With a career rooted in structural engineering and shaped by a passion for precision, Ayman ElTantawy has established himself as a trusted expert witness in high-stakes construction litigation. As a leading figure at ALJ Engineers, Ayman specialises in forensic structural engineering, applying scientific analysis and real-world expertise to uncover the root causes of building failures, construction defects, and design disputes.
In this interview, he discusses the rigorous methodology behind his expert assessments, the challenges of navigating multi-party conflicts, and the importance of clear, unbiased communication in legal proceedings. Drawing on decades of experience in Australia and the UK, Ayman offers a compelling look into the technical, ethical, and strategic dimensions of expert witness work in the built environment.
What inspired you to specialize in forensic engineering, and how has that shaped your approach as an expert witness?
Structural forensic engineering is a multidisciplinary field that combines scientific principles, analytical thinking, and statistical methods to extract valuable insights from incomplete data; it is the art of science. It requires deep knowledge and understanding of structural analysis, design theories and principles, and different design practices, not to mention the understanding of various construction methodologies and practices.
My passion and love for engineering and science propelled my career, ultimately guiding me toward a career in structural forensic engineering. Yet, it was the human impact that truly motivated me to specialise in structural engineering forensics.
Indeed, my result-driven approach to structural forensic engineering is the backbone of my expert witness practice. Focusing on achieving an understanding of the root cause of the building's structural distress and defects allows me to excel at analysing evidence and breaking down responsibility, whether the defect results from design errors, construction mistakes, lack of maintenance, or a combination of these. In addition to concluding a reasonable remedial action plan that helps litigation parties come to a middle ground.
In high-stakes litigation, what strategies do you use to ensure your technical assessments withstand intense cross-examination?
Understanding the fact that the expert witness's duty of care is primary to the court is the key.
I normally conduct a thorough investigation of the legal brief and project documentation received. This allows me to establish a certain degree of understanding of the building structure's design intention and construction and conclude if additional documents, testing, or investigation are required. By doing so, I can substantiate my findings with credible evidence and references.
To further strengthen my argument, I employ a self-examination approach, anticipating potential counterarguments and developing my evidence to address them. I also simulate a debate by assuming the role of the opposing expert, anticipating their questions and criticisms, and crafting my argument and evidence to effectively counter them.
Engineering disputes often involve multiple parties with conflicting interests-how do you navigate this complexity to maintain trust and credibility?
I cannot agree more that conflicting interests among the litigation parties are often experienced in engineering and construction disputes; in most of the cases in which I gave structural engineering expert witness testimony, the responsibility for the building structure distress or defects crossed over between different parties.
It is all about objectivity.
Establishing the root cause of structural distress and defects and linking it to the responsibility of certain parties is a complex task that requires a high level of engineering knowledge and a precise analytical approach, as well as honesty and dignity.
The ability to draw or proportionate the different parties' responsibilities depends on a comprehensive analytical approach to the building structure design, construction, and alleged defects, and making necessary enquiries.
It is not only about being able to provide expert evidence; it is also about maintaining the objectivity of being an expert witness.
This is often tested if one of the parties has crossed paths with me during my career or, even worse if they are one of my business clients. This is where conflict of interest is crucial to be declared, and if parties decide to maintain me as an expert, then management of such conflict of interest must be in arm-distance.
In fact, unfortunately, I see this first-hand. In some cases, I am providing structural engineering expert witness on behalf of the plaintiff, and the defendant is one of ALJ's clients. In some cases, I have earned the respect of providing an honest expert opinion that puts my business client in some sort of weak position but is true, and in other cases, I went through some business turbulences. I don't mind that, as I believe I am doing the right thing for everyone involved.
How do you balance technical precision with the need to communicate complex findings to a judge or jury with no engineering background?
Engineering assessment and evidence do not necessarily need to be complex. Of course, if they are presented in narrative essay format, it would be a mission for the judge or the jury to comprehend.
That's why I tend to use more graphical and schematic illustrations to explain engineering facts, principles, and chronological events in my structural engineering expert witness reports. I also maintain the logical flow of information in my expert opinion presentation to keep the audience, which is the judge and jury, engaged and informative.
