Coronavirus Time to Replan and Redesign Our Cities

Everyone is talking about when we  get back to normal. The answer is never. We should not be considering getting back to normal. Normal is what caused the spread of the coronavirus in the first place, we need to change our behaviour and part of that also requires changing the planning and design of our cities.

As I mentioned in the previous post, ancient cities were fortress and walled cities. One thing about a walled city is that it is easier to keep people prisoner in the city than keep the enemy out. From which can surmise, and expand to the concept that it is easier to lock a population in than to lock them out, and thus for border control will always have problem of infiltration. Still in tackling the spread of a contagion like coronavirus, locking a population in, would be beneficial on condition that the population has access to appropriate goods and services with in its own walls. Our towns and cities don't. I've written previously about how bridges wreck the economies of cities, how an optional need for a bridge is transformed into a dependency on the bridge, as business redistributes either side of the bridge. I've argued how we need to directly protect diversity, not protect competition. That economy of scale has benefits, but we also need to avoid concentration of pollutants and dependency on single supplier. We need to known when to boost production to saturate basic need then to scale back and provide more diversity. Henry Ford was right that customer can have any colour they want as long as its black: that is the requirement to supply the basic need in the first instance. Once the basic need satisfied, then can start to get particular.

Any case as mentioned the governments want to increase population density as a consequence of their perspective on urban sprawl. Part of their perspective is that urban sprawl is a consequence of the car, I believe that whilst this is partially so, it is mostly nonsense. Business and architects have been building massive facilities, with reach stretching for kilometres. An office building in the city has people travelling 25 km daily, some even 100 km daily. I read one National Geographic article where a person was spending 4 hours or more each day travelling to some distant location to work. Basically houses affordable one end of country and work available at the other. It equates to poor city and national planning.

Sure part of the problem is workers themselves wanting dormitory suburbs devoid of industry, or at least devoid of the noise and pollution created by industry. But if there is no business of any kind in the suburbs, then the next generation has to travel a significant distance to search for employment: and that generally requires they have a car. How are school leavers going to afford a car? The people of the world aren't the kids in American high school movies, owning cars. Typical families cannot afford to buy cars for their kids, and jobs for kids to work after school hours or on weekends are very few. It is part of the pressure that have to do well in school and get a degree to get a good job.

It would be preferable if we restricted the geographical reach of business facilities, and also the market share of business. As I mentioned in an earlier post, political parties should be restricted to no more than 20% of the seats, so that we can get back to due and proper representation of the people , instead of political parties hijacking our government and contending they have mandates. Afterwards I then extended this to business, restricting them to no more than 20% of the market, where market is defined on multiple levels. So whilst a supermarket may have less than 20% of the national market, when looked at locally it may hold 80% of the market, and so in a local market it may have to adjust.

In the metro areas supermarkets and/or small shopping centres tend to be at 1 km to 2 km centres, and so are in easy walking distance. Though few people walk to them, and that is largely because here in South Australia footpaths are rare. Where there are footpaths there is a chance that the footpath suddenly comes to an end. People thus tend to spend a lot of their time in their cars, wasting fuel and time driving in circles until they can get a carpark as close as possible to a building. To make our cities walkable we first have to make our suburbs walkable. Things are already potentially in walking distance: it's just not convenient to do so.

After my heart attack, I looked on google earth at places I lived when I was a kid, and the places I walked to, to get an idea of how far I could walk, and thus how far I still expect to be able to walk. When looking at places in England, it was apparent, that the construction of motorways, now made it next to impossible to walk the paths I once did. Civil engineers seem more interested in constructing mega-structures, bridges over bridges, than coming up with livable spaces. Here in South Australia, they seem bent on creating the same kind of mess. We may be able to halt that.

The towns and suburbs should be capable of being isolated. No point in referring to the city of Elizabeth or city of Tea Tree Gully (TTG), if all the suburbs making up these cities are otherwise identified as suburbs of Adelaide. Not the least of which is Elizabeth was supposed to be a satellite city: so by definition it should have remained isolated from Adelaide. Gawler is a rural town and it should also remain isolated from Adelaide. That is the grid of urban sprawl, of dormitory suburbs should not spread across the lad between the city centres. There should be clear boundaries between one local government (LG) area and the next.

The network of roads for cars should be more like the network of rails for trains, we should have more intermodal systems, with the ultimate part of the system being on foot and walking. I'm not suggesting get rid of vehicles being able to reach buildings for delivery. However not all buildings need access to large mechanised vehicles. Secondly the majority of items in a building have to be able to pass through a 900 mm wide door way or smaller. So tricycles and smaller mechanised vehicles can be used for transporting most things.

So we can gate of roads for large vehicles, and only allowing access to small personal transporters. The large vehicles have to stop at the gates and be granted access. So for example in Adelaide, we could place carparks around the periphery of the parklands, and only allow human powered vehicles and small electric vehicles into the city. These carparks will also be where the buses also stop unless the buses are electric vehicles. The buses can have electronic passes so they can automatically open access gates.

So in developing the means of limiting vehicle access we are also providing the means of locking the city or suburb up. The road network should provide clearly identifiable corridors between clearly identifiable towns: there should be no grid of roads spread out between the towns.

Increasing the population density of the capital cities is not the requirement. Clearly high population density increases the potential for the spread of a contagion like coronavirus, and it also increases the potential problems when confronted by other attacks by nature: bushfires, earthquakes, hurricanes (tropical cyclones {don't drop the word tropical the entire weather system is dependent on cyclones and anticyclones}).

A capital city is primarily expected to be a cultural, and administrative centre, not a place with a high resident population: but a place which is visited and likely infrequently. Population is preferably concentrated around those hubs which provide needed goods and services with in walking distance of homes.

Schools should be such that all housing within 1 km radius is restricted access and rent only, likewise housing around hospitals. The housing around large industrial facilities or commercial centres should also be rent only and access restricted to those working in the facilities. People are buying housing further and further a drift from their workplaces because they wish to, they are mostly doing so because they have no choice.

Rent only restrictions, moves people in and out of the areas. For example by restricting access to housing in the vicinity of schools, the entire street network around the schools can be made walkable and cars have limited to no access to the area. Children can then walk to school, and otherwise have an environment which includes the school grounds for play outside school hours. The youngest children are placed closest to the school, and the oldest furthest from the school. In this way we don't have to keep building new schools. We only build new schools if we build a new village, town or city. A suburban block, should be built around a hub, either industrial, commercial, cultural, educational, or health focused. These suburban blocks should then be built around an administrative and retail hub.

For example we can define a village as 1 km in diameter, a town as 5 km to 10 km in diameter, and a city as 100 km in diameter. A suburban block likely to be the size of a village (say 1 km x l km square), the central hub can be around 500 m square. In thus block can place around 5000 single storey dwellings.  Each dwelling suitable for one person is suitable for two people and a small child. Thus the population can be extended to 15,000. If add second storey to the houses, then houses suitable for 2 adults and 2 children, so population can expand to 20,000. The highest population densities around the world are around 100, 000 person/sq.km. So with multi-storey buildings the population of the areas can be increased still further. Though I suggest we should put more effort into controlling population growth, not pushing the ideas of economic growth requiring larger populations.

Cities are machines. To function and provide certain goods and services a certain population is needed (the cogs which make the machine function). This does not mean that world population needs to grow, rather it requires the current world population to be in the right place. I've previously mentioned that if the land mass was to be divided into cells 5 km in diameter, then the world population could distribute 1000 people per cell. Those 1000 people need less than a 1 km square for housing. For simplicity assuming a 5 km square grid, it would put a 4 km ring between each village. That ring could be a nature reserve or agricultural land. Now I'm not suggesting we distribute the world population in such manner. Not the least of which is we can house a lot more people in each 5 km cell than 1000 people.

What I am suggesting though is that a lot of facilities can be placed in a 500 m x 500 m hub, that activity can be made more local, and that localities can be isolated, yet connected. That the connections can be blocked, can be severed.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the corinavirus should not have spread further than 1 km radius of the discrete entry points to each nation. When the epidemic was reported in China, then each nation should have responded to prevent a pandemic. When pandemic was declared then each nation needs respond to prevent a epidemic in their nation. Just because their is a pandemic does not mean there is a epidemic in your nation. For certain the horse had already bolted when the gate was closed. However as I said, we still have passenger lists to track returned locals, and the suburbs they returned to. Plus we have rough idea of tourist destinations. So using a geographical information system (GIS) we could track the local government (LG) areas which these returning individuals likely visited. We can lock down these LG areas.

But assuming its got out off hand and its spread into the cities. We know its spread into the cities because the hospitals are dealing with cases. The hospitals have a radial reach. Their patients are arriving from known suburbs. Those suburbs have shopping centres and other public places. Each of these public places has a roughly known radial reach. So once again using a GIS we can map out the region most likely affected. Without any other information, we can assume various radial reaches for each facility. So we can mark a 1 km zone, a 5 km zone, and a 25 km zone. Each zone we give a hazard level, the closest to the point of origin has the highest hazard level, the most distant the lowest hazard level. As we identify people in the 1 km zone, we change from a point of origin to a path, and define the radial zones about this path. The path notionally defines a direction of travel, and the localities where resources need to be committed.

