Category talk:Engineering failures

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles

Technology

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Hmmm, the Tay Bridge disaster (shown on the 12/28 this day in history) led me to here, which includes collapsed buildings, including the World Trade Center. I do not believe that the WTC was an engineering failure, and should not be included in this sense. Two independent commissions on the collapse agree with me. CodeCarpenter 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which commissions are they and what, exactly, did they say?--agr 19:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the Collapse article provides the FEMA and NIST study results. Quoted from the article Collapse of the World Trade Center

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a performance study of the buildings in May 2002, declaring the WTC design sound and attributing the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders.[2] In its September 2005 report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concurred with this view, noting that the severity of the attacks and the magnitude of the destruction was beyond anything experienced in US cities in the past. It did add, however, that the towers' stairwell design lacked adequate reinforcement.[3]"

These are the second and third citations in the article. "^ a b c d e Hamburger, Ronald, et al. World Trade Center Building Performance Study (pdf). Federal Emergency Management Agency. Retrieved on July 27, 2006. and ^ a b Snell, Jack, S. Shyam Sunder (November 12, 2002). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster (pdf). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on July 27, 2006. "

On a side note, having the name Ronald Hamburger must be rough... CodeCarpenter 14:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Engineering" failure?[edit]

What are the criteria for determining if something is an "engineering" failure? Example, the Mars Climate Orbiter had an error in the software related to unit conversion. Does that rise to the level of engineering failure? I'm interested in what the threshold should be. Is there a difference between an engineering failure and a mistake/error?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all major failures come down to one little mistake. Good engineering design reduces the likelihood of mistakes and makes systems more tolerant of the ones that are inevitable. Lessons learned from past mistakes are invaluable, so this category should err on the side of inclusion.---- agr (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk can be reduced but not eliminated. Not achieving zero risk does not constitute failure in the context discussed here.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Design errors are not the same as risks. Hitting an iceberg is a risk; not putting tops on watertight compartments is a design error.---- agr (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Morning quarterbacking is not engineering.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denver airport baggage handling system[edit]

I don't know how to link but under the main Denver airport article, the baggage handling system is a well-known failure.--Billymac00 (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]