High Voltage Lines I. Narrative Electrical energy involves power generation, transmission, and distribution.

The latter two involve DC or AC lines with varying voltages. The largest known DC voltage is approximately 1 million volts. AC transmission lines employ voltages ranging from 66 kilovolts to several hundred thousand kilovolts. Since there are no high voltage DC lines in cities, the only concern is from high voltage AC lines to substations. These lines carry currents producing circumferential magnetic fields which exceed the IEEE standard (about .4 microWebers/ square meter for magnetic flux density and .03 W/kg for S.A.R.). These lines produce high intensity electromagnetic fields. The most recent concern has been the magnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines in residential areas. Possible effects of the magnetic fields are malignant tumors and genetic mutations. The voltage in residential areas is constantly increasing because of the rising number of lines, the higher voltages being used, and the number of homes being built near them. It seems that the highest exposure times correspond to the times of day that the electrical power consumption is the highest. The easiest way to minimize the magnetic flux density levels to individuals is to build homes such that a grounded, metallic, mesh screen is installed on the roof and in the walls while the house is being constructed. II. Numerical and Design Problems 1. Calculate the magnetic field intensity (H), the magnetic flux density (B), and the electrical field intensity (E) for various values of line voltage as a function of distance and plot your answers on a coordinate system. (Start with a voltage value of 230 kV and a distance of 100 meters.) Estimate the corresponding specific absorption rate (S.A.R.) values for whole body exposure ( [1],[2] ). 2. Calculate the same values as in question 1 for varying values of line current as a function of distance. Plot your findings. (Start with a current of 100 Amperes). 3. Assume that the subject is completely enclosed in a grounded, mesh screen (1mm2 mesh). What effects would this have on the H, B, and E (at 230 kV, 100 Amp, and 100m)? 4) Repeat question 3 for a typical home that is protected by the same mesh screen. (Make assumptions as necessary).

III. Questions on Ethics and Professionalism 1. A real estate agency hires a contracting firm to build a subdivision in a certain rural area. The job is worth millions of dollars to the firm. When the contractors visit the site they see that there are high voltage power lines in great numbers running over it. They approach the real estate company with a suggestion of installing the protective mesh in the homes. After discussing the price increase involved, the real estate agency refuses to pay for the protection. Should engineers employed by the contractors recommend that the contractors build the homes without the mesh or should they absorb the cost themselves? 2. What about homes that are already built? If power companies put high voltage power lines in an already existing residential area, who would the burden of cost fall on? IV. Solutions 1) and 2) The magnetic field intensity at a radial distance r from the axis of the conductor carrying current I is given by: H = I / (2r) = 100/ (2r) = 1/2 Amps/m and the magnetic flux density as B = o H when o = 4 * 10 7 Henry's/m These plot as a family of hyperbolae starting at infinity (for r o) and going to zero (for r 0s). As I increases, the curves shirt further into the first quadrant. Assuming I = 100 Amps and r = 100m we obtain B = 4 * 10 7 ( 100 \ (2 * 100) ) = .2 microWebers/ m2 3) and 4) The idea of the mesh screen is to alleviate the radiation going into the subject or home. So hopefully the values of H, B, and E will be zero. This is somewhat of a design problem.

V. Solutions to Questions on Ethics and Professionalism The IEEE code requires engineers to "accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment." True, the engineer's minimal responsibility is to make it known to employers and perhaps others in authority when they believe technology poses a threat to public health, safety and welfare.

There is evidence that transmission lines do pose such a threat, so engineers employed by contractors have a responsibility to make the dangers known and recommend solutions. But, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) code requires engineers to "protect" the health and safety of the public. This may require engineers to do more than simply inform authorities of the problem. Even if it does not, the engineer's personal morality may require more. If the law does not require the installation of the metallic mesh screens, engineers who might be involved in the design of the subdivisions or other facilities related to the project have the choice of complying with the contractor's wishes or not participating in the project. If they back out, they know that their own refusal will not keep the unprotected houses from being built, they should probably refuse to participate in the project. Otherwise, they will be participating in something they believe poses a substantial risk to public health. If engineers are convinced that the transmission lines pose a serious health problem, they should probably also encourage their professional societies to lobby for legislation requiring installation of the metallic mesh screens in areas exposed to high intensity electromagnetic fields. If engineers are asked to design transmission lines through residential areas where the homes are not protected, and if they are convinced that the lines pose a serious health risk, they should insist that the residents be warned of the danger. Again, engineers might want to encourage their professional societies to lobby for legislation requiring that transmission lines not be built near existing homes, or that the homes be properly protected.

