So I have been performing visual inspections now for just over one year and something I find myself running in to is a question of "total rejection" (for lack of a better term) on a weld that may may be 60" long yet has undercut measuring 1/16" in one location on material that is at least 1-1/4" thick. Do I reject the entire job for a 1/16" undercut over such a long weld?
Here are the specifics:
D1.1
Cyclicly loaded nontubular connection
Base metals are both A36, one is 1-1/4" thick the other is approx. 1/2" thick
The engineer specifies 3/8" fillet
According to the Visual Inspection Acceptance Criteria Table 6.1 (7)(B) it states "In primary members, undercut shall be no more than 0.01 in. deep when the weld is transverse to tensile stress under any design loading condition. Undercut shall be no more than 1/32 in. deep for all other cases."
Based on this I fail the entire job over one 1/16" discontinuity?
Please advise.
Thank you
The inspector is the eyes of the Engineer and the Owner. The inspector simply reports what is observed and measured. The inspector provides the facts as they are. The length of the weld, the size of the weld, any weld that is undersized, how long is the undersized weld. The report should note any undercut that is in excess of that allowed, the depth, the length, etc. This is where photographs can make a difference. The photograph provides visual details that a written report cannot.
For all practical purposes, I do not reject welds that do not comply with the acceptance criteria. I let the Engineer make the final determination whether the weld can be accepted "as is" or whether it must be repaired. In order to enable the Engineer to make a proper call, the report needs to provide him with as much information as possible. I report the welds as being "noncompliant."
The fabricator typically receives a copy of the inspection report. Many contractors will simply take the necessary steps needed to correct the noncompliant welds. Others will sit on their hind quarters until directed by the Engineer to make the corrections. That is the difference between a good fabricator and one, lets just say, "not so good."
It is important that the inspector provide all the details possible. The Engineer cannot be on the job everyday; that's why the inspector is there. The facts and information must be spot on to allow the Engineer to make decisions based on facts.
Al
I would at least like to be given a chance to correct non conformance before it goes to the full blown write up stage.
I agree with Al but I do have one question for you:
Are you sure that the application is per cyclic? I ask because I have seen many inspectors apply cyclic standards to jobs that were not so designated. Make sure the engineer actually applied that condition to that particular piece.
Remember, there are differences between cyclic, seismic, and dynamic. And there is obvious difference between them and static.
But, at 1/16", it may be within the rejectable criteria anyway. Even if it was in your job description and thus 'power' to reject the 'whole job' I think there needs to be caution. If we are talking about several pieces to the job, why would you reject the whole thing for one spot of undercut? Why would you reject 60" for one spot of undercut? Look at the Table 6.1 criteria. How long of an area needs to be included to be rejectable? That is the only area that would be rejectable. Not the 'whole job'.
But, your job is to report. The engineer decides what to do about it. Most fabricators I work around will just jump in and fix anything I note as I am supposed to notify them first then report it if it doesn't get fixed prior to leaving the shop and especially before shipment.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Thank you Al and Brent, your responses are very helpful and clears up this issue.
What I found particularly helpful is the comment that the inspector is not there to pass or fail the job, that is left to the engineer. I was operating under the assumption that I had to make the call on whether or not the welder had to come back out and fix work. This was causing a good deal of stress for me as I was conflicted as a both a welder and a weld inspector. Removing this responsibility I believe will help me make more objective decisions.
Brent,
I am pretty confident that this structure is cyclically loaded, the structure in question is a cell phone monopole and the parts being welded to it are base plate stiffeners. Since the tower is swaying back and forth in the wind I would classify this as cyclically. Does this seem correct to you?
Thanks again,
Dane
No. Cyclic loading is different than the loads from wind. Al would actually be better qualified to answer this but I'll give you my take.
Cycles are regular and measurable. Think of a car engine. Cylinders. Regular up thrust, then change of direction and down thrust. Or, a bearing supported shaft drive on large equipment that goes one way and at regular intervals changes direction and goes the other way, then back again.
If you look at the Tables at the back of Clause 2 it gives you the number of cycles and types of loads that will require cyclic observation. And, most of all, it has to be called out as such by the engineer. Now, if the engineer wants it inspected to cyclic observation he can call it out as such in the General Notes description of Special Inspections that he/she is requiring. But, to assume so is not accurate to me.
Rather in the field or shop our job is to Observe and Report. Now, most programs state that your first call, especially if the welders are still on site, is to notify the contractor that are discontinuities that need attention. If they argue and refuse, or just leave without fixing them, then we report to the Customer/Engineer and/or Building Official having jurisdiction. They will make the call as to rather or not the fabricator/contractor must repair the discontinuity or leave it as is. That's why Al suggested the photo. They really help the decision makers in that process.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Always seek clarification from the Engineer.
AWS D1.1 requires cyclic loading be considered when the stress range (minimum load to maximum load) exceeds a certain threshold value. The threshold value is dependent on a number of factors such as changes in part geometry, cross section, weld type, etc. If the threshold ranges is not exceeded, cyclic loading requirements do not apply.
Likewise, there must be a sufficient number of cycles to warrant cyclic loading in the design. In the case of a building; hurricanes may produce stresses that exceed the minimum threshold values, but the frequency of hurricanes is relative few, so cyclic loading is not an issue.
Few CWI or SCWI are in a position to know the design assumptions used by the Engineer. The prudent course of action is ask the Engineer whether cyclic criteria is appropriate for the project you are inspecting.
Best regards - Al
The Inspector's report should include the results of inspections. Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory / pass or fail based on acceptance criteria should be clearly stated in the report.
Imagine the factory is in Malaysia and the Engineer is based in Europe, you have delivery of fabricated items that needs Inspector's release note but you have no power to say whether the items are pass or fail. If that is the case, I think I don't want the role of Inspector
~Joey~
In response to Dualie's comments: I understand Dualie's concerns, but the Verification Inspector (VI) or the Third Party Inspector's (TPI) inspection report should report any nonconforming work observed. If the contractor decides to take remedial action to correct the noncomforming work, that too should be reported.
The contractor is responsible for quality control. The contractor is assumed to have the necessary expertise to perform the work in conformance with the applicable welding standards and contract documents. The work performed is expected to be in accordance with the welding standards and the contract documents. The contractor's quality control system, formal or informal, is suppose to ensure the work is performed correctly. The problem that develops when the VI or the TPI only reports work that isn't corrected is they quickly becomes the contractor's QC. The practice quickly cause the system to degrade into "anything goes, as long as the inspector doesn't spot it."
The Verification Inspector or the TPI should report all nonconforming work regardless of it being corrected immediately or if the contractor awaits the Engineer's disposition. Reporting all nonconforming work provides the Engineer and the Owner with a more complete picture of the general workmanship and practices of the contractor doing the work. It mitigates the opportunity for the contractor to utilize the TPI or VI for quality control functions. In general, the VI or the TPI should be functioning a Quality Assurance to ensure the contractor is performing QC in a consistent manner.
If the applicable fabrication document is one of the AWS structural welding codes, the contractor is responsible for all quality control functions. In general, the practice in the US is that the contractor is responsible for all work produced by their employees and their subcontractors. The contractor is expected to perform all the quality control functions necessary to ensure the work performed by their employees and subcontractors for delivery to an Owner meets the contract, applicable codes, and when applicable; municipal, state, or federal statues.
The bottom line is that most Engineers/Owners would run me off the job if they were to learn that I failed to report all nonconforming work.
Best regards - Al
YES, YES, YES. PLEEEEEZ.
If all inspection worked as written above, life would be so much mo better for those of us slugging it out in HQW (hard quote world), and SIO (slugging it out) is every day very real world scenario since the Great Recession of '08 or so in quote/bid land against "Flybynite Inc., my guys don't speak no english, I'm super cheap but my house is a Mini-Mansion (thank you suckers : ) .
"Reporting all nonconforming work provides the Engineer and the Owner with a more complete picture of the general workmanship and practices of the contractor doing the work".
PLEASE, YES, do this. It helps the honest/upright/compliant contractor, it helps the owner get what he pays for, it helps the engineer get what he spec'd. It HURTS the fakes & the "I'll cheat at every opportunity 'cause I low balled the quote" bidders. Engineers & owners NEED to know what battles go on behind closed doors.
A compliant, better, safer product is the end result. As an aside, the honest (few that there are in 2013) contractors will be allowed to pay wages to the competent hand that they really do deserve.
J
Al
Just for sharing, this way we work.
The Buyer (owner) makes payment on acceptable items produced by the Contractor. The Contractor’s QC performs the intial inspection and confirmed the items are acceptable before offer to TPI. Here in Smokey there is the so called RFI (request for inspection) system to be given to TPI for items ready for their verification or inspection. It happens many times that due to urgency of items for delivery, to produe good quality product is often neglected. That is why the TPI hired as independent party to judge on whether the items are acceptable or not acceptable based on project specification / Codes.
