Structural Engineering in The New MILLENIUM

Structural Survey
Structural engineering in the new millennium: opportunities and challenges

Achintya Haldar Ali Mehrabian
Article information:
To cite this document:
Achintya Haldar Ali Mehrabian, (2008),"Structural engineering in the new millennium: opportunities and
challenges", Structural Survey, Vol. 26 Iss 4 pp. 279 - 301
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02630800810906548
Downloaded on: 06 May 2016, At: 11:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 78 other documents.
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 11:26 06 May 2016 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1643 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1995),"Quality management in civil and structural engineering consulting", International Journal of Quality
& Reliability Management, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 32-48 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719510084763
(2008),"An evolutionary-based data mining technique for assessment of civil engineering systems",
Engineering Computations, Vol. 25 Iss 6 pp. 500-517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02644400810891526
(2009),"The influence of selection factors on evolutionary change methods: A case in the civil engineering
industry", Management Decision, Vol. 47 Iss 5 pp. 681-701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740910960079
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm
Structural
Structural engineering in the new engineering
millennium: opportunities and
challenges
279
Achintya Haldar
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA, and
Ali Mehrabian
Department of Engineering Technology, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose Structural engineering as a part of civil engineering has over 5,000 years of distinguished
history, as documented in this paper. An attempt is made in this paper to define structural engineering
as it exists at present, then some historical structures are identified.
Design/methodology/approach The advances of structural engineering are discussed in
chronological order, encompassing the development of the concept, analysis, the use of innovative
construction materials, and construction. The developments which necessitated the change of design
philosophies are presented, and the current status of structural engineering is discussed in terms of
several specific topics. Opportunities and challenges in the new millennium in structural engineering
are then presented in terms of education, service to society, and research.
Findings In the past, structural engineering always met the challenges it faced. It helped to
improve our quality of life, and its role in society is not expected to change in the near future.
Originality/value The paper has provided an over-view of this important profession from
ancient history to the present day. Based on research over several decades it offers a prediction of the
direction in which this profession and the academic research that underpins it is likely to take in the
future.
Keywords Structural engineering, Civil engineering, History
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The task of defining structural engineering is very complicated. At present it is a major
part of civil engineering in most countries, but it could be part of any engineering
discipline where structures need to be built. Before discussing the engineering aspects
of structures, the most interesting question often asked by the general public is What
is a structure? In a philosophical way a structure can be defined as what we see
around us in the plant world, insect world and the animal (including human) world.
The authors would like to thank all their teachers for teaching them subjects that helped to
develop their careers and understanding of life in a broader sense. They also would like to thank
Structural Survey
all their former and current students who taught them subjects for which they did not have any Vol. 26 No. 4, 2008
formal education. They helped them to explore some of the unexplored areas. The authors also pp. 279-301
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
appreciate financial support they have received from many funding agencies to explore several 0263-080X
challenging and risky research areas. DOI 10.1108/02630800810906548
SS The leaf of a plant could be very interesting, even breathtaking, but they are fragile
26,4 structures. A Saguaro Cactus is an extremely efficient structure and can live more than
200 years under extreme conditions. Structures built by insects are also fascinating,
and they build them to meet their needs. Who could ignore a spiders web, a mound
built by termites, dams built by beavers, nests built by birds, or hives built by bees?
Structures built by animals. including humans, do not need any further discussion.
280 However, with our advanced knowledge at present we can define structural
engineering as a discipline that helps us to transfer a load applied in space to the
ground in the most efficient way. With this definition, the most efficient structure will
be a simple pole to bring a point load applied in the space.
For a broader discussion, structural engineering can be defined as the art and
science of building structures. If we agree with this definition, then can we include the
plant or insect world in defining structural engineering? This is perhaps a
controversial topic; however, we have taken a decision not to include them here.
Aesthetic and difficult to built structures built by plants or insects are essentially
based on their instinct or hereditary based on genes, not based on design. Structural
engineering is essentially the development of concepts and then giving them the
realization by designing and building them. However, the most primitive structure
could have been formed accidentally, not by design. A tree must have fallen over a
channel forming a bridge, or the collapse of a side or part of a mountain must have
helped to form a cave, or the process of putting a branch of a tree overhead protecting
from the elements must have helped to build a lintel or a beam, as we call it today.
Some structural engineers believe that it was most likely that structural engineering
was initiated accidentally. Some structural engineers also believe that they are
scientists. According to West (1989):
science involves the investigation of what exists, whereas engineering engages in synthesis,
to form that which does not exist. Although engineering requires the intelligent application of
scientific principles, the creative nature of the discipline makes it an art.
Thus, structural engineering gives an abstract concept its realization. Then it is
analyzed, designed, and constructed to help us meet our needs in the best way possible.
Structural engineering is indeed a mixture of art and science.
Structural engineering
Structural engineering consists of several interconnected areas including developing
underlying physical principles, then presenting them in the form of governing
equations, developing analysis techniques to solve the governing equations,
integrating theories and material properties (mechanics of materials) to give
specialized structural forms, and then developing innovative construction techniques
to give the concept a realistic, practical and aesthetic form. In all of these areas,
structural engineers contribute significantly by combining mathematical, scientific,
artistic, and entrepreneur skills.
The significant contributions of structural engineering can be established by
studying some old historic structures. The building of pyramids could be one of those
monumental events. It should be noted that structures made with stone and mud or
with other available materials were built before pyramids, say around 3000 BC , but for
this discussion they are not considered to be engineered structures. The first pyramid
was the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, built for King Zoser in 2750 BC . This represents the Structural
first application of large-scale technology. Imhotep, the architect of the Step Pyramid is engineering
often credited with its design. He was not a pharaoh or structural engineer, but was the
Director of Works of Upper and Lower Egypt. The superstructure of the pyramid was
made of small limestone blocks and desert clay. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built
by the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty around the year 2560 BC to
serve as his tomb. 281
The way we define structural engineering today was most likely initiated at the
time of Lord Buddha, about 500 BC Greeks played very important roles during this
time the Parthenon was built in 438 BC . Experience, intuition, and empirical rules
might have played very crucial roles at this early stage of development. Stone and
masonry were the primary materials used for the construction. Then Aristotle
(384-322 BC ) and Archimedes (287-212 BC ) came into the picture. They are credited with
initiating the development of the principles of statics. Then Romans started building
arches, domes and vaults using stone, masonry, wood, and some metal. They did not
use any analytical principles, but used some basic forms to build their structures. This
type of activity continued for about 1,000 years, say up to about 500 AD .
Between 500 to 1,500 AD , during the period generally known as the middle ages, the
Gothic structural form is considered to be the only major development (West, 1989).
Gothic structures are exemplified by splendid cathedrals, characterized by pointed
arches stabilized by flying buttresses. A good example of this type of structure is Notre
Dame Cathedral in Paris. Its construction began in 1163 during the reign of Louis VII
and took about 200 years to complete.
In India, some of the temples represent progress made in structural engineering. Sri
Kailasanatha temple, Kanchipuram is over 1,700 years old. Khajuraho temples were
built between 950-1050 AD . The more recently built Varadharaja Swamy Temple at
Kanchipuram indicates the sophistication in structural engineering as progress
developed over time.
Indian superstructures in the eyes of the world are personified by the Taj Mahal. It
was built during 1631 to 1653 AD . The structural and architectural details of the Taj
Mahal, particularly considering the technical and construction procedures available
during this period, can be considered as peerless. Even today, it remains one of the
wonders of the world and represents the advanced culture present at that time.
Although it is supposed to be a memorial, because of its extraordinary beauty,
commonly people relate it to love stories.
In the next 500 years, the growth of structural engineering was astronomic. We will
identify some of the familiar events known to most structural engineers. These are
historical events and widely available in the literature. However, one can read them in
more detail in West (1989). Along with his numerous contributions, Leonardo da Vinci
(1452-1519) can be credited with the formulation of the beginning of structural theory.
Galileo (1564-1642) studied the failure of a cantilever beam and is generally credited
with originating the concept of mechanics of materials. He started the analytical
development in structural engineering. Andrea Palladio (1518-1580) introduced the
modern truss. The space of new developments accelerated in the following years.
Robert Hooke (1635-1703) developed Hookes law for linear material behavior. Sir Isaac
Newton (1643-1727) in his famous work, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
SS published in 1687, described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying
26,4 the groundwork for classical mechanics. Johann Bernoulli (1667-1748) proposed the
principle of virtual displacements. Daniel Bernoulli (1700-1782) contributed to the
understanding of elastic curves and the strain energy of flexure. Leonard Euler
(1707-1783) developed column buckling and energy methods. Charles Augustine de
Coulomb (1736-1806) laid the foundation of the strength of materials. Louis Navier
282 (1785-1836) published a book on strength of materials that dealt with the elastic
analysis of beam flexure.
Theoretical, analytical and conceptual developments led to new developments in
construction materials. Timber was used by German and Swiss engineers to construct
bridges up to 300 feet long. During this period, iron was introduced as a structural
material making a revolutionary impact on structural engineering. Iron was used on a
100 ft arch span in England during 1777-1779 (Straub, 1964). Several cast iron bridges,
mostly arch-shaped, were built during 1780-1820. Cast iron was also used for chain
links on suspension bridges until about 1840. Wrought iron began replacing cast iron
soon after 1840. Various shapes of wrought iron and cast iron were used during this
period. Bars were rolled on an industrial scale beginning about 1780. The rolling of
rails began about 1820 and was extended to I-shapes by the 1870s. Since 1890, steel has
replaced wrought iron as the principal metallic building material (Salmon and Johnson,
1996). As a material, it exhibited elastic properties much better than those of wood or
stone. This prompted the development of new theories that could be applied to design
more daring structural forms with confidence. A whole host of firsts in both form and
dimension followed cast iron bridges, iron trusses, suspension bridges, etc. (West,
1989). It should be noted that the first signs of use of iron come from the Sumerians and
the Egyptians around 4000 BC . They used items such as the tips of spears, daggers and
ornaments made from iron recovered from meteorites.
In spite of all the developments in the previous 500 years, the time between 1800 and
1900 can be considered as the golden period of structural engineering. Portland cement
was introduced early in the 1800s. Squire Whipple (1804-1888), Karl Culmann
(1821-1881), and J.W. Schwedler (1823-1894) developed the principles of statically
determinate trusses. Benoit-Paul-Emile Clapeyron (1799-1864) proposed the
three-moment equation. James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) formulated the method of
consistent displacements and the reciprocal theorem of deflections. Otto Mohr
(1835-1918) developed the method of elastic weights and worked on influence lines.
Alberto Castigliano (1847-1884) proposed two theorems for structural analysis. Charles
E. Greene (1842-1903) developed the moment-area method. H. Muller-Breslau
(1851-1925) developed the principle for the construction of influence lines. August
Foppl (1854-1924) developed the theory behind space frame analysis.
Availability of iron and Portland cement and the availability of new mathematical
tools helped developments into new structural systems including continuous beams
and frames. This type of activity continued until the beginning of the twentieth
century. The popularity of these types of structures prompted G. Maney (1888-1947) to
introduce the slope deflection method. Hardy Cross (1885-1959) developed the moment
distribution method. R. Southwell (1888-1970) proposed the more general relaxation
methods. At the same time, several analysts contributed to the merging of matrix
algebra and frame and continuum analysis to form the modern matrix and finite
element methods (FEMs) of analysis. During the same period, the areas of inelastic Structural
analysis and strength methods were introduced. engineering
In the early twentieth century, a host of new materials, techniques, and structural
forms were introduced. Aluminum, high-strength steel and concrete, special cements,
plastics, laminated timber, and composites were introduced. Electric or gas welding
and pre-stressed concrete were also introduced. New construction methods, including
various types of cranes enabling the construction process to reach new heights. 283
Despite the previous monumental development over about 2,500 years, we feel that
the most significant development was the introduction of electronic computation as
early as the 1950s. Advancement in electronic computation also helped to develop
structural analysis using the FEM, which will be discussed in more detail later. New
advances in structural form include the perfection of long-span bridges of many
configurations, record breaking heights in buildings, massive dams, large open-spaced
gathering places as can be seen in modern stadiums, etc. Advances in the

computational power helped to build some of these futuristic structures. Because of the
same reasons, the use of newer structural forms such as shells, panels, and stress-skin
structures can also be observed in the recent past.
Design philosophies
Advances in numerical analysis techniques also identified the weaknesses in them.
Most of these techniques work very well verifying failures but are generally unable to
prevent failures. One of the main reasons for this is our inability to predict future
loadings and the corresponding material behavior. This is also reflected in the
development in the design guidelines.
In a historical perspective, hazards in structural engineering were observed at least
4,000 years ago. The earliest known building code was used in Mesopotamia.
Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia, who died about 1750 BC , issued code provisions.
They were carved in stones and they can be seen in the Louvre in Paris. They
addressed many different issues including economic provisions (prices, tariffs, trade,
and commerce), family law (marriage and divorce), criminal law (assault, theft), and
civil law (slavery, debt). Penalties varied according to the status of the offenders and
the circumstances of the offenses. Interpreting the laws in the context of civil
engineering, it can be concluded that the responsibilities of the builders were defined
depending on the consequences of failure. If a building collapsed killing a son of the
owner, then the builders son would be put to death; if the owners slave was killed,
then the builders slave would be executed and so on. Of course we cannot have similar
codes in a civilized world.
In modern times, earlier design guidelines were based on the allowable stress design
(ASD) concept. In this approach, the nominal resistance or capacity, RN, is divided by a
safety factor to compute the allowable resistance Ra, and the safe design requires that
the nominal load effect SN is less than RN. Our inability to predict future loads led to
the development of the ultimate strength design method. In this approach, the nominal
or codified loads (SN) are multiplied by certain load factors to determine the ultimate
loads Su, and the safe design requires the satisfaction of the condition Su is less than
RN. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was recognized that safety or ignorance factors
should be incorporated to both the load and resistance. This led to the development of
SS the load and resistance factor design (LRFD) concept. Using the LRFD concept, a
26,4 structure can be designed satisfying a pre-determined reliability level. Almost all the
design guidelines in structural engineering have already been converted or are in the
process of being converted to the LRFD concept.
There is no doubt that the LRFD concept is much superior to the ASD or the
ultimate strength design concept. However, in the codified LRFD approach,
284 uncertainties are hidden in the load and resistance factors. Typically engineers are
not aware of them and thus they are unable to change them for different design
conditions. For a temporary structure, an owner can afford to accept much higher risk
than the owner of a high-rise building. Structural members should be designed
reflecting this condition. However, the engineers are unable to incorporate the specific
design requirements, even if the information is widely available. Furthermore,
generally linear analysis methods are used to evaluate the load effects on the structure
and then load factors are used for the design of structural members. Conceptually,
reliability or the underlying risk should be estimated corresponding to failure
conditions. Several major sources of nonlinearities are expected to be present at the
time of failure. They are generally overlooked. All structures must be designed
considering realistic and accurate behavior, and satisfying some prescribed risk. Also,
the old design guidelines were developed to protect human lives and the structures
were exposed to severe amount of damage (Mehrabian and Haldar, 2005). However, in
many cases this design philosophy failed to appropriately address the severe economic
consequences and thus may not be acceptable at present.
To address all the weaknesses mentioned above, a new design philosophy is now
under development. It is known as the performance-based design (PBD) guideline. In
this approach, instead of applying safety factors to the loads and resistance, structures
are designed for specific performance functions satisfying some underlying risks. The
underlying risk could be different for the serviceability and strength performance
functions since the former is not a failure mode. The concept is now in the preliminary
stage of development.
The question still remains to be answered - do we have the analytical tools available
to develop the PBD guidelines? The first author and his colleagues have been working
to develop such a numerical analysis tool since the early 1980s. They called it the
stochastic finite element method (SFEM). It is essentially a FEM, which can incorporate
uncertainties in the resistance- and load-related design variables. The reliability of any
structure that can be represented by finite elements, two-dimensional or
three-dimensional, linear or nonlinear, can be evaluated by this approach. The load
can be applied statically or dynamically. The method is discussed in more detail in
Haldar and Mahadevan (2000b).
Time domain reliability analysis is also a major challenge. In this case, the
performance function is a function of time. The standard first-order reliability method
(FORM) (Haldar and Mahadevan, 2000a) cannot be used for this purpose. Recently, the
first author and an associate (Huh and Haldar, 2002) proposed a hybrid approach
consisting of SFEM, response surface method, FORM, and a linear interpolation
scheme to estimate the reliability of linear and nonlinear structures when the uncertain
load, including the seismic load, is applied in time domain. Some scholars believe that it
is an alternative to the classical random vibration method. This approach is expected
to provide the analytical tool required to develop the PBD guidelines, particularly for Structural
seismic design. engineering
It needs to be emphasized that no matter what design philosophy we use to design
structures, they are relatively safe. The use of advanced concepts in structural design
helps to distribute the risk uniformly to all of the structures making them safer. In this
way, the risk of failure of the weakest element may not control the whole design or
initiate the progressive failure process, thus making the structure more efficient. The 285
beams, columns, slabs, etc., are expected to have similar risk. There are also
redundancies within a structural system that help to redistribute the loads in case of
overloading, and in some cases failure, of some its members.
The innovative and challenging structures we see around us at present will clearly
indicate the current advanced state of knowledge in structural engineering. It has
genuinely matured. We highlight some of the recent accomplishments and our
observations of structural engineering in the following sections. Next, we will provide

our opinions on opportunities and challenges in the new millennium, addressing the
main theme of this paper.
Current status of structural engineering

We will first try to address issues related to structural/civil engineering education.
Then, we would like to identify some of the areas where structural engineers have
made significant contributions in the recent past. In his own career, the first author
used slide rule, log table, T-square, bevel set squares, etc. For this discussion, even
observations he made early in his career are considered to be old in a relative sense. We
will emphasize some recent developments. The list is not exhaustive and items are
presented not in the order of importance.
Structural/civil engineering education

In the recent past or even at present, the demand for civil engineers in general with
Bachelor of Science (BS) degree has exceeded our expectation. It could be due to the
growth in the construction industry and increase in consumer demand caused by the
open market philosophy adopted by the global community. We need enormous
numbers of civil and structural engineers to build our houses, bridges, dams, nuclear
power plants, and even the space structures. However, at the same time, the research
expenditure in general civil engineering areas has reduced significantly. This
observation is not regional but a worldwide phenomenon. We observed that even
graduate students with Master of Science (MS) degree in civil engineering are opting
for jobs in information technology (IT) areas. Interest in pursuing doctoral degrees has
diminished significantly. In fact, civil engineering has become service engineering in
the profession.
Some major universities in the USA recently considered dropping civil engineering
from their engineering program. The main reason given for this decision was the
misconception that civil engineering was fully developed and there were no major
research challenges remaining. By some accounts, the classical civil engineering is no
longer being appreciated by the engineering profession. The numbers of
undergraduate students have risen significantly in the recent past but the graduate
program has been shrinking. To address the situation, some of the senior engineering
SS educators in the USA suggested that a BS degree in civil engineering was not sufficient
26,4 to practice civil engineering; a minimum of MS degree must be required. The basic civil
engineering undergraduate curriculum may not have changed significantly over the
years reflecting the changes in the technology and demanding expectations from the
society. It may be helpful to look at the issue more critically. To broaden our research
posture and to help in conducting collaborating research with other engineering
286 disciplines, the graduate curriculum may need a more complete overhaul to attract
more qualified students to the civil engineering profession.
FEM
As mentioned earlier in this paper, FEM-based analytical technique played a
significant role in building numerous challenging structures including nuclear power
plants, bridges, buildings, and even space structures. It is difficult to study the
behavior of complicated structural systems. They are also very difficult to test in the
laboratory. However, if they are represented by smaller but a large number of
structural elements or finite elements, then satisfying boundary conditions, continuity,
compatibility, etc., the behavior (both linear and nonlinear) of the whole structure can
be studied more accurately and efficiently. Turner et al. (1956) are generally credited
for initiating the FEM. Clough (1960) was the first person to use the term finite element.
It is impractical to cite all related publications here. However, earlier works of Argyris
(1960), Oden (1969), Zienkiewicz et al. (1969), Desai and Abel (1972), etc., laid the
foundation for further development in this area. Most of the earlier works were on
displacement-based FEM. In displacement-based FEM, shape functions are used to
describe the displacements at the nodes of the finite elements. The nature of these
formulations requires a large number of elements to model a member with large
deformation. This requirement makes the approach computationally inefficient.
Although explicit formulation can be obtained to evaluate the integrals of the stiffness
matrix, the drawback of using a large number of elements is still unavoidable.
Conceptually, the most efficient way to analyze a nonlinear problem is to use fewer
elements and express the tangent stiffness matrix explicitly. This led to the
development of the stress-based FEM, particularly for frame structures (Kondoh and
Atluri, 1987; Shi and Atluri, 1988; Haldar and Nee, 1989). Recently, several mixed and
hybrid FEMs were proposed (Brezzi and Fortin, 1991; Pian and Wu, 2005).
Computer, commercial programs, computer-aided drafting and design

Computers and increased computation power have played a very important role in
recent developments in structural engineering. The advancement in the numerical
analysis methods enhanced by the improved computational power helped the
development of several powerful FEMs. An elementary version of computer was
developed in 1945. In 1963, Wilson and Clough developed a symbolic matrix
interpretive system (SMIS) for teaching the static and dynamic analysis of structures.
The purpose was to bridge the gap between traditional hand calculations and the
matrix method of structural analysis. The most recent version of this FORTRAN
program is CAL-91 (Wilson, 1991). In 1965, the NASA Structural Analysis Program
(NASTRAN) was developed by MacNeal-Schwendler Corp. in an early effort to
consolidate structural mechanics into a single program. The proprietary version of the
program was available in 1971. In 1969, Wilson initiated the development of the
general-purpose static and dynamic Structural Analysis Program (SAP) (Wilson, Structural
1970). The computer program ANSYS (from ANSYS, Inc., formerly Swanson Analysis engineering
Systems Inc.) was developed in 1970 to address issues related to the nuclear industry.
In 1973, Bathe updated the dynamic response option of SAP to produce SAP IV (Bathe
et al., 1973). SAP IV was considered to be one of the fastest and largest capacity
structural analysis programs in the world at that time. In 1976, CRAY supercomputer
was developed to study flow analysis. In 1991, the nonlinear MSC/DYTRAN program 287
was introduced to study nonlinear dynamic response for the analysis of solids,
structures, and fluids.
From the above timeline, it is clear the role the computer played in the development
of structural engineering. The availability of commercial computer programs helped
the profession to build many challenging structures. The knowledge was transformed
into computer-aided drafting and design.
It is also important to point out that the three-dimensional modeling and analysis of
structures became relatively simpler using the commercially available computer
programs. Excellent graphic display capabilities of these programs make realistic
three-dimensional modeling of structures very informative and eye-catching.
In the eighties, the development in computer technology also prompted researchers
to consider artificial intelligence (AI) areas and their applications to structural
engineering and design. However, in our opinion, the developments in the AI area did
not meet expectations.
Nonlinear dynamic problems

The advancements in nonlinear analysis particularly for dynamic problems were
significant in the recent past. Many sources of nonlinearities including, material,
geometric, support and connection conditions are now routinely incorporated in the
analysis. Numerous numerical methods required to consider these sources of
nonlinearities were developed. Some of the popular nonlinear solution techniques are
the load-increment, Newton-Raphson, modified Newton-Raphson, simplified
Newton-Raphson, arc-length, and quasi-Newton methods. Among the available
quasi-Newton methods, the Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) appears to be
the most effective. Crisfield (1983) presented a one-step version of the quasi-Newton
algorithm (also known as the secant-Newton method), which is more effective and less
complex than the BFGS method.
The solution of nonlinear dynamic problems presented a new set of challenges. It
was concluded by many researchers that the most powerful technique for nonlinear
dynamic analysis was step-by-step integration procedure. To address the error
associated with direct integration, the Newmark b method (Newmark, 1959), Wilson u,
and Hilber et al. (1977) methods were proposed.
Damping is another difficult subject in dynamic analysis. The profession made
significant progress in understanding damping. Besides viscous damping, other types
of damping including proportional or Rayleigh, nonclassical, Columb, hysteresis, etc.
were developed and are now routinely used in structural analysis.
Improved materials
The improvements in technologies helped to improve older construction materials like
steel and concrete. In the USA, it is becoming difficult to produce lower grade steel like
SS A36. For W-sections, the American Institute of Steel Constructions (2006) now suggests
26,4 the use of higher grade like Grade 50 steel. Similarly, extremely high strength concrete
is now being used in many bridges. To eliminate the use of steel in corrosive
environments, the use of fiberglass or carbon-reinforced concrete is being advocated.
The improvements in technology also helped to develop more efficient shapes of
cold-formed steel structures.
288 One major implication of using high strength material is that the structural
members are becoming more and more slender. Thus, the stability failure modes, i.e.
the local buckling at the element level and the overall reduction of stiffness at the
structural level, may control the structural design. This is a significant deviation from
the old practice where structures were essentially designed for strength.
Advanced and improved construction material also helped with material protection.
Today steel is more resistive to corrosion. The different grades of wood are chemically
treated and are less susceptible to mold and other biological agents. There are also
advances made in the protection of concrete in corrosive environments.
Since 1956, rivets are no longer used for steel structures in the USA. High strength
bolts are now routinely used eliminating all the deficiencies in the riveted structures.
Advancement of welding technology is also very noteworthy. The current trend in the
USA is to use electric welding instead of gas welding.
Improved understanding of wind-related issues

The profession now has better understanding of wind-related issues for the design of
structures. In the recent past, the definition of wind speed was not uniform in the world
and created a lot of misunderstanding in the design of structures, particularly for
international projects. Currently, three-second gust wind speed is commonly accepted
as the basic definition of wind speed. In the State of Florida where hurricane threat is
serious, there have been sustained improvements in the past 30 years in the design
guidelines for residential and commercial structures. Improved design procedures are
now available for short or rigid and tall or flexible buildings. The improvements in
wind tunnel testing facilities significantly helped in developing these related areas.
Serviceability design criteria, fatigue and fracture

In the recent past, structures are primarily designed to satisfy strength or failure
criteria. Serviceability design criteria are generally overlooked since they do not lead to
failure. Even today, in the USA, the design codes are silent about the allowable or
permissible deflection for a structure. In the past, the design codes totally ignored
fatigue and fracture-related issues. However, in the most recent versions of some of
these design codes, they are mentioned or some design procedures are suggested.
Space structures, offshore structures

There were considerable development in the analysis, design, and construction of
structures required for the space exploration. Concepts behind all aspects of space
structures are very different to those for structures built on earth. A considerable
amount of interdisciplinary effort was required to build them under zero gravity
condition subjected to different loadings and under extreme temperature variations.
Significant amount of advancements were also made in the analysis, design, and
construction of offshore structures. Offshore structures, particularly required for the
exploration and collection of gas and petroleum products or hydrocarbons, are exposed Structural
to different types of environment than the space structures or other on-ground engineering
structures like buildings and bridges. Space exploration can be considered as optional
engineering challenges but the design and construction of offshore structures have
now become an integral part of the economic activities to maintain our way of life. The
design of offshore structures presents different types of challenges. The offshore
industry has had to steadily move to deeper water over the years to extract 289
hydrocarbons. The meteorological ocean conditions, structural requirements, and
economics of deepwater oil and gas recovery called for new structural concepts.
Fixed-based jacket type platforms were adequate for shallow water (Kanegaonkar and
Haldar 1987a, b). Compliant tower platforms, which are allowed to move with wave
loads form an important alternative to conventional jacket-type platforms. The Guyed
Tower Platform (GTP) belongs to this class of offshore structure. The foundation of the
tower does not resist overturning moments due to wave and wind loads; instead,
restoring moment is provided by buoyancy, a set of guy lines and large displacements.
Geometric nonlinearity is an important consideration in the analysis of a GTP (Haldar
and Kanegaonkar, 1989). These are significant developments in structural engineering
of these structures.
Optimization
Structural design is a complex process. Numerous optimization procedures are
reported in the literature for the optimization of structures (Arora, 1997; Kamat, 1993).
The structural optimization seeks the optimum selection of design variables with
respect to an objective function satisfying some explicit and/or implicit constraints.
The advancement in the computational power also helped to develop the area
significantly. The structural optimization can be sought with respect to cost or weight
or any other factors. Optimality criterion and mathematical programming methods are
commonly used for structural optimization. In the optimality criterion approach, the
criteria related to the behavior of the structure are derived and the premise is that when
the structure is sized to satisfy these criteria, the merit function automatically attains
the optimal value. The significant advantage of this method is that the number of
iterations required for the optimal design is essentially independent of the number of
variables in the problem. Among the mathematical programming approaches, linear
programming (LP), dynamic programming (DP), quadratic programming (QP),
geometric programming (GP), integer programming (IP), and nonlinear programming
(NLP) are now available.
Structural control
Altering the structural response in an advantageous way is also one of the major
research activities in the recent past. The use of active, semi-active, and passive control
of systems to alter the structural response have become more frequent and elaborate
(Casciati, 2001). The intelligent use of different types of dampers or energy
absorption/dissipation mechanism and base-isolation systems has become common.
The intelligent arrangements of structural members, such as the use of eccentric
bracings (EB) (Popov, 1982) and partially restrained (PR) connections (Mehrabian et al.,
2005; Reyes and Haldar, 2001) in steel structures, have shown to improve structural
behavior considerably, particularly for dynamic/seismic loadings. It needs to be
SS pointed out that all connections in structures are generally assumed to be fully
26,4 restrained-type (FR-type); however, they are PR-type with different rigidities. The
assumption of FR-type connections makes the analysis relatively simpler and all
classical structural analysis procedures taught to undergraduate students can be used.
Analysis procedures become extremely complicated if the connections are assumed to
be PR-type; nonlinear analysis procedures need to be used. Both EB and PR
290 connections, improve the energy dissipation characteristics very well without
compromising the stiffness of the frame. They are essentially a kind of damper in the
system.
Reliability-based engineering
It is believed that structural engineering has matured enough to design any structures
with known or given load and resistance-related variables. However, recent
catastrophic failures during strong earthquakes, high winds, impact or explosive

events, etc., indicate the inability of structural engineers to design structures
appropriately. We believe that our inability to predict future events is one of the main
reasons for these failures. Freudenthal (1956) is considered to be one of first scholars
who advocated the incorporation of the reliability-based design concept in civil
engineering practices. The area has expanded tremendously since the mid-1960s.
Benjamin and Cornell (1970) and Ang and Tang (1975, 1984) documented the
chronological developments in the area. As mentioned earlier in the Design philosophy
section, the current LRFD procedure incorporates and represents this concept. An
extensive list of related publications is given by Haldar and Mahadevan (2000a, b).
Consideration of the reliability-based design will be incomplete if we do not briefly
mention the development of random vibration methodologies. Uncertainty associated
with dynamic loadings is expected to be much more than other load- or
resistance-related variables. The random vibration approaches emphasize the
uncertainty in the dynamic loadings. One of the earlier books on the subject was
authored by Lin (1967). Later, Nigam (1983), Lutes and Sarkani (1997), and others
documented progress in this area.
Opportunities and challenges in the new millennium

It is clear from the previous discussion that structural engineering has a long and
illustrious history. Where do we go from here? Recent devastating failures during
earthquakes, tsunami, hurricane or tornado, impact and explosive incidences, fire, etc.,
demonstrated to the world community our inability to design and construct structures
against these events. Thus there are a lot of opportunities and challenges for structural
engineers in the new millennium. We are going to identify some of them in the
following sections. Some other potential topics are available in Haldar (2006).
Obviously, the list is not exhaustive. This type of list will depend on the education and
real life exposure and experience of the person developing the list. Readers will have to
excuse the author for not including their research interests in the list, if they are not
included.
Collaborative work
As mentioned earlier, structural engineering does not belong only to civil engineering;
it belongs to all other engineering disciplines requiring building structures. Building
structures in space and offshore also increases the application domains of structural Structural
engineering. This leads to the challenges of building structures for conditions generally engineering
not considered for ordinary structures. The conditions expected in space and offshore
are quite different. A considerable amount of interdisciplinary collaborative work is
needed for success. During the World Trade Center incidents of 2001, both towers
survived the initial impacts, but could not survive the effects of fire. These incidents
clearly point out that our structural engineering knowledge could be sufficient, but 291
structural engineers may not have adequate knowledge of fireproofing materials or the
effect of fires on structures. A considerable amount of collaborative work is needed to
address all the relative areas.
A typical structure is generally designed for about 50 years design life. Nuclear
power plants are designed for about 1,000 years return period events. However,
structural engineers now may have to design for say 5,000 years return period events.
Obviously, designing structures stronger than nuclear power plants may not be
practical and economically feasible. We need to collaborate with other disciplines to
find a realistic solution.
Collaborations are also essential between institutions in a country as well as
globally. The first author was personally involved with three international
collaborative programs sponsored by the Indian government. They are the National
Program for Earthquake Engineering Education (NPEEE), Better Opportunity for
Young Scientists in Chosen Areas of Science and Technology (BOYSACAST) and
Indo-US Science and Technology Forum. They are steps in the right direction. They
encourage and promote international collaboration. They are essential for the future
growth of our profession. In the current situation with less emphasis on classical civil
engineering-related research, collaborative research is not only desirable, but also
essential.
Smart structures and smart materials

The old design practice of making a structure very strong, essentially providing very
large stiffness, is no longer valid. The input energy in structures needs to be dissipated
more efficiently, beyond increasing their stiffness. Smart structures and smart
materials are supposed to provide that option. In smart materials, their physical
properties can be changed based on the need at a particular time. With the help of
actuators and sensors, and exploiting the desirable properties of smart materials, the
structural behavior, i.e. the energy dissipation characteristics of the structures can be
altered (Casciati, 2001; Srinivasan and McFarland, 2000; IASCM, 2006). The structural
behavior during extreme events may not be properly understood at this time. It
requires multi-disciplinary research in developing techniques to design, control,
analyze, and visualize optimal or near optimal smart and adaptive structures using
newly developed smart materials such as piezoelectric ceramics, electrorestrictive and
magnetorestrictive materials, shape memory alloys (SMA), other composite materials
and optical fibers. The research in developing smart structures and materials is
limitless.
Use of dual systems

Concrete and steel are the two materials commonly used to build tall structures. Both
materials have advantages and disadvantages. For very tall buildings, say over 50
SS storeys high, steel is generally the preferred material. For short or intermediate
26,4 buildings, both concrete and steel are used. To take advantage of both materials,
several types of dual or hybrid systems are being used including:
.
Composite moment frames consisting of steel beams and reinforced concrete
columns (RCS moment frames).
.
Concrete-core structural-steel-frame hybrid structure.
292 .
Steel members in-filled with concrete, etc. RCS systems have been used in the
USA and Japan as a cost effective alternative to traditional steel or concrete
construction (Griffis, 1992).
Compared to high-rise steel buildings, RCS systems offer more efficient use of
materials, a reduction in the total construction time, and the elimination of welding at
beam-column connections. The latter helps to avoid fracture problems in the welds
observed during the Northridge earthquake of 1994 (Mehanny and Deierlein, 2000).
The IBM tower in Atlanta, Georgia has a concrete core, essentially consisting of the
elevator shaft and the staircase. It acts as shear walls and provides all the lateral
stiffness necessary for the tower. Structural steel frames are attached to the concrete
core. The 725 ft concrete core was built in 57 days using the slipform technology
(Ratay, 1996). Self-lifting forms of construction save considerable construction time
(Fulton, 1989). The American Institute of Steel Construction (2006) now lists the axial
strength of concrete filled hollow structural sections (HSS) (rectangular, square, and
circular). A considerable amount of experimental, theoretical, and analytical work is
yet to be completed to bring all these areas to maturity.
Meshless or meshfree methods

As mentioned earlier, the introduction of the FEM-based analysis concept significantly
helped the growth of structural engineering. However, it is an approximate technique.
The generation of finite element mesh could be tedious and the solution will depend
on the expertise of the analyst. This results in a non-unique solution to a specific
problem. The solution of a problem without using a structured grid is expected to be
very appealing. This area is expected to grow in the near future. More detailed
information on the topic can be found in Liu (2002) and Rahman (2006).
Computer applications and simulations

Many structural engineering problems are very complicated in a deterministic sense.
The presence of uncertainty in them makes them more challenging. For many
problems, which cannot be tested and verified in the laboratory, one attractive option
will be to simulate them in the computer environment. As mentioned earlier, finite
element programs are routinely used by the structural engineers. Most commercially
available computer programs attempt to solve the problem in a deterministic way.
There are few programs that can treat a problem considering the presence of
uncertainty in the design variables. The trend is to give engineers an option whether to
use a deterministic solution or a probabilistic solution. However, this is in a very early
stage and a considerable amount of work is yet to be undertaken.
Simulation-based analysis of complicated structural systems is also being
advocated. Before sophisticated computers were available, to address the presence
of uncertainty in the design variables, at least three analyses were required for the Structural
design of nuclear power plants in the USA. To analyze a structure using the FEM, the engineering
input variables should be selected at their most likely value, the most conservative
value, and the most unconservative value. This way the spread in the response values
can be obtained and the sensitivity or the importance of the design variables can be
studied. However, considering the current computational power, limiting multiple
solutions to only three is not necessary. Numerous solutions can be obtained. This type 293
of multiple analyses is required for the seismic design. Instead of design of a structure
for a design earthquake, it should be design for several earthquakes. This way the
different frequency content of earthquakes having similar intensities can be addressed.
The authors and their associates (Reyes and Haldar, 1999; Huh and Haldar, 2002; Lee
and Haldar, 2003) observed that the responses could have a significant amount of
variation. It needs to be pointed out that the Monte Carlo simulation technique was
developed in the early forties for the design of nuclear bombs to address uncertainty. In
future, the simulation should be an integral part of the design of complicated
structures. There is potential for significant growth in this area.
Robust and stochastic optimization

As mentioned earlier, the state-of-the-art in the deterministic structural optimization is
quite advanced. The available optimization techniques enable us to design efficient and
economical structures, in most cases. However, a major limitation of the deterministic
optimization techniques is that they are unable to incorporate uncertainties in the
design variables even when the information is available. It is now well established in
the profession that engineering analysis and design cannot be completed without
considering the presence of uncertainty. In robust optimization, the design is the least
sensitive to the changes in the input of uncertainty parameters (Chakraborty and
Haldar, 2005). The comprehensive reliability-based optimization techniques including
genetic algorithm are being developed by incorporating statistical information of all
the decision variables in the objective function and by minimizing the probability of
failure (Onwubolu and Babu, 2004).
If cost is a decision variable, the optimization problem may not be unique
worldwide. Cost depends on many factors including the locations and the standard of
living of the people being affected. Rackwitz (2006) has introduced the Life Quality
Index factor to address the problem.
Improve understanding of natural phenomena like earthquake, wind, draught, tornado,

tsunami, fire and explosions
As mentioned earlier, we have significant limitations in predicting natural phenomena
like earthquake, wind, drought, tornado, fire and explosions. Obviously, the success of
structural engineering/civil engineering will depend on how accurately we predict
these events. A considerable amount of work, both theoretical and experimental, is
needed in the near future to improve our understanding.
Design for blast loading or explosion

Sensitive industrial facilities are always designed for blast loading or explosion.
However, some recent worldwide incidents require that some important buildings
should also be designed for blast loading. The shock wave from an external explosion
SS causes an almost instantaneous increase in pressure on nearby objects to a maximum
26,4 value. This is followed by a brief positive phase during which the pressure decays back
to its ambient value, and a somewhat longer but much less intense negative phase
during which the pressure reversed direction. For most structures this phenomenon
can be approximated using a triangular impulse load with zero or minimal rise time
and linear decay (Schmidt, 2003). Since blast is considered to be an impulse, dampers
294 and other sources of energy dissipation cannot be relied on. Damping has much less
importance in controlling the maximum response of a structure to impulsive loads than
for periodic or harmonic loads because the maximum response due to impulse is
reached in a very short time, before damping forces can absorb much energy from the
structure (Clough and Penzien, 1993).
It may not be practical to design buildings to withstand any conceivable terrorist
attack, but it is possible to improve the performance of structures should one occur in
the form of an external explosion. By maximizing the standoff distances and hardening
the key elements, structural engineers can give the occupants a reasonable chance of
escaping death or serious injury (Schmidt, 2003). Protecting structures against
explosion is an important challenge to structural engineers.
Structural maintenance
Historically, building new structures has been a source of pride to all structural
engineers. Unfortunately, all structures age with time. Several thousand bridges in the
USA are over their design life. Ideally, they should be replaced when they out-lived
their design life. However, resources available to build new structures are becoming
less and less. Extension of life of existing structures has become a necessity and is now
a new research topic. The life of a structure can be extended by inspection and with
proper maintenance. Inspection outcomes are full of error or uncertainty-filled and the
maintenance strategy could be numerous. New inspections methods and tests need to
be developed or available techniques need to be improved. Inspectors capable of
carrying out the inspections need to be trained. Appropriate retrofitting strategies or
options need to be developed. Ultimately, a decision analysis framework needs to be
developed to be used by the practicing engineers incorporating all available
information, including the cost of repair or replacement of the structure. A considerable
amount of work has yet to be completed. Zhao et al. (1994) proposed such an approach
for further consideration.
Methods are now also available for structural maintenance considering the
degradation of the structures as they age, the cost of inspections, and cost of repairs or
replacements as they become necessary (Das et al., 1999). The design and construction
of structures considering their long-term behavior (aging, corrosion, fatigue, etc.) are
expected to grow in the near future.
Health assessment and monitoring

In service structural health assessment is also becoming an important research item.
Development of sophisticated new sensors, wireless data transmission, and the power
of computers have contributed to progress in this area (Ansari, 2005). Structural
behavior or the signature of the structure is expected to change as defects develop in
them. Not all defects affect the structural behavior in a similar way. They can be
tracked without compromising the underlying reliability of the structure. The
structural elements need to be repaired or replaced when they become a cause of Structural
concern. After the necessary repair or replacement, it is also necessary to determine if engineering
all the defects are identified and repaired properly.
In-service health assessment requires that necessary information needs to be
generated with a minimum amount of information and without causing major
disruption to the normal operation of the structure. The author and their associates are
in the process of developing such a method. They are using a system 295
identification-based (SI-based) defect assessment technique at the local element level.
The classical SI approaches have three essential components: input excitation, the
system to be identified generally represented in an algorithmic form such as finite
elements, and the output response information. Knowing the input and output response
time histories, the third component, i.e. the system can be identified. For a finite
element representation, it is equivalent to identifying the stiffness parameters of all the
elements. However, in most cases of practical importance, input excitation information

is not available. Also, for a large structural system, measuring responses at all
dynamic degrees of freedom may not be practical or economical. Furthermore, all
measured responses are expected to contain numerous sources of error or noise. These
observations require a system to be identified using only noise-contaminated limited
response information and without using any input excitation information. However,
the task is extremely complicated and mathematically challenging.
The research team at the University of Arizona is in the process of developing such
a method. They call it a Generalized Iterative Least Square Extended Kalman Filter
with Unknown Input (GILS-EKF-UI) method. Students from many different
engineering disciplines including aerospace, mechanical, and structural engineering
have been involved in developing the method (Wang and Haldar, 1994, 1997; Ling and
Haldar, 2004, Vo and Haldar, 2004; Katkhuda et al., 2005; Martinez-Flores et al., 2006). It
is also a good example of the advantage of multi-disciplinary collaboration as
discussed previously.
Several non-destructive inspection methods are also being developed (Jung et al.,
2002). There is a tremendous opportunity for growth in this area.
Retrofitting of existing structures

As mentioned earlier all structures are expected to develop defects as they age. Some
existing structures need to be strengthened following the most recent design
guidelines, particularly for the earthquake loading. Also, some structures need to be
improved because the use of them may have changed. Since the mid-1970s, no new
nuclear power plant has been built in the USA; however, a considerable amount of
resources are being spent to retrofit the existing plants. Tremendous growth is
expected in the retrofitting area in the near future. Preventing or reducing corrosion is
now an active research area (Melchers, 2006; Tavakkolizadeh and Saadatmanesh,
2001). External prestressing is another alternative (Nordin, 2004). Attaching steel
plates or other synthetic materials to existing structural members are being used
(Saadatmanesh et al., 1997a, b; Malek et al., 1998; Norris et al., 1997; Ehsani et al., 1999).
Currently, structural members are being wrapped with composite materials
(Saadatmanesh et al., 1997a, b; Mei et al., 2001). Their long-term behavior is not
SS established yet. The degradation of these techniques during fire is not documented or
26,4 reported in the literature.
Large-scale testing
Frequently in the past, scaled specimens were tested in the laboratory to verify
296 theoretical models and to propose design guidelines. There was always a concern
whether the scaled tests were adequate to represent the realistic behavior. In the past
when elastic analyses were emphasized, the errors in scaled test could be tolerated
more effortlessly. However, when the designs should correspond to failure condition,
scaled tests may not be adequate. Large scale testing is required to understand all the
related issues.
In the USA, recently the National Science Foundation, under the program of
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NESS), invested over $90 million to
develop 15 experimental facilities. These are large facilities for research on earthquake
and tsunami. They are shared experimental facilities that can be used for approved
experimental research by any scholar in the country. A much larger facility, known as
E-Defense Earthquake Engineering Research, or E-Defense Facility, is being built in
Japan. They plan to test full-scale steel structures. Obviously, resources required to
build these facilities are enormous. They are only possible if major government
agencies get involved in the process.
Artificial neural networks and soft computing

