the eliminator jump amusement ride design review & safety inspection

8/11/2019 The Eliminator Jump Amusement Ride Design Review & Safety Inspection

1/21

FORCON INTERNATIONAL VIRGINIA, LTD.Gaskins Centre 1 / 3827 Gaskins Road / Richmond, Virginia 23233-1436

804/230-4820 804/230-4857 FAX www.forcon.com

Providing Forensic Consulting and Technical Services since 1984

October 6, 2014

Mr. Darrell ScottInflatable Jump Rentals9529 Whitehall Blvd.Spotsylvania, Virginia 22553

Subject: Eliminator Jump Design Review

FORCON CASE #V14636

On September 30, 2014, you requested FORCON to perform a design review of theEliminator Jump amusement device.

On October 2, 2014, Michael Pinion of FORCON inspected the electrical assembly ofthe Eliminator Jump.

On October 3, 2014, James Laird of FORCON inspected the broken sweep pole,replacement pole and the repair offered by SQ Amusement Supply Company. JamesLaird also reviewed applicable ASTM standards.

FORCON observed and noted the following:

Mr. Scott reported that the Eliminator Jump was purchased from SQAmusement Supply Company in November, 2013 and received inJanuary, 2014. The original sweep pole provided with the unit bentdownwards during the first rental when in use by children and had to beadjusted multiple times to continue operating. The pole fractured duringthe second rental of the unit. SQ Amusement Supply Company provided areplacement pole and replacement pole mount to fix the issue. The

replacement pole mount failed in about 40 minutes of use without anyoneusing the device. The replacement pole and original pole holder wereused for one more rental without fracturing and the amusement device hasnot been used since. The device did not come with directions or a usermanual and the manufacturer was not known. The device did not have aknown age restriction or weight limit.

The overall length of the pole was about 10 feet with the last 3 feetconsisting of a solid plastic rod. The foam covering added another 7.5


2/21

Eliminator Jump InspectionFORCON No. V14636October 6, 2014Page 2

inches to the length of the pole. The pole had fractured and separated 12inches from the end of the pole that had been inserted into the pole

holder. (Photographs 2-3) The metal pole had an outer diameter of about 1.8 inches and a wall

thickness of 0.048 inches. The pole had kinked and fractured.(Photographs 4-6)

The solid plastic pole was about 1.5 inches in diameter and wasconnected to the metal pole with tape and 3 screws. (Photographs 7-8)

The replacement pole holder provided had been cut and modified by SQAmusement Supply Company to use a hinge and shock to allow the poleto deflect downwards when fallen on instead of bending the pole. Thewelds on the pole holder had poor penetration and consistency. The weldsdid not meet the requirements of ANSI D1.1 Structural Welding Code.

(Photographs 9-13) The pole with padding weighted about 27 pounds. (Photograph 14) A bonding jumper was not installed between the grounded box and the

hinged door containing electrical controls. The equipment was notprovided with a Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter (GFCI) nor was it labeledrequiring the product to be used with a Ground Fault Circuit Interrupting(GFCI) outlet. (Photograph 15)

Holes through the metal framing for cable transitions were cut by a torchleaving projections, sharp edges, burrs of metal protruding into the cableway. Cable transitions through metal members should have a smooth,rounded surface against which the cord may bear and shall be free from

projections, sharp edges, burrs, fins, and the like that may cause abrasionof the insulation on the conductors. The appliance power cord was notinstalled with a bushing as it passed through holes in the metal framing.(Photograph 16)

Improper electrical connections were made using solder with excessiveflux to terminations. (Photograph 17)

The appliance power cord was not installed with a strain relief as itentered the control box. A strain relief should be provided so thatmechanical stress on a flexible cord will not be transmitted to terminals,splices, or interior wiring. (Photograph 18)