Allowing Defective Chips to go to Market I. Narrative Shane, a production line engineer, is checking every chip for quality control (QC). His workers are finding defective chips once every 150 chips. The defective chips must either be sent back for repair or thrown away. His manager, Rob, has mandated that all defective chips be discarded. Rob walks over to Shane's line and has a conversation in which he says, "Why some other lines sink more dollars into a failed chip I can't understand. We only make 25 cents off of each chip anyway! Spending an additional $2.00 per chip to repair it only means more money down the drain. Shane, in our line of work we can't afford to flush money down the drain." The following afternoon Rob informs Shane that his line is discarding too many chips, "One chip every hundred and fifty is unacceptable! This is becoming a substantial cost to the company. I believe that it would be more beneficial to allow all the chips to go out the door without checking." Shane asks, "What about the defective chips? Won't customers complain?" Rob replies, "Yeah, yeah, but that's not your problem. The company has a return department that will replace them as customers complain." Rob further estimates that allowing defective chips on the market will yield a $416,000 profit for the company. Facts:

The line produces 100,000 chips per year. Every chip is purchased. Chips cost $9.00 to produce. Chip testing runs $4.00 per chip. Chip repair (manpower and material) is $2.00/chip. This repair cost includes re-testing. Profit per chip is $0.25 after testing. There are fifteen full time employees and two part-time employees working under Shane. Shane's manager has been with the company for about 7 years. Shane has been working Rob's management for several years and has had relatively good relations with him.

Additional information regarding Shane's line: The engineer's line performs the final inspection between the bond wires, which attach the chips to prongs and spot plates, (the prongs protrude from the final product). The chips are then

encased in molding compound for final packaging. You may assume that all defects can be traced to faulty bond wire attachment and not to the chip itself. This is because the chips have been previously tested, before the bond wires were attached. II. Numerical and/or Design Problem(s) 1. If Xanthum, Inc. orders 15,000 chips from Shane's production line, what percent of the chips may fail? 2. Do you believe this is an acceptable failure rate: from the perspective of Xanthum? from the perspective of the manufacturer? Why (not)? 3. If Shane's line produces 100,000 chips per year how much will it cost to: a) Test and repair any defective chip? b) Test all chips and discard the defective chips? c) Test no chips and replace defective customers chips on an as-returned basis? 4. Is Rob's estimate reasonable? What about his assertion that it is cheaper to ship the defective chips? III. Questions on Ethics and Professionalism 1. What issues are involved in following Rob's recommendation?

2. Is it acceptable to follow Rob's suggested course of action, based on your calculations above?

3. How should the engineer, Shane, present his case to Rob, his superior, if he has a differing opinion? IV. Additional Scenario (To be introduced in lecture after the students have completed the work above on their own.) The chips ordered by Xanthum, Inc. are to be placed in aircraft navigation units, and Shane's boss still believes that the failures are inconsequential. Rob claims, "They always have backup navigation systems anyway. Besides, they fail less than one percent of the time! You should know that. Just calculate the percent of chips that will fail." 1. What flaws can be found (based on your previous calculations and present observations) with Rob's argument? Hint: look at the logic used in Rob's statement.

2. Perform a (utilitarian) cost/benefit analysis based on the above data. How much will it cost the company in litigation, etc? Make any necessary assumptions such as dollar values for your

calculations, as long as your assumptions are not in direct conflict with the stated facts above. 3. How does this scenario influence your response to question 2 from part III? 4. How can the engineer, Shane, constructively present an argument against his superior's opinion? IV. Solutions for Numerical Problems

Part I 1. 1/150 chips will not work so: 1/150 = 0.67% may not work. 2. This question in neither right nor wrong. It is meant to provoke thought for later ethical issues. 3. a) test all: 100,000 x $4.00 = $400,000 (testing cost) repair cost: 667 bad chips x $2.00 repair cost = $1,334 profit on repaired chips: 667 bad chips x -$1.75 profit loss = -$1,167.25 profit on good chips: (100,000 - 667) x $0.25 = $24,833.25 net profit: $24,833.25 - $1,167.25 = $23,666 b) test all: 100,000 chips x $4.00 profit = $400,000 (testing cost) discard cost: $0.00 profit on discarded chips: 667 bad chips x ($9.00 + $4.00 - $0.25) = -$8,504.25 profit on good chips: (100,000 667) x $0.25 = $24,833.25 net profit: $24,833.25 - $8,504.25 = $16,329 c) There are two polar scenarios based on different student assumptions (and equally correct answers based upon differing assumptions as to the number of chips returned): "Best Case" - no returns of defective chips Not test any chips: 100,000 x $4.25 = $425,000 "Worst Case" - all defective chips are returned To find the number of chips which actually generate profit: 100,000 - 667 returns = 99,333 - 667 replacements = 98,666 chips to generate dollars Profit from "satisfied" customers: 98,666 x $4.25 = $419,330.5 Original profit on the 667 returned chips: 667 x $4.25 = $2,834.75 Profit from replacement chips: 667 x -$9.00 = -$6,003 Net profit: $419,330.5 + $2,834.75 - $6,003 = $416,162.25

4. Here the student should see that the answer is clearly NO. The manager, Rob, has based his calculation on the improbable assumption that no chips will be returned. Because of this, his estimate for profit is too high. The manager is also wrong to advocate discarding chips. It is more profitable if the chips can be repaired, and therefore the line loses potential dollars if the chips are discarded. V. Solutions to Ethics and Professionalism Questions 1. Issues involved in the narrative above include deceiving the public, since the public is sold chips with no precautions taken to ensure the correct assembly of the microchips. A secondary issue involved here could be public safety: what if the part is used to build a critical device such as a navigation computer for missiles or airplanes? 2. The answer depends on the assumptions made by the student. If the student conceives this issue as a safety issue, then it would clearly not be acceptable to follow the superior's suggested course of action. The answer also depends on whether the student perceives the decision as a proper decision for managers or a proper one for engineers to make. Is this a safety issue? If the welfare of the public will not be compromised then the decision is an economic one, which falls, in the domain of management. If however, the assumption is made that the chips involve public safety, engineers should make the decision, because engineering ethical standards require that public safety be protected. 3. As an engineer, Shane has an obligation to be a loyal employee, but also to protect public safety and to uphold the standards of quality. Shane needs to try to find a creative middle way in which all of these competing obligations can be satisfied. Shane may be able to satisfy these demands by making an argument of the following type. First, the manager's estimates of the profits resulting from shipping out the defective chips were for a best-case scenario. Therefore, it can be asserted that actual profits should be less; especially if there is a return cost involved with the defective chips in terms of personnel, papertrails, and loss of reputation. Second, by repairing the chips, the loss is significantly minimized in comparison to discarding chips: the line is still profitable and the company's reputation for quality could help increase the overall corporate value. So a creative middle way would be for the engineer to suggest repairing all chips, and present his calculations to his boss to justify this suggestion. This solves the problem of the lines losing money, turns a reasonable profit (although nowhere near what could be made via the worst case scenario for the first year), and establishes a tradition of quality within the company.

Cellular Phones: Reach Out and Touch Someone? I. Narrative Cellular phones are one of the most popular items on the market today. They are attractive and extremely convenient, with some phones transmitting and receiving signals in the 800 MHz band and up to and beyond a 30 mile radius. Lately cellular phones have been in the news. A Florida man sued a cellular phone manufacturer after the death of his wife. His wife died of a cancerous tumor in the brain allegedly caused by her cellular phone. The problem originates with the frequency and the location of the antenna. Under normal circumstances, the antenna is very close to the skull and has an isotropic radiation pattern (360 pattern of radiation) in the azimuthal plane and a figure eight pattern in the elevation plane . Approximately one half of the power is dissipated into the brain. Therefore, the near field effect on the brain needs to be investigated at normal operating intensity. Very little is known about the near field effects of radiation on the body, especially brain tissue. IEEE has proposed a standard of how much radiation could safely be dissipated into the human body as a whole. This standard is .4 Watts/kilogram. This is an average for the entire body, but recent research shows that the tissue of the brain is much more susceptible to radiation. This means that the standard for the brain should be significantly lower than the IEEE standard. How much lower no one is sure, since the effect of radiation on the brain is unknown. II. Numerical Problems Problem 1. Using the following formulas, calculate the electromagnetic fields radiated by the antenna as a function of distance. ([2],[3]) See diagram. Er = Io L cos e j[t-(r/c)] [ (1/cr2) + (1/jr3) ] 2 E = Io L sin e j [ t-(r/c) ] [ (j/c2r) + (1/cr2) + (1/jr3) ] 4

H = Io L sin e j [ t- (r/c) ] [ (j/cr) + (1/r2) ] 4 Problem 2. How would these numbers be modified in the presence of a human brain?

