Case ID: 84248 A/c M/s NIRMA LIMITED

On 27.02.2020, the Underwriters forwarded the following documents to opine upon

the admission of liability under the claim:

1. Survey Report of M/s Metha Padamsey Pvt.Ltd.

2. Root Cause Analysis Report of M/s TCR Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd.
3. M/s FL Smidth Report dated 12.05.2018
4. Policy of Insurance
5. Incident Report
6. Incident Tripping Data

We have gone through the said report and its enclosed documents and opine as
under:-

1. Survey Report of M/s Metha Padamsey Pvt.Ltd.

M/s MPSPL has attributed the cause as under

Quote

.........Most probably due to neglect / not taking corrective action for the uneven
surfaces, despite technical advices. In other words, the damage was caused by
accelerated wear & tear or lack of maintenance. Insurers are requested to decide the
matter of liability as they deem proper.

Unquote.

The cause of loss has been attributed to accelerated wear and tear and matter has
been left to the Underwriters to take appropriate decision in the matter.

While arriving at the above conclusion the surveyors have drawn reference from the
kiln Inspection carried out during February 2016 {refer para 5.04.02 of Survey
report}. The recommendations of the OEM Included In-situ grinding of tyre & both
support rollers to remove circumferential marks which as per the survey report was
not followed.

In this regard the attention of the Insurers is drawn to the contents on pg 4 the report
of M/s FL Smith which deals with the Major Repair/ Action taken in the last shut
down which clearly records Grinding of tyre and rollers at all support. Thus, the said
remark takes care of the objection raised

2. Report of M/s TCR Advanced Engineering Pvt.Ltd.

Reference has been drawn largely from the report of M/s TCR Advanced
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. We have perused the said Report on the Root Cause Analysis
and have assimilated the following information:

M/s TCR had requested certain data for their analysis, however, not all data were
provided. The report has been issued in absence of the following:

(B.1) Material of construction of the rollers and Tires (not received)

(B.2) Original MTC (Material Test Certificates) and Design datasheet of rollers
and tires (not received)

(B.3) The information / detail on condition of both sides of supporting rollers of

tire 2 with photographs that was observed on 29 th January 2018 (not
received).

Data analysis and inference have been made on the basis of the following:

(C-1) Site photographs of damages

(C-2) Ultrasonic Test Report conducted Post loss on the crack portion

(C-3) Kiln Inspection report dated February, 2016.

The report of M/s TCR is issued in absence of basic data such as Material of
construction of the damaged tire and its support roller.

No visual or physical inspection of the effected portion could be carried out by the
appointed agency and the observations are purely based on the photographs
submitted by the insured.

In a Root Cause Analysis involving failure metal, a number of chemical analysis,

mechanical testing and metallurgical testing, NDT and DT are required to be carried
out. However, in the subject investigation no test have been carried out.

Therefore, in our opinion, the root Cause Analysis is incomplete.

In the ultimate analysis M/s TCR is also unable to establish beyond doubt that the
loss has occurred on account of the excluded clause.

In our opinion, the Root Cause Analysis is purely theoretical and not based on any
test carried out by them; therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the insured
specially in view of the fact that the crack has appeared in as already repaired area
which could be attributed defective workmanship during previous repair job.

Discussions

A. Failure of tire but no failure of supporting rollers

One major observations mentioned in the case is that there is failure of the tire but
there is no corresponding failure of the supporting rollers. In our opinion, this could
be attributed to the fact that the support roller is solid mass and its assembly is
provided with flexibility. However, the tire is a ring type structure and does not have
solid support between the kilns. Therefore, in absence of the support, in the likely
event of a foreign body entrapment it is susceptible to damage.

B. Crack Formation is not an Unknown Phenomenon.

Further reference is drawn to the opinion of the OEM that crack formation is not an
unknown phenomenon and there have been similar incidents which have occurred in
different plants. In this regard, no reference is drawn towards the age of such plants.
We have sufficient experience of such claims, in our opinion; manifestation of a
crack in such early life of the kiln is definitely a rare phenomena. Normal life of such
kiln tire is 20 years. However, the said kiln has failed after 3 years in operation.

Therefore, we are inclined to concur with the opinion of the OEM, M/s Thyssenkrupp
that in view of the age of kiln, the failure cannot be attributed to wear & tear.

C. Ruling out wear & Tear

As per report of M/s FLSmidth, the condition of the rolling surfaces of all tires and
their support rollers are satisfactory which further supports that there is no wear &
tear.
Measurement of the diameter of tire and support roller is also on record with the
remarks that these are acceptable range.

The daily inspection of the kiln is carried out and as per available information the
appearance of crack was suddenly noticed on the date of loss.

Thus, in our opinion the basic condition of wear & tear is not met. In our opinion, the
loss on account of wear and tear is ruled out. .

D. Possible failure of Earlier weld repair

Reference is drawn in various documents of a previous failure in the same area.

M/s TCR records –

Quote

Reassembling to a possible weld repair

Unquote

Further establishes that the appearance of the crack is on the region that has been
previously welded.

This region had been repaired earlier and UT Inspection was carried out after
completion of the repair. This suggests such surface cracking in the tire which was
repaired earlier.

We are inclined to concur with the opinion of the appointed agencies that the nature
of failure does not support foreign particle entrapment theory.

On various documents, it is narrated that tire migration stress has applied the
casting flows. This, in our opinion, can also allow appearing has sudden crack.

The kiln is in operations since 2015 and failed in January, 2018 and is not more than
3 years old. This failure is certainly premature on whether in the healthy life
committed by the OEM is 15 to 20 years but the lapsed life is only 3 years.
In view of the above, we are of the above opinion, that the loss is accidental in
nature and not excluded under the policy.

Kiln repair were carried out earlier which was followed by kiln tire alignment by M/s
FLSmidth under the guidance of M/s ThyssenKrupp.

Whereas the total width of the tire is 750 mm and which is also packed area with
supporting rollers. Out of 750 mm severe damage is seems in the middle region
have been multiple parallel cracks but only in localised area of 150mm.

Thus, further that failure is initiate in a small area and spread over a larger area
further indicate the failure of non homogenous weld repair.

M/s TCR has not taken any cognizance of the contents of FLSmidth report wherein
it is clearly recorded that grinding of tire and roller was with in situ grinding was
implemented.

Point No. D-8 of the M/s TCR report has been formed as the basis of inference
which states –

Quote

There is a strong possibility of fatigue crack initiation from the sub-surface of

the tyre that further propagated during operation until it surfaced out and
noticed on January 29, 2018. The points of initiation of fatigue cracks could
be the flaws / discontinuities existing since manufacturing stage such as
casting flaws / microstructural in homogeneity.

Unquote

In our opinion, the above observations is to be interpreted that casting flaws /

microstructural in homogeneity.