Welding & Bolt Inspection

[gbowen]

I am in the Midwest and am trying to understand some industry practices for welding inspection. Most job specifications I see are using AWS D1.1 and RCSC for bolts. These specs are very clear but I find most of the welding inspectors locally and regionally are not following them. For instance, most inspectors here come to the site after the steel is erected and do visual weld inspection and bolt testing with a torque wrench. It seems to me that this is not even close to the specs but to follow the specs would cost much more for inspection.

Does anyone have any insight?

 

[metengr]

gbowen;
In-process inspection of weld joints and structural connections by an owner's Inspector has to be specifically stated in contract documents. For AWS D1.1 the Inspector representing the owner (Verification Inspector) and the Inspector representing the contractor (the fabrication/erection Inspector) perform different functions. The owner has the right to perform any independent verification inspection activities. However, the contractor has the responsibility of fabrication/erection inspection and testing activities to assure compliance with AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code. This is stated in AWS D1.1 under Inspection "General Requirements".

I know that the Research Council for Structural Connections (RCSC) mentions in the Inspection section that the in-process inspection of joint alignment and fit-up must be performed by the contractor, if it is not specified in the contract documents to have an Inspector conduct this activity.

 

[gbowen]

I understand the specs it just seems that most of the projects i am involved with the engineer/owner just throws out AWS D1.1 and there is not much clarification on how it is to be used. It appears base on the specs and what you are saying that this just shifts most of the responsibility to the contractor to perform inspection. This type of shift in responsibility seems unusual to me without some sort of means for quality assurance.

 

[metengr]

gbowen;
Not really. The owner or Engineer of the project has ULTIMATE responsibility for any project. If they choose to ignore or "cherry pick" aspects of the code to save money is their business. Trying to save pennies (field inspection/verification activities of contractors) while tripping over dollars on these types of projects is plain foolish!!

I deal with EPC contracts in our company, and the contractor has responsibility to execute the work. As the owner's engineer, it is up to me to make sure that the contractor is following the code as referenced in our contract documents. The oversight that I perform is more quality assurance (verification) than on-site inspection. However, I reserve the right to verify any aspects of the field work/inspection activities being performed by our contractor.

If your owners engineer is not performing this activity that is short sighted behavior and when a problem develops watch out for the finger pointing!

 

[gbowen]

First, I appreciate the information and it is very helpful. I agree with you that the owner should dictate how the money is spent. I just have a problem with the lack of specific instructions. As a consultant i am often asked what would be our recommendation of how much inspection is done. It is very difficult to recommend a high level of field verification unless it is recognized as the industry standard. I think you are exactly right about the pennies spent on quality assurance. Typically we feel that we can do a thorough job with about 1% of the overall project cost. This seems like a small cost but many contractors and owners don't see it that way and just want the minimum.

 

[jheidt2543]

Just a few thoughts on inspection:

1. A cost of 1% of the total project cost for the inspection of structural welding and/or connections is a LOT of money considering the structural EOR's fee many times is on the order of 1.5 - 2.0% of the construction cost. The cost of inspection can be looked at as insurance, but it should be cost effective.

2. Inspection should be taylored to the type of construction and how critical the structure is. A power plant requires more detailed inspection than an pre-engineered industrial building.

3. Inspection should be taylored to how unusual the design is. If the structure is a "run-of-the-mill" framing system, not much inspection may be needed. If the structure is the Syndey Opera House, that is totally different.

4. Inspection can be taylored to the experiance of the contractors involved.

5. Inspection by an outside subcontractor can be limited to a few critical areas or connections, with the remaining work done by the EOR.

It is the project desinger's responsibility to sort these conditions out and specify the level of inspection required. Every job does not require 100% inspection, but every job does require a reasonable level of quality control.

 

[gbowen]

I was referring to 1% for new construction including soil testing, concrete testing, foundation approval, structural steel, etc. Basically the testing and inspection for the entire project start to finish.