Hypothetically, ...

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-25-2011 00:58

CC

I cannot follow the sequence here??? Can you give a better, more elaborative explanation?

Joe Kane

By scrappywelds (***)

Date 05-25-2011 01:38

Sounds to me like a field welder and a foreman would be down the road. A inspection report needs to be filled out for the noncomformance for the "practice weld", and a new report for when the weld in question is in conformance. Contractor pays for all repairs needed for the "practice weld" and any NDE needed after. That would be my line of thinking.

By Superflux (****)

Date 05-25-2011 03:56

I agree with scrappywelds excellent corrective action recommendation.
Send them both packing to the parking lot for destroying the shop weld and resultant repair costs. That way the Welder and his Foreman buddy can practice all they want in their garage with a six pack and a Miller Thunderbolt.

By qcrobert (***)

Date 05-25-2011 15:10

Scrappy is correct in that an NCR and subsequent repair report should be made according to disposition of EOR. Even if the Engineer simply states, "repair it", that would be recorded in the report and a detailed description of the actual repair procedure (with digital photos).

Your hypothetical senario make me assume that the Engineer is the direct chain of command for the Field Inspector. Therefore the Inspector should report directly to him with no contact with the Welding Foreman.

Before project begins, the contractor should have in place welding repair procedures applicable to all repairs (and all welding processes) that may be encountered in the shop or field.

I do not know what code or standard or specification this fell under but under Sec VIII or B31.1 the inspection and repair would be spelled out because the contractor would be required to have in place a QC Manual outlining these hypothetical situations.

By C C

Date 05-25-2011 22:19

scrappywelds and superflux, the owner's inspector can't send the welder and/or foreman "down the road". If the welder consistently made visually and ultrasonically acceptable production welds, then the inspector would have no grounds to demand even that he retest. Their fate is a matter for the contractor.

qcrobert, I see nothing wrong with informally notifying the foreman as a courtesy, and in my experience, it is always better to inform the contractor immediately upon discovery of a non-conformance. In the time it takes for documentation to go from the inspector to the field engineer, to the engineer-in-charge, to the G.C.'s engineer, to the G.C.'s steel superintendent, to the subcontractor's superintendent to the welding foreman, the crew will move generators, cables, tanks and tool boxes to the next welding location on an 18-acre site. A quick word from the inspector will prompt the foreman to leave behind a power source and cables at the steel to be repaired. I understand that this does not fall within an inspector's job description, but there is no reason why an inspector should not have a working relationship with the welding foreman and crew, if at an unofficial level.

By Superflux (****)

Date 05-26-2011 07:05

C C,
True, very true. But Recommendations and the "practicing" welding on a finished product would be grounds for termination under "willful destruction of property". I have never filled out or signed a termination paper on anyone (other than my own). However my verbal "concerns" voiced to the right people have sent a few to the bank and the bar before quitting time....

By qcrobert (***)

Date 05-26-2011 18:13

CC, I see your point and in some cases this is the better way.

As an inspector for the Client, I have always required that a chain of command be established by the Client and I follow that to the letter. If allowed by the Client, as in a few cases, that I inform the contractor or welding foreman then so be it.

I have inspected seimic retrofit bridge projects for Caltrans since 1992 and Caltrans has me report directly to the contractor's on-site welding representative and make NCR's to Caltrans. Repair procedures, preapproved by Caltrans, are already in place. Unless there is disaggreement between myself and the contractor, repairs flow smoothly, otherwise work is halted till a disposition by Caltrans is made.

Tricky situation, in that Caltrans requires an independent third party inspector yet the contractor pays the inspector. I have actually had (on one job) the contractor hold back my pay past the Net 30 because he was pissed at me.

Every job is different but all jobs are spelled out in my contract as to my expectations (pay, terms, length of contract, etc), the Client's requirements of my duties and the Client's requirements of the Contractor.

My contract is iron clad but took 35+ yrs to develop, and that's alot of "scars".... ;P

Again, I see your point and most of the time it makes the job roll smoothly if everyone is involved and the goal being to bring in the project on time and in a safe manner.