What would you do?

By Ke1thk

Date 12-18-2008 20:15

I'd start looking for a new job after I told them that the parts don't look right and that you suspect fraud.

Keith

By Kix

Date 12-18-2008 20:26

Rumor has it that you should keep the job you have now untill all this economy crap blows over. Being the new guy at a place that might be struggling you'd probably be one of the first to go. lol I mean what the heck do you do or say when you inspect a weld that has been cocked over. Might there be something in the contract that says they can cock over the welds. lol I doubt it. Say you call the vendor and ask them what the hell they were doing and they assure you that the welds are fine. Do you check, especially after all the crap I found on the ladder that was stamped off by the UL guys? Man o man.

By emljr

Date 12-18-2008 21:04

KIX
first off I am not beating on you, but the word is caulk, the joint was caulked. And that is exactly what you write in the inspection report. At the time of inspection, welds were unable to be inpsected due to paint and caulking. When the parts arrive to the customer, they may raise a flag, they may not. but when you Co comes down on you, you say you inspected the weldments but could not make a ethical judgement due to inaccessibility to the welds. Next time they want the welds check come get me before painting.
Is you Co a AISC certified fabricator?

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 12-18-2008 21:26

Good call.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-19-2008 01:34

emljr

Thank you. I couldn't figure what "cocked" over was.

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 13:30 Edited 12-19-2008 14:31

That's the southern slang for caulk. I promise I didn't have anything imparticular on my mind when I started this thread.lol I'll post up some pics I took.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder12-18-08.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder412-18-08.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder712-18-08.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder212-18-08.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder512-18-08.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder612-18-08.jpg

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 14:02

I know we abide to AISC, but I'm not sure If we're certified. I'd have to say that we are., but not totally for sure. I don't see how we could be building trucks for who we build them for and not be certified. All it says in AISC is that all welding is to conform to AWS D1 codes if my memory serve me right. They didn't really tell me to inspect the ladder, but more along the lines of look it over because we have had problems with this vendor in the past.

By swnorris (****)

Date 12-19-2008 14:29 Edited 12-19-2008 14:31

Sounds like they told you about inspecting them after the fact, and they should have had you in their facility checking the welds prior to caulking. If you're following D1.1, caulking in the sense that you're referring to (if it's intention is purely cosmetic and not to conceal discontinuities) is acceptable provided the weld and base metal have been inspected and approved prior to the application.

Caulking by the intention of the code has nothing to do with the application of any type of cosmetic filler. It has to do with mechanically deforming the weld metal to seal or conceal discontinuities. Caulking is prohibited for base metals with a min. yield of greater than 50 ksi..... but there is an exception for base metals with a min. yield of 50 ksi or less, with regard to the "caulking" assisting in the adhesion of coatings, and provided the welds have been accepted prior to this type of "caulking".... with technique and limitations subject to EOR approval.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 12-19-2008 15:05

I'm not getting a good mental picture of outrigger tubes so take this however it applies the best.....

There are cases where stitch welds are required to have a caulking material added between the stitches, to seal off the joint and/or to make them more visually appealing. In those cases, nothing fraudulent is going on but an "outsider" would immediately suspect otherwise.

Another example could be a stiffener welded one side only and all the others are 2 side welds. Which is incorrect? Welders get into a routine and weld both sides, but we've got a job in the shop right now where only one side is supposed to be welded. Guess what the paint shop guys noticed? "Missing" welds.

An inspector will automatically question anything he/she can't see, or anything that doesn't "look right". Why? Because we have all seen or heard of cheating. You are probably correct that the situation you have is not right.

I get asked to do "drive by inspections" all the time and I resent it. Drive by inspections are when truckloads of steel from a sub-contractor will pull into our yard on their way past town so QC can "inspect" the steel. Nothing gets unloaded so you can actually see what you should look at. In those situations, all I do is report on the general workmanship based on what is visible. I don't sign off welds, dimensions, or anything else.
And tha'ts what I would do in your situation - report on what you see, and accept nothing that you can't inspect properly or have no information on.

