David Ng Chew Chiat in Singapore, Ionut Iancu in Romania and Michael Crisp in Australia all do the same thing before they act on a number, including when the number comes from a program they rely on every day. They check it.
In their own words.
01
David Ng Chew Chiat
Co-founder & Executive Director · One Smart Engineering Pte Ltd · Singapore
"As an engineer, one should be professional and innovative in solving the engineering challenges we encounter."
Building confidence in a new tool
We were very impressed with the capabilities of MIDAS software and decided to change our main operating software from others to MIDAS. At the start, we carried out verification checks on our analyses using MIDAS and other software. This was to ensure that we developed more confidence in using MIDAS.
By sharing our experience of using MIDAS software to analyze our challenging engineering problems, and verifying them with instrumentation and monitoring results, it will definitely help promote the capabilities and reliability of MIDAS software to more engineers.
02
Ionut Iancu
Civil Engineer · SDC Proiect · Romania
"I believe a good engineer should never blindly trust a result, even when it comes from a reliable tool. I always try to understand the behaviour behind the numbers, verify critical results, and make sure the final solution is both safe and practical."
Question the first solution
I believe good engineering means understanding and questioning results, not simply accepting them. I pay close attention to details, verify critical results, and explore different design solutions to achieve the right balance between safety, efficiency, constructability, and economy.
I always try to question the first solution and explore alternatives. A different approach can often lead to a more efficient design, with optimized material use and lower costs, while maintaining the required safety and performance. MIDAS helped me move beyond simply obtaining results to truly understanding structural behaviour.
03
Michael Crisp
Geotechnical Engineer · Mott MacDonald · Australia
"Small errors may be symptoms of big modelling issues. Always investigate if the results don't match what you expected, even by a little bit, as incorrect setups may lead to much larger problems later on."
Down to the soil–shotcrete interface
We designed an integral bridge that required a very good understanding of how the soil was being supported by the structure, down to the shotcrete and soil–shotcrete interface elements. This had to be modelled accurately so that the influence of the soil pressure on the bridge was captured. The soil–structure interaction functionality of GTS NX allows us to model all this explicitly.
Each of them is checking against something different. David Ng Chew Chiat set the new program beside the old one. Ionut Iancu checks a number against an understanding of the behaviour. Michael Crisp checks it against what was expected. What would you check your last result against?