Interesting discussion on this forum. Steve is utilizing the scientific method that needs to be used to avoid a Daubert challenge and ensure the proper conclusion, if there is one.
Scott Office: (763) 425-1001 x 2 Cell: (612) 759-5556 -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 1:51 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Steve Leyton <st...@protectiondesign.com>; Gary Howard, P. Eng. <ghowar...@gmail.com>; John Hoffman <john3...@att.net> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling Fire sprinkler systems have historically been designed on what is called a "deferred submittal" basis, which means that the construction docs are already submitted or approved under a separate permit application. When sprinklers are put out to bid, the work has historically included establishing/verifying the correct basis of design, preparing construction documents (shop drawings), acquiring approval of those documents, installing, testing and commissioning into service. All of this is done pursuant to the overall design and as with any trade, it is incumbent on the owner's design team to adequately specify the scope of work and standard of care. In the real world, this happens maybe 20% of the time, by the way. In order to determine what the designer was actually charged with under the terms of the contract, you will have to review the bid documents that were made available to them and also performance specifications that should have included engineering standards for the building. I've worked my entire career in California, so it's SOP here that buildings are seismically engineered and the sprinkler designer is ALWAYS charged with protecting the system against earthquakes. The designer can only design for what they know and one of the weaknesses of this "deferred-design-build" business model is that more often than not, critical basis-of-design criteria ISN'T communicated to the designer by the design team because it's not known to them or, they may not have been qualified to specify or serve as engineer of record for the work. Boilerplate spec's, abbreviated and generic "bid documents", inaccurate or missing design criteria - these are the norm for most sprinkler contracts. To the question of whether the beam clamps should have been redesigned, I would counter first with a couple questions: 1) If wind loading was part of the original structural basis of design, why wasn't this conveyed to the sprinkler system designer before they began their work? 2) If it was discovered (presumably by the owner) after occupancy that the building was subject to extreme wind shear forces (to the point where it might suddenly shift with such force as to blow one or more mechanical joints), what did the owner or their agent do with this information? Did they seek out design and building resources to investigate and remediate any potential deficiencies in the original designs? I've been designated as an expert in about 40 cases over the course of my career. Many of them are like this, a post-facto forensic investigation into a failure. There are generally two kinds, product defect and construction defect. (As will all things in civil law, there's always a third implied cause of failure, that being an act of God.) You may also have negligence on the part of the sprinkler designer or the specifier of the FP work, or the structural engineer or the architect and potentially, the owner based on what they knew and when they knew it. You've asked our community some questions that I'll call anecdotal, i.e. "Has anyone experienced this or have ideas about what happened here?" But from my experience, I would offer to you that there will either be a substantiated cause established scientifically OR, nobody ever establishes for sure how/why this happened and the lawyers will then have to mud-wrestle over whether this is a "Sh*t Happens" case or an Act of Go d. (They call it "subrogation"). In order to help them figure out who sues who and who counter claims and sues who else for subrogation (seems like there are quite a few potential pockets in this matter) you'll need to: 1) Analyze the clamps and compare how many threads were buried, comparing how thick was the steel flange and how much pressure is estimated to have been applied (did the installer tighten them properly?). 2) Analyze the grooved fitting(s) that failed. Where the rubbers intact or damaged? Any way of determining how they got pushed off? Were the closure bolts tightened properly? 3) Analyze the rolled grooves and piping. Are the grooves per spec' for depth? Scratch marks or distortions on the pipe that may explain how the coupling(s) moved off? 4) Compare pipe and fittings from one or more of the 8 intervening elbows that didn't fail to the one(s) that did. 5) Review specifications and bid documents - were they accurate and did they direct the designer to a reasonable standard of care? Was wind loading mentioned? 6) Review the provisions in the spec's and approved plans for hangers, anchorage, etc. This may entail review of both FP and also structural specs - did the SEOR include details for anchorage? 7) Did the (fire department) approved sprinkler plans get sent to any of the design team stakeholders for review, to assure conformance to both published codes and standards, but also the contract documents? 8) Have any other buildings in the immediate area suffered damage from wind-related phenomena? Are any other buildings in the area engineering for movement due to wind shear? 9) Do authorities having jurisdiction have code amendments, policies or ordinances beyond the published codes and standards for any aspect of this design? This could be the building and/or fire official. I just riffed these, but if I sat down to look at this matter and gave it some thought, I could probably come up with at least 10 more considerations. And keep in mind that this is often (seems to be here) an exercise of checking boxes, so by the end of the line, you may just find that this one gets attributed to "Sh*t Happens." Steve Leyton, President Protection Design and Consulting T | 619.255.8964 x 102 | www.protectiondesign.com 2851 Camino Del Rio South | Suite 210 | San Diego, CA 92108 Fire Protection System Design | Consulting | Planning | Training -----Original Message----- From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> On Behalf Of Gary Howard, P. Eng. via Sprinklerforum Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 10:45 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Cc: Gary Howard, P. Eng. <ghowar...@gmail.com>; John Hoffman <john3...@att.net> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling I should note that it was windy when I was investigating 3 days after the event. I will check that for the date of loss. However, the clamps should redesigned to handle this, no? > On Feb 25, 2022, at 11:19 AM, John Hoffman via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > How windy was it? Steel joisted building roofs can move up and down a lot, > several inches, in the wind. Over time, this up and down could have an > impact on the pipe support system. You might check that and its potential > affect on pipe hangers. A structural engineer can probably look at the > building design and tell you how much it will move under what wind speed. > John Hoffman > On Thursday, February 24, 2022, 03:22:41 PM CST, Gary Howard via > Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > Thanks Craig. I see your posts all the time. > > 1 The grooves have not been measured in detail yet, but they are not > suspect 2. Coupling bolt torques were not checked. Good point to note > 3. It is part of 5 dead-end runs from a common manifold. Yes, as you describe > but the UG system comes in the the municipal supply. I do not know about a > loop or dead end but it is something to check. Note that there was no pipe > movement elsewhere in the plant before this fell. > 4. Would have been about 50F at the. Ceiling. It was cold and windy outside. > I will check the weather on the day it fell. > 5. All fittings were straight that I could tell. The elbow fell while still > attached to pipes. > 6. Yes, as far as I can determine. The installation was 4 years old > and the designer also inspected it and signed off. He will be at the > Examination for Discover in April > > > >> On Feb 24, 2022, at 3:44 PM, Prahl, Craig/GVL <craig.pr...@jacobs.com> wrote: >> >> I've been involved in several system failure investigations. There are >> numerous causes. >> >> Things to look for: >> 1. Rolled grooves: were the grooves in the pipe determined to have been done >> correctly and to manufacturer's specifications? >> 2. Were coupling bolts torqued to proper spec. This one is a hard one to >> determine after the fact. >> 3. Is the system part of a grid or loop or tree? Dead-end systems can be >> subjected to some pretty significant internal forces when a pump kicks on. >> We did a pressure analysis with pressure transducers on a couple of mystery >> failures, the results were astounding. Plus the force wave doesn't just move >> in one direction. Is the pump serving this manifold connected to an >> underground fire service main then to a run-in to this system? Is that UG >> system looped or dead-end? >> 4. What temperatures was this piping exposed to? >> 5. Were fittings connected within their allowable angle offset? >> 6. Were hangers and hanger material properly sized and installed correctly? >> >> Just a few of the things we encountered for your consideration. >> >> Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection | >> craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com >> 1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South Carolina 29606 CONTACT BY: >> email or MS TEAMS >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum <sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org> >> On Behalf Of Gary Howard via Sprinklerforum >> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:55 PM >> To: Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> Cc: Gary Howard <ghow...@safeinc.ca> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 8 inch sprinkler pipe fall from factory ceiling >> >> Hello all >> >> I have been reading here for 2 years but this is my first post. >> >> I am investigating a 2018 collapse of about 150 feet of water-filled pipe, >> including a midspan 90 degree elbow. No injuries, but an insurance claim. >> >> The actual cause has not yet been determined. >> >> It is supposed that the separation of a vertical 8 inch pipe from the >> manifold that also separated, (rolled grove joints) caused the elbow support >> clamps to slip off the joist upper flange. It is about 250 feet away from >> the riser and has about 8 elbows in-between. >> >> It is alleged that a pressure surge caused pipe movement which was captured >> by security cameras, about 2 seconds before the collapse. Not sure that this >> can cause pipe movement if the pipe is already full. We tested this with the >> fire pump on and off = no movement. >> >> The Caddy Clamp left scratch marks on the flange near the elbow which was >> first to fall. Elsewhere, the clamps were broken from overload and the >> flanges were deformed. >> >> Apparently no forklift strike. >> >> Any thought on the cause? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Gary W. Howard, P. Eng., >> Consulting Engineer >> President >> SAFETY AND FORENSIC ENGINEERING INC. >> 33 Rolling Court, >> King City, Ontario, Canada, L7B 1E8 >> Phone: 416-843-1413 >> Fax: 905-833-2332 >> ghow...@safeinc.ca <mailto:ghow...@sf-eng.com> >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.safeinc.ca__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg! >> VCPGntyQXJycyYoDpG373V_e9amsLSb2_RFu95FHKXtVw15w0loIkNnNmIli-sCjWw$ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.sf-eng.com/__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTe >> g!VCPGntyQXJycyYoDpG373V_e9amsLSb2_RFu95FHKXtVw15w0loIkNnNmIlEgNlasw$ >> > >> >> Confidentiality Notice : >> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended >> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. >> If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This >> message contains confidential information and is intended only for the >> individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not >> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.c >> gi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!VCPGntyQXJycyY >> oDpG373V_e9amsLSb2_RFu95FHKXtVw15w0loIkNnNmIlpqSwG8g$ >> >> ________________________________ >> >> NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged >> information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, >> copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended >> recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in >> error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting >> it from your computer. > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org