This is scary

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-26-2009 02:33 Edited 01-26-2009 02:36

scary Indeed, I think ZPMC probably pirated the FC2002 and used that for their standard!
I have yet to run across a code where cracks are OK.

This guy needs to be a ROMF:

"I can understand people being worked up about safety and quality with the welds," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and part of a three-member Toll Bridge Program Oversight Committee overseeing the $6.3 billion bridge construction. "But we're concerned about being on schedule because we are racing against the next earthquake."

By Duke

Date 01-26-2009 02:55

He needs to be jailed

By NDTIII

Date 01-26-2009 03:59

ctacker, I know we are talking about AWS here, but ASME allows cracks. You evaluate them using a height to length ratio called an aspect ratio. Then you evaluate it against a table that lists the maximum through wall allowancces. Then you must monitor it every year to see if it grows.

The reason I bring it up is because you mentioned you have yet to run across a code that says cracks are ok.

By MBSims

Date 01-26-2009 04:47

Yes, ASME Section XI has criteria for evaluating cracks found during inservice inspection for acceptability. However, none of the fabrication codes permit cracks. I don't believe the bridge code permits them either. I was surprised at the sheer ignorance and callousness in some of the statements made by various "authorities" in the article. Look for this to be on a future episode of "Engineering Disasters".

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-26-2009 05:18

thanks for enlightening me, I have only qualified welders to section IX and haven't been into the other sections yet. I guess the Minnesota bridge failure is long forgotten by these individuals or they are simply trying to "get-r-done" regardless of safety.(as mentioned in the article)

By supermoto (***)

Date 01-26-2009 11:49

Cracks may be ok if they are monitored evey year in ASME work, but this is bridge work and those welds are under cyclically loads. So I would think that the cracks would increase more rapidly than others.

Are ASME Sec. IX welds cyclically loads?

By 803056

Date 01-26-2009 13:27

API 1104 allows crater cracks within limits.

If I remember correctly AWS D1.2 allows crater cracks in intermittent fillet welds as long as the weld length (without cracks) meets the length requirements.

I believe there is a Navy welding standard for ordinance that permits certain cracks of limited length, but that welding standard may have gone by the wayside and may no longer be used.

Cracks, we have all sorts of cracks, big ones, little ones, long ones, short ones, longitudinal or transverse, hot cracks, cold cracks, you want it, we got it, and they are all present on the CALTRAN!

People need to recognize that political appointees and elected officials are usually unqualified to do anything but spew unintelligent politispeak. The Governor of Connecticut once made the statement that, "The reason there are four anchor bolts on a bridge bearing plate was so it would be fully functional when three of the four were missing due to corrosion." That statement was after the Mianus River Bridge collapsed and killed three people. Duh?

His mother must of been proud. "That's my son, the babbling idiot speaking. And his third grade teacher said he'd never amount to anything! I told him science and math were silly subjects and he should concentrate on his social skills! I was sooo right!"

Best regards - Al

By CWI555

Date 01-26-2009 19:31

ASME Primary Sections:

I-Rules for Construction of Power Boilers
II-Materials
III-Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components
IV-Rules for Construction of Heating Boilers
V-Nondestructive Examination
VI-Recommended Rules for the Care and Operation of Heating Boilers
VII-Recommended Guidelines for the Care of Power Boilers
VIII-Rules for Construction of Pressure Vessels
IX-Welding and Brazing Qualifications
X-Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure Vessels
XI-Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components
XII-Rules for Construction and Continued Service of Transport Tanks

I've noted the specific form of inspection/examination is not being specified. I am assuming, given the nature of the story, that it's UT.
What you quoted was Section IX, welding and brazing qualifications. I am assuming you go it inverted and intended Section XI.

All Class 1 and 2 Section XI welds are treated as cyclic. They have hoop stresses, thermal stresses, vibration, and Radiation embrittlement to contend with among others.
http://www.ornl.gov/%7Ewebworks/cppr/y2001/pres/119907.pdf

There are some ASME codes that allow cracks, one such particular case is UT in lieu of radiography case #2235. It's terminology is "planar" indications with sizes being determined by length to height ratios and distance from the ID/OD surfaces and or if they are surface breaking.

Insofar as Section XI is concerned, yes they do have some allowance for linears in the primary systems. However; they are monitored for growth closely. Far closer than nearly any bridge program.

Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 01-27-2009 03:53

Hi Gerald,
Have read the Code case you mentioned and it is all gobbledygook to me, I can't understand the ins and outs of UT.
What has got me confused is the Code Case 2235-2 is for Sections VIII Div 1 & 2 but there is already a Section for UT of Welded Joints (UW 53)
I know I don't need to type it out for you but basically it states ".....and shall be evaluated to the acceptance standards specified in Appendix 12."
Clause 12-3 (a) states Indications characterized as cracks, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration are unacceptable regardless of length.
Which then would take precedence, the Code Case or the more stringent code requirements ?
Regards,
Shane

By CWI555

Date 01-27-2009 12:47

http://www.sonotronndt.com/pdf/ASME.pdf

Be careful with the code cases. The one you quote is Dated. The latest one I am aware of is 2235-9. The group above has attached the pdf release of it.
When you read through it, you'll note the only time a crack is mentioned is in reference to the qualification blocks. Every where else in it, it lumps LOF and cracks together.
There are also specific requirements for the use of the code case.

The business of no cracks, lack of fusion, or incomplete penetration is a hold over from UW-51 days. For instance, going back to 1971 section 8, you'll note the same criteria.
However; UT in particular is more sensitive to planar flaws when compared to RT. If you can see it with RT, it's 0 tolerance, but not so any more with this code case, other codes, and standards.

One of the key differences will be in terminology and methodology. The older code case utilizes the term "characterize". Which long ago has been determined to be difficult to do at best. While many of the old school UT hands learned how to do it, the new school tries to put the emphasis on a class of indications in general rather than trying to make the tech characterize each individual flaw. For those reasons, the standards are moving more towards simple classification rather than characterization with only two primary flaw types identified. That being planar, and non planar.

Therefore it's not simply just a matter of which is more stringent. You have to make the comparison apples to apples rather than apple to orange.

Regards,
Gerald

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 01-27-2009 19:50

Thanks for the clarification Gerald,
Regards,
Shane

By raptor34 (**)

Date 01-27-2009 01:09

1104 also allows crater cracking

By kipman

Date 01-26-2009 14:59

Read this article closely. What is strange and scary about this situation is that:
- the Chinese shipyard was having a high repair rate (not unusual - we've all seen that a time or two)
- the inspection company identified the defects, some of which were cracks (also not unusual - we've all seen that a time or two)
- it looks like there was some hiccups and the normal contractor complaining about the repairs and re-inspection of the repairs (also very common)
- the owner Caltrans then complained about the inspection process and the schedule delays (that is the unusual and scary part - it is generally the owner on huge structural steel projects that has to make sure that the quality of the product meets the spec requirements)

It is Caltrans that needs to ensure the public safety. Based on the information presented in this article (which is likely not to be the full story, however), their management of this and what seems to be a focus solely on schedule is rather shocking.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-26-2009 15:22

So the bridge fabricator can't produce good quality welds so now they adopted a new inspection criteria so they will pass.....

[quote from the article]As for how much the delays have added to the bridge's overall price tag? Ultimately, Kempton said, that could depend on just how much time ZPMC can shave off the job by speeding up the remaining fabrication.[/end quote]

...could not produce quality welds at the current schedule so now they want to speed them up?...whoa...red flags!!

By hogan

Date 01-26-2009 15:37

I know 3 current, or recent (within the last 30 days), inspectors working on this project. Form what I'm hearing this article is just a little of what is happening. Scary.

By MBSims

Date 01-27-2009 01:51

[quote from the article]As for how much the delays have added to the bridge's overall price tag? Ultimately, Kempton said, that could depend on just how much time ZPMC can shave off the job by speeding up the remaining fabrication.[/end quote]

One of my mentors at my first duty station after welding school in the Navy was an ex-pipefitter and schooled me pretty good in the art of quality welding. He would usually ask us "If you don't have time to do it right the first time, where are you going to find time to do it over?" (...among many other things I can't repeat in public!). I continue to follow those words today.