At the moment we have a response which says its an epidemic: but its not all over the country, there is a good chance it will be if we handle it as if it already is spread far and wide. We did not need to shut down the national economy, to shutdown all public gatherings and all public businesses. They needed shutting down where the contagion was and is. We don't know where that is! Really! For certain there are people out there who maybe spreading the contagion without knowing it, but there also millions of people out there not spreading anything. But clearly its being spread where people are known to be infected. Is that your neighbourhood, chances are the answer is no. Does this mean you can ignore safeguards? No it doesn't! When restrictions are lifted does this mean you can go back to normal? No it doesn't! Normal got you into this situation in the first place, normal needs to change.

Places are too crowded, and they are crowded because business is permitted to construct facilities to cater for large uncontrolled crowds of people from distant locations. For example there is no real need for people to shop in Adelaide, and there shouldn't be permitted to encourage people to chop in Adelaide. Forget about the never ending arguing about shopping hours every year, the reach of Rundle mall business should be restrained. People don't need to travel into the city, they should shop locally. If they shop locally it will reduce traffic congestion into the city, it will strengthen local community, and also reduce the potential spread of any future contagion beyond the city hub. Local shopping precincts need to be restored and enhanced, and should be within walking distance. Planning regulations should permit doing so.

Planning regulations also need to be modified to better encourage home business. Currently most of South Australia's development plans restrict home business to an area of 30 sq.m. Which is an area of 5 m x 6m, which is approximately 2 x 6m shipping containers side by side. Which seems like plenty of space, but I suggest it may be preferable to define limitations based on area of land: which takes into consideration required parking areas for residents, employees and customers. Whilst parking areas shouldn't be based on area used by business but on predicted traffic levels. For most home business probably looking at no more than 1 customer vehicle per hour: maximum. For many probably in the range of 1 vehicle per month: with most activity occurring by post, fax, phone, email, or web site.

There have already been complaints that local bricks and mortar business are loosing business to online business. The lock down for the cornavirus will result in increased use of online sales, which will likely increase demand for couriers. Noting that local business can use couriers to supply faster than Australia post. When the lock down is over, will there really be need to fill the offices and retail stores? If people can work from home, why not have them work from home all the time, and only meet up in person occasionally? That way only need to rent large office space for a meeting possibly once a month.

Taking note that don't have to pay people by the hour, because really business is not buying time. Traditionally people got paid wages, if work was intermittent such as daily or weekly. People got paid salaries because, what they needed to do, and when it needed to be done was uncertain, so they got paid by the year. How many hours the workers work is largely irrelevant, what the workers accomplish is more relevant. If a worker completes their workload in half the time working from home, you don't pay them half the pay. Completing the work faster should be worth more, so the workers should get paid more for the work completed. Or otherwise spend less time working and get the same pay. Also if people working from home are more productive, then they can be fed more work. Though they are unlikely to want to maintain the same pace and effort throughout the year: so may experience a short term spike in productivity followed by a return to more sustainable production levels.

Any case an increased use of the internet and online sales and online business, will see a reduced need for commercial/industrial building space, and an increase in residential renovations to create home business and work space. This will reduce traffic congestion, at the traditional peak times of the day. However there should be an upsurge in the need for couriers and small delivery vans taking goods to houses, and between houses. This should use far less fuel than all the commuters travelling back and forth to distant work places. Even though people may place orders at different times and different days, the suppliers can still optimise their delivery times and days and travel routes, so that delivering to the same street as few times ass possible. (We used to have bread and milk delivered to the door stop. so its not that difficult).

Most of our modern world is highly wasteful and inefficient. Cars and mobile phones mostly promote poor planning, incompetence and inefficiency. The supply of simple goods and services does not require human interaction, if you have to use a telephone to get information and complete a transaction then the suppliers supply systems are inefficient. If have to meet face to face, or in person, then highly inefficient. Human interaction maybe sociable, but its not efficient. How important is sociable to the supply, versus efficiency of supply? If efficiency of supplier is more important and should have higher priority, then should aim to eliminate people from the transaction process.


... to be continued ...

---

Related Posts

---

Revisions:
[31/03/2020] : Original

Realising an innovative economy: a practical roadmap to ease the engineering skills shortage in Australia

Realising an innovative economy: a practical roadmap to ease the engineering skills shortage in Australia a report by Australian National Engineering Taskforce.( ANET )

An interesting report, but would be better if the parties which defined the engineering team didn't go confusing who the members of the team are within the introductory glossary. 

It should not be: "Engineers in all three occupations", but rather persons in all three occupations: for they are not all recognised as engineers. Further it doesn't take 3-5 years for them to be come chartered professional engineers, but rather 3 years to move from graduate to experienced within their occupational class, and then further period of development to become chartered within their occupational class.

The report also in arguing about difference between scientists and engineers, is still locked into an ideal based on manufacturing of human cogs for the machinery of industrial society. Graduating with a degree in either science or engineering does not make a person a scientist or engineer.

Progress in science and engineering requires imagination, creativity and ingenuity, formal education cannot impart such. Becoming a scientist or engineer is more a matter of personal attitude than formal education.

Science asks questions about the existing world, and uses the scientific method to answer those questions in a consistent manner which can be independently validated by others. Our education system is totally lacking in science. Education largely imposes accepted solutions without real opportunity to independently validate. 

{In other words haven't progressed much beyond that idea that the world is flat and at the centre of the universe and you are not permitted to question that. Difficulties which you may have in grasping models put forward due to own observations and perceptions of reality are irrelevant to education. You shall learn and join others in accepting the approved model.}

Engineering in contrast asks "what if" questions about potential changes to the existing world, and makes use of scientific knowledge to attempt to answer those questions. If the body of scientific knowledge is inadequate to answer the questions, then science is required to expand the body of scientific knowledge.

Both science and engineering requires people with the right attitude and also access to appropriate opportunities.

Designing the lintel above the window in a single storey house is not in the same league as designing a human habit floating in deep space beyond the orbit of Pluto. Placing focus on registration of professional engineers, and ever increasing academic qualifications is crazy. Shouldn't need a masters degree to design the lintel, shouldn't need a bachelor degree for that matter. The space station is a complex system, and the designer of such is responsible for the whole thing, but with reliance on the specialist capabilities of others to handle the details of subsystems. The designer of the lintel is not designing a complex system, and doesn't necessarily have to coordinate with others, and is directly responsible for the details. In placing an emphasis on pushing people through university programmes, we have largely lost the people capable of taking care of the details.

I agree with those that indicated wouldn't want an engineering associate designing a bridge. However, once again the bridge is a complex system. I would want the steel designed by an Engineering Associate (or Associate Technologist). The bridge engineer, decides on the form of the bridge which is most suitable for the geology and geography, and the technological skills in the available workforce. There is a lot concerned with the over all concept of the bridge. The Associate Technologist only needs concern themselves with all the issues of steel construction and its assessment against the approved codes of practice: whether the structure is a bridge, building, or machine structure. Their expertise should be steel its design, fabrication and construction. If the structure is part of a simple system then they can take it from concept to implementation without assistance. With appropriate craft and trade skills, and still simpler systems they can also actually build it themselves without assistance. In the main however expect others to actually build.

Now being able to dream is relatively easy. Drawing up a proposal also relatively easy. Assessing its fitness-for-function however can be complex, and often times building and testing prototypes easier than mathematical modelling based on scientific knowledge. Further having got specifications for something whether fit-for-function or not, it is necessary to have a workforce with appropriate skills to make the thing.

Which is where we have a cyclic problem. We need engineers to turn the dreams into something practical to implement, but we need trades people with higher skills than simply manual labour too actually implement the dream.

If we simply train more designers, we will have designs with nobody to make. If we simply train more trades people, we will have trades people with no work to do. We have to design and build a full industrial machine, and put it to work. The above mentioned report doesn't really address what it is that we need all these engineers for: just that there is a shortage and government procurement methods are inappropriate.

Engineers are not really trained: but born, and they need to be nurtured and grown slowly. The formal education system can produce those who work and think inside the box, and maintain the status quo, keep our existing systems running. opportunity is required to push outside the box.

Most of the programmes to introduced engineering to the young focus on making or otherwise on industrial design, they fail to fully address what engineers actually do. For one they don't programme CNC machine tools (the real robots of industry). In the real world it is difficult to separate the roles of trades, engineers, scientists and mathematicians. Those who operate in one role only, may see it has simple, but persons who operate in one role only are of limited value to a business enterprise. Those who have worked their way up from the shop floor can easily move from design to making. Noting that can design once, and make many times: so when the pressures on the CEO can always get down and get their hands dirty. The Machiavellian prince working alongside his subjects. Most modern CEO's and engineers too boot, are more in the role of the aristocracy which were sent to the guillotine.

Now creating properly articulated AQF programmes is a problem. Engineers want to get rid of the image of grease and dirt, but I say that is where the education needs to start. Too many academic engineers designing things which cannot be made: they may be able to assess that in the end-form, the product is fit-for-function, but have not conceived how raw materials can be transformed into that end-form with the physical properties expected to achieve the desired performance. For example the end-product may require high strength steel, but there is no way that the high strength can be obtained by casting, and there is no way the high strength steel can otherwise be machined. Then there are issues concerned with safety in handling, which may require the design of new tooling, jigs and fixtures and various temporary props and bracing systems. There is far to much reference and reliance on something called "standard industry practice". There is no such thing it doesn't exist. The only thing "standard" is a lack of knowledge, a lack of skill, and a lack of quality. None of which are actually desired.

Complex systems require building appropriate production systems and training an appropriate workforce. But once the system has been built then what? Is a water filtration plant a product, or a chunk of infrastructure? Considered as the latter the persons who designed and built it either become redundant or revert to simple operation and maintenance activities. Considered as a product, how many water filtration plants does the world population need, how can supply be turned into an effective business, how should the product be designed to be supplied on a routine basis, what customisations can be permitted? With the current infrastructure, government responsibility approach, the 2nd international decade of water will not reach its goals by 2015, and will fail as did the first. The systems implemented will not be sustainable and capable of keeping up with population growth.

Engineering is too narrow a focus. Henri Fayol pointed out many years back that engineers education was too technically focused, and management was in greater need. I contend however that it is important to have people who are technically focused, and sustain people who are: these people may well by the future Associate Technologists. Whilst engineering programmes have added more management content, and many engineers end up in management areas, there as also been shifts in the workforce that have resulted in decline   of technical design skills.

Infrastructure moved into operate and maintain mode requires more management skills. But once reaches the need for replacement, then the design skills are required again, but otherwise lost from industry. Management  doesn't require engineers. Here is a contrast. In the USA much on management was presented via the ASME, and from their the discipline of Industrial Engineering was born. Industrial Engineers sit the same breadth examination (NCEES FE/PE/exams) as engineers in other disciplines: that is mathematics, thermodynamics, optics, electrostatics and such. In the UK however, as I understand, instead of industrial engineering being born, industrial management was born. The actual job function is the same, the education far different. Members of the institute of industrial engineers (USA) have been debating a need for a brand change. They think engineer is too much associated with grease and dirt, which is not much use for promoting the value of industrial engineering to health care or office work. In Australia we have industrial engineers (IE), but they are at odds with other engineers who are generally represented by Engineers Australia (IEAust), IE's have their own institute, and whilst many MIIE's may have doctrates they do not meet the criteria for becoming MIEAust's: this is a consequence of management focus.

My contention is that it is wasteful to educate people with B.Eng(civil or mechanical) and then MBA's if it is management functions which need to be addressed. We should be graduating more IE's and fewer CE and ME's in the first instance. But preferably IE's with the same fundamentals as the CE and ME's, not just management focus.

We are graduating people in a multitude various administrative, business and management disciplines. However quantity surveyors, construction managers, cost accountants, and project managers , are neither construction engineers or manufacturing engineers. Further manufacturing engineering itself seems to have diminished to manufacturing management and got away from the physics of the processes. {I'm a member of IIE(Aust.) and the manufacturing society of Australasia (ManSA). ManSA is currently under administration by IEAust due to declining numbers: in essence it was to focused on management and getting away from the hardware of manufacturing. When I studied manufacturing engineering it was about the mechanics of say a lathe, and the cutting process. About robotics and mechanical handling, and automation. Not about the management of people and the processes involved in, for that activity is the field of industrial engineering and industrial management.}

So that which may have once been done by an engineer or an architect as part of a larger job function, may now be done by persons with B.Bus or B.Mngt with a much narrower more specialised job function but more involved. With ever increasing regulations need people familiar with the constraints imposed on business and workers. Many small businesses are often exempt from much of the regulation (size measured by number of employees, not revenue), ad business grows and takes on more employees it becomes necessary to implement more administrative systems as required by regulations.

So whilst engineers in the past have looked to management as a means of increasing their income, such positions are no longer readily available, because the available management positions have little to do with management of technical systems: but more to do with management of people and administration of regulations.

Australia's industrial relations system is also crazy, in that to increase income, simply return to university and get higher education. Thus all an engineering associate needs do is get a B.Eng to demand a higher salary, they do not have to actually contribute any greater value to the business. The result is they become a drain on the business rather than a benefit.

We need to separate the issue of regulatory compliance from ingenuity, and innovation. We have a shortage of innovative people, but we also do not have an environment conducive to innovation. At the same time we lack people with adequate competence to ensure a high level of compliance with required regulations and codes of practice. Further more we also lacking in the people with the necessary trade skills to work on complex projects.

But this is probably largely to do with too many independent small businesses, people seeing higher security in being self-employed: knowing who their clients are and where their work comes from. Not wanting to show loyalty to large disloyal business enterprises or government authorities who also keep laying off more and more people.

There has to be a vision to which all these skills are going to be applied. There is no such vision. Industry wants the skills but what do you want them for? If become a qualified welder, where are the steel structures? If become a structural engineer, where are the structures required? What are the real demands?  Private enterprise: You wanted a free market based economy, you have now largely got it, but what is it going to supply, and how? Who are you, want are you doing for the people, and what do you want the people to do for you in return? Purely based on money, barking up the wrong tree.

Problem of reducing Dependence on Consultants, and other meanderings...

Generally speaking I don't like consultants, though that is what I work as. I advise many of my clients to employ engineers on staff, they typically opose the idea on basis of too expensive. Then I suggest engineering associates, but problem there is finding ones with the experience.

I'd say it was around the 1980's that lots of businesses laid technical personnel off, and started outsourcing. So for example steel fabricators who once employed workshop detailers on staff, started employing them on contract. Problem with that approach however is that the cost of a minor mistake could end up costing the workshop detailer more than they were paid for the job. Result little future uptake of the occupation. More over isolated from the main employers as a multitude of sole practitioners: who would know the occupation existed. In recent years there have been some national businesses setup providing workshop detailing services, and some engineering consultancies have started employing detailers on staff to reduce problems later in the project. But such practice isn't good. Workshop details are not part details, they are not simply details of components to be fabricated. Workshop details are meant to relate specifically to the capabilties of the fabricators workshop and available resources. Such can only really be achieved if the workshop detailer works for the fabricator. For example I have shown folded brackets on structural drawings and fabricator has come back and wanted to use a bracket welded up from plates. I show welded up from plates and they want to fold it. When producing structural drawings, the fabricator is not known, they will be selected later. Anycase the workshop detailers generally no longer work for the fabricators, but none the less need to be familiar with the fabricator and their needs and capabilities. So how to build technical competence into businesses which have either never had technical personnel or previously decided to outsource?

Both sole practitioners and larger consultancies have been unable to sustain technical competence in the workforce. Sole practitioners typically don't have an issue with future needs: their businesses don't continue once they retire, other businesses simply pick up the work or the work disappears. Employing consultancies and manufacturers however, tend to span many generations, and need to sustain technical competence to stay in business. But there is the problem of design once and build many times. My clients are of the build many times type, therefore seemingly don't need technical personnel on staff, and rely on consultants on an as needs basis. The as needs basis being when they encounter problems with regulating authorities.

{{ break for tea }}

Some 20 years ago, I met both drafters and engineers with 30 plus years experience, 10 years later I was the experienced one. Sure those with 30 years experience would have reached 40 years and be close to retirement if not already retired, but where were those who previously had 20 years experience, who should by then have achieved 30 years experience? The engineers I have met have typically been experienced and never reported problems of being confused with train drivers or plumbers. When I complain about the competence of engineers it is not with repect to those I have met or worked for, it is relative to the work that flows through my office, the clients and builders I meet who are unhappy with some engineer, and otherwise the irritating letters and articles in Engineers Australia magazine.

It seems that many of the sole practitioner consultancies never had the comptence in the first place to then expand and pass real competence on to the next generation. It is not a matter of formal education, it is a matter of culture and attitude. We seem to have developed a culture where self-learning is looked down on, and real learning only occurs when taught by a teacher. Which is a crazy perspective, especially when it comes to engineering. With that apporach we would still be stuck up trees eating banana's: because there would be no teachers to show how to climb down the tree and stand and walk upright. No? We sprung into the environment walking upright? In which case I guess we don't need to be taught anything. we already know everything.

Thats the problem a cultural attitude that the B.Eng contains all that need to know to do the job: the result is that real world design problems are treated as trite tutorial problems. Few researching the literature, aware of industry manuals, or putting such knowledge to work. One client turned up declared wanted a floor beam designing, wanted timber, didn't want steel because had steel in previous house and had too much bounce. Crazy!. It was the Australian Institute of Steel Construction (AISC/ASI) that published guidelines for floor vibration. The span tables for timber framing are determined taking vibration into consideration, and all manufacturers of Glulams and LVL's produce similar tables. Basically no engineer is required to size a timber floor beam for a house. But chances are whether steel or timber if designed by the average engineer, it will have too much bounce, because they won't consider floor vibration. There are thus established industry practices which are not being passed on, have not been passed on, and consequently resulting in disatisfied individuals. Individuals who do not have a collective voice to complain about the quality of engineering services they receive. Though if they did have a collective voice the main compliant would probably be about the amount of time it takes to achieve something they take to be relatively simple. For another issue is city councils requesting certificates and/or caluclations. There is this other cultural attitude that people can do what ever they want and all that is required is an engineer to do some calculations and approval will be granted and demolition will be averted.

