Budny 10:00
R12
Self-healing concrete is an idea that came to the foreground over the past several years as a way to fix the growing problem of failing infrastructure in America. There are various types of this concrete that could become reality.
This paper, however, is concerned more with a possible ethical issue that could arise involving its use and implementation than the actual concrete itself. Before I can discuss the possible ethical implication of situations that could arise from the use of self-healing concrete, it is important that I describe thoroughly what it is and what led to its creation.
Over the past several years, the idea of concrete that can heal itself has come to the foreground as a possible solution for solving the issue of keeping up with infrastructure maintenance [1]. Basically, self-healing concrete is an engineered concrete which has the ability to fill in small cracks which form from normal use. The scope of what it can do is limited to filling in small cracks that would be barely perceptible to the untrained eye. Even though the concrete would be unable to fill in large cracks or potholes, the fact that it could prevent small cracks from forming would effectively reduce the amount of human maintenance the concrete structure would require.
Self-healing concrete has serious potential to prolong the life of infrastructure, and to reduce its “economic, environmental and social costs” [1]. Several approaches to self-healing have been considered, including, chemical encapsulation, bacterial encapsulation, mineral admixtures, chemicals in glass tubing, and intrinsic self-healing with selfcontrolled tight crack width. Chemical encapsulation involves chemicals encased in microcapsules which fill cracks when ruptured. Bacterial encapsulation works similarly except with bacterial byproducts instead of chemicals. Mineral admixtures work by having minerals built into the concrete which expand when exposed to air and water, such as when concrete cracks. The chemicals in glass tubing method works by filling cracks with chemicals encased in glass when the glass is ruptured. Intrinsic self-healing works very similarly to mineral admixtures.
Self-healing concrete was first discussed as a way to keep on top of the problem of lackluster infrastructure maintenance. The use of self-healing concrete would serve to improve the state of American roads and bridges. The maintenance of infrastructure is currently one of the biggest issues facing society today. The American Society of Civil
Engineers gave America’s infrastructure a D+ rating in 2013
[2]. The fact that the infrastructure system has fallen into such disrepair only serves to make even more urgent an issue that the National Academy of Engineers named as one of the
Grand Challenges for Engineering [3]. The NAE named
“Restoring and Improving Urban Infrastructure” one of their
Grand Challenges, as voted on by a committee. Though just as the title of this Grand Challenge suggests, roads need to be more than just repaired: they need to be reinvented. The fact that the road system has fallen so far into disrepair highlights the need for new infrastructure that is more sustainable in addition to regular repairs to existing infrastructure. Selfhealing concrete could bridge the gap between current infrastructure and the renewable infrastructure of the future.
I’ve established that American infrastructure is subpar, but that leads to the inevitable question, “How did things get so bad.” This is a question most answerable when we examine the nature of infrastructure itself. Infrastructure is generally something to be taken for granted. As David Perry put it, when infrastructure works best, it is noticed least of all [4].
According to Stephen Graham and Nigel Thrift, infrastructure only becomes visible to many people once it breaks down and needs repair [5]. While infrastructure is working properly, it often goes unnoticed. Because it is so unnoticed, it is easy to understand why infrastructure often goes un-maintained until it is in an un-usable state. In an era where many lawmakers across the country are trying to limit spending, it is easy to see how maintenance of poorly kept, yet functional roads gets put at the bottom of the to-do list.
The current system of maintaining roads and infrastructure involves waiting to repair roads and bridges until it is apparent that there is something wrong with them.
For instance, a rural road could go unmaintained until many people took notice to a large pothole and were motivated enough to report it. This current method of road repair is outdated and could be easily replaced by new, innovative methods such as the use of self-healing concrete.
Now that I have described self-healing concrete and the reason for its creation. I’m going to discuss a hypothetical ethical situation that could arise involving the use of selfhealing concrete. Suppose I am a civil engineer in charge of a highway construction project. I need to design the road including what path the road will follow and what materials will be used etc. I want to design the road using self-healing concrete, but I have not assigned the contract to a concrete vendor yet. Three companies have made competitive bids for the contract. One of those companies, CreteCorp, offered me
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2013-10-29
1

Nathan Schuerman personally 10,000 dollars to give them the contract. While this may come off immediately as unethical to accept the bribe, it is not obvious what to do next. Is it still acceptable to offer
CreteCorp the contract even though they offered me a bribe?
It’s not as though their product is inferior to the others. I was considering using their concrete anyway. Also, if I were to decide to use CreteCorp’s concrete without considering the bribe they offered me, would it be alright to accept the money anyway? After all, I chose their product based solely on it’s merit. If I do accept the money, is it still unethical because it didn’t actually affect my decision. All of these are legitimate questions that can be answered by consulting engineering codes of ethics.
The Code of Ethics from the American Society of Civil
Engineers is obviously relevant, but also worth consulting is the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of
Ethics. However, before delving deeper, it is worth differentiating between personal morality and professional ethics. Personal morality is “standards of conduct that apply to everyone, rather than only to members of a special group
[6]. These are ideals that most people would want everyone else to follow even though they have to follow them themselves. [6]. Even though there is a distinct difference between engineering ethics and morality, “moral theory can help ensure that engineers act ethically [7].”
First, I’ll dissect this ethical dilemma using the National
Society of Professional Engineer’s Code of Ethics. The first cannon of the code states “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public [8].” This cannon is not particularly helpful in solving this specific ethical dilemma. The consequences of accepting the bribe, or choosing the CreteCorp brand over other concretes is unlikely to cause a public health or safety hazard considering that the product is quality. However, the Rule of Practice 1d, which falls under the first cannon, states, “Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise[8].” This would effectively preclude this deal from happening due to the knowledge that CreteCorp is acting dishonestly.
The next cannon says that, “Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence [8].” This cannon, nor any of its Rules of Practice, are relevant to crafting an ethical decision in this case. Though it is important in other contexts, it can be virtually ignored in this instance.
The third cannon describes, “Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner [8].” This is likewise an unimportant cannon in making this decision.
Next, the fourth cannon states, “Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees [8].” This cannon is one of the big hitters for making this decision. I will go through all of the important Rules of Practice for this cannon in order to help make a decision. Rule 4a. says that,
“Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services [8].” This rule is pretty vital considering receiving bribes would be a considerable conflict of interest. Receiving a bribe from a client would probably lead to a less than honest client-patron relationship. Rule 4b. says, “Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties [8].”
Unless the $10,000 was disclosed to all interested vendors, supervisors, and peers, and it was mutually agreed upon that this was ok, accepting the bribe is not going to pass as ethical.
According to Rule 4b, “Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible [8].” This rule is pretty explicit in banning the acceptance of financial consideration from outside sources, which would place receiving the bribe in the unethical category.
The last cannon, “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.” is also particularly useful [8]. Rule 5b. states, “Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them [8].” This is another rule which pretty explicitly bans the taking or offering of bribes.
That covers all of the cannons of the National Society of
Professional Engineers Code of Ethics. The other code that I will review is that of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The first four cannons of the two codes of ethics are actually identical, so I am going to skip straight to cannon 5. Cannon
5 of the American Society of Civil Engineers Code of Ethics states, “Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others [9].” Guideline 5a of this cannon says, “Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or indirectly, any political contribution, gratuity, or unlawful consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing salaried positions through employment agencies [9].” This guideline prohibits
2

Nathan Schuerman the acceptance of unlawful consideration, such as the one mentioned earlier in this paper. Similarly, guideline 5b advises, “Engineers should negotiate contracts for professional services fairly and on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional service required [9].” While this does not explicitly rule out bribery, it can be understood that negotiating “fairly” would preclude such acts.
Next up is cannon 6 from the ASCE Code of Ethics which states, “Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption [9].” Not only does this cannon condemn bribery, its language calling for zero tolerance would probably rule out doing business with CreteCorp at all.
Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, and 6f all contain language condemning bribery and other unethical practices.
Lastly, cannon 7 states, “Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision [9].” This final cannon is not applicable to the ethical scenario this paper is concerned with.
After reviewing the codes of ethics from both the NSPE and the ASCE, the ethically charged situation discussed earlier becomes a little clearer cut. While there was little doubt that accepting the bribe would be dubiously ethical at best, the codes seemed to illuminate the fact that the most ethical route to take would be to avoid working with
CreteCorp at all.
When working as a Civil Engineer, one has to be aware of the ethical traps that exist such as bribery. Professional
Engineering organizations have Codes of Ethics in order to help illuminate the right path in an often morally ambiguous business world. Ethics awareness need to become more widespread, as many undergraduate engineering schools lack professional development courses which teach skills such as ethics [10]. Apparently, they should be teaching more ethics because undergraduate engineering students are among the most likely students to cheat [11].
While the ethical issues that are likely to arise with the implementation of self-healing concrete are issues that already exist, it is still important to address them with the same earnestness that would be used to treat a new ethical issue. When dealing with an ethical issue that could involve self-healing concrete, it is important to use codes of ethics as a guideline for making a good decision.
[1] V. Li, E. Herbert. (2012). “Robust Self-Healing Concrete for Sustainable Infrastructure.” Journal of Advanced
Concrete Technology. (Online Article). https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jact/10/6/10_207/_pdf
[2] (2013). “2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.”
American Society of Civil Engineers. (Online Report). http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
[3] (2012). “Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure.” NAE
Grand Challenges for Engineering. (Online Report). http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/8996/9136.aspx
[4] S. Graham, N. Thrift. (2007). “Out of Order:
Understanding Repair and Maintenance.” Theory, Culture, and Society. (Online http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/24/3/1.full.pdf+html
Article).
[5] D. Perry. (1995). “Introduction.” Building the Public City:
The Politics, Governance and Finance of Public
Infrastructure. (Print Book).
[6] C. Harris, M. Davis, M. Pritchard, M. Rabins. (2013).
“Engineering Ehtics: What? Why? How? And When?”
Journal of Engineering Education. (Online Article). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.1996.tb00216.x/pdf
[7] W. Lynch, R. Kline. (2000). “Engineering Practice and
Engineering Ethics.”
Science, Technology and Human
Values.
(Online Article). http://sth.sagepub.com/content/25/2/195.full.pdf+html
[8] (2013). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online Document). http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[9] (2013). “Code of Ethics.” American Society of Civil
Engineers. (Online Document). http://www.asce.org/Leadership-and-
Management/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/
[10] J. Russell, W. Stouffer. “Survey of the National Civil
Engineering Curriculum.” American Society of Civil
Engineers Library. (Online Article). http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/%28ASCE%291052-
3928%282005%29131%3A2%28118%29
[11] D. Carpenter, T. Harding, et al. “Engineering Students’
Perception of and Attitudes Towards Cheating.” Journal of
Engineering Education. (Online Article). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2006.tb00891.x/pdf
I would like to thank my friend and roommate Max for putting up with me working into the wee small hours. I also wish to thank my writing instructor, Barbara, for being the best. Additionally, I thank Arcade Fire for getting me through this paper.
3