My explanation for the failure of the bridge beams in Edmonton is supported by “new” information. (Ref. 1)

I said in late March that the beams buckled sideways because the cables from the booms of the construction cranes – moving a little in the wind, tugged on the top of the beam pulling it sideways.  The bracing was inadequate and could not resist this tugging. (Refs 2 and 3)

(A wind and gust forecast for the site would be useful data.  A site specific forecast meteorologist could give this)

My reasoning was based on what I saw in pictures on the Internet of the bridge failure.  It was an example of how an idea can be given for the cause of something based on limited information.  How a hypothesis – an explanation, for an engineering failure can be based on limited data, a picture in this case, and revised or supported with new data.

This is the process followed in forensic engineering investigation: Hypothesize, investigate, revise.  Hypothesize, investigate, revise.  Etc.  This process was reflected in remarks by another engineer, Yasser Korany, P.Eng., Ontario during a CBC interview.  (Ref. 4)

My “new’ data is the manner in which a steel bridge beam supports itself initially and the bridge deck later.  The data is not really “new” because bridge beams have always supported themselves in this way.  The significance of this dawned on me when I discussed the bridge failure again with a structural engineer in Halifax.

In supporting itself, the steel beam compresses at the top a tiny bit – squeezes together, and pulls apart at the bottom.  In the process, the steel beam gets a tiny bit shorter at the top and a tiny bit longer at the bottom.

The shortened beam tries to spring back to its original length – that’s what steel beams do.  It tries to do this the easy way by moving sideways.

If something is also tugging the top of the beam sideways, for example, the cable from the boom of a construction crane, then the beam just might do that – move sideways and buckle.  The beam trying to spring back to its original length and the crane cable tugging on the beam aid and abet one another in causing the beam to do this.

The buckled beams in the pictures on the Internet do look a little like the curved sections of a water-filled balloon that has been squeezed.

References

1. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/traffic-headache-major-edmonton-arterial-road-closed-indefinitely-after-girder-collapse-during-bridge-expansion
2. http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2015/03/27/wind-construction-crane-and-inadequate-cross-bracing-caused-edmonton-bridge-failure-an-initial-hypothesis/
3. http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2015/04/03/why-in-a-recent-blog-didnt-i-seem-to-consider-foundation-failure-as-a-possible-cause-of-the-edmonton-bridge-failure/
4. http://www.cbc.ca/1.2999331

Abstract

Forensic engineering as routinely practiced in Eastern Canada is different from what you might imagine.  Not big, catastrophic failures and tragic accidents as reported in the press.  Rather, often enough, quite small problems unworthy of notice to the public at large.  Nor forensic engineering as ideally described in text books.  Rather, a little different and with some warts and shortcomings.

In the following, I describe what I have experienced over the years as a professional engineer specialising in civil engineering and geotechnical engineering.

Things break and fall down and people have accidents.  Civil litigation sometimes results.  Professional engineers are retained to find out why the thing broke or the accident happened and explain in written reports to the justice system – as such, assuming the role of a forensic engineer.

Lawyers retain us – those of us with certain key attributes, on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant.  Occasionally this is done when the merits of the case are being assessed but too often months or years later.

I explain how civil engineers can personally investigate many of the problems that develop in Eastern Canada.  They also sometimes function as lead investigators – `generalist“ engineers, and retain other specialists when they are not qualified for the problem.  There are few experts in Eastern Canada who investigate the same type of problem day in and day out.

(There’s a bulleted Summary at the end of this item, in addition to the abstract)

Our built environment doesn’t always work as it should – things break and fall down.  People sometimes get hurt in this environment too  

Everything in our built environment is expected to be safe and to operate as designed.

But when things do not function properly, such as:

• a poorly maintained structure,
• foundation settlement of a swimming pool or building,
• a bridge failure,
• earthworks and landslides,
• a flood,
• vibrating buildings,
• traffic and slip and fall accidents,
• a truck fuel oil spill,
• a leaking roof, or
• a wet basement

we are reminded that things do not operate continually or forever.  And that things are sometimes not designed and constructed properly nor are they completely safe. (Refs 1, 2 and 3)

Civil litigation sometimes results when this happens.

Engineers explain to the justice system why things break and fall down

Professional engineers are often retained by counsel for the plaintiff or defendant to investigate the cause of problems like these.  Also to identify and explain the associated technical issues to plaintiffs, defendants, counsel, judges, and juries.  These parties are being asked more and more to believe and rely upon the opinions of experts.  As such, professional engineers practise as forensic engineers either as consulting experts or testifying experts. (Refs 1 and 4)

We explain in well written reports, seldom in court

Today, after we complete our forensic investigation, we increasingly present our findings and opinions in a report according to civil procedure rules like Rule 55 in Nova Scotia.  Professional engineers seldom go to court today since the advent of rules like this. (Ref. 4)  Nevertheless, we still do our work in the event this will be necessary.

How we are retained, including the warts of the process

We are most often retained when a lawyer calls asking to describe a problem, doing this, and then responding to our questions about the failure or accident in our need to assess if we are qualified.  Counsel would most likely have learned of us by word of mouth or as a result of having some profile in the area.

Too often we are retained months or years after an action has been started rather than at the time the merits and investigative costs of a case are being evaluated.  But this is changing as lawyers learn of the benefits of retaining an expert early – serious cost benefits and better service to the justice system and the injured party. (Refs 5 and 6)

Key attributes of a qualified forensic engineer

We would most likely be qualified as an engineer to investigate the failure or accident if we had the following key attributes: (Ref. 1)

• Suitable education
• Training
• Experience
• Skill, and,
• Knowledge

And performed our work,

• Accurately
• Objectively, and,
• In a professional manner

Another key attribute: Excellent report writing skills

It’s also absolutely essential today in Eastern Canada, in light of new civil procedure rules, that an engineer have excellent report writing skills – and actually bulletproofs his report. (Ref. 7)  Where excellent testifying skills were a key requirement in the past, it’s report writing skills today.

Fees for forensic engineering services

We charge for our services according to a published schedule of fees on our website.  Contractors in Eastern Canada who are retained by a forensic engineer to do certain specialized testing and construction work are charged at cost.

Failures and accidents are small to medium sized and diverse in nature, and experts are not always available in the area

In general, problems in the built environment in Eastern Canada are diverse in nature with many and varied technical issues – seemingly no two are exactly alike. (Ref. 8) They are also small to medium sized – seldom collapses, fortunately, and certainly not newsworthy.  Experts in the specific problem are not always available in this area.

For example, a lawyer in the U.S. enquired about finding an expert on string.  He was advised that perhaps there may not be a “string expert” at large, and that perhaps a specialist trained in microscopy and hemp manufacturing technology may be of assistance. (Ref. 1)

Closer to home, there are probably no “step ladder with bent leg” experts in Eastern Canada either, nor slip and fall experts where the victim was walking backwards, experts in the bio-degradation of old oil spills by natural attenuation, or experts in vibrating buildings.

There are experts in Eastern Canada – civil engineers who know more than the lay public about how to investigate why something broke and fell down or an accident happened – but not necessarily experts who investigate the same kind of problem day in and day out.

One engineer per problem

In Eastern Canada, one professional engineer usually works on all aspects of the forensic investigation either because of some specialized knowledge, or because he is able to figure out the problem by applying the scientific method and following established protocols. (Ref. 9)

The “generalist” engineer

Some cases, because of the nature of the problem, involve the services of a “generalist” engineer or lead investigator rather than a “specialist” engineer.  The engineer advises the lawyer on the types of specialists needed for the team, selects them, and coordinates their activities. (Ref. 1)

A professional engineer functioning as a lead investigator must have sufficient technical knowledge of the problem to recognize his technical shortcomings and retain qualified assistance when the failure or accident investigation requires expertise he doesn’t have. (Ref. 1)

For example, I investigated the cause of a soil-steel bridge failure on one occasion that permanently disabled a car driver.  At different times during my investigation I retained the services of a land surveyor, a hydrologist, two engineers experienced with corrugated steel structures – one in Ontario, the other in the U.S., and a metal detectorist.  These specialists took part in the investigation in addition to my own specialties in civil engineering and geotechnical engineering.

Summary

That’s the nature of forensic engineering practice as I have experienced it in Eastern Canada:

• We investigate and explain why the built environment sometimes breaks and falls down, and why people sometimes have accidents
• We explain why the thing broke, and the relevant technical issues, in a written report to the justice system, hence the label “forensic engineering”
• Lawyers retain us to do this, those of us with certain key attributes
• Most of the problems we investigate are small to medium sized, not catastrophic and newsworthy
• The cause of most problems can be figured out by an experienced civil engineer
• Sometimes he must wear his “generalist” engineering hat – lead investigator hat, and retain one or more specialists to investigate issues he’s not qualified to do

References

1. Lewis, Gary L. ed., Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice, 2003, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
2. Greenspan, Howard F., et al, Guidelines for Failure Investigation, 1989, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
3. Janney, Jack R., Guide to Investigation of Structural Failures, 1979, 1986, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
4. How experts are retained in civil litigation is changing and the changes are good for counsel and the justice system Posted May 1, 2014   http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2014/05/01/how-experts-are-retained-in-civil-litigation-is-changing-and-the-changes-are-good-for-counsel-and-the-justice-system/
5. Stockwood, Q.C., David, Civil Litigation, 2nd ed. 2004 Thompson Carswell, Toronto
6. Please, Counsel, retain an expert “early in the life of the case” Posted March 27, 2014 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2014/03/27/please-counsel-retain-an-expert-early-in-the-life-of-the-case/
7. Mangraviti, Jr., Esq., James, J., et al, How to Write an Expert Witness Report, 2014, SEAK
8. What do forensic engineers investigate in Atlantic Canada? Posted October 9, 2014 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2014/10/09/what-do-forensic-engineers-investigate-in-atlantic-canada/
9. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process with an Appendix on cost, Posted July 15, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/07/15/steps-in-the-forensic-engineering-investigative-process-with-an-appendix-on-costs/

Very brief summary of what we do

We do this by “zooming” in on the details of the natural environment and adjusting our investigations accordingly.  That is, apply the principles of the semi-empirical – observational, sciences and also that of simple geometry.

This underlies what we do, but we’re not thinking science and geometry as we examine the site of a failure or accident getting our hands dirty and mud on our boots.

An interesting, relevant article

I recently came across an article on fractions, like in arithmetic.  More correctly, the article was on fractals.  Fractals are an attempt in mathematics to come to terms with the fractured roughness of everyday life, including the natural environment. (Refs 1 and 2)

The article was very relevant to the nature and methods of forensic engineering where the natural environment is involved.  For me, learning about this was enjoyable coming as it did shortly after I posted a blog on messy Mother Nature.  And how this messiness sometimes results in difficult, “messy” forensic and insurance investigations. (Ref. 3) 

Problems in the real world of nature

High school geometry deals with straight lines – think triangles, squares and rectangles, and perfect circles.  But in the real world none of these exist.  Clouds, trees, soil, and rocks are fragmented, jagged, and fractional.  Nature is rough and lumpy – messy. (modified after Ref. 1, page 110)

Describing such real-world things has historically defeated mathematicians.  It has also – as I blogged recently – caused problems for forensic engineers investigating failures and accidents involving the natural environment.  The devil, it appears, is in the details. (modified after Ref. 1, page 110)

Detailed observation of nature

We have dealt with this problem in engineering with increasingly detailed observation of what we find in nature.  For example, more test holes and laboratory tests to characterize the irregular layers of soil existing beneath the site of a failure. (Ref. 3)

Some of our sciences have actually come to be recognized as semi-empirical in nature.  You could also say “semi-observational”.  For example, soil mechanics, rock mechanics, snow mechanics, ice science, hydromechanics, etc.  Medicine is a semi-empirical science.  Our analytical procedures and formula are based partly on what we theorize takes place in rough and lumpy nature and partly on what we observe actually takes place there.

Zooming in on the rough details of Nova Scotia

Fractal mathematics is also an attempt to come to terms with the fractured, lumpy roughness of everyday nature by also looking at the details.

An example of its use – possibly unknowingly, would be the measurement of the length of the coast of Nova Scotia.

On a small-scale map, say the highway map of Nova Scotia, the coastline of the province is very uncomplicated.  Because the level of detail is low, long stretches of the coastline can be represented with straight lines.  To get more detail and a longer, more accurate measure of the coastline you need a larger-scale map – to zoom in, in a sense, and use a ruler with smaller graduations.  (after Ref. 1)

This was done by someone, and at the level of detail finally accepted, it was found that Nova Scotia’s coastline is 15% longer – 7,400 km, than Canada is wide – 6,422 km.  (N.S. is 575 km long overland from one end to the other).  (Ref. 4)  Of course, the measurement could have zoomed in closer still and got an even greater distance.

There is really no limit to applying this process of “zooming in” and observing and studying at any level of detail any problem involving the messy, lumpy natural environment.  This is often necessary to complete a thorough forensic engineering or insurance investigation.  For example, in problems like:

• Characterizing the contour and topography of the site of a failure or accident,
• The depth, contour and physical properties of the layers of soil beneath the site,
• How water drains across the terrain or flows below the surface
• How a plume of contamination migrates across the site of a fuel oil spill

In a forensic engineering or insurance investigation of problems like these and others, the engineer would decide on an adequate level of detail in dealing with rough and lumpy Mother Nature.  His decision would be based on the evidence that comes in on completion of the different stages and tasks of the investigation.

References

1. Jackson, Tom, ed., Mathematics: An Illustrated History of Numbers, page 110, Shelter Harbour Press, 2012
2. Crilly, Tony, 50 Mathematical Ideas You Really Need to Know, page 100, Quercus, 2007
3. http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2015/04/14/the-messiness-of-some-forensic-engineering-and-insurance-investigations-is-illustrated-by-messy-snowbanks/
4. Internet, Wikipedia, April 21, 2015, 2:00 pm

Readers in Edmonton and Halifax commented on an item I posted last Friday about the Edmonton bridge failure – and my initial hypothesis as to the cause of the failure. (Ref. 1)

I concluded the bridge failed because a crane supporting a middle section of one of the bridge beams moved in the wind pulling the beam sideways and causing it to buckle.  Cross-bracing was not adequate enough to prevent this movement.

Gary in Halifax

Gary in Halifax wondered why I didn’t give links to the photographs and video that I studied and mentioned in my blog.  He thought this would make it easier for the reader.  He is quite right because we learn more visually than we do verbally or from text.

Basically, I was anxious to get the item out there while it was current news – and while some readers might still have the newspapers around that carried the story.

Googling “Edmonton bridge failure” quickly took me to a good number of sites with text, photographs and at least one good video.  I looked at a number of them in forming my initial hypothesis.

It would have been an exercise in itself reviewing all this material and selecting three or four links, and in the process possibly omit some that might have been included.  It seemed easier to let readers google.  But, I might have suggested readers google in lieu of providing specific links rather than unconsciously assuming they would.  I’ll do that next time.

Albert in Edmonton

Albert in Edmonton noted the lack of comment in my blog about the possibility of foundation failure causing the beams to buckle.  He knew that as a civil engineer I had specialized in geotechnical and foundation engineering for a number of years.  Why didn’t I mention the foundations?

Why I didn’t mention the foundations

Typical structural damage due to foundation failure

I didn’t mainly because I’ve seen a lot of structures damaged by foundation failure and what I saw in the pictures and video didn’t fit what I’ve learned over the years.

Most foundation failures – not all, mind you, result in typical damage to the structure above.  You come to know the character of this damage after seeing quite a lot of it.  Also, after seeing the different structures, foundations and sub-surface soils and rocks involved.

This damage is due to marked vertical movement of parts of the structure – inches, and a little horizontal movement – fractions to maybe inches.  It’s characterized by cracking and distortion of the structure.  The damage is differential in nature – more here and less there, not uniform throughout the structure.

(For certain, there are exceptions to this typical failure and distortion of a structure.  I investigated a 54 foot long structure one time that had “settled” – moved vertically, 11 inches from one end to the other.  Turned out it was mistakenly built this way)

Edmonton bridge damage

The middle sections of three of the Edmonton bridge beams moved sideways several feet, not inches.  The end sections where the foundations are located did not move sideways hardly at all.  And all of this movement was quite uniform, not differential.  Quite unlike the typical damage associated with foundation failure.

Did the two end sections of each beam move towards one another and cause the beams to buckle and to do this uniformly?  If so, where did the force come from to push on the ends of the beams?  There’s nothing showing in the pictures and video.

Did the foundations beneath the two end sections move towards one another causing the beams to buckle, uniformly?  I can’t see the foundations but I’ve never known foundations to move sideways several inches causing the structure above to move sideways too.  Landslides and retaining wall failures possibly excepted, but that’s not the situation here.  And where did the forces come from to push on the sides of the foundations?  To the extent you can see the soil near the level of the foundations in some of the pictures, there’s nothing there.

Intuition?  Engineering experience?

Sub-conscious thoughts like these would have been running through my head as I looked at the pictures.  They resulted in me not considering the foundations as the cause of the problem.  Intuition?  Engineering experience?

But Albert in Edmonton made me think and next time I’ll draw attention to the fact that something in what I was seeing didn’t fit, didn’t look right.

Similarly, the structural engineer I chatted with about this bridge failure quickly dismissed wind forces on the sides of the beams as being anywhere near strong enough to cause the beams to buckle.  That would be his intuition, his engineering experience kicking in.

