Understanding Earthquake Risk

by David Teasdale, P.E.

Earthquakes, explosions, and other ground vibrations often generate interest in the engineering and insurance worlds because they offer a chance to see structures behave differently.  Further, since understanding the response of a structure to vibrations requires more math and specialization, it can have a little more aura of mystery; however, it does not have to be that way.

Building codes are based primarily on statistical risk of a damaging event, and in the United States, we subscribe to an elastic strain energy theory for earthquake risk assessment.  (Yes, there is more than one theory for the predominant cause of earthquakes in an area.)  In the elastic strain concept, the rock volumes on either side of a fault rub against each other and bind until the strain becomes large enough to cause slip.  The sudden slip and jump in movement produces the vibrational wave that propagates out from the fault.  (Earthquakes are described with a focus, or point of origin, but the vibrational wave actually emanates out from a line corresponding to the length of the moving fault.) This earthquake mechanism lends itself well to measurement, study, and correlations between past earthquakes and predictions for the future.

The risk of damage, however, is based on much more, including the type of building, distance from the ruptured fault, depth of the ruptured fault, magnitude, duration of shaking, and to some extent the frequency of vibration.  Virtually all of these factors are unknown in advance except the building, and therefore, it is possible to overthink the important points.  Engineers and codes deal with these unknowns by adopting a number of broad-brush concepts beginning with an idealized, minimum earthquake and design parameters that are meant to save lives not prevent damage.  The state of the art for earthquake design is basically that, if conventional approaches are followed, the building performance in the next earthquake should be satisfactory with respect to life safety.  It may be disappointing to learn that codes handle the risk of a powerful infrequent earthquake much the same as frequent small earthquakes (think New Madrid in the Midwest or Oklahoma in the Plains states).  The design force levels are simply reduced, which is fine for a 500-year recurrence interval unless you’re living in the statistical 499^th year.

For the forensic engineer and insurance adjuster assessing damage, it is not necessary to know the earthquake magnitude, its frequency content, recurrence interval, or virtually anything else about the quake.  It is more relevant to understand how the structure responds to a shaking event, be able to identify features that move most or stay stationary, and how the cladding materials behave when skewed.  Since the actual force levels and stresses at points within a structure are not known precisely (even when a ground motion is digitally applied to a structural computer model), field evaluation follows a comparative analysis between features that are weak/strong, stiff/flexible, anchored/unanchored, high/low, and etc.  The foundation of a building is accelerated, and as its motion changes direction, the structure above the foundation experiences amplified motion and deformation.  Understanding the behavior of a structure when shaken allows an inspector to make the necessary comparative analysis and separate out conditions that are more likely the result of other causes.

The Consortium of University Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) has published a great source of information in handbook form that can be found online at https://curee.org/projects/EDA/docs/CUREE-EDA02-2-public.pdf. The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) requires certification training for adjusters that includes instruction on earthquake damage assessment, and many instructors will reference this book.  Haag Education offers a short course online and more in-depth courses for contract training that lead to CEA certification

by David Teasdale, P.E., Haag Principal Engineer & VP of Engineering Services

David Teasdale specializes in structural evaluations, earthborne and airborne vibrations, geotechnical evaluations, general civil engineering, and wind and related storm effects.  He is the primary author and presenter of a Haag classroom seminar course on earthquake damage assessment and Haag’s California Earthquake Adjuster Accreditation course. See his profile here.

Any opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Haag Engineering Co., Haag Construction Consulting, Haag Education, or parent company, Haag Global, Inc.

As we celebrate Haag’s 95th anniversary in 2019, we are looking back at some of the noteworthy and important projects Haag Engineers and Consultants have been involved with over the last 95 years. Each month in 2019, this blog will feature one unique, important project, as selected by our senior staff. 

Grain Explosion Evaluation: Coshocton Grain Company

By John Z. Wlascinski, P.E., Principal Engineer

On August 13, 2014, a large grain dust explosion occurred at the Coshocton Grain Company facility in Coshocton, Ohio. The explosion severely damaged three connected silos and injured six workers. Employees were loading rail cars when the explosion happened around 4 pm, and sections of the bins toppled onto the rail cars.⁽¹⁾

The 60-year-old Coshocton Grain facility was a 2.5-million-bushel capacity grain receiving, drying, and storage facility that included three slip-formed concrete storage houses standing more than 100 feet above grade at the bin deck. A single gallery spanned across all three houses; two of the houses had head houses. A tunnel network connected all three grain houses in the basement, and one of the houses to a truck dump building and to several silos across railroad tracks to the south. South of the railroad tracks were five additional concrete silos, four steel storage bins, and several small buildings.

Seven bucket elevators, 12 drag conveyors, 11 belt conveyors, two screw augers, and one tripper directed the flow of grain throughout the facility. In general, the equipment in the basement and ground-level directed flow of grain away from the dumps and bins, and to the boots of the elevators. Elevated equipment directed flow away from the elevator legs to the various silos, bins, dryers, and load out areas of the facility. There were also three dust collectors, a dryer, a truck scale, and a continuous flow scale.

Haag Engineers responded to determine the origin and cause of the explosion, which included coordinating with OSHA representatives and salvage efforts.

The explosion caused a large area of the middle house to blowout and the head house to fall to the ground and damage several railcars and railroad tracks. Haag’s original scope expanded to include documentation of the explosion site using 360° photography and scanning (3D laser scanning), evaluation of structural and mechanical damage caused by the explosion, and a cost estimate of the explosion-related damage. Collectively, this project began as an explosion origin and cause determination and expanded to include four different Haag services and seven Haag personnel.

• No Grain, No Gain: Coshocton Grain, Farmanddairy.com; https://www.farmanddairy.com/top-stories/no-grain-no-gain-nearly-a-year-after-a-devastating-explosion-coshocton-grain-is-coming-back/265567.html, June 2015.

John Z. Wlascinski, PE, CFEI, CVFI, is the Board Chairman, Houston Engineering Branch Manager, and Forensic Engineer with Haag Engineering Co. Mr. Wlascinski has been an integral part of the engineering team in Houston since 1993. He specializes specializing in mechanical failures of industrial and commercial machinery, fire suppression systems and components, piping systems and components, and oil field equipment. He has also specialized in HVAC system evaluation, fire/explosion origin and cause determination, and vehicle accident reconstruction. Prior to joining Haag, Mr. Wlascinski owned and operated two successful businesses: an automotive and heavy equipment repair company, and an underground utilities service company. Mr. Wlascinski is a licensed P.E. in 29 states, plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico. Mr. Wlascinski is an NAFI Certified Fire and Explosion Investigator, NAFI Certified Vehicle Fire Investigator, and a Certified Infrared Thermographer Level I. He earned his Mechanical Engineering degree from The University of Texas at Austin.

Any opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Haag Engineering Co., Haag Construction Consulting, Haag Education, or parent company, Haag Global, Inc.

Assessing Hail Damage:

Part 2 – Hail Inspection Protocol

By Justin Kestner, P.E., Steve Smith, P.E., and Jim Chaney, CPCU

This is the second of a two-part series on hail damage. Part 1 focused on wording choices used in reports to describe hail effects.  Part two focuses on proper hail inspection protocol, damage criteria, published research, and terms used in the assessment of hail-caused damage, specifically asphalt shingles. We have already received questions from Part 1 which are addressed in Part 2 below. If you have not read Part 1 yet, please consider reading that first.

From time to time, we at Haag feel the need to clarify a few important points about hail damage, research papers pertaining to hail published by Haag and Haag’s criteria for damage.  It is the latter that seems to have been misinterpreted by many in recent years with respect to asphalt shingle roofing.  The last time we published a clarification with respect to hail damage to asphalt shingles was in 2006.

One of the most common questions posed to Haag engineers, in the field and in our classroom presentations, is regarding the criteria considered when assessing hail-caused damage, especially as it pertains to asphalt shingle roofs.  Seemingly, people tend to get sidetracked in considering specific shingle surface features without considering the singular, most important aspect of any hail inspection: Determining “Did hail cause the condition?” Roofing consultants should be knowledgeable on the technical aspects of the roofing product they are examining, including how the product is manufactured and installed, how the product performs with regard to weathering, how to recognize manufacturing anomalies, and how to identify hail- or wind-caused damage. Amazingly, we often read hail assessment reports by other organizations that fail to establish whether there is evidence of hail hailfall at a site and whether the evidence indicates hail was capable of causing the condition(s) in question. Documenting collateral effects of hail builds a strong foundation for an assessor’s opinion(s) regarding the effects of hail on a roof.

Determining whether or not hail caused a certain condition requires sound, systematic inspection procedures, thorough documentation, knowledge of the roofing product in question, and sometimes testing. Haag has conducted numerous research projects over the decades and utilizes our laboratory to analyze hundreds of roofing samples each year in support of our engineers, construction consultants, outside clients, and even non-Haag roof consultants. Our research has helped the industry better understand the effects of hail, established the minimum size of hail able to damage different roofing types (threshold size), and even set the standard for hail damage quantification.

Haag began ice ball impact testing in 1963.  Over the years, Haag has impacted numerous types of roofing, siding, other building components, cladding, automobiles, aerospace products, and others.  We remain best known for our expertise of assessing hail damage to roofing.  Among our research papers on hail are Hail-Fall, Roofing, and Impact Testing (Morrison et. al., 1997); Long-Term Effects of Hail Impact on Asphalt Shingles—An Interim Report (Morrison, 1999); Hail Damage Threshold Sizes for Common Roofing Materials (Marshall et. al., 2002); and Hail Damage to Asphalt Roofing Shingles (Marshal et. al., 2004).  The first of these papers established that hail-caused damage to an asphalt shingle in roofing is a bruise (fracture of the reinforcing mat), puncture, or displacement of granules sufficient to expose underlying bitumen.  The second of these papers found locations on shingles which were impacted by simulated hailstones in our laboratory at the initiation of the study, but did not fracture the shingle, showed no identifiable changes in granule coverage when examined after 11 years of natural weathering in north Texas. A sample of Haag’s publications can be found on Haag’s website here. 

Haag pioneered the test square methodology for hail damage inspection of roofing in the 1970s.  This protocol, which is based on Haag’s extensive testing and field observations, has been peer reviewed and formally published at the North American Conference on Roofing Technology.  A copy of this paper can be found here.  A copy has also been available on the website of the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) for their members.  This protocol has been widely adopted throughout the industry and has become the de facto industry standard.

Test squares are 100-square-foot areas (commonly in the form of 10-foot by 10-foot squares) within which the inspector performs up close visual and tactile inspection of roofing for hail damage.  At least one test area inspection is performed per each direction of the roof (e.g., north, south, east, and west).  Test squares should not be obstructed by overhanging trees (if possible) and should be representative of the general condition of the roof.  Consider additional test areas if notably different roof conditions are present; for example, an older 9:12 pitched slope and a new 3:12 porch addition slope on the rear of the building. With respect to asphalt shingles, the inspector looks for hail-caused bruises, punctures, or other hail-caused conditions within 100 square-foot test areas.  The number of damaged shingles per direction of roofing square is then extrapolated based on the test square results.  Poorly supported shingles along valleys, ridges, and edges of the roof are evaluated separately as part of this protocol.  An economical decision to repair or replace a roof can be made after the extent of hail damage is known.

As noted in the publication of Haag’s test area protocol and as recognized by many throughout the roofing industry, various causes of granule loss in asphalt shingles often are confused with hail-caused effects.  Weathering, material issues, foot-caused scuffs/marring, backed-out fasteners, lichens, blisters, tree abrasions, bird droppings, and mechanical scuffs/gouges from installation, inspection, and maintenance activities can all cause conditions that may be mistaken for hail effects on asphalt shingles.  When localized regions of missing granules are found in generally circular patterns on a roof subjected to hailfall, some people in the industry conclude the granules were displaced by hail without comparing the frequency or distribution of the missing granules to the frequency of hail at the site and the known, random distribution of hail, especially if the hailfall approached published threshold sizes (1 inch or greater for three-tab shingles and 1-1/4 inches or greater for laminated shingles).

Importantly, Haag’s roof assessment protocol involves comparative analysis of various surfaces at the property (including but not limited to the roof) to establish evidence of hailfall, to determine if the hailfall was recent, and to discern the approximate size, hardness, and directionality of the hail.  Utility junction boxes, fences, gutters, downspouts, decks, and air-conditioner condenser fins are all good surfaces to evaluate to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of hailfall at a site, including recent and non-recent hail.  From this surface analysis, an experienced inspector can determine if hail that fell recently at the site possessed the necessary properties to damage the roof, if damaging hail had fallen long ago, or if there is no evidence of damaging hailfall at all.  Ideally, the surface analysis is performed first to inform the inspector of the hail history at a location. Then examination of the roof can be performed already having the knowledge of recent and past storms, allowing the inspector to develop informed opinions regarding conditions observed on the roof. Next, poorly supported shingles along ridges and valleys are assessed to determine if hail was able to damage the roof, because these shingles are the easiest for hail to bruise or puncture. This step is crucial for accurate hail damage assessment, because if hail was substantial enough to damage well-supported shingles within the field of the roof, some of these less well-supported shingles should also be damaged. Lastly, test areas are inspected to quantify the total amount of damaged shingles on the roof.   By conducting hail inspections in this order, the inspector has a sense of hailfall at the site when considering roof surface anomalies within test areas.

Hail-caused damage to asphalt shingles was previously described in this blog as “a bruise (fracture of the reinforcing mat), puncture, or displacement of granules sufficient to expose underlying bitumen.” Problems with hail damage assessment to asphalt shingle roofing often arise when regions of missing granules are misidentified as being hail-caused or when the significance of missing granules is not understood.

One organization that has addressed granule loss with respect to cosmetic or functional damage is the Canadian Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers’ Association (CASMA). CASMA issues Technical Bulletins from time to time to address issues pressing to the asphalt roofing industry. CASMA issued Technical Bulletin #14 (Updated in June 2019), which addresses hail-caused damage to asphalt shingles. The bulletin describes small regions of missing granules caused by hail, as an aesthetic condition with little impact on the life of the roof. The bulletin further describes hail-caused damage in functional terms as sufficient damage to cause a leak or a reduction in service life.  It clarifies functional damage as significant granule loss “easily visible from the ground, large areas of asphalt becoming exposed” or shingle fracture/penetration which can be seen as fractures through the back of the shingle. CASMA Technical Bulletins can be accessed at https://www.casma.ca/technical-bulletins.

