Acceptance Criteria

Date 03-11-2005 13:09

This depends on how the scope of inspection is spelled out when the CWI is contracted out to perform inspection. If the CWI is contracted out by the owner of the project that the fabricator is supplying steel for, then he has contract specs that spell out the scope of inspection required. I get outside inspectors in my shop routinely that are hired by the owner of the buildings we supply steel for. Usually in section 5120 of the contract docs it will spell out exactly what the inspector is to inspect, both in the shop and in the field. It usually spells out who is responsible for hiring this inspector too, usually it is the owner's responsiblity. Our projects usually get percentages of the fillet welds inspected by MT and percentages of the full pen joints get inspected by UT, and 100% of the joints get VT. This is pretty typical with all of our work. Other Sections of D1.1 are used depending on the type of work being performed. The whole book is generally used when inspection is required, not just Table 6.1.

Is there a particular problem that the CWI has addressed that you can shed more light on other than the fabricator complaining about him using other criteria than Table 6.1?

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 03-11-2005 14:57

I read the question as either of 2 ways.
1) Table 6.1 as I know it comes from AWS D1.1. If another code is specified, then Table 6.1 would not apply, so no, that table would not be the only criteria.

2) Table 6.1 is a part of the overall code. The code should be applied as a whole because some sections may be needed for the understanding of the table, and there are other consierations such as preheat, base metals, and so on, that equally apply.

Can you give a bit more info on what you are looking for?

Chet Guilford

By jfwi

Date 03-11-2005 16:13

Thank you John and Chet for very quick responses. The specifics are simple, when no other specifications are available, other than "D1.1" where should the acceptance criteria be taken from?

Many of the projects in this area are not large project that would include a specification manual that John described, the specifications are on the first page of the structural sections of the plans, when a full set of plan are available, usually ASIC and the California Builders Code (CBC) are the references both refer to D1.1. On a side note the ASIC refers to the "88" edition of D1.1.

So that is about all the information that I can think of at this time keep the information coming.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 03-11-2005 17:36

Both John and Chet offer you sage advice. However, there are some other issues to be addressed. Generally, the first place you should look for code requirements would be the general structural notes of the APPROVED structural drawings(that includes shop drawing as thats all you can inspect to). Most of your basic information such as code, min. weld size, high strength bolted connection type, ect. ect., will be listed in this section. Also look at the section covering "Special Inspections". Theres a few more pearls in there. Since we're talking structures here, chances are that your working to D1.1 and tbl 6.1 would be your acceptence criteria. I have to ask, are you the owners inspector? If so, then the following should be of interest, if not, the following should be of interest. Grab the latest version of the AISC/ASD and go to the Code of Standard Practice, sec 8, Quality Control. Commit 8.1 & 8.5 to memory.
I can only assume that California works under the latest IBC. Section 1704 covers Special Inspections of structural steel, including shop inspections, continuous and periodic inspections of multi pass fillets, fillets exceeding 5/16", full and partial pens and so on. I hope that I havent bored you or told you stuff that you already know. But I thought it would help.
Wayne

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 03-11-2005 17:37

That helps a bit.
To start off, I have no knowledge of what the California Building Code says. I assume that other posters we know of from Ca can speak on that.
On D1.1 in general:
Is is not uncommon for smaller jobs to have no welding specs or a general statement to comply with D1.1. That leads one to believe that the welding is unimportant, but you should not forget about product liability and lawsuits.
For jobs with no specs, I would apply D1.1 as the minimum criteria. Often the customer has no welding knowledge and are relying on you to provide the expertise. I would discuss what the customer wants, and tell him/her that you would like to use D1.1 if there is no objection. At least that way you will have used a recognized standard and not your own opinion. I would try to get the approval in writing, possibly by putting a statement on your quotation form.

My initial concern was that no one assume that Table 6.1 is all that matters from D1.1. When we certify that welding is in compliance with D1.1, we are saying that all parts of the code have been addressed unless a portion is N/A. Just using the Table of Contents for example, D1.1 defines limitations to the code, design of welded connections, prequalification of WPS's, qualifications (both non-prequal WPS's and welder qualification testing), fabrication requirements, and inspection.

So to put that in a nutshell, we can't say welding complies with D1.1 if the welder wasn't qualified, the joints were not either per pre-qual or qualified WPS's, base metals were not preapproved or qualified in the WPS, or a number of other concerns.