Initial hypothesis of bridge failure validated to some extent by others 

Barry Belcourt, manager of Edmonton’s road design and construction branch, was reported recently in the Globe and Mail as saying it was a construction procedure failure.  This would suggest the failure is not due to inadequate design.  I don’t know what Mr. Belcourt is basing that opinion on but he’s on the ground in Edmonton and all I’ve got are pictures and video.

Mr. Belcourt’s comments to some extent validate my initial hypothesis of the cause of the bridge failure.

Albert, who is also a civil engineer, also considered “careless handling during construction” as one of several possible causes

Reader’s questions are important

Questioning is how we revise hypothesis so keep them coming.

References

1. Wind, construction crane and inadequate cross-bracing caused Edmonton bridge failure: An initial hypothesis http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2015/03/27/wind-construction-crane-and-inadequate-cross-bracing-caused-edmonton-bridge-failure-an-initial-hypothesis/

I was enthused recently – last Sunday to be exact, to learn that we have some very good forensic photographers in eastern Canada.  People who are objective, thorough, and interested in what they`re doing – trying to get those perfect pictures that portray a traffic accident scene exactly as it is.

(Forensic terrestrial photographers to be exact.  In engineering we distinguish between aerial and terrestrial photography, between aerial and land or ground-level photography.  The distinction is important because I’m certain that low level aerial photography with drones will soon be in the traffic accident investigator’s tool kit).

This came out – my learning about the photographers and how they do their work, during a meeting Sunday in Amherst, NS, of CATAIR, the Canadian Association of Technical Accident Investigators and Reconstrutionists.  They have members in Canada, the USA, Singapore, Australia, and Brazil.  Visit www.catair.net

As their website states, CATAIR was “formed in 1984 initially to provide all accident investigators a professional and affordable mechanism in which to meet and share experiences and ideas”.  I experienced that sharing in the Amherst meeting as well as a good talk by one member on forensic photography, Ed Goodfellow with the Miramichi, NB police department.

I`ve been trying to attend a CATAIR meeting for about a year and a half because of my work in forensic engineering investigation.  I also rely on good and thorough photography.  And more recently because of my enthusiasm for the usefulness of low level aerial photographs taken from drones of engineering failure and accident sites. (Ref. 1 and 2)

CATAIR also use a test method in traffic accident investigation that is identical in principle to one that can be used in slip and fall accident investigation.  This is the “drag sled” method for testing the skid resistance of floors.  I`ve been investigating slip and fall accidents.

Why is a blog on CATAIR important to you?

I’m blogging on this topic because I think it’s important for you to know about CATAIR.  Their investigative and photographic standards appear to be very high, way up there.  Members get good training, and, sadly, lots of practice considering the frequency of traffic accidents.  Investigating and reconstructing accidents is a big part of their work and good photographs are essential.

I also want CATAIR members to know about getting aerial photographs of a traffic accident site from a camera mounted on a drone.  Members can get an idea of what is possible with this aerial photographic technique from the photographs inserted in the references accompanying this blog.  These cost my client a few hundred dollars for 2.5 to 3.0 hours on site.

Many of CATAIR’s members are existing and former police officers, but engineers in private practice, civil servants from different levels of government, and others also belong.  I was invited to join by both their Atlantic regional director, Ken Zwicker, an original  member, Nova Scotia, and their current president, Terry C. Lolacher, ACTAR #1297, Alberta.

Ed’s comments indicated that they try very hard to get the pictures that portray the accident scene exactly as it is.  To take pictures that capture the evidence.  The truth is all that matters; the facts.  Forensic photographers don’t process with Photoshop at all.  They keep their pictures in digital format, and don’t reduce the size.  If too large they send to Dropbox and let the client download from there.  I gather this is done in the interest of a client being able to zoom in on a small detail in a photograph and see it clearly.

Apparently, the Holy Grail in forensic photography at accident sites is getting a night picture that shows the scene as an observer would see it.  It’s not easy, and I’m not sure they’ve got it yet – the Holy Grail.

I think the Holy Grail’s days are numbered though based on what I experienced in Amherst last Sunday.  I also think that CATAIR’s members are going to take traffic accident site photography to another level – no pun intended, when they start taking aerial photographs from drones.  And readers are going to want this standard of site photography when its applicable to the investigation of engineering failures and personal injury accidents.

