Reflection on Titanic Videos

From video 1 and the lecture, I found learned that 1018 steel was supposed to be used on the Titanic's rivets. However, possibly due to cost cutting or rushing, lower quality steel with increased sulfur was used which increased the brittleness of the rivets resulting in their end's snapping off rather than deforming as indicated by these missing ends on found rivets. 

From video 2, I learned how steel was made. I learned that carbon is put into the iron while limestone is also added to help remove impurities. Part of these products are pig iron which has high iron content; It was interesting to learn that this is an ancient process using blast furnaces. I also found out that slag that is produced can potentially be a cause for the weakened materials in the Titanic. An acidic lining resulting in the production of lower quality steel. 

From video 3, I learned more about the quality of rivets being used. The comparison between 1215 and 1018 was insightful. Additionally, I learned about the cyclic loading and how it may have stressed the rivets too much. 

From videos 4 through 6, I found the actual material tests were particular insightful. Seeing actual tests is more believable than reading that one material is stronger or weaker than another. 

What we can learn from impact testing is how a material will behave in an accident particularly in impact prone areas. For example, impact testing of the material used in a car's bumper can tell us about its resilience. Impact testing for wind shields of aircraft can give insight into how well it can resist bird strikes. Taken to a higher level, we can conduct crash testing on entire structures rather than only on material samples. 

Some Other Reflections

I thought that the slides discussing the responsibilities of a conscientious engineering were very interesting. I would think that especially when people are involved, engineers are especially keen on exercising great caution in their design to avoid loss of life. However, how are engineers affected when they are working on, say, drones or UAVs?

I can't remember or find the source, but the author said than he has noticed that engineers in the drone or UAV industry approached their work with a more rushed attitude. "If it crashes" it's not like there's anyone inside" would be an example of the sort of thinking the author noticed. Of course, it is not like they are intentionally design faulty designs. Rather, especially in smaller drones, the smaller sizes makes crashes less costly so designs are more rushed to the prototype stages and rather than having, say, rigorous pre-prototyping analyses, the assumption may be to iterate through the prototyping process as much as possible. This is aided especially with rapid prototyping technologies such as 3D printing for example.

In myself, I've noticed that sometimes when designing 3D printed parts, I may not think the entire thing through or review the design prior to printing. My thoughts was that if it didn't work out, I could always print another one after some CAD changes. This is a potential slippery slop and one may fall down from the path of the conscientious engineer.