Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / MT guy not doing his job correctly
- - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-17-2016 16:11
Question for all you seasoned veteran CWI's and NDT people out there.  What do you do if someone on a job is performing NDT and has no idea what they are doing?  I'm on a job and these FCAW welds are being inspected to D1.1 VT and MT.  Now D1.1 calls out table 6.1 for MT and well as VT so they should be one in the same regarding indications.  Now this inspector I don't believe knows what he is doing with MT.  He marked every single weld on this part because the dust was laying in the groove at the toe.  He did not carry and magnification, he did not carry a blower.  When I asked him to prove it was a crack he said simply that if there is build up of dust then it is a crack.  Now I have been doing mag for about 3 years and never in that time have I ever seen a part lit up in pen like this.  I have enclosed photos.  there are absolutely no cracks in the photos.  The first image the line is from a pen, and the others the shine is the actual weld toe glare. 

Secondly he is marking indications that are no rejectable to D1.1. He has marked an individual pin hole all alone as small as .01" on a giant FCAW 900 pound part.  He told us to pass MT we need to grind all welds off completely basically and feather in the toes with an small angle grinder then buff them?????  Am I going crazy here???? This is FCAW to D1.1!!  I watched him do his MT and he wasn't doing the technique properly, and what he called an indication was not an indication as I had been taught by my level 3 over that last few years.  How do I approach this keeping my clients future business opportunities in mind?

I have confirmed all these marking with a 10X loupe and there is nothing.



Parent - - By TimGary (****) Date 05-17-2016 19:23
Who does the NDT Tech work for? Is he following his own procedure?
If you're sure you're right, get the Tech's Boss out there to double check his work and procedure use.
If you're proved right, have this Tech banned from the job site, and invoices for his worked voided.
If the Tech is right, and you're wrong, be prepared to eat crow. (been there, done that...)
Get the Quality Manager involved.

Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 00:43
I brought in a third party MT and had him run the part and he only found three indications of the 40+ the other guy marked.  The indications found were where we had to grind these welds down to nothing and its where they feathered into other welds. So they were actually dismissable.  I didn't see him have a procedure but he could have had one.  When I asked him to show me the crack or evidence of one he couldn't.  Im frustrated because this is complete over kill and its has 16 hour off our bid.   The MT is my customers customer.
Parent - - By phinojosar (*) Date 05-18-2016 00:09
Unfortunately it is difficult to judge based on pictures, but from what you say it seems like the guy is new on MT and is rejecting any indication he finds, not taking in mind that not all indications are defects and not all defects are rejectable that is why we have a base code (D1.1 in this case). I suppose as he is new, any indication is marked as defect not taking in mind that you can get accumulation of magnetic particles in any change of the surface, such as the weld toe sometimes.

As marked before I would also recommend ask him the inspection procedure he is using, this will also allow you discuss his technique if you think is not appropiate.

Good luck!
Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 01:03
tomorrow is judgement day. I had a friend who is an MT of 8 years run the parts today and he only found a few minor things that were passable.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 05-18-2016 01:53
You really need to get a competent Level III in MT involved.  First the one that represents the MT guy you are having a problem with. Then, if not completely satisfied, one representing an independent agency.

Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 02:59
Ive been in this situation before on a stainless to steel job.  3 different wet mag guys saw the permeation line between the stainless and steel and called it a crack when it wasn't and we had to get a level 3 to come out and he called it good right away.
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 05-18-2016 07:43 Edited 05-18-2016 08:18
Maybe some minor weld overlap, but I don't think it's a crack.
This is simple without the need to hire a cross checker to perform the same NDT method.
If the NDT Technician declaired it as "crack", do a toe dressing in his presence and ask to re-MT.
Crack is a major issue that nobody wants to hear, if you reported it as crack and you are proven wrong, your company has to answer the mistakes you made. The NDT company has to do the explanation and to give a solution to the wrong findings:lol:
Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 15:54
The NDT is done by the customer and its not just one or two welds its like 40 weld toes.  That is completely unnecessary work for misinterpretation.  I also don't know if Ill be able to back charge them over 14 hours of work just to dress 40 toes and mag them as we work.