By 803056

Date 12-19-2008 16:03

This is a classic example of "failure to communicate". This is when the need to used standard terminology is a must if we are to effectively communicate and visualize the problem.

Cold lap? I don't know what that is. The photographs do depict overlap and incomplete fusion.

Caulking? I don't see evidence of caulking in the photographs, but the paint definitely interferes with a proper visual inspection of the completed welds.

As to the appropriate welding standard, NFPA addresses mobile fire fighting equipment and there is an ANSI document that covers fire trucks. I have a copy in my Connecticut office, but for the life of me, I can't remember the spec. number. My arms aren't long enough to reach it from Georgia. Both the NFPA and ANSI standards refer to AWS for aerial ladders, D1.1 for steel and D1.2 for aluminum structures.

The welds have the appearance of being welded using GMAW, most likely short circuiting transfer mode. That would be a major concern on my part. Did the subcontractor qualified welding procedures as required by AWS D1.1? Are the welders properly qualified for the work? Being a suspicious character as I am, I would check several of the welds with a magnetic particle test using dry powder and an AC yoke. That test method would confirm there is a problem with incomplete fusion and overlap and would justify removing the paint for a more thorough inspection.

The fact that the subcontractor is UL certified only means they have the wherewith all to do the job properly, not that they will. Your employer has an obligation to check the work completed by subcontractors to ensure the requirements of the contract are met. That is, your employer is responsible to enforce the contract to make sure the requirements are met. That's where you come into the picture. As Chet has stated, you can only comment on what you can see. Now that you have identified a problem, there is an obligation to pursue the inspections and do what ever it takes to ensure the welds meet the code requirements.

This is the type of situation that gets every one's attention because it is costly to address in both terms of time and money. This is the type of job that causes companies to reexamine how they do business. Is adequate project oversight being performed? Is there a need to have an inspector perform visual inspections at the subcontractor's facility before accepting delivery? Is the subcontractor providing the level of quality assurance and quality control required? The list of questions goes on and on. That is one of the functions of your quality assurance department and those are the questions your employer's outsourcing people should be asking.

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 16:15

Al, the welds where the knife is pointing are caulked, I assure you this. As for cold lap / overlap, my bad. You are also 100% spot on about the NFPA,ANSI, and AWS comment.

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 16:04

I posted pictures of the outriggers and they do get completely welded all the way down. The two front outriggers do not have any caulk on them at all, just the rear outriggers do.

By 803056

Date 12-19-2008 16:36

I don't doubt your call on the caulking of the welds. I just couldn't see it in the photographs.

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 16:45

Yeah, the picture wasn't that good. I tried to get a picture of the tip of the knife sticking into the caulk. The caulk job is pretty smooth and it made the weld look really smooth and consistent, which didn't match any of the other welds on the front outriggers. That's what brought my attention to it and made me really look close at it. Thanks for the comments!

By 803056

Date 12-19-2008 19:35

I believe what you are describing as caulk (or caulking) is actually "body putty" to those that might work with automobiles.

Scott Norris provided a good text book definition of the term "caulking" as used by D1.1:
"Caulking by the intention of the code has nothing to do with the application of any type of cosmetic filler. It has to do with mechanically deforming the weld metal to seal or conceal discontinuities. Caulking is prohibited for base metals with a min. yield of greater than 50 ksi..... but there is an exception for base metals with a min. yield of 50 ksi or less, with regard to the "caulking" assisting in the adhesion of coatings, and provided the welds have been accepted prior to this type of "caulking".... with technique and limitations subject to EOR approval."

An example of caulking a weld is where the welder places a blunted chisel next to a pore hole and strikes the chisel to deform the base metal (or weld) to seal the pore hole so as to conceal it from view.

I believe what you are describing is covering the weld with a plastic filler material to make the welded areas smooth and to possibly conceal overlap, excess convexity, and other weld profile inconsistencies that would otherwise be detected by visual inspection.

