APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
Modern engineering, perhaps. But humans are engineers by nature, and we were engineering things useful to us long before math and science became tools at our disposal.acap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:49 pm This topic is on the top of my mind these days. The chief motivation in engineering is providing something tangible to the society by the use of maths & science. In this process, we see a pattern in problem solving in engineering. One pattern is "simplicity" and it works in an excellent way as far as engineering is concerned.
Have you read any of Petroski's work on engineering? He studies engineering failures, and has described the history of much engineering (particularly civil engineering) as the path of making something (e.g. bridges or buildings) lighter and simpler until something finally breaks, which sets a new limit on simplicity.acap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 pm It may be feared that simplicity may compromise on cost/safety/etc. But if simplicity is adopted in a judicious way and supported by research, it can reduce costs and provide a workable solution. I see this in may areas of Civil Engineering (the Mother of all modern engineering disciplines) and am fascinated by the same. Further, Codes of Practices are in abundant numbers available and they too contribute to simplicity, ease of application etc without compromising on cost and safety.
I am thinking of use of simplicity in many ways in engineering - not just the complete structure. As a matter of fact I consider that many engineering solutions are available and/or being widely used beacause it is simple. This does not mean complex solutions have no place in engineering. The use of computers have made it possible to use complex methods in small problems also and offer workable solutions.Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:06 pmHave you read any of Petroski's work on engineering? He studies engineering failures, and has described the history of much engineering (particularly civil engineering) as the path of making something (e.g. bridges or buildings) lighter and simpler until something finally breaks, which sets a new limit on simplicity.acap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:00 pm It may be feared that simplicity may compromise on cost/safety/etc. But if simplicity is adopted in a judicious way and supported by research, it can reduce costs and provide a workable solution. I see this in may areas of Civil Engineering (the Mother of all modern engineering disciplines) and am fascinated by the same. Further, Codes of Practices are in abundant numbers available and they too contribute to simplicity, ease of application etc without compromising on cost and safety.
That is why we have "Design-Build" & EPC contractsNitpicker wrote: ↑Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:24 pm The design phase of an infrastructure project, is where most of the creativity is to be found, in my (probably biased) opinion. The bulk (ideally all) of the design phase occurs pre-construction, and typically represents a small fraction of the overall cost of the project. Decisions made in the design phase can have a significant impact on the overall project, yet the design engineers are normally only paid for the design phase. In a competitive environment, more effort in the design can yield less profit, or even a loss for the design engineers, but a better project overall. In my experience, this leads to design firms only ever teaming up with construction firms commensurate in size, so that they can afford to sue each other when one or the other (or both) lose money on a project. So, it often boils down to insurance, which I don't find particularly motivating.