Problem 3. How much power is dissipated into the brain? Does this exceed the IEEE standard? The specific absorption rate (S.A.R.) formula is as follows ([1]): S.A.R. = E2 2 Where is the electrical conductivity of the medium in Siemens/meter and is the mass density of the tissue in kilograms/meters cubed. Approximate values for the human brain are as follows: = 1050 kg/m3 , = .65 S/m at 350 MHz, and r = 60 at 350 MHz. 4) How would you modify the design of the antenna to minimize or alleviate the S.A.R. level to the brain? III. Ethical Problems 1. Andrew is a young engineer working for a cellular phone manufacturing company. When doing a bit of off the job research he read the latest report about the susceptibility of the brain to radiation. The next day he reviewed the calculations of the radiation given off by the antenna of his company's hottest selling cellular phone. He found that the S.A.R. to the brain was .35 W/kg. Later that afternoon he visited his boss with a suggestion to modify the antennas on the phones and perhaps doing a recall on the ones already sold. "Andrew," screamed Diane, head engineer, "what you're suggestion would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars! You can't possibly be serious. That's our fastest seller. Recalling them would be a disaster and there are more important things to be done. You don't even know that this is dangerous!". " But what about our obligation to the public?" "What about your obligation to the company? Look, I don't want to make a big issue out of this. We're within IEEE standards and unless we have further word from them then we're in the clear." What would you do if you were in Andrew's shoes? Would you talk to someone above Diane or try to convince her, etc. ? Can you think of options that would be fair both to the company and to the public, especially in the light of the uncertainty about the health risks? Explain your reasoning.

2. Assume that Andrew asks Diane for paid time to research the matter further and Diane refuses his request. Now what should Andrew do? Discuss your rationale. IV. Solutions to Numerical Problems 1) using equation #2 and assuming the following values: r = 5cm Io = 1 Amp. f = 800 MHz L = (c/f)/4 = /4 = (3*108/ 800*106) / 4 = 9.4 cm [ wire length ] W = 2f = 2800*106
o

= 8.854*10 12 Farads/meter [ for free space permeability ]

= o r ( in the absence of the brain r is taken out of the equation, therefore for this question = o ) = 90 After doing the math, the value of o is 1198.8 V/M 2) In the presence of the human brain, r is equal to 37 ( assumed for the brain at 1 GHz [1] pp 88,89, and 121 ). After adding this into the equation.... o = 32.4 V/M 3) Using the S.A.R. equation ( .81 * (32.4)2 ) / 2*1050 = .41 W/kg. This exceeds the IEEE standard by .01. 4) One way to alleviate the problem is to design an antenna that is perpendicular to the brain rather than parallel to it. Meaning that the antenna would be at a 90 angle. This would make = 180 , which would in turn make S.A.R. value very near 0. V. Solutions to Questions on Ethics and Professionalism 1. Andrew's situation could be described as a "conflict problem". That is, he is caught between an obligation to protect the health of the public and an obligation to be a loyal employee. The first thing he should do is get as much information as he can about the facts. Just how harmful is

