It’s easy for a forensic engineer to identify the probable cause of a failure in the built environment based on preliminary data – to give an initial hypothesis. (Ref. 1) Collapse of the 12-story Miami condo on June 24, 2021 is no exception.

We do this based on:

• A briefing by the client
• Reading the documents
• Our experience and observation over time

The briefing and documents in this case were news reports and photographs, an engineering report and a research report.

The collapse was not a disaster waiting to happen. It was a disaster unfolding over 40 years since construction of the condo in 1981. Slowly at first then real fast – the collapse. (Refs 2, 3 and 4)

What’s the evidence?

1. The condo was a reinforced concrete structure. Columns, beams and floors were made of concrete reinforced with steel for greater strength. Steel rusts in water and loses strength. (Ref. 5) You can see this type of construction underway in our towns and cities where ever there is a tall crane – for example, today on Prince Albert Road in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
2. An engineering study in 2018 found the concrete spalling – exposing the steel to water. (Ref. 3) The study reported major structural damage and ‘abundant’ cracking. Example locations included the concrete slab below the pool deck and in the parking garage. Cracking could be expected in the concrete columns, beams and balcony floor slabs.
3. The condo foundations were supported on limestone, reportedly soft and porous. (Ref. 2) Limestone is soluble in water – it dissolves in water. Think sinkholes in Nova Scotia and elsewhere.
4. The source of the water? The condo site was a former wetland on a barrier reef an estimated couple hundred feet inland from the ocean and a couple metres above. (Ref. 2) This means the groundwater – for certain, salt water – was in the limestone supporting the foundations and not far below. This is like the water level that you see in a dug well. This is a harsh (marine) environment for exposed steel and soluble limestone.
5. Another source of water? There were reports that the deck of the swimming pool and the floor of the parking garage were poorly drained. (Ref. 3) These wet surfaces would be near the level of the foundations that are supported on limestone.
6. A study by a professor at Florida International University found that the condo was sinking steadily since the 1990s. (Ref. 4) That’s what happens to condo foundations supported on limestone that is softening over time.

So, where’re we at with respect to cause?

The condo foundations were subsiding (sinking) on the soft limestone for years causing the columns above to settle – move downwards. Excessive foundation settlement is a failure in itself and certain to have contributed to the collapse, and possibly been the main cause.

This vertical movement of the columns stresses the steel reinforcing the concrete and the steel connecting the beams and floors above to the columns. This is the steel weakened by water over time – the structural distress reported in 2018.

In time, this movement over-stresses the steel causing the connections to break and the condo to fall down – collapse.

***

That’s an initial hypothesis as to cause based on press reports and photographs – preliminary data for sure but still something. And better than nothing when seeking comfort at such a loss of life.

***

(It’s interesting that the engineering study in 2018 did not comment on the foundations and the underlying porous limestone nor on the fact that the condo was sinking since the 1990s. Possibly because it appears to have been a visual structural assessment of exposed surfaces. Still, red lights if ever there were any – porous limestone and a sinking condo)

References

1. Where does an expert’s initial hypothesis come from? Posted February 25, 2019
2. Various news reports, pictures and video after the collapse on June 24, 2021
3. Report of a structural assessment by Morabito Consultants, Inc., Miami on October 8, 2018
4. Study of building subsidence by a professor at Florida International University, Miami
5. Why did the bridge collapse in Italy and how might Advocates have known this could happen? Posted October 5, 2018

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada July 14, 2021 and updated July 18, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

‘

The penny dropped recently when I realized I can get eye-level “aerial” video during one of the most important tasks in a forensic investigation. I can then examine the data at my leisure and easily share it with others.

I’m talking about taking video during the visual examination at the site of a failure or accident. This examination is one of the first tasks we do during a forensic investigation, and it often points to the cause of a failure or accident: (Refs 1 to 4)

• Get briefed by the client on the failure or accident
• Read the existing documents
• Walk and visually examine the site
• Next …

We take video in the same way that a snow boarder catches ‘huge’ air off a jump and captures it with a camera mounted on his helmet – like my 13 year old grandson, Jonah, in Maine.

I did this a few days ago during a test with a GoPro camera mounted on my helmet and got the following data to analyse later and share with my ‘client’:

• A video of exactly what I was looking at on the building site and the terrain beyond, and the ability to take off stills or frames split seconds apart
• Dictated comment on what was important in the scene as recorded by the GoPro camera – for example, the cracks in a brick wall, erosion of a bridge abutment, the height of flood waters, flora discoloration at a contaminated site, stair construction at a slip and fall, etc.
• Dictated surface measurements of important features in the scene – for example, the size and configuration of cracks in a wall, the width of a stair tread and height of the riser, etc.
• The compass direction of where I was looking
• My location along the walk
• My height relative to where I started
• My elevation above sea level

All this data from simply walking across the site and recording on video exactly what I was looking at – rather than in memory or notes in a field book; the old way. The data is displayed on the video screen courtesy of the GoPro app that is free with the camera.

During my GoPro test I could have visually examined the inside of the building and got a wealth of data there as well.

In a similar way, in a recent forensic investigation I mounted a GoPro camera on the dash of my car and drove along a road during a safety assessment. I simulated what a car driver would experience and captured it on video for study, analysis and sharing later.

Also on that occasion, I took aerial video from a GoPro camera mounted on a drone in addition to the eye-level ‘aerial’ video from the camera on the dash.

***

It was the success of the road safety assessment and simulation that got me thinking, “Why not eye-level, ground zero video of all failure and accident sites during the initial visual examination?”. That’s what I will do now. Then give a DVD of the video to all interested parties to see – rather than tell them what I remember based on notes in my field book.

References

1. A Bundle of Blogs: On using visual site assessment in forensic investigation. Posted January 25, 2021
2. Can you “calibrate” a forensic expert? Posted June 23, 2020
3. What can you get from a virtual visual site assessment about the cause of a leaning retaining wall? Posted November 13, 2020
4. “Technical” visual site assessments: Valuable, low cost, forensic engineering method. Posted September 4, 2012

Appendix

The test described in this blog was organized by Robert Guertin, Millenium Film and Video Productions Ltd, Dartmouth, N.S., Canada.

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada June 30, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I was quite taken by the news report that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen Saturday, the 12th – see Appendix below. This was news about construction of the 15-story high-rise on Cleary Avenue at Richmond Road. It was sent to me by a friend in Ottawa, and commented on by another friend there, an engineer.

***

If you don’t mind me saying, I believe both the City and the Developer should have carried out engineering assessments of the impact of the high-rise on the area. Assessments by conscientious, well qualified engineers, not by a town planner for the City and whoever for the Developer.

Engineers who are experienced in foundation and geotechnical engineering, considering the 15-story height of the building and the underground parking garage. Tall buildings are a big weight on the ground and the construction of deep basements can undermine the ground nearby and anything buried in it.

This is what reasonable people would expect to see done – the average man in the street.

I looked at this area on high resolution Google Earth photographs. I can’t believe the City didn’t know the location of the four foot diameter, high pressure water main in such a well planned, well developed, up-market area. That pipe is bigger than the average buried infrastructure.

There’s a wealth of published information on built-up areas like this, as noted by my well experienced, construction engineering friend in Ottawa.

I was surprised that the judicial process didn’t think the City was under any obligation to provide accurate information to the Developer. Nor that it was necessary for the Developer to hire his own engineer.

I can’t believe the Developer didn’t understand the effect of a deep excavation on the ground beyond the parking garage – a distance in the order of the depth of the basement in some poor soils.

Or, for example, understand the effect of driving sheet piling to form the basement walls – there’s always some vibration to the ground during installation and some movement of the sheet piling later. There are other methods of constructing basement walls like this, and they all adversely affect the ground a little outside of the wall.

I think the Developer did understand so why didn’t he hire an engineer to check what the City was giving them? Just do it considering the importance.

Don’t mind me saying, but if experienced engineers were making the decisions here this issue would not have developed and I wouldn’t be asking these questions. But it reads like a Town Planner was making the decisions for the City and the Developer was doing it for the Developer – and not an engineer or a reasonable person in sight.

Appendix

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada June 22, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I was surprised at how difficult it is to write a forensic report in plain-English for non-technical readers. It’s easy in technical-English but not so much in plain-English. Translating a foreign language – from technical to plain – is difficult.

Writing in technical-English just sails along because you’re reporting a thorough and objective investigation using words suited to the task, and there’s lots of guidance (Refs 1, 2 and 3):

1. You identify each task – and many of these are standard tasks carried out in all forensic engineering investigations, including those when you follow-the-evidence,
2. Describe the task,
3. State why you did it,
4. The data you got,
5. Your analysis of the data,
6. The light it shed on the cause of the failure or accident,
7. Note how the findings of each task support, or otherwise, the findings on cause of other tasks, and,
8. Finally, how the findings support your evolving hypothesis as to cause.

The investigation goes deep inside as you do your work. And then comes out easily when you sit down to write your report.

It’s easy to write technically because you’ve lived your investigation for days or weeks, and you’re writing for kindred souls, other technical people, in words that roll off your tongue. But, putting it in jargon-free, plain-English is another story.

A tight deadline makes writing in plain-English even more difficult. Like, you were retained months or years after the failure or accident, and the deadline is just around the corner. Nor when you get mini-briefings from your client as you write. The mini-data is good but it’s got to be analysed, checked against other data and included in the report – in plain-English.

I had all three during a forensic investigation a few months ago – late commission, tight deadline and mini-briefings. I also had non-technical readers so I decided to write in plain-English. That’s four.

I was reviewing my report weeks later after submitting it in preparation for trial and saw the odd phrase and word that I might have restated. No change in opinion just that the wording might be tweaked. I thought afterwards that I must write for the technical reader in late/early situations like this. Never mind plain-English. Too risky.

I also thought that all forensic reports should be written then put aside for a while and read again later before submitting. That’s how I draft my blogs, over a period of a good many days, or sometimes several weeks. It’s worked for blogging for nine years. It should work for forensic reports.

Forensic reports in plain-English for non-technical readers is a challenge for the writer but good for the client when you’re retained early and the deadline is way down the road. It’s bad, a nightmare, when the deadline is just around the corner.

I will continue to write my reports in plain-English but I’m alert to the difficulty – learned during the last few forensic reports I’ve written. One of these was submitted as a preliminary report because the deadline was so tight. I’ll write in plain-English because I enjoy reporting to the interface between engineering and other professions. This is also the reason I enjoy blogging on the nature and methods of forensic engineering investigation.

References

1. Mangraviti, Jr., James J., Babitsky. Steven and Donovan, Nadine Nasser. How to Write an Expert Witness Report, 2nd ed., 2014, SEAK, Inc., Falmouth, MA (A massive 560 page, 1.25″ thick, 8.5″ x 11″ tomb)
2. Zinsser, William K., On Writing Well, 7th ed., 2006, Harper Collins Publishers, New York (The best on the market for writing non-fiction. Note that it went to seven editions before the author died and sold 1.5 million copies)
3. Nova Scotia Civil Procedure Rule 55 Governing Experts, 2010, and similar rules and codes elsewhere in the country (Hard-nosed guidance to ensure the expert reports all reasoning, including that possibly leading to a different opinion)

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada June 11, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I’m learning all the time about new methods of forensic investigation.  And, for my readers, hopefully increased understanding of the nature of forensic engineering investigation.  For example, aerial video from a drone of a failure or accident in the built environment has been a real eye-opener for me and my clients in recent years. (Ref. 1)

It struck me recently while walking my dogs in a forest that spring and fall are good times for taking aerial video during a forensic investigation.  Winter too before the snow falls. On a sunny day you can see through the leafless trees to the brightly lit forest floor below.  I can see my dogs off at a distance in the leafless forest why not the forest floor from above?

