Loading
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Structural Engineering, Failure Analysis, Forensic Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Materials Science
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
A structural failure rarely explains its own cause. A collapse, failed connection, distressed foundation, or other structural problem may result from one condition or several interacting factors.
A structural failure investigation examines relevant physical evidence, project records, structural behavior, materials, loads, site conditions, and, where appropriate, reasonable alternative explanations to determine which technical conclusions the evidence supports.
In litigation, qualified structural failure experts may help attorneys understand how a failure occurred and what factors contributed to it, including design, construction, materials, deterioration, maintenance, alterations, loading, or site conditions.
The expert's role is to provide engineering analysis and opinions within the expert's qualifications and supported by sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods. In federal court, an otherwise admissible opinion is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a). The court determines the governing law and the admissibility of expert testimony, while the judge or jury, as applicable, resolves factual issues and applies the law to the facts.
This guide explains how structural failure investigations preserve and evaluate evidence, analyze potential causes, identify the appropriate expert disciplines, and support engineering opinions used in litigation.
A structural failure investigation evaluates how a structural system performed and why it failed, became distressed, or no longer performed as intended.
Depending on the structure and dispute, an expert may review:
The investigation should use these sources of evidence to develop a reasoned explanation of the failure mechanism. A crack, deteriorated connection, construction deviation, or code issue does not establish causation by itself. When offering a causation opinion, the expert should evaluate whether the condition has a technically supportable relationship to the failure.
Structural failure investigations examine physical evidence, structural behavior, project records, materials, loads, and site conditions to determine how and why a failure occurred. This article explains evidence preservation, failure-sequence and load-path analysis, competing causes, multidisciplinary expertise, and reliability of structural expert testimony under Rule 702.
Structure Failures
Structural Analysis
Structural Damage
Causation Analysis
Construction Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Forensic Analysis
Preservation
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Site Inspection
A structural failure rarely explains its own cause. A collapse, failed connection, distressed foundation, or other structural problem may result from one condition or several interacting factors.
A structural failure investigation examines relevant physical evidence, project records, structural behavior, materials, loads, site conditions, and, where appropriate, reasonable alternative explanations to determine which technical conclusions the evidence supports.
In litigation, qualified structural failure experts may help attorneys understand how a failure occurred and what factors contributed to it, including design, construction, materials, deterioration, maintenance, alterations, loading, or site conditions.
The expert's role is to provide engineering analysis and opinions within the expert's qualifications and supported by sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods. In federal court, an otherwise admissible opinion is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a). The court determines the governing law and the admissibility of expert testimony, while the judge or jury, as applicable, resolves factual issues and applies the law to the facts.
This guide explains how structural failure investigations preserve and evaluate evidence, analyze potential causes, identify the appropriate expert disciplines, and support engineering opinions used in litigation.
A structural failure investigation evaluates how a structural system performed and why it failed, became distressed, or no longer performed as intended.
Depending on the structure and dispute, an expert may review:
The investigation should use these sources of evidence to develop a reasoned explanation of the failure mechanism. A crack, deteriorated connection, construction deviation, or code issue does not establish causation by itself. When offering a causation opinion, the expert should evaluate whether the condition has a technically supportable relationship to the failure.
Early expert involvement can be important when cleanup, stabilization, demolition, repair, weather exposure, or debris removal may alter relevant evidence. An expert may help counsel document the scene, identify significant components, determine useful measurements or testing, and identify additional records that may be needed.
Depending on the case, early investigation may include:
Legal preservation duties and inspection procedures depend on the jurisdiction, parties, court orders, and circumstances of the dispute. The engineering expert's role is primarily to help preserve and document the technical record.
Structural causation analysis generally requires more than identifying an obvious defect. Depending on the case, the expert may reconstruct the failure sequence and evaluate whether a proposed explanation fits the available evidence.
Structural engineers may evaluate how loads were intended to move through the structure, often referred to as the load path, and how the failure affected that path.
This may require analysis of beams, columns, slabs, walls, foundations, trusses, connections, bracing systems, or temporary supports. Calculations and modeling may be appropriate when the dispute involves capacity, stability, load redistribution, deformation, or progressive failure.
Visible damage does not necessarily show where the failure began. Some damage may occur after another component has already failed.
An expert may compare the original design with evidence showing how the structure was actually constructed, altered, maintained, and loaded.
Relevant questions may include whether:
When several plausible causes are material to the opinion, the analysis should compare reasonable alternatives with the available evidence.
Depending on the case, experts may use calculations, measurements, laboratory testing, material analysis, geotechnical information, component testing, engineering models, and historical records to evaluate competing hypotheses.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation of the Champlain Towers South collapse provides a public example of this systematic approach, using physical evidence, records, testing, and modeling to evaluate possible failure scenarios. A government technical investigation is not a litigation standard, but the process illustrates the value of comparing competing explanations against multiple sources of evidence.
Structural failures can result from a single dominant mechanism or several interacting conditions. Which factors matter depends on the structure, its history, and the event being investigated.
Potential technical issues include:
The presence of one of these conditions does not establish causation by itself. When offering a causation opinion, the expert should evaluate whether the condition has a technically supportable relationship to the failure.
Structural failures can cross several engineering disciplines. The appropriate expert or team depends on the mechanism being investigated.
Structural engineers evaluate load-bearing systems, structural capacity, stability, connections, support conditions, load paths, and failure mechanisms.
They may also reconstruct how damage progressed or determine whether structural modifications or temporary conditions affected system performance.
Materials and metallurgical specialists may examine fracture, fatigue, corrosion, concrete deterioration, weld performance, fasteners, steel components, or other material-related issues.
Testing can help distinguish whether an observed material condition preceded the failure, contributed to it, or resulted from the failure event.
Geotechnical engineers may evaluate soil behavior, settlement, groundwater, slope conditions, bearing capacity, foundation performance, or other subsurface factors.
Their involvement may be important when above-ground damage could be related to conditions beneath or adjacent to the structure.
Construction experts may evaluate sequencing, temporary supports, shoring, field changes, workmanship, project documentation, and construction means and methods.
These issues are particularly important when the failure occurred during construction, renovation, repair, demolition, or temporary support operations.
Building-code or project-compliance analysis can be important in structural failure cases, but identifying a deviation does not automatically establish why a structure failed.
The analysis should identify the codes, standards, project requirements, and other technical criteria relevant to the structure and period at issue. Whether a particular requirement legally applies depends on the governing law.
When causation is at issue, the expert may evaluate whether an identified deviation had a meaningful relationship to the failure. A violation does not by itself establish that the condition caused the loss, and some failures require analysis beyond a simple code-compliance comparison.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, structural engineering expert testimony is principally evaluated under Rule 702, together with other applicable evidence rules. State courts may apply different standards, so the governing jurisdiction must be considered.
Under Rule 702, the proponent must show the court, more likely than not, that the rule's requirements are satisfied. The expert's specialized knowledge must help the trier of fact. The testimony must also be based on sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods, and the opinion must reflect a reliable application of those methods to the facts.
The Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael continue to shape federal expert-testimony review. Kumho Tire confirmed that the reliability inquiry applies to technical and other specialized testimony, not only scientific testimony.
In structural failure disputes, courts may examine whether the expert:
Credentials alone do not establish reliability.
Structural failure experts can help attorneys identify the key technical issues before unsupported assumptions influence discovery or testimony.
Their work may assist with:
Experts should limit their opinions to subjects supported by their qualifications and reliable methodology. They may explain engineering causation, structural behavior, testing, standards, and physical evidence, but should not substitute an engineering opinion for the legal determination of negligence, liability, or responsibility.
A structural failure expert should have qualifications that match the specific engineering issue, rather than only general construction or engineering experience.
Relevant considerations may include:
A useful expert should be able to explain both the conclusion and the reasoning that supports it.
What does a structural failure expert witness investigate?
A structural failure expert examines how and why a structural system failed or became distressed. The analysis may include physical evidence, project records, structural calculations, materials, loads, site conditions, and competing explanations.
When should an attorney retain a structural failure expert?
Early retention can be useful when the site, debris, or damaged components may soon be repaired, demolished, moved, or discarded. The appropriate timing depends on the dispute, preservation obligations, access issues, and the condition of the evidence.
Can a building-code violation establish the cause of a structural failure?
Not by itself. A code or project-requirement deviation may be relevant, but a causation analysis should still evaluate whether that condition contributed to the failure being litigated.
Can one structural engineer investigate every aspect of a failure?
Not always. Complex matters may require structural, geotechnical, materials, metallurgical, construction, building-envelope, or other specialized expertise depending on the evidence and proposed failure mechanisms.
What makes a structural failure causation opinion reliable?
A reliable opinion should be based on sufficient evidence, appropriate engineering methods, reliable application of those methods, and a clear connection between the evidence and conclusion. Material competing explanations and significant limitations should also be considered where relevant.
Early expert involvement can be important when cleanup, stabilization, demolition, repair, weather exposure, or debris removal may alter relevant evidence. An expert may help counsel document the scene, identify significant components, determine useful measurements or testing, and identify additional records that may be needed.
Depending on the case, early investigation may include:
Legal preservation duties and inspection procedures depend on the jurisdiction, parties, court orders, and circumstances of the dispute. The engineering expert's role is primarily to help preserve and document the technical record.
Structural causation analysis generally requires more than identifying an obvious defect. Depending on the case, the expert may reconstruct the failure sequence and evaluate whether a proposed explanation fits the available evidence.
Structural engineers may evaluate how loads were intended to move through the structure, often referred to as the load path, and how the failure affected that path.
This may require analysis of beams, columns, slabs, walls, foundations, trusses, connections, bracing systems, or temporary supports. Calculations and modeling may be appropriate when the dispute involves capacity, stability, load redistribution, deformation, or progressive failure.
Visible damage does not necessarily show where the failure began. Some damage may occur after another component has already failed.
