Has the engineering process changed?
Has the engineering process changed?
(OP)
The 45 years since I started my apprenticeship as an electrical engineer have seen continuious change. Most of the products I worked with then are museum pieces, even the tools have changed from a drawing board & slide rule to CAD and CAE tools.
My question is has the basic process changed, I suggest that should the likes of Brindley, Telford, Stephenson or Brunnel come back they would recognise the same process.
A need is identified, engineering look at and even with new processes are asked to give cost and time estimates. The money men, with no real knowledge say it should cost half the price be a quarter the size and only need 10% of the time.
Engineering sit down with a blank sheet of paper and start from scratch. I admit that I talk about reusing previous designs but I still do a lot of rework.
At the end the project is always percieved as late, over budget and only meets 80% of the requirement.
There are good examples about, the current T5 project at Heathrow I believe is one, some automotive projects etc but why are they so few?
How should we operate?
Discuss, or tell me I'm an old cynic
My question is has the basic process changed, I suggest that should the likes of Brindley, Telford, Stephenson or Brunnel come back they would recognise the same process.
A need is identified, engineering look at and even with new processes are asked to give cost and time estimates. The money men, with no real knowledge say it should cost half the price be a quarter the size and only need 10% of the time.
Engineering sit down with a blank sheet of paper and start from scratch. I admit that I talk about reusing previous designs but I still do a lot of rework.
At the end the project is always percieved as late, over budget and only meets 80% of the requirement.
There are good examples about, the current T5 project at Heathrow I believe is one, some automotive projects etc but why are they so few?
How should we operate?
Discuss, or tell me I'm an old cynic





RE: Has the engineering process changed?
At the bottom line (at least in pipeline construction) 95% of what we do would be very recognizable to an engineer from the '50's or earlier. The other 5% would probably elicit the comment "why bother? You come up with something between S30 and S40 pipe, and pick S40. I would have calculated just under S40 and picked S40 with a lot less work".
I'm not saying that the models, spreadsheets, and general purpose computational engines don't allow us to generally do the middle 95% a bit faster with fewer opportunities for error, but it hasn't been revolutionary. If I run the AGA fluid-flow calculation on a slide rule or run it in MathCad, I should get the same answer within the accuracy of the assumptions and limitations of the equation. The problem today, just like 50 years ago is understanding those assumptions and limitations--we don't do any better or much worse now than back then.
I can be more certain of a measurment with a digital micrometer than with a ruler, but not necessarily better or faster than an anolog micrometer.
David
"If its on Green-and-White, its right" mantra of computer professionals in the '70's.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
In your 45 years, what has changed is knowledge. We hopefully now know more than we did 40 years ago, collectively as a profession. What people once had to figure out for the first time, we now have the benefit of our predecessors' hard work and discoveries. All the mistakes, tragedies, and so forth have added immensely to our collective understanding of what to do, how to do it, why we do it, and when we do it.
The tools of our trade, I would also put under knowledge. Using a slide rule vs. a computer/calculator is knowledge. The computer knows the answer, but the answer probably still came from the guy with the slide rule.
Our current stature is a result of out standing on the shoulders of those who came before us.
Should Brindley, Telford, Stephenson or Brunnel come back, they would recognise the same process. But, hopefully, they would be heartened by the amount of progress we have made.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
45 years ago, the problems were simplified to the extent that they could be solved to 3 place accuracy on a slide rule and interpolated from some curves drawn thru some test data points- every engineering decision could be traced back to a fundamental calculation that could be verified by the responsible engineer. Not so today- the amount of blind faith used seems to be directly proportional to the amount of hi-tech utilized.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
I see that as being similar to relying on computer codes.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Where once a structure was designed and supervised by an engineer with a vision, we now have camels built by committees charged with building horsesa
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
When I look up a value in a book (say the Young's modulus of Tantalum), I am treating that book as a black box. When I use a nomogram to size a pipe, that is definitely a black box - I may have checked the nomogram once or twice, it is very unlikely that I can be 100% confident that the shape of each curve is correct.
In every case one relies on the intuition, knowledge and integrity of the engineer. If the answer doesn't 'feel' right, he has to have the ability to check it, or else to massively overdesign, I suppose. That hasn't changed in 200 years.
Another thing that hasn't changed is gut feel - a system designed by an engineer using whatever tools will always be better if he has a good idea of where he wants to go - the proverbial blank sheet of paper is not only intimidating, it is quite likely to mislead you.
Here's a war story: the first succesful solar car was built by Larry perkins and Hans Tholstrup, which they used to cross Australia some time in the 70s or 80s.
Hans then went on to set up the World Solar Challenge. Nobody could afford to build a series of prototypes, so each team sat down and designed a car from what was essentially a blank piece of paper.
One of the most important things in designing a solar car is deciding what speed it will go at, as this controls the trade off between weight, aerodynamics, battery size and panel efficiency.