References

1. A picture is worth a 1,000 words, possibly many 1,000s … http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2014/01/15/a-pictures-worth-a-1000-words-possibly-many-1000s-in-forensic-engineering-with-a-new-aerial-photographic-technique/
2. New forensic aerial photographic method …  http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2015/01/30/new-forensic-aerial-photographic-method-proving-extremely-valuable/

“I expected you to know that and not charge for researching it.“

This was the gist of a recent exchange I learned about between a civil litigation lawyer and an engineer.  But, should he have known?

The lawyer was concerned about the engineer charging fees for researching a technical issue.  It so happened it was in an area of practice that was not so well defined in eastern Canada.  Hardly known at all for that matter.  In this case, information about the different ways of testing for a particular physical property of a material.  Also information on guidelines, standards and codes for evaluating the test results.

I also learned that the different test methods had their pros and cons.  One method had some acceptance in Ontario and the New England states but was not available in eastern Canada.  Identifying and carefully evaluating a suitable alternative method was necessary in this forensic case.  A poorly defined situation also existed for guidelines for evaluating the test results.

I thought about forensic investigations that I’ve carried out over the years.  Some with technical issues that I needed to research before the investigation could be completed.  Technical issues that come along once or twice in a forensic-engineering-practice lifetime.  It’s unreasonable to expect an engineer to be up to date on such obscure issues, unwise if he doesn’t research them, and wrong if he doesn’t get paid for doing the research.

Examples from my files of cases needing research

Very small tunnels don’t fail very often in eastern Canada – when was the last time you heard of one?  For example, pipe tunnels that carry utilities under infrastructure.  But when they do fail then soil liquefaction and tunnel driving methods might need to be researched – technical issues that don’t crop up very often at all.  An engineer would be wise to research the state-of-the-art for these topics.  I did in one insurance case but the party responsible for the tunnel failure unfortunately didn’t.

(Soil liquefaction is the process of a soil becoming liquid when vibrated)

Inadequate underpinning  Fluid-like concrete, ‘flowable fill’, is used often enough in eastern Canada.  But concern about the slight shrinkage of the concrete on setting up – small fractions of an inch, holds little interest.  It’s just a wee bit too exotic for day-to-day engineering where the interest most of the time is simply filling a hole in the ground.

Except when counsel wants to know if a building was adequately underpinned, and the magnitude of such shrinkage figures in the assessment.  Then this obscure, seemingly insignificant characteristic must be researched.

Investigating slip and fall accidents is another poorly defined area of practice in eastern Canada.  Even when a person is wearing standard footwear the practice down this end of the country is not well defined.  The guidelines and codes are virtually silent.

The obscurity goes to another level when a person in their bare feet slips and falls on a wet surface – that is supposed to be dry, in a public place.  What do you use to simulate a bare foot in testing skid resistance under these conditions?  (Research told me what)

Factor in complex slip and fall biomechanics and an engineer can’t get out of the investigative starting-gate until he’s done some research.  Some of this engineering is once-in-a-life-time-of-practice in eastern Canada, and I suspect in other areas as well.

How about a man who falls off a step ladder with a slightly bent leg, strikes his head and dies?  What kind of expected knowledge would guide an engineer on how to investigate whether or not the bent leg caused the accident?  There was none and there was nothing in the engineering text books either.  I found the answer when I researched the work done by movie stuntmen.

What about the man who struck an obstacle on the highway, lost control, drove off a cliff and died?  How to investigate if the obstacle contributed to the accident?  A literature search established that the answer was in speed bump research.  Checking that research led to a field investigative test method that established the contribution made by the obstacle.  Counsel for the RCMP got their answer from preliminary findings – it was too dangerous to continue with the field testing.

These problems

I’ve had all these problems and others cross my desk in recent years and my clients understood the need for research and my need to be compensated.

Figuring out on a need-to-know basis

As engineers and applied scientists, we often work on a need-to-know basis, figuring out what to do and how to do it when the need arises.  And often enough it involves research when the knowledge doesn’t exist in the locality where the failure or accident occurred and the engineer practices.

Engineers are educated and trained to investigate and figure things out based on first principles.  They don’t expect to know everything from the get-go.

I took about 57 different courses in getting my two degrees in civil engineering and they were all about first principles.  And studied a number of other subjects during a two year land surveying course.

Engineers must research poorly defined areas of practice

If there are myriad ways of testing the physical property of a building material then it’s smart to research the most suitable method for the locality where the failure or accident occurred.  Particularly when any one type of case doesn’t occur that often, and test methods might have changed in the interim.

