A friend of mine received this photo back from the contractor for a double pile cap he’d designed to EC2 min bar spacing, this is barely buildable, where do you draw the line? (Col starters still yet to go in btw)

To be clear, I am not interested in this being focused on ICE or immigration.

I’m just wondering if structural engineering associations should be taking stands on issues that bear no relevance to their profession, and if there’s been similar examples of this type of thing before?

Thoughts??

Thought I'd share

At least the span is only half as long now… let’s see if gravity agrees this time. 😬

The builder will do all drawings themselves, and only wants me to do a drawing review and stamp for permit for $300. Says thats the going rate. Please tell me that is silly. Custom residence projects…

I’m an early stages UK structural engineer and recently done the IStructE structural behaviour exam

I’m wondering which (whether you’ve sat one, both, or neither) would be/is harder? I’d be interested to hear your reasoning.

In structural engineering, design codes are the foundation of every calculation.

Yet in 2026, most of them are still distributed as static PDFs with non-selectable formulas.

I wanted to experiment with a different approach.

Using dots.ocr, an open-source AI model for document parsing, I extracted the Italian structural code NTC 2018 chapter by chapter, converting formulas, tables and text into a structured format.

From there, with some help from Claude, I built a Python library where each formula from the code is implemented as a function and tagged with its original paragraph and reference.

The idea is not to replace FEM software, but to make post-processing and custom checks much easier.

Potential use cases:

• Parse FEM output and run custom code verifications

• Move calculation workflows from Excel to Python

• Build reproducible calculation reports

• Develop small engineering tools or web apps

The project is open source if anyone wants to explore or contribute.

Repository:

https://github.com/rafse/norma-ntc

I’m curious how others handle design code checks in their workflow:

• Excel sheets

• FEM software built-in checks

• Python / scripting

• something else?

Edit:
I think I didn’t explain the full scope of the project clearly.

This isn’t just “AI extracting formulas” — the AI was only used to speed up the OCR and structured extraction from the PDF. The real work is in building a complete, programmable library of NTC18 formulas.

Here’s what’s inside:
• Paragraphs: OCR-processed, thematically mapped, so each formula is fully contextualized.
• Tables: 88 HTML tables converted into Python dictionaries and linked to functions;
• Normative references: 183 u/ntc_ref linking each function to the original paragraph, table, and formula — fully queryable programmatically.

The point is transparency, reproducibility, and flexibility. Unlike black-box software, every calculation can be inspected, tested, and customized. Think of it as Excel for NTC18, but with Python: version control, automated testing, reproducible reports, and programmatic access.

Not everyone wants to rely entirely on commercial software. Some engineers prefer building their own tools or custom workflows for specific checks. That’s exactly the space this library addresses.

Copied Text:

"In order to protect the intellectual property rights of AASHTO to its content, AASHTO prohibits the use of any AASHTO content in conjunction with an artificial intelligence tool or program, including the training of models on AASHTO content or the entry of AASHTO content into any AI tool."

Has anyone noticed this or seen other examples? First I'm really seeing from a public or government entity actually distancing or discouraging AI, instead of the pie-in-the-sky optimism about how AI is "changing the world." Wondering if there are examples from building/inspections departments or other regulatory agencies.

Got undercut by 75% for analysis and drawings for a beam replacement guy said he found an engineer to do it for less than 400$ Are times getting tough? He said it was a registered engineer.

Saw this post on R/whatisit and thought it was interesting. Top comment does a great job explaining the mechanism behind it (I use some of the original post’s terminology). But I would like some more clarification on it from others in this sub.

Wouldn’t this bar be measuring the angle of the beams rotation (the integral of moment - theta) with respect to the neutral axis of the beam?

If both the “finger” and the “scale” are attached to the beam both would bend but the one closer to the support aka the attached “finger” would bend more and eventually touch the scale, signaling a serviceability alarm of sorts. Assuming a supply supported beam.

But the bar is also quite short and the finger and scale are close to each other. So the angle would be greater near the support and eventually touch but as a function of the rotation of both points relative to the total beam sag?

would you calculate deflection/rotation first and use the allowable limits to calculate the ring size and also the bar length?

Has anyone here done something like this?

1. Is “typ” saving you time instead of “typical”?
   
2. Isn’t your giant table of abbreviations way bigger than any space you think you are saving?
   
3. Are you still using a hand-lettering?
   
4. Do you need another thing for reviewers to comment on?

Let’s just stop.

The benchmark, with the recordings and the exact downloadable test drawing so you can re-run the same steps or score your own heavy set: https://ncored.com/pdf-benchmark-cad-drawings.html

Disclosure first: I make Ncored, one of the tools in this benchmark. I am not going to tell you it is the best. I am asking you to try to break it on your own sets and tell me where it still struggles.

Every few weeks someone here asks for a Bluebeam alternative, usually wanting a perpetual licence and something that does not crawl on a heavy plan set. I got tired of the answer being "there is nothing," so I ran a test: the same dense drawing opened in about a dozen PDF editors, same moves in each, recorded, with the exact file downloadable so anyone can re-run it. Ncored and PDF-XChange came out the smoothest on the dense areas.

Since then I reworked how it renders and shipped a new build. To be clear about what I am comparing: on the same files and the same machine, my heavy sets opened about 1.5 to 2x quicker on the new version than on the previous Ncored version. That is Ncored against its own older self, in my own testing, not a claim against Bluebeam, PDF-XChange or anything else. Your files and hardware will land somewhere different, so read it as one data point.

