Developing Forensic Investigation Standards to Effectively Deal

with Structural Failures

Ms. Ankita Patil1, Dr. Vandana Bhatt2, Dr. Anil Ghadge3
1 Student of Masters in Construction Management at Sardar Patel College of Engineering
2 Construction law expert and Adjunct Professor at IIT Bombay
3 Professor at Sardar Patel College of Engineering

Abstract:
The human society has witnessed failures of many landmark structures right from that of
tower of Babel to the collapse of Hotel Hyatt Regency walkway, U.S.A. Despite
advancement of technology and improvements in the field of construction, failures are
inevitable even today. Till recently, the failure of Kota Chambal Bridge created lot of panic
to look for integrity and investigation of the conditions of all bridges by railways. All such
failures raise curiosity of technologist as to why it happened. Man tries to obtain an answer
and ultimately decide on liability. This arena where construction and law meet to investigate
the cause of failure as well as determine liability is called forensic engineering.
Literature suggests that forensic engineering is a quite widespread practise in the U.S.A
whereas in India, not only there is lack of enough standards for investigation but also lesser
practise of the same. Most often, failures in India are either police or insurance matters. It is
therefore the object of this study to develop forensic investigation standards based on the time
at which the failure occurs during building life cycle and how to minimise the socio-
economic losses occurring consequentially. A questionnaire was circulated among more than
140 professionals in reputed firms in the construction and legal industry to gather information
on how they/their organisation deal with failures, during what phase they occur, whether
there are any legal implications and to what extent need is felt for a systematic approach to
investigations of failures. Out of these 140 professionals, as many as 41 have responded to
the query and contribute very important information. The questionnaire reveals that the
industry feels there is a dire need for adopting forensic engineering and the only standards
they rely on is non-destructive tests. A number of cases of failures in India and in U.S.A.,
which have occurred during construction and service period stages of life cycle of structure,
were studied for their process, reports and laws of investigations. They have been evaluated
for the socio-economic losses that occurred and the way how legal implications were dealt
with by the parties or investigators involved.

It is revealed so far that more often than not, an innocent professional is convicted without
first investigating scientifically the cause. The game of blame shifting gets momentum. It is
also found that depending on when the failure occurs during the building life cycle, the
investigation process needs to be adapted accordingly. Finally, certain recommendations will
be proposed for each phase, based on the differences between the process of investigation
adopted in U.S.A and India.
Keywords- Forensic investigation, Forensic Engineering, failure literacy, legal implications, liability,
socio-economic losses, investigation process, techno-legal expert, forensic investigators.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

1. Introduction:
Ever since the dawn of civilisation, man has
wanted to provide a shelter and therefore,
he has been a builder for thousands of
years. Once the construction of a shelter is
attempted, one is likely to make one or few
errors which may require the attempt to be
repeated. This exercise is called
construction, failure and re-construction.
Progressively, over thousands of years,
came laws to adjudicate upon such
construction errors and fix up liabilities for
appropriate compensation. The oldest
amongst these is the code of Hammurabi,
2000 B.C., the king of Babylonian. It is
called the Hammurabi code of law and one
of such laws reads “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.” (O'Neal Coble, Gwyn,
Oles, Gibson, & Sink, 2004)
This gave rise to the scientific practise of
investigating failures for ascertaining
responsibility and liability with the aim of
representing such findings in litigation or
mediation (Feld & Carper, 1997). Broadly
speaking, it is not simply a science of
engineering but also an art of its application
in the jurisprudence system (Carper,
Forensic Engineering, 1989). Just like the
medical fraternity diagnose diseases and
gain their experience from this, similarly
forensic engineers learn and gain
experience from analysing the failures of
structure thus giving them the title of
‘pathologists of construction industry’. To
that effect, even if the investigation which
does not have legal implications, it results
into recommendations that lead to
improvements in the field (Feld & Carper,
1997). Thus, the industry has a lot to gain
from adopting forensic investigation.
To promote the importance of forensic
engineering, a prominent author and
forensic investigator himself, (Delatte,
Beyond Failure, 2009) coined the term
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764
‘failure literacy’ in the U.S. It is evident
from literature that U.S.A can be termed as
much more ‘failure literate’ than India.
Therefore, it would be of utmost
importance to adopt forensic investigation
of failures in Indian scenario in compliance
with the relevant law. The main purpose of
this study is to find out how aware the
industry is about the subject and to analyse
the damages for economic losses and link
its consequential effect with existing legal
system. The findings from this study will be
used to propose measures for minimising
risks of failures and recommendations
based on the comparison drawn with the
forensic investigation methodology
currently being practised in the U.S.A.
2. Methodology
2.1 Questionnaire
Design of questionnaire
A questionnaire (as shown in Annexure 1)
was designed to understand the extent of
failure literacy in India. The questions are
so framed as to get an opinion about the
type of failures, seriousness with which
investigations are carried out, appointment
of a neutral expert, legal implications of
failure; need to have a forensic engineer,
etc. The first three questions are especially
for the legal personnel to answer, as they
would reveal how often an expert is
appointed in cases relating to failures of any
construction project. In this field, it is
impossible that an organisation has never
dealt with any kind of failure. Therefore,
the next few questions are asked to find out
the most common type of failures that
organisations deal with, whether they are
investigated at all and most importantly
whether they are neutrally investigated. If
investigated, it is required that the
respondents also mention when the
investigation process actually began. The
next two questions about proof checking
and third-party supervision would show if
those aspects were verified for correctness
by a third party. It is evident from literature
that there is absence of set standards for
forensic investigation process of various
natures in civil engineering in India. To
confirm this, it was asked whether the
respondents are aware of any such set
standards, and if yes, which. It is required
to be known what the most common causes
of structural are and project implementation
failures. The answers to last three questions
would reveal whether the need of forensic
engineering is felt by the construction and
legal industry.
An attempt has been made to ask the kind
of questions that would address the gap
between the current investigation approach
and what the industry expects or requires it
to be. There are a few scenarios where
contradictions are expected to reveal this
gap.
persons involved in these cases. The details
of U.S.A case histories, the same being
already published, are obtained from
various sources of literature as well as from
discussion with an attorney from the USA.
The case studies are selected based on
parameters like the type of structure, the
stage at which the structural failure
occurred (i.e. construction or service period
phase) and the magnitude of failure.
Although two cases cannot be exactly the
same, these parameters helped establish
some common ground for comparison of
the procedures, evidence presentation and
laws governing the process of dealing with
accidents in the two countries.
Investigations in India
Case Study 1- Avinash Parekh vs. State of
Maharashtra, Sukh Sagar Mahal collapse
(Mumbai)

Data collection and analysis:

The questionnaire was circulated amongst a
population of 140 professionals from legal
and engineering community consisting of a
diverse range of experience viz.
Contractors, Consultants, Project Managers,
Advocates and Judges, all from different
organisations. So far, 41 responses were
collected on Google forms which were then
analysed on Google spreadsheets. Fig 2.2.1. Sukh sagar mahal collapse

A G+6 storied building in Malad, collapsed

2.2 Forensic Investigation study
in March 1998 after having stood for 16
In this study, it is aimed to evaluate the
long years. The building was known to have
process of forensic investigation in terms of
structural modifications done to it such that
procedure, report preparation and relevant
the first floor slab was connected to the
laws. In order to determine the nature of
adjacent chawl. In late 1997, the building
forensic engineering in India, two Indian
and adjacent chawl had started showing
case histories were studied. Similarly, two
case histories from U.S.A. were also signs of distress and soon inspection was
done by a structural consultant, who
studied for these parameters. The details of
declared it safe. Meanwhile, the contractor
the Indian case histories were obtained from
was carrying out some plinth opening work
a techno-legal firm and by meeting the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

to carry out repair work of holes formed by
rats. Two days later, the building collapsed
with 35 casualties. This raised many
questions and the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai (Govt. Body) set up a
committee to investigate. The committee
consisted of three members- one secretary
of Housing department, one director of
MCGM and one structural engineering
expert. The investigation discussed many
possible theories and declared the design
engineer Avinash Parekh, as the culprit and
he was arrested. The accused engineer
approached a techno-legal counsel and
geotechnical expert for help and another
investigation took place. The findings of
this investigation (as discussed in Annexure
2) revealed a totally different cause and the
design engineer was freed relying upon
these findings. The socio-economic losses
that occurred, the investigations process,
Fig 2.2.3. Pattern of silo collapse
the final outcome and the legal
repercussions thereof in this case are In March 2010, a 20000MT capacity pre-
annexed in Annexure 2. stressed concrete silo collapsed killing 5
people. The magnitude was so huge that it
Case study 2- Employer vs. Contractor, Silo
generated earthquake-like vibrations in the
collapse (Identity of parties concealed)
vicinity. The silo construction was done by
M/s Contractors as appointed by the M/s
Owner/Employer. The design was carried
out by M/s Design consultant as appointed
by the Employer. The construction was
completed by early September 2008 and
trial production had just begun. However,
by end of September 2008, the loading of
hopper during trial production led to the
collapse of a hopper platform and other
appurtenances weighing 400 tons from
about a height of 19m. The Employers (i.e.
Fig 2.2.2 . Disintegrated portion of silo Claimants), claimed this loss from New
India Assurance Company (NIA Insurance)
and they compensated for it. Thereafter,
hopper platform was replaced and
production was recommenced. In Jan 2009,
cracks were noticed near the junction of
change of wall thickness of silo. A

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

rehabilitation agency was appointed, NDT
tests were carried out and repairs were done
by epoxy grouting. Despite repair works,
circumferential cracks were noticed again
and in March 2010, the silo itself collapsed.
Naturally, huge loss of life and property
occurred and this raised questions as to
whose fault this was. Owners again asked
for compensation from NIA, but this time it
was rejected. They claimed for their loss
from M/s Contractors (i.e. Respondents)
accusing for faulty construction. On the
other hand, the Contractors stated it is
design fault. The case went into arbitration
and the arbitrators are three Former Chief
Justice of India. Both the Employer and the
Contractor are currently presenting
evidence through reports and witnesses in
the course of arbitration. The details of the
investigation, arbitration proceedings, the
probable outcome and its legal implications
are also presented in Annexure 2.
Investigations in U.S.A.
Case study 3- Mississippi River Bridge
collapse.(Connecting Minneapolis and
Minnesota)
Fig2.2.4 Mississippi bridge collapse
In the August 2008 issue of ‘Civil
engineering and construction review’, the
author (Kuberan, 2008) describes the
unfortunate event of collapse of Mississippi
River Bridge which occurred in 2007. The
bridge constructed in 1967, connected
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764
neighbourhoods of Minneapolis, Minnesota
and spanned 580m in length. It consisted of
three main continuous spans each with a
pair of steel deck trusses, supported by. The
truss contained both rivets and bolts and
had multiple welding connections. The
bridge which was the north-south route to
the city, collapsed from the south end first
followed by the collapse of other spans at 6
p.m. on 1st August 2007. The number of
deaths finally reported was 13 and about 15
vehicles with their occupants fell into the
river. Repair was being carried out at deck
and guardrails at the time of collapse.
Immediately, the state government
appointed National Transportation Safety
Board to investigate and the investigation
process began. After thorough research, the
committee declared the findings of
investigation by March 2008. The details of
the investigation procedure, the outcome
investigation, socio-economic losses
suffered, money spent on compensation,
and the steps taken thereafter are as
presented in Annexure 2.
Case study 4- Skyline Plaza collapse
(Virginia) (Delatte, Beyond Failure, 2009)
Fig2.2.5 Skyline Plaza ripped apart
In 1973, an under construction 26 storied
RCC tower in Virginia suddenly collapsed
as if it got torn through the centre. The
remaining structure appeared like two
separate high-rise buildings with a gap
between them. It collapsed during
construction on 24th floor, killed 14 workers Table 3.1.1 When they think investigation
and injured 34. The rate of construction was process should begin vs. When it actually began
planned to be one floor per week and
How long after the
wooden formwork was used. A large failure, do you think,
COUNT of
deflection was reported near the point of the investigation
process should begin?
collapse. The Occupational Safety and
How long after such
Health Administration (OSHA) appointed failure did the
the now National Bureau of Standards investigation process Almost immediately
(NBS) to carry out an investigation and begin? (in days, months
or years)
determine the cause. The investigation team
2 months 1
considered various witness statements to
verify facts, carried out structural analysis 2 years 1

and arrived at the exact cause of the 7 days 2

collapse. The procedures of investigation, A year 1
the findings and legal repercussions are as Few months 1
presented in Annexure 2. Immediately 2
within a month 2
3. Results and discussion
Grand Total 10
3.1 ‘Failure literacy’ in India

The results of the questionnaire reveal the

overall awareness of the construction
industry when it comes to forensically
investigating the cause of failure. The
overall idea was to determine how failure
literate is the industry. The Google
spreadsheet analysis of 41 responses of the
questionnaire filed so far are given below:

1. ONLY 20% of those who think forensic

investigation should be carried out
immediately actually had immediately
investigated the failure. This means that
about 80% have not carried out the
investigation within reasonable time, even
though they think it should be carried out
immediately.
2. Despite having legal implications, 35%
do not carry out investigations at all,
whereas 41.4% carry out internal
investigations. Only remaining 23% carry
out investigations neutrally.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

Table 3.1.2 Involvement in the failure
investigation

How were you/your organisation

involved in carrying out
COUNT of investigation of failure?

court)
third party (Like insurance company, or
Appointed as a neutral expert, by a
of the involved parties
Appointed as a neutral expert, by one
and appointed an expert
Involved in the project contractually
and carried out internal investigation
Involved in the project contractually

No investigation was carried out

Grand Total
Did the
project/struc
tural/
functional
failure have
legal
implications
?

Yes 1 3 3 12 10 29

3. The respondents were asked to rate the

causes of failure based on how frequent the
particular type of failure occur based on
these causes according to them. The
responses showed that maintenance
negligence and natural calamities turn out
to be the most and the least common cause
of structural failure respectively, others
being moderate. The most common is
planning failure and rarest is management
failure, execution failure being moderate.