I feel your pain buddy. It puts you into a bad situation. How can you accept what you can't see. One possible approach is to simply report what you did see and simply say that you can not accept the welds that are concealed from view. They may or may not meet the visual criteria of the code, but they can not be inspected in the present condition.

Those welds that have been covered with "body putty" can not be inspected visually or with magnetic particle testing. However, the welds you did show provides plenty of evidence that should make any manager sit up and take notice. I would include your photographs in the report to substantiate your observations.

All in all, I would say you are doing a competent job. That's what your employer is paying you to do. It is their responsibility to make the decision to accept the structures "as is", reject them outright, or to ask for additional inspections after the welds have been properly cleaned and prepared for thorough visual examination. Your job, as you've done it, it to simply report what you see. It appears you've done an admirable job of that.

Best regards - Al

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 20:35 Edited 12-19-2008 20:39

Al, that's what's tuff about this situation, it has already been inspected and signed off by UL and I have guys that want to leave it at that. Now it comes down to either sending it back to be repaired, doing it here and backcharge the sub or letting it go on with the UL stamp of approval. This could get interesting and I'm also interested to see how my company approaches the situation to see if they're really werth a sit or not.
By caulking, I ment that they used caulk or silicone or some sort of rubbery substance to smooth out the toes of the weld. Not really sure what it is that they used. I know a lot of the Military MRAP trucks on display at one of the shows had a lot of puttied welds. Made me sick to hear that. I never knew that peeing defect or chiseling them was called caulking. You learn something new everyday in this trade. Thanks for sharing that!

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 12-19-2008 19:44

Just reject that ****....end of discusion.

3.2

By Kix

Date 12-19-2008 20:44

I can't reject it because It's not me that was supposed to actually inspect it and sign off on it. The sub contractor that builds these ladders has UL (underwriters Laboratories) in house and they inspect and sign off on this stuff. I was just asked to look it over to see if they improved any from that last one they sent and then tell my boss how it looked. I have done this and I gave them all pictures to look at. I just wanted to know if some of your experieces with this kind of situation.

By hogan

Date 12-19-2008 22:05

I would have to agree with Al's definition.Typically in a situation like what you have, I would repair it. The reason is because that is not the image I want to have for my company. It is not uncommon for me to ask for repairs and/or touch up on code compliant welding. It only takes a few "ugly but acceptable" welds for someone to form an opinion about the overall quality of the work.

By 803056

Date 12-19-2008 22:07 Edited 12-19-2008 22:26

Just to add fuel to the fire;

The NFPA standard for fire trucks is NFPA 1901. I'm not sure how the UL ties in to your situation.

The applicable welding standards for aerial ladders/towers, etc. are AWS D1.X for the structural components. The NFPA requires the manufacturer to perform NDT on all critical components, either MT or PT, by personnel qualified and certified to ASNT CP-189.

Now for the kicker, did you receive any test reports indicating the NDT was performed? If not, where are they or was any NDT performed? The next question is "were the NDT technicians certified to CP-189 or SNT-TC-1A?" If the technicians were certified to SNT-TC-1A, the requirements of NFPA 1901 were not met.

As your employer's inspector, and since you were asked to look at the "quality" of the work, there is no reason not to ask about the mandatory NDT. From the photographs you posted, it is hard to imagine the NDT was performed and it is hard to imagine the welding procedures and welders were qualified to AWS requirements.

Don't you just love it when everything comes together.

To respond to your question, whether this has ever happened to me, yes, everyday. I don't care if the drawings were signed by six P.E.s or if twenty inspectors signed off on the inspection reports, I ask the questions and evaluate the welds based on my observations. Then it is the customer's responsibility to make the decision to pay for the work or send it back to the subcontractor. If the subcontractor did the work as they were supposed to and if the inspectors performed a competent inspection, my observations confirm the same. If they fell down on the job, so be it, my reports will reflect that as well. There is a reason they call me the hatchet.

