Tag Archives: research

How many engineers do you need when the lights go out?

Leave a reply
An exemplar adverse outcome pathway for microplastics in aquatic species

From Galloway & Lewis, 2016

One to change the lightbulb and five to perform a Fault Tree Analysis (FTA).  A fault tree is a diagram that illustrates the relationship between failures at component and system levels.  Engineers use them to understand the mechanisms or logic that lead from component malfunctions to system breakdowns and to identify components that are critical to system reliability.  They are useful in optimizing designs, demonstrating compliance with safety requirements and as diagnostic tools when things go wrong.  There are some simple examples of fault trees for ‘no light in room’ and ‘missing the bus’ amongst others available from Visual Paradigm Online.  All of these examples illustrate qualitative relationships but we can also establish quantitative relationships using the rate of occurrence of each initiating event to arrive at a probability of failure (PoF) for the system.  There is an example for an indicator light in an automobile in a 2016 paper by Nabarun Das and William Taylor (see figure 2 in the paper).  An equivalent in biology are Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) that identify the relationship between a molecular initiating event and a toxic effect through a series of key events.  For instance, microplastics causing altered gene expression and oxidative damage leading to altered fatty acid metabolism, stress response and altered cellular division resulting ultimately in population decline in aquatic species as shown in the graphic from a paper by Tamara Galloway and Ceri Lewis also published in 2016. Most AOPs are qualitative; however, quantitative Adverse Outcome Pathways (qAOPs) are starting to be developed as tools for quantitative risk assessment of chemicals.  Biologists and engineers are not using the same words, actually they are using entirely different vocabularies; nevertheless they are talking about the same methodologies.  An AOP network and an FTA are essentially the same concept and a probabilistic fault tree analysis is a quantitative adverse outcome pathway.  However, it seems unlikely that either biologists or engineers will adopt the language used by the other so they will be reliant on a few foolhardy interlocutors prepared to cross the discipline boundaries and highlight the opportunities for cross-fertilization of ideas and solutions.

Sources

Das N, Taylor W. Quantified fault tree techniques for calculating hardware fault metrics according to ISO 26262. In2016 IEEE Symposium on Product Compliance Engineering (ISPCE), pp. 1-8. IEEE, 2016. Also available at https://incompliancemag.com/article/quantified-fault-tree-techniques-for-calculating-hardware-fault-metrics-according-to-iso-26262/

Galloway TS, Lewis CN. Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 113(9):2331-3, 2016.

Slicing the cake equally or engineering justice

Leave a reply

Decorative photograph of sliced chocolate cakeIn support of the research being performed by one of the PhD students that I am supervising, I have been reading about ‘energy justice’.  Energy justice involves the equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of the production and consumption of energy, including the fair treatment of individuals and communities when making decisions about energy.  At the moment our research is focussed on the sharing of the burdens associated with energy production and ways in which digital technology might improve decision-making processes.  Justice incorporates the distribution of rights, liberties, power, opportunities, and money – sometimes known as ‘primary goods’.  The theory of justice proposed by the American philosopher, John Rawls in the 1970’s is a recurring theme: that these primary goods should be distributed in a manner a hypothetical person would choose, if, at the time, they were ignorant of their own status in society.  In my family, this is the principle we use to divide cakes and other goodies equally between us, i.e., the person slicing the cake is the last person to take a slice.  While many in society overlook the inequalities and injustices that sustain their privileged positions, I believe that engineers have a professional responsibility to work towards the equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of engineering on the individuals and communities, i.e., ‘engineering justice’ [see ‘Where science meets society‘ on September 2nd, 2015].  This likely involves creating a more diverse engineering profession which is better equipped to generate engineering solutions that address the needs of the whole of our global society [see ‘Re-engineering engineering‘ on August 30th, 2017].  However, it also requires us to rethink our decision-making processes to achieve  ‘engineering justice’.  There is a clear and close link to ‘procedure justice’ and ‘fair process’ [see ‘Advice to abbots and other leaders‘ November 13th, 2019] which involves listening to people, making a decision, then explaining the decision to everyone concerned.  In our research, we are interested in how digital environments, including digital twins and industrial metaverses, might enable wider and more informed involvement in decision-making about major engineering infrastructure projects, with energy as our starting point.

