Failure Investigation

Engineering Diagnostics specializes in evaluating causes of failures with existing structures and building materials, designing remedies for them, and assisting in the resolution of related disputes.

The following is an excerpt from “PICKING THROUGH THE PIECES: A Look Into the Art and Science of Forensic Engineering,” by David H. Nicastro, P.E.

The essence of an engineering investigation of a construction failure is to determine the cause - not only the failure mechanisms, but the procedural causes and contributing factors as well. A “failure mechanism” is an identifiable phenomenon that describes the process or defect by which an item or system suffers a particular type of failure. In many cases, it is trivially obvious what caused the failure from a technical standpoint, but the focus of the case is the procedural cause of the failure- the circumstances that lead to the occurrence.

To use one of the most famous structural collapses as an illustration of this point, consider the collapse of the Hyatt Regency Hotel pedestrian walkways in Kansas City, Missouri in 1981. The investigators determined that the failure was initiated simply by overstressing a steel connection- the failure mechanism was nothing more mysterious than overloading a poor connection detail. What was more important in that case was the process by which the inappropriate connection detail was designed, subsequently modified, approved, and finally constructed and accepted.

Nevertheless, A detailed understanding of failure mechanisms is essential to the practice of forensic engineering. Forensic engineering is the application of engineering principles to the investigation of failures or other performance problems. The word “forensic” means public forum, which today usually means courtroom. In engineering, this term has various other meanings and connotations, especially related to failure analysis. However, the word forensic is best reserved for projects that involve dispute resolution services.

“Forensic” does not imply expert testimony. On the contrary, most forensic projects are resolved before providing testimony. However, it is convenient that many people think that it implies testimony: whether litigation is ultimately involved or not, forensic services should be provided as if courtroom testimony will eventually be required. While negotiation, settlement, and alternative dispute resolution techniques might be employed, the default method for resolution is litigation. Therefore, project activities must be undertaken with the understanding that testimony may ultimately be required just because there is a dispute involved. Testimony will in fact only be required in a small percentage of the projects.