Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations GregLocock on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Kobe Steel - falsified material certifications 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
IRstuff said:
Just imagine what manufacturers would do if left to their own "self-regulation."

And there are some, who if they have their way, "self-regulation" will be the law-of-the-land.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
Makes you wonder, how much of this goes on, nobody knows about?

Scary.

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
From what I have read about the Kobe Steel scandal, Japanese government regulators did not discover the falsifications. Probably the conscience of some workers finally kicked in, after it had been going on for at least ten years.
 
um, all the more reason to utilize PMI when receiving materials.

i've rejected several valves, etc. for the materials did not comply with astm standards.

i've also seen mtr's that are suspicious, not legible, etc.

i recall several years ago hearing about a plant mgr that falsified mtr's, got caught, then committed suicide. i think the country was japan. the plant mgr was under tremendous stress to deliver, but couldn't for one reason or another.
 
If the Japanese will do it, who won't?

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
I have seen cases where a bad test practice was institutionalized, everyone thought that they were doing the right thing, but the results were not what the spec required.
There was a day when primes did audits of their suppliers, down a few tiers in the supply chain. Now they require everyone to spend ten's or hundred's of thousands of dollars on quality system certifications (cost shifting) and think that that will achieve the same end. Guess what, it doesn't. There is nothing like a fresh set of eyes to see issues.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube
 
As always, if its critical then test. My father was a traveling metallurgist for 15 years before he got into teaching and did many random batch samples.

No more than you can trust smog tests on cars jimmied by their manufacturers.
Just imagine what manufacturers would do if left to their own "self-regulation."

Yet the EPA is like most regulatory bodies in that they do exactly that, they trust the manufacturers to self-regulate their own certification testing.
 
I'm a little partial to the Chinese approach, where violators are summarily executed after a speedy, but fair, trial ;-)

Of course, even in China, air polluters haven't yet gotten the memo...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
Self regulation is problematic, of course. It's a moral hazard.
But if you think government agencies are your salvation, you might be disappointed.
Just this week, I was pulled into a tank project that was designed by gov't employees and inspected by gov't inspectors. The concrete design and construction were a bit of a train wreck, and the tax payers are on the hook for a substandard outcome. Seems like even gov't agencies like self regulation, to the detriment of their own agency.
It may be better to think of quality control and assurance in terms of transparency and incentives, in addition to regulation (and not simply more complex regulation).
In this case, Kobe Steel will be civilly (and hopefully criminally) liable for fraud, and rightly be shamed - bad for American companies and particularly bad for Japanese companies. And other companies have been put on notice. Maybe a better outcome than an army of warm-body inspectors swarming private companies and writing reports.
 
I've seen material test results used for piping (10" or thereabouts) for a project in Winnipeg, and the pipe failed at 100 psi (should have gone over 1000 psi) The pipe had identical composition for all tests... the only difference was the ticket number... Pipe was untraceable and came from China...

Dik
 
ATSE said:
I was pulled into a tank project that was designed by gov't employees and inspected by gov't inspectors. The concrete design and construction were a bit of a train wreck, and the tax payers are on the hook for a substandard outcome. Seems like even gov't agencies like self regulation, to the detriment of their own agency.

So you're saying that it wasn't actually 'regulations' that was the problem, but rather simply incompetent engineers/designers, eh? I don't think anyone has ever suggested that incompetency was limited to the private sector ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without
 
Let's just hope the falsification doesn't extend to Kobe Beef!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)


 
Don't know about beef but something like 33% of seafood is not what it claims to be.

----------------------------------------

The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
 
"But if you think government agencies are your salvation, you might be disappointed."

They're not, but government agencies are the outcome of specific laws, which entails criminal and monetary penalties that can be applied to the scofflaw as needed. Otherwise, your only recourse is to depend on corporate guilt, or to sue for damages, neither of which is any more reliable than the government. Government agencies serve the purpose of enforcing law, just like police do. It makes no sense to argue that corporations don't require policing while people do.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
I try to remind people all of the time, the only people that can enforce ASTM specifications are the purchaser. There is no oversight or regulator involved. If you are buying to an ASTM spec it is your responsibility and your right to inspect and verify. A producer not providing support for and inspection and audit effectively voids the PO because they are refusing to meet the specification requirements.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube
 
It's especially disappointing that this occurred in Japan, where the notion of trusted suppliers really paid off in their earlier ascension to market dominance in automobiles, when their quality was substantially better than their US counterparts'.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
 
EdStainless said:
I try to remind people all of the time, the only people that can enforce ASTM specifications are the purchaser. There is no oversight or regulator involved. If you are buying to an ASTM spec it is your responsibility and your right to inspect and verify. A producer not providing support for and inspection and audit effectively voids the PO because they are refusing to meet the specification requirements.

In addition a reputable supplier should welcome this oversight. While it does add more work for us it's much better that we have purchasers who are keeping the suppliers honest. It does us no favors if we're building a precast product to ASTM standards while our competitor is not.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor