Engineering knowledge loss?? 2

[40818]

Hi all, just a quick ponder...
What is the general consensus regarding the loss of classical engineering knowledge due to the ever increasing reliance on "black box technology". I believe that these very useful tools are exactly that, tools, which should be used by a stressman or designer to aid and quicken their work. Examples of the loss for designers is due to the use of better 3D modelling programs such as catia, a designer no longer has to give sufficient information on a 2D paper drawing to make the part (a big bugbear of mine being a stressman and ex designer long ago).Another example is that Airbus have a black box program to calculate a bolt group analysis,yes a bolt group analysis. Progress with technology is one thing, but are we eroding basic knowledge by automating processes and not allowing new engineers to understand principles and underlying theories behind analysis. Then there is always the FE debate...

 

[40818]

Good point tbuelna, the stats probably do show that our products are more reliable, better, lighter etc than 20/30 years ago, and that trend will continue in the future i believe, otherwise we wont be progressing.
However, the point in question is that a lot of people new to the industry and within it, simply cannot do simple hand calcs to prove to themselves that their FE is good. The people in the "sign-off" position in a company have a very good background of hand calcs, and when an engineer passes their design/stress report onto their desk, they can immediately home in onto problem areas. Simple FBD of a structural system can reveal major flaws in the design, which is not getting picked up by the "FE monkey" as you put it. As the said engineer cannot do the simple things he/she is unaware that their system is flawed.
Until computers can think for themselves, they are still tools without understanding, if the engineer using the computer has no understanding then it can cause problems.
The situation in another 20 to 30 years may probably be the same as it is now, with even better and more realisitic programs, and with the "FE monkeys" in the "sign-off" positions, who will i hope have learned how to FBD and do the simple things by then.

 

[tbuelna]

40818,

I can only give you a perspective based on my personal experiences. I'm 45 years old and have been working in aerospace over 20 years. During those years, some of the most valuable things I've learned were gleaned from guys that had been doing the same job, at the same company, and sometimes on the same program, for literally decades. I learned early on that these guys were more than happy to teach you everything they knew (the type of stuff you don't learn in university), as long as you shut up, paid attention and didn't make the same mistake twice. I spent several years on the Space Shuttle program, and some of the engineering specialists I had at my disposal were the absolute best this country had to offer. When I went to them for help, I was literally in awe listening to them walk me thru a problem.

Sadly though, the large majority of these same (very bright) guys were still cranking out their stress reports/analysis by hand, because they did not want to be bothered to learn a CAD/FEA application. And as I'm sure you're aware, performing an analysis by hand always requires that you simplify the problem as much as possible, to allow you to complete the analysis in a reasonable amount of time. With modern analysis software and processing capability, very little simplification/compromise must be made when performing an analysis.

At the (small)company I'm working with now, most of the engineers are young. They are also, without exception, very good. The owner of the company (an old and very good engineer himself) says he prefers to hire young, inexperienced engineers because they have not learned any prejudices or bad habits, and he can easily teach them to do things the way he prefers. The owner of the company has no clue how to use any of the CAD/FEA software we have, but he also will spare no expense to provide us with most up to date software or hardware we might ask for. He absolutely appreciates the productivity enhancement they provide.

 

[40818]

I completely agree that software has enabled us to step up a gear with our performance and accuracy, which is a good thing. And it is good to hear that there is somebody sensible at the top of your company. Your point of the sometimes reluctance of people to develop and learn new things is well received, i have seen people in that very situation. As long as the new hires have a good coaching from the more experienced members, and all the engineers move with the times, then we will move in the right direction. It would help if the colleges gave more indepth teaching also, but thats a different gripe!!

 

[Anemoi]

Having taken an FEM course with a highly experienced lecturer with heavy industry experience (rarity), I can say with confidence that he would not trust an FEM solution without a hand calculation check. This could be heavily simplified check, but it should at least determine if the FEM result was within reason.

This is especially relevant to young student engineers that just want a model to work. They will try, like I am sure many of your have also done when learning FEM modeling, any hack to get the model to work. So personally I believe old hand calculations are still relevant today, so that people without years of experience in FEM modeling can learn from mistakes and hopeful never be put into a position that may kill people in the process.

So with this in mind I think personally young engineers and students like myself, should learn the so called "Grey beards" methods well. They are still relevant to today and can be efficient as a first estimate of a problem and check to finer analysis tools and techniques such as FEM.