definition of "engineering failure" 8

[ACtrafficengr]

I was going to post this on the Sisters Creek walkway thread, but thought it might be worth it's own discussion.

Does engineering failure only include a design or construction error that directly leads to structural failure, fire, short circuit, or other failure, or does it include designs that contribute to or prevent recovery from catastrophic user errors?

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/

 

[JohnRBaker]

It's a sort of the needle and camel's back issue, isn't it? It's like the Challenger tragedy. It wasn't one single 'engineering failure' but rather a collection of issues and decisions, any one of which would NOT have resulted in the lose of the spacecraft and crew, but when taken together, they led to an inevitable failure.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[BrianPetersen]

IMO "failure of someone that carries engineering responsibility to do their job"

There's always "opportunity for improvement" - e.g. in that case, better signage, or proper lighting (except, what happens if the power is off?), or a design change that would have eliminated the hazard, such as continuing the walkway for the rest of the way along the bridge instead of stopping it at the ramp/stairs to whatever was below.

If such signage was required by law, then someone failed in not ensuring that it was put up.

If the barrier at the end of the walkway was not of the height that it's supposed to be, then someone failed there, as well.

Any time there is an accident of any sort whatsoever, you can always point fingers at some factor that would have led to the accident not happening, but that doesn't mean it should have been done, or would not have led to other problems.

We don't know why they had that walkway for what appears to be 80% of the length of the bridge, and then only went down the stairs/ramp instead of continuing it the rest of the length of the bridge.

It's easy to point fingers at a risk assessment for failing to predict that someone would ride a bicycle along that path in the wrong direction of traffic flow at night without any lighting and collide with that barrier ...

 

[jhardy1]

I would consider failing to consult and apply established "good practice" when designing a piece of public infrastructure is arguably an "engineering failure" - even if the "good practice guidelines" are not explicitly called up in the relevant codes and legislation. There are plenty of published guidelines for good bikeway / footway design - e.g. see

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

From what I can see in the photos on the Sister's Creek thread, that double-left turn on the pathway creates an obvious hazard, with no attempt to moderate it. It may have been necessary from a functional point of view (presumably, the path needs to drop down to grade to connect with other paths), but there are any numbers of measures which could / should have been adopted to make it safer.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[RedSnake]

In the European machine directive, which of course does not apply to roads and walkways.
But might still point to what is considered to be part of an engineering failure.

You is required to remove risks of predictable misuse.

As an example.

You do not want pedestrians to walk on the motorway so you build a walkway for pedestrians.
But cyclists are also not allowed to cycle on the motorway and probably do not want to cycle on the motorway anyway.

Then one could predict that cyclists will use the walkway to get around even if they are not allowed.
So what do you do?
Either make a separate bike path from the highway and walkway.
Or allow cyclists on the walkway and adjusts the walkway to cyclists to.

Regardless, if this hade been a "machine" it hade been possible to predict that this misuse would happen.
And it would have been considered to be a engineering failure not to adress it or solve the problem.

Best regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[dik]

We had always been taught that a failure was when the object no longer functioned in the manner it was supposed to function.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[zeusfaber]

Presumably, the point of the question is to try to understand what deserves to be discussed under this heading, and what doesn't.

Many of the answers above have focussed on the distinction between what could get the Engineer sacked/prosecuted and what shouldn't

I'm not sure that distinction serves us well here. The value of this forum comes when we explore what we can learn from things that went wrong, so we can deliver better and safer products and services to the public - regardless of whether or not anybody was to blame the first time round.

A.

 

[RedSnake]

Dik you are right

What I described above is more a qustion of failure to engineer.
I am having a bit of a language problem here.

I guess it's probably more a question of design flaws, not to take into account, the predictable abuse.
But often the design is a part of the technical solution as well.

/A




“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[dik]

I've never used that as a criteria for engineering design.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

No trouble... It's questionable if this is an engineering failure... definitely not material... an engineer may not have been aware of the actual use, or hazards involved. That the accident happened is an indication of a significant failure in design, albeit, maybe not engineering. The old expression, "It's difficult to make things foolproof... fools can be so ingenious", comes to mind...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[FacEngrPE]

Well if you are thinking about what can get an engineer in legal trouble the General Duty Clause of OSHA,

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=3359&p_table=OSHACT

covers all sorts of stuff the regulations do not address. Mileage of similar law in other countries varies.

More to the point the path to an engineering failure is similar to the Swiss Cheese model of accidents

http://blog.enterprisetraining.com/swiss-cheese-accident-causation-model/

One of the layers could be regulations. Another could be company design QC process. etc. Accidents or engineering failures occur when the holes in the layers align.

Fred

 

[RedSnake]

Maybe this thread can have a slightly more philosophical focus, that still can provide something of value in the end?

Since English is not my first language, I looked at the meaning of the word engineering.

The first meaning.
The profession of applying scientific principles to the design, construction, and maintain.

The second meaning.
The application of science to practical uses such as the design of structures, machines, and systems.

So what is scientific principles and science.
Well today I would say that it can be allmost anything, not only physical or material but also studie of human behavior.

So a engineering failure, could be both
A failure in professional practice of the siences which are available at the time or
a design fauilure because of it.

Since I have my experience in maintenance and also in reviewing machine safety, the word function stuck a bit.

The way a see it, is that all engineering comes down to one thing only, namely to provide functions for people.
But if the functions are not safe for people, from a none material point of veiw I think the function is not really achieved, especially when the function to begin with is personal safety.

In all machine building in Europe it's a requirement to do a risk analysis, which also includes looking at predictable misuse.
If a risk is found, then it is evaluated based on how serious the consequences will be for the human.
If the damage is irreversible or leads to death, no matter how unlikely it is that it may occur it must be addressed and remedied.
All risks must of course be addressed, but to start with the most serious will be emedied, because whether we like it or not, money will always be a factor here.

This is done in 3 steps.
Redesign, to get rid of the risk.
If it is not possible to redesign the risk away,
you need to install protective devices that prevents the risk.
If this is not possible, you can put up signs and write instructions.

It would be very easy and cheap to just put up signs to remove all risks.
But to construct away the risk from the beginning is not really that much more expensive.
Before you used a eraser and a pen and redrawn a few lines, today you do it in a cad program.
The big cost is usually the material, not the working hours.
Changing something after it has been built is usually very costly, as it is to introduce protective equipment, which means even more material costs and working hours.
After each reconstruction, a new risk analysis must be performed so that no new risks have been created.

I might add that in Sweden it is unheard of, that you would be sacked or prosecuted for engineering failures.
It is often regulated in the contracts, which are often so poorly written that the buyer has to bear the entire cost, unless it is regulated by the insurance companies.
Going to court as a private person can be very costly if you lose the case, then you have to pay both your own and the other party's costs.
Those who are usually the ones who bring charges in environment court is The Swedish Work Environment Authority , but it can take years before it is fully investigated and if someone is convicted, it is rarely about a lot of money and almost never about imprisonment.

We are more or less morally obligated, in this country, to point out shortcomings and errors, and it is seldom or never a matter of blaming anyone, more for avoiding the repetition of errors, as zeusfaber pointed out.

Best regards A

“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[dik]

Well thought out dialogue... Missed something... nearly every professional association for engineers has as its main tenet that it's main function is to protect the public...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[1503-44]

Failure in the typical design context is when anything doesn't work properly due to its design. If an engineer did the design, its an engineering failure, but not necessarily a disaster. I'll leave the definition of disaster up to the beholder, as it can be extremely subjective.

 

[dik]

It may have been disasterous for the cyclist...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[1503-44]

No doubt about that.

Then there is this one ... 190,000 ceiling fans recalled. So far I would call it failure, but apparently not yet [pre][/pre]a disaster for anyone except the mfgr.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/28/business/ceiling-fan-recall-trnd/index.html

 

[RedSnake]

Yes, but only because they were lucky.
That faliur was a disaster about to happen, if they hadn't recalled them.
A blade like that with some speed can do great damage to a person.

We handle a lot of metall sheets, if they fall from a hight they can fly a long way without any speed to begin with.
But they have a bit more weight to them, than that fan blade.
They become like a guillotine, they will cut off your legs of if you stand in the way.

It seems that the word disaster can be used for both large and small unexpected events that affect something in a bad way.
Do you know where the word comes from?

Spoiler

Disaster has its roots in the belief that the positions of stars influence the fate of humans, often in destructive ways; its original meaning in English was "an unfavorable aspect of a planet or star." The word comes to us through Middle French and the Old Italian word disastro, from the Latin prefix dis- and Latin astro, meaning "star."

Best Regards Anna


“Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere.“
Albert Einstein

 

[moon161]

Oh my I think a had a couple of those fans in the cart and then put them back because of the price.

 

[dik]

That could be a Monty Python skit...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

I've always use the analogy that Engineering is to Science in the same way that Magic is to Religion.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik