Chusid Associates De-Filed

When, recently, our storage room was defiled by water from a ruptured pipe, I decided it was time to de-file Chusid Associates of as many paper-based documents as I could. This process has helped me measure how far and fast our industry has come in the shift to digital media.  Here are some of my observations:

With each passing year, our hardcopy project files have gotten slimmer. Most of the communications and notes for recent projects are online, without a tangible paper trail.

Just four years ago, we conducted a major investigation that produced two file cabinet drawers full of correspondence. The project manager had built an impeccable written record of every phone call, every transmittal, and every document revision, all neatly organized and cross referenced. I have retained the final reports, but recycled the rest of the files. It occurs to me that I may never see such a large, paper-based project again.

I recycled almost all paper-based product literature, technical documents, industry standards, and other material. It is just easier to get the material online now, and I assume that paper-based documents more than a few years old are out of date in our rapidly moving industry. This is quite a change from the training I got as a specifier. Before fax and overnight delivery, specifiers needed a well stocked library at their fingertips. I used to spend countless hours as office librarian keeping our precious technical resources organized and accessible.

There are concerns about de-filing. I was able to find, read, and understand 30-year old memos that were still in my file cabinets.  But I can not find many digital assets from just a few years ago, and no longer have the programs necessary to open and read them.  Heck - I don't even have a computer that with a floppy disk drive anymore, so the box of old project records I have in that format is useless (even if they haven't been demagnetized).

Some things are worth saving. While Sweet's catalogs are about to become an extinct species, I still keep several old sets in my office that go back three decades. They remain valuable resources to help understand the evolution of product technologies and markets. (I was even able to help a client win a patent infringement case. The old catalogs proved the patent claims were not enforceable as the product had been in use prior to the patent's filing.)  In the future, where will we be able to find information about how they "used to build back in 2010?"

There are other things I haven't thrown away either. For example, I have kept a file drawer of articles that I have been accumulating since college -- full of clippings that remind me of who I am, and who I want to be. Articles or reports that have inspired me, or made me rethink assumptions. Items like this, I want to be able to take out from time to time, fold back the yellowing paper, and read again. Some make me remember. Some make me think. Each time I read them, I learn more from them. The papers have become my friends.

Engineering Design and Its Relationship to Product Liability

Guest post from Mark Pasamaneck, PE 
 
In this article, I will explore the relationship between the engineeringdesign process and the failure of a plumbing component as it
relates to product liability.
     In the litigious society in which we live, everyone connected to
the life-cycle of a plumbing component should be concerned with
its long-term suitability as it exists in any plumbing system. As an
engineer or designer of a plumbing component, you should have
a desire to go beyond just limiting liability. As described in the
codes and most engineering ethics documents, a designer must be
concerned with protecting the people and property exposed to his
design from seen or unseen damage and hazards.


A LITLE HISTORY
While the political, social, and legal reasons are beyond the
scope of this article, the decade of the 1970s was largely considered
the decade of safety awareness. While a few federal
acts were aimed at safety in the 1950s, the majority of the
safety acts in use today were developed in the late 1960s and
first published in the 1970s, including the Consumer Product
Safety Act of 1972. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975
gave broad powers to the Federal Trade Commission regarding
product warranties.
     Of particular interest to the plumbing community is that
the majority of the plumbing components in use today were
conceived of and designed well before the 1970s. Many manufacturers
have never evaluated their components or designs in
light of the safety acts and standards implemented in the 1970s
and after. While the building codes commonly grandfather in
outdated technologies, there is no such provision for an old
product design that was produced in the modern era. It is also
obvious that courts have held that the “product” for which a
designer or producer is responsible includes such items as the
warranty, instructions, packaging, labels, and warnings (note:
not an all-inclusive list).

THE ENGINERING DESIGN PROCESS
While the topic of engineering design in general would take many
articles, this discussion on product liability requires an overview of
the engineering design process. The design process commonly is
called iterative since it is very rare that an idea can go through the
steps of concept to finished product without changes. The design
process outlined below is considered the standard in all types of
industry. While many more steps may be encountered in a complex
part or system, the following serves to define the general steps
useful in the design iteration. This process also incorporates the
cradle-to-grave responsibility of the designer and manufacturer.

1. Define the function of the product within a system or as a
stand alone.
• If the product is itself a system, define each subsystem and
initiate an independent design iteration until each component
is uniquely defined.
• If the product is within a system, define system parameters
and environments in which the product will operate.
2. Identify prior designs that may assist or preclude (patents)
the design process.
3. Identify all laws, codes, or standards that apply to
the product or system.
4. Brainstorm possible design concepts.
5. Remove concepts that are not viable due to manufacturability,
regulations, cost, hazards, complexity, integration,
functionality, or aesthetics.
6. Choose a design concept.
7. Create the design using accepted design practices applicable
to the field of interest. These will necessarily include
factors of safety, dynamic loads, static loads, wear, compatibility,
environment of use, durability, cost issues, and
materials (suitability, durability, strength, degradation,
fabrication, identification of failure modes, and predictable
failure locations).
8. Evaluate functionality: geometry, motion, size, complexity,
and ergonomics.
9. Evaluate safety: operational, human, environmental, and
failure analysis.
10. Evaluate energy: requirements, created, kinematic, thermodynamic,
and chemical.
11. Evaluate quality: marketability, longevity, aesthetics, and
durability.
12. Evaluate manufacturability: available processes and new
processes.
13. Evaluate environmental aspects: materials, fluids,
wastes, interactions, phase changes, flammability,
and toxicology.
14. Iterate the design. (Redo steps 7 through 13 based on
the analysis.)
15. Lay out the design.
16. Obtain manufacturing criteria.
17. Create a prototype and test (optional).
18. Create the product.
19. Test the product.
20. Reiterate through the entire design process based on
testing and analysis.
21. Produce the product. Some changes may occur, but they
should not impact the actual design.
22. Perform quality control, which is used to evaluate the
compliance of the produced product with the design.
23. Deliver the product. Packaging, labeling, instructions,
and warnings are included in this step, but they also
must be considered throughout the process.
24. Consumers use the product. The producer must consider
the environment of intended use as well as anticipated or
probable misuse of the product. These must be addressed
appropriately throughout the design process.
25. Dispose of product. The end of use must be considered
by the designers. Fail-safe designs should be incorporated,
and any hazards associated with disposal and/or failure
must be addressed appropriately as well.

SAFETY HIERARCHY
Steps 7, 8, 9, and 19 are where a defect or hazard (such as that
shown in Figure 1) should be detected in most cases. When
detected, the question must be answered as to whether the
defect or hazard was foreseeable or unreasonably dangerous.
If it was, the commonly held approach in the engineering community
to solve the problem is known as the safety hierarchy.
This process is based on sound engineering principles coupled
with economic considerations and human factors. The first
reasonable item in the hierarchy must be utilized, and skipping
steps is not appropriate.
The steps are as follows:
1. Design it out.
2. Guard it out.
3. Train it out.
4. Warn it out.
5. Don’t make it.
    The hierarchy is intended to evaluate if the problem can be
corrected by engineering measures. However, those measures
also can be evaluated in and of themselves. For example, were the
warnings understandable, sufficiently broad, or used as a substitute
for design or guarding?
    The design process and the safety hierarchy outlined above
almost always include other sub-processes and evaluation techniques.
Severity indices, fault trees, failure mode and effect analysis
(FMEA), root cause analysis, and design checklists all are tools
that if sufficiently designed and used within the design process
will aid the designer in his goal to make a safer product.

PRODUCT LIABILITY THEORIES
When product liability theories are evaluated, three general areas
are considered.
1. Design defect:
• Was the product designed to do the job based on the reasonable
expectation of a consumer, without undue risk?
• Was it designed for the environment of intended use?
• Was the design properly engineered and tested?
2. Manufacturing defect: Despite a sufficient design, was there a
flaw in the:
• Processing?
• Assembly?
• Raw materials?
3. Warning defect: Did the manufacturer fail to properly advise
regarding:
• Assembly?
• Use and maintenance?
• Hazards?

AVOIDING LIABILITY
Hopefully, if you have made it this far, you now are asking yourself
how you can improve your products to both reduce liability and
improve safety. Much of the general information on design is
contained herein, but a more in-depth understanding obviously
would be beneficial for the designer.
    Let’s look at design defects first. It is important to document
what sources of information were used or considered in the design
process of a component. The specific issues for the plumbing component
designer that account for a large number of design-related
defects are related to stress concentrations and material selection.
ASPE publishes the Plumbing Engineering Design Handbook,
and Volume 4 covers plumbing components and equipment. I
have utilized this reference for years to illustrate what a designer
“should” have included in a design. While a lot of good information
is available online, if you use it in a design, be sure to properly
record and document the source. Materials, machinery, and
design handbooks are prevalent and should be sourced for relevant
design information. One of the various texts on design and
product liability (see Figure 2) also should be included. One of the
best for a general understanding is Managing Engineering Design
by Hales and Gooch.
    Manufacturing defects come in two main areas: assembly
and cast/mold defects. This is an area that the designer typically
cannot control, but can influence. Some issues of quality control
and tolerances have to be determined within the design, and
others will be left to the assembly workers, a quality control (QC)
department, or line design. When it comes to casting and mold
defects, those processes should be considered and properly speci-
fied in the design. Then a QC program to ensure compliance must
be implemented (see Figure 3).
    The third area is related to warnings. Step 3 of the safety hierarchy
would be evaluated in this step as instructions for installation
and maintenance (training). It is the responsibility of the
design engineer and producing company to ensure that a product
brought to market is reasonably safe and suitable for the environment
of its intended use. A product subject to degradation,
corrosion, catastrophic failure, or other risk of damage to people
or property should adequately warn of the risk or danger if there
was no other reasonable way to eliminate the risk or failure mode.
The product instructions might address, but not be limited to,
warnings, providing maintenance instructions, and warning of the
consequences of failing to heed the instructions.
    The design of warnings should follow American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) standards regarding the identification and
warning against potential safety hazards. In 1979, the ANSI Z53
Committee of Safety Colors was combined with the Z35 Committee
on Safety Signs to form the Z535 Committee, which develops
the standards that must be used to design warnings, labels, and
instructions intended to identify and warn against hazards and
prevent accidents. The relevant standards for products are:
• ANSI Z535.4: Product Safety Signs and Labels
• ANSI Z535.6: Product Safety Information in Product Manuals,
Instructions, and Other Collateral Materials
    For a warning to be effective, there must be a reasonable degree
of certainty that the end user will receive and understand the
warning (see Figure 4). The use of warnings also must follow the
safety hierarchy. Since warnings are the fourth step, available
design alternatives must be considered in the design process.
Guarding out of a hazard and subsequent training must be undertaken
before warnings can reasonably be considered or designed.
    Our society, as stated in the various plumbing codes, relies on
the engineer, designer, and manufacturer to produce products that
are safe and durable. Society also recognizes and accepts some
level of risk, provided that they know about it beforehand and that
companies must be economically viable to survive. Don’t shirk your
responsibility to the public, your profession, yourself, or your company
by producing a product based on an insufficient design.

This article was reprinted with permission and all copyright remains with the American Society of Plumbing Engineers.

Repositioning

It's not just a roof drain - its a Rainwater Harvesting System.

This is an example of a creative repositioning of a product line to gain a foothold in a growth market. Before, roof drains were primarily of interest to plumbing designers - now, they are the key to LEED points.

New Plumbing Systems for Urine?

New technology to extract hydrogen from urine may have implications for building plumbing systems. Researchers at Ohio University are developing methods to extract hydrogen from urine and use the gas to generate electricity. Their press releases optimistically predict that large scale systems for use in industrial animal husbandry will be online within a year.

Changes in building design are necessarily slower, but could follow within 5 to 10 years if the agricultural prototypes are cost effective. I speculate that penetration into building design will follow the growing acceptance of waterless urinals. Instead of draining the urinals into the conventional sanitary drain lines, the fixtures would have separate drainage lines leading to urine collection tanks and power generation. Once the value of the power is established, combined with further efforts promoting water conservation, we may see an increased use of bidets to collect urine from women.

I further speculate that the initial market will be in larger projects -- stadia, schools, and office buildings for example -- where urinals are already in use and there would be an economy of scale.

Simultaneously, there may be a boutique business for homeowners trying to live off-the-grid.

Acceptance in building types that do not already have urinals (or bidets) will have the initial cost burden of providing additional fixtures and the floor area for them. But the operational and environmental benefits of generating power and conserving water may yet justify the expense. An alternative would be the invention of new types of water closets that could flush solids while simply draining liquids.

Plumbing goods manufacturers would be well advised to monitor this technology.

FOLLOW-UP: A televised public service announcement in Brazil is urging people to urinate while they shower as a way to conserve water and protect the rainforests. It looks like Ohio University ought to pack a bag and pay a visit to the water districts in Brazil.