Vilece 1

Joseph Vilece
14 March 2016
Research Dossier: Exigence for Engineering Practice Change
Introduction
This project is concerned with specific failures of engineered units, specifically bridges.
As a researcher, I decided to collect information from many sources to evaluate the critical points
of this research project in order to have much to use for perspectives, facts, changing of
directions due to findings, and more. We want to know what causes these failures, whats being
done about them, what more should be being done about them, civilian opinion on these issues,
and much more.
Safety is essential in preventable areas like bridges, and bridge failures are still occurring
in our modern period. Due to the low amount of bridge collapses, at least in the USA, its
probably fair to say that the public feels safe already. This does not discount the necessity for
action, however. Any failure of this nature is an unacceptable failure. The fact that there have
been multiple collapses in the last few years makes this research absolutely relevant. Lives are at
stake if we are not justifiably sure that our existing bridges are safe. What I essentially wanted to
do was determine the status of safety and whats being done in the field of engineering in the
present day to ensure failures do not happen and suggest ways for improvement, and to gather
the opinions of the public on the ethics and safety in engineering practice today.
We must determine the shortcoming that necessitates substantiation and improvement.
The fact that failures have still occurred in the last few years is enough to warrant significant
measures to be taken. It should not be induced that nothing is currently being done. However, if

Vilece 2

failures are still occurring then not enough is being done, and there are more than enough
resources to put in place measures to prevent future disasters.
In occupying the niche, the research will build on previous research and determine the
necessary action ideally. My research process will determine whats already being done, why its
not working, and how we collectively can work together to rectify the issues at hand. A
significant amount of existing laws and codes demonstrate stringent standards as documented by
the Cornell University page, and it acts as a reference database for this project (Cornell 427).
Engineering technology and practice is at the cutting edge today, and structures are being
redesigned and renovated already according to Miller (Miller 1). This source provides insight on
how just one company describes the background behind a bridge rehabilitation. The department
of transportation article referenced shows the supporting data behind the state of bridges that are
documented as not in ideal condition, and gives worrying concrete statistics that highlight the
size of this specific issue: current bridge safety condition in the United States. Augustines
article gives vital background on public perception of engineering and its progressive ethics. The
HI-STAK case study provides critical background on the possibility of dangerous failure in the
professional environment due to engineering mistakes. The source provides ethical background
in the handling of the injury of the victim. All of these sources form the basis for which this
paper can rely in evaluation of the necessity for change. The research questions eventually set
about to answer are: what are the reasons for failures continuing to occur in this present day, is
there a general inherent issue causing these failures, and can all failures be prevented in the
future/what must be done to achieve this?
Research Proposal

Vilece 3

The contemporary bridge failures that occur are the basis for public debate for the need
for change. Some believe the field is satisfactory the way it is/is heading. Some believe its not
satisfactory but believe not much can be done to improve these shortcomings given current
resources/technology. Some maintain that no bridge failure should ever occur and that much
needs to be done before the state of safety practice can be labeled as acceptable. Interviewees
generally believe that more should be done but they also indicate that they do not fear bridges
and do not expect any they encounter to be unsafe. So as with other freak accidents, some do not
give it thought until a failure happens. This reflects my own experience as well.
My research topic is to determine the areas needed for improvement, the bear minimum
change needed, how to best get these changes implemented, and where the field will be with and
without those changes. The question is: will it be realistic to expect these changes to eventually
happen, and will the worlds population accept the fate of society should these changes not
occur?
My audience is the TED audience in within the ENC 1102 class. Every group will likely
benefit from my paper, be it non engineering majors being reassured that there are engineers who
care about public safety, or engineering majors who can get inspiration to work together to enact
the proposed changes or start their own movements within the field or other fields. Everyone
wants to feel safe, and some may even be inspired enough to start a real movement.
Research for this project is from multiple areas: scholarly, internet, field research
(interviews and more) and possibly other types if I find it necessary/beneficial. The topic at hand
will not be done justice without evaluating a multitude of information and data from these
sources. The information already found has led to the realization that a lot is already being done
to accomplish the end result of this project, and that if a real change for the better is to occur,

