From August 8-11, 1999, the ASCE Water Resources Engineering (WRE) Division will hold its annual National Conference at the Westin Hotel in downtown Seattle. We are planning this conference a little differently: it will last four days (instead of the usual five); it will run from Sunday to Wednesday (instead of the usual Monday through Friday); we will try to encourage more papers on engineering practice to provide a balance with research papers; and we will try to increase diversity by considering features such as concurrent short courses, debates, brown-bag lunches and panel discussions.
However, the key to our putting on a successful conference is the participation of water resources engineers throughout the Pacific Northwest. We need your help in organizing and running the conference; we need ideas and topics for the conference itself; we need you to submit technical papers or moderate sessions; and we need you to attend the conference and perhaps to offer financial support through donations or exhibits. A Seattle-based Steering Committee has been set up to organize the local conference details. As we develop the conference framework, we will need volunteers to help us organize the technical program, exhibits, local arrangements, technical tours, publicity/promotions, and activities (socials and spouse programs).
We believe that most members would like to see more technical papers that discuss project applications. If so, we will ask you to submit more of these abstracts for review when the Call-for-Papers comes out this late spring. But we also need ideas: How about running some short courses through the morning and/or afternoon sessions (perhaps, 90 minutes on 3 or 4 consecutive days)? How about some "brown bag" lunch (or breakfast) sessions with invited "experts" in various topical or technical areas? How about some evening seminars on technical and/or management topics? How about some debates between experts on 'hot' topics, such as Western water rights or the removal of major dams? How about panel discussions, such as "Where has water resources been in the 20th century, and where will it go in the 21st?" These are just a few ideas. But we need YOUR ideas, and we need specifics! For example, if you support the idea of a short course or debate, how about suggesting topics?
But what else can we do to encourage you to support the conference? To the Senior Managers: what can we do to encourage you to attend? What can we do to encourage you to send your staff, particularly your newer engineers? Will you donate to the conference, and what can we do in return? Would you like to exhibit, particularly if we encourage more presentations on engineering practice? To the Project Managers: do you want purely research papers, or would you like to see more papers on technical practice? Finally, to the newer engineers: what would you like to see at a conference, and how can we convince you boss to pay your way? One question that comes up over and over again is, "If you are not presenting a paper or moderating a session, what will encourage you to attend the conference anyway, or send your staff?" The future of our technical conferences depends on whether we can all find answers to this question. To encourage more local attendance, we will offer a "company" registration, where a conference pass will only show the company name, and can be used to allow individuals attend different sessions as interests vary. In this way, you won't have to buy more registration than you have the time or interest to attend.
If you have any ideas, comments, questions or would like to help us in any way, would you please e-mail me at RWalton@WESTConsultants.com, fax me at 425-646-0570 or call me at 425-646-8806. On behalf of the Seattle-based Steering Committee for the 1999 WRE National Conference, I would like to thank you in advance for helping us make YOUR conference something you will want to attend.
Yours sincerely
Raymond Walton Chair, Steering Committee 1999 WRE Conference
Over the past five months, the Associate Member Forum (AMF) of ASCE has been diligently planning the Third Annual Popsicle Stick Bridge Contest for high schools. School visits are complete, and final donations from sponsoring companies are coming in. With less than one month remaining, volunteer college students and young engineers are busy making final preparations for contest day, February 21.
Please be sure to stop by the Seattle Center's Center House Saturday, February 21 to witness the tremendous results of hours of work by junior engineers. We anticipate over 200 participants, 2000 spectators, and outstanding media coverage. Over the past several months, students from 27 Puget Sound Area high schools have been busy constructing innovative, sturdy, and attractive popsicle stick bridges conforming to national dimension, weight, and assembly specifications. Historically, Puget Sound area performance has been commendable, especially last year as a bridge from Henry Foss High School broke a national record by holding over 1000 pounds.
Once the bridges are weighed, celebrity judges will perform an aesthetic evaluation on each. Then the bridges will be individually strength tested under a hydraulic loading press. Awards will go to top bridges in the categories of strength, highest load to weight ratio, and appearance. Plus, this year a special award will be given to the bridge that could potentially be used for the Rapid Transit Project. Prizes will include engineering equipment such as scientific calculators and engineering tool packs. All participants will receive a commemorative T-shirt, certificate, and team picture.
In addition to witnessing the bridge testing procedures, contest day will provide these high school students with outstanding opportunities to learn about structural analysis and the engineering profession. College engineering students and young practicing engineers from AMF will serve as consultants. Once their bridge testing procedures are completed, teams are encouraged to meet with these AMF consultants as they analyze the failure modes. Since this event is held in conjunction with the Engineers Fair at the Seattle Center and National Engineers Week, students will also learn about the engineering profession by touring the exhibits at the Center House.
It is important to recognize the role that work by professors, sponsoring companies, AMF members, media professionals, engineers, judges, and volunteers will play in the lives of these young prospective engineers. Please be sure not to miss this incredible event on Saturday, February 21.
Submitted by: David M. Schwegel, Intersection Development Corporation
In the past, readers of the newsletter may have noticed references to AMF in the Board Meeting minutes, President's column, and/or articles. I want to explain the purpose of the Associate Member Forum (AMF) and highlight activities which we have been involved in.
AMF consists of younger engineers within ASCE who are looking for an opportunity to get involved in the local community. Involvement is intended to advance the civil engineering profession through education, community service, and professional practice.
Over the past several years, AMF activities have included the Popsicle Stick Bridge Competition, Habitat for Humanity housing projects, tours of civil engineering projects, and local hiking trail maintenance. In addition, AMF supported last year's regional concrete canoe competition held by the University of Washington student ASCE chapter. As AMF participation grows, we hope to expand our range of community activities.
I encourage individuals to become involved in AMF. It is an opportunity as a Section member to get involved in the local community. If you are interested in AMF, contact me and we can add your name to our mailing list. Also watch for announcements in future newsletters
.I was reading a letter to the editor in a professional magazine the other day. The author's comments were in regard to an incident in which the person to whom he was talking in another country expressed his understanding that Civil Engineers were garbage collection service workers. Not until the author described what he actually did was the person aware of what Civil Engineers did.
I don't believe the perception of our profession is that bad with the general public. But I have heard a lot of comments about the status of Civil Engineers (and engineers in general) and why we don't get the same respect as physicians and lawyers
.A couple of thoughts come to mind on this topic. First, much of what we do seems to be an extension of what people often think they can do themselves. Building a doghouse involves some rudimentary aspects of structural and construction engineering. And the materials used are based upon the person's preferences and knowledge of what lasts. (Strikes close to the structural, materials and construction engineers.) Most people think they know a better way to time traffic signals, and who hasn't set up a hose and a couple of sprinklers. (Covered the traffic and hydraulic engineers, didn't we?) And everybody knows what flows down hill. (Got the sanitary folks, too.) And, hey, who hasn't dug a hole and filled in a low spot in the yard. (Geotechs?)
Now, you and I know this isn't all we do. But the general public who finally realize they need our services probably started out thinking they knew what was needed to do the "engineering" job. But the job grew a little beyond their knowledge base, and their efforts didn't do it. So now they need our help and give a call. It is the same type of work they are familiar with, but it is just a little more complicated. So they are basically familiar in their personal lives with what we do.
Compare that to the physician or lawyer to which we typically relate this comparison. Most folks are ready to see the doctor right away when they get sick. They don't know what is wrong, unless it is a recurring thing, and they are instantly ready to trust the doctor to make them well. He has their respect because they don't really have much knowledge base in the specific problem. The same can be said about lawyers. Folks generally don't have a lot of legal background to draw on when something of a legal nature comes up. So they go to their lawyer for advice.
When folks have read a few medical journals, or think they know the medical malady they are suffering, they don't go to the doctor, right away. But if their home treatment doesn't work, they go to the doctor - almost begging to be made well. In the legal arena, they soon learn their lesson when the court actions start. The lawyer is their savior.
But the engineer, well, this is physical stuff. The kind they may have worked with all their lives. So going to an engineer is harder to swallow. And respect the engineer - whoa there. "The engineer only knows a little more than I do, and only because she or he had a chance to go to college, or has more experience than I do."
On a higher plane, take the issue of floor deflections in buildings. (This topic has been discussed in ENR and other periodicals recently.) Why do owners insist on the maximum profit level, often going against the engineer's "livability" based recommendations for the floor and demanding the "code" based, lightest section for the floor? I would submit their knowledge base includes two things and lacks one. First, they know they want to maximize profits and the bigger section costs more. Second, they know the code is the minimum allowable, and it will protect them since the engineer cannot knowingly design an unsafe structure. But, they lack the knowledge base the engineer has regarding the floor - that it may not be a satisfactory solution and livable, even though it meets the code
.Similar arguments can be made regarding almost any of the disciplines of engineering, especially within the Civil Engineering field.
This even extends to the level of worldwide policy. Jim Poirot, P.E., Past President of ASCE (and now a Seattle Section member) speaking at the October, 1997 ASCE Annual Convention on Sustainable Development, spoke on the low level of esteem extended the engineering community at world conferences on this globally important issue. The politicians feel they don't need engineers in making the decisions. They know they need infrastructure, but feel they only need us to carry out their wishes by constructing the infrastructure they want built. They don't necessarily respect engineers enough to call for their input prior to making decisions. But remember, they are aware of the need - a knowledge base.
So my premise is that need begets respect. And one corollary is that the level of respect is inversely related to the level of one's personal knowledge of the issue or topic.
The public is often personally familiar with the medium(s) with which engineers work, but this is generally not true for these other professions.. Our services generally align with infrastructure issues and physical "things." The professions to which we compare ourselves deal directly with peoples' lives. This difference may well be a good part of what differentiates the levels of respect our respective professions receive. Perhaps the benchmark is the wrong one by which to judge. Or, perhaps, the public is simply measuring us with a different scale.
We need to remember that while our profession doesn't deal directly with peoples' lives, we do deal with things that can, and do, make peoples' lives better. Doing this to the best of our abilities should certainly bring us a great deal of self-respect. And continuing to serve society well will certainly continue to raise the level of respect our profession as a whole receives.
On Thursday, February 19th, Pat Powers P.E., from the Washington State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, will discuss the results of a study to determine whether certain culvert characteristics benefit upstream juvenile salmon migration. Pat will also discuss ongoing WDFW activities around the state.
The study, performed by the WDFW in cooperation with WSDOT, investigated whether small Coho salmon fry (60 to 90 mm) would use the low-velocity boundary layer near the wall of a roughened pipe to pass upstream. Among the study's findings: at velocities above 2 fps, turbulence in the boundary layer appeared to hinder upstream passage
.Pat Powers is a Senior Design with the Lands and Restoration Program at WDFW. A graduate of Washington State University with a Masters in Civil Engineering, Pat has been involved in salmon habitat restoration for more than 13 years. Pat's recent research focused on juvenile salmon passage and the development of a Culvert Design Manual.
All members of the Seattle Section, their colleagues, and friends are invited to attend the noon meeting on February 19th at the offices of Brown and Caldwell, Inc., in the First Interstate Center, at 999 Third Avenue, Suite 500, in downtown Seattle (between Madison and Marion Streets). Underground parking is available below the First Interstate Center, and in public parking structures two blocks to the east. All available parking is on a fee per hour basis. Note: the presentation will be held in the 40th floor conference room. Light refreshments will be served. Contact Dave Jennings at 822-8880 (e-mail:djennings@parametrix.com), or Fritz Timm at 455-3571 for more information.