Email Report

 

Subject:                    Snap-Tite Hose Failures

Date of Email:   07/10/2008

Report Detail:

Hi Kevin,
I would like to have the following circulated within JOIFF as a caution for working with and around fire hose particularly Snap-Tite brand hose. We have been experiencing multiple failures with our fire hose that was purchased from Snap-Tite. The details, chronology of events, points of interest and path forward are below. Sorry for the length, but it is hard to capture all this information in a short version.
In short summary, we have been experiencing multiple hose failures in nature of coupling slippage/separation, sweating, leaking and bursting. 100 hoses were re-coupled recently with new couplings by Snap-Tite here on site, but some failed during the service test and another one of them failed during an emergency response a couple of days ago. This has been an ongoing problem for the last 3 years, and Snap-Tite has yet to solve the problem and are now showing signs of not wanting to provide any further assistance or service to find a resolution.


Hose Details:

  • Hose Brand - Snap-Tite
  • Type - LD
  • Sizes - 2 1/2" and 1 3/4"
  • Service Test Pressure - 250psi (per Snap-Tite catalogue)
  • Maximum Operating Pressure - 225psi (assuming service test pressure is 110% of operating pressure per NFPA 1961)
  • Manufacture Date - Earliest is 2003 with the majority being in 2006
  • Hose Markings - "Snap-Tite LD 600 BS6391 1983 Type 3 64mm" and the manufacture date
  • Vendors - 2 separate local vendors
  • Coupling Type - Aluminum 3 lug rocker expansion ring
  • Couplings Brand - A mix of Action, Couplex and RedHead
  • Origin - Hose and couplings were manufactured in US but the hose was coupled into an assembly at Snap-Tite Asia in Singapore.

Chronology of Events:

  • 2 new fire trucks were ordered in 2006 and part of the truck purchases included them being outfitted with 2 1/2" and 1 3/4" hoses.
  • At approximately the same time period, 2 1/2" and 1 3/4" hoses were ordered to place on the existing fire trucks. These hoses were ordered and received from a different vendor than the ones that came with the new fire trucks.
  • Both hose specifications for standards to meet in the purchase orders stated "The rubber hoses shall comply with NFPA 1961: Standard on Fire Hose or equivalence".
  • When hose arrived either with new fire trucks or by separate purchase, it is alleged that the hose proof testing was performed at Snap-Tite Asia in Singapore with the first service test being performed at the vendors’ locations here in Malaysia.
  • Shortly after arrival of new hose, couplings were slipping/separating off of the ends of the hoses.
  • Vendors contacted, and all hoses that failed were repaired and service tested by the local vendors sometime late 2006 and early 2007.
  • Recurring issues with couplings slipping/separating off of the ends of the hoses have been ongoing. Each time, the local vendor re-couples the hoses.
  • All failures have occurred at pressures 210psi and below with a fair amount of them occurring at hydrant pressures 150-175psi.
  • During tank fire exercise in July 2008, 3 couplings (on 2 1/2" hose) slipped/separated from the ends of hose. Highest pressure during the exercise on any of the 2 1/2" hose was 210psi.
  • Additionally during this tank fire exercise, we also had one Snap-Tite 5" hose with clamped storz couplings spit the coupling off the end (only incident within CEFS to date of a problem with the 5" hose). This hose was being utilized from a hydrant to supply a truck and the hydrant system operating pressure was maintained at or below 175psi.
  • Snap-Tite contacted and meeting with Snap-Tite Asia rep occurred on July 24, 2008. Result was that Snap-Tite rep agreed to re-couple with new couplings; 100 lengths of 2 1/2" and 25 lengths of 1 3/4".
  • Snap-Tite Asia personnel came to CEFS on September 14-17, 2008. They only brought enough couplings to re-couple 75 of the 2 1/2" hoses but did bring 25 of the 1 3/4" couplings.
  • Hoses were re-coupled and service tested. During service testing several of the re-coupled hoses couplings slipped/separated from the ends of the hoses and also several hoses failed due to sweating and/or leaking.
  • All remaining hoses that were not re-coupled with new couplings were service tested per NFPA 1962 the following week. During service testing of existing hose assemblies that were not re-coupled the following numbers of hoses failed the testing to either slipping/separating of the couplings, sweating and/or leaking:
  • 2 1/2" x 100' - 24 failed hoses
  • 1 3/4" x 100' - 24 failed hoses
  • 1 3/4" x 50' - 3 failed hoses
  • The failed hoses couplings were removed and the hose is no longer in service.
  • Contacted the Snap-Tite hose company directly in the US on September 24, 2008 to gain further assistance from Snap-Tite. Email with pictures of failed hoses sent to them.
  • Reply received from the Snap-Tite hose company in the US suggesting that they need samples of hoses as well as also stating that one possible issue is that the wrong coupling bowl size might be an issue.
  • Another failure occurred with one of the 2 1/2" hoses due to coupling slippage on September 27, 2008. This hose is one of the ones that were re-coupled as mentioned above 2 weeks prior.
  • Sent a follow up email on September 28, 2008 to Snap-Tite in the US requesting immediate action and resolution to the problem. In the email it was stated that unless an immediate action and resolution to correct the problem is received, all Snap-Tite brand hose will be removed from service within CEFS Response and replaced with a different manufacturer’s hose. Response received back from Snap-Tite US October 6, 2008; "I have assigned your coupling security issues to <name removed> of our Singapore office.  This will result in the best resolution to the problem as he will be able to co-ordinate our QA and technical people along with the distributor involved."

Points of Interest:

  • Hose is labeled with BS6391:1983 markings, however per the standard it is stated as a requirement in section 9.2 "The couplings shall be tied in by binding….." whereas these hose assemblies are fitted with expansion ring type couplings which lead me to believe that the hose assemblies DO NOT meet BS6391 as labeled.
  • When Snap-Tite was on site 2 weeks ago to re-couple the hose, they also blanked out the original labeling and relabeled the hose to meet NFPA 1961 requirements, including a new manufacture date.
  • Snap-Tite hose company in The US has stated via email on July 24, 2008 that "Snap-Tite LD hose meets the requirements of NFPA 1961 as a water supply hose for firefighting purposes". However, in NFPA 1961 Chapter 4 Design Requirements it is stated in requirement 4.2.1 "The minimum trade size for supply hose shall be 3 1/2". Being that the hose in question is smaller than 3 1/2", I can only conclude that the hose DOES NOT meet the requirements for supply hose was stated by Snap-Tite. In addition, if it did meet the requirements of NFPA 1961 for supply hose, it would be labeled as such. All hose was originally labeled with BS6391 markings and NOT the required NFPA labeling.
  • RedHead brass was contacted via email to gather information on couplings. They have informed me that their couplings bowl sizes are measured at the back or entrance to the bowl. Snap-Tite has said that the couplings bowl size is measured inside the bowl on the barbs/serrations. If you go by the RedHead method, the couplings are the correct size, however if you go by Snap-Tite method the couplings are well outside of the clearance tolerance acceptable for the size hose.
  • When Snap-Tite Asia came to CEFS 2 weeks ago to re-couple the hoses, they said they had never performed a service test on fire hose. CEFS Response personnel had to train them on the procedure for hose testing, however all testing was performed under my direct supervision to avoid personnel injury. It was also observed that they were not familiar with using the coupling expansion machine that they brought with them. Additionally, they said they could not bring their hydrostatic test pump because it was too large to bring. The one we own and use is smaller than the coupling expansion machine that they brought. No test records were obtained from Snap-Tite that the hose we purchased from them was ever proof tested at their facility when new, so I question if any proof testing was ever performed on this hose.
  • The expansion or elongation of the hose when pressured to the service test pressure is unbelievable. NFPA 1961 allows a 10% maximum elongation for supply hose and 8% maximum for attack hose when pressured to it's proof test pressure and BS6391 allows for a maximum of 5% elongation when pressured to 12bar. You can see from the attached pictures that the elongation of this hose when pressured to the service test pressure only would appear to be well outside of the allowances within either standard. No measurements were taken for elongation, so it is only an observation. The Snap-Tite personnel stated that they thought the hose elongation appeared to be greater than 20%.
  • CEFS Response owns a small amount of 1 3/4" Snap-Tite LD hose that was actually coupled in the US (verified by Snap-Tite US). These hose assemblies have not had any issues with couplings slipping/separating from the hose. The hoses that have the couplings slipping/separating from the hose appear to all have been coupled in Singapore at the Snap-Tite Asia reps facility. This has been confirmed by Snap-Tite US and Snap-Tite Asia.
  • An action item as a result of an investigation into an incident with Snap-Tite brand hose in 2005 at a training facility within the US was that all Snap-Tite brand 5" hose was to be removed from service at the training facility. The incident report highlighted Snap-Tite's unwillingness to cooperate with the facility to resolve the issue as an influencing factor on removing the hose from service.

Path Forward:

  • Removal of all Snap-Tite brand hose from service within CEFS Response which includes; >3000 meters of 2 1/2" hose, >500 meters of 1 3/4" hose, ~500 meters of 3" hose and ~2500 meters of 5" hose. The priority issue due to cost will be removing the 2 1/2" and 1 3/4" immediately due to it being the problem hose. The 5" hose (due to amount and cost) will be removed from service and replaced in next years budget cycle.
  • Purchase new fire hose from a DIFFERENT manufacturer to replace the Snap-Tite brand hose removed from service. Approximate replacement value for all Snap-Tite brand hose will exceed USD $500,000.
  • Recommend to all 16 plants/facilities that are within the CEFS Response jurisdiction to remove and replace all Snap-Tite brand hose.
  • Add a statement to the CEFS Response SOP on fire hose that Snap-Tite brand hose IS NOT ALLOWED to be purchased and/or used by CEFS Response.
  • Revise CEFS Response SOP on fire hose that all new purchased fire hose shall meet all requirements of NFPA 1961 for attack hose and that the words "or equivalence" are not to be used in the specification for purchase.
  • Verify all new hose purchases come complete with documentation from the manufacturer that the hose was proof tested before being shipped to CEFS.

These actions are not a direct result of the issue with the hose assemblies failing, but rather the lack of Snap-Tite to resolve the issue in a complete and timely manner. In addition, the lack of knowledge displayed by Snap-Tite of the requirements of NFPA and BS standards and their hoses compliance to the requirements of the standards was below my expectations. I would consider that since the Snap-Tite Hose Company was represented on the Technical Committee that reviewed the latest revision of NFPA 1961 Standard on Fire Hose that Snap-Tite as a company would ensure that all applicable personnel within their organization would have intimate knowledge of the standard including authorized reps and sales personnel which was not displayed during either my face to face meeting with their authorized rep or their technicians that performed the re-coupling.

Attached are a string of pictures of the problems we are experiencing. My operations personnel (129 officers and firefighters) have lost all confidence with Snap-Tite hose due to the possibility of an injury should one of the hoses fail while personnel are within the vicinity of it. This is particularly so since the latest failure occurred with a hose that had been re-coupled with new couplings and passed the service test that was performed on it prior to the failure. Additionally, during service testing of this hose my guys were able to witness first hand the amount of energy released when a coupling slips and separates. Several times, the expansion rings were found as far away as 30 feet and oddly enough they were all on the right side of the hose layout (adds value to NFPA 1962 testing procedure to only walk the layout on the left side and at least 15 feet distance from the hose).
Any comments and/or similar incidents would be appreciated if shared with us.
Best regards,

Additional Documentation:

SnapTiteHoseFailures