Showing posts with label The Modern World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Modern World. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Let's Blow This Popsicle Stand
Google deigns to restore this blog after deleting for it no reason - again - and that's my limit. New blog, old content at http://nedbeaumontjr.wordpress.com/ . To the many ones of people who've linked, please update to the new address.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Reuse and Zombies
I'm not going to be shown up by a shambler.
In my business, you hear a lot of nonsense about old buildings: "They don't build them like they used to." "What a piece of crap." "It doesn't meet code."
Here's the thing about old buildings: they exist independently of our opinions of them. Codes change, but physical reality does not. About fifteen years ago, the U.S. wood code (AKA the National Design Specification from the American Forest & Paper Association) revised downward the allowable stress on nearly every commonly used species and grade of construction lumber. The code had been based on research performed using 2" x 2" pieces, which, it turns out, are not statistically representative of the 2x10s and 2x12s used in construction. A house that I designed before the code change would contain beams that, according to the new code, don't work. Did the house become unsafe because the code changed?
This has happened before. Cast iron columns were common in the 1800s and now are excluded from structural use. Ditto unreinforced structural concrete and concrete columns reinforced only with longitudinal bars.
Old buildings are full of structure that we no longer use or now use differently, but that doesn't mean they're unsafe. It means we have to understand how they actually work rather than blindly applying the latest codes. Most old buildings, if they're in fair or better condition, have greater load capacity than modern buildings because they were designed using more conservative codes, rules of thumb rather than codes, or both.
Engineering analysis is about creating a model of reality that can be easily calculated, because actual reality is too complicated for efficient (read: economical [read: I have to charge fees that clients will pay so I have to stop analyzing at some point]) analysis. But the model is not reality and the code is not a building. Analysis of old buildings for reuse more closely resembles the trial-and-error work of Dr. Gregory House than it does that of the Bernoullis or Euler, even though the Bernoullis and Euler actually created some of the mathematical tools we use.
In my business, you hear a lot of nonsense about old buildings: "They don't build them like they used to." "What a piece of crap." "It doesn't meet code."
Here's the thing about old buildings: they exist independently of our opinions of them. Codes change, but physical reality does not. About fifteen years ago, the U.S. wood code (AKA the National Design Specification from the American Forest & Paper Association) revised downward the allowable stress on nearly every commonly used species and grade of construction lumber. The code had been based on research performed using 2" x 2" pieces, which, it turns out, are not statistically representative of the 2x10s and 2x12s used in construction. A house that I designed before the code change would contain beams that, according to the new code, don't work. Did the house become unsafe because the code changed?
This has happened before. Cast iron columns were common in the 1800s and now are excluded from structural use. Ditto unreinforced structural concrete and concrete columns reinforced only with longitudinal bars.
Old buildings are full of structure that we no longer use or now use differently, but that doesn't mean they're unsafe. It means we have to understand how they actually work rather than blindly applying the latest codes. Most old buildings, if they're in fair or better condition, have greater load capacity than modern buildings because they were designed using more conservative codes, rules of thumb rather than codes, or both.
Engineering analysis is about creating a model of reality that can be easily calculated, because actual reality is too complicated for efficient (read: economical [read: I have to charge fees that clients will pay so I have to stop analyzing at some point]) analysis. But the model is not reality and the code is not a building. Analysis of old buildings for reuse more closely resembles the trial-and-error work of Dr. Gregory House than it does that of the Bernoullis or Euler, even though the Bernoullis and Euler actually created some of the mathematical tools we use.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Upward Mobility
Here's a nice career arc:
I blame the gradual decline of the image of engineers on (a) the computer geeks and (b) engineers dumb enough to confuse conservatism in design (meaning fail-safe design or minimizing the danger from failure) with "conservatism" as defined by Republicans.
I blame the gradual decline of the image of engineers on (a) the computer geeks and (b) engineers dumb enough to confuse conservatism in design (meaning fail-safe design or minimizing the danger from failure) with "conservatism" as defined by Republicans.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
