ASTM E2713-18

This document is not an ASTM standard and is intended only to provide the user of an ASTM standard an indication of what changes have been made to the previous version. Because
it may not be technically possible to adequately depict all changes accurately, ASTM recommends that users consult prior editions as appropriate. In all cases only the current version
of the standard as published by ASTM is to be considered the official document.
Designation: E2713 − 11 E2713 − 18
Standard Guide to
Forensic Engineering
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2713; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide provides an introductory reference to the professional practice of forensic engineering, and discusses the typical
roles and qualifications of practitioners.
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization
established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued
by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
E2493E2292 Guide for the Collection of Non-Volatile Memory Data in Evidentiary Vehicle Electronic Control UnitsField
Investigation of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Incidents
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 expert, n—an individual with specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired through appropriate education, training,
and experience.
3.1.2 forensic engineering, n—the application of the art and science of engineering in matters which are, or may possibly relate
to, the jurisprudence system, inclusive of alternative dispute resolution.
National Academy of Forensic Engineers
4. Significance and Use
4.1 This guide is intended as a foundation for other E58 Committee standards that are focused on specific technical disciplines,
for example Guide E2493E2292.
4.2 The emphasis of this guide is on the practice of forensic engineering in the United States, though elements of practice in
other countries may be similar. Commercial use of the terms “engineer” and “engineering” are regulated by state and federal law;
this document uses these terms only to describe a technical discipline, and not to confer title or status. Courts may decide that
individuals with qualifications other than those described herein can testify as experts in forensic engineering.
4.3 Certain forensic engineering investigations of incidents and claims may be related to the behavior or condition of one or
more physical systems, or the manner in which they were used. These investigations may also be related to compliance inspections,
subrogation, litigation, and other activities. It is important to note that some incidents may be considered alleged, particularly when
objective proof of their occurrence is not apparent.
4.4 Suggested additional readings are listed in Appendix X1.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
FORENSIC ENGINEERING PRACTICE
5. Individual Characteristics
5.1 Typical Qualifications:
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E58 on Forensic Engineering and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E58.01 on General Practice.
Current edition approved Nov. 15, 2011May 15, 2018. Published December 2011May 2018. Originally approved in 2011. Last previous edition approved in 2011 as E2713
– 11. DOI: 10.1520/E2713-11.10.1520/E2713-18.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards
volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
Available from National Academy of Forensic Engineers (NAFE), 174 Brady Avenue, Hawthorne, NY 10532,1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314,
http://www.nafe.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2713 − 18
5.1.1 The equivalent of a Bachelor degree or Bachelor of Science degree, or graduate degree, in engineering, from an
appropriately accredited college or university program. Degrees obtained from accredited engineering programs typically include
education in the areas of advanced mathematics, the theoretical and practical study of physical sciences, the design of physical
systems, and logical reasoning. Note that forensic engineering itself is not a separate discipline of engineering—it is an application
of engineering, as defined above.
5.1.2 State licensure as a Professional Engineer (PE) in one or more disciplines of engineering. It is noted, however, that there
are many disciplines of engineering (for example, biomedical, ceramic) for which PE licensure is not offered. Licensure is available
for the engineering disciplines that most commonly pertain to public works (chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical, etc.), though
each state may vary the disciplines offered for licensure. Some states require PE licensure as a precondition for practicing certain
aspects of forensic engineering. Current requirements for attaining a PE license typically include the following elements; these
requirements also vary by state:
5.1.2.1 An engineering degree as described above, or equivalency recognized by the state licensing board. State licensing boards
may also require post-graduate coursework.
5.1.2.2 At least four years of professional experience in engineering. Depending upon the state, experience credit may be given
for earning a masters degree or doctorate; conversely, additional experience may be required for those with educational credentials
outside those previously discussed.
5.1.2.3 Successfully passing two nationally standardized eight-hour examinations on the fundamentals, principles, and practices
of engineering.
5.1.3 Possible professional certification in one or more fields of technical knowledge. Such certifications typically follow
advanced study or experience in the field, or both. A certification board may require some or all of the following elements:
5.1.3.1 Discipline-specific evidence of professional competence.
5.1.3.2 Professional references.
5.1.3.3 Examination(s).
5.1.3.4 Evidence of periodic continuing education.
5.1.4 Participation in engineering professional societies in the engineer’s area of practice and interest. Membership grades
(such as associate, member, senior member, fellow) may vary depending upon years of practice and other elements.
5.1.5 Significant experience in one or more technical fields.
5.2 Elements of the Practice of Forensic Engineering:
5.2.1 The preliminary scope of an investigation is agreed upon by the engineer and court or client, and the scope may evolve
as the investigation progresses. Legal issues may significantly affect the investigative scope. Regardless, engineers are not
advocates for any particular party or outcome in a claim or legal action. The guiding principle is to use the knowledge imparted
by their education, training and experience to conduct an investigation that results in considered, reasonable, defensible, and
logically based opinions on the specifics of the incident.
5.2.2 Contingency fee-based investigations are unethical, as outcome-based compensation may affect the reliability of the
engineer’s opinions.
5.2.3 Engineers should stay within their area of expertise. It is important to note, however, that an experienced engineer
typically has a broad area of expertise, based on the logical focus of engineering education and based on the commonalities that
are inherent in the properties and behaviors of physical systems.
5.2.4 The engineer’s education, training, and experience are notably applied in the determination of appropriate tasks and
research to be performed in an incident investigation. Distinct from hypothetical “events” that may warrant new scientific inquiry,
these incidents have typically already occurred, and engineers rely on known engineering principles when determining necessary
and expected levels of investigative breadth and rigor. Standardized methods and procedures should be used when appropriate for
the investigation.
5.2.4.1 Breadth—Knowledge of engineering principles forms the basis for effectively determining key issues to be analyzed and
methods for analysis—in the context of the investigative scope of the case. Physical systems may have different elements that could
be analyzed in a particular investigation; experience would show that analysis of many of these elements would provide
information not relevant to the investigation. This is revealed in the prescriptive standardized analysis procedures of certain
scientific and technical disciplines, which attempt to focus on relevant elements of predictably-behaving systems, and to analyze
them in a consistent manner. When appropriate standardized procedures do not exist, engineers rely on their education, training,
and experience to craft an investigative plan, sometimes under unique, transitory, or potentially adverse incident site conditions
that may preclude testing and peer review
5.2.4.2 Rigor—Engineering requires a certain level of rigor for any analysis method in use. For complex physical systems,
advanced and meticulous analysis methods may be appropriate—but likely only for analyzing certain portions of the system; other
portions may be comparatively simple to analyze. Selection of appropriate levels of rigor should take into account the standards
to which the system was held preceding the incident, the standards of care that may exist for conducting such investigations, and
the robustness of support (for opinions) that such rigor will provide.
5.2.4.3 Comment—Each forensic engineering investigation is unique and may evolve in direction and complexity. In this
scenario, the engineer may decide to pursue a course of analysis that is tangential to his or her existing experience—generally, this
E2713 − 18
is how experience is gained. Engineering training (in critical thinking, logic, reason, and physics) provides the foundation for
conducting both the straightforward and the tangential analyses with a reliance on established engineering principles; the same
training informs the decision to initiate further research or to seek the advice of peers.
5.2.5 Forensic engineering investigations may involve items of evidence. Inspections of this evidence should be done in a
manner that minimizes the alteration or destruction, or both, of such evidence a
...