It should be noted that the CASMA definitions of “functional” and “aesthetic” (cosmetic) do not necessarily correspond with the use of those terms in insurance policies, if those terms are indeed used.  An insurance adjuster should always evaluate specific policy definitions and language when determining coverage under an insurance policy.

Haag has studied the effects of granule loss on asphalt shingles in our paper titled “Hail Damage to Asphalt Roofing Shingles. A portion of the paper is dedicated to a granule loss study. In the study, various quantities of granules were removed from the shingles, which were then left to weather in the Dallas, Texas area for 10 years. One of the shingles studied was weathered upslide down, exposing asphalt with no granule coverage. After 10 years, the only shingle that exhibited substantial weather-caused erosion was the shingle with no granule surfacing. The other shingles exhibited faded and/or oxidized asphalt where exposed, but no exposed reinforcement fibers and no surface cracks or visible erosion.

In summary, granule loss on asphalt composition shingles has many causes, including hail.  Features visible in shingle surfaces should only be attributed to hail impacts if hailstones at the site were capable of causing the conditions. Comparative analysis of exposed surfaces should be made to determine the relative size, hardness, frequency, and damage-causing potential of hail that fell at a site before roofing damage determinations are made. Careful, thorough inspection and documentation procedures should be followed to support any opinions rendered. Qualified roofing consultants should be capable of discerning hail-caused conditions from weathering, manufacturing, or mechanically-caused conditions.  Hail-caused damage to an asphalt shingle roof typically takes the form of displaced granules and a corresponding bruise in the shingle. If hail scuffs granules from a shingle sufficient to expose substantial coating bitumen, Haag considers that to be hail damage due to the potential loss of remaining service life. If a roof, however, was at or near the end of its useful service life at the time of the hailstorm, then other regions on shingles where asphalt was already exposed due to weathering, foot-traffic, bird droppings, etc., would result in weathered openings long before areas where granules may have been recently displaced by hail. In these instances, granules scuffed away by hail would not have any effect on the performance of the roof, unless accompanied by a bruise.

Justin Kestner is the CEO of Haag Global and the President of Haag Engineering Co., where he also serves as a Principal Engineer.  He is a licensed engineer in 17 states and has inspected thousands of roofs.

Steve Smith is the Director of Haag Research & Testing Co. and a Principal Engineer at Haag Engineering.  He has co-authored several papers on hail damage and has inspected thousands of roofs.  He is a licensed engineer in 6 states and can be reached at ssmith@haagglobal.com.

Jim Chaney is the Director of Curriculum and Senior Instructor for Haag Education Co.  He has 12 years of insurance adjusting experience and an additional 12 years as a full-time trainer.  He was also a community college adjunct faculty member developing and teaching insurance claims courses for five years.  Jim has an all-lines adjuster license in Texas and has been approved to teach adjuster CE in multiple states.  He can be reached at jchaney@haagglobal.com.

Any opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of Haag Engineering Co., Haag Construction Consulting, Haag Education, or parent company, Haag Global, Inc.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As we celebrate Haag’s 95th anniversary in 2019, we are looking back at some of the noteworthy projects Haag Engineers and Consultants have been involved with over the last 95 years. Each month in 2019, this blog will feature one unique, important project, as selected by our senior staff. This month, we’re featuring the Titanic movie set, plus Assessing Hail Damage, Part 2: Hail Inspection Protocol. 

Titanic Movie Set Collapse

In February 1997, Haag Engineers were called to the movie set of the feature film Titanic. Ironically, the 90% scale movie set “sank” near the end of filming. The overall model was a steel frame mostly on dry land that was clad with metal panels to look like a ship. To simulate sinking, the bow was progressively tilted into a pool of water by lifting the entire frame and cutting the columns shorter. For the final scenes, the bow section was a separate set, supported by a series of hydraulically-actuated cables and buoyant foam blocks to make the set appear to float while it was being actuated with the cables. (The flotation blocks could not support the weight.) Unfortunately, a series of modifications needed to improve realism resulted in support failures that let the set sink, interrupted filming, left expensive actors and crews idle, and impacted actor confidence in the structure.

