Engineering and Ethics

Question 1:

How does the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics promote safety, health and welfare to the public/society? (write at least 3 paragraphs) (1 page)

Question 2:

Read the case study 6: “Citycorp” and analyze the situation of substantial risk. Discuss the ethical and safety issues involved and steps taken to resolve those issues. (use the template: Evaluating the Case Study) (1 page)

CITICORP
William LeMessurier was understandably proud of his structural design of the 1977 Citicorp building in downtown Manhattan. He had resolved a perplexing problem in a very innovative way. A church had property rights to a corner of the block on which the 59-story building was to be constructed. LeMessurier proposed constructing the building over the church, with four supporting columns located at the center of each side of the building rather than in the four corners. The first floor began the equivalent of nine stories above ground, thus allowing ample space for the church. LeMessurier used a diagonal bracing design that transferred weight to the columns, and he added a tuned mass damper with a 400-ton concrete block floating on oil bearings to reduce wind sway.
In June 1978, LeMessurier received a call from a student at a nearby university who said his professor claimed the Citicorp building’s supporting columns should be on the corners instead of midway between them. LeMessurier replied that the professor did not understand the design problem, adding that the innovative design made it even more resistant to quartering or diagonal winds. However, since the New York City building codes required calculating the effects of 90-degree winds, no one actually worked out calculations for quartering winds. Then he decided that it would be instructive for his own students to wrestle with the design problem.
This may have been prompted by not only the student’s call but also a discovery LeMessurier had made just 1 month earlier. While consulting on a building projecting Pittsburgh, he called his home office to find out what it would cost to weld the joints of diagonal girders similar to those in the Citicorp building. To his surprise, he learned that the original specification for full-penetration welds was not followed. Instead, the joints were bolted. However, since this still more than adequately satisfies the New York building code requirements, LeMessurier was not concerned.
However, he began to work on calculations for his class, LeMessurier recalled his Pittsburgh discovery. He wondered what difference bolted joints might make to the building’s ability to withstand quartering winds. To his dismay, LeMessurier determined that a 40 percent stress increase in some areas of the structure would result in a 160 percent increase in stress on some of the building’s joints. This meant that the building was vulnerable to total collapse if certain areas were subjected to a “16-year storm” (i.e., the sort of storm that could strike Manhattan once every 16 years). Meanwhile, hurricane season was not far away.
LeMessurier realized that reporting what he had learned could place both his engineering reputation and the financial status of his firm at substantial risk. Nevertheless, he acted quickly and decisively. He drew up a plan for correcting the problem, estimated the cost and time needed for rectifying it, and immediately informed Citicorp owners of what he had learned. Citicorp’s response was equally decisive. LeMessurier’s proposed course of action was accepted and corrective steps were immediately undertaken. As the repairs neared completion in early September, a hurricane was reported moving up the coast in the direction of New York. Fortunately, it moved harmlessly out over the Atlantic Ocean, but not without first causing considerable anxiety among those working on the building, as well as those responsible for implementing plans to evacuate the area should matters take a turn for the worse.
Although correcting the problem cost several million dollars, all parties responded promptly and responsibly. Faced with the threat of increased liability insurance rates, LeMessurier’s firm convinced its insurers that because of his responsible handling of the situation, a much more costly disaster may have been prevented. As a result, the rates were actually reduced. Identify and discuss the ethical issues this case raises.