Vilece 4

then clever/radical development is needed. The source types include internet articles and
information, professionals, case studies and occurrence examples, journals, select individuals
from the general public, and more. The formatting option chosen is MLA.
Research Map
The research questions we are asking and intend to answer make explicit the exposition
above. The preliminary plan for research can be understood from all of the above information.
We are concerned with the causes for the most recent bridge failures, why they were not
prevented, and what can be done to avoid failures in the future. What developments in standards
and technology will improve safety if no improvement happens besides these developments?
These are the most important things to answer and should be the focus when developing the
whole piece. They should be kept in mind when analyzing the project post completion.
Keywords to keep in mind and build on are: six sigma standardization, tolerance, fatigue
criterion, creep, and class interval. These will be evaluated alongside the questions and general
information flow in this project.
The main takeaways from whats already been done in regard to the object of inquiry are
that information on the general practice and standards for building and maintaining/checking
existing structures has been explored and personal interviews have been conducted. These
interviews gave insight into what goes on in the mind of everyday people when it comes to
bridges and their failures and what they think is being done and what should be done. More
research will be done as well as interviews that will ask what people think can and should be
done, and how changes can be implemented to make a better and safer future in regards to this
specific issue. The research that will be conducted will determine a broader and denser
background on ethics, possible routes to improvement from different angles, and much more.

Vilece 5

The exigence for parallel and tangential research continues to appear through the research
process.
The obstacles that likely lie ahead are the inability to get a good consensus of major
public opinion through interviews. This means that the face to face interviews must work hand
in hand with the information found from the other source types that concern the same area.
Finding similar work has and will be highly beneficial in completing the goals for this piece as
well as getting inspiration to see the issue from a different perspective or explore other areas that
I did not think to cover in this project.
The main places that will answer my questions or show me that my questions are not
completely applicable to the current status within the field are books, journals and internet
documentation/articles regarding the specifics of the research in question. The background of all
the above information shows that I will be able to present a wide range of evidence to develop
my argument. The sources utilized (in the annotated bibliography and some that arent as of this
moment) have already lead the tone and aim in a distinct direction and this will help build on the
main issues that ae to be covered. The information already found has helped me plan how I am
to propose a better approach to improving the safety of structures and the processes in validating
existing ones.

The deadlines for assignments in this class are as follows:

March: 23: Final Draft Research Dossier. 30: Workshop Draft Rhetorical Analysis. 31: PeerReview Workshop 2.
April: 4: Pitch your TED Talk. 7: Final Draft Rhetorical Analysis. 11: Workshop Draft 1
Research Paper. 12: Peer-Review Workshop Draft 1 Research Paper. 13: Workshop Draft 2

Vilece 6

Research Paper. 15: All interviews should be complete. 18: Workshop Draft 3 Research Paper.
19: Peer-Review Workshop Draft 3 Research Paper. 20: Workshop Draft Self-Assessment /
Reflection. 21: Peer-Review Workshop Draft Self-Assessment /Reflection. 22: Final Draft
Argumentative Research Paper.
May: 3: TED Talks, e-portfolio & Feedback to Research Presentations.
Weekly homework and lab reports, and some projects will also need to fit within these dates.

Annotated Bibliography
Augustine, Norman. Engineers: Public Perception Matters. Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 26 Oct.
2011. Web. 10 Feb. 2016.

Vilece 7

This article gives a background on the public perception of engineers through the eyes of a
former engineering company CEO. The author is an IEEE Life Fellow and Retired Chairman
and CEO of Lockheed Martin. His bias is the result of his position and experiences as a former
CEO of an engineering contracting company. The source itself is a magazine website (forbes)
and therefore credibility is not guaranteed, but the person whom the article came from is credible
as theyre a primary source.