The TPI must be well informed of their roles prior to the start of work. Their roles / degree of involvement are specified in ITP (Inspection and Test Plan) accepted by the Owner's Engineer. TPI competency & integrity are very important. The TPI’s biodata is normally submitted for review and approval by the owner’s project Consultant (equivalent to PE or Owner’s engineer) prior to start of work. Here in Asia, many TPI firms provide indemnity insurance for items inspected and accepted by their inspectors. Items rejected by TPI is final, however, the Engineer may overrule the decision made by TPI by providing a separate letter of acceptance with or without the knowledge of TPI. In reality, it’s not easy to get the Owner Engineer’s decision to accept the items rejected by TPI, so most of the time, the contractor will rectify their mistakes rather than to wait for favourable decision from the owner side.
Regards
~Joey~
Interesting. Sounds very similar and yet more critical of a role than what we are usually taught here in the states.
I would suggest though that an item that you mention is often missing here (from my personal observation), that is the Inspection and Test Plan. This is clearly spelled out in both IBC and AISC 341 as well as D1.8 with all the aspects of both in house and TPI work to be included. But, alas, we seldom see any of it and often find it to be non-existent. The job took off and got finished so fast that the paperwork never was missed by the Customer/engineer nor Building Official Having Jurisdiction so the TPI/Inspection Agency got away without it and no one ever really knew what was expected of them.
I have been on many jobs that never even included my attendance at a pre-job meeting to get the things rolling.
These are not proper procedures for getting the job done. It is so much about money and not spending any more of it than they have to that many things do not happen as they should.
JT's sentiments are so true. How many of the cut corner guys would we eliminate if things were done as they should be by all parties involved. TPI's need to step in the middle of it sometimes and insist that all parties understand the part that all the others play and read all of the Contract Documents and Job Specifications to get as good of an idea as possible as to what their job is. Then, see if anyone has submitted the Inspection Plan. Check out the requirements of those plans in the referenced codes.
Have a Great Day, Brent
In my neck of the woods, for building construction; the State requires a Statement of Special Inspections for any structure that meets or exceed the Threshold Limits. The Owner is responsible for generating the SSI (through his Engineer) and submitting it to the local building department. The SSI is a prerequisite to issuing a building permit. The SSI functions as an inspection plan by defining what testing laboratory is responsible for each task, i.e., soils, concrete, steel, etc. The extent of testing and inspection is delineated by the SSI. The SSI can be modified if the Engineer determines additional testing or inspection is justified based on the performance of the contractors.
I cannot think of a project in recent years that didn't have a SSI. I use it to determine the extent of my responsibilities and the extent of the inspections I perform. For example; the SSI may state that all moment connections must be UT'd, both top and boom flanges with Table 6.2 serving as the acceptance criteria. All slip critical connections must be torque tested using the torque values determined during preinstallation testing. WPS and performance qualification records must be reviewed for compliance to AWS D1.1 (delegated responsibility). The SSI also states the laboratory and the inspector credential requirements, i.e., current CWI or SCWI, etc.
There is always an odd ball here and there, but those are usually jobs that do not require a SSI because they are not classified as Threshold Structures.
In nonbuilding related work it is a different ball game altogether. The customer tells me what type of inspections are required through the purchase order and drawings. Again, I simply state whether the work meets the requirements of the contract documents and it is up to the customer to determine whether they will accept the delivery or tell the contractor the components are unacceptable and refuse delivery.
Best regards - Al
I imagine lots of things go somewhat differently on the east coast as well as in places like southern CA. Here in AZ, especially the small rural areas, many of these guys, even the city officials, are about 10 years behind the curve. Coming from work in CA as well as Portland, OR it was quite a culture shock to work in northern AZ back in 1996 when we got here.
Having said that, it has truly been amazing to me how many don't really know the requirements for the job they claim to be doing as inspectors. Once again, the difference between being Certified and/or Qualified. Few, around here anyway, meet both criteria.
Have a Great Day, Brent
I remembered long ago during construction of US embassy here... when I was hired to conduct the welder qualification test for welders imported from states. When I asked for their identification card for verification, they advice me to just write in my test report the name Mike....this one is Joseph...and Peter etc. They only provided their passport after a long explanation
.
~Joey~
I wanted to follow up with this because I have since received clarification from one of the engineering firms who works some of these towers. It was told to me that a monopole is considered a statically loaded structure only if there is no wind. Since that is almost impossible they are considered cyclically loaded. At least by one firm in particular.
Thank you for all the feedback, it was interesting to read how this post created so much conversation in so many different ways.
Dane
