The Quad collapse
What really happened in Lomira?
An investigation of internal e-mails and documents indicates that Quad/Graphics Inc. officials and other members of the construction team that built a storage plant in Lomira were aware of problems with the building long before it collapsed and burned last summer.
Further, the investigation reveals that the Pewaukee-based printing company handled many critical aspects of its own construction project.
Using an open records request to the state, Small Business Times recently obtained documents related to the Wisconsin Department of Commerce’s investigation of the July 12, 2002 tragedy.
The 10-story, $15 million Lomira building collapsed, forcing 330 Quad/Graphics employees to escape the plant. However, Keith Freiberg, 22, a cleaning service employee from Fond du Lac, was killed when he was trapped in a car next to the storage facility as a wall collapsed.
Documents in the DOC’s investigation paint a picture of a disjointed construction team, fraught with serious communication problems, disputes and overlapping duties.
The documents indicate that Quad/Graphics officials and other members of the construction team were aware of problems with the design, the welding and the foundation of the Lomira building – factors that likely contributed to its collapse, according to the DOC.
In fact, welds at the Lomira plant were still being repaired earlier on the day the structure collapsed, according to project-related documents.
Quad/Graphics spokewoman Claire Ho had told the media in January that the DOC’s report exonerated the Pewaukee-based printing company and its employees of any fault in the disaster.
Ho said the DOC faulted Quad/Graphics’ suppliers, citing deficiencies in the design, construction supervision and workmanship.
However, the DOC Notice of Orders and Violations made it clear that Quad/Graphics ultimately was responsible for ensuring the building met state codes.
"The burden of ensuring that a building is constructed according to code is the responsibility of the owner," the report stated.
Quad/Graphics’ role in the construction of the building and the automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS) it housed extended beyond that of a typical owner, according to documents in the DOC investigation.
Project schedule documents reveal that Quad/Graphics personnel were responsible for managing key aspects of the project, including the building foundation, in-rack fire protection, siding, roofing, building mechanicals, electrical equipment, conveyor equipment and ASRS software.
On at least some project-related documents, Quad/Construction, Quad/Graphics’ in-house construction division, is named as the construction manager of the project.
Construction and legal experts told Small Business Times that because Quad/Graphics divided design and construction duties between several suppliers, some of which reported directly to Quad/Graphics, instead of to the prime contractor, determining who is legally liable for the tragedy will be difficult.
Most of the subcontractors and engineers who worked on the Lomira building are reticent to discuss their roles in the project, due to a gag order requested by Quad/Graphics shortly after the collapse.
However, according to an engineering expert, some critical project details slipped through the cracks between the various contractors, engineers and Quad/Graphics facilities managers.
In a particularly confusing arrangement, the engineering firm Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates Inc. (GASAI) of Milwaukee worked both for Quad/Graphics and the construction project’s prime contractor, HK Systems, New Berlin.
Meanwhile, the rack system was designed by Robert Chi, whose one-man, suburban Chicago engineering firm, EGE Inc., served as an independent contractor to Rack Structures Inc., Livonia, Mich., which in turn worked for HK Systems.
Project correspondence reveals that GAS was intimately involved in the construction process, advising Quad/Graphics and HK Systems personnel, and sometimes conflicting vehemently with Chi and Rack Structures.
Neither the conflicting engineers nor Quad/Graphics managers stopped construction, prevented occupancy or solved problems with faulty welds or other structural issues – even though problems with the welding of rack components were identified in the first month of construction in August 2001, according to project correspondence. The welds holding together the metal racks in the building were crucial in the integrity of the rack-supported structure. In such a building, the racks actually act as structural members to support the roof.
Internal correspondence at Quad/Graphics from Jan. 20, 2002, made clear that the company’s "senior management" was aware of the difficulties with the welds, according to the DOC investigation.
Another internal Quad/Graphics e-mail on May 28, 2002, expressed concern for the safety of employees walking among the racks.
The documents also raise the question of whether some of the subcontractors on the project had access to crucial information that could have influenced the design of the building and the rack structure, including information about the soil conditions beneath the building.
When questioned about the roof system by the DOC during the ensuing investigation, Chi claimed he was not informed about the load the roof would place upon the rack structure.
"I provide structural analysis and design calculations for rack frames, load supports and building support systems only," Chi wrote in an Oc.10, 2002 response to DOC investigator Daniel Graham. "The foundation, roof systems and wall systems were designed by others."
In e-mail correspondence with Quad/Graphics managers March 26, 2002, Bruce Lammi of GASAI expressed concerns about the method used to secure the roof to the rack structure.
When queried about that redesign by Graham during the investigation, Chi claimed ignorance.
"I did not receive any report regarding these matters and had no involvement," Chi wrote.
On another matter — the adequacy of the method used to anchor the rack system to the concrete slab — Lammi and Chi conflicted in their viewpoints, according to the DOC report. At one point, the disagreement became heated enough that Quad/Graphics personnel decided to withhold Chi’s correspondence from Lammi to avoid "adding fuel to the fire."
According to a structural engineering professor from the Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE), the divided responsibilities on the project may have caused some problems.
"It is always a concern when we engineers are hired to design one part of a structure or system without any control as to who designs or builds other parts," John Zachar of MSOE said. "He (Chi) says that the foundation, roof and wall systems are designed by others. One thing I noticed in Chi’s calculations was that there seemed to be no calculation of roof loads, even though this rack carried the roof. The DOC letter said that there were problems attaching the roof to the rack. Chi said he knew nothing of this. I wonder if this may have added or changed loads."
Zachar, who prior to joining the MSOE faculty worked as a consulting engineer for corporate clients including Kohl’s Food Stores and Bucyrus-Erie, said other problems with the building’s design cannot be blamed entirely on Chi, although Chi’s name and credential appear on the plans.
According to Zachar, Chi was not significantly involved in a supervisory capacity during construction, so he may not have known about some of the problems.
One such issue was a problem with a component of the rack system, which according to correspondence between construction team members vibrated violently when a load was placed on the rack.
The vibrations caused the component, referred to in correspondence as the load arm, to detach from a rack in late May of 2002, according to e-mail correspondence between project team members.
"I was not notified of the incidents," Chi wrote. "If the load arm oscillates too many times after the load was placed, both the arm and the way in which the load is deposited by the loading equipment should be evaluated."
"The issue of oscillation seems particularly bad, since Chi only did static load calculations," Zachar said. "His answer even states that any oscillation should be evaluated, but he says he was not notified. Who should have told him? This may be one place he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt."
Another part of the project beyond Chi’s control was the foundation, which according to project correspondence was designed and constructed by Quad/Graphics.
In a Jan. 18, 2002, memo, Lammi informed personnel at HK Systems and Quad/Graphics that the load-bearing capacity of the soil beneath the building would require the rack system to be loaded gradually to prevent some parts of the building settling before others.
When questioned by the DOC about the need to load the rack system gradually, Chi claimed he had no knowledge of concerns regarding the stability of soils beneath the slab, according to the report.
The unstable soils may have been a significant factor in the collapse, according to Zachar, making it more likely that a collapse of some racks could lead to catastrophic failure.
It was this type of cumulative, cascading, failure that led to the fall of the World Trade Center buildings in New York on Sept. 11, 2001, Zachar said.
Chi was also unaware, according to Zachar, of changes to the materials-handling system that would increase stresses resulting from pallets being loaded onto the rack.
E-mails transmitted between Quad/Graphics, HK Systems and Rack Structures personnel in June of 2002 document that problems were encountered with the conveyor system, which was not placing the pallets onto the racks with the required precision.
However, not all of problems with the ill-fated project were design-related. A robotic welding machine used at Rack Structures’ Livonia facility and at the Lomira site was miscalibrated, according to independent welding experts hired to monitor the fabrication process. The miscalibration led to faulty welds throughout the building, inspectors concluded.
The faulty welds and other inadequate materials were mentioned in DOC’s Notice of Orders and Violations.
In the notice, the DOC chastised both Lammi and Chi for lack of oversight of the project. State administrative codes were violated, including sections which require supervision of building construction by a Wisconsin-registered architect or engineer. The DOC notice said neither engineer notified them of any violations of code and stressed that no compliance statement was filed with the DOC to certify that the building was compliant.
While the DOC notice points to myriad mistakes by contractors and subcontractors, DOC placed ultimate responsibility on the owner, Quad/Graphics.
According to Dodge County zoning administrator Fred Lueck, the set of plans the county has on file for the project lists Quad/Construction as construction manager.
Ho told Small Business Times that Quad/Graphics did not act as construction manager. Indeed, Quad/Graphics’ contract with HK Systems does position Quad as an owner, rather than as a construction manager.
"HK Systems Inc., and its subcontractors were responsible for the design, manufacture and installation of, among other things, the cranes and racking system," Ho wrote. "HK Systems reached a design-install agreement with Quad/Graphics in March 2001. Construction began in August 2001 and, with HK Systems’ approval, Quad/Graphics began using the ASRS in May 2002. As far as Quad/Construction, it was neither a general contractor nor construction manager."
March 21, 2003 Small Business Times, Milwaukee
