The term “Civil Engineer” is a distinction that is already recognised in the public domain. We could, and I am in no way insisting that we should, use it. On another matter raised, I agree that business owners can help the Institutions by promoting their own business. But they aren’t doing either when they allow a poor service to be delivered because their primary objective is to maximise profit. We have a duty to the Client, and the client has a duty to us. In my mind that duty is for both to recognise the value of professionalism. If we choose to undercut each other, or allow ourselves to be beaten down on price because we can’t be choosey, then that is a totally different issue…….but one that isn’t helping.

Phil & Adam, contrasting the UK situation with Canada, the term engineer means very different things to the general public of both countries. Personally, I think there's too high a mountain to climb in the UK. I recently saw an advert from a UK drainage firm calling their operatives professional engineers. This is far from unique. http://www.flowmasterdrainage.co.uk/ "Flowmaster Drainage Limited blocked drain and cleaning services have over 10 years experience, with qualified and customer friendly drainage experts covering Cannock and the surrounding areas, providing a 24 hour emergency response service for all drainage problems. Whatever your drainage problem, our professional engineers deliver the most suitable solution to meet your needs. From unblocking drains, to comprehensive drain repair services, we will help you keep your home or business up and running at the most cost-effective price." I've been pushing the issue of trust, which is fundamental to the relationship between client & adviser. That is what we are; we advise clients. We are not sub-contractors providing a product, but I think that's how we're usually seen. If you read my recent letters in Verulam, you will see that it appears to be the case that there would be government support for providing fee scales, for engineers & architects too, which could then be used to point out the fact that we are, principally, providing advice, rather than being sub-contractors, & that we, by membership of & being constrained by the codes of ethics of our relevant institutions, are to be trusted. Other contributors to The Structural Engineer have also raised the issue of trust. I met two potential clients, who work in the construction industry, this week to discuss extensions to their homes. Both, without any prompting from me, raised the issue of over-design by structural engineers, & slap-happy provision of steel framing where it isn’t really necessary. This over-design is the consequence of fee competition, which is clearly incompatible with the IStructE code of conduct.

Not sure overdesign by Structural Engineers is a consequence of fee competition. I have recently re-designed a project where a picture frame had been specified with a 203x71 UC top and bottom, with 203x46 UC side posts (other Engineers fees had been settled). An approx' 4m long 225mm brick wall was more than adequate to take lateral loads, so I couldn't see need for a picture frame, so I specified a single 203x46 UC beam bearing on padstones on existing masonry. I carefully assessed load on beam and designed beam to EC3 rather than BS 449 as original calc's. Not sure if my fees were any more than the other engineer though. ‘Any fool can design a bridge that won’t fall down. The art of the Engineer is to design a bridge that only just will not fall down.’

Kevin, I think that what happens, sometimes, is that an engineer looks at the situation & prices for whatever is the least amount of work. As an example, take the case of a rear extension to a two-storey house. This might be the situation that you are describing. If it includes a masonry return, because the extension is narrower than the house, does it require a rigid goalpost frame to resist lateral forces? If the masonry is not sufficient to provide buttressing, should the frame have fixed bases, to reduce the column size? The decisions taken affect the cost of construction, and aesthetics. If one engineer allows for investigating the options, but another just quotes for designing a rigid frame with a nominally pinned base, or a picture frame, all other things being equal, there will be a difference in their quotes. It might have worked out that the masonry wasn't able to resist lateral forces, so that part of the design work is wasted, because a frame has to be designed. I think this is where naked fee competition is letting down clients. The problem is, they all try to treat us like sub-contractors, so they end up with over-designed, inappropriate structure. As you say, ‘Any fool can design a bridge that won’t fall down. The art of the Engineer is to design a bridge that only just will not fall down.’ Clients usually don't understand this.

Perhaps the IstructE could do some educational webinars to help train Engineers so they don't overdesign, as the IstructE is a learned society and I would like to 'learned' a bit more for the fee I pay.

engineers over design because the contractors always buy smaller steel sections.contractors buy smaller steel sections because they assume we always overdesign.

Kevin, I don't think engineers who over-design do so because they can't design economically. I think that what happens is that they look at the job, such as the one you mentioned, & price for the quickest way to deal with it & get Building Reg's approval. Rather than trying to check & prove the adequacy of a buttressing wall to resist lateral forces, then find that it's not adequate, they just go straight in with a rigid frame. Their quote will be more competitive if they're just allowing for a rigid frame design than what it would be if they allow to investigate the masonry, & then do a rigid frame design because the masonry failed.

Simon I'm sorry but I don't agree with your statement. Buying smaller sections would be fraud and lead to potential prosecution or at worst manslaughter charges. Only a fool would do such a thing without the engineers approval. If you have witnessed such action then you must be working with some very dodgy contractors who have no right building anything. Assumption is the mother of all cock ups!

I am member of the institution (CEng MistructE). I practice structural engineering to feed my family. I make my judgement on a technical and commercial basis, balanced against my Christian standpoint. Currently, i am facing crisis to insist on doing the right thing' which may result in loss of employment (which i cant afford). The voice from one structural engineer will not be heard. Do you have similar experience? View from fellow structural engineer and the institution are greatly apreciated.