The set of Titanic was housed in a brand-new movie studio, complete with a 17 million gallon water tank (the largest ever constructed) on the coast of Rosarito, Mexico. When the film Titanic was released on December 19, 1997, it was the most expensive movie ever made, costing about $1 million per minute of screen time, exceeding $200 Million. (IMDB.com)

“The problem with the set, at the time I arrived, was that they weren’t really certain what had occurred. All they knew was that it was suspended on cables and flotation blocks at the time that it partially collapsed,” said David Teasdale, P.E., Haag Principal Engineer and VP of Engineering Services. “We had to wait a day while the tank was drained, and we took that time to learn the structure, review plans, talk to the designers and users, and tour some of the other sets where filming continued.  The set had broken and partially sank once earlier, and different groups had different concerns about why.  A film production is unique, in that, down days are factored into the film schedule.  Therefore, the business interruption claim is not confirmed until filming is complete and it is known that the accident actually cost any time.  In this case, the actors and crew were costing many thousands of dollars per day.”

“Once the tank was drained, we observed that one support leg had broken loose, kicked out, and allowed the set of the ship to tilt into the pit of water.  In essence, more flotation blocks were called for to improve the buoyant look during filming, and there was only so much room under the set to fit them in.  When the extra blocks were added, the cross braces had to be moved higher on the columns.  The structural contractor had completed his work and left the site, so he subcontracted a local welding crew to do the work from an engineer’s plan.  One main support leg had pulled loose due to a bad weld, and the bad weld was one of many.  The solution was pretty simple. First and foremost, the repair needed to be implemented quickly, because time is money, and secondly, since it had failed once before, we needed to restore trust in the set. Therefore, Haag Engineers were included in the repair oversight.  Subsequently, we were asked to assist characterizing the failures to help others define whether they met the definitions for insured delays.  Haag also testified at the subrogation arbitration.”

A forensic consultant needs to do more than simply identify the problem, and Haag Engineering has a long history of identifying problems large and small, helping with the solution, communicating the information needed to a variety of parties with different interests, and providing the engineering perspective needed for others to resolve any resulting disputes.

by David Teasdale, P.E., Haag Principal Engineer & VP of Engineering Services

David Teasdale specializes in structural evaluations, earthborne and airborne vibrations, geotechnical evaluations, general civil engineering, and wind and related storm effects.  He is the primary author and presenter of a Haag classroom seminar course on earthquake damage assessment and Haag’s California Earthquake Adjuster Accreditation course. 

As we celebrate Haag’s 95th anniversary in 2019, we are looking back at some of the noteworthy projects Haag Engineers and Consultants have been involved with over the last 95 years. Each month in 2019, this blog will feature one unique, important project, as selected by our senior staff. This month, we’re featuring Haag Education’s Haag Certified Inspector- Commercial Roofs program, and we’re doing a special 2-part feature “Assessing Hail Damage: Issues with “Functional” vs “Cosmetic” Damage”.

Assessing Hail Damage:

Part 1 – Issues with “Functional” vs “Cosmetic” Damage

By Justin Kestner, P.E., Steve Smith, P.E., and Jim Chaney, CPCU

As the season turns to fall, we will focus on something that falls from the sky in much of the U.S. – hail.  This is the first of a two-part series on hail damage.  The second part will be in next month’s blog.  This post focuses on wording choices used in hail reports to describe hail effects.  Part two will focus on proper hail inspection protocol, damage criteria, and so forth.  This post was written by two Haag engineers and by a Haag Education Co. instructor, the latter of whom has been an adjuster and provided adjuster training for years prior to joining Haag Education.  To be clear, it is this instructor who addresses policy provisions in this post, and it is the responsibility of the adjuster to know and apply each policy. 

For those of us who have been assessing hail-caused damage to roofs for some time, the terms “functional damage” and “cosmetic damage” have been tossed around quite commonly over the years.  But as insurance policies and case law have evolved, so too should your vernacular when it comes to hail damage assessment.

Some of you may have read a 2018 Haag article on hail and metal roofing or a read a CLM article on the same subject (http://clmmag.theclm.org/home/article/Testing-Your-Mettle).  A recent court ruling in Indiana has shed light yet again on the subject of hail damage with respect to insurance claims (https://www.plrb.org/courtopinions/090419north.pdf).

The court in this decision, denied an insurance company’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss an accusation of bad faith.  The ruling cited the definition of hail damage applied by an engineer (not a Haag file, by the way) retained by the insurance company to evaluate “shingle” roofing.  Per the plaintiff’s allegation, the engineer defined hail damage as “functional damage” while the policy covered “cosmetic shingle damage”.  While the case itself has yet to be decided, the issue of cosmetic versus functional damage is one worth addressing.

Casual use of the term “damage” – either cosmetic or functional – by an expert can have major implications depending on a particular insurance policy.  It is not the role of the engineer or roof consultant to interpret an insurance policy or make coverage decisions.  Those tasks are solely the role of the insurance adjuster.  Instead, the expert should clearly state what the hail did and did not do.  Some basic examples follow.

• Hail dented gutters, downspouts facing south and west, window frames facing south and west, flue caps, and metal apron flashing.  Hail did not fracture shingle reinforcements.
• Hail dented metal roof panels but did not rupture or puncture the panels, compromise panel seams, or compromise fasteners.  Hail also dented skylight frames but did not fracture the skylights.
• Hail fractured PVC membrane at the rate of 10 fractures per roofing square.  The PVC membrane requires replacement.
• Hail did not fracture the TPO membrane but dented and fractured underlying polyiso insulation.  Laboratory testing by Haag Research & Testing Co. determined that the insulation did not sustain a measurable loss of R-value.
• Hail fractured modified bitumen (mod-bit) base flashing at the rate of 1 bruise per 10 linear feet along east and north parapets. Also, hail ruptured the aluminized coating on the smooth mod-bit membrane but did not fracture the membrane reinforcements.  The membrane could be re-coated to remediate the effects of hail.
• Hail spalled granules from the nominally flat mod-bit membrane, exposing asphalt at the rate of 4 spalls per roofing square. Hail also fractured the membrane reinforcement at the rate of 1 fracture per square of roofing.  The fractures could be repaired, and the granules could be replenished economically.

If a client tasks an expert with answering a specific question, however, then the expert should answer that question as best as he or she can.  For example, if the question is, “Did hail functionally damage the roof?”, then the client should advise the expert if there is a specific definition of “functional damage” the carrier is using that needs to be applied.  If there is no governing definition, the expert will be left to state their own definition. [A longstanding definition of functional damage used by Haag is a reduction in the water-shedding capability or expected service life of the roofing material.]  If the question is, “Was hail damage to roof cosmetic or functional?”, then questions arise as to the definitions of both functional and cosmetic damage.

Otherwise, the expert could consider referring to dents in metal, insignificant granule loss, or other such hail effects that did not shorten the service life or reduce the water-shedding capability of the roof or appurtenances as “cosmetic effects” or “cosmetic conditions”.  By clearly stating what hail did and did not do to the roof and by avoiding the term “damage”, the inspector enables the insurance adjuster to perform his or her role of applying the policy and making coverage decisions.

Several courts in various states have addressed the issue of what constitutes “direct physical damage” under an insurance policy.  In almost all cases thus far, courts have ruled that cosmetic changes in roofing materials caused by wind or hail are “damage” under the insurance policy.  That, however, does not mean that the cosmetic changes are covered damage.  Whether those conditions are covered will depend on the policy wording.  Even if there is a cosmetic damage exclusion or similar endorsement on the policy, coverage will vary depending on the specific policy wording and occasionally on the state in which the loss occurs if a court in that jurisdiction has made a ruling that sets a precedent.

About the Authors:

• Justin Kestner is the CEO of Haag Global and the President of Haag Engineering Co., where he also serves as a Principal Engineer.  He is a licensed engineer in 17 states and has inspected thousands of roofs.
• Steve Smith is the Director of Haag Research & Testing Co. and a Principal Engineer at Haag Engineering.  He has co-authored several papers on hail damage and has inspected thousands of roofs.  He is a licensed engineer in 6 states and can be reached at ssmith@haagglobal.com.
• Jim Chaney is the Director of Curriculum and Senior Instructor for Haag Education Co.  He has 12 years of insurance adjusting experience and an additional 12 years as a full-time trainer.  He was also a community college adjunct faculty member developing and teaching insurance claims courses for five years.  Jim has an all-lines adjuster license in Texas and has been approved to teach adjuster CE in multiple states.  He can be reached at jchaney@haagglobal.com.

___________________________

Haag Education celebrates 10 years of HCI-Commercial

The Haag Certified Inspector program began setting the damage assessment standard for roofs in 2007 with our HCRI-Residential (since changed to HCI-Residential) program.  Immediately, Haag Education was inundated with questions about when a similar program would be released for commercial (flat roof) systems.  Work immediately began on the new program and in September 2009, we presented our first HCI-Commercial class to a sold-out crowd in Irving, TX.

HCI-C quickly started to make its own mark in the industry among the more experienced adjusters, consultants, engineers, and commercial roofers.  Damage assessors with the HCI-C professional designation were able to inspect roofs with more accuracy, efficiency and with more confidence.

The HCI-C program teaches students how to accurately identify and document hail/wind damage, installation issues, manufacturing issues on many types of commercial roofs including built-up, single-ply membrane (thermoplastic & thermoset), polymer-modified bitumen, SPF, metal and vegetated roofs.  In addition to the roofing types, inspectors also learn about different coatings and issues that are specific to flat/commercial roofs.

As the commercial roofing industry evolves, so does our HCI-C program.  Haag’s Research & Testing division, along with Haag’s engineers in the field, keep their fingers on the pulse of the industry.  As a result of continuing changes to the industry, Haag Education introduced our HCI-C 2.0 version in 2018, a major overhaul of the program including some all-new class activities to enhance the learning experience.

