Forensic Investigation in The Field of Civil Engineering

FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMINAR 2022
1 INTRODUCTION
Forensic investigation in structural engineering is the detailed study of structures,
usually after failure has occurred and having multi objectives. Forensic investigation is one of
the main reason behind the development of high rise buildings and marvelous bridges around
the world as it taught designers the actual behavior of structures under different scenarios. It
involves the systematic examination of a component, element or system that is faulty or not
performing adequately to determine its diagnostics and prognosis. The study of the structural
failure is very much crucial in the field of civil engineering. Apart from jurisdictional or
professional necessity, the reason for failure and its case study is also essential. Structural
diagnostics requires a practitioner to adopt a systematic approach and expertise professional
judgment when investigating building problems.
Structural failure and their investigation has become an active field of professional
practice in which experts are retained to investigate the causes of failure, as well as to provide
technical assistance to know the root cause. All structural deficiencies and failure create claims
of damages, disputes and legal enlargements, so forensic engineer operate in an adversarial
hence, in addition to their technical expertise, they must have at least some knowledge with the
relevant legal processes and also need to know how to work effectively with claiming parties
and judiciary.
According to Robert W Day (Forensic Engineer, Author of Forensic Geotechnical

Foundation Engineering), forensic engineering is all about determining the integrity of a
building or structure. A building is being acted upon by various factors at any given time
(natural forces such as wind and a seismic forces, extreme weather condition, and the weight
of the building itself). Forensic structural engineers study various aspects including building
code violation, water damage, design of flaws, foundation issues, framing issues, soil
movements such as settlement and heave, and geotechnical issues to determine the probable
cause of structural failures.
1.1 NEED OF FORENSIC ENGINEERING
When so ever structure fails, there comes the reason behind it, so investigator finds out
why it failed. Apart from the legal and professional necessity to determine the cause of failure,
there is also, the need to learn from the lessons from it that would enable subsequent designers
1
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMINAR REPORT 2022
and builders or fabricators to avoid the pitfalls of the failed structure and develop safer
alternatives. This should not result into mass disaster.
Finding the root cause or reason of failure of a structure requires loyal and delicate
experienced personnel in structural engineer as well as in forensic engineer. By performing the
chemical analysis of samples collected from the scene of the failures of structure, one can easily
advocate the fact behind the failure precisely. The forensic engineering could be considered as
a fact finding expertise for identifying responsibilities related failures.
The standard job of a forensic engineer is to investigate the dam age, deterioration, or
collapse of a structure, determine the cause of the problem, and in many cases, develop repair
recommendations. The forensic engineer may also have to determine who is responsible for
the damaged or deteriorated structure. Ultimately forensic engineer may have to testify under
oath in a court of law as the findings of investigation.
1.2 EMERGENCE OF FORENSIC INVESTIGATION
One of the earliest recorded legal codes dealing with construction was that of
Hammurabi, the great Babylonian King. His legal code of construction was quite simple: “If a
contractor builds a house and it collapses killing its owner, the contractor will be killed. If the
son of the owner is killed, then so will be the son of the contractor”.
Similarly in Napoleonic code, if a structure had a loss of serviceability within 10 years

of its completion, due to poor workmanship or foundation failure, then the builder would be
sent to prison. Although 10 year statute of limitations for developers and design professionals
has survived, the laws of automatic death or imprisonment have been abolished, fortunately for
civil engineers.
In 1879, the Fifth of Tay railroad bridge collapsed, killing over 200 passengers in the
train. One theory that is emerged at that time was that God disapproved of travelling on Sunday,
and thus made an example of the collapse. But forensic investigators developed alternative
theory that, the material deficiencies with wrought iron ad cast iron trusses, and possibility of
wind loads contributing to the failures. From the simple Code of Hammurabi to the act of God
defense, modern legal codes have evolved and are more complex.
FitzSimons describes the case of “Folkes versus Chadd’, a milestone in the

development of modern civil law and the use of a forensic engineer. Folkes was a landowner
who built a dike around his low lying land. Chadd was the trustee of a nearby harbor who said
2
that the dike has eroded and sited up the harbor. Chadd gained an order to have the dike
removed and folkes litigated. In the course of trial, the well-known engineer John Smeaton
testified that, in his opinion, the dike was not accountable for the silting up of the harbor. The
court lined that Smeaton’s opinion could be considered and quantified: “of this [matter], such
men as Mr. Smeaton alone can judge. Therefore we are the opinion that this judgment, formed
on facts, was very proper evidence.
From then onwards forensic engineers could be used to judge the facts and provide
opinions in a court of law.
1.3 APPLICATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN VARIOUS FIELDS
Forensic science is the application of scientific methods to matters involving the public
or application of science in legal matters. That’s why forensic science is also known as medical
jurisprudence. Forensic science use highly develops scientifically sound technologies to
understand scientific evidences.
Modern forensic science can be used for several purposes such as, in solving cases
related to forgeries, fraud or negligence. It also help judiciary to find out the negligence of rules
and regulations. In medical industries, composition of drugs can be found out. Similarly food
and safety department can go ahead with the soft drinks. It can also be used to know whether
drinking water is pure or not and did it meet all the safety or purity standards. There has always
been a role for forensic science in criminology. The operation of forensic science includes the
techniques and methods of basic science for the analysis of crime.
1.4 RELEVANCE OF FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN CIVIL

ENGINEERING
Everything in our built environment is expected to perform as designed, but when

things do not perform as expected, we are reminded that things do not operate continually
forever. Failure or alleged failure, is defined as an unacceptable difference between expected
and observed performance. The new discipline that deals with investigation of damaged or
deteriorated structure, and failures or performance problems.
Most people have perceived of forensics and relate it to exploring and investigating
crime scenes. While forensic engineering contains just as much investigating, it is truly
focused toward structural failures instead of crimes. Through forensic engineering,
3
specialists can define the cause of collapse of building or bridge, or even smaller scale
structural failures. In order to progress on construction processes, forensic engineers must
know exactly why buildings failed, so the same mistake doesn’t happen again in the future.
Forensic Engineering in India does not have a long history. It was started by a
research group and later 20 partners are involved in risk and safety issues. However there is
still no collective effort devoted to the gathering and analysis of failure or near failure data.
The civil engineering profession is just beginning to consider these issues and the reluctance
to share and spread information about problems and failures remain a significant hurdle.
Information is often said to be confidential, which is sometimes true because of judicial
matters.
Indian engineers and civil engineering students are not used to considering failure
events, so it seems important to open up a new perspective by showing the value of failure
database, with all possible improvements.
Much of the knowledge used to design, construct, manufacture, and operate engineered
facilities and products has been obtained through learning from failures. Interdisciplinary
communication about the causes of failures and accidents often results in improved design
practices.
The forensic engineer can make a significant contribution to the process of learning
from failures by disseminating information to the design professions. Again, forensic
engineering can be compared with the field of medical pathology, which has played a principal
role in the development of medical science. Professional and trade journals tend to emphasize
successful projects and products, and rightly so.
Modern engineering methods, construction procedures, and manufacturing processes

result in many more success stories than failures. This is due, in large part, to the many
dedicated professionals working to improve quality control in the design and production of
engineered facilities and products. The responsibility remains, however, for professionals to
communicate about failures and accidents as well. The tradition of learning lessons from
experience, including failure, continues to be important to the advancement of the engineering
professions. The concept of learning from failures is fundamental to the practice of engineering
in all fields. Design codes, standards of practice, and construction and manufacturing
procedures have all evolved traditionally through a process of trial-and-error and trial-and-
success. For example, the development of predictive mathematical engineering theory for the
4
construction industry is relatively recent, when seen in the context of the history of
construction. Failures led to a new understanding of structural behaviour and to a
corresponding improvement in design.
Structural Engineering is the art and science of moulding materials we do not fully
understand; into Shapes we cannot precisely analyse; to resist Forces we cannot accurately
predict; all in such a way that the society at large is given no reason to suspect the extent of our
ignorance. Perhaps this definition could be easily adapted to describe other fields of
engineering design, given the uncertainties and professional judgments that must be made.
Lessons learned from failures or accidents are extremely useful in clarifying some of the
uncertainties, leading to improvements in the design process. Communication among designers
about lessons learned from failure has always been an important component in the advancement
of the engineering professions. This process continues today. Lessons learned from experience
are combined with mathematical theory to predict the behaviour of engineered systems with a
greater degree of confidence than ever before.
Forensic science use the concept of mechanical, chemical, civil and electrical
engineering as tools in the reconstruction of crimes, accidents such as structural failures and
the determination of their causes. A major component of that works involves traffic accident
reconstruction. To determine the cause, we use the evidence such as skid marks, damage to
cars and their positions, road and environmental condition, etc.
Another major area of forensic engineering is failure analysis. Mechanical, electrical,

chemical, civil and structural engineers all bring their skills to bear on problems involving how
and why buildings or other structures deteriorate or fails permanently.
2 FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN STRUCTURAL FAILURES

Structural failures and their investigation has become an active field of professional
practice in which experts are retained to investigate the causes of failures, as well as to provide
technical assistance to know the root cause. The parties involved in the litigation of the resulting
claims. Since nearly all structural deficiencies and failures create claims of damages, disputes
and legal entanglements, Forensic Engineers operate in an adversarial hence, in addition to
their technical expertise; Forensic Engineers must have at least some knowledge with the
relevant legal processes and need to know how to work effectively with claiming parties and
judiciary.
5
The discussion of structural failures, to be most productive, must include performance

problems that are less than catastrophic. Many performance deficiencies are not life-
threatening, but result in significant economic costs to society. A comprehensive definition of
"failure," as used by the Technical Council on Forensic Engineering of the American Society
of Civil Engineers, is the following ”Failure is an unacceptable difference between expected
and observed performance”. This definition is broad enough to include serviceability problems
such as annoying vibrations, excessive deformations, premature deterioration of materials, and
inadequate environmental control systems. For example, in the case of buildings, the most
costly recurring performance problems are those associated with building envelope
performance. Leaking roofs and building facades are not catastrophic, news-making events.
But the forensic engineer spends a great deal of time investigating such problems.
Dissemination of the results of these investigations can be of much economic benefit to the
designers, owners, and operators of facilities. Performance of a structure or product must
always be evaluated in reference to life expectancy and to the degree of maintenance provided.
All structures will be broken or destroyed in the end, just as all people will die in the
end. It is the purpose of medicine and engineering to postpone these occurrences for a decent
interval. Certainly, the forces of nature are sufficient to ensure that engineered facilities will
not last forever. The work of the forensic engineer is to investigate those projects that do not
provide the expected quality of performance for the expected period of time.
2.1 TYPES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURES
Failure need not always mean that a structure collapses. It can make a structure deficient
or dis-functional in usage. It may even cause secondary adverse effects. There are different
types of structural failures. It may be,
1. Safety Failure
2. Functional failure
3. Ancillary failure
Safety failure: It may cause Injury, death, or even risk to people. It is happening due to the
collapse of formwork during concrete placement, Punching shear failure in flat slab concrete
floor, Trench collapse, Slip and fall on wet floor.
6
Fig 2.1 Collapse of Formwork during Concrete Placement
Functional failure: it compromise of intended usage of certain things. Excessive vibration of

