Professional and Career Topics

A recent set of articles* in the Source got me to thinking - how do we, as design professionals, decide where we draw the line on risk with new/uncommon technology? When there is a failure with known deviations from the plans, do we jump to staying away from specifying that product in the future? 

It seems that when there are failures with a newer or less common product/method, it is easy to suggest avoiding those. But, we don't seem to take that same approach when something common (like reinforced concrete) fails due to plan deviations. At some point in history, reinforced concrete was probably seen as a risky, newfangled material that no one knew how to install as well as the old ways.

How do we find that line between avoiding new products/methods to reduce liability and embracing the developments to improve/expand the possibilities? Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?

*

Part 1 - "Warning: Underground plastic stormwater detention systems"

Part 2 - "Responsibility when specifying engineered products"

------------------------------
Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------

Thanks Heidi!

Q. "Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?"

A. Absolutely!

Its been quite awhile since I did "Honest Engineering Work" but I recall some time ago when

manufacture's sales folks were pushing for new water line pipe materials that were lighter to install, and less expensive than traditional pipe materials.

I recall they started their sales campaign by going to municipal clients of engineers, and telling them they had to get their engineers to get with these new materials.

Perhaps another engineer might recall this; may have been the early emergence of asbestos pipe.

Of course, I may be wrong.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
------------------------------

Apology Heidi,

but the materials for the "New Pipe" may have been PVC.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 11-11-2024 11:37 AM
From: William Hayden
Subject: Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Thanks Heidi!

Q. "Are there extra steps to take when specifying new products/methods to mitigate the risks of failure?"

A. Absolutely!

Its been quite awhile since I did "Honest Engineering Work" but I recall some time ago when

manufacture's sales folks were pushing for new water line pipe materials that were lighter to install, and less expensive than traditional pipe materials.

I recall they started their sales campaign by going to municipal clients of engineers, and telling them they had to get their engineers to get with these new materials.

Perhaps another engineer might recall this; may have been the early emergence of asbestos pipe.

Of course, I may be wrong.

Cheers,

Bill

------------------------------
William M. Hayden Jr., Ph.D., P.E., CMQ/OE, F.ASCE
Buffalo, N.Y.

"It is never too late to be what you might have been." -- George Eliot 1819 - 1880
------------------------------

Deploying new technology is a challenge, particularly in the built environment, where decade-long life spans need to be achieved, and the cost of replacement or repair if the technology fails can be daunting. You might consider reposting and asking for examples or case studies of where new technologies have been successfully deployed and the derisking strategy used to develop confidence in the product's ultimate use. At a minimum, clients need to know when new technology is being used on their projects and how the risks have been mitigated. It's all about everyone having their eyes wide open.

------------------------------
Mitch Winkler P.E.(inactive), M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------

I believe there are extra steps we, as licensed engineers, should take.  When you have "PE" after your name, the public is placing their trust in you to look out for their best interest.  That includes doing your due diligence to satisfy yourself that the product meets the needs of the public for serviceability, reliability and longevity.  The public is putting its trust in the PE, not the manufacturer's representative.  

------------------------------
Stacey Morris P.E., M.ASCE
ETI Corporation
West Memphis AR
------------------------------

Heidi

Here is another question that may additional background to the answer what work is required to use new materials or approaches in engineering. 

What type of firms allow additional time spent by employees to justify using new materials or technics? 

My experience is that larger "engineering " firms are usually businesses that happen to do engineering while often smaller firms are more innovative work because they do engineering and happen to be businesses.  Yes additional time has to be spent to do the background work in checking new materials or technologies.  The unfortunate part is often clients do not want to pay for that work to be done and you can not make the business case to do the extra work.  The extra work if done is because of the people's love for engineering excellence.  Very rarely do novel or award winning projects lead to business successes.  

------------------------------
David Thompson P.E., M.ASCE
Principal
KTA Structural Engineers Ltd.
Calgary AB
------------------------------