Your company is welding under the D1.1 Structural Welding Code Steel. I'm your inspector. If I were to present you with a document that spelled out in writing my procedures for how I would conduct visual inspections and there were more stringent and different requirements for visual inspection than included in Table 6.1, would you question me and expect an explanation? The company I work for only uses D1.1 rules for D1.1 jobs.
If my explanation for the wording of this document was that I inspect to more codes than D1.1 and some of them are more restrictive than Table 6.1 in the area of visual inspection. Would you then want me to edit my document of inspection procedures to reflect that a D1.1 visual criterion is exempt from the higher requirements of say D1.5 or ASME section 8&9 B31.1 B31.3?
I ran into this the other day and am at a loss as to how to deal with this situation short of requesting new wording.
My fear is that a document that is all inclusive and more restrictive will be adopted by someone unaware. I have special training as a CWI and am supposed to know my code. Some structural engineers know the D1.1 code but most do not. I have been told by them that they won't inspect if I don't design. They value my input because of my training.
Because of the special professional relationship inspectors enjoy with engineers, I could see how the bar could be inadvertently raised to a more restrictive standard if an engineer was to adopt a written procedure for visual inspection that contained other information than the codes and standards intended for a project. It seems to me that inspection procedures should be unique to each code and not general in content.
Please feel free to wade in.
Dennis
What they can do is have more than one acceptance criteria in their procedure for each code they work to and identify them as such.
As long as the job contract states that D1.1 is the governinng Code, then of course that should be adhered to. The only reason B31 should come into play is if there is some piping attached to the structure. Still, at that point the structure should be inspected to D1.1 and the piping to B31, or API, or whatever Code is called out in the contract specs.
If you were an Inspector who came to my shop and decided that you would inspect my structural components with B31 criteria, because that's the way you wanted to, I'd kick your ass down the street and go get a real Inspector.
Have fun,
Tim
Seems like I've read this somewhere before ;)
[quote]"Your company is welding under the D1.1 Structural Welding Code Steel. I'm your inspector. If I were to present you with a document that spelled out in writing my procedures for how I would conduct visual inspections and there were more stringent and different requirements for visual inspection than included in Table 6.1, would you question me and expect an explanation? The company I work for only uses D1.1 rules for D1.1 jobs."[/quote]
Can you give an example of what work has been questioned and is above and beyond the criteria that is spelled out in D1.1?
John Wright
Yeah, I am also wondering at just what the heck Dennis is REALLY asking? One need only remember to use the right tool for the right job the way I am reading this. An Inspector must NEVER arbitrarily apply more stringent criteria than stipulated if that's what you're getting to Dennis.
In the document that was presented to me there was a graduated scale for reinforcement allowable on the face of groove welds. 1/16" reinforcement up to 1/2" material, 3/32 up to 1" and 1/8" for over 1"thk. D1.1 table 6.1 has one criteria—maximum 1/8"reinforcement. Now this is not an exact quote but close—you can get the idea from this example. Porosity and undercut were also more restrictive in this welding inspection procedure document than contained in 6.1.
Dennis; it all depends on what the contractor/company agreed to provide. The criteria for reinforcement sounds similar to some of those from ASME. Other criteria from VWAC may have also been adopted by this company. With regard to more restrictive criteria being applied by the company, it is their perogative; the best you can do is inform them to see if they realize the criteria they're calling for is more restrictive than required by a certain code; it may also be a customer/contract requirement that is being imposed upon them. To be honest, it sounds to me like you should tread lightly before plowing into something you're not quite sure of. No disrespect intended, it's just very easy to get caught up in making opinions.
So, I'm taking it that you are negotiating a contract for inspection with this inspector and you simply don't agree with the procedures he wants to use. I'm assuming this inspector will represent your company and what he accepts or rejects will reflect the quality of your work to your customers. If he is working for you, then you need to set the criteria based upon the applicable code(s) (AWS D1.1) and the quality of the product leaving your shop should reflect this.
Dennis I apologize, I guess I really am not seeing the big deal being made over this. If this was an outside inspector throwing around this "tighter criteria" than the code or contract specified and marking up reports requiring us to repair the already acceptable by code work, I'd have a problem with this guy and there would have to be a meeting set up to get all this ironed out with the customer before he could continue inspecting in my shop. Lots of donuts and coffee in the lobby for this guy until this matter is resolved.
I've had outside inspectors like this and I've been here before :)
John Wright
Dennis,
Without reading your inspection procedures, I can't comment on the wording of them. Here is our approach to visual examinations.
One section of our Quality Assurance Manual applies to visual inspection in general. It addresses scope, purpose, equipment, personnel, procedures, evaluation and reporting. The complete manual is presented to all clients for their review and acceptance, prior to any work being performed. If client takes exception to any item, or wishes to add specific requirements, these are recorded in writing and become an attachment to the procedure. I have pasted a couple of paragraphs from the VT section of the QAM for illustration:
8.1.1 (Scope) This procedure provides guidelines and contains methods and requirements for visual examination applicable when specified by a referencing Code section, specification or contract document. Visual examination procedures required for every type of examination are not included in this section, since there are numerous applications where visual examinations are required. A visual examination is required prior to the use of any of the NDE examinations referenced in this QAM. It is recognized that a visual examination may assist in the evaluation or interpretation of results obtained from NDE examinations.
8.2.1 (Purpose) Visual examination is generally used to determine such things as the surface condition of the part, alignment of mating surfaces, shape or evidence of leaking. Visual examinations shall be performed in accordance with a written procedure which shall, as a minimum contain the requirements listed in Table 8.2.1. The written procedure shall establish a single value, or range of values, for each requirement. A change in an essential variable shall require recertification of the written procedure. A change in a nonessential variable does not require requalification of the written procedure. All changes of essential or nonessential variables from the value, or range of values, specified by this procedure shall require revision of, or an addendum to the written procedure.
8.5.1 Evaluations - All examinations shall be evaluated in terms of the acceptance standards of the referencing Code requirements, specifications or contract documents. An examination checklist shall be used to verify that the required visual observations were performed. This checklist establishes requirements and does not indicate the maximum examination requirements which may be performed.
8.5.2 Reporting - A written report of the examination shall contain the following information:
(a) the date of the examination;
(b) procedure identification and revision used;
(c) technique used;
(d) results of the examination;
(e) examination personnel identity and level of qualification(s)
(f) identification of the part or component examined
~thirdeye~
The proceedures I posted about were presented to me as part of a manual of inspection proceedures. I do not have a written proceedure or adopt those presented to me. I mearly wanted to know how to deal with the wording that was more restrictive than 6.1 when the job was done under D1.1.
Dennis; help us clarify, please. What is your role? Are you the Engineer for the Company or are you part of the Company's Quality function? It would help us give you a better answer if we knew for sure which side of the situation you are coming from.
I am a CWI and part of quality control at a company 250 miles north of San Francisco. We are an approved fabricator and enjoy this status partly because of my training as a CWI.
I am also a fabricator and a certified welder. My area of expertise is structural steel. I also have been known to work with stainless, AL6-XN, Duplex 2205, aluminum and cast iron.
I have been in this line of work since 1964 when I started as a shop helper. I took the test for CWI in 1996.
My first experience with inspectors was in 1970. Quality has been a big deal with me ever since.
Being in the northern part of California, behind the redwood curtain, presents a very unique atmosphere for inspection. There is one lab with one UT guy for the county. If that lab is not used then UT is contracted out of the area.
All of our work goes through quality control but all in not inspected by outside agencies. When an outside agency comes in to provide inspection for the customer, part of my job is to see that they are using the proper standards. If there is a problem with our work I am expected, by my employer, to find the cause and fix it. There has been the occasion where standards have been applied improperly.
If I am wrong, or my welders are wrong, or one of my company's project managers is wrong in any of our interpretations of the standards or specifications, I get to fix it.
Therefore my need is to know what standard we are working to on each job. I need to know what special circumstances the customer adds to the code or standard or specification. I need to read any new information, that is aside form the regular boiler plate, to see how it impacts each project.
Some time ago my company received a document from our local UT guy on his company's letterhead. It is a written practice for visual inspection. In the purpose and scope it states,
"This procedure will be used on all worked performed by "and then the company name. The written practice covers ASME, ANSI B31.1, B31.3, AWS D1.1. Because the visual acceptance criteria in this document differs in the area of visual acceptance criteria, for D1.1, I took and do take exception. The face reinforcementof groove welds and undercutting are more restrictive than Table 6.1. We suppose we will be inspected by D1.1 when the job spec. calls out D1.1 and then by any other code when the job is done by a different code.
I think that for clairification (to all parties) a simple scope of work, detailing the specific inspection duties required by the contract could be presented to the Inspector.
Since you have only mentioned visual inspection of welding, lets asssume that Inspector duties such as verification of use of qualified welding procedures, verification of performance of welders, verification of specified filler materials, etc., are not part of the scope of work for the Inspector on this job.
Scope of Work: The Inspectors duties include the following:
1. Verify that the work conforms to the requirements of AWS D1.1 (year), Table 6.1, approved shop drawings, or other documents.
2. Identification and Documentation of the work inspected shall be in accordance with AWS D1.1 (year).
~thirdeye~
Dennis,
Since you first brought this up, I ran into an instance similar to what you described. My response has been:
1) The applicable code is what was referenced in the bid documents. Anything else might constitute a change order and delay in schedule for the customer.
2) While most codes share similar criteria, there are differences. I am not going to spend any time explaining why the contract specified code is as good or better than code the inspector is trying to substitute.
3) Work rejected under the "more stringent code" but acceptable to the specified code, could result in backcharges to the inspector and his/her agency. (Never having done that, I'm not sure how well that works, but it reminds people of their responsibilities)
I really don't like to have conflicts like that, but I'm getting to the point where I don't want to have to be nice about it when someone is trying to give me an enema with a fire hose.
Chet Guilford
By -
Date 03-31-2005 23:06
I've got to agree with NDT III here. You can write your procedures in such a way as to make them more compact by combining like elements of the applicable codes, while still including differing elements of the applicable codes.
For instance, where I am now at, we do work to various AWS standards and to various MIL standards. For the MT procedure I have just revised (it was quite poorly written in its previous revision), there is one section of the procedure that details the requirements for how the examinations are to be carried out. For instance, all of the codes we work to require the continuous method, so this is spelled out only once in the procedure and it applies to all work. However, each different set of acceptance criteria are also contained in the procedure (as they are all different) and the procedure gives clear instructions to use the criteria as specified on the applicable drawing.
Mankenberg
Thanks Kip. I have seen procedures that have 3 or 4 acceptance criteria for the various codes that they will be used for. This is perfectly acceptable to keep the number of procedures down.
You cannot use an "approved" procedure and then say the acceptance criteria is not the one in the procedure unless it is sufficiently documented and agreed with your client.
You cannot arbitrarily apply more stringent criteria than the construction code, but at the same time you cannot arbitrarily apply an acceptance criteria that is less stringent than your "Client Approved" procedures. As far as back charges go, there can be none if the client has approved the procedures.
If the criteria will be AWS D.1.1, a letter from the client would suffice to me as long as the technician had a copy of the acceptance criteria from D1.1 with him/her in the field to refer to. Otherwise they have to use the criteria inthe procedure.
The inspector is obligated to follow the procedure(s) supplied to him/her. If the client approves a procedure that is more stringent, then that becomes the criteria and the client has to accept any impact. Bottom line "Procedure Compliance!"
