See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317661643

Landslide of Highland Towers 1993: a case study of Malaysia

Article  in  Innovative Infrastructure Solutions · December 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s41062-017-0069-4

CITATIONS READS

11 38,939

4 authors, including:

Danish Kazmi Sadaf Qasim

The University of Queensland NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi
14 PUBLICATIONS   97 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Indra Harahap
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
102 PUBLICATIONS   698 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Center UST View project

Marine clay improvement using blended ceramic tiles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sadaf Qasim on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0069-4
REVIEW
Landslide of Highland Towers 1993: a case study of Malaysia
Danish Kazmi1 • Sadaf Qasim1 • I. S. H. Harahap2 • Syed Baharom2
Received: 1 February 2017 / Accepted: 1 June 2017
 Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland 2017
Abstract Slope engineering is primarily focused on land-
slides nowadays due to increasing number of its episodes.
Most of the landslides occur on manmade slopes and it is
actually the consequence of the uncertainties carried by
different contributing factors. This study explores the
causes of Highland Towers 1993 landslide based on reli-
ability analysis technique and taking into account the role
of human errors in the contribution of landslide. It is an
established fact that the probability of failure derived from
structural reliability analysis is conditional which does not
incorporate human factors. The analysis considered in this
study is based on Monte Carlo simulation by using the
commercial slope/w software to evaluate the stability of the
slope. The reason for selecting this software is that it
combines both deterministic and probabilistic modules
which provides more reliable results. These investigations
are followed by fault tree analysis (FTA) to quantify the
human error causes of failure by determining the chances
of landslide governing with different events. The results of
FTA show that the potential causes of this landslide are
inadequate drainage, failure of rubble wall, and rail pile
& Danish Kazmi
danish.kazmi@hotmail.com
Sadaf Qasim
sadafqasim26@yahoo.com
I. S. H. Harahap
indrasati@petronas.com.my
Syed Baharom
sybaharom@petronas.com.my
1
Department of Civil Engineering, NED University of
Engineering and Technology, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Petronas, 32610 Perak, Malaysia
foundation which confirms that human errors have played a
significant role in triggering the landslide. Therefore, this
study suggests the use of human reliability analysis tech-
nique along with structural analysis to address the risks
associated with the slopes.
Keywords Landslides  Highland Towers 1993 
Reliability analysis  Monte Carlo simulation  Slope/w
software  Fault tree analysis
Introduction
In 1993, the collapse of Highland Towers in Kuala Lum-
pur, Malaysia resulted in 48 deaths. According to the report
of Maverick [1], one of the major causes of landslide was
improper soil testing. The peripheral conditions of site
resulted in undermining. The failure of retaining walls
under heavy rains was a contributing factor, causing a
landslide that led to the building’s collapse. There were
two types of design errors, improper soil’s bearing test and
pre-construction site visit at pre-design phase and the
failure to identify the peripheral condition at site, together
with the failure to design an inadequate retaining wall to
contain the site and the building that stood on it [2]
(Fig. 1).
According to Aini and Fakhru’l-Razi [4], the collapse of
Block 1 of Highland Towers Condominium could also be
avoided if the authority and the owner investigated inci-
dences of flooding and mudflow prior to the disaster.
Heavy rain on December 11, 1993 had caused retrogressive
landslides behind Block 1, which consequently induced the
instability of the rail pile foundation, which was not
designed for lateral loading. Inadequate provision of drai-
nage and lack of maintenance of drains aggravated the
123
21 Page 2 of 9
Fig. 1 Highland Towers collapse [3]
friable nature of the slope materials, which increased sur-
face runoff and infiltration rate that finally triggered a
series of landslides (Figs. 2, 3).
The reason for studying the background of Highland
Towers 1993 landslide is that it resulted in significant
compensatory and non-compensatory losses coupled with
the fact that many other landslides also took place in the
same vicinity.
A number of fatal landslides have been reported in Ulu
Klang starting with the tragedy of Highland Tower collapse
in 1993, followed by a landslide at Taman Hillview on
November 20, 2002. Subsequently, landslides were repor-
ted at Taman Hamorni, Taman Zoo View KampungPasir
on May 31, 2006 and the most recent was at Taman Bukit
Mewah, the December 6, 2008. These landslides have
resulted in casualties and loss of lives, notwithstanding
Fig. 2 Original cross-section through block 1 [5]
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21
Fig. 3 Sequence of retrogressive landslides [5]
displacements of residents and extensive damages to
properties [6] (Table 1).
Ulu Klang region in Malaysia is very susceptible to
landslides. This area is located in Kuala Lumpur, the
capital city of Malaysia between 3090 2500 and 3130 4500
East latitude and 101440 1300 and 101470 5100 North longi-
tudes. Urban development has brought many problems to
this region including numerous landslide and mudflow
events. The Ulu Kelang area has suffered several fatal
landslides caused by rainfall events. There were 28 major
landslide events identified as rainfall-induced landslides
since 1984. The Highland Towers slide stands as one of the
most significant tragedies involving 48 deaths due to tower
collapse after several days of rainfall in 1993 [7].
According to Malaysian meteorological department
(MMD), the temperature of the Ulu Klang area is usually
between 29 and 32 C with a mean relative humidity of
65–70%. The average annual temperature is about 25 C.
April and June are the highest temperature months, while
the relative humidity is lowest in June, July, and September
[7] (Fig. 4).
Slope engineering demands full concentration at the
moment due to increasing number of landslides. Most of
the landslide failures are related to manmade slopes and
this requires immediate attention to address the problem. It
is in actual the problems of the deficit design, faulty and
poor construction or being ignorant from the maintenance
[9]. In one of the sectoral reports of Malaysia, among 49
major cases of landslides, 88 percent are attributed to
manmade slopes [10]. To date this fact is not truly recog-
nized that uncertainties related to human factors needs to
be tackled methodologically. In fact, researchers believe
that human uncertainties prevailing in the construction
industry are similar to the uncertainties governing with soil
properties and the selected models. Schüttrumpf et al. [11]
also recognized the role of human uncertainties by giving it
the name of human factors while discussing the design of
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21 Page 3 of 9 21

