It amazes me how many fab shops don't really have a good handle on the K-area and when they need to be avoided.
Working a job to D1.8 and inspected some columns with CJP welds to flange and web. Parts were clipped properly. The plans called for backing bars. Fitters left them run long so they go right down to the K-area. Welders not only welded clear to the end of the backing bar, they went past it, right into the K.
What a bunch of great craftsmen. And this in an AISC Pre-Approved Fabrication Shop.
But worse yet, I warned the welders yesterday. Did it anyway. No speak the English. They speak enough to make you think they understand, but they really don't. You have to draw very good pictures to explain things to them.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Must have been in phoenix, I think I worked there in the past.
NCR gets their attention.
Brent,
I don't see anything in D1.8, or AISC 341 for that matter prohibiting any welding in the k-area. AWS D1.8, 7.4 Wide-Flange k-Area Inspection states "When required by the QAP, MT of the member web shall be performed after welding of doubler plates, continuity plates or stiffeners in the k-area. The member web area to be tested for cracks using MT shall include the k-area base metal within 3 in of the weld. The MT shall be performed no sooner than 48 hours following completion of the welding". This same language can be found in AISC 341, Appendix Q.Also, Figure C-6.3- Continuity Plate Copes without Weld Tabs illistration (B) is not recommended, but certainly not prohibited. If your concern is that great, I suggest following AWS D1.8. 7.4.
By welderbrent 
Date 08-27-2013 22:19
Edited 08-28-2013 04:16
You are absolutely correct. And I will be the first to acknowledge that there is a big difference between "not recommended" and "acceptable" and "Prohibited". It is amazing how many inspectors try to enforce K-area care on standard D1.1 work. I challenge anyone to find it in there. Not that I like to see it even then, but it isn't a code issue outside of the seismic codes.
Now, while I agree, I need to clarify a little, this project has other restrictions within the general notes making k-area work even more critical. And while the work is allowed though not recommended in the codes, one must also consider how it is done and the additional stresses that are involved. Add one more thing, once welding is done in the Not Recommended area past the clipped ends of the continuity plate, past the backing bar, into the k, it is not recommended to torch, air-arc, or remove by several other processes. I will have to re-locate that one so I can quote or reference it for you.
It was decided to use id grinders and 'SMOOTH' this transition so as to ease into the stresses. Not my call.
My point was, this company knew there were critical cautions. I warned them of the joint potential with backing bars running too far past the corner clip. Then, the welder even went past that and right on into, not just the k-1, but the k proper.
edit: notice in my first paragraph I said "avoided" not prohibited.
Another note, many don't know the distinction between the K-area, K, and K-1. Thankfully this happened in K-1, the weld on the flange and not on the web side (K-area). Check out definitions and Figure C-6.3.
Thank you for your comments. Hopefully that clarified some things for others as well.
Have a Great Day, Brent
The problem, at least from my experience, begins at the top. When management doesn't pay attention to "minor" details, the workers soon get the message that anything goes as long as it goes out the door.
Most production workers know little about code requirements other than what is pass down to them as corporate culture. Workers are paid to fabricate, they are not expected to know the nuances of codes. It harkens back to the Taylor method of manufacturing. Management plans to the operation and divides the job functions into discrete operations that require the minimum amount of training needed to get the job done. There is no thinking involved on the worker's part. In fact, a worker that thinks for himself is viewed as a troublemaker because he is likely to upset the apple cart by trying to change things. The worker only knows and does what he is trained to do. The less training required, the better because less training usually means less pay. The system works when the workers are uneducated and possess few skills.
It is unfortunate that Taylor method of time study and manufacturing still pervades manufacturing. The manufacturing system works in third work countries where the level of education is still lacking. It still works here in the US for low skilled jobs. However, it doesn't work very well when considering the level of worker satisfaction or when the type of work is not mind numbingly repetitive. Most fabricaters engaged in the fabrication of structural steel now requires a trained, highly skilled work force. We expect the production worker to work directly from a drawing. We expect them to know and understand code requirements. We expect them to shift gears from one job to the next. Yet, in many respects, management is still stuck with the mindset of Taylor. They do not want to invest in training their work force. From an inspector's perspective, management's refusal to provide workforce training represents job security. Job security is not assured for the shop inspector, but definitely for the third party inspector. The less skilled the workforce, the more likely there will be fabrication errors and the more likely the Owner's and code bodies will insist on third party inspection.
