Low hydrogen rods laying around

Date 05-05-2011 15:40 Edited 05-05-2011 15:55

D 1.1 (2010), 5.3.2.1, 5.3.2.2, 5.3.2.3 AND Table 5.1 gives the guide lines for Low Hydrogen electrode atmospheric exposure. I would say if a definite exposure time can not be established then the rods should be deposed of. Also if the rods are just "laying around" in the dirt, mud, debris or in areas that cause the rods performance to be degraded then yes, they should be tossed.

By C C

Date 05-05-2011 22:31

I understand that, but it is a "should" situation rather than a "shall" situation. It is my contention that a welding inspector, working under D1.1, can not report a non-conformance for the contractor leaving low-hydrogen rods around the site outside of a rod oven or sealed container. Unless stated in contract documents, the inspector has no authority to pick up and trash electrodes laying on the deck. Only if the inspector observed a welder pick up and use the rods would there be a violation of the code. Does anyone disagree, and if so, what authority do you cite?

By waccobird (****)

Date 05-06-2011 10:55

C C
It falls under proper storage of electrodes.
How can you say all welds are welded in conformance if you see electrodes discarded in such a way.
When you are on a project following code you have to have a means of showing proof of compliance.
In other words any low hydrogen electrode to be compliant has to have a time of issuance from a controlled condition that is with in the parameters of the code and the means to show proof. You can not prove that it is being done if discarded rods are laying around. There should be procedures followed.
Electrodes not properly disposed of are all accidents waiting to happen.
I believe farm codes allow for such usage of abused electrodes. You might should get the most of the grease or dirt off with a bit of dawn detergent. :cool:

Good Luck
Marshall

By C C

Date 05-06-2011 22:05

Thanks people. Consider this:
There are no provisions in the contract documents or the contractor's QC manual for disposal of electrodes. So I am left with D1.1.
If I observe that rods are supplied from sealed containers or baked per 5.3.2.4, and I do not witness welders picking up and using old 7018s, why is this not enough per D1.1? Is the contractor required to use machines which operate only within the amps/volts range of a given WPS? No. But the potential for violating the code is present as much as with picking up and using old rods. The inspector makes observations, not continuous monitoring of all parameters.
The fact welders leave small bundles of rods at the location they worked is proof that (1) they used the required electrode and (2) that they were supplied with a more than adequate number of rods to complete the job, without having to pick up old rods from the deck. Proof comes in many forms.
As far as I'm concerned, 7018s left on the deck are scrap. The inspector has no mandate to interfere with how the contractor disposes of scrap. It is neither the property nor domain of the inspector. If the engineer requests the inspector to dispose of or destroy old rods, then the engineer, in my opinion, must put that request in writing.

By ziggy

Date 05-20-2011 16:07

CC

most contract documents will specify compliance with one code or another. if the contract documents (or perhaps notes on the contract drawings) specify that work be in conformance to a particular code, it would behoove the inspector acting in behalf of the owner or engineer to, at the very least, make note of the nonconformance as it applies to the specified code.

the owner's inspector does not typically direct work but does report to the owner or engineer, good as well as bad.

i try to think of it from the owner's or engineer's point of view; if i am paying for this project or my engineering stamp is on the documents i want it done the way i have specified; and why shouldn't i? it's my bank account or my livelihood that's on the line. if the contractor, who has agreed to perform the work as specified and signed a contract with me, is not conforming to the contract specifications, i want to know! of course i can't be at the site all the time, so i hire a qualified inspector to be my "eyes and ears" and report to me what is happening. just report to me, i will take care of any findings, good or bad, with those that signed a contract with me.

another way i think of it is buying a new vehicle; not cheap these days. if i work out the details with the dealer for a blue truck with all the bells and whistles and he tries to deliver a four door sedan, why should i have to buy that? that's not what i ordered; sell me what i ordered. right?

anyways it does behoove an inspector to report findings, good or bad, to their customer. it goes with the badge and it certainly is not a popularity contest for the inspector. but, someone has to do it to ensure that things get built the way the contract specifies, good or bad, and let the powers to be hammer out the details.

keep up the good work

ziggy

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-06-2011 12:08

CC

I agree with you. However, many contracts require the contractor to remove non-compliant products from the site upon request of the Inspector. The Welder Might want to bring those electrodes home for side job use. Ask the Supervisor to remove them. Explain why they cannot be used, and why they must be removed to prevent accidental use. In addition, Most AISC Certificated companies have "consumables control rules and procedures" in their Operations Manual, which, under their QC/QA manual, they MUST comply with.

A written NCR will probably generate enough interest from company management!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-06-2011 12:16

just a thought:

Having someone in charge of issuing out electrodes may help with this problem, as well as save a few bucks. Only issue out enough electrodes to last til lunch time, that way they use up all of the electrodes, and return any that don't get used in those four hours so they can be returned to a rod oven and issued out again another day. Less waste and less chance for inspectors to crawl around on the deck picking up electrodes to give you a hard time about. Electrode storage control can prove to be beneficial to the job in many ways.

By C C

Date 05-06-2011 22:11

Thanks people. Consider this:

There are no provisions in the contract documents or the contractor's QC manual for disposal of electrodes. So I am left with D1.1.

If I observe that rods are supplied from sealed containers or baked per 5.3.2.4, and I do not witness welders picking up and using old 7018s, why is this not enough per D1.1? Is the contractor required to use machines which operate only within the amps/volts range of a given WPS? No. But the potential for violating the code is present as much as with picking up and using old rods. The inspector makes observations, not continuous monitoring of all parameters.

The fact welders leave small bundles of rods at the location they worked is proof that (1) they used the required electrode and (2) that they were supplied with a more than adequate number of rods to complete the job, without having to pick up old rods from the deck. Proof comes in many forms.

As far as I'm concerned, 7018s left on the deck are scrap. The inspector has no mandate to interfere with how the contractor disposes of scrap. It is neither the property nor domain of the inspector. If the engineer requests the inspector to dispose of or destroy old rods, then the engineer, in my opinion, must put that request in writing.