Can you share an example of when a case hinged on a critical piece of forensic evidence you uncovered?
I was preparing a structural engineering expert report on an engineering negligence claim where the subject building was under construction, and L08 composite beams started showing yielding signs of the external box steel section when the construction reached L24, and the building still had 14 floors to go. The construction halted for over three months to investigate the cause of the premature structure failure of the composite beams. The matter advanced when the developer sued the builder and their engineer [design and construction contract] for delays and liquidation damages. The original engineer, who I was presenting, has been brought to the court proceeding.
During the structural design and construction assessment, I found that the for-construction drawings by the builder's engineer reduced the floor beam sizes from 1200X1400mm plus 20mm external box steel section to 600X800mm plus 16mm external box section.
The subject floor beams support 30 floors on top and are supported by a series of parallel raking columns. The builder engineer, in the preparation of the analytical model, assumes that the floor is a rigid diaphragm, which, from a structural analysis perspective, was a big mistake as the in-plane forces distributed among the floor beams, crossbeams, and composite slab reducing significantly the axial forces in the composite beams lead to the under design cross-section which was the direct cause of the composite beam premature failure. The correct behaviour is that the column's horizontal force component goes exclusively to the correspondence floor beam as tension force; hence, the original engineer design of the L08 floor composite beams was correct.
Revealing this piece of evidence was the key to proving no negligence in the original designer's work and changing the course of the litigation dispute.
Litigation timelines can be demanding-what methods do you and your team use to efficiently deliver comprehensive expert reports?
Planning is a key to delivering effective and comprehensive engineering expert reports.
Understanding the legal brief is critical to estimating the required time for reviewing the brief documentation, carrying out the structural engineering assessment of the subject building design and construction documentation, breaking down the evidence, preparing the expert opinion presentation, and finally putting together the expert opinion report.
One of the methods I use to control time is to break the evidence analysis into tasks and delegate the simple tasks, such as creating analysis models, to my senior engineering team and maintain the review and validation tasks to myself.
Also, keeping track of evidence review, stakeholder meetings, notes, discussions, cross-examination, and joint-expert sessions is another essential tool to ensure the capture of relevant evidence, establish a comprehensive understanding of the subject observed/alleged defect, and support my opinions.
In your experience, how has the growing importance of sustainability and structural integrity impacted expert witness work in engineering cases?
Actually, the growing attention to sustainability showcases many advantages and alike disadvantages in engineering litigations.
The growing importance of sustainability in both design and construction proves positive impacts on project outcomes, whether in performance, cost-effectiveness, material consumption, safety, or time-effectiveness. On the other hand, it requires a high level of coordination, specialist tradies, and different levels of attention during construction, which increases the complexity of the project, leading to an increase in engineering and construction disputes statistically.
One primary example is the post-tensioning design-and-construct practice. In the last twenty years in NSW, in particular, before the application of the Design Building Practitioner Act 2020, it was common to choose post-tensioning slabs for rapid construction and less concrete and reinforcement materials. The normal practice back then was to award the post-tensioning contract to a specialist subcontractor under a design and construction contract. The interference between the building's vertical and lateral structure design and performance and the design of the floor slabs was the primary source of engineering disputes about the liability of the design and construction deficiencies of post-tensioning slabs and its effect on the main structure, leading to complex, length, and costly litigation.
What do you believe lawyers and clients most often misunderstand about the role of engineering experts in legal proceedings?
I had a positive experience working with construction lawyers in Australia and the UK, who demonstrated a good grasp of the engineering experts' role. I would frequently meet with the assigned lawyer to review my research, the opposing party's expert reports, and their stance.
On the other hand, the client is not usually at the same level of understanding as the lawyer, and the level of expectations are quite different.
The challenging experience was a client who set the expectations that my report would get him off the hook despite that defects are crystal clear their responsibility. It takes a bit of time to educate the client on my findings and work with them to suggest a reasonable scope of work for rectification.
