http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-edmund-hambly-1617728.

html OBITUARY : Edmund Hambly

PETER BLAIR-FISH
sponsored links:

Edmund Hambly was a distinguished independent consulting engineer whose work ranged from troubleshooting offshore platforms and bridge design to underpinning an Oxford college. He was also the 130th president - and one of its youngest - of the Institution of Civil Engineers. His inquisitiveness, analytical skills and sound judgement, combined with his courtesy, strong character, Quaker background, dislike of dogma, high ethical stance and meticulous preparation, made for an extremely talented, versatile and professional engineer. From Eton, Hambly went on to First Class honours and the structures prize in the Engineering Tripos at Cambridge. Research in soil mechanics under Ken Roscoe followed, with the invention and development of a ''bi-axial'' (two-dimensional) and then a ''true triaxial'' (three-dimensional) apparatus for a better understanding of the deformation of soil under engineering conditions. Roscoe insisted on a thorough approach, which Hambly retained throughout his life. At Cambridge he met and married Elizabeth Gorham, who became his lifelong companion and partner. Hambly left Cambridge to spend five years in industry. He worked on the design of structures with Ove Arup and Partners, on the construction of an underpass with Kier Ltd, and the design of bridges with Gifford and Partners. He developed simple physical models and hand calculations, which led to the publication in 1976 of his first book, Bridge Deck Behaviour, illustrated with sketches or photographs on almost every page. In 1974, aged 31, he set up as an independent consultant, working from his home in Hertfordshire. An early commission was to interview designers and constructors of bridge foundations for the Building Research Establishment. The result was a second book, Bridge Foundations and Substructures (1979), copiously illustrated with thumbnail sketches and stressing the importance of simple details. Writing books and producing some 40 technical papers kept Hambly busy when work was slack. As a visiting professor at Oxford from 1989 to 1992 Hambly encouraged students to set him problems and ''make him sweat'' out a solution in his lectures. He in turn set them real problems to which his third book, Structural Analysis by Example (1994), gives simple solutions and physical reasons behind complex calculations. His skills were used by the oil and gas industry to advise on the safety of offshore structures damaged during installation or by fatigue from waves. Asked to investigate a

possible foundation failure of the Ranger 1 jack-up drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico that had led to loss of life, he found the cause to be fatigue, amplified by the vibration of the structure in response to waves. He illustrated his findings with a simple model showing the modes of vibration and potential instability of a jack-up rig. His experience in alerting owners of other offshore structures to inherent design defects led to his spearheading guidelines on warnings of preventable disasters by the Fellowship of Engineering, later the Royal Academy of Engineering. He became a firm, patient and persuasive chairman of committees. Edmund Hambly became a Vice-President of the Institution of Civil Engineers in 1991 and President in 1994. His presidential address, ''Advancing Civil Engineers'', showed how videos and illustrations could make engineering more fun, and encouraged younger engineers to have a greater role in the profession. He hoped to make engineering more valued by society and challenged engineers to make towns and cities attractive and more sustainable and construction more environmentally friendly. A humble and generous man, Hambly drew great strength from the calm and support of his wife and family. He was inspired by the work of early scientists, particularly Robert Hooke, whose contribution he felt had been under-recognised. Hambly's concern for the challenges facing the developing world was exemplified by his great interest in the efforts of RedR (Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief). He brought to the Institution of Civil Engineers the same commitment that he gave to all his professional work. His early death, just five months into his presidency, robs the engineering profession of an inspiring enthusiast and hardworking leader. Peter Blair-Fish Edmund Cadbury Hambly, civil and structural engineer: born Seer Green, Buckinghamshire 28 September 1942; Research Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge 1967-69; independent consultant 1974-95; Trustee, Bourneville Village Trust 1979-88; Fellow, Institution of Structural Engineers 1982; Fellow, Royal Academy of Engineering 1984; Chairman, Offshore Engineering Society 1989-90; Fellow, Institution of Civil Engineers 1990, President 1994-95; Fellow, Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1991; married 1964 Elizabeth Gorham (three daughters, one son); died London 28 March 1995.

On the three-legs and four-legs engineers by Dr. Airil Sametok

The best way to begin this article is for me to pose the Hamblys paradox (Hambly, 1985). If one, who is weighing 600N, sits ideally at the centre of gravity of a stool and if the stool has three legs, the reaction force at each legs would be of course 200N (note that this is a paradox so all the ideal state of symmetricality and so on has been taken for granted). Now, if the stool has four legs, instead of three and by taking into account the reality that there could never be a smooth surface beneath the legs, at least one of the legs must be tilting (not in contact with the ground). This leaves three legs supporting the stool. However, since one of the leg must be diagonal to the tilted leg, satisfying the static moment equilibrium requires that the force in this leg is zero. What this amounts to is that there are actually only two legs supporting the stool thus the reactions in each legs must be 300N instead of the intuitive 200N. A good engineering sense would have realized all these and assist the engineer to decide on the construction of three-legs stool instead of the four-legs stool. He or she should have realized that the construction of the four-legs stool not only uneconomic but also lacks of safety. But, the bigger picture to this is the appreciation of the fact that what seems trivial is not sufficiently necessary intuition is sufficient but technical intuition is what sufficient and necessary. Thus, from this paradox, I propose the following conjecture: i) To be an engineer, one must have a good engineering sense ii) A good engineering sense, on the other hand, requires a good understanding of scientific notions iii) But, science is understood and delivered through mathematics iv) So, engineers must know, at least, their so called engineering mathematics Those who shy away from mathematics run the very real risk of becoming functionally illiterate..Indeed, it is this mastery of mathematics and science that distinguishes the engineer from the engineering technologist or technician - (Duderstadt, et. al., 1982, p. 136) Applying the above quotation to the Humblys paradox, we can address those who end up with the four-legs stool as mere technicians instead of real engineers as intuition belongs to the technicians but technical intuition belongs to the true engineers. Lets quote further from the father of engineering mechanics: Wanting to do work on strength of materials, I had to broaden my knowledge in this area, I needed to go on elasticity theory. I decided to tackle the most thorough courses in this field, the book by A.E.H Lovein addition I read Lames book and several chapters from a book by Saint-Venantbut my mathematical knowledge was insufficient. I read Riemanns book Partial Differential Equations, in the Hattendorf edition. I learned something about Fourier series (Timoshenko, 1968, p.83-84). Also, Karl Terzaghi, another great figure of engineering and widely known as the father of soil mechanics is quoted as: To predict the effective stress at any time was the problem Terzaghi had set out to solve.

He understood the physics wellHe had been unable to make headway on formulating this physical behaviour until he thought to study the books on the mathematics of heat conduction. This suggested to him simplifications that led to the derivation of a differential equation completely analogous to the well-known diffusion equation governing the time dependent flow of heat in solids- (Goodman, 1999, p.83). Had not Timoshenko and Terzaghi, the two greatest figures of engineering turned to mathematics, both of them would ended up as mere technicians according to both Hamblys paradox and my conjecture. Have they not, engineers of today would still be in the dark ages, rhetorically speaking. But, what if one argues we, engineers never despise our mathematics, we have been learning and applying mathematics our whole life. To such an argument, I would like to response, time changes everything thus it can change the status of the three-legs engineer to a four-legs engineer simply if the former does not keep up with the wind of change. In regard to this, it is again very tempting to tell another story of Timoshenko. There I presented my paper on stress concentration.an evaluation of my paper, prepared by the well-known Harvard Professor G. F. Swain, was read. The reviewer obviously had extremely limited knowledge of strength of materials and had never even heard of the high stresses at the edges of round holes. This did not prevent him, however, from vigorously attacking my paper, from branding my theoretical research on stress concentration as a useless fantasy of theoreticians, divorced from any practical application. (Timoshenko, 1968, p.255). Based on the above story, the change of the status of the Harvard Professor G.F. Swain i.e. from a three-legs to the four-legs is made obvious by his ignorance about the stress concentration. But such a change of status is not exclusive, anybody even Timoshenko himself (if he still alive today) would become a four-legs if he fail to keep up with the wind of change. But there is another important point that deserves a note. Based on the above, we should learn the danger of ignorance. The four-legs can not only endanger himself but most likely the three-legs as well especially if the former has the authority (in this case, it was Professor Swain) . Due to the ignorance, there is a possibility for the former retarding any novelty of the latter. Therefore, this calls for open-mindedness from everybody.

Answer to the Paradox

If a man of 600N (say) sits on a table with three legs(tripod)...we have to design each leg for a force of 600/3=200N. Here the key word "we have to design each leg" not the analysis part... Our problem is the Design part...Not the analysis part... Depend upon how we think about the design...we can Analyse.. The crux of the paradox...is the Path to Design..Not the way we Analyse... If a man of 600N (say) sits on a table with four legs...we have to design each leg for a force of 600/2=300N.

This is the paradox...when we ADD one more leg....it actually reduces the safety.. This is the paradox....i mean to convey... Shall we put "ANALYSIS" behind the "DESIGN"...rather than other-way round... Regards, Suju