D1.1 and FEMA

By Confused CWI Date 01-29-2005 03:44

I am the Quality Control Manager at a steel fabrication shop.Today when I arrived at work I had an e-mail with a picture of a full pen weld on a paddle plate(a plate that a beam sits on and gets welded to after it is bolted). The erector on the job did not like the fact that the ends of the plate were welded. He was screaming FEMA this and FEMA that.He was saying that runoff tabs should have been used. D1.1,FEMA 350 AND FEMA 353 all say runoff tabs should be used when necessary.They do not say you have to use runoff tabs.My reply was so I have to call erectors everytime we weld full pen welds so I do my job by their opinion. I could understand if the plate was 3/4 or thicker but it was only 3/8. The flange of the column was 12 inches wide and the plate was 8 inches wide. I think if runoff tabs would have been used the welder would have done me a favor by gouging into the column when removing it and causing me more headache.So could someone tell me if I am wrong or not? Also why don't the D1.1 and FEMA books state any full pen weld on a plate this thickness or more shall have a runoff tab?But wait I know the answer to that.If the crap hits the fan they can all point fingers at the little guy. Ranting and raving does make you feel better

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 01-29-2005 17:46

I'm not exactly sure if I understand the weld configuration but I think I do.

But where the erector is stating that you are not in compliance, s/he ought to be able to tell you where the codes address your situation. It can be difficult to keep your cool at times. I would reply to the email, requesting clarification. You might get some education, or you might find the erector is blowing smoke, but it will help you know where you stand.

Chet Guilford

By Confused CWI Date 01-30-2005 05:02

True I might get clarification but it is not a FEMA job by the contract. The contract called for it to be done by AWS D1.1. My biggest complant is that I have been told that we will remove weld tabs according to D1.1 on all jobs unless they mention FEMA then we will remove them according to FEMA.The way I read them they both say remove only when required by the design drawings. Which means if the weld tabs do not interfere with erection of the building leave them?What is going to happen when we remove them by D1.1 and the outside inspector walks in and says that was not done by FEMA? My point is simply why not ask the engineer of record at the start what he or she wants. If the EOR wants weld tabs removed by D1.1 or FEMA. WE should do it the way the EOR wants not the erectors way.The only thing I really now is the first person to scream in this business will be the one all the tie wearing people will listen too.The same tie wearing people who call me to explain to them what D1.1 or FEMA mean when they say this or that.If the President and Executive Vice President would simply ask the EOR what he or she wanted I would never have had this problem

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 01-31-2005 14:22

Based on your response, you definitely have a tough situation. I would suggest one thing before you do any corrective work. I would thoroughly review the bid documents and your quote. Check for the referenced codes and standards and also what you have included and excluded in the bid. If that is not within your job description, then you might ask that your superiors do it and explain that you are facing frustrations and increased production costs.

Once you have reviewed the specs, you will know where you stand. The customer will expect whatever the agreement was for, but anything else warrants a change order if there are costs to your company.
Mentioning time and $ usually gets a listen.

If the erector is aware of a problem or discrepency that could cost the owner or hamper acceptance of the structure, or etc., then they should note their concerns in writing to the EOR. It may very well be that something has to be changed, but again, anything above and beyond the contract is a negotiable matter.

Other than that, count to ten slowly and remember that it is only a job.....

Chet

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 01-31-2005 15:43

They use other codes to sneak FEMA into the contract docs. Be careful that BOCA 1999 isn't referenced in the contract docs. We received our rude awakening to our first FEMA job by other codes being referenced rather than FEMA being spelled outright in the contract. There are lots of codes referenced and if you don't have copies of these documents, they may just reference something being to FEMA regs.
Look your bid documents over very carefully, Or better yet have them show you where you may be over looking the reference to FEMA.
John Wright

By DGXL

Date 02-02-2005 17:52

Confused CWI:
You are experiencing the growing pains all fabricators are going through since the FEMA 350-353 docs. were issued. Pleae note these are only "recommendations". If D1.1 is specified, then section 5.10 applies.

Many engineers here in CA tried a few years ago to put vague wording such as "...comply with FEMA requirements", or, "...and per FEMA 353...". This came back and bit them in their hind quaters when inspectors and fabricators said: "OK, which part?" This usually left the RDP at a loss for words and then tapping the mat and: "Remove bottom backing bar only..."

The bottom bar is critical to the performance of the MF conection, so many have adopted removing bottom backing w/a reinforcing fillet weld (3/8"). FEMA recommendations have been incoporated into the Los Angeles MF criteria about to be released and presented in March including the backing bar removal and finishing.

Most fabricators have moved on beyond the 1st few jobs where FEMA was not inclusive to the bid. Even other postees here note they now are cognizant of the specs. Now most seasoned fabricators here know to add some $ to the bid for additional work not required in the past including additional procedure and personnel qualifications, orienting the material grain, backing, deposition limitations, etc., etc.

Good Luck.