Professional Documents
Culture Documents
29cf 1943-5509 0000274
29cf 1943-5509 0000274
difficulty.
Introduction
priate, errs on the side of conservatism. In new or remedial eses, in conjunction with the rigorous testing of each hypothesis
design, this is one of the design process’s chief strengths, but against the evidence, assists the investigator to conduct the inves-
in failure investigation, it is a critical weakness. In failure in- tigation in a forensically sound manner, ensuring it will not only
vestigation, the investigator must determine the actual loads, stand up to the scrutiny of engineering peers, but also, if necessary,
actual structural behavior, and actual material properties at to the exacting demands of the legal system.
the time of failure, rather than relying on simplifying perfor-
mance assumptions. This issue can be further exacerbated by
the sometimes-significant differences between simplifying Implementation of Forensic Process
performance assumptions and the performance of structures
in practice.7 Therefore, the accurate determination of the cause Given the significant differences between the forensic and design
of failure depends on verifiable evidence (e.g., a bolt’s processes, it is clear that Carper can make the point that “a good
failure surface or the cracking patterns in concrete members), design professional is not necessarily a good forensic expert”
and while the collection and analysis of verifiable evidence is (2000). The accurate determination of causation will be very diffi-
central to failure investigation, it is not an integral part of the cult unless the design engineer is able to put aside the traditional
design process. design process and apply a forensic process. In practice, however,
These limitations affect how an engineer that typically utilizes the ability of a design engineer to make such a transition may be
the design process approaches causation investigations. Although highly questionable. Fundamentally, without experience in foren-
determining causation is a critical objective, the implicit nature of sics, the embedded nature of the design process in an engineer’s
the design process can naturally move the focus of the investiga- psyche—sometimes subconsciously—makes it very difficult for
tion to solution development. Likewise, the engineer may fail to engineers that design on a regular basis to actually embrace the
adequately collect and interpret physical evidence and instead rely new set of attitudes, approaches, and processes necessary to inves-
on simplifying assumptions. These factors typically combine to tigate causation satisfactorily.
frustrate the investigating engineer and increase the probability that Given the importance of design in engineering, this is not a sur-
the failure’s cause may be identified incorrectly, potentially leading prising issue. In Beyond Failure, Delatte (2008) describes the role
to repeat failures, inappropriate rehabilitation strategies, legal chal- of engineers succinctly as “engineers design.” Further, this design
lenges, and/or skewed dispute outcomes. mentality is not limited to practicing design engineers, but runs
through the profession as a whole. Although many engineers in-
volved in construction and maintenance may not engage in design
Forensic Process on a regular basis, they typically approach problems using a design
process. Indeed, the engineer as designer is so fundamental to the
The key to determining structural causation is the application of the engineering profession that engineers rarely think of themselves as
forensic process, which aims to objectively identify the technical designers, but rather as engineers with specific design experience
cause or causes of failure by using available evidence. Essentially, and technical competency. In essence, the design mind-set under-
it is the application of the scientific method to failure investigation. pins what it is to be an engineer, is the basis of university training,
Noon (2000), in his text Forensic Engineering Investigation, states and cements the role of engineers as problem solvers.
that “a forensic engineer relies mostly upon the actual physical evi- Therefore, for the engineer wishing to pursue a career in foren-
dence found at the scene, verifiable facts related to the matter, and sic engineering, recognizing and overcoming the embedded nature
well-proven scientific principles. The forensic engineer then ap- of design is a key consideration.9 With this objective in mind, it is
plies accepted scientific methodologies and principles to interpret first helpful to consider some of the aspects of the design process
the physical evidence and facts.” that are diametrically opposed to the forensic process.
The forensic process of collecting evidence, developing failure 1. Problem solving and causation: The problem-solving aspect is
hypotheses, testing each hypothesis against the collected evidence, central to design, but distracts from the objective of forensic
and determining the most likely cause of failure, is a process of investigation.
analysis, rather than synthesis. The application of the forensic pro- 2. Evidence and assumption: Design requires putting trust in as-
cess is described by Noon (2000): “First, careful and detailed ob- sumptions that have served the profession well, but forensics
servations are made. Then, based upon the observations, a working requires that each of these assumptions be rigorously tested
hypothesis is formulated to explain the observations. Experiments against verifiable evidence for the structural failure in question.
or additional observations are then made to test the predictive abil- There is a real risk that the engineer who utilizes the design
ity of the working hypothesis.” Noon (2000) then goes on to say process on a regular basis may be ill equipped to collect and
that, “as more observations are collected and studied, it may be analyze this evidence, and/or may connect some parts of the
quires the investigator approach the investigation with an open 4. Keep an open mind: This is a key quality for the forensic
mind by considering many failure hypotheses, and by collect- engineer. It is critical not to reach a strong conclusion on
ing and analyzing all evidence as objectively as possible to causation early on in the investigation. This task is further com-
determine the correct failure hypothesis. Approaching the in- plicated by the iterative nature of investigations, namely, the
vestigation with a preconceived idea of the cause of failure can investigator will see evidence, collect it, develop a number
curtail the development and examination of a sufficient number of failure hypotheses, and look for evidence associated with
of failure theories and lead to confirmation bias, i.e., the inves- these hypotheses. As stated in the Guidelines for Forensic
tigator only tends to notice evidence that supports a certain Engineering Practice (Lewis 2003), “Do not approach data
hypothesis (Noon 2009). gathering with an eye toward ‘how can I find evidence to sup-
5. Synthesis and analysis: Design is a process of synthesis, and port my sense that…?’ but rather ‘how can I find all of the
there is generally no unique correct design—a number of al- important evidence?”’ Rather than asking “What caused this
ternatives may be (almost) equally satisfactory. However, in failure?” ask “What do I see?”
structural failure, there is only one correct sequence of events 5. The site visit: Evidence and familiarity with the scene of the
that caused the failure, and this sequence of events cannot be failure is critical and should not be rushed. The quality and
determined by a process of synthesis; it requires a forensic pro- completeness of evidence preservation, recording, and collec-
cess of analysis. tion will play a critical role in the strength of an investigator’s
6. Ruling out and ruling in: As discussed previously, the design opinions.
process generally commences with the design engineer devel- 6. Theoretical analysis: Beware of excessive theoretical analysis.
oping a range of reasonable concepts for a design solution. It is not unusual for the engineer to wish “to understand the
The process continues with unsuitable concepts being dropped structure.” Typically, this will be undertaken by constructing
in favor of more satisfactory concepts, to finally arrive at a sin- an analytical model or attempting to determine whether the
gle design solution. In the same way, during an investigation, structure complies with the current design code. However, both
the designer may be likely to discard hypotheses that are approaches rely on assumptions, and in failure investigation, it
considered less probable than others. However, for an investi- is the examination of these very assumptions that is critical.
gation to be considered forensically sound, this approach is Attempting to “understand the structure” in this manner can
inappropriate—the investigator must rule out each of these distract from the examination of the assumptions. As Cuoco
hypotheses on the basis of evidence. In other words, failing and Panariello (2010) point out, “Failure analysis is not the
to rule out potential causes of failure on the basis of evidence same as analysis for the purpose of design.” “Failure analysis
is just as flawed as ruling in a cause of failure based solely on must use the actual loads imposed on the structure and the real-
assumption. world capacity of the structural elements.”
7. Nature of design process: The design process is heuristic in 7. Nature of the basis of opinions: It is critical for the engineer
nature.11 In other words, the engineer is not required to scien- to probe and understand the nature of the information relied
tifically prove the validity of the design, but is required to show on to formulate opinions. Is it evidence that can be verified?
it is consistent with rules that produce structures that have gen- Is it an assumption that may be challenged as incorrect for the
erally worked in the past. Essentially, the designer asserts the structure in question? Or is it a generally accepted engineering
design is appropriate because it complies with a design code. principle that is unlikely to be challenged? This will assist
In forensics, however, simply asserting an opinion is insuffi- the engineer in assessing the strength of the opinion, and can
cient because the investigator is required to demonstrate how assist in unearthing implicit assumptions. Equally, the engineer
the opinion relies on specific evidence, scientific principles, should make sure to have a clear understanding of the infor-
and scientific logic. mation relied on to deem all other failure hypotheses less
For structural engineers with a design background, there are a probable.
number of important and useful steps that can be taken to improve 8. Noon’s “what makes a good hypothesis:” In testing the various
forensic expertise. failure hypotheses, Noon (2009) provides a helpful summary
1. Awareness of the design process: An awareness and under- of the attributes of a good working hypothesis: “All the data
standing of the design process and how it is ill suited to de- upon which it is based needs to be factually verifiable. It must
termining causation is a key first step when approaching be consistent with all the relevant verifiable data, not just
forensic engineering. selected data. The scientific principles upon which the hypoth-
2. The importance of the forensic process: Because of the impli- esis relies must be verifiable and repeatable. The hypothesis
cit nature of many aspects of the design process, constant should provide some predictive value. The hypothesis must
vigilance is required to not slip from a true forensic process be subjected to and withstand genuine falsification efforts.”12