ETHICS
CHAPTER 12
CASE STUDY 12.5
UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO SEALED DRAWINGS
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Professional engineer Gamma is a
consultant in private practice. A contractor hires Gamma to design and analyze
the scaffolding and forms needed for a reinforced concrete bridge. The
scaffolding must sustain about 1,400 tonnes of concrete while the concrete
cures.
The construction contract requires the
structural engineer of record (SER)-the senior engineer, who designed the
bridge, to approve the scaffold design.
Engineer Gamma prepares the drawings electronically and seals the model file by
scanning a professional seal and signature. Gamma then transmits the model file
(drawings and certification) to the contractor for approval by the SER.
The contractor later hires engineer Gamma
to inspect the completed scaffold structure prior to pouring the concrete. Gamma
is surprised to see that the design has been changed.
The scanned seal was not secure, and the
contractor made several major revisions to the design before submitting the
drawings to the SER. The contractor explains that an unexpected obstacle prevented
the scaffold from being built as originally designed.
Without further calculations, Gamma
cannot say whether the modified design is safe, and a strength check might take
a few days as Gamma is busy on another assignment. The contractor is also under
a tight schedule; concrete will start arriving in 48 hours.
Gamma knows that the delay will be costly
to the contractor and feels an obligation because of their previously excellent
professional relationship. The contractor suggests that perhaps the strength
check is unnecessary, since the SER approved the drawings.
QUESTIONS
Was it acceptable for the contractor to change the design without Gamma's
permis- sion? Was it proper for Gamma to transmit the model file with an
insecure seal? Does SER approval exempt Gamma from further responsibility? If
not, what should Gamma do?
CHAT GPT Solution
This case is mainly about professional
seals, unauthorized changes, responsibility for engineering work, and public
safety.
First,
what happened?
Gamma was hired by a contractor to
design temporary scaffolding/forms for a concrete bridge.
The scaffolding has to support about
1,400 tonnes of wet concrete while it hardens. So failure could be
catastrophic.
Gamma designed it and sent the
electronic drawings to the contractor with Gamma's scanned professional seal
and signature.
The contractor then changed
Gamma's design significantly, but Gamma's seal remained on the drawings.
Later, Gamma visits the site and
discovers:
“This isn't the structure I designed.”
Gamma does not know whether the
modified structure is safe without doing new calculations.
The contractor says:
“Don't worry. The senior structural
engineer (SER) already approved the drawings.”
And concrete is coming in 48
hours.
1.
Could the contractor change Gamma's design
without permission?
No. ❌
Why?
The contractor should not make major
engineering changes to Gamma's sealed design while continuing to represent
it as Gamma's professional work.
The changed design is no longer the
design that Gamma analyzed and certified.
Imagine Gamma calculated:
Design A → SAFE
The contractor changes it to:
Design B → UNKNOWN
Gamma's original calculations cannot
automatically prove that Design B is safe.
2.
Was Gamma right to send an
electronic file with an insecure scanned seal?
No. ❌
This is another important lesson.
Gamma simply scanned the
professional seal and signature into an editable electronic file.
That allowed someone else to:
change the engineering design →
leave Gamma's seal attached → make the changed drawings appear to have been
approved by Gamma.
A professional must maintain control
and security over their seal.
The seal effectively communicates:
“I take professional responsibility
for this engineering work.”
Gamma should therefore have used an
appropriate secure method that prevented unauthorized use or modification of
the sealed engineering document.
3.
The
SER approved the changed drawings. Does that remove Gamma's responsibility?
No. ❌
This is probably the most important part
of the question.
The contractor argues:
“The SER approved it, so you don't
need to check it.”
Gamma cannot rely on that.
Gamma has now personally observed
that:
- the structure differs
materially from Gamma's design;
- Gamma's seal was associated
with a design Gamma did not approve; and
- Gamma cannot presently
determine whether the modified structure can safely carry
1,400 tonnes of concrete.
The SER's approval does not permit
Gamma to ignore a known potential safety problem.
4.
What should Gamma do?
Gamma should not approve the
scaffold for the concrete pour until the modified design has been properly
analyzed and confirmed safe.
The contractor might say:
“But concrete arrives in 48 hours!”
Gamma's response professionally has
to be:
“I cannot certify this structure
until its safety has been verified.”
Gamma should obtain the modified
design, perform—or arrange for—a proper structural analysis, and determine
whether the actual scaffold is safe.
If it takes several days, the
concrete pour may have to be delayed.
Yes, that could cost the contractor
money.
But:
Schedule and cost do not override
safety.
Gamma should also formally document
the unauthorized modifications and address the improper continued use of
Gamma's seal on altered work.
What
about their “excellent professional relationship”?
That's deliberately included to
tempt you.
Gamma thinks:
“This contractor has always been
good to me. I don't want to cause them financial trouble.”
But professional friendship or
loyalty cannot override engineering safety.
Remember:
Contractor relationship <
schedule < cost < PUBLIC SAFETY
More precisely, public safety is
paramount.
NPPE memory
This case can be remembered with
four points:
Unauthorized design change → ❌
Insecure professional seal → ❌
“Another engineer approved it” →
does not erase Gamma's known safety concern ❌
Unknown structural safety → verify
before concrete pour ✅
The strongest clue is 1,400
tonnes of concrete.
If Gamma cannot determine whether the modified
scaffold can safely carry that load, Gamma cannot simply say, “The SER
signed off, so it's no longer my problem.”
AUTHORS' SUGGESTED SOLUTION
This case involves several ethical issues. Improper use of a
professional seal is a serious offence. The contractor acted illegally by
changing Gamma's design before submitting it to the SER for approval and could
be charged under the Act.
The contractor's suggestion to skip the strength check is unacceptable.
Although the SER is the final authority, the SER relies on other registered professionals
to take responsibility for components.
The SER reviews the components for obvious flaws and
incorporates their effects into the design.
The SER would not duplicate or update Gamma's analysis, so
the strength of the modified scaffold is unknown, and pouring the concrete
could be dangerous to workers and the public.
Under the Code of Ethics, safety must take priority, so Gamma must notify the
contractor immediately, in writing, that the contractor must not pour the
concrete until Gamma can re-check the scaffold design for safety.
Gamma should complete the strength analysis as quickly as
possible, but the contractor must not pour the concrete until the scaffold is
shown to be safe, even if the 48-hour deadline is missed. Although the contractor
is basically at fault, Gamma's reputation may also suffer if inadequate
security of the scanned seal is deemed to be negligence.
Gamma should have exercised
tighter control over the model file and seal. Newer design software permits
professionals to electronically store, transmit, and sign electronic documents,
securely. The software involves encryption and requires an annual subscription
fee.
Temporary structures occasionally collapse because they were not properly
analyzed, as the collapse of the temporary supports for the Vancouver Second
Narrows Bridge illustrates. (Read the case history in Chapter 11.)
No comments:
Post a Comment