024 gradini curvi
These brick steps are located at the south end of the Roman Forum.
My task of late at work has been to research trends across the world in structural engineering, and gather information about what the current state of practice is in each country. I am also trying to identify all pertinent international organizations and experts in the field. All of this research will go towards creating a survey to be sent out to the 180 ICCROM Member nations, and then to a course outline with some degree of universality to it.
The difficulty so far as been narrowing the search, since:
the structural engineering of the built heritage is a subset of
structural engineering of existing buildings is a subset of
structural engineering is a subset of
civil engineering is a subset of
engineering.
For example, I have found numerous plain-vanilla "engineering" international organizations but very few that specialize in just one branch, such as civil engineering. My best bets so far are the ICOMOS structural restoration charter and the Existing Structures Commission of the IABSE (International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering).
I have discovered some interesting information about roles of architects vs. structural engineers around the world. In some cultures, generally in the Far East (Korea, Sri Lanka are 2 case studies), architects have all of the technical engineering of a structural engineer in the US. However, the US/UK model is to have structural engineering as a separate profession. I found an interesting document (interesting to me) explaining the differences in the US between an architectural and engineering education, internships, and professional registration.
Bonus: my bio is now posted in French.
3 Comments:
Nice French bio. They fixed the name of your undergraduate degree, I see, and there's only one small typo. I learned some new vocab:
the built heritage = le patrimoine bâti
To me this discipline sounds much more beautiful and culturally significant in French for some unexplainable reason.
Hrumpt, the "interesting document" is the most one-sided, biased, own horn-tooting, self-serving, myopic document ever put out by The National Enquirer. The only thing missing was the refrain from "God Bless America" softly playing in the background. A good engineer can do all that stuff and we work cheaper. DadMan
It's interesting to me because I'm going through education, experience & professional registration as both an arch. and eng.
And I do agree with the main premise - i.e. legally require an architect for building projects - although the tone of the document is annoyingly condescending (which, trust me, is typical of both architects and engineers!)
Posta un commento
<< Home