By HgTX

Date 01-26-2009 17:21 Edited 01-26-2009 19:03

Jeez.

"earlier problems were the result of strict weld standards that essentially allowed for no cracks"

Yeah, "strict weld standards" like that obscure AWS D1.5 Bridge Welding Code thingy. What a terrible, exceptional "problem".

Stuff like this makes the codes that much harder for the rest of us to enforce.

Hg

By 803056

Date 01-27-2009 00:03

Maybe it's time for the Feds to investigate CALTran once again. It isn't the first time CALTran has had problems with their management.
Best regards - Al

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-27-2009 02:55

I think its time for the Feds to do something about all these infastructure jobs going to foreign countries. the Tacoma narrows bridge was built in Korea, This one in China. there are Numerous jobs like these that are not being Built here. Lets hope our Billions in tax dollars can stay and help our own workers.

By 803056

Date 01-27-2009 04:43

I couldn't agree with you more.

A letter writing campaign is the only weapon the general population has. A letter to your elected officials in both Washington and your own state capital to the effect that we want our tax dollars spent on domestic goods and labor is one of the few actions we can take.

The hair on the back of my neck stands up on end when I see my tax dollars spent on steel for federally funded bridges and projects made in Asia and Europe. It galls me to no end to hear of bridges fabricated for Alaska and the West Coast and yes, even on the Mississippi River fabricated and erected on barges to be floated in already built.

These elected officials have no interest in the American worker. They are only interested in the special interests that have lined their pockets for years. This is where I repeat myself, two terms and vote the SOBs out! They are only interested in maintaining their power base after two terms. Have you ever seen one of them retire "poor"?

Given the economic climate of the US, maybe they will listen to their constituency if they are flooded with letters! If not now, they never will and its time for them to go. Remember, the next election is only two years away.

Best regards - Al

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-27-2009 12:11

Al, the more I thought about this lastnight the more I am disgusted with this situation. It makes a QA/QC type person want to throw up their hands and just give up. Why bother to test and inspect welds if they will arbitrarily rewrite the standards for the shoddy fabricators out there so they can make it.....let those son-of-a-guns go belly up in their own mess, at their own expense. I am sure if our company put out crap like that we would get back charged right out of existance. I bet these welds are worst than is being reported instead of the other way around as this article suggests.

By kipman

Date 01-27-2009 15:21

Al,
With all due respect, I don't think it is quite that simple. I don't think it is the politicians lining their own pockets that results in a bridge being built in Korea or China or elsewhere. I have worked 20+ years overseas. Most of this time was on private sector projects, but I saw and even consulted on some US public sector projects while over there. Most of the infrastructure projects that end up overseas do so simply because they are cheaper, i.e. the low bidder won the contract. Why do states go with the lowest qualified bidder? Because the states have new infrastructure projects to build and a lot of infrastructure to maintain and they have a finite budget. So one could argue that the politicians are indeed protecting their own income - they are trying to keep from getting voted out for increasing taxes. We certainly could build all of our infrastructure right here in the US, but it would mean an increase in taxes. I submit that if you were to ask, most people they would say they support creating US jobs by not allowing foreign bidders. Come back in a week and ask them if they are willing to pay higher taxes to do so and most will say no.

Why it is cheaper in many overseas locations is a whole other topic. I will say though, that as regards Korea it is not wages (the wages for most craft are higher there than on the US Gulf of Mexico). It is other factors, such as economies of scale (the big shipyards are the world's major consumers of steel and therefore get a better price), reduced transportation costs (the shipyards are located fairly close to the steel mills), high quality, an outstanding work ethic, and full service (those yards have large QC and NDT staffs - most of the US offshore fabricators do not and a company like mine is forced to directly contract inspection companies, something we do not have to do overseas). I have not worked in China, so I have no observations to relate as regards China.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even if we throw the bums out after two terms, to which I am not opposed, I don't think it would change this particular situation.
Mankenberg

By HgTX

Date 01-27-2009 18:26

Two ways Buy America is subverted:

1. A state can simply choose not to use federal funds for a particular project. Some states have parallel "Buy America" type rules at the state level so they can't do this.

