As construction progressed, the all-steel structure drew increasing attention and visitors from both the engineering community and the general public. Because of the legacy of the Tay Bridge and the oddness of the Forth's form, Baker was prompted to prepare a public lecture in which he could explain that the new bridge was not only distinct from the Tay but also much better able to withstand the force of the wind. In the course of preparing his lecture on the unusual design, he found that he needed to solve another design problem: how to develop a visual model of the great cantilever that could be easily grasped by a general audience. It was here that playfulness reigned.
In preparing his lecture, Baker found himself looking for a way to make even non-specialists in the audience appreciate the "true nature and direction of the stresses on the Forth Bridge." After consulting with colleagues on the construction site, a "living model" of the cantilever structure was conceived as an illustration for the lecture. The tableau has also been described as a "human model," because in place of some of the structural components of the bridge were people who could experience directly the forces involved.
Fortunately, one of the assistant engineers of the project, who was also its official photographer, was present as the design of the model evolved. He captured not only the final version but also some early, less effective versions of the model. The series of photographs thus shows how the model progressed from a concept to a polished work of anthropomorphic structure.
The essential structure of the bridge consists of distinct steel towers from which cantilevers reach out toward each other and support a central spanning girder. To counterbalance the weight of these cantilevers plus the suspended central span between them -- and the trains that run along the whole assembly -- opposing cantilevers are anchored to end piers of massive masonry construction.
The human model that mimicked the actual structure consisted of a pair of chairs on each of which a person sat. These represented the steel towers. Each person held a wooden strut, one end of which was wedged between the person's thigh and the chair seat and the other end was grasped by the person's outstretched arm. Together, this arrangement represented a cantilever. The end of the counterbalancing cantilever was attached by a rope to a pile of bricks that sat on the ground. From the ends of the inside cantilevers was suspended a swing seat, representing the suspended central girder. When a person sat in this elevated swing seat, he represented a train on the bridge and so completed the model.
The seated persons felt a pull in their arms and also felt the strut pushing into their thigh, thereby experiencing both the tension in the top chord of the cantilever truss and the compression in the bottom one. The seated persons also felt their torso being pushed down onto the seat of the chair, thereby experiencing the great compression that the piers felt under the weight of the structure and its loads. The audience viewing a lantern slide of the model demonstration could feel the same forces. The model was as beautifully designed as the bridge itself.
An interesting title, although my experience is that designs build on designs. It is often easier to imagine an improvement of some kind when looking at a design then when looking at a blank sheet. Even an unworkable dsign can serve as a basis for ides to produce a much better design. At least that is often what I see. Of course, sometimes we can only guess about what the main goal of a design was. Some designs seek to minimize the required accuracy of components, others strive for the maximum robustness, and it is obvious that many designs are optimized for minimum initial cost, with little attention given to other variables.
So every design can serve as a basis for additional designs, optimized for some particular variable parameter.
Design does beget design. In the article, the design of the demo was a result of the design of the bridge. That is the circle of life of engineering. If you design an end item, there are many other designs that are necessary to make your assembly a reality. If the component requires plastic parts, someone has to design the molds for the part. Someone else handles the design of the molding mahcine to run the molds. This goes on up and down the chain keeping engineers in business.
The comment about secondary required designs brings out the old comment "Nothing is ever simple". The truth is that usually an over-all design does require a lot of little designs, such as nuts and bolts. The good news is thgat we don't need to design those parts new each time.
Dr. Petroski--absolutely fascinating article. I love these stories that give background and weave into the narrative personal history regarding the engineer(s) doing the work. We sometimes forget that many many great engineering designs were accomplished with slide rules, pencils and erasers. (Big erasers at that.) Really demonstrates how far we have progressed with technology. I wonder where we will be fifty years from now. Again, many thanks.
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 
