Middlewich Branch breach - Shropshire Union

[nicknorman]

41 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

The Victorians did some good things with bricks. A material notable for its ability to be patch repaired. 200 year old Trigger's brooms.

Do you genuinely believe the engineering that put man on the moon, achieved supersonic flight, tunnelled under the Channel and bridged between Denmark and Sweden couldn't do what the Victorians did?

JP

They did some pretty good things with stone too! Unlike the 20th century engineers who did some things with reinforced concrete that had a very short life and wasn’t really repairable.

i think what I am trying to say is that yes, there is a place for mathematical analysis, and calculating the flight profiles to put a man on the moon is certainly one - mainly because the physics is relatively simple and very homogeneous (ie the equations are well defined and precise) - only the calculations are a bit hard because of the sheer quantity. But where modern engineering falls down is where the equationsnarent precise and well defined so that, rather than dealing only with mass and gravity, you are dealing with a chaotic real world of non-homogeneity. In theory it can still be mathematically analysed but there comes a point where the maths gets too complex and unsuited to analysis of a chaotic system. At that point it can be better to tear up the calculations, just eyeball it and say “my gut feeling is that this is what we should do...”. Unfortunately that is a terrifying concept to a modern engineer. But ultimately a better one in a situation where it is all to easy to overlook some seemingly small element of the mathematical analysis with catastrophic consequences.

I liken it to the modern ill of the Operations Manual or whatever it might be called. Gone is any sort of intelligent and pragmatic analysis  of a situation, the only course of action can be to do what the manual says in a mindless way. Putting practices into written manuals is a substitute for intelligent analysis and “dumbs down” our current way of doing things. It can work with simple things, but as things become more complex it’s own complexity increases exponentially, rapidly reaching dysfunctionality. It is a denial of Human’s greatest attribute which is qualitative analysis.

 

42 minutes ago, RLWP said:

You seem to think that might matter

It matters to me.

[Peter Thornton]

"a chaotic real world of non-homogeneity"

What a wonderful description of an average day in my life!

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Maybe. But set against that, how much of the stuff we build now will still be around in 200 years? Not a lot, I would say! I have a thing about qualitative vs quantitative, probably stemming from when I read ZATAOMM as a yoof.

I know we're getting off topic, but NCE this month has an article on reusing buildings and the rough estimate is most if not all buildings over 150 metres tall will still be in use in 1000 years time. That night sound ridiculous but the Tower of London wasn't intended to last that long either. 

Short buildings have a shorter life, mainly because they are less solid. 

[nicknorman]

22 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I know we're getting off topic, but NCE this month has an article on reusing buildings and the rough estimate is most if not all buildings over 150 metres tall will still be in use in 1000 years time. That night sound ridiculous but the Tower of London wasn't intended to last that long either. 

Short buildings have a shorter life, mainly because they are less solid. 

The plastic bottle someone just chucked in the cut, and nuclear waste, will still be around in 1000 years time, but that is not necessarily an endorsement! Maybe these tall building do have the capability to last 1000 years (though TBH I doubt it) but there is a second part of the question - will people still want them around in 1000 years or will they have been demolished as eyesores like so much 1960s urban concrete? Built only 50 years ago but hideous to the current sense of style and design.

Edited March 16, 2018 by nicknorman

[Dr Bob]

17 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The plastic bottle someone just chucked in the cut .........will still be around in 1000 years time

Not if it is not buried or sunk it won't. 10 years in sunlight and it will fall to pieces. 100 years and it will disintegrate. Bury it and it might. Plastic reinforced something is probably what's needed to re-instate the embankment.

[Captain Pegg]

43 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

They did some pretty good things with stone too! Unlike the 20th century engineers who did some things with reinforced concrete that had a very short life and wasn’t really repairable.

i think what I am trying to say is that yes, there is a place for mathematical analysis, and calculating the flight profiles to put a man on the moon is certainly one - mainly because the physics is relatively simple and very homogeneous (ie the equations are well defined and precise) - only the calculations are a bit hard because of the sheer quantity. But where modern engineering falls down is where the equationsnarent precise and well defined so that, rather than dealing only with mass and gravity, you are dealing with a chaotic real world of non-homogeneity. In theory it can still be mathematically analysed but there comes a point where the maths gets too complex and unsuited to analysis of a chaotic system. At that point it can be better to tear up the calculations, just eyeball it and say “my gut feeling is that this is what we should do...”. Unfortunately that is a terrifying concept to a modern engineer. But ultimately a better one in a situation where it is all to easy to overlook some seemingly small element of the mathematical analysis with catastrophic consequences.

I liken it to the modern ill of the Operations Manual or whatever it might be called. Gone is any sort of intelligent and pragmatic analysis  of a situation, the only course of action can be to do what the manual says in a mindless way. Putting practices into written manuals is a substitute for intelligent analysis and “dumbs down” our current way of doing things. It can work with simple things, but as things become more complex it’s own complexity increases exponentially, rapidly reaching dysfunctionality. It is a denial of Human’s greatest attribute which is qualitative analysis.

Sounds like an argument for limiting everyone by one person's inability to understand complex issues.

The reality is that in civil engineering nothing is chaotic and modern materials are homogenous, it's not the most complicated subject. I am only talking about using state of the art methods of measurement and analysis to understand how things actually behave in a real environment.

Today's demands of performance and safety couldn't be met by being qualitative. Society wouldn't tolerate the impact of the 'learning'.

JP

[roland elsdon]

The victorians ( generaly)  celebrated functionality with artful design- just look at some of the pumping stations and facades of utilitarian buildings. I own a coronation cottage built in 1890. Its victorian brick. 6 different patterns and colours along with stone window frames with oak inserts. These were a celebration  of the builders art, and were built in the village ‘for artisans’ and they are all  terraces . They could have just used red brick...but no theres art involved.

i have no doubt that current engineering could fix that in a week big piles loads of concrete but it would be sterile like lots of the improved grand union from the 20s. 

 

[magpie patrick]

Don't get me wrong Nick, I agree with your original assessment that modern engineering can get too hypothetical for its own good. An embankment that stands for 200+ years before suffering catastrophic failure is hardly duff engineering. It's worth noting as well that the Peak Forest canal company questioned the proposed depth of the locks at Marple, but it took over 200 years for their fears to come to fruition. 

I have recently faced a situation where the engineering consultant wouldn't touch a scheme as, according to their assessment you "couldn't build a canal there" - despite the fact were simply refurbishing the one we'd got.

On tall buildings, your probably right, we will stop wanting them. Similarly far more canals have disappeared because we had no use for them than because they fell apart.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Civil engineering is easy. You just need to abide by the three fundermental rules.

1. Concrete is hard.
2. Steel is strong.
3. Sh*t flows downhill.

Why it takes years at university to learn all that is beyond me.

Jen

[nicknorman]

8 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

The reality is that in civil engineering nothing is chaotic and modern materials are homogenous, 

JP

The reality is that whilst modern materials might be reasonably homogeneous and structures non-chaotic within themselves, they have to interact with the surrounding world that is non-homogenous and chaotic, with an embankment carrying moving water through the countryside and over a stream being a prime example.

[Naughty Cal]

27 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Civil engineering is easy. You just need to abide by the three fundermental rules.

1. Concrete is hard.
2. Steel is strong.
3. Sh*t flows downhill.

Why it takes years at university to learn all that is beyond me.

Jen

Sometimes you have to make it go uphill though. 

[magpie patrick]

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The reality is that whilst modern materials might be reasonably homogeneous and structures non-chaotic within themselves, they have to interact with the surrounding world that is non-homogenous and chaotic, with an embankment carrying moving water through the countryside and over a stream being a prime example.

And the landscape through that part of Cheshire is one of the more chaotic to build on. Sand, salt and wet rockhead everywhere

[rusty69]

33 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Why it takes years at university to learn all that is beyond me

Cos everything requires a university degree these days. 

I wouldn't have got my job as a jedi master without an advanced StarWars degree. 

[roland elsdon]

My best mate at uni did building technology couldnt get job in 1980s maggies britain. Moved to australia and got a job blowing up old buildings chimneys etc. he described it as deconstructing his 4 years at university...

[Jen-in-Wellies]

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

Sometimes you have to make it go uphill though. 

In a lock you make the boat go uphill by making the water go downhill, so it still applies.  To break the rule you need pumps and stuff, which is plumbing and a different and much harder field of study than civil engineering.

[Victor Vectis]

13 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Maybe. But set against that, how much of the stuff we build now will still be around in 200 years? Not a lot, I would say! I have a thing about qualitative vs quantitative, probably stemming from when I read ZATAOMM as a yoof.

Come on Nick.

Nobody reads ZATAOMM!

It's purpose is to sit in a prominent position on the bookshelf in order to convince visitors that one is cool.

[Victor Vectis]

12 hours ago, RLWP said:

I offer George Stephenson

ish.

At this point can I point out that Geordie Stephenson came up with the idea of the miners flame safety lamp at around the same time as Humphry Davy.

Stephenson was a pit blacksmith who taught himself to read and write. Davey was a member of the Royal Society. Which explaines why the flame lamp is generally referred to as the 'Davy' lamp.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think they got the blame on the Llangollen above Hampton Bank

edit to add link

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/badgers-could-caused-llangollen-canal-2773979

Was there not also one of the Oxford reservoirs where the presence of badgers or other wildlife prevented a repair with the consequence that for a long time it could not be properly filled?

13 hours ago, rgreg said:

Just saw this on fb

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t43.1792-2/28796451_233358333902284_1781281117001744384_n.mp4?_nc_cat=0&efg=eyJybHIiOjI5MTEsInJsYSI6MTAyNCwidmVuY29kZV90YWciOiJzdmVfaGQifQ%3D%3D&oh=8528faee93b2332d8ffeb60907af1130&oe=5AAC558C

link expired?

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, nicknorman said:

I know you and I have had “history” and thus you will think I am just getting at you / point scoring etc. BUT I think that this post represents all that is wrong with modern civil engineering. In other words, all about the numbers, the “management speak” and the pseudo-science. The reality is that in ~1830 they had none of that. They did however have the experience to look at a situation with an open mind and make qualitative assessments and consequentially built stuff that lasted getting on for 200 years, instead of the typical design lives of 25 years these days. Quantitive assessments such as you are describing, don’t work in a real world which is chaotic, not idealistically homogeneous.

I'm not sure that the intention was necessarily 200 years. Here in the south west we still have reminders of Brunel's original railway construction - broad gauge. When the viaducts (we have 25+ in Cornwall alone) were originally built he used timber structures on top of stone pillars. I understand that this was considered satisfactory for 25 year design life - he was, after all, cost conscious. When they line was revised to standard gauge, most viaducts were replaced alongside with wholly stone structures. By that time, railways were here to stay which was not obvious when Brunel did his work.

[nicknorman]

16 minutes ago, Victor Vectis said:

Come on Nick.

Nobody reads ZATAOMM!

It's purpose is to sit in a prominent position on the bookshelf in order to convince visitors that one is cool.

I read it in its entirety when I was a student, it made a big impression on me. If you have never read it, you should! It is perhaps a little dated now, but still worth a read.

[Mike Todd]

13 hours ago, RLWP said:

That would be about the time they built the Aston embankment of the Grand Junction railway, that kept slipping for years

Only the stuff capable of lasting 200 years is still here, some stuff failed quickly and is - of course - not here

Richard

Or the excessively steep cuttings on the Shroppie, allegedly built that way to minimise the costs of the land that had to be acquired. Still slipping to this day.

[MoominPapa]

2 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

I read it in its entirety when I was a student, it made a big impression on me. If you have never read it, you should! It is perhaps a little dated now, but still worth a read.

I agree with Nick.

 

MP.

 

[Mike Todd]

11 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

Sounds like an argument for limiting everyone by one person's inability to understand complex issues.

The reality is that in civil engineering nothing is chaotic and modern materials are homogenous, it's not the most complicated subject. I am only talking about using state of the art methods of measurement and analysis to understand how things actually behave in a real environment.

Today's demands of performance and safety couldn't be met by being qualitative. Society wouldn't tolerate the impact of the 'learning'.

JP

Spectacular failures are more often than not down to construction rather than design issues (or perhaps financial pressures). However, in some cases, the designs did not take into account available construction techniques and so were only valid if better tolerances were achieved than was practical.

3 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Civil engineering is easy. You just need to abide by the three fundermental rules.

1. Concrete is hard.
2. Steel is strong.
3. Sh*t flows downhill.

Why it takes years at university to learn all that is beyond me.

Jen

Because civil engineering only takes place when someone can make a profit at it . . . 

[rgreg]

35 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

 

link expired?

So it has...strange. My apologies.

Edited March 17, 2018 by rgreg
Couldn't delete original link

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

 I read it in its entirety when I was a student, it made a big impression on me. If you have never read it, you should! It is perhaps a little dated now, but still worth a read.

Each to their own, but I first read it at 20 and have re-read it again twice since 1974.  Each time I've learnt more.

Hence my avatar and id.

Edited March 17, 2018 by zenataomm
Jehova's Witless at the door.