NAU Baja SAE Capstone team Ethics Engineering Essay

Description

I need someone to write me an essay 3 – 5 pages in essay format about engineering ethics the file titled with Application of Ethics for the instructions. And I have the project definition ( I attached the file ) that yo can take information from.

Important: following instruction ( Rubrics ), Also, I have a file for more information if you it.

SAE BAJA
BRAKE ANALYSIS
[1]
Eric Kooinga
SAE Mini Baja 2018-2019 – Team 18F08
ME476C-007
Northern Arizona University
11/9/18
Table of Contents
Introduction to Brake System Components
1
Brake Analysis of an SAE Baja Vehicle
2
Assumptions and Variables
2
Static and Dynamic Loads
3
Braking Forces
4
Pedal Design and Evaluation
7
Appendix A: Brake Force Calculations
8
Appendix B: Manufacturing Drawings
12
References
13
Introduction to Brake System Components
A braking system consists of multiple moving components that convert kinetic energy into thermal
energy using friction. For vehicle use, there are 2 main types of braking systems used: drum brakes and
disc brakes. Drum brakes consist of a cylinder, or drum, around the axle of the vehicle connected to the
hub, which uses brake shoes on the inside of the drum to press against the inside edge of the drum brake
using both driver pedal effort and springs within the drum brake. Drum brakes were considered but
quickly decided against as the stopping power to weight ratio was not desired for this application. Disc
brakes consist of a rotor and caliper, in which the caliper contains two pads that will be compressed
around the rotor by a clamping force.
Manual brakes were only considered for this analysis as the use of a brake booster vacuum will not lead
to an advantage to the team as it would be adding more weight without providing any advantage to the
driver in a light weight vehicle. For manual brakes, the force applied by the driver’s foot to the pedal is
increased by the pedal ratio to the master cylinders. This mechanical advantage is designed into the pedal,
which is based on the distances between the input force, the pivot point, and the location on the pedal
which actuates the master cylinders. The master cylinders provide a hydraulic pressure based upon the
amount of driver input to the brake lines which lead to the calipers. When this pressure is applied to the
calipers, a clamping force gets translated across the caliper to the rotor, which produces thermal energy
and leads to stopping the vehicle.
For a hydraulic braking system that consists of rotors and calipers, it is recommended one of the two
components are floating. Floating rotors are mounted to the hub, but have bushings around the mount in
order to adjust to the caliper, opposed to fixed calipers which do not have bushings and are rigid bodies.
On the other hand, floating calipers are placed on slider pins and compress to one side of the rotor where
the rotors will apply an equal and opposite force back on the caliper. Due to this force, the caliper will
slide back to engage the other pad creating an equal clamping force on both sides of the rotor from the
caliper. If the rotor experiences a minor deflection, the caliper will be able to adjust based on this
deflection. It is important to have a system in place where either the rotor or the caliper is floating,
otherwise any deflection or issue with perfect mounting positions will cause brake rub. With this in mind,
a fixed rotor and floating caliper design was analyzed. An example of the type of system analyzed is
shown below in figure (1).
Figure 1. Disc Brake System [2]
1
Brake Analysis of an SAE Baja Vehicle
The analysis of a braking system and all its components is rather extensive and requires the use of many
assumptions for the vehicle the team is designing towards. This analysis is conducted to find the required
braking forces needed in order to have all 4 wheels of the vehicle lock. Once educated assumptions were
created, both static and dynamic loading cases were applied to find the required values. These values were
then designed for when choosing how to size the brakes properly, a problem that almost disqualified
NAU to compete in the previous competition.
Assumptions and Variables
Most of the assumptions that were used for this analysis included many specifications of the vehicle from
the year prior, while some were made based on team goals for this year. Important assumptions made
include weight, static weight distribution, max speed, center of gravity height, as well as both average
pedal force and max pedal force. The assumptions are outlined in table (1). The factor of safety was
found from the Brake Design and Safety textbook by Rudolf Limpert which is published by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) [3]. A factor of safety of 1.20 was chosen for preliminary calculations, but
once the spreadsheet shown in Appendix A.1 was created a variable factor of safety was set.
The goal weight of the vehicle with a driver was chosen to be 550 lbs and was used in the static and
dynamic load case calculations. Another assumption made was the average pedal force. This was found
by sitting in a similar position on the floor and applying pressure to a bathroom scale against a wall, and a
comfortable amount of force applied by the foot was roughly 30 lbs force. The max force tested was 250
lbs but was not realistic conditions to a vehicle. A realistic max pedal force applied by the driver was
determined to be 400 lbf, which was found from NASA’s Leg Strength at Various Knee and Thigh
Angles graph which displayed knee angle versus maximum push shown in Appendix B [4]. Other values
for assumptions were taken from the previous project’s specifications.
Table 1. Brake System Assumptions
Knowns/Assumptions
Curb Weight
Weight w/ Driver
Weight Distribution
Max Speed (flat)
Max Speed (DH)
Wheelbase
Front track
Rear Track
Ground Clearance
Tire Size
Rim Size
Avg Pedal Force
Max Pedal Force
Variable
M
MT
V
Vmax
wb
2
Value
350.00
550.00
40:60
40.00
45.00
59.00
54.50
49.00
10.50
23.00
7×10
30.00
400.00
Unit
lbs
lbs
front/rear
mph
mph
in
in
in
in
in
in
lbf
lbf
Pedal Apply Speed
Theoretical Deceleration (GVW = 600 lb)
Max Pedal Travel
Pedal Force/Decel Ratio
Pedal force ratio
Center of Gravity Height (empty)
a
Factor of Safety
FS
3.00
1.60
5.00
100.00
5.6 to 1
24.00
ft/s
g
in
lb/g
in
1.20
The assumptions and knowns provided in table (1) will be used in determining the both the dynamic load
case of deceleration and braking force calculations.
Static and Dynamic Load Cases
The static and dynamic load cases were important in determining how much braking force would be
needed to be applied in order to efficiently stop the vehicle. First off, the forces acting on a nondecelerating vehicle had to be calculated as a static load either at stand still or moving at a constant
velocity [3]. Since our vehicle based on assumptions of past years, the static weight distribution is 40% in
the front and 60% in the rear. Since we know the weight of the vehicle, it was relatively straightforward
to find the static axle loads for front and rear. The relative static front axle load is given by:
1−Ψ=

(1)
where FZF is the static front axle load, W is the weight, and Ψ is the ratio of static rear axle load to the
total car weight. The center of gravity must be known in order to determine the application of moment
balance as well, which is needed in order to determine a lightly loaded vehicle for careful brake balance
analysis and avoiding brake lockup prematurely [3]. The moment balance around the front axle of a static
vehicle is given by:
=
(2)
Where L is the length of the wheelbase and lf is the horizontal distance from the center of gravity to the
front axle. The horizontal distance was also found for the rear axle defined as lR.
Once the static vehicle load case was found, the dynamic loading case was applied. When the brakes are
compressed, the torque created by the brakes is resisted by the tire where it touches the ground. Although
the brake design goal is to lock all 4 wheels, the brake performance must be able to perform much under
the goal in order to provide efficient braking while racing. Before the wheels lock up, the force is a direct
function of the torque produced by the brakes at the wheels [3]. The front axle dynamic normal force is
given by FzF,dyn and equation (3) shows the application of moment balance about the rear tire to the
ground contact point:
, = (1 − + )
(3)
Where a is the deceleration in units of g, and found by dividing the total braking force by the weight. The
value is the center of gravity height divided by the wheelbase. When calculated the deceleration was
about 1.6 g’s, and was used to determine dynamic axle loads while decelerating under braking. Figure (2)
shows some of the forces being analyzed in the dynamic load case.
3
Figure 2. Dynamic Load Forces [3]
In congruence with the front axle dynamic force, the rear axle moment balance about the front tire to the
ground is given by:
, = ( − )
(4)
Once these dynamic forces were found, optimum braking forces were found by utilizing the braking
traction coefficient. More detail to these forces were found using hand calculations, and then plugged into
excel for reassurance. This is shown in Appendix A.
Braking Forces
The braking forces were calculated on an excel sheet with multiple input parameters including rotor sizes
for front and rear, caliper sizes and number of pistons, master cylinder bore diameters, tire sizes, pads
used (coefficient of friction), balance bar proportioning, and pedal ratio. By creating numerous inputs, it
allows the user to fine tune each component for both front and rear in order to reach the required braking
force found using the dynamic vehicle load cases above. With a factor of safety of 1.20, the 4 wheel lock
force required is about 1302 lbf. This was found by hand as well as in excel and inputted as a minimum
requirement of braking force needed to achieve. The calculations are shown in Appendix 4A.
The forces and pressures being applied to the brakes follow a logical process that will ultimately
determine the clamping forces needed to be supplied by the caliper to stop the vehicle under quick and
dynamic braking scenarios.
First off, it is important to understand the amount of kinetic energy the vehicle will have when moving at
a rate of 40 miles per hour. The equation for KE is shown below in equation (5):
4
1
= 2 2
(5)
where mv is the mass of the vehicle (loaded) and vv is the velocity of the vehicle. This is important in
determining the deceleration rate and the amount of g’s to stop the vehicle. For simplicity’s sake, the
governing equations for determining the proper amount of clamping force needed are shown below. The
amount of braking power supplied by the brakes to fully lock the vehicle entails quite a few variables and
equations beyond the scope of the report, but the excel contains a more detailed outline of the equations
used.
The braking force output from the pedal assembly is defined by multiplying the pedal ratio by the force
supplied by the driver. Under dynamic braking conditions, the value supplied by the driver will vary
drastically based on the situation it is in and must be designed on a varying scale to achieve the desired
results. Average pedal force was reconstructed using a bathroom scale up against a solid rigid body, with
the driver being braced. This force was found to range from 30-40 lbf, while a maximum driver pedal
force achieved was 230 lbf. This is not a very accurate experiment for this application but gives a good
estimate of to what forces can be seen by the pedal assembly.
Once the braking force of the pedal assembly was calculated, a governing equation used based on the
master cylinder piston bore area determines the line pressure. This is shown as a relationship below:
= /
(6)
The master cylinder pressure is the relationship of force over area, where the pressure is assumed to be
constant through the lines to the calipers, equating the pressure supplied to the calipers to the pressure at
the master cylinder [3]. From here, the force supplied from the caliper is found by taking the pressure
found at the caliper and multiplying by the piston area of the caliper. This will give the clamping force
supplied by one caliper but must be multiplied by a factor of 2 as the clamping force is generating by both
halves of the caliper body [5].
The force of friction must be considered between the rotor and pad, which was an assumption of 0.4
based on data found regarding coefficients of friction between steel rotors and BP-20 composite pad
material [6]. The relationship below shows this coefficient of friction being applied to the clamping force:
= ⋅
(7)
The torque of the wheel must be compromised by the braking system, meaning the force of friction
multiplied by the effective radius of the rotor must be equal to or greater than the wheel torque, and can
be found utilizing equation (8) shown here:
=
(8)
The torque of the wheel and tire must equate to the torque generated by the rotor, therefore set a
synonymous relationship is set up between the two different torques. Another important characteristic in
determining braking force is the amount of slip generated in order to react to the torque in the rotating
assembly [5]. This is found by creating a variable for the force between the ground and tire, which
5
assumes friction between the tire and the ground, and then is a function of the effective rolling radius of
the tire. This relationship is shown below in equation (9):
= /
(9)
This process up to this point is determining the braking force required considering a single wheel brake
assembly, in which is not the case for Baja where the team is designing for a set of 3 brake assemblies
including outboard/wheel brake assemblies in the front and an inboard/gearbox brake on the rear. Since
the torque of the output on the gearbox is still unknown, it is assumed to be consistent with the wheel
torque applied but will be fixed once this is known. Once the drivetrain team knows this, it can be
updated easily within the excel file. With this kept in mind, the total braking force was the force of the tire
multiplied by a factor of 3. This takes assumptions that include a consistent and ample amount of friction
between the tire and ground, as well as a large enough contact patch to do so.
Table 2 below shows the summary of results comparing last year’s braking variables and final braking
force to the new recommended design with variables and total braking force required to lock all four
wheels. The values found for this use the excel brake force calculator shown in Appendix A.
Table 2. Braking Force Calculation Results
Old Car 52
New Car 44
Master Cylinder Bore
0.5 in
0.625 in
Caliper Piston Size
0.79 in2
1.23 in2
Rotor Size
7 in
8 in
Tire Size
23 in
23 in
Pedal Ratio
2.4
5.6
Pedal Force Required to Lock
(with factor of safety)
191.43 lbf
71.7 lbf
As seen in the table of results above, the required for the lock all 4 wheels on the previous car 52 would
have taken nearly 200 pounds of force in order to do so. The new design will only need about 72 pounds
to reach the same goal. This also assumes a factor of safety of 1.20.
The new design would utilize primarily Wilwood braking products. This includes two 5/8” bore GS
Compact Remote master cylinders, three GP200 Calipers, 2 sets of BP-20 Pads, and custom in-house 8”
steel rotors. This design would also be utilizing a bias bar or balance bar set up, which would be able to
adjust the amount of stroke the pedal applies to each of the master cylinder, therefore proportioning the
amount of braking force from front to rear. This will be very useful in tuning the braking system to allow
all 4 wheels to lock consistently for the tech inspection.
6
Pedal Design and Evaluation
Once the known pedal forces were calculated, the design process started on the pedal assembly. A few
types of systems were thought about, and due to space requirements 2 types of designs are being
considered. First type of design is a floor mount design with master cylinder’s being actuated behind the
pedal. The second type of design includes a top mounted pedal assembly to allow for more space in the
front nose of the vehicle for the steering rack and pinion. Currently these two designs are still being
considered as the team is now transitioning into creating the CAD assembly together.
The advantages to running a floor mounted pedal include lowering the vehicle’s center of gravity, having
mounting positions readily available based on the 4130 tubing already in place, as well as more sturdy for
a pedal assembly as the forces acting on the pedal by the driver are towards the floor of the car. This
means forces are acting towards the mounting on the ground rather than opposing all the mounting that
would be required for a top mounted pedal [3]. The team is striving to make the floor mounted pedal
assembly shown in figure (3).
Figure 3. Floor Mounted Pedal Assembly
The advantages to running a top mounted pedal would primarily be to save space as well as having easier
access to the master cylinders in which would make bleeding the braking system easier. A major
disadvantage to a top mounted pedal, which is not shown in this report, is that it requires quite a bit more
mounting towards the top of the nose of the vehicle. This not only adds more weight than it is currently,
but also must be designed stronger than a floor mounted pedal as the forces applied oppose the mounting
position.
Finite element analysis (FEA) must still be performed on the pedal assembly to ensure it will not fail for the
duration of the competition. This will be conducted along with a top mounted pedal within the near future.
7
Appendix A: Brake Force Calculations
1A
8
2A
9
3A
10
4A
11
Appendix B. Other materials used
[4]
12
References
[1] A. Leanse, “How Disc Brakes Work,” YourMechanic Advice, 30-Nov-2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/how-disc-brakes-work. [Accessed: 09-Nov-2018].
[2] “Difference between fixed and floating caliper …,” Quora. [Online]. Available:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-fixed-and-floating-caliper. [Accessed:
09-Nov-2018].
[3] R. Limpert, Brake design and safety. Warrendale, Pa: SAE International, 2011.
[4] “Human Applied Forces,” NASA. [Online]. Available:
https://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section04.htm. [Accessed: 09-Nov-2018].
[5] “The Physics of Braking Systems – STOPTECH,” Stop Tech High Performance Brake Systems.
[Online]. Available: http://www.stoptech.com/docs/media-center-documents/the-physics-ofbraking-systems. [Accessed: 09-Nov-2018].
[6] “Coefficient of Friction,” Coefficient for Static Friction of Steel Chart. [Online]. Available:
http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-frictioncoefficient.htm. [Accessed: 09-Nov-2018].
13
Memorandum
The NAU Baja SAE capstone team is the Baja Team client. Baja SAE is a competition of engineering
students from across the United States who design and build single-seat all-terrain sporting vehicles to
compete in a 4 hour endurance race [1]. The client must meet the SAE requirements to compete, and the
vehicle must be a “prototype for a reliable, maintainable, ergonomic, and economic production vehicle
that serves a recreational market” [1]. One of the essential tests during the competition is the dynamic
brake test, in which the vehicle must begin braking and come to a full stop with locked tires within a
certain distance. In order to successfully compete in the endurance race as well as pass the dynamic brake
test, the client needs a robust, effective, and lightweight braking system.
[1] https://www.sae.org/attend/student-events/
Project Need
NAU’s Baja capstone team is dissatisfied with commercially available brake calipers due to their bulk
and large caliper distance which requires wide, heavy rotors. Additionally, according to the client calipers
available off the shelf range from $150-$200 apiece – a total of $600-$800 for a full set. This expense
inflates the overall vehicle cost which is a key criterion judges will look at during the competition.
Project Goal
Team Baja’s primary goal is to design a lighter weight low cost brake caliper with a smaller grip length in
order to minimize the rotor width. In addition, the caliper must cost less than commercially available
calipers but maintain enough resilience for a four hour endurance race without cracking or overheating. In
the process, the team will explore rotor designs to match the caliper grip, including possible slot designs
and different materials. Furthermore, the vehicle must retain full braking capability as outlined in the
competition rules.
Constraints
The final design must be some variation of the caliper brake system and the finished product must meet
competition requirements and retain full braking capacity (i.e. the design must pass the dynamic brake
test). Additionally the NAU engineering machine shop must be capable of manufacturing the finished
design and the design cannot exceed the client’s current caliper weight or cost.
Objectives
The highest priority of team Baja is to minimize the weight of the design and reduce the distance between
caliper pistons so that the caliper can be fitted with a thinner rotor. Additionally, the team will explore
design variations in order to find the lowest cost option. The team will accomplish this without
compromising the strength of the caliper or rotor so that the risk of over-heating and cracking are
acceptably low. The final design must be adequate to pass the dynamic brake test, and field repairs must
not be complex or time consuming.
Deliverables
The team will be responsible for delivering fully dimensioned SolidWorks part and assembly files of the
caliper and rotor to the client, as well as a Bill of Materials (BOM) and cost analysis for manufacturing a
full set of calipers and back up replacements. Additionally, the team will model the design in Matlab to
ensure the robustness and efficacy of the proposed design.
Summary
The current Baja SAE capstone team is discontent with aftermarket brake calipers due to their bulk, high
expense, and wide caliper grip length. In order to fix this problem they require a light weight, high
performance brake caliper that is easy to manufacture with available resources and machinery. The cost
and weight of the brake calipers will determine the success of the design for the client, but these priorities
will likely conflict with the durability and effectiveness of the caliper. The final design must meet all
competition guidelines, pass the dynamic brake test, and complete the 4-hour endurance race without
overheating or cracking. To accomplish these goals Team Baja will explore different designs to find the
most appropriate solution and deliver CAD files, a BOM, and Matlab analyses to the client.
Tables
Table 1. Summary of project definition and needs statement
NEED
Aftermarket brake calipers are too bulky and expensive for SAE Baja applications
PROBLEM DEFINITION
Design a lighter weight low cost brake caliper with a smaller grip length in order to minimize the rotor
width. Additionally, the caliper must cost less than commercially available calipers but maintain
enough resilience for a 4-hour endurance race without cracking or overheating
Objective
1. Lightweight caliper
2. Small grip distance
3. Inexpensive
4. Easy field repair
Basis for Measurement
weight of caliper
distance between caliper
pistons
manufacturing cost for 8
calipers and rotors*
time to replace caliper in
field
braking distance
Temperature reading on
brake fluid
Units
kilograms
millimeters
USD
minutes
5. Retain braking capability
meters
6. Brake fluid will not
degrees kelvin
overheat during 4-hour
endurance race
7. Rotor will not crack during Visual inspection for cracks
millimeters
4 hr. endurance race
The team will test objectives 6 and 7 under competition conditions in 4-hour endurance race.
*So that each wheel will have one replacement caliper/rotor
Constraints
Engineering machine shop must be capable of machining parts. Objective 5 must meet
competition requirements during dynamic brake test.
Re:
Individual HW -Application of Ethics to your project.
This individual paper is graded for writing quality (50%) and content (50%) and is worth 20 points, see rubric
on Bblearn for grading details. The paper must be uploaded into BBLearn in essay format by the due date
specified on bblearn.
Assignment
In this paper, you will be analyzing the ethics around your design and relate it (hypothetically) to one of the
following five categories: public safety and pubic welfare, conflict of interest, ethical engineering/fair trade,
international engineering ethics, and data selection. You must select one of the case studies and identifying
the relevant ethical issues.
Your paper must be 3-5 pages single spaced and have the following sections:
1. Project and Scenario Introduction
1.1. Brief Introduction of your project.
1.2. Identify your primary ethical scenario and additionally describe:
– What are the relevant facts of the scenario?
– What missing information is not provided that you would like to know?
1.3. Who are the applicable stakeholders for this scenario? (this may differ from your actual stakeholders)
2. Ethical Codes and Theories
2.1. Identify relevant professional codes of ethics related to your scenario that you have chosen.
2.2. Identify relevant ethical theories related to your scenario.
3. Alternatives Generation and Comparison
3.1. Identify at least two alternative actions to your scenario
– What are the consequences to each action?
3.2. Discuss how this scenario and your alternative actions might affect the stakeholders you have
identified in section 1.3.
3.3. Evaluate those alternative actions by applying the professional codes of ethics and ethical theories
– Note: each could have competing reasoning based on the code/theory selected
4. Action Selection and Justification
4.1. After carefully evaluating your options (apply the professional codes of ethics and ethical theories),
select the best course of action.
4.2. Justify your decision thoroughly.
Page 1
Ethical Scenarios1:
(1) Public safety and public welfare:
Public 1: You have been promoted to team lead of your project. Because of budget concerns raised by the chairman of the
company, the team has been unable to hire a sufficient number of qualified individuals to perform quality
assurance/inspections that will impact the safety and health of the public. This makes it difficult for the current quality
assurance/inspectors to do a good and thorough job. At the same time, a new and tougher design code was adopted by the
company that you working for/with. While this code promotes greater public safety than the last one, it also contributes to
the difficulty inspectors have doing a good and thorough job.
As a result, you set up an appointment with the chairman of the company to discuss both of your concerns. The chairman,
agrees to hire additional code officials for the team on the condition that you agree to permit certain specified projects
under construction to be inspected under the older, less rigid enforcement requirements.
Should you agree to concur with the chairman’s proposal?
–adapted from NSPE Cases No. 98-5
Public 2: You are an engineer on your team who has been tasked with designing a specialized software package to aid in
your design with respect to the impact on public health and safety, such as those that control air and water quality. Testing
the software is part of the design process. Because of this, you conduct extensive testing and find that the software is safe
to use under existing standards. But you are aware that new draft standards are about to be released by a standard setting
organization– standards that the newly designed software may not meet.
You could suggest that the company and its client perform more tests on the software to see if it meets these new safety
standards. Such tests would determine whether the company should move forward with the use of the software. But the
client is eager to move forward and the company is eager to satisfy its client and protect its finances and existing jobs.
Doing the tests would be extremely costly and delay the project at least six months. This would put the company at a
competitive disadvantage and cost the company a lot of money– putting the goals of protecting its finances, existing jobs,
and pleasing the client in jeopardy. Testing would also result in a significant rise in the product/service price to the
customer during the six months the new testing would delay the project. But at the same time, the management of the
company wants to be sure that the software is safe to use.
The company requests your recommendation concerning the need for additional software testing. What should you
recommend?
–adapted from NSPE Cases No. 96-4
1
Adopted from the NSPE BER and modified into scenarios from the discussion cases presented on the Online Ethics Center.
Page 2
(2) Conflict of Interest:
Conflict 1: One of your tasks on your design team is to perform a study and recommend the best location for
your project. The choices have been narrowed down to two parcels of land. The first parcel is undeveloped and
is owned by a person who plans to build a second home there. The second parcel, a developed piece of land, is
owned by you. Because of this, you inform the County of your ownership of the second parcel of land, then go
on to recommend that the County build on the first parcel for the following reasons: (1) it is a better location
from an engineering standpoint, and (2) it would be cheaper to acquire the land.
Should the County accept your recommendation, knowing of your property ownership?
–adapted from NSPE Case No. 88-1
Conflict 2: You have been tasked by your team to conduct a study regarding the construction of your project.
The client is considering building the project in an area next to your neighborhood. Upon learning this, you
advise the client that your home is near the proposed project, and that this could represent a conflict of interest.
But, the client retains your team’s services anyway and you then conduct the study and ultimately recommend
the construction of the project – which was just completed.
Is there a danger that your recommendation may have been biased? Did the State act appropriately after your
disclosure? Despite the disclosure, was there still a conflict of interest? Were you morally required to do more
than disclose the potential conflict of interest?
–adapted from NSPE Case 85-6
Page 3
(3) Ethical Engineering/Fair Trade:
Fair 1: You just left your company that you are working on the current proposal with to go and work for a
competitor company. The project on which you were in charge of while at the first company was virtually
completed before you left, but you did not sign or seal the construction/build documents before leaving.
Bernard, your old boss, requests you to sign and seal the drawing packet.
What are your obligations with respect to the work he left behind? Can you refuse to sign or seal the
construction documents? Can you ask company A to pay you for signing the documents?
–adapted from NSPE Cases No. 96-3
Fair 2: Your team has submitted preliminary data to the client so they could include that data in a proposal
intended to secure additional funds for the project. During this time, the client held many informal discussions
with your company, leading the company to believe it would be awarded the contract if the project were
approved.
Several months later, the client told your team that the public and private funding it had received would not be
sufficient to fund the full scope of the project. The firm was then asked to evaluate the possibility of a more
limited scope of the project. Believing that you would be awarded the design contract, your team investigated
the possibility of a more limited project–at its own expense of several thousand dollars–and submitted a revised
proposal to the agency.
At this point, what is the client’s obligation to your company? What does your company have a right to expect
from the client?
Subsequently, the chief engineer that works for the client informed you that it had turned over all of your data to
a second company and was conducting initial negotiations with that firm. The chief said that if these
negotiations fell through, the agency would contact you for negotiations. Having received your data, the second
company was aware of your team’s involvement in the project – who neither contacted your company for
discussions of the project nor for its earlier submissions to the State agency.
How should your company respond to the State engineer’s information? What should your company do? What
obligation does the other company have to you, if any?
–adapted from NSPE Case No. 77-5
Page 4
(4) International Engineering Ethics:
International 1: You are a legally recognized engineer here in the United States, a resident in your home
country, and an NSPE International Member. Assume your project with your American company has a client in
your home country. Under the laws of your home country, it is legal for individuals to provide cash payments to
public officials in order to obtain project assignments. In fact, doing so constitutes a tax deduction for you back
home.
Because of this, you want to provide cash payments to public officials in your home country to get the project,
but you know that this practice is against NSPE’s code of ethics. Should you proceed?
–adapted from NSPE Cases No. 98-2
(5)Data Selection:
Data 1: Amory, an engineer, is retained by the City to design a bridge as part of an elevated highway system.
Amory retains the services of Carroll, a structural engineer, with expertise in horizontal geometry,
superstructure design and elevations, to design certain parts of the bridge. Carroll drafts plans for the bridge’s
three curved welded-plate girder spans, a critical part of the bridge’s design.
Months later, Amory enters the bridge design into a national organization’s bridge-design competition, and it
wins first prize. The entry, however, fails to credit Carroll for his part in the bridge design.
What, if anything, should Carroll do?
–adapted from NSPE Case No. 92-1
Page 5
Ability to identify Facts Present and
Missing
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no mention of existing or missing
facts
1 (5.00%)
Describes very few facts of missing or
present information.
1.5 (7.50%)
Highlights several points of
information present and missing but
does not give full description of
importance
2 (10.00%)
Thoughtfully identifies several facts
both present and missing and reflects
on the overall importance.
Ability to identify Codes and Cannons
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no mention of codes and cannons
1 (5.00%)
Mentions one code or cannon
applicable, no reference to those that
are not
1.5 (7.50%)
Identifies most relevant codes and
cannons but has basic understanding
of importance.
2 (10.00%)
Identifies all relevant codes and
cannons, high regard of importance
Alternative Generation and Comparison
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No mention of alternatives
1 (5.00%)
Considers at least one alternative
without regard to comparisons.
1.5 (7.50%)
Highlights 2 or more alternatives and
compares them thoroughly.
1.74 (8.70%)
Identifies 3 or more alternatives but
lacks significant comparison between
them.
2 (10.00%)
Accurately identifies 3 or more
alternatives and describes meaningful
comparison between them.
Action selection and Justification
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no action mentioned
1 (5.00%)
Has difficulty identifying appropriate
course of action and is unclear on
justification
1.5 (7.50%)
Describes an appropriate course of
action but only addresses basic
justification
2 (10.00%)
Provides meaningful course of action
and justifies choice with well-rounded
case
Spelling, grammar and punctuation
0 (0.00%)
No regard for correct spelling,
grammar and punctuation.
1 (5.00%)
Little to no proofreading.
1.26 (6.30%)
Many errors in spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
1.5 (7.50%)
Correct spelling, grammar and
punctuation. Some recurring errors
noted.
1.74 (8.70%)
High regard for correct spelling,
grammar and punctuation. Only minor
errors noted. Clear use of
proofreading
2 (10.00%)
Memo is nearly free of spelling,
grammar and incorrect punctuation,
Format
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No table or memo formatting used,
1 (5.00%)
Little regard for correct formatting of a
memo or table. Did not use
paragraphs to build ideas.
1.5 (7.50%)
Followed memo format. Missing 1-2
sections, or sections were not
executed correctly.
1.74 (8.70%)
Format of memo or table is nearly
correct. Minor adjustments needed.
2 (10.00%)
Correct memo format, yet still
provides information in paragraphs
that build from one another. Correct
table format. Table supports the
writing
Professional Register
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
Unprofessional writing
1 (5.00%)
Heavy use of colloquialisms and
hyperbole.
1.5 (7.50%)
A number of colloquial phrases and
hyperbole that need to be improved.
1.74 (8.70%)
Nearly free of colloquial writing or
hyperbole.
2 (10.00%)
Memo avoids the use of
conversational or colloquial phrases
and eliminates instances of
hyperbole
Clear and Concise
0 (0.00%)
Writing is not understandable.
1 (5.00%)
Ideas can barely be understood
1.26 (6.30%)
Ideas can be understood after
carefully re-reading and deciphering
your sentences. Writing clarity and
conciseness can be improved
throughout
1.5 (7.50%)
There are a number of instances of
unclear writing or redundancies.
Clarity or conciseness needs to be
improved.
1.74 (8.70%)
Nearly free of vague ideas/pronouns
or redundancies. Writing is mostly
clear and concise.
2 (10.00%)
Writing is clear. All ideas are clearly
developed and there are no vague
pronouns are phrases. There are not
redundancies.
Name:Ethics Rubric
Exit
Name: Ethics Rubric
Exit
Grid View
List View
Incomplete
Needs significant improvement
Novice
Competent
Proficient
Exemplary
Identification of Ethical Issue(s)
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No description of ethical issues
mentioned
1 (5.00%)
Little or incorrect description of ethical
issues, ideas are vague.
1.5 (7.50%)
A brief, yet not 100% complete
description identifying ethical issues.
1.74 (8.70%)
Describes variety of ethical issues,
but does address in detail.
2 (10.00%)
Thoughtfully identifies and describes
a variety of ethical issues.
Identification of Stakeholders
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No description of stakeholders or
interests
1 (5.00%)
Identifies at least one stakeholder
that may be affected, overlooks main
stakeholders and their interests.
1.5 (7.50%)
Identifies two more more appropriate
stakeholders and highlights some of
their interests.
1.74 (8.70%)
Describes a variety of stakeholders
but does not give a full reflection on
their interests
2 (10.00%)
Accurately identifies several
stakeholders and meaningfully
reflects on their interests.
Ability to identify Facts Present and
Missing
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no mention of existing or missing
facts
1 (5.00%)
Describes very few facts of missing or
present information.
1.5 (7.50%)
Highlights several points of
information present and missing but
does not give full description of
importance
2 (10.00%)
Thoughtfully identifies several facts
both present and missing and reflects
on the overall importance.
Ability to identify Codes and Cannons
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no mention of codes and cannons
1 (5.00%)
Mentions one code or cannon
applicable, no reference to those that
are not
1.5 (7.50%)
Identifies most relevant codes and
cannons but has basic understanding
of importance.
2 (10.00%)
Identifies all relevant codes and
cannons, high regard of importance
Alternative Generation and Comparison
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No mention of alternatives
1 (5.00%)
Considers at least one alternative
without regard to comparisons
1.5 (7.50%)
Highlights 2 or more alternatives and
compares them thoroughly.
1.74 (8.70%)
Identifies 3 or more alternatives but
lacks significant comparison between
them
2 (10.00%)
Accurately identifies 3 or more
alternatives and describes meaningful
comparison between them.
Action selection and Justification
1.26 (6.30%)
1.74 (8.70%)
0 (0.00%)
no action mentioned
1 (5.00%)
Has difficulty identifying appropriate
course of action and is unclear on
justification
1.5 (7.50%)
Describes an appropriate course of
action but only addresses basic
justification
2 (10.00%)
Provides meaningful course of action
and justifies choice with well-rounded
case.
Spelling, grammar and punctuation
0 (0.00%)
No regard for correct spelling,
grammar and punctuation.
1 (5.00%)
Little to no proofreading.
1.26 (6.30%)
Many errors in spelling, grammar and
punctuation
1.5 (7.50%)
Correct spelling, grammar and
punctuation. Some recurring errors
noted
1.74 (8.70%)
High regard for correct spelling,
grammar and punctuation. Only minor
errors noted. Clear use of
proofreading
2 (10.00%)
Memo is nearly free of spelling,
grammar and incorrect punctuation.
Format
1.26 (6.30%)
0 (0.00%)
No table or memo formatting used.
1 (5.00%)
Little regard for correct formatting of a
memo or table. Did not use
paragraphs to build ideas.
1.5 (7.50%)
Followed memo format. Missing 1-2
sections, or sections were not
executed correctly.
1.74 (8.70%)
Format of memo or table is nearly
correct. Minor adjustments needed.
2 0.00%)
Correct memo format, yet still
provides information in paragraphs
that build from one another. Correct
table format. Table supports the
writing

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.

Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.