• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Welds - Special Inspections

conarb

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
I am putting this under Residential Framing because that's what it is, here in California we are moving more into steel framing, at the very least every structure has steel moment frames. I know there is some disagreement on whether a contractor can pay the Special Inspectors, but the way I read it the owner has to pay, owners always balk at this, but I have put the cost of special Inspection into my Architects' Cost Control Breakdown with a note: "To be paid by owner" and not included it in my total costs so may owners are aware of the additional costs, this has served me well up until this job where Special Inspection firms are competing to get the work. In my current situation the Special Inspection firms have competed so "vigorously" for the Special Inspection contract (calling the owner and annoying him) that my owner thinks it's a total fraud and wants to pay as little as possible, thinking that there are too many layers of inspection, he wants top quality on everything, but draws the line at paying for multiple layers of inspection.

Question #1: Reading the 2007 CBC Table 1704.3 I see which welds require Continuous and Periodic inspection, and all Full Penetration welds require continuous inspection, but my steel subcontractor states that they not only require continuous inspections but also X-ray (actually ultrasound now) all Full Penetration welds, the structural engineer disagrees stating that it's one or the other, I see no references in the code to X-raying welds, so after Continuous Inspection is X-raying mandatory?

Question #2: I've inquired about X-raying filet welds, I have it on good authority that filet welds can't be X-rayed, that they are visually inspected during periodic or continuous inspections, but that there are some expensive spectrographic studies that can be made. Anyone here know if filet welds can be X-rayed?

Question #3: Can anyone give me code referenced welding standards applicable to these situations?

My Structural Engineer is German, he states that all inspectors in Germany have welding inspection certificates, if they question anything they can, and do, require everything be X-rayed, that seems to make more sense, forgo Special Inspection on all welding and require X-rays of all welds upon completion of the structural frame.
 
The code is clear that the Owner has to hire the special inspector directly. Special inspection is not an option.

Please explain the "multiple layers of inspection". The cities inspectors are not qualified to do welding inspection.

Please clarify that you are using the 2007 CBC as opposed to the 2010 CBC. For the 2007 CBC to be applicable the construction documents would have to have been submitted in 2010.

X-ray testing is not required by the building code.

Fillet welds cannot be inspected by UT. Thus fillet welds are visually inspected.

The weld inspectors need to be certified but they do not have the authority to require X-ray testing. X-ray or UT testing are not substitutes for visual inspection since they will not identify practices that can result in low toughness of the welds.
 
Mark K said:
The code is clear that the Owner has to hire the special inspector directly. Special inspection is not an option.
Click to expand...
I agree, others say that since the contractor is the agent of the owner he can contract with the Special Inspector, but that does not appear to be the intent of the code to me.

Please explain the "multiple layers of inspection". The cities inspectors are not qualified to do welding inspection.
Click to expand...
Those are my owner's words, he doesn't understand why he has to pay for city inspectors and Special Inspectors, I've explained that the city inspector can't spend the time necessary for Special Inspection, but with the amount of monies taken by the AHJ he thinks they should, but his real problem is with the aggressive solicitation by Special Inspectors, he feels that an owner should be able to find the best contractor he can and leave all of this to him (BTW, this owner has a degree in mechanical engineering, among other disciplines, and understands the differences between filet welds and penetration welds)

Please clarify that you are using the 2007 CBC as opposed to the 2010 CBC. For the 2007 CBC to be applicable the construction documents would have to have been submitted in 2010.
Click to expand...
Yes I am permitted under the 2007 codes, it took some time between application and approval for the AHJ to issue the permit, my soils engineer actually said I made record time in getting permitted in 2 years, he had one that ran 20 years and another 7 years in the same jurisdiction.

X-ray testing is not required by the building code.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, I couldn't find it.

Fillet welds cannot be inspected by UT. Thus fillet welds are visually inspected.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming that.

The weld inspectors need to be certified but they do not have the authority to require X-ray testing. X-ray or UT testing are not substitutes for visual inspection since they will not identify practices that can result in low toughness of the welds.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining why visual inspection is better than UT testing, but is there some welding standard that requires it?
 
This may be old news and the problem has been solved.

A few years ago, the California Division of State Architect (DSA) issued a bulletin regarding tube steel. The tube steel has a longitudinal seam that is suspect. The DSA required that the engineer of record certify that the tube steel is adequate by destructive testing. The reason for the defect was the process which is a fusion rather than typical welding. The process can result in a section that is too thin. I found such tube steel twice on the same job. It is hard to see but you can feel the thin spot with your finger if the defect is on the outside. It is important to catch the requirement before the steel is installed because conventional testing will not find the defect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The reason for requiring that the special inspector be hired by the owner has to do with human nature and conflicts of interests.

Even the most contientious welder will adopt poor practices if his work is inot inspected by another individual. The other problem is that when the special inspectors are hired by the contractor there is a tendency for the contractor to hire the agency that does not cause problems and the contractor is likely to request another inspector when the inspector finds too many defects. These have been real problems in the past thus leading to this code requirement.

It is possible that an attorney could argue that the Owner could formally make the contractor his agent in this matter arguing that statutes and case law on agency trumps building code regulations but the CBC is clear that this the contractor cannot hire nor control the special inspectors. If the contractor was the agent of the owner with regards to special inspection then this would be in conflict with the arms length contract that typically existis between the owner and the contractor.
 
"I'm now told that the UT testing requirement lies in AWS D1.1-98, does anyone have this so I don't have to buy it?"

I know I'm a new guy, but does the Building Code Message Board support the distribution of copywritten material by anyone other than the copyright holder or an authorized reseller? This request seems to be asking for exactly that.
 
Doorman said:
I know I'm a new guy, but does the Building Code Message Board support the distribution of copywritten material by anyone other than the copyright holder or an authorized reseller? This request seems to be asking for exactly that.
Click to expand...
I believe that the ICC is accepts limited case by case citations of it's codes for reference...wholesale copy is another matter altogether. I will see if they have a statement on their website, specific to your question.
 
The CBC and the AISC standard defines when inspections are required. AWS D1.1 defines the acceptance criteria when UT is required.

The AWS D1.1-06 is the applicable edition for the 2007 CBC

D1.1 is expensive $$$. The testing agency should have a copy. If they do not they should not be hired.

Sharing a copy of a page or two of D1.1 probably falls within the fair use exemption. In the case of adopted building codes there is a court ruling that adopted governmental regulations are not subject to copyright limitations. Since the ruling was made by only one appeals court there are parts of the country, including California, where the questions is supposidly still formally unresolved.
 
" I will see if they have a statement on their website, specific to your question."

Thank you Papio, I appreciate that effort. I have seen several excerpts from varied building codes used here (and see nothing wrong with that).

I am uncertain that the AWS is so magnanimous with their intellectual properties. Unless I misread it, that is the copyright holder in this case.
 
Doorman said:
" I will see if they have a statement on their website, specific to your question."Thank you Papio, I appreciate that effort. I have seen several excerpts from varied building codes used here (and see nothing wrong with that).

I am uncertain that the AWS is so magnanimous with their intellectual properties. Unless I misread it, that is the copyright holder in this case.
Click to expand...
for what it is worth with ICC codes:

"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This (INSERT ICC CODE/DOCUMENT NAME HERE) is a copyrighted work owned by the International Code Council, Inc. Without advanced written permission from the copyright owner, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including, without limitations, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example and not limitation, photocopying, or recording by or in an information storage retrieval system). For information on permission to copy material exceeding fair use, please contact: Publications, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478 (Phone 1-888-422-7233)."
 
conarb said:
Thanks Mark, it's $395 and 2 to 3 weeks for delivery, I'll check with the Special Inspection firm, I'm now told that any penetration weld equal to or greater than 3/16" needs both continuous inspection and UT testing, I need to check that out to satisfy my owner that he's got to pay for it.
Click to expand...
http://www.aws.org/itrends/2012/InspectionTrends_201201/#/2/

not quite what you are asking for but a nice little article on ethics in testing on certified versus qualified...since you have a few weeks before your copy arrives. ;)
 
"for what it is worth with ICC codes:

"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...."

I would throw you a Thanks for that. Thanks for doing the legwork and sharing.

Yeah, the "Fair Use" Doctrine has a few grey areas, but is usually accepted as good manners.

I didn't really mean to stir things up, guys. Still just finding out how things work around here :wink:
 
Doorman said:
"I'm now told that the UT testing requirement lies in AWS D1.1-98, does anyone have this so I don't have to buy it?"I know I'm a new guy, but does the Building Code Message Board support the distribution of copywritten material by anyone other than the copyright holder or an authorized reseller? This request seems to be asking for exactly that.
Click to expand...
If the government adopts a document that has copyright protection as part of a law, the government should be required to provide a free copy to any and all. Just so you know, Tiger code is free to all but it isn't written down....well not unless you got a citation from me....in that case you would know some of it, in writing.

Tiger
 
ConArb,

I am almost certain you won't find it in AWS D1.1. I am about 98% certain it says to perfom ultrasonic testing when specified. I don't know if single family dwellings need to follow the AISC 341-05 Seismic Provisions for Steel Buildings. But the inspection requirements may be in there. The AISC standards are typically a free download at http://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=2884 . However, the one referenced in the 2007 and 2010 CBC are "historic" and they may no longer be free at http://www.aisc.org/content.aspx?id=2870
 
Thanks Phil, that did it, now I know how to ask the Special Inspector intelligent questions to relay to my owner.

2b. CJP Groove Weld NDT

Ultrasonic testing (UT) shall be performed on 100% of CJP groove welds in materials 5/16 in. (8 mm) thick or greater. Ultrasonic testing in materials less than 5/16 in.(8 mm) thick is not required. Weld discontinuities shall be accepted or rejected on the basis of criteria of AWS D1.1/D1.1M Table 6.2. Magnetic particle testing shall be performed on 25% of all beam-to-column CJP groove welds. The rate of UT and MT is permitted to be reduced in accordance with Sections J6.2g and J6.2h, respectively.

Exception: For

ordinary moment frames

, UT and MT of CJP groove welds are required only for

demand critical welds.



Question: Do we fall within the exception? BTW, italics are in the original. This is on Page 112 in the PDF, titled in the upper left as 9.1–112.
Click to expand...
I copied the above from an E-mail I just sent to the Special Inspector, the Structural Engineer, the Architect, the Steel Contractor, and the Owner.
 
ICE said:
...Tiger code is free to all but it isn't written down....well not unless you got a citation from me....in that case you would know some of it, in writing.Tiger
Click to expand...
Yeah! That's rich.

FogHorn
 
Tiger Code was not legaly adopted by the jurisdiction thus Tiger Code is not enforcable.

A building inspector who knowingly requires something not required by the adopted regulations may find himself personally liable and hopefully out of a job.
 
Papio Bldg Dept said:
for what it is worth with ICC codes:"ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This (INSERT ICC CODE/DOCUMENT NAME HERE) is a copyrighted work owned by the International Code Council, Inc. Without advanced written permission from the copyright owner, no part of this book may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including, without limitations, electronic, optical or mechanical means (by way of example and not limitation, photocopying, or recording by or in an information storage retrieval system). For information on permission to copy material exceeding fair use, please contact: Publications, 4051 West Flossmoor Road, Country Club Hills, IL 60478 (Phone 1-888-422-7233)."
Click to expand...
I do know that one of the reasons that ICC gives for purchasing codes is that you are able to copy and paste certain portions of the code when you are working with contractors, architects etc....
 
Mark K said:
Tiger Code was not legaly adopted by the jurisdiction thus Tiger Code is not enforcable.A building inspector who knowingly requires something not required by the adopted regulations may find himself personally liable and hopefully out of a job.
Click to expand...
Why do so many strangers hope that I become unemployed? My prattle about Tiger code brings out the best in you. The truth is that Tiger code is my interpretation of adopted codes. Every time I have posted something that everybody labels 'Tiger code", it is based in adopted code. I can't help it if many here lack clarity and fail to recognize code when they see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top