Pull tapes against the Calibrated Master Tape (certified by Calibration company every 5 years), verifying at 1ft, 5ft, 10ft, within an 1/8". QC/Final Sign-off tapes only. QC and shop Tapes are only 25' and of the same manufacturer. A sample of each batch of shop tapes are checked upon receipt from vendor.
Also verify/'calibrate' our Leica Disto Laser measuring device same way.
Longest structure built in a single stretch is 280' (building is only 300'), average is 150'.
I found it meaningless and a lot of unnecessary work to verify all of the tapelines used in the shop. The previous QC before me would gather up ALL of the tape lines and squares and work on them for about a week verifying. When it was my turn, I only verified the inspectors tapes and squares as they are the ones used for final inspections.
I had a 100' stainless tape that had calibration papers and a pull handle. I verified all of the tapes 12', 25', 50' and 100' etc. against that tapeline. I stretched out the calibrated tapeline and tensioned it with the pull handle for the appropriate tension for the temperature(see your calibration paperwork for the temp/tension that your tape was calibrated at). All along the floor where the tapeline was supported for it's length, I had applied tape to the floor at intervals and marked it at 1', 10', 25', 50' etc... Then pulled all of the inspector's tapes to see how they aligned against the calibrated tape marks. I called it good if the tape was within 1/8" at 50'. The Lufkin tapes were generally dead on, the Craftsman 50' tapes were off by an 1/8" at 50', but the 100' tapes were dead on.
I used the 3,4,5 rule to verify squares against a calibrated tape.
Alright, so here is why I am asking.
We are an AISC certified Fabricator, and have been for 10 years now. I have been the QA/QC Manager the entire time. We have been ISO certified as well for the past ~20 years, and we have a supplemental NQA-1 Manual that is audited during our yearly ISO Audit. I was hired in 2007, and rewrote our entire quality manual to comply with the ISO 9001:2008 standard. At the time we were also IAS certified, and our manual doubled as the IAS manual (at least our Quality Control Procedures and Work Instructions). In 2010 we had an upcoming project that was requiring AISC certification, and several others we were bidding that had the requirement as well. So, we went through the initial AISC cert process. AISC became the primary requirement for projects, so in 2015 we let our IAS cert lapse. We still hold the ISO, NQA-1, and AISC certs.
All the above is really just to point out that for approximately 5 years I was dealing with 4 audits a year, which is now reduced to 3 a year. So I am no stranger to the 3rd party audit process, having had a total of 44 audits thus far. The amount of NCR/CARs we have received I can almost count on 1 hand. There have been 7 total - 3 of which were calibration related.
Going back to Al's comment regarding Fillet Gauges - yep, 2 NCRs were regarding calibration of fillet gauges. One was issued because we weren't calibrating (or rather, verifying) the CWI gauges. So I purchased a NIST traceable gauge set from GAL and started comparing the CWI's GAL gauges to the GAL Master Set every 6 months. The Master set sits in my office, and is ONLY used to verify the CWI set. So I had no plans on re-verifying the Master Set, and I wrote it into the manual as such. Apparently that wasn't good enough, because we all know Stainless Steel randomly changes shape over time (/s), right?!! So I was issued another NCR for not checking the Master Set at established intervals. Now, not only do I have to verify the CWI set, but I also have to use our NIST traceable Starrett Steel Rule (that gets sent out every 5 years) to check the Master Fillet Gauge Set once a year. This is getting ridiculous.
I almost changed my procedure to verifying the CWI set with the Starrett Steel Rule, but it is quite a bit easier to just throw the same fillet gauge up against the Master set and verify that it is exactly the same. The CWI set has been used to measure likely more than a million welds, and it is spot on the same as the Master Set.
Which leads me to the 3rd calibration related NCR/CAR. If you are AISC certified, I highly urge you to pay attention to what I am about to type.
My procedure for checking tapes was this: I have a 2 foot Starrett Steel Rule that is NIST traceable and is checked by a calibration lab every 5 years. We have a list of employees that have dimensional responsibilities. The QCI tapes are serialized by inscribing a number on the tape housing. These are the employees responsible for final dimensional checks. The other employees on the list are shop leads that measure during fabrication.
I use the Steel Rule to verify the first 2 feet of the tapes. I check the end plate for proper play, using push and pull technique, and to ensure it is still straight. I inspect the tape for cracks, bends, and verify that all the lines in the first 2 feet can be read without issue. The first few feet of the tapes is arguably the MAIN reason for inaccuracy. Acceptable accuracy is +/-1/16". We fabricate heavy steel, and super tight tolerances are not required for the product. FWIW, I have never really failed a tape. I have suggested to employees that they replace the tape soon, mostly due to dirt and grime. I have also had end plates straightened while I wait, but not even due to the accuracy being outside the 1/16" tolerance, just because I'd rather see a perfectly straight end plate. Almost every tape I have ever checked is no more than 1/64th off from every single line in the first 2 feet.
I have been verifying tapes every 3 months for the last 13 years. My procedure has been totally acceptable for all audits, including AISC, but is apparently NOT acceptable anymore.
The AISC auditor this year actually issued a CAR for this. A CAR!!! Nope, not an NCR, which is a minor non-conformance - an actual MAJOR non-conformance. What they are saying is that my procedure for checking tape measures is SO unsatisfactory that it risks our AISC certification entirely! Bull-Puckey!
According to the auditor, at least for the QCI tapes, we must be verifying the ENTIRE LENGTH of the tape. I asked where this was established as a requirement, and he pointed to section 1.14.c of the AISC 207-16 standard which states:
The documented procedure shall include provisions for:
(c) Service use for each piece of equipment, including the required precision for the types of inspections, measurements or tests made.
Tell me how exactly that equates to checking the entire length of QCI tapes? It doesn't.
So I probed further. According to the auditor (who had only been an AISC auditor for approximately 9 months), there was a presentation given at the 2018 steel conference by someone I've never heard of, and is not an official voice of AISC, about equipment calibration. They talked about all different kinds of calibration, including tape measures. They stated that checking the entire tape is advisable. Remember, this is NOT AISC saying this, this is simply a presenter at a conference.
This is the only place where one might determine that the expectation is to check the entire tape measure. AISC has never issued a bulletin regarding tape measure calibration, nor do they specifically state it as such in any AISC publication anywhere. I at least skim every AISC bulletin I receive via e-mail, even though 9/10 are not Building Standard related.
So I asked how exactly I was supposed to randomly watch a video available on the AISC website, and deem it rule of law for calibration requirements? My calibration procedure has been totally acceptable for 9 years of AISC certification, why would I consider it incorrect at this point in the game?
Ooooooooooh, now we're getting somewhere. AISC sent their auditors an e-mail approximately 3 months ago. In this e-mail, it was stated: Make sure they are checking the entire length of tape measures. The auditor could not send me the e-mail, because Super Secret Info, for auditor eyes only.
What it really boils down to is AISC moving the goal posts without notifying their fabricators of the increased stringency of requirements. If this is going to be required, they should have the expectations clearly defined somewhere in an official AISC document - not in some random Steel Conference video.
I just couldn't believe a CAR was issued. That's just ludicrous.
