Transition of the PE Structural Exam (SE) to Computer-Based Testing

You may have already heard that the SE exam developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) is being transitioned to a completely computer-based test (CBT), with the launch of the first of these exams tentatively scheduled for April 2024 (it will not be sooner).  Taking engineering licensing exams to CBT is not new.  The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam began the transition in 2010, the Professional Engineer (PE) and Land Surveyor (LS) exams began the move in 2011, and in 2012, the Board voted to have all exams eventually transition to CBT.  The new SE exam will be quite different from the current 16-hour exam:

  • There will still be 4 modules (Vertical, breadth & depth; Lateral, breadth & depth), but each module may be taken (and scored) independently.

  • Instead of 16 hours, the total exam will take 21 hours: 5.5 hours for each of the “breadth” modules and 5 hours for each of the “depth” modules.

  • The “breadth” modules will still be multiple choice, but there will be a total of 55 questions for each module (45 scored questions and 10 pretest questions, which will be indistinguishable from the scored questions).  These questions will still include a combination of building and bridge requirements.

  • The “depth” modules may still be taken using either a building or a bridge path.  Each module will have 5 scenarios that include 12 questions each, and some of those questions will also be “pretest” (unscored).

There are a few different resources you can visit to learn more:

In addition to the increased quantity of questions and time to spend taking the exam modules, another significant difference from the old paper-and-pencil exams will be the format of the “depth” modules.  Responses will be done as “alternative item types” (AIT), which will be scored as correct or incorrect (there will be no partial credit in the scoring).  With the old exam format, professional engineers who scored the responses were able to determine whether the candidate understood the problem, but perhaps just got off onto a definable tangent, so they could garner some partial credit along the way.  In one sense, this “partial credit” capability is still (somewhat) present, as there will be 12 question items for each problem … but they are still right or wrong, and the intermediate equations or analysis used along the way will not be factored into the scoring decisions.  AITs currently include the following:

  • Multiple Correct: select multiple answers

  • Point & Click: click on part of a graphic

  • Drag & Drop: click on and drag items to match, sort, rank, or label

  • Fill in the Blank: enter a response to the question in a space provided

Candidates for the exam could still essentially prepare for the new CBT-type exam in the same way as they do now: study the knowledge areas advertised by NCEES and take a lot of sample questions, timed and untimed.  Regardless of how questions are to be answered, it will always be a matter of applying knowledge to practical engineering situations.  NCEES is planning to create a study guide that will help candidates practice the types of AITs for depth problems, which will be a crucial part of the studying process.

Another important change will be the provision of study materials and code references.  These resources will be provided by NCEES to candidates, at least 6 months before the exam is administered, and it is expected that candidates cannot bring in their own study materials.  This is all very new to most of us, especially because there are so many changes in store, and NCEES is still working hard to formalize the transition details.  I encourage you to visit the sites noted above, and keep checking back to this website, as I am working to include more sample problems and instruction in the companion resources to my book on the SE exam (second edition), as time allows.

Wokeness and Engineering Ethics

The condition of being “woke” is something that strikes up powerful feelings, both positive and negative, and there is a fear (by some) that “wokeism” is destroying institutions and that it unapologetically demands a change in human behavior, thought, and opinion.  If this is, in fact, the case, then it deserves a sober-minded analysis and careful consideration as to whether changes are coming for the engineering profession or, indeed, have already happened.  As engineers, we can approach this analysis by answering three questions:

  1. What does “woke” mean?

  2. Are the principles of wokeism a threat to the engineering profession?

  3. How can we rightly interpret these principles in light of established tenets of engineering ethics?

Early definitions of “woke” are difficult to find.  One of the earliest formal definitions comes from the New York Times Magazine published on May 20, 1962, where “woke” basically meant “well-informed, up-to-date”.  In 2017, Merriam-Webster added the word “woke” with a definition as “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”.  In social media, it is common to see one group criticize another group because they are on different levels of wokeness, and even call for their silence.  The issue has indeed been difficult to navigate, from “cancel culture” to “critical race theory” and many branches in-between.

