Sure, it wasn't the fault of the designers. Okay, so what?
I mean no disrespect Lubomir. I just don't see how it matters whether the
problem was in the design core or beyond it.
And here's another possible reason why the anti-tsunami wall was short:
building a big one might have scared people. I know; it sucks as far as
reasons go. But something like this might weigh heavily on politicians.
Cheers.
Fil
On 16 March 2011 21:51, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Filippo and Elson,
>
> I don't have all the information about the case and the situation. I also
> found more in-depth information in non-US media. Evidently several
> governments do not want to disturb their citizens at this time.
>
> It is quite possible that the tsunami factor has been scaled down because
> of increased technical difficulties and budgetary restrictions. It is
> logical that when we make a structure more resilient and reliable, it might
> be several times more expensive. However, in all cases the problem remains
> outside the core design process. Programming is the time to make politics
> and to reach consensus. When the design stage comes, this less productive
> and more expensive.
>
> By the way, in the European debates a few days ago, the French were making
> a pitch for their designs. They openly stated that they have missed several
> tenders because their offers are more expensive. But they emphasize that
> this is the cost of much higher reliability and safety.
>
> Best,
>
> Lubomir
> [...]
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|