This article reviews several well-known foundation failures across the world. Each example provides insight into the causes of failure and how engineers responded.
History contains many examples of great buildings and infrastructure weakened not by poor architecture but by their foundations. When the ground fails to support a structure, the consequences can be severe, ranging from slow tilting to sudden collapse. These failures often come with financial losses, reputational damage, and, in some cases, loss of life.
Foundations transfer loads from structures into the soil or rock beneath. If the ground is weaker than anticipated, or if construction alters its natural balance, the results can be unpredictable. In some cases, failure occurs within days of construction; in others, movement continues for centuries. Each case reveals weaknesses in design or execution and demonstrates the critical role of soil investigation and construction practice.
This article reviews several well-known foundation failures across the world. Each example provides insight into the causes of failure and how engineers responded. Together, they highlight the importance of ground knowledge, careful design, and continual monitoring in modern practice.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa: Settlement on Weak Soils
The Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy remains perhaps the most iconic example of foundation trouble. Work began in 1173 on ground composed of soft clay and alluvial deposits. The shallow foundation—barely three meters deep—rested on soil that could not distribute loads evenly.
As construction progressed, one side of the tower began sinking more quickly than the other. Builders attempted to correct the tilt by adding extra height to the higher side. While this adjustment balanced appearances temporarily, it placed more weight on already weak soil, increasing settlement differences. By the time construction finished in the fourteenth century, the lean was already pronounced.
For centuries, the tower continued to tilt. At its worst, in the late twentieth century, the lean reached over 5 meters off vertical. Collapse was a genuine risk, and emergency works were undertaken. Engineers removed soil from beneath the higher side, installed counterweights, and anchored the structure. This reduced the tilt and stabilized the tower, which now remains safe for visitors.
The Pisa case demonstrates the consequences of inadequate site investigation. Today, no major project would begin without thorough boreholes, soil sampling, and settlement prediction. The leaning tower stands as a lesson carved in stone, reminding engineers that ground conditions dictate structural success.
The Transcona Grain Elevator Collapse: Canada 1913
In 1913, at Transcona near Winnipeg, Canada, a newly constructed grain elevator collapsed during its first filling. The massive structure tilted and sank into the ground, damaging the building beyond repair.
The failure arose because engineers assumed the clay foundation beneath could support the heavy load of filled grain bins. In reality, the clay was soft and highly compressible. As grain filled the silos, bearing stresses exceeded soil strength.
The ground yielded, and the structure tilted like a ship on unstable waters.
Investigations after the collapse revealed a lack of proper soil exploration. Few if any boreholes had been drilled, and the variability of the subsurface was ignored.
The incident led to significant changes in Canadian engineering practice. From that point onward, major industrial projects required geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing, and design that accounted for long-term settlement.
The Transcona case shows how one dramatic failure can shift national engineering standards. It also highlights that foundation strength must be confirmed through testing rather than assumed from surface conditions.
Figure suggestion: Illustration showing tilting elevator and compressible clay strata beneath.
The Teton Dam Disaster: USA 1976
The Teton Dam in Idaho, completed in 1976, stood for only a short time before suffering catastrophic failure. Although technically a dam failure, its origin lay in foundation weaknesses.
The dam rested on fractured volcanic rock. Engineers attempted to grout the fissures, but the treatment was incomplete. As the reservoir filled, water seeped through cracks, washing away foundation material. On June 5, 1976, a leak developed into a breach. Within hours, a wall of water surged downstream, destroying communities and taking lives.
The Teton failure revealed how critical seepage analysis is in foundation design. Foundations for hydraulic structures must be examined not only for strength but also for permeability. The presence of fractures, joints, or porous layers can lead to internal erosion, known as piping.
Following the disaster, dam design in the United States underwent stricter scrutiny. Foundation investigations became deeper, grouting standards improved, and long-term monitoring of seepage became essential. The Teton case stands as a stark warning of what can occur when foundation geology is underestimated.
Figure suggestion: Sectional diagram of dam foundation showing seepage paths leading to breach.
Mexico City Buildings: 1985 Earthquake
The devastating earthquake in Mexico City in 1985 highlighted how foundation conditions amplify seismic risk. Much of the city is built on clay deposited from an ancient lakebed. These soils are soft, highly compressible, and prone to seismic wave amplification.
During the earthquake, many mid-rise buildings collapsed. Structural weaknesses played a role, but foundation conditions made damage far worse. Soft soils magnified shaking, causing differential settlement and rocking of buildings. Some foundations shifted unevenly, leading to progressive collapse.
The disaster forced a rethink in seismic design worldwide. It demonstrated that foundations cannot be designed in isolation from seismic conditions. Soil–structure interaction became a central focus of seismic codes. In Mexico, engineers introduced stricter requirements for site-specific seismic studies, and similar practices spread to other earthquake-prone regions.
The Mexico City case remains an example of how natural soil deposits can become a hidden hazard when not accounted for in design.
Figure suggestion: Map of affected Mexico City districts overlaid with historic lakebed soils.
The Millennium Tower: San Francisco
The Millennium Tower, a luxury high-rise completed in 2009, became infamous when it began to sink and tilt. By 2016, settlement exceeded 40 centimeters, and the tower leaned noticeably. For a modern skyscraper in one of the world’s most advanced engineering hubs, this was a shock.
The tower’s foundation relied on piles driven into dense sand, not bedrock. While this was permitted by code, long-term settlement of compressible layers below had not been fully accounted for. Nearby excavation for new transit projects may also have influenced soil behavior.
Residents filed lawsuits, and international headlines followed. Engineers devised a stabilization plan involving new piles reaching bedrock, effectively anchoring the structure more securely.
The Millennium Tower illustrates the risks of relying too heavily on minimal code requirements. Even with advanced materials and analysis tools, foundations can fail if long-term soil behavior is underestimated. It also shows the impact that urban development around a site can have on foundation performance.
Figure suggestion: Side-view diagram of Millennium Tower piles before and after stabilization.
The Lotus Riverside Collapse: Shanghai 2009
In 2009, an apartment block at the Lotus Riverside development in Shanghai toppled over entirely. Remarkably, the building remained largely intact as it lay on its side, resembling a toy pushed over by hand.
The cause lay in poor construction practices. Excavated soil from the site had been piled up alongside the building. Heavy rain saturated the soil, increasing pore pressures. The combined effect destabilized the soft clay foundation, causing the building to overturn.
The incident shocked observers because the building itself did not collapse structurally—it simply lost support. This demonstrated that even well-designed structures are powerless if their foundations are undermined by poor site management.
The lesson from Shanghai is clear: construction activities themselves can compromise foundation stability. Excavation, spoil placement, and drainage all influence soil conditions. Effective risk assessment and monitoring are essential to prevent avoidable disasters.
Figure suggestion: Photograph of collapsed Shanghai building with explanatory soil diagram.
Common Lessons from Global Failures
Across these examples, several lessons repeat. First, soil investigation must be thorough. Shallow exploration or assumptions about uniformity often lead to dangerous surprises. Second, foundations must be designed not only for strength but also for long-term settlement, permeability, and seismic response.
Construction practice plays a major role. Excavation, loading, or adjacent developments can alter soil conditions dramatically. Engineers must treat foundations as part of a living system, responsive to both design and external influences.
Finally, monitoring is critical. From Pisa to San Francisco, structures that tilt slowly can often be saved if movement is detected early. Real-time instruments, settlement markers, and inclinometers now provide warnings that past generations lacked.
Conclusion
Foundation failures remind engineers that the ground beneath our structures holds ultimate authority. Whether in medieval Italy, modern China, or North America, inadequate attention to soil and construction practice has repeatedly led to loss. Thus, examining these failures in depth, engineers sharpen their understanding of how soils behave under load, how construction decisions matter, and how preventive action can save lives and resources. These lessons continue to shape modern practice, ensuring that future structures rest on foundations designed with both science and caution.
Also See: Top 10 Deadliest Structural Failures of all Time
Sources & Citations
- Burland, J. B., Jamiolkowski, M., & Viggiani, C. (2003). The Leaning Tower of Pisa: Stabilisation of the Lean. Soils and Foundations, 43(5), 63–80.
- • Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., & Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley.
- • Duncan, J. M. (2000). Factors of Safety and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineering. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126(4), 307–316.
- • Sowers, G. B. (1993). Human Factors in Civil and Geotechnical Engineering Failures. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(2), 238–256.