Let’s step away from the controversy for a moment and focus on the principles identified in the definition.  You will notice there are two activities for a woke person: (1) to be aware of, and (2) to be actively attentive to.  Awareness implies basic knowledge – you may not accept or believe it as true, and you may only know very little, but you are aware of it.  If one is actively attentive to something, then they are trying to make changes in their own lives, attempting to educate or change the perspective of others, and participating in activities they believe will impact society.  There are also two objects of a woke person’s awareness or attention: (1) societal facts, and (2) societal issues.  “Facts” are not the same as “issues” … and they do not only include racial or social justice, though these are strongly emphasized.  Are these basic principles a threat to the engineering profession?  They shouldn’t be.  When the Biden administration tells the United States that infrastructure needs to be constructed in such a way as to remedy racial inequities (and repair a history of racial imbalance), civil engineers do not need to agree with that implication to design a safe and efficient highway or bridge.  Civil engineers should be aware of the intent behind the project (to remedy racial inequities), but they do not need to be actively attentive to that purpose: they can simply be available to do the best job they can regardless of who the client or community is.  They can do their best work simply because they are working for a community of fellow human beings who need safe, efficient, and reliable means of transportation just like any other human being.  I understand that this is an oversimplification of the complexity of the issue … but it’s the truth.

Lastly, how do the principles of wokeism apply to common tenets of engineering ethics?  The essential, simplified message of wokeism is that all persons deserve to be treated with the same dignity and justice according to a particular circumstance, if any.  As an example of circumstance, people who break laws should be punished according to the laws of society (justice), but they should also be afforded a basic measure of respect and dignity as fellow human beings (a fair trial, a fair and responsible sentence, clean and habitable incarceration, etc.).  In terms of engineering practice, the Code of Ethics published by the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) reminds professionals that “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”.  The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) explains that engineers shall “treat all persons with respect, dignity, and fairness in a manner that fosters equitable participation without regard to personal identity”.  The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Code of Ethics includes a simple admonition to “treat all persons fairly and with respect, to avoid harassment or discrimination, and to avoid injuring others.”

Many more examples could be cited, and you can see how these simple tenets of engineering ethics cut through the politics of wokeness and describe a basic level of conduct expected of professional engineers (regardless of branch): treat others equally, fairly, and respectfully.  This is not only good for the image of the profession, but it’s just good business.  Clients are more appreciative and supportive when we demonstrate an honest concern for the success of their project, and when we make ourselves available as good listeners and excellent problem solvers.  If we are able to cut through the messy politics that cloud our understanding of basic human courtesy, and act accordingly, everyone benefits.

What Does it Mean to "Hold Paramount the Safety, Health, and Welfare of the Public”?

To hold paramount simply means to set as more important. In this canon, the recipient is the public, and the objects are safety, health, and welfare. This seems like a difficult responsibility that could involve thousands of moving parts, any one of which could escape a careful engineer’s attention at any moment. The intention here is not a perfect knowledge of the needs of the public, but a careful assessment of how judgment needs to be applied for any given situation.

If we were to use the broadest terms, the public would include all persons. We are all part of the public. This means the safety, health, and welfare of employers, clients, colleagues, family, friends, strangers, and all others should be held as the most important goal. Such a broad characterization, however, makes it more difficult to understand how this provision applies to engineering practice. Specific instructions are provided by engineering ethical code documents to clarify the practical intent of this fundamental provision, including the following:

 A. Only approve documents that are in conformance with applicable codes and standards.

B. Draw attention to hazards, including when your sound judgment on a safety matter is overruled.

C. Do not aid or abet the practice of engineering by someone who is not duly licensed.

D. Expose unethical or illegal activity through appropriate channels.

E. Avoid conflicts of interest.

F. Identify, evaluate, quantify, mitigate, and manage risks.

It is easy to see how the safety and welfare of the public is captured within this sample list of practical duties. Safety includes adherence to minimum standards of construction and attention to hazards that may cause harm to another, such as during a site investigation or in reviewing a set of design documents that include gross errors of judgment. Welfare includes an expectation that only qualified individuals will make engineering judgments that affect society, and licensed professional engineers need to be aware of these types of violations or when circumstances arise that will bring sound, reasoned judgment into conflict. The Architecture Practice Act of Illinois[i] defines public safety (with relation to architecture) as “the state of being reasonably free from risk of danger, damage, or injury” and it defines public welfare as “the well-being of the building user resulting from the state of a physical environment that accommodates human activity”.

The health of the public is more difficult to identify from an engineering perspective (as something that would be distinct from safety). It is something separate from welfare, but can include elements of well-being, such as having the freedom and opportunity to participate in activities that increase happiness, advance the potential to achieve goals, and broaden the range of available choices for a variety of lifestyle conditions (career, family, living space, recreation, etc.). Health is also key to choices that affect the environment, such as the emission of pollutants and disposal or reuse of waste products. The Architecture Practice Act of Illinois defines public health as “the state of well-being of the body or mind of the building user”.

An example of how the health of the public has been addressed as paramount is in the selection and use of fly ash in concrete mixtures and examination of potential hazards. Fly ash is a pozzolanic by-product of the combustion of pulverized coal in electric power generating plants and can be used as a substitute for cement in a concrete mix design, typically in the range of 15 - 30%, but it can also be used to replace more than 50% of the cement[ii]. It is known to reduce the impact that concrete has on the environment (a health benefit to the public), but it also contains trace amounts of arsenic and some heavy metals (dangerous to the health of the public). Several studies were conducted at universities in Germany and Canada to assess the risk to public health, and it was determined that leached amounts of these products were very low and there is very little risk of contamination to humans or the environment when fly ash is used in a good quality concrete mixture.[iii]

There is a real danger in oversimplifying the application of this precept -- it is not intended to categorically demand that an engineer’s duties and responsibilities are to be focused in a single direction without consideration of other factors. Professionals have legal obligations to contracts, privacy, employers, and clients that cannot be taken lightly or carelessly pushed to the side. In cases where there is conflict, you must honestly and objectively evaluate the situation and truthfully consider the conflicting elements. Sometimes a neutral third-party can be helpful in assessing whether there is, in fact, conflict and can offer solutions that may not be immediately apparent. Where real conflicts are apparent, these should be brought to the attention of other parties who will be affected by your decision.

 

[i] Illinois Architecture Practice Act of 1989, 2020 Illinois Compiled Statutes, chapter 225, section 305/4.

[ii] Dale P. Bentz et al., Best Practices Guide for High-Volume Fly Ash Concretes: Assuring Properties and Performance [NIST Technical Note 1812] (Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2013).

[iii] Dirk M. Kestner et al., Sustainability Guidelines for the Structural Engineer (Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010).

The Three Cs of Project Management

After new engineers have gained a sufficient amount of real-world experience, they often become tasked with the management of projects.  The part an engineer plays on a design team can be complex, and new engineers are typically tasked with small pieces of the work, such as performing calculations or creating drawings.  Project management introduces a wide range of activities that are often only learned on the job, and it can be a challenge to jump in with both feet and to (at least) lead everyone to believe that everything is under control.  All construction projects have team members, budgets, schedules, regulations, expectations, and other elements that work together towards a common goal: the realization of a new facility that will benefit the users.  New engineers are already familiar with schedules and budgets, but they might not be sensitive to how these impact the project as a whole, and of how their own actions may have consequences for others.

 I believe there are three extremely important characteristics demonstrated by a healthy design or design/build team that a new engineer needs to understand: good communication, sufficient cooperation, and reliable competence.  Good communication begins with a commitment to exercise patience, kindness, respect, and clarity in all forms of contact.  Engineers all have preferred means of communication, but sometimes a situation arises that requires a specific type.  For example, if a client is upset about something, a phone call or personal face-to-face visit is usually more appropriate than an email or text message.  Personal contact (voice, physical presence) demonstrates that you are willing to set something else aside and offer that person your full attention as needed to resolve a matter.  Once that personal contact is made, a follow up email can be helpful to put something into writing or to further elaborate, explain, or defend statements, facts, or circumstances.

 Members of a team need to have a sufficient amount of cooperation to achieve their common goal.  Each person or company needs to fully understand their role in achieving this success, and they should have some idea of how the other team members contribute.  A structural engineer, for example, needs to understand the work of the architect far more than the work of the food service consultant, and a sufficient amount of cooperation with the architect may involve weekly meetings, timely review and coordination of progress documents, and continual updates on how and when information is needed between the companies.  A sufficient amount of cooperation with the food service consultant may only require a simple review of 50% construction documents, perhaps a phone or email conversation, and perhaps a simple check-in prior to release of permit-ready documents.

 A design team assumes each member is minimally competent to perform the duties they have been assigned, but it sometimes may need to be taken as an act of faith or trust.  Teams that have worked together for a period of time have gained enough knowledge of, and experience with, the others that this avenue of trust is already present.  If a member or company doesn’t fully understand their scope, important tasks can fall through the cracks and the project could suffer as a result.  Design professionals are expected to have some level of competence as understood by their licensing agency, and one specialist shouldn’t have to worry about the contributions of the others.  Participants that need to work more closely together should understand the scope and deliverables of the other.  For example, a civil engineer needs to understand the extent of control that a landscape architect has over the surrounding topography of a building site.  Retaining walls, finish elevations, setback distances, and other characteristics could be designed and detailed by either professional, and questions should be asked of one another to make sure tasks are being performed … preferably by the most qualified discipline, but consultation with the owner or team leader can also help to clarify roles and responsibilities.

