MATERIAL FAILURES

By: Georgia S. Foerstner and Martin Duffey

 MATERIAL FAILURES

I. INTRODUCTION
Many losses involve, in one form or another, material failures. In some cases, the

material at issue causes the loss. In other cases, the subject material contributes to the size or

severity of the loss. In either event, material failures represent an opportunity, albeit sometimes

overlooked, for subrogation recovery.

Also, now more than ever it is important to ensure that you have the right expert for the

job in proving your subrogation case. Increasingly, defendants are relying on Daubert1 to

exclude experts and dismiss claims. Gone are the days when you might rely solely on an

electrical engineer to prove a product defect or a mechanical engineer to prove a mechanical

failure. Oftentimes, losses require the collaboration between mechanical, civil and electrical

engineers and a materials scientist. Many losses such as mechanical failures require the

collaboration of a mechanical engineer and materials scientist to prove the failure. Likewise, a

product liability case may require the collaboration of an electrical engineer and materials

scientist to prove the exact product defect.

Knowing what a materials scientist is and how he or she may assist in proving your claim

are important steps in the process of determining if subrogation is viable and assisting us in

maximizing the recovery for the client.

II. TYPES OF MATERIAL FAILURES

There are many different types of material failures that arise in the context of losses

which can lead to viable avenues of subrogation recovery. The most common of these involve

1
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

2
plastic and metal. These materials are commonly used in a wide variety of everyday

applications. It, therefore, should not be surprising that these materials play a large part in the

occurrence of losses, either by virtue of causing the loss or by making the loss worse than it

otherwise might have been. Recognizing and understanding the role that materials play in a

given loss will help in identifying all potential and viable avenues of subrogation recovery.

With respect to plastics, this material dominates our everyday lives. For example,

plastics are used to make the appliances in our homes, plumbing fixtures, as insulation on

electrical lines and fixtures, and as packaging material for food we eat. With respect to metals,

this material continues to be widely used in many applications that we use and see everyday. By

way of example, metals are used as the conductors for electrical lines, as windings for motors, as

structural supports for buildings and, in the case of pre-engineered metal buildings, as the

primary material for the buildings themselves.

Knowing that materials are out there is fine, but understanding what role, if any, they

play in a particular loss can potentially open up new avenues of subrogation recovery. For

example, it is more and more common for plumbing fixtures to be made out of plastic. Plastic is

far less expensive than metal and can last as long, or longer, if properly manufactured and

installed. However, problems can and do arise when this does not occur. Plastic plumbing

components can be over tightened by the installer leading to hairline fractures of the material that

do not manifest themselves as a full scale failure until many months or years later. In addition,

improper choice of the particular type of plastic by the manufacturer or improper casting of the

plastic could cause the plastic to fail under what otherwise would be normal and anticipated

usage. It is important to recognize these possibilities and to hire the appropriate materials expert

to investigate and determine the specific cause of the failures so that their role in causing the

loss, if any, can be assessed.

3
 Given their wide variety of usage, plastics may also play a role in the spread of fires,

even where the cause of the fire is unrelated to the plastic. In its pure form, plastic is highly

flammable. Plastic is, after all, a hydrocarbon and, as such, will readily burn. If a flame is

applied to it, it will sustain and spread the flame. Depending upon the type of plastic and its

intended use, manufacturers can place various kinds of “fillers” in the plastic to reduce its ability

to sustain or spread flame. In the past, a commonly used filler was asbestos. Asbestos actually

gives off water vapor when it burns which helps to extinguish a fire. Today, a commonly used

filler is limestone. Limestone absorbs heat and gives off a gas as it burns, carbon dioxide, which

also helps to extinguish a fire.

Depending upon its particular composition, plastics in large quantities can play an

important role in increasing the severity and duration of a fire. For example, plastics may be

stored in large quantities in warehouses to be used later to produce or package goods. In

addition, plastics are commonly used today in shopping carts. Although individual carts may not

present a significant risk of contributing to the spread of a fire, multiple carts stored together in

accordion fashion can present a sizeable fire load capable of substantially increasing the size and

severity of a fire. In assessing the aftermath of any fire involving large amounts of plastic,

consideration should therefore be given to whether the plastic played any role in making the fire

damages worse than they should have been. Specifically, the plastic itself should be examined

by the appropriate expert to determine whether its composition unnecessarily contributed to the

spread of the fire. In addition, the appropriate experts should be consulted as to whether the

existing fire suppression system, if any, was appropriate given the fire load presented by the

plastic.

Metals are commonly used as building materials, either alone or in conjunction with

wood products. Roof failures, which occur with some frequency in northern climates as a result

4
of snowfalls typically implicate the role of metal structural supporting members or entire pre-

engineered buildings. Almost without exception, the response by the architect, engineer or metal

building manufacturer to claims involving roof failures is that the snow load far exceeded any

reasonably anticipated amount and therefore these parties should not be responsible for the loss

(the “Act of God” defense). This, of course, might be true in some cases. However, it is

important to determine what the design load capacity of the materials/structure was versus what

it should have been at the time of the loss. Notwithstanding the presence of heavy snows, it may

well be that the material and/or structure was under-designed by industry standards or codes and

should have withstood the actual snow load however large it may have seemed. It is important to

retain the correct materials expert to examine and document the failed building components

immediately following the loss and to gather the necessary information to determine whether the

materials/structure was or was not deficient.

Metals can also be the cause of fires. For example, the windings of a motor or the copper

conductor of any electrical wire can overheat and short circuit for a variety of reasons. The “arc”

or “spark” given off by the failure of the metal can reach temperatures as high as several

thousand degrees Fahrenheit, easily high enough to ignite ordinary combustible materials if

located nearby. Prompt investigation, documentation and, if possible, preservation of the

remaining evidence may be essential in determining the cause and, if appropriate, assessing

third-party responsibility. Metal conductors and windings can typically leave certain “telltale”

signs which are indicative of it being the cause, rather than the victim, of a fire. It is important to

promptly get appropriate materials and/or electrical experts involved to analyze the evidence and

to assist in that determination.

In short, in considering any loss, thought should be given to the role, if any, that materials

may have played. Even in cases where a particular material may not have anything to do with

5
the initial cause of the loss, the presence of material may well have served to make the loss

worse than it otherwise should have been. It is important to act promptly to document and

preserve the material evidence and in retaining the appropriate material experts to analyze and

determine the role played by the material in the loss. Failing to recognize the role that a material

may have played in a loss is simply and unnecessarily forfeiting a potential avenue of

subrogation recovery.

III. WHO IS A MATERIALS SCIENTIST AND WHAT IS HIS/HER EXPERTISE?

A materials scientist is a person having a fundamental knowledge of a broad base of

materials. He/she can have a degree in metallurgical engineering, ceramic engineering, polymer

science or material science. However, because of an increased use of polymers (plastics) and

other high tech materials, engineers with specialized degrees have had to become “materials

engineers” through additional training and experience.

A materials scientist will have a fundamental knowledge of the properties, the

manufacturing techniques, the physical and mechanical responses of materials such as metal,

plastic, rubber, ceramic and glass. He/she will not only understand the capabilities of these

materials, but will have knowledge of their limitations. The material scientist will have the

capability and the tools to examine fractured, broken or damaged materials and be able to

determine the root cause of failures.

Tools of the Trade

Materials scientists use tools that are typically unique to the materials engineering

laboratory such as chemical analysis tools, hardness testers, stereo microscopes, metallographs

and scanning electron microscopes (SEM). The use of an SEM can be a pivotal step in a failure

analysis. The SEM allows the materials engineer to view fracture surfaces at extremely high

magnifications (5000X). It uses electrons instead of visible light radiation to create an electronic
6
image or picture (much like a television camera) of the fracture surface. This allows

examination at a very large depth of field that would be impossible for a light microscope.

Using the SEM allows investigators to reach conclusions about: (1) the direction of force that

caused a failure, (2) if the failure was by overload (too much load) or by some other mechanism

such as (3) fatigue (repeated or cyclic loading), (4) corrosion, (5) environmentally assisted

cracking, (6) creep (gradual deformation at constant load) or (7) caused by small internal defect

such as “seeds” in glass, “bubbles” in plastic, “porosity” or “inclusions” in metal.

The SEM not only allows high magnification examination of the fracture surface but it

can be equipped with an attachment known as an energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopic analyzer

(EDS). The EDS allows semi-quantitative chemical analysis of a small spot (0.00001” in

diameter) on a surface. This can help identify impurities or foreign objects and can help

determine corrosion species.

When is a Materials Scientist Needed?

It may not always be apparent at the beginning of a new loss that a materials scientist is

needed. Even engineers sometimes cannot evaluate the proper discipline required to determine a

failure until after an initial inspection. In a large percentage of failures, either a mechanical or

electrical engineer and a materials scientist (or metallurgist) are required to conduct a complete

analysis of the failure. Fortunately, because a materials scientist’s usual focus will be on a

particular item, e.g., a broken pipe, the contacts of a toaster, a gas valve, a screw, and these items

likely will be secured from the loss site, these items can be evaluated by a materials scientist at a

later date. While it is always a good idea to involve any necessary experts as soon as possible,

do not despair if you do not involve a materials scientist at the beginning of a loss as chances are

he/she can inspect the pertinent evidence later and still be of great assistance in proving your

case.

7
Examples of Where a Materials Scientist May Be Helpful in Proving a Case

Mechanical Failures
A mechanical failure is defined here to be the failure of a machine or structure to operate

properly because of a broken, bent, abraded or corroded component. The failure can simply

result in the inability of the machine to function or can lead to additional damage or even injury.

The root cause of the failure is generally one of three basic aspects of engineering systems and

components, (1) proper design, (2) proper maintenance and (3) proper operation. A thorough

evaluation of mechanical failures often involves an interdisciplinary approach.

All engineering disciplines overlap with other engineering fields in some areas. For

example, mechanical engineers must understand the principles of fluid flow to analyze hydraulic

systems. This field of study is similar to water flow that civil engineers use and air flow that

aeronautical engineers use. There are also areas of science that are almost unique to one

engineering discipline. For example, vibration and steam pressure thermodynamics are primarily

addressed in mechanical engineering while corrosion is a focus of metallurgical or materials

engineers primarily. Many failures involve more than one engineering aspect and, therefore, can

require more than one engineering discipline to address the failure adequately.

The general areas of expertise of mechanical engineers include vibration, air conditioning

and heat pump cycles, ventilation, combustion engine, hydraulics of both liquid and gas,

mechanical component dynamics, structural and machine component design. An analysis of a

failure may include several of these areas. For mechanical failures, the mechanical engineer

addresses primarily three aspects of the machine or component; (1) was the part adequately

designed by the manufacturer to transfer or support the intended load (is it strong enough), (2)

were proper maintenance recommendations made by the manufacture and followed by the owner

and (3) was the part abused and did the manufacturer warn against foreseeable abuse.

8
 In conducting a failure analysis, the mechanical engineer may find some evidence of

abuse such as a dent that is not explained by the failure. The engineer may also find fractures that

are not explained by a design analysis. A paper or mathematical analysis may simply be

insufficient to explain fully the cause of a failure and for these cases a physical analysis of some

aspect of the failure must be undertaken. This could include, for example, a detailed inspection

of the fracture surface or a microscopic examination of particles in lubricating oil. Mechanical

engineers usually are not equipped or experienced to perform these tasks. These tasks require

the expertise of a metallurgist or materials scientist.

A materials scientist is trained in areas of materials manufacture and utilization. They are

involved in determining and improving the physical and mechanical properties of materials.

This aspect of materials engineering overlaps with mechanical engineering because the materials

scientist must understand design requirements in order to improve the performance of materials.