It is not the third party inspector's responsibility to train or offer suggestions to the fabricator's workforce. To do so can be viewed as interfering with the contractor's work and as a violation of contract law. It sounds perverse and contradictor to getting a project completed on time and ensuring profitability, but the Owner, through actions of the third party inspector can be held financially liable for interfering with the contractor's operations when the third party inspector get personally involved with how something is made. The third party inspector's employer can also be held liable for interfering with the contractor's operations.
The contractor is responsible for the ways and means of manufacturing, fabrication, erection, and installation. The third party inspector is responsible for those tests, inspections, etc. defined in the Statement of Special Inspections and/or purchase order. Rarely is the third party inspector given the authority or responsibility to assume any of the contractor's responsibilities for quality control. To assume the contractor's QC responsibilities without written authorization from the Engineer/Owner opens the TPI and his employer to all sorts of liability.
It is rare that I will interfere with work or interject my opinion on any matter when functioning as the TPI. My report informs the Owner and the Engineer of the non-conformance and observation made while at the site. It is their responsibility to take those steps necessary to bring the contractor into line with the contract. Even when I see the contractor doing something that is totally incorrect, other than something that puts a worker in immediate danger, I let the contractor do as they see fit. My report will detail the discrepancy and it is the Engineer's responsibility to take whatever measures are needed to get the work corrected or accepted as built. Verbal communication is great, but all official communication must in in writing.
In this case, concerning the K-zone, my report would include a narrative of the problem, photos of the non-conformance, and verbal notification to the fabricator/erector of my finding before I leave the site. If the contractor pays no heed, it isn't my concern. If the contractor wishes to continue ignoring the contract, drawings, or code requirements, it is his right to go bankrupt. If the Engineer wishes to accept the nonconforming material "as is,” that is his prerogative. Whether he demands the work be corrected in large part is dependent on the quality of my report. The more detailed the report, the more references to code provisions being violated, the more likely the Engineer will step up to the plate and insist that the work be corrected. In the end, the Owner determines whether the contract receives payment of the work or if payment is withheld due to the contractor's failure to meet his contractual obligations. That payment is the carrot the contractor is reaching for. It is a very persuasive tool that can be used to ensure the work is fabricated or erected properly.
If the contractor needs a consultant to train his work force, if the contractor needs a consultant to engineer a means of correcting a deficiency, let him find his own consultant. The TPI works for the Owner, not the contractor. The contractor is responsible for the work produced. The TPI's interference, instructions to the workers, suggestions, etc. are usually unwelcomed and opens the TPI's employer to financial liability should anything go wrong, including a claims for compensation from the contractor for holding up production.
I recognize that it is difficult to watch a contractor totally screw up a project, but it is like watching a cheetah take down an antelope, you feel sorry for the antelope, but the cheetah needs to eat too. A naturalist should interfere with Mother Nature and the TPI shouldn’t interfere with the contractor’s operations.
Best regards - Al
Very well put Al.
For the record, my observations and cautions were given to the leadman in the area as well as the welder who was standing there. It did not get passed on to swing shift though and got welded into the K.
I pointed it out the next morning and they asked me to go ahead and mark it for correction/repair. They have already ground it very nicely, no air-arc.
This shop is reasonably good about taking constructive comments from TPI's to get the work to an acceptable level before it goes out the door. They don't want the NCR's, they want corrections done in house before it goes out.
Our customer along with the OSHPD inspector on site in CA and the in house QC here all want us 'reasonably' involved to make sure the finished product is as correct and acceptable as possible. It is in our written scope of work to go through after their QC has done it's part and see if we find anything they missed. They seldom even challenge us on items we would like repaired.
I know it is our job primarily to 'Observe and Report'. But, we have been asked to go further. All paperwork from the Contract Documents to Reports to Billing all state it is still the Contractors' Responsibility to provide a quality product meeting all the code and job specifications regardless of TPI involvement. And we are on site at the shop Continuously for all stages of the work, from the time materials were received, parts cut, fit, welded, inspected in house, repaired, final and shipped.
Anyway, I believe I understand your cautions and do appreciate your stand on our job as TPI's. I also agree with your ideas on why it is as it is, primarily lack of training. But, I also think it goes along with a current trend amongst almost all workers today- CARELESSNESS, they could care less as long as they get a check that doesn't bounce at the end of the week.
How many times have all of us explained something to someone only to have them tell us the next time around that they have never heard that before? Way too often.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Maybe that's because it is the outside inspector delivering the message. The outside inspector comes and goes, thus the level of importance attached to the message is minimal.
If it was the contractor's CEO, shop supervisor, or foreman that is providing the information the retention time would be proportional to the status of the individual delivering the message.
If the message delivered by the outside inspector is ignored, there is little chance there will be a serious repercussion. If it is the CEO delivering the message the workers’ paycheck is held in balance. The worker will be much more attentive and the retention time of the message is greatly improved.
I liken it to talking to a youngster. Generally, the youngster listens to mom and dad with a more precise ear than to the babysitter. In a similar manner, the youngster is more attentive to what dad is saying and tends to be hard of hearing when mom is speaking. It is all a matter of who has the highest level of authority.
It is back to my original hypothesis that the corporate culture can be traced to management’s involvement, or the lack of, in quality issues. Problems with ongoing quality issues on the shop floor are due to management’s inattention to quality which is perceive by the production worker as being a “nonissue.” A company that has ongoing training on quality issues, i.e., management that is proactive, will experience few serious quality issues than the contractor that blames everything on the production workers.
I experienced the latter case on a job in New York. The painter painted some steel using a three-coat system for enhanced corrosion protection. Not one of the three coats was applied in the correct sequence. The top coat was the first applied, the primer was applied next, and the intermediate coat was applied last. To top it all off, the painter applied the top coat in the rain or just after it rained. There were water blisters that I toyed with before popping them with a pocketknife. Management’s position was that the painter was an idiot.
It was hard to argue the point, but I asked the president whether they had used the coating system before. The response was it was the first time they used it. I then asked him if the painter could read. Then the fateful reply, “No, he doesn’t read or write English.”
“Did anyone talk to the painter to explain how it is to be applied?”
“No.”
While the painter may have been illiterate, I think most of the blame can be attributed to management’s failure to provide the necessary instruction and oversight. Where was the foreman when the painter was painting the steel? After working with the painter for a very short while it was evident the painter was more than happy to stand around until he was directed to something. To say it another way, I find it difficult to believe the painter painted anything without being told to do so. If the foreman told him to paint the steel and it happened to be raining I have no doubt that is exactly what he did.
As the third party inspector, is my responsibility to teach the painter how to use the paint? I don't believe it is. That is the contractor's responsibility. My responsibility is to let the Owner/Engineer and the contractor know the paint, as applied, was unacceptable. It is the contractor's responsibility to determine the root cause and to take necessary steps to correct the problem. Sidestepping management can perpetuate the problem.
Best regards - Al
Totally true. Very good illustrations for making the points also.
I guess part of my personal problem, as you have pointed out to me before, is that as a shop owner/fabricator myself, I want to train everyone and fix all the mistakes, misconceptions, and lack of care on the part of everyone else and ultimately end up either realizing what I am doing and stop or, more often, getting too involved and wasting my time.
Now, to a small extent I concur with some of the aspects of Joe Kane's idea that we do have a responsibility to teach. But, as you point out, we have to be very careful about who, when, how much, how much time, etc we do that training. Usually the less said the better unless a management person asks for more details. Then we can go to the office and talk a few things over. Sometimes that includes some floor time to show the application of what has been said. A picture (the actual work in progress) can quickly be worth a 1000 words when someone has not been 'shown' how the work is expected to be done. Rather that is an office person or a poorly trained floor person.
Have a Great Day, Brent
In my early years I did exactly as you do now. It took a few years and a few projects before one of my clients made it very clear to me what my responsibilities were, who I answered to, and who was paying my salary.
His words to me (paraphrased); It took me a long time to find an inspector I could trust and who I felt knew what he was doing. Now I have to get you to understand you work for me, you represent me, and you are on the job to ensure I get what I paid for. If that contractor needs help, it is his problem. He can find his own consultant and he can pay to get the help he needs. Why should I pay your salary just so you can train his workers. He can hire you after this job is over if he wants your help. He was right in all respects.
Having said all that I have said, I don't want anyone to think that there should be an adversarial relationship between the verification inspector and the contractor. It is always better if there is open dialog between the verification inspector and the contractor. However, the verification inspector should not direct work, offer advice, or interfere with the contractor's day to day operations. The verification inspector's primary function is that of quality assurance, not quality control. If the contractor asks for an opinion on the size of a weld, the depth of undercut, etc. The verification inspector should discuss points of disagreement and where possible come to a consensus. It could be a case where the inspector or the contractor isn't using a gage properly. If the contractor asks if the noncomplying member is good enough or how something should be repaired, that isn't within the scope of the verification inspector's responsibility. Whether a member that is deemed to be noncompliant is "good enough" is an engineering decision that requires the Engineer's involvement. Likewise, the determination of how something is to be repaired is not the verification inspector's decision to make. It is entirely the contractor's responsibility to determine the course of action necessary to make all product compliant with the project specifications.
Sooner of later the contractor will use the inspector's good intentions and "help" against the inspector. The inspector has to be "squeaky" clean and abide by the code and the contract. I can remember a project where a verification inspector that held a PE and qualified as a CWI approve various noncompliant materials because he was a PE. He needlessly placed his PE and CWI at risk because even though he was a PE, he wasn't the Engineer. AWS D1.1 gives the Engineer, representing the Owner, certain authority, but that authority isn't extended to the verification inspector or the contractor's engineer.
I agree that one must read the fine print of every contract, purchase order, and the Statement of Special Inspections when acting as a verification inspector. However it is rare for the Engineer to relinquish his authority or responsibility granted by the code. I would consider it to be a rarity for the Engineer to grant the verification inspector the authority to accept nonconforming materials, welds, or members that do not meet the drawing requirements. Likewise it would be unusual for the verification inspector to dictate the ways and means of construction or to stipulate how repairs are to be accomplished. Does it ever happen? I am sure there are situations where it has happened and there are situations when it will happen again, but when the CWI takes on those responsibilities without the authority to do so is a disaster waiting to happen.
When all is said and done, we have to do what we believe is right. Every circumstance is different and we have to decide what is appropriate for the situation. We minimize our risk if we do what we know is ethical, if we work within the bounds of our authority, and keep in mind our primary responsibility to protect the client's interest.
Best regards - Al
Once again well said and explained.
Let me go a little further: The OSHPD IOR is now demanding that our inspectors at the shop document every piece of material on the assymbly as being per drawings and every weld size and length, hole size, hole spacing and gage, skewed angle, material thickness, bevel angle, PJP depth of bevel, and much more. This documentation is to be written in on a copy of the shop drawings.
Now, OSHPD is not our client. They are an agency in CA making sure fabricator, TPI's, and other parties all through erection are doing their jobs. But, they have come to think they are god in the past few years and can dictate whatever 'they want' on a job.
The client has given in but has also acknowledged that this is beyond our original scope and will require extra man hours. This job is over 1 year into the project and only has about two months left. It was originally in three shops and is now down to only one. In other words it is about done. And now they want this? What a joke. It won't accomplish anything.
Talk about going beyond our job description. And, getting in the way of production. The fabricator needs to complain to the customer and the customer needs to say no to these guys that he has no intention of spending extra money just because they want it.
I hope others reading this realize the responsibility and liability nightmare that this will open up. If this ever happens to you, get a well worded contract that states you are not liable.
Oh, and with this building mostly assymbled there have been only a couple of mistakes for correction in the field. There are no issues here. Only someone trying to push their weight around.
Have a Great Day, Brent
I am not familiar with "OSHPD IOR". What does the acronym stand for?
The verification inspector has to walk a fine line at all times. It is difficult to explain the many roles a verification inspector is expected to fill or the situations he will encounter. How do you prepare a prospective welding inspector all the pitfalls of working as an inspector? I guess getting into the trenches is the only way to truly gain experience. There are certain things we have to experience to gain the proper perspective of what inspection is all about.