Parent - By Joey (***) Date 05-19-2016 01:46
NDT done by the customer alone is your disadvantage. The customer is not always right.
The weld must be accepted visually before NDT. If you have weld overlap, then you should do the toe dressing before the MT.
If for the sake of verifying whether there is a toe crack, you may do sampling. If the crack finding is proven false, then you can argue to disregard the crack findings and to replace the MT technician.
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-18-2016 11:00
My first thought was that I don't like the (light gray or white) color of the powder he is using on welds in the as welded condition...I like to use a very contrasting color, so.... if you can, check his MT procedure to see what colors his Level III is allowing him to use on steel in the as welded condition.
Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 15:46
It ultra fine powder for a higher sensitivity.
Parent - - By kcd616 (***) Date 05-19-2016 02:48
first off
I am NOT an inspector (thank god) only a welder and general contractor
IMHO those weld are SCRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I did better welds at 13 y.o.
in 1883 with James F. Lincoln's first arc welder:wink::twisted::evil::eek:
sorry Al you were still in grade school:wink::twisted::razz:
Parent - By js55 (*****) Date 05-19-2016 12:15
Scraping acceptable welds?
Odd thought process.
Parent - - By thirdeye (***) Date 05-31-2016 20:27
This is the first read of this thread, and if I understand correctly so far...

1. You have not seen the written MT procedure nor witnessed the MT technician's technique to verify he is in compliance with the procedure.
2. No mention of a demonstration using a PIE gauge or a specimen containing surface breaking flaws to at least confirm the technician is capable of locating known indications, and understands field direction... did this take place?
3. Other MT technicians inspected the welds and found "some" rejects, but they were not cracks.  What procedure was used for the second examination?
4. Did anyone suggest a PT of the areas which were rejected with MT?  This itself could have saved a lot of money if performed the day following the initial MT examination.
5. The MT/CWI inspector is actually directing or suggesting the method of repair?  This is unusual from a liability point of view.
6. Was the mention of TIG (GTAW) welding the toes of welds made using the FCAW process only referring to "TIG dressing"?  Or did the inspector want filler metal added?
Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 06-01-2016 16:04
No mention of the technique, though he could have had it, didn't see a pie gauge used to calibrate, Other technicians checked the part using the same powder and didn't find anything rejectable but found small indications.   The MT/CWI yes did ask us to basically grind all flare bevel groove welds flush with the surface because he was getting indications on the toes which was simply powder build up.  No cracks were ever seen or confirmed.  We went through and used GTAW on all the toes that he marked and left it like that.  It passed after that but was surely over killed.

Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-01-2016 18:59
Hi Jordan,
Just to clarify, the pie gauge is only to show the field direction so you know the best orientation for detection.
They do make calibration blocks or reference standards of sorts but the pie gauge is purely for direction.
Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 06-02-2016 16:45
poor choice of words on my part, I meant it more as they were getting proper readings from the yoke.  I dont believe what he saw were actual indications.
Parent - - By thirdeye (***) Date 06-02-2016 18:49
I thought that was going to be your answer.  I think as the inspector I would have performed a verifying PT exam on several areas before discussing the toe cracking problem with the customer.  Powder build-up is something all inspectors deal with by either knowing where to start the examination, or to simply use a hand blower to remove excess while the equipment is energized. Technically, any surface condition that does not meet code visually or one that masks indications or interferes with the test method should be corrected... but more often this comes into play with an RT or UT examination. 

Toe cracking is more common than you think, and can turn into a serious problem in some instances.  The first photo shows toe cracking found during in-service examination of structural diaphragms that have a 3/8" fillet weld. You can see the crack propagated into the diaphragm plate itself. In this case, yellow dust was used for maximum contrast.  I wrote an MT yoke procedure that allows the use of contrast paint (called whiting in the old days) with dry powder.  In addition to improved contrast, we found it's easier to detect small indications, and the paint is really nice for marking-up and photographing rejected areas. It also shows surface porosity and undercutting very nicely.  The last photo shows both toe and weld cracking - contrast paint and red dust was used along with a hand blower to remove excess powder.  Notice the sensitivity, you can see small forks in a couple of areas.

Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 06-02-2016 19:11
Wow those are great photos!  During the guys inspection there was nothing remotely that clear and sharp haha.  That contrast is on point for sure.  When I have used wet mag in the past I really liked that about the process. How are you confirming the crack repair? PT? or MT?

Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-02-2016 19:30
I agree 3rdeye has some nice pictures there. :cool:
Parent - - By thirdeye (***) Date 06-03-2016 14:34 Edited 06-03-2016 14:36
Thanks John, I do make it a point to include positive photo's in my reports and give credit where it's due.

Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 06-03-2016 14:40
What tools did they use to transition that rework weld?

I'm mesmerized by it.
Parent - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 06-03-2016 15:31
looks like a needle gun to me, its beautiful. Super clean work.  I want to see more and more photos haha
Parent - By thirdeye (***) Date 06-03-2016 16:45
The original weld was undersized and I believe had either insufficient throat in the corner, or had a stop/start in the corner.  The welders would have used a needle gun and a Tiger disc on the two ends. Here is one showing nice ends, profile and both inside and outside corner work.

Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 06-03-2016 20:19
I love how straight those stringers are. :cool:
Parent - By thirdeye (***) Date 06-03-2016 14:19
Thanks for the kind words, a little time and good lighting (I use a hand held fluorescent tube for photos) really improves the photo quality.  For confirming removal and re-examination I use the original examination method, it's not good to mix apples and oranges. On occasion I'll perform a UT of the area if the crack really goes deep. But to answer your question, the general procedure for crack repair is to gouge or grind to sound metal, then confirm the crack is gone using MT (unless we're dealing with a non-magnetic material, then PT would come into play), then repair weld followed by re-examination after cooling.  Here is an example of a lingering crack during gouging.

Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-03-2016 02:57
Nice photographs. Nice additions to the report that will be read by the client.

Parent - - By thirdeye (***) Date 06-03-2016 14:27
Thanks Al,  it's funny that before electronic reports and digital photography inspectors had to present a pretty nice narrative and then submit a hand full of prints fresh from a 1-hour processing shop.  The customer would really read the report and follow along with the photos.  Now days many of my customers are much more interested in the photo's and I have a suspicion they begin with photos and then go back to page one for the narrative or comments.  If I don't have enough hand written info in the photo, I simply add more info using photoshop.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 06-03-2016 20:58
Been there.

- - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-18-2016 14:10
The first thing I would do is ask for a copy of the NDE procedure the tech is using. No procedure, no inspection.

If after fairing a couple of questionable welds that were rejected and finding no defect, I would request he be replaced by someone that is more competent to perform the MT.

If the defects he is calling out are not supported by D1.1, call for a different MT tech that is competent and understands his job.

Business is business. If the technician is incompetent, he needs to be replaced. I would notify the technicians employer they will be  back charge for any and all unnecessary rework requested by his employee (the technician). Nothing speaks to a contractor louder than money flowing from his wallet. 

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-18-2016 15:51

Ok So that is what I did.  I showed my customer the details of the problem.  We had a conference call with the inspectors employer.  Today they are having a meeting about it and have a few other opinions of the work show up to see it and evaluate.  I have to agree with you on back charging to an extent after all that rework for no reason.  Thank you for the input.

Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 05-19-2016 02:04
If I am the Customer, I will not simply agree with the tele conference and to receive the test report issued by your hired MT Technician. That will be slapped on my face. You have to physically prove to the customer's MT Technician and his supervisor that the crack finding is wrong.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 05-19-2016 12:16
If you are customer you might wish to be concerned with deliveries that might be late due to having to repair acceptable welds.
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 05-19-2016 12:22
More than once I have sat down with customers and diplomatically told them I was not going to put up with any bullschit from their appointed egotistical NDE tech or CWI.
Criteria is established through contractual agreement. In most cases such as these what I have found are NDE techs and CWI's that are inexperienced and ignorant. And I refuse to allow my company to pay to build a Ferrari when the customer is asking for a Volkswagon. We can do either. And have done so. But what you want is in the price. Maintaining good customer relations is not an excuse for taking it where the sun don't shine. I have no interest in maintaining customers that drive us to operating unprofitably.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-19-2016 15:12
Well put.

