IDE 20 - Engineering Ethics
Hyatt Regency Case Study
NSPE Standards
Ethics Game

Hyatt Regency Hotel
Kansas City, Missouri

(video)

What went wrong?
Where was the failure in the design and build process?

Investigation Results
The collapse was a result of the box beam failure.

Box Beam Details
Was this unethical?

The Trial
• The detailer, architect, fabricator and technician all testified that they had contacted the project engineer regarding the structural integrity of the connection detail.
• The project engineer assured them that the connection was sound claiming to have checked the detail.
• He never performed any design calculations.

Neglecting to check the safety and load capacity of a crucial hanger even once shows his complete disregard for the public welfare.
(Rubin and Banick, 1987)

The Code of Hammurabi
Babylonian Law, 1750 BC
If a builder build(s) a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall(s) in and kill(s) its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
If it kill(s) the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

Modern Ethics
National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE)

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
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.

1. Safety, health and welfare a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents which are in conformity with applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this
Code.

2. Areas of competence a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.

3. Truthful public statements a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements or testimony. b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms or arguments on technical matters which are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.

4. Faithful agent a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest which could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. 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.
c. 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.

5. Avoid deceptive acts a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their, or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. … b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority,….
They shall not offer any gift, …

6. Honorable conduct a. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

Ethics Case Studies
Can you get them all right?

Case Study 1: TV Antenna Tower Collapse

TV Antenna Tower Collapse
• Antenna Engineering is hired by TV company to design a new 1000 foot microwave antenna tower.
• Riggers Inc. is hired to raise the antenna in place.
• Antenna Engineerings send a final copy of the hoisting design to Riggers Inc. and they approve of it.
• When getting ready to lift the final piece of the antenna, the riggers realize that the microwaves interfere with the original hoisting lugs. They ask
Antenna Eng. for help, but the engineers refuse.
• The experienced riggers redesign the hoisting lugs and lift the final piece into place.
• At the top of the tower, the hoisting lugs fail, the tower collapses, and 7 people die.

Who is at fault and why?
1. The TV station
2. Riggers, Inc.
3. Antenna Engineering

Who is at fault and why?
1. The TV station
2. Riggers, Inc.
3. Antenna Engineering
Though experienced, the riggers were not engineers.
They should have stopped construction until a better design was created.
2 points.

Who is at fault and why?
1. The TV station
2. Riggers, Inc.
3. Antenna Engineering
Though experienced, the riggers were not engineers.
They should have stopped construction until a better design was created.
2 points.
Ultimate responsibility goes to the design engineers. Their refusal to help with their bad design was neglect.
5 points.

Anhydrous Ammonia Hose Failure

Case Study 2: Anhydrous Ammonia Hose Failure
• Anhydrous ammonia is an extremely caustic liquid fertilizer used in farming.
• XYZ Corporation makes stainless steel hoses for farmers to deliver anhydrous ammonia to their field.
• The equipment, including the hoses, is rented from a local farmer co-op.
• Engineering Professor published paper stating that a new material, AAH1, can be used but that it fatigues by 46% over time.
• XYZ Corporation decides to save money (for themselves, the co-op, and the farmer) and make hoses out of AAH1 instead of stainless steel.
• XYZ and several independent labs test AAH1 hoses and find that they meet all industry standards set by The Fertilizer Institute.
• Several AAH1 hoses rupture and cause permanent injuries to farmers.

Who is at fault and why?
1. XYZ Corporation
2. The Farmers Co-op
3. The Fertilizer Institute

Who is at fault and why?
1. XYZ Corporation
2. The Farmers Co-op
3. The Fertilizer Institute
There was publicly available information on the limitations of the material that they chose to use. The materials engineers should have taken this into account in their design decisions.
5 points.

Who is at fault and why?
1. XYZ Corporation
2. The Farmers Co-op
3. The Fertilizer Institute
There was publicly available information on the limitations of the material that they chose to use. The materials engineers should have taken this into account in their design decisions.
5 points.
With a new material becoming available, the institute should have re-evaluated the standards for hoses.
2 points.

ASME vs. Hydrolevel Corp.

Case Study 3: ASME vs. Hydrolevel Corp.
• McDonnell and Miller own M&M Corp., a company that produces gauges for pressure vessels.
• McDonnell and Miller also both serve on the Pressure Vessel Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
• M&M Corp. requests an interpretation of the ASME Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (BPV).
• M&M salespersons use this interpretation to demonstrate to customers that their competitor, Hydrolevel, is not meeting the BPV Code.
• Hydrolevel quickly loses market share and goes bankrupt.

Who is at fault and why?
1. No One
2. ASME
3. ASME, McDonnell, and Miller

Who is at fault and why?
1. No One
2. ASME
3. ASME, McDonnell, and Miller
ASME should have revealed that two of the persons on the
BPV Committee were from
M&M and that this caused a conflict of interest.
2 points.

Who is at fault and why?
1. No One
2. ASME
3. ASME, McDonnell, and Miller
ASME should have revealed that two of the persons on the
BPV Committee were from
M&M and that this caused a conflict of interest.
2 points.
Including above, McDonnell and Miller abused their positions on the BPV
Committee to get rid of a competitor instead of providing them with assistance.
5 points.

Gilbane Gold

Case Study 4: Gilbane Gold
• Gilbane, Missouri is known for having sewage that is completely free of toxins and heavy metals.
• The City of Gilbane sells it’s sludge as a high quality fertilizer, saving each citizen of Gilbane $300 a year in taxes.
• The City of Gilbane has a parts per million (PPM) discharge restriction 10times stricter than the Federal standard.
• X Corp., a local manufacturing company, produces computer components and discharges heavy metals in the waste stream.
• X Corp. self-monitors their monthly emissions and reports them to Gilbane.
• Jackson, an environmental engineer at X Corp., is hired to monitor the discharge amounts.
• Jackson learns that X Corp. is slightly above the allowed PPM discharge rate.
• Jackson learns that X Corp. is planning on ramping up production two-fold and will compensate for the additional discharge by increasing its overall discharge.

What should Jackson do, and why?
1. Tell the City of Gilbane
2. Tell the Plant Manager
3. Tell the news media

What should Jackson do, and why?
1. Tell the City of Gilbane
If no one from the company responds appropriately, he should then report it to the local regulatory agency.
2 points.
2. Tell the Plant Manager
3. Tell the news media

What should Jackson do, and why?
1. Tell the City of Gilbane
2. Tell the Plant Manager
3. Tell the news media
If no one from the company responds appropriately, he should then report it to the local regulatory agency.
2 points.
He needs to first talk to responsible persons in his company. There may be a way to engineer a correction in the manufacturing process. If there isn’t, he needs to exhaust all levels within the corporate structure.
5 points.

Shanghai Apartment Building

Case Study 5: Shanghai Apartment Building
• A 13-story apartment building was constructed as part of a complex.
• The building has no basement.
• The pilings are hollow concrete cylinders that go to the depth required by the construction standard.
• Diggers, a contractor, was digging a 4.6 meter underground garage on the south side.
• The excavated dirt was piled on the opposite side of the building.
• The uneven lateral pressure sheared the building pilings and the building fell, intact .

Who is at fault and why?
1. The government
2. The contractor
3. The design engineers

Who is at fault and why?
1. The government
2. The contractor
3. The design engineers
The construction standards, while sufficient, did not take into account unintended circumstances.
2 points.

Who is at fault and why?
1. The government
2. The contractor
3. The design engineers
The construction standards, while sufficient, did not take into account unintended circumstances.
2 points.
Ultimate responsibility goes to the design engineers. They should have had someone on site, monitoring the construction process. They could have changed the construction order, to prevent complications.
5 points.

How did your team do?

As an engineer, you must think about the implications of your choices.
Ask for advice from more experienced engineers whenever approaching an unfamiliar situation.
Plans fail for lack of counsel,
but with many advisers they succeed.