One of the outcomes of that first race is that almost every serious car achieved the speed it was designed for, and the team that designed for the highest speed, won. In other words, the design was optimised around the initial assumptions the teams made.
The interesting thing is that the technology in the winning car was pretty good, and for no appreciable additional design effort they could have gone 75 kph instead of 60 odd, but they'd optimised around 60 odd. (I'm not bagging them, it was a fine car that pretty much nailed the correct solution).
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Nope it is still the same old process.
Has the technology used in the process changed?
Yes it has changed greatly. It now allows competent engineers to accomplish much more in much shorter time and present the results in a professional manner.
Unfortunately the technology has also allowed incompetent engineers to make many more mistakes, make greater mistakes and to make bigger and worse mistakes in a shorter time while still allowing them to present these mistakes in a professional manner.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
----------------------------------
Your body might be a temple. Mine is an amusement park...
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
An engineer from the old school approaches the problem pragmatically and with limited tools provides a solution.
I do not mean to disregard the moden tools,but the users and intepreters of the models need better mentoring.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
If we look back the original segregation was between Milatary & Civil Engineering (Not the construction version of civils we have now but a wider scope) then we started to divide to many narrow disciplines.
I think we are starting to look at the wider picture again. It is less acceptable in the company I work for to say that is Mechanical or Software and not my resposibility. Yes I will be expected to work with engineers of other disciplines but I have to own the problem not walk away from it.
John
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
OK so you still have to tests things to validate new designs but with greater confidence you'll get it right quicker and at a lower cost to all concerned.
Want a good example ? How about stents used in heart surgery. These are now designed using FEA such that they work better in the human body. How do you think you could do that without much trial and error; doesn't bear thinking about really.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
We make some assumptions then test these assumptions in models. We just have the ability to have computer models rather than doing all the theoretical modeling by pen and paper and we also have the ability to do calculations more accurately and more ability to have the virtual models refined before moving on to physical models and then the actual product.
Skill, knowledge and innovation are still required just the drudge work has been made a lot easier in the process. The skills may be different, the amount of knowledge may be greater but the innovation factor still is important.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
I'd also disgree that we don't have great individuals like Brunel etc in engineering today. They simply aren't generally working in the same areas of engineering as Brunel etc but in newer areas where the rules haven't been codified like sofeware or computers (if Brunel was alive today I doubt he'd be working in civil engineering but in IT)! Or they are 'mavericks' challenging exisitng technology: Trevor Bayliss with the clockwork radio and James Dyson and his vacuum cleaner for example.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
I am quite puzzled when young engineers who are more or less my age take ages to get the exact answer and eventually end up coming to the same conclusion I did, except that it took me far less time and a bit of conservatism.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Easy for me to say; I have a job that can be done with a 4-banger calculator. Possible answers are "Looks good", "Doesn't look good", and "Better ask the guys that have the real numbers".
'Course, the guys who have the real numbers vary as to whether they are willing to eyeball something and say "Looks good", or spend a week crunching numbers to confirm what my gut already told me (but that I felt ethically compelled to confirm with them). And to be honest, the more of a number-cruncher the EOR is, the more likely I am to decide to trust my own gut after all.
Regarding the Great Engineers who saw a whole project through from start to finish--these days the "greats" wouldn't want to be bothered with it. The big idea people don't want to be general contractors, hiring the cranes, etc.--and why should they? How does that make them better big idea people?
For example, last I knew, the city of Dallas was commissioning a series of bridges from Santiago Calatrava. Ol' Santiago makes a heckuva bridge, but somehow I doubt we'll see him hanging around in a hardhat for the full duration of the project. Or doing all the detail drawings himself. Does that make him less of an engineer/architect?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Compared to the likes of Brunel (Royal Albert Bridge), John Roebling (Brooklyn Bridge), or John Fowler & Benjamin Baker (Forth Rail Bridge), yes, Calatrava is a lesser engineer, although perhaps a greater artist.
I defend that opinion because I think the creations of the engineers of yesteryear, with the tools and materials at their disposal at the time, were far greater challenges than those of today. Calatrava's talent lies in combining purpose with graceful elegance, and his work has a fragile beauty. The Forth Rail Bridge has an appeal all of its own but fragile beauty is hardly the term to describe it. Like the Royal Albert Bridge it has tremendous character and a sense of permanence lacking in modern structures. Perhaps I am sentimental for a bygone age?
----------------------------------
Your body might be a temple. Mine is an amusement park...
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Hg
Eng-Tips policies: FAQ731-376
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
I would vote for you being sentimental for a bygone era.
Nothing wrong with that.
I just think you are sentimental.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
We seem to embrace new technologies but do not like to change 'how' we do things.
I have recently been involved in trying to reduce project engineering costs, associated with the control of automated handling systems, I have been looking at reducing the time by automatic transfer of data from the mechanical drawing to the schematic & then from the Schematic to the PLC program.
