Risk and Implementing Innovative Research Solutions

Transcription

1 Portland State University CE 315 CEE Profession Fall 2005 Topic: Risk Management and Engineering Risk and Implementing Innovative Research Solutions By Ben Wiley December 9, of 7

2 Large scale projects designed by civil engineers are often clearly recognizable to the public. From highways and bridges to dams and reservoirs civil engineering projects often affect the public welfare in a noticeable way. However, the impact of civil engineers can also be felt in subtle ways. Laboratory testing and research often precede the implementation of such large projects. Due to the large scale nature of many civil engineering projects careful risk management is necessary. Large projects often equate to a great risk to a large portion of the population. The need for testing and risk analysis is especially evident when implementing research solutions in the field. In this case ethics become especially important. Ethical decisions must govern the risk analysis of implementing research solutions in the field. Liability and Standard of Care A discussion of risk and engineering leads to a consideration of liability. A risk analysis could simply be a consideration of how to reduce liability. Considering what defines liability in engineering shows why this cannot be the case when implementing new research solutions. In a paper on the concept of care in engineering, Joshua Kardon states the law allows the engineer some relief from liability for damage found to be caused by the engineer s non-negligent errors (2005). The relief allowed by the law is tied to an important concept: the standard of care of the profession. The same paper cites a book of jury instructions that lists four duties that the jury is to consider when evaluating a case involving a professional. The professional is to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputable members of his or her profession practicing in the same or similar locality under similar circumstances (Kardon 2005). Care, skill, and judgment of the professional combine with an appropriate degree of learning to define a standard of care. This standard of care is tied to a comparison of other professionals engaging in similar work. Therein lies the difficulty. An innovative solution is unique and state of the art, or at 2 of 7

3 least a combination of materials and methods that has never been done before. There is no similar work to be compared. Liability cannot simply be limited by following the standard practice of other professionals. Therefore, a risk analysis of innovative activity must have as its basis another source. Code of Ethics The first fundamental principle of the code of ethics of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) reads: Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment (1996). This ethical code must be applied to any civil engineering project. Using the first fundamental principle questions can be formulated for use in evaluating a project. Does the project enhance human welfare? Does the project enhance the environment? Or on the contrary is there a chance of a detrimental influence. These questions must be answered before a project can continue. In the case of research solutions that are being readied for implementation in the field the first fundamental principle can also read as a guideline for analyzing risk. The questions could become: What is the likelihood that the project could have a detrimental influence on human welfare? Will there be a negative impact on the environment? Frequently a cost benefit analysis is done for projects. When doing research a problem has been identified and the result is an expected solution to this problem. The outcome has a certain benefit: eliminating or remedying the problem. The outcome can also have a cost: the side effects of implementing the solution. In making the decision to implement a research solution it is ethically incumbent that the benefits of the solution are far greater than the risk of something going wrong. The second fundamental canon of the ASCE code of ethics reads in part: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public (1996). In the civil engineering profession mistakes impact the public. Civil engineers do not often have the 3 of 7

4 luxury of doing it right the second time. Ethically then in the solution to a problem there must not be a danger to public welfare. The third fundamental canon reads: Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner (ASCE 1996). A researcher is bound to carefully evaluate the results given in the lab when presenting the results to the community. A danger may not appear right on the surface, but the researcher must dig deeper. It would be negligence to report the benefit results and recommend implementation without investigating the dangers or calling for further research. To apply the results of research to a problem affecting public welfare requires being objective so as to communicate the likely benefits and detriments of the proposed solution. The code of ethics holds up the ideal of the profession and is also a reflection of the expectation that the community has of the professional. The project should reflect those ideals. Evaluating the risk of a project in light of these guidelines can help ensure the practicality and value of the result. Case in Point: Research on Concrete Columns Exposed to Fire Research is being done in the field of structural engineering on the behavior of fiberreinforced polymer (FRP) confined concrete columns during a fire. In a paper concerning this topic Bisby et al. described the motive for their research. They state that the lack of research in this area is a primary factor hindering the widespread implementation of FRP strengthening technologies in the construction industry (Bisby et al. 2005). The behavior of fire on construction materials is of high concern as it affects the public welfare. Using RFPs to strengthen concrete is an innovative solution in extending the use of an essential civil engineering material. Potentially there is a much larger market for FRP strengthened concrete, however Bisby et al. make the statement that their ability to meet the fire endurance criteria set out in building codes, must be evaluated (2005). Their concern is with two behaviors of this 4 of 7

5 new approach. Unlike other civil engineering materials used in buildings, combustion of the polymer is a real possibility. This could result in the generation of thick, black, toxic smoke (Bisby et al. 2005). Toxic smoke is an environmental and health concern that must be addressed before widespread implementation. Further Bisby et al. go on to identify a possible structural hazard, namely the degradation in the strength and stiffness of FRPs when exposed to elevated temperatures (2005). The goal of their research is to identify the extent of these issues so that the solution does not become the problem. To address these concerns a numerical model is developed and validated for the purpose of applying to this situation. The results of this research are quite intriguing. It was found that it is unlikely that the structural effectiveness of FRP materials can be maintained during fire, and that the fire behavior of FRP-wrapped columns can be dramatically improved by providing supplemental insulation (Bisby et al. 2005). If expected structural effectiveness cannot be maintained during a fire without supplemental insulation this is essential to consider in the design of such components. The question can be asked: what if FRP strengthened members were introduced in buildings before this testing had be completed? Research has found that under an essential design condition (behavior during a fire) these materials will not behave adequately without further work being done. It would not be ethical to implement a solution like this in the field without first considering this danger. A failure to consider fire behavior directly leads to endangering the public welfare in conflict with the first fundamental canon of the ASCE code of ethics. The approach taken in this case provides an answer to the question of how the code of ethics can be satisfied when implementing an innovative solution. Appropriate models must be made to address likely concerns. Once research has been done in the lab on all likely modes of failure affecting the public and the environment the ethical responsibility of the engineer is satisfied. Tacoma Narrows Bridge and Innovation 5 of 7

6 One of the most famous examples of civil engineering failure on a grand scale is the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Interestingly this can also be viewed as the failure of innovation. The collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in 1940 was due to wind-induced oscillations (Kardon 2005). Kardon mentions, while using the bridge in a discussion on ethics, that in the early 20th century, suspension bridges were being designed and built with ever longer and more slender spans and that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was the most slender suspension bridge built up to that time (2005). Although the dynamic impact of wind on such large spans was known, technology was considered to be advanced to a point where such considerations were not paramount. The failure of the bridge shows that this assumption was not correct. This is an example of implementing technological innovation without adequately considering appropriate design criteria. Bridge technology had not advanced to such a point. Ethical concerns could have tempered this result. A lesson learned from this case is not to ignore the results of past research when innovating, but to build on this foundation. Conclusions Risk management is more than managing liability. By definition, civil engineering projects impact human safety, welfare, and the environment. This brings risk management into the realm of ethics. Ethics are especially important when implementing research solutions because these are untested in the field. But these solutions can be tested on a small scale and modeled. To do this is the responsibility entailed on any professional. The civil engineer s responsibility is to ensure that the anticipated benefit is greater than the chance of any detriment before implementing research solutions in the field. References ASCE. (1996). Edict -- Code of Ethics. < (Dec. 6, 2005). Bisby, L. A., Green, M. F., Kodur, V. K. R. (2005). Modeling the Behavior of Fiber Reinforced Polymer-Confined Concrete Columns Exposed to Fire. J. Compos. Constr., 9(1), of 7

7 Kardon, J. B. (2005). Concept of Care in Engineering. J. Perf. Constr. Facil., 19(3), of 7