Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lasersailor184 on February 22, 2006, 09:43:21 AM
-
Currently I'm learning about concrete design. Concrete is an interesting material in that it is pretty good in compression for it's weight, but it can barely hold any tension by itself. This is where Rebar comes in. Rebar is short for Reinforcement Bars. What these do is they are placed in sections of concrete that would recieve tension forces. So this way most of the tension force is taken by the steel, and not the concrete.
One day my professor went off on a tangent. He was part of a crew to figure out what happened to the Murrah Federal Building (OK city bombing target).
In the process, he found out that the contractors were supposed to extend rebar through the columns, past the far end of the columns to just more then a foot past. But they didn't.
Had the contractors done this, the blast from the truck bomb would have destroyed the base column, but the building would not have collapsed.
The rebar and the concrete would have deflected a very large amount, but it would not have given out. Or at least it would have given sufficient time to evacuate the building.
This interesting fact is brought to you by PSU Architectural Engineering Department.
-
Just one small example of what happens when government contracts are awarded to the cheapest bidder
-
Not necessarily so. To extend the rebar past the columns is required by code, but it was not enforced anywhere. Practically no one did it because no inspector would demand or require that that specific code be followed.
-
Where is the lawsuit then?
-
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.
-
Had the contractors done this, the blast from the truck bomb would have destroyed the base column, but the building would not have collapsed.
There's a decent documentary on the bombing (IIRC shown on PBS maybe Frontline..? or maybe one of the cable / sat channels...)
Just going from memory, in that documentary the the face of the Murrah Federal Building being glass the pressure wave easily blew through it lifting several of the lower floors up. Along first floor was a horizontal reinforced concrete support 'beam' that was lifted up and then pushed back off the vertical columns by the blast and fell. As the floors came back down they crushed those vertical columns that were already weakened by the blast. As these gave way the building pancaked.
The conclusions reached in this documentary implied that the lack of blast proof glass was the key factor in the buildings collapse and I don't recall any mention of faulty construction in general.
Later today I will see if I can find the title and maybe a transcript...
-
Architectural engineer is kinda like military intelligence. :)
-
Hardly Funked, every building you see around you is designed by an Architectural Engineer. If it was the same as Military Intelligence, millions of people would die every year.
Bruno, isn't it funny how all those documentaries NEVER consult those who actually design and build those buildings?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hardly Funked, every building you see around you is designed by an Architectural Engineer. If it was the same as Military Intelligence, millions of people would die every year.
Laser, as far as I know we havent had that many Ryder trucks with diesel soaked fertilizer parked in front of building to test that theory. but we could include malls that have had floors colapse ;)
-
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.
Thats what lawyers are for, is it not? To figure out how to pilfer as much cash out of anyone to fill their own pockets. ;)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
...every building you see around you is designed by an Architectural Engineer...
That statement is pure bull****.
-
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.
-
Not to mention passing the professional engineering exams.
-
Diplomas are overrated. You can become a CEO without one. (http://hr.blr.com/display.cfm/id/17831) ;)
-
Originally posted by Bruno
There's a decent documentary on the bombing (IIRC shown on PBS maybe Frontline..? or maybe one of the cable / sat channels...)
Just going from memory, in that documentary the the face of the Murrah Federal Building being glass the pressure wave easily blew through it lifting several of the lower floors up. Along first floor was a horizontal reinforced concrete support 'beam' that was lifted up and then pushed back off the vertical columns by the blast and fell. As the floors came back down they crushed those vertical columns that were already weakened by the blast. As these gave way the building pancaked.
The conclusions reached in this documentary implied that the lack of blast proof glass was the key factor in the buildings collapse and I don't recall any mention of faulty construction in general.
Later today I will see if I can find the title and maybe a transcript...
yup saw this program was very good!
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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. :)
-
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.
That statement is pure bull****.
It isn't. While they might not necessarily call themselves an AE, they are one.
-
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.
-
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. :huh
Self-pwn't. :D
-
[SIZE=10]WE ARE![/SIZE]
-
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
-
Anyway, I consider myself an AE in training. My professor is the AE the interesting fact came from.
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]
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
yup saw this program was very good!
Do you recall the name of it and/or the channel by chance?
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hobby, of sorts. For some odd reason, the Titanic has always held a fascination for me.
On the anniverary of the Titanic, all the CVs should turn into Titanics with ultra-uber guns everywhere and a hole in the bow where the planes lift from. :noid
/hijack
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Just because you have the word "Engineer" in your title, doesn't mean you know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground.
You should get that cut into a brass plaque and hang it in your office for reflection.
:)
-
^ ahhh hahahahaha
-
It really wasn't that funny oct. I had a running bet with myself as to who would be the first to say it.
But the thing is I will know my bellybutton from a hole in the ground. Not only because I'm the smartest person on this board, nor one of the hardest working, but because I will be graduating from Penn State.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Hobby, of sorts. For some odd reason, the Titanic has always held a fascination for me.
Skuz, I'm sure you already know. But this Sun. on discovery ch. they have a new series were they claim they found some amazing new eveidence about what happened.
-
The 'amazing' new evidence is about how the hull separated (below the water line) from the bottom of the ship, which is now believed what caused it to sink in as little as 5 minutes, versus the original thought of 20 minutes for it to sink.
The ship broke into 3 pieces. When they found the wreckage, they had assumed the missing section had been obliterated, but it was discovered some 900m from the original site, in tact.
As the aft section was rising due to the fore section sinking, the stress caused the ship to break, the lower hull section did not break, but instead it tore apart from the fore and aft section on either side of the break and dropped away from the ship.
This allowed a massive amount of water to enter, rather unimpeded, and sink the reamaining aft section very quickly.
But thank you for the heads-up SuperDud.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hardly Funked, every building you see around you is designed by an Architectural Engineer.
....and therein lies the problem.
Karaya
-
See Rule #4
-
Just because you have the word "Engineer" in your title, doesn't mean you know your bellybutton from a hole in the ground.
Kind of like you claiming to be one, eh?
-
I only ever claimed to know what I do know. I never said I know more then I do.
-
See Rule #4
-
Ah, he's young. Everybody is "full of themselves" until real life rounds the corners on the square.
-
I thought it was OK to be cocky if you really are that good. Am I wrong?
-
I do physics. WTF is so special about crunching numbers and deriving a few equations? Not ****in much, less you're buying ferarris with grant money. You arent special. Should I flood this board with my sheltered and ignorant posts? Should I make threads with redundant information I learned in lecture today, that any retard watching the history channel can learn? just asking.
or is this right reserved for those with mommy and daddy paying their way?
-
You know, laisersailor, I don't think anyone here wishes you ill will. I'm not picking on you and encourage you to study hard and be enthusiastic about what you're doing. You're maybe in your 2nd year?
Here comes the 'but' part: It's amazing how small the world is. You simply never know when someone you've run across will pop up again in business or in your professional life. It doesn't really make that much difference what school you're going to. There are plenty of universities with quality engineering departments.
Calling yourself an engineer, as you did in another thread, and saying that being still a student is a 'minor detail' speaks volumes about attention to detail. I hope you'll pay attention to details, because it's pretty darn important in engineering. It's also important to your credibility. I noticed that you don't ask questions or tailor your language since there may be other answers or possiblities unknown to you. Everything is a declarative statement. I find that unusual for a student, but maybe I'm old fashioned.
As Toad wisely said, real life is going to round some corners.
So, good luck with your studies.
-
I think I hit a nerve with Oct. I've never seen him react like that.
Calling yourself an engineer, as you did in another thread, and saying that being still a student is a 'minor detail' speaks volumes about attention to detail.
No, it says volumes about a lack of a sense of humor.
I'm currently in my 3rd year of a 5 year program. I will be learning about a job I've already been performing. Construction Management. I grew up on the job sight. I see it as a refinement of some skills, and learning of others.
