CHAPTER 4

THE FIRST STEPS

AFTER A FAILURE
David B. Peraza, P.E. and Daniel A. Cuoco,
P.E.

INTRODUCTION 4.1
SAFETY 4.2
PRESERVE PERISHABLE EVIDENCE 4.3
Collapse Configuration 4.4
Steel Fracture Surfaces 4.9
Curing Concrete Test Cylinders 4.11
Snow and Ice Accumulation 4.14
RESERVING SAMPLES 4.15
Failed Components 4.15
Unfailed Components 4.16
DOCUMENTATION OF CONDITIONS 4.16
Field Notes 4.17
Photographs 4.18
Video 4.19
INTERVIEWS 4.20
Information Sought 4.20
Who Should Be Interviewed 4.22
COOPERATION WITH OTHER FORENSIC ENGINEERS 4.24
INITIAL DOCUMENT GATHERING 4.25
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION 4.27
CLOSURE 4.30

INTRODUCTION

The first steps following a collapse are critical. They will blaze the trail for
subse- quent investigations, and they may prevent further damage or loss of life.
The activities immediately following a collapse profoundly influence the suc-
cess of subsequent technical investigations. So much of the evidence associated
with a collapse is of a perishable nature—and some of it highly perishable—that
swift action is needed to preserve as much as possible. Snow will melt, fracture
surfaces will corrode, the debris will be removed, and memories will fade.
The forensic engineer who is called in following a collapse plays a crucial
role in determining what those first steps should be. He or she is the most
qualified to recognize perishable evidence and its potential value. The forensic
engineer can
4. CHAPTER FOUR
2 4.1
recommend action, and may be in a position to persuade those who are in
control of the site. The decisions made will directly affect the abundance—or
scarcity—of evidence, upon which investigations will depend. Sparse evidence
leads to tentative conclusions; robust information provides the basis for a
persuasive argument.
A successful investigation can be defined as one that satisfies its stated goals in
the most efficient manner possible. Although investigations may justifiably have
other goals, for the purposes of this chapter, it is assumed that the goal is to
determine, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, the most probable
cause(s) of the failure. This chapter deals with issues that a forensic engineer may
be faced with when she or he first steps onto a collapse site, and in the ensuing
days. It includes issues such as safety, preserving perishable evidence, reserving
samples, documentation, interviews, document gathering, and preliminary
evaluation. With most of these
issues, speed and accuracy are of the essence.

SAFETY

The forensic engineer called to a collapse may be requested to assess the safety
and stability of the structure for a variety of possible reasons:
● To assist in identifying the safest routes through the debris, or identifying
areas that must be avoided until stabilized. These routes may be needed by
rescue per- sonnel to reach victims, by safety officials who need to reach
utility shutoff valves, or by workers attempting to stabilize the structure. In
search-and-rescue situations, the forensic engineer may also be able to assist in
identifying “pock- ets” within the debris where victims might be sheltered.
● To assist in identifying components that are in imminent danger of further
collapse.
● To evaluate methods of stabilizing the structure, such as by adding
shoring, bracing, or tiebacks.
● To assist in determining whether it is advisable to provide protection for
the pub- lic, or whether to restrict public access. Protection may include safety
netting, sidewalk bridges, and other barriers.
● To assist in evaluating alternative demolition or dismantling sequences.
The load paths after a collapse may differ significantly from the intended load
paths, and may not be readily apparent. It is important to try to identify
stressed components, or potentially stressed components. If a stressed
component is cut or removed, it may release its load in a sudden and
uncontrolled manner, possibly causing injury or disturbing other components.
If it is necessary to remove a potentially stressed component, consideration
should be given to first relieving its load (possibly using cables with come-
alongs), next removing the member, and then slowly releasing the temporary
load in a controlled manner. For complex collapses, the active load paths may
become apparent only as demolition proceeds, so it is important that the
process be constantly monitored. Removal of posttensioned elements requires
special attention to prevent unexpected releases of load.
 THE FIRST STEPS AFTER A FAILURE 4.3

(a)
FIGURE 4.1 Manhattan’s Times Square was immediately closed to the public after portions of this
scaffolding and hoist at Four Times Square collapsed on July 21, 1998. Extensive protective
measures and stabilization had to be installed before dismantling of the crippled scaffolding could
even begin. Engineers from the authors’ firm worked closely with contractors throughout the
sensitive dismantling operation. (a) Protective netting being installed to help contain debris.

PRESERVE PERISHABLE EVIDENCE

After a collapse, the as-built construction, its position, its condition, and other
cir- cumstances on the site become evidence. This evidence will play a crucial
role in determining the most likely cause of the failure and contributing factors.
Some of this evidence is durable and will remain reasonably intact over a period
of time, possibly even if left exposed to the elements. Certain evidence, however,
is of a per- ishable nature and therefore must be quickly documented or
otherwise preserved.
 (b)
FIGURE 4.1 (Continued) (b) Eerily empty Times Square.

Collapse Configuration

The collapse configuration can provide valuable information about possible col-
lapse mechanisms and the origin of the failure, and may also serve to eliminate
some mechanisms from further consideration. Due to various pressures, it is
likely that the collapse scene will need to be disturbed—or even altogether
removed— within a short time. It is therefore important that the configuration of
the collapse be “captured” as quickly as possible.
It is extremely valuable to establish—and to apply—a nomenclature for label-
ing key components prior to their removal. Wherever possible, it is desirable to
use any predefined nomenclature, such as column grid lines, supplementing it as
required. In some cases, it is necessary to develop the entire nomenclature. This
would be necessary if drawings were not available, or if the structure were com-
posed of interchangeable elements, such as a scaffold system.
If labeling of key components cannot be done prior to their removal, as might
be the case when a rescue operation is under way or if access is hazardous, the
components will have to be labeled as they are removed. This requires closely
monitoring the removal operation, tracking components as they are removed,
and labeling them as soon as they reach an accessible location. This operation
will usually require a team of two or three people for every crew that is
removing items. Cooperation from the contractor performing the removal will
greatly facil- itate the process.
 (c)

FIGURE 4.1 (Continued) (c) Temporary outriggers cantilever out from the building to help prop up
the scaffolding until it can be dismantled.

There are several types of labeling systems. Three of the most commonly used
are the following:

1. Identity piece-mark system. If the identity of a piece is known, it can be

labeled with an identity piece mark that is keyed to a drawing. If the original
orientation of the element is known from its context in the debris, but may
not otherwise be readily apparent, it should be marked on the piece, for
example, “north flange” or “bottom end.”
2. Serial piece-mark system. In some cases, the identity of a piece may not be
known with certainty. Such a piece should still be labeled, but in this case
with an arbitrary—but unique—piece mark. This piece mark is arbitrary in
the sense that it conveys no information about the identity of the piece; it
serves solely as a label to distinguish this piece from other pieces. The
assigned piece mark must be unique over the entire project. If multiple
persons are simultaneously assigning the piece marks, incorporating the
person’s initials in the piece mark, such as “JFK-23,” will help in ensuring
uniqueness. Obviously any information that may assist in later determining
the identity of the piece, such as where it was found, should be recorded,
either directly on the piece or in field notes.
3. Match-mark system. Match marking of mating segments can greatly facilitate
later reconstruction. It can be used on members that are severed, members
that