Other collegues have been working on automatic PLC code generation from the mechanical drawings.
We can show this will automate about 70% of the project.
The End users and OEMs involved are interested in idea but it seems that all the engineers prefer to manualy do this work.
This was what prompted my question in the first place.
John
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
They'll NEVER change... as opposed to the latin definition of 'engineer'.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
PS. I may have misspelt "bureucrat", bloody French cognates.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
beans counter is the accounts/finance person. and not the bureaucrat/politician.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
David
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
These days there is an increasing emphasis on form over function, which means two things. One, the architects will get more credit. Two, cost effectiveness goes out the window and things like ... an increasing national debt result.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
In that case, who designed the new Charles de Gaul airport at Paris - the one that collapsed 1 month after it opened.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Only an engineer would reply with a literal reply to my comment :) And most definately only an engineer would break it down into it's parts to analyse it :)
As for the artsy crap beign tacked onto buildings, I like it, I'm not a fan of eyesores. But I dislike the artsy comments "ribbon of steel in the mist" my tush.
My attitude pisses my wife off to no end, she's a theatre teacher and always sees the symbolism in everything, colors, expressions etc etc, I see the parts that make it up. Sometimes I do it just to rile her up hehehe.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Well put!
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
"who designed the new Charles de Gaul airport at Paris - the one that collapsed 1 month after it opened."
I give up. Who?
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
That seems to be going backwards at a tremendous rate, probably due to the loss of experience in the management, design and production personnel. Not helped by the general growth in bureaucracy and ass-covering.
Or by the lack of competition – having only one major customer who has no where else to go is probably not very good for the soul and certainly not good for the process of cost control.
At least until the 1960s, US naval shipbuilding projects were capable of delivering remarkable achievements. In July 1950, one month after the start of the Korean War, the US Secretary of Defense finally offered the USN a new aircraft carrier. This vessel was to be a first of class design, much larger than any preceding carrier. One year later, the shipyard contract was placed, and the keel was laid within another year. The 75,000 tonne Forrestal was delivered less than 4½ years after contract, despite the design being changed to accommodate an angled flight deck after the keel had been laid !
In the project for the first nuclear carrier Enterprise, the onboard reactors achieved Initial Critical status in December 1960, just 5½ years after approval was given for the development of a land based Large Ship Reactor prototype. The detailed design and construction of the vessel was accomplished within 4 years of the contract date.
Similar striking achievements were made in the nuclear submarine field.
However, by the late 1960s and 1970s, several large naval programmes in the USA were experiencing significant delay and disruption, which resulted in large claims against the government. It seems that the extended delivery periods experienced with these programmes became the new benchmark for the future.
Now, a Nimitz type carrier takes 8 to 10 years to build, despite the benefits gained from all that experience and the fact that the basic ship is a very old design.
White collar (YES – not build hours) for the latest VIRGINA class submarine are reported to be in the range 18 to 30 MILLION manhours.
The reported design hours for the NAUTILUS (first nuclear sub in the world) were 1.5 million and 2.0 million for the GEORGE WASHINGTON (first Polaris ballistic missile sub). These designers had to solve problems never encountered before.
Modern government design/project people are probably more occupied with proving to their political masters that what is being designed and procured is the “right” thing to be doing than actually doing a design/management job. Whether or not the effort in the latter direction has achieved the desired results is an equally valid question.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Googling paris cdg airport architect
gives a lot of hits relating to the collapse of the structure. The architect was Paul Andreu.
----------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy it...
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
ht
"There were fatal flaws in the construction which should have been picked up earlier."
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
problem + engineer + money + time = solution
then no it has not changed, but if you meant the system of doing business then I'd wager it has.
For one thing, my title is (Biomechanical) Design Engineer. We don't have an Engineer and a Drafter and a Designer and a Secretary, we have me. Computers and their lovely little buttons allow bypassing three of the above professions entirely.
The Internet lets me shop around for multiple suppliers and compare quotes within days (if not hours) of conceiving of the product in the first place.
I can e-mail fully detailed 3D models of the part I want made for the machine shop to look at, and that's assuming I didn't generate a physical rapid prototype to go along too.
I can't vouch for the way things happened 45 years ago (I didn't exist yet) but I'm pretty sure some things ahve definitely changed.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
I agree with you, what I think has dropped out of a lot of organisations, includeing the one I work for is the habit of recoding everthing you do. I was told as a young engineer that f I phoned a client or contractor and said Good morning I should at least confirm it with a telex. Ok the contract file was big but when it came to who said or did what we had the evidence.
I have always & still do keep a jounal with notes and calculations in also decisions not recorded else where. Again when push comes to show I have evidence in the form of notes made at the time. This can be of use when the Health & Safety people get involved if things got wrong.
RE: Has the engineering process changed?
Low-tech + high-tech = Good Tech.