Engineering Ethics Course

Codes of Ethics Assignment

Review the DIA Runaway Concrete case (Case below) and the ASCEcode of ethics. Which of the ASCE’s fundamental canons do youbelieve were violated in this case? For each canon you select,justify your selection with an explanation.

Runway Concrete at the Denver InternationalAirport

In the early 1990s, the city of Denver, Colorado, embarked on oneof the largest public works projects in history: the constructionof a new airport to replace the aging Stapleton InternationalAirport. The new Denver International Airport (DIA) would be thefirst new airport constructed in the United States since theDallas–Fort Worth Airport was completed in the early 1970s. Ofcourse, the size and complexity of this type of project lendsitself to many problems, including cost overruns, worker safety andhealth issues, and controversies over the need for the project. Theconstruction of DIA was no exception.

Perhaps the most widely known problem with the airport was themalfunctioning of a new computer-controlled high-tech baggagehandling system, which in preliminary tests consistently mangledand misrouted baggage and frequently jammed, leading to theshutdown of the entire system. Problems with the baggage handlingsystem delayed the opening of the airport for over a year and costthe city millions of dollars in expenses for replacement of thesystem and lost revenues while the airport was unable to open. Inaddition, the baggage system made the airport the butt of manyjokes, especially on late-night television.

More interesting from the perspective of engineering ethics areproblems during the construction of DIA involving the concrete usedfor the runways, taxiways, and aprons at the airport. The story ofconcrete problems at DIA was first reported by the Denver Post inearly August of 1993 as the airport neared completion. Twosubcontractors filed lawsuits against the runway paving contractor,California-based construction company Ball, Ball, & Brosamer(known as 3Bs), claiming that 3Bs owed them money. Parts of thesesuits were allegations that 3Bs had altered the recipe for theconcrete used in the runway and apron construction, deliberatelydiluting the concrete with more gravel, water, and sand (and thusless cement), thereby weakening it. 3Bs motivation for doing sowould be to save money and thus to increase their profits. One ofthe subcontractors, CSI Trucking, whose job was to haul the sandand gravel used in the concrete, claimed that 3Bs hadn’t paid themfor materials that had been delivered. They claimed that thesematerials had been used to dilute the mixture, but hadn’t been paidfor, since the payment would leave a record of the improperrecipe.

At first, Denver officials downplayed the reports of defectiveconcrete, relying on the results of independent tests of theconcrete. In addition, the city of Denver ordered core samples tobe taken from the runways. Tests on these cores showed that therunway concrete had the correct strength. The subcontractorsclaimed that the improperly mixed concrete could have the propertest strength, but would lead to a severely shortened runwaylifetime. The FBI also became involved in investigating this case,since federal transportation grants were used by Denver to helpfinance the construction of the runways.

The controversy seemed to settle down for a while, but a yearlater, in August of 1994, the Denver district attorney’s officeannounced that it was investigating allegations that inspectionreports on the runways were falsified during the construction. Thisannouncement was followed on November 13, 1994, by a lengthy storyin the Denver Post detailing a large number of allegations ofillegal activities and unethical practices with regard to therunway construction.

The November 13 story revolved around an admission by a FortCollins, Colorado, company, Empire Laboratories, that test reportson the concrete had been falsified to hide results which showedthat some of the concrete did not meet the specifications.Attorneys for Empire said that this falsification had happened fiveor six times in the course of this work, but four employees ofEmpire claimed that the altering of test data was standardoperating procedure at Empire.

The nature of the test modifications and the rationale behind themillustrate many of the important problems in engineering ethics,including the need for objectivity and honesty in reporting resultsof tests and experiments. One Empire employee said that if a testresult was inconsistent with other tests, then the results would bechanged to mask the difference. This practice was justified byEmpire as being “based upon engineering judgment” [Denver Post,Nov. 13, 1994]. The concrete was tested by pouring test sampleswhen the actual runways were poured. These samples were subjectedto flexural tests, which consist of subjecting the concrete to anincreasing force until it fails. The tests were performed at 7 daysafter pouring and also at 28 days. Many of the test results showedthat the concrete was weaker at 28 days than at 7 days. However,the results should have been the opposite, since concrete normallyincreases in strength as it cures. Empire employees indicated thatthis apparent anomaly was because many of the 7-day tests had beenaltered to make the concrete seem stronger than it was.

Other problems with the concrete also surfaced. Some of theconcrete used in the runways contained clay balls up to 10 inchesin diameter. While not uncommon in concrete batching, the presenceof this clay can lead to runways that are significantly weaker thanplanned.

Questions about the short cement content in 3Bs concrete mixturealso resurfaced in the November Denver Post article. The mainquestion was “given that the concrete batching operation wasroutinely monitored, how did 3Bs get away with shorting the cementcontent of the concrete?” One of the batch plant operators for 3Bsexplained that they were tipped off about upcoming inspections.When an inspector was due, they used the correct recipe so thatconcrete would appear to be correctly formulated. The shorting ofthe concrete mixture could also be detected by looking at therecords of materials delivered to the batch plants. However, DIAadministrators found that this documentation was missing, and itwas unclear whether it had ever existed.

A batch plant operator also gave a sworn statement that he had beendirected to fool the computer that operated the batch plant. Thecomputer was fooled by tampering with the scale used to weighmaterials and by inputting false numbers for the moisture contentof the sand. In some cases, the water content of the sand that wasinput into the computer was a negative number! This tamperingforced the computer to alter the mixture to use less cement, butthe records printed by the computer would show that the mix wasproperly constituted. In his statement, the batch plant operatoralso swore that this practice was known to some of the highestofficials in 3Bs.

Despite the problems with the batching of the concrete used in therunways, DIA officials insisted that the runways built by 3Bs metthe specifications. This assertion was based on the test results,which showed that although some parts of the runway were belowstandard, all of the runways met FAA specifications. 3Bs was paidfor those areas that were below standard at a lower rate than forthe stronger parts of the runway. Further investigations aboutmisdeeds in the construction of DIA were performed by severalgroups, including a Denver grand jury, a federal grand jury, theFBI, and committees of Congress.

On October 19, 1995, the Denver Post reported the results of alawsuit brought by 3Bs against the city of Denver. 3Bs contendedthat the city still owed them $2.3 million (in addition to the $193million that 3Bs had already been paid) for the work they did. Thecity claimed that this money was not owed. The reduction was apenalty due to low test results on some of the concrete. 3Bsclaimed that those tests were flawed and that the concrete wasfine. A hearing officer sided with the city, deciding that Denverdidn’t owe 3Bs any more money. 3Bs said that they would take theirsuit to the next higher level.

As of the spring of 2011, DIA has been in operation for many yearsand no problems have surfaced regarding the strength of therunways. Unfortunately, problems with runway durability might notsurface until after several more years of use. In the meantime,there is still plenty of litigation and investigation of this andother unethical acts surrounding the construction of thisairport.

ASCE code of ethics

Canon 1.

Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare ofthe public and shall strive to comply with the principles ofsustainable development in the performance of their professionalduties.

a. Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health andwelfare of the general public are dependent upon engineeringjudgments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures,machines, products, processes and devices.

b. Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents,reviewed or prepared by them, which are determined to be safe forpublic health and welfare in conformity with accepted engineeringstandards.

c. Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled undercircumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the publicare endangered, or the principles of sustainable developmentignored, shall inform their clients or employers of the possibleconsequences.

d. Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe thatanother person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisionsof Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper authorityin writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority infurnishing such further information or assistance as may berequired.

e. Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructiveservice in civic affairs and work for the advancement of thesafety, health and well-being of their communities, and theprotection of the environment through the practice of sustainabledevelopment.

f. Engineers should be committed to improving the environment byadherence to the principles of sustainable development so as toenhance the quality of life of the general public.

Canon 2.

Engineers shall perform services only in areas of theircompetence.

a. Engineers shall undertake to perform engineering assignmentsonly when qualified by education or experience in the technicalfield of engineering involved.

b. Engineers may accept an assignment requiring education orexperience outside of their own fields of competence, providedtheir services are restricted to those phases of the project inwhich they are qualified. All other phases of such project shall beperformed by qualified associates, consultants, or employees.

c. Engineers shall not affix their signatures or seals to anyengineering plan or document dealing with subject matter in whichthey lack competence by virtue of education or experience or to anysuch plan or document not reviewed or prepared under theirsupervisory control.

Canon 3.

Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective andtruthful manner.

a. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge ofengineering and sustainable development, and shall not participatein the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statementsregarding engineering.

b. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professionalreports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevantand pertinent information in such reports, statements, ortestimony.

c. Engineers, when serving as expert witnesses, shall express anengineering opinion only when it is founded upon adequate knowledgeof the facts, upon a background of technical competence, and uponhonest conviction.

d. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or argumentson engineering matters which are inspired or paid for by interestedparties, unless they indicate on whose behalf the statements aremade.

e. Engineers shall be dignified and modest in explaining theirwork and merit, and will avoid any act tending to promote their owninterests at the expense of the integrity, honor and dignity of theprofession.

Canon 4.

Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer orclient as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts ofinterest.

a. Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts ofinterest with their employers or clients and shall promptly informtheir employers or clients of any business association, interests,or circumstances which could influence their judgment or thequality of their services.

b. Engineers shall not accept compensation from more than oneparty for services on the same project, or for services pertainingto the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosedto and agreed to, by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly orindirectly, from contractors, their agents, or other partiesdealing with their clients or employers in connection with work forwhich they are responsible.

d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, oremployees of a governmental body or department shall notparticipate in considerations or actions with respect to servicessolicited or provided by them or their organization in private orpublic engineering practice.

e. Engineers shall advise their employers or clients when, as aresult of their studies, they believe a project will not besuccessful.

• Professional cards in recognized, dignified publications, andlistings in rosters or directories published by responsibleorganizations, provided that the cards or listings are consistentin size and content and are in a section of the publicationregularly devoted to such professional cards.

• Brochures which factually describe experience, facilities,personnel and capacity to render service, providing they are notmisleading with respect to the engineer's participation in projectsdescribed.

• Display advertising in recognized dignified business andprofessional publications, providing it is factual and is notmisleading with respect to the engineer's extent of participationin projects described.

• A statement of the engineers' names or the name of the firmand statement of the type of service posted on projects for whichthey render services.

• Preparation or authorization of descriptive articles for thelay or technical press, which are factual and dignified. Sucharticles shall not imply anything more than direct participation inthe project described.

• Permission by engineers for their names to be used incommercial advertisements, such as may be published by contractors,material suppliers, etc., only by means of a modest, dignifiednotation acknowledging the engineers' participation in the projectdescribed. Such permission shall not include public endorsement ofproprietary products.

f. Engineers shall not use confidential information coming tothem in the course of their assignments as a means of makingpersonal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of theirclients, employers or the public.

g. Engineers shall not accept professional employment outside oftheir regular work or interest without the knowledge of theiremployers.

Canon 5.

Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the meritof their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.

a. Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directlyor indirectly, any political contribution, gratuity, or unlawfulconsideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securingsalaried positions through employment agencies.

b. Engineers should negotiate contracts for professionalservices fairly and on the basis of demonstrated competence andqualifications for the type of professional service required.

c. Engineers may request, propose or accept professionalcommissions on a contingent basis only under circumstances in whichtheir professional judgments would not be compromised.

d. Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation oftheir academic or professional qualifications or experience.

e. Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work tothose to whom credit is due, and shall recognize the proprietaryinterests of others. Whenever possible, they shall name the personor persons who may be responsible for designs, inventions, writingsor other accomplishments.

f. Engineers may advertise professional services in a way thatdoes not contain misleading language or is in any other mannerderogatory to the dignity of the profession. Examples ofpermissible advertising are as follows:

g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly orindirectly, injure the professional reputation, prospects, practiceor employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticizeanother's work.

h. Engineers shall not use equipment, supplies, laboratory oroffice facilities of their employers to carry on outside privatepractice without the consent of their employers.

Canon 6.

Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhancethe honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession andshall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, andcorruption.

a. Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business orprofessional practices of a fraudulent, dishonest or unethicalnature.

b. Engineers shall be scrupulously honest in their control andspending of monies, and promote effective use of resources throughopen, honest and impartial service with fidelity to the public,employers, associates and clients.

c. Engineers shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud,and corruption in all engineering or construction activities inwhich they are engaged.

d. Engineers should be especially vigilant to maintainappropriate ethical behavior where payments of gratuities or bribesare institutionalized practices.

e. Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurementand execution of projects. Transparency includes disclosure ofnames, addresses, purposes, and fees or commissions paid for allagents facilitating projects.

f. Engineers should encourage the use of certificationsspecifying zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in allcontracts.

Canon 7.

Engineers shall continue their professional developmentthroughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for theprofessional development of those engineers under theirsupervision.

a. Engineers should keep current in their specialty fields byengaging in professional practice, participating in continuingeducation courses, reading in the technical literature, andattending professional meetings and seminars.

b. Engineers should encourage their engineering employees tobecome registered at the earliest possible date.

c. Engineers should encourage engineering employees to attendand present papers at professional and technical societymeetings.

d. Engineers shall uphold the principle of mutually satisfyingrelationships between employers and employees with respect to termsof employment including professional grade descriptions, salaryranges, and fringe benefits.

Canon 8.

Engineers shall, in all matters related to their profession,treat all persons fairly and encourage equitable participationwithout regard to gender or gender identity, race, national origin,ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, politicalaffiliation, or family, marital, or economic status.

a. Engineers shall conduct themselves in a manner in which allpersons are treated with dignity, respect, and fairness.

b. Engineers shall not engage in discrimination or harassment inconnection with their professional activities.

c. Engineers shall consider the diversity of the community, andshall endeavor in good faith to include diverse perspectives, inthe planning and performance of their professional services.