Skip to main content

Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters

Physics is unimpressed by your bravado, intolerant of your negligence, and unaware of your time schedule.

Perhaps my favorite show on TV is "Modern Marvels". I particularly enjoy their series on Engineering Disasters. I'm not a real engineer, but from what I can tell, engineering is really about understanding failure points and how to avoid them. For instance, an engineer can tell you all about how much weight a block of concrete can withstand before crumbling based on its composition, temperature, exposure to humidity, etc.

Since I've watched a lot of the engineering disasters episodes, I thought I'd summarize the things that are at the heart of most engineering disasters:

Bravado. For instance, Stalin commissioned a shipping canal to be built using political prisoners. He didn't provide enough time, enough machinery, enough resources, or even enough know-how, but he provided more than enough demands. He ended up with a useless, fragile canal and many thousands of deaths.

Impatience. If you are in too much of a hurry to fortify the concrete in the correct manner or to inspect all of the welds carefully, something is going to break. It doesn't matter how many women you get pregnant, it still takes about nine months to make a baby.

Ignorance. A big part of engineering is knowing how things have failed in the past and how to avoid making the same mistakes. Everyone knows about "galloping gurdy". That was a lesson about harmonic motion. There are similar lessons to be had concerning the brittleness of steel at extremely low temperatures, concrete when dry, iron when exposed to the elements, the danger of pure-oxygen environments, etc. That which you don't know can still kill you.

Negligence. Often, there are signs of a problem, and they are ignored. For instance, a steamboat captain might override the pressure valves on a steamboat leading to a boiler explosion, or chronically neglected routine maintenance at a chemical plant might lead to a cascade of failures leading to a catastrophic failure. If you ignore a problem, it won't go away--it'll probably get worse.

Overloading. For instance, the Air Force had a successful plane. It was engineered for a specific engine, and it was successful with that engine. Later, they took the same plane and strapped on an engine that was more than two times as powerful. The plane couldn't handle the added stress and it came apart catastrophically. If something behaves well given certain constraints, it probably won't continue to work well if you ignore those constraints.

Multiple. For instance, there was a crane accident. The crane was at its limit of weight, but the operators were negligent or ignorant of the impact the wind would have on the operation. They were impatient, so decided to move ahead instead of waiting for conditions to improve. Multiple people died. Here's a quote from the show, "All great engineering disasters are the result of more than one failure." Very often, multiple small problems, each caused by any of the above, can work together to create a catastrophic failure.

And, of course, all these same lessons apply to software engineering.


Bob Van Zant said…
I too love that show. One of my favorite quotes was:

"all great engineering disasters are the result of more than one failure."

When things go really wrong I find it to be a bit of a coping mechanism. It probably wasn't entirely all my fault :-)
jjinux said…
Duh! How could I miss that one? I'll add it.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p