Computational Errors in Estimating Concrete Member Deflection

Science is oftentimes not an “exact science”.  We all do our best to understand the physical world as precisely as possible, but there will always be limitations: those that are simply unavoidable (part of nature and consequences of our limited scientific vocabulary), and others that can be attributed to the simple fact that we are human beings.  We make errors, not always due to negligence or incompetence, and we can be stubborn.  As we study and attempt to understand things of science, it is important to deal honestly with the tools of the trade.  When consulting research, it is important to understand the basic conclusions and how they apply to the question being answered.  When reviewing the results of testing, it is important to understand the constraints set in place that allow the testing to be possible (and reliable), and to understand the application of the results and conclusions.  When performing calculations, it is important to know when more advanced forms of analysis are necessary (or preferred), what effect variability and uncertainty have on the input (how “real” is the assumed dead load), and what factors can lead to inaccurate or incomplete conclusions.  Part of the process of managing calculations involves knowing potential avenues for error and avoiding or compensating for them in some way.

 As I assembled a PowerPoint presentation on the serviceability of concrete slabs, I came across a great article written by Russell S. Fling entitled Practical Considerations in Computing Deflection of Reinforced Concrete, part of a collection of papers published by the American Concrete Institute, “SP-133: Designing Concrete Structures for Serviceability and Safety” (1992).  In his paper, Fling identifies some of the computational errors that can create a discrepancy between calculated and actual deflections of concrete members, which I’d like to summarize here.

  1. There are 10 steps in calculating deflection and error can creep into any of these steps, so an engineer needs to be cautious and attentive.  These steps include (1) load, (2) moment, (3) location of center of gravity of the gross section, (4) uncracked moment of inertia, (5) section modulus of the gross section, (6) cracking moment, (7) cracked moment of inertia, (8) effective moment of inertia, (9) instantaneous deflection, and (10) long-term deflection.

  2. Live load might be incorrectly assessed.

  3. Redundancy might not be considered.

  4. Factored loads might be inadvertently used instead of service loads.

  5. Maximum moments from pattern loading might be used instead of actual moments.

  6. Complexities of dealing with T-beams might be ignored.

  7. Using average values of the moment of inertia instead of specific values.

  8. Rotation of the support for cantilevered beams might not be correctly accounted for.

Problems in serviceability of concrete members can be revealed by unanticipated or extensive cracking, movement or damage to nonbearing partitions, sticking of doors or windows, or noticeable vibration.  It might not be enough to just rely on the standard ACI 318 formulas for calculating minimum slab thicknesses, and you should be ready to determine expected deflections when needed to evaluate the usability of your design.  When doing so, use appropriate care in your work and be aware of the possible pitfalls discussed above.

Defining an Engineer's Purpose on a Project

     While doing research for my book, Ethics in Civil and Structural Engineering: Professional Responsibility and Standard of Care, I discovered a wonderful organization called “The Foundation for Critical Thinking” (https://www.criticalthinking.org).  Founded by Dr. Richard Paul more than 40 years ago, the group’s mission is to promote much needed change in education and society through the cultivation of fair-minded critical thinking that serves to unite people through intellectual empathy, humility, perseverance, integrity, and responsibility.  Sadly, Dr. Paul passed away on August 30, 2015, but work with the non-profit organization continues through the leadership of his wife, Dr. Linda Elder, and the contributions of numerous authors and teachers.  The Foundation publishes many books and articles, organizes conferences and other events, and conducts important research to help schools and universities understand and implement critical thinking instruction.

     One of the publications I found particularly interesting is called The Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning, which was written to help students, instructors, and practicing engineers approach complex issues and questions that are not only technical in nature, but that also cover social and ethical aspects of engineering.  It was written in 2013 (reissued in 2019) by Dr. Paul, Dr. Elder, and Dr. Robert Niewoehner, an aerospace engineering educator and experimental test pilot.  The authors explore the development of eight essential elements of engineering reasoning: purpose, point of view, assumptions, implications, information, inferences, concept, and key questions.  All engineering is performed with a purpose -- through reasoning, we focus on understanding the needs of the customer or client and develop our services according to the answers that our particular branch brings to the problem (“purpose”).  For example, our client may need a protected space in which to conduct business.  A structural engineer contributes to that “protected space” by designing a building that can withstand the forces of nature and of human use and interaction.  The “purpose” of a mechanical engineer, however, would be to design a suitable air conditioning and filtration system to create a healthy “protected space” for those who occupy the structure.