Table 1 Major landslides in

Ulu Klang area from year 1993
to 2008 [6]
No Date Location of slope failure
1 11.12.1993 Highland Tower
2 14.05.1999 Bukit Antarabangsa, Ampang-Ulu Klang
3 15.05.1999 Athanaeum Towers, Ulu Klang
4 05.10.2000 Bukit Antarabangsa
5 29.10.2001 Taman Zoo View, Ulu Klang
6 08.11.2001 Taman Zoo View, Ulu Klang
7 20.11.2002 Taman Hill View
8 02.11.2003 Oakleaf Park Condominiums in Bukit Antarabangsa
9 07.11.2003 Jalan Bukit Mulia, Bukit Antarabangsa, Ulu Klang
10 31.01.2005 JalanTebrau in DataranUkay, Ulu Klang
11 01.02.2005 JalanTebrau, DataranUkay, Ulu Klang
12 31.03.2006 Taman Zoo View - Kg Pasir, Ulu Klang
13 06.12.2008 Taman bukit Mewah, Bukit Antarabangsa, Ulu Klang

Fig. 4 Location of Ulu Klang [8]

coastal structures. Essentially, human reliability analysis Pf ¼ 1  R: ð1Þ

weighs up those uncertainties that stems from human fac-
tors and are necessary to be addressed for ensuring the
structural integrity and safety.
A reliability analysis aims to evaluate the probability
that capacity exceeds with respect to demand. Reliability
(R) can be expressed indirectly through probability of
failure (Pf). Mathematical definition for probability of
failure is expressed as follows:
As reported by Duncan [12], the reliability calculations
support to work out the combined effects of uncertainties.
Reliability analysis also distinguishes between those con-
ditions where uncertainties are varying. Safety factor
approach is apparently logical as it is based on experience
but the only problem is that it does not have the ability to
counter uncertainties.

123
21 Page 4 of 9
The reason for considering reliability analysis is that
the conventional slope practices are unable to quantify
the risks as they only runs with judgment and expe-
riences. These traditional practices have no provision of
attending the uncertainties. Thus, reliability index is a
more logical measure of stability rather than factor of
safety. Santamarina et al. [13] ascertained the Table 2.
These criteria’s combine together with standard levels
of probability of failure with various design conditions.
Dai et al. [14] discussed about the probability of failure for
site-specific slopes. In actual, probability of failure is refer-
ring to the probability of the safety factor having value less
than 1. The performance function GðXÞ is the main function
of the slopes which differentiates between the safety and the
failure. If GðXÞ [ 0 failure will not take place. The GðXÞ\0
shows that safety level is alarming which means most
probably it will fail. The performance function GðXÞ ¼ 0 is a
limit state boundary. It separates the two states. Once the
performance function is established by taking all input
variables involved in stability analysis, probability of failure
can be drawn by statistical tools.
Mathematically, the performance function is defined as
follows:
GðxÞ ¼ FðxÞ  1: ð2Þ
Or
GðxÞ ¼ RðxÞ  SðxÞ; ð3Þ
where safety factor, resistance, and load are denoted by
F ð xÞ, Rð xÞ , and Sð xÞ , respectively.
Quantification of uncertainties needs reliability approa-
ches and reliability analysis tools. It is a misperception that
an ample amount of data and thorough probabilistic
knowledge is required for reliability theory. Reliability
theory can be applied on nearly the same data and judg-
ments that are used in conventional analysis. In reliability
analysis, probability of failure is represented by (Pf) and
reliability index by (b).
Objective of the study
The objectives of the study are given below.
• To explore the causes of Highland Towers 1993
landslide
Table 2 Slope conditions and
Conditions
failure probabilities [13]
Temporary structures with low repair cost
Existing large cut on interstate highway
Acceptable in most cases EXCEPT lives may be lost
Acceptable for all slopes
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21
• To evaluate the role of human uncertainties in the
landslide by applying fault tree analysis (FTA)
Method and area of study
The Highland Towers collapse was an apartment building
collapse that occurred on December 11, 1993 in Taman
Hillview, Ulu Klang, Selangor, Malaysia. The collapse of
Block 1 of the apartments caused the deaths of 48 people
and led to the complete evacuation of the remaining two
blocks due to safety concerns. In 1991, a new housing
development project, known as Bukit Antarabangsa
Development Project, commenced construction on the
hilltop located behind the Highland Towers. The hill was
cleared of trees and other land-covering plants, exposing
the soil to land erosion that is the leading factor of causing
landslides [15].
This study explores the catastrophic landslide of High-
land Towers 1993 to study the causes which triggered the
failure. For investigation, probabilistic analysis is consid-
ered based on Monte Carlo simulation using the commer-
cial slope/w software to evaluate the stability of the slope.
Slope/w provides deterministic and probabilistic analysis
in one unit. The critical slip surface is acquired by deter-
ministic analysis, whereas the probabilistic analysis is
performed on the particular critical slip surface. These
investigations are followed by fault tree analysis (FTA)
which is a logical and diagrammatic method to evaluate the
probability of an incident resulting from sequences and
combinations of failure events. The FTA capitalizes on
logics and Boolean algebra to determine events that are
responsible for an undesired incident.
The required parametric and geometrical information
used in the application of reliability analysis methods is
established through previous studies. Geometrical config-
uration of the slope along with type and shear strength
properties of the soil are given below [5].
• The slope height of Highland Tower 1993 is around
48 m as worked out through reduced levels.
• Gradient of the Highland Tower 1993 is estimated
through working hill slope, ranges from 20 to 30.
• Soil properties from undamaged mass of Highland
Tower 1993 slope, effective cohesion is found to be in a
Probability of failures
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21 Page 5 of 9 21

