910
load limit rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Venat0r@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago

My wife and I agreed to this years ago before we had children to always explain to our kids in detail. I explain engineering and technology, she explains medical science and history.

I thought we would raise super smart kids but they'd just ask their question, go "oh neat thanks" and then play video games again.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Haha yeah my son is tired of my shit. You can see the instant regret sometimes as I "over explain" how something works. I'm trying to find a good balance so he doesn't stop asking questions.

[-] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A trick I found with my little cousin was to pretend to think about it for a minute. I'd say "ummm .... " and furrow my brow and be quiet for a few seconds. It creates this little moment of suspense which makes the answer seem more desirable to her.

[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is good. Thank you!

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I used to do this to my nieces and nephews but get scolded for "making fun of the children." Like it's my fault that they are universally idiots until somewhere around the third semester of grad school.

[-] SoonaPaana@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

How to determine the elastic tensor without any FEA tools?

[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 26 points 1 year ago
[-] errer@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Build a bridge and see if it collapses!

[-] Kyyrypyy@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

...and then rebuild it.

I could swear there was a comic strip about this...

[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

That's a valid approach, yet today, experiments are usually on a smaller scale.

[-] Donkter@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

Actually, a bridge like this is generally considered simple enough not to require FEA. Calculating it theoretically using trusses should be enough to make it. I'm sure FEA is still done but only because it's easy and cheap.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago
[-] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

No, that's the FEA part.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

If you have an actual engineering degree then you've done basic forms of these calculations by hand at some point, and have likely written a basic numerical solver in Matlab.

[-] kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 1 year ago

I used to play bridge builder too! If this were Facebook that would make me an expert. Sadly.

[-] RogueBanana@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago

I can say I have a degree in everything and an expert of all matter but too bad this isn't reddit

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

You joke but there are legit a bunch of YouTube "engineers" who got their degrees from Kerbal Space Program and Polybridge as far as I can tell.

Look, if you took some classes in 1995 and then never practiced in that area and now make YouTube videos for a living, you are not an engineer. You are a hobbyist.

[-] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I used to watch the Real Civil Engineer channel a lot and he said he was mostly working on fluid drainage, and that he worked on the project to build a (planned) tunnel for the road that goes near Stonehenge.

I haven't heard any other youtubers say that they are engineers.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Fun fact about bridge load limits: school buses are legally allowed to ignore them. While this might seem insane given that the point of a school bus is to transport children safely, the posted load limit on a bridge isn't the weight which will cause the bridge to collapse - it's a weight which, if traffic heavier than that were to regularly use the bridge, would cause abnormally high maintenance and repair issues over the long term. Bridges can bear much greater loads than the posted limits without instantly collapsing.

Source: school bus driver who got a question about this on the test for his CDL endorsement and looked it up after going WTF?

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 year ago

what i've learned is that any piece of architecture should have like at least a 10x margin of error, you want it to tolerate astronomical degrees of fucking up.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You've also got dynamic loading to comsider, eg if a truck full of sand is driving across bridge and slams on the brakes, thats a nuch different impulse than just driving across normally.

[-] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'd go for a food grade liquid tanker in this example. Muuuch more weight transfer as the liquid sloshes around, and food grade means no baffles to slow it at all.

Edit: spelling

[-] autokludge@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Yep, I typically throw more steel at structures than required. If it 'looks' strong enough it is probably twice as strong as it needs to be. There are certain things like walkways that can meet design codes, but it would be bouncy and unnerving to walk on. Beefing up the structure also mitigates the 200lb ape factor i.e. more likely to stay standing if someone drives a forklift into it.

[-] kogasa@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Any old schmuck can make a structure with a 10x safety factor. The thing is making the safety factor as low as reasonably possible to minimize costs. If there's a regulation that says 3x minimum, you're probably aiming for 3x. Which is why those regulations are important, I guess.

Source: I write code for a living, don't listen to anything I say

https://safetyculture.com/topics/factor-of-safety/#typical-overall-factors-of-safety-1

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Well yes, but also whatever your maximum is, divide by 10.

[-] Mirshe@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Nah, we don't need any of your pansy "safety factors".

[-] stebo02@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

that already happened by assuming π = 10

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Divide by 10. Pi = .314

[-] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

There's a nugget of truth in the dad's explanation. Empirical data, some which are critical failures, are used to predict the limits of infrastructure. They don't destroy a copy of every single bridge because it's expensive and not even that useful for getting new data, but things in general get built and destroyed to test new materials or designs.

[-] kogasa@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Careful analysis of the stress tensor of a simple geometric model with parameters given by empirical testing of simple materials can give you a reasonable ballpark estimate. I wouldn't be the first one to drive on a ballpark estimate though.

[-] SirStumps@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Haha, I understood this meme. Haha, hilarious.

this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
910 points (100.0% liked)

196

16744 readers
3200 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS