Review Engineering Ethics PPT (Attached). Answer the following questions in two to three sentences only.
Then:
Read the Case Study 1: Charles de Gaulle Airport.
Post your answers to the questions at the end of this case study in a new thread. All responses must be thoughtful and complete. You will NOT receive credit if you do not show me effort.
Was the architect/architectural engineer ethical? why or why not
Did the construction company do anything unethical? why or why not
Respond to at least ONE other person’s response to this case study. All responses must be thoughtful and complete.
________________________________________
Read the Case Study 2: I-35 Bridge Collapse.
Post your answers to the questions at the end of this case study in a new thread. All responses must be thoughtful and complete. You will NOT receive credit if you do not show me effort.
Was the construction engineer unethical? why or why not
Was the construction inspector ethical? why or why not
____________________________________________
Read the Case Study 3: Space Shuttle Columbia.
Post your answers to the questions at the end of this case study in a new thread. All responses must be thoughtful and complete. You will NOT receive credit if you do not show me effort.
Was the debris Assessment Team ethical? why or why not.
Was the engineering management ethical? why or why not.Created by Alice Noble
ETHICS AND ENGINEERING
DISASTERS
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
1. Code of Ethics Review
2. Case Study 1: Charles de Gaulle Airport
– Put all answers at the end of this case study on discussion
board on eCampus
3. Case Study 2: I-35 Bridge Collapse
-Put all answers at the end of this case study on discussion
board on eCampus
4. Case Study 3: Space Shuttle Columbia
-Put all answers at the end of this case study on discussion
board on eCampus
WHY TALK ABOUT ETHICS?
• Very important to engineering practice
• Learning outcome: demonstrate an understanding of professional
ethics and application to real-life situations;
• Grows out of a need:
• Became a focus in mid 70’s
• Growing recognition of ethics and social responsibility
• Political controversy of nuclear weapons, environmental quality
and consumer rights
• Changing educational standards promoted by ABET
ABET CRITERION 3 A-K
Engineering programs must demonstrate that their students attain:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
An ability to apply knowledge of math, science and engineering
Ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret
data
An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political,
ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
An ability to communicate effectively
The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering
solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context
A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
A knowledge of contemporary issues
An ability to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary
for engineering practice.
ABET CRITERION 3F
“An understanding of professional and
ethical responsibility”
What does above statement mean you
should be able to do?
DECISION MAKING AND
ENGINEERING ETHICS
• Ethics is just one part of a continuum of
principles of conduct governing an
individual or a group.
Engineering Ethics
Preferences
Morals
Ethics
Increasing rigidity
Laws
DECISION MAKING AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering Ethics
Preferences
Morals
Ethics
• Preferences
– Can make significant impact on career
– Not just chocolate or vanilla
– Type of preferred environment
• Geographical
– Urban / Rural
– Northern / Southern
• Government / Private Industry
• Design / Manufacturing
– Can impact career path and standard of living
– No real ethical issues
Laws
DECISION MAKING AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering Ethics
Preferences
Morals
Ethics
Laws
• Laws
– Legislation passed by governmental body
– Specify illegal activity
• You are guilty or innocent.
– Carry fines paid to government
– May also carry jail terms
DECISION MAKING AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering Ethics
Preferences
Morals
Ethics
Laws
• Morals
– Personal belief systems
• Unwritten rules to live by
• Everyone is a little different
– Group situations, you’ll need to defend your position
based on your morals. Always respect their perspective.
– Based on religious, societal norms, cultural
differences and more
– Ex. How you treat others (Golden Rule)
ENGINEERING ETHICS
Engineering Ethics
Preferences
Morals
Ethics
Laws
• Ethics
– Guidelines specified by professional body
• Written rules but not enforced by the judicial system
• Enforced by the body that publishes the code
– Based on how professionals in field expected to behave
– Could result in loss of licensing, fines paid to licensing
body, sanctions against license
– Could result in loss of profession, no one will hire unethical
engineer
– Give guidance, clarity and support for decision-making
ENGINEERING ETHICS
• National Society of Professional Engineers
– NSPW created a Code of Conduct for
Engineers
– There are 6 Fundamental Canons
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
• Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
• 1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
• Safety is your top priority
• 2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
• Only do what you know and do not dabble in things that are out of your
range of expertise.
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
• 3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
• Don’t lie
• 4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
• No double dealing or conflicts of interest
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
• 5. Avoid deceptive acts.
• Don’t misrepresent yourself or buy influence
• 6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and
lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness
of the profession.
• Don’t embarrass the rest of us
NSPE CODE OF ETHICS
• Fundamental Canons
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
•
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as
to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
See more at: http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
Roof Collapse at Charles de Gaulle Airport
Paris, France
CASE STUDY 1:
CHARLES DE GAULLE
AIRPORT ROOF
• Terminal 2E at Charles
de Gaulle airport was a
650 meter long
innovatively designed
concourse. As seen in
the figures, the
concourse is an large
open area where the
ceiling is supported by
the steel superstructure.
Figure 1: Schematic of Terminal 2E at
Charles de Gaulle Airport
(Architecture Week)
Figure 2: Inside of the
terminal, Photo: Report
Berthier/ Ministry of
Transport
CHARLES DE GAULLE
AIRPORT ROOF
• On May 23, 2004, 2 years and 4
months after the construction, a
30 meter section of the roof
collapsed. This event occurred
near where inter-connecting
passageways connect Terminal
2E to other parts of the airport.
Looking at the post-collapse
images we see that the
passenger area of the terminal
was directly under the collapsed
area and killed 6 people while
injuring 3 others.
Figure 3: The deadly collapse of Terminal E.
Photo: Report Berthier/ Ministry of Transport
Figure 4: Schematic of Terminal 2E at Charles de
Gaulle Airport Post Collapse (Architecture Week)
CHARLES DE GAULLE
AIRPORT ROOF
• Investigation led by engineer Jean Berthier
• Possible causes
– Procedural:
• For thermal expansion, roof not rigidly fixed, its supports on roller bearings
• ADP designed building & managed construction
• Architect (Paul Andreu) somewhat inflexible about design shapes without
concern for costs, risk and efficiency
– Structural:
• External struts punctured shell near footbridge
• Fractured beam supporting roller bearings
CHARLES DE GAULLE
AIRPORT ROOF
Possible causes of collapse
– Perforations of concrete for metal support structure
– Concrete suffer from temperature variation
– Stakeholder and political pressure to finish on time
Official reason:
– Weakened concrete due to cyclic loading
– This loading conditions should have been
considered during the design phase of the roof superstructure and concrete panels.
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN THE
DISCUSSION BOARD ON
ECAMPUS
•
Was the architect/architectural engineer
ethical? Why or why not
•
Did the construction company do anything
unethical? Why or why not
LESSONS LEARNED – CDG
AIRPORT
• The same company should not be
responsible for both the design and
construction a building.
– Having different companies involved will
increase the number of people reviewing the
design and increase the chances of finding
any oversights before completion of a project.
– This would in turn place an accountability
system into the creation of buildings and other
designs.
MORE ON LESSONS LEARNED
• The next terminal to be built at Charles de
Gaulle Airport was 2F which has a similar
design to the collapsed Terminal 2E but
the designers added over 5,000 tons of
steel to the super-structure.
I-35 W Bridge Collapse
Minneapolis, Minnesota
CASE STUDY 2:
I-35 BRIDGE
•
•
Designed by Sverdrup & Parcel and
Associates
Plans approved
•
•
•
•
Foundation in 1964
Bridge in 1965
Construction
•
Started 1964
•
Completed 1971
Figure 5: Picture of the I-35 Bridge
“Structurally deficient” since 1991
I-35 BRIDGE
Figure 6: East elevation of bridge, deck truss portion of the bridge extends from just south of Pier 5 to just north of Pier 8.
I-35 BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS
•
•
•
1977
•
Milled depth by ¼ inch
•
Added 2 inches of low-slump “wearing course” of concrete
1998
•
Median barrier replaced
•
Upgraded railings
•
Installed anti-icing system
2007
•
Repaving
•
Under renovation during collapse
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE
•
•
Time of collapse was 6:05pm CST on Aug 1, 2007
Center span separated from bridge and collapsed
–
–
–
•
•
456 ft span fell into Mississippi River
111 vehicles were on the bridge
–
•
•
3 seconds from initial movement
Remained level East/West
North end was higher than the South end
17 recovered from water
13 people died
145 people injured
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Security video captured collapse
Figure 7: View of the I-35W Bridge center
span 8 minutes before collapse
Figure 8: Close-up of initiation of collapse sequence
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE
•
Some key people
–
–
Construction supervisor
–
Requested to remove more than 2 inch “wearing” layer
–
Stored stockpiles of aggregates on bridge in an attempt
to meet deadlines and cut time
Mn/DOT construction inspector
–
Permitted stockpiles of aggregates
–
Static loads did not exceed design loads of bridge
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Figure 9: Reconstruction of the estimated weight distribution of the I-35
bridge at the time of collapse, about 1.25 million pounds
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN THE
DISCUSSION BOARD ON
ECAMPUS
•
Was the construction engineer unethical?
Why or why not
•
Was the construction inspector ethical? Why
or why not
•
What questionable decisions were made?
Why or why not
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE:
LESSONS LEARNED
•
Approval for material stockpiles was not
granted by Project Engineer
•
Mn/DOT updated policy about aggregates
on bridges under construction
•
Annual inspection reports were ignored
I-35 BRIDGE COLLAPSE:
OFFICIAL REPORT
•
•
•
Aggregate loads were within design loads of bridge
Discusses multiple possible causes:
•
Corrosion damage
•
Floor truss fracture
•
Preexisting cracking
•
Temperature effects
•
Pier movement
Most likely:
•
Material substitution in gusset plate
•
Design firm error in verifying calculated stresses in gusset plate
Space Shuttle Columbia Accident
CASE STUDY 3:
SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA
•
•
•
•
Oldest of the Space Shuttles
Completed 27 missions
STS-1: April 1981
Inspection and retrofit
•
August 1991: 50 modifications
•
September 1999: over 100 modifications
NASA STS-107
• 28th flight of Columbia
• Mission Objectives
•
•
•
Multi-discipline science
mission
Joint US/Israeli Dust
Experiment
Fast Reaction Experiments
Enabling Science,
Technology, Applications
and Research
• Crew received 4,811
hours of training
Figure 10: STS-107 Launch January 16, 2003 (CAIB)
NASA STS-107
• What happened?
•
Post launch video analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Insulating foam tile struck the
left wing
Piece was only 21 – 27 inches
by 12 – 18 inches
Relative velocity: 625-840 ft/s
Flight Day 8: Mission control
notified Commander and Pilot of
foam impact on wing “no concern
for re-entry”
Orbiter disintegrated on re-entry
Figure 11: Upper atmospheric
disintegration of Columbia
(www.dallasnews.com)
NASA STS-107
Figure 12: During the history of the shuttle program there have been a surprisingly large
number of dings on the shuttle, the figure shown here illustrates that after several missions
there were more than 100 different one inch or large dings on the lower surface of the Orbiter
after a mission.
NASA STS-107
• Debris Assessment
Team
–
–
–
–
–
Protocol existed due to history
of foam strikes (6 other cases
from bipod area)
Formed after photo analysis
Requested high res. imagery
of Orbiter in flight
Used modeling tool “Crater” to
access damage
Model designed for a different
impact type
• CAIB Conclusions/
Contributing Factors
– Systemic
•
•
•
–
Constrained budget
Kraft report mischaracterization of
“mature and reliable system”
Delay of replacement technology
Physical
•
Foam strike on left wing
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER IN THE
DISCUSSION BOARD ON
ECAMPUS
Was the Debris Assessment Team
ethical? Why or why not
Was engineering management ethical?
Why or why not
REFERENCES
•
•
•
•
•
Horn, Christian. “ArchitectureWeek – News – Paris Air Terminal
Collapse Report – 2005.0427.” ArchitectureWeek – News – Paris Air
Terminal Collapse Report – 2005.0427. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar.
2014.
Torres, Pablo, “Case Study: The New Terminal 2E at Paris-Charles
de Gaulle Airport”, MIT December 2004
NTSB, Collapse of I-35W Highway Bridge, August 1, 2007,
NTSB/HAR-08/03
Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume 1, August
2003, NASA
CNN Library. “Space Shuttle Columbia Fast Facts.” www.cnn.com.
Cable News Network, 31 Jan. 2014. Web 11 Mar. 2014.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.