Roast away

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-26-2018 03:41 Edited 01-26-2018 04:01

I received this the other day on a DOT job, I wrote an NCR for various and obvious reasons. It stuns me I'm the fourth inspector on this job and the only one to question it. BTW, the 3/4" (#6) reinforcing steel had a single pass and was undersized as can be seen in the attached photo. This is the complete WPS and WQTR/ submittal package. smh
D1.4' 11 and DOT standard for the state of inspection.
Edit: Names removed to protect the guilty!
Carl

Attachment: pic.docx (700k)

Attachment: D1.4PQRWQTR.pdf (213k)

By 803056

Date 01-26-2018 22:22

Interesting WPS.

I do have a question regarding the flare V-groove. What was the weld size specified?

My point is that the lap has to be capable to transferring the load through the weld. If the weld is long enough, even if the groove is not filled flush, the joint "can" be stronger than the rebar.

The proof of the pudding would be to send a typical lap joint out for tensile testing. If the rebar breaks, all is good. If the weld fails, that's a cat of a different color.

If the engineer didn't use a proper welding symbol with a required size, shame on him and those that reviewed and approved the drawings.

Best regards - Al

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-27-2018 00:50 Edited 01-27-2018 01:00

Plan specifies "S"= 3/8, "E"=3/16", "L" = 6" long. WPS gives no size bar that was tested, no max carbon equiv., according to DOT specification 6-02.3 (24)e, WPS shall include the PQR, this didn't. The WQTR don't show what size bar was qualified, and the last one says it was edited to remove macro photo and change the acceptance results, whatever that means. There are no continuity logs to go with it.

Not to include all the other errors, material spec. lists the DOT specification etc. It looks to me like someone just changed the information from a D1.1 prequalified WPS into this one.

Carl

Edit: I don't think the drawings have a problem, this is what the welding contractor submitted for the welding. The specification also says WPS shall be equivalent to forms in D1.4 annex A.

By 803056

Date 01-27-2018 05:05 Edited 01-27-2018 05:14

That's what happens when you bring a can opener to the job site. You open the can of worms and poof!

I was called into an ongoing project once. The job had been going for something like 18 months. My first day on the job:
a) the person performing MT was not certified,
b) contractor had no written practice,
c) visual inspection was "random spot inspection", meaning if the state representative was on site, QC would walk around and "looked" at the welds,
d) contractor was using GMAW short circuiting transfer on 8-inch thick plate,
e) no WPS with no supporting PQR,
f) welding symbols specified CJP, the contractor was depositing PJP. Granted, the welding symbols were wrong, but no one ever questioned them,

and that was just my first day on the project.

I feel your pain.

Al

By ctacker (****)

Date 01-27-2018 19:26

Been there, done that. Once. I took over for an inspector on a job he sat on for a month prior, welding demand critical welds, 1st hour I seen the WPS did not specify the wire brand, and they had been using a generic brand that hadn't been tested or approved all along, oops.
Carl