I want to thank everyone for their input on this from before, but I have a few more questions hopefully I don't loose anyone here with my wording.
This is for another fabricator on the west coast so I only have the information that is passed on to me.
1.) I am told that the inspector is claiming that section 1704 does cover guards & handrails and requires special inspections.
But I am wondering how you all see it also.
a.) The section for special inspection is sub-titled Structural Steel and directs to AWS D1.1, however if the guard or handrails are not made with steel, but rather bronze or aluminum D1.1 does not cover these alloys, thus because it is not steel would it not now be exempt? It would not seem reasonable that the section does not cover all materials and alloys. Thus intent to apply section is wrong (yes/no)?
b.) The section also specifies LOAD-BEARING and their assemblies, my understanding of load bearing is that the item supports other structure, you can have a non-load bearing wall and a load bearing wall.
Thus to be load bearing does it not have to always be carring the load? And the assemblies are they not what makes up the structure doing the load bearing and supporting? (agree/not agree)
2.) I have not seen nor have I read the submitted specs for the project however this information in quotes is a direct paste from the e-mail I received from the fabricator with the issue. Also now unsure if city inspector is code related or project specs related? But,
I’m still trying to find a way to have our railing accepted by the City Inspector who is rejecting the product on the basis that he did not qualify our procedures prior to the start of the work. Let’s just say we got the cart ahead of the horse because this is a new condition for us and did not recognize the requirement. (I disagree that the requirement was called out). I’m finding it hard to believe that the City would have us throw away several hundred feet of railing and remake it the exact same way we made it in the first place. I’ve tried many things to see if there is any way to qualify the product:
1) We provided all our weld procedures and welder certs and the inspector has deemed those irrelevant.
2) We offered to have the product tested by an independent agency – denied
3) We have offered to demonstrate our processes- not interested
4) We have a letter from the Engineer who stamped the drawings that the welds on the rails exceed by 5-10x the strength requirements – not interested
Now the inspector is really mad and has told us that our weld procedures are invalid and that we can not weld rails with short arc because it is not prequalified. He says I need PQR’s and WPS’s for short arc welding for fillet and groove welds. He is disallowing the WPS’s we have been using for 10 years and that have been accepted by every other inspector.
So what am I missing, I know they might be so ticked off that they prefer to :banghd rather than work together.
However, from what I can tell if the procedure presents a danger please explain why? When an engineer signs off on the work and the fabricator is willing to have testing done to prove it is an equal or superior product, were in lies the problem?
I will thank all a head of time for your input.
Tom
....That's kinda what I tell people about non-prescriptive houses, "you can build it out of cheddar cheese if you can get an engineer to stamp it"