floor, Roof leaks, inadequate air conditioning, and Poor acoustics may happen due to this type
of failure.
Fig 2.2 Roof leaks
Ancillary failure: It is nothing but the adverse effect on schedules, cost, or use. It is cased due
to delayed construction, unexpected foundation problems, unavailability of materials, strikes,
natural disasters, etc.
7
2.2 CAUSES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURES
Failures result from a variety of causes involving both techno physical problems and
human error procedural. Often the root causes of a failure or accident are difficult to isolate
and quantify. The causes may be a combination of interrelated deficiencies. This is one reason
for the complexity and confusion that usually accompany failure litigation. The underlying
source of a failure is sometimes found in ignorance, incompetence, negligence, and avarice,
the "four horsemen of the engineering destruction”.
Sometimes the project is exposed to environmental conditions, uses, or forces

unpredicted by the designer. In the case of buildings or civil structures, the effects of natural
hazards, such as fire, flood, extreme winds, or seismic events, may exceed reasonable
predictions or accepted standards of practice. Even in these cases, however, carelessness in site
selection, leading to unnecessary or reckless exposure to natural hazards, may be a factor.
When failures are discussed in professional journals, the typical article focuses on the
techno physical cause of the failure. There is a need for more discussion of procedural issues.
There is always a techno physical explanation for a failure, but the reasons failure occurs are
often procedural. This is true even in the most advanced technologies, where formal quality
control procedures are exercised. Dissemination of information about the procedural aspects of
failures can help to affirm the role of the engineering professional and to improve standards of
professional practice. Procedural causes are usually interdisciplinary, involving
communication deficiencies and unclear definition of responsibilities. Interdisciplinary
information dissemination strategies are necessary to support the development of improved
quality assurance/quality control programs.
Structural failure does not have to be a “catastrophic collapse”; it may be a “non-

conformity with design expectations” or a “deficient performance”. Collapse is usually
attributed to inadequate strength and stability, while deficient performance or so-called
serviceability problems, and is usually the result of abnormal deterioration, excessive
deformation, and signs of distress. In short, failure may be characterized as the unacceptable
difference between intended and actual performance. The things that lead to failures are,
8
Negligence
Misuse,
Incompetenc
Abuse,
e
Neglect
Factors of
failures
Miscommuni Ignorance,
cation Oversight
Disorganizati
Greed
on
Fig 2.3 Factors leading to Failures
Negligence: Failure to properly analyse or detail the design, or disregard codes and standards.
Incompetence: Failure to understand engineering principles or respect the technical limitations

of materials or systems.
Ignorance, Oversight: Failure to follow design documents and safe construction practices.
Greed: Short cuts; intentional disregard of industry requirements and safe practices.
Disorganization: Failure to establish a clear organization and define roles and responsibilities
of parties.
9
Miscommunication: Failure to establish and maintain lines of communication between

parties.
Misuse, Abuse, Neglect: Using the facility for purposes beyond its intended or foregoing
preventive maintenance.
2.3 FAILURE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN PROCESS
Fundamentally, structural design requires “an ability to create a cost-efficient load-

bearing scheme in accordance with a set of rule prescribed by building codes, for minimal
design cost”. The design process generally commences with the designer considering a range
of design concepts. Then, by using simplifying performance assumptions and an iterative
process, the designer produces a single design from what may be many viable alternatives-that
balances various competing factors such as physical constraints, cost, and adequate
performance. Design is, therefore, a process of synthesis, which utilizes assumptions relating
to probable loads, structural behaviour, and the capacity of material properties. These
assumptions are conservative and have been codified over the years to produce efficient and
generally safe structures.
To design structures by attempting to precisely predict the loads they will carry, how
they will behave, and their material properties would be hopelessly inefficient and time
consuming. Further, actually attempting to predict these factors to a high level of accuracy is
of questionable value in the design process, given the unknowns surrounding the structure’s
construction and the loads it will carry. Therefore, a key element in the design process is the
management of these unknowns, rather than their investigation.
The role of this process in the design of new structures is self-evident, but the process
also has a number of important roles to play in the overall response to structural failure. For
example, in non-catastrophic failures, an engineering design solution may be required to rectify
the failure and restore the structure to its originally intended performance, regardless of
whether legal proceedings arise. Likewise, in legal disputes, the satisfactory settlement of a
dispute may depend on the details of a design engineer’s solution to resolve the issue, or, when
causation has been determined, expert testimony may be required to ascertain whether the
engineer that originally designed the structure did so with the degree of reasonable skill and
care expected of a practicing engineer, a role for which engineers that typically utilize the
10
design process are excellently placed because of their knowledge of standards and professional
engineering practice.
Because of these attributes, an engineer that typically utilizes the design process also
appears the ideal candidate to determine the cause of failure. However, an examination of a
number of the key aspects of the design process illustrates the reason difficulties exist despite
the fact that the engineer may have design experience relevant to the structure under
consideration.
2.4 ESTABLISHING A FORENSIC STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK
The developed Forensic Structural framework would enable engineers in conducting

forensic investigations for buildings. The developed FSF seeks to implement the best forensic
practices within engineering investigation relevant to all types of failure occurred in reinforced
concrete structures. An effective forensic framework should be simple and straightforward,
represent all causes of failure in reinforced concrete structure and include corresponding legal
responsibilities. Such framework requires well-experienced to assess conditions of the
structure, identify the causes of damage and determine acts that lay the template for the failure,
thereby enable Outlining major and minor responsibilities of the failure. Here the suggested
framework comprises of five stages.
1. Preliminary Stage,
2. Evidence Collection Stage,
3. Failure Hypotheses and Analysis Stage,
4. Conclusion Stage,
5. Responsibilities Assigning Stage.
11
Preliminary Stage
Evidence collection stage
Failure Hypothesis and Analysis

Stage
Conclusion Stage
Responsibilities Assigning Stage
Fig 2.4 Stages of Structural Framework
2.4.1 Preliminary Stage
During the preliminary stage, the necessary information and data related to building is
collected and all related documents are reviewed. Further, the preliminary stage includes
setting the plan of the investigation of the failure.
2.4.2 Evidence Collection Stage
The second stage comprises collection of evidences. The investigators should conduct
site visits as early as possible in order to eliminate any disturbance to the evidence. In turn, the
site visit involves three components, namely visual inspection, eyewitness information and
sample collection. Efficient visual inspection and availability of possible eyewitness'
information would ease the process of collection of the samples. Through visual inspection,
12
investigators are able observe the failure scene, thereby providing the main evidence that may
report about how the failure occur. On the other, investigators while communicating to
eyewitnesses on site seek to understand the actual modes and sequences of failure because
eyewitnesses would often provide valuable evidence to investigators. Collecting samples
relevant to the failure is also a significant step because it may reveal important evidence. The
data collectively obtained at the site visit may shed light on the initial failure hypothesis to be
examined at the third stage.
2.4.3 Failure Hypothesis and Analysis Stage
The third stage, failure hypotheses and their analysis, discusses and approves the data
obtained previously. It comprises three approaches: carrying out testing methods, a critical
review of relevant documents and, lastly, conducting depth interviews. The testing methods
are categorized as field and laboratory assessments, involving a series of non-destructive and
destructive that will be carried out on site.
The key purpose is to check the actual mechanism of concrete structure. Laboratory, on
the other, involves specific tests that are commonly destructive in an attempt to examine
capacity and mechanism of certain components of concrete structure. It may also involve
chemical analysis, loading tests and other associated testing. The review of documents involves
also ‘Design check’ and ‘computational analyses. The former includes the review of relevant
documents related to the failure. By reviewing the documents, the investigators will be more
familiar with the case and any discrepancies that will be detected.
Computational analysis is a recommended procedure using relevant software packages

to analyse the concrete structure. A supplementary approach is therefore adopted in an effort
to prove the ‘failure hypothesis’, for example using semi-structured interviews. In addition, an
expert’s expertise may also help prove the ‘failure hypothesis’, hence offering valuable
explanations to the investigators towards understanding the cause of the failure. Upon
completion of all analysis, work could be undertaken to test the ‘failure hypotheses.
2.4.4 Conclusion stage
The fourth stage is the conclusion stage in which specific interpretations are drawn,
namely from the findings derived from the evidences obtained which in turn lay the template
for the causes of failure.
13
2.4.5 Responsibilities assigning stage
The final stage is the responsibilities assigning stage during which the major and minor
responsibilities are assigned to the relevant parties, i.e. the contractor, engineers and owner. It
is recommended that specific civil responsibilities law, local or international, should be
considered during this stage. For example, the Egyptian law states that the major responsibility
of failures and/or errors occurred in the design is assigned at the designer. However, during
construction, major responsibility is assigned at the contractor and minor responsibility is
assigned at supervision engineer.
3 FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN FOUNDATION FAILURES

Importance of Forensic geotechnical engineering is increasing in many countries where
foundation failures may lead to litigation and even criminal action. The concept of adjacent
buildings must extend beyond the mere surroundings of the new building, in the sense that
much of the excavation work may produce damage in areas relatively distant from the site
itself. Settlement is the main cause of foundation failure. In terms of forensic engineering,
settlement is defined as vertical or differential movement of the failed facility resulting in the
distress or collapse. The determination of settlement can be made through field and laboratory
testing. In investigating the settlement of structures, it is important to compare the actual
applied loading that caused the failure with the design or expected loading. Settlement of the
structure could be due to increases or unanticipated loading or problems with the bearing soil
or rock.
3.1 CONDITIONS FOR FAILURE
Foundation failures can occur either because of failure of the supporting soil
(geotechnical failure) or failure of the material of which the foundation is made (structural
failure). For geotechnical failure to occur, the following condition must be satisfied,
BC < P ………………………………………. (1)
Where, BC – Bearing Capacity of the soil
P – Total load acting on foundation
Similarly, for structural failure of the foundation to occur, the following condition will be
satisfied,
14
R<𝑃𝑠 ………………………………………. (2)
Where, R – Ultimate Structural Resistance
𝑃𝑠 – Sum of loads acting on foundation and structural actions (like bending moment)
There are four broad possibilities for carrying a forensic investigation in foundation failure.
1. The geotechnical resistance BC may be inadequate to resist the applied loads.

2. The structural resistance R may be inadequate to resist the applied loads and structural
actions.
3. The applied loads P may be larger than anticipated in design, or may contain some
components not accounted for in design.
4. The applied loads and structural actions may be larger than anticipated in design, or
may contain some components not accounted for in design.
3.2 FACTORS AFFECTING GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION

RESISTANCE
The geotechnical strength of a foundation (i.e. the bearing capacity) will depend on the
different factors. They are,
a. The geotechnical profile below the foundation

b. The strength of the soils within the depth of influence
c. The nature of the foundation, e.g. whether it is a shallow or deep foundation
d. The directions of applied loading (e.g. the presence of lateral and moment loadings
as well as vertical loads).
3.2.1 Geotechnical Profile
The geotechnical profile is generally assessed by some form of site investigation,

consisting of drilling, in situ probing (for example -cone penetration testing) and geophysical
methods. Clearly, if the profile is not appropriately characterized, there is a potential for the
foundation bearing capacity to be mis-assessed. From this we can find several data i.e.
Characterisation of site, geological history, variations of subsoil profile characterizations,
groundwater and hydrological conditions, etc.
15
3.2.2 Soil Strength
From soil strength, we can assess several data such as e strength parameters of the
various layers within the zone of influence of the foundation, pore pressures within the soil
when the foundation strength was originally assessed, pore pressures within the soil at the time
of failure, etc. The question of undrained versus drained strength is a fundamental issue in soil
mechanics. For sandy soils, this is generally not a concern, as the drained condition will
generally be relevant unless earthquake or impact loading is to be considered. For clay soils,
both the possibility of short-term failure (using undrained strength parameters) and long-term
failure (using drained strength parameters) should be considered. Unfortunately, many
geotechnical engineers ignore the possibility of long-term conditions being critical because of
the emphasis on undrained bearing capacity in clays generally being the critical case. However,
in problems involving earth retaining structures or excavations, the long-term drained condition
may be critical.
3.2.3 Nature of Foundation
The questions that may need to be explored in relation to the nature of the foundation
include foundation dimensions. These may often be unknown when dealing with old
foundations for which there are no records extant. In such cases, it may be necessary to carry
out drilling or geophysical investigations to estimate these dimensions. If the base of a bored
pile has not been properly cleaned, and debris is left between the pile tip and the underlying
soil, the actual base resistance may be less than that assumed in design.
3.2.4 Direction of Loading
It is unusual for the applied loading to be purely vertical, as is sometimes assumed in

foundation bearing capacity calculations. In general, there will be some components of
horizontal and moment loading, both of which may reduce the bearing capacity of a foundation
(especially a shallow foundation).
3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION

RESISTANCE
Many foundations consist primarily of steel or concrete members. So the amount of

steel, concrete and its reinforcement is adequate to resist the failure in foundation is to be
monitored. There is a possibility that some damage may have occurred to the foundation during
installation (for example, damage to a driven pile because of over-driving or from tensile
16
stresses induced in the pile when driving through a stiff layer into a softer layer). Also there is
a possibility of problems with durability of the steel or concrete in relation to the foundation
environment and also the loading may have caused the concrete to crack and allow ingress of
water to the steel, with subsequent corrosion. To answer such problems the prudent
geotechnical engineer will engage the services of a structural engineer who can investigate and
advise on the likelihood that the failure has been caused by deficiencies in the strength or
durability of the structure itself.
3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING APPLIED LOADS
There are several forms of loading that may need to be considered in the original design
and in the operation of a foundation system, they are,
1. Dead loads.
2. Live loads due to occupation of the building.
3. Wind loading, which usually results in lateral, moment and torsional components of
load, and which are often dynamic in nature.
4. Dynamic loads due to impact or machinery.
5. Repeated or cyclic loads, due for example to wind or wave loading.
6. Loads induced in the foundation by ground movements, which may be vertical or lateral.
7. Loads induced by seismic and earthquake events.
In forensic investigation, we should consider the location and intensity of load acting
at the time of failure, components of loads that should be taken into account, the nature of
load (static or dynamic), whether the load is cyclic or not, circumstances under which soil
movements could have been generated which would have then impacted on the foundation,
earthquake effect on foundation, etc.
3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING STRUCTURAL ACTIONS
Structural actions include axial forces, lateral forces and shears, bending moments and
torsional moments induced in the foundation, arising from the applied loadings and moments
from the structure. The assessment of such structural actions will depend on a number of
factors, including,
a. The method of calculation used.

b. The loads and moments assumed to act on the foundation from the structure.
c. The strength of the soil supporting the foundation.
17
In this the basis of calculating the actions should be considered. It is customary for
many structural engineers to make simplifying assumptions about the soil reactions acting on
the foundation. For example, the soil can be represented by a Winkler or subgrade reaction
model, in which the foundation-soil pressure is linearly related to the foundation deflection.
Such a simplifying assumption may well lead to inaccurate (and underestimated) bending
moments in a shallow footing. Axial stresses, bending moment, shear forces and their
calculation should be taken into account.
3.6 DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF CREDIBLE HYPOTHESES
When the various factors mentioned above have been considered, it is necessary to
formulate hypotheses on the most likely or credible factors which may have contributed to the
failure. When this has been done, each of the credible hypotheses should be tested by carrying
out calculations or some form of laboratory or field testing to assess whether the observed
failure can be demonstrated to be consistent with the calculations or tests carried out.
Allowance should be made for the likely variations in ground characteristics in carrying out
such calculations. It is possible that more than one hypothesis will be found to be consistent,
and in that case, further hypothesis testing will need to be carried out to try and assess which
of the hypotheses is most likely to have occurred.
4 METHODS OF FORENCIC INVESTIGATION IN CIVIL

There are several methods for investigating a failure, whether it is structural or
foundation. Mainly we can classify the methods into two.
I. Empirical Methods
II. Theoretical Methods.
Empirical methods are those which held at laboratories. I.e. it contains testing of
materials in laboratory.
In theoretical methods, we have several techniques. i.e.
I. RCA- Root Cause Analysis

