Report three case studies to recognize the importance of ethics in different real-life

scenarios relevant to engineering.

Case Study 01
Engineer A, who recently moved to British Columbia from Ontario, learned from a classmate at a reunion that
a mining company needed a design for a bridge over a creek, near a mine in the mountains. Engineer A had
designed a single-lane timber logging bridge over a creek in northwestern Ontario but had no other bridge
experience. He approached the mining company, stated that he had extensive experience in bridge engineering,
and eventually received the contract for the design. The site was at the base of a steep slope, and the creek was
full of rocky debris. No flow records were available for the creek, so Engineer A determined the span and
clearance based on the creek’s high-water marks. He felt that the site was adequate and did not arrange for
geotechnical investigation or advice. He designed a standard concrete box-girder bridge with a 15 m span and
pile-driven abutments. A building contract was also hired. The contractor was familiar with mine construction
and mechanical plants, but had no experience in bridges. Nevertheless, the construction went smoothly. The
bridge served well for five years, but a debris torrent during a particularly rainy winter season destroyed the
bridge in the sixth year.

Outcome: The mining company regretted the loss of an expensive bridge, particularly because the loss
interrupted mine operations for months. The company hired an experienced bridge engineer as a consultant to
investigate the reasons for the bridge failure. The consultant noted the debris in the creek and concluded that it
was likely deposited by torrents. This design constraint should have been satisfied by relocating the bridge site,
providing a debris basin, increasing the vertical clearance, and/or by altering the design in other ways. The
mining company complained to the Association, seeking disciplinary action against Engineer A.

i) Did Engineer A act ethically in this project? If not, identify what was the violations of code of ethics engineer
A made.

ii) Discuss the potential impact of decision made by engineer A on society

iii) Describe the course of action that engineer A should have adopted in this case?

Question 01: Ethical Evaluation of Engineer A's Actions

Ethical Violations:

1. Misrepresentation of Qualifications:
o Engineer A claimed to have extensive experience in bridge engineering, which was not true. This
misrepresentation of qualifications violates the principles of honesty and integrity.
2. Lack of Due Diligence:
o Engineer A did not conduct a proper geotechnical investigation or seek expert advice, which are
essential steps in designing a bridge, especially in a challenging environment like a mountainous
creek full of debris.
3. Inadequate Design Consideration:
 o Engineer A failed to account for the potential for debris torrents, a critical factor in the design of
the bridge. This oversight indicates a lack of thoroughness and competence.

Code of Ethics Violations:

 Integrity and Honesty: Misleading the client about his qualifications and experience.
 Competence: Undertaking a project beyond his expertise without seeking necessary expertise or advice.
 Duty to the Public: Failing to ensure the safety and reliability of the bridge design, which ultimately led
to a significant disruption and potential danger.

Question 02: Potential Impact of Engineer A's Decisions on Society

1. Economic Impact:
o The destruction of the bridge resulted in a costly interruption of mine operations, causing
financial losses to the mining company and potentially affecting the local economy dependent on
the mine.
2. Safety Risk:
o The collapse of the bridge could have endangered the lives of people using the bridge or working
near it, highlighting a severe safety risk.
3. Trust in Engineering Profession:
o Such failures undermine public trust in the engineering profession. Clients and the public expect
engineers to adhere to high standards of practice and ethical behavior.
4. Environmental Impact:
o The destruction caused by the debris torrent could have had additional environmental impacts,
such as further disruption to the creek ecosystem.

Question 03: Recommended Course of Action for Engineer A

1. Honest Representation:
o Engineer A should have honestly represented his qualifications and experience to the mining
company. If he lacked the necessary experience, he should have disclosed this and recommended
partnering with or consulting an experienced bridge engineer.
2. Conduct Thorough Site Investigation:
o A proper geotechnical investigation should have been conducted to understand the site
conditions better. This includes studying the creek’s flow patterns, debris potential, and other
environmental factors.
3. Seek Expertise:
o Engineer A should have sought advice or partnered with experts in bridge engineering and
construction. This collaboration would ensure a design that accounts for all potential risks,
including debris torrents.
4. Adopt Appropriate Design Measures:
o Considering the site conditions, Engineer A should have incorporated design features to handle
debris torrents, such as increased vertical clearance, debris basins, or relocating the bridge to a
safer site.
5. Continuous Learning and Professional Development:
o Engineer A should engage in continuous professional development to gain the necessary
expertise in areas beyond his current competence. This would prepare him better for future
projects and enhance his ability to provide safe and reliable engineering solutions.
6. Ethical Accountability:
o If faced with a similar situation again, Engineer A should prioritize ethical accountability,
ensuring all actions and decisions are transparent, well-founded, and in the public’s best interest.
Case study 02
Engineer A had several years’ experience in the design of water and sewer systems and municipal streets, but
had no experience in the design of retaining walls. A client, who was building a large lake-view house on the
lower slopes of a hill, asked Engineer A to design a retaining wall 3 m high and 50 m long to provide a flat lawn
area in front of the house. Engineer A accepted the assignment, even though he had never designed a retaining
wall before. His university education, some 20 years earlier, had touched briefly on the topic of retaining wall
design, so Engineer A consulted the concrete design textbook used in that course and took dimensions, bar size,
and spacing from a diagram in the textbook. He then produced drawings and specifications for the client, who
hired a contractor to build the wall.

Outcome: Soon after construction, the wall’s foundation failed by sliding. In the investigation that followed, it
was revealed that Engineer A had performed no foundation investigation. At the very least, he should have
drilled a few hand-auger holes and performed soil classification to estimate bearing resistance, compressibility,
and so on. He made no checks for sliding and made no provision in the design to resist sliding. He did not
consult any current codes, but simply copied the old textbook design. Moreover, the textbook diagram
illustrated structural aspects only, not foundation details, and the textbook stated this fact. The client launched a
successful lawsuit. Engineer A was also disciplined under the provincial professional engineering Act.

i) Identify the inadequacy of effort by the engineer A in this case?

ii) Describe your thoughts with reasons whether engineer A was competent enough for this job or not.

iii) Explain an appropriate course of action that engineer A should have taken.

Question 01: Inadequacy of Effort by Engineer A

Inadequate Efforts:

1. Lack of Foundation Investigation:

o Engineer A did not perform any foundation investigation, such as drilling hand-auger holes or
soil classification. Understanding the soil characteristics is crucial for designing a retaining wall
to ensure it can withstand the forces acting on it.
2. Failure to Check for Sliding:
o Engineer A did not perform calculations or checks to ensure that the wall design would resist
sliding. A retaining wall must be designed to handle lateral earth pressures, and proper checks
are essential to ensure stability.
3. Outdated Reference:
o Engineer A relied on a 20-year-old textbook for the design, which did not include current
standards, codes, or best practices. Engineering standards evolve, and it is critical to use up-to-
date resources and guidelines.
4. Structural Only Design:
o The textbook diagram used by Engineer A illustrated only the structural aspects of the retaining
wall and did not cover foundation details. He failed to consider the comprehensive requirements
for a stable retaining wall, including foundation and soil interaction.
5. No Consultation of Current Codes:
o Engineer A did not consult current engineering codes or standards, which is a fundamental part
of ensuring that designs meet safety and reliability requirements.
Question 02: Competence of Engineer A for the Job

Assessment of Competence:

 Lack of Relevant Experience:

o Engineer A had extensive experience in water and sewer systems and municipal streets but no
experience in designing retaining walls. Competence in one area of civil engineering does not
necessarily transfer to another specialty without additional training or experience.
 Outdated Knowledge:
o Engineer A’s knowledge of retaining wall design was based on a brief exposure during his
university education 20 years prior, and he had not updated his skills or knowledge in this area.
 Inadequate Design Approach:
o The approach of copying an outdated textbook design without understanding the full
requirements or consulting current standards indicates a significant gap in competence for this
specific task.

Question 03: Explain an appropriate course of action that Engineer A should have taken.

1. Decline the Project: If Engineer A recognized his lack of experience and expertise in retaining wall
design, the most appropriate initial action would have been to decline the project.
2. Seek Assistance: Alternatively, he could have sought the assistance or partnership of an experienced
structural or geotechnical engineer with the necessary expertise in retaining wall design.
3. Further Education and Consultation: He should have undertaken additional education or training in
retaining wall design and consulted current codes, standards, and modern textbooks specific to the field.
4. Conduct Proper Site Investigation: A thorough site investigation including soil testing, classification,
and other necessary geotechnical assessments should have been conducted to inform the design process.
5. Follow Engineering Ethics: Adhering to the principles of engineering ethics, which emphasize
competence, diligence, and adherence to professional standards, is crucial. He should have ensured that
his design was safe, compliant with current codes, and based on adequate and accurate data.
Case Study 03
Engineer A is the only civil engineer in a small town in a remote area of Canada; the other engineers in the area
are all mining engineers. Engineer A has a broad background, including sewer and water, roads, bridges,
structural design, and building construction and inspection. His wife owns four commercial buildings in the
downtown area. On a sunny day last summer, a major earthquake shook the town and caused widespread
damage. Although there were no deaths, several people were injured, and several of the largest and oldest
commercial buildings suffered significant cracking and settlement. Many buildings were built of unreinforced
masonry, and a few had obvious cracks. Immediate structural inspection was essential before authorities could
allow people to re-enter the buildings to live and work. The Town Administrator asked Engineer A to undertake
a contract for immediate structural inspection of the damaged buildings. Engineer A declined. He explained that
his wife owned four of the buildings requiring inspection, and it would be a clear conflict of interest if he were
to inspect his wife’s property. The Town Engineer asked whether Engineer A would skip her property and just
inspect the buildings owned by others. Engineer A again declined, saying that if he condemned any of the
buildings, he would still have a perceived conflict of interest, since his wife was in competition with other
owners for tenants. Moreover, in this crisis he should assist his wife to rehabilitate her buildings and could not
place her behind other owners in a similar situation. The Town Administrator stressed the emergency nature of
the situation. He pointed out that outside help was unavailable because of poor road conditions and also because
other engineers were busy, dealing with other communities that were similarly affected.

Outcome: Engineer A agreed to do the work and, indeed, found he had to condemn two of his wife’s buildings
and five others. An aftershock that occurred a few days later damaged all seven of these buildings, thus
confirming his judgments.

i) Identify the conflict of interests that Engineer A had in this case?

ii) Engineer A declined the job at first due to conflict of interest. But later on, he accepted the assignment when
town administrator pointed out that no other engineer was available for the job. Was this right course of action
according to code of ethics? If yes, explain why?

iii) When a conflict of interest is created by unavoidable circumstances, describe an adequate action that a
professional should undertake while doing the job

Question 01: Identify the conflict of interests that Engineer A had in this case?

1. Personal Interest: Engineer A's wife owns four commercial buildings in the downtown area, which
creates a personal interest for him in the condition and assessment of these buildings.
2. Financial Interest: Any decisions made regarding the inspection and condemnation of the buildings
could directly affect his wife's financial interests, as she is the owner of some of the properties.
3. Competitive Interest: Engineer A's wife's buildings are in competition with other properties for tenants.
Therefore, his decisions could potentially affect the competitive landscape in the downtown area.
Question 02: Engineer A declined the job at first due to a conflict of interest. But later on, he accepted the
assignment when the town administrator pointed out that no other engineer was available for the job.
Was this the right course of action according to the code of ethics? If yes, explain why?

In this situation, accepting the assignment despite the conflict of interest can be justified under certain
circumstances:

1. Emergency Situation: The immediate structural inspection was crucial for public safety following the
earthquake. In emergency situations, engineers may need to balance the conflict of interest with their
professional duty to protect public safety and well-being.
2. Unavailability of Alternatives: The lack of other available engineers due to poor road conditions and
their engagement with other affected communities limited the options for the town administrator.
3. Mitigation Efforts: Engineer A recognized the conflict of interest and took steps to mitigate it by
applying the same standards to all buildings, including those owned by his wife, and by making
decisions based on professional judgment and the safety of the community.

While accepting the assignment despite the conflict of interest may not align perfectly with the ideal standards
of professional ethics, the urgency of the situation and the lack of alternatives make it a justifiable decision.

Question 03: When a conflict of interest is created by unavoidable circumstances, describe an adequate
action that a professional should undertake while doing the job.

1. Transparency: The professional should openly disclose the conflict of interest to all relevant parties
involved.
2. Impartiality: Despite the conflict of interest, the professional should strive to remain impartial and
objective in their assessments and decisions.
3. Adherence to Professional Standards: All actions and decisions should adhere to the highest
professional standards and prioritize the safety and well-being of the public.
4. Consultation: Seeking advice or guidance from colleagues or professional bodies on how to navigate
the conflict of interest appropriately.