CASE STUDY OF HIGHLAND TOWERS

COLLAPSE IN 1993
SITI KHAIRIYAH SULAIMAN

 construction of the building.

Abstract— Collapsed of the 14-storey block of
the Highland Tower in Ulu Klang, Selangor was
the most tragic landslide in Malaysia with 48
deaths. This paper reviews on the collapse of
Highland Tower, causes and prevention of the
incident.

Index Terms— Collapsed, Caused, Highland

Towers, Landslide, Malaysia, Prevention and
Tragedy

I. INTRODUCTION

T he Highland Towers collapse was an apartment

building collapse that happened because of a
major landslide on 11 December 1993 in Taman
Hillview, Ulu Klang in Selangor, Malaysia. Ulu
Klang is very susceptible to landslides since urban
development has brought many problems to this
region including numerous landslide and mud flow
events.
The Highland Towers slide stands as one of the
most significant tragedies. After 10 days of constant
rainfall, the first block of the apartment fell, resulting
in the deaths of 48 people and led to the complete
evacuation of the remaining two blocks due to safety
concerns. The total length of landslide was 120 m
and width of rupture surface was about 90 m
including round about 40,000 𝑚3 of debris. There are
several factors that contributed to the tragedy of
Highland Towers besides certain measures that can
be taken to protect buildings from landslides.
II. CAUSE OF ACCIDENT
The collapse of the tower was not mainly caused
by natural disaster but are affected by functioning of
technological systems especially the design and
Figure 1: The Highland Towers collapse
A. Design of Highland Towers
Highland Towers collapse was caused by the
design deficiencies. The pile foundation of the tower
was instable since the engineers was not considering
the horizontal load during design foundation. When
the rotational retrogressive slide occurs, this forward
movement downhill created a surcharge load to the
foundation. Since the foundation cannot resist
horizontal load, it failed, and the Highland Towers
distorted.
Besides, a computational analysis done by Prof
Simon, revealed the facts that high wall has very low
safety factor. The designed wall would flop at 5 m
even without considering water pressure effect. The
calculated safety factor of walls at the back of Block
1 is 1.52, even before considering water forces at the
back of the walls. This prove that the design of the drainage system along with the pipe culvert that
building is unsafe since the safety factor is very low. carrying diverted flow of East stream.
The act which is related to this issue is Street, Previously, trees had been cleared from that hill for
Drainage, and Building Act 1974. It is focuses in Part a separate housing development project, so the soil
5 (Buildings) under Section 70B. had no protection against erosion. The monsoon
rainfall in December 1993 worsened the situation.
70B: Order to review safety and stability in the During that 10 continuous raining day, the pipes
course of erection of building. burst from the large amount of water flowing through
them, letting that volume of water flow down the hill.
(8) Without prejudice to its power under subsection
(5) the local authority may, after evaluating the
report of the review, give to any person written
directions including the submission of a fresh or an
amended plan in respect of the following –
(a) the stabilisation of slope;
(b) the provision of additional drainage facilities;
(c) the strengthening of existing retaining walls and
the construction of new walls;
(d) the provision of other additional features to
support existing construction works; and
(e) such other matter as the local authority
considers necessary, Figure 2: Original cross-section through Block 1

for the purpose of remedying any defect, deformation The water content in the soil became over-
or deterioration in the structure of the building, saturated to the extent that the soil had turned
removing any danger to life or property and ensuring viscous, in effect becoming mud. Then the soil came
safety and stability of the building, its foundation and sliding down the hill, breaking retaining walls, and
surroundings and such directions shall be complied finally destroying the pier foundation system of the
with within the period specified therein. tower. The landslide contained an estimated 100,000
square metres of mud which is equivalent to 200
From the act, the design of a building should be Boeing 747 jets.
approved by local authority since they are
responsible in improving the design, so the buildings
are safe and stable. All necessary action including
considering the stability of the slope, improving
drainage facilities and strengthen the walls should be
taken to ensure there are no deformation or
deterioration in the structure of the building. This is
crucial to remove any danger to life or property and
ensuring safety and stability of the building.

B. Piping and Drainage System

The cause of the Highland Tower to collapse was
bad piping and inadequate drainage system. The Figure 3: Sequence of retrogressive landslides
tower’s piping system was originally placed on a hill
nearby the towers to divert water from a stream that After of that constant pressure, the foundations of
normally flowed onto the site. There is no maintained
Block 1 snapped. Residents began to see cracks
forming and widening on the road around the
Highland Towers, a forewarning of collapse.
Unfortunately, there was no further investigation
before Block 1 collapsed on 11 December 1993.
The act which is related to this issue is Street,
Drainage, and Building Act 1974. It is focuses in Part
3 (Drains) under Section 52.
52: Prohibition against building unless provision
made for drains, etc. and compliance with any notice
or order.
(3) Where it appears to the local authority that any
such drains, culverts, gutters and water-courses
require altering, enlarging, repairing or cleansing,
it may by notice served on the owner or owners of the
premises require him to effect such works.
From the above act, it is clearly stated that building
owner should improve the drainage system when the
local authority think it is essential to alter, enlarge,
repair or clean the drains. This is to ensure the
drainage system of the buildings are functional.
III. PREVENTION ACTION
Design and construction deficiencies are results of
improper understanding of soil behavior, inaccurate
testing of soil properties and poor management of
prescriptive method. In prescriptive method, gradient
of the slope is fixed by studying the actual
geotechnical conditions or in any calculation details.
Before starting to design, engineers should
consider the erosion effect of the building’s location.
Identification of landslide prone areas also can be
detected through mapping. Probabilistic models like
PFR model must be developed to determine the
landslide vulnerability and the factors contributing in
it. This model is basically assuming that future
landslides have correlation with past landslides.
The retaining building’s walls should be designed
stronger to prevent large masses of land shifting.
Engineers should consider weather in Malaysia
where there are times of the year with constant
downpour.
Modifications and alterations in the building codes
with respect to design and construction practices,
maintenance and inspections criteria must be
incorporated to catch the future coming expenses.
The act which is related to this issue is Street,
Drainage, and Building Act 1974. It is focuses in Part
6 (Miscellaneous) under Section 92.
92:. Provision as to appeal against order.
(2) Where a mandatory order is made and a person
does not comply with it and appeals against it to the
High Court and such appeal is dismissed or is
abandoned, the appellant shall be liable on
conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred and
fifty ringgit a day during the non-compliance with the
order, unless he satisfies the court before which
proceedings are taken for imposing a fine that there
was substantial ground for the appeal and that the
appeal was not brought merely for the purpose of
delay and, where the appeal is heard by the High
Court, the court may, on dismissing the appeal,
impose the fine as if the court were the court before
which the summons was returnable.
(3) Where a mandatory order is made on any person
and appealed against and the court which made the
order is of opinion that the non-execution of the
mandatory order will be injurious or dangerous to
public health or safety and that the immediate
execution thereof will not cause any injury which
cannot be compensated by damages, such court may
authorise the local authority immediately to execute
the work.
The act clearly stated that building’s owner,
stakeholders and all contractors related should take
responsibility if any accidents occur. They might be
fined or prisoned if caught.
IV. CONCLUSION
In case of Highland Towers 1993, the contribution
of human errors is found to be dominant in triggering
the landslide, and the potential causes of failure
include design deficiencies besides inadequate
piping and drainage system. It is now being realized
that reliability of the structure is not only technology
dependent, but the quality of design, construction,
and maintenance must meet the specifications.

This study concludes that it is recommended to

perform human reliability analysis in slope
construction to reduce the chances of errors
holistically. The findings also confirm that whether
the safety factor of the slope is high or low, there is
always a possibility of instability if the probability of
failure due to human uncertainties is not tackled in a
logical manner.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author would like to express a huge gratitude

to Associate Professor Ir. Dr Nawal Aswan bin
Abdul Jalil for the support and guide in ensuring the
case study is completed successfully.

REFERENCES
[1] S. Qasim, I.S.H. Harahap & S.B.S. Osman.
(2013). Causal Factors of Malaysian Landslides: A
Narrative Study.

[2] F.A. Gul, M. Rezwanul & W. Rahman. (2017).

“Highland Towers Collapsed”, The Tragic Story of
Malaysia!

[3] D. Kazmi, S. Qasim & I. S. H. Harahap. (2017).

Landslide of Highland Towers 1993: A Case Study
of Malaysia.

[4] J. Nalley. (1994). 1993: Highland Towers

Collapse.

[5] The Commissioner of Law Revision, Street,

Drainage And Building Act 1974.