As for accepting poor workmanship because UL has signed off on it, just remember, your employer will be first in line to be brought to task if anyone gets injured because something fails or if a major component fails prematurely. The ramifications of the "red flags" you raised and the fact that your concerns were ignored will bring a smile to any plaintiff's lawyer's face during the discovery process. That is the equivalent of your employer saying to the plaintiff, "Here's my wallet, my insurance policy, my house, my car, my summer home, etc. Take what you want.

Best regards - Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-19-2008 22:32

Al,

So, If I read you correctly, the NDT has to be done by a Level 3? (CP198)

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 12-19-2008 22:45 Edited 12-19-2008 22:51

I didn't say that, I simply stated the standard requires the inspector to be qualified to CP-189. CP-189 doesn't allow the employer to water down the qualification and certification requirements (as permitted by SNT-TC-1A) and the Level III has to be certified by examinations administered by ASNT or one of their authorized test facilities.

I have to start loading the minivan. I'm headed back to snow country in the wee hours of the morning. I want to be in Aberdeen around 3:00 PM tomorrow afternoon. Then I'll try to sneak into New England between storms early Sunday. I've got my fingers crossed!

Best regards - Al

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 12-20-2008 15:10

Al,
Just curious. Where exactly does SNT-TC-1A allow "to water down qualification and certification requirements" I ask this because I don't think that Fluor, Bechtel, URS, Peter Keiwit, DOE, DOD, or any of the many other companies that use SNT-TC-1A are aware of that fact.

Thanks
Jim

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-20-2008 17:01

Jim Hughes

Article 1.4

And SNT-TC-1A Is a recommended practice.

Under CP-189, the Level 3 has to be tested by ASNT in their national certification scheme, kind of like the CWI program.

And I would hedge my bets where at least two of those commercial contractors you.

By 803056

Date 12-20-2008 21:54

SNT-TC-1A is the grand daddy document for the qualification and certification of NDT personnel.

It has long been recognized that SNT-TC-1A has a fatal flaw, i.e., it is a recommended practice that clearly states the employer is to review the recommendations and make any necessary changes to better suit their needs. The employer's written practice is supposed to delineate how their qualification and certification program is conducted. In some cases the employer may follow the recommendations of SNT-TC-1A and in other cases, the requirements are largely ignored. Employers like SNT-TC-1A because they can institute a program that requires no oversight by anyone that is not an employee. Most customers have very little understanding how a qualification/certification program works. All they know is that they want a Level I, Level II, or Level III on the job doing the inspections.

I suspect that the majority of the people sitting on the code committees are unfamiliar with the differences between the ASNT SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, and the ACCP programs. The ACCP is central certification program for Level II and Level III NDT technicians administered by ASNT. Under the auspices of ACCP, the Level III has to show documented experience as a Level II in order to sit for the examinations and the Level III is capable of performing NDT as a Level II.

One example comes to mind. A nationally recognized third party inspection agency included the qualification and certification requirements for a "Level II NDT Witness" in an attempt to circumvent the contract requirement that all NDT performed by the fabricator had to be witnessed by an individual certified as a Level II employed by the third party inspection agency. Unfortunately, the contact didn't specify the Level II had to be certified for the test method being performed, but it was their intent. The Level II NDT Witness had no training requirements, no experience requirements, and was not required to pass any written examinations recommended by SNT-TC-1A. To say the customer was not satisfied with what was being done is an understatement. Technically, because the written practice allowed for such a certification, the requirements of SNT-TC-1A were met. The kicker was the customer never asked for a copy of the written practice, and when they did, at my suggestion, it was several weeks before the third party agency actually presented it. I guess it took them that long to figure out how to weasel out of the corner they had painted themselves into.

There are several standards that have been written that make the recommendations contained in SNT-TC-1A mandatory requires. Both MIL-STD-410 and NAVSEA TP271 are based on the recommendations listed in SNT-TC-1A, likewise ATA 105 makes the recommendations mandatory.

