The Practice of Forensic Structural Engineering in IABSE's Member Countries

Abstract

The IABSE Task Group 5.1 on Forensic Structural Engineering aims to examine and to mitigate structural failures by sharing knowledge of technical, human and organizational causes of failure, in addition to methods and techniques in forensic investigation processes. Forensic engineering expertise has yet to be recognized worldwide as a specific domain of civil engineering practice, and this paper amends previously published technical reports in 2012, 2014 and 2015 by former IABSE Working Group 8 following a new survey carried out in 2020–2022. This new survey has been developed with the lessons learnt from the previous survey in 2013–2014, including the validation of the results obtained by eliminating potential subjectivity in the former assessment. This survey also includes further understanding of the institutional and national regulatory framework. The survey was completed by 22 IABSE member countries whose responses were provided by national experts on forensic structural engineering. This paper will allow the reader to familiarize him/herself with the state of the art in forensic structural engineering practice across 22 countries, allowing a national-level diagnosis. The survey will also help to identify the main challenges within each country related to forensic engineering. Furthermore, recommended steps, as suggested by the national experts, for the awareness and/or development of good industry practice within forensic structural engineering are highlighted in this paper. Online supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2024.2307411.

Keywords:

• forensic structural engineering
• survey
• structural failure
• structural collapse
• current practice

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the other members of IABSE TG5.1 for supporting this initiative and to thank all respondents for providing their valuable time to fill in the survey.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental Data

Online supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664.2024.2307411.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Fabrizio Palmisano, upon reasonable request.