Blogs
Why buildings under construction collapse
The cost of engaging qualified professionals is almost always lower than the cost of structural failure. Collapses lead to injuries, fatalities, legal disputes, project delays, reputational damage and financial losses that can exceed the cost of proper supervision many times over.
Why buildings under construction collapse
By: Admin ., Journalist @New Vision
__________________
OPINION
By Dr Apollo Buregyeya
The preliminary findings released by the National Building Review Board (NBRB) regarding the recent building collapse in Kisasi have shifted the discussion from structural design alone to construction process management. That shift is important because it highlights a reality that is often misunderstood by the public: buildings do not only fail because they are poorly designed. They can also fail because they are poorly constructed.
According to the preliminary report, the structure had reached the fourth floor within approximately eight to ten weeks of commencement. There was reportedly no evidence of qualified professional supervision on site, and the fatalities occurred while workers were removing formwork associated with the construction of the fourth-floor slab. While investigations are still ongoing and the final cause has not yet been established, these observations raise important questions about how we manage construction projects in Uganda.
When the public thinks about a building, they usually imagine the finished structure. Engineers think differently. We understand that a building exists in many temporary forms before it becomes the final structure shown on architectural drawings. Each of these temporary stages carries its own risks.
A completed building functions as a single structural system. The foundations, columns, beams, slabs and walls work together to resist loads. During construction, however, the structure is incomplete. Some elements may still be gaining strength. Others may be relying on temporary supports. The building may be carrying construction materials, equipment and workers while not yet possessing the strength and stability it was designed to achieve when completed.
This is why construction technology is just as important as structural design.
A structural engineer may correctly design a building to stand safely for fifty years, but the contractor must still guide that building safely through the fifty or sixty stages that occur before completion. Every concrete pour, every formwork removal operation, every loading decision and every construction sequence must be carefully managed.
Concrete, in particular, deserves special attention. Unlike steel, which arrives on site with its strength already developed, concrete gains strength gradually through a chemical process known as hydration. Time is therefore one of the most important ingredients in concrete construction.
When the public thinks about a building, they usually imagine the finished structure. Engineers think differently. We understand that a building exists in many temporary forms before it becomes the final structure shown on architectural drawings. Each of these temporary stages carries its own risks.
A completed building functions as a single structural system. The foundations, columns, beams, slabs and walls work together to resist loads. During construction, however, the structure is incomplete. Some elements may still be gaining strength. Others may be relying on temporary supports. The building may be carrying construction materials, equipment and workers while not yet possessing the strength and stability it was designed to achieve when completed.
This is why construction technology is just as important as structural design.
A structural engineer may correctly design a building to stand safely for fifty years, but the contractor must still guide that building safely through the fifty or sixty stages that occur before completion. Every concrete pour, every formwork removal operation, every loading decision and every construction sequence must be carefully managed.
Concrete, in particular, deserves special attention. Unlike steel, which arrives on site with its strength already developed, concrete gains strength gradually through a chemical process known as hydration. Time is therefore one of the most important ingredients in concrete construction.
Many people know that concrete reaches its design strength after twenty-eight days. What is less appreciated is that the contractor must continuously assess how much strength has been gained before removing supports, loading slabs or commencing the next phase of construction. These decisions cannot be based on guesswork, pressure from the developer, or the desire to complete a project quickly. They must be based on engineering judgement, testing and proper supervision.
The preliminary findings released by NBRB naturally raise questions about construction sequencing. If a structure advances rapidly from one floor to another, engineers will want to understand how temporary works were managed. They will ask whether sufficient reshoring was provided. They will examine whether construction loads were properly controlled. They will review whether slabs have attained adequate strength before supporting additional loads from higher floors.
These are not merely academic questions. They are questions of life and death.
The tragedy also reminds us of the importance of professional supervision. A building site is not simply a place where labour and materials come together. It is a workplace where engineering decisions are made every day. Drawings do not supervise themselves. Specifications do not enforce themselves. Someone must verify that reinforcement has been placed correctly. Someone must inspect the formwork. Someone must determine whether concrete has achieved sufficient strength. Someone must ensure that construction activities follow the intended sequence.
Where such professional oversight is absent, risk increases dramatically.
The Kisasi incident should also provoke a broader national conversation about our construction culture. Uganda's construction sector has grown rapidly over the past two decades. The skyline of Kampala continues to change. New commercial buildings, apartments and mixed-use developments appear every year. Yet the industry sometimes treats professional supervision as an optional expense rather than an essential component of project delivery.
That mindset is costly.
The cost of engaging qualified professionals is almost always lower than the cost of structural failure. Collapses lead to injuries, fatalities, legal disputes, project delays, reputational damage and financial losses that can exceed the cost of proper supervision many times over.
The discussion must also extend to regulation. The NBRB findings have generated public debate about approvals, inspections and enforcement. While regulatory institutions have an important role to play, the pace of urban development increasingly requires new approaches. Digital permitting systems, Building Information Modelling, electronic inspection records, remote monitoring technologies and artificial intelligence-assisted compliance tools can help regulators oversee more projects with greater transparency and efficiency.
Technology should not replace professional judgement. It should strengthen it.
Ultimately, the most important lesson from this tragedy is that buildings under construction are not merely unfinished buildings. They are temporary structures whose safety depends on engineering, supervision, sequencing and time.
The public often assumes that a building stands because of concrete and steel. Engineers know that a building under construction also stands because of formwork, shoring, quality control, professional supervision and disciplined decision-making. Remove any one of these elements, and risk begins to accumulate.
As investigations continue, responsibility must be determined based on evidence rather than speculation. However, regardless of the final findings, one lesson is already clear: safe construction is not simply about designing a building correctly. It is about constructing it correctly.
That distinction may well save lives.
The writer is a Civil Engineer, Lecturer in Construction Technology at Makerere University, and Managing Director of Eco Concrete Ltd
The preliminary findings released by NBRB naturally raise questions about construction sequencing. If a structure advances rapidly from one floor to another, engineers will want to understand how temporary works were managed. They will ask whether sufficient reshoring was provided. They will examine whether construction loads were properly controlled. They will review whether slabs have attained adequate strength before supporting additional loads from higher floors.
These are not merely academic questions. They are questions of life and death.
The tragedy also reminds us of the importance of professional supervision. A building site is not simply a place where labour and materials come together. It is a workplace where engineering decisions are made every day. Drawings do not supervise themselves. Specifications do not enforce themselves. Someone must verify that reinforcement has been placed correctly. Someone must inspect the formwork. Someone must determine whether concrete has achieved sufficient strength. Someone must ensure that construction activities follow the intended sequence.
Where such professional oversight is absent, risk increases dramatically.
The Kisasi incident should also provoke a broader national conversation about our construction culture. Uganda's construction sector has grown rapidly over the past two decades. The skyline of Kampala continues to change. New commercial buildings, apartments and mixed-use developments appear every year. Yet the industry sometimes treats professional supervision as an optional expense rather than an essential component of project delivery.
That mindset is costly.
The cost of engaging qualified professionals is almost always lower than the cost of structural failure. Collapses lead to injuries, fatalities, legal disputes, project delays, reputational damage and financial losses that can exceed the cost of proper supervision many times over.
The discussion must also extend to regulation. The NBRB findings have generated public debate about approvals, inspections and enforcement. While regulatory institutions have an important role to play, the pace of urban development increasingly requires new approaches. Digital permitting systems, Building Information Modelling, electronic inspection records, remote monitoring technologies and artificial intelligence-assisted compliance tools can help regulators oversee more projects with greater transparency and efficiency.
Technology should not replace professional judgement. It should strengthen it.
Ultimately, the most important lesson from this tragedy is that buildings under construction are not merely unfinished buildings. They are temporary structures whose safety depends on engineering, supervision, sequencing and time.
The public often assumes that a building stands because of concrete and steel. Engineers know that a building under construction also stands because of formwork, shoring, quality control, professional supervision and disciplined decision-making. Remove any one of these elements, and risk begins to accumulate.
As investigations continue, responsibility must be determined based on evidence rather than speculation. However, regardless of the final findings, one lesson is already clear: safe construction is not simply about designing a building correctly. It is about constructing it correctly.
That distinction may well save lives.
The writer is a Civil Engineer, Lecturer in Construction Technology at Makerere University, and Managing Director of Eco Concrete Ltd