the radiation from the company's cellular phones? How expensive would it be to recall the phones? Is IEEE about to change its standards? What legal liabilities could the company face from the harm to the public? After this, Andrew should attempt to come to a "creative middle way" solution to the problem. That is, he should try to propose a course of action for himself that would satisfy both his obligation to the public and his obligation to be a loyal employee. If his research concludes that the cellular phones are indeed a danger to the public, he might conclude that the company is liable for lawsuits, even if the radiation does fall within IEEE standards. After all, automobile manufacturers have gotten into trouble with the government and the public, even in areas where they followed government standards. If Andrew could come up with a low-cost modification of the phones, he might be able to convince Diane that a recall would not be too costly, that the recall would ultimately result in a public-relations coup for the company, and that it could avoid or mitigate costly litigation later. He might argue, for example, that the company could emphasize that it was making the recall, even though its product falls within all of the legal and professional standards and that the new or refurbished phones are the safest on the market. If Andrew's research concludes that the radiation danger is not significant, or that it is not clear what the danger is, he may choose a different option. If he concludes it is not clear what the danger is, for example, he may try to persuade Diane that new phones should be made safer, even though the old ones should not be recalled. He can argue that the company could advertise its new phones as safer than those of the competitors. In so far as possible, he should make specific proposals as to how the phones can be made safer. At the very least, he should make specific proposals as to how research should be done to find the best way to make the phones safer. In making his proposals to Diane, Andrew should attempt to avoid a confrontational tone. He should not make his case in terms of "You have a problem", but in terms of "We have a problem". He should not threaten to blow the whistle or disrupt the organization, but make every effort to present himself as a team player who is interested in the welfare of the organization as well as the welfare of the public. 2. If Andrew finds that the radiation appears to be a serious health risk and Diane refuses to honor his request for paid time for further research, Andrew might ask permission to do some research on his own time and at his own expense. Such a request would probably impress Diane with his own sincerity and dedication. He could offer to make any results of his research known to the company.

Of course Diane could interpret Andrew's motives in a negative way and come to believe that he is an untrustworthy employee. She might forbid Andrew's using company property or equipment for the research and even warn him that such activities, even on his own time, will be viewed with suspicion. In this case, Andrew must decide whether to do the research, stop his protest, move to another company, or blow the whistle. His decision will be based on many factors, including the seriousness of the danger to the public, the likelihood of a change in regulations that will solve the problem without his intervention, the danger to his own career, the likelihood of other employees agreeing with him, and so forth. If Andrew thinks the problem is very serious indeed, and finds no creative middle way is possible, whistle blowing might in some circumstances be required. But it should always be a last resort. In this unfortunate event, he should try to enlist the support of other professionals, document his moves carefully, provide good reason for his action and try to be as nonconfrontational and professional as possible.

Electrical Engineering Case: Missile Explosion I. Narrative On a very cold dry winter morning in West Germany a group of American servicemen were removing a solid-state-fueled missile from its packing case, using a hoist. They had some difficulty with the hoist and had to raise the missile from its cradle several times and lower it back in before they were finally successful. Shortly after the missile was finally lifted from its cradle it was moved close to a grounded metal antenna. The fuel in the missile ignited, burned through the side of the rocket motor and killed several of the servicemen. Subsequent analysis and testing pointed to electrostatic charge build-up and sparks resulting from that charging as the culprit. The course of events was probably as follows. When the missile was lifted from the cradle, the friction caused tribo-electric charging of both the cradle which was grounded, and the surface of the motor casing. The casing was not grounded, moreover, a very good insulator. The charge on the casing was not able to spread out because of the insulating nature of the casing and was not able to bleed off through the air because the air was so dry. (You must have noticed how much more aggravating sparks from your fingers are during cold, dry weather.) As the missile was lifted, the cradle and the missile casing acted like the plates of a capacitor. Because the separation of the plates was increasing, the value of the capacitance decreased. The total charge on the plates remained unchanged, as discussed above, so that the voltage on the capacitor increased. The voltage became greater than the break-down voltage of the air and a spark was drawn from the missile casing to the grounded metal antenna. ( The exact mechanism by which the spark ignited the fuel is complicated and involves the removal of polarization electric fields produced inside the fuel by the charge on the casing.) II. Numerical and Design Problems Problem 1. Calculate the separation d between the missile and the antenna when the spark occurred. See figure.

Assume that the missile and the cradle formed a parallel plate capacitor with an effective area of 4.0 square feet and a plate separation of 6.0 inches. The average surface charge density s is 1.0 x10-9 Coulombs per square meter. The breakdown electric field strength of cold dry air is 3.0 x106 V/m. Problem 2. What modification to the missile and/or cradle would prevent electrostatic discharge in the future?