When asked, I always recommend that my clients insist on NDT technicians by qualified and certified to ASNT CP-189 or ACCP. CP-189 and ACCP are standards that specify the minimum requirements each level of certification requires. As Joe mentioned, the Level III has to pass the ASNT administered examinations before he/she can implement a NDT program that meets CP-189. The Level III certified by ASNT has to abide by the ASNT code of ethics, a key component missing from SNT-TC-1A. With ACCP, ASNT administers both the Level II and Level III examinations and issues the Level II or Level III certification.

Best regards - Al

By Jim Hughes (***)

Date 12-21-2008 21:46

Al,
thanks for the overview. I don't believe you quite answered the question of " how it waters down the qualifications". In the spirit of full disclosure I'm very much an advocate of the SNT-TC-1A program. I have worked under it for other companies and it has been endorced by ASME and API and most NBIC qualified A.I's that I have worked with. If your saying it gives opportunity to have a sub-par program I would agree. But thats the case for any inspection qualification program, if it's ACCP or ASNT. Most NDE companies that I work with have their qualification and certification program under SNT. I have found only a handful that have had a sub-par program under ASNT-TC-1A.

The reasons I'm an advocate is it's built in liberty to build trainning programs around it. We don't just want to certify people but we want to qualify people. Part of which is through training. We don't just want to give enough infomation to pass a test. We want to train people to work on our projects. I have had numerious cases of hiring a CWI and getting someone certified but not necessarly qualified. Second reason is, the company that I work for now has projects in the power, ethanol, Oil/Gas and mining industires. ASNT-allows us to custom train and qualify people in these diverse industries. ASNT helps you write your written practice to achieve this.

Thanks for your input. I very much value your contributions on this forum.

Jim

By 803056

Date 12-22-2008 22:41

Jim;

I am sure your company is meeting the intent of SNT-TC-1A and in all likelihood, they exceed the minimum recommendations of SNT-TC-1A.

Its unfortunate that there are contractors that use the latitude allowed by the recommended practice to their advantage to reduce the "quality" of training and experience. It is because of the actions of a few that I (and others) distrust companies that say they meet SNT-TC-1A. Without reading their written practice, there is no way to know what they have established as their minimum requirements for qualification and certification. Is eight hours of UT training sufficient for someone to be a Level II UT technician that inspects groove welds (no previous experience or training required). I've seen it. Is it reasonable to certify an individual that has received training for UT thickness measurements to test welds without any additional training, experience, or examinations. I've seen it done under the auspices of SNT-TC-1A. How about certifying an individual as a Level II penetrant inspector after four hours of on the job training and experience? I've seen it done and I've seen the "certs" submitted to my clients for review and approval. It those abuses and others that has driven some of us to insist on Q&C to CP-189 or ACCP.

That being said, there's nothing in CP-189 that prevents a company adding to the training requirements. The company is free to provide more extensive training in areas that some companies considered to be areas of specialization. CP-189 simply set the minimum requirements for training, experience, and examinations.

The problem with SNT-TC-1A is that the training, experience, examinations, etc. are recommendations, not requirements. Its not that the document is "bad", it is that too many companies and contractors are unabashed in their liberal interpretations of meeting the recommendations of SNT-TC-1A.

As for the CWI, to my knowledge no member of the Certification Committee or AWS has ever said that the CWI is an expert in all visual inspection. QC1, like the CP-189 or ACCP simply provides a baseline that has been widely accepted as an industry standard for the qualification and certification of visual welding inspectors. That doesn't mean there is no opportunity to expand upon that baseline knowledge.

I've long recognized that taking a single AWS open book examination on D1.1 or API 1104 doesn't automatically make me an expert in using other codes or standards. I've attended many seminars offered by AISC, ASME, and AWS to expand upon the knowledge I needed to pass the CWI and SCWI examinations. I've taken endorsement examinations to demonstrate my working knowledge of ASME, API, and AWS welding codes and standards. Still, it doesn't mean that I'm an expert. It simply means that I've met some "standard" of knowledge that has been established as baseline requirement to ensure I have a working knowledge of those different standards/codes.

There is nothing in QC1, CP-189, or ACCP that prohibits a company from expanding upon the body of knowledge required to pass the examinations required under those programs. As a matter of fact, all those programs actually encourage inspectors certified under the auspices of their programs to broaden their knowledge by attending training courses offered by their respective organizations and others through their requirements for recertification. As an example; QC1 allows the CWI/SCWI to use endorsement examinations in lieu of taking the Part B examination over and over again. ASNT allows the Level III to use college courses in mathematics, science, engineering, etc. toward their recertification. The idea is to broaden the inspector's knowledge so they can better perform their jobs and improve their prospects for working in different industrial sectors.

Jim, this has been an interesting discussion. I've enjoyed every minute of it. As you can tell, I support "central certification". There is always the danger of it becoming too specialized which will simply cause all these programs to implode. I support the idea of a generalized central certification program and then I like the concept of endorsements to build upon the basic certification. I carry too many certifications as it is and I hate paying out more money every years to every organization that wants to birth their own "Golden-Goose". NFPA requires people that want to certify brazers for medical gas to attend their (NFPA) training course before you can test and certify brazers. API requires you to attend their training course before you can sit for their examinations to inspect oil tanks, the list goes on and on. I detest organizations that "require" you to attend their courses as a prerequisite to taking their certification examinations and I've resisted taking their examinations for years. ASNT and AWS offer the examinations to anyone that thinks they can pass them. You can self-study or take a class offered by your next door neighbor. I can buy into those programs. So much for my rant.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Best regards - Al

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 12-20-2008 04:04

Hmmm, makes the situation even more uncomfortable.
A few weeks ago my client received a P91 spool with a flange welded on.

Along with the spool was 20+ pages of documentation, all stating the bend and weld was good. A quick visual on site revealed 30mm of lack of penetration ;(

3.2

By emljr

Date 12-22-2008 14:28

Attached are pics of an access platform that the customer assured us was built to industry standards. You be the judge.

Attachment: DSCN9644.JPG (796k)

Attachment: DSCN9685.JPG (111k)

Attachment: DSCN9664.JPG (118k)

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 12-22-2008 15:11

Looks OK to me (LOL)

3.2

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 12-22-2008 16:47

It looks like it needs a little caulk on it. LOL

I know blind people need jobs to, but maybe they shouldn't weld. :-)

By emljr

Date 12-22-2008 20:49

Conerning the pics that I posted. The assembly was bought off by their CWI, supposedly ( I know, I would like to know that person's name so that I can submit to AWS....) What is worse is that our Co QA person traveled to the fab shop saw the assembly, indicated that the welds were poor but signed off anyway becasue the fab shop told him it was built to industry standards. QA is answering to the big guys over that one, as he should.
What gets me is that the assembly was still delivered, made it through our logistics depot ( another QA buyoff piont) and was delevered to the intended end user. It wasn't unitl the technicians went to use it did they call a time out and refuse to work on it...........
i presented this subject to the 9-yr CWI class in Miami the first of this month. Everybody agreed that it was job done badly, but when the realized that it was taxpayers money being spent, then they really got excited. I don't lame them one bit I too am angry that this kind of workmanship is allowed to proceed. Unbelievable.
We see in the next couple of weeks what the fix is. The fab want to repair the work, but I think th Al is well worked and will be a bigger headache then just starting over with better desing and fabrication.

Attachment: DSCN9657.JPG (0B)

Attachment: DSCN9665.JPG (0B)

Attachment: DSCN9686.JPG (0B)

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 12-22-2008 22:20

Sure is purdy from the top side. :)

My shop has been through its troubles with aluminum recently, and I can gladly say that we, for the most part, "get it" now. The "it's always been that way" attitudes are slowly disappearing; quality is up, rework is down, and as a result production is cruising along.

Your company QA guy should be on the carpet for that, true enough. It's hard to see how such an item would have been able to get off the shop floor, in my opinion. We have had our share of such incidents here, but so far (knock on dat wood!) we have managed to catch everything before it shipped, at least since I have gotten here. Whenever you subject final acceptance to a human, there will be some level of human error; either lack of observation, lack of education, or a combination of both. The best thing we can hope for as inspectors is that the craftsmen did their work properly, so that we have a better chance of catching the mistakes. It is extremely frustrating to check 1300 welds and reject over 600 of them, then have to check 1300 welds again, knowing you're probably going to reject another 400. When those parts come along, I sometimes wish I could red tag the entire piece and tell them to start over from scratch! However if rework does anything, it sure does teach a welder what he did wrong. The only thing keeping us out of the loony bin sometimes is the fact that we are professional and dedicated to making our product right. In the end we are still only human, but that doesn't allow us an excuse to be ignorant.

By Kix

Date 12-22-2008 21:28

Ship er!! ;-)

By 803056

Date 12-23-2008 15:20

Them's look purddy gud ta me! I'm sur as soottin theys gots a coppy of tha farm cood sum wear in they shup!

Al

By jrw159

Date 12-23-2008 15:51

BINGO!! :-)

By 803056

Date 12-23-2008 19:43 Edited 12-23-2008 20:04

Talk about frustrating.

A short while ago I had an aluminum project that did not specify a welding standard. It was a lighting fixture, a big lighting fixture that was supported for the entire length by steel beams that formed an open ceiling in a restaurant. The frame was 1 X 1 aluminum tube with a 1/16 th skin riveted to the frame. Once the skin was attached, the frame didn't carry any loads to speak of. Overall, the total length was about 80 feet long by 12 feet wide.

When I asked the designer what it was that he wanted me to inspect to, he said there wasn't a code, just check to verify there were welds present and that there were no gross defects. The welds should "look good". Basically, my reports indicated the absence of cracks and missing welds. Other than that, I made the rules. Just exactly the type of job I steer away from, but this was a long time client that I've worked with for many years. So, how do you say "No" to them when ask for your help.

The criteria I based my inspections on was the fillet welds had to be at least the size of the tube wall thickness, no undercut, no porosity larger than 1/16 inch in diameter, no more than two pore holes per weld (one inch length), at least two welds on each joint (opposite sides of each tube), no visible cracks, no convexity where the face extended beyond the toe of the fillet weld. If a weld was rejected after two repairs, it was abandoned and a new weld made on the adjacent side of the tube.

I inspected one section of the frame and saw nothing that looked horrible. A friend of mine, also a SCWI, looked at another section and said it looked pretty decent. In other words, it wasn't the best we've seen, but other than missing welds here and there, it was reasonably "good". Then while inspecting a third frame, I noticed a couple of small crater cracks. These didn't jump out and shout at you, they were subtle and difficult to see. That was reason enough for me to go back over what we had already looked at and I started finding crater cracks everywhere. Again, they were small and very tight. You had to position the flashlight just right to see them. To make a long story short, I performed at least three inspections on each of the eight aluminum frames.

So, I can feel your pain when it comes to looking at hundreds of welds, several times, and repairing repairs.

Here's a photo of the finished product. It looks pretty nice. It was another story that I won't go into as to how I gained access so I could check out my handy work. Let's just say the subterfuge I learned for watching "Burn Notice" came in handy. :)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year - Al

Attachment: LightingFixture-Dec08.pdf (238k)

Attachment: LightingFixture-Dec08.jpg (0B)

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 12-23-2008 22:04

Looks like my kind of place there, Al!

Nice work, sounds like you went right out of 1.2 for the basics. man, who's the poor sap that has to clean that thing? Talk about nightmares.

Merry Christmas back atcha,

Curt

By eekpod

Date 12-24-2008 11:20

Don't you just love it when you think things are going along smooth, and then you find one thing that makes you think and question everyhting else you just finished looking at. Then sure enough, when you go back and look to cover yourself, and there it is.
At least you'll be able to sleep at night knowing you did the right thing.
Those assemblies are pretty cool looking, nice job.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)