Scope ambiguity
Scope ambiguity
(OP)
Sorry to inject a little grammar into the social commentary...
First consider this:
"a component of a member whose failure would be expected to cause collapse"
How do I rephrase it so that it's unambiguously the component, not the member, whose failure would cause collapse?
How about so it's the member, not the component, whose failure would cause collapse?
Next consider this:
"a member or its component whose failure would not be expected to cause collapse of a structure"
Does that allow for the possibility that either the member or the component could be the one to cause collapse?
Hg
First consider this:
"a component of a member whose failure would be expected to cause collapse"
How do I rephrase it so that it's unambiguously the component, not the member, whose failure would cause collapse?
How about so it's the member, not the component, whose failure would cause collapse?
Next consider this:
"a member or its component whose failure would not be expected to cause collapse of a structure"
Does that allow for the possibility that either the member or the component could be the one to cause collapse?
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376





RE: Scope ambiguity
1) The failure of a member's component would be expected to cause collapse.
2) The failure of a member or it's component would not be expected to cause collapse of a structure.
RE: Scope ambiguity
(meanwhile we've talked our way completely around the problem and avoided the issue entirely, but I still want to know)
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Scope ambiguity
To remove any ambiguity from your second example, try "a member or its component where failure of either or both would not be expected to cause collapse of a structure."
RE: Scope ambiguity
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Scope ambiguity
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
RE: Scope ambiguity
[rant about specwriters judiciously deleted before hitting "submit"]
Hg
RE: Scope ambiguity
From your definitions it would seem that a member can only fail in two possible ways.
Failure of a component.
Failure of the connection between two or more components.
The term "member" seems to be a term of convienence, rather than one of structural significance. Thus I would avoid the use of the word member entirely.
"A component, failure of which would not be expected to cause collapse"
or for the other case
"...connection between components, where failure of the connection would not be expected...."
What do you call the connection between two members?
RE: Scope ambiguity
Likelyhood of failure of a component of a member leading to failure of a member of a structure leading to failure of that structure?
RE: Scope ambiguity
"Member" as a term is here to stay. The definition in question, before I trimmed the sentences down for for the purpose of discussion, is "fracture-critical member", which is defined in the AASHTO bridge design code as a component (though defining a member as a component doesn't make it one) whose failure will cause collapse, and in the AWS bridge welding code as a component OR member. I tried just defining "fracture-critical component" in the document I was working on but met with opposition.
Maury answered my original question, though...I should have been able to come up with that wording but my brain was blocked.
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: Scope ambiguity
"For the purposes of this document, some or all the components may be regarded as members and some or all the members may be regarded as components of the structure and vice-versa?"
RE: Scope ambiguity
Since member can be so many things, use it in short sentences.
Regards
Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr
RE: Scope ambiguity
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376