2. The escape clause from Buy America is that if the foreign option is 25% less than the domestic option for total project cost, then the foreign option may be used. If the total project is a typical total project, with a lot of roadway plus some bridges, this can almost never be realized. If they start defining the projects to include just the steel bridge, then it gets easier. You can't blame Congress for this one; from what I hear, their intent was the whole project, not just the steel. Enforcement is another issue, though. No one is forcing the states not to gerrymander their projects to give foreign steel an advantage.

With regard to this news article, I'm trying to keep in mind that what gets printed in the paper often does not reflect reality, and that often the people they quote don't know what they're talking about. However, as written it does look pretty bad.

Hg

By hogan

Date 01-27-2009 21:30

HgTX,
From the sources that I have heard from, what is quoted is only the beginning.

By 803056

Date 01-28-2009 18:23

Hello Kip;

I have no problem with private sector money being spent any way they want, but I do object to my tax dollars being spent on products and services purchased from overseas sources.

I go out of my way to find products manufactured here in the States. It is getting harder and harder because it is too easy for companies to say it is cheaper to purchase from overseas than it is to manufacturer here in the US. They recite the mantra that they want to maximize profits for the shareholder. BULLSxxt! What they are really interested in is maximizing the size of their bonus check.

They are not considering the real cost to the US economy or the fabric of our society. Again, let me say, if it is private money, spend it anyway they want. Public money, including bailout money, keep it here! The banks want to invest in the "Bank of China", go ahead, but not with my tax dollars! They want to use offshore companies to do the "back office" work, they can knock themselves out doing what ever they want. My CitiCorp card has been retired. They can make their money off someone else.

Globalization is for the benefit of the large corporations so they can make more money. It is however a two edge sword. It kills "branding" for the simple fact that when you purchase a car or airplane you have no way of knowing where the parts come from. Why buy an "American car" when the parts are made by any low cost provider anywhere in the world. It isn't a Ford, or a Chevy, or a GM, it's a conglomeration of parts made by anyone other than Ford, Chevrolet, or General Motors. Their brand no longer stands for anything. You might as well buy that foreign built vehicle because it more than likely has more US labor than the "domestic" car. Pratt & Whitney openly states they don't want to be a manufacturer, they simply want to assemble jet engines. Where is the "brand", it no longer exists and their sales reflect it.

The medical world is even worse. Your MRI and X-ray are just as likely read by someone in India as it is by a doctor here in the US. The US doctor is just the front man collecting the money from your insurance company if you are lucky enough to have a job that include health insurance. By the way, ask for a discount if the film is read by an Indian doctor. It is illegal for me to go to Canada to fill a prescription, but much of the medication sold here in the US is purchased from foreign suppliers with little or no FDA oversight. The inhaler I bought at CVS had a sticker placed over the manufacturer's label so I couldn't read it. When I carefully pulled it back it stated it was manufactured in Ireland. I don't remember being offered a discount because the medication was purchased from a "low cost" manufacturer. I'm sure it is less expensive for the pharmaceutical companies to purchase medication overseas, but why is it illegal for me to do so as a private person? I don't buy the sales pitch that the US company buying from overseas suppliers have quality control measures in place to ensure the medication meets all US regulations. That would be too expensive and it would cut into profits. Instead, a "letter of conformance" is more than likely all that is required. What a crock of BS. Nothing happen until it is proven that someone was killed by a "lapse" in the system.

I guess what riles me the most is that as a consumer I am expected to buy what ever the corporation puts on the shelves. I'm hard pressed to find American made products at any cost.

Have I lost faith in "Corporate America". Yup! It isn't that I've lost faith in their "moral character", it simply that I've worked with them long enough to know there is no "moral compass" and the bigger the corporation, the more severe the problem.

You said it right, "It not that simple." End of rant.

