It is important to study construction failures in order to determine their root cause or causes so that future failures can be avoided. One such study was conducted by a subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives following a number of structural failures in the 1970s and 1980s. The subcommittee findings were released in 1984 in US Congressional House Report No. 98-621, titled Report on Structural Failures in Public Facilities. One of the factors identified as critical to preventing structural failures was inspection of construction by the structural engineer of record (SER). Given that finding, structural engineers need to be actively involved throughout the construction process, using inspections as a means to promote safety, improve the quality of the work, and reduce claims due to failures. Concerns regarding liability, construction schedule, and costs are major reasons why SERs do not perform inspections. SERs can manage those concerns, however, by understanding the relevant building code requirements regarding inspections, the benefits of inspections with respect to safety and quality of construction, the roles of the parties involved in construction projects, and the legal duties of the engineer.
Engineers engaged in forensic investigations have unique roles and responsibilities that differ from those of design engineers, and must adhere to a distinct standard of care that is too seldom discussed, considered, or understood. This paper explores the forensic engineering standard of care question through the case study of a portable water storage tank failure. The incident precipitated the production of no fewer than ten engineering reports asserting various distributions of blame on the manufacturer, owner, installer, and designer, a number of which ultimately called into question the structural design of an entire line of production equipment. WJE reviewed these volumes of work, and finding them inconclusive, performed independent non-linear finite element analyses of the design, fabricated representative connection test specimens, and subjected them to high-cycle fatigue and strength testing to evaluate service life performance. Our results and the actual in-service performance demonstrated that the design met or exceeded relevant standards and performance requirements, despite voluminous, corroborating, and ostensibly sophisticated allegations to the contrary. We believe that such misrepresentations of reality are far too common to the forensic engineering field and draw a series of lessons from our experience on what the standard of care means to engineers who find themselves opining on another's work.
The harsh environment of south Florida leaves little to no margin of error in the construction practice; in fact, the quality of execution significantly affects the performance of the building envelope. Walls, windows, doors, and roofs are the first line of protection against this environment. This article offers an overview of common factors that impact the performance of the building’s envelope in south Florida. The components that are outlined in the article include stucco covering, steel post-tensioning live ends, glass and glazing, and tiled decks. Examples of defects and failures as observed during forensic investigations in both new and existing buildings are presented. Best practices for design and construction will also be discussed.
An engineer's employment, business, and professional practice can be affected by an assessment by others of that engineer's performance related to the "standard of care." The concept of the standard of care is often misunderstood and misapplied, to the detriment of the engineer whose performance is being assessed. This paper addresses the concept of the standard of care, and shows how an understanding of the standard of care can aid an engineer in avoiding and defending against claims of professional negligence.
While engineers are devastated when they first learn of a failure of a structure that they have designed, modified, or participated in its construction, this is just the beginning of an often years-long litigation journey if, eventually, there are legal claims as a consequence of that failure. Failures of silos in industrial facilities bring another level of complexity due to the number of parties involved (e.g., contractors, subcontractors, equipment suppliers, raw material suppliers, owners, plant operators, and maintenance personnel), the level of complexity in these industrial systems, and the cost of the equipment damaged as well as downtime, and potentially, serious injuries or loss of life. There are many causes of silo failures including design, construction, usage, and maintenance. During the long process of designing and constructing a silo, many omissions or oversights can occur. Many of these are due to the lack of training in this specialized field and the paucity of reliable, useful information in the literature, including relevant codes available for engineers in charge of the design of silo structures. Engineers in charge of the design and construction of silos as well as similar industrial facilities used to store and/or process bulk solids will benefit from this paper as they will be able to better understand the legal implications beyond silo failures. Engineers involved in forensic engineering and insurance claims will be able to gather information on the engineering as well as the legal side of failures in industrial storage facilities for bulk solids.
