bem mar04-may04 (forensic engineering)

8/17/2019 BEM Mar04-May04 (Forensic Engineering)

1/44

CONCRETE DURABILITY PROVISIONS IN DESIGN

CODES: ARE THEY REALLY ADEQUATE?

FAILURE OF STRUCTURES

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HIGHLAND TOWERS

ROUTE TO BE AN ACCREDITED CHECKER

THE WTO AND THE SOUTH: IMPLICATIONS AND

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (PART 1)

L E M B A G A

J U R U T E R A

MALAYSIA

THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA LEMBAGA JURUTERA MALAYSIA

KDN PP11720/9/2003 ISSN 0128-4347 VOL.21 MARCH-MAY 2004 RM10.00

FORENSIC ENGINEERING

FORENSIC ENGINEERING

CONCRETE DURABILITY PROVISIONS IN DESIGN

CODES: ARE THEY REALLY ADEQUATE?

FAILURE OF STRUCTURES

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HIGHLAND TOWERS

ROUTE TO BE AN ACCREDITED CHECKER

THE WTO AND THE SOUTH: IMPLICATIONS AND

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (PART 1)


2/44B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 4

c o

n t e n t

s

Volume21

March-May2004

L E M B A G A

J U R U T E R A

MALAYSIA

16

42

12

46

6 President’s Message

Editor’s Note

8 Announcement

Cover Feature

9 Concrete Durability Provisions In Design Codes:

Are They Really Adequate?

14 Failure Of Structures

21 Lessons Learned From Highland Towers

Guidelines

28 Route To Be An Accredited Checker

Update

30 Asian And Pacific Decade Of Disabled Persons

2003-2012

Engineering & Law

31 Work Programme – A Contractual Perspective

(Part 1)

Feature

39 Best Management Practices On Soil Erosion And

Sediment Control In The Construction Industry

(Part 2)

46 The WTO And The South: Implications And

Recent Developments (Part 1)

Health

54 Detox For Health


3/44

Editor’s Note

B U L E T I N I N G E N I E U R 6

Members of the Board of Engineers Malaysia(BEM) 2003/2004

President YBhg. Tan Sri Dato’ Ir. Hj Zaini Omar

RegistrarIr. Ashari bin Mohd Yakub

SecretaryIr. Dr. Judin bin Abdul Karim

Members of BEM YBhg. Tan Sri Dato’ Ir. Md Radzi bin Mansor

YBhg. Datuk Ir. Santhakumar Sivasubramaniam YBhg. Dato’ Ir. Dr. Hj. Abdul Rashid bin Maidin

YBhg. Datu Ir. Hubert Thian Chong Hui YBhg. Dato’ Ir. Ashok Kumar Sharma

YBhg. Datuk Ir. Md Sidek bin Ahmad YBhg. Datuk Ir. Hj. Keizrul Abdullah

YBhg. Dato’ Ir. Kok Soo ChonIr. Ho Jin WahIr. Yim Hon Wa

Ir. Prof. Ow Chee ShengIr. Mohd Aman bin Hj Idris

Ir. Hj. Abu Bakar bin Che’ ManIr. Prof. Abang Abdullah bin Abang Ali

Tuan Hj. Basar bin JuraimiAr. Paul Lai Chu

Editorial Board

Advisor YBhg. Tan Sri Dato’ Ir. Hj Zaini Omar

Chairman YBhg Datuk Ir. Shanthakumar Sivasubramaniam

EditorIr. Fong Tian Yong

Members YBhg. Dato’ Ir. Ashok Kumar SharmaIr. Prof. Madya Dr. Eric Goh Kok Hoe

Ir. Prof. Ishak bin Abdul RahmanIr. Prof. Dr. Ruslan HassanIr. Prof. Dr. K. S. Kannan

Ir. Nitchiananthan BalasubramaniamIr. Mustaza bin Hj. SalimIr. Md Amir bin KasimIr. Dr Lee Say ChongIr. Chan Boon TeikIr. Choo Kok Beng

Publication OfficerPn. Nik Kamaliah bt. Nik Abdul Rahman

Assistant Publication OfficerPn. Che Asiah bt. Mohamad Ali

Design and ProductionInforeach Communications Sdn Bhd

Buletin Ingenieur is published by the Board of Engineers Malaysia (Lembaga Jurutera Malaysia)

and is distributed free of charge to registeredProfessional Engineers.

The statements and opinions expressed in thispublication are those of the writers.

BEM invites all registered engineers to contributearticles or send their views and comments to the

following address:

Publication CommitteeLembaga Jurutera Malaysia,Tingkat 17, Ibu Pejabat JKR

Kompleks Kerja Raya Malaysia,Jalan Sultan Salahuddin

50580 Kuala LumpurTel: 03-2698 0590 Fax: 03-2692 5017

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] site: http://www.bem.org.my

Advertising/SubscriptionsSubscription Form is on page 52

Advertisement Form is on page 53

President’s Message

No one would want to see a structure collapseor fail, but the fact remains that failures do occur.When a structure collapses, the finger is invariablypointed at the structural engineer. But what isneeded in the first place is to determine the exactcause of the failure through forensic engineering.The goal of a forensic programme is to positivelyidentify the sequence of events leading to ultimatefailure.

Within the broad field of engineering, the practice of forensicengineering involves the investigation of failures of buildings,structures, pipelines, foundations, airplanes, manufacturing equipment,vehicles, bridges, flood control facilities, and other engineered products.Forensic engineers examine broken parts and bring together a list of probable failure mechanisms to be investigated. The final step inforensic engineering is to use analytical and testing tools to confirm

the findings of fact.A number of difficulties can arise when litigation commences if

the cause of failure has not been investigated adequately. Where thereis an overriding need to consider the cause of an engineering failure,fire or other scientific problem, there is considerable merit in engaginga forensic engineer or scientist to consider the cause in isolation. Theforensic engineer becomes an expert witness in support of the findings.A good forensic engineer will investigate any incident in a structured,scientific manner. He will be skilled in collecting and recording evidencein a manner that will withstand scrutiny.

There is a need to develop this area of forensic engineering as anexpert consultancy service.

TAN SRI DATO’ Ir. HJ. ZAINI BIN OMAR

President

BOARD OF ENGINEERS MALAYSIA

The introduction of extra pages in the December2003 issue has attracted positive comments from ourreaders. The Publication Committee will continue tofocus on policy, guidelines, good practices, issues andgeneral information related to the engineeringprofession.

In view of the new structure of contents, there wasa proposal to change the name of the publication as the name ‘buletin’may not adequately convey the contents anymore. Readers are welcome

to forward their views and suggestions to the Publication Committee.

Ir. Fong Tian Yong

Editor

KDN PP11720/9/2003 ISSN 0128-4347 VOL. 21 MARCH-MAY 2004


4/44

With the implementation of a newly

approved Continuing Professional Development

(CPD) Programme, which is in line with aprovision of the amended Engineers Act (2002),

the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) invites

potential out-sourced and accredited course

providers (including those providing in-house

training courses/programmes) to register with

the BEM.

For details of registration, please refer to the

BEM’s CPD Policy, Guidelines for CPD Course

Providers and Course Endorsement requirements

which can be obtained from the office of the

BEM. The Application Form is also available upon

request.

Registration As Accredited CPDCourse Provider

L E M B A G A

J U R U T E R A

MALAYSIA

Announcement

International Conference on“Planning, Design andConstruction of Hardened andProtective Facilities”(HARDFAC 2004)Date: April 14 – 16, 2004

Venue: Hyatt Saujana Hotel, SubangOrganiser: Science and Technology

Research Institute for Defence (STRIDE),Ministry of Defence

Contact: [email protected]

Fee: RM1550

ASEAN Australian EngineeringConference 2004Date: May 26-28, 2004

Venue: Sutera Harbour Convention Centre,Kota Kinabalu

Organisers: IEM & Institution of Engineers Australia

Contact Person: Ms. Liz Khoo, Eric PringleAssociates Public Relations Sdn Bhd

Tel: 603-2161 7144

Fax: 603-2161 8209

E-mail: [email protected]

Even

t

Calenda

r

PublicationCalendar

The following list is thePublication Calendar forthe year 2004. While wenormally seek contributionsfrom experts for eachspecial theme, we are alsopleased to accept articlesrelevant to themes listed.

Please contact the Editor orthe Publication Officer in

advance if you would liketo make such contributionsor to discuss details anddeadlines.

June 2004: WATER

September 2004: ENVIRONMENT

December 2004: STRUCTURES


Mechanical & ElectricalConsulting Engineers

130C, Jalan Thamby Abdullah, Brickfields,

G.P.O. Box 12538, 50782 Kuala Lumpur, Tel : 22749900, 22749895, 22749896

JURUTERA PERUNDING LC

SDN. BHD.




In the 1930s, when the boom in concrete construction

began, it was generally believed that concretestructures typically designed for a design life of 50

years or so would actually last much longer with

little or no maintenance. However, that belief was

squashed when reports of premature deterioration of

concrete in tunnels, marine structures and bridge decks

were made known. It has become a worldwide problem

today. The widespread premature deterioration and

durability issues affecting many concrete structures have

eroded public confidence in the use of concrete as a

construction material. It is now prudent to critically re-

assess the provisions in design codes on concrete

durability.

CODE REQUIREMENTS ON DURABILITY

In the present design codes, durability requirements

for concrete structures are largely based on the

conventional method of specifying arbitrarily certain

limiting values e.g. concrete grade, minimum cement

content, maximum water-cement ratio, cover thickness,

and maximum structural crack width. This so-called

deemed-to-satisfy approach of specifying for concrete

“durability” frequently yields concrete performance thatis not always satisfactory. Chloride-induced corrosion of

reinforcement continues to represent the single largest

cause of deterioration of concrete structures worldwide.

Based on substantial data available from field performance,

exposure trials and laboratory tests on concrete, many

researchers are convinced that the current code

requirements do not provide adequate resistance to

chlorides, even when properly implemented. In the light

of current research, the deemed-to-satisfy rule for concrete

“durability” in the present codes can be challenged.

Strength versus Durability

In many codes and specifications, the compressive

strength of concrete is often used as a criterion for

durability. Though it may give some indication of the

potential durability of concrete, it cannot be a generally

valid criterion for several reasons. For example, thecompressive strength of a concrete cube or cylinder

constitutes the mean value of a property of an entire cross-

section of the specimen, whereas concrete durability is

governed primarily by the properties of the concrete cover

(covercrete). Concretes of the same strength grade may

differ in their durability resistance against chloride

penetration, carbonation and sulphate attack. Now, it is

generally accepted that concrete durability is largely

governed by the resistance of concrete cover to the ingress

of aggressive media. So, the emphasis should be on the

means of achieving a good quality concrete cover or ‘skin’

of the structure.

Cracks versus Durability

Cracks are inherently present in concrete due to

overstress, environmental effects and chemical reactions.

These cracks may range from wide and deep cracks on

the concrete surface, down to microcracks at the

aggregate-cement paste interface in the concrete. Although

these cracks do not generally affect the structural capacity,

they are rather harmful from the viewpoint of durability.

When the cracks are limited in number and size, they

are discontinuous and do not pose any direct effect onthe durability of concrete. However, with time, they have

the potential of becoming continuous (or interconnected)

and enlarged under the influence of stress or due to

leaching. These interconnected cracks can serve as main

conduits for transport of harmful external ions and gases

into the concrete. Concrete, thus, becomes vulnerable to

the processes of deterioration, as it gradually loses its

watertightness in the course of its service life.

Shrinkage cracks are often limited through the use of

a larger quantity of steel reinforcement, as permitted in

many codes. Mehta (1997) believed that this simply

transforms the wider surface cracks into many finer cracks

and microcracks in the concrete. The microcracks and

pores can form an interconnected pathway for ingress of

aggressive substances into the concrete.

By Ir. Dr. Lim Char Ching,

Senior Assistant Director, Forensic Engineering Unit,

PWD Malaysia

Concrete Durability Provisions In Design Codes:


Concrete Durability Provisions In Design Codes:


coverfeature



Crack Width Limits

It has been well established that corrosion of

reinforcements in concrete is dependent on crack width

and cover thickness, amongst other factors. For durability,

many codes would specify 0.3 mm as limiting crack width

for reinforced concrete structures. For marine exposure,

the minimum concrete cover given in the codes may range

from 40 mm to 60 mm. Assuming other factors being the

same, Table 1 illustrates the interplay between crack width

and cover on concrete durability.

Examples 1 and 2 illustrate a comparison of a single

parameter (either crack width or cover) on concrete

durability. In both cases, the comparison is straight

forward. Example 3 illustrates a comparison between bothcrack width and cover on concrete durability. In this

case, the assessment of concrete durability becomes

complicated.

It should be pointed out that crack width and cover

thickness are inter-dependent. For a given stress level in

the steel bar and keeping other variables constant, crack

width increases with cover thickness. Nowadays, high

tensile bars with yield strength of 460 MPa and above are

commonly used as reinforcements in concrete. In this

case, crack width larger than expected may develop when

a large cover is adopted. Of course, 0.3 mm crack width

can still be achieved with a large cover, provided the steel

is designed with much lower stress than permitted. In

this case, optimum use of high tensile bars as

reinforcements in concrete is not achieved.

The influence of both parameters, surface crack width

(Wcr ) and cover thickness (C), should be considered in

totality, i.e., one dependent on the other. This is in contrast

with the durability requirements given in many design

codes, in which surface crack width and cover provisions

are recommended to be independent of the other.

Lim et al (2000) proposed the crack width-to-cover

ratio (Wcr /C) as an indicator for assessing durability performance of a cracked reinforced concrete in a marine

environment. He concluded that it is desirable to minimise

Wcr /C of a cracked reinforced concrete in order to enhance

Table 1 : Interplay between Crack Width and Concrete Cover on Durability

Example 1:Structure A 0.3 60Structure B 0.2 60



Crack ConcreteWidth Cover Remarks(mm) (mm)

A and B having different crack width butsame concrete cover.B is more durable than A.

A and B having same crack width butdifferent concrete cover.A is more durable than B.

A and B having different crack width andconcrete cover.Which is more durable, A or B?

Figure 1 : Service Life Prediction Model

Initiation Period

Service Life

Propagation Period

Acceptable Limit

Degree of Corrosionin Steel

its durability performance in a marine

environment. A value of Wcr /C not

exceeding 0.005 is recommended.

DESIGNING CONCRETE TO LAST

Durability of concrete structures in

hostile environments have been the

concern of practising engineersworldwide. While there has been an

immense progress in the

understanding of the causes of, and

solutions to problems found in

concrete structures in recent years, the

subject is not well recognised.

Concrete structures can be designed

and built to last for many generations.

This noble aspiration can be achieved

by engineers, utilising state-of-the-art knowledge in

concrete technology.

The Concept Of Service Life

The concept of service life prediction for concrete

structures is now becoming an area of increasing interest

for engineers. In this respect, durability of concrete plays

an important role. Prediction models have been developed

to predict and quantify structural service life based on

material resistance and environmental loads. The service

life of a structure is defined as the period of time after

installation until such time when costly repair becomes

necessary.

For concrete structures in marine environments, theresistance of concrete to chloride-induced corrosion largely

controls its long-term durability performance. Concrete

deterioration due to chloride-induced corrosion can be

represented by a simple service life model consisting of

an initiation stage and a propagation stage , shown in

Figure 1.

The initiation stage is the time from initial exposure

until depassivation of steel in concrete. This is largely

dependent on the rate at which chlorides penetrate into

concrete. The propagation stage is the time from the onset

coverfeature



of steel corrosion until a specified acceptable “deterioration

limit” in concrete has been reached, e.g. first visible

cracking on the concrete surface or first spalling.

Many engineers have associated service life of concrete

structures primarily with the initiation stage, to maintain

structural safety and serviceability, acceptable appearance,

and without having to incur unforeseen high costs for

repair. Currently, some concrete structures around the

world have been designed using this concept, e.g. the GreatBelt Link Bridge in Denmark with 100 years of service

life! It is foreseen that within the next few years,

reliability-based service life designs may be incorporated

in today’s ordinary design procedures for concrete

structures.

Blended Cement Technology

The term ‘blended cement’ is used to include both

the products of blending of one or more mineral

admixtures with an Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). The

process of blending can be achieved either by inter-

grinding the mineral admixture(s) with cement clinker,

or by blending the mineral admixture(s) with OPC.

The wide range of binder systems, namely, Portland

cements and blended cements available in many parts

of the world provides opportunities for the best concrete

to be chosen for a particular environment. Fly ash, slag

and silica fume are the three commonly available mineral

admixtures used in blended cements. With proper

dosage, these blends can be effective in enhancing the

performance of concrete in high chloride and sulphate

conditions. They have been found to improve the

resistance of concrete to chloride penetration and toreduce corrosion rate of steel reinforcement.

Improvements of the order of three to five times are not

uncommon. Blended cements also showed great potential

in reducing expansion and loss of strength of concrete

exposed to sulphate condition.

The use of blended cement concrete has been

recognised by most national standards and codes of

practice on concrete structures. In general, fly ash and

slag are used in blended cements for durability and long-

term engineering properties. Silica fume is used when

both early age engineering properties and durability are

needed. The common dosages of these mineral

admixtures vary between 20 and 40% for fly ash, between

35 and 80% for slag and five and 10% for silica fume.

The optimum dosages are obviously dependent upon

specific technical requirements and cost consideration

relevant to a particular application.

In the past, the lack of knowledge in blended cement

technology had resulted in structures with premature

deteriorat ion. Today, it is possible to tailor-make

improved quality concrete using blended cement

technology for many applications. Blended cement

concrete has proven worldwide to enhance workability of fresh concrete and durability properties of hardened

concrete. However, blended cement concretes also have

their disadvantages and limitations too. A particular

type of blended cement concrete may be suitable for

one application but not for the other. Selective usage of

these materials is recommended.

Performance-based Specification

Present specifications for concrete works are largely

method-based, in that they describe how works should be

carried out on site, e.g., placing and curing of fresh

concrete. The acceptance criteria for concrete at site aresolely based on tests carried out on “specially” prepared

specimens of fresh concrete. The specification “assumes”

that the workmanship in preparing the test specimens

would be the same as that in the works. This assumption

is seldom true. Furthermore, the test specimens are

subjected to a controlled curing regime and environmental

condition, compared with the concrete placed at site. It is

obvious that the quality of hardened concrete in the

structure is generally different from the test specimens.

The method-based specification has been proven to be

inadequate in addressing durability issues affecting

concrete structures. The specification cannot guarantee

a satisfactory “performance” of hardened concrete in the

structure.

A concrete structure designed for a specific service

life should be complemented with a performance-based

specification. This is to ensure that the hardened concrete

“performs” in an environment for which it is expected to

meet the service life requirement. The specification should

focus on tests to be carried out on in-situ hardened

concrete. The test results should become the basis for

accepting or rejecting the concrete at site. Improved

performance-based specifications are being developed inmany countries. However, suitable short-term

“performance” tests necessary for such specifications are

not yet available.

coverfeature


8/44

BEM


CONCLUSION

Concrete structures exposed to marine environments

have been found to suffer mainly from corrosion of the

reinforcing steel. It is necessary for engineers to

understand the importance and mechanisms of chloride-

induced corrosion of steel in concrete. The effect of the

quality of concrete on the resistance to chloride

penetration, chloride threshold and corrosion rate of the

reinforcing steel are critical in determining the service

life of structures in this environment. The concept of

service life prediction for concrete structures is becoming

an area of increasing interest for engineers. Therefore, a

good understanding of the concept and its application in

structural design is essential to ensure that optimum

concrete performance is achieved before a costly repair to the structure becomes necessary.

When designing concrete for durability performance,

attention must be paid to both the performance standards

required as well as selecting a set of compatible compliance

criteria. This is to ensure that the hardened concrete

“performs” in an environment for which it is expected to

meet the service life requirement. The specifications should

focus on tests to be carried out on in-situ hardened

concrete. The test results should become the basis for

accepting or rejecting the concrete at site. Improved

performance-based specifications are being developed.

However, suitable short-term “performance” tests

necessary for such specifications are not yet available.

With the availability of mineral admixtures in many

parts of the world, it is now possible to tailor-make

improved quality concrete for most applications. A good

knowledge of blended cement technology is necessary to

ensure its full potential in being utilised for making durable

concrete.

REFERENCES

[1] Mehta, P.K. (1997), ‘Durability-Critical Issues for

the Future’, Concrete International , pp. 27-33.

[2] Rostam, S. (1996), ‘High Performance Concrete

Cover - Why It is Needed and How to Achieve It

in Practice’, Construction and Building Materials,

Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 407-421.

[3] Sarja, A. (1996), ‘Towards Practical Durability

Design of Concrete Structures’, Proceedings of

the 7th Int. Conference on Durability of BuildingMaterials and Components, Edited by C.

Sjostrom, Sweden, pp. 1237-1247.

[4] Rostam, S. and Shiessl, P. (1993), ‘Next

Generation Design Concepts for Durability and

Performance of Concrete Structures’, Proceedings

of the 6th International Conference on Durability

of Building Materials and Components, Japan.

[5] RILEM Technical Committee 130-CSL (1996),

‘Durability Design of Concrete Structures’, Edited

by Sarja, A. and Vesikari, E., E & FN SPON.

[6] Lim, C.C., Gowripalan, N. and Sirivivatnanon,

V., ‘Chloride Diffusivity of Concrete Cracked in

Flexure’, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 30,

No. 5, pp. 725-730, May 2000.

coverfeature



By Ir. Tee Horng Hean, B.Eng. (Hons), MSc (Eng.), MBA, M.I.E.M.

Failure Of Structures

Many young engineers have never witnessed

structural failure. A structural failure may

have adverse consequences on the parties

involved in the construction of the structure.

For instance, a former school bus driver brought up a

negligence suit against a contractor who constructed a

unipole tower, which collapsed on his bus while he was

driving at the junction of Jalan Segambut and Jalan

Kuching (NSTP, March 6 2001). According to the findings,

the unipole could only withstand a wind speed of 19.2

metres per second and in Kuala Lumpur, wind speeds of as high as 35.5 metres per second have been recorded

(NSTP, March 6 2001). The best remedy for young

engineers, if in doubt of their design criteria and to avoid

any structural failure, is to ascertain the facts from reliable

sources.

What Is A Structure?

Basically, a structure is a system for transferring loads

from one place to another and nature can show examples

of structures that support loads (Seward, 1998, p.2).

Professor Harry H. West also noted that structure describes

much of what is seen in nature such as a fern leaf, an oak

tree, shrub with ribbed branches, spider webs, etc. (West,

1993, p.4). A tall tree in a rainforest, for instance, forms

buttresses (see Photo 1). A structural engineer would

definitely know that by forming these buttresses, the huge

moments (a form of force that causes bending) induced at

the base of the tree can be resisted, and as such, this

cantilever-tree can grow to a considerable height to resist

the force imposed by winds.

Engineers do make use of this phenomenon and it is

quite common to see them adopting stiffeners to resist

certain amounts of moment at a stanchion base, for

instance (see Photo 2). If engineers adopt structuralengineering knowledge, why is it that there is still failure

of structures? Some of the causes of structural failure are

discussed in the following topics.

A structural engineer’s dream is to design structures which are fit for their intended uses. No engineerwould want to see a structure collapse or fail, unless that engineer is an engineer researching incauses of failure. Some common causes of structural failure are discussed in this paper. This paper isnot intended to discredit any parties (architects, engineers, developers, advertisers, etc.) and as such,some photographs may appear doctored to protect the anonymity of the parties involved. The intentionof writing this paper is to jog the young engineer’s memory on the importance of engineeringfundamentals, and failure to observe these engineering fundamentals taught in school could be disastrous.

Photo 2: A stanchion with a stiffener

Photo 1: A tall tree with buttresses

coverfeature



Underestimating Loads

Sometimes, designers may underestimate the load that

would be imposed upon their structure when the structure

is in operation. A good example is the unipole structure

that collapsed as described earlier. The unipole structure

could only withstand wind pressures of not exceeding q

= 0.613 x 19.22 = 226N/m2 but in the area where the

collapse of the unipole occurred, wind pressures of as

high as q = 0.613 x 35.52 = 773N/m2 have been recorded.

Various structural elements are likely to be overstressed

when designers underestimate the load that would be

imposed on their designed structure. Consequently, their

structure is susceptible to collapse.

Connections

Surprisingly, research has shown that 30% of structural

failures are caused by defective detailed design of the

joints between structural members (Seward, 1998, p.232).