Photo from Unsplash

     Critical thinking and reasoning related to the development and execution of an engineer’s “purpose” includes careful evaluation of the contributions of others.  The scope of work needs to be properly defined according to that engineer’s field of licensure and competence in such a way that budgets and timelines are met.  If problems arise during the course of the project, the engineer must promptly communicate any concerns or needs and offer solutions for any adjustments that may be necessary to the goals of the project (budget, timeline, impact to the owner or society, etc.).  The engineer’s purpose should be realistic and achievable, yet distinguishable from related projects according to a unique set of needs.  “Purpose” includes an understanding of steps to follow the design through to completion, a knowledge of necessary technical and social tools, and definition by intellectual and ethical standards (clarity, integrity, accuracy, etc.).

     We need to be sure that we understand our purpose for a project before we receive a contract for services, and continually evaluate that purpose to make sure we are staying on track and to quickly identify problems if they arise.  As with most other things, communication is key to establishing and defining purpose so that the whole design team can benefit through individual contributions and a unified focus.

The Bailey Bridge - Instrumental in Winning World War II

     Many people around the world take time on June 6th of each year to remember the brave men and women who stormed the coast of France in an effort to drive back the German occupation of Europe and bring an end to World War II.  Soldiers, commanders, operators, doctors, nurses, engineers, and a whole host of others worked hard to make D-Day (“Operation Overlord”) a success.  One of those who were instrumental to success was a civil engineer by the name of Donald C. Bailey.

     Donald Bailey was born in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England on September 15, 1901 and worked as a civil servant for the War Office during World War II.  He obtained his engineering education and certification at the University of Sheffield and graduated in 1923.  One of Bailey’s duties for the British Army was to conduct experiments and tests of portable assault bridges, beginning with models and types used during World War I.  Considering the increased weight of equipment used for this “new” war, it became apparent that existing types of portable bridges would not be able to perform.  One day in late 1940, on the back of an envelope, Bailey quickly sketched out some ideas he had on his way back to the military base where he was staying.

     The Bailey Bridge design was simple.  It included the use of prefabricated truss panels joined by pegs and further strengthened by transverse beams.  No special tools or heavy equipment were required for assembly, which meant the job could be done very quickly (and relatively cheaply).  Wood and steel elements were small and light enough to be carried on small trucks and lifted into place by hand, creating a finished structure strong enough to carry tanks.  The first prototype bridge was tested in early 1941 and full production began in July 1941.  The first wartime use of the design began on November 26, 1942 to carry troops and equipment over the Medjerda River in Tunisia.  By the end of the war, more than 4,500 bridges were built with an average length of 100 feet.  Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery commented that the Bailey Bridge was a critical element in being able to maintain the speed and tempo of forward movement of his army units.

     Bailey was knighted in 1946 for his design success and diligent work for the British Government.  He passed away on May 5th, 1985 in Bournemouth, Dorset, England and is held in memory by the permanent placement of a section of his famous bridge in Christchurch, where a factory was installed to make components of the bridge during the war.  Donald Bailey stands as a testimony to engineering ingenuity and determination, demonstrating problem solving skills under pressure and bringing encouragement with a “we can do this” attitude.

Lady Justice

     Most of us are familiar with the depiction of justice as a lady, typically wearing a blindfold and holding a balance in one hand and a sword in the other.  She is called Justicia, the personification of justice in Roman art, and is linked with Themis, the Greek goddess over divine law and order.  In Roman mythology, Justicia represents one of the four virtues (Justice), along with Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance.  In Greek mythology, Themis was a daughter of Uranus (a personification of heaven) and Gaea (a personification of earth) and served as a messenger, delivering rules of conduct established by the elder gods.  She taught mankind the primal laws of justice and morality which included precepts of piety, hospitality, governance of affairs, conduct of assembly, and offerings to various gods.  Serving as a counselor to Zeus, king of the gods, Themis was responsible for notifying him when the rules of conduct were breached (she was also one of Zeus’ earliest wives).

     The blindfold for Lady Justice is an invention of the 16th century, thought to have been added to signify the tolerance or ignorance of the legal system to abuse and injustice.  Since that time, however, it has come to symbolize the impartiality of justice: she could discern between good and evil and pass a just sentence without being influenced by what she saw with regard to the accused or the accuser. She could not be swayed by richness or poverty, by power or weakness, by title or privilege.  Each case would be judged equally according to its merits rather than the circumstances of the parties involved.

