Hi again Gunner, and anyone else who wants to join in...

So this thread - it's more of analysing structural performance -
strength / stiffness / load-bearing.

Something I find really exasperating here, in the UK. Is the same in
the US?
You opinion?
I think that with
* CNC plasma / laser cutting
* press-braking with a lot of software guidance
* high-strength tough thin plate
* highly-controlled welding - even if manual (GMAW processes)
* CRUCIALLY - Finite Element Analysis modelling easily done
you can make much higher performing structural assemblies from
plate, not assemblages of sections - various angles, box-sections,
etc. - for much nigher-performing steel fabrications.
Much stiffer, much more load-bearing to weight, well-predicted fatigue
resistance at high cyclic loads, etc.
Fairly-much - make in welded steel (cheap) for ad-hoc machine-chassis,
etc., to overall design strategy of riveted aluminum aircraft
sub-assemblies (expensive).
Finite Element Analysis enables you to know under design loads the
stresses, deflections and likely fatigue resistance of the proposed
design which the fabricator "details" to the overall specification of
the component.
The thinking is so conservative here and there seems to be not a
single person in any engineering / leadership (none of that - is
"management") role with whom you can talk the absolutely obvious.
I spent about 30 days busting my brain around how to use a Finite
Element Analysis package, and went from zero to being show the
falacies in shoddy work with no effort put in by contracted-in
engineering consultants.
If you know FEA at all - "shell elements" enable you to model thin
plate structures very readily and economically. It is very difficult
to make a design for a single component which will take more than a
minute of a current personal computer's time to solve.

I did a web-page about this concept
http://www.weldsmith.co.uk/skills/fe...-fold-stl.html

It's so exasperating that what is obviously and readily done by
someone working "on the tools" is invisible by reason of unfamiliarity
to most in "leadership"...

It seems that there is a "lazy" assumption that progress is only being
made in "leading" endeavours like computing, bio-whatever and so on,
and no-one but those on-the-tools can see there's similar levels of
advancement possible in "traditional" (sic.) endeavours, as the
overall technological advancement lifts the "baseline" of what is
readily possible.

Thoughts?