I may be standing on a soapbox in saying this but to me compliance to a code is all or nothing, and that is what I thought you might have meant in the original post.

Chet Guilford

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 03-11-2005 19:13

I have been contracted to do final shop inspection for a small company here in town in the past. I found out a lot about inspecting when there are no specifications and the shop detail drawings don't even list a fillet weld size, they just show an empty symbol. I never knew companies worked off incomplete drawings and info like they do. I made note on my reports of what I found and how I found the welds in accordance to D1.1., quoting the appropriate sections and paragraphs. That is all you can do in that situation. I was hired to perform final inspection for this shop because they did not have a CWI on staff and their contract stated that the steel would be inspected by a CWI before shipping to the jobsite. Anyway we fulfilled the requirements spelled out and they shipped the steel after they made the necessary repairs and it was reinspected and signed off.

The code of Std Practice was mentioned, that is good to file away, I agree with that comment, along with the Fabrication Section 5 in D1.1, as these go hand in hand.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 03-14-2005 22:28

I've been faced with the same or similar situations on several occations in the past myself. Some were just shop built structures requiring a general inspection for weld quality, while others have been large structures designed as art work to be permanent displays at local high schools. And while either type of the above were built to any specific code or standard, either the fabricator or an Engineer would request inspections for structural integrity. I would perform these inspections with the understanding that I would do a 100% visual and 10% to 25% MT or PT using AWS acceptance criteria for the type material. But you couldn't very well be expected to to look at some spool piece butt welds and base your inspection on structural fit up and welds, so you have to kind of pick your way through different acceptance standards and find the right fit for what your doing.

By dschlotz (***)

Date 03-27-2005 01:03

There is a fact missing from this post. My employer is the subject and I am the CWI in northern California that insisted that the visual criteria of D1.1 Table 6.1 and that only to be used when conducting visual inspections on projects that are under AWS D1.1. Certainly the whole code is required for every inspection—including visual. Visual is the first inspection and always required. If the requirements of 6.1 are met even barely but met—then and only then can you proceed with any other inspections that are required by the contract documents or D1.1 (All 8 sections and mandatory annexes).

The company I work for only uses D1.1 rules for D1.1 jobs. If I were to present any of you with my Written Procedures for how I would conduct visual inspections, on my company's letterhead, and there were more stringent and different requirements for visual inspection than included in Table 6.1, would you question me and expect an explanation?

If my explanation was that I inspect to more codes than D1.1 and some of them are more restrictive than Table 6.1in the area of visual inspection. Would you then want me to edit my document of inspection procedures to reflect that a D1.1 visual criterion is exempt from the higher requirements of say D1.5?

I have approached this forum on several occasions to get information. I am the type of inspector that learns from my mistakes. You guys that responded to my questions about slag inclusions and WPS documents and UT indications, have straightened me out on a lot of misinformation that caused me to rethink my understanding of certain aspects of inspection and the D1.1. I study when I am in doubt. If I can't find a reasonable answer I turn the knowledge base afforded by this board. Sometimes I don't like the answers.

My welders want to see their mistakes when they bust out on UT. I posted a question about that problem expecting to be able to tell the welders that the UT guy has to be wrong if you can't find the reject. That was not the case. My study of UT was enough to be able to ask somewhat intelligent questions.

I wanted to know if there was an acceptable amount of surface slag inclusion on the surface of the weld—similar to porosity. Once again I got some new information D1.1 5.30.

In my effort to be conscientious I follow the code when I inspect and want it to be followed when my employer is under the microscope. We don't want to see how much we can get away with. We do however want the code to dictate what we are required to accomplish. We will always strive to do more than required as a point of pride and craftsmanship.

I wise man once said on this board:
"Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it" and "don't fix it if it ain't broke!"

I learned a long time ago that if one wants to control the outcome of a discussion—give only the facts that allow your point of view. I also learned that if you use this ploy everybody looses.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts
Dennis

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 03-28-2005 21:20

You're welcome, Dennis.
While it is a fact the no one can know everything, with the knowledge and experience of everyone on this forum, we can usually get a good answer. Speaking for myself, my knowledge base is pretty much limited to structural steel, bridges, and similar. When I don't know the subject matter, I stay in the background rather than clutter the forum up, but I am always amazed at informative responses and the diversity of experiences here.
Chet