Hi K:
>C'da your comments on this will be highly appreciated
--- first because it was designed by some Very Bright
and Very Creative American Engineer whose Math
>foundation is very strong (unlike some Desi idiot)
*** I was hoping to be able to answer your question intelligently. But the
premise of your questions left me completely bewildered.
Did *I* make those assertions about the qualifications or even implied
them about who
might have designed the bridge, or how good they were in math? How do
you know who
designed it? What if it was designed by some very creative East
Pakistani structural engineer
trained at BE college, like Fazlur Khan, who developed the structural
system for the
Sears Towers? What then?
I thought you are an engineer. But from the comments you make and the
questions you ask, I must have been wrong. Anyway, a bridge's integrity is not
the function of just its design alone. The math skills of the designer hardly
enter the equation. Most structural elements fail not because of design, but
for a variety of other factors, most notably due to poor construction practices
, which is a result of incompetent management, human failures, sometimes
corruption--as in India, and sometimes just because of the laws of probability
playing out: if something could go wrong, it would, sooner or later.
The Boston Tunnel concrete panel failures were determined to be a result of
using quick-setting epoxy bolts, instead of the specified standard setting
epoxy, which develop their full strength slowly, over about 48 hours, but
remain strong thereafter. On the other hand the quick setting epoxy develops
strength within minutes, but do not retain it over time. Investigators found,
that the right material was ordered by the installers, but was furnished the
wrong product by the supplier . It appears as though someone in the shipping
warehouse packed the wrong stuff. Here it is a case of a human failure, that
no amount engineering acumen or management expertise could have prevented.
The Minneapolis failure seems to have been precipitated by huge amounts of dead
weight piled on the bridge deck from rock sent for the repairs. This is a
management failure. Whoever was overseeing the
logistics of the material delivery either did not have any knowledge of
structures and load bearing capacity of a structure or was asleep at the wheel.
There could be other factors: Such as non-inclusion of the redundancy principle
of design. This was a political issue, of managing the cost and funding. Or
defective welding. Fifty years back welding technology was not as sophisticated
as it is today. Today we have ultrasonic testing done, before
welded structural members of critical components. In my last major project, I
had to reject a number of large span bowstring trusses, which were shop welded,
but installed without ultrasonic testing. The installers installed the
trusses, but when asked for certificates of testing, could not produce them. On
site testing showed that a number of joints were unacceptable. The result was a
very expensive on site correction of the joints that cost the steel fabricators
big time. By the end of the job, the fabricator was going out of business.
Apparently it had other problems elsewhere as well. They got our job, because
they were the lowest bidders, and not necessarily because they were also good
fabricators. The public bidding requirements in this case was a contributing
factor-- by allowing a fabricator of questionable skills or management
abilities to get the work.
The point I am trying to make here is that DESIGN is only a small factor in
these cases. At any event, MOST structural design is not a result of creative
engineering: they are dictated by standards and codes
and budgets. Most day-to-day structural engineering in the USA is done not by
highly skilled engineers, but by 'designers', who are vocational tech. school
graduates with high school degrees, who are familiar with codes and standards
and know how to look up standard tables and size structural elements.
Us vs India:
*** Can these be compared? Not if anyone is even remotely familiar with the
issues. An Indian structural engineer could be a math genius and could mentally
analyze the stress of a rocket ships nose cone at re-entry. But its usefulness
in the Indian context is zip, zero, nada.
An IIT PhD in structural engineering could design US skyscrapers with ease,
but won't be able to design a temporary bridge using bamboo and timber if their
life depended on it. Why? Because the building materials, their quality
standards and installed elements' quality can be and are tested and trustworthy
in the USA. But the quality of a welded joint or the strength of on-site,
hand-mixed batches of concrete in India cannot be. So this engineering whiz
from IIT will be stumped, wouldn't know what to do. The experienced but
uneducated Bihari cement-mistry would know more than the PhD engineer, who is
even further handicapped because his training is entirely academic, without a
sense of how various materials behave under different circumstances. He is a
babe in the woods in the absence of strength tables of materials, because he
never has had the exposure to the real world.
Checks and Balances:
*** Again, there is no way to compare this for India vs USA. India's
circumstances are far different from the USA's. But the bottom line could be
gauged by the PERCENTAGE of failures, or the frequency of it. Like how many
American bridges fail out of how many, compared to in India.
I hope that helps.
c-da
At 4:01 PM -0700 8/2/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote:
Bridge 'structurally deficient'
Engineers spotted structural problems in the bridge as
far back as 1990, but state officials thought patches
and yearly inspections would be enough to keep it
together, Minnesota's top bridge engineer said. This
year's inspection started in June and would have been
finished in September after $2.4 million worth of
maintenance on the deck, joints, guardrails and
lights.
-------
C'da your comments on this will be highly appreciated
--- first because it was designed by some Very Bright
and Very Creative American Engineer whose Math
foundation is very strong (unlike some Desi idiot) and
second, the "chacks and balances" seems to have
failed and third because it is your field of
expertise.
--- Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> O' Ram:
>
> Hope your weekend is going well. We had a nice
> kharkhowa gathering,
> along with some kolgutikhowas and even a couple of
> desuali folks
> last evening. This has been the most pleasant of
> July weather I can
> recall in our 32 years in St. Louis. A light breeze
> carrying mist
> from the river kept us comfortable, the mosquitos
> were on vacation,
> the cicadas were noisy but our friends' conversation
> kept them at bay
> and my mango-margarita kept everyone mellower than
> the near
> full-moon's light under a clear sky, until we fared
> our friends well-
> in whose honor we hosted the gathering--on their
> impending
> trip to the desert of Rajasthan where he will be
> teaching business
> management as a Fullbright Scholar
> on sabbatical at Pilani and she will be there to
> keep him company.
>
> Anyway, I read your thoughts here. As usual, no
> problems with your
> being a non-engineer. I am not one either. In IIT
> we, the
> architecture students, were laughed at by our
> engineering friends,
> because we did not use slide-rules, which was
> equivalent to looking
> down upon people who count with their fingertips,
> the lowest of the
> low-tech lot, a few notches below the
> logarithmatic-table users. We
> tried to turn the tables by laughing at their
> drawing skills. But
> they knew how to put us even further down: They told
> us that they
> will always have draftsmen ( I don't remember
> hearing of draftswomen)
> to do their dirty work, while we shall remain
> pencil-pushers for
> ever. That was really below the below the belt, and
> it hurt.
>
> Enough about my sad stories.
>
> On the fools'-rush front, I won't hold anyone guilty
> of crimes that I
> routinely commit. So rest easy there also.
>
> By now if you are beginning to fret about all the
> nicey-nice leader
> to this response and wondering if I am about spring
> a tripper on you,
> relax there too. I don't have anything tricky up my
> sleeve this
> morning.
>
> All I ask is WHAT exactly were you and your cheering
> section, ably
> led by Krishendu, trying to prove or disprove ?
> Once I get a bearing
> on that, I will be pleased to share my thoughts.
>
> Take care.
>
> c-da
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 9:16 AM -0600 7/28/07, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
> >C'da
> >
> >Being a non-engineer, and susori-musori pass kora
> individual, I may
> >not be qualified to comment in this high-flying
> math/engg. debate -
> >but nevertheless, I will try... you know, "fools
> rush in where
> >angels...."
> >
> >One, is it is generally recognized that Indian
> graduating from
> >Indian schools are good in math/science. Not
> because they boast
> >about it, but because they just are. There are
> extremely bright
> >people there.
> >Most of the people who have been a big success in
> this and other
> >countries have had their "fundas" from India, and
> most Assamese from
> >the Engg. colleges in Assam, and education in
> cotton or GU or DU.
> >
> >Second, you charge that because you don't see
> contributions from
> >these people in India, then obviously these
> graduates are Not
> >creative etc.
> >
> >It is possible that even though these Indians may
> be creative and
> >intelligent, but may NOT be willing or are not able
> to contribute to
> >societies they came from. Maybe, they came to the
> USA to make more
> >money (read better opportunities).
> >While, I do not think there is anything wrong with
> that, let us
> >realize that there are many many people in India
> who are just as
> >capabale or better than immigrants to the US and
> who have
> >contributed to Indian's growth and development.
> >
> >Third, if these people were not creative in India,
> how is it that
> >these very same people with the basic fundamentals
> from India have
> >suddenly become creative here? Did they suddenly
> sprout wings?
> >
> >Lastly, (and I may the loner here) - Math & science
> are great, but
> >let us not put down other branches. There are many
> world leaders
> >(Kennedy/Gandhi/Nehru etc) who have come from
> non-science, non-tech
> >backgrounds, but have been instrumental in
> development and broad
> >visions for their countrues.
> >
> >If it wasn't for Nehru, many today would NOT have
> gone to the IITs.
> >Yes, those same IITs that have enabled many to
> build careers in the
> >US and in India. Yes, those same IITs that have
> built the very
> >foundations that they so easily rubbish today.
> >
> >If it wasn't for JFK, man may not have gone to the
> moon. A country
> >needs visionaries, just like it needs bright people
> from every other
> >branch.
> >
> >More later
> >
> >--Ram
> >
> >On 7/28/07, Chan Mahanta
> ><<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > >By this logic, with so many successful Indian
> >Engineers and Scientists in US and other countries
> the
> >primary math foundation laid by Indian School
> system
> >must be excellent.
> >
> >
> >*** Can you cite some statistics, or even educated
> guesses on how "
> >many successful Indian
> >Engineers and Scientists in US and other countries"
> are there, and
> >what percentage is that of :
> >
> >A: Total number of scientists and engineers
> produced by India?
> >
> >B: Total number of people of the demographics of
> which these are a
> >segment and how the rest are doing ?
> >
> >
> >C: HOW these "successful" products of an
> 'excellent' Indian education
> >system have contributed to India's well being?
> >
> >D: How the rest of the 'excellent' Indian education
> system have
> >contributed to India's well being?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
assam@assamnet.org
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
