Page 192 - Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook

THE FIRST STEPS AFTER A FAILURE 5.25

TABLE 5.1 Typical Interview Questions and Information*
Time, date, place, and duration of interview.
Name of person(s) interviewing and others present.
Indicate whether the interview was tape-recorded.
Date that transcript was typed and by who.
1. What is your name, who is your employer, what is your position/title, what are your
responsibilities?
2. What is your experience and education?
3. Where were you at the time of collapse?
4. What were you doing?
5. What was the first indication that something was wrong?
a. If it was a sound, describe it. Where did it appear to come from? How long did it last? What
else was going on?
b. If it was a sensation, describe it.
c. If it was visual, describe it.
d. If you were alerted by someone else, describe. By who, where was that person, what did
he/she say?
6. What happened next?
7. How much time elapsed from first indication until collapse?
8. Who else was with you?
9. Did you have any concerns previously?
10. Any rumors?
11. What activities were underway at time of collapse?
12. What was the status of construction at the time of the collapse?
13. What was the weather?
14. Any idea what may have triggered failure?
15. Do you mind if I contact you again if necessary?
16. Will you let me know if you think of anything else that may be helpful?

*Add questions that are tailored to the project and to the type of knowledge that the interviewee may have.
• Identification of debris. Establishing a common identification system from the start will
tremendously facilitate later discussion and debate. In addition, sharing of this raw infor-
mation will minimize the possibility of misidentifying components, which could lead to
patently false theories.
A potential consequence of not promptly exchanging this type of information is illus-
trated by the 1987 collapse of L’Ambiance Plaza. In its investigation OSHA (Occupational
Health and Safety Administration) misidentified a key component and subsequently devel-
oped a collapse scenario that was dependent on this misidentified component. This scenario
was widely disseminated to the public. After being informed of the error, OSHA changed
its findings years later in a technical journal, after court settlements were complete. 2,3,4 This
unfortunate situation, which obscured the cause of the collapse, could have been avoided if
a climate of cooperation had been fostered in the beginning, allowing exchange of this fun-
damental information.
In contrast, on the 1998 hoist collapse at Four Times Square in New York City, key
forensic firms worked together to mark components as they were dismantled and to orga-
nize them off-site, using a common identification system. This cooperative effort estab-
lished a common body of information and nomenclature which the independent
investigations could use.
• Destructive testing. Often there will be certain components on which multiple parties
would like to perform destructive testing. One solution is for those parties to agree on the
testing to be performed, and on a firm to conduct it, and then to share in the costs and