Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Am I being to critical?
- - By Kix (****) Date 12-17-2007 16:30
I spotted a few bad welds on a painted ladder that was already on a truck ready to ship the other day made by a sub contractor.  The customers rejected the ladder and the truck did not ship and all kinds of people are p-o'd.  The deal was that the sub would make a new ladder and that I would inspect it and give the ok and then the customers would by it off.  The sub has a third party inspection team that inspects all their critical weldments like the ladders, torque boxes and outriggers etc etc.  This place had the nerve to tell me that you can't catch all the defects and gave me the "well, is it really going to affect the structural integrity of the part".
     I'm not worried about my decision on the rejected ladder, but more of the whole would it affect the structural integrity of the weldment saying.  I saw on a few outriggers from a few feet away that there was some huge undercut on the end of a weld.  It was a place where the weld quit and had a huge crater that gouged out the base material with a depth of about 3/16" or more.  This was not my part to be inspecting and I did not raise a stink about it, but I did bring it to there attention about what they where getting from their third party inspection.  For all I know they are telling their third party guys just to let some things go or to use their judgment and that old saying.
     I guess what I'm asking is if that were one of your outriggers what would you do?  I still feel that the weld that was on that outrigger would hold the world and that the gouge would not cause the outrigger to fail under and earthly condition, but I still would of called it out.  Am I wrong for calling it out?  I come from an aerospace background so I'm used to looking at perfection, but I also know that just because a weld doesn't look the best doesn't mean it's a bad weld.  I inspect things to the VT criteria of D1.1 and I expect anyone that says they are D1.1 affiliated to do the same I guess.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-17-2007 16:43
This doesn't really address your question, but more in regards to the rejected ladder portion of your post....

Our AWS Section had a topic about weld failures and the speaker gave illustrations with microscopic pictures(he left out the company names for legal reasons) of welds that failed on a ladder on a tanker truckbody. The worker's compensation insurance company had aquired his services to be an expert witness and to perform a weld failure analysis. He examined the broken welds and found due to the undercut and poor weld quality, that the welds were at fault for causing this person's injuries. That was a very interesting AWS Section meeting. Sorry for the off tanget reply. Just wanted to say kudos for catching those welds on that ladder.
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 12-17-2007 17:42
That's another thing I tell people when I call out a defect and they give me the old saying of "that weld will hold the world man".  I ask if they can tell me where all the critical stresses are on the part and if they would put someone's life on the line to get this thing out the door on time.  They tell me these things are way over engineered witch I would agree with, but then I come back with the "well, you never know when your going to need to put one more person then is allowed in a basket or on a ladder to save a life and you better hope that this thing will go above and beyond the call of duty when need be"..
Parent - By new tito (***) Date 12-17-2007 19:02
If someone is to build a part or structure to AWS D1.1, then the part/structure should conform to D1.1.  I wouldn't care if it were a BBQ pit......if I'm expected to inspect the BBQ pit that is supposed to be built to D1.1, then you can bet that I would not accept any less than required.  It's not my job to judge the extent of over-engineering or the ridiculous acceptance criteria...it's my job to make sure the part meets what the customer, engineer..whoever...wants, period!!

Now, keep in mind, that if and indication is borderline or just outside of the criteria....then I may let it go on something that is truely non-critical.  But for the horribly obvious defects that you seem to be running across, reject that crap and don't accept anything less than code.  If it persists, and no one seems to fix the welds, write an NCR and send it to the next man up the ladder.
Parent - - By HgTX (***) Date 12-17-2007 19:11
Unless they have the engineering calcs in front of them, they can't say for sure it's overengineered.  Could be that last year, in a financial crunch, the company decided to invest a little in more detailed calculations and stop overengineering in order to save materials.

If there's a standard specified, that's what they're building to.  Not what they *think* might be needed.  That's not their call.  That's the engineer's call.  If they get hired to *design* ladders, then they get to decide how little weld or weld quality needs to be in there.

We get that in bridges.  "What do you care?  Bridge'll hold up."  That's not the point.  I'm not buying the minimum bridge that will still stand.  I'm buying a bridge with a certain factor of safety, a certain robustness, a certain room for error, and it's not their call to decide to use up that room for error on my behalf.

