Forensic Engineering Avenue
Forensic engineering is the investigation of materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The field also deals with retracing processes and procedures leading to accidents in operation of vehicles or machinery. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally the purpose of a Forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident. It can also involve investigation of intellectual property claims, especially patents
History
As the field of engineering has evolved over time so has the field of forensic engineering. Early examples include investigation of bridge failures such as the Tay rail bridge disaster of 1879 and the Dee bridge disaster of 1847. Many early rail accidents pioneered the use oftensile testing of samples and fractography of failed components.
With the prevalence of liability lawsuits in the late 1900's the use of forensic engineering as a means to determine culpability spread in the courts. Dr. Edmond Locard (1877–1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who formulated the basic principle of forensic science: "Every contact leaves a trace". This became known as Locard's exchange principle.
Investigation
Vital to the field of forensic engineering is the process of investigating and collecting data related to the materials, products, structures or components that failed. This involves inspections, collecting evidence, measurements, developing models, obtaining exemplar products, and performing experiments. Often testing and measurements are conducted in an Independent testing laboratory or other reputable unbiased laboratory.
[edit]Analysis
FMEA and fault tree analysis methods also examine product or process failure in a structured and systematic way, in the general context ofsafety engineering. However, all such techniques rely on accurate reporting of failure rates, and precise identification, of the failure modes involved.
There is some common ground between forensic science and forensic engineering, such as scene of crime and scene of accident analysis, integrity of the evidence and court appearances. Both disciplines make extensive use of optical and scanning electron microscopes, for example. They also share common use of spectroscopy (infra-red, ultra-violet and nuclear magnetic resonance) to examine critical evidence.Radiography using X-rays or neutrons is also very useful in examining thick products for their internal defects before destructive examination is attempted. Often, however, a simple hand lens to reveal the cause of a particular problem.
Trace evidence is sometimes an important factor in reconstructing the sequence of events in an accident. For example, tire burn marks on a road surface can enable vehicle speeds to be estimated, when the brakes were applied and so on. Ladder feet often leave a trace of movement of the ladder during a slipaway, and may show how the accident occurred. When a product fails for no obvious reason, SEM andEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) performed in the microscope can reveal the presence of aggressive chemicals that have left traces on the fracture or adjacent surfaces. Thus an acetal resin water pipe joint suddenly failed and caused substantial damages to a building in which it was situated. Analysis of the joint showed traces of chlorine, indicating a stress corrosion cracking failure mode. The failed fuel pipe junction mentioned above showed traces of sulfur on the fracture surface from the sulfuric acid, which had initiated the crack.
Examples
The broken fuel pipe shown at left caused a serious accident when diesel fuel poured out from a van onto the road. A following car skidded and the driver was seriously injured when she collided with an oncoming lorry. Scanning electron microscopy or SEM showed that the nylon connector had fractured by stress corrosion cracking (SCC) due to a small leak of battery acid. Nylon is susceptible to hydrolysis when in contact with sulfuric acid, and only a small leak of acid would have sufficed to start a brittle crack in the injection moulded nylon 6,6 connector by SCC. The crack took about 7 days to grow across the diameter of the tube, hence the van driver should have seen the leak well before the crack grew to a critical size. He did not, thereby resulting in the accident. The fracture surface showed a mainly brittle surface with striations indicating progressive growth of the crack across the diameter of the pipe. Once the crack had penetrated the inner bore, fuel started leaking onto the road.
The nylon 6,6 had been attacked by the following reaction, which was catalysed by the acid: 
Applications
Most manufacturing models will have a forensic component that monitors early failures to improve quality or efficiencies. Insurance companies use forensic engineers to prove liability or nonliability. Most engineering disasters (structural failures such as bridge and building collapses) are subject to forensic investigation by engineers experienced in forensic methods of investigation. Rail crashes, aviation accidents, and some automobile accidents are investigated by forensic engineers in particular where component failure is suspected. Furthermore, appliances, consumer products, medical devices, structures, industrial machinery, and even simple hand tools such as hammers or chisels can warrant investigations upon incidents causing injury or property damages. The failure of medical devices is often safety-critical to the user, so reporting failures and analysing them is particularly important. The environment of the body is complex, and implants must both survive this environment, and not leach potentially toxic impurities. Problems have been reported with breast implants, heart valves, and catheters, for example.
Failures that occur early in the life of a new product are vital information for the manufacturer to improve the product. New product developmentaims to eliminate defects by testing in the factory before launch, but some may occur during its early life. Testing products to simulate their behavior in the external environment is a difficult skill, and may involve accelerated life testing for example. The worst kind of defect to occur after launch is a safety-critical defect, a defect that can endanger life or limb. Their discovery usually leads to a product recall or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Product defects often follow the bathtub curve, with high initial failures, a lower rate during regular life, followed by another rise due to wear-out. National standards, such as those of ASTM and the British Standards Institute, and International Standards can help the designer in increasing product integrity.
Historic examples
There are many examples of forensic methods used to investigate accidents and disasters, one of the earliest in the modern period being the fall of the Dee bridge at Chester, England. It was built using cast iron girders, each of which was made of three very large castings dovetailed together. Each girder was strengthened by wrought iron bars along the length. It was finished in September 1846, and opened for local traffic after approval by the first Railway Inspector, General Charles Pasley. However, on 24 May 1847, a local train to Ruabon fell through the bridge. The accident resulted in five deaths (three passengers, the train guard, and the locomotive fireman) and nine serious injuries. The bridge had been designed by Robert Stephenson, and he was accused of negligence by a local inquest.
Although strong in compression, cast iron was known to be brittle in tension or bending, yet, on the day of the accident, the bridge deck was covered with track ballast to prevent the oak beams supporting the track from catching fire. Stephenson took this precaution because of a recent fire on the Great Western Railway at Uxbridge, London, where Isambard Kingdom Brunel's bridge caught fire and collapsed. This act imposed a heavy extra load on the girders supporting the bridge, and probably exacerbated the accident.
One of the first major inquiries conducted by the newly formed Railway Inspectorate was conducted by Captain Simmons of the Royal Engineers, and his report suggested that repeated flexing of the girder weakened it substantially. He examined the broken parts of the main girder, and confirmed that the girder had broken in two places, the first break occurring at the center. He tested the remaining girders by driving a locomotive across them, and found that they deflected by several inches under the moving load. He concluded that the design was flawed, and that the wrought iron trusses fixed to the girders did not reinforce the girders at all, which was a conclusion also reached by the jury at the inquest. Stephenson's design had depended on the wrought iron trusses to strengthen the final structures, but they were anchored on the cast iron girders themselves, and so deformed with any load on the bridge. Others (especially Stephenson) argued that the train had derailed and hit the girder, the impact force causing it to fracture. However, eye witnesses maintained that the girder broke first and the fact that the locomotiveremained on the track showed otherwise.
Publications
Product failures are not widely published in the academic literature or trade literature, partly because companies do not want to advertise their problems. However, it then denies others the opportunity to improve product design so as to prevent further accidents. However, a notable exception to the reluctance to publish is the journal Engineering Failure Analysis, which publishes case studies of a wide range of different products, failing under different circumstances. There are also an increasing number of textbooks becoming available.
Another notable publication, dealing with failures of buildings, bridges, and other structures, is the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities,[1] which is published by the American Society of Civil Engineers, under the umbrella of its Technical Council on Forensic Engineering.[2]
[edit]See also
[edit]References
- Introduction to Forensic Engineering (The Forensic Library) by Randall K. Noon, CRC Press (1992).
- Forensic Engineering Investigation by Randall K. Noon, CRC Press (2000).
- Forensic Materials Engineering: Case Studies by Peter Rhys Lewis, Colin Gagg, Ken Reynolds, CRC Press (2004).
- Peter R Lewis and Sarah Hainsworth, Fuel Line Failure from stress corrosion cracking, Engineering Failure Analysis,13 (2006) 946-962...
[edit]External links
- National Academy of Forensic Engineers
- The Journal Engineering Failure Analysis
- Analytical Tools
- OpenLearn - Introduction to Forensic Engineering
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| November 2011 | Patent Reform: The Big Guys Won, The Little Guys Lost | Zeidman Consulting is Hiring Computer Science Research Engineers |
| October 2011 | Inventions Must be Novel and Nonobvious, Not Complex | Podcasts on Software Intellectual Property and Software Development |
| September 2011 | Grocery Trolls and Civil Liberties |
| August 2011 | Debunking da Vinci |
| July 2011 | Guidelines for Lawyers Dealing with Experts |
| June 2011 | Wikipedia: Reliable Reference or Biased Blathering? |
| May 2011 | Do Patents Really Kill Innovation? | The Software IP Detective's Handbook |
| April 2011 | IP Theft is Becoming the New Target for Cyberthieves | DocMate Detects Plagiarism |
| March 2011 | Is Googling Replacing Programming? | CodeMeasure is Now Free |
| February 2011 | ADFSL 2011 Conference on Digital Forensics, Security and Law |
| January 2011 | Zynga and CrowdStar, Copying or Coincidence? | SAFE introduces CodeSuite-LT® |
| December 2010 | The Age of Copyright Trolls? |
| November 2010 | Words to Fear: I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Help |
| October 2010 | Software Forensics Tools Enter the Courtroom | CodeScreener: Online Plagiarism Detection for Software |
| September 2010 | Marc Dreier's Story | Multiprocessing CodeSuite-MP |
| August 2010 | The DMCA Exemptions | The Untold History of Bob |
