Material identification was one of the elements that we were audited on. The auditors stated that we were the first fabricator they had audited that is using the latest material identification criteria. Overall, we had no CAR's and no major concerns. You are correct that you are required to review MTR's as you receive materials (5.2.2 in the COSP). At the very minimum, you really need to keep MTR's so that you can prove to the auditors that you are receiving materiaI shapes and grades in accordance with contract documents and specifications, and you can verify that someone has reviewed the MTR's by having them place their initials on them. You may also want to consider keeping them and maintaining identification on the materials, because if you have a job that requires matching MTR's, you will be able to utilize your stock inventory, rather than purchasing everything that must be supported by matching MTR's. Another reason to keep your MTR's is that you will have to submit them to the owners rep (usually a third party inspector) upon request. Good luck on getting all your MTR's from your suppliers. The mills do a good job, but the service centers are more difficult.
Actually, you don't have to review MTR's at the time of receiving, but you can choose to do it at that time if you want to. You do have to verify that the materials are correct for the job prior to using them in production. It sounds the same but the difference is the time frame when you verify materials. It is good practice to review materials at the time of delivery, or shortly after, and to do it as part of your receiving process. But be careful about writing a procedure that will not allow leeway for unusual situations.
Because we also do bridge work, we maintain heat numbers on everything that comes with them and scan the MTR's into a file.
All of our material is unloaded into a "quarantine" area and held until the PO, MTR's, and delivery slips are checked; then it is marked with the stock item number and moved to a designated area. The heat number is logged into the Fabtrol Stockmiser with the other information.
Sometimes, steel is ordered as "cheap, black, and sinks in water" and no MTRs are needed. If we have them, we still put the heat #s into Fabtrol - just in case. We have occasionally been able to contact the mill for MTR's when we wanted to use the material for something other than what it was originally ordered for.
Prior to pulling job material from inventory, the documentation is revewed (2nd time) and a visual check is made of the material stock numbers, heat numbers and mill markings to be sure everything matches up. This sounds more involved and time consuming than it actually is, and it has prevented mistakes on many occasions.
The Code of Standard Practice is a 2 edged sword that has to be applied carefully.
Under 5.1.1, ASTM specifies the testing required and markings that identify the materials when ordered for a job. If no MTRs are required by contract, verifying the correct mill markings could be all the fabricator needs to do. However, how do you prove you have done the check unless you document that somehow, or have that built into your procedure? The easiest record to explain to the outside world is the MTR that matches the steel's heat number.
5.2.2 addresses materials a fabricator has in stock. Notice that certified mill test reports shall be reviewed and retained to cover the stock material.
I think the next part is what confuses everyone- it says the "Fabricator need not maintain records that identify individual pieces of stock material against individual certified mill test reports, provided the Fabricator purchases stock materials that meet requirements for material grade and quality in the applicable ASTM specifications."
Nice thought, but if need be, how will anyone prove it without MTRs from the mill? Again, you can review mill markings and record a check to comply with this, or receive a C of C from the supplier. I think it is a poor practice to say "the material is OK because our PO says to send only good stuff." You also have to be careful of grade 50 steels being substituted as equal to or better than A36; some customers might not agree.
6.1.1 (a) also contributes to the confusion. To me "Representative mill test reports" means a document that records the results of testing performed for that particular heat and size range of steel. It means the MTR represents THAT steel heat. It does not mean that a MTR for A36 of one heat represents A36 of any other heat number.
The best argument our shop has for our method of material control is that almost every vendor we have ever dealt with has made mistakes at one time or another. We have been embarrassed by failing to notice angles with foreign roll marks hidden inside bundles of USA origin material until after we cut it up for a job. A529 has been supplied several times as "equal" to A709-50, without the vendor calling us first. Material sizes have been delivered that were close to but not quite what we ordered. It is not that we haven't made our mistakes either but our customers hold us responsible, not our steel suppliers.
We have been AISC certified for about 14 years. Our initial audit to the new Building Standard, combined with Major Bridges, FC, and SPE returned no CAR's.
Forum