II. ECFC - Event & Casual Factors Charting
III. MORT – Management Oversight & Risk Tree
IV. WSA - Work Safety Analysis
18
4.1 ROOT CASE ANALYSIS
The procedure for corrective action shall start with an investigation to determine the
root cause of the problem. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a critical step of determining
corrective actions for substantive errors, and may be the most important part of establishing
proper corrective actions. The root causes of failure or accident are difficult to isolate and
quantify. The causes may be a combination of interrelated deficiencies. Things can go wrong
anywhere along the planning, designing, construction, service lives of a constructed facility.
4.2 EVENT & CASUAL FACTORS CHARTING
In this method, the purpose is to identify and document the sequence of events from the
beginning to the end of the incident, and to identify the factors, conditions, failed barriers,
energy flows etc. that contributed to that incident.
4.3 MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT & RISK TREE
MORT is not a technique that would be used in the field. The analysis would therefore
start with an accident report and possibly a sequence diagram. The analyst must first establish
the facts regarding the top event, for example:
a. What happened
b. Why
c. What were the losses
The aim of the analysis is to work through the entire chart and identify those basic
causes that have contributed to the top event. The analyst achieves this by asking a number of
questions at each juncture on the chart. The first requirement is to establish whether the
elements are applicable to the incident. If not, these items should be crossed out in black. If the
analyst does not know the answer to the question, this indicates that more information needs to
be sought on the incident and the element should be marked blue. Where it is judged that
elements are less than adequate, they should be marked in red, and those that are found to be
acceptable should be indicated in green. The analysis ends when all the elements marked in
blue have been addressed and subsequently judged as either adequate or less than adequate.
19
Fig 4.1 Structure of a Risk Tree
4.4 WORK SAFETY ANALYSIS
WSA is essentially a method for systematic risk assessment. It is usually applied as a

preventative technique rather than an incident investigation tool, two columns of empty
rectangular boxes are presented on a worksheet, one column relating to human organisational
systems and the other to technical component systems. This sheet is used to model the sequence
of failures with arrows indicating the interactions. It is assumed that there are barrier functions
that can arrest the sequence and prevent the unwanted development of an incident.
5 DEVICES USED
There are several devices which help in the forensic investigation of buildings and other
structures. They help us to reach the root cause of failure in all sense. Some of them are,
20
1. Crack Gauge: To monitor horizontal or vertical movement across a crack on a flat

reinforced concrete surface. Then, a crack width ruler or transparent gauge are used to
determine the width of the crack based on the specified width or range of graded lines.
2. Rebound Hammer: To determine the strength of concrete at several reinforced concrete
structure parts such as slab, beam, column and staircase to get the average reading of
existing concrete strength.
3. Computer Based Analysis Tools: By using different computer aided test strength
analysis can be conducted.
4. Panel Element Tester: It perform biaxial or triaxial tests on reinforced concrete panels
5. Shell Element Tester: In reinforced concrete elements, masonry elements, a well-
controlled arbitrary loads can be applied.
Fig 5.1 Crack Gauge
Fig 5.2 Rebound Hammer
21
Fig 5.3 RHT Quality Functions
Fig 5.4 Panel Element Tester Fig 5.5 Shell Element Tester
6 CASE STUDY
6.1 ROISSY AIRPORT TERMINAL 2E ROOF COLLAPSE
The fatal collapse, 30 months after completion, of the concourse building at Roissy
Charles de Gaulle international airport is well known. A substantial factor was the architectural
character of the building. Even though only 4% of the 650 m long concourse structure was
affected by the collapse, the impact was not limited to the four fatalities: it also affected the
client (development at Roissy airport was delayed), the architect (Paul Andreu), the main
operator (Air France, user of the concourse) and the whole profession of French structural
engineers. Many possible explanations arose in the very first days, most being based on
hypotheses about deficiencies in structural behaviour, missing reinforcements or defective
foundations. The French government set up an administrative committee to investigate the
22
technical causes of the collapse, without interfering in judicial investigations. The committee’s
report was released on 15 February 2005.
Fig 6.1 The collapsed structure
The bearing structure is made of arches (span 262 m) assembling horizontal and vertical
concrete panels, with steel stiffening struts anchored in concrete. At their feet, the arches are
stabilised by a longitudinal beam and lie on a series of piles. The longitudinal regularity of the
structure is disturbed by many local singularities (e.g. openings linking to pedestrian access
tunnels and holes for ducts in the longitudinal beam). The collapsed section is a very particular
area with significant dissymmetry because it has three openings on one side. Fortunately, the
collapse occurred very early on a Sunday morning, at a time when very few people were in the
area, thus explaining the limited number of fatalities. The external temperature was 41˚C; 90
minutes before the collapse, a piece of concrete had fallen from the roof and a safety perimeter
had been installed. All possible causes for the final collapse were investigated by the committee
and it was shown that
i. The concrete and steel initial properties were as expected

ii. The support structure behaved satisfactorily (some problems encountered with the
design of the head of piles during building had been correctly remedied)
iii. There was no significant settlement and that the soil properties had been correctly
anticipated
23
The technical explanation for the collapse pointed towards structural causes. Numerical
simulations were performed that confirmed the sudden character of collapse, which was also
confirmed by eye witnesses. The following main elements were noted.
i. The overall structure was very flexible. High deformations could be induced either by
permanent loading or by climatic and variable loading. This flexibility had even
increased because of cracking in some parts, which developed very early on, probably
because of insufficient or badly located reinforcement.
ii. The 2D analysis performed during the studies was not detailed enough to understand
what could happen when the real geometry was accounted for with high 3D effects due
to singularities, for example those due to links with footbridge
iii. The structure lacked redundancy and was not able to transfer loads in the case of local
deficiency.
iv. The longitudinal beam stabilising the arches was not strong enough.
v. Steel struts were anchored in concrete panels with metallic plates, at a depth that
induced high local tensile punching shear stresses in the concrete.
Fig 6.2 3D finite-element analysis of the shell, showing the influence of singularities
The main initial cause of the sudden collapse was linked to punching of the concrete
panels by the struts. It was probably facilitated by prior and gradual weakening of the concrete
under permanent and varying loads. Concrete creep induced a progressive development of local
internal stresses while thermal cycles increased the local cracking of panels. The overall
strength of the structure thus progressively decreased until a trigger event occurred. The
spalling and fall of a small chunk of concrete on the internal face of the arch was the first sign.
24
The lack of redundancy of the whole structure explains why this local event had a rapid and
global consequence: the shell, already cracked, was fully penetrated by some struts, inducing
bending failure of an arch component. However, the committee considered that the event also
revealed ‘organisational failure’ and suggested some changes so as to prevent future collapses.
i. The structure, although complex, had been designed and controlled more like a ‘usual
building’ than like a bridge or a dam. The committee suggested that such structures
merit verification of the design by an independent body, not just reliance on contractor
analysis and models. Regular inspections of the structure should also be carried out to
check construction.
ii. Regarding the construction project itself, it was noted that the designer was not
independent from the client. The committee recommended that a formal contract be
agreed between all stakeholders for all phases of a project.
iii. The design studies and structural checks suffered many deficiencies. The committee
pointed out, first, that such studies must be detailed enough and with a sufficient budget
planned for them and, second, that sufficient means must be dedicated to control in
order to correctly manage the complexity of such a project.
Finally, the committee suggested that all professional experts meet in order to influence
possible evolution of practice (including regulation and contracts) in this field. The Roissy
collapse was a seminal event for French engineering companies, who decided to initiate
collective research in the field of project risk management in civil engineering. This field had
largely been ignored until Roissy, and a research project (ANR-GERMA) was founded in 2008
with the aim of editing guidelines and improving professional practice. This project is in
progress and reports are expected soon.
6.2 COLLAPSE OF 3 STORY MOSQUE IN PALESTINE
The project was construction of a three stories mosque building with a basement area
of 70 square meter, the ground floor with an area 400 m2 for the male prayers. The first floor
is for the female prayers with an area of 200 square meter. The building comprises also a 36m
minaret, a main dome and several small domes. The management board of the project
comprised a consulting supervision firm with a full-time site manager, site engineer, part-time
electrical and mechanical engineer. In addition, the contractor was required to provide the
required technical staff.
25
The shuttering of the reinforced concrete ribbed slab of the 8.5 m height first floor of
the mosque was started as per the approved plan. The works were continuously inspected by
the consulting firm staff and daily comments were given to the contractor. Having issued the
“permission to cast” by the consulting site manager, the contractor started the casting process
of the first floor reinforced concrete slab of the mosque. The process of casting was proceeding
as planned and the dropped slab beams were first gradually filled up by concrete. Having
completed the slab beams, the final stage of the casting process was approached, which
included the casting of the topping layer of the ribbed slab. After completing about 75% of the
topping layer of the slab, a sudden collapse of the supporting steel posts for about 200 m 2 of
the casted slab. About 400 m2 of the concrete slab was collapsed; one worker was lost and
several casualties’ workers were resulted from this accident, in addition to large financial
losses. The forensic team applied the current developed forensic framework by following the
five stages of the framework, as descripted in the following sections.
I. Preliminary stage
II. Evidence Collection stage
III. Visual inspection
IV. Sample Collection
V. Eye Witness Interviews
The supervision engineer stated that after finishing all shuttering works including the
supporting steel posts in two dimensions, the consulting site manager carried out a final
inspection of the shuttering works and requested the contractor to replace some of the steel
posts, provide more posts in certain locations, and increase the horizontal supports and extend
it to reach a fixed positions. Afterwards, the consulting engineer approved the request for
casting submitted by the contractor. The supervision site manager mentioned that after
finishing about 70% of the slab area and when started casting the topping layer of the slab, the
collapse suddenly occurred without noticing any deflection or deformation of the shuttering
works.
The contractor engineer stated that they took all required technical and safety
procedures for the shuttering works before the commencement of the casting process through
installing additional supporting posts between the existing ones in the wide spaces between the
steel posts. He also mentioned that the supporting steel posts were continuously inspected
during the casting process. He did not find any defect in these supporting posts. He added that
26
the collapse occurred before the end of the casting process and happened suddenly with any
indications.
The subcontractor stressed that all supporting system elements were safe, adequate and
up to the standards for such works and he took all procedures and comments given by the
consulting team. He added that he did not notice any failure or malfunction in the works. He
mentioned that the same shuttering system was applied in similar projects and no problems
were occurred.
In conclusion, the forensic team concluded that the main cause of failure would mainly
be referred to the unseen defects in the used materials including the main supporting steel posts.
In addition, the failure was triggered by the development of a state of unbalanced weights when
casting of the topping layer started. Based on the case conclusion that the main cause of
collapse was due to defects in the used supporting steel posts. The installation and performance
of such posts are of the major tasks of the contractor who should take the major responsibilities
for any failure in these supporting posts. In addition, the consulting site manger takes a minor
responsibility because he/she should have disapproved such material to be used. Therefore, the
forensic team concluded that contractor and its insurance company should bear the legal and
financial consequences of the collapse.
Fig 6.3 Failure of Abu Baker Mosque
27
7. CONCLUSIONS
Forensic civil engineering is gaining recognition as a field of professional engineering
practice in many parts of the world. At one time or another, nearly all engineering firms do
forensic engineering work as part of their practice or as occasional service to their favoured
clients. Low quality of construction material is most common factors that lead building defects
and failures. Poor workmanship by contractors, incompetent contractors, faulty construction,
and non-compliance with specification or standards by developers and contractors, structural
defects, defective design or structure are the common problems in field of construction. Poor
risk management, budget overruns, poor communication management, schedule delays, poor
estimation practice, cost flow difficulties, design discrepancies, inadequate project structure,
lack of teamwork are also a threat to the construction industry.
28
8. REFERENCES
1. Aït-Mokhtar, A., & Breysse, D. (2011). FOREWORD. European Journal of
Environmental and CiKvil Engineering, 15(7), 967–968.
2. Ajagbe, W.O., and Ojedele, O. S. (2018). “Structural Investigation into the Causes of
Cracks in Building and Solutions: A Case Study.” American Journal of Engineering
Research, 7(8) (pp. 152-160).
3. Alqedra, M & Arafa, M., Wadi, H., (2018). Developing a Forensic Framework for Failures
in Reinforced Concrete Buildings. International Journal of Engineering and Technical
Research (IJETR), 8(12).
4. Day, R. W. (1999). Geotechnical and foundation engineering: design and construction.
Mcgraw-Hill.
5. Gladkov, A. A., Ivanovć, S. S., Novikova, E. I., Trifunac, M. D., & Todorovska, M.
I.(1999). Experimental evidence for flexibility of a building foundation supported by
concrete friction piles. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 18(3), 169–187.
6. Hing Kwong, T., Romali, S. R., & Tawie, R. (2020). Forensic to the Reinforced Concrete
(RC) Structures at Library. Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and
Engineering Technology, 19(1), 6–14.
7. K M, P., Ali, S. W., Zubair, S., & Najmi, A. H. (2015). A Forensic View to Structures’
Failure Analysis. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 2(1), 25–31.
8. P.O, A., I.I., A., A.N, E., & M.O, O. (2014). Forensic Investigation of Fire-affected
Reinforced Concrete Buildings. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 11(4),
17–23.
29

Forensic Investigation in The Field of Civil Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Forensic Investigation in The Field of Civil Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forensic Investigation in The Field of Civil Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN THE FIELD OF CIVIL ENGINEERING SEMINAR 2022

According to Robert W Day (Forensic Engineer, Author of Forensic Geotechnical

1.1 NEED OF FORENSIC ENGINEERING

1.2 EMERGENCE OF FORENSIC INVESTIGATION

Similarly in Napoleonic code, if a structure had a loss of serviceability within 10 years

FitzSimons describes the case of “Folkes versus Chadd’, a milestone in the

1.3 APPLICATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCE IN VARIOUS FIELDS

1.4 RELEVANCE OF FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN CIVIL

Everything in our built environment is expected to perform as designed, but when

Modern engineering methods, construction procedures, and manufacturing processes

Another major area of forensic engineering is failure analysis. Mechanical, electrical,

2 FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN STRUCTURAL FAILURES

The discussion of structural failures, to be most productive, must include performance

2.1 TYPES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURES

Fig 2.1 Collapse of Formwork during Concrete Placement

Functional failure: it compromise of intended usage of certain things. Excessive vibration of

Fig 2.2 Roof leaks

2.2 CAUSES OF STRUCTURAL FAILURES

Sometimes the project is exposed to environmental conditions, uses, or forces

Structural failure does not have to be a “catastrophic collapse”; it may be a “non-

Fig 2.3 Factors leading to Failures

Incompetence: Failure to understand engineering principles or respect the technical limitations

Miscommunication: Failure to establish and maintain lines of communication between

2.3 FAILURE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGN PROCESS

Fundamentally, structural design requires “an ability to create a cost-efficient load-

2.4 ESTABLISHING A FORENSIC STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK

The developed Forensic Structural framework would enable engineers in conducting

Evidence collection stage

Failure Hypothesis and Analysis

Responsibilities Assigning Stage

Fig 2.4 Stages of Structural Framework

2.4.1 Preliminary Stage

2.4.2 Evidence Collection Stage

2.4.3 Failure Hypothesis and Analysis Stage

Computational analysis is a recommended procedure using relevant software packages

2.4.4 Conclusion stage

2.4.5 Responsibilities assigning stage

3 FORENSIC INVESTIGATION IN FOUNDATION FAILURES

3.1 CONDITIONS FOR FAILURE

BC < P ………………………………………. (1)

Where, BC – Bearing Capacity of the soil

P – Total load acting on foundation

R<𝑃𝑠 ………………………………………. (2)

Where, R – Ultimate Structural Resistance

1. The geotechnical resistance BC may be inadequate to resist the applied loads.

3.2 FACTORS AFFECTING GEOTECHNICAL FOUNDATION

a. The geotechnical profile below the foundation

The geotechnical profile is generally assessed by some form of site investigation,

3.2.2 Soil Strength

3.2.3 Nature of Foundation

3.2.4 Direction of Loading

It is unusual for the applied loading to be purely vertical, as is sometimes assumed in

3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING STRUCTURAL FOUNDATION

Many foundations consist primarily of steel or concrete members. So the amount of

3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING APPLIED LOADS

3.5 FACTORS AFFECTING STRUCTURAL ACTIONS

a. The method of calculation used.