Access Holes

By Dualie

Date 05-04-2013 01:43

was this issue not addressed on shop drawings?

By 99205

Date 05-05-2013 00:54

Since you're dealing with D1.8, it's would be best to write a Non Compliance Report on the situation. This does two things, it documents the situation and formally, brings it to the attention of the EOR. Think of it this way, you're in court testifying about about this situation and the attorney asks you "Why didn't you inform the engineer about this?". What you say next is going to cause you a lot of grief. Just spend ten minutes and fire off the NCR.

By eekpod

Date 05-06-2013 11:09

To answer your question, yes. The access hole needs to meet the geometry of D1.8. that's why they have those dimensions there to give the fabricator guidance on what size to make the access hole.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-06-2013 11:17 Edited 05-06-2013 12:18

Just wanted to point something out....the figure shown is referring to a built up girder and not a rolled section.....(girder/beam made out of plate) Notice that the flange is fillet welded onto the web.

**EDIT** Nevermind my comment, I just looked up Fig 5.2.

By jdrmmr

Date 05-06-2013 12:20

Thanks to all.

Dualie, the shop drawings did not address the access holes. Fabricator took it upon himself to make them in the shape you see in the photo.

99205, this item will be addressed with the EOR in writing. I feel the access holes geometry will be brought into compliance with the option the fabricator chose to follow.

eekpod, your statement is my feelings. In the absence of engineering guidance the code is your guide.

jwright650, that cut is taken from D1.1 2010 Figure 5.2, bottom left, “Rolled Shape or Groove Welded Shape” .

When I read D1.8 2009 Clause 6.10 it gives 4 options for all Demand Critical Welds access holes.
Options:
1. D1.1, which will take you to Figure 5.2
2. AISC 360
3. D1.8 Figure 6.2
4. Special Geometry required by Contract Documnets (they don't have)

In a letter they (fabricator) state the holes are in compliance with D1.1. I don't think the holes are in compliance with D1.1 2010 or any of the remaining options. My next move is a NCR to the EOR.

Hopefully, I'm not heading down the wrong path.

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 05-06-2013 12:57

I looks like they put the holes in after the welding, or at least enlarged some kind of existing hole. Kinda defeats the purpose of the hole in the first place

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-06-2013 13:01

>I"t" looks like they put the holes in after the welding, or at least enlarged some kind of existing hole.

Maybe. but....To me, it looks like somebody wasn't happy with the general finish of the access hole and had them use a hole grinder to dress it up.

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 05-06-2013 13:25

Yeah, probably so, only got a bit of grinder marks onthe one edge. In any case, it does not meet the code requirements.

By jdrmmr

Date 05-06-2013 14:55

The holes were cut using a torch and were very rough. It was mentioned they needed to be smooth and meet the criteria given in D1.8 2009 Clause 6.10 pertaining to Weld Access Holes.

D1.8 does not require the fabricator to poll the welders if the access hole is large enough to perform the welding operation. D1.8 2009 Clause 6.10 states "Weld access holes for all Demand Critical welds shall conform to the following: and it goes on the give the options.

The area where the access hole meets the baseplate at less than a vertical line is of concern to me. In all of the options for access holes given in D1.8 the access holes would have at a minimum a vertical entrance to the baseplate.

By eekpod

Date 05-07-2013 13:29

from what I remember of the seismic seminar I took on D1.8 about 6-7 yrs ago the reason for the access hole being that shape and configuration is to reduce stress at the access hole during a seismic event(earthquake). That's why it should have been cut before it was welded. In fact if you read other sections of D1.8 there are additional welder certification tests and it requires the welder taking the test to put the coupons together and this is relevant because the welder needs to be trained to understand why the hole is like that and how to make sure its right.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-07-2013 14:31

I've been watching this since it was posted and examining my D1.1, 1.8 and AISC Construction Manual as time permits.

Suffice it to say, it would not be allowed on one of my jobs without an RFI confiming the engineer's acceptance. And, I spend enough time on the shop floor and/or out on the field erection site to watch all prep work, fit up, weld out and completed work that it should have been caught before it got welded.

There would be other issues depending upon the WF size, web and/or flange thickness, welding process, welding position, and other factors.

That prep work can be done manually conforming to many options or automatically by computer burn/cope machines. In any finished form it would need to conform to D1.1 Figure 5.2. See also supplemental information and illustrations in the Commentaries of both D1.1 and 1.8. There are still no options resembling the photo.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jdrmmr

Date 05-07-2013 15:24

These members were delivered to the job fabricated off site. There are numerous problems and the EOR is trying to work through them. The DCW’s of the column to the baseplates is only one of many problems that he is facing. There are probably 20 baseplates with this problem. The problem gets worse as you go up to the moment welds. Most of the access holes on the moment welds are not per the code called out on the project spec’s. Lots of the reduced beam sections (RBS) are wrong.

I think I read somewhere at some point on a job, Al wanted to leave and not tell anyone he had been there. I’m at that point. There are MANY ISSUES on this small job. WPS’s, welder’s certifications, steel not fabricated to project spec’s, they just keep submitting junk (paper work) hoping the EOR will submit and buy it all because of the volume of paper they are throwing at him.

Thanks for the all replies. This is truly a great place to learn. I’m on here constantly learning from all of you. If during my day I haven’t learned anything at work I can always count on this forum.

Don

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 05-07-2013 15:49

Good Luck Don, hoping you will be able to work through all of this and the customer will have a great building in the end.

By jdrmmr

Date 05-07-2013 21:07

Good News.
We have been replaced on this job with another inspection group. My boss just called, he and I both are VERY happy to be rid of this nightmare. I guess the stench was beginning to smell with all the crap we were uncovering.

The WPS’s were the next area to gain our attention. I noticed they were written using prequalified D1.1’s and stating they could weld vertical down with SMAW and FCAW. That statement got my attention. They had Lincoln wire listed that Lincoln does not even make. I verified this by calling Lincoln Electric. Too many things on the WPS's to list that was not even close.

The welder did not take the D1.8 restricted test per Annex D. I was flipping through some of the papers they had submitted and I noticed on the WQTR/WPQR they had written a ¼” root opening on the test with steel backing. The code plainly states opening shall be 3/8” ± 1/16” if using steel backing under option A. The date on the WQTR/WPQR test report was earlier than the date on WPS he supposedly used…makes you wonder.

Thanks again guys,

Don

By eekpod

Date 05-08-2013 11:09

that's the best feeling ever to be able to just walk away from some nightmares and not have to get involved in other peoples screw ups.
Good for you.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-08-2013 14:20

Not for me Chris. I would much rather have a trustworthy inspector on the job who was trying to educate the contractor and correct the non-conformance items even when it amounted to major frustration.

While there is an overall feeling of major stress relief there is still the issue of public safety and the competence of whoever is taking over. Usually this kind of change is only for contractor convenience and amounts to them running over the inspector because they were just reinforced in their attitude that they can get an inspector replaced if he isn't playing ball their way.

And, it is a great feeling when the engineer and Chief Building Official for the Agency having jurisdiction tell the contractor 'If Brent doesn't like it, we don't like it, so change it'. I know, that happens way to seldom, but I'm here to tell you that it does happen and it is good to know there are some who get it.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By eekpod

Date 05-08-2013 20:25

I can understand your sentiments, but we had a lot of un expected situations a couple years ago and it started the process of putting my old company out of business. I advised them to get out while they could but they hung on and then closed the doors 8-10 months later. Sometimes one has to know when to say when.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-08-2013 20:50

As a fabricator or erector I would agree. And when it comes to how one is being allowed to charge for services rendered as well. But when it comes to my WORK as a CWI things are viewed through a different magnifying glass.

The more mistakes I find the more committed I am to making sure someone else is the one who gets the boot from the job. And I don't worry about where the money comes from to fix their mistakes. That's what law suits (which I normally hate) and bonding and insurance are for. Those who made the mistakes need to be held accountable regardless of who corrects their mistakes.

One of the major problems is that there are incompetent people in all phases of the work: engineering, fabricating, inspecting, Building Officials, etc. That statement did not criticize ALL the people so involved, only where the shoe fits. The bottom line is we don't always suceed in our attempts to educate and fix things. Sometimes we get over-ridden. I have had engineers authorize some of the stupidest things when contractors ask for variances to the code. Personally, I just write my report indicating that 'the engineer has accepted ALL responsibility and released me of any since he has the authority to change the code applications but when he does so he is the one taking on all responsibility for the results and the job is still non-compliant with the codes.' They don't like that very much, but I have not yet been run off a job because of it.

Have a Great Day, Brent