In the last 10 years of HCI-C, nearly 3,700 industry professionals have earned the HCI-C designation and set themselves apart as premier commercial roof damage assessors.  The first 10 years of HCI-C have contributed to changing our industry damage assessment standards, and Haag intends to keep the momentum going forward into the next decade of the Haag Certified Inspector program. Stay tuned for more updates on HCI-C and Haag’s next big industry changer!

Haag Construction Consulting – 2nd Anniversary of the 2017 Hurricane Season (Harvey, Irma, Maria)

We are quickly approaching the second anniversary of the exceptionally busy 2017 Hurricane season. The 2017 storm year began with Harvey, the stubborn gulf storm which camped out over Houston and the entire coast of Texas for 7 days in August. We then saw Irma and Maria deal back-to-back blows to the Caribbean, with property claims activity extending through the Keys into Central Florida.

Haag’s Construction Consulting (HCC) business unit has received of a great deal of activity in all areas of the US affected by the heightened 2017 season. Even as we pass the two-year mark of these storms, Haag Consultants continue to receive new assignments weekly. In addition to our 2017 hurricane work across the mainland, Puerto Rico assignments have continued at a very steady pace. We are now progressing from the initial damage assessment phase into the controversy and litigation phase.

Haag Construction Consulting’s work in Puerto Rico has included hospitals, shopping malls, high-rise office buildings, resort hotels, retail centers, government facilities, and mid and high-rise condos. As with any coastal vacation area, Puerto Rico is heavily populated with mid- and high-rise condos, apartments, and resort hotel properties.

Multi-family or commercial property assignments usually involve HCC inspection teams of four to eight consultants for anywhere from two to six days to carry out the initial site inspection activities. As the site inspection is concluded, our teams then move to the production of repair estimates and reports, which involves sorting through thousands of site photos and hundreds of pages of scope notes. We translate those notes and photos into a very thorough, supported scope analysis and repair estimate.

The quality work of our dedicated team of Construction Consultants has led to happy clients, which in turn has created additional work in Puerto Rico, and all 2017 hurricane-effected areas. Haag Construction Consulting prides itself on being the premier construction consulting firm, and we appreciate our clients who recognize the value of our work.

Thanks to all of our HCC staff for making our success possible, and a HUGE thank you to the Haag Engineers and Haag Technical Services staff who have also supported our efforts throughout the Gulf Coast and the Caribbean. This month, HCC Senior Consultant Bill Bain is completing an 18-month full time clerking project (!). Senior Consultant Brandon Alaniz continues to travel to and from Puerto Rico several times a month. Our entire HCC staff deserves recognition for keeping non-cat domestic projects running smoothly, while these catastrophe projects have demanded our attention and resources. A special shout-outs to Stoney Kirkpatrick, Terry Taylor, and Kevin Kianka who have all played key roles in supporting our continuing effort.

By Brandon Alaniz, Senior Construction Consultant

Brandon Alaniz is an experienced construction consultant, with more than 15 years in the construction industry. He is responsible for maintenance, and completion of all consulting services and related work product. His emphasis is building reconstruction, restoration, equipment and machinery cost, and remediation cost for the insurance industry. Preparation of construction loss estimates and restoration / remediation management services for losses that are either repaired by the owners and need constant supervision to expedite or losses that require this service to fast-track a project without the need of a general contractor, to insure the favorable / equitable conclusion of a loss. Experience in many forms / types of construction and restoration including; multi-family dwellings, educational, municipal, hotel/motel, and multi-story.

Haag Helps Repair Military Base in Iraq

In early 2017, Dan Behrens, P.E., Haag Senior Engineer, (Minneapolis) traveled to Iraq and spent time living and working on an active military base while he worked to inspect an airplane hangar for damage at a US military base. In Dan’s own words, here is a brief summary of Dan’s trip and inspection in an active war zone:

I was initially asked to inspect a large hangar for some roofing and siding issues, possibly attributed to either wind, construction, foundation movement, or blast effects. It became obvious upon arrival that the issues included the main structural frame and secondary structural members, and that the primary cause of damage wasn’t wind-related.

The hangar in question was built on an Iraqi air force base for our (one time) friend and ally, Mr. Saddam Hussein, in the 1970s or ‘80s. In July 2003 however, Google Earth imagery shows two large holes in the roof, when the United States military was in the process of invading Iraq to depose our enemy, Mr. Saddam Hussein (times had changed). I noted that the repairs were of varying vintage, so it’s possible the hangar was damaged during the first Gulf War in 1991 as well.

Being an active war zone, my accommodations consisted of a private containerized housing unit with a bathroom with running water. I ate my meals at the same dining hall as the soldiers, airmen, and marines. It is protocol on base that service members carry weapons at all times. It was a bit unsettling to grab for the last cookie versus someone with an M4. (I let them win.) I lobbied for a weapon to carry just in case, but they said no. I was left with nothing but my steely gaze and razor wit for defense. Luckily, neither were needed.

All in all, the trip was a great experience; it was striking how young most of the service members were. To paraphrase Burke, it was humbling to see kids standing ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would harm us.

I have to say a big thanks to the team at Haag who supported me during this trip.

My thanks go out to the team who stayed home; this wouldn’t have been possible without their help. Most especially my wife, Kim, who stayed home with our three-month-old twins – I was happy to find that my house key still worked when I got home. In addition, Tami Fugle, John Ortenblad, Richard Herzog, and Rob Danielson in MN and Jeremy VanLeeuwen in KC all covered inspections for me or otherwise cleaned up my messes. Thanks also to Patrick and Rob at Haag Technical Services for their help on drafting for the final report.

I’ve attached a few photos. The military was very much down on photographing anything operational, so no pics of the vehicles, drones, or artillery batteries.

Here is the report-writing environment. It’d been awhile since an outgoing artillery barrage, so I’m actually sitting in the seat.

The image below shows the hangar siding condition, with the Iraqi side of the base in the background.

The image below shows the hangar siding condition, with the American side in the background.

This image shows some truss members struck by rounds.

Daniel B. Behrens, P.E.

Daniel Behrens graudated from the University of Minnesota with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering. He is a Senior Engineer at Haag Engineering Co. in Burnsville, Minnesota, and is licensed as a Professional Civil Engineer in 13 states. Mr. Behrens is currently a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Steel Construction. Mr. Behrens has been with Haag Engineering since 2009, and has inspected and assessed damage to hundreds of roof structures. His primary areas of consulting are structural evaluations, roofing systems, general civil engineering evaluations, moisture source evaluations, and building envelope evaluations. Mr. Behrens helps develop and present continuing education seminars as an instructor at Haag.

GIS & Laser Scanning for Oil & Gas Company — Haag Technical Services

For over five years, Haag Technical Services (HTS) has provided superb geographic information system (GIS) services and project management for a large oil and gas company in Houston, TX. What started as high-level consulting for facility laser scanning projects has grown into a team of eight GIS professionals working full time for the client to provide analysis and in-depth QA/QC on all incoming surveyor data including pipelines, wells, and related infrastructure. The client relies heavily on HTS staff to make sure data meets both industry and client-specific standards. Marcie Deffenbaugh, the GIS Manager for HTS, is an integral part of developing and maintaining these client-specific standards and corresponding tools that are required for data collection and delivery. These standards are crucial to the validation process and ensuring that incoming data is of the highest quality. Once projects have passed data validation processes, they are loaded into the client’s corporate system where different teams use the data for planning and analysis. Above all, the data is a critical part of the client’s safety procedures. For example, detailed information on buried pipelines is available to all stakeholders through web mapping platforms and is relied upon daily for One Call purposes to avoid line strikes. Without the hard work and dedication of the HTS GIS Team, this data would not be available.

In addition to data validation and standards development, the HTS team also assists with UAS projects for the same client. Kevin Kianka, the Director of Operations for HTS, is FAA Part 107 certified and is often asked to consult on projects that utilize drones for data collection. Due to their size and complexity, facility sites are often documented with drones and laser scanning equipment. Mr. Kianka has assisted with data collection and processing for many of these projects and has also provided valuable insight for how to improve collection methods and reduce costs.

Based on the different data formats and large datasets that accompany many of the projects for this client, HTS saw an opportunity to develop an online viewing platform that would allow users to see and interact with their data without having to download expensive software. Mr. Kianka and Ms. Deffenbaugh worked with other Haag team members to create the Haag Global GeoPortal, an interactive web mapping application where users can view GIS data, drone imagery, 3D laser scans, panoramic photography, and relevant project documentation all from their desktop or mobile device. Although the GeoPortal was built to serve the needs of one client, it has grown into a must-have tool for many of Haag’s other clients, including engineering and insurance customers.

Through their years of service and high-quality work for this oil and gas client, HTS has become a trusted part of the client’s work. Everyone on the team provides their own expertise, and together they have helped build a complex and highly functional system for their client that ensures data quality and reliability. HTS is excited for the continued partnership with this client along with the innovations and improvements they can continue to provide.

Marcie Deffenbaugh is the Manager of GIS Services for Haag Technical Services, a division of Haag Global, Inc.  In this role, Ms. Deffenbaugh oversees initiatives related to GIS planning, system design, and system administration. She also manages a staff of GIS technicians, analysts, cartographers, and project administrative assistants who provide data validation and project management services for oil and gas clients. As the primary liaison between the client management teams and Haag Technical Services personnel, Ms. Deffenbaugh provides technical consulting services on a regular basis.