Customers can be replaced easier than a bankrupt company.

Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 05-20-2016 02:38
That's true js.

Assuming the customer of J is a main-contractor.....possible reasons might be..

1. We are not rushing, the items are not urgent at site and the site is currently congested... no space for new deliveries.

2. We have financial problem and cannot make payment on time, so need to delay deliveries.

Unlikely the customer of J is an Owner-user....hard to believe the Owner as a buyer will take over the full NDT scope from steel fabricator.
The owner may engage the service of another NDT firm as cross checker but this will be by random only.

However, when the job is inside the refinery plant, it is possible to engage the owner's in-house NDT team to test the welds of maintenance contractor.

Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-20-2016 07:00
My company that I operate is welding a job for a company, that company has been contracted to build this.  They do not do any welding. They asked me if I would be interested and when we came to a price to weld to D1.1 we all got on board the crazy train.  The MT/CWI is my customers customer.  We already tried to talk to them via phone and it was like talking to a brick wall.  They didn't even consider anything.  I brought in another MT level 2 who is an old friend of mine just to see if in fact I am crazy and this has this many cracks.  from the original 40 "cracks" or indications, my friend came back with only 3. They were places where we ground the welds to meet what that MT/CWI told us needed to be done for him to accept it. The indications were not cracks either, they were the line when you blend into the meeting of two toes of overlapping welds.  

As JS said we have turned a VW into a Ferrari and we are paying for it. This has been a massive learning experience.  Tomorrow is the new judgment day where we take these parts to my customers customer and they are going to inspect them.  The MT/CWI literally told us on a FCAW job originally to weld all the toes of the welds with GTAW and then feather them in with a flapper wheel.  Again this was just a D1.1 job.  Thats the only way he would pass it.   We got it pretty close to that. Doubled our time on it and now it looks just plan stupid. It looks like its almost one piece because the wanted the flare bevels filled beyond effective throat just because and then blended flat. It is seriously a joke it seems.

My welder and I are over it.  Tomorrow is the verdict.

Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 05-20-2016 09:53 Edited 05-20-2016 09:58
Hello J

The information seems confusing......initially there are cracks findings......then the MT/CWI literally told you on a FCAW job originally to weld all the toes of the welds with GTAW and then feather them in with a flapper wheel.  Huh!, toe cracks to be  covered by GTAW welds::roll::red:? Then you should reply by saying " D1.1 states..."repair of cracks needs prior approval of the engineer".

You have higher chance of winning your case, you call the Engineer in charge to come down and show to him with the help of your old friend that the crack finding given by MT/CWI is wrong.

No Engineer's instruction, means no repair on cracks. Otherwise, you are violating the code requirements.
Parent - - By MRWeldSoCal (***) Date 05-21-2016 19:47
The engineer told us to do whatever the inspector said and that the inspector was the only one making the call on the part.  There were no actual cracks on the toes.  Just "indications" according to the MT/CWI.  We got the parts approved yesterday with only 5 minor repairs and way too much work into them.  I think the MT/CWI was just trying to show how important he was or something because he didnt find anything the next time (yesterday). 

Parent - By Joey (***) Date 05-22-2016 01:57
I think to avoid the hassle, you need to dress up the toes to have smooth transition between the weld and base metal, this should be detected during visual inspection. Also important to have a good working relationship with the MT/CWI, respect might be the key to improve the relationship. The MT/CWI maybe thought that it's not easy to work in a hostile environment...
You win today, but next time will be tougher.
Parent - By Cumminsguy71 (*****) Date 05-28-2016 23:34
Some of these college educated young bucks I run across think they will be launching this stuff into orbit next week and above and beyond D1.1 is an understatement. I keep hearing guys like Al, John, Brent and others referring to the new D1.1 2015 as "Farm Code" and going by the last two inspectors I've worked with I don't think they've updated to the new version.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / MT guy not doing his job correctly

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill