Engineers love these things because they’re real easy to design, and very efficient in usable volume vs materials (which is why they’re used for every warehouse/big store/factory)
Obviously not great for living in or anything but that’s the joke :)
Very interesting! I never thought of that before. On the building pictured, which would take least effort to double the storage space - making it twice as long, wide or tall?
Do you really mean “effort” (and if so, whose?) or do you mean cost? The other reply is correct that making it twice as long would minimize the need to redesign, but without doing the math (I am a civil engineer, but I can’t be bothered) I suspect making it twice as tall would use the least additional materials and therefore be cheapest. (That assumes taking advantage of the extra height for storage is the client’s problem, not the engineer’s. Having to put in a second story floor would change things.)
Yeah I guess I was thinking about cost when I said effort. I figured maybe building up would also provide more design challenges to keep the thing from collapsing, or is that negligible?
You’ll have a little bit more wind loading and you may have to put in a little bit of thought into the size and bracing of the vertical support columns to make sure the extra length doesn’t risk buckling, but that’s pretty much it.
both of these were designed by architects. neither reflects the twin simplicity and laziness that engineering embodies.
If engineers had our way all buildings would look like this
This is the ideal building. You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like 😆
My neighbour shop looks exactly like that. It went bankrupt cuz it’s ugly as fuck
“Shop”? Depending on the type - and I don’t want to jump to conclusions - I doubt it being ugly was a major part of its bankruptcy.
This is what’s known in the Midwest as “tornado bait”
Why not continue the brick shell at least to eye level? Why does it stop at waist level?
Brick expensive :(
panel cheap :)
The real question is, why is there any brick at all?
(The answer is almost certainly that somebody other than the engineer imposed the requirement.)
…masonry wainscots look tacky-as-heck but they provide impact and moisture resistance where it’s needed most…
Is masonry really cheaper than using a slightly thicker gauge of steel and a decent epoxy paint for the bottom few feet?
…it’s far more durable, mostly…
Brick waterproof.
Brick termite-proof.
Brick fireproof.
Panel same (probably, depending what kind of panel).
No, panel only as waterproof as the coating protecting it. Brick is rock, takes centuries to wear out.
Brick? Pfft. Concrete elements all the way. There’s no equal.
Mind explaining why this is peak performance? ELI5 if possible
Engineers love these things because they’re real easy to design, and very efficient in usable volume vs materials (which is why they’re used for every warehouse/big store/factory)
Obviously not great for living in or anything but that’s the joke :)
Very interesting! I never thought of that before. On the building pictured, which would take least effort to double the storage space - making it twice as long, wide or tall?
Do you really mean “effort” (and if so, whose?) or do you mean cost? The other reply is correct that making it twice as long would minimize the need to redesign, but without doing the math (I am a civil engineer, but I can’t be bothered) I suspect making it twice as tall would use the least additional materials and therefore be cheapest. (That assumes taking advantage of the extra height for storage is the client’s problem, not the engineer’s. Having to put in a second story floor would change things.)
Yeah I guess I was thinking about cost when I said effort. I figured maybe building up would also provide more design challenges to keep the thing from collapsing, or is that negligible?
You’ll have a little bit more wind loading and you may have to put in a little bit of thought into the size and bracing of the vertical support columns to make sure the extra length doesn’t risk buckling, but that’s pretty much it.
Twice as long - all the structural elements are the same, you just line up more of them
Dogshit R-factor, poor impact resistance, I mean that’s the obvious stuff lol
Peak performance is highly dependent on who’s defining it 😝
As an engineer, I prefer to call it minmalism.
Quick edit: I saw the typo, but it is also an example of what the sentence is supposed to convey.
I go with “efficiency”
Look. i’s ain’t cheap, and half the readers won’t even use it.
Leave it out, we’ll claim it was a mistake, and if anyone really complains we can add it back later.
Are you kidding. Just slap an extra 20% of the is you think you used on the end in case.
That’s positvely genus!ii
hey! I resemble those remarks!