Loading
Manufacturing
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Metallurgy, Materials Science, Welding, Failure Analysis, Mechanical Engineering
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Seventh Circuit
A fabricated steel deck for a Schnabel railcar fractured after Contractors Cargo Company placed a heavy load on the structure and later attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic system. Empire Bucket, Inc. had built the deck from T-1 high-strength steel using a third-party design. The specifications called for welding under American Welding Society requirements and a load capacity of up to 800,000 pounds. Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on the deck. By the following morning, the structure had dropped about three inches, and it fractured while employees were trying to lift it.
The failure led to a metallurgical examination of the weld and a dispute over the remaining purchase price. Testing identified an inclusion at the location where the crack began and found low fracture toughness in material surrounding that area. Contractors Cargo attributed the failure to fabrication problems and withheld payment. Empire Bucket sued for breach of contract, while Contractors Cargo filed counterclaims involving contract and implied warranties. A jury returned a verdict for Empire Bucket, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit later affirmed the judgment.
Contractors Cargo hired Empire Bucket to fabricate a deck for a Schnabel railcar used to transport heavy and oversized loads. A third party prepared the design, which specified T-1 high-strength steel, welding under American Welding Society requirements, and a maximum load of 800,000 pounds. Before delivery, the completed deck passed outside inspection and nondestructive testing. Contractors Cargo later placed approximately 820,000 pounds on the structure. After the deck dropped about three inches overnight, employees attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic jacking system, and the deck fractured during that process.
Contractors Cargo retained metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes to investigate the failed structure. During his examination, Schwantes found an inclusion approximately one-tenth of an inch long at the point where the crack originated. He performed several tests on the material, including a Charpy V-notch impact test, which produced results associated with low fracture toughness near the inclusion. Other nondestructive and destructive tests used to examine compliance with the welding specifications produced passing results. Contractors Cargo later concluded that the deck had not been properly fabricated and declined to pay the full purchase price.
Empire Bucket filed a breach-of-contract action in Wisconsin after Contractors Cargo withheld part of the amount owed for the deck. Contractors Cargo removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, where the matter proceeded as Case No. 12-CV-233. Contractors Cargo responded with counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The parties disputed both the contractual requirements for the deck and the circumstances surrounding its physical failure.
Before trial, Empire Bucket sought to restrict testimony about the Charpy V-notch impact test. The American Welding Society provisions discussed in the litigation stated that Charpy toughness requirements had to be included in the contract documents when they applied to a project. The parties agreed that their contract contained no such requirement. Contractors Cargo sought to use the test results as evidence of low fracture toughness rather than as proof that Empire Bucket had violated an express Charpy specification. The district court restricted specific references to the test during the liability phase but permitted testimony concerning brittleness, toughness, metallography, and fracture analysis.
Contractors Cargo presented testimony from metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes and welding expert Duane Gilbert. Schwantes qualified in metallurgical failure analysis and static, dynamic, and fatigue mechanical testing. Based on his examination, metallography, and testing, he characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture and identified the weld inclusion as the primary factor in his analysis. Gilbert, who qualified in welding, fitting, and quality assurance and control, testified that excessive heat input can make weld material brittle and gave his opinion that the crack began at the inclusion because it formed a weak point in the weld.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Empire Bucket. On June 11, 2013, the district court entered judgment that included $315,868 in damages and $21,057.87 in interest. Contractors Cargo then appealed the result. Its appellate arguments focused on the district court's treatment of the Charpy V-notch evidence and the numerical fracture-toughness values produced by that testing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 31, 2013. Contractors Cargo challenged the restriction placed on the Charpy evidence and argued that the test results should have been available to support its implied-warranty claims. Its position relied on expert testimony concerning brittle material near the weld inclusion and the origin of the crack. The appellate proceeding focused on whether the evidentiary ruling affected the presentation of those claims at trial.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court judgment on January 15, 2014. The appellate court did not decide whether restricting the specific Charpy references amounted to an abuse of discretion. Instead, it concluded that any error was harmless because the jury had already heard extensive testimony about brittleness, the weld inclusion, the crack origin, and the proposed fracture mechanism. The court determined that adding the name of the Charpy test or its precise numerical results was unlikely to have changed the verdict.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered an amended judgment on May 20, 2014. In addition to the damages and interest previously awarded, the court included $9,166.23 in taxed costs. The amended judgment brought Empire Bucket's total recovery to $346,092.10. The jury verdict remained intact following the Seventh Circuit's decision.
Court:
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Name:
Empire Bucket, Inc. v. Contractors Cargo Company
A T-1 steel deck fractured during hydraulic lifting after Contractors Cargo loaded approximately 820,000 pounds onto a structure rated for 800,000 pounds.
Metallurgical testing identified a weld inclusion at the crack origin and low fracture toughness in the surrounding material.
The dispute focused on fabrication quality, brittle fracture, welding requirements, and the admissibility of Charpy V-notch test evidence.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict for Empire Bucket in 2014, finding that any error in restricting the Charpy evidence was harmless.
The final amended judgment awarded Empire Bucket $346,092.10 in damages, interest, and costs.
Metallurgical Engineering
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Fracture Analysis
Mechanical Testing
Materials Testing
A fabricated steel deck for a Schnabel railcar fractured after Contractors Cargo Company placed a heavy load on the structure and later attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic system. Empire Bucket, Inc. had built the deck from T-1 high-strength steel using a third-party design. The specifications called for welding under American Welding Society requirements and a load capacity of up to 800,000 pounds. Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on the deck. By the following morning, the structure had dropped about three inches, and it fractured while employees were trying to lift it.
The failure led to a metallurgical examination of the weld and a dispute over the remaining purchase price. Testing identified an inclusion at the location where the crack began and found low fracture toughness in material surrounding that area. Contractors Cargo attributed the failure to fabrication problems and withheld payment. Empire Bucket sued for breach of contract, while Contractors Cargo filed counterclaims involving contract and implied warranties. A jury returned a verdict for Empire Bucket, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit later affirmed the judgment.
Contractors Cargo hired Empire Bucket to fabricate a deck for a Schnabel railcar used to transport heavy and oversized loads. A third party prepared the design, which specified T-1 high-strength steel, welding under American Welding Society requirements, and a maximum load of 800,000 pounds. Before delivery, the completed deck passed outside inspection and nondestructive testing. Contractors Cargo later placed approximately 820,000 pounds on the structure. After the deck dropped about three inches overnight, employees attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic jacking system, and the deck fractured during that process.
Contractors Cargo retained metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes to investigate the failed structure. During his examination, Schwantes found an inclusion approximately one-tenth of an inch long at the point where the crack originated. He performed several tests on the material, including a Charpy V-notch impact test, which produced results associated with low fracture toughness near the inclusion. Other nondestructive and destructive tests used to examine compliance with the welding specifications produced passing results. Contractors Cargo later concluded that the deck had not been properly fabricated and declined to pay the full purchase price.
Empire Bucket filed a breach-of-contract action in Wisconsin after Contractors Cargo withheld part of the amount owed for the deck. Contractors Cargo removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, where the matter proceeded as Case No. 12-CV-233. Contractors Cargo responded with counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The parties disputed both the contractual requirements for the deck and the circumstances surrounding its physical failure.
Before trial, Empire Bucket sought to restrict testimony about the Charpy V-notch impact test. The American Welding Society provisions discussed in the litigation stated that Charpy toughness requirements had to be included in the contract documents when they applied to a project. The parties agreed that their contract contained no such requirement. Contractors Cargo sought to use the test results as evidence of low fracture toughness rather than as proof that Empire Bucket had violated an express Charpy specification. The district court restricted specific references to the test during the liability phase but permitted testimony concerning brittleness, toughness, metallography, and fracture analysis.
Contractors Cargo presented testimony from metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes and welding expert Duane Gilbert. Schwantes qualified in metallurgical failure analysis and static, dynamic, and fatigue mechanical testing. Based on his examination, metallography, and testing, he characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture and identified the weld inclusion as the primary factor in his analysis. Gilbert, who qualified in welding, fitting, and quality assurance and control, testified that excessive heat input can make weld material brittle and gave his opinion that the crack began at the inclusion because it formed a weak point in the weld.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Empire Bucket. On June 11, 2013, the district court entered judgment that included $315,868 in damages and $21,057.87 in interest. Contractors Cargo then appealed the result. Its appellate arguments focused on the district court's treatment of the Charpy V-notch evidence and the numerical fracture-toughness values produced by that testing.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 31, 2013. Contractors Cargo challenged the restriction placed on the Charpy evidence and argued that the test results should have been available to support its implied-warranty claims. Its position relied on expert testimony concerning brittle material near the weld inclusion and the origin of the crack. The appellate proceeding focused on whether the evidentiary ruling affected the presentation of those claims at trial.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court judgment on January 15, 2014. The appellate court did not decide whether restricting the specific Charpy references amounted to an abuse of discretion. Instead, it concluded that any error was harmless because the jury had already heard extensive testimony about brittleness, the weld inclusion, the crack origin, and the proposed fracture mechanism. The court determined that adding the name of the Charpy test or its precise numerical results was unlikely to have changed the verdict.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin entered an amended judgment on May 20, 2014. In addition to the damages and interest previously awarded, the court included $9,166.23 in taxed costs. The amended judgment brought Empire Bucket's total recovery to $346,092.10. The jury verdict remained intact following the Seventh Circuit's decision.
Metallurgical Engineering Expert Witness (Defense)
Contractors Cargo retained metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes after the deck fractured. He examined the failed weld and identified an inclusion at the location where the crack originated. Schwantes testified that the deck experienced a brittle fracture and identified the inclusion as the primary factor in his analysis of the failure.
Mechanical Testing Expert Witness (Defense)
Schwantes also qualified as an expert in static, dynamic, and fatigue mechanical testing. His testimony relied on initial observations, metallographic analysis, and other test results when assessing the brittle condition of the material near the inclusion and the fracture mechanism.
Welding and Quality Control Expert Witness (Defense)
Duane Gilbert qualified as an expert in welding, fitting, and quality assurance and control. He testified that excessive heat input can make weld material brittle and gave his opinion that the crack began at the inclusion because it formed a weak point in the brittle weld material.
Materials Science Expert Witness
A materials science expert could examine the steel and weld microstructure, fracture toughness, brittle material behavior, and the effects of inclusions or welding conditions on crack initiation.
Brittle Fracture Was the Main Failure Theory
Contractors Cargo's experts characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture. Schwantes explained that brittle failure can occur without the amount of visible deformation associated with more ductile material behavior. His analysis connected the fracture to the inclusion and the condition of the material immediately surrounding it. The published appellate opinion does not identify fatigue as the failure mechanism.
The Crack Origin Was Located at a Weld Inclusion
The metallurgical examination identified an inclusion approximately one-tenth of an inch long at the point where the crack began. In this case, the inclusion consisted of a portion of the weld with properties different from those of the surrounding weld material. Contractors Cargo's experts identified that location as the fracture origin and examined the condition of the neighboring material in their testimony.
Charpy Testing Addressed Fracture Toughness
The Charpy V-notch test generated information about the material's resistance to fracture under impact loading. Results from the test indicated low fracture toughness near the inclusion. The parties' contract did not contain an express Charpy toughness requirement, so the test was not treated as a contractual acceptance standard. Contractors Cargo sought to use the results as part of its analysis of the material's brittle condition.
Expert Testimony and the Jury Verdict Reached Different Results
Contractors Cargo presented testimony connecting the inclusion and brittle weld material to the fracture. Schwantes and Gilbert both described conditions that, in their view, contributed to the failure. The jury nevertheless returned a verdict for Empire Bucket. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's handling of the Charpy evidence rather than making a new factual determination about the physical cause of the fracture.
Loading Conditions Were Part of the Failure Record
The deck was designed for loads of up to 800,000 pounds, while Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on it before the failure. The structure later dropped about three inches and fractured while employees attempted to raise it hydraulically. The litigation record addressed those operating conditions together with the weld inclusion, material toughness, brittleness, fabrication requirements, and inspection history. The appellate decision did not hold that the excess load alone caused the deck to fracture.
The dispute ended with a jury verdict for Empire Bucket and an unsuccessful appeal by Contractors Cargo. Contractors Cargo challenged the restriction placed on the Charpy V-notch evidence, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment on January 15, 2014, after concluding that the jury had already heard extensive testimony about the weld's brittle condition, the inclusion, and the fracture analysis. The district court later entered an amended judgment of $346,092.10, which included damages, interest, and taxed costs. The final judgment left the trial verdict in place and concluded the contract and warranty dispute arising from the fractured steel deck.
What caused the Empire Bucket steel deck to fracture?
Contractors Cargo's metallurgical expert testified that the deck experienced a brittle fracture associated with an inclusion in the weld. The inclusion was found at the location where the crack originated, and testing indicated low fracture toughness in nearby material. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Empire Bucket, so the expert's failure theory did not result in a finding against the fabricator.
Was fatigue identified as the deck's failure mechanism?
The published appellate opinion does not identify fatigue as the failure mechanism. Contractors Cargo's experts characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture associated with the weld inclusion and the condition of the surrounding material. Josh Schwantes was qualified in fatigue mechanical testing, but his testimony concerning this failure focused on brittle fracture.
How much weight was on the deck before it failed?
The deck had been designed for loads of up to 800,000 pounds. Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on it before the failure. By the next morning, the deck had dropped about three inches, and it later fractured while workers attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic system.
Why was the Charpy V-notch test disputed?
The Charpy V-notch test produced data concerning fracture toughness near the weld inclusion. The parties' contract did not require the deck to satisfy a specific Charpy toughness standard. The district court therefore restricted references to the test itself during the liability phase while allowing testimony about brittleness, toughness, metallography, and the experts' fracture analysis.
What did the Seventh Circuit decide about the Charpy V-notch evidence?
Metallurgical Engineering Expert Witness (Defense)
Contractors Cargo retained metallurgical engineer Josh Schwantes after the deck fractured. He examined the failed weld and identified an inclusion at the location where the crack originated. Schwantes testified that the deck experienced a brittle fracture and identified the inclusion as the primary factor in his analysis of the failure.
Mechanical Testing Expert Witness (Defense)
Schwantes also qualified as an expert in static, dynamic, and fatigue mechanical testing. His testimony relied on initial observations, metallographic analysis, and other test results when assessing the brittle condition of the material near the inclusion and the fracture mechanism.
Welding and Quality Control Expert Witness (Defense)
Duane Gilbert qualified as an expert in welding, fitting, and quality assurance and control. He testified that excessive heat input can make weld material brittle and gave his opinion that the crack began at the inclusion because it formed a weak point in the brittle weld material.
Materials Science Expert Witness
A materials science expert could examine the steel and weld microstructure, fracture toughness, brittle material behavior, and the effects of inclusions or welding conditions on crack initiation.
Brittle Fracture Was the Main Failure Theory
Contractors Cargo's experts characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture. Schwantes explained that brittle failure can occur without the amount of visible deformation associated with more ductile material behavior. His analysis connected the fracture to the inclusion and the condition of the material immediately surrounding it. The published appellate opinion does not identify fatigue as the failure mechanism.
The Crack Origin Was Located at a Weld Inclusion
The metallurgical examination identified an inclusion approximately one-tenth of an inch long at the point where the crack began. In this case, the inclusion consisted of a portion of the weld with properties different from those of the surrounding weld material. Contractors Cargo's experts identified that location as the fracture origin and examined the condition of the neighboring material in their testimony.
Charpy Testing Addressed Fracture Toughness
The Charpy V-notch test generated information about the material's resistance to fracture under impact loading. Results from the test indicated low fracture toughness near the inclusion. The parties' contract did not contain an express Charpy toughness requirement, so the test was not treated as a contractual acceptance standard. Contractors Cargo sought to use the results as part of its analysis of the material's brittle condition.
Expert Testimony and the Jury Verdict Reached Different Results
Contractors Cargo presented testimony connecting the inclusion and brittle weld material to the fracture. Schwantes and Gilbert both described conditions that, in their view, contributed to the failure. The jury nevertheless returned a verdict for Empire Bucket. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's handling of the Charpy evidence rather than making a new factual determination about the physical cause of the fracture.
Loading Conditions Were Part of the Failure Record
The deck was designed for loads of up to 800,000 pounds, while Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on it before the failure. The structure later dropped about three inches and fractured while employees attempted to raise it hydraulically. The litigation record addressed those operating conditions together with the weld inclusion, material toughness, brittleness, fabrication requirements, and inspection history. The appellate decision did not hold that the excess load alone caused the deck to fracture.
The dispute ended with a jury verdict for Empire Bucket and an unsuccessful appeal by Contractors Cargo. Contractors Cargo challenged the restriction placed on the Charpy V-notch evidence, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment on January 15, 2014, after concluding that the jury had already heard extensive testimony about the weld's brittle condition, the inclusion, and the fracture analysis. The district court later entered an amended judgment of $346,092.10, which included damages, interest, and taxed costs. The final judgment left the trial verdict in place and concluded the contract and warranty dispute arising from the fractured steel deck.
What caused the Empire Bucket steel deck to fracture?
Contractors Cargo's metallurgical expert testified that the deck experienced a brittle fracture associated with an inclusion in the weld. The inclusion was found at the location where the crack originated, and testing indicated low fracture toughness in nearby material. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Empire Bucket, so the expert's failure theory did not result in a finding against the fabricator.
Was fatigue identified as the deck's failure mechanism?
The published appellate opinion does not identify fatigue as the failure mechanism. Contractors Cargo's experts characterized the deck failure as a brittle fracture associated with the weld inclusion and the condition of the surrounding material. Josh Schwantes was qualified in fatigue mechanical testing, but his testimony concerning this failure focused on brittle fracture.
How much weight was on the deck before it failed?
The deck had been designed for loads of up to 800,000 pounds. Contractors Cargo placed approximately 820,000 pounds on it before the failure. By the next morning, the deck had dropped about three inches, and it later fractured while workers attempted to raise it with the railcar's hydraulic system.
Why was the Charpy V-notch test disputed?
The Charpy V-notch test produced data concerning fracture toughness near the weld inclusion. The parties' contract did not require the deck to satisfy a specific Charpy toughness standard. The district court therefore restricted references to the test itself during the liability phase while allowing testimony about brittleness, toughness, metallography, and the experts' fracture analysis.
What did the Seventh Circuit decide about the Charpy V-notch evidence?
The Seventh Circuit did not decide whether the district court had abused its discretion by restricting specific references to the Charpy V-notch test. Instead, it concluded that any error was harmless. The jury had already heard testimony about the weld's brittleness, the inclusion where the crack originated, and the proposed fracture mechanism, so the court found that identifying the Charpy test by name or presenting its numerical results was unlikely to have changed the verdict.
Metallurgical Engineering
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Fracture Analysis
Mechanical Testing
Materials Testing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing
Human Factors, +4
Manufacturing
The Seventh Circuit did not decide whether the district court had abused its discretion by restricting specific references to the Charpy V-notch test. Instead, it concluded that any error was harmless. The jury had already heard testimony about the weld's brittleness, the inclusion where the crack originated, and the proposed fracture mechanism, so the court found that identifying the Charpy test by name or presenting its numerical results was unlikely to have changed the verdict.