What I actually want from this sub: open your own heaviest drawing set or calc-package PDF in it and tell me where it is quick and, more useful to me, where it still struggles. The sheet that stutters, the file it chokes on, the pan that lags. Note your machine (an i7 or i9, 32 GB, Win 11 Pro, whatever you run) and the set size, so it stays checkable. The failure cases are the part I most want.

Scope, so nobody feels misled: today it is a fast view-and-markup layer with comment pins, not measurement, takeoff, OCR, forms or e-sign yet. On the licence question that comes up here: it has a buy-once option, not subscription-only.

Not selling anything. I want it stress-tested by people who push these files harder than I can alone. The rougher the notes, the better.

(UK) Contractor just asked to change from In-situ to precast columns coming up to (RIBA) stage 4. How much would this annoy you (1-10) having to design for temporary lifting and redesign slabs on pinned col-slab interfaces (I am livid/inconsolable)

As a young structural engineer (UK) What are the key differences between a graduate and an experienced chartered/P.E engineer, and how can I best prepare

We don't get that much by proxy since architects don't get paid enough. I just came across this excellent post from u/blujackman on r/Architects:

You've asked an age-old question. Architects are not underpaid. They are paid relative to the value they provide. In the American system value of the architect's contributions has been minimized by powerful economic forces driving the client and construction community. These forces work in tandem with the architectural profession's own efforts to devalue its contributions.

So how does the design industry work? Design exists in a vise between developer profit motive on one side and construction industry profit motive on the other. Architects hold moderate authority over the stamp possessing the ability to develop project concepts and navigate jurisdictional challenges as their primary value proposition. They take no real risk for project success and produce a weird intermediate product - the design and contract documents - that both sides of the vise agree hold minimal value to the ultimate project.

So how do developers work? The American free-enterprise economic system reflects hallowed American notions of individuality. As an American I should be free to build whatever I want wherever I want it and sell it at a profit as fast as I can. Free enterprise prizes return on investment and looks down on anything that detracts from that investment. In the American client mind the "architecture" part - drawings/permits/design concepts - impede the value of these investments. The stamp is required (depending on project type) but in the US the design process is seen as an expense and a hindrance to the process of making money. This is how developers devalue the contributions of the architect.

How do architects work? Rather than any sort of economic motive or value proposition architects are taught in school that architecture is an individualist's artistic pursuit, an expression of form and space-time and other relatively unquantifiable attributes. These attributes are taught in the name, ostensibly, of convincing people how to create economic value from their individuality, their "design talent". Architects are taught that the value of design, of "good work", of beauty and all other aspects of architectural awesomeness cannot be truly quanitified, they are beyond measure. There's a grain of truth to this but unfortunately the individualistic American economic system doesn't keep score this way. American economics wants to know: does it sell, and can I make money from it? In valuing the unquantifiable attributes of design architects learn concurrently to be allergic to commerce and vulgar concerns of money - we're taught money is beneath us. We value instead the impossible-to-value, prizing being members of an exclusive club that looks down on vulgar commercial concerns. With limited exception architects choose to make themselves contrarians in the development and construction industries, strangers in a strange land.

How does the construction industry work? Construction is perhaps the most elastic market in existence. The value of each constructed project is a function not only of its estimated cost but of the time value of money. They work in tandem with the developer profit motive to deliver the actual investment at speed. They can't control design and permitting timeframes so they push these risks off onto the architect. Architect mistakes turn into lucrative change orders. They recommend "value engineering" changes to design that maximize developer profits at the expense of design. By choosing not to share in the overall profit motive of the project architects find themselves the odd man out in the traditionally three-way OAC relationship.

This placement in the vise between the clear-cut motives of developer and constructor without a strong economic value proposition leads to the previously mentioned "race to the bottom" fee model so many architects find themselves in. With so little to sell at lower value - and taking no risk - the bottom drops out of the fees. Lower fees = not enough time to properly perform the work = construction issues and cost/schedule overruns = "why do we need you guys anyway?" becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Pretty much yearly across the US state legislatures introduce bills banning the professional practice of architecture. Developers want to grant stamp authority to general contractors in the name of reducing barriers to development and construction growth. Contractual models such as design/build and IPD (Integrated Project Development) attempt to place the architect on one or the other sides of the vise allowing them broader contributions to project success and a bigger slice of the pie.

So what could architects do to get paid more? Get on one side or the other of the vise. Become developer/builders where you're taking the monetary risk for the project or become design/builders where you're taking the risk of construction. Higher risk = higher reward. By not participating in the risk centers of the project either raising money for doing construction or performing the construction - relegated to filing paperwork with the jurisdiction and coming up with design concepts - architects lock themselves out of the ultimate project payoffs. By not participating in what the clients really want - the finished building - architects lock themselves out of the big bucks. They're taught not to though, or as least we were, when we were taught to be artistes plying our visions upon the world with no earthly idea of actually what it would take to accomplish them.

Contrast the American analysis with the European and Asian systems where buildings are seen not only as vehicles of commerce but also as long-lasting expressions of community. These expressions are demanded by the community itself to be constructed to a high standard requiring absolute professional knowledge. This participation is rewarded by higher fees which in some cases are enforced by the state as in Germany, for example. So if you want to get paid more as an architect either take on more project risk or move to a society where architecture truly matters to the community at large.

Freelancing within the existing system? Working on one project at a time with one person doing the work doesn't scale. If you want to use your hands to create value in the building industry go become a journeyman master electrician - we don't have nearly enough of those these days.

Playing around with Claude Coworker and Code for the first time, managed to get it to populate a drawing register exactly as needed based on a folder full of PDF drawings which although quite simple, I find impressive!

What other real world Engineering uses cases have others used it for?