Rocks Roads Ripples N'At:
Pittsburgh's Civil Engineering News Blog
By Louis Gualtieri, P.E.
The Pittsburgh Section American Society of Civil Engineers Younger Member Forum (YMF) hosted their 10th Annual Dodgeball Tournament on Saturday February 20th, 2016 held on CMU’s campus.
This year 6 teams partook in the tournament. The tournament began with a round robin to seed the teams going into the playoffs, similar to what you would see in FIFA’s World Cup. The eventual winner was Slumdodgeball Millionaires (seen left with their championship trophy) defeating Off Constantly, and yes those were the team names.
In the Mass Dodgeball tournament in between the round robin round and the playoff bracket, it was every man (and woman) for themselves. The last man standing was Sam North, a student from the University of Pittsburgh team (The Dodgefathers).
The prize, in addition to the medal and bragging rights, was tickets to the Mattress Factory contemporary art museum and experimental lab.
The YMF’s annual Pittsburgh Penguins Hockey Ticket Raffle (tickets donated by HDR, Inc.) was pulled at the dodgeball tournament with two winners selected, each winning a pair of tickets. The winners were Shirley Clapperton (ticket sold by YMF President Elect, Lou Gualtieri) and Mark Burkhart (ticket sold by YMF Treasurer & Dodgeball Committee Chair, Jeff Argyros.)
The YMF also thanks Papa John’s Pizza who donated pizzas for the event; the pizzas were sold as a fundraiser.
All participants had inspired fun exercising mind and body, and making new friends and colleagues among the next generation of Pittsburgh Civil Engineers.
Follow YMF to see what they will do next year!
From CE News, by Cathy Bazxn-Arias
After dusk, we were limited to sparkling conversation and viewing what flashlight illumination allowed. It was probably for the best: Every day, as soon as daylight broke, the roosters and oxen would greet one another from one end of the village to the other, and thus, most mornings began early.
Welcome to Makili, Mali. Located a few hundred kilometers southwest from the fabled city of Timbuktu, Makili is an agricultural village with approximately 1,400 people. The seasons fluctuate between dry and rainy and cool and hot. Because of its relatively flat topography, there is limited storage of water in the form of lakes or ponds for fishing, one of the main sources of protein for the community. Thus, in 2007, through a contact from the Peace Corps, the University of Pittsburgh Student Chapter of Engineers Without Borders (EWB-Pitt) endeavored to aid Makilians in addressing their nutritional needs by providing technical, educational, and financial assistance.
During my stay as mentor, the EWB-Pitt team conducted a detailed survey for a future permanent fish pond site; held meetings with community leaders and members; interviewed health officials; and integrated into village life, which included getting used to well water and ground latrines. These conditions quickly become part of the daily routine alongside sleeping under the stars and working around the hottest hours of the day, which easily reached well above 110° F. But what I’ll remember most is the warmth and courtesy that everyone from the village chief to the Peace Corps volunteers to the smallest toddler extended to us—the spirit of hospitality is alive and active in Makili.
All aspiring and experienced engineers should work at least once during their careers in a project that challenges their comfort zone. Whether it is on a greater-than-life project or addressing the fundamental infrastructure needs of a village community, it is not until you are charged with effectively understanding and communicating with contractors, regulators, community members, scientists, and engineers in another part of the country or the world that one appreciates what civil engineers do and the impact our work makes. How often do you think that your work is not significant or just "routine," or that people don’t understand what you do? It is because of this lack of understanding and low sense of appreciation that I think we contend with several issues in our profession ranging from bidding procedures and commodity-versus-professional services to outsourcing and professional licensing.
The main challenge for engineers to gain this experience is the willingness to step outside our comfort zone. "Why do I need to work elsewhere (even temporarily)?" "What can I do/learn in another state/country?" "My language/writing skills will limit my experience/contribution in the project." These are expressions of apprehension rather than lack of ability. The saying, "Where there’s a will there’s a way," is applicable now more than ever for engineers willing to experience unique projects—from EWB to the Peace Corps to Habitat for Humanity and disaster-relief volunteer opportunities. It really is a matter of mind over matter.
If you can step outside your comfort zone, then perhaps, as you watch the brightly lit stars lying on your yoga mat (memo to self: invest in an air mattress) through mosquito netting and ponder, "What am I doing here?", you will likely recall something throughout the day that will provide the answer. Remember the neighbors’ questions as they watch you take survey readings, or the children’s laughter as they curiously eye your calculator and notes. You will remember being extra careful with tools and machinery so that no one is hurt (OSHA would be proud) and the sense of responsibility on your shoulders because the best hope for the community’s needs is your work. And you will more than likely enjoy a good night’s rest. Until the oxen and roosters rouse you.
By: Greg Holbrook, P.E.
Approximately 80 members and guests attended the Annual Joint Dinner between The Pittsburgh Association for Bridge Construction & Design (ABCD) and the ASCE Pittsburgh Section SEI Chapter at Cefalo’s Banquet and Event Center in Carnegie on January 21, 2016.
The technical presentation of the evening was the “Design and Construction of the Tanana River Bridge” located near Salcha, Alaska.
Robert Stachel, P.E., Executive Vice President of HRV Inc., discussed the challenging characteristics of the design and construction of this bridge.
The Tanana River Bridge is Alaska’s longest bridge at 3,300 ft in length, and cost $188 Million for design and construction. The bridge, owned by the Alaska Railroad, consists of over 20 structural steel 165 ft. long spans. The structure provides the military with year-round ground access to training ranges and to supply fuel to bases in the future.
Mr. Stachel focused on the unusual fabrication of the structure. With a winning bid from an Asian fabricator, the design and construction team traveled across the Pacific to witness the magnitude of fabrication opportunities that the Asian market has to offer; economies of scale, high-tech equipment, new facilities, etc. Attendees became acutely aware of the necessity for equipment and facilities of this nature in the United States to compete with global steel fabricators and manufacturers. In this case, the fabricator for the Tanana River Bridge constructed a new facility specifically for this project with state-of-the-art equipment and QA/QC measures.
Mr. Stachel also discussed the challenge of transporting the components and construction on a remote site. After shipping the components of the superstructure to Alaska without issue, the team then had the task of transporting the components from the coast to the project site. This meant moving large members on trucks, traveling down highways and roadways with little traction, or in some cases completely ice covered roads (think Ice Road Truckers!). In one instance a steel girder fell off the bed of the truck and sat off to the side of the road, contorted in many directions, for a lengthy amount of time before being able to be hoisted back onto a truck and continuing to the site. After much professional discussion and testing, this specific girder was determined to be straight and usable in the final structure.
Additional project challenges stemmed from the sub-zero temperatures, including difficulties driving sheet piles into frozen ground, causing them to bend at shallow depths. Additional factors not normally seen on construction projects here in the Pittsburgh Area included weather related welding issues and issues for construction workers on site.
The social hour for colleagues and professionals to interact continued to the dinner hour.
Attendees earned 1.0 Professional Development Hour (PDH).
We extend appreciation to Robert Stachel, P.E. and HRV Inc. for sharing their knowledge and experience, and the joint efforts of all ABCD & Pittsburgh SEI Chapter committee members and leadership for their work on another successful Joint Dinner opportunity for Civil Engineer members to build and maintain technical and professional skills.
Article by ASCE Awards Committee and ASCE Blog Editor
Bill Gross, P.E. is the recipient of the 2015 ASCE-Pittsburgh Engineer of the Year Award. “Any successes of which I’ve been a part are the result of working for a company that tries to do the right thing – and of working within a western Pennsylvania Engineering community rich with talented and dedicated engineers who continue to accomplish great things!” says Bill. “I’m truly humbled that ASCE considered my contributions worthy of such an honor.”
Bill Gross is a Vice President and Transportation Section Manager at the Pittsburgh office of HDR. After earning his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University in 1984, he began his career in the New York/New Jersey area before returning to his western Pennsylvania roots in 1988 to take on many challenging opportunities with HDR where he’s remained for the last 28 years. “Managing HDR’s transportation section allows me to work closely within an exceptional team to meet our clients’ needs – while providing staff members with opportunities to achieve their personal goals and expand horizons,” Bill explains.
Bill’s other professional endeavors include having dedicated many years of service to ASCE and other professional societies toward the advancement of the Pennsylvania transportation industry. Bill recently completed 8 years in leadership roles of the Pittsburgh Section of ASCE, including President of the Section, 2012-13, during which time he prioritized the expansion of the Section’s Program of Educational Outreach to school students. He received the Section’s Service to People Award in 2008.
“Bill has always been the consummate professional in all of his endeavors, whether in his role as a Section Manager, or in leadership roles with ASCE or other professional organizations,” says Ralph Gilbert, friend and colleague for over 25 years. “The best thing about working with Bill is that you know he is going to do the right thing in every situation and that he can be depended upon to get the job done right, no matter what it takes.”
Bill has been active in leadership roles in a number of other professional societies including Director and President of the Pittsburgh and Southwest Penn Sections of ASHE and Director of ACEC. He has also been very involved in the Western Pennsylvania Coordinator for the Keystone Transportation Funding Coalition, a group which greatly contributed to the successful passage of the Act 89 Transportation Funding Bill in 2013.
Bill is a native Pittsburgher, having grown up in the Hazelwood section of the city. “My favorite part of growing up in Pittsburgh is the warm and friendly – yet strong-willed and determined people who inhabit this little corner of Pennsylvania!” he says.
He is an active member of St. Teresa of Avila Parish, where he coached the grade school junior varsity program. As the father of three daughters, Bill found his love for coaching youth sports far more rewarding as a family activity when he had to opportunity to manage his daughters’ fast-pitch softball teams for a decade.
Bill is also an avid runner who logs twenty to twenty-five miles per week (or as many as PennDOT’s Rapid Bridge Replacement Project will allow!), and enjoys trying to eclipse his personal bests in the Pittsburgh Half-Marathon and other annual events. Bill has resided in an early 19th century Ross Township farmhouse for the past 25 years and is the very proud father of Ally (25), Katie (22), and Kimmie (20).
Tom Batroney, PE, ENV SP, M.ASCE – ASCE Pittsburgh Sustainability Committee Chair
Jason J. Borne, PE, CPSWQ, ENV SP, M.ASCE – ASCE Pittsburgh Sustainability Committee Vice Chair
This is the third part in a series of ASCE-Pittsburgh articles related to the Envision Rating System. The first part of the series introduced the Envision Rating System and how it can be a valuable tool for engineers to evaluate the sustainability of projects.
Sustainable Development includes the four interconnected domains: Ecology, Economics, Politics, and Culture. Sustainability is the capacity to endure and can also be defined as a socio-ecological process characterized by the pursuit of a common ideal.
Part One introduced the vision and goals of the Envision rating system. Part one can be read here.
Part Two, provided a high level overview of the specific sustainability categories and subcategories within the Envision Rating System. Part two can be read here.
Envision, developed partly by the American Society of Civil Engineers, is a rating system that provides engineers a standardized tool for evaluating the level of sustainability for the diverse sectors of civil engineering infrastructure projects including:
Envision includes a series of companion tools to help engineers evaluate the sustainability metrics of their projects. These companion tools are independent tools developed to assist and compliment the Envision Rating System itself. The following companion tools are discussed within this third installment of the Envision Rating System article series:
The Envision Self-Assessment Check List is a companion tool that provides project engineers and designers with a quick and easy way to evaluate the potential sustainability of project in a series of “Yes-No” questions pertaining to the categories and subcategories with the Envision Rating System. The checklist is not meant as a replacement for the category scoring criteria within the Envision Rating System; however the checklist is a valuable tool for providing the project team with a high-level assessment of potential sustainability elements that can be addressed during the planning and design phase. The value of the checklist tool is that it provides “sustainability self-awareness” at the beginning stages of a project. By using the checklist tool potential overlooked sustainability elements can be identified at the early stages of the project to potentially be incorporated into the design.
The Self-Assessment Checklist is a spreadsheet based tool in Excel format. As the user progresses with each individual “Yes-No” question in the checklist, the percentage potential sustainability credit categories addressed in the Envision Rating System are graphically displayed as percentage of potential Envision categories addressed. As previously stated, the checklist is not a replacement for the Rating System itself because many of the categories within Envision are scored differently and have varying points depending on the credit addressed. The checklist is available at the ISI website upon registration (https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/).
The Business Case Evaluator (BCE) is an Envision Rating System companion tool developed to provide economic value-based and risk-adjusted analyses of infrastructure projects. The BCE was developed in conjunction with the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s (ISI) Economics Committee and ISI Charter Member and Envision Qualified Company, Impact Infrastructure.
Two modules of the BCE for two civil engineering sectors currently exist: Stormwater and Transit. The Stormwater BCE is currently on Version 3, while the Transit BCE released its first version in December 2015. These BCE tools are directly linked to related Envision Rating System credits, providing the ability to understand the potential economic impact in conjunction with specific sustainability elements within Envision.
The Stormwater BCE module is designed to evaluate the economic value of stormwater management projects particularly with respect to green infrastructure to produce triple bottom line (Social, Environmental, Economic) benefits. The results of the Stormwater BCE provide an estimated monetary value for triple bottom line green infrastructure benefits including, but not limited to:
The tool also calculates “negative” economic values such as capital construction and operation and maintenance costs. All costs are performed on a user-entered project life-span basis.
The Transit BCE module is very similar to the Stormwater BCE but instead of green infrastructure, the Transit BCE evaluates the benefits of transit improvements on a neighborhood or region. The Transit BCE evaluates potential new transit infrastructures of different types, as well as operational improvements in existing transit, and calculates the potential economic benefits of the transit improvements relative to a base transportation case.
The Stomwater and Transit BCE modules contain explanations of assumptions and calculation methods, as well as provides direct references to the economic studies used to develop the assumptions made in the calculations.
Both the Stormwater and Transit BCE modules provide a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the uncertainty in the range of input assumptions and will calculate confidence levels for the calculated economic return value. If desired, the input economic variables in each module may be modified by the user to further refine the calculations. The property value estimates are pulled from online housing data for nearly all major cities within the United States and Canada based on the zip code of the project location.
The primary benefit of the BCE Envision companion tools is that they provide a way to estimate the possible economic return value of a project based upon the project’s location. Knowledge of this value in the planning and design phase can be extremely useful for engineers for obtaining project buy-in from public officials and neighboring residents. Additionally, the results of the BCE analysis are directly linked to the Envision Rating System to determine the sustainability credits which can be obtained by the project and relative “worth” of an Envision credit.
The BCE tool is a spreadsheet based tool in Excel format. The BCE is hosted and maintained by Impact Infrastructure on the Impact Infrastructure website. Impact Infrastructure has also developed software called AutoCASE that streamlines the BCE analysis outside of Excel in an easy to use web-based platform, as well as provides the ability to directly link to AutoCAD designs and quickly perform BCE analysis based on various design alternatives. AutoCASE also provides detailed reporting summary analysis and customizable graphing ability for displaying results for presentation purposes.
This Part Three of the article series has provided a short summary of some of the companion tools that are available within the Envision Rating System for evaluating the sustainability of civil infrastructure projects. In the upcoming (and final) (?) Part Four of the article series we will take a look at how the Envision Rating System is being used locally by civil engineers within the Pittsburgh Region.
For more information on becoming involved within ASCE Pittsburgh’s Sustainability Committee visit our webpage at: http://www.asce-pgh.org/SustainabilityCommittee
By Alex Potter-Weight
More than 80 Pittsburgh Geological Society and ASCE members and guests gathered at the Foster’s Restaurant on Wednesday, January 20th for a joint meeting of PGS and the Geo-Institute. As part of the meeting, Peter R. Michael, PG, presented the lecture “Preventing Coal Waste Impoundment Breakthroughs into Underground Mines.” The topic featured a famous case study of a breakthrough in eastern Kentucky in 2000, and included recommendations for preventing future events and recent research on the subject of coal waste flow.
On October 11, 2000, over 300 million gallons of water and coal waste slurry drained from a coal waste impoundment in Martin County, Kentucky into an adjacent underground coal mine. Most of that material then discharged from two mine portals and affected more than 75 miles or rivers and streams in the surrounding area.
To prevent future catastrophic events, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) and partnering agencies undertook a significant investigation of possible causes and an assessment of current coal waste impoundment practices. Mr. Michael took part in this project with OSMRE and one of the key points in his presentation focused on proper initial accounting of all mineable coal seams in the vicinity of the facility. He demonstrated why sole reliance on existing mine maps should be avoided and that other methods such as local interviews, drilling, and geophysical investigations should be considered. These practices allow for more accurate and complete identifications of underground mines that could affect the stability of the impoundment. Next, Mr. Michael discussed the importance of analyzing the quality of the existing barriers preventing breakthroughs. Finally, the presentation concluded with an in-depth discussion of the properties of coal waste slurries and the features that would indicate high flowability. An analysis of flow properties of coal waste was recently performed by Dr. David Zeng of Case Western Reserve University. The research focused primarily on the moisture content and plasticity of the material in determining the susceptibility of the waste slurries to high flow rates.
Attendees earned 1.0 Professional Development Hour (PDH) for the presentation from the Pittsburgh Geological Society and the Geo-Institute Chapter of the ASCE Pittsburgh Section. This annual joint technical dinner meeting between the two societies also included a social hour to network with other professional leaders, and a buffet dinner.
By Stephanie Roman from Public Source
Ninety percent of car crashes are preventable.
As it stands, about 30,000 people die in car crashes every year in the United States, said Mark Kopko of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [PennDOT]. “If you could reduce that by 90 percent, that’s huge.”
Autonomous cars have the capacity to do that.
In Allegheny County, that could mean a vast reduction in the roughly 12,000 crashes in 2014 — especially of those attributed to driver error, like drunk or distracted driving and speeding.
The technology isn’t a distant dream. Much of it is being researched and designed here in Pittsburgh.
Ride-sharing app company Uber and Carnegie Mellon University [CMU] announced a partnership to work on autonomous cars a year ago. Uber set up an Advanced Technologies Center in Pittsburgh, where they have access to CMU’s talent as well as its National Robotics Engineering Center.
The cars could reduce congested parking and allow commuters to prepare for work. Eventually, they might even provide people unable to drive with access to safe and reliable transportation from their doorsteps.
But Pittsburgh’s varied weather, the resulting pothole problem and the city’s erratic streets may throw up roadblocks for these smart cars. And, the overall safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and other motorists is already a concern without the added factor of cars governed by nascent technology.
Figuring out how to legislate a cutting-edge technology poses another challenge. Some states have passed regulations creating safety measures for the testing of autonomous cars, but not Pennsylvania.
A state workgroup is making preparations to be ready for self-driving cars by the year 2040.
“There’s still too many questions and the potentials are there, so that’s the beauty,” said Kopko, PennDOT manager of traveler information and advanced vehicle technology.
The car decides
In 2013, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defined five stages of vehicle autonomy, with level 0 being that the driver has full control of steering, brakes and throttle, and level 4 meaning that the car performs all functions independently.
Some commercial vehicles are already considered levels 1 and 2, with functions like automatic braking, adaptive cruise control and self-parking.
But there’s much to be achieved before level-4 cars chauffeur people around town.
Fully autonomous vehicles need to cover two domains: highway driving and urban driving.
“Technologically, we’re pretty much there in terms of highway driving,” said John Dolan, principal systems scientist at CMU’s Robotics Institute. The demands of urban driving are “problematic,” he continued. “Nobody’s really claiming they’ve solved it.”
There are three major fields when it comes to teaching cars to drive themselves: perception, behaviors and motion planning.
Perception is how the cars see. They do that with sensors, like cameras, lasers testing distance, and radars detecting speed.
Behaviors are how the car makes tactical decisions, like choosing to merge into the Fort Pitt Tunnel or moving ahead at a stop sign.
Motion planning is the time the car has to make those decisions. It’s the most difficult aspect to design. While a car's sensors would be able to detect if a deer leapt out unexpectedly, it still may not be able to avoid a collision.
Many automakers are working on models of autonomous cars, and liability is a major concern.
“There’s reliability issues. Kind of like NASA and the space industry, they’re going to test it rigorously over the course of several years,” Dolan said. “They need redundancy.”
The cars also need massive computing power, which Dolan said may be the most expensive feature.
It’s likely that the first autonomous cars on the market will be luxury vehicles, and the costs will increase from there. Dolan estimated prices will start at about $60,000 to $75,000.
Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk says his company will have autonomous cars road-ready in about two years.
Some autonomous car and tech developers say city planners shouldn’t get carried away with changes to infrastructure to make way for these cars as their capabilities will continue to evolve.
Certain changes would help, though. Cities, including Pittsburgh, may need to consider standardizing traffic signals and redesigning “problem intersections.”
For example, bizarre on-ramps, traffic lights and one-way signs between Bedford Avenue, Crosstown Boulevard and I-376 in the Hill District could confuse car computers just as much as they do humans — unless it’s been extensively mapped.
Another improvement would be to install dedicated short-range communication in traffic lights, which would signal cars when to go or slow down.
Cooperation among states may also be needed.
“There’s a huge amount of variations on [street] signs between states,” said Blaine Leonard, program manager for intelligent transportation systems at the Utah DOT. “We need to do a better job of figuring out how to make those more consistent.”
PennDOT doesn’t have major investments planned, although the agency is staying abreast of the technology. Eventually, it may look at reducing lane width or cutting out interstate lanes entirely.
One suggestion in PennDOT’s 2040 outline is to reduce the width of the Squirrel Hill tunnel lanes to 10 feet, and to add a third 9-foot lane for autonomous cars.
Kopko said the only near-term project would involve line painting.
“Some [vehicles] look at lines and some don’t,” he said.
Leonard added that white line paint isn’t as visible at night or in inclement weather, and it fades. One solution, he said, might be to put radio frequency identification, known as RFID, in the line paint.
If autonomous cars truly revolutionize the way people get around, what happens to all the parking?
“Because of the way that they circulate, the demand for parking may go down in the city. Those types of vehicles may park on the fringes for free or for cheap,” said Justin Miller, a senior planner for the city of Pittsburgh.
Miller said planners may have to consider making new parking structures adaptable, in case they become unneeded.
“In an urban setting, the amount of parking garages could be potential green space,” said Kurt Myers, deputy secretary of PennDOT driver and vehicle services.
Legislating the unknown
Legislating autonomous vehicles is a hurdle because of the liability involved.
“[The government willl] start to or need to get involved from a safety perspective, at least to make sure this stuff is deployed responsibly,” said Dean Pomerleau, an adjunct robotics professor at CMU and pioneer of self-driving technology. “And despite whatever Elon Musk and the tech guys say, there will be crashes.”
California and a handful of other states have enacted regulations permitting autonomous vehicle testing on public roads and establishing baseline safety measures — primarily that licensed drivers need to be in the car to take control if necessary.
In January, President Barack Obama and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced they would pump $4 billion into autonomous car development over the next decade.
Foxx said the proposal will ease legislative and financial obstacles for auto and tech companies developing the cars.
PennDOT formed the Pennsylvania Connected and Automated Vehicle Working Group in 2012. It includes lawyers and representatives from the Turnpike Commission, the Federal Highway Administration and CMU.
The 2040 outline is the most official item on the books right now. There are no state regulations regarding autonomous cars in place.
With the rate of car turnover, Leonard, of the Utah DOT, said it could take 40 years for autonomous cars to become the norm.
“Even when autonomous vehicles are available and in operation, it will be a long time before they are fully integrated,” Myers said.
Removing a barrier
Autonomous cars will need a licensed driver in the seat — at least at first. But someday people who are unable to drive on their own could have the same access to cars.
Peri Jude Radecic, CEO of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, said this could be life-changing for people with disabilities.
“In rural areas, the problems are magnified, so having another transportation option available to us would be a great advance forward,” she said.
Radecic said transportation departments and the government should ensure autonomous cars are developed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“It would save a lot of money and headaches down the road if we’re able to have these conversations ... now,” she said.
Many experts say that, like an Uber, autonomous vehicles will probably be available to order as taxis at first. They could become a choice alternative for people who live too far from their bus stop to walk or bike, but still want to be economical about transport.
“This really has the potential to impact the quality of life from a mobility standpoint for individuals literally across the world,” Myers said.
Leonard thought about how it could change his and his cohort’s future.
“I really think for [the Baby Boomer] generation the driverless car thing is really going to make it possible to participate in society when we can’t be driving,” he said.
The dream for many involved in the development of autonomous cars is that people without licenses will be able to get around without having to rely on friends or public transportation.
“It may very well be where people look back and say, ‘How archaic it is that you had to sit behind a wheel,’” Myers said.
Reach PublicSource reporter Stephanie Roman at email@example.com. Follow her on Twitter @ShogunSteph. Read the original article here.
By Michael Krepsik
Anyone with a PE license in a state requiring Board-approved courses can tell you about the difficulties they’ve had finding, traveling to, and registering for courses. If you are an out-of-state PE trying to maintain a license, the opportunities to achieve the required continuing education credits can be daunting. The states of Florida and New York are notability difficult and the regulations are confusing. As a Florida license holder and co-workers with several New York PE’s, I set out to learn the continuing education requirements for the 2015-2017 renewal cycle and, specifically, if local and National ASCE courses and webinars would count for continuing education credit for either state.
For the 2015-2017 renewal cycle, Florida has completely dropped the requirement for 8 PDHs in Board-approved courses. Instead, a total of 18 PDHs are now required, 1 hour of which must cover ethics and 1 hour of which must cover laws and rules. While waiving the Board-approved course requirement initially sounds promising, the language in Florida’s statues about qualifying continuing education courses is vague and outdated. And of course, if you are audited and fail to supply sufficient back-up information, your license maybe revoked. For example, a continuing education course is typically considered acceptable if the provider is registered as a continuing education provider with NCEES, a regionally accredited educational institution, a commercial educator, a governmental agency, or a state of national professional association whose primary purpose is to promote the profession of engineering. Based on my conversation with a contact at the Florida Board of Engineers, MOST courses offered by ASCE on the local or national level will qualify towards license renewal. I include the caveat MOST, as item 9 under Non-Qualifying Activities includes such language as “Courses the content of which is below the level of knowledge and skill that reflects the responsibility of engineer in charge.” Bad punctuation and grammar aside, this statement leads me to believe that if the Florida Board doesn’t feel a particular course is not presented at a high enough level then that course will not be counted towards bi-annual credits.
Take-Away – ASCE courses should count but make sure you obtain more PDHs than you need as not everything may count!
For the 2015-2017 renewal cycle, New York will continue to require 36 hours of continuing education for engineers, with a minimum of 1 hour on ethics. A minimum of 18 hours must be obtained through courses and a maximum of 18 hours may be in educational activities, such as preparing and teaching courses, publishing a journal or book, making a technical presentation, obtaining a patent, and a few other options. To be considered acceptable, the courses/education activities must be:
While the ASCE National live webinar series seem to meet the above requirements, I was unable to ascertain if ASCE National is an approved provider. The Metropolitan Section of ASCE is listed as an approved provider of courses, in order to provide their members with local presentations which yield valid PDHs. The only reference on the ASCE National website (and the general consensus when I called) concerning the suitability of ASCE national webinar courses for continuing education requirements was that engineers are advised to check with their state licensing boards before registering for a course to determine eligibility. The few out-of-state New York PE’s I spoke with indicated that they usually booked a 2 or 3-day seminar in New York state each year to fulfill the bulk of their requirements; then looked for specialty on-line courses from vendors who are approved providers.
Take-Away – Research carefully before registering and learn the approved course sponsors: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/pels/pecesedsponsors.htm (Tip: most approved courses will proudly announce they are approved in New York; obtaining an approved course certification is not easy.)
This is the second part in a series of ASCE-Pittsburgh articles related to the Envision Rating System. The first part of the series introducing the system can be read here.
The Envision Rating System, developed in part by the American Society of Civil Engineers, provides engineers a standardized tool for evaluating the level of sustainability for the diverse sectors of civil engineering infrastructure projects including:
The intention of the rating system is to provide a holistic method for evaluating sustainability metrics throughout the life cycle of projects.
This installment of the article series discusses the five categories within the Envision Rating System: Quality of Life, Leadership, Resource Allocation, Natural World, and Climate and Risk. Each category is further subdivided into subcategories that include detailed credits. In total, the rating system is made up of 60 subcategory credits that evaluate a specific project component related to sustainability. The categories and subcategories are intended to capture the level of sustainability in a simple and understandable credit system approach. As more credits are accumulated within the categories and subcategories, the greater the overall sustainability rating of the project. These credits can then be applied for achieving an official Envision Certification Award for the project (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze). The following is a short description of each category and subcategory.
Quality of Life
Quality of Life addresses a project’s impact on host and affected communities. These impacts may be physical, economic, or social. Quality of Life focuses on assessing whether infrastructure projects align with community goals, are incorporated into existing community networks, and will benefit the community in the long term. Community members affected by the project are considered important stakeholders in the decision-making process. The category is further divided into three subcategories: Purpose, Wellbeing, and Community. Many of these questions address the question: “Are we doing the right project?”
The Leadership category addresses a team’s ability to communicate and collaborate with a wide variety of people in fostering ideas for a successful project. The category is subdivided into three subcategories: Collaboration, Management, and Planning. The credits for Collaboration pertain to involving stakeholders to capture ideas and foster innovation across project groups. The intent is to improve communication across teams and stakeholders allowing for cross pollination of ideas. The Management subcategory deals with creating collaborations between various systems within a project, thus reducing waste and often times cost. The Planning subcategory is intended to increase the project team’s awareness of long-term factors which may impact the project. Understanding planning issues, such as the regulatory environment and future growth trends in the area, can lead to a project that avoids pitfalls and plans effectively.
The Resource Allocation category addresses the materials used in the construction and operation for the lifespan of the project. The category is subdivided into three subcategories: Materials, Energy, and Water. For each subcategory, the quantity, source, and characteristics of these resources and their impacts on the overall sustainability of the project are assessed. In general, the category assesses the ability of the project to limit the amount of:
There are also additional credits for emphasizing monitoring systems during operations.
Infrastructure projects have an impact on the natural world around them, including habitats, species, and nonliving natural systems. The way a project is located within these systems can create unwanted impacts if not properly accounted for in design and operation. The Natural World category addresses how to understand and minimize negative impacts while considering ways in which the project can interact with natural systems in a positive way. The Natural World category is subdivided into three subcategories: Siting, Land and Water, and Biodiversity. In general, these subcategories address the project’s ability to limit the environmental impact on the surrounding landscape and habitat.
Climate and Risk
The Climate and Risk category addresses potential short term and long term climate change and risk management of the project. The category is divided into two subcategories: Emissions and Resilience. The Emissions subcategory evaluates the projects ability at reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions during the full life span of the project (construction and startup activities, operations, and decommissioning.) The Resilience subcategory evaluates the projects ability to be adaptable to potential changes in environmental conditions, both in the short term and the long term.
The intent of the second part of the article series was to provide a high level overview of the credits within the Envision Rating System. For more in-depth information, visit the Envision website at http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/. The next installment of the Envision Rating System article series will focus on the companion tools available within the Envision Rating System, including the planning level Self-Assessment Checklist Tool, and the Business Case Evaluator Tool for assessing economic return benefits for sustainable design.
Brian Sekula, P.E., P.L.S., M.ASCE was celebrated at the 2015 ASCE Pittsburgh Kick-off Dinner for his commitment to civil engineering. At the Kick-off Dinner, Brian received his life membership recognition.
Mr. Sekula earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Drexel University in 1973. During his cooperative education periods, he worked with a construction company and several consulting engineering firms. In 1980, he then went on to obtain a Master of Science in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in Geotechnical Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University in 1980. While at Penn State, he was able to include in his course work classes in Airport Engineering, Solid Waste, Hydrogeology, and Agronomy soil classes. He went on later in his career to obtain a Master of Business Administration from Clarion University in 1996.
His professional career began in 1974 as a project engineer with Lee-Simpson Associates, Inc. a consulting engineer in DuBois, Pennsylvania where he worked on sanitary engineering projects, geotechnical projects, and airport projects. During his tenure at Lee-Simpson, he obtained his license as a Professional Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer, and also obtained his Pennsylvania Operator’s Licenses for a Water System and Sewage Treatment Plants.
His next position was as Energy Coordinator at North American Refractories Company (NARCO) in Curwensville, Pennsylvania, where he identified and designed energy saving projects that dealt with natural gas, oil, propane, or electric. Following NARCO, he worked for 8 years in the bituminous coal industry preparing surface mine permit applications. After the mining position, he returned to consulting engineering in the sanitary/municipal field with deep involvement with sewage and water treatment plants, water distribution systems, and sewage collection systems.
His current position is with The EADS Group, Inc. as a Principal, Vice-President, and Office Manager. He also oversees the Sanitary/Municipal, surveying, and environmental departments, and is very involved with oversight of design reviews, mentoring of younger engineers, and assisting with project management and client coordination. He still works with mining permitting, environmental permitting, geotechnical engineering, and provides technical assistance and mentoring to the surveying department.
Mr. Sekula’s is active in the community, including being a board member and Secretary of the Clarion County Economic Development Corporation, a member of the Clearfield County Planning Commission, Treasurer of the Union Township Fire Company, a member of the City of DuBois Watershed Committee, and a volunteer at St. Catherine Church in DuBois. He was also the past Chairman of the DuBois Red Cross Board of Directors, past Treasurer of the DuBois Area Jaycees, and former member of Parish Council of St. Catherine Church.
Mr. Sekula took the time to answer a few questions on the occasion of his life membership recognition.
What are some of the most exciting projects you’ve worked on?
I worked as an expert witness for the defendant in a professional liability case. The case revolved around the design of a mine drainage treatment system and whether it met the standard of practice. In that case, I used my civil engineering and mining experience, chemistry, knowledge of water treatment systems, and experience as a water system operator. It was challenging and fun. The defendant won the case which was upheld upon appeal.
I performed a sewage plant re-rating for a DEP Water Quality Management permit which included an Engineer’s Report, plans, permit modules, and specifications. Upon DEP completing the technical review and issuing a revised permit, the plant received a re-rated hydraulic capacity of 2.4 MGD without any capital investment required. The initial hydraulic capacity of the plant was 1.6 MGD.
How has ASCE impacted your career?
I recall early on where ASCE promoted civil engineering as a “People Serving Profession”. That concept was interesting and somewhat a puzzle. After having worked in the field for now over 40 years, I believe I understand it. We design and see projects built that impact people all of the time. Whether it is a highway, bridge, water system, building, airport, or sewage system they all impact the general population. In our business pursuits, we interact with people I believe a good bit more that many of the other engineering disciplines. To get our projects done, we need to work with Councils, Supervisors, Authority members, and the general populace. The design part is relatively easy compared to the personal interaction we need to do.