III. Questions on Ethics and Professionalism Consider the following scenario: A few years before the accident occurred, and before the missile went into production, an engineer, who was working on the project, conceived the idea that a missile might be ignited by just the mechanism we have been discussing. He approached his supervisor and raised his concern. The supervisor said that he thought, (a) that electrical breakdown of the air was unlikely and (b) that even if it did occur, there was only a very remote possibility that it would cause any problem. They both agreed that there was no data that would help them evaluate the probability that an accident could occur. Although there was nothing in the specifications about the matter, they decided to approach the military procurement officer about the issue. The military officer agreed with them that the mechanism was possible, but unlikely. Moreover, he said that any design changes then would seriously delay the deployment of the missile. Anyway, he added, the people working with the missile would be military personnel, and they couldn't expect everything they had to do to be absolutely safe. Question 1. What professional and ethical responsibilities do you think the engineer and his supervisor had in this case?

Question 2. Does it make any difference to your views that no accident of this type had been recorded at the time they thought of the problem? Why? Question 3. What do you think of the procurement officer's views about the deployment delay? What about his views on safety and military personnel? What alternative views would you suggest? IV. Solutions Problem 1. Model the system as a pair of parallel-plate capacitors as follows. Let C1 be the capacitor formed by the missile and the cradle, and let C2 be the capacitor formed by the missile and the antenna. The two capacitors are in parallel as suggested by the figure. Calculate Q, the charge on C1:

Now the two parallel plate capacitors values can be calculated from

The effective area A of C2 is much smaller than that of C1, so the parallel combination of C1 + C2 can be approximated as just C1 alone.

Now express the charge Q in terms of the breakdown voltage and the unknown separation d between the missile and the antenna, then solve for d.

The missile was about 2 cm away from the antenna when the spark occurred. Problem 2. No technical design is provided. This is an open ended design problem involving the addition of grounding.

V. Solutions to Questions on Ethics and Professionalism 1. The IEEE code (Canon1) requires its members to "accept responsibility in making engineering decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment." The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) code (Rules of Practice 1) requires engineers to "recognize that their primary obligation is to protect the safety, health, property and welfare of the public." It goes on to say: "If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, property and welfare of the public are endangered,[engineers] shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate." The engineer in question made the required notification and so fulfilled this minimal obligation, as prescribed by the codes. Both the engineer's supervisor and the military officer recognized the problem, but concluded that the danger was remote and did not warrant design changes. the question now is whether the engineer or his supervisors had any further obligation. The NSPE code does require the engineer to "protect" safety and welfare of the public. Does this require more than simply notifying superiors of a danger? If not, does the personal ethics of the engineer enter the picture and supplement the strictly professional obligations, perhaps requiring the engineers to do more? In order to decide whether he should do more, the engineer must get the answers to certain factual questions, such as: How serious is the risk? What could he do (if anything) that might lead to a change? How much damage would stronger action on his part inflict on his career or his family? How much more or less influence might a protest have because it relates to a military operation? In making his recommendations for a design change, the engineer should have attempted to ascertain what design change might solve the problem, what they would cost, and how much time they would take. In making unpopular suggestions, professionals should always be as specific in their suggestions as possible. 2. The fact that no accidents of this type had been recorded at the time they thought of the problem almost certainly would affect the engineer's judgment of the extent of his obligations. Since there are no documented cases of harm due to the missile design, the engineer's conviction that there is likelihood of harm is bound to be diminished. There is simply less evidence that there is a likelihood of harm. Insofar as the conviction of the likelihood of harm is diminished, the obligation to take action is also diminished. 3. The procurement officer should take into account the delays in deployment that might be caused by a design change, especially if crucial military reasons can be given for avoiding the

delay. Still, the safety of the operators of the missiles must also be taken into consideration. The argument that military personnel are expected to take greater risks than civilians has only limited validity. First, some of the personnel might have been in the military involuntarily. Second, the requirement for free and informed consent for unusual risks is not entirely invalidated, just because one is in the military. The procurement officer's statements give evidence of an unjustifiably cavalier attitude toward the lives of military personnel. The procurement officer might, instead, have asked for specific suggestions as to what design changes might eliminate the problem, how much they would cost and how much delay they might cause. As already indicated, the engineers who discovered the problem should have come with such estimates.

Specifications for a Conflict Narrative Part 1 Neal is a metallurgical engineer for Diamond Steel, Inc., a medium-sized but struggling steel company. Diamond Steel's largest client is Maypool Co., the third largest consumer appliance company in the United States. Diamond Steel is currently negotiating a new contract to supply Maypool sheet steel to be used to make the cores for a new design of a basic electric motor used in Maypool appliances. The specifications for the steel were written by engineers at Maypool's Research and Design Center (RDC), which is located 200 miles away from Maypools' Motor Production Facility (MPF) where the motor core plates will be stamped and assembled into appliance motors. The RDC specifications require UNS G10350 steel, rolled to 0.025 inches thick and heat treated to a minimum tensile strength of 1000,000 psi. In the course of his job at Diamond Steel, Neal has done a considerable amount of business with Maypool's MPF and personally knows several of the technicians who work there. In the process of discussing the upcoming contract, the MPF technicians have told Neal that the MPF presses can only reliably handle steel with Brinell hardness numbers less than 165 without jamming and ruining the workpieces. The MFP technicians suggest to Neal that a steel with a maximum Brinell hardness of 160 will "work just fine" in the motor and be easier to stamp into motor plates. Questions Part 1 1. Hardness testing is much faster and cheaper than tensile testing. Due to the shape and size of the indenter, Brinell hardness tests cannot be done on sheet steel of this thickness. Find the appropriate value on the Rockwell 30T scale that Neal should supply to Maypool's Production Department for their own internal quality control tests. 2. Are the specifications supplied by Maypool's RDC and the recommendations of Maypool's MPF in conflict? If so, how serious is the conflict? Should Neal supply steel as specified by the RDC engineers or should he follow the advice of the MPF technicians and supply steel that they can successfully tamp into motor plates? Is there any way he can satisfy both of the RDC and MPF? Explain. Would it be more ethically desirable if he could satisfy both the RDC and the MPF? Explain. Narrative Part 2: Based on Neal's calculations, he discovered that UNS G10350 steel with a tensile strength of 100 kpsi (that specified by the RDC engineers) has a Rockwell 30T hardness number of 78 and a Brinell hardness of 200. However, the steel recommended by the MPF technicians with an

equivalent Brinell hardness number of 160 has a Rockwell 30T number of 72 and a tensile strength of 80 kpsi. The difference between these two data sets is too great for Neal to see a clear compromise. The next day, a Friday, Neal decided to travel to the Maypool Research and Design Center to discuss the specifications with the project engineers. They assured him that their specifications are not arbitrary, but rather are based on a target efficiency for the new motor design. He was told that the characteristics of the same steel at a lower hardness would not satisfy the efficiency requirement. The Maypool engineers also told Neal that the presses at their MPF are rated to process steel with ultimate strengths up to 220 kpsi. It was the opinion of the RDC engineers that the technicians at the Maypool MPF are incompetent. The engineers related several stories of product failures that were traced to improper manufacturing techniques at the MPF. On his way home, Neal decided to stop ant Maypool's MPF. When questioned, the technicians told him that regardless of how the presses were rated, they have never been able to process steel harder than 165 on the Brinell scale without unacceptable rejection rates. Neal was told that the presses had been recently overhauled by the manufacturer but still did not perform to their original specifications. The technicians then complained to Neal that they have had problems with the RDC engineers over-specifying and over-designing in the past. They again suggested to Neal that he just supply steel that they can easily use - no one would be the wiser and everyone would be happy. When Neal finally got back to his desk late Friday afternoon, there was a note on his desk form the Diamond Steel Production Manager, Scott, asking for the Rockwell 30T numbers for the Maypool steel contract, which is now scheduled to be signed Monday morning. Questions Part 2 1. Should Neal supply steel that meets the written specifications of the RDC, knowing that it will probably result in an unacceptably large rejection rate during production, perhaps raising the cost of the new motors? If he does this, how would it affect the MPF technicians? The RDC engineers implementing the new motor design? Neal's future relationships with the RDC engineers and the MPF technicians? Neal's department at Diamond Steel? Diamond Steel's reputation in the business community? 2. The following are thought provoking questions for use in class: If Neal decides to supply the softer steel that will not produce the designed-for efficiency in the new motors, what possible effect could this have on the operation of the motors and the appliances in which they will be

installed? Assume that the rest of the electrical components have also been redesigned to take advantage of the efficiency of the new motor. Consider the effects of Neal's decision on safety, maintenance and the replacement and repair costs of future appliances. Would Neal ever buy another new appliance from Maypool for his own use? Would Neal recommend a Maypool appliance to a friend? 3. Consider the following three models of professional responsibility. The malpractice model, the least demanding, requires that an engineer need only perform at a level that meets standards of the profession and applicable laws or codes. More exacting is the reasonable care model, where the engineer is expected to consider factors, most often related to safety and quality, that are not explicitly addressed in standards or codes. The good works modes sees the engineer investing time and consideration not only beyond what is required, but even beyond what would be reasonably expected. Discuss the options that each one of these models of professional behavior suggest, but that may be necessary to protect the public. Narrative Part 3 Early Saturday morning, while preparing to play golf, it occurred to Neal that there may be a technical compromise to the problem. Depending on the characteristics of UNS G10350 steel, it may be possible to supply the steel in a soft condition for stamping, followed by heat treating to bring it up to the required tensile strength. However, he knows that the production plant does not have heat treatment facilities, therefore Maypool would have to pay extra to ship the plates to a heat treatment facility after stamping, then ship them back to their MPF for assembly. Neal played golf that morning with his friend, Ed, a process engineer at a local polymer company. Ed's company is a much bigger supplier to the Maypool MPF than Diamond Steel is. During the round, the subject of the steel specifications in the new contract came up. Ed told Neal that the RDC engineers "have their head in the clouds" concerning technical specifications and new designs. He told Neal story after story of cases where the RDC engineers had to change to conventional designs, with lower grade materials, when their new designs failed to work out in production runs. Ed's advice to Neal was to follow the suggestions of the MPF technicians who actually had to produce the often-flawed designs of the RDC. When Neal returned home that afternoon, he called Scott, the Diamond Steel Production Manager, at home and told him of the conflict between the Maypool RDC specifications and the recommendations from the MPF technicians. He also outlined his idea of a compromise. Scott reminded Neal that this contract was very important to the financial future of Diamond Steel and that he was not very concerned with the internal strife within Maypool. Scott had no objection to the proposed compromise, as long as the extra cost would not be borne by Diamond Steel. As a

result, Scott insisted that Neal say nothing to Maypool until after the contract is signed on Monday morning. Questions Part 3 1. Additional thought provoking questions for use in class: Is Neal under any personal or professional obligation to suggest technical compromises to Maypool? Consider his obligations to the future customers of Maypool and Diamond Steel, the RDC engineers, the MPF technicians, and his co-workers at Diamond Steel. If so, should these compromises be brought up before or after the contract is signed? Based on your answer, what would be the effect on the MPF technicians? The RDC engineers implementing the new motor design? The consumers who purchase Maypool appliances? Neal? Neal's department at Diamond Steel? Scott? Diamond Steel's reputation in the business community? Instructor's Note: The numerical issues of this case are relatively simple. As often happens in engineering practice, the RDC engineers have written specifications in terms of the require tensile strength of the steel, the MPF technicians speak of the capacity of their equipment in terms of the Brinell hardness of the steel to be processed, and the relevant measure for the steel mill is the Rockwell 30T hardness number. Simple conversions between Brinell hardness numbers and tensile strength exist and can be found, among other places, in mechanical design textbooks. Conversions between various hardness tests are found in materials handbooks. Either of these sources can be used to find tabular data on UNS G10350 steel in order to answer Question 1 from Part 3. Sample Solutions to Ethical Problems Questions Part 1, Question 2. The specifications supplied by Maypool's RDC and the recommendations of Maypool's MPF are in conflict with each other. This appears to be a case of internal company conflict and Neal is the middleman Neal should not supply steal to meet the MPF's recommendations. He should probably come up with a creative middle way solution to meet his legal and professional obligations to the RDC engineers as well as meet the recommendations of the MPF's. He should go to the engineers and mention that the MPF's are not confident that the steel will work well in their machines. He should get the two groups to talk to each other rather than make him the middle man. This way, he can provide steel that the two parties agree upon. Questions Part 2, Question 1

Neal is obligated to supply the correct steel which meets the specifications of the RDC engineers. This will have a negative impact on his relationship with the MPF's, but Neal must adhere to the specifications since he cannot predict what would happen to the product's safety if the incorrect steel is used. If the original design is not followed, then all safety calculations done by the RDC engineers for the device will be invalid. Furthermore, it is probably illegal (not to mention a lie of omission) to knowingly provide materials which do not meet the standards of the purchaser.