3 ms·

(Sorry to be bit of a skunk at the picnic, but...) I'm sure someone payed for the adjustments deemed necessary. And this probably wasn't the engineer's pocket

(Sorry to be bit of a skunk at the picnic, but...) I'm sure someone payed for the adjustments deemed necessary. And this probably wasn't the engineer's pocket money. Zooming out, many/most/all larger projects have budget overruns. The root cause is usually that politically the plan is not viable unless it's pitched below a realistic estimate. This is often where "clever engineering" comes into the picture, but also where risks are taken that are responsible for budget overruns (or physical disasters when undressed) are rooted. I don't know enough about this project to allege that this is what was going on here, but it kinda fits the picture: 1. Try something novel (aluminum construction, unusual foundation) 2. Start (or even finish) construction; ie.: sunk cost fallacy 3. "Discover" potential issue with significant budgetary impact

psd1 3y ago
The structural members in question were steel, not aluminium. The original costings were done assuming welded joints. It was a contractor who cavilled that expense, and the change to bolted joints was done without notice to the lead engineer. What you describe does happen, I've seen it in the field of software; but it's not the issue described in TFA.
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  This is all true, and I admit using to big a brush here. And sorry for my inaccuracies. I meant to look as the process more holistically. Yes, I think you're precise in point out this was not a planning / engineering issue, but execution. But stepping away from the finger pointing; there is always a disconnect between the actual physical building and the model, assumptions conjured to guide the physical process toward safety. A welded joints on paper are neither safe or unsafe; it's the physical result that requires the safety. It seems that somewhere in the process the architect/designer, engineer, supervisor, builder, hadn't paid attention. And without blaming one or the other, there are always (political) motivations for people to look away. That is, it's difficult to get a man to appreciate a problem when his salary depends on his not understanding it. :-)
  - pseg134 3y ago
    This seems like an auto generated spam comment. It’s a bunch of words but there is no meaning.

psd1 3y ago

The structural members in question were steel, not aluminium. The original costings were done assuming welded joints. It was a contractor who cavilled that expense, and the change to bolted joints was done without notice to the lead engineer. What you describe does happen, I've seen it in the field of software; but it's not the issue described in TFA.

repelsteeltje 3y ago
This is all true, and I admit using to big a brush here. And sorry for my inaccuracies. I meant to look as the process more holistically. Yes, I think you're precise in point out this was not a planning / engineering issue, but execution. But stepping away from the finger pointing; there is always a disconnect between the actual physical building and the model, assumptions conjured to guide the physical process toward safety. A welded joints on paper are neither safe or unsafe; it's the physical result that requires the safety. It seems that somewhere in the process the architect/designer, engineer, supervisor, builder, hadn't paid attention. And without blaming one or the other, there are always (political) motivations for people to look away. That is, it's difficult to get a man to appreciate a problem when his salary depends on his not understanding it. :-)
- pseg134 3y ago
  This seems like an auto generated spam comment. It’s a bunch of words but there is no meaning.