Hg
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 12-17-2007 19:59
"Unless they have the engineering calcs in front of them, they can't say for sure it's overengineered.  Could be that last year, in a financial crunch, the company decided to invest a little in more detailed calculations and stop overengineering in order to save materials." - quote

Yup,
Have you also noticed that in the last few years that the main member sizes have gotten a little smaller than in past years? It seems as though the engineers are trimming fat for the customer, or something. I see composite floor beams with more camber and smaller beam sizes these days than in times past... but then I also see more and more full pen going through the shop than I years past. 
Parent - By HgTX (***) Date 12-17-2007 21:39
With the change to LRFD in the bridge world, members are definitely getting less beefy, and issues that could be neglected in the past are now of concern.  (Don't ask me to name which ones; I can't remember.)

Hg
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 12-17-2007 17:32
if i sub out a job and they say they will fab it to code i expect nothing less
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 12-17-2007 19:39
What surprised me is that these third party NDT guys are from a reputable company known across the nation.  They aren't CWI's, but they are level II NDT or something like that.
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 12-17-2007 20:27
like having my saw welder tig weld. why not he is a welder
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 12-17-2007 21:25
I asked one of them if they were a CWI and they replied no.  He then said he was going to get his CWI next year.  I asked him what code (ASME, D1.1, or API 1104) he was going to take it on and he replied all three.  I said you are huh?  Then I asked if he was going to do the week seminar and take the test or just show up for the test.  He then replied I've been welding for 17 years so I don't need to take any stupid seminar.  I then said well, the pass fail rate is pretty much 50/50 and that seminar is worth the money.  He said he'd be good and I told him good luck and left it at that.  I like that analogy about the SAW and tig welder. lol  Have to tell the boss that one  when they  start ranting about "well, he's a level II NDT guy so there inspections should be sufficient".
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-17-2007 21:28
being a level II ndt means as much as being a certified welder. In either group there are those who can pass a test, but can't do the work for shit.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 12-17-2007 21:26
The code is the code, no more no less. It doesn't make any difference to the inspector if it's "fit for service" or "will it really affect the integrity" or the myriad of other excuses put forth. If contract docs say D1.1 without any specific modification or alteration, then it's D1.1 period. The inspector doesn't write the code, they work to it. Anything else is working to the farm code.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - By Shane Feder (****) Date 12-18-2007 09:15
Hello guys,
I totally agree with all the responses.
The job I am on at the moment is Duplex Stainless Steel Tanks built to API 650. The code doesn't cover it but the site specifications require 100% PT on all temporary attachment areas after removal.The contractor is saying that it is a waste of time and money because they have PTed thousands of areas without finding a single defect. I tried explaining that you may only find one crack in 10,000 tests but that crack may have catastrophic side effects.(70 metre diameter Sulphuric Acid Storage Tanks in a major seismic area)
Sorry, like John I got a little bit off track but what I was agreeing with was the fact that as CWIs we don't always agree with the codes or the specifications we are given but it is our job to ensure that the welding / engineering complies with those requirements.
Have a Merry Xmas guys and all the best for 08,
Regards,
Shane
Parent - - By rafael Angarita (*) Date 12-18-2007 12:16
From my point of view, all constrctions mus be done fitting on drawnings and tecnichal specifications. Some aspects are not explicit in that docummentes because it is impossible to hold on all. I,e, in the drawning does not appear the WPQ, but the inspector must to veryfi the welder skill.
In other hand, an importan amount of contractos dont care about quality but money, and the inspector roll is vital; some of the contractor come with the old "nothin is goin to pass" because they dont care about.
The inspector should know the codes, the good practice; shoul be able to show how the things must be done.
At last, before the job bigins we have to let very clear in the site is how the work is goin to do.
Parent - - By crazycajun (**) Date 12-18-2007 13:10
IN RESONSE OF BEING TO CRITICAL

I dont think you could ever be to critical, when your doing the job that you were hired to do. i always look at any situation as if i am to be the one working on it. would i let someone mess up a weld and then go climb on it, just to see if it is strong enough. i think not. so if someone else was to get hurt on a job that i inspected and it was my fault for letting a skimpy weld go. i dont think i would feel to good about it.I would think to myself man that could have been me or my lil brother or some friend or family memeber. so i say again you can never be to critical when you have someone's life in the palm of your hand and all you have to do is say hey fix that. i see no resonse why any welder should complain about having to add a lil more weld when he is still getting paid regardless of how much weld he puts on any one thing. and if the company i work for doesnt like the quailty i strive for i will go somewhere that appreciates quailty. the cost of a lil more weld is a helluva lot cheaper than the lawsuit that can be passed down for an injury. i dont want any blood on my hands so i call it like i see it.
Parent - By swnorris (****) Date 12-19-2007 14:20
If the workmanship doesn't meet the minimum requirements of the applicable code, you will never be too critical.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / Am I being to critical?

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill