The forensic investigation of many failures and accidents needs input from more than one engineering, scientific or technical specialist.\u00a0\u00a0These cases require the services of a principal investigator – a “generalist” forensic engineer.<\/p>\n
The role of the generalist engineer is recognized by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) in their Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice.\u00a0(Ref. 1)<\/p>\n
The engineer retained by counsel serves as a principle investigator as soon as he recognizes his particular expertise must be supplemented by that of others.\u00a0He identifies\u00a0these specialties, coordinates their efforts, studies the findings of each, synthesizes and analyses all data, including that of his own specialty,\u00a0draws conclusions and formulates an opinion as to cause.<\/p>\n
This process is almost always the case with catastrophic failures.\u00a0 But occurs often enough during investigation of the small to medium sized\u00a0failures that characterize forensic engineering in Atlantic Canada.\u00a0(Refs 2, 3)\u00a0 And I suspect in Canada in general.<\/p>\n
These smaller failures\u00a0are seldom\u00a0alike.\u00a0 As a result, few engineers get to\u00a0investigate hundreds of a particular type of failure or accident and specialize in it.\u00a0 I seldom see the exact same failure a second time and must consult with other specialties often enough to supplement\u00a0my\u00a0expertise.\u00a0\u00a0Or research the\u00a0subtle differences between seemingly similar failures and accidents.<\/p>\n
For example, slip and\u00a0fall accidents – five that I’m familiar with are all slightly\u00a0different, one in an odd\u00a0way, and foundation failures, land slides, floods, fires, soil-steel bridge collapses, marginal wharf failures, old fuel oil spills, buckled bridge beams, defective step ladders,\u00a0vibrating buildings,\u00a0etc.\u00a0 There are lots of specialists in different fields of practice, but not in all, and those that are available are\u00a0not necessarily just down the street and around the corner.<\/p>\n
In spite of the variation, we engineers are still retained to investigate the problems that occur and we do this quite well.\u00a0 We are recognized as problem solvers and qualified to “figure things out” – including when we must supplement our particular expertise with that of others.<\/p>\n
We\u00a0function as principal engineers – “generalist” engineers, and also as specialists in our particular field.\u00a0 We have\u00a0the following key attributes of experts,\u00a0including\u00a0today a couple of important additional attributes:<\/p>\n
Key attributes of experts:<\/strong><\/p>\n Important additional attributes of experts serving as principal engineers:<\/strong><\/p>\n You might be interested in four examples of forensic investigations that needed input\u00a0from several specialties, all directed by a principal investigator, a “generalist” engineer:<\/strong><\/p>\n Example #1<\/strong><\/p>\n I investigated the cause of\u00a0a soil-steel bridge failure that permanently disabled a car driver.\u00a0 During\u00a0that investigation I retained the services of:<\/p>\n These specialists took part in the investigation in addition to my own specialties in civil and geotechnical engineering.\u00a0 They\u00a0contributed to formulating an opinion on the cause of the bridge failure.<\/p>\n I functioned quite well as the\u00a0principal investigator in this case – the generalist forensic engineer.\u00a0 However, if this had been a steel or concrete bridge\u00a0I would have quickly referred counsel to a structural engineer experienced in bridge design as\u00a0better qualified\u00a0to be the\u00a0principal investigator.\u00a0 I could have contributed by investigating\u00a0the adequacy of the bridge foundations.<\/p>\n Example #2<\/strong><\/p>\n In another case, the RCMP asked if I could determine if a pile of soil-like material on\u00a0a highway contributed to a fatal motor vehicle accident (MVA).\u00a0 The vehicle drove over the material then off a 75 foot cliff and into the sea.<\/p>\n I\u00a0wasn’t sure until I realized the pile of material was an earth structure – a structure in the built environment formed of earth.\u00a0 Civil engineers specializing in geotechnical work are\u00a0well qualified to\u00a0investigate earth structures.<\/p>\n But, I wasn’t out of the woods.\u00a0 I\u00a0researched the literature\u00a0on the investigation of fatal MVAs involving obstacles on\u00a0a highway, and didn’t find a thing.<\/p>\n But I did catch onto the fact\u00a0that the pile of soil-like material on the highway was like a speed bump, and there was an extensive\u00a0literature on speed bump research and design.\u00a0 So, I investigated the effect of the material on the vehicle like it was a speed bump.\u00a0 The investigation involved full scale field tests on an airport runway and a lot of photography.<\/p>\n The specialists\u00a0assisting me as the\u00a0principal investigator were:<\/p>\n Example #3<\/strong><\/p>\n The continuing and excessive foundation settlement of an industrial building 10 years after it was constructed\u00a0– ongoing 10 mm settlement per year, is\u00a0another\u00a0good example of a\u00a0principal engineer\u00a0directing a\u00a0forensic investigation.\u00a0\u00a0Also, in this case,\u00a0designing a method to stop the settlement.<\/p>\n It was an easy investigation of cause – I determined the foundation soil conditions and saw\u00a0immediately that they were inadequate.\u00a0 Fortunately, the soil conditions were also perfect for grouting as a\u00a0way of strengthening the soils and stopping the settlement.<\/p>\n The investigation involved the following specialties including my own in civil and geotechnical engineering:<\/p>\n Example #4<\/strong><\/p>\n A final example is the\u00a0Edmonton bridge failure that occurred\u00a0last March, 2015\u00a0 This was a\u00a0serious structural engineering failure.\u00a0 I would not qualify to\u00a0direct such an investigation but would qualify to contribute input on the adequacy of the foundation soils supporting the bridge.\u00a0 Also, as a civil engineer, I\u00a0can look at the elements in\u00a0the failure and\u00a0suggest possible\u00a0causes,\u00a0as I did last year.<\/p>\n I can easily imagine a\u00a0principal investigator, a “generalist“ engineer, retaining the services of the following specialists during investigation of the failure:<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n The forensic investigation of many failures and accidents needs input from more than one engineering, scientific or technical specialist.\u00a0\u00a0These cases require the services of a principal investigator – a “generalist” forensic engineer. The role of the generalist engineer is recognized … Continue reading \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n