The materials scientist also studies and evaluates failures to understand the fracture process and

has experience in examining fracture surfaces. A materials scientist can “read” the appearance

of a fracture and determine the cause of failure. Such materials that can be analyzed include

metals, plastics (polymers), rubber (elastomers), glass, and ceramics. Sometimes a mechanical

engineer can analyze a failure only so far. A materials scientist may be just the person you need

to find the last piece of the puzzle to prove your claim.

Water Losses

(a) Pipe Bursts

Perhaps one of the most common property loss sources is water damage caused by a pipe

or hose burst. Analysis of a pipe burst often starts with a mechanical engineer conducting an

evaluation of the flow of water and hydraulic calculations. In some cases the analysis can not

explain why the pipe broke. That is, the pressure was not sufficient to cause a fracture of the

9
pipe. One example is a case that involved the bursting of a sprinkler system. In that case, the

mechanical engineer suspected that the water in the pipe had frozen, but the pipe also could have

contained a defect that caused it to fail below the rated pressure of the pipe. In order to

determine the exact cause of the burst, it was necessary for a metallurgist to conduct a detailed

examination of the pipe to determine if any defects were present or if the pipe failed simply due

to overpressure.

The metallurgist’s examination revealed that there were no material defects and,

therefore, confirmed that the pipe must have failed due to overpressure. The only way that the

pipe could have been overpressured was for ice to form inside the pipe. The materials scientist’s

findings placed liability for the flooding squarely on the sprinkler system designer who had not

required sufficient insulation around the pipe, which, in turn, allowed ice to form in the pipes and

caused them to burst. Without the materials scientist, the mechanical engineer’s opinion as to

the cause of the burst could have been deemed speculative and possibly excluded under Daubert.

(b) Material Failures of Plastic Plumbing Fixtures

There are many subrogation opportunities relating to water losses arising from material

failures of plastic plumbing fixtures and piping. Materials scientists are especially instrumental

in determining the causes of these types of failures because oftentimes, a degradation of the

fixture material or an over-tightening of a fixture, both of which can be determined by a

materials scientist, causes these losses.

Generally, plumbing fixture losses are caused by poor product design, inadequate testing

and/or improper installation. Increasingly, manufacturers are making plumbing fixtures out of

polymers (plastics) which are not compatible with the chemicals found in most water supplies.

The interaction between the polymer and chemicals can lead to degradation, stress fractures and

cracking. A materials scientist can be very helpful in determining the type of material out of

10
which the fixture is made, whether a chemical attacked that material and whether that attack

caused or contributed to the loss.

(i) Stress Corrosion Failures and Incompatibility with Water

Supplies
Some of the plastics used to make plumbing fixtures that are not compatible with various

chemicals found in potable water supplies include polyethylene, polypropylene, and

polybutelene. Acetal is another polymer, which is known to be incompatible with chlorine and

other oxidizing chemicals.

One common source of failures in plastic plumbing components is environmental stress

cracking in the plastics. Environmental stress cracking in these types of plastics has been known

for approximately two decades. In 1981, R. A. Bruback of Dow Chemical published a paper in

Polymer Magazine detailing the kinetics of environmental stress cracking in high-density

propylene. Environmental stress cracking, otherwise known as ESC, can occur when the plastic

is notched, or somehow damaged during installation. Another form of ESC involves a dry

pore/craze structure that is formed under stress. Either one of these integrity failures can allow

an outside agent to enter the material. The outside agent can be something as innocuous as

water. However, it is extremely rare for plastic plumbing fixtures and components to come in

contact with pure water. On the contrary, public water supplies contain chemical treatments to

purify the water. Even low concentrations of these chemicals can accelerate this deterioration.

One such chemical is chlorine. Public water supplies commonly use chlorine as a

disinfectant. This is added before it leaves the water treatment facilities. High levels are added

at the facility because such levels are expected to diminish as the water reaches the consumer.