Bansal, Sarika. The Power of Failure. Opinionator The Power of Failure Comments. The New
York Times, 28 Nov. 2012. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

The source is a magazine website and the article is written by a journalist and the credibility is as
such but with an article of this type it is not critical, due to the investigative nature and the article
not presenting any official evidence based opinions or other things of the sort. The background
given in this article describes the effects of failure in a general sense and not limited to
engineering related. The journalist has written articles for the NY times, Forbes, etc. and focuses
on social innovation and global health issues.

Bowen, W. Richard. Engineering Ethics. [Electronic Resource] : Outline Of An Aspirational

Vilece 8

Approach. n.p.: London : Springer, c2009., 2009. UCF Libraries Catalog. Web. 10 Mar.
2016.

This piece gives an aspirational approach to engineering practice and ethics and therefore
helps my purpose and draws parallel with the mindset I carry in doing this project.
The author is an engineer and the nature of the author and source (primary) gives an acceptable
level of credibility considering the information to be taken from it. This citation comes directly
from the UCF libraries website as it instructs the user to cite.

BRIDGE SAFETY STANDARDS." LII / Legal Information Institute.

Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

This source contains descriptions of many laws pertaining specifically to bridge building and
maintenance/inspection. The source is the law school of Cornell University, and this speaks
enough about the credibility and bias of the source.

"THE CASE OF THE LAKEWOOD "HI-STAK"" Department of Philosophy and Department of

Mechanical Engineering. Texas A&M University, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

This article provides a case where an engineered system failed and injured a worker. It contains
documented facts and objective analysis/evaluation. There is not bias represented in the article
that attempts to sway the readers towards anything in particular, as the source solely attempts to
provide the details behind the situation for the potential readers. This article is useful to evaluate

Vilece 9

real world ethics especially in a case where an engineering company deals with its own failure
that caused bodily harm. The source is credible as its the Texas A&M University.

"Engineering Ethics Cases." Online Ethics. University of Washington, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

This source provides a case study of an engineer that was put through a difficult situation and
evaluates the ethical action taken by him. There is no bias behind the article itself, or the authors
who made judgements within the article. It is based upon engineering codes and action
standards. The source is the University of Washington and is therefore credible considering the
content of the source.

Miller, Beth. "Brooklyn Bridge Rehabiliation." Skanska. Skanska, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

This source describes renovation of a bridge and the overview from an engineering
construction company about the project. There is no bias due to the nature of the information,
and the source is a construction company who does building construction and therefore is
credible to speak on the content of the article.

"Road and Bridge Data by State." Department of Transportation. U.S. Department of

Transportation, 9 July 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

Vilece 10

This article provides statistics on structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges within
the country and highlights the essence of the issue this research is concerned with, citing
thousands per state and significant percentages within each state that fall within those two
categories. The source is the US Department of Transportation and they are credible because
they are responsible for reporting the determined numbers of these bridges. There is likely little
bias as the bridges are measured against standards and reported on their passing or failure to
meet these standards.

"Engineering Ethics." Engineering Ethics and Philosophy. Royal Academy of Enigneering, n.d.
Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
This source contains the theoretical background that the engineering field should live by, and
gives significant insight considering the rest of the information found from the other sources in
relation to the actual status of ethical practice within the field, and an optimal and desirable
status thereof. Bias does not apply to this information presented by the Royal Academy of
Engineering.

Srinivasan, Vasudevan, and Gary Halada. Learning from Failure: Engineering Disasters.
Learning from Failure: Engineering Disasters. Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.

This article gives background on the nature and reason of failures in engineering and gives
background to failures as they relate to ethics.

Vilece 11

The authors are part of a university and this source is directly from the engineering department
of that university, therefore credibility is present.

"Lessons From the Failure of a Great Machine." Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Washington State
Department of Transportaton, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.

This source contains background on the Tacoma narrows bridge failure. The credible source is
the Washington State department of transportation website and bias is nonexistent considering
the nature of this piece.