Overbuilt vs Overengineered

I see the term "overengineered" commonly used to describe something that is overbuilt. That is, something that was not engineered at all. Instead, a lot of material was added in the belief it made the structure stronger. Heavier is not necessarily stronger. The extra weight may simply add stress. Overengineered would be to apply aerospace standards to the countertop of a small cabin cruiser. The savings of a few grams would not be justified by the cost of the design and construction.

 

I don't know how it's used today, but for me the difference between overbuildt and overengineered is pretty clear.

Overbuildt means something that as made exceeds the design specifications. Typically someone uses something with a greater dimension then the plan specified, usually under the impression that "bigger is better". This can be ok sometimes, while in other cases it can be a problem.

Overengineered means something that is designed to a standard that's higher then usual and perceived as unnecessary by most people. The interpretation of "usual" and "sufficient" depends on a particular place and time, it isn't a universal truth.

 

In everyday language, they have become synonymous. It misses the point of what engineering entails.

 

Semantics mainly, a ginger beer is a ginger beer whether they have a ticket or not. It is just that the non-ticketed tend to produce more head scratchers. The magnitude of the calamity caused by the ticketed is often many orders higher however, though generally not from what would be described as overbuilding.

 

I have no idea of what you are saying. Maybe ginger beer has some meaning where you are fr0m??

 

Overengineered means you need ten different wrenches to change a starter. Overbuild means you only need two, but there isn't room to turn the damn things.

 

They both, however, tend to come from incompetent or entirely absent engineers.

 

Overengineered is something that costs 14 times more but can be worked on with a single tool. The weight savings would be relevant for a trip to Mars.
Overbuilt may end up with no space to work.

 

So, was the Titan submersible under engineered or underbuilt? Or designed by an engineer that graduated last in his class, or did not graduate? In the past the title of engineer was sometimes bestowed by some Industries, because of experience in an area,, and not because of Education?

 

The Titan submersible was under-engineered and also built with low quality materials. Further, it was not maintained and/or tested properly. In short, a terrible trifecta.

 

Wound carbon roving or titanium alloys castings are not low quality materials.

 

I'm very curious to know how you know all that. Could you show us the information, or any information you can make public, that you have?. Thank you.

 

I am interested in seeing examples of overbuilt boat designs that resulted in failures due to the fact that it was not engineered (numbers cruched and acceptable safety factors applied).

 

If "overbuilt" means placing too much material, or very strong material, where it's not needed, it suggests that engineering principles have been poorly applied. In that case, "overbuilt" can indirectly lead to structural failures, not because of the over-built area itself, but because of critical areas that the engineering design hasn't addressed correctly.
An overbuilt area cannot cause failures because it cannot increase or change the existing load in that area or in adjacent areas. The load on an element is an external factor that doesn't depend on the element's morphology.

 

How An 'Unsinkable' Swedish Warship Found Itself At The Bottom Of The Stockholm Harbor https://allthatsinteresting.com/vasa-ship