As well, if widely accepted standards for evaluating the test results don’t exist in the area where the problem occurred then standards and historical usage in other areas must be researched.  This is the only means of gaining some understanding of the significance of the test results in the locality of interest.

Experts don’t know everything – and when they don’t know they do what’s necessary, they research

Counsel and the engineer in the situation quoted above would be better informed if they read some of the decisions by judges in the supreme courts in eastern Canada.  Go see what happens to experts who don’t research engineering practice that is poorly defined in their locality, and in many others.  See also what happens to counsel’s case and the client’s claim or defense.

It’s unreasonable to expect an engineer to be up-to-date on infrequently occurring problems in poorly defined fields of practice, unwise if he doesn’t research them, and wrong if he doesn’t get paid for the researching.

.

I had an idea recently about how counsel can reduce the cost of forensic engineering investigation – in a planned way.  Some of you are actually doing it now but by default – rather than by plan.  You are defaulting to using your professional engineer as a consulting expert rather than as a testifying expert – but doing this years after you take the case (Ref. 1)

My thoughts were driven by how counsel are reacting to the early costs of an investigation.  Also how geotechnical engineering – a specialized field in civil engineering, reports on the geotechnical investigation of foundation soil conditions.  (I specialized in geotechnical and foundation engineering work for quite a few years)

Factual and interpretative reports in engineering

Two types of report can be issued in geotechnical work: – a factual report and an interpretative report.

(Stay with this; it does relate to civil litigation quite quickly)

A factual report gathers together all the data from the office, field, and laboratory investigations and submits this to the client – without analysis and interpretation.

An interpretative report analyses and interprets this data and draws conclusions on the foundation soil conditions and their significance to the design engineer.  The latter can be quite comprehensive, particularly if foundation conditions are complex.

The cost of a factual is easier to predict and control.  The cost of an interpretative report is difficult to predict and control.  Sometimes very difficult because you don’t know what you are going to find at the site of an engineering failure or accident if you follow the evidence. (Ref. 2 and 3)

Geotechnical clients will actually specify the type of report they want, a factual report or an interpretative report.  This is quite prevalent in the U.K. and followed at times in Canada and the U.S.

Factual reports in civil litigation, by default; not so good

I see something like this happening now in civil litigation – counsel deciding on a factual-type report or no report at all.  But, driven by the shock/surprise at the cost of expert services and forensic engineering, rather than driven according to plan.  Particularly when counsel did not confer with an expert at a very early stage of civil litigation and get a feel for these costs. (Ref. 1)

Counsel are sometimes deciding against further investigation when – I suspect, they see investigative costs coming in and the worth of the file to the firm being whittled away.  They quickly default to using the professional engineer as a consultant rather than as an expert. (Ref. 1)

Factual reports in civil litigation, by plan; good

Counsel ask for a preliminary report, a verbal report, or no report at all, relying instead on a verbal discussion of the findings.  Some of this reporting is quite factual as opposed to interpretative.  This is quite okay, but much better if it’s planned at the start of litigation rather than defaulting to this several years down the road. (Ref. 1)

References

1. How experts are retained in civil litigation is changing and the changes are good for counsel and the justice system.  Posted May 1, 2014 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2014/05/01/how-experts-are-retained-in-civil-litigation-is-changing-and-the-changes-are-good-for-counsel-and-the-justice-system/

2. A bundle of blogs: A civil litigation resource list on how to use a forensic engineering expert. Posted November 20, 2013 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/11/20/a-bundle-of-blogs-a-civil-litigation-resource-list-on-how-to-use-forensic-engineering-experts/

3.Why the difficulty estimating the cost of forensic engineering investigation?  Posted September 1, 2012 http://www.ericjorden.com/blog/2013/09/01/why-the-difficulty-estimating-the-cost-of-forensic-engineering-investigation/

I had occasion in the past week to reflect on how readers benefit from my blogging.  I was drafting e-mails at the time to potential readers.  Then, last Thursday evening while swimming in Halifax, the somewhat related question popped into my head, “Why do I blog?”

Why do I blog?

1. To increase the justice system’s understanding of what’s involved in forensic engineering – the nature of this engineering discipline and the methods used
2. Also, to help readers understand why it takes time and money to thoroughly and objectively investigate the technical issues of a case
3. To better understand this field myself, to learn by writing the blogs and “thinking on paper” – particularly, on how addressing the technical issues supports the resolution of disputes
4. To increase my understanding of the civil litigation process
5. Because of a sense of obligation to my readers who have seen the blog for over two years now and perhaps have come to expect it – to fill a void I think was there
6. For that satisfied feeling that comes from creating something – a piece of literature that did not exist before

More detail on why I blog

Increasing my reader’s understanding of the forensic engineering work I enjoy doing and its contribution to the resolution of disputes – that’s a big reason.  Also to help you appreciate the reason for the associated time and costs.

This by raising the awareness of counsel and managers to what`s involved in the forensic engineering investigation of the technical issues in your cases and claims.  Some disputes are so very technical in nature.

I also blog to increase my understanding of the civil litigation process.  I do my work better when I understand the process I’m part of and how my work fits in.  Readers might not know that most books on forensic engineering and science have a quite detailed chapter or section on the civil litigation process.

I blog because I like to write.  After years of investigating the cause of engineering problems, failures and accidents – initially specializing in civil engineering, and soils, foundation, and environmental engineering, and writing reports on these problems – often for non-technical readers, I feel I can write.

I’ve always written for readers at the interface between my area of expertise and those in other specialities, as well as for the general public.

Another interesting reason: A few months after I started blogging in mid-June, 2012, I noticed a feeling of satisfaction after posting an item, a mild elation.  It was subtle but there.  On reflection, I realized I felt good because I had created something – I created a piece of literature that did not exist until I put pen to paper.  So, I blog for that satisfied, creative feeling.  You all know how elusive that feeling is in our busy work-life-balance-challenged lives.

I do feel obligated to keep my blog going for the benefit of my readers.  It`s out there now and I`m certain some do look for it.  I`m certain the chap does, who “…loves that stuff“ and the claims manager who “…reads every one“ (see below).

How long does it take to write a blog?

How long does it take to write a blog?  I`ve been asked that several times.  From first draft to posting, typically about 8 to 10 hours, sometimes a good bit less.  But, sometimes longer when I have to research the literature and flesh out my knowledge of the subject matter.

An idea for a topic comes to mind.  It tumbles around in my head for a little while, but not too long – a few minutes, an hour or two.  I then quickly sit down and knock out a draft in one or two hours.  You have to capture these ideas when they’re fertile.  Then over the next few days I edit quite ruthlessly during several sittings – I`m doing that now.

What you read sometimes bears little resemblance to the original draft.  A piece of writing truly can take on a life of its own.  Some of you are certain to have read this comment by authors about writing.  I’ve experienced it – actually, to a degree, this particular blog took on a life of its own; I’m just along for the ride at this point.  It’s a good feeling when this happens.

Where do the blogs come from?

Where do the blog topics come from?  The topics come from everywhere.  It seems sometimes they`re just out there in the ether.  Some, however, are triggered by news items.  Also, I see a lot of technical literature in connection with my forensic practice and no end of topics come to mind then.

Like I said at the beginning, this blog, on why I blog, just popped into my head last Thursday evening – out of the ether?, while I was swimming a few lengths of a pool.  The topic seemed timely after posting blogs for two years.  So, I put aside the draft of a blog on ‘bias in forensic engineering’.  You’ll see this one another day.

Readers’ comments

Feed back suggests you do get something from my descriptions of the nature and methods of forensic engineering, and my comments on related matters.  A senior lawyer in Atlantic Canada said, “I love that stuff..!!”.  Another senior legal chap here on the east coast commented, “…like reading them.”  And an insurance claims consultant said, “I read every one”.  It’s hard to beat testimonials like that.

Two senior counsel helped me with two of the blogs on the role of professional engineers in the civil litigation process – critiqued them before posting.  One of these noted that experts are invaluable to civil litigation.

A fellow who blogs on business ethics, and truly has an international reputation in his field – he’s on a list of 100 influential business people that includes Barack Obama, saw fit to advise his twitter followers of my blog.

A monthly periodical on engineering construction – with an international distribution of 10,000, sought permission to publish one of my blogs in an issue of theirs a year and a half ago.  The issue had a forensic engineering theme.  Then they came back a couple of weeks later requesting permission to publish two additional blogs in the same issue.

In two years, I`ve only had about six readers request being taken off my distribution list.  This because they were retired or the subject did not relate to their field of practice.

Overall, quite a good reception – suggesting there was a void, and that I`m making a contribution to the civil litigation process and to insurance claims management.

Future blogs

There will be more blogs in the future; there’s a number of topics identified in my files, and very rough drafts of some of these.  And another topic just came to mind as I drafted this piece.