range from 4 kPa to 6 kPa and the friction angle is in Table 3 Classes for probability [16]
the range of 33–41 . Qualitative evaluation Quantitative evaluation Value
• Bulk unit weight is 19 kN/m3.
• Dry unit weight is 16.5 kN/m3. Certain Every time 1.0
• Pore water pressure ratio (Ru) is applied as 0.1–0.4. Very high One in a ten 10-1
High One in a hundred 10-2
Moderate One in a thousand 10-3
Low One in ten thousand 10-4
Strategy for probabilistic analysis
Very low One in a hundred thousand 10-5
Extremely low One in a million 10-6
This study considers the analysis using slope/w software
Practically zero One in ten million 10-7
which is a commanding slope analysis program. Using
limit equilibrium, it has the skill to analyze diverse soil
types, composite stratigraphic and slip surface geometry, Monte Carlo simulation is a powerful tool for slope
and uneven pore-water pressure conditions using a large stability and risk analysis. This method consists of four
assortment of soil models. Analysis can be performed by basic steps which include the following:
deterministic or probabilistic input parameters. It can
execute probabilistic slope stability analysis, taking into 1. Selecting a random worth for each input variable
account the variability allied with the input parameters. A according to dispensed probability density function.
probabilistic analysis agrees to statistically calculate the 2. Calculating factor of safety by using a proper deter-
probability of failure of a slope via Monte Carlo method. ministic slope stability analysis method based on
The results from all Monte Carlo attempts can be used to selected values in step 1.
figure out the probability of failure, factor of safety, 3. Repeating step 1 and 2 for as many times as necessary.
probability density, and distribution functions. 4. Determining distribution function of factors of safety
The parameters of soil obtained from literature have the and probability of failure.
ability to carry out deterministic analysis. Probabilistic According to Monte Carlo simulation method, a random
analysis needs some additional statistical parameters of value has been selected for each input parameter based on
unit weight, cohesion, and friction. Statistics like mean, the assigned probability density function. Theoretically, the
standard deviation, and coefficient of variation are actually more Monte Carlo trials make the solution more accurate
used to carry out probabilistic analysis and can be acquired but the number of required Monte Carlo trials is dependent
from previous literature in case of lack of data. For this on the level of confidence in the solution and the amount of
reason, six sigma (6r) method is taken into account. In (6r) variables being considered.
tool, range of the focused parameter is taken and divided In reliability analysis, probability of failure (Pf) and
by 6. The output of standard deviation comes from this reliability index (b) are two major parameters for mea-
sequence. Mathematically it can be defined as follows: suring the safety. The reliability index is defined as the
Range distance between mean safety margin and the failure limit.
Standard deviation ¼ : ð4Þ
6 Mathematically, reliability index can be expressed as
Random variables are generated according to already follows:
calculated basic statistical parameters like mean, coeffi- b ¼ ðE ðFSÞ  1Þ=r ðFSÞ; ð6Þ
cient of variance, and type of distribution. These generated
where E (FS) and r (FS) are average and standard devia-
random variables are joined together to form a limit state
tion of safety factors, respectively.
function ‘G’ (on the basis of already determined limit state
The relation between reliability index and probability of
function). Taking the definition of failure G \ 0, the
failure is given below (Table 4).
number of failing runs will count. Large numbers of iter-
It is a fact that safety factor approach is conservative and
ations are involved to approximate the probability of cer-
not sufficient for ultimate design because the results
tain outcomes by using random variables. Mathematically,
obtained from this approach are conditional as it lacks the
it can be expressed as follows:
impact of human errors. This fact is also supported by the
number of trials failed studies of Duncan [12] and Phoon [18] which establishes
Pf ¼ : ð5Þ
total number of trials that the collapse of Highland Towers 1993 requires further
In terms of the classes for probability, the below investigation by considering the role of human errors in the
table represents the corresponding intensity of failure failure. For this reason, this study applies the technique of
(Table 3). fault trees analysis (FTA) to quantify the human error

123
21 Page 6 of 9 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21

Table 4 Relationship between reliability index and probability of
failure [17]
Performance Reliability Probability of
level index (b) failure (Pf)
High 5 0.0000003
Good 4 0.00003
Above average 3 0.001
Below average 2.5 0.006
Poor 2 0.023
Unsatisfactory 1.5 0.07
Hazardous 1 0.16
causes of Highland Towers 1993 which are mentioned in
the findings of the previous studies of MPAJ [19], Jaapar
[20] and Sew [21] and Aun [22].
The fault tree is developed to analyze the collapse of
Highland Towers 1993 and is relevant to the following
scenarios of human errors as discussed by MPAJ [19], Sew
[21] and Aun [22].
1. The agreed drainage system on the hill slope following
Highland Towers 1993 has never been done.
2. Slope and rubble walls behind and in front of Block 1
were improperly designed having factor of safety less
than 1.
3. The instability of rail pile foundation.
The purpose of using FTA is to estimate the likelihood
scenario of an accident. Its quantification needs probabili-
ties of the basic events located at the last level of the fault
tree. The assigned probabilities of the basic events have to
be estimated through information reported in the literature
or by analyst’s experience. If available it is best suitable to
use activity specific data, which usually arises from pre-
ventive maintenance records or from review of previous
incident literature. The concept of subjective probabilities
is commonly applied in geotechnical engineering as it
reflects the subject’s opinion without any stringent calcu-
lations. It is also mentioned by Silva [23] that geotechnical
engineers frequently come up to the determination of
failure probabilities. The previous studies of Christian [24]
and Stewart [25] show that subjective probabilities, such as
quantified expert judgment, have been accepted for decades
by practitioners and academics alike.
Results
Qasim and Harahap [26] performed the reliability assess-
ment of Highland Towers 1993 using slope/w program.
Safety level of the slope has been measured both deter-
ministically and probabilistically. It has been found that the
Table 5 Mean safety factor values [26]
Methods Moment Force
Ordinary 1.425 –
Bishop 1.499 –
Jambu – 1.403
Morgenstern price 1.502 1.503
maximum value of concluded safety factor is 1.502 even
from the most rigorous method of Morgenstern-Price. The
safety factor values from all four methods are given below
(Table 5).
The search of the position and radius of critical slip
surface is the trickiest part of the slope stability analysis. It
is not only depending on the geometry of the slope being
analyzed but also on the strength parameters. In deter-
ministic analysis of slope, mean values of input parameter
are always used and this will acquiesce on a particular
failure surface. In slope/w, the use of a probabilistic anal-
ysis will not impinge on the deterministic solution. Slope/w
calculates the factor of safety of all slip surfaces first and
determines the critical slip surface as if no probabilistic
analysis is elected. The probabilistic investigation is than
performed on the deterministic critical slip surface [26]
(Table 6).
When probabilistic analysis is performed, reliability
index for three different cases of soil parameters has been
taken. An inherent probabilistic tool of Monte Carlo sim-
ulation of slope/w software is utilized by having 1000,
2000, and 3000 trials. As the number of trials increases, the
results become more refined [26] (Table 7).
From the above results, the reliability index on 3000
auditions for Highland Towers 1993 found to be 1.07
which is alarmingly low; however, the safety factor in this
case is 1.5. These results indicate that there is no correla-
tion between factor of safety and probability of failure.
Lacasse and Nadim [27] have already highlighted this point
while investigating the pile design. Another important
aspect is that the probability of failure derived in this case
is human error free; it only reflects soil variability or model
uncertainties. Therefore, this study performs the fault tree
analysis (FTA) of the Highland Towers 1993 collapse to
investigate the neglected part of human errors.
The technique of FTA is used to determine the chances
of failure governing with different events. The probabilities
of basic events have been taken by the combination of
analyst’s opinion and the previous sources. The qualitative
construction of the fault tree replicates the relation among
the events. The first step in quantifying a fault tree is to
allocate preliminary probabilities to the basic events. This
step is performed by obtaining information from the

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21 Page 7 of 9 21

Table 6 Three different cases of soil parameters [26] drains were deficient to lodge the sum of runoff from the
Standard deviation Case I Case II Case III
slope. Lastly, the drains were in an area where maintenance
must be on high priority due to thick vegetation cover.
Unit weight 1 1 1 One basic event of ‘‘rainfall exceeds’’ is also considered
Cohesion 1 2 1 during the performance of analysis. The probability of
Friction 2 2 1 failure due to this basic event is found to be moderate and
is equal to 10-3 while the event of inadequate drainage has
a value of 10-1. It shows that water coupled with poor
drainage system are the prime contributors of the collapse
Table 7 Probabilistic results of case I, case II, and case III [26] of the slope.
It is also essential to check the figures of cumulative
Trials Output quantities Case I Case II Case III
rainfall in the area of slope failure. It has been recorded that
1000 Reliability index 1.03 1.13 1.10 the cumulative rainfall on the day of this disastrous event
Probability of failure (%) 12.12 12.88 13.45 was about 900 mm. The yearly rainfall for the year 1993
2000 Reliability index 1.01 1.04 1.09 was 2604 mm. Thus, the cumulative rainfall from
Probability of failure (%) 11.98 11.99 12.14 September to December 11, 1993 is reported to be 35% of
3000 Reliability index 1.05 1.07 1.01 the annual rainfall. The intensity of rainfall was severe in
Probability of failure (%) 10.98 11.12 11.18 the month of December prior to the day when the slope and
the Block 1 Tower collapsed. The seepage flow would have
played a part in the collapse of the slope since water
emerging from the rubble wall at the slope toe can cause
concerned people in the industry to get expert opinion for loss of support as the material collapsed locally leading to
the analysis. the rotational retrogressive slope failure [22].
This study has followed the same strategy of FTA to Jabatan Kerja Raya [30] reported that along with the
quantify the instability issues of Highland Towers 1993 by triggering factor of rainfall, inadequate factor of safety is
acquiring the subjective probabilities of events through also one of the factors responsible for the failure. It
leading consultants and officials of local bodies of describes that factor of safety is basically not invariant in
Malaysian region. Undoubtedly, Highland Towers 1993 nature but with the passage of time due to influence of rise
collapse took place nearly after 15 years of its completion in ground water table/pore water pressure it variates and
but the factors that contributed to its failure are quantified lowers down. In that situation, the selection of safety factor
in this paper using FTA approach (Fig. 5). is based on taking all the relevant factors into consideration
[21].
In connection to slope failures and building collapse, the
Discussion human error uncertainties are dominantly prevailing in
design, construction, and maintenance phases but it has not
The probability of failure of top event ‘‘Instability issues of been fully recognized yet. In structural engineering, some
Highland Towers’’ is found to be 10-1 which reflects very trials have been made to lower down the impacts of human
high level of risk according to established criteria of errors by proposing some models as discussed by Haan
probability of occurrence as mentioned by Kazmi et al. [31] and Yousef [32]. Previous literature and studies also
[28]. The basic events which potentially contributed to confirm that human errors are directly and indirectly cou-
failure are inadequate drainage, failure of a rubble wall, pled with geotechnical failures including the studies of
and rail pile foundation coupled with movement of soil. All Jaapar [20], Minato [33], Kaliba [34], Sweis [35], Gue
these factors show clear signs of human errors which [36], Rasip [37], and Samah [38]. It is also reported that
committed either intentionally or unintentionally. Accord- frequencies, consequences, and circumstances surrounding
ing to the study of Maniam [29], the implemented drainage human error occurrence should be understood before ana-
system in the vision of all experts of hydrology was totally lyzing it [39].
inadequate. Firstly, most of the drains were earth drains The decision for the stability and longevity of slope is
that can be easily worn. Secondly, water can penetrate into taken mostly on the basis of safety factor value; however,
the soil of these earth drains at a superior rate as compared this has proved to be a distorted way of slope stability
to concrete. Along with, the flow pattern of these drains analysis when human uncertainties are completely
was adverse. It does not have natural flow towards down- neglected. Therefore, it is necessary that human uncer-
hill and it had a number of U-turns, one of which even tainties must be evaluated in the slope construction along
flows in the same direction where it originated. Further, the with the technical aspects for minimizing the chances of

123
21 Page 8 of 9 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21

Instability Issues of
Highland Tower
10-1

Rainfall
Inadequate exceeds Failure of a Rubble Failure of rail pile
Movement of soil
drainage 10-3 wall foundation
0.0001
0.10 0.0002 0.0022

Unexpected
diversion of water Haphazard Factor of safety <1 Deficit
0.001 construction 0.02 material
Increased 10-2 10-2
runoff due to
Planned
clearing of
drainage but Bucking and
Complexity of trees Accumulation of
not shearing of rail
drains 10-3 fallen debris
implemented piles
0.0001 0.02
10-2 Consequence 0.11
of Faulty soil
retrogressive data Insufficient design
Design flood 10-6 Poor
slides 0.02
exceeds maintenance
10-3
10-3 10-3

East stream was Mostly are earth

Drains are not drains Designed
diverted by pipe properly Confident Internal Non
culvert 0.11 Parametric only for
aligned about erosion monitoring
0.101 uncertainties vertical loads
10-4 traditional 10-3 10-3
not considered 10-2
approaches
. 10--3 10-2

Water
Not knowing infiltration at Easily eroded
Deliberate
the greater rate 10-2
action
consequences 10-3
10-4
10-2

Staggered flow
pattern
0.00003

Number of U-turns
are introduced Not flows
0.003 naturally
10-3

Lack of Insufficient to
Knowledge accommodate
10-4 run off
10-4
Third party
interference
10-4

Fig. 5 Fault Tree of Highland Towers 1993 Landslide

failure to ensure that the construction is performed as per be dominant in triggering the landslide, and the potential
the specifications. causes of failure include inadequate drainage, failure of
rubble wall, and rail pile foundation. It is now being real-
ized that reliability of the structure is not only technology
dependent but the quality of design, construction, and
Conclusion maintenance must meet the specifications. This study
concludes that it is recommended to perform human reli-
The role of human uncertainties in the construction is ability analysis in slope construction to reduce the chances
gradually being recognized as one of the pivotal causes of of errors holistically. The findings also confirm that whe-
failure in civil engineering; hence, there is a need to ther the safety factor of the slope is high or low, there is
address these uncertainties by formulating various stan- always a possibility of instability if the probability of
dards to deal with them accordingly. In case of Highland failure due to human uncertainties is not tackled in a log-
Towers 1993, the contribution of human errors is found to ical manner.

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:21
References
1. Maverick S (2006) Highland Tower Tragedy. http://con
structionrisk.blogspot.com/2006/02/
2. Ishak SNH, Chohan AH, Ramly A (2007) Implications of design
deficiency on building maintenance at post-occupational stage.
J Build Apprais 3(2):115–124
3. MPAJ (1994) Report of the technical committee of investigation
on the collapse of block 1 and the stability of blocks 2 and 3
Highland Towers Condonominium, Hulu Kelang, Selangor Darul
Ehsan
4. Aini M, Fakhru’l-Razi A (2013) Latent errors of socio-technical
disasters: a Malaysian case study. Safety Sci 51(1):284–292
5. MPAJ (1994) Report of the inquiry committee into the collapse
of block 1 and the stability of blocks 2 and 3 Highland Towers
Condominium, Hulu Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan
6. Huat LT, Ali F (2012) Slope hazard assessment in urbanized area.
Electron J Geotech Eng 17:341–352
7. Saadatkhah N, Kassim A, Lee M (2014) Spatial patterns of pre-
cipitation, altitude and monsoon directions in Hulu Kelang area,
Malaysia. EJGE C 19:521–534
8. Azmi ASM, Salleh WARWM, Nawawi AH (2013) Cognitive
behaviour of residents toward living in landslide Prone Area: Ulu
Klang. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 101:379–393
9. Jamaluddin TA (2006) Human factors and slope failures in
Malaysia. Bull Geol Soc Malays 52:75–84
10. JKR (2009) National slope master plan sectoral report research
and development, Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia
11. Schüttrumpf H, Kortenhaus A, Fröhle P, Peters K (2008) Anal-
ysis of uncertainties in coastal structure design by expert judge-
ment. In: Proceedings of the Chinese-German Joint Symposium
on Hydraulic and Ocean Engineering: August 24–30, 2008,
Technische Universität Darmstadt/Publ. by the Institute of
Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, pp 109–114
12. Duncan JM (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotech-
nical engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(4):307–316
13. Santamarina J, Altschaeffl A, Chameau J (1992) Reliability of
slopes: incorporating qualitative information, Transportation
Research Record 1343
14. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and
management: an overview. Eng Geol 64(1):65–87
15. Highland Tower Collapse. https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.
php?s=Highland%20Towers%20collapse&item_type=topic.
Accessed 10 May 2017
16. Kirsten H (1999) Workshop on evaluation of risk as decision
making with the criterion. Denver, CO
17. Army U (1995) Introduction to probability and reliability meth-
ods for use in geotechnical engineering. Eng Tech Lett
1110–2:547
18. Phoon KK (2004) Towards reliability-based design, for
geotechnical engineering. National University of Singapore,
Singapore (Special lecture for Korean Geotechnical Society,
Seoul
19. MPAJ (1994) Report of the technical committee of investigations
on the collapse of block 1 and the stability of block 2 and 3
Highland Towers Condominium Hulu Klang Selangor Darul
Ehsan
20. Jaapar ARB (2006) A framework of a national slope safety sys-
tem for Malaysia. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
View publication stats
Page 9 of 9 21
21. Sew GS, Wai (2008) Geotechnical Challenges in Slope Engi-
neering of Infrastructures. In: KLIUC-international conference on
infrastructure development (INCID): Putrajaya, Malaysia
22. Liu H-L, Deng A, Chu J (2009) Geotechnical engineering for
disaster mitigation and rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference GEDMAR08, Nanjing, China, 30 May–
2 June 2008. Springer Science & BusinessMedia. doi:10.1007/
978-3-540-79846-0
23. Silva F, Lambe TW, Marr WA (2008) Probability and risk of
slope failure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(12):1691–1699
24. Christian JT, Urzua A (1998) Probabilistic evaluation of earth-
quake-induced slope failure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
124(11):1140–1143
25. Stewart RA (2000) Dam risk management. In: ISRM interna-
tional symposium, international society for rock mechanics
26. Qasim S, Harahap I (2012) Geotechnical uncertainties and reli-
ability theory applications. In: International Journal of Engi-
neering Research and Technology, ESRSA Publications
27. Lacasse S, Nadim F (1999) Risk analysis in geo engineering
proceedings of rocksite 1999. In: International conference on
rock engineering techniques for site characterization, Banglore
India
28. Kazmi D, Qasim S, Harahap I, Baharom S, Masood A, Imran M
(2017) A study on landslide risk management by applying fault
tree logics. In: MATEC web of conferences, EDP sciences
29. Maniam MD, Undang-Undang P, Pinang MPP (2004) Lessons
leearned from Highland Towers. Bul Ing 21:21–27
30. Raya JK (2009) National slope master plan sectoral report
research and development, Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia
31. Haan JD (2012) Human errors in structural engineering. In:
Faculty of civil engineering and geosciences, Technical Univer-
sity Delft
32. Yousef A (2012) Human errors in structural design and con-
struction in the United Arab Emirates. In: Civil engineering,
American University of Sharjah, Sharjah
33. Minato T (2003) Design documents quality in the Japanese
construction industry, factors influencing and impacts on con-
struction process. Int J Proj Manag 21(7):537–546
34. Kaliba C, Muya M, Mumba K (2009) Cost escalation and
schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia. Int J Proj
Manag 27(5):522–531
35. Sweis G, Sweis R, Hammad AA, Shboul A (2008) Delays in
construction projects: the case of Jordan. Int J Proj Manag
26(6):665–674
36. Gue SS, Tan YC (2006) Landslides: cases histories, lessen
learned and mitigation measures. In: Paper presented at the
Landslide, sinkhole, structure failure: myth or science? Ipoh,
Malaysia
37. Rasip MK (2006) Isu pembangunan di kawasan tanah tinggi dan
berbukit (kes kajian: Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya) Univer-
siti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
38. Samah FA (2007) Landslide in hillside development in the Hulu
Kelang, Klang Valley. In: Presented at the Post-Graduate Semi-
nar Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
39. Nowak AS, Carr RI (1984) Modelling human errors. In: 4th
ASCE specialty conference on probabilistic and structural relia-
bility, ASCE
123