Fig. Causes of Structural failures according

to Respondents

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

Table 3.1.3 Votes for most common causes of
various types of failures
Cause of Voted highest as
Structural failure
Maintenance Most common (39%)
negligence
Construction defect Moderate (56.1%)
Safety failure Moderate (56.1%)
Design fault Moderate (41.5%)
Natural calamities Rarest (76.1%)
3.2 Comparisons of forensic
investigations
The Indian and American case histories are
juxtaposed against each other for the
technique of forensic engineering based on
the investigation process, presenting
evidence and legal aspects of the cases.
Case study 2 (Silo collapse) vs.Case Study
3 (I-35W Mississippi Bridge collapse)
i) Procedure and evidence
presentation -
In case of Mississippi River Bridge, a
neutral investigation committee was
appointed within a day; the site of
failure was treated as a crime scene to
preserve evidence and further steps
were taken only on the directions of
investigators. Whereas, in case of silo
collapse, the investigation began after
the debris were cleared from the silo
collapse site. The investigation findings
in case of the bridge collapse were
published in less than a year; whereas in
case of silo, it has been over three years
and the ultimate cause remains yet to be
arrived at. The investigation of the
bridge took place in a transparent
manner and the media was kept updated
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764
about the progress of the investigation
from time to time. In case of silo
collapse, it is still unclear whether the
Claimant’s investigations were carried
out at the time when collapse occurred
or only at the time of arbitration, since
the reports do not contain any dates of
investigation. The investigators of I-
35W Bridge considered all the events
that had occurred prior to the collapse,
whereas the Claimant’s reports of
investigation in case of Silo had
completely ignored the fall of 400 ton
hopper platform. One single committee
was in control of the investigation of
bridge collapse, whereas the silo
collapse was investigated by the
Claimant’s as well as Respondent’s side
separately, which cannot be considered
neutral.
ii) Legal Aspects-
Since the collapse of the bridge was
found to be design fault, the state
pressed a lawsuit against the firm which
had designed the bridge. The firm
although denied allegations initially,
ended up paying $8.9 million in
settlement to avoid lengthy litigation.
On the contrary, the Silo collapse
arbitration has already been provided
with time extension after 18 months and
is still on-going. Although the root
cause seems to be in design (not in
construction) of the hopper platform,
which led to eventual silo collapse, the
Claimants are reluctant to arrive at
settlement. As far as compensation of
those affected is concerned, the State of
Minnesota, the owners, agreed to
provide $38 million in compensation to
the victims. There is no known record
of compensation provided to those
affected by silo collapse.
Case Study 1 (Sukh Sagar Mahal collapse)
vs. Case study 4 (Skyline Plaza collapse)
i) Process of investigation and evidence
presentation-
The Skyline Plaza collapse took place in
1973, in the USA whereas Sukh Sagar
Plaza collapse took place 25 years later in
India. The glaring difference between the
two is that the former involved government
appointing a well-established neutral
investigation committee; whereas the latter
being a case of State government vs. an
Engineer, the government had appointed an
investigation committee with government
officials as members themselves (along
with just one structural expert). Another
major difference is that in case of Skyline
Plaza collapse, the investigation report
determines the precise causes of collapse by
ruling out some previously made
assumptions made at the beginning of
investigation. On the contrary, the Sukh
Sagar Mahal collapse investigation report
only arrives at various theories which could
be the possible causes of collapse without
being specific. A huge difference in the
process of both the investigations is that the
NBS first determined the root causes and
then determined the professionals
responsible for it; whereas in case of Sukh
Sagar collapse, first a suit was filed on the
engineer and later the investigation was
carried out. The investigators also carried
out a structural analysis based on the
building original designs to check structural
efficiency; whereas in case of Sukh Sagar
Mahal collapse the conclusions of the
investigators have been arrived at in the
absence of original designs.
ii) Legal Aspects-
The results of Skyline collapse revealed
construction fault which went unsupervised
by the architect and engineer. Thus, the jury
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764
found them negligent and awarded huge
damages. However, the contractor and
building owner went unscathed despite
defective construction, who had also
received claims under Virginia Worker’s
Compensation Act. In case of Sukh Sagar
collapse, the engineer Avinash Parekh was
first wrongly accused and arrested, who
then had to take external techno-legal
assistance. The later investigations carried
out by techno-legal and geo-tech experts
revealed the true causes of failure and the
engineer was freed. It is evident that even
though both the systems did not convict all
those accused, but there was no wrongful
arrest in case of Skyline Plaza collapse.
4. Conclusion
Forensic engineering being that branch
where the application of engineering
principles meets application of law, with an
intention to figure out cause of an accident
and determine liability. The questionnaires
and case studies were used as tools to
establish the level of awareness of the
subject in the industry and the way it is
practised. The results of both reveal
interesting differences between the
techniques of forensic investigation in the
USA and India. These findings lead to the
following conclusions:
• There is a lack of seriousness when it
comes to dealing with structural failures in
the construction fraternity. This is evident
from the fact that a majority of
organisations do not even carry out failure
investigation neutrally and the need of
adopting forensic engineering is desperately
felt by them.
• The case studies reveal that India needs
professional forensic investigation
committees for thorough investigations. In
case of accidents, it is seen that there is
negligence when it comes to preserving
evidence. In USA, the structural failure site
itself is treated as a crime scene and
investigators are appointed immediately
within 24 hrs. This approach of
investigation needs to be adopted in India.
• When it comes to the approach of
judicial system, it is observed from both,
the questionnaire and case studies, that the
system in USA is prompt in appointing
neutral agencies for investigation. Whereas
in India, despite severe legal implications,
the judicial system or the government
bodies hesitate in doing so. The
consequence of this is that the case takes a
wrong turn and innocent professionals get
convicted.
• The investigation should be such that it
should begin right before debris are cleared
and test samples are taken from the
structure intact to ensure what further steps
need to be taken and use the results to reach
the root cause of failure.
• When it comes to construction phase, a
checklist should be prepared by the
supervising engineers to assure the quality
of work being done. This will ensure that
accidents are minimized.
• In case of service phase of the
structure, consistent maintenance checks
must be adopted and structural audits
should be carried out at regular intervals.

Overall, when compared with foreign

standards, Indian engineering community
can see the bigger picture and work in the
direction of developing forensic
investigation. However, it seems within
reach since the industry already feels the
dire need for the same.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764

References Ratay, R. T. (2010). Forensic Structural
Bhatt, D. V. (2010). Failure of R.E Engineering Handbook. The McGraw Hill
Approach- a forensic study wall. Nirmal Companies.
House . Rebecca J. Morton. (1983). Engineering
Carper, K. L. (1989). Forensic Engineering. law, design liability, and professional
New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Co. ethics- An introduction for engineers.
Belmont: Professional publications, Inc.
Carper, K. L. (2003). Technical Council on
Forensic Engineering: Twenty-year Roy, D., Singh, R., Bhattacharya, C. C.,
Retrospective Review. American Society of Ghosh, D., & Dasgupta, S. (2007). Failure
Civil Engineering. Columbia. of mechanically Stabilized Earth wall at km
18 of NH-6- A case history. Journal of
Delatte, N. (2009). Beyond Failure. Indian Road Congress , 193-200.
Virginia: ASCE Press.
Shepherd, R. (2010). Forensic Earthquake
Delatte, N. (2010). Failure literacy in Engineering. NZSEE Conference.
structural engineering. Engineering
Structures , 1952-1954. Verman, D. M. (2008, April). Non-
Destructive Testing for Damage Assesment
Feld, J., & Carper, K. (1997). Construction of Civil engineering Structures. Some case-
Failure. New York: John Wiley & Sons. histories. Civil Engineering & Construction
Greenspan, H., O'Kon, J. A., Beasley, K., & Review , pp. 26-36.
Ward, J. (1989). Guidelines for failure Wolfgang Roth, A. S. (2006). Claims and
investigation. New York: American Society Forensic Engineering in Tunneling.
of Civil Engineers. Forensic Engineering .
Howes, J. (2002). Law seminar on design
liability. The Hong Kong Institute of
Architects.
Kuberan, D. R. (2008). Collapse of
Mississippi River Bridge & Replacement.
Civil Engineering and construction review ,
94-101.
Levy, M., & Salvadori, M. (1994). Why
Buildings fall down. New York: Norton &
Company.
Natarajan, C., & Rajaraman, A. (2010).
Forensic Investigations of Collapse of
Industrial Sheds at Thuvakudy,Tamil Nadu,
India. INDO-US FORENSIC PRACTICES.
ASCE.
O'Neal Coble, L., Gwyn, H. A., Oles, D.,
Gibson, A., & Sink, C. M. (2004).
Construction Damages and Remedies.
American Bar Association.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3372764