I do have to say that I am dissapointed with some of the AH community. I came here in a friendly manner to relay a little tidbit of information I had learned and I get a reception like this.
-
Sorry Skuzz, completely missed the edit.
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.
From what I understand, the lighting design would be for a very large scale, as opposed to designing the lighting a single room. But they can (depending on how artsy the AE is feeling at the time) get really extravagant with their designs for really important rooms.
I honestly hated my lighting class, so I plan on never taking another one. So I will never really learn what the Lighting AE's do.
-
She does large scale commercial properties all the time. She has built a name for herself as she is very good at it and is often requested for such projects by the builders.
Structural engineers are the most critical aspect of large construction design and are the most sought after when it comes time to put the ink on the paper, as it were.
-
Interesting. Again I wouldn't know too much about it. It was 9:00 in the morning (oh no! 9!) and HID lights can only be so exciting... I mainly paid attention to the electrical circuit part of that intro course. Then again this was probably because I had to completely design (from wire size to ground fault circuits) everything in a fictitionous elementary school almost singlehandedly (including feeder branches and panelboard layouts). 3 weeks of my life I'll never get back, but I do have a little bit of an idea what will be happening in the houses I'll build.
I'd say that Construction Managers (or General Contractors) would be the most important part, but that's the area I'm headed. The structural guys might design it, but who will be out there building it?
-
I've never worked with an archetectural engineer on a construction project. I've worked with Mechanical Engineers that handled the plumming, Electrical Engineers that handled the electrical planning/design and Structural Engineers that handled the strength/support aspects of the project. The only Architects I've seen drew pictures.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I noticed that you don't ask questions or tailor your language since there may be other answers or possiblities unknown to you. Everything is a declarative statement. I find that unusual for a student, but maybe I'm old fashioned.
That's it. Well put; I had the feeling but not the words.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I think I hit a nerve with Oct. I've never seen him react like that.
No, it says volumes about a lack of a sense of humor.
I'm currently in my 3rd year of a 5 year program. I will be learning about a job I've already been performing. Construction Management. I grew up on the job sight. I see it as a refinement of some skills, and learning of others.
I do have to say that I am dissapointed with some of the AH community. I came here in a friendly manner to relay a little tidbit of information I had learned and I get a reception like this.
Octavius is a very intelligent and friendly person. I see where he is coming from, as do most of us (just keep Octavius away from Fountains). BTW, in the past you made it a point to correct my English. Here goes: "Sight" should be site. But calling yourself an Engineer before graduation is too cocky. In two more years, you can call yourself that.
Karaya
-
Maybe "engineer" was referring to the person who told him the info? Ever thought of that one guys?
-
Nope. Trust him funked, "he knows."
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Being an Architectural Engineer I know how tragic the architecture and building styles of Iran is. They have the same style as many houses in Iraq. The worst thing to happen to a house in Iraq is torrential rain. The worst thing to happen to the same house is an earth quake.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I told them I'm an Architectural Engineer from Penn State. I left off the "Student" part...
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Being an Architectural Engineer (i'll say it if I damn well want to!) everything McGroin said is true.
Steel becomes ultimately malleable at 1200 degrees, but begins losing significant strength at 600 degrees (fahrenheit).
-
Rolex: "I thought you were a student? Are you a graduate student, an EIT or a PE?"
lasersailor184: "Minor technicality. Doesn't mean I am clueless though."
I wonder how Penn State faculty and the Dean of the Engineering Department would feel about one of their 3rd year students writing emails claiming to be an engineer from Penn State? Let's find out. There can't be too many 3rd year Architectural Engineering students who are captains of a sports team.
-
when your huge internet wang gets caught in forum machinery.
Say hi to Voss, Punisher :lol
-
:D
-
Maybe "engineer" was referring to the person who told him the info? Ever thought of that one guys?
I even said it was my professor who was the AE.
It's too bad all of the humor got lost on you people. I also don't remember ever correcting anyone's english. Mainly because I know mine ain't great itself...