Scientific basis and rules of thumb in civil engineering: conflict or harmony?

Abstract

Abstract. Science and engineering intermingle in the area of construction. Engineering works, often of great dimensions and design life cycle of many decades, have to be designed on a scientific basis since the safety of hundreds of users depends on their design. The task of scientific institutions is to define the construction performance within categories that correspond to the contemporary level of knowledge and technology. A construction appraiser who speaks out in a way that ensures unquestionable competence about the performance of elements and buildings (existing and under construction), should be convinced of the scientific basis of his opinions. A comparison of construction sections vs. basic requirements presents an archetype of the science of construction. A matrix of the science of construction reveals its multi-faceted nature; if related to time -the issue of durability has to be considered, and if related to the scale -the complexity. Defining the construction performance in terms of technical features is a constant search for a relationship between the material model and the usability model of a building. The construction industry uses a lot of "rules of thumb", more than any other sector of technology. In the era of computer-aided design, CAD, and building information modelling (BIM), those rules of thumb remain invaluable verification tools.Key words: building performance, appraiser, matrix of the science of construction, rules of thumb, durability, complexity, diversified development. Scientific basis and rules of thumb in civil engineering Defining building performanceThe primary task of universities and research institutes in the scientific discipline of construction is to continuously define building performance in a manner consistent with the current level of knowledge and technology. This means permanently seeking true solutions [2] -the relationship between the two corresponding models [3]: the material model (material model is used here to represent materials, analyses and geometries) and the usability model, which combines properties and requirements (Fig. 1).

The philosophy of fire safety engineering in the shaping of civil engineering development

“…It also indicates that the prescriptive approach forced by Authorities cannot block the performance solutions, as this essentialy prevents further development of the prescriptive approach. This risk was already stated in 1925 US Building Code [15], as quoted by Czarnecki [3]:…”

“…While it may not be the best solution, we do not currently have a better one. In the end, "it is better to be roughly right, than precisely wrong" [3].…”

“…To provide the required level of safety, it is not rare that the choices made to improve the fire-related characteristics of the building become the driving force behind the whole design. On the other hand, due to complex connections between various engineering branches [3], the choices made by civil engineers and other W. Węgrzyński and P. Sulik any major change to the way people build their homes in other places of the globe. The Great Chicago Fire in 1871 had a similar effect, again turning the focus to non-combustible materials, especially terracotta-like.…”

Strategy of Research Institutes in Construction in Shaping the Research Area

“…Research institutes are statutorily involved in the challenges associated with the increase in the competitiveness of the economy because [1] In the scientific discipline of construction, science and engineering intermingle. As noted: the emerging large scale engineering works that impact the safety of hundreds of users and have the designed life of dozens of years must be accompanied by the conviction that they are scientifically based [2].…”

Civil Engineering – Ongoing Technical Research. Part I

“…", examining the meaning and justification of "the rules of thumb" [3] in the construction field, in which science and engineering are so intermingled. Shortly speaking, how much "it is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong" (J. M. Keyness).…”