| July 2010 | The Supreme Court Rules About Software Patents and Business Method Patents (Kind Of) |The Report Generator (RPG) |
| June 2010 | Can Whitespace Patterns Provide Clues to Plagiarism? | CodeCLOC™ |
| May 2010 | The Value of Corporate Secrets | North Face v. South Butt | CodeMeasure™ |
| April 2010 | DUPE: Depository of Universal Plagiarism Examples | Computer Crash? No Problem! |
| March 2010 | Once Again, Congress Considers Patent Reform |
| February 2010 | Who Really Invented the Computer? |
| January 2010 | What to Look For in an Expert? | Interesting Software IP Cases of 2009 |
| December 2009 | Trade Secrets vs. Patents | Looking for Great Ideas |
| November 2009 | Software Trade Secrets | CodeSuite Certification Online |
| October 2009 | Is Software (Really) Patentable? | The Best (Worst) Deposition Ever |
| September 2009 | When is Reverse Engineering OK? | The Case of the Insane Expert |
| August 2009 | Key Points About Software Copyrights | Isolating Files With FileIsolate—And It's Free! |
| July 2009 | CodeSuite Certification Training |
| June 2009 | Software Patents -- Good or Bad? | Filtering Your Results |
| May 2009 | How Much is Your Software Worth? | Using CodeDiff and FileCount to Measure CLOC |
| April 2009 | From Correlation to Copying | CodeGrid: The SAFE Corporation Supercomputer |
| March 2009 | Just How Bad is IP Theft (Part 2)? | Is it truly unique? Search the Internet! |
| February 2009 | Just How Bad is IP Theft? | Comparing Binaries |
| January 2009 | Is Software Still Patentable? | CodeCross |
The Leading Provider of Advanced Tools for
Software Analysis and Forensic Engineering
Software Tools
CodeSuite
Software Analysis & Forensic Engineering Corporation has developed CodeSuite®, a suite of patented tools for comparing computer source code and executable code to detect plagiarism, pinpoint copyright infringement, highlight trade secret theft, and measure intellectual property. It can also be used to track software development changes through numerous revisions. CodeSuite incorporates the BitMatch®, CodeCLOC®, CodeCross®, CodeDiff®, CodeMatch®, FileCount™, FileIsolate™, and SourceDetective® as well as sophisticated post-process database filtering. CodeSuite can also generate detailed HTML reports and statistics spreadsheets. The cost of CodeSuite is based on the number of megabytes examined and the specific function used. Download CodeSuite here.CodeSuite-LT
CodeSuite-LT® is a "lite" version of CodeSuite offering all of the key functionality including BitMatch®, CodeCross®, CodeDiff®, and CodeMatch® that can be used in conjunction with SourceDetective®. CodeSuite-LT generates detailed reports on its findings and includes the free tools FileCount™ and FileIsolate™. The cost of CodeSuite-LT is fixed for a 6-month or 1-year period. Download CodeSuite-LT here.DocMate
S.A.F.E. has taken its unique, patented CodeMatch technology that has used in litigation to find copied computer code, and applied the technology to general documents like articles, papers, and novels. DocMate can be licensed as the full version or the LT version. The full version is the professional tool that creates a database containing matching elements between two sets of documents. The full version can automatically search the Internet for all references to commonly used words and filter them from the database. Also, sophisticated statistics can be extracted from the database. The LT version produces an easy-to-read HTML report showing words, sentences, and paragraphs that are identical or similar in every pair of documents. The cost of either version of DocMate is fixed for a 1-year period. Download DocMate here.CodeMeasure
CodeMeasure® is the first language independent solution for quantifying software evolution by analyzing changes across multiple versions of code. The cost of CodeMeasure is fixed for a 1-year period. Download CodeMeasure here.CodeScreener: Online Software Plagiarism Detection
S.A.F.E. now offers an online software screening service for comparing two sets of software source code or object code. If you suspect your software has been copied, check outCodeScreener.com to get a full report. CodeScreener uses CodeSuite as its analysis engine and was designed to make it easy for developers to test their software quickly and inexpensively.Evaluate CodeSuite for Free
The free evaluation license will let you analyze up to 1 megabyte of source code. Just follow these simple steps.- First register for the free download.
- Then send an evaluation license request to SAFE sales.
Custom Software Development
S.A.F.E. has advanced experience in all kinds of software analysis. We can create custom add-ons to CodeSuite and we can develop new analysis tools to directly meet your needs. Contact us at info@SAFE-corp.biz for information and costs.Training
S.A.F.E. offers training and certification in using our unique CodeSuite software. Click on the training tab on the left for dates, locations, and rates.| S.A.F.E. Testimonials |
|---|
We realized our software was being used against us in the market, researched how to prove our suspicions, and found SAFE Corporation. CodeSuite was key to winning our preliminary injunction.
Peter Ruf, Head of Sales
Splitfish AG
Peter Ruf, Head of Sales
Splitfish AG
Posts
![](http://<img src="cooltext590568507.png" onmouseover="this.src='cooltext590568507MouseOver.png';" onmouseout="this.src='cooltext590568507.png';" />)
No comments
Post a Comment