Extra labor costs for a MT vs. UT inspected weld?

Date 05-28-2015 03:11

Solcat,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Typical. Everyone tries to find an excuse for asking for more money. Bid low, find any possible reason to issue a change order to ask for more money so you might actually break even.

Now, you haven't told us what code applies, what materials are in use, what welding process is being used, and if all other requirements (WPS's, WPQR's, MTR's, etc) are taken care of.

But, first, the client is already paying for the NDT, not you or the sub. No cause there for more money.

Second, there was already time calculated for hold points to accomplish MT or PT and it really won't hold the sub up any more to do UT.

Thus, the only reason for more time is because he knows he has sloppy welders and there will be repairs that UT can pick up that MT never could. His problem, not your's nor the client's.

And, UT won't really be accomplishing anything on the PJP's anyway other than a rough estimate on depth of penetration and only then with the right technician and care while performing.

Remember, once an indication that is determined to be rejectable is found, repaired, and called for re-inspect, the re-inspect is on the fabricator. His time to repair the spot and the new inspection is on him, not the client.

Personally, tell him to go fish.

My two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 05-29-2015 02:19

This is one of the few times I would disagree with Brent's position.

The fabricator is warranted to request additional compensation when there is a change in the contract requirements. In this case, the NDE has been changed from a test method that is pretty much limited to detecting surface breaking or slightly subsurface discontinuities to a volumetric test method. Even if the examination method is changed from visual to MT or PT the contractor is prudent to ask for additional compensation if neither MT or PT was specified in the original project specification.

Let's face the real world reality; a contractor takes more care when welding a joint that is going to be examined by a volumetric NDE method.

Codes have different acceptance criteria for different load conditions, i.e., static versus cyclic and tubular versus nontubular, etc. AWS has different criteria for different load conditions. Table 6.1 lists different visual acceptance criteria for different load conditions and connection types. In the case of ASME, different allowable unit stress is assigned to vessels that are visually examined versus those that are subject to volumetric examination. Vessels that will be subjected to visual examination and hydro only have lower design stresses thereby requiring thicker vessel walls. Vessels that will be examined with a NDE method that is considered to be volumetric are permitted to be designed with higher design stresses thereby allowing the vessel walls to be thinner. A certain level of subsurface discontinuities are expected in welds that are only subject to visual examination to account for the "unknown" quality level of the weld.

D1.1 makes it clear that when the Owner changes the extent of NDE, the Owner is responsible for the cost of handling, preparation, conducting the additional NDE, and the cost of any repairs required as a result of the NDE. The exception is allowed if it can be demonstrated the contractor attempted to defraud the Owner. That isn't an easy case to make. A review of AWS D1.1, clause 6.6.5 is the applicable clause in this case.

If the Owner's Engineer is on the ball, it is easy enough to include a clause in the project specification that provides the Owner an opportunity or option to perform random volumetric NDE. The project specification can also include provisions for progressive NDE if a problem is identified. An example of progressive NDE would be two additional examinations for each failed test. The Owner should retain the right to select what specific joints are to be examined.

It is the Owner's Engineer's responsibility to determine the quality level needed to meet the job requirements. Let's face it, there is no such thing as a perfect weld. All welds have discontinuities. It is the Engineer's responsibility to determine what level of discontinuity is permitted. The Engineer has the option to live with the acceptance criteria provided by the applicable code or modify the acceptance criteria to suit job requirements. That determination must be made before the project is let out to bid. Changing the games rules after the contract has been awarded isn't fair to the contractor.

The courts will favor the party that did not write the contract. In this case, it sounds as if the Owner will absorb the additional cost of NDE and any repairs because the change was instituted after the contract was awarded.

There ain't no such thing as a perfect weld.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-29-2015 03:27

Very well made case as usual.

But, I would first point out that Clause 6.6.5 does not address a change in NDT from a non volumetric to a volumetric but only addresses a change by adding NDT other than visual where there was none included in the first place. And if that were the case I would wholeheartedly agree.

I would agree that my statements could be considered inappropriate in that anytime a contract is changed the party being contracted and affected by the change ALWAYS has a right to re-negotiate terms. It may be in time frame, money, or several other factors. There are many things to be considered when a change has been proposed. And, at that point, as Al has previously pointed out in other threads, oft times the engineer/customer will back down when they realize the additional charges. IF they decide it really is not in their best interest and not a public safety or at least quality issue of major concern.

I still don't believe they should be able to get much of an increase since not much has really changed. Even given the real world prospect of doing a better job with different testing looming around the horizon. If I were the customer I would challenge that. 'You weren't going to give me your best before so now have to slow down and do a better job?' I don't think I would use that as a reason that I would present to the customer even if it were true.

So, I see where I was wrong in my final assessment of telling them to 'go fish', but, still hold that there would not be much of a change in project cost.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 05-29-2015 12:56

Brent, you have forced my hand.

As a welder, with experience as a businessman and inspector, can you say that there is no time difference between depositing a structural weld that is only subject to a final visual examination, one that is subject to a final magnetic particle examination, and one that is subject to either radiographic or ultrasonic examination?

As one that has operated a fabrication shop, are you saying you charge the same for welds that are visually examined and those that you know will be ultrasonically tested?

Are you further stating that any weld you make can pass a full volumetric examination without fail?

If so, I need to find different contractors.

Best regards - Al

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 05-29-2015 13:29 Edited 05-29-2015 13:47

I can say as a fabricator that produces thousands of tons of weldment per week, that we expend considerable resources to do robust, random internal UT on all types of CJP's for just this reason.

We need to be certain that our processes are controlled in such a way that every CJP joint that rolls out on a truck is compliant with the code no matter which process the customer might use to inspect it.

Doesn't everybody that complies with A660 or AC472 guarantee that every weld they make is acceptable ?

I have a lot more to say on this, but it becomes proprietary no matter how I think about saying it.

Edit:
I will say this with some pride. When a customer sends a 3rd party inspector to look at the welding, whether that inspector was scheduled 6 months ago or 6 hours ago, we open the door and let them in. NOTHING ON THE PRODUCTION FLOOR CHANGES. VT, UT, RT, MT or PT, it just doesn't matter.

We better be ready, we better be doing it right.

.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-29-2015 18:03

Al,

I understand the human drive, motive, attitude, character, and spirit since I am a card carrying member of said human race. I know how corners are cut and things too often get done differently.

I can honestly say, Yes, in our shop every weld gets treated the same. Ask any member of my family who worked for me or hired employees.

There is too much at stake even on the so called little jobs. People get killed when we don't do our best.

You ever see a welder say, 'It's just a lawn chair' and then see the owner sit on the chair before loading it in his truck to take it home and the weld breaks and he goes to the ground. And they could have hit their head on something and died.

Railing around a deck not spliced properly and someone pushes on it and it separates at the ground down splice weld because it wasn't truly full pen. Or the anchors weren't done adequately and the whole railing comes loose because it is only attached to the styrofoam under the stucco and not anything solid.

A truck driving down the road with a load of lumber on a truck rack you built and while taking a corner the welds break and the load not only crunches their truck cab but shifts sideways on comes down on oncoming traffic.

Now, Full pen welds are full pen welds. I don't care how they will be tested. They better be of the highest quality. Able to pass any test able to be put to them even if my contract says nothing about NDT but something I can live with having around for my grandchildren even if it never gets any form of NDT. There is only one way to do a CJP, PERIOD.

Now, most here won't, but, for any who don't know me at all, call me a liar if you want. My witness is before God and He only knows what I do and demand of my employees. To me, there is only one way to weld. 'DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.' And the job only gets done once. PIPE, STRUCTURAL, RAILING, TRUCK RACKS, OR LAWN CHAIRS. They are all the same. It is my family's livelihood, reputation, and future. And it is also our WITNESS. Can you imagine the damage I would do to the name of Christ with all I profess as a christian in this community and then do something stupid that led to someone's death or at least injury? Just to save time and make a little extra money on a job. No Thanks.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By kcd616

Date 05-29-2015 21:57

Brent, Lawrence,
that was how I was taught
$$$ is very important in life
I first learned to weld repairing bikes for my schoolmates
did the best, because I could not go to school and have everyone be mad at me for my fubar
but also taught me how to make $$$
and how to work and run a business
it is like now, small town and I see everyone in the store
any work I do I think everyone I come in contact knows about it
Kent

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 05-29-2015 23:36

One more phrase: "Are you further stating that any weld you make can pass a full volumetric examination without fail?"

That would be a stupid claim on my part, especially for some of the help I have had. What I would say is that I personally and according to my directions none of my employees do anything different. Every weld gets done the same regardless of NDT.

That does not mean that every and any weld can pass UT and/or RT. But there better not be many failures.

Brent