Author Topic: Interesting fact of the week from an Architectural Engineer! (Read 1515 times)

OOZ662 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:11:01 PM »

Same thing happened with the Titanic. It was being rushed to a deadline, so very few of the walls were finished to the ceiling. When it began taking in water, one room would overflow into the next and there was no way to stop the water.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:34:19 PM »

All the buildings I worked on, there was an architect who made some pretty drawings and then structural and mechanical engineers who fixed all the architect's screw ups. I'm not familiar with these architectural engineers but it sounds encouraging, hopefully they will replace all the architects.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:36:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rolex
Way back 35 years ago, when I was an engineering student, I would probably have thought this was noteworthy, too. Of course, back then, we had the humility to not even call ourselves engineers until we graduated and had a few years of experience under our belts.

LOL and I thought I was the only one breaking balls in this thread.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:41:14 PM »

Funked, that's exactly what AE's are. You have AE's that design the structure, design the mechanical systems, design the plumbing, design the electrical systems, and then AE's that design the lighting.

Finally you have an AE that is the construction manager who builds it.

It'll be a long time (and a few revolutions) til pure Architects will ever not be used.

Quote

That statement is pure bull****.

It isn't. While they might not necessarily call themselves an AE, they are one.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:41:24 PM »

It was a design flaw that caused the Titanic to sink. The 3 (or 5??)bulkheads in the ships core were not designed to go to the upper deck. The ship would have been able to stay afloat had only 2 of the chambers been breeched.

However, 3 chambers were breeched which caused the ship to drop to a lower enough level water overflowed the top of the bulkheads into the other remaining chambers. Once the first bulkhead was topped, it was simply a daisy chain of filling afterwards.

There has also been discussion about the actual integrity of the attachments of the plate steel to the hull frame as being an issue too. Some speculation, based on the wreckage, states the plates buckled as the pressure came about from the iceberg, opening a larger hole in the hull than what the iceberg would have done alone.
---

Most cities and states require an architectural engineer to review a design, if it exceeds X number of square feet, or X number of stories are reached, or X amount of load per square foot is expected to be exceeded. There may be other criteria as well and other engineers involved.

You have all been witness to one of the great architectural engineering achievements when you saw the Twin Towers collapse on 9/11. The buildings did exactly what the engineer designed them to do. Had they not collapsed upon themselves, the death toll would have been significantly higher.

EDIT: LS, lighting and many other things do not have to be done by an engineer. My Wife designs lighting all day long for commercial properties and she is a licensed interior designer. She only has to be concerned with building code and power in lighting design. Just FYI.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2006, 01:44:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
It was a design flaw that caused the Titanic to sink. The 3 (or 5??)bulkheads in the ships core were not designed to go to the upper deck. The ship would have been able to stay afloat had only 2 of the chambers been breeched.

However, 3 chambers were breeched which caused the ship to drop to a lower enough level water overflowed the top of the bulkheads into the other remaining chambers. Once the first bulkhead was topped, it was simply a daisy chain of filling afterwards.

There has also been discussion about the actual integrity of the attachments of the plate steel to the hull frame as being an issue too. Some speculation, based on the wreckage, states the plates buckled as the pressure came about from the iceberg, opening a larger hole in the hull than what the iceberg would have done alone.

Damn you, discovery channel. They had it like...1/4 right.

Self-pwn't.

mars01 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2006, 02:25:54 PM »

[SIZE=10]WE ARE![/SIZE]

J_A_B · « **Reply #22 on:** February 22, 2006, 03:31:32 PM »

As Skuzzy points out, Titanic's center waterproof bulkheads didn't extend up very high because they weren't designed to. The ship was built to withstand any three compartments flooding, as a collision directly on a bulkhead breaching two compartments seemed like the worst-case scenario.

When the ship grazed the iceberg, 5 compartments were ruptured to some extent, and a 6th was flooded when the bulkhead between compartments 5 and 6 collapsed (it was structurally weakened due to an earlier coal fire). After that point, the remaining compartments just filled up one after the other like an ice cube tray.

Had Titanic simply rammed the iceberg, it likely would have survived. It also would have survived if its rudder wasn't an inadequate design.

The severity of the damage has, at times, been attributed to the relatively poor quality of turn-of-the-century metal. When Olympic collided with another ship, it was also damaged beyond what would seem "normal".

EDIT: Fixed moronic grammar error

J_A_B

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:13:53 PM »

Anyway, I consider myself an AE in training. My professor is the AE the interesting fact came from.

Quote

All the buildings I worked on, there was an architect who made some pretty drawings and then structural and mechanical engineers who fixed all the architect's screw ups. I'm not familiar with these architectural engineers but it sounds encouraging, hopefully they will replace all the architects.

Before there were branches of engineering that adapted into the building industry.

We are being taught specifically and exclusively about the building industry (**** loads of money).

Architectural Engineering is a blanket term to cover those who design the systems (structural, mechanical, electrical...) of a building, plus the Construction aspect. Even though the structural stuff is making a lot of sense (for once in my educational career) I'd go nuts sitting behind a desk all day. I'll be going for Construction Management.

Oh, and

[SIZE=8]PENN STATE![/SIZE]

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #24 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:17:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Who would the lawsuit be aimed at? The government? The contractors? The Designers? The Inspectors?

It would just be one large circle jerk in court trying to figure out who was really at fault.

Now here I thought you were going to say somethign really revealing like
"All Buildings with flat roofs leak" (they do)

But instead you gave us something insightful. WTG

As for the lawsuit.
First look at the designers. If its not what the plans call for then its on the designers and probably whatever city planning board who approved the plans.

If its in the plans then its on the contractors to failing to build it up to the building specs in the plans and the inspectors for letting it pass that way

Skuzzy · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:21:13 PM »

JAB, endeavoring to be accurate, I had to take a look at the blue prints again. Titanic had 16 water-tight compartments and could have survived had only 4 of them be breeched. 5 were breeched in the collision.

Bruno · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:27:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by icemaw
yup saw this program was very good!

Do you recall the name of it and/or the channel by chance?

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Bruno, isn't it funny how all those documentaries NEVER consult those who actually design and build those buildings?

There were plenty of engineers from various disciplines that took part in the documentary I mentioned.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:33:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
JAB, endeavoring to be accurate, I had to take a look at the blue prints again. Titanic had 16 water-tight compartments and could have survived had only 4 of them be breeched. 5 were breeched in the collision.

Ummm.

Why on earth would you have blueprints to the Titanic?

Planning on somehow modeling it into the game?

Please. Fix the forward views on the 109 first lmao

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2006, 04:52:11 PM »

Quote

There were plenty of engineers from various disciplines that took part in the documentary I mentioned.

Just because you have the word "Engineer" in your title, doesn't mean you know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2006, 05:03:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ummm.

Why on earth would you have blueprints to the Titanic?

Planning on somehow modeling it into the game?

Please. Fix the forward views on the 109 first lmao

Hobby, of sorts. For some odd reason, the Titanic has always held a fascination for me.