4 ms·
The weld is really the key difference here. For welds to be structurally sound, and for them to work in the calculations that have been performed for the struct
by ChuckFrank 12y ago
The weld is really the key difference here. For welds to be structurally sound, and for them to work in the calculations that have been performed for the structural integrity of the structure, they have to meet a certain standard. These welds didn't. The company said that they themselves would state whether those standards were met. So this would be more akin to a computer chip manufacturer, where every Nth chip is faulty, and then still inserting them into a computer. This isn't about detailing mistakes in isolation. Nor is this about a software program where good enough is sufficient. This is more like the NASA launch controls where it has to be perfect (or however close NASA claims it needs to get to clear a launch program.)
Though I'm not sure that answers your question. Since I'm not showing similar projects.
- dsl 12y agoYeah, the welds are a big deal here. The entire design was done assuming proper welds. When they accepted substandard welds, nobody went back and did the calculations that probably would have shown they needed twice as many supports.
- angersock 12y agoYep. The big reason that the convenient approximations (lies) we use in mechanical and civil engineering work is that it is expected that the implementer of our designs (elaborate lies) doesn't use the wrong parts--there are exhaustive specifications on things as boring as bolts and threads and welds specifically to ensure that the behavior they exhibit is within the realm of what the designer expects. It's nice to see software engineering practices being backported to more conservative and stagnant forms of engineering. 8)
- jacquesm 12y ago> It's nice to see software engineering practices being backported to more conservative and stagnant forms of engineering. 8) Hehe, I had to read that three times before the coin dropped :)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]