Masoud Pourbaba, Ph.D., P.E.

Expert QuestionS & AnswerS

How does your background in both structural design and forensic engineering influence the way you investigate building damage?

My background in structural design helps me understand how a building is supposed to behave and how loads are transferred through the structure. When I investigate damage, I use that experience to look beyond the visible cracks or damage and determine what may have caused them. Having experience in both design and forensic engineering helps me connect what I see in the field with how the structure actually performs.

Distinguishing storm damage from pre-existing conditions is central to your work — what evidence tips the balance in a contested claim?

I try not to rely on one piece of evidence. I look at the damage pattern, its location and appearance, weather data, the condition and age of the materials, and any signs of previous repairs or long-term deterioration. I then compare all of that information with the reported event. When the different pieces of evidence tell the same story, we can reach a more reliable conclusion about the cause and timing of the damage.

After 25 years spanning design, rehabilitation, and forensics, how does designing repairs make you a sharper failure investigator?

Designing repairs helps me think about both the cause of damage and how the structure can be restored. To develop a proper repair, you first need to understand why the problem occurred. That experience helps me during forensic investigations because I look at the structure as a whole, identify the likely cause of the distress, and consider what would actually be required to correct it.

What have your forensic investigations taught you about finding the real cause of structural distress?

One important lesson is not to make a conclusion based only on the most visible damage. A crack, movement, or other distress can have several possible causes. I look at the overall pattern, site conditions, structural behavior, available records, and the history of the property. Looking at all of the evidence together usually provides a much clearer picture of what caused the problem.

What’s a common assumption about foundations that your investigations have repeatedly proven wrong?

A common assumption is that when a water leak is found near an area of foundation settlement, the leak must be the cause. A leak can certainly contribute to soil and foundation movement, but it is important to look at the whole foundation and its history. In many cases, the movement has developed over years and extends beyond the area of the leak. Soil properties, particularly expansive clay soils, along with drainage and long-term moisture changes, can also play an important role.

Back to top