The introduction of new technology to society often brings great benefits but it can also create new risks. Serious efforts have been made to assess and manage these risks. Perhaps the most notable example is the probabilistic risk assessment. However, these and other risk analysis methods have limitations. By reviewing how the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident could fall through the cracks of risks assessments, some of these limitations are discussed. Naturally, this is not intended to dismiss risk assessment but rather to make engineers more aware of what assessments can and in particular cannot do. Moreover, risk assessment methods have been criticized for ignoring the social and ethical aspects of risk. The ethical issues associated with risk analysis are discussed, distinguishing between individual-based approaches to ethics of risks (e.g., informed consent) and collective and consequence-based approaches. The chapter further reviews several methods for dealing with uncertainties in engineering design and applications, including redundancies, barriers, and safety factors as well as the Precautionary Principle and Safe-by-Design.

This chapter reviews Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) as one of the most commonly applied methods for assessing engineering projects, particularly when a choice is to be made between alternatives. It is often wrongly assumed that a CBA is an objective way of assessing costs and benefits and that the result unequivocally presents the best outcome. CBA is rooted in utilitarian thinking in ethics which argues that moral rightness depends on whether positive consequences are being maximized. CBA – together with its underlying ethical theory – has been abundantly criticized in the philosophy literature. This chapter is not just another voice in this "philosophical choir": not because the critique is not valid, but because it does not necessarily dismiss the CBA altogether. The chapter aims to show what a CBA can and cannot do and how it can be made more suitable for assessing the risks, costs, and benefits of engineering projects. It provides several ways of circumventing some of the ethical objections to a CBA by amending, adjusting, or supplementing it – and when none of these can help – rejecting the CBA as a method and substituting a multi-criteria analysis.

Engineering is becoming increasingly globalized. We need to cultivate thinking about engineering in the broad international context. The current literature predominantly takes the Western perspective as its point of departure for discussions of engineering ethics in the international context. It focuses on technology transfer from Western to non-Western countries and the dilemmas of a conflicted Western engineer when working in non-Western countries. This chapter reviews two strategies for broadening this focus in the literature: globalizing and diversifying engineering ethics. Globalization focuses on establishing the commonalities between different countries. While it sounds intuitively compelling, it can be at the expense of newcomers in the engineering fields. Diversification focuses on acknowledging the cultural differences between countries, but it can easily be misinterpreted as ethical relativism. Diversification is most helpful if cross-cultural reflection can be achieved. If followed properly, both strategies can lead to more inclusive thinking in engineering ethics.

This chapter distinguishes between two approaches to ethics and engineering, namely "ethics and the engineer" and "ethics and the practice of engineering." The former relates to issues such as the responsibility of an individual engineer in general and within organizations, as spelled out in codes of conduct (such as professional engineering codes, company codes, and other important international codes). The ethics-up-front approach is presented in relation to the latter approach, as proactive thinking about ethics in the practice of engineering. Engineers employ and engage in a variety of activities including the assessment and evaluation of risks, costs, and benefits, and the design and development of artifacts and systems, for instance energy systems. At every turn in those activities, values are expressed either explicitly or implicitly, and choices have ethical ramifications, whether recognized or not. The chapter helps engineers to better identify the ethical problems in hand so as to provide tools and frameworks to proactively address these problems.

This chapter shows how different values including security, privacy, and safety have been at stake in the design of whole-body scanners at airports. Value-sensitive design (VSD) and Design for Values are discussed as two approaches to proactively identifying and including values in engineering design. When designing for values, one may run into conflicting values that cannot be accommodated at the same time. Different strategies for dealing with value conflicts are discussed, including designing out the conflict and balancing the conflicting values in a sensible and acceptable way. This chapter does not pretend to offer the holy grail of design for ethics. Indeed, complex and ethically intricate situations will emerge in an actual design process. Instead, it offers a way to be more sensitive to these conflicts when they occur in design and to be equipped to deal with them as far as possible. The chapter further discusses responsible research and innovation in proactive thinking about technological innovation. In so doing, it extends the notion of design beyond merely technical artifacts and focuses on the process of innovation.

We are moving at a fast pace towards the era of machines that are in charge of moral decisions, as in the case of self-driving cars. By reviewing the accident with the Uber self-driving car in Arizona in 2018, this chapter discusses the complexities of assigning responsibilities when such an accident occurs as a result of a joint decision between human and machine, begging the question: Can we ascribe any form of responsibility to the car, or does the responsibility lie solely with the car designer or manufacturer? There is a tendency among scientists and engineers to emphasize the imperfection of human beings and argue that computers could be the "moral saints" we humans can never be because they are not prone to human emotions with their explicit and implicit biases. By reviewing examples from loan approval practices, the chapter shows why this is incorrect. The chapter reviews the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically focusing on the problems of agency and bias. It further discusses meaningful human control in autonomous technologies as a powerful way of looking at human–machine interactions from the perspective of active responsibilities.

This chapter provocatively argues that there is no such thing as sustainable energy. The black and white dichotomy of unsustainable versus sustainable leaves out important "colors" that reflect the complexity of the energy discussion. By reviewing the rapid developments in biofuel – which is supposedly sustainable – and the ensuing food crisis in the beginning of the century, it shows that sustainability is about much more than renewability. Sustainability is presented as a moral framework that comprises several underlying values, including safety, security, environmental benevolence, resource durability, and economic affordability. These values are presented in relation to different production methods for nuclear energy, creating an ethically nuanced picture of this energy technology. The chapter further addresses energy ethics. While sustainability and energy ethics have a great deal in common, energy ethics can provide us with a more fine-grained analysis of the broader ethical issues associated with energy, including questions of human rights, risk acceptability, and justice.

Introduction

It is always preferable to make the linear dimensions on a drawing the same size as the corresponding real dimensions of the object drawn. However, the drawing of a very big object, like a diesel engine, should be made considerably smaller than the object, whereas details of small precision instruments, watches, etc., are generally made larger than their real size. Objects large and small have to be drawn in such a way that the drawing can be read and handled conveniently. Thus if the linear dimensions of an object have to be enlarged or reduced, for drawing purposes, we need to use scales which enable us to enlarge (enlarging scale) or reduce (reducing scale) linear dimensions with uniformity. If the actual linear measurements of an object are shown in a drawing, the scale is called a full scale. The term ‘scale’ is defined as the ratio of linear dimension of an element of an object as represented in the original drawing to the real linear dimension of the same element of the object itself. All drawings should be drawn to scale and the scale used has to be stated on the drawing.

The complete designation of a scale shall consist of the word SCALE, followed by the indication of its ratio, as follows

SCALE 1 : 1 For Full Size

SCALE X : 1 For Enlarging Scales, X > 1

SCALE 1 : X For Reducing Scales, X > 1

As discussed above, different scales are used for convenience and specific purposes. The recommended scales for use on technical drawings are specified in the Table 6.1 [SP : 46 (1988)].

Representative Fraction or Scale Factor

The ratio of the drawing to the object is called the representative fraction, abbreviated as RF. In detailed words, representative fraction (RF) or scale factor (SF) is the ratio of length of a line in the drawing to actual length of the object represented.

The dimensions in both numerator and denominator of the fraction must be in the same units.

Introduction

The complete surface of an object laid out on a plane is called the development of the surface or flat pattern of the object. ‘Development’ is a term frequently used in sheet metal work where it means the unfolding or unrolling of a detailed object into a flat sheet, called pattern (see Fig. 14.1). The development of geometrical surfaces is important in the fabrication of not only small and simple shapes made of thin sheet metal, but also for sophisticated pieces of hardware.

In the development of a geometric surface, the opening should be determined first. Every line used in making the development must represent the true length of that line on an actual surface.

The knowledge of development of surfaces is essential in many industries such as automobile, ship building, packaging, sheet metal work, etc.

Methods of Development

There are four methods of development. These are:

• (i) Parallel Line Method:It is employed in case of prisms and cylinders in which stretch-out line principle is used. Stretch-out is given by the perimeter of the object measured in a plane at right angles to the axis.

• (ii) Radial Line Method:It is applied for the development of solids with slant edges like pyramids and cones. Here the true length of the slant edge of the cone or pyramid is taken as the radius of the arc of development.

• (iii) Triangulation Method:It is used to develop transition pieces. It is a method of dividing a surface into a number of triangles and transforming them into the development.

• (iv) Approximate Method:It is used to develop objects of double-curved or warped surfaces as sphere, paraboloid and hyperboloid.

Only the lateral surfaces of the solids have been developed and shown as presented here, omitting the bases or ends of solids.

Parallel Line Method

The surfaces of right prisms, oblique prisms, right cylinders and oblique prisms are developed by this method. In this method right section and stretch-out line principle is used. Parallel lines, parallel to the axis of the detail, are shown on a view which shows them as their true lengths.

Introduction

A solid is a three-dimensional object having length, breadth and thickness. In engineering practice, one often comes across solids bounded by simple or complex geometric surfaces. To represent a solid in orthographic projections, the number and types of views necessary will depend upon the type of solid and its orientation with respect to the principal planes of projections. Sometimes, additional views projected on auxiliary planes become necessary to describe a solid completely.

Types of Solids

Solids may be divided into two main groups:

(i) Polyhedra

• (a) Regular Polyhedra

• (b) Prisms

• (c) Pyramids

(ii) Solids of Revolution

• (a) Cylinders

• (b) Cones

• (c) Sphere

Polyhedra: A polyhedron is defined as a solid bounded by planes called faces.

(a) Regular Polyhedra: A polyhedra is said to be regular if all its faces are similar, equal and regular. There are five regular polyhedra which may be defined as stated below:

• • Tetrahedron: It has four equal faces, each are equilateral triangle as shown in Fig. 12.1

• • Cube or hexahedron: It has six equal faces, each of which is a square as shown in Fig. 12.2.

• • Octahedron: It has eight equal faces, each of which is an equilateral triangle as shown in Fig. 12.3.

• • Dodecahedron: It has twelve equal faces, each of which is a regular pentagon as shown in Fig. 12.4.

• • Icosahedron: It has twenty equal faces, each of which is an equilateral triangle as shown in Fig. 12.5.

(b) Prisms: A prism is a polyhedron having two equal ends or bases, parallel to each other. The two bases are joined by faces which are rectangles or parallelograms. The imaginary line joining the centres of the bases is called the axis.

A right regular prism has its axis perpendicular to the base. All its faces are equal rectangles as shown in Fig. 12.6.

(c) Pyramids: A pyramid is a polyhedron having one base and a number of triangles as faces meeting at a point called as vertex or apex. The imaginary line joining the centre of the base with its apex or vertex is called its axis.