For instance, a simple system of hoarding with structural

elements being connected with undersized bolts may look

perfectly sturdy (see Photo 3). However, due to the use of

undersized bolts (see Photo

4 and Photo 5), connecting

the horizontal and verticalstructural members, the bolts

were sheared off, causing the

horizontal elements to be

disconnected and resulting in

the cantilever effect (see

Figure 1). Bearing in mind

that in a ‘cantilever’ system,

the stress intensity

experienced by the structure

can be as large as four times

of that of the ‘continuous’

system.

This is precisely what

happened to this hoarding

and since the bolts were

sheared off, the domino

Photo 3: A typical ‘continuous’ hoarding system

Photo 4: A sheared off bolt with the size of one’s thumbnail

Photo 5: A small bolt used to connect structural elements

Figure 1: Change of structural system due to sheared bolt

coverfeature



effect of excessive

bending of the steel

hoarding sheet (see Photo

6 ), the structural members

being subjected to

excessive bending and the

footing being pulled off

the ground (see Photo 7 )

occurred.

In short, failure of connections can lead to a

change in the structural

system, and in turn, have

adverse domino effects.

Photo 6: Failure of a simple hoarding

structure

Inconsistent Design, Detailing And Construction

A structural engineer deals with numbers in his

structural design, which may be Greek to a layman, a

draughtsperson or even the contractor. In order tocommunicate his design to the contractor, structural

drawings are produced. At times, the structural engineer

may not be the one producing the structural drawings

but his draughtsperson would be the one drafting it.

Somehow or rather, miscommunication may occur and

designs do not tally with the drawings. There may be

times when young engineers may draft the drawings but

drafted them incorrectly. It is quite common to note

that engineers analyse a reinforced concrete structure

as a pin-joint or simply supported but in his or her detail,

a fixed support is being provided. The consequence of

proceeding with construction would be similar as that

of the hoarding where a change of structural system may

occur.

A good example of a pin-joint can be seen in a see-

saw (see Photo 8).

Photo 8: A pin-joint

Photo 7: A footing being pulled off the ground

For instance, a lamppost when properly fixed to the

ground (see Photo 9), is perfectly sturdy and most

engineers would analyse the lamp-post as a fixed

coverfeature



Not Considering Elements In Contact With Structure

When columns are supported by relatively small

footings and the soil surrounding the footings is of

compressible soil, a structural engineer should analyse

the columns as pin-jointed (Winter & Nilson, 1979, p.392).

Similarly, if the soil surrounding the footings is stiff and

incompressible, then the structural engineer should analyse

the columns as fixed.

Photo 9: A lamp-post

Photo 13: Close-up view of footing of Photo 12

Photo 10: A collapsed lamp-post

Photo 11: Lamp-post not properly fixed to the ground (Close-up of Photo 10)

Photo 12: A collapsed signboard

cantilever. But due to improper detailing or construction,

this lamp-post behaved like a pin-joint (similar to the

see-saw) and some lateral force had induced the collapse

of the lamp-post (see Photo 10 and Photo 11).

Structural engineers would analyse a signboard,

assuming it to be fixed but sometimes, due to the soil

conditions, it is not possible to have a fixed joint. For

instance, one would analyse this signboard as fixed (see

Photo 12), but due to the fact that the soil is soft and

compressible, after a heavy shower and due to strong wind

forces the footing of this signboard can easily be pulled

out when the post is not adequately penetrated into theground (see Photo 13). The strong wind has imposed a

stress that is higher than that allowed by the soil, and

consequently, the footing behaved as a pin-joint.

coverfeature


13/44

Photo 15: Soft and compressible soil (Close-up of Photo 14)

Photo 14: A deflected signboard

Similarly, the following signboard was erected in soft

and compressible soil and consequently, excessive

deflection is experienced and one could easily pull down

the whole signboard without much effort (see Photo 14

and Photo 15).

Following the above argument, we can deduce that if

a structural element were to be anchored into a brick-

wall, it is considered fixed so long as the stresses

transferred to the brick-wall at the joint do not exceed

the stress of the brick. On the other hand, if the appliedforce on the structural element is excessive, causing the

stresses transferred to the brick-wall at the joint to exceed

the allowable stress of the brick, this element now behaves

like a pin-joint (similar to the see-saw). This is one of

the aspects often overlooked and has to be taken into

consideration in structural engineering designs. metres collapsed after a gust of strong wind (see Photo

16 ). A rough free body diagram of this structure is shown

in Figure 2.

After running a simple structural analysis on the above

structure by applying a wind force with a speed of 35.5

metres per second, it was noted that the structure would

not have collapsed if undersized angles were not used.From the site condition, it was observed that the angles

gave way and experienced excessive twisting and buckling

(see Photo 17 ).

Photo 16: Collapse of a signboard

Providing Undersized Members

Though it seldom happens, there are times when

undersized members are used. These undersized members

would most definitely experience excessive stress. When

certain structural members cannot withstand the forcesthat are imposed upon them, the structure would be

imminent of collapse. For instance, the following

signboard measuring approximately 20 metres by 16.5 Figure 2: Free body diagram of signboard

Photo 17: Twisting and buckling of undersized angles


coverfeature


14/44

Due to the fact that the angles failed, the above

structural system changed from a triangular frame (see

Figure 3) to a cantilever.

The change of the structural system has caused thecantilever to experience a high bending stress near the

footing. This high bending stress cannot be resisted by

the welding provided between the I-beam and the baseplate

(see Photo 18), and consequently, the toppling of the

signboard occurred. Besides that, this high stress has

caused the web of the I-beam to tear (see Photo 19).

Lack Of Maintenance

Many people have the misconception that structures

do not need any maintenance. This is totally incorrect.

Whatever the structures are made of, whether steel, timber

or reinforced concrete, they need constant maintenance.

Steel structures, for instance, are susceptible to corrosion

while timber structures can be destroyed by a colony of

termites. Without maintaining a structure, slowly butsurely, defects would occur. If these defects are left

unattended, it would lead to further serious defects and

in the end, a structural collapse may be possible due to

the weakening of the structural members.

Overlooking The Third Dimension

Every single object, be it a ball, a car or a structure,

can move in three different directions, namely left to right,

up to down and backward to forward. All structures,

except for space frames, can be analysed and designed by

simplifying them into two-dimensional structures. There

may be the possibility that engineers can overlook one of

the three dimensions. When this occurs, the structure is

only structurally sound in two dimensions but can fail in

the third dimension.

Constructing An Unstable (Mechanism) Structure

There are times when a structure is erected but is

unstable. This is especially frequent in roof trusses. Many

a time, the centre line of the structural members do not

meet and thus, forming a structural system which is not atruss. For instance, the following structural framework

(see Photo 20) was constructed and it was noted that there

was no triangulation of the framework, which was of

necessity for roof trusses. The structure looked sturdy

when erected. Even when the roofing sheets were installed

(see Photo 21), the structure still looked stable.

Unfortunately, during the monsoon season, heavy rain

and strong wind were inevitable and they both imposed

additional load on the structure, which consequently

collapsed (see Photo 22). Most textbooks on structural

mechanics would note that most trusses would require a

system of triangulation in order for the structure to be

stable, and in this case (see Photo 20), the collapsed

structure did not have any form of triangulation system.

Not Consulting An Engineer

Obviously, this point needs no explanation whatsoever.

There are times when constructors would defy the

instructions of engineers and proceed with construction,

without realising that they could be constructing a

collapse-prone structure.

Worst of all, there are owners who never even engagea structural engineer but ‘copy’ the sizes of a structure

from another construction site to erect their own. This

can be very dangerous as the site conditions vary.

Figure 3: Change of structural system

Photo 19: Tearing of I-beam’s web

Photo 18: The weld between the I-beam and baseplate

gave way


coverfeature


15/44

Conclusion

The paper discussed only some of the common factors

as to why structures fail. There can be lots of other factors

including minor mistakes such as dimensioning a

structural member longer than it is supposed to be, usingthe wrong units (imperial/metric), not following the

construction drawings, mixing of high tensile and mild

steel reinforcements for reinforced concrete structures,

reducing the lever arm of a reinforced concrete structural

element when workers step on the steel reinforcements,

providing inadequate anchorage length for reinforcement

bars, etc. which can lead to structural failure. The other

cause of possible failure in the structure is misuse of the

erected structure. One of the best ways for young engineers

to avoid making the mistakes discussed in this paper is to

ascertain the facts from reliable sources.

The fundamentals of engineering should be applied inthe design of all engineering structures. Overlooking the

design of even a minute part of a structure such as

connections can be disastrous.

Photo 21: Roofing sheets installed to timber frame

REFERENCES

Harry, H. West, 1993, Fundamentals of Structural Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

NSTP, 6 March 2001, New Straits Times Press,

March 19 Decision by Court on Negligence Suit ,

[Online], Available from URL: http: //www.lexis-

nexis.com/universe [Accessed: 18 November

2003]

Seward, D., 1998, Understanding Structures –

Analysis, Materials, Design, Second Edition,

MacMillian, Hampshire.

Winter, G. & Nilson, A. H., Design of Concrete

Structures, Ninth Edition, McGraw Hill, New

York.

Photo 20: An unstable timber truss structure without proper triangulation system

Photo 22: Collapse of timber structure

BEM


coverfeature



Lessons Learned From

Highland TowersBy Murgan D. Maniam, Pengarah Undang-Undang, Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang

Highland Towers, as is collectively known,

consisted of three blocks of apartments known

as Blocks 1, 2 and 3. It was constructed

between 1975 and 1978. Directly behind the

three blocks was a steep slope. A stream (‘the east stream’)

originating upslope from the Metrolux land flowed across

part of the slope.

On Saturday, December 11, 1993, about 15 years later,

after 10 days of continuous rainfall, a landslide occurred

resulting in the collapse of Block 1. Forty-eight people

were recorded dead. Immediately after the collapse of Block 1, the residents of Blocks 2 and 3 were prevented

from entering their apartments by MPAJ for fear of the

instability of these two buildings. A few days later, they

were allowed in but only to collect their personal

valuables. At that time, their apartments were looted

and subsequently vandalized.

Seventy-three owners and occupiers of the Blocks 2

and 3 apartments brought an action against 10 defendants

in negligence, nuisance, strict liability under the rule in

Rylands v. Fletcher and breach of statutory duty. The

Plaintiffs alleged inter alia that they had been unable tore-occupy Blocks 2 and 3 emanating from the collapse of

Block 1, as the result of MPAJ’s pre and post-collapse

acts and omissions.

The 10 Defendants were as follows:

(i) 1st Defendant - Developer

(ii) 2nd Defendant - Draftsman who was engaged

by the developer as the

Architect for the project

(iii) 3rd Defendant - 2nd Defendant’s brother

engaged by the 1st Defendant

as the Engineer for the project

(iv) 4th Defendant - Majlis Perbandaran

Ampang Jaya

(v) 5th Defendant - Arab-Malays ian Bank –

owner of 50 lots of bungalow

land directly at the rear of

Highland Towers

(vi) 6th Defendant - Tropic - company that carried

out clearing works on the 5th

Defendant’s land in 1992

(vii) 7th Defendant - owner of Metrolux land (the

higher land adjacent to the 5th

Defendant’s land)

Architects and engineers owe a professional obligation to the public and their profession to

conduct themselves and practise their profession in accord with ethical standards. Local authorities

are also required to act reasonably and in accordance with the law.

Clients and the public place trust and confidence in the competence and skills of the professionalarchitects and engineers. Generally, both the professionals depend on the personal confidence of

the client in their technical competence; and the confidence of the public at large in the integrity

and ethical conduct of the professions as a whole.

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the decision of the High Court and the Court of

Appeal in respect of the roles played by the architect, engineer, developer and the local authority

in the development of the Highland Towers, and to learn the observations and rulings of the two

courts to give a greater insight and understanding of their respective roles.

coverfeature



(viii) 8th Defendant - Project Manager for the 7th

Defendant and was in charge

of the development of the

Metrolux land.

(ix) 9th Defendant - Selangor State Government

(x) 10th Defendant - Director of Lands and Mines,

Selangor

JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT

The High Court found the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th

Defendants liable and apportioned liability in the following

percentages :

(i) 1st Defendant - 15%

(ii) 2nd Defendant - 10%

(iii) 3rd

Defendant - 10%

(iv) 4th Defendant - 15%

(v) 5th Defendant - 30%

(vi) 7th & 8th Defendants - 20%

After due consideration, the court ruled that the

landslide that brought down Block 1 was a rotational

retrogressive slide emanating from the high wall behind

the second tier car park. The High Court also decided

that Block 1 had collapsed due to a landslide causedprimarily by water which emanated from the damaged

pipe culvert, and the inadequate and unattended drains

on the 5th Defendant’s land.

The judgment of the High Court has since been reported

as Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors v Highland Properties

Sdn. Bhd. & Ors (2000) 4 MLJ 200.

LIABILITY OF THE 2ND DEFENDANT – THE ARCHITECT

The 2nd Defendant was an Architectural Draftsman.

He drew and submitted the layout plans for and on behalf

of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd Defendant knew that he was

not a fully qualified and registered architect. When the

layout plan was approved subject to conditions, the 2nd

Defendant prepared and submitted the building plans.

The 2nd Defendant, whilst submitting the layout plans

and building plans, had held himself out as a registered

architect. The local authority, by some error on their part

in not checking the 2nd Defendant’s credentials had in

fact permitted him to submit such plans.

CF was issued for the three blocks on the following dates:

(i) Block 1 - 29.9.1978

(ii) Block 2 - 6.11.1981

(iii) Block 3 - 24.5.1985

The Plaintiffs alleged that the 2nd Defendant had held

himself out to be a suitably qualified, competent and skilled

person to design, prepare and sign architectural and other

building plans. In the performance of this task, the 2nd

Defendant has breached a common law duty of care to

the Plaintiffs to take reasonable care and diligence in

ensuring that:

(i) the drainage required and rubble walls and theearthworks were adequately and properly

designed, supervised during its construction and

in compliance with the requirements as set by

the authorities;

(ii) by the same acts or omissions, the 2nd Defendant

had created a nuisance on the hill slope behind

Highland Towers.

The 2nd Defendant argued that he did not owe such

duty of care to the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, even if suchduty of care exists, it was not breached. He explained

that he was only engaged to design the three apartment

blocks and was never involved in the design, supervision

and construction of drains, rubble walls and earthworks

within and outside of Highland Towers site; he submitted

that the 1st Defendant (Developer) carried out these works.

He played no part in them. He also submitted that the

intervening acts of the 4th, 5th, 7th and 8th Defendants in

altering the condition of the area caused the collapse of

Block 1 and exempted from liability.

A building draftsman is only permitted under the Architect’s Act 1967 to design buildings of no more than

two storeys in height and limited floor space. In this case,

each block of Highland Towers consisted of 12 storeys

with a built area far exceeding that allowed for a building

draftsman to undertake. The 2nd Defendant managed to

induce a relevant Government department to grant him a

‘specially authorised person’ status under a repealed

enactment (the Architect Ordinance 1951) which he

claimed entitled him to summit and oversee construction

works of three apartment blocks.

The court held that this would make no difference to

the duty of care the 2nd Defendant owed. James Foong J

said:

‘When this Defendant had represented himself as a

qualified architect to all and sundry, as displayed by

his actions, then he must be judged according to the

character he had assumed.’

The extent of his duty, said the judge:

‘Is primarily to his client because he has a contractual

relationship with him. But in law, an architect is

also liable to anyone who is sufficiently proximate

and whom the architect could foresee that his act

and/or omission would cause damage to that person.

coverfeature



….. At the time when this Defendant exercised his

duty as an architect for the Highland Towers project,

he must have foreseen that the apartments he built

would be sold, and purchasers, their servants and or

agents would be occupying them. ….. he must have

or ought to have them in contemplation when he

was directing his mind to his acts and/or omissions.’

By this, a duty of care existed between the 2nd

Defendant and the Plaintiffs.

The 2nd Defendant had also argued that he had no

responsibility for the drainage or earthworks or anything

else beyond the design and supervision of construction

of the apartment blocks. To this, the judge held:

‘I think the 2nd Defendant is under a serious

misapprehension that an architect is engaged just

to design and supervise the construction of a building

and need not bother with the surrounding area where

the building is to be erected. Surely the primary

consideration for the construction of any building,or structure for that matter, besides the aesthetics

aspect, is the safety of the building. To achieve this,

the condition of the land on which the building is to

be built as well as those in the vicinity must be

considered and evaluated, particularly if it has

potential adverse effects to the building planned.’

