Around this area, it is common for some of the field welders to use whatever they prefer, as opposed to what the requirements are. I think all that is soon to come to a screeching halt with all the "third party" inspections going on here in Mecklenburg County.

It is not uncommon for me to walk onto one of our project sites and see E7018 or E6011 rods and butts laying all around (in buckets, on pallets, in sweaty back pockets, in open containers in trailers, etc.). It is rare to see a rod oven in use (although I do sometimes see one very neatly placed in a utility box). I can't say I have seen E7024 rods though. I am not usually there to have anything to do with the onsite work being performed as I am usually there at the request of a project manager or other management to evaluate another problem. This puts me in an awkward position since it is not my responsibility directly to evaluate and correct this problem. But I have been in my career that third party inspector out on site to witness and inspect welding, bolting (other horror stories abound), NDE, etc. It just amazes me that the responsible inspectors do not operate with a more critical eye. I almost always make it a point to see an erector supervisor and a project management representative to asure them that if I was the inspector on the project, they would have reports being filed outlining the deficiencies seen on site. Many "act" like they have never heard that before. Previous threads have addressed the vast differences witnessed between what is "allowed" in the field vs. what is allowed in a fabriction shop. It is up to the inspectors to uphold the standard that is to be followed on every job site. Those that do not hold up their load only make it more difficult on all the rest trying to do a competent job.

I'll step off my soap box now; sorry for the rant.

Nice question, you must be an experienced inspector. srw2506@msn.com

When the SWPS get clarified by the appropriate bodies then contractors will really have a fit. I was inspecting on a large project the welding of bar joices. I was not called to inspect until a large portion of the work was actually completed. The material used according to specification was angle iron about 1/8 thick and 1 1/2 wide. The welders were using 1/8 7018. The foreman had never looked at the manufacturing specs and had about 7 bays complete out of 24 before asking for inspection. No welds had been slagged. ANd no work had been completed to spec.. It took the contractor about three weeks to redo and start to perform work correctly.

I was called to work in progress once apon a time. The erector had two kinds of SMAW. 5/32 & 1/8 7024. The spec called for 70XX. The welders used 5/32 for bar joists and gerts and 1/8 for bridging. The bridging layed on top of the bottom chord of the bar joists. The 1X1 angle bridging was pierced from above and almost welded to the toes of the bottom chord angles. They called it puddel welding.

I asked for a WPS that allowed the gaping holes that were left in the bridging and was told that the purpose of the bridging was to hold the gerts and bar joists upright until the roof decking was on. Then they were no longer needed.

Well, after I scrached my head and realized that they were serious I wrote them up for non-compliance on two counts. Lack of fusion on 25% of their fillet welds on bar joists and gerts and the wholes in the bridging.

They got on the phone to their corporate offices and were told that they should comply with the welding inspectors wishes since they were in California.

I finally got a PQR and a WPS for the 7024 but it was dated (guess what) after the fact. They even repalced the bridging and welded it overhead with 7018.

The repairs took two men four days and what I think was lots of kind words from the crew. Ididn't speak or understand their language.

I work in a joist fab shop as an inspector and wo use 7014 and 7018
when we do repairs or modifications on the joist