inspection plan for pipe piles

Date 02-06-2010 15:30

my superior has accussed me of not knowing the critical inspection of interlocking devise welded on pipe pile.
but i told him that the QC inspection involvement as stated in the inspection plan calls for random inspection only, hence, the possibility to miss those devise out-of-orientation is possible.

my question is ' do i have the right to revise the inspection plan that has been approved by the owner? the inspection plan was not made by myself (qc engineer).

By CWI555

Date 02-06-2010 15:51

If I understand your question properly, The ITP called out random inspections only without specifying specific points.
That would be why your superior has made that statement.

However; The question comes to my mind that if this is the orginal ITP, and the person is your superior, where were they when the ITP was approved and written, and why were those points not specifically called out????

It smells like an exercise in rear end covering to me utilizing the FDHR method. (feces down hill roll)

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 02-07-2010 14:31

I have seen the amount of inspection go up and down on pipe piles during manufacture. The most recent ones I worked on required 100% Visual (100'+ connectors) with 25%MT, followed by the same with the end user rep and then a partial by another organization for auditing purposes.

One thing I don't like about the amount of inspection changing, is what did I miss before that may be an issue in the future or cause a problem. I would feel if a partial were done before, then the requirements changed to 100%, then all previously accepted items would be "in question".

It easy to take for granted something driven in the mud! But as an inspector, all I can do is go with the requirements and trust in the engineers that designed it and indicated what amount of inspection was required.

I have decided that I would much rather be an end user rep on one of these jobs than the person in the shop.

By malCWI

Date 02-07-2010 16:32

I do have to agree with CWI555 and this is a prime case of CYA for the superior. That superior should have been there while the original ITP was written and submitted. You are correct in following the documents provided. You possibly could write a request for change to incorporate the 100% VT of the pile connection joints.