Draft Report
Posted Sun Jan 28, 2007 in
Engineering
DiL sent me this image a few days ago. They had snow in Lubbock last weekend (quite a bit in fact) and it had just about everything shut down for a couple of days. Of course, the heat went out in the house while I’m 1,200 miles away! They survived, though.
I like the image. It reminds me of something Calvin and Hobbs might do. Something about “deranged mutant evil snowmen” comes to my mind.
It’s been a week alright. Last week we knocked out a proposal and I submerged into a hydraulic model. The proposal wasn’t for a large project, but it will be good work nonetheless. The hydraulic model was for a flood study. It’s been a long time since I did my last flood study. I used to be facile with HEC-2, but never really played with HEC-RAS (the successor) very much. I knew enough about it to know how it works and how to make it work, but there’s a lot more to using these tools than just that.
Unfortunately, with Windows-based software, there are about a hundred different places to put things. There’s a never-ending dance of windows and dialogue boxes where parameters and settings must be modified. It’s pretty easy to lose where things go if one isn’t careful.
I’m very careful. I’m a careful modeler, not so much because I believe they represent truth, but because they can be quite erroneous when not properly used. So, I want to know that each parameter is selected and tested, that the bathymetry is the best it can be, and that the results are consistent with my understanding of the behavior of the prototype.
I resurfaced Friday about noon. I’ve done about everything reasonable with the tool and am convinced I understand the behavior of the system, even if model results aren’t quite right. (That is the nature of modeling, by the way. Anyone who claims the model represents truth is a fundamentalist and not to be trusted!)
So, I went back to my draft report and began collecting the bits and pieces of facts and logic that form the story I want to tell. As I assembled those bits, a consistent theme began to emerge along the lines my logic and intuition say are reasonable. By close of business Friday I had a rough draft. Tired, I tabled it for the beginning of the week.
I’ve learned that writing is one of the most challenging things we do as humans. It’s intellectually demanding to write well. At least it is for me. It requires focus and lots of energy. When I’m writing, I’m immersed and hate it when my flow is broken. Even when I step away from the desk for a few minutes to hit the head or refresh my coffee, I’m still in flow and working on the text in my head.
I’ll walk off from the desk and computer to let the words rattle around in my head. It’s the way I work. When at home, I’ll sometimes snag the guitar and sit with it, noodling around the fretboard while working the words over in an internal dialogue.
I’ll finish the second draft Monday and hand it off for a review while I assemble the exhibits I think are necessary to support the story. I should be done with it before I head to Denver Wednesday for a project meeting. That will be a good thing.
You should really try and convince your firm to spring for a license of ICPR (Interconnected Pond and Channel Routing). It allows you to dynamically model all of your hydrology and hydraulics in one model. It’s pretty straight forward and easy to learn. It’s extremley versitile too. You can model channels connected with storm sewer networks (i.e. urban settings) and view the results as the model runs.
I am working on a flood study for downtown Lubbock and I’ve done everything in ICPR. So far the results appear to be much more accurate than the HEC-HMS/RAS method, in my opinion.
— N Rigler 28 January 2007, 15:47 #I’ll have to check out the product and review FEMA’s take on it. Thanks for the tip!
The URI for for ICPR is http://www.streamnologies.com. It looks pretty interesting so I've requested an information packet.
— ruminator 28 January 2007, 18:01 #I find that writing my results and interpretation are often the most difficult part of the written analysis. Because society has become so litigious, one has to be extremely specific when presenting results. I think that the best defense of our work comes from correctly selecting, “cleaning”, and justifying our input data. Our second line comes from having a sound understanding of how the watershed responds hydrologically and hydraulically for pre and post project conditions. I always have at least one other engineer and word processor review all of my written work before we submit.
One of my pet peeves working as an engineer, is reviewing unjustified work from other firms. All too often, I review studies that consist of an inch and a half of model output with a two page cover letter for a report. Unfortunately, it is usually more efficient to reinvent the wheel and restudy the watershed. I sometimes think these outfits sell this stuff by the pound. I hold to the assertion that if an engineer can not adequately explain what they have done, then they don’t know what they have done.
— rivercanoe_71 28 January 2007, 20:25 #Engineering reports are difficult to write. It’s one of the reasons I worked on that component so hard with you and other graduate students. It’s still true that most engineer’s don’t write. I suspect that some of the can, but are unable or unwilling to commit the resources to doing it well.
I find myself revisiting completed work as well. The study I’m just finishing was done by another engineer. However, I had much difficulty validating the inputs for the modeling. Hence, in good professional judgment, I couldn’t just use what was done. So, I modeled it myself, using cross sections I had confidence in (again, truth is very difficult to quantify), and worked the model until I was satisfied I understood what the model was telling me about the behavior of the prototype.
I think many engineers just don’t get that last sentence. And that’s a topic for a complete essay!
— ruminator 28 January 2007, 20:43 #I have no idea how many such reports I’ve reviewed, and one thing has slowly soaked in- no one- ever- does it the way I would do it. I’ve stopped using whether or not I agree with them as a gauge. The best I can hope for is to not be able to substantially disagree.
I can’t remember even one that had a well-written report to go with it. Apparently, people think that the less said, the safer it is for them.
— Dazed n Confused 29 January 2007, 04:48 #It would be interesting to give you one of mine to read. :) I finished the draft this afternoon. All I need is a few plates from my assistant and it should be good-to-go. I learned a lot of things about assembling one of these in the process. I think I have most of my boilerplate put together now. I certainly have a basic format and outline worked out.
I’ll start another project in a couple of days. I have another report to review and see where the modeling is. If it’s anything like the last one, I’ll have some work to do on the model. Of course, I could be wrong.
— ruminator 29 January 2007, 18:53 #