Sources:

Derbyshire J, Justice, fairness and why Rawls still matters today, FT Weekend, April 20th, 2023.

MacGregor N, How to transcend the culture wars, FT Weekend, April 29/30th, 2023.

Rawls J, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge MA: Belknap Press, 1971

Sovacool BK & Dworkin MH, Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Image: https://www.alsothecrumbsplease.com/air-fryer-chocolate-cake/

Taking an aircraft’s temperature as a health check

Leave a reply

The title of this post is the title of a talk that I will deliver during the Pint of Science Festival in Liverpool later this month.  At last year’s festival I spoke about the very small: Revealing the invisible: real-time motion of virus particles [see ‘Fancy a pint of science‘ on April 27th, 2022].  This year I am moving up the size scale and from biomedical engineering to aerospace engineering to talk about condition monitoring in aircraft structures based on our recent research in the INSTRUCTIVE [see ‘INSTRUCTIVE final reckoning‘ on January 9th 2019] and DIMES [see ‘Our last DIMES‘ on September 22, 2021] projects.  I am going describe how we have reduced the size and cost of infrared instrumentation for monitoring damage propagation in aircraft structures while at the same time increasing the resolution so that we can detect 1 mm increments in crack growth in metals and 6 mm diameter indications of damage in composite materials.  If you want to learn more how we did it and fancy a pint of science, then join us in Liverpool later this month for part of the world’s largest festival of public science.  This year we have a programme of engineering talks on Hope Street in Frederiks on May 22nd and in the Philharmonic Dining Rooms on May 23rd where I be the second speaker.

The University of Liverpool was the coordinator of the DIMES project and the other partners were Empa, Dantec Dynamics GmbH and Strain Solutions Ltd.  Strain Solutions Limited was the coordinator of the INSTRUCTIVE project in which the other participant was the University of Liverpool.  Airbus was the project manager for both projects.

The DIMES and INSTRUCTIVE projects  received funding from the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 820951 and 6968777 respectively.

The opinions expressed in this blog post reflect only the author’s view and the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Reliable predictions of non-Newtonian flows of sludge

Leave a reply

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have been working for many years on validation processes for computational models of structures employed in a wide range of sectors, including aerospace engineering [see ‘The blind leading the blind’ on May 27th, 2020] and nuclear energy [see ‘Million to one’ on November 21st, 2018].  Validation is determining the extent to which predictions from a model are representative of behaviour in the real-world [see ‘Model validation’ on September 18th, 2012].  More recently, I have been working on model credibility, which is the willingness of people, besides the modeller, to use the predictions from models in decision-making [see, for example, ‘Credible predictions for regulatory decision-making’ on December 9th, 2020].  I have started to consider the complex world of predictive modelling of fluid flow and I am hoping to start a collaboration with a new colleague on the flow of sludges.  Sludges are more common than you might think but we are interested in modelling the flow of waste, both wastewater (sewage) and nuclear wastes.  We have a PhD studentship available sponsored jointly by the GREEN CDT and the National Nuclear Laboratory.  The project is interdisciplinary in two dimensions because it will combine experiments and simulations as well as uniting ideas from solid mechanics and fluid mechanics.  The integration of concepts and technologies across these boundaries brings a level of adventure to the project which will be countered by building on well-established research in solid mechanics on quantitative comparisons of measurements and predictions and by employing current numerical and experimental work on wastewater sludges.  If you are interested or know someone who might want to join our research then you can find out more here.

Image: Sewage sludge disposal in Germany: Andrea Roskosch / UBA