The pole was not able to withstand the impacts involved with the normal use of thedevice. The plastic rod was too stiff to dissipate the impact forces and forces from theusers falling onto the pole. No device weight or age requirements were provided withthe Eliminator Jump. Amusement Rides and Devices indicates that 170 pounds shouldbe assumed for an adult when designing an amusement device. Engineeringcalculations using the yield strength for a low grade steel show that the pole will fail witha static load of about 25 pounds when applied at a distance of about 8 feet from the


3/21


pole holder, not including dynamic loading from the impact of a user falling onto thepole. ASTM F1159 Standard Practice for Design and Manufacture of The pole

strength was insufficient for the normal operation of the ride. ASTM F1193 StandardPractice for Quality, Manufacture, and Construction of Amusement Rides and Devicesrequires welding to meet ANSI requirements and Operation Instructions to be providedwith each device. The replacement pole holder provided by SQ Amusement SupplyCompany was poorly welded and did not meet ANSI welding requirements.

FORCON concludes that the design of the Eliminator Jump, a thin walled pole and stiffplastic rod, caused the pole to bend and break under normal operation. Thereplacement pole holder failed owing to welds with poor penetration. The electricalassembly of the Eliminator Jump did not conform to electrical industry safety practices.The design of this Eliminator Jump was not suitable for the intended purpose of the

device.

Please call if you have any questions. Our invoice is enclosed for this work.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

,sdragerhtiW

James W. Laird, BSME, CFEI, CVFI Michael G. Pinion, PE, CFEI

Mechanical Engineer Electrical Engineer


4/21


PHOTOGRAPH # 1 DATE TAKEN: 10-3-14 FORCON # V14636

SUBJECT: The Eliminator Jump components as received by FORCON.

COMMENTS:


5/21



SUBJECT: Measuring the failed pole sweep.

COMMENTS: The left arrow points to the location of the failure. The right arrow points tothe joint between the plastic and metal tubing.


6/21



SUBJECT: The pole end next to the pole mount.

COMMENTS:


7/21



SUBJECT: The outer diameter of the pole was about 1.8 inches.

COMMENTS:


8/21



SUBJECT: The wall thickness was about 0.048 inches.

COMMENTS:


9/21



SUBJECT: The kink and fracture.

COMMENTS:


10/21



SUBJECT: The transition from the metal tubing to the plastic rod.

COMMENTS: The plastic rod was wrapped in tape and inserted into the tubing, held inplace by 3 screws.


11/21



SUBJECT: The diameter of the plastic rod was about 1.548 inches.

COMMENTS:


12/21



SUBJECT: The replacement pole holder.

COMMENTS:


13/21



SUBJECT: The failed weld at the hinge.

COMMENTS: The arrows point to the surfaces that had been welded together.


14/21


15/21



SUBJECT: The weld on the top tube.

COMMENTS: The arrow points to one of the few locations where any penetrationoccurred. Most of the weld had no penetration.


16/21



SUBJECT: Shock mount weld.

COMMENTS: Most of the welds on the pole mount had poor penetration andconsistency.


17/21



SUBJECT: The weight of the pole was about 27 pounds.

COMMENTS:


18/21



SUBJECT: Control Cabinet.

COMMENTS: Control Cabinet without bonded jumper between grounded box and door.The appliance power cord was not installed with a strain relief.The equipment was not provided with a Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupter(GFCI) nor was it labeled requiring the product to be used with a GroundFault Circuit Interrupting (GFCI) outlet.


19/21



SUBJECT: Control Cabinet Base.

COMMENTS: Holes through the metal framing were cut by a torch leaving projections,sharp edges, burrs of metal protruding into the cable way.The appliance power cord was not installed with a bushing as it passedthrough holes in the metal framing.


20/21



SUBJECT: Improper electrical connection using solder with excessive flux toterminations.

COMMENTS:


21/21



SUBJECT: Improper strain relief at motor connector plug.

COMMENTS:

the eliminator jump amusement ride design review & safety inspection

Documents