Hacker News Reader

Comment by SiempreViernes | Hacker News Reader

I think the problem is more that you cannot at all guarantee a specific performance of the structure ahead of time, because you can't know what the properties of the local rocks will be before you are on site and have measured them all.

View on HN

Geotechnical engineering is all about taking samples and using wide enough safety margins. And in the vast majority of cases, the end result is a building that doesn't fall down.

Sure, you might have been really unlucky that all your test samples of soil and rock were really strong granite, but the exact spot you put the main structural pile, unknown to you, was all mud and silt... But the chances are so vanishingly unlikely we accept it.

The interesting thing here is you can feasibly measure them all.

Not ahead of time, but as you build.

Sure, but then it's somewhat up to luck precisely what properties you get. This variation might me manageable if you design enough redundancy into the design, but by necessity you will need more margins than if you used a more controlled material.

Doesn't that apply to wood too? Yet we use wood to build houses almost everywhere.

People rarely build entirely using found wood on site, at the very least each tree to be used gets selected before you bother felling it. But the overwhelmingly most common use of wood is in the form of processed product: using quality controlled lumber of standardised size.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com