     The “scales of justice” are carried to represent fairness in weighing the evidence of a case.  The common interpretation is filtered through the tenets of the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries), which stressed reason, logic, criticism, and freedom of thought, implying a mechanistic process in determining whether the scales would tilt towards innocence or guilt.  They have also represented the balance of individual needs against those of society.

     The sword symbolizes authority to carry out a sentence and is reminiscent of supreme leaders and monarchs of older times.  It is usually unsheathed, indicating that justice will be swift, and double-edged, indicating that it can cut at either party with equal strength.  As a symbol of protection, individuals are meant to feel safe under the authority of the law or to fear it if they intend to do harm.

     The symbol of justice serves as a link between natural law and rational law, incorporating the culture of the divine with the culture of civil society and defending the inherent right of the individual by recognizing the responsibilities of society and of law.  She reminds us that fair and equitable treatment in matters of law is one of our highest virtues, and that this value also extends to simple matters of human interaction: how we treat one another.  We cannot separate ethics or morality from law, but there are important distinctions to understand in order to build a better appreciation of our responsibilities as engineers and as human beings.

Engineering Codes of Conduct

The terms “ethics” and “morality” are oftentimes interchangeable.  Ethics typically defines some sort of code with regard to rights and responsibilities to guide a person’s choices and behaviors towards a manner that is deemed “good” or “acceptable”.  As human beings with innumerable interests, backgrounds, needs, and desires, we develop moral codes based on subjective parameters, whether they be based in religion, government, family, or some other driving phenomenon or entity.

Engineering societies have well-defined codes of ethics that include many elements most reasonable persons can agree to -- treat others fairly, act with honesty in all circumstances, etc.  They are standards of behavior which development committees believe engineers should demonstrate to the public as they represent their profession in their work and also in their daily lives.  These codes, however, are not enforceable by law to the degree we have become familiar with for “errors and omissions” (tort law, for example), although a particular society may take action against a professional who exhibits unethical behavior through less stringent means, such as cancellation of membership or other penalties.  Many individual states include sections within their engineer licensing laws regarding ethical behavior, and punishment for violation will be felt more significant (loss of license), but the process involved in determining guilt is long and sometimes difficult with regard to evaluation of evidence, arriving at justifiable conclusions, and establishment of precedent.

One of the primary benefits to having codes of conduct (ethics, morality) provided to professional engineers by their societies or licensing agencies is they help us to cut through all competing sources of ethics and hone in on specifics that have been developed with the profession and society as a whole in mind.  The principles are focused on our practice, our rights, and our responsibilities through recognition as professionals.  It doesn’t matter what culture, gender, color, creed, preference, affiliation, religion, or status any of us have … it matters that we are all engineers, and we represent that profession in a manner that has been agreed to by our peers.  This is a benefit because all members of those societies are allowed to participate in the development of codes of conduct.  We all have a voice and have the opportunity to make a difference, either through direct participation in the development of these codes or simply by living them out every day.

Being Thankful

As professional engineers, we are responsible to practice within a legally defined standard of care.  We are held to a high standard with respect to protecting the public in our design decisions, and our licensing boards can take action when we violate rules of conduct.  Furthermore, we can be sued for wrongdoing if we violate that standard of care.  The public defines parameters of our practice because they are entrusting us to make safety-related decisions for them.  We are expected to not only maintain a minimal level of competence, but to keep up with new technologies and research in our field of practice.  Offering our service to clients, students, or others can be daunting with regard to all of the things we need to remember and monitor, and it can be easy to slip into a state of fearfulness.

The weight of these responsibilities, however, can only be as burdensome as we allow them to be.  As we grow up in this world, we learn how to put things into perspective in order to accept certain events or outcomes … it is that perspective which helps us move forward on a positive note, otherwise life can seem intolerable.  One of the best ways to put things into a good perspective is to keep track of things to be thankful for.  Expressing thanks, publicly and privately, allows a certain humility to influence our actions and can help us to remember why we do what we do, or at least to help us keep a sense of joy with our lives and careers.

With regard to structural engineering, here are just a few things I am thankful for:

  1. It is a dynamic profession.  There is always something new to learn, and there are always opportunities for improving upon what we already know.

  2. There are plenty of great people working to sustain the integrity of the profession.  Many of the same people work on code development committees, author technical publications, speak at conferences, and put in many hours behind the scenes volunteering in different ways to positively impact our path forward.

  3. We are given opportunities to help others achieve their dreams and to make their lives better.  Our specialized knowledge and training allow us to create permanent structures for the enjoyment and betterment of society, and it's exciting to share dreams and turn ideas into reality.

  4. There are many opportunities to help kids and students foster an appreciation for engineering, and to help them on a path to such a career.

  5. Engineering societies recognize the importance of diversity, and anyone from any background or affiliation can participate in this career.

As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches, I hope you will take some time to remember (or discover) things you are thankful for in your professional practice.  Things on a technical level and on a personal level -- there is much to celebrate!

The Rise of Technology

Technology has grown by leaps and bounds since I was in college in the late 1980s.  I was fortunate enough to work in an environment that advanced past the use of programming cards, but I do remember having limited access to computers in a computer lab on campus to complete class projects ... oftentimes late at night, but that was probably due to my own lack of planning.  In recent times, we have seen 3D printing of simple concrete structures become a reality and have also stretched the limits of wood-frame construction with the introduction of cross-laminated timber and further advancements in fire-resistive assemblies.  Artificial Intelligence is still a relatively new field of study with relation to engineering, but there is a lot of excitement brewing over the possibilities -- think of smart cars, personalized instruments with relation to health science, and factory machines working together to streamline production.

My hope is that as we advance, improve, and embrace technology, we don't forget the human factors that make societies thrive.  We've all become accustomed to email, text messaging, and even online conferences, but those conveniences cannot replace good old face-to-face meetings and warm handshakes.  People are social beings who need personal interaction to maintain a healthy livelihood.  As engineers, we should also be aware of the need for diverse interactions with friends, family, colleagues, clients, and others who can help expand our database of solutions to problems that we can help solve throughout the world.

I believe the identity of an engineer of the future must be based on the human aspect of our education and training.  We should always be aware that any form of technology we bring into our toolbox will be for the purpose of improving human life, liberty, and happiness.  Clean water, safe roads, smart buildings, renewable energy … all of these issues requiring engineering solutions have a focus on improving life.  Societies should also be committed to protecting and creating jobs, promoting and maintaining a high quality of education, and embracing diversity as fellow human beings striving for many of the same things.  Engineers must always remember that technology … even "smart" technology … is only a tool that can be used for the benefit of society and should never replace the human aspect of what we were educated and trained to do.

Designing and Building the White House

The White House was designed by architect James Hoban (1762 - 1831), an Irish immigrant who came to the newly formed United States of America right after the Revolutionary War.  He first settled in Philadelphia, PA and then relocated to South Carolina, where he designed the first state capitol building (Columbia, 1791).  George Washington became familiar with Hoban's work and encouraged him to enter a competition for the design of the presidential mansion in 1792.  The cornerstone was laid in 1792 and Hoban supervised the construction until it's completion in 1801 -- he was not only an accomplished architect, but a formidable carpenter and mason.

Designed in the neoclassical style that was popular in the mid-18th century, the architecture embraces the purity of ancient Roman and Grecian styles, using white-painted Aquia Creek Sandstone to create its iconic image.  The exterior whitewash was necessary to seal the porous material against the effects of the environment.  Hoban's design was modeled after the Leinster House, which was a governmental palace in Dublin, Ireland that currently serves as the house of the Irish Parliament.  A grand total of $232,372 was spent on the original construction, which would be equivalent to more than $100 million dollars in 2019.  It was the largest residence in the United States until the 1860s and was first occupied by President John Adams and his family, even though the building wasn't yet complete.  The familiar north and south porticoes were not added to the White House until 1825 and 1830, based on designs created as early as 1807.  East and West Wings were added to the main building during the early 1900s to expand office space, include more formal and public entrances, and even to cover an underground bunker (the Presidential Emergency Operations Center).

Many improvements, redecorations, and reconstructions were completed throughout the building's history.  In 1814, during the War of 1812, the British army occupied Washington, D.C. and burned much of the White House, gutting the interior but leaving the exterior mostly intact.  President James Madison vowed to restore the building just as it was, and James Hoban returned to supervise the reconstruction.  During the Truman Administration (1945 - 1953), the main body was found to be structurally unsound and was rebuilt using concrete and steel.  Since the 1960s, the White House has been recognized as a sort of living museum and very few alterations have been made to the architectural theme and functional layout.

What Type of Engineer?

Many of us have gone through the process of wondering what kind of person we are.  What will we be remembered as?  Do people think of us as tolerant, kind-hearted, or wise?  What about stingy, mean, or insensitive?  I'm not talking about bursts of behavior that we all go through from time to time, but what characteristics truly define each of us as an individual.  I truly hope that when people think of me, they will call to mind mostly good things … I'm sure you do as well.  No one wants to be thought of by mostly bad things.  As human beings, we understand that "perfection" is impossible, except for certain events or benchmarks that we have already defined as perfection, such as bowling a perfect game (a strike in every frame), executing a flawless cheerleading routine (everyone hits their movements correctly at the right times), or painting a landscape with the utmost precision.  A person will never be completely perfect in all things - at all times - but can definitely achieve perfection during many moments of his or her life.

As engineers, we cannot be thought of as perfect because it simply isn't possible to execute every decision with absolute clarity and precision every single moment of our careers.  I would prefer the adjective "attentive" because it defines an ongoing state of being or practice that is achievable through positive thought, steady resolve, and mindful labor.  An engineer must always be attentive to detail in order to properly define how a structure is to be built.  Being attentive in personal and business relationships can relieve stress and build lasting bonds.  To understand how building code provisions apply to an individual project, an engineer must pay attention to the wording and order of the code, carefully consider explanations given in commentaries, and openly discuss issues with colleagues.  We can certainly be attentive yet also miss the mark … many times … but the idea is that we are not satisfied with making mistakes or being stagnant in our learning.  We want to improve and continually do better, even if it's just a little bit at a time.  Setting a goal of "being attentive" is far more achievable than trying to be perfect.  It also sounds like a pretty good way to be remembered.

Honoring Women Engineers

March 2019 is Women's History Month, so I thought it would be appropriate to remember women from the field of engineering who helped drive and inspire our country and add much needed diversity to an otherwise male-dominated profession. What you read below is just a sampling of the many women who have truly made a difference.

Lillian Gilbreth (1878 - 1972):  Ms. Gilbreth advanced the practice of industrial engineering by laying the foundation for work on human factors related to workplace patterns and ergonomic design.  She was the first woman elected to the National Academy of Engineering.

Edith Clarke (1883 - 1959):  Ms. Clarke was the first woman to earn a Master's Degree in electrical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1919, and was also the first female professor of electrical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin in her later years.  She was a salaried employee with General Electric (another first), where she solved important electrical problems that became crucial in the industry.

Beulah Louise Henry (1887 - 1973):  Also known as the "Lady Edison" during the 1920s and 1930s, Ms. Henry patented many useful inventions, including a doll with a radio inside and a typewriter that could produce multiple copies without carbon paper.

Stephanie Louise Kwolek (1923 - 2014):  An American chemist who worked for DuPont for more than 40 years, Ms. Kwolek invented the first of a family of polymeric fibers that resulted in the production of Kevlar.  She was awarded the Perkins Medal in 1997 by the American Chemical Society.

Lynn Ann Conway (b. 1938):  Ms. Conway earned her Master's Degree in electrical engineering from Columbia University and spent time at IBM working on the advanced computing systems project.  She began work at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center in 1973, where she invented design rules for VLSI ("very large scale integration") chips and pioneered methods for teaching the technology, causing amazing advancement of the industry.

Ellen Ochoa (b. 1958):  Having received a doctorate degree in electrical engineering from Stanford University, Ms. Ochoa later worked on optical systems at Sandia National Laboratories and NASA Ames Research Center and is a co-inventor of three patents.  She received NASA's highest award, the Distinguished Service Medal, in addition to other honors.  In 1993, she became the first Hispanic woman to go into space and flew 3 more missions after that.

Engineering Competency Model

While working on a webinar I will be presenting for RedVector in February 2019, I came across an informative publication by the U.S. Department of Labor entitled, "Engineering Competency Model".  Developed by the Employment and Training Administration, in coordination with the American Association of Engineering Societies and other technical experts, the model was set up for the purpose of identifying core competencies and skills necessary for entry into an engineering profession and for maintaining competency throughout one's career.  The document can be found on the following page:

 http://www.careeronestop.org/CompetencyModel/competency-models/engineering.aspx

Section 4.5 of this model covers "Professional Ethics" and lists 8 knowledge areas that engineers should be familiar with: (1) Codes of ethics, such as those from professional societies; (2) Agreements and contracts, which are typically generated by one's professional liability insurance carrier or a representative engineering society; (3) Ethical and legal considerations; (4) Professional liability; (5) Public protection issues, such as licensure regulations; (6) NCEES Model Law & Model Rules; (7) Intellectual property; and (8) Conflicts of interest.

It's important to remember that "engineering ethics" includes a simple recognition that we are human beings performing services for other human beings, and because we are all part of this world together, we must strive to treat one another with respect, fairness, and honesty.  Studying these 8 knowledge areas with this in mind can enhance our understanding and perhaps help us to remember the principles in a more enjoyable, personal way.