Therefore, high levels can be found closer to the facility. Another common chemical, which can

accelerate the degradation of plastics, is ferric chloride, which is used as a coagulant. Ferric

chloride is used during water treatment, but traces of this substance also come through to the
11
final end-user of the product. In addition, galvanized piping and brass plumbing components can

be sources of zinc. Zinc can combine with naturally occurring chlorides to form zinc chloride,

which can also damage plastic plumbing fixtures and piping.

All of these chemicals commonly found in public water supplies can greatly accelerate

the deterioration of plastics. In addition, the environment of the plastic component is often one

containing soaps, detergents, oils, or liquid bleaches. These aggressive agents, known as

oxidants, can also be a source of chlorine and can appreciably reduce the stress at which cracks

will form. Therefore, environmental stress cracking in plastics is a common failure, and should

be accounted for by the manufacturer in the design of the product. If the manufacturer has

performed inadequate testing on the components, then the manufacturer is liable under product

liability theories.

One common cause of environmental stress cracking is a combination of over-tightening

of the fixture coupled with environmental agents which increase the susceptibility of the plastic

to stress cracks. For example, a toilet valve is connected to a toilet using a plastic nut, which

connects the incoming water line of the piping to the toilet valve. This plastic nut serves to

secure the base of the toilet valve to the toilet tank. The consumer often installs these nuts. It

may be difficult for the consumer to tighten the nut to the point that leaks will not occur.

Therefore, a consumer may over-tighten the nut, which creates extreme stress on the outermost

threads of the nut. At this stress point, the pore/craze structure discussed above can occur.

When it does, water is allowed to seep into the material and accelerate the stress cracking

process. The greater amount of chemical oxidants in the water supply, the more quickly the

stress cracking can occur. Eventually, the nut cracks and creates an unexpected leak. If there is

no one present to discover the leak, the leak can continue unabated and cause severe damage.

12
 Another example concerns a filter housing which is used to contain chemicals intended to

purify the water. Such filter housings typically contain a top piece and then a bottom base

screws onto the top piece, and holds the chemical. These housings can be susceptible to

environmental stress cracking. If the base of the housing is over-tightened, that creates a stress

condition on the threads of the bottom component. In addition, the filter housing, by its design,

is intended to hold chemicals, which can greatly accelerate environmental stress cracking. Under

these circumstances, it is easy to see how environmental stress cracking can occur, and again,

serious damages can occur if leakage occurs and if this leakage occurs which is unnoticed and

continues unabated.

The most well known problem arising from the use of plastic plumbing was the

Polybutelene Piping litigation. Polybutelene is a form of plastic resin that was used extensively

in the manufacture of water supply piping from 1978 until 1995. It was believed to be the “pipe

of the future” and is also believed to have been installed in at least 6 million homes. The primary

problem with the polybutelene piping pertains to its incompatibility with some water supplies.

Specifically, oxidants in public water supplies, such as chlorine, are believed to react with the

polybutelene piping and cause them to become brittle. Micro fractures result, and the basic

structural integrity of the system is reduced. The piping system then becomes weak and may fail

without warning, causing damage to the building. The greater the amount of oxidants in the

water, the more likely these failures are to occur.

Another common failure mode that can occur is simple deterioration of the plastic due to

hydrolytic degradation. Many plastic plumbing fixtures are made of what is known as “acetyl”

plastic. Acetyl plastics deteriorate due to hydrolytic degradation. Put simply, the tensile strength

of the plastics is lowered when constantly exposed to water. This deterioration is accelerated by

exposure to chemicals in water.

13
 Water losses caused by the failure of plumbing fixtures made of plastics are a fertile

ground of subrogation. Manufacturers can open themselves up to liability by failing to conduct

adequate testing to determine the affect of waterborne chemicals on plastic plumbing fixtures

and/or for failing to discontinue the use of such materials after becoming aware of a problem.

(ii) Stress Concentrations

Other failures of plastic components can occur, regardless of environmental water. These

occur primarily where "stress concentrations” occur. A stress concentration occurs when a

greater degree of stress is imposed on that portion of the plumbing fixture than is imposed on the

remainder of the fixture. Often, the plastic portions of the fixture are not designed to withstand

such stress concentrations and the component breaks. There are so many different types of stress

concentrations that can occur, it is impossible to deal with such failures in more than general

terms. However, in any failure of a plastic plumbing fixture, the fact that the portion of the

plumbing fixture that failed might have been “overstressed” must be considered. Often, these

losses can result in viable product liability claims against the manufacturer.

(iii) Improper Installation

Lastly, another significant problem that may arise from the use of plastic components for

plumbing fixtures and piping is over-tightening or over-torquing. Plumbing components have to

be securely tightened during installation to prevent leakage. Plastic components are susceptible

to damage if improperly tightened or overly tightened. For example, the tightening of the plastic

nut at the inlet portion of the waterline to a toilet valve can crack if over tightened. Over time,

this crack can expand until the nut fails and leakage occurs. A materials scientist can determine

whether the failure was caused by overstressing during tightening, some form of trauma, or some

form of incompatibility between environmental water and the materials of which the fixture or

piping is made. Therefore, for these types of claims, you may wish to retain both a plumbing
14
expert to investigate the cause of the loss and a materials scientist to determine if over-tightening

or fracturing is involved.

Electrical Fires
Electrical engineers often analyze fire for origins in electrical equipment. Wood frame

house fires do not generate temperatures high enough to melt copper. Thus, when an electrical

engineer finds a bead of metal that was molten he/she can conclude that the bead was caused by

arcing and probably not caused the fire. This is true if the bead of metal is copper. The

temperatures reached in fires are high enough to melt aluminum. Drops of aluminum can fall

onto copper forming an alloy of copper and aluminum. Thus, a chemical analysis of the bead

must be conducted in order to determine if it is pure copper, pure aluminum or an alloy of copper

aluminum. The EDS attachment of an SEM is the perfect tool for such an analysis

Collapses
Not all material failure analyses require the use of an SEM, but some may require the

coordination of a group of experts. One example is the collapse of a large, 500-foot crane. The

failure of a kingpin on a crane required metallurgical analysis of the pin, but a complete failure

analysis required civil and mechanical engineers and a civil engineer specializing in wind

loading to work together to explain fully the cause for the collapse. A mobile crane of that size

required very precise control of the tracking unit remaining level. Deviation from level imparted

loads that were not expected.

Thus, a civil engineer was required to determine if the soil conditions were such that the

tracks would not sink under the load. The mechanical engineer conducted a detailed stress

analysis of the entire structure called finite element analysis (FEA). Because the failure occurred

on a windy day (winds were over 10 knots), the influence of the wind load on the skeleton

structure of the boom and the beam the crane was lifting had to be conducted by an engineer

specializing in that area of civil engineering.

15
 Another example of where a materials scientist was helpful in excluding and/or

pinpointing the cause of a collapse involved the collapse of a nine-month-old bowling alley. The

building collapsed two hours after a Sunday school bowling party ended and the building was

closed. With only about a 6-inch snow load, the main room over the alleys collapsed. The roof

trusses or beams in this case failed at the center crest of the roof by fracture of welds. A

metallurgist was called in to investigate the failure. His analysis suggested that the welds were

sound and of good quality and, therefore, ruled out a materials failure. A civil engineer then

analyzed the structure and found that improper connections were used to locate the beams to the

foundation thus causing the collapse.

Conclusion
As is illustrated above, a materials scientist may play a pivotal role in establishing the

cause of a loss and his/her usefulness in proving subrogation claims should not be overlooked.

More and more a collaborative effort between several experts may be needed to prove

subrogation claims and avoid the pitfalls of Daubert. Whether a product failure, electrical fire or

structural collapse, bear in mind that a materials scientist may be just the right expert for you.

16
PHILA1\1829749\1 099997.000

17