Even as I draft this blog I’m learning.  It occurs to me that a cloudy day would be even better – no shadows to confuse what you’re seeing on the ground.

For example: I flew over a leafless forest in the spring during a road safety assessment that included a staged road accident for the first time and got excellent aerial video.  You could see a piece of gravel the size of a golf ball from 100 feet.  The video was a dispute-resolution maker.

To be upfront with you though, it was later seeing my dogs running in the leafless forest that made me realize why I got good aerial video during the road assessment.

Another example: I had another case, a fuel oil contaminated site, that was in a dense hardwood forest that was a prime candidate for this type of aerial video.  It didn’t come to pass – the case went off on another tack – but I was ready to capture good video through a leafless forest.

Aerial video of fuel oil contaminated sites in recent years has been a game-changer for me in treeless terrain – why not in leafless terrain too?

Why am I telling you this?  Because, if you’re processing a dispute or insurance claim that involves an accident or failure in the built environment, get aerial video of the site.  If there are leafless trees on or near the site, get aloft in a hurry.  COVID-19 is no problem because it’s easy to keep your distance outdoors.

***

Well, it finally happened to me early this spring, a deliberately planned aerial video of a site from a drone through a leafless forest. Plus some testing of forest floor visibility through the leafless trees. I couldn’t get on site fast enough.

And, as turned out, unexpectedly finding a surface feature that added to my understanding of the cause of a problem.

The aerial video was all part of the standard terrain analysis of a site during a forensic investigation. You identify the surface features characterizing the site and how these might shed light on the cause of the problem you’re investigating.

(Terrain analysis with aerial video is also used in basic engineering design and construction. For example, a firm I was with in Australia used terrain analysis to select the initial route of a road through a jungle in Indonesia)

Terrain analysis today involves:

1. Checking Google Earth photography of the site,
2. Studying stereo pairs of black and white and coloured aerial photography of the site – taken from 6,000 feet up, and all we had in the past, but still useful today,
3. Looking at topographic and surficial geology maps of the site,
4. Walking and visually examining the surface of the site – the boots-on-the-ground task,
5. Taking eye-level photographs of the site, and, today,
6. Getting and studying aerial video using a drone flying at altitudes up to 400 feet.

(A little aside. If nothing else, drone photography plus eye-level photography gives you that 3D view of your site. We didn’t have that prior to drone photography – only eye-level, 2D views. I’ve hired planes to get aerial photographs of a site in the past but that was expensive and not as effective)

I did all the bulleted tasks during my deliberate investigation this spring plus set out markers – sheets of white paper on the forest floor – to check visibility. Visibility was good through the leafless trees – no surprise. I also set out red traffic cones a measured distance apart to give scale to a drone photograph.

I studied the aerial video of my client’s site and discovered a feature off the site that contributed to the problem on the site. This feature was not visible during the boots-on-the-ground task.

***

It’s been an exciting two years as I discovered new ways of getting the most from aerial video taken from a drone:

• Leafless aerial video,
• 3D photography of a site,
• Virtual aerial video of a site
• Staged accidents to assess road safety, and,
• Pre-planning aerial video with Fly Litchi app + Google Earth

I’m looking forward to summer like the rest of you, and I’ll get good aerial video of my sites, but I can’t wait for fall and winter and that leafless view.

Maybe I’ll let my dogs, Lily and Rosie, run free in the leafless forest during a drone flight. They deserve a treat for alerting me to why I get good aerial video in the shoulder seasons.

References

1. A Bundle of Blogs: Aerial video of insurance and forensic sites taken with cameras mounted on drones. Posted October 31, 2019

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada May 31, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

Expert reports are sometimes biased, particularly rebuttal reports. I found this out in a survey of seven experts in the Maritimes reported in the first of the following two blogs added to the Bundle.

The second blog in the following short list reports on six ways of getting rid of bias in expert reports.

There is a total of seven good reads in the updated Bundle of Blogs posted November 29, 2019.

1. Is there an argument for a peer review of a peer review?  Posted January 11, 2020  I make the case for a peer review of a rebuttal report because most are biased.  I learned this after surveying the opinion of seven experts in the Maritimes. 
2. Ridding peer review of potential bias.  Posted December 30, 2019  A good read on six different ways of getting rid of bias in a peer review, in decreasing order of preference. 

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. March 28, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I was surprised and pleased recently to see the conclusion of a draft review article on how problems in the judicial process might be fixed. These are problems that result in delays in dispute resolution. The problems have existed for years and are caused by parties to a dispute arguing back and forth about the evidence in expert reports.

The article’s conclusion? Fix the problems by getting parties to:

• Consider the “hot-tub” method of resolving differences in expert’s reports by experts agreeing a consolidated report (Ref. 1)
• Alternatively, or together with, get reports prepared by experts according to codes like Civil Procedure Rule 55 in Nova Scotia, and the reports explained by experts in jargon-free talk

These are reports that assess the extent to which the data is:

• Reliable – the extent to which an experiment, test, or measuring procedure yields the the same results on repeated trials
• Valid – the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct like the validity of a theory
• Relevant – relation to the matter at hand

To be fair, the fields of study giving rise to the issues in dispute haven’t seen a lot of hard science, and development of reliable investigative and assessment methods. The fields are empirical to some extent – based on observation or experience. Subjective rather than objective. As such, they are susceptible to unintentional misinterpretation, and also deliberately biased interpretation.

The issues arise in fields of study like medicine, the social sciences, soil mechanics and weather forecasting. Data and evidence from fields like these need to be gathered, analysed, interpreted and explained by scientific experts.

I know the science of soil mechanics is semi-empirical because I studied it in civil engineering. Its the study of soil as an engineering material – like steel, concrete and wood – and how it behaves when used in different ways. The safe support of the foundations of structures in the built environment relies on it’s principles.

I’m sure issues involving weather forecasting could cause trouble too.

It’s easy to imagine difficulty with issues involving the social sciences. These sciences describe, measure and study people’s beliefs, behaviours, experiences, perceptions, and what they do or intend to do in their communities. They often rely on statistical studies that don’t always have wide acceptance, partly because of the potential for bias. They are not hard-nosed like the engineering investigations of problems in the built environment.

The review article suggested that the problems in these softer, semi-empirical fields of study might be reduced if an expert’s report was written according to Code and the report explained by an expert in simple terms. Or, where this approach is accepted and practiced, consider getting experts to confer and agree a single report – the hot-tub method.

The draft article was a delight to read. I can’t wait to see it published.

References

1. “Hot-tubbing” experts reduce cost of civil litigation and ensure objectivity. Posted March 31, 2018

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, April 16, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

I enjoyed seeing the article in last Saturday’s paper about using the remote images from aerial and mapping techniques to investigate archeological sites – techniques like Google Earth, LIDAR and old maps. (Ref. 1) The images from these methods have existed for a while but are now being combined in new ways. I’ve used the images separately in the forensic investigation of failures and accidents in the built environment.

The article is a good, informative, almost jargon-free read that might herald what’s coming in forensic investigation.

The difference today is that an archeologist, Dr. Jonathan Fowler, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax is using software to combine the remote images from different methods to get a 3D view and even more data from a site. Data “pops out at you” to use Dr. Fowler’s expression. The software is produced by Golden Software in Colorado.

Example of Dr. Fowler’s work

A good example in the article of Jonathan’s work is certain to interest you. It shows different remote images of historic Fort Anne and Fortress Louisbourg in Nova Scotia.

The images are remote because they’re from cameras and sensing devices that are high above a site – a little like the images from video cameras mounted on drones that are flying low over a site.

Jonathan’s recent work has been made possible by the Nova Scotia government releasing in 2020 great volumes of free LIDAR data; “…it just felt like Christmas to me.” (Ref. 1) The data is available to the man-in-the-street for most of Nova Scotia.

Examples of forensic work using remote images

#1 I had that festive feeling when the government gave me LIDAR imagery for the site of a swimming pool failure in Cape Breton several years ago. I was investigating the reason one end of the swimming pool was several inches lower than the other. You could see the difference in the distance from the pool deck to the water’s surface. The cause popped out from the imagery: The swimming pool was built on filled ground over a bog – compressible foundation soils in the extreme.

#2 A few months ago Google Earth imagery enabled me to virtually visually assess the cause of a retaining wall failure in Ottawa and contribute to a big reduction in the cost of the wall’s rebuilding.

#3 Free software that relies on Google Earth imagery enables me to plan video of the site of a failure or accident from a virtual drone flight over the site days before and hours of driving away. This has been a godsend for me in my forensic work – a more effective investigation at lower cost.

#4 In the past we used what are old maps today: Large scale, contoured, topographic maps of built up areas made from aerial photographs taken from planes flying at 6,000 feet. They can be quite detailed and accurate. We would be remiss not to refer to them today, and couple them with Google Earth and LIDAR imagery like Jonathan is doing. Even older maps exist today of sites like Fort Anne and Fortress Louisbourg.

#5 I’ve also used stereo pairs of aerial photographs to assess the terrain at a forensic site – terrain analysis in engineering. Details of micro-topography revealed in an analysis often give evidence of features below the surface. (Ref. 1) It was a standard technique in an Australian firm where I worked when selecting a route for a highway in a remote area of Indonesia.

***

It just keeps getting better what archeologists and forensic engineers can get today from remote imagery and suitable software.

Still, ground proofing is needed – getting your hands dirty and mud on your boots walking around on the site. This to confirm what you thought you saw in the pictures and images from above. It’s an old technique and a hard and fast rule in engineering, as I’m certain too in archeology.

***

(LIDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, uses pulsed laser to measure the earth’s surface)

References

1. Archeologist Lauds Advances in Mapping, Peddle, Stuart, The Chronicle Herald, Halifax March 27, 2021

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, March 31, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

It’s a given that we must do sufficient forensic investigation to resolve the dispute or settle the claim. Sometimes that can be as little as a low cost virtual visual site assessment. (Refs 1, 2) Particularly, if the direction that the investigation seems to be heading is sufficient for the parties involved. A detailed investigation is not always necessary.

I thought, this low cost method, a virtual visual site assessment, must be reflected in the Principles. (Ref. 3) It fits in well with the different ways an expert can be retained (Ref. 4) as commented on in Principle 5 in the Principles.

This method came to mind several times in the last few months after COVID-19 hit. It also reflects the intent of the rules governing experts brought in a few years ago – to work disputes out and stay out of court, (Civil Procedure Rule 55 in Nova Scotia), and I imagine even avoid the expense of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR).

I’ve updated the Principles by revising the Comment on Principle #5. You can see the updated Principles governing the cost control of dispute resolution and claim settlement involving experts. Posted July 30, 2019 by scrolling to the July date at www.ericjorden.com/blog

References

1. What can you get from virtual visual site assessment about the cause of a leaning retaining wall? Posted November 13, 2020
2. A Bundle of Blogs: On using visual site assessment in forensic investigation. Posted January 25, 2021
3. Principles governing the cost control of dispute resolution and claim settlement involving experts. Posted July 30, 2019
4. How to retain an expert in a cost effective way. Posted November 30, 2018

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada March 18, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)   

The reason has everything to do with cost effective, quite reliable forensic investigation. I’m realizing, more and more, how easy this can be.

People still get hurt and things break and fall down during a pandemic and someone wants to know why – like injured parties, lawyers and insurers. At least well enough to resolve a dispute or claim in some fashion.

Well enough doesn’t mean exhaustively, at least in the beginning, nor necessarily at all.

This acceptance of well enough has coincided with my interest lately in how much forensic investigation is enough. It also suits the requirement these days to stay home/in-the-office and minimize social and work contact.

My interest developed on realizing experts often know the cause of an accident or failure with considerable certainty very early in an investigation. (Ref. 1) And well enough to resolve a dispute or claim.

Experts know this based on their experience and the well known causes of so many problems in the natural and built environments. (Ref. 2) And also knowing the many parameters that could be investigated in slip, trip and fall accidents, and going about this efficiently. (Ref. 3) The parties to a dispute see where an expert’s findings might go and decide to resolve rather than spend more money.

I’ve been blogging on these aspects of forensic investigation for some time in the interest of more cost-effective work. This also suits pandemic times just fine.

My interest was kick-started

• When I realized the value of drone photography in recent years, (Ref. 4)
• Moved along when I researched the different ways structures can fail and these classified and used in forensic investigation, (Ref. 5)
• Went faster in the last year or so on recognizing the need and value of virtual visual site assessments during COVID-19, (Ref. 6)
• And faster still when I realized the reliability of virtual assessments could be subjectively and usefully quantified, (Ref. 7)
• Jumped forward on assessing the cause of a retaining wall failure in Ottawa based on a virtual visual site assessment, (Ref. 8)
• Took off during that retaining wall assessment on seeing the contribution of Google Earth Pro photography to my assessment of the wall, (Refs 9 and 10)
• Was reinforced when I got word back on how my virtual visual site assessment of the retaining wall contributed, along with input by others, to reducing the re-construction costs of the wall by almost half, and
• My interest finalized on realizing how forensic investigation of the dozens of parameters that need to be considered in slip, trip and fall accidents can be dealt with efficiently and cost effectively with a simple initial task and many parameters eliminated, (Ref. 11)
• But, just to be sure, add in 3D plotting of the results of a slip and fall investigation using an app and Google Earth Pro. (Ref. 9)
• If that’s not enough, my interest was driven home on realizing how Zoom meetings will add further to cost-effective forensic engineering investigation.

This is the reason I’m blogging these days. It’s hard not to. It’s exciting and very satisfying to see quite reliable, cost effective forensic investigation in dispute resolution.

At the end of the day, this reason reflects the purpose of my blog: To explain the nature and methods of forensic engineering and expert services in jargon-free writing to non-technical people like civil litigation lawyers, litigants, injured parties, insurers and property owners.

***

You might also take a look at the blogs posted on August 15, 2019, July 13, 2018, June 30, 2017 July 22, 2016 and August 7, 2014 about my reasons for blogging, particularly the first in this list: August 15, 2019; a good read.

References

1. You could be excused for thinking that everything is falling down. Posted July 23, 2020
2. What’s in “…the built environment” and how many ways can it fail? Posted July 8, 2020
3. Experts, Litigants, Insurers: Beware! There are dozens of parameters that could be investigated at slip, trip and fall sites. Posted February 18, 2021
4. Drone photography continues to soar to new uses in forensic investigation. Posted March 30, 2020
5. What’s in “…the built environment” and how many ways can it fail? July 8, 2020
6. A Bundle of Blogs: On using visual site assessment in forensic investigation. Posted January 25, 2021
7. The reliability of an educated guess on the cause of a failure or accident. Posted October 22, 2020
8. What can you get from a virtual visual site assessment about the cause of a leaning retaining wall? Posted November 13, 2020
9. Using Google Earth photographs in forensic engineering investigation. Posted December 5, 2020
10. A Bundle of Blogs: Aerial video of insurance and forensic sites taken with cameras mounted on drones. Posted October 31, 2019
11. What does an engineering expert do at the scene of slip, trip and fall accidents? Posted February 5, 2021

***

(Posted by Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng. Consulting Professional Engineer, Forensic Engineer, Geotechnology Ltd., Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada February 26, 2021 ejorden@eastlink.ca)