---

The combination of modern delivery methods and increasingly complex projects is fundamentally reshaping the rules of risk and responsibility for stakeholders throughout the construction ecosystem. New ways of working, greater collaboration, and more advanced integrated systems mean that when a failure happens, it is significantly more challenging to identify what went wrong. Finger-pointing, assumptions, and tentative theories aside, forensic engineering analysis is a pivotal investigative tool that separates speculation from fact.

The following case studies depict real-life construction disputes. They not only illustrate where conventional experts hit blind spots and how forensic methods expose critical failures but also offer valuable lessons from high-stakes disputes litigated in court and resolved through arbitration. In each case study, the leading hypothesis about system or material failure was overturned by the technical clarity revealed by forensic engineering analysis. This forensic insight ultimately shaped outcomes, highlighting how construction disputes can be transformed when examined with the right expertise.

Case study #1: A system failure in disguise

The failure:
A high-profile class action lawsuit arose when tempered glass panels in commercial towers began spontaneously shattering during normal operation. The immediate assumption was that “cheap imported glass” from China was to blame. This premature conclusion muddied the waters and initially limited liability to a single party, even though multiple factors were at play.

Blind spots:
Focusing exclusively on the origin of the glass ignored several issues that needed to be factored into the forensic analysis, including:

• Material quality control failures for domestic glass tempering

• Architectural designs that pushed aesthetic boundaries without corresponding hazard mitigation requirements and building code compliance

• Engineering specifications that failed to address fundamental safety principles for preventing glass breakage

• Contractual language that did not require post-tempering material testing protocols

• Assumed compliance based on component-level standards rather than whole system performance

Forensic breakthroughs:
A forensic engineering investigation ensued, which included site work to document the pattern of damages and surrounding conditions; laboratory examination of retained evidence; testing of exemplar samples; and thorough review of the project specifications, design, building, system performance, and building code requirements. The investigation uncovered several key findings:

• Domestically sourced untempered glass failed at three times the rate of imported materials after identical tempering.

• Design plans did not align with the intent of the code requirements, creating a significant gap between trending architectural designs and the spirit of the code requirements for hazard mitigation.

• Insufficient testing and design considerations were confirmed by empirically analyzing the failure pattern. Necessary measures would have included mandatory heat soak testing to force failure-prone glass to break under factory conditions, improved design for architectural integration, and post-breakage retention protocols.

• Five key parties shared liability, including the architect for unmitigated design risks, the engineer for inadequate performance specifications, the general contractor for failing to enforce proper quality control across subcontractors, the glazing subcontractor for inadequate quality assurance protocols during tempering and failure to address local building code requirements for hazard mitigation, and the owner/developer for general liability due to its contractual obligations with the other parties.

Without a comprehensive forensic investigation, this dispute could have followed a narrow, misguided path. Instead, forensic findings substantially altered the outcome and determined shared liability across multiple parties, with each taking ownership of its role in the failure. This case underscores that data provides the evidence and tells the story that preconceptions cannot.

Case study #2: Exposing a buildings hidden flaws

The failure:
During a design-build hotel project, a significant amount of water began infiltrating through the building envelope from the roof. Conventional consultants attributed the issue to deficiencies in the roof membrane installation, but a thorough technical examination exposed multiple contributing factors.

Blind spots:
While improper installation of the roof membrane contributed to the water infiltration, it would have been inaccurate to blame the failure entirely on that error. Other variables needed to be considered, including:

• The convergence of scientific and structural elements, blending detailed technical analysis and an evaluation of the building envelope overall, which neither traditional design consultants nor the contractor considered.

• Additional deficiencies resulting from substandard work quality and poor attention to detail that exacerbated the issue.

Forensic breakthroughs:
The forensic engineering investigation that was commissioned included a detailed examination of drawings, project specifications, and architectural designs; a site investigation to observe the pattern of damages and as-built site conditions; and a meticulous comparison between specifications, as-built conditions, and best practices for the design and construction of building envelopes. This expert-led process identified multiple flaws that led to the water ingress:

• Moisture and condensation from solar heat gain accumulated within the wall assembly system. Both sides of the system’s vertical surfaces were insulated and sealed, causing condensation to form and trapping any moisture generated by solar heating or the various deficiencies described below.

• The building envelope prevented infiltrated water from draining to the exterior.

• Deficiencies in the roof membrane installation and roof-to-wall interfaces allowed water entry at the roof level.

• Deficiencies in the moisture barrier and flashing detail allowed rainwater to get inside the top of the walls, migrate onto the roof slab, and travel through openings into the interior.

• Defects in the exterior cladding installation, including misinstalled supporting brackets and gaps in the flashing, contributed to additional water entry.

Steering the dispute away from oversimplified root-cause analysis allowed forensic engineering to illuminate the complexity of the issue, with various contributing factors and associated responsibilities. This clarity paved the way for more comprehensive remediation efforts.

Case study #3: Not the usual suspect

The failure:
When cracks began appearing in the ceramic tile floor finish of a large multistory facility, a sizable dispute arose over the cause of the damage and responsibility for remediation. A third-party design consultant cited the cause as naturally occurring shrinkage in the concrete floor slab. A comprehensive forensic analysis provided evidence to the contrary.

Blind spots:
If not properly accounted for, concrete slab shrinkage can cause floor tiles to crack, tent, or loosen. Ascribing the ceramic tile floor finish cracking to normal shrinkage would have been a convenient but incorrect conclusion, without considering:

• Key installation requirements for ceramic tile floor finish, including the use of a bond separation layer between the concrete floor and the tiles.

• Structural characteristics of the concrete slab beyond shrinkage, including positive and negative bending moments, where the slab curves downward or upward in response to applied loads.

• The impact of insufficient or improperly placed reinforced steel that can create a ripple effect.

Forensic breakthroughs:
A forensic assessment was launched, including a site visit to inspect the patterns of cracks in the floors; a selective destructive investigation (removal of floor tiles) to evaluate the slab cracking and the tile installation method; and a review of drawings and specifications against industry codes and standards. As a result, multiple technical failures were identified:

• Tile installation did not follow best practices for installing a bond separation layer between the concrete floor and the ceramic tiles, particularly over expansion or construction joints, to prevent the tiles from cracking when the slab floor moves. The bond separation layer did not span the full width of the tiles, causing cracking where tiles were adhered directly to the concrete slab instead of to the membrane.

• Cracks in the concrete floor slab contributed to cracks in the ceramic tile floor finish above it. These cracks occurred between column supports, directly in line with reinforced grade beams, and in the surrounding areas where the slab bends upward. The pattern of cracks and damage was consistent with a reinforcing steel deficiency attributable to design and/or construction.

When construction issues arise, it is easy to assign blame to familiar culprits. In some cases, they may contribute to the underlying causes. In other instances, like this example, they can be entirely misframed. In either case, relying on assumptions alone is risky. Technical flaws must be properly investigated to unmask the truth.

Forensic engineering evidence tells the full story

Getting to the heart of construction failures—and the disputes that often follow—requires a holistic view of the situation as well as the technical and scientific expertise to thoroughly investigate the various factors at play. As designers, builders, and third-party experts become increasingly specialized, forensic engineering is ever more important for piecing together the big picture, assessing the range of possibilities, and delivering irrefutable evidence that tells the full story, not just part of it.

About the author 

Edward Poon is a forensic engineer with more than 20 years of experience in the construction industry. Ed has analyzed and investigated or assessed damages pertaining to building construction deficiencies, building condition assessments and rehabilitation, water infiltration, fires, explosions, vibration, ground movement, wind/snow/hail/rain loads, vehicle impacts, and flooding. He has conducted failure analyses and investigations into design and construction deficiencies in infrastructure, buildings, and marine structures, as well as examined building envelope and building science deficiencies and failures.

---

This article presents views, thoughts, or opinions that are provided for general information purposes only. It does not represent the views of, or constitute advice of any form (legal, professional or otherwise) from, HKA or any of its affiliates. While HKA takes reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of its contents at the time of publication, the article does not deal with all aspects of the referenced subject matter and may not be relied upon as a substitute for professional judgment or independent analysis. Accordingly, neither HKA nor the author accepts liability for any use of, or reliance on, the information presented in the article. This article is protected by copyright © 2026 HKA Global, LLC/© 2026 HKA Global Ltd. All rights reserved.