An expert may compare the original design with evidence showing how the structure was actually constructed, altered, maintained, and loaded.
Relevant questions may include whether:
When several plausible causes are material to the opinion, the analysis should compare reasonable alternatives with the available evidence.
Depending on the case, experts may use calculations, measurements, laboratory testing, material analysis, geotechnical information, component testing, engineering models, and historical records to evaluate competing hypotheses.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation of the Champlain Towers South collapse provides a public example of this systematic approach, using physical evidence, records, testing, and modeling to evaluate possible failure scenarios. A government technical investigation is not a litigation standard, but the process illustrates the value of comparing competing explanations against multiple sources of evidence.
Structural failures can result from a single dominant mechanism or several interacting conditions. Which factors matter depends on the structure, its history, and the event being investigated.
Potential technical issues include:
The presence of one of these conditions does not establish causation by itself. When offering a causation opinion, the expert should evaluate whether the condition has a technically supportable relationship to the failure.
Structural failures can cross several engineering disciplines. The appropriate expert or team depends on the mechanism being investigated.
Structural engineers evaluate load-bearing systems, structural capacity, stability, connections, support conditions, load paths, and failure mechanisms.
They may also reconstruct how damage progressed or determine whether structural modifications or temporary conditions affected system performance.
Materials and metallurgical specialists may examine fracture, fatigue, corrosion, concrete deterioration, weld performance, fasteners, steel components, or other material-related issues.
Testing can help distinguish whether an observed material condition preceded the failure, contributed to it, or resulted from the failure event.
Geotechnical engineers may evaluate soil behavior, settlement, groundwater, slope conditions, bearing capacity, foundation performance, or other subsurface factors.
Their involvement may be important when above-ground damage could be related to conditions beneath or adjacent to the structure.
Construction experts may evaluate sequencing, temporary supports, shoring, field changes, workmanship, project documentation, and construction means and methods.
These issues are particularly important when the failure occurred during construction, renovation, repair, demolition, or temporary support operations.
Building-code or project-compliance analysis can be important in structural failure cases, but identifying a deviation does not automatically establish why a structure failed.
The analysis should identify the codes, standards, project requirements, and other technical criteria relevant to the structure and period at issue. Whether a particular requirement legally applies depends on the governing law.
When causation is at issue, the expert may evaluate whether an identified deviation had a meaningful relationship to the failure. A violation does not by itself establish that the condition caused the loss, and some failures require analysis beyond a simple code-compliance comparison.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, structural engineering expert testimony is principally evaluated under Rule 702, together with other applicable evidence rules. State courts may apply different standards, so the governing jurisdiction must be considered.
Under Rule 702, the proponent must show the court, more likely than not, that the rule's requirements are satisfied. The expert's specialized knowledge must help the trier of fact. The testimony must also be based on sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods, and the opinion must reflect a reliable application of those methods to the facts.
The Supreme Court's decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael continue to shape federal expert-testimony review. Kumho Tire confirmed that the reliability inquiry applies to technical and other specialized testimony, not only scientific testimony.
In structural failure disputes, courts may examine whether the expert:
Credentials alone do not establish reliability.
Structural failure experts can help attorneys identify the key technical issues before unsupported assumptions influence discovery or testimony.
Their work may assist with:
Experts should limit their opinions to subjects supported by their qualifications and reliable methodology. They may explain engineering causation, structural behavior, testing, standards, and physical evidence, but should not substitute an engineering opinion for the legal determination of negligence, liability, or responsibility.
A structural failure expert should have qualifications that match the specific engineering issue, rather than only general construction or engineering experience.
Relevant considerations may include:
A useful expert should be able to explain both the conclusion and the reasoning that supports it.
What does a structural failure expert witness investigate?
A structural failure expert examines how and why a structural system failed or became distressed. The analysis may include physical evidence, project records, structural calculations, materials, loads, site conditions, and competing explanations.
When should an attorney retain a structural failure expert?
Early retention can be useful when the site, debris, or damaged components may soon be repaired, demolished, moved, or discarded. The appropriate timing depends on the dispute, preservation obligations, access issues, and the condition of the evidence.
Can a building-code violation establish the cause of a structural failure?
Not by itself. A code or project-requirement deviation may be relevant, but a causation analysis should still evaluate whether that condition contributed to the failure being litigated.
Can one structural engineer investigate every aspect of a failure?
Not always. Complex matters may require structural, geotechnical, materials, metallurgical, construction, building-envelope, or other specialized expertise depending on the evidence and proposed failure mechanisms.
What makes a structural failure causation opinion reliable?
A reliable opinion should be based on sufficient evidence, appropriate engineering methods, reliable application of those methods, and a clear connection between the evidence and conclusion. Material competing explanations and significant limitations should also be considered where relevant.
Structure Failures
Structural Analysis
Structural Damage
Causation Analysis
Construction Engineering
Building Code Compliance
Forensic Analysis
Preservation
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Site Inspection
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise