×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Scope ambiguity
2

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

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: Scope ambiguity

How about:

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

(OP)
I still need it in nounlike format; it's a definition.

(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

2
For your first question, I would  phrase it "a component of a member where failure of the component would be expected to cause collapse"  or "a component of a member where failure of the member would be expected to cause collapse."

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

(OP)
Maury--right on.

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

RE: Scope ambiguity

I would replace "member" with "system".

"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

(OP)
Unfortunately that won't work in the CE world.  (I should have defined my terms better.)  A member is something you can pick up with a crane.  Components are things welded together to form members, or sometimes just a designated portion of a member without having a delineating weld.  A "system" would probably be something made of a bunch of members.

[rant about specwriters judiciously deleted before hitting "submit"]

Hg

RE: Scope ambiguity

HgTX,

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

Let's see, is it:
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

(OP)
My main problem is trying to write a definition when there are already two published documents out there that define the term two different ways, neither of which is ideal, without creating a conflict with either document.  (Leaving it undefined could create a conflict depending on which of the already-existing definitions someone chooses to go with.)

"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

So there's no point pre-qualifying along the lines:
"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

Member is to stay, don't use who or whose, it is not a person.

Since member can be so many things, use it in short sentences.

Regards

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

RE: Scope ambiguity

(OP)
"who" no.  "whose" yes--it does double duty as the possessive of "who" as well as of "which".

Hg

Eng-Tips guidelines:  FAQ731-376

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources