WEEK I – Subject/Course Overview and Requirements

WEEK 2 – Introduction to Civil Engineering as a Bachelor Program and as a

Profession
Bachelor's degree - Post-secondary degree awarded to an individual after completion
of undergraduate course work usually taking eight semesters and 120 credits to
complete. Course work for bachelor's degrees is done at the undergraduate level and
is made up of general studies and major specific classes. Bachelor's degrees are
awarded in specific concentrations and are built on the Bachelor of Science, Bachelor
of Arts, or Bachelor of Fine Arts foundations. Individuals pursue bachelor's degrees to
further their education and career advancement. A bachelor's degree may also be
referred to as a baccalaureate.

TUP – Bachelor of Science in Civil Egineering

- Completed 195 units within eight (8) semesters
- Three (3) options professional course
o Specislization : Structural Engineering
o Specislization : Construction Engineering and Management
o Specislization : Water Resources Engineering

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bachelors-degree.html

Civil Engineering Profession

Civil engineers are highly trained professionals that provide technical services
throughout the world. Civil engineers are needed in big cities and small towns, working
in both the government and private sectors. Within the profession are several major
disciplines, summarized below.

WEEK 3 – Civil Engineering Discipline and Its Fields of Specialization

Major Disciplines Within Civil Engineering

Transportation Engineering

Transportation engineers work to develop transportation systems that safely and

efficiently move people and goods. Transportation engineers design highways and
roads in both urban and rural areas and manage traffic systems to keep operations
functioning effectively. They also plan rail, air and waterway transportation systems.
Transportation engineers develop and incorporate new technologies to improve
transportation and maintain safety.

Geotechnical Engineering

Because nearly all of the built environment is ultimately supported by the ground,
geotechnical engineers are needed to apply their knowledge of soil and rock
mechanics in all civil engineering design. Work performed by geotechnical engineers
includes performing site investigations, designing shallow and deep foundations,
evaluating slope stability, conducting and overseeing materials testing, planning
tunnels, and designing soil/rock and other ground improvements.

Structural Engineering

Structural engineers apply scientific principles to design building, bridges and other
structures to withstand the forces of nature and protect human safety. Structural
engineers are knowledgeable of how structures and materials behave under loads.
They design structures to perform their intended functions and be economical within
the constraints of building code requirements. Structural engineers typically design
structures made of reinforced concrete, structural steel and wood.

Environmental/Water Resources Engineering

Environmental engineers apply a vast range of technical knowledge to protect the

environment from human activities and maintain public health. The work of
environmental engineers includes the design of water treatment and wastewater
treatment plants, development of systems for handling non-hazardous and hazardous
wastes, development of pollution control measures and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Water resources engineers are involved in the planning and management of facilities
used to supply and transport water used for municipal, agricultural and industrial
activities. In addition, water resources engineers develop facilities and methods to
capture and store water from storms while avoiding and/or minimizing flooding.
CIVIL ENGINEERS of all disciplines can be found in companies and organization of
all sizes, in urban and rural settings, and in civilian, military, or government roles.

WEEK 4 – History of Civil Engineering

https://civilengineerthoughts003.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-history-of-civil-
engineering.html#.XUqeUOgzbIU

WEEKS 5 & 6 –Civil Engineering and Society and Other Profession

The role of the civil engineer in society: engineering ethics and major projects
By Prof Richard Ashley
Richard Ashley is a Professional Civil and Environmental Engineer, Director of
EcoFutures Ltd (http://www.ecofutures.eu/), Professor of Urban Water & former
Managing Director of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
funded multi-disciplinary Platform Centre, the Pennine Water Group (PWG) at the
University of Sheffield.
Introduction
A call was made by Prince Charles in his sustainability lecture (NCE, 2012) to revisit
the definition of civil engineering especially as he saw the profession playing a crucial
role in tackling future challenges such as climate change. It is now timely for
professional civil engineers to not be afraid to say what they really think to government,
clients and employers. The Profession firstly serves mankind and everything we do
needs to take a global perspective. However, personal fears may be inhibiting an
ethical stance for many.
Economic constraints and local interests have made it much more difficult for many
civil engineering professionals to adhere to the clear ethical principles of formulation
and adherence to a set of values or beliefs; a core component of social and technical
progress (Hodgkinson & Sohail, 2003). In this the individual needs to subscribe to the
corporate ethic, i.e. for the purposes of this discussion the rules, principles and codes
which are built around and define the ethics of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
irrespective of the individuals’ employment or professional practice position. All
professionals should regularly consider the ethics of their position and the work they
are involved in (Fan, 2003). Professional challenges, disagreements, dichotomies and
dilemmas are inevitable and taking an ethical view can help inform decision-making
and be the source of technological development rather than a constraint (van den
Hoven et al, 2012).
The Civil Engineers’ work is defined by boundaries. Nowadays the two most important
of these boundaries are: (i) the working boundary, as an employee or self-employed
professional practitioner, and; (ii) the job boundary, where the scope, scale and overall
physical and temporal boundaries of the work in hand are set. In the working context,
the professional, however engaged, has a duty to comply with the ethical and conduct
standards set by the Institution (ICE, 2004; 2008) and have regard for the wider
standards expected notably by the Engineering Council. A challenging requirement is
that for the professional ‘to only perform services in areas of current competence’
(Royal Academy of Engineering, 2011); especially where there is innovation that
inherently brings new risks and uncertainties into the work.
There is a third boundary, that related to the information made available to the client
and how it may be constrained or presented in a particular way and to whom. In an
open system the information about the scheme, both locally and in a wider context
would be made available to the paying client and to society as a whole. Professionals
have a difficult task in deciding what information and how best to make this available
in a way that can best be understood in an increasingly complex world where non-
experts are struggling with the rapidly increasing body of knowledge held by
increasingly polarised experts who in turn, frequently disagree about the best course
of action (Naustdalslid, 2012; Laws & Loeber, 2010). This is a paradox, given
humanity’s growing ability to manipulate and change natural systems and requires
professionals who can recognise these challenges and rise above often too locally
focussed stakeholder interests.
The use of sophisticated computer models is perhaps the greatest change in the
engineers’ practice in the past few decades and making the functioning and results
from these models clear to clients, together with the correct range of uncertainties in
the analysis, is a major challenge when sharing information. This can lead to decision
making that is sometimes misguided where the form and amounts of information
provided have not been the most appropriate. This is illustrated by the use of sewer
flow and quality models to decide upon large investments in cleaning up polluting
discharges into the environment. These models typically have a precision of within
some 20% when applied to flow rates and volumes, but are inaccurate when
considering pollutant loads, with uncertainties ranging up to 200%, with one
commentator (Willems, 2008) suggesting that a random number generator would be
just as useful. In England, consultants, regulators and sewerage undertakers rarely if
ever acknowledge these uncertainties, which with a changing climate can only become
greater in the future (Schellart et al, 2010). There is a general need to reframe how
such uncertainties are handled and presented professionally if they are to be coped
with appropriately in terms of the big challenges ahead (Brugnach et al, 2008).
Whether or not the professional is an employee, as a professional, any service should
be delivered with integrity to ensure that the clients’ needs are met in the best way
possible; but at the same time to guide the client to understand better what is really
needed to solve a problem and take advantage of opportunities. At times this may
mean that the needs of the employer, where the professional is employed by a private
or public organization, have to be subordinated in the best interests of the client. A
professional in such a position has to try to ensure that the immediate client (their
employer) and the project client are both served well by their work as a professional.
Ideally this should also serve the needs of society. They also need to be able to argue
persuasively for their views and deal with the dilemmas arising from alternative views
and interests (Laws & Loeber, 2010).
In the early days of civil engineering as a profession, engineers were often promoters
of projects themselves, being responsible for fund raising and gaining political
acceptance for a scheme, thus serving the role of both client and professional in
‘progressing’ society, where virtually any civil engineering works were clearly of benefit
to the wider social good. The boundary question arising from this is ‘who is the client’?
When Tredgold in 1828 defined civil engineering at the time of the establishment of
the Institution he was taking a visionary stance that demonstrated the vital role civil
engineering endeavour had for mankind, as “A Society for the general advancement
of Mechanical Science, and more particularly for promoting the acquisition of that
species of knowledge which constitutes the profession of a Civil Engineer; being the
art of directing the great sources of power in Nature for the use and convenience of
man, as the means of production and of traffic in states, both for external and internal
trade, as applied in the construction of roads, bridges, aqueducts, canals, river
navigation, and docks, for internal intercourse and exchange; and in the construction
of ports harbours, moles, breakwaters, and lighthouses, and in the art of navigation by
artificial power, for the purposes of commerce; and in the construction and adaptation
of machinery, and in the drainage of cities and towns”[1].
Prince Charles’ 2012 sustainability lecture (NCE, 2012) underlined the urgency of
acknowledging and acting differently to address today’s and future challenges and
suggested that ICE had a central role in this but needed to refine its’ charter to alter
how civil engineering professionals see their role in order to align more with working
with the environment rather than ‘directing’ it. Especially as many historical civil
engineering projects had been deleterious to the environment, using up precious non-
renewable resources, and creating climate changing wastes: “engineers must realise
the importance of using lower carbon materials and more natural techniques”. The
view for a need to subtly change what civil engineering is had previously been
expressed in a 2003 ICE Council Task Group, where ‘directing’ was recommended to
be replaced with ‘working with’ and the word ‘society’ replacing ‘man’ in the Tredgold
definition. The sustainability charter (2003) and a revised definition of civil engineering
by Council in 2007 as “a vital art, working with the great sources of power in nature for
the wealth and well-being of the whole of society” indicated an emphasis on the
societal and environmentally sympathetic nature of civil engineering’s mission. The
Engineering Council, in their inter-institutional guidance on sustainability (Bogle, 2010)
re-emphasise the ethical dimension to engineering endeavours and state six principles
(engineers should):
a) Contribute to building a sustainable society, present and future;
b) Apply professional and responsible judgement and take a leadership role;
c) Do more than just comply with legislation and codes;
d) Use resources efficiently and effectively;
e) Seek multiple views to solve sustainability challenges;
f) Manage risk to minimize adverse impact to people or the environment
The guidance (Engineering Council, 2009) further elaborates on each principle. For
example, (b) includes requirements for the engineer to: look at the broad picture; be
prepared to influence the decision-maker for a project; identify options that take
account of global, economic, social and environmental outcomes; ensure that the
solutions and options are offered that will contribute to sustainability; be aware that
there are inherently conflicting and unmeasurable aspects of sustainability. Such
definitions, ranging from the fundamental tenets of civil engineering through to a new
view of engineering as a whole based on contemporary understanding of today’s
science and society’s needs, clearly place the boundary of civil engineering
endeavours as widely as possible no matter what the scheme. Nowhere in the
statements of principle, ethical considerations or other guidance is the definition of the
‘client’ constrained to mean the boundaries of the job in hand; rather it is clear that the
proper boundary is society and the environment as a whole.
Unfortunately, for many civil engineering employees especially in large organisations,
their ability to apply these principles is defined by their employer, who may also be a
public body, rather than the wider world or their own understanding of professional
ethics. The art of corporate social responsibility may or may not serve the same
principles as the professional civil engineer, as employer organisations in themselves
serve many masters, not least shareholders (Barry, 2003).
There can be major tensions as a result of the need to balance professional activities
between the various boundaries constraining, yet at the same time opening up, the
range of activities within which civil engineering endeavours are carried out – e.g.
designs for a new motorway bridge need to consider both the details of the bridge itself
in terms of strength, materials etc. and also at the same time, the wider implications
of traffic use in the future as well as the construction use and potential depletion of
resources and emission of greenhouse gases, as a wider more globally impacting
consideration. However, depending on the clients’ brief, whether or not there is the
need for the bridge in the first place may or may not be considered within a wider
societal and environmental perspective. Yet, it seems that civil engineers are mostly
able to balance their activities successfully avoiding transgressions of the codes of
ethics and professional conduct, especially where the professional is working for a
large organisation. McGowan (2012) reported that the majority of those found guilty of
professional misconduct by the Professional Conduct Panel of ICE were either
individual practitioners or part of a small consultancy and that the misdemeanours
concerned inadequate client communication or not keeping up to date as regards
practice. Given the complexity of today’s world and how best to ‘work with the great
sources of power in nature for the wealth and well-being of the whole of
society’ envisaged for each and every civil engineering scheme, it is surprising that
more members of the Institution are not adjudged of misconduct or at least of not
performing ‘services in areas of current competence’.
The ethical challenge
Engineers have long been proud that they do what anyone can, but they do it better,
more efficiently and more cost-effectively. Civil engineers rightly can claim a special
place in ‘directing the great forces of nature for the benefit of mankind’. Self-evidently
the works done by our forebears almost always benefitted mankind, in the widest
sense as well as benefiting the immediate client (the one who paid). Definitions of civil
engineering also include references to ‘problem-solving’[2] often resulting in a
preoccupation with ‘problems’ rather than opportunities by engineers. Maximising the
benefits and solving problems seem to be good definitions of what civil engineers
actually do.
Nowadays, perhaps more than in the recent past, the multiplicity of professions
involved in infrastructure and the built environment requires a new way of collaborating
and even a new type of engineer. The current problems and opportunities that go with
this require a move away from the traditional engineering reductionism of complex
phenomena into simple constituent elements in order for society to apply traditional
engineering skills to find practical solutions to problems in nature such as climate
change. Recognising the importance of the interface between nature and society has
never been more important than it is now and recent ideas and guidance about
ecosystem services are helping with this (e.g. Everard, 2011). The new, or perhaps
restated, boundaries to engineering need to help professionals move away from the
traditional engineering technocratic perspective in order to include a wider range of
knowledge, especially concerning societal values and interests (Naustdalislid, 2012).
In the past, large infrastructural schemes were appropriate in which ‘big’ engineering
converted natural resources into useful artefacts and services. Now, minimisation of
the use of resources is essential as is reduction of emissions of any sort. Such moves
also require the embracement of the wider principles of engineering ethics to ensure
societal and environmental needs are fully met. Is it for example, enough to devise
solutions to problems that do not ensure that as wide as possible benefits and
opportunities for society and the environment are embraced, if that is what the client
wants? The presence of compelling legislation or regulations should not constrain the
professional engineer from doing things differently, ((c) in the introduction) although
concerns about innovations and their efficacy can rightly inhibit recklessness ((f) in the
introduction).
The perceived sustainability of organisations themselves can constrain innovation and
the use of wider boundaries in engineering. When moving from one regime to the next
in terms of innovations in practice, it is not sufficient just to challenge the technological
paradigms; the institutions and the governance arrangements that deliver the
supplanted practices are also likely to need to be changed as well (Brown et al, 2011).
In the water industry, the stationary design and operational assumptions, related to
historically slowly changing external drivers (Milly et al, 2008) and the continuing
investments underpinning the large technical systems (asset management) provide
inevitable conditions for ‘technological entrapment’ (Walker, 2000) or ‘lock-in’ to
perpetuating their use as the perceived ‘common-sense’ approach; one enshrined in
institutional cultures, such as held by the Environment Agency in England (Palmer,
2000).
Examples of ethical dilemmas – or simply healthy professional disagreement
There is some evidence that today’s civil engineers are providing services to clients
with only limited challenges to the scope of the brief or are encouraging over-
engineering and not delivering value for money; clear examples of unethical behaviour
if true. Many schemes serve single outcomes for society, unlike the Dutch Room for
the River programme, where investing in ‘quality’ of the environment is an integral part
of the process of increasing the conveyance of river flows across the country (van
Herk et al, 2012).
Recent examples of potential complaints about unprofessional practices include
concerns about over-engineering of the completed A46 Newark to Widmerpool
improvement (Greenwood, 2012) and the proposed New Wear Bridge in Sunderland
(Wynne, 2012) and the viability and advisability of the proposed HS2 rail link (The
Economist, 2012). For every concerned correspondent there are invariably a number
of supporters of these schemes. While there will always be professional
disagreements about the best option to fulfil a particular societal need, it is the ethical
duty of all professionals to provide advice and information that is impartial, well-
balanced and using the best available knowledge. Civil engineers’ involvement in
these and other schemes usually begins only once the project has been decided upon
and not at the inception when it is decided whether or not the project is needed at all.
With the advent of the new National Planning Policy Framework 2012 in England, the
streamlining of the planning process is likely to result in fewer challenges to big
schemes (an intention of DCLG), seemingly contrary to the promotion of localism
through the Localism Act 2011. Should professional engineers then simply press on
with designing the best scheme for a client where there are clear flaws in the original
definition of the needs and requirements? Taking a societal stance, perhaps the
original definitions need to be reconsidered and an alternative approach developed to
fulfil the original need. Many of these schemes are claimed to be ‘spending of money
beyond all sense’ providing very limited benefits (Jenkins, 2012).
Big infrastructure schemes are seen as the bread and butter of civil engineering and
invariably as “vital to the Nation’s future” (Oliver, 2012). Principally, HS2 has been
lauded by the Secretary of State for Transport (NCE, 2012a) as building on the
Victorian railway legacy similarly to the plans for the proposed Thames Tideway
Tunnels, where the legacy of Joseph Bazalgette’s intercepting sewers in London has
been used to promote the tunnels and for which the recently returned Mayor of London
stated that “future generations of Londoners will thank us for taking forward this bold
vision” (Water Active, 2008). How a ‘bold vision’ can be seen to come out of an
approach used 150 years ago is confounding. Elsewhere in the world, a green
infrastructure approach is being taken wherever possible (e.g. in Philadelphia, Ashley
et al, 2011) keeping storm water on the surface as far as practicable and recognising
it as a resource (Thurston, 2012). This approach has been shown to add considerable
additional benefits to urban life; some $3bn in Philadelphia from using green
infrastructure for 50% of the management of stormwater runoff. Achieving this was not
easy for the professionals concerned (CDM Smith consultants) who had to fight many
battles over more than 5 years to make the regulators and fellow professionals
understand the potential value of taking a green infrastructure approach through
retrofitting across the city. This required significant resourcing and commitment at the
highest level in the City of Philadelphia (Maimone, 2012).
In the London Plan 2011 (GLA, 2011), the Mayor wants to make the city one of the
greenest in the world, yet has failed to make the connection between continuing to
drain the city as it has always been drained by building the new sewer tunnels to take
the runoff, and the need for stormwater to be used on the surface to irrigate the new
green city especially at a time of water stress (Gard, 2012). Greening is not the only
opportunity in London provided by surface water. Blue-green cities where water is
evident help to cope with climate change and provide a wealth of water-related multiple
benefits including place making and quality of life (Digman et al, 2012). Adopting a
Philadelphia style approach in London is said to be too expensive and too difficult and
not ‘common-sense’ (Thames Water, 2011). The old ways are the best ways and ‘we
know they work’. They do when addressing a single problem, but at what costs? We
now know about environmental impacts from big infrastructure and especially about
the causes of climate change which many schemes have contributed to in the past
and traditional practices are known to be unsustainable (White & Howe, 2004). We
also know about the need to maximise value to society in everything a civil engineer
does – surface water can provide significant added value and schemes that address
only single problems as the London sewer tunnels do are no longer affordable. Any
competent professional should be aware of this.
The proposed London sewer tunnels illustrate the complexity of today’s problems and
the divergence in professional opinions as to how best to deal with these; they also
illustrate the conflict between best value for society and the immediate client. In many
ways the proposals are an example of the classical approach to civil engineering
challenges (seen as a problem). The client, Thames Water Utilities is acting on behalf
of a wider client, London and UK society, and also contributing to improvements to the
aquatic environment by minimising the numbers and volumes of combined sewer
overflow (CSO) spills into the River Thames (Thomas & Crawford, 2010). There is a
single problem, the solution to which is to construct new tunnels, mainly beneath the
river bed, to store excess overflow spills, which will then be pumped back up for
treatment. In Bazalgette’s day, the intercepting sewers were self-evidently benefiting
society and these sewers have provided healthy conditions for the populace for
decades, despite the doubters at the time, who were concerned with the centralisation
of sewage management (Allen, 2008; Charles, 2009).
Since the great public health revolution in the mid 1800s, where the key building blocks
of public health engineering were laid down, much knowledge about urban drainage
has been developed and the use of computers has facilitated more detailed analysis
than ever before of the performance of systems (e.g. Butler & Davies, 2011). This has
provided new ideas and also the opportunity to test out, by computer simulation, a
wide range of options (Thomas & Crawford, 2010). At the same time as confidence
has risen regarding the ability to estimate rainfall, the way in which urban hydrology
functions and the potential polluting impacts on receiving waters of urban runoff,
emerging ideas have come to regard all forms of water as potentially beneficial,
especially where climate or weather variability is threatening supply security (e.g.
Howe & Mitchell, 2012). The growing knowledge about climate change is clear that
whilst there may have been a period in history where predictions of the performance
of urban drainage systems could be made with some certainty, this no longer pertains
and past records are scant indications of how rainfall and runoff will behave in the
future (Milly et al, 2008). Therefore professionals are faced with chronic and significant
uncertainties about the future and the way in which any new infrastructure will perform,
just at a time when computer models appear to provide some certainty. There has
never been a more significant period in history where the uncertainty of analysis and
the building in of adaptive flexibility into infrastructure has been more important
(Gersonius et al, 2012). Clearly in Bazalgette’s day there were major uncertainties in
environmental and other factors and good engineering judgement had to be made to
ensure that appropriate safety factors were included. The difference today is that there
is very little time and opportunity to act to avert the coming impacts from climate
change (as stated by Prince Charles) and yet engineers and other professionals are
failing to change the practices fast enough that are known to exacerbate climate
change and which fail to provide the resilience required to reduce future vulnerabilities
in society (Naustdalslid, 2012; Gersonius et al, 2012).
In London the amount of energy needed to pump the 39Mm 3/year of water from the
new sewer tunnels up some 60m is 15,000,000 kWh/year (Thames Water, 2005).
Despite this, no carbon footprint or carbon impact assessment for either the operation
of the tunnels nor for the construction has been undertaken or even required by the
client or by the overseeing department, Defra. This is despite Ofwat’s (the water
industry regulator) requirement for the water companies to report their carbon
footprints for the last asset management planning round in 2010. In 2010, Thames
Water opened a new 140Ml/day desalination plant in London to deal with peak
demands, given the go-ahead following “a victory for common-sense” according to
Thames Water’s chief executive (NCE, 2008).
The construction of the new sewer tunnel and desalination plant, represent a
substantial economic investment, in excess of £4bn capital, a substantial amount
which increases the value of Thames Water’s capital assets and hence their
capitalisation and attractiveness to investors. It ensures future ‘lock-in’ to the use of
these assets, even where the high energy demands of their use are likely to become
untenable for the future generations that the Mayor of London thinks will be
thankful. Resilience and adaptability to climate and other changes requires flexibility,
redundancy and the ability to abandon or ‘transform’ with ‘no regret’ responses that
are not working (Ingham et al, 2007; Blackmore & Plant, 2008). Large infrastructure
projects such as those in process of being built in London may have a place where
the degree of uncertainty about the future is low, but where there is substantial
uncertainty, responses need to be more inherently flexible, utilising a diversity of
responses, with abandonment or significant alteration, a clear option if necessary
(Evans et al, 2008).
This raises the question for London: why is a large sewage storage system being built
at the same time as a desalination plant, when the problem addressed by both is
stormwater? For the tunnel, it is too much stormwater overflowing from the sewerage
system; whereas for the desalination plant it is not enough water? Why not utilise the
stormwater near source to solve both problems as advocated around the world (Centre
for Water Sensitive Cities, 2012)? Ironically the new tunnel will have no benefit for the
increasing flood risk within London and this will require additional measures; proposed
by Thames Water (TW) as yet more large sewers, despite the recognition by others
that new sewers are no longer the answer to this problem (Pitt, 2008; Ofwat, 2009). It
appears that the dominant regimes within which Thames Water and the professionals
involved and the other agencies operate make this approach the ‘common-sense’ one
for all concerned.
It is not only engineers who are faced with potentially conflicting loyalties and interests,
environmentalists in particular have held significant sway over the constraints within
which engineers have had to operate for many years. Recently the anthropogenic
benefits accruing from environmental goods and services (known as ecosystem
services) have been acknowledged and, via a monetisation approach are being used
in benefit-cost evaluations (Everard, 2011). Nonetheless, environmental scientists are
also implicated in failing to take due account of the trade-offs between one
environmental improvement and another consequent impact (e.g. Sarewitz, 2004).
There are ‘tendencies of a bipolar development within the environmental movement’
(Naustdalslid, 2012) where some environmentalists are still pursuing classical issues
and nature protection, whilst others are concerned with the threats of climate change.
Often the activities of the former in addressing single issue environmental protection
policies lead to impacts in terms of adding to the climate change problem.
The Tideway sewer tunnel is an example of this. The Environment Agency set the
standards and targets for compliance with the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive
for the proposed sewer tunnels in London. In a Commission of inquiry (Hammersmith
& Fulham et al, 2011) evidence from the EA provided little scientific and credible
information about the relative amounts of oxygen and bacteriological pollution arising
from the CSO spills, wastewater treatment plant inputs, background diffuse runoff from
roads and other surfaces in London and coming from upstream into the river
reach. Questioning of the EA and Thames Water regarding the wider energy use and
carbon impacts of the tunnel solution went unanswered. At no time were the marginal
benefits of collecting spills from many of the overflows compared with the high
consequent increase in overall scheme costs. Nor were the considerable modeling
uncertainties made clear and linked to the benefit-costs of the scheme. In fact the EA
used an internal verification process to confirm the way in which the final decisions as
to which CSOs needed to be connected into the tunnels, rather than an independent
and publically verifiable process. Therefore, marginal aquatic environmental benefits
obtained by connecting certain overflows are now being implemented at great expense
and have been decided based on imprecise computational models, with no attempt to
illustrate to decision makers the uncertainties and marginality of the value of doing
this. As a result, high energy and carbon in use and embodied in the construction are
adding to the drivers of climate change.
Conclusions
“Given that engineers are… political actors…. the political and economic pressures
that engineers work under have the potential to complicate ethical choices” (Hillier,
2010) expresses a view that professional engineers do have choices. Being a
professional implies responsibility for conduct that extends beyond purely self-interest
(and beyond the interests of the employer when necessary) and beyond the
requirements of legislation or regulation (Fan, 2003). Ethics can be a positive force for
innovation by inspiring a re-shaping of our environment through ‘Value sensitive
design’ to meet conflicting demands and needs (van den Hoven et al, 2012).
In New Orleans, post-Katrina, the US Army Corps of Engineers are rebuilding the
defences much as before the 2005 disaster as there are limited options available
within the regulatory system (Jonkman et al, 2009). Such an approach is hardly an
ethical or professional one and it is arguable that any professional in such a role is no
longer a professional, but rather functioning as a technician (Schon, 1983). It is the
duty of a professional to push the boundaries; to attempt what has not been tried
before unless there is an unacceptable risk in a particular course of action. Even Ofwat
is calling for greater innovation by the water and sewerage companies in England and
Wales (Ofwat, 2012), although whether such innovation is envisaged as going beyond
competition exhortations is doubtful. In any case Ofwat’s approach to ethics falls into
the accounting trap. There is an implicit presumption that where the WaSCs comply
with the key indicators of performance then this de facto is an indication of ethical
compliance in terms of the provision of water services (Cavill & Sohail, 2003).
Framing or habits of reasoning rooted in professional training, experience and in
organizational histories often become established in organisations and the individuals
that work in them (Laws & Loeber, 2011). These established frames (taken for granted
common-sense) are often difficult to reflect on and they define what is normal,
reasonable, feasible and justifiable in practice. Hence this makes it difficult for
individuals to make sense of complex cases and the action required in the novel ways
required to deliver sustainability or at least resilience. Given the multiplicity of other
reasons for promoting schemes such as the Tideway Sewer Tunnels (increased asset
value, capitalisation, profits to bank owners and lack of real financial risks) there is a
difficult task for the professionals involved to promote what are self-evidently more
beneficial solutions that are in fact opportunities to maximise the benefits from seeing
the surface water ‘problem’ as very real ‘opportunities’. Of course the use of SuDS,
the associated costs and uncertainties, the disruption and finally the staged benefits
of gradual implementation are all difficult to quantify (Ashley et al, 2010). But evidence
from many other parts of the world shows that it does work and can bring major
enhancements to the urban environment (Thurston, 2012).
Simple comparators of costs for the mono-problem solution, showing that conventional
sewer storage is cheaper than the limited SuDS options investigated (Thames Water,
2011) fail to take into account the full range of additional benefits from the latter
approach. These benefits will mainly accrue to society as a whole and will take at least
10-20 years to come about. A period during which the gradual introduction of SuDS
can be tested and techniques improved. The latest expectation for completion of the
tunnels follows a similar timescale and delivers no benefits during the period, only the
disbenefits of construction disruption. Following such a course also commits society
to using the tunnels in some 20 years time and beyond, when it may be prohibitively
expensive or climate impacting to require such high energy use.
In recent ICE papers looking to the future, Rogers (2012) argues that civil engineers
have “always addressed the core issues of sustainability, working for society within
the environment to least cost or greatest value”. That may be true in an ideal view of
civil engineering, however, recent evidence outlined in this paper for possible over-
engineering and missing opportunities for making the most of using surface water for
the wider benefit of society, suggest that there are many interpretations of
‘sustainability’ and what ‘greatest value’ may mean in practice. At a time of economic
stringency it is inevitable that a number of professional engineers will find themselves
working as technicians, unable to practice to the breadth and scope of their calling,
and carrying out duties that lead to solutions to problems that are not as sustainable
as they might be. A fear of upsetting employers or powerful clients by expressing
doubts about the scope, direction and scale of a scheme also constrains any
professional concerned about their own personal welfare and future (a moral
dilemma); resulting in the placing of personal interests before society’s; an unethical
stance but one in which the ICE or others are powerless to help. In a second paper,
addressing the future of the ICE (Foulkes, 2012) describes the Institution as highly
traditional and that radically new thinking is demanded to keep up with the demands
of the competitive world; necessitating changes that many members will not be
comfortable with. The new place for the Institution needs to be ‘credible, inspiring and
sustainable’; a vision that requires a restatement of the ICEs’ ethical position and a
grasping of the challenge laid down by Prince Charles to work with rather than
controlling nature. In an increasingly demanding society, members and the Institution
itself will need to be confident in their ethical and moral positions if they are to truly
help society into a sustainable future.
References
Allen M. (2008) Cleansing the city. Ohio University Press. Athens Ohio. ISBN 10:0-
8214-1771-1
Ashley R., Stovin V., Moore S., Hurley L., Lewis L., Saul A. (2010). London Tideway
Tunnels Programme – Thames Tunnel Project Needs Report – Potential source
control and SUDS applications: Land use and retrofit options . (pub. Online as:
Thames Water. 100-RG-PNC-00000-900008 | Summer 2010 Appendix E Potential
Source Control and SUDS Applications. Annex 1: SUDS Evaluation for Example
Areas.
http://www.thamestunnelconsultation.co.uk/consultation-documents.aspx. [accessed
13-10-10])
Ashley R M., Nowell R., Gersonius B., Walker L. (2011). Surface Water Management
and Urban Green Infrastructure. Review of Current Knowledge. Foundation for Water
Research FR/R0014 May. 73pp.
Barry M. (2003) Corporate social responsibility – unworkable paradox or sustainable
paradigm? Proc ICE Engineeering Sustainability 156. Sept Issue ES3 paper 13550. p
129-130
Blackmore J M., Plant R A J. (2008). Risk and resilience to enhance sustainability with
application to urban water systems. J. Water Resources Planning and Management.
ASCE. Vol. 134, No. 3, May.
Bogle D. (2010) UK’s engineering Council guidance on sustainability. Proc ICE
Engineering Sustainability 163. June Issue ES2 p61-63
Brown R R., Ashley R M., Farrelly M. (2011). Political and Professional Agency
Entrapment: An Agenda for Urban Water Research. Water Resources Management.
Vol. 23, No.4. European Water Resources Association (EWRA) ISSN 0920-4741.
Brugnach M., Dewulf A., Pahl-Wostl C., Taillieu T. (2008) Toward a relational concept
of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently and accepting not to
know. Ecology and Society 13 (2) : 30
Butler D., Davies J. (2011). Urban Drainage. Spon. 3rd Ed. ISBN 978-0-415-45526-8
Cavill S., Sohail M. (2003) Accountability in the provision of urban services. Proc. ICE.
Municipal Engineer 156. Issue ME4 paper 13445, p235-244.
Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (2012) Blueprint for a water sensitive city. Monash
Unversity. ISBN 978-1-921912-01-6
Charles J A. (2009) Ribert Rawlinson and the UK public health revolution. Proc ICE
Eng History and Heritage. 162 Nov. Issue EH4. p 199-206

[1] Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) (1870). Minutes of Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers. The Institution. p. 215 note 1.
[2] In Europe, problem solving and creativity are presented as important competencies
in the requirements for European Engineer (Eur. Ing.) designation (FEANI, 2000).

WEEK 7 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

 o Structural Engineering

Structural engineers apply scientific principles to design building, bridges and other
structures to withstand the forces of nature and protect human safety. Structural
engineers are knowledgeable of how structures and materials behave under loads.
They design structures to perform their intended functions and be economical within
the constraints of building code requirements. Structural engineers typically design
structures made of reinforced concrete, structural steel and wood.

Structural engineering focuses on improving how we design and maintain

infrastructure systems. The research spans the fields of civil engineering,
mechanical engineering, and computer science.
Dave Lattanzi, assistant professor and John Toups Faculty Fellow, is pioneering a
technique for bridge inspections using drones and 3-D modeling.

Our research interests include:

Virtual Robotic Bridge Inspection

The research team studies how to convert robotic inspection
information into virtual computer worlds that can be explored by a human
inspector. As robots become a more accepted as infrastructure inspection
tools, we must consider how a human will interact with the information that
robots capture. This is fundamentally a data representation problem. To
solve this problem, we use techniques adapted from computer vision and
virtual reality equipment. We hope this research makes the hazardous job
of bridge inspection safer for a human. Principal investigator: David
Lattanzi.

Structural Evaluation through Computer Vision

After a disaster, such as an earthquake, inspectors must assess the
integrity of all affected structures. Depending on the scale of the disaster,
the number of required inspections can range into the thousands, so rapid
assessments are vital. This project aims to develop a method of assessing
the integrity of civil structures by combining digital image analysis and
artificial intelligence. Fully realized, the proposed technology will enable
post-disaster inspectors to rapidly and accurately estimate structural
damage using only a digital camera and portable computer. Principal
investigator: David Lattanzi.
Associate Professor Girum Urgessa is studying the response of submerged structures
that are subjected to underwater explosions.

Response of Structures Subjected to Explosions

The team investigating the response of structures that are subjected to short-duration
dynamic loads, such as air-blast, impact, fragmentation, and underwater explosion.
Research activities include the use of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composites for
mitigating blast effects on buildings, penetration mechanics of projectiles on
concrete targets, developing predictive capabilities for characterizing failure
mechanisms in reinforced concrete slabs, and modeling the response of submerged
structures for underwater explosion. Principal investigator: Girum Urgessa.

Extracting Finite Element Models from Images

The team studies ways of automatically extracting finite element models from
collections of images. Using a combination of structure from motion (SfM) algorithms
and 3D computer vision, we are working on ways to automatically recognize and
assemble structural components, followed by FE model generation and updating
based on damage detected in the image collections. The proposed methodology has
applications beyond post-disaster condition assessment, from routine inspection to
infrastructure management. Principal investigator: David Lattanzi.

WEEK 8 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

o Construction Engineering and Management
Construction Engineering and Management

This is all about the construction safety, specializing in injury prevention

strategies, hazard identification, risk management, and decision-
making using a variety of qualitative and quantitative data-collection, data-
analysis, and data mining methods.

Our areas of focus include:

Construction Safety
This research team explores injury-prevention strategies, hazard
identification, risk management, and decision-making in the construction
process. The group uses a variety of qualitative and quantitative data-
collection, data-analysis, and data-mining methods. They hope that by
empirically measuring construction workers' attention they can prevent
injuries on the job site. Principal investigator: Behzad Esmaeili.

Infrastructure and Construction Management

This research area encompasses accelerated construction of
infrastructure, lean and green construction, project management, public-
private partnerships, smart infrastructure, sustainable development, life
cycle analysis, and infrastructure asset management. Principal
investigator: Sam Salem.

Construction Informatics and Simulation

The research area focuses on enhancing the overall performance of
construction management through the integration of advanced data
analytics, complex system simulation, and artificial intelligence. The
research outcomes provide efficient and reliable decision support tools for
practitioners in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC)
industry. Principal investigator: Wenying Ji.
Mason researchers are analyzing big data to find ways to reduce the number of
accidents and injuries on construction sites.

WEEK 9 – MIDTERM EXAMINATION

WEEK 10 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

o Geotechnical Engineering

Geotechnical Engineering

Our research team works closely with government and industry within North
Virginia, and our research outcomes are quickly adopted into practice in
disciplines related to geo-engineering.
Our areas of expertise include:

Forecasting Landslides in Transportation Corridors

This research seeks methods to predict rainfall-caused landslides before they
happen. Our research team uses advanced digital elevation models, along with storm
and soil data, to develop a tool to save lives from this common natural disaster.
Principal Investigator: Burak Tanyu.

Geosynthetics in Reinforced Soil/Bridge Systems

Our research team collects data from a bridge in Virginia to
investigate the performance of geosynthetic reinforced soil/integrated
bridge systems. Our research will be incorporated into AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, ensuring that practicing engineers use best practices
in their designs. Principal investigator: Burak Tanyu.

Recycled Asphalt-Highway Systems

Recycling concrete into new pavement provides a less expensive
building material and diverts large quantities of construction waste from
landfills. This research explores the maximum percentage of recycled
concrete that may be used in pavement design with sacrificing strength and
durability of the road. Principal investigator: Burak Tanyu.

Co-directors of the SGI Research Group Burak Tanyu and Kuo Tian at their lab on
the Fairfax Campus. The lab is equipped to conduct research related to evaluation
engineering properties of recycled materials, aggregates, and soils.

WEEK 11 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

o Water Resources Engineering

Environmental and Water Resources Engineering

Environmental and water resources engineering explores the power of natural

wetlands and their vegetation to lessen the energy of storm surge waves to

protect coastal communities from sea-level rise during intense hurricanes .

Our researchers use field data and computational models to focus on
sustainable solutions to coastal floods. Their areas of expertise include:

Associate Professor Celso Ferriera's research team focuses on developing and

promoting innovative water resources and coastal engineering ideas.

Field-based monitoring of Hurricane Storm Surge

We continuously monitor hydrodynamic conditions (waves, currents, and water levels)
in the Chesapeake Bay marshes, studying the impact of hurricanes and storms,
resulting in more than three years of data to date. In addition to the comprehensive
hydrodynamic measurements, our research group routinely performs surveys of bed
morphology and vegetation bio-mechanic characteristics such as biomass, stem
height, diameter, and densities. Principal investigator: Celso Ferreira.
Numerical Modeling of Coastal Hazards
This research aims to extend our capacity to evaluate how marshes and coastal
wetlands can serve as a reliable green infrastructure for protection during extreme
weather and conditions that may be a result of future climate change. We accomplish
this by using a numerical modeling framework capable of representing this process
based on the measured data and state-of-the-art computational tools. Principal
investigator: Celso Ferreira.
Natural and Nature-based Defenses for Coastal Resilience
Nature-based defenses for coastal resilience are gaining popularity as an ecological
engineering approach to protect coastal communities against flooding and erosion.
There remains, however, a considerable gap in accurately determining whether
coastal communities can safely and cost-effectively rely on natural and nature-based
features for community resilience against flooding under a changing climate, leading
to significant inertia towards unlocking the potential of nature to increase society's
resilience. Principal investigator: Celso Ferreira.
Remote Sensing Techniques to Estimate and Monitor Hydrological Variables
This research applies remote sensing techniques to estimate and monitor hydrological
variables. This work can be applied to water resources management, weather and
climate prediction, as well as agriculture and irrigation practices. The research
activities range from the local, through studying the impact of green infrastructure on
storm water at the Fairfax Campus, to the global, using satellite data to evaluate water
resources in remote regions, such as High Mountain Asia. The team seeks to improve
real-time prediction of rainfall rates in case of extreme events and help remote regions
that can't count on local ground instruments, but where environmental and health
consequences of natural hazards can be devastating. Principal investigator: Viviana
Maggioni.
Assistant Professor Viviana Maggioni and her team analyze satellite data to improve
the characterization of precipitation around the globe.

WEEK 12 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

o Transportation Engineering

Transportation Engineering

Our researchers in transportation engineering develop mathematically-based

decision support tools for designing, operating, managing, maintaining, and

protecting the built environment.

Our areas of research expertise include:

Transportation Systems
This research focuses on developing the quantitative and computational tools
necessary to assess the resilience of health care systems, school districts, university
campuses, government functions, residential buildings, and business districts during
natural disasters. The main question that the researchers address is: How resilient is
the community function that takes place in buildings, given their underlying
dependence on various interdependent infrastructure systems? The researchers
hope their findings will help guide state and local officials in improving, building, and
maintaining resilient communities in the future. Principal investigator: Elise Miller-
Hooks
Air Quality
Researchers use quantitative methods for transportation planning, air quality,
traffic operations, and traffic simulation using the techniques of transportation systems
analysis encompassing travel demand modeling, traffic simulation, network analysis,
and integrated transportation system (ITS) related modeling. Principal
investigator: Mohan Venigalia
Demand and Traveler Behavior
This research delves into how transportation users will respond to changing
prices and congestion on urban highway and transit networks. By using statistical
tools and regression/logit/probit modeling, the research team has created a
technically sound tool to evaluate policy options for congestion reduction in cities. This
practice-ready research can be used to address the increasingly overwhelming
problems of traffic congestion in large cities, including Washington, D.C., and the
megacities of the world. Principal investigator: Shanjiang Zhu

“We are at the cusp of a new future, and we need to think about how we might do
things differently. It is time to consider how to best use the current infrastructure
systems and to rethink how to build them from now on.”

— Elise Miller-Hooks, Bill and Eleanor Hazel Chair in Infrastructure Engineering

For more than two decades Elise-Miller-Hooks has been applying concepts of
operations research to civil and infrastructure systems applications.
Shanjiang Zhu (center) talks to guests in the John Toups Instructional Lab. Zhu
explores aspects of transportation informatics using big data in support of U.S.
Department of Transportation’s strategic goals. He provided data analysis of
transportation impact stemming from the opening of phase 1 of the Metro’s Silver line.
Mohan Venigalla is an expert in quatitative methods for transportation planning, air
quality, traffic operations, and traffic simulation.

WEEK 13 – Current Fields/Careers of Civil Engineering

o Environment and EnergyMiller-Hooks has been applying and advancing
concepts of operations research to civil and infrastructure systems applications.

WEEKS 14 & 15 – Civil Engineering, Sustainability, and the Future

WEEKS 16 & 17 –Civil Engineering and Environmental Science

WEEK 18 – FINAL EXAMINATION

 Republic of the Philippines
PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION
PRC is the agency that handles professionals in the Philippines.

Civil Engineering

Practice defined
The practice of civil engineering within the meaning and intent of this Act shall
embrace services in the form of consultation, design, preparation of plans,
specifications, estimates, erection, installation and supervision of the construction of
streets, bridges, highways, railroads, airports and hangars, portworks, canals, river
and shore improvements, lighthouses, and dry docks; buildings, fixed structures for
irrigation, flood protection, drainage, water supply and sewerage works; demolition of
permanent structures; and tunnels. The enumeration of any work in this section shall
not be construed as excluding any other work requiring civil engineering knowledge
and application.