Best regards - Al

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-31-2009 19:27

I hear ya LOUD-N-CLEAR AL!!! ;) ;) :)

That's why I'm not going to take off my bumper sticker which proudly states: "RE-ELECT NOBODY!!!"

Respectfully,
Henry

By MBSims

Date 01-31-2009 22:15

Here's your chance to solve this problem!!!

http://careercenter.aws.org/jobdetail.cfm?job=3066992

By Nanjing Date 02-01-2009 07:03

Don't quite understand what the fuss is all about. I am a welding engineer from Scotland and I have been here in ZPMC for two weeks. There are problems but nothing that cannot be overcome. Do not believe the media hype.

NKG

By hvymax

Date 02-02-2009 13:49

Sounds like "Saddam Hussein's method". Throw out the inspectors and the problem goes away. Our system really is following the lead of the Romans. We only have to wait for this to fall as well. Gotta love it John

By Nanjing Date 02-02-2009 16:02

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

By hogan

Date 02-02-2009 16:56

I for one welcome our glorious Roman overlords. As they positively effected all aspect of life.

By QAJoe Date 07-09-2009 13:16

Really? I have also been to ZPMC. Nanjing must have been stuck in the office when those girls were shoveling sub-arc flux of the floor and dumping it back in the hopper (a different thread). How could a 'Welding Engineer" miss that. Maybe a welding engineer that is not a CWI? Standard practice at ZPMC (and yes, it has been documented)!

By Nanjing Date 07-10-2009 06:10

Joe, did you walk back from ZPMC?

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-11-2009 14:18

QAJoe,
Not sure what you are meaning about reusing SAW flux.
It is done every day in workshops all over the world.
Generally it is screened to remove slag before it is put back in the hopper but did you know whether or not there were screens in the hoppers that they were supposedly "shovelling" the flux back into ?

We have all heard of some poor quality "Chinese made" products in the past, however I honestly think that is based on their ignorance and not intentional dishonesty.
China is a third world country that is starting to realise that quality requirements from the rest of the world demand that they pick their act up promptly.

However, I have seen plenty of "dodgy" work practices by companies from first world countries over the last 20 years, and that is not ignorance.They know very well what they are doing, they are just taking short cuts to keep the bean counters and shareholders happy.

If I remember rightly the original post was about an American company (or Authority) who sacked another American company who were being too "thorough" in their inspections of Chinese welding works.
So when the bridge collapses does the poor workmanship of the Chinese company get headlines or the American company who knew the work was substandard but found a company to pass it as acceptable ?
Sorry for the rant,
Cheers,
Shane

By bert lee (**)

Date 07-12-2009 13:54 Edited 07-12-2009 14:07

QAJoe,

when you saw those chinese girls doing that, what action have you done as a cwi?

is there improvement on quality when you (US based cwi) stationed there?

bert

By Nanjing Date 07-13-2009 13:05

Thrown in the towel after 6 months. Sorry to leave a lot of disallusioned good Chinese Inspectors. I was wrong in February.

By CWI555

Date 07-13-2009 14:56

"I have seen plenty of "dodgy" work practices by companies from first world countries"
I agree with this statement except for the part of ignorance. It's not always the case that 1st world countries knowingly partake of 'dodgy' practices.

As for the flux, I haven't seen anyone post the usage for it.
Is it alloy flux, neutral flux, active flux, was their a procedure for recrushing, etc etc.
The only real problem I've read is scooping it up off the floor. This can be a flux contamination problem and most definitely not a good practice.
If they had a flux pan below the weld, and scooping out of it maybe, but not off the floor, and not without running it through a sieve.

Most of the good shops I've witnessed are in fact catching it in a pan or other such device, sifting for slag, and reutilizing it, unless it's an active or alloying flux.

In short, there are a lot of variables to this that are not mentioned in this thread, therefore to say any given shop has done something wrong without specifying those variables is an incorrect statement.

Regards,
Gerald

By weldhawk71 (**)

Date 07-30-2009 18:24

The Chi-com government owns and regulates all commerce. That's what we call a conflict of intrest.