Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Engineers in society
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Engineers in society

2,657

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,657
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
68
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Question 2Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. This is the first code ofethic that engineers must adhere to. Your group is required to:1) Describe why the first code of ethic is paramount important to all engineers? All references stated will be verified and mark will be given (4 marks)2) Highland towers in Taman Hill view, UluKlang, Selangor, Malaysia collapsed in 11 December 1993. Describe the ethical issue, leading to the tragedy (5 marks). References are essential for high score.3) Discuss the steps or actions that should have been taken to prevent the tragedy that are relevance to the code of ethics (4 marks)4) Discuss who and why with reference to responsibilities and liabilities in the highland tower tragedy.
  • 2. Question 2Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. This is the first code ofethic that engineers must adhere to. Your group is required to:1) Describe why the first code of ethic is paramount important to all engineers? All references stated will be verified and mark will be given (4 marks)Answers; This is because the duty of an engineer is to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the public.Then, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineering ethics focus on the way information is given to the public. This is based on statement from: a) http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html Preamble Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. b) http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~baber/Courses/3J03/StudentPresentations/OriginsProfEt hicsFan g.pdf By referring to slide 16 from OrginsOf Professional Ethics presented by Yuan Fang. This Slide show has been referring for many references such as Johnson, Deborah G. ethical issue in engineering. Similarities in different professional fields - Focus on public safety and the safety of their patients and client Differences in different professional field - The paramount duty of engineers is to ensures: safety,health and welfare of the public.
  • 3. c) http://www.ckoon-law.com/Paper/ENGINEERS%20IN%20SOCIETY.pdf 5.0 THE MODERN ENGINEERS 5.1 Engineers owe responsibility to • The general public: safety, environment • Direct consumers of the project • Fellow engineers • Clients e.g. government, industry d) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24004818/Codes-of-Ethics-of-Professional-Engineering2) Highland towers in Taman Hill view, UluKlang, Selangor, Malaysia collapsed in 11 December 1993. Describe the ethical issue, leading to the tragedy (5 marks). References are essential for high score.Answers; The ethical issuethat leading to the tragedy is second of code of ethic, Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.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. Another ethical issue that include to the tragedy is first of code of ethic, Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. 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.Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards. This is based article from : a) http://constructionrisk.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-tragedy.html. B.The EngineerThe Engineer’s defense that he was only retained to design and supervise the structural aspects of the 3 apartment blocks, two retaining walls within the Highland Towers compound and submit plans for the drainage and two and denied that his scope extended to the drainage, earthworks.This was rejected by the Court. The Court held that the Engineer must take into account the condition of the vicinity of the land upon which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated when assessing the safety of the building.He should have ensured the stability of the hillslope behind HighlandTowers.His duty was not discharged by a mere belief that the terracing of the hillslopes and the retaining walls built on them were carried out by an engineer or other
  • 4. consultant. He ought to have inquired as towhether this professional was qualified, andwhether what he was doing affected the safety of the Tower Blocks.[Other Aspects of theEngineer’s negligence – gross violation of his duty of care to the purchasers in the issue ofa notification to the Authorities that the approved drainage was built when only 10% wasbuilt]b) http://mavrkyprojectphoto.blogspot.com/2006/02/highland-tower-collapse.html The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that the adjacent hillslope was stable, for not having implemented that approved drainage scheme, for colluding with the First and Second Defendants to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land.c) http://www.digitalibrary.my/dmdocuments/malaysiakini/294_The%20Highland%20T owers%20Tragedy.pdf Page 60 point 155 and 158 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning, Supervision and Construction 155. The developer, the submitting person and the consultant engineer did not carry out ground investigation to assess the stability of slope and the earthwork design behind the Condominium in spite of the stipulated conditions in the development order. 158. The engineer committed unethical practice by signing the roads and draining plans not designed by him, for purpose of obtaining Certificate of Fitnessd) http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.htmlPreambleEngineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession,engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity.Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people.Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness,and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, andwelfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requiresadherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
  • 5. 3) Discuss the steps or actions that should have been taken to prevent the tragedy that are relevance to the code of ethics (4 marks)Answers; a) As Architect must doing complying with his duties. The architect liable in negligence for having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hillslope adjacent to the Highland Towers site. b) As Engineer must doing complying with his duties. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved. The Engineer must take into account the condition of the vicinity of the land upon which the building is built, as well as the land itself, must be evaluated when assessing the safety of the building. c) The First Defendant was liable in negligence for engaging a qualified architect, constructing insufficient. d) Local Authority although not negligent in respect of its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage system during construction, and in the issue of the Certificate of Fitness. e) Building Professionals need to consider the vicinity of the site as well as the site itself in assessing safety-particularly in regard to adjacent hillslopes. f) Building Professionals cannot hide behind limited scopes of engagement-these are a matter between themselves and their employer, but the scope of their duty owed to persons likely to be affected by their services is not so limited. g) Building Professionals requiredensuring that others engaged to do work likely to affect the structures they have been engaged to design/supervise are competent and will carry out their work in a workmanlike manner. h) If Building Professionals hold themselves out to have expertise in a particular area when they are unqualified, their conduct will be measured against the ordinarily competent qualified practitioner of such expertise. i) Building Professionals must ensure the law is followed, reporting to the authorities if necessary if their clients break the law, even at the risk of being discharged by their client.
  • 6. 4) Discuss who and why with reference to responsibilities and liabilities in the highland tower tragedy.Answers; a) The First Defendant was liable in negligence for not engaging a qualified architect, constructing insufficient and inadequate terraces, retaining walls and drains on the hillslope which could reasonably have been foreseen to have caused the collapse diverting the East Stream from its natural course and failing to ensure the pipe culvert diversion was adequate, and in nuisance for not maintaining drains and retaining walls. b) The Second Defendant (Architect) was liable in negligence for not having ensured adequate drainage and retaining walls were built on the hillslope adjacent to the Highland Towers site, which he foresaw or ought to have foreseen would pose a danger to the buildings he was in charge of, in not complying with the requirements of the authorities in respect of drainage, in colluding with the First Defendant and Third Defendant (the Engineer) to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant (the Local Authority), in so doing not complying with his duties as Architect, and in not investigating the terracing of the hillslopes and construction of retaining walls even though he was aware they would affect the buildings he was in charge of, and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land. c) The Third Defendant (Engineer) was liable in negligence for not having taken into account the hill or slope behind the Towers, not having designed and constructed a foundation to accommodate the lateral loads of a landslide or alternatively to have ensured that the adjacent hillslope was stable, for not having implemented that approved drainage scheme, for colluding with the First and Second Defendants to obtain a Certificate of Fitness without fulfilling the conditions imposed by the Fourth Defendant and also in nuisance as he was an unreasonable user of land. d) The Fourth Defendant (Local Authority) although negligent in respect of its duties associated with building. i.e. in respect of approval of building plans, to ensure implementation of the approved drainage system during construction, and in the issue of the Certificate of Fitness, was nonetheless conferred immunity by reason of s95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act. e) The Fifth Defendant (Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd) was liable in negligence in failing to maintain the drains on its land, and in taking measures to restore stability on its land after the collapse. Arab-Malaysian Land who carried out site clearing works was not found liable on the evidence. f) The Seventh Defendant (Metrolux Properties) and its Project Manager, the Eighth Defendant, who were liable in negligence and nuisance for preventing water from flowing downhill (into their site) and instead directing water into the East Stream, when they knew or ought to have known that this would increase the volume of water and inject silt, especially where there was extensive clearing on their land,
  • 7. into the East Stream where it would be deposited, which would in turn (as proved) cause or contribute to the failure of the drainage system and collapse of Block 1.g) The Ninth and Tenth Defendants (essentially the State Government) were not found liable due to a technical issue in respect of the particular party sued.

×