Bet regards - Al
Some valid observations in this discussion, and without finishing it to full length as the solution to the original question is too patently obvious, I'd point out a single inference made without demonstrable evidence. The "idiot painter" did not read or write English. That does not mean he was/is illiterate. He may have written entire code sections in his native language. Attitudes and social perspectives are sometimes subtley entrained in our projections. The disregard of anothers opinion can sometime be a reaction to intuitively percieved contempt. Most people rarely respect others who hold them in lower esteem. This may not be the case in this circumstance but the association of lower standards with non-english speaking workers indicates the possibility. Some individuals are as sensitive to that implication as others are to the suggestion they hold that opinion.
By 803056
Date 08-18-2013 15:27
Edited 08-18-2013 15:38
Here are a few definitions of illiterate found on the Web.
il·lit·er·ate (-ltr-t)
adj.
1.
a. Unable to read and write.
b. Having little or no formal education.
2.
a. Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature.
b. Violating prescribed standards of speech or writing.
3. Ignorant of the fundamentals of a given art or branch of knowledge: musically illiterate. See Usage Note at literate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Latin illtertus : in-, not; see in-1 + ltertus, literate; see literate.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
il·liter·ate n.
il·liter·ate·ly adv.
il·liter·ate·ness n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
illiterate [ɪˈlɪtərɪt]
adj
1. unable to read and write
2. violating accepted standards in reading and writing an illiterate scrawl
3. uneducated, ignorant, or uncultured scientifically illiterate
n
an illiterate person
illiteracy , illiterateness n
illiterately adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
il•lit•er•ate (ɪˈlɪt ər ɪt)
adj.
1. unable to read and write.
2. having or demonstrating little education.
3. showing lack of culture.
4. displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular field: musically illiterate.
n.
5. an illiterate person.
[1550–60; < Latin illiterātus]
il•lit′er•ate•ly, adv.
il•lit′er•ate•ness, n.
syn: See ignorant.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
While you may be correct in your observations, why would you assume the painter was a foreigner? It was not the case in this situation. The lad was uneducated. The point of the story was the employer, knowing the painter's situation, didn't take the steps needed to ensure he was properly instruction on the subject of how to apply the coating. While the manufacturer provided written instructions on the paint containers, the contractor knew the painter was illiterate. Yet the contractor did not provide adequate verbal instruction or oversight. The painter's illiteracy was not limited to reading, it extended to the fact the worker did not appreciate the surfaces had to be dry when the coating is applied. In other words, he did not comprehend it is poor practice to apply the coating while working in rain.
I have to say this was not the only case where I had to wonder where the worker’s mind was while painting steel. I worked on one project where the fabricator's painter applied the paint with a roller directly over frost. The paint peeled off in large sheets during erection. Workers ran back and forth, as huge sheets of dried paint fell from the steel. Luckily, everyone was wearing their hard hats. This was not a case where the painter was illiterate. He could read and write. Maybe the painter thought the water-based paint would melt the frost and adhere to the steel. Wrong!
The really interesting thing was the Engineer was told the paint was applied over frost. His response was, "Let them scrape and repaint it in the field."
Al
Al,
This link will take you to their website. It is the CA Office of Statewide Hospital Planning and Developement. They oversee all things related to hospitals just as DSA is the Dept of the State Architect and oversees all things schools related. They can both be a pain in the neck.
http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/Have a Great Day, Brent
Very interesting.
It appears to put some teeth into the need to employ a qualified inspector on major projects.
I will spend some time looking through it. It should be a worthwhile read.
Al
Though not involved in inspection (other than having had work inspected), I found the above discussion very interesting in terms of the pressures and ethics involved.
I also wonder how the roles of Owner, Contractor, and Inspector are defined when the work is buried, and, when the Inspector is not independent, and, is an employee of the owner or contractor, which is the "...industry standard..." in the pipeline industry, according to TransCanada, one of the largest pipeline companies in North America. Most of my concerns are summarized in the news story below.
BTW, the NEB is largely a political paper tiger that seldom penalizes for non-conformance.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/16/transcanada-whistleblower-neb.html
