Quick question for everyone..
I recently just had some sample weldments rejected back for this :
One of the many welds on this structure was specified as a 3/16" fillet. It was rejected for being 1/4". They specified D1.1 as the weld spec. I understand the Underrun tolerancing relative to the acceptance criteria and so forth, but really cant find anything in D1.1 stating (if any) what the "plus" tolerances would be regarding fillet size.
Thanks in advance everyone
The only issues I know of associated with this is due to additional heat input, and clearance. Ask for a code reference for the rejection.
I agree with hogan, ask for specifics for the rejection.
Even if they were trying to imply that it fell under maximum convexity 1/16" inch is within tolerances. Not rejectable.
Have a Great Day, Brent
I too agree with hogan...have the inspector show in writing where it says it can't be oversized. As long as the part still fits, and there isn't any heat input limitations, I see no reason it can't be 1/4 vs 3/16. My guys have a hard time running a 3/16 fillet too.
I will be the third to agree with Hogan, but I would also check the job specs, we occasionally get tolerances of no more than 1/8" oversize on 1" welds.
and as John W. says, its hard with some welders to make a 3/16" weld.
Cfrancis,
I can find nothing to indicate this is rejectable per AWS D1.1 2008. Unless it is addressed in the general weld notes or contract specs, it should be acceptable. I too would ask for code referance.
jrw159
I agree with everyone. You won't find anything in D1.1 regarding this, and as said, unless there's something in the job specs, this is not rejectable.
It seems like the inspector is being a bit anal-retentive. I hate it when good fillets get "rejected" for being slightly oversized.
Not that you need it but I'll add my ditto:
D1.1 does not address fillets larger than specified, so that is not prohibited unless contract documents state otherwise.
I'll add: Contract documents provided at bid time are the governing documents. Anything added or deleted after that is supposed to be by mutual agreement. (How do YOU spell "change order"?)
Not to start an argument about bid document nomenclature, but my opinion on change orders is slightly different than what was stated. Change orders do not have to be a "mutual" agreement unless we are talking about a design / build project and in which case that is sort of a different issue. If the change order is about the design of a joint that would be an engineering decision and not subject to the acceptance of its correctness by the contractor as the contractor is not the designer unless of course this is a design / build project. The "acceptance" part of the change order could be possibly "we will or will not do the work" and in the case the contractor didn't want to do it, it would be sub'd out. Just because the addition is not an addendum does not mean the contractor can debate the change to the system if it is viewed as a safety issue or flaw in the original engineered design. If the engineer finds out that that the joints require x amount of filler metal to be deposited due to a safety issue or flaw in the original design the contractor does not have a place to argue with them as they are being contracted to do the work not to dispute the design of the project UNLESS this is a design / build project and then again that is sort of a different issue. The contractor certainly does have the right to say you are going to pay me what I want to do your dreamed up pipe dream! or piss off it is out of the scope of what I agreed to do, sub it out. That being said if the original bid has a clause to the effect of "the bidder will complete any and all change orders within the scope of the original intended design of the project, with the understanding the client will pay any and all additional costs contingent upon the award of bid" then you would sort of be bound to the contract as long as the change order wasn't outside the original scope i.e. going from a coal fired plant to a natural gas plant.
You work for Cianbro CHGuilford?
The members response to the original question appears to be unanimous.
One must remember there are good welders and some not so good welders, there are some good engineers and some that aren't so good. The same is true of inspectors. The question in my mind is, "Was the inspector an AWS CWI?"
As one respondent stated, ask the inspector what clause of D1.1 is he hanging his hat on? It is a fair question to ask and he should be able to respond. I believe the consensus is that he is wrong in his decision to reject the weld based on the information provided.
Best regards - Al
Thank you everyone ! I couldnt find or was ever aware of D1.1 addressing an oversized condition either. I did speak with the rejecting inspector at our customer yesterday. His first response was " It doesnt meet the print specification meaning the weld symbol callout". I pressed the question in a good manner,and to make a long story short he stated he rejected it based on AWS standards. ( Like that narrowed things....) It did turn out that he was not a CWI, nor did he have a welding background whatsoever. He consulted with his boss who was a CWI and consequently confirmed to him that it was not rejectable for the same reasons we all discussed in the forum here.
Here was a case where a gentlemen was doing the best job he knew how, but apparently was put in a postion to make judgements where he lacked knowledge, experience and qualifications.
Thanks everyone
I wasn't trying to hijack the thread - merely pointing out that unspecified "requirements" may lead to extra costs. What you describe is still supposed to be defined in the contract documents available at bid time -as I believe your post says.
Yes I do work for Cianbro - that is in my profile. Who do you work for?
So that we don't tie up everyone else by going off on a tangent, you can PM me if you like.
Even an engineering change entitles the fabricator to extra fees.
I tend to side with Chet that the changes are "agreed to" by both parties. When the fabricator says "hell no, I can't do that!", no mutual agreement is reached and the work is given to someone that agrees to do the work. When the work is performed by the original contractor/fabricator, it is by mutual agreement at mutually agreed rates of compensation. That doesn't mean either party is happy, it simply means the work will be done. It is quite normal for the contractor to discuss the changes with the engineer. Revisions based on the contractor's suggestions are often considered by the engineer and in many cases the contractor's input is sought. Few owners will refuse to consider a contractor's suggestions if it will save money or time and meets with the engineer's approval.
One engineering change that is often invoked is the addition of NDT not specified in the original bid document. That can be very costly to the owner unless there is clear evidence the contractor is intentionally attempting to defraud the owner by providing work that does not meet the requirements of the project specifications.
Lawyers get rich working on some projects determining what is within the normal scope of work and what constitutes a "change". I've seen the owner and contractor go to court because the chasm between the contenders was on the order of several million dollars.
Best regards - Al
Forum