The application of artificial neural networks (ANN) under, the more generic term used
by the research community as soft computing, in civil engineering has been
significant in the very recent past (Kartam et al. 1997). In addition to ANN, the other
soft computing techniques include Genetic Algorithm, Evolutionary Computation,
Machine Learning, Organic Computing, Probabilistic Reasoning, etc. The applicability
of these techniques could be problem specific, some of them can be combined, or one
technique can be used when another failed to meet the objectives of the study. Soft
computing differs from conventional hard computing. Unlike hard computing, soft
computing is tolerant of imprecision, uncertainty, partial truth, and approximation. To
some extent, it essentially plays a role similar to the human mind.
Micro electro-mechanical systems

In the world of electronics, the next major advancement in the context of
civil/structural engineering is expected to be in the area of micro electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS). MEMS are already being used in structural health monitoring,
vibration measurement, biomedical application and numerous other areas. MEMS
consist of micro mechanical structures; very tiny in the micron range. They can be used
in extreme operating conditions, including at very high temperature, can operate under
extreme temperature reversal. They are now being used in electronic packaging.
Future structural engineers can play an important role in the development of this area.
Similarly, they can also contribute to the analysis of electronic microstructure used in
electronic machines.
Incorporation of cognitive sources of uncertainty Structural
Most of the works on reliability-based structural engineering incorporate noncognitive engineering
(quantitative) sources of uncertainty using crisp set theory. Cognitive or qualitative
sources of uncertainty are also important. They come from the vagueness of the
problem arising from the intellectual abstractions of reality. According to Ayyub and
Klir (2006), Albert Einstein stated, The mere formulation of a problem is often far
more essential than its solution. They also stated that, according to Werner Karl 297
Heisenberg: What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of
questioning. To incorporate cognitive sources of uncertainty, fuzzy set theory is being
developed. This area is expected to grow in the near future.
Concluding remarks
Civil engineering is the oldest engineering profession. As documented in this paper,
structural engineering in the context of civil engineering has over 5,000 years of
distinguished history. It has accepted all the challenges and provided services at the
highest level to the worldwide community. It is one of the professions whose main
purpose is to improve the quality of life. The need or demand for structural engineers is
expected to remain high in the foreseeable future. Although the research related
activities in civil engineering have diminished a little in the recent past, considering
some emerging areas involving multidisciplinary efforts, the future of structural
engineering is expected to remain as glorious as in the past.
References
American Institute of Steel Construction (2006), Steel Construction Manual, 13th ed., American
Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, IL.
Ang, A.H.-S. and Tang, W.H. (1975), Probability Concepts in Engineering Design, Vol. 1: Basic
Principles, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Ang, A.H.-S. and Tang, W.H. (1984), Probability Concepts in Engineering Design, Vol. II: Decision,
Risk and Reliability, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Ansari, F. (Ed.) (2005), Sensing Issues in Civil Structural Health Monitoring, Springer, Dordrecht.
Argyris, J.H. (1960), Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, Butterworth, London.
Arora, J.S. (Ed.) (1997), Guide to Structural Optimization, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY.
Ayyub, B.M. and Klir, G.J. (2006), Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis in Engineering and the
Sciences, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Bathe, K.J., Wilson, E.L. and Peterson, F.E. (1973), SAP IV a structural analysis program for
static and dynamic response of linear systems, EERC 73/11, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C.A. (1970), Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Brezzi, F. and Fortin, M. (1991), Mixed and Hybrid Finite Element Methods, Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY.
Casciati, F. (Ed.) (2001), Structural Control for Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, World
Scientific, Hackensack, NJ.
SS Chakraborty, S. and Haldar, A. (2005), Robust optimization under uncertainty, paper presented
at the 3rd International Conference on Reliability, Safety and Hazard, Mumbai.
26,4
Clough, R.W. (1960), The finite element in plane stress analysis, Proceedings, 2nd ASCE
Conference on Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh, PA.
Clough, R.W. and Penzien, J. (1993), Dynamics of Structures, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
298 Crisfield, M.A. (1983), An arc-length method including line searches and accelerations,
International Journal of Mechanics, Vol. 19, pp. 1286-9.
Das, P., Frangopol, D.M. and Nowak, A.S. (1999), Current and Future Trends in Bridge Design,
Construction and Maintenance, Thomas Telford, London.
Desai, C.S. and Abel, J.F. (1972), Introduction to the Finite Element Method A Numerical Method
for Engineering Analysis, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Ehsani, M.R., Saadatmanesh, H. and Velazquez-Dimas, J.I. (1999), Behavior of retrofitted URM
walls under simulated earthquake loading, ASCE Journal of Composites for Construction,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 134-42.
Freudenthal, A.M. (1956), Safety and the probability of structural failure, ASCE Transactions,
Vol. 121, pp. 1337-97.
Fulton, W.R. (1989), Self-lifting forms, Concrete Construction Magazine, November 1.
Griffis, L.G. (1992), Composite frame construction, in Dowling, P.J., Bjorhovde, R. and Hard, J.E.
(Eds), Constructional Steel Design An International Guide, Elsevier Applied Science, New
York, NY.
Haldar, A. (Ed.) (2006), Recent Developments in Reliability-based Civil Engineering, World
Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ.
Haldar, A. and Kanegaonkar, H.B. (1989), Stochastic transients of a deep water compliant
platform, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, ASME, Vol. 1, pp. 191-8.
Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000a), Probability, Reliability and Statistical Methods in
Engineering Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Haldar, A. and Mahadevan, S. (2000b), Reliability Assessment Using Stochastic Finite Element
Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Haldar, A. and Nee, K-M. (1989), Elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of PR steel frames for
LRFD, Computers and Structures, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 811-23.
Hilber, H.M., Hughes, T.J.R. and Taylor, R. (1977), Improved numerical dissipation for time
integration algorithms in structural dynamics, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 5, pp. 283-92.
Huh, J. and Haldar, A. (2002), Seismic reliability of nonlinear frames with PR connections using
systematic RSM, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 177-90.
International Association for Structural Control and Monitoring (IASCM) (2006), Proceedings of
the 4th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, University of California,
San Diego, CA.
Jung, Y.C., Kundu, T. and Ehsani, M.R. (2002), A new nondestructive inspection technique for
reinforced concrete beams, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 292-9.
Kamat, M.P. (Ed.) (1993), Structural Optimization, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Salem, MA.
Kanegaonkar, H.B. and Haldar, A. (1987a), Non-Gaussian response of offshore platforms: Structural
dynamic, Journal of the Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113 No. 9,
pp. 1882-98. engineering
Kanegaonkar, H.B. and Haldar, A. (1987b), Non-Gaussian response of offshore platforms:
fatigue, Journal of the Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113 No. 9, pp. 1899-908.
Kartam, N., Flood, I. and Garrett, J.H. (1997), Artificial Neural Networks for Civil Engineers,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 299
Katkhuda, H., Flores, R.M. and Haldar, A. (2005), Health assessment at local level with unknown
input excitation, Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 131 No. 6, pp. 956-65.
Kondoh, K. and Atluri, S.N. (1987), Large deformation, elasto-plastic analysis of frames under
non-conservative loading, using explicit derived tangent stiffness based on assumed
stress, Computational Mechanics, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Lee, S.Y. and Haldar, A. (2003), Reliability analysis of frame and shear wall structural systems
dynamic loading, Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 233-40.
Lin, Y.K. (1967), Probabilistic Theory of Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ling, X. and Haldar, A. (2004), Element level system identification with unknown input with
Rayleigh damping, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 130 No. 8, pp. 877-85.
Liu, G.R. (2002), Mesh Free Methods Moving beyond the Finite Element Method, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Lutes, L.D. and Sarkani, S. (1997), Stochastic Analysis of Structural and Mechanical Vibrations,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Malek, A.M., Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M.R. (1998), Prediction of failure load of R/C beams
strengthened with FRP plate due to stress concentration at the plate end, ACI Structural
Journal, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 142-52.
Martinez-Flores, R., Haldar, A. and Katkhuda, H. (2006), Structural health assessment after an
impact, Paper No. IMECE 2006-13718, American Society of Mechanical Engineering,
Washington, DC.
Mehanny, S.F. and Deierlein, G. (2000), Assessing seismic performance of composite (RCS) and
steel moment framed buildings, Paper No. 0746, 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland.
Mehrabian, A. and Haldar, A. (2005), Some lessons learned from post-earthquake damage
survey of structures in Bam, Iran earthquake of 2003, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 180-92.
Mehrabian, A., Haldar, A. and Reyes, A.S. (2005), Seismic response analysis of steel frames with
post-Northridge connection, Steel and Composite Structures, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 271-87.
Mei, H., Kiousis, P.D., Ehsani, M.R. and Saadatmanesh, H. (2001), Confinement effects on high
strength concrete, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98 No. 4, pp. 548-53.
Melchers, R.E. (2006), Probabilistic models for corrosion in structural reliability assessment, in
Haldar, A. (Ed.), Recent Developments in Reliability-based Civil Engineering, World
Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, Ch. 8.
Newmark, N.M. (1959), A method of computation for structural dynamics, Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, pp. 67-94.
Nigam, N.C. (1983), Introduction to Random Vibrations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Nordin, H. (2004), Strengthening Structures with Externally Prestressed Tendons: Literature
Review, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea.
SS Norris, T., Saadatmanesh, H. and Ehsani, M.R. (1997), Shear and flexural strengthening of R/C
beams with carbon fiber sheets, Journal of the Structural Engineering Division, ASCE,
26,4 Vol. 123 No. 7, pp. 903-11.
Oden, J.T. (1969), A general theory of finite elements: part I. Topological consideration,
International Journal of Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 205-21.
Onwubolu, G.C. and Babu, B.V. (2004), New Optimization Techniques in Engineering, Springer,
300 New York, NY.
Pian, T.H.H. and Wu, C.-C. (2005), Hybrid and Incompatible Finite Element Methods, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Popov, E.P. (1982), Seismic steel framing systems for tall buildings, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 141-9.
Rackwitz, R. (2006), Socio-economic risk acceptability criteria, in Haldar, A. (Ed.), Recent
Developments in Reliability-based Civil Engineering, World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, Ch. 2.
Rahman, S. (2006), Meshfree methods in computational stochastic mechanics, in Haldar, A.

(Ed.), Recent Developments in Reliability-based Civil Engineering, World Scientific,
Hackensack, NJ, Ch. 10.
Ratay, R.T. (1996), Handbook of Temporary Structures in Construction, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Reyes, A.S. and Haldar, A. (2001), Energy dissipation at PR frames under seismic loading,
Journal of the Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127 No. 5, pp. 588-92.
Reyes, A.S. and Haldar, A. (1999), Nonlinear seismic response of steel structures with PR and
composite connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 37-59.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R. and Jin, L. (1997a), Repair of earthquake-damaged R/C columns
with FRP wraps, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 206-15.
Saadatmanesh, H., Ehsani, M.R. and Jin, L. (1997b), Seismic retrofitting of rectangular bridge
columns with composite straps, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 281-304.
Salmon, C.G. and Johnson, J.E. (1996), Steel Structures Design and Behavior, 4th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Schmidt, J.A. (2003), Structural design for external terrorist bomb attacks, Structural Design,
March, pp. 14-15.
Shi, G. and Atluri, S.N. (1988), Elasto-plastic large deformation analysis of space-frames,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 26, pp. 589-615.
Srinivasan, A.V. and McFarland, D.M. (2000), Smart Structures: Analysis and Design, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Straub, H. (1964), A History of Civil Engineering, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tavakkolizadeh, M. and Saadatmanesh, H. (2001), Galvanic corrosion of carbon and steel in
aggressive environments, Journal of Composites for Construction, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 200-10.
Turner, M.J., Clough, R.W., Martin, H.C. and Topp, L.C. (1956), Stiffness and deflection analysis
of complex structures, Journal of Aerospace Science, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 805-24.
Vo, P.H. and Haldar, A. (2004), Health assessment of beams experimental investigations,
Journal of the Structural Engineering, Special issue on Advances in Health
Monitoring/Assessment of Structures including Heritage and Monument Structures,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Wang, D. and Haldar, A. (1994), An element level SI with unknown input information, Journal
of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 159-76.
Wang, D. and Haldar, A. (1997), System identification with limited observations and without Structural
input, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 123 No. 5, pp. 504-11.
engineering
West, H.H. (1989), Analysis of Structures An Integration of Classical and Modern Methods,
2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wilson, E.L. (1970), SAP A General Structural Analysis Program, Report No. 70/21, University
of California, Berkeley, CA.
Wilson, E.L. (1991), CAL-91 computer assisted learning of static and dynamic analysis of 301
structural systems, UCB/SEMM91/01, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Zhao, Z., Haldar, A. and Breen, F.L. (1994), Fatigue reliability updating through inspections for
bridges, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 120 No. 5, pp. 1624-42.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Irons, B.M., Ergatoudis, J., Ahmad, S. and Scott, F.C. (1969), Isoparametric and
Associated Element Families for Two- and Three-dimensional Analysis, FEM, Tapir.
Corresponding author
Ali Mehrabian can be contacted at: mehrabia@mail.ucf.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Structural Engineering in The New MILLENIUM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Structural Engineering in The New MILLENIUM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Engineering in The New MILLENIUM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structural Survey

Structural engineering in the new millennium: opportunities and challenges

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

gathering places as can be seen in modern stadiums, etc. Advances in the

observations of structural engineering in the following sections. Next, we will provide

Current status of structural engineering

Structural/civil engineering education

Computer, commercial programs, computer-aided drafting and design

Nonlinear dynamic problems

Improved understanding of wind-related issues

Serviceability design criteria, fatigue and fracture

Space structures, offshore structures

catastrophic failures during strong earthquakes, high winds, impact or explosive

Opportunities and challenges in the new millennium

Smart structures and smart materials

Use of dual systems

Meshless or meshfree methods

Computer applications and simulations

Robust and stochastic optimization

Improve understanding of natural phenomena like earthquake, wind, draught, tornado,

Design for blast loading or explosion

Health assessment and monitoring

elements. However, in most cases of practical importance, input excitation information

Retrofitting of existing structures

Artificial neural networks and soft computing

Micro electro-mechanical systems

Rahman, S. (2006), Meshfree methods in computational stochastic mechanics, in Haldar, A.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like