Not only have government departments contracted back to adimistration and maintenance, and otherwise become reliant on external consultants for engineering services, but they also keep changing their names and much inspection has been lost. For example the department of labour and industry (DLI) was reponsible for certification of cranes and other mechanical plant., now its part of some occupational health and safety department. At the beginning of this year Planning SA website shutdown, and state planning department disappeared into some infrastructure department: the website for being good if want a drivers license. The planning SA information now lost amongst the chaos of the .gov website. None of which helps in making sure equipment is properly approved. Is that crane or pressure vessel properly certified? What changes are on the agenda for the development act and regulations?

Several years back there was this idea of decentralising government. This did not result in more local community based access to government departments rather, it put everything at the end of a telephone line. How can we expect individuals or business to comply with regulations, when they don't know who is regulating an activity? When the government seems to be deliberatly hiding. The department changes it name so can deny responsibility for some previous government stuff up. It seems chaos but most likely isn't. It just that the order is not clear and apparent to the community.

Now the most fundamental law of society is that goods need to be fit for function. Most businesses supply on the assumption that their product is fit-for-for-function, until they are questioned on the matter: either by dissatisfied customers or regulatory authorities. It is at this point that they then seek the assistance of techno-scientific types to provide assistance.

This is where the problem then arrises. The consultants have not been taking an interest in their clients product, and further more they see no particular reason to expend great effort learning about the product to answer some current issue with a regulating authority, for the client to then disappear until they hit another problem. Relying on consultants doesn't really benefit the manufacturer or builder. The work from such is also of limited value to the consultants. If there was a regular flow of work from the manufacturer/builder then it might be of value to the consultant to study up on the clients product.

So with respect to this sector of the industry we have a problem. Technical people can gain the fundamental experience they need working for a consultant, but not the specific experience they need for the manufacturer. But working for the manufacturer they won't gain the fundamental experience they need to tackle the specific product. Further more the large consultancies where likely to gain the required technical experience, is not the typical employer someone would leave. Engineers with required experience unlikely to leave their employers and leave behind large prestigious projects to go work on relatively mundane projects. Engineering associates could do the work, but most modern consultancies will just dump them on the drawing board and never provide them with opportunity to put their education to work: consequently they don't have the experience required to go work for the manufacturers. New graduate engineering associates also lack the experience to go work for the manufacturers.

Whilst the manufacturers/builders have indicated cost of engineers to be a factor, I don't believe it is. From industrial awards the wage differences are small, and relativities are based on expected contribution to the enterprise. Admittedly at present wages are significantly higher than minimum in industrial awards, due to proclaimed shortages. However whilst shortages are proclaimed, there are a lot of people complaining about difficulty of getting employment: and its not just lack of experience. Several major mining and infrastructure projects have failed to take-off, this is unlikely to be due to lack of just one person. So maybe a potential job for an engineer, but not if cannot find the rest of the required engineering team. And not if the project keeps being a go, and then a no-go every few weeks. So bi salaries maybe on offer, but doesn't mean anyone is right for the job offered. So the businesses I am referring to shouldn't have a problem simply offering the minimum award rate of pay. Why pay anyone on staff substantially more than anyone else?

So I believe they should be able to attract engineering associates in the first instance. One experienced engineering associate should be able to achieve more for the enterprise than the current array of sales people and estimators, the odd trades person, and otherwise multitude of unskilled labour. The businesses I refer to supply:

1) Cold-formed steel sheds
2) Pergola's, Verandahs Carports (Steel & Timber)
3) Decking
4) Scaffolding
5) Balustrades
6) Glazing
7) Fences and Retaining walls
8) Industrial racking
9) Water storage tanks
10) And a multitude of other products requiring structural/mechanical design

These businesses just hold standard calculations produced by consultants, they vary which consultants they use on a regular basis. Mostly because the consultants reach a point where they don't want to talk to the manufacturer/builder anymore. The manufacturers turn up only when they have a problem, and at the last minute. For example city council may give them 3 months to respond to request for further informaation, they only seek an engineer, during the last week. They exert pressure to provide answers now, because apparently only a simple matter, and on top of which they pay low fees. The fee for design of a cold-formed steel shed is less than custom design of an equivalent hot rolled steel shed, but they dump a 1000 or so in the built environment every year. There are more automation tools and design aids available for hot rolled steel compared to cold-formed steel. So the design of the cold-formed steel shed should have a higher fee, but doesn't because the small consultants who provide have less clout than the manufacturers and the big consultants. The big consultants also not interested in such work. The manufacturers also not interested in real product design. Their lack of interest however is an irritation to the consultants who are willing to supply.

Part of the problem is the frequency of the work. May study up on aluminium code for say a balustrade design. It may take a few days of study for 1 day of actual work. The study of benefit to future projects so place it into overhead expenses, and attempt to distribute and recover from future projects rather than hit current client for full cost. But then 10 years may pass before end up with another aluminium project, unless decide to actively pursue aluminium design projects. But that would require freedom from the influx of emergencies that everybody contends their project is: because they left to the last minute: seemingly deliberately.

Now a material code may apply to a multitude of different products, but product specific codes and practices become even more wasteful and problematic. Time passes, some 5 or 10 years between the client needing anything for their product and they expect consultants to be conversant with their product: a product for which they have no real documentation: just a random collection of calc's-for-council. They just want consultants to contribute to this chaos. Such chaos is apparently an effective form of management in the building industry, and consequently often deliberate. They thus don't want order, nor disclosure. If the government does such things why wouldn't business follow suite?

Chaos is good for them, lack of quality doesn't appear to bother them, and pay consultants a low fee for some low quality calcs'-for-council every 5 years or so to keep regulators happy. What need do they have for engineers or engineering associates on staff? Further more such person, is equivalent to a sole practitioner so how to get them proper experience?

Well to start with the manufacturers hold standard calculations, therefore there is something for the engineering associates to use as a reference. Whilst I may contend that the calculations are deficient and do not represent a complete and adequate assessment of the product, the calculations will get approval from the majority of the councils the suppliers seek approval from. The issue is the future. Like the timber truss manufacturers: estimaters stuffing numbers through trashy software doesn't constitute adequate design of the trusses, and otherwise hindering councils in getting adequate information, simply leads to increasing levels of regulation being imposed. This can have follow on effects. For example increased inspections of roof's has now placed more demands on suppliers of attached carports and verandahs. It wouldn't be more if they were doing the right thing in the first place. That is one of the principal benefits of having technical personnel on staff: being prepared for the future, and otherwise proactively creating the future.

The carport/verandah company which employs engineering/technical personnel on staff can direct the market. There is a difference between stating that the competition don't do the job properly and proving the deficiency of the competitions product. Not common in the verandah industry, but common amongst aluminium balustrade manufacturers, each declaring everyone else has ignored the issues of welding, but none demonstrating that they have considered it adequately, or that their alternatives to welding are adequate. None of the industries mentioned provide decent technical information to clients, they see some need to keep secret, lest the competition will copy. Crazy, when relying on consultants. Further more the vast majority of the product is there for everybody else to see. Which gives problems, consultants who cannot see how the thing works, and manufacturers who want similar designs and run around until they can get.

Its easy to show something works if only complete 1/5th of the relevant calculations required for a full assessment. Also easy if the regulating authority lacks the required competence. Part of the problem is: what is actually required to be submitted to council to get approval? When everything deteriorates to simply producing documentation to keep council happy, what happens to the rest of the technical assessment? Regulators originally primarily concerned with critical issues, thus didn't and don't check everything. But there was otherwise certain assumptions about established industry practice: but such practice not documented and otherwise not sustained. Another problem is regulators identifying that they are being used as checkers when engineering should have been thoroughly checked before being submitted for regulatory approval.

All up there is a need to educate and inform the consumer so that they are more discerning in the goods and services they buy. But there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to do so. The ASI shed group and shedsafe I think is an inappropriate way. Basically the members are responsible for creating the dodgey shed market in the first place. To be declaring the members supply quality sheds and outsiders don't is nonsense. The members have the same inadequate lack of technical information, are still basically populated with sales people and rely on external consultants. They need real technical knowhow to push their products infront of the competition.

For example, it is apparently common across the shed industry selling low cost sheds by selling sheds designed for rural conditions in suburban residential areas. Arguing not a level playing field is nonsense. Its not meant to be a level playing field, we have a market based economy: its a matter of survival. Having techno-scientific personnel on staff when nobody else does, does not make a level playing field: it provides competitive advantage. Further more the internet provides more potential for dissemination of technical information than printed brochures ever did, and more than TV. For example I have a photo which shows a shed which collapsed during construction, and the shed manufacturers vehicles scattered around, it arrived via email from the internet. Thats bad advertising for the manufacturer. Massive cranes falling through floor of building, bad advertising for crane company. I have photo of carport attached to house gutter, the gutter no longer attached to the house, the carport collapsed on the floor. It came via email from council building surveyor, I don't know who built. But it identifies a common problem: copying what others appear to be doing rather than what they actually doing.

Rather than declare the competition has low quality, have and demonstrate real expertise. The shed manufacturers for example could physically test their connections and demonstrate the superiority over other connections in the market. Unlikely to happen, since tests most likely to show defective. But it only requires one to step outside the norm. All they have to do is video the bending and failure of a c-section, and then that same c-section joined in various ways and show that none of the connections achieve the same capacity as the c-section. Its upto other suppliers to argue whether they need to acheive the full capacity of the c-section at their connections, for the suppliers to question the consulting engineers they rely on. Though no need really mostly been told to change their connections already: but failed to do so. Cutting costs, by cutting corners, is the wrong approach to competition.

Techno-scientific assessment of the product provides consistency. Assesed last week and found defective, then it will be found defective next week also, unless the assessment procedure changes. Building technical competence achieves higher levels of consistency. So if these manufacturers want more consistency in their development approvals, they need to build technical competence. Employing sales people won't do that.

It has been noted that some consultants vary what they supply dependent on which council they submit to. They consider some councils are demanding unwarranted requirements. Rather than considering that the requirement is fundamental structural design and that their design is defective, they take it as imposition of belts and braces. None of their other approved buildings have fallen down, so why provide this additional bracing or what ever? But issue isn't whether building is adequate now, but whether it will actually resist the design load at some point in the future.

Build technical competence, these inconsistencies diminish. Problem is at the moment clients simply believe that the city councils are obstructive and always changing the rules, or have hindering building surveyors on staff. The builders, building designers and engineers basically get away with blaming the local government authorities, when it is actually their lack of experience and technical competence that is the real cause of delay, their failure to do the job properly in the first place.

The IEAust manages a graduate development programme, but it is only large engineering consultancies which typically sign up for. There is also a mentors programme. But none of it seems well suited to sole practitioners of technical science, whether a lone consultant or the sole person in a large sales enterprise. Though the mentors programme should be able to assist such people. The problem I have with such systems is the lack of experience in the first place, due to major losses or never actually existing. Its not a simple matter of getting a B.Eng, that provides the science and the engineering practice.,The issue is that the technologies already exist, and no detrioration in the performance is acceptable. How they should be designed and assessed thoroughly is known to society, but by very few people. In some areas of practice this knowledge may fail to be passed on and gets lost to a given society, but not to the global village.

My contention is that it isn't the engineers where we should be focused but rather with the engineering associates, which I propose we rename Associate Technologists. Engineers are required for that innovative new technology, which doesn't yet exist. Associate Technologists and Technologists are required for the established technologies: like common machines, building structures, and electrical controls. Further its not just a matter of being able to design things, we also need to be able to build the things. So need workshops with the appropriate tools, and people who can work the tools. And once again there is a need to sustain this competence. Part of the problem is a lack of systems design. Too many assumptions of the skills available in the workforce, which don't eventuate. It seems fairly clear that at the dawn of the industrial revolution, the skills required would not have been readily available, that such skills needed to be developed.

Most of our newest technologies are electrical, yet still graduating more civil engineers than anything else. Why? Further electrical don't appear to be complaining about shortages, where as the civil are. Why? I hazard a guess that both electrical and mechanical engineers work with skilled labour, and from the ranks of the skilled labour are pulled the next generation of engineers. Whilst they may not have 30 years experience as an engineer, they have 30 years experience in the industry. There is some sustained competence in the workforce, as they take on school leaver to uni graduates. Civil engineers on the other hand, are typically consultants and isolated from the rest of the industry workforce, and the rest of the workforce is relatively unskilled. The construction industry oscillates up and down like a yoyo, so diffiuclt to sustain competence in the industry. Further more manufacturers are supplying to the building industry, this also reduces the need for consultants. At the same time however experienced engineers are not flowing into regulating authorities, and the manufacturers are not employing engineers on staff.

It is this isolated consultant issue which needs to be tackled. Mechanical engineers designing big machines still tend to work for the manufacturers, technical personnel are important to the entire manufacturing process. Further more buyers tend to be informed, and failures of machines happens fairly soon, or the machine wears out and needs replacing. Buildings and infrastructure are just so defective in so many ways beyond the engineering considerations. The architects and civil/structural engineers are meant to be the safeguard between the contractor and the uniformed buyer. But who is the safeguard with respect to the architects and engineers? Certainly not the regulating authorities who grant ultimate approval for their work. The buyers have already experienced the low quality service long before the regulating authority starts to assess the design proposals. The regulating authority also comprises architects, engineers and building surveyors, so once again who is regulating their competence? Self regulation is not working. Not because of lack of competence, but because the competence could not be sustained and was lost. Self regulating professions require active industry, where the competence is developed. Or a professional body which doesn't have the same profit motive as industry, which has interests beyond making money. For the most part Engineers Australia is not that body, its trying to be, but it keeps fostering the wrong cultural attitude. Its a monopoly, apparently less than 50% of engineers are members, and there is no way that legislation will be written which requires membership. So there is the alternative registration board, but that is a back door to required membership of Engineers Australia. Some real alternative is required which fosters the right cultural attitude, and builds technical competence. Its not neccessary to have a badge, token or symbol of competence or quality, if it is present it is typically clear and apparent.

Associate Technologists can be trained for the industries mentioned if the industries are willing to employ. The issue then remains what education to give them in the first instance. The education needs to be direct coverage of the product and materials. The graduates need backup, that can be provided by the same place which educated them in the first place. Education has become commercial, so maybe return to the older times of paying for apprenticeship? But how can be certain going to get decent training from employer. Already had current affairs programmes covering so called training schemes, where employers just getting cheap labour and otherwise claiming funds from government for such training. Basically systems are implemented, then they get exploited and everything goes down the gurgler, and everyones's motivation is destroyed. Better policing is required of some of these government schemes. Hey! Australia was a penal colony, what you'd expect? Though South Australia wasn't.

So a system with independent checking is required to minimise exploitation. Also due to loss of expertise and/or lack of in first instance an external independent check is required. A global system is required and that is more likely to achieve some international agreement at the Associate Technologist level than the engineer level. We can easily exam in structural design, but really what is it that anyone expects from an engineer. Clearly in the USA the NCEES expects little from engineers, restricted to a specific area of practice their examinations are within the scope of engineering associates. Whilst American engineers may have to demonstrate breadth when they take their PE exam, in actual practice they don't have such breadth. I find it some what silly that engineers are required to design chunks of wood in housing. However it contributes to sustaining technical competence in the industry. So the WFEO could adopt the NCEES exams on an international basis, but adapt for specific areas of practice and assessment of Associate Technologists not engineers.

Can then start to publish and strengthen the body of knowledge for Associate Technologists. I reiterate despite the signing of the WFEO accords by Engineers Australia, Australia's engineering associates/officers, which I am proposing are renamed Associate Technologists are not WFEO engineering technicians. Australia's engineering technicians have advanced trade certificates, not advanced diploma's nor associate degrees. Engineering associates are not advanced trades people, they plan, design, analyse and manage. The WFEO engineering technicians on the other hand appear to be advanced trades people, under the supervision of engineers. Engineering Associates do not require supervision by an engineer, except when working on large projects as part of a team. The WFEO and Engineers Australia are assuming the existence of a team, designing the existence of a team, and attempting to impose an engineering team on industry. For the most part that hierarchal team only exists in consultants offices. Elsewhere the team tends to consist of a single level, or of only two of the 3 levels.

Education is now expensive, and so is reviewing for professional exams. So I suggest cut the initial education to better serve the needs of the individual getting into industry, and serve the direct needs of industry. This can then be followed up by individuals pursuing a broader education (eg. scrap the B.Eng and replace by 3 year B.Tech and 3 year B.EngSc.). The traditional degree was 3 years and that is what the Bologna process has recommended, followed by 2 year Masters: the purpose achieve mobility in education and academic circles. These 4 year occupational qualifications as I have previously stated are more breadth than depth, more like two associate degrees than any real depth. The scheduling needs changing.

By working with industry the colleges and institutes of technical and further education (TAFE) can develop 1and 2 year programmes, which directly attack the knowledge required now, rather than that which may be useful. As stated before, the education of engineers is aimed at tackling the frontiers, the NCEES PE exam is about no such thing, its concerned with the established. The PE license is a poor example for defining engineers. People want the title engineer, but not doing what we expect from engineers. Graduating engineers and then treating established technology as a frontier, because its new to the graduate is not acceptable. We need to graduate more people competent in the established technologies and established systems, for this is where the majority will be employed. Hitting the frontiers is a rare and something of a privileged opportunity, and something which should be prepared for, but at the right time.

It is another reason why proper articulation is required in the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF). If properly arcticulated then those studying the lower level qualifications can be put on the right path in the first place. For example to pursue the B.Tech or the B.EngSc first. This is possible because properly articulated both start with the same certificate I programmes and step upwards. At any point the individual is directed either along the technology path, the science path or the mathematics path, or even management.

But still whilst TAFE can be used to build the competence required by industry, something else is still required to sustain. If manufacturing goes up and down like a yoyo, because government wants to boost manufacturing, then it says we should concentrate on primary industry (mining and agriculture), the competence cannot be sustained. Some other academy or society is required to pursue the study of technology and science irrespective of the current activity of industry. I'm not so sure how the French system works, but there seems a close connect between government and education and their academies, so something along similar lines maybe beneficial.

Note my concern is to build a solid foundation, an army of Associate Technologists, from the ranks of which a true elite core of engineers can be drawn. As opposed to current world approach of churning out army of persons who believe they are engineers, complain about their status, and otherwise fail to contribute anything worthy of giving them the title engineer. (eg. They size thousands of chunks of wood in houses.)

Sun 2012-Sep-02  03:02

I should have gone to sleep. Will do now.

Education or Experience?

There is an argument taking place on linked in Construction Management group:

Experience or Education. Choose One ? (and I know you want to say both, or depends on situation. Just choose one)

It is about as meaningful as:

 Which is bluer : blue or blue?

The contract says supply blue, you contracted to supply blue, so supply blue. We did supply blue! No you didn't? Yes we did? No you didn't? If its not blue, then what colour is it? I don't know but its not blue, supply blue!

And on and on its goes.

Obviously there must be a difference between education and experience, else the question is stupid, and our language otherwise plagued with surplus words. The difference between the two words is subtle and the refined meanings of which have not been clarified within the context of the question. Not clarifying is like relying on something as meaningless and inconsistent as "industry standard practice".

As I mentioned earlier there is a global debate on the purpose of education taking place as government after government cuts back on funding. Most of the educators generally of the view that education is not about schools, teachers, examinations or parchments. Education is about learning, and with increasing access to the internet, self learning is going to increase.

There is a saying that:

 wisdom comes with observation not age.

I think their focus on the importance of the internet and access to information is relatively narrow. Any child who has access to books, workshops and an appropriate and interesting environment to observe, has the potential to learn faster than the slow pace of the national curriculum. A child with access to history books, can be way ahead of the child restricted to the slow pace of information presented by a teacher on a blackboard. A child surrounded by stone arch bridges built by ancient Romans, may learn little about history, and little about construction, unless they have enquiring minds, and take an interest in going beyond what they can actually see.

It is not necessary to go to a university to learn, such is only necessary to obtain a parchment of evidence of such learning. There appears confusion in the community that people have to be taught, like the teacher does everything and the pupil doesn't do anything. If the pupil fails its the teachers fault. Teachers do not and cannot impart knowledge or competence.

The teachers role, is to assist the pupils and students to learn: the pupils and students do the learning. To me the difference between pupils and students is that pupils are asked questions and students ask the questions. Students have enquiring minds, pupils do not. So teachers first task is to turn pupil into a student. When I was at school, if I asked a teacher a question, the usual response was, you will learn that next year. My response was to go to the library and learn it straight away: I wanted to learn not follow a schedule. The teacher cannot answer the question, because the pupil is not considered to have adequate prior learning to understand the answer. But that is not a problem for the self learning student, it simply raises more questions to seek answers for: it drives further learning.

Words in a dictionary are defined with more words. Thus the meaning of a word is not clarified until the meanings of all words used to define one word are also equally defined within the context of the learners experience. A dictionary cannot really define hot or cold water, nor can it describe blue. Thus a first dictionary tends to be a picture dictionary. But the illustrations in the dictionary are still symbolic like the words, and thus symbols still have to be given some real world context: and not all words are dependent on the sense of vision. Ultimately the words start representing entirely abstract ideas, like democracy, and the dictionary cannot clarify meanings, entire libraries of books on the concept cannot clarify the meaning. Every individual has a subtle variation in their understanding: permitting greater or lesser freedoms than another. Similarly the words education and experience have subtly different meanings to each individual, and such perceptions and meanings also change with the passage of time. The word "experience", in particular is highly emotive.

The argument between education and experience could be equated to the ancient Greek argument between the theoretical and the empirical. Those in favour of theory contended the senses could be tricked and therefore not relied upon (education). Those in favour of the empirical contended that theory could be highly fanciful and bare no relationship to reality (experience). But not altogether. Increased education typically infers increased learning, and acquiring more competencies. Increased experience does not infer more competencies, nor more learning. Increased experience more typically infers more time on the job, more repetitions of the task, and increased proficiency at the task. Rarely does more experience relate to greater diversity of experiences. More experience is more likely to indicate stuck with an habitual way of doing things, and otherwise resistant to change.

Arguing education versus experience is unhelpful. The Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) is built around the concept of competencies and evidence of attainment. Whilst the most common way to obtain certification of competencies is to attend an educational institution or registered training organisation (RTO), it is possible to obtain certification by presenting evidence in recognition of prior learning (RPL). The learning is focused on the attainment of competencies: competencies that need to be certified to assist industry/society in appointing the right people to the job.

Education or Experience is a silly debate! Left or Right arm,  Left or Right leg: you can only keep one: make a choice. Which is actually the kind of attitude held by many at the contracting end of the construction industry. The characteristics required are typically hard nosed, uncompromising bully, to have won many rounds in the boxing ring. As the character Shark put it in the TV series of same name:

Find me a truth that works.

Contracting is highly adversarial, the truth doesn't altogether matter, its a question of who is going to pay for a variation: the buyer or the contractor. Each side trying to make the other responsible. Largely a matter of wearing the opposition down. The traditional bully tactics however are on the way out, have been so for many years now. Technical competence is of increasing importance, for increasingly we are dealing with established technologies: hence diminishing acceptable excuses for running over budget and over schedule. Not only can the project be planned, but the plan has been executed many times before. Consequently the bulk of the potential variations should be understood at the start: that is understood that is not a direct copy of previous. Such knowledge can be obtained by education, training and/or experience. It is largely a matter of observing and learning.

Some 100 years ago, engineering design was largely dependent on the scientific method, to investigate and develop predictive models for the behaviour of technologies. Today the predictive models have largely been developed, and the technologies established. Today's so called engineer, is largely dealing with minor parametric variations of established technologies, and why as a community we have high expectations of the performance of such systems. New technologies we expect to have been thoroughly tested before release to the environment. Though when it comes to the very large, each and everyone becomes a real world experiment, placing the community at risk.

Whilst mistakes are an important part of learning, there are some mistakes that we do not want to be made on the job. Hence as I indicated earlier in the debate, Engineers Australia classes the formal academic awards as evidence of attaining stage one competencies: the enabling competencies. It is not necessary to have such formal awards, but that is the preferred and easiest pathway. Providing evidence of attaining stage one competencies without formal studies and included examination is more difficult, and not fully catered for.

As I also pointed out, the institutions of engineers were also the original qualifying and examining bodies in the UK and Australia. But when industry starts requiring MICE, MIMechE, MIStructE or MIEAust before they will provide a job, then problems arise. For the only way to gain such membership was to have been employed in the practice of engineering. Hence there was, and is a need for some acknowledgement and evidence of enabling competencies, just to get started.

The problem is that now many see the degree as the only requirement, that is the institutions are of diminishing importance: universities are of more importance for fulfilling learned society functions. Part of that is because the stage 2 competencies are highly irrelevant to the needs of industry, society and the individual. The stage 2 competencies concern joining a profession. Also in terms of Engineers Australia the stage 2 competencies are so generic, they could apply to any one doing any job: train driver, plumber, shop assistant. Generic competencies may be beneficial if the reference to engineering discipline was removed, and additional competencies were required for such, and still further competencies for specific areas of practice. Put simply I wouldn't give a B.Eng MIEAust CPEng. NPER(struct) the job designing the structure of a singular dog kennel, let alone a multi-storey building or highway bridge. This is because I do not believe the work practice report is a reliable indicator of having achieved necessary competencies for a specific area of practice. It is far to dependent on whether the supervisor has adequate competence, or exercises adequate duty of care.

From South Australian practice where we require independent technical check, I am aware that, that one state with registration of engineers: Queensland, has far too many RPEQ's who self certify rubbish. If going to have a registration system and restrict who can and cannot practice engineering, then better have a system in place which properly assesses necessary competences. I say necessary, because the required competences are already in place and not adequate.

Neither education nor experience is developing necessary competencies. There is an additional system of training and assessment required: something far better than the engineers graduate development programme, and superior than masters degree in engineering practice. Something more akin, to military training and the way fire fighters train. Not just developing competence, but proficiency and appropriate habitual response.

There is learning simply because the world is an interesting place. Then there is learning to fulfil necessary functions within society, to provide cogs for the machinery of industrial society. The characteristics of these cogs need to be more clearly defined, and the quality of the cogs supplied significantly higher than we are currently getting. But people don't like being treated as cogs, so this has to be reconciled against peoples desire for quality of supply and desire for freedom.

We have a problem in that people do not want to pay the monetary cost of the training required to sustain the technological systems which meet their daily needs. Hence technological systems are designed to remove the need for advanced skills, and then production moved to areas of low labour costs.

A corporation is a collective, so is a city, a town and a village. A new participatory democracy is required at the local level. Education, experience and appropriate competencies for all is important to the function of democracy. Education of the ruling minority fine for a republic.

It being Australia day, no doubt there are those who will raise the republic issue, and ousting the monarchy. I have little issue with freedom from rule of a monarchy, I just oppose a republic. Rightly or wrongly, to me a republic has a ruling elite, and is not a democracy: USSR, Republic of China, etc... It also appears to me that it is the Australia government that has the more parental attitude, making this and that compulsory for all: which in many instances is just to create a market: RCD's, smoke alarms, bicycle helmets.

Population needs to get more involved: water security, food security, competition watchdog, supermarkets pushing local family business out, pressures on farmers, environmental pollution, manufacturing moving over seas, cost of formal education increasing, health care systems, aging population, housing supply, carbon tax, and energy security. No fuel to generate electricity, then pumps don't work and have no water.

Education may not provide all competencies. But it is not experience that is important it is learning. Both education and experience without learning and the development of competencies are worthless. People have to be viewing a bigger picture than simply their job, and move beyond apparent perception that employers have a responsibility to employ. They are not employers they are businesses, they do not need to employ anyone. It is people who have to convince business owners that people are better able to meet the needs of people, that people are an essential and integral part of technological systems.

I diverge. Well I diverged several paragraphs back. But hey the world is complex. To get focus I'd probably need to get a lobotomy to stop me from questioning and connecting everything.

REVISIONS:

1. Original

PS: I know I don't have comments switched on, as explained in "About", this blog is largely about catharsis. If I wanted to continue the debate I would have posted yet another comment on the construction management forum. But there is no real debate going on, it is simply a war of attrition. Those with experience only, are not happy, since unable to get a job in current economy because they don't have a degree. Those with a degree, but not the experience, otherwise want to know how they can get experience, if they cannot get a job. Neither of the two groups have the required competencies or appropriate evidence of attained competences. Persons who do not have the competences to design work processes, or properly define jobs, are to a large extent simply insulting each other, trying to shout each other down. 


Such bickering is a distraction to my current priorities, such as required performance of aluminium balustrade. If not distracted I would have wrote about that instead. The regulations are not clear, and have lots of people running around saying this illegal and that is illegal, without really understanding the issues. One issue is clearly identifying the difference between, a wall, a partition, a barrier, guard railing, a balustrade and a hand rail: not clearly defined in the codes.


Also have one project, concerning a full height glass panel, adjacent glass balustrade. It has been certified as compliant with the glazing code by the glaziers  . Problem is the current glazing code is a design code, no longer just prescriptive, and dependent on the loading code: the design load is not mentioned on the certificate. First impression is that the glazing should be designed for crowd loading, in which case it is not compliant with the building code of Australia (BCA). But if replaced with a timber framed wall covered in plaster board, no one would probably be concerned: and yet a crowd probably more likely to knock a hole through the plaster board wall and fall to floor below.


Names of objects is important. Most South Australian pergola companies for instance do not know what  a pergola is: pergola's typically do not require development approval. The result is a significant amount of time spent assessing construction of all kinds, classified as illegal until development approval has been sought and granted. All caused largely because of misunderstanding of what the construction is, which name should be assigned?


Even so. I don't believe we should have more legislation restricting who can or cannot be in business, rather it  is necessary to further develop competencies, and learning of both suppliers and buyers. If the buyers are better informed, then they are more likely to buy from a more competent supplier: unless they want to play silly games in hopes of getting a lower price.

Manufactured Structural Products And Simplified Wind Classification

Manufactured products are typically classified into size ranges and/or performance grades. It is generally not practical or economical to have infinite variety of product offerings. Further more it is generally not economical to base the size ranges on an arithemetic series, and therefore size ranges are typically based on a geometric series usually a Renard series.

Buildings and other structures are typically designed and constructed one-off, rather than purchased off-the-shelf. However there is an increasing number of off-the-shelf buildings becoming available, the primary reason is that people want buildings not pictures of buildings. Unfortunately the industry is poorly served by consulting civil engineers, who are focused on one-off construction, and the need for consideration of site specific features. Whilst there are site specific features to consider it would be nice if the output of civil engineers actually reflected such custom consideration: rather than implementation of some routine solution and calculation of some point-value. Structural sections, bolts and a variety of other components all have standardised sizes and performance grades. All such components have critical characteristics for which minimum and/or maximum values can be determined for a specific generic application: there is no need to keep calculating from one project to the next: its a waste of time and paper. Simple selection criteria are required based on the controlling characteritics of the product. One such characteristic is the wind load.

To the wind loading code AS1170.2, a regional wind speed (VR) is selected: this is typically the wind speed experienced 10m of the ground, over terrain of category 2 (M[z,cat]=1): typically a local airport. This regional wind speed is then adjusted to match the site specific features, by the use of multipliers for terrain category (M[z,cat]), topography (Mt), shielding (Ms), and direction (Md), to give the site specific design wind speed (V[sit,beta])at a given reference height (z).

V[sit,beta] = VR Md (M[z,cat] Ms Mt)

The maximum from several different directions then becomes the design wind speed (V[des,theta])

This can then be converted into a reference pressure (qzu) as follows:

qzu = (0.5 rho[air]) V[des,theta]^2

The design pressure (p) on a given surface then obtained from:

p = qzu. Cfig Cdyn

{Example  Calculation sheet can be found at ExcelCalcs: schWindAssessment}

Where Cfig is a pressure coefficient dependent on the location of a given surface with in a given shape and configuration of building, and Cdyn is a dynamic response factor. From these formulae it can be seen that there are potentially an infinite number of pressures that a range of products need to be designed: not very practical. However for a generic application the values of Cfig and Cdyn are more or less lock in by AS1170.2, so the main variable is qzu, from one site to another. Whilst there are several factors which go into calculating qzu, the same value of qzu can be determined from a variety of differing inputs. Therefore wind load classes can be defined by the maximum value of qzu permitted in the class. And given that there is a minimum ultimate strength design wind speed of 30m/s, there is also a minimum value of qzu, which for the sake of argument could be called wind class N0. From the minimum then need a method of defining other classes. The basic principle adopted for AS4055, barring some historical anomalies and rounding, is that each wind class applies a pressure 1.5 times greater than the lower class. However due to the anomalies that doesn't quite hold true. Anycase 6 wind classes are defined N1 to N6, defined by ultimate strength design wind pressures (qzu), or otherwise by the associated design wind speed Vzu=V[des,theta]. Since tropical cyclones also impose fatigue issues, for the same wind speeds there are 4 cyclonic classifications C1 to C4.

Note that AS4055 is simplified wind loading for housing. The wind classification system itself does not have anything to do with houses, nor the dimensional constraints in AS4055 nor the pressure coefficients in AS4055: it would be far better if removed from AS4055 and placed in AS1170.2. For anything other than housing: AS1170.2 should be used to determine Vzu or qzu, and assign a wind class.

When defining a product, design to qzu determined from AS1170.2, then assign nearest lowest wind class. When selecting a product, assess the site to AS1170.2 and assign the nearest highest wind class. It should be noted that local government authorities (LGA's) produce wind speed maps for housing, a site classed as N1 for a house may not be classed as N1 for some other structure. A site can only be classified with respect to the reference height (z) of the structure. A three storey house is likely to fall outside the scope of the wind speed maps and the simplified tables in AS4055. Also the wind speed maps are roughly derived, so that it is beneficial to get a site specific wind load assessment.

For many N1 sites on the maps are at the lower end of wind class N2, and difficult to prove the full shielding which puts them into the lower class. However many of the N3 sites are near the upper end of wind class N2. In terms of timber framed housing to AS1684.2, this doesn't make much of a difference for there are only combined span tables for wind classes N1 and N2, member size largely controlled by live loading requirements rather than wind loading. However, the wind classification affects the requirements for lateral bracing and tie-down systems. The tie-down system mostly affects the connections, and that can be a matter of personal design philosophy. Not connecting the members to achieve the full capacity of the installed members, may be considered extremely wasteful. For eaxmple connections in a wind class N1 house have little to no reserve capacity for additional wind load, as may be imposed if a carport or verandah is attached to the house at some future date. {Contrary to popular opinion: you cannot attach any size carport or verandah you wish to a house structure in wind class N1. There is no reserve capacity, and chances are cannot attach one at all.}

Anycase the wind classification system permits simple selection, for a variety of manufactured structural products (sheds, carports, verandahs, houses, fences, windows, doors), however, determination of wind class should be by using AS1170.2 not AS4055. Alternatively additional design aids should be created to further simplify the assessment.

More importantly manufacturers should produce full technical specifications. Saying to AS1170.2, to AS4055, or to AS1684 is meaningless. The specific's of these codes should be identified in technical specifications for the product. In particular the internal and external pressure coefficients, or nett pressure coefficient used should be identified in the specification. Pressure coefficients do not vary between cyclonic and non-cyclonic regions. Those hanging baskets swinging from the pergola can equally well be thrown through the window in a cyclonic or non-cyclonic region. Determinining internal pressure coefficients is a complicated matter of assessing the risks associated with various states-of-nature that a building may experience. Assesssing all the states-of-nature is time consuming, so the simplest approach is to assume the building envelope is breached and that high internal pressures are generated. This is not however always conservative, since for a framed structure, it results in zero loading to the wind ward face. On the otherhand if high internal pressures do produce the maximum stresses in the frame it is not necessarily economical. The purpose of manufactured structural products is to be economical and provide fast supply.

The building code of Australia (BCA) requires consideration of the hazard to life, as well as the loss of amenity. Not having the amenity in the first place, may be fast becoming the major concept of loss. The magnitude of load has very little to do with the hazard to life. The design load always has a probability of being exceeded. so considering Tropical Cyclone Tracy, steel roof cladding was ripped from building and its sharp edges became lethal. All the cyclone testing of cladding and the cyclone washers, and the increased design loads, have failed to remove the sharp edges from the cladding. When the design load is exceeded as it will be one day, the hazard remains. But the population is going to become complacent about us having cyclone proof buildings, which we don't have: they will believe they are safe when they are not.

Safety is not a quantitative issue, it is a qualitative issue. When and how the structure fails when the design load is exceeded is the primary issue of design which is currently neglected. The current magnitude of design loads are largely determined by insurance councils and government with respect to the cost of replacing structure, not the hazard to life. Wind borne debris is a problem, but as indicated when the design loads are exceeded, it is still going to be there. The exercise is partly one of balancing inconvenience against disaster. Disaster arises when the community is not able to recover without external assistance. It should not be necessary for all parts of a building to have the same resistance nor to survive the same event. Many buildings, and many rooms within buildings are non-essential, and loss of such is not a major hardship. There are certain core facilities within houses which contribute to the quality of life in a modern city, these are primarily kitchens, bathrooms and laundries. Most other rooms in a house can be lost. More over buildings can be designed with weatherlocks which control the internal environment.

Another important issue to understand is that the BCA structural provisions are largely based on ultimate strength. That is stresses are permitted to exceed yield strength, and enter into the plastic behaviour zone of the material. This can be identified in the codes by the change from elastic modulus(Z) and use of plastic modulus (S), and the change from yield strength (fy) and the use of ultimate strength or fracture strength (fu). Materials are not expected to under go elastic recovery when the load is removed, they will remain permantly deformed even fractured. Probabilistic design permits less than or equal to the breaking load, it does not have to be strictly less than. The breaking load itself is an uncertain quantity which may be greater than the value used. The BCA uses 5th percentile characteristic strengths. After the structure has experienced its ultimate strength load it may have collapsed and ceased to be serviceable. This is important, a building is not designed to provide safe shelter during a hurricane, unless it is a post-disaster facility which is to remain serviceable after the event. After a design level event a normal building is expected to be no longer serviceable and to need replacement. The primary concern for the design level event is keeping the building anchored to the site, preventing it from becoming airborne debris. It is not the intent to keep it in service and operating.

For many years now the shed and garage industry has had members complaining about not being able to compete because there are those using internal pressure coefficients lower than the standard AS1170.2 specifies. Problem is AS1170.2 doesn't specify a value, it specifies a methodology for determining an appropriate pressure coefficient. That individual businesses in the industry cannot compete is largely because they rely on external consulting civil engineers, and otherwise know very little about structures and manufacturing or industrial engineering. Put simply they are mainly poorly designed businesses with poorly designed and even more poorly specified products. The businesses are also over loaded by sales people who get paid commissions to sell a product they of which they have zero understanding. A properly designed business could use significantly larger structural sections than most are using and wipe the majority of the suppliers off the map. The size of structual section has little to do with whether can compete or not.

So the Australian Steel Institute (ASI) shed group publishing documentation opposing the use of the wind classification system merely compounds the problems in the industry. The wind classification system is specifically for these types of manufactured products, and is far better to refer to wind class N1 or N2, than to refer to TC3 or TC2. The latter only gives consideration to one of the site characteristics whilst the wind class considers all the wind critical characteristics. To reiterate, AS4055 is for housing the wind classification system it defines is not limited to housing: but AS4055 can only be used to determine the wind class for housing, it is necessary to use AS1170.2 for other structures.

Damage to sheds during tropical cyclone Larry, and tropical cyclone Yasi, is not all together indicative of low quality non-compliant buildings. Many of the photos show the sheds collapsed, but it also shows the sheds still anchored to the original site: basic objective achieved. The BCA does not specify serviceability requirements, that is left as a subjective judgment for the designers and end-users, relative to the specific application.

One major problem with the shed industry is it runs around declaring their product complies with the BCA. Who cares? The product is required to comply with the BCA, so just provide the BCA evidence-of-suitability which demonstrates it complies. If it merely complies with the BCA then it is the lowest quality product permitted in the market. So forget about marketing BCA compliance, market how the product exceeds the BCA and provides higher levels of serviveability. We may not have tropical cyclones in South Australia, but we do experience tornadoes in the remote outback. Tornadoes are typically outside the scope of the BCA, but still need to be designed for. Design is not about code compliance it is about making the product fit-for-function, whilst giving due consideration to uncertainty and variability in its use and manufacture.

Now part of the problem is a failure to understand, that the fundamental law governing all supply is that for fair trading which requires goods are suitable for purpose. Once a product is released to the market or into the environment it will be used for all manner of purposes beyond the intentions of the designers. Technical specifications and product literature therefore need to make explicit the suitability of the product and the evidence-of-suitability. Shed manufacturers compete on price because one piece of junk is the same as any other, there is no added value for the higher price.

The building industry is not serious about the quality and performance of its products, it is largely why it is regulated. Buildings are failing because the component parts are not up to specification, and that is largely because the specifications of the major product itself is lacking.  Australia's relative isolation, and often monopolistic enterprises has seemingly resulted in many specifications being based on assumption. For example steel always from BHP, therefore don't really need to specify in detail. Coldformed steel sections always from Lysaght, so similarly don't need to specify in detail. This however is no longer the case, and those cheap c-sections are probably half the price because they are made from steel with half the strength. It is not the internal pressure coefficients that the ASI shed group should be concerning itself with. The products supplied need proper technical specicifications. Part of which requires putting  wind class N2 windows, along with wind class N2 doors, in a wind class N2 shed, on a wind class N2 site.

All the manufacturers need to get up to speed with the wind classification system, and the ASI shed group shouldn't be advising, near mandating that the wind classification system should not be used. Doing so makes te ASI shed group part of the problem. Door and window manufacturers need to provide their products with proper technical specifications. Due to the requirements of the glazing code, windows likely to be compliant, but door manufacturers do not yet appear to be paying any attention to the BCA. The doors to your house as well as the doors to your shed are highly likely non-compliant with the BCA. Consequently doors can be blown of their supports at less than design wind loads and lead to the development of high internal pressures not otherwise accounted for. Basically the economical design of the building is not taking into consideration the failure of the industry's ability to supply doors to a technical specification.

For a simple analogy. The walls to sheds have frames at 3m centres, with girts spanning 3m metres typically spaced less than 1.2m, the ribs in the wall cladding span the 1.2 m between girts. The roller doors are typically 6m wide, no frame behind, the ribs of the door cladding span 6m. The door clearly has no where near the resistance as the adjacent wall: the door is the weakest point on the wall. The wind will push the door in, causing it to balloon, until it stretches so much it slips from the door guides and is then torn from the building, at which point high internal pressures occur in the building and will end up loosing more than just the door. Make sure the doors are compatible with the specification of the shed.

Complacency is another problem in the building industry. People don't want any hassle, they go to shed manufacturers because there is an expectation that all design problems have properly resolved in the past. So delays because this door not compliant are typically over looked with, just get it finished: a doors a door. This is a suppliers problem. The supplier is supposed to have designed the product and be ahead of the local council and regulating authorities, not behind. There will always be delays experienced during development approval, if rely on the council to advise what regulations have to be complied with. The designers task is to assert which regulations are relevant and that they have been complied with. Sales people are not designers, and custom manufacture does not equate to custom design. If the shed supplier does not employ design personnel on staff, then buyers should seek the services of an independent consultant. Suppliers should seek to inform and educate the public.

Anycase I will essay shed design in more detail at a later date, along with design-for-failure. Other writings on wind loading to AS1170.2 with comparisons to ASCE7-05 can be found in the SEAint archives.

SEAint Archives:

http://www.seaintarchive.org/group/seaint/

http://seaint.blogspot.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/seaint/about