Indeed, nothing about the Titanic's accident, failure, and sinking should have been beyond imagination in prospect.
It was well known that icebergs were likely to be encountered on the North Atlantic sea-lanes, especially in the month of April, when the Titanic sailed. A collision with an iceberg was thus a credible accident scenario. One form such a collision could take was a grazing, in which case the ship's hull could be gashed open, or its rivets sheared off. Either way, water would be let into the bow, reducing its buoyancy. As water continued to flow in and the bow dipped farther down, the bulkheads -- which only went so high, a fatal design flaw -- would be overtopped. The bow would then continue to sink lower, raising the stern. If the stern were raised out of the water, a condition for which the structure was not designed, then the ship could break in two, and its sinking would shortly follow. It certainly was an easy calculation to make to determine that the number of people in distress would far outnumber the capacity of the lifeboats.
This failure scenario, which is now what is believed likely to have happened in fact, should have been the basis for obviating faulty design decisions. However, whether due to ignorance, overconfidence, or rationalization, neither the design of the Titanic nor its operation seems to have been modified or adjusted to ensure that the credible scenario did not play out in actuality.
Everyone involved -- from designers to owners to crew to passengers -- seems to have expected success more than feared failure, perhaps owing to the generally infrequent occurrence of ships hitting icebergs on transatlantic crossings.
But success is a fickle guide, and we should always want to balance our hopes for success with a proper acknowledgment that failures can and do occur. Failures, after all, provide the lessons and wisdom to foresee even beyond the hypothetical wherein a newly proposed design, plan, or policy is likely to go awry. An overreliance on past successes, as was the case with the Costa Concordia, can be a sure blueprint for future failures.
Using the recent Costa Concordia disaster, framed up against the lessons learned from the infamous Titantic disaster, is a perfect "teachable moment" for proving out the importance of failure analysis as part of upfront design. I would hope the takeaway from Professor Petroski's thoughtful post is that failure analysis needs to be a proactive part of the principal design process, not simply an after-the-fact exercise that comes on the heels of any kind of related disaster or product failure. On the upside, I would think the flurry of more accessible CAE and simulation tools can greatly aid engineers in this very important exercise.
On April 21, NASA launched a novel project, putting into orbit three satellites that employ an off-the-shelf commercial smartphone as the control system.
The legacy endpoint devices that control our critical infrastructure (utility systems, water treatment plants, military networks, industrial control systems, etc.) are some of the most vulnerable devices on the Internet.
In a switched-capacitor filter, capacitors and switches take the place of resistors and accurately reproduce the characteristics of continuous-time Bessel, Butterworth, and elliptical filters.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
2 
