Just finished reading Chpt 4 and one quote intrigued me.
Structural engineering is the science and art of designing and making, with economy and elegance, buildings, bridges, frameworks, and other similar structures so that they can safely resist the forces to which they may be subjected.
Economy and elegance sound great but safety has to be the overall goal, right?
In today's economy I worry that cost may be a big factor. I often see or hear in the news about construction companies, road builders, Bath Iron Works, etc, won the contract or job because they came in with the lowest bid. Yikes! I don't hear that they won the contact or job because they came up with the safest design.
What do you think?
Cost is a big factor, and as Petroski discusses, we could always spend more for something which is likely to be safer. There is no "safest" design. Typically what is left unsaid, however, is that the lowest responsive bid is what is accepted, and packaged up in the word responsive is meeting the minimum safety standards that our society has decided to set. Engineers compete for design work with a double-sided economic requirement - not only do they have to perform the work for less than their competitors, but they need to produce a design that can be built less expensively than a competitor's design. However, part of the profession is making sure that safety does come first. Good engineers will not agree to perform a job for less than they feel it will take them to make a safe design, and will not put forth a design that can be built for less if it will not be safe. Perhaps that underlying concern should not be left unsaid so often.
ReplyDeleteI think"Cost is a big factor" as is safety in design. Contracts going to the lowest bidder has global implications. Many engineering opportunities are lost to the lowest bidder, with design safety a consideration, due to the economic disparity between countries.
ReplyDeleteI would hope as well, that the company that asked for the design would not only be looking for one that is cost effective, but also that meets their own requirements for safety and structural integrity. They don't want to be par to of a lawsuit later on either, if something goes wrong.
ReplyDeleteCost is something we need to include when making activities and projects with our students. One of my colleagues creates cost for materials students use from his classroom but not cost for things scrounged or brought from home. This encourages students to stay active when not in class as well as encouraging recycling.
ReplyDeleteI teach general freshmen science and try to avoid having students bring in materials from home for individual projects. If they are working in groups they can share but I feel that asking them to bring in material can be an unfair burden. Of course the middle class student with involved parents will figure out a way to bring in materials, but the poor student with absentee parents will not. If students bring something in (like orange juice containers for the putt putt boats) we work in groups so only one of the four students has to bring it in. We do create a rubric though, so that students have to "buy" the materials for construction( 50 dollars for a piece of paper, 20 for a rubber band, etc...) so they need to buy it from the store (me) and keep track and not go over budget. It teaches them good skills that will translate into their lives, whether they become engineers or not.
ReplyDelete