‘…… He must ensure that no soil from the hill slope

would come crashing down on his designs. …..’

‘…… the 2nd

Defendant did foresee the danger of not exercising his professional skill, care and diligence

in attending to the initial and basic factors regarding

drainage and the stability of the hill slope. As an

architect, or someone who represented himself as

one, he must have foreseen the dangers that if no

proper, adequate and sufficient drainage system and

retention walls were built, there would be danger to

the buildings erected below. Yet he neglected this

basic duty. The intervening acts of the third parties

may not be foreseen by him, but if a proper, adequate

and sufficient drainage system and retaining walls

were implemented and erected, then the collapse of Block 1 may not even have occurred.’

On the facts, the court found the 2nd Defendant had

breached his duty of care to the Plaintiffs. The 2nd

Defendant was held to have ‘failed in his duty as an

architect and had also refused to comply with the

requirements imposed by the authorities on the drainage

of the area. Besides that, he had also colluded with the

1st and 3rd Defendants (Developer and Engineer) to obtain

CF for the three apartment blocks of the Highland Towers

without fulfilling the conditions as set out by the 4

th

Defendant (MPAJ).

The 2nd Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs’ claim

for pure economic loss i.e. compensation to make good

the defective building or for a replacement thereof which

the 2nd Defendant was engaged to build cannot be

maintained.

The court held that a claim for pure economic loss can

be maintained against a Defendant, and therefore ruled

that the Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence and nuisance is

established against the 2nd Defendant.

LIABILITY OF THE 3RD DEFENDANT – THE ENGINEER

The 3rd Defendant was a qualified civil engineer. The

2nd Defendant appointed the 3rd Defendant, who was his

brother, to be the consulting engineer for Highland Towers.

Initially, the 3rd Defendant’s scope of works was restricted

to the structural aspect of the three blocks. But

subsequently, the 3rd Defendant was engaged by the 1 st

Defendant to submit proposals over the drainage of the

area. His drainage plan was approved. He was also

retained by the 1st Defendant to design and supervise the

construction of two retaining walls on the Highland Towers

site.

The Plaintiffs claimed that the 3rd Defendant wasnegligent for the following reasons:

(i) designing unsuitable foundations;

(ii) lack of care and concern of the hill and slope;

(iii) issuing a notice to the authorities confirming the

drainage works was completed when only a

fraction of it was done.

By the above acts of preparing, designing andsupervising the construction of Highland Towers and the

drainage system of the Highland Towers site, he was

negligent and had caused nuisance to them.

The 3rd Defendant had used rail piles welded together

as foundation to support the three apartment blocks. This

type of piles, which was considered inferior to concrete

piles, was accepted in the engineering and building

industry to support high-rise buildings at the material

time. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the 3rd Defendant

in using the rail piles as he was only adhering to the

accepted professional practice at that time.

However, there was lack of consideration by the 3rd

Defendant to the hill and the slope directly behind the

three blocks. The court ruled that the 3rd Defendant should

have reasonably foreseen the danger of a landslide

producing a lateral load against the foundation of the

building. For this, he should have exercised care to either

design and construct a foundation to accommodate the

lateral load or ensure that the slope was reasonably stable.

Failure to do so is a breach of his duty of care he owes to

the Plaintiffs since his duty was to ensure the safety of

the buildings he designed and built.

The 3

rd

Defendant’s attempt to deny liability on theground that he relied on the 1st Defendant to ensure that

other retaining walls were constructed properly was

unsuccessful. The judge found that it was encumbent

upon the 3rd Defendant to enquire and ascertain whether

coverfeature


19/44

the work was that of a qualified professional and what its

impact might be on the safety of his own building. The

judge agreed with a passage from the judgment of Bingham

LJ in the case of Eckersley v. Binnie (1988) 18 Con LR 1

@ p.80

‘…… a professional man should command the corpus

of knowledge which forms part of the professional

equipment of the ordinary member of his profession.He should not lag behind other ordinarily assiduous

and intelligent members of his profession in knowledge

of new advances, discoveries and developments in his

field. He should have such awareness as an ordinarily

competent practitioner would have of the deficiencies

in his knowledge and the limitations of his skill. He

should be alert to the hazards and the risk inherent

in any professional task he undertakes to the extent

that other ordinarily competent members of the

profession would be alert. He must bring to any

professional task he undertakes no less expertise, skill,

and care than other ordinarily competent members of his profession would bring, but need bring no more.

The standard is that of the reasonable average. The

law does not require of a professional man that he be

a paragon combining the qualities of polymath and

prophet.’

Although the drainage plan was approved by the

authorities, it was not fully implemented by the 1 st

Defendant. The reasons offered by the 3rd Defendant for

this failure were:

(i) shortage of financial resources of the 1st

Defendant;

(ii) the need to bring down the road level to fit the

drains; and

(iii) prohibition on rock blasting in the area

Nevertheless, the court ruled that whatever the excuse

may be, it did not entitle and warrant the 3rd Defendant to

issue a notice to the authorities stating that the entire

approved drainage proposal was implemented when only 10% was completed. This was a gross violation of his

duty of care which, as a consultant engineer for the three

blocks, he owes to the Plaintiffs as purchasers of Highland

Towers, particularly when this approved drainage system

was so fundamental to the safety of the building. The

judge issued a powerful condemnation by saying as

follows:

‘I have reiterated my strong sentiments against this

type of attitude of professionals whose only

consideration is to guard and secure their own interest rather than their duties and obligations to those closely

affected and the public on which so much faith and

reliance are placed on them to carry out their

professional duties. I need not elaborate further except

to remind this Defendant that he has to live out the

rest of his life knowing truly well that he had

contributed to the tragedy of Highland Towers.’

The 3rd Defendant was found liable in negligence

and nuisance.

LIABILITY OF THE 1ST DEFENDANT – THE DEVELOPER

The Plaintiffs claimed the 1st Defendant liable in negligence

for the following reasons:

(i) Not employing reasonably fit, competent, skilled

and qualified persons to design, draw, sign and

submit architectural and engineering drawings

and plans for the construction of Highland Towers

and the hill slope behind it;

(ii) Not vetting through their appointments to ensure

that they are competent and possess such skill

for the task they are employed to undertake whichinvolves enquiries and investigations into their

credentials and qualifications;

(iii) Constructing insufficient and inadequate

retaining walls on the Arab-Malaysian land and

the Highland Towers site without considering the

surrounding terrain, soil condition and drainage

requirement;

(iv) Constructing drains that were insufficient to effect

proper and adequate drainage of water run-offson the slope and those originating from the East

Stream;

(v) Diversion of the East Stream from its natural path

to the pipe culvert which ran horizontally across

the hill slope directly above the three blocks;

(vi) Obtaining CF to occupy the three blocks when

the drainage system in the Highland Towers site

and the Arab-Malaysian land was incomplete.

The court relied upon the dictum of Lord Finlay LC inGreenock Corp. v. Caledonian Rly Co. (1917)AC 556 which

is quoted by Abdul Hamid FJ in the Federal Court case of

Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn. Bhd. v. Dunlop Malaysia

Industries Sdn. Bhd. (1984) 1 MLJ 286 @ p 291.

‘It is the duty of anyone who interferes with the course

of the stream to see that the works which he substitutes

for the channel provided by nature are adequate to

carry off the water brought down even by extraordinary

rainfall, and if damage results from the deficiency of

the substitute which he has provided for the natural channel, he will be liable .’

The court exonerated the 1st Defendant from the

allegation that they were responsible for the negligence


coverfeature


20/44

of their consultants after appointment . The court held

that the 1st Defendant would only be liable if the works

involved were ‘of an extra hazardous nature’ which was

not the case here.

The court held that the 1st Defendant were liable in

negligence and nuisance.

LIABILITY OF THE 4TH DEFENDANT –

MAJLIS PERBANDARAN AMPANG JAYA (MPAJ)

The High Court held MPAJ liable in respect of the

following :

(i) At the planning and design stage of Highland

Towers, MPAJ had not taken reasonable care, skill

and diligence in checking the plans submitted to

ascertain whether they are reasonably fit for the

purpose it was intended for. This included matters

relating to water courses, streams and rivers in

the vicinity of the Highland Towers site, Arab

Malaysian land and the surroundings which wereunder the jurisdiction of MPAJ.

(ii) At the construction stage of the Highland Towers,

MPAJ failed to exercise reasonable care, skill and

diligence to ensure the drainage system and the

rubble walls on Arab Malaysian land were

adequately provided for and/or constructed in a

workman-like manner before the issuance of the

Certificate of Fitness to the three apartment

blocks;

(iii) MPAJ failed to maintain and upgrade drains and

rubble walls on Highland Towers site and Arab

Malaysian land, and to provide adequate drainage

requirement to water courses, streams and rivers

after the Highland Towers was constructed;

(iv) MPAJ failed to take remedial measures to remove,

rectify and/or minimise the hazards posed on the

Arab-Malaysian land and the surroundings after

the collapse of Block 1;

(v) MPAJ failed to prevent vandalism and theft atBlocks 2 and 3 in the aftermath of the collapse

of Block 1;

(vi) MPAJ failed to maintain the East Stream which

was under its jurisdiction;

According to the court, MPAJ owes a duty of care to

the Plaintiffs to use reasonable care, skill and diligence to

ensure that the hill slope and the drainage thereon were

properly accommodated before approving building or

other related plans, and during construction stage, tocomply with and to ensure the implementation of the

drainage system. Then, when Certificate of Fitness was

applied for, there should be proper and thorough inspection

on whether the buildings so built were safe in all aspects

and not just confined only to the structure, and after the

Highland Towers was erected, to ascertain drainage

requirement in the area was adequate to ensure slope

stability behind Block 1. Subsequent to the collapse of

Block 1, measures should have been taken to prevent

recurrence of the tragedy to Blocks 2 and 3.

The court found that MPAJ owed a duty of care to the

Plaintiffs and that this duty had been breached resulting

in damages.Upon establishing that MPAJ was negligent, the High

Court was influenced by Sec.95(2) of the SDB Act 1974,

which provided an immunity to the Plaintiffs’ claims and

the passage in Dr. Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid & Anor v.

Jurusan Malaysia Consultant & Ors (1997) 3 MLJ 546 :

‘If there is any fear that this approach may encumber

the local authorities to pay out substantial claims

due to their negligence in granting approvals or

inspecting building works, there is s 95 of the Street,

Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133) which

prohibits such authorities to be sued.’

In discussing the above Sec. 95(2), the High Court

pointed that Parliament can create an exemption from

liability for certain acts committed by local authorities

and its officers. James Foong J said:

‘It is my view that s 95(2) of the 1974 Act is just

such a piece of legislation to exempt the local authority

and its officer from negligent act related to and

connected with certain specified activities. In our

case, since the acts of the 4th

Defendant found to be negligent by this court are within those specified

activities under s 95(2) of the 1974 Act, immunity

applies to the 4th Defendant.

Further, the High Court explained that Sec. 95(2) covers

situations:

(i) ‘whatsoever arising out of building or other works

carried out’ by the 4th Defendant in accordance

with the provision of the said Act.

(ii) ‘or by reason of the fact that such building worksor the plans thereof are subject to inspection and

approval’.

The acts of negligence of which MPAJ was accused of

inter alia, approval of plans, inspection and issue of CF

were all covered by this immunity. Thus Sec. 95(2) applies

to acts/omissions committed by MPAJ pre-collapse .

However, the immunity could not cover the post- collapse

actions of MPAJ and for these, they were liable.

MPAJ had undertaken to prepare a master drainage

plan to ensure the safety of Blocks 2 and 3. After a periodof one year, there was no sight or news of such a plan.

MPAJ offered no explanation as to why its promise was

not met. Thus, MPAJ was held liable for post-collapse

management of the situation which included failure to


coverfeature


21/44

prevent vandalism and theft in Blocks 2 and 3 as well as

failure to produce the master drainage plan. MPAJ was

also liable in nuisance by reason of its failure to maintain

properly a stream which formed part of the drainage

system of the area.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL

The 1st,

2nd

, 6th

, 9th

and 10th

Defendants did not appealagainst the decision of the High Court. The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th

and 8th Defendants appealed against that decision.

MPAJ filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against

the whole decision of the High Court except that part

which decided that MPAJ was not liable for all pre-

collapse acts by virtue of Sec. 95 of the SDB.

Although the High Court excluded liability for pre-

collapse acts on the part of MPAJ on the basis of Sec.

95(2) of the SDB, MPAJ had raised the grounds of appeal

in the Court of Appeal that independently of Sec. 95(2) of

the SDB, MPAJ had not been negligent at all because :

(i) at the planning and design stage, MPAJ had relied

on the skill and diligence of the Architect (2nd

Defendant) who submitted those plans as well as

the various Government agencies which vetted

those plans.

(ii) at the construction stage of the Highland Towers,

MPAJ had relied on the skill and diligence of the

1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants to supervise the said

construction and had relied on the Certificates

of the Architect (2nd

Defendant) that all the workshad been completed in compliance with the

approved plans.

(iii) the Highland Towers and the surrounding areas,

after completion and after Certificate of Fitness

had been issued, had been maintained by the 1st

Defendant.

(iv) the drains in Highland Towers and the Arab

Malaysian land were never in the control of

MPAJ.

(v) the East-Stream was diverted from its natural

course by the 1st Defendant as found by the High

Court.

(vi) the drainage of the Highland Towers and the

Arab-Malaysian land was functioning effectively

until the 5th Defendant took over the Arab-

Malaysian land.

(vii) at no time did the Plaintiffs complained to MPAJ

of the dangers of the state of the drains in theHighland Towers and the Arab-Malaysian land.

In considering the appeal of MPAJ against liability,

the Court of Appeal ruled that there are two separate

matters that must be addressed. These are the pre-collapse

and post-collapse liability.

The Court of Appeal observed that assuming that there

was a duty on the 4th Defendant (MPAJ) to act in a

particular manner towards the property of the Plaintiffs

post-collapse, such duty must find its expression in public

and not private law. Accordingly, if there had been a

failure on the part of MPAJ to do or not to do something

as a public authority, the proper method is to proceed by way of application for judicial review. Thus the High

Court’s finding that MPAJ was liable for negligence after

the collapse was set aside.

Next, the Court of Appeal looked at the pre-collapse

position. The Plaintiffs submitted that Sec. 95(2) did not

apply to the facts as MPAJ had directed the East Stream

to be diverted from its natural course. The carrying out

of these works created a danger to the Plaintiff’s property.

Accordingly, this is not a case of inspection or approval

of building or other works or the plans thereof. This is a

case where a danger was expressly created by MPAJ. The

Court of Appeal agreed with this submission and set asidethe indemnity granted to MPAJ by the High Court for

negligence before the collapse.

The Court of Appeal ruled that there is no proposition

of law that a local authority such as MPAJ may never

owe a common duty of care to the third party. It all

depends on the particular circumstances. The kind of

harm that was foreseeable by the 5th Defendant was equally

foreseeable by the MPAJ. Upon the evidence and the

relevant principles, it was clear that MPAJ, as a reasonable

local authority must have foreseen the danger created by

diverting the East Stream would probably be a landslideof the kind that happened and that in such event resultant

harm, including financial loss of the kind suffered by the

Plaintiffs would occur.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the 3rd,

5th, 7th and 8th Defendants and affirmed the apportionment

of liability made by the High Court amongst the

Defendants.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal has since been

reported as Arab- Malaysian Finance Bhd. v Steven Phoa

Cheng Loon & Ors (2003) 1 MLJ 567. It appears that the

Court of Appeal has departed from the clear finding of

fact by the High Court that it was the 1st Defendant whodiverted the East-Stream and substituted their own finding

that it was MPAJ who diverted the East-Stream.

Furthermore, although the High Court made a very clear

finding of fact that it was the 1st Defendant who diverted

the East-Stream, the Court of Appeal declared that it was

MPAJ that diverted the East-Stream. The Court of Appeal

held that MPAJ owed a common law duty of care to the

Plaintiffs to avoid pure economic loss. It also held that

MPAJ is a Joint Tortfeasor along with the other Defendants.

It was argued that at all material times, MPAJ did not

have qualified people to deal with planning application.The role of MPAJ was that of an intermediary by

forwarding that application to the respective departments,

district technical departments e.g. JKR, Health, State

Planning Departments and other authorities relating to


coverfeature


22/44

that particular application. There was clear evidence

that MPAJ had relied upon the skill of the Architect (2nd

Defendant), the Engineer (the 3rd Defendant) and the

Developer (1st Defendant) as well as the checking of the

accuracy of the said plans by the relevant departments

(the 9th and 10th Defendants). The High Court held that

Sec. 95(2) SDB protected MPAJ for all acts of MPAJ pre-

collapse, including the checking of the accuracy of the

plans submitted and the failure to detect any danger inthe said plans.

However, the Court of Appeal held that Sec. 95(2) SDB

does not apply to the facts of the present case since MPAJ

had directed that the East-Stream be diverted from its

natural course and that such an act of MPAJ was caught

by the doctrine of Kane v New Forest District Council

(2001) 2 All ER 914. In Kane , the local authority

specifically required the footpath to be created. In the

present case, it was the 3rd Defendant on behalf of the 1st

Defendant who submitted the plans relating to the drains

to be implemented on the 5th Defendant’s land. In Kane ,

all the parties including the local authorities were awarethat the construction of the footpath would be dangerous.

Despite the said knowledge of danger, the local authority

went ahead with the construction of the footpath.

However, in the present case, the drainage plan was

conveyed by MPAJ to JPS. JPS recommended approval

of the drainage plan. Thus the issue of danger in the

present case did not arise at all.

Furthermore, in Kane there was no equivalent statutory

provision such as Sect. 95(2) of the SDB. In Kane , it was

also argued that local authorities enjoyed blanket

immunity in law in respect of anything done in the exercise

of the planning functions. Thus it can be said, that the

Court of Appeal had erred in relying on Kane as a basis

for depriving MPAJ the indemnity afforded by Sec.95(2)

of the SDB.

CONCLUSION

The judgments of the High Court and the Court of

Appeal cannot be lightly regarded. They discuss the causes

of the collapse of Block 1 which may arise from a variety

of circumstances. Every architect, engineer and developer

must never allow an unsafe condition to persist or develop

at the construction site. They should also ensure at all

times that there is no threat to public health and welfare

and remember two assets which are vital to the practice

of their profession – their integrity and their ability.

On February 6th, 2004, the Federal Court has granted

MPAJ leave to appeal to the Federal Court on four main

issues inter alia whether Sec. 95(2) of the SDB is wideenough to provide immunity to a local authority in

approving the diversion of a stream and in failing to detect

any danger or defect in the building and drainage plans

relating to the development submitted by the architect

and/or engineer on behalf of a developer.

Local authorities will welcome the decision of the

Federal Court as it would put to rest the debate as to

whether Sec.95(2) of the SDB provides absolute immunity

or qualified immunity.

SUMMARY

The decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal confirmed that architects and engineers have a duty

to secure the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional services.

The architects and engineers owe a duty to exercise the skill, care and diligence which may reasonably be

expected of a person of ordinary competence, measured by the professional standard of the time. Thus an

architect’s and engineer’s general inexperience and lack of knowledge do not furnish a valid excuse for unprofessional

conduct.

The architects and engineers are to be judged by the professional standards prevailing at the time the work

was done, not by what may be known or accepted at a later date, or what may be seen only with the benefit of

hindsight.

The courts emphasised that every architect and engineer owe a duty to third parties to ensure that they aresufficiently qualified to undertake the assignments for which they accept professional responsibility. The architects

and engineers must also know when to seek a competent specialist in areas outside their expertise.

In this case, the Court of Appeal was unable to see how MPAJ could possibly escape liability for requiring the

diversion of the East Stream. This infers that a local authority should not direct or do anything to make the site

dangerous; otherwise it will be liable.

Although the courts did not discuss in the ground of the Judgment the certification given by the architects and

engineers on the plans submitted by them to exonerate MPAJ, these professionals’ duty must always be reflected

on the plans, by requiring the architects and engineers to certify that they are responsible for supervising the

construction of the project to ensure that it is built in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and

drawings.

The local authorities should be entitled to rely on the certificate executed by the architects and engineers and

to hold them responsible for the structural design, safety and supervision of the project. This would enable the

architects and engineers to retain control over the design and erection procedures so as to be able to advise the

contractor of any special construction or safety consideration. BEM


coverfeature



INTRODUCTION

The guidelines herein are to assist Professional Engineers seeking registration as Accredited Checkers ingeotechnical and/or structural engineering works. They are in furtherance of Section 10B of theRegistration of Accredited Checker, Registration of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2002 [Act A1158].

QUALIFICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION AS AN ACCREDITED CHECKER

Any person applying for registration as an Accredited Checker shall:i) be a Professional Engineer registered under the Act in the civil, structural or geotechnical engineering

discipline;ii) have at least 10 years’ relevant practical experience in the design or construction of buildings;iii) have adequate experience in one of the following:

a) Geotechnical1) Foundations;2) Retaining Systems and Reinforced Soil Structures; and3) Slope Engineering and Embankments

b) Structural1) Buildings exceeding five storeys;2) Buildings of unconventional construction with spans exceeding 10 metres; and

3) Buildings that will result in complex interactions with existing buildings

iv) by virtue of his/her ability and standing in the profession, or specialised knowledge or practicalexperience in civil, structural or geotechnical engineering he/she is deserving of such registration,provided thata) during the period of seven years immediately preceding the date of his/her application, he/she has

been engaged in geotechnical or structural design after registration as a Professional Engineer; andb) for a continuous period of one year immediately preceding the date of his/her application,

he/she has gained such practical experience in the relevant field in Malaysia; and

v) have attended and passed the interview conducted by the Accredited Checkers Committee.

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION

Applications shall:i) be made in Form B3;ii) be accompanied by true copies of documentary evidence showing that the applicant possesses the

necessary qualifications and the practical experience;iii) be accompanied by three copies of relevant design report done by him/her; andiv) be accompanied by a processing fee of RM50 per application in money order/bank draft/cheque

made payable to the Board of Engineers Malaysia

REGISTRATION

a) Registration Fee

A registration fee of RM300 will be charged for those who have attended and passed the interview.

Route To Be An Accredited Checker By Accredited Checker Committee, Board of Engineers Malaysia

g u i d e l i n e s



b) Renewal Fee

Every Accredited Checker desirous of renewing his/her registration under the Act shall:i) submit to the Board an application for renewal in Form H on or before January 31st of the year

following the year of the expiration of his/her registration;ii) submit the payment in money order, bank draft or cheque made payable to theBoard of Engineers

Malaysia; and

iii) have paid up his/her annual renewal fee as Professional Engineer.

The annual renewal fee is:

Category A: Those below 60 years old RM200Category B: Those 60 years and above RM100

REMOVAL FROM THE REGISTER

Section 16 of the Registration of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2002 [Act A1158] provides for the removalfrom the Register, the name and other particulars of:

a) any registered Engineer who has died;b) any registered Engineer , other than a Graduate Engineer, or Engineering consultancy practice who

has failed to renew his or its registration within one month of the expiry of the registration;c) any registered Engineer whose registration has been cancelled under paragraph 15(1A)(d); ord) any registered Engineer whose registration has been effected by reason of any mistake or error made

by the Board in considering his application for registration.

APPEALS

All appeals shall be submitted to the Appeal Board, Board of Engineers Malaysia (constituted underSection 20, Registration of Engineers (Amendment) Act 2002 [Act A1158]).

BEM

FLOWCHART OF THE ROUTE TO BE

AN ACCREDITED CHECKER

Be a registered Professional Engineer under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 inthe civil, structural or geotechnical engineering discipline.

HAS

Minimum 10 years’ relevant practical experience in the design or construction of buildings.

Minimum seven years’ experience in geotechnical or structural design afterregistration as Professional Engineer

Minimum one year experience in the relevant field gained in Malaysia.

Attended the Interview conducted by Accredited Checkers Committee

AND PASSED

Accredited Checker

g u

i d e

l i n e s


25/44

Update


In May 2002, ESCAP adopted the resolution

“Promoting an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-

based society for people with disabilities in the Asianand Pacific regions in the 21 st century”. The

resolution also proclaimed the extension of the Asian and

Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002, for another

decade, 2003-2012.

In October 2002, Governments at the High-level

Intergovernmental Meeting to Conclude the Asian and

Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002, adopted

the “Biwako Millennium Framework for Action towards

an Inclusive, Barrier-free and Rights-based Society for

bem mar04-may04 (forensic engineering)

Documents