![]() When I asked why, he replied "It's not up to the owner, it's up to the inspector".Charmcraft is introducing the concept of bases into charmcraft.yaml, where a base is defined as the combination of: operating system name, channel (version), and architectures. We were following the contract specifications and the related codes, but the inspector rejected them. I had an issue with an outside inspector about some MTR's the other day. It would be interesting to see what criteria he bases his rejection on. Adequacy of throat dimension and conformance to the weld profiles of 5.4 should be the only acceptance criteria". ![]() Attempts to remove excess material from oversized welds serve no purpose. It states "Either or both legs of fillet welds may be oversized without correction, provided the excess does not interfere with satisfactory end use of a member. Please note that C5.13 is the commentary for Conformance with Design, and should dismiss his rejection claim. This wouldn't apply because multi pass fillets were used. John, Like everyone else, I am not aware of anything prohibiting welds that are oversized, unless they exceed the maximum size for single pass fillets. The sublet fabricator has a very good reputation with us and does excellent work, so I had my doubts before I left on my trip to the site. My boss wasn't very happy with these people calling all upset and making such a deal over these trivial matters. The real kicker is that they had an inspector complete a shop inspection and I was holding a fax in my hand showing these pieces were already accepted and signed off, by thier inspector. I realize they have to learn somewhere, but I didn't much care for dropping everything to drive that far only to find this. Lots of very green kids making big bucks running this multimillon dollar show. So we quickly pointed him to the drawings stamped in big red block letters that read "For Field and File Drawings". He was working from a set that was stamped in big red block letters "For Approval Only, Not For Construction". When we looked at the set of drawings he was working from, we about had a fit. The inspector misread the drawing and mistook a full pen weld for a fillet weld, he didn't realize which joint he was looking at. This time they called saying there was yet another weld that is questionable. Apparently, I was correct, no one at that site can read a drawing. Update #2, I was called up to the jobsite over yet another weld question. ![]() We are sitting at the fax machine eagerly awaiting the next fax to see what will roll off of it next :insert sarcasm smiley here: John Wright mean? This is the type of ignorance of the structural steel biz that we are having to deal with. Have you ever heard of an Architech that has to ask the fabricator what does A.E.S.S. Apparently there are some very green people in charge of this job at the jobsite and it is very frustrating for our people here, so they are ignoring most of these silly items for the time being. These are baseplate welds and the guys up there can't seem to interpet drwgs very well, so it has become an email/fax war to see who can create the most emails/fax's and questions out of what seems to me to be very clear information. Then they requested that we have the shop drawings revised to reflect the 1/2" welds. "The sublet fabricator simply placed larger welds than required by the contract dwgs". They were originally asking for us to provide the reason why these welds were changed from 3/8 to 1/2. Update: I talked with our engineer earlier today and it seems that this job will be a real doosey. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |