team china lift 1 concerns - alta vista...
TRANSCRIPT
9/21/2009
1
Team ChinaLift 1 Concerns
1
September 22, 2009
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
RepairMT
SPs,Sec. 8-3
SPs,10-1.59
2
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
9/21/2009
2
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
RepairMT
SPs,Sec. 8-3
SPs,10-1.59
3
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
For any welding, the Engineer may perform or direct the Contractor to perform NDT that is in addition to the visual inspection or NDT specified in the AWS welding codes, in the Standard Specifications, or in these special provisions to verify that the welds are free of
Special Provisions,Section 8-3.01 Welding
Potential issues that may affect Engineer’s decision to go down this path:
Should any welding defects be discovered by this additional NDT, all costs associated with the repair of the deficient area, including NDT of the weld repair and any delays caused by the repair shall be at the
provisions to verify that the welds are free of defects as defined by the AWS codes specified in this contract.
g p
• Unqualified Welders• Unapproved Welding
Procedures• Unusual NDT results• Defects observed during in-
process checks
4
caused by the repair shall be at the Contractor’s expense.
9/21/2009
3
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
RepairMT
SPs,Sec. 8-3
SPs,10-1.59
5
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
The extent of non-destructive examination is specified below, unless specified elsewhere in these special provisions.
All welds shall receive 100% visual inspection.
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
Contract Requirements
Transverse splice welds 5% RT 100% UT
NDT Tables specify amount of NDT testing required for each weld type.
6
9/21/2009
4
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT / MT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
Repair
7
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
Contract Requirements
Except as specified herein, welding, welder qualifications, and inspection of welding work shall conform to the requirements of AWS D1.5
8
9/21/2009
5
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT / MT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
Repair
9
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
6.26.3 UT6.26.3.1 Welds that are subject to UT
in addition to visual inspection shall be acceptable if they meet the following
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
Contract Requirements
requirements:(1) Welds subject to tensile stress
under any condition of loading shall conform to the requirements of Table 6.3.
(2) Welds subject to compressive stress shall conform to the requirements of Table 6.4.
AWS D1.5-02, Sec. 6.26.3 UT, Pg. 151
10
9/21/2009
6
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT / MT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
Repair
11
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
Contract Requirements
AWS D1.5-02, Sec. 6.26.3 UT, Pg. 151
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Acceptance, Pg. 333
12
For purposes of acceptance, all CJP welds shall be considered to sustain tension, except for those otherwise shown on the plans.
9/21/2009
7
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
Contract Requirements
AWS D1.5-02, Sec. 6.26.3 UT, Pg. 151
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Acceptance, Pg. 333
Contract Plans General Notes No 4
13
Contract Plans, General Notes No. 4, Sheet 426 of 1204
14
9/21/2009
8
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT / MT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
Repair
15
Requires Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
20mm
70 °
16
• For indications that remain on the display as the search unit is moved, see 6.26.3.2
9/21/2009
9
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
Contract Requirements
(1) Indications of discontinuities that remain on the screen as the search unit is moved towards and away from the
AWS D1.5-02, Sec. 6.26.3 UT, Pg. 151
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Acceptance, Pg. 333
Contract Plans General Notes No 4
17
is moved towards and away from the discontinuity … may be indicative of planar discontinuities with significant flaw height dimension.AWS D1.5-02, Table 6.3,
Pg. 144
Contract Plans, General Notes No. 4, Sheet 426 of 1204
AWS D1.5-02,Sec. 6.26.3.2, Pg. 151
Contract RequirementsSPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel
Structures, Inspection and Testing, Pg. 330
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Shop Welding, Pg. 325
AWS D1.5-02, Sec. 6.26.3 UT, Pg. 151
(3) When indications that exhibit these
SPs, Sec. 10-1.59 Steel Structures, Inspection and
Testing, Acceptance, Pg. 333
Contract Plans General Notes No 4
18
( )planar characteristics are present … a more detailed evaluation of the discontinuity by other means may be required (e.g., alternate UT techniques, RT, grinding, or gouging for visual inspection, etc.).
AWS D1.5-02, Table 6.3, Pg. 144
Contract Plans, General Notes No. 4, Sheet 426 of 1204
AWS D1.5-02,Sec. 6.26.3.2, Pg. 151
9/21/2009
10
VTAcceptableSec. 6.26.1,
AWS D1 5
Indication Defect CrackRejectable per Code
Verify by visual means
NDT Required
Defect
Acceptable
RT / MT
AWS D1.5Repair
Defect
AcceptableSec. 6.26.2, AWS D1.5
Repair
19
May Require Further
Evaluation
Defect Repair
UT Sec. 6.26.3, AWS D1.5
Table 6.3,AWS D1.5
Table 6.4,AWS D1.5
• How do we move forward with the cracks in the Lift 1OBG Segment Splices?
20
9/21/2009
11
Possible Path Forwardto be Agreed Upon JointlyRemove, repair, and re-weld Lift 1 segment splices
Change fabrication process by implementing recommended fabrication improvements
Jointly agree on UT procedure w/ ABFgoing forward with Lift 2 and future segments
What do we do with Lifts 3 and 4?• Option 1: Recommend ABF assure the Department that Lifts 3 - 4
do not have similar defects
21
do not have similar defects• Option 2: Pick a representative portion and re-examine by agreed
upon acceptance criteria• Option 3: Do nothing
From an engineering perspective, Team China recommends Option 2
Sequence of Events
22
9/21/2009
12
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
Sequence of Events
23
Meeting with ABF – August 19, 2009
Discussion of transverse defects
CT inquired about Lift 1 Segment Splice incident
McQuaid suggested ABF/CT corroborate on approach to identify potential defectsPerpendicular DeviationAlternate scanning patternsGrinding weld surfaces flush / Scanning Pattern D
24
9/21/2009
13
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
Investigation
25
August 25 Joint Investigation of Lift 1 Transverse Splices
• ABF and CT identified transverse indications at transverse segment splices using a 70 ° transducer
• ABF performed a “more detailed evaluation of the discontinuity” with a 45 and 60 degree transducer
• Verbal agreement made by ABF and CT to excavate areas of concern
• ZPMC removed areas of concern without notification / or presence by ABF or CT
26
9/21/2009
14
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
Investigation
Incident Report #754
27
UT indications later identified as Cracks by grinding
• QC discovered rejectable UT indication
• During repair of Class A defect, two additional UT indications were found to be cracks
• After QC acceptance of backgouged area, QA performed a routine MT inspection the backgouge
28
9/21/2009
15
UT indications later identified as Cracks
• QC discovered rejectable UT indication
• After QC acceptance of backgouged area, QA performed a routine MT inspection of backgouged
• Two transverse cracks were visually discovered after QC acceptance
• Cracks were identified by UT but not
29
• Cracks were identified by UT but not rejectable per the code
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
30
ZPMC requests “Green Tag” inspection of OBG Lift 1E Segment Splices on 9/7/09
No. 004185
9/21/2009
16
“Caltrans Quality Assurance Inspector (QA) disco ered nineteen (19) class “A” rejectable
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
discovered nineteen (19) class “A” rejectable Transverse Linear Indications…”Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
31
No. 004185
70 °
14 db more than required to be rejectable per the code
32
9/21/2009
17
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
“The indications exhibited planar characteristics with significant flaw height dimension as the search unit was moved toward and away from the indications and were not detectable during scanning patterns parallel to the weld axis.”
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
33
No. 004185
34
• For indications that remain on the display as the search unit is moved, see 6.26.3.2
9/21/2009
18
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
35
(3) When indications that exhibit these planar characteristics are present… a more detailed evaluation of the discontinuity by other means may be required …
No. 004185
Additional transverse indications have also been detected in the welds that do not exceed the threshold of the code for rejection, but are characteristic of crack indications nonetheless.
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
The Department would like to collaborate with ABF to jointly examine and confirm that these welds do not contain cracks.
“Please provide grinders to excavate portions of the welds … as directed by the Engineer”
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
36
No. 004185
Team China Letter #28
9/21/2009
19
Additional Events
37
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
CT inspectors identify portions of the weld for the Contractor to excavate and grind.
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
38
No. 004185
Team China Letter #28
Incident Report
9/21/2009
20
September 15, 2009• After CT Inspectors identified portions of the
weld, ZPMC personnel began gouging out the area from underneath the weld.
• CT Inspectors observe linear defects in the
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
• CT Inspectors observe linear defects in the gouged area
• Department’s technical staff believe defects in pictures are cracks and not “fusion type defects” suggested by ABF
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
39
Crack. A fracture type discontinuity characterized by a sharp tip and high ratio of length and width to opening displacement. See Figure 33.
No. 004185
Team China Letter #28
Incident Report
Meeting with ABF, August 19, 2009
ABF / CT Joint
Sequence of Events
Investigation
Inspection Request No 004185
Incident Report #754
40
No. 004185
Team China Letter #28
Incident Report
6.26.1.1 The weld shall have no cracks.
9/21/2009
21
Two Issues• How do we move forward with the cracks in
the Lift 1OBG Segment Splices?• How do we jointly address the cause that
got us here?
41
Talking Points1. Lift 1 segment splices require a more detailed examination2. Team China believes there are cracks in the Lift 1 Segment splices3. The current QC/QA inspection process is not adequate to find such
cracks4 There are cracks in other fabrication work; however the current4. There are cracks in other fabrication work; however, the current
QC/QA inspection process is finding these cracks5. The Department should not re-inspect material that has been “green-
tagged” 6. If concerns are identified with “green-tagged” material, they should
be communicated to ABF and only the “repaired areas” verified by CT QA
7 The Contractor’s QC inspection process is not identifying all of the
42
7. The Contractor s QC inspection process is not identifying all of the current issues
8. The labor subcontractors are not uniformly implementing recommended fabrication improvements
9. If recommended fabrication improvements are not implemented by each labor subcontractor, then Team China recommends a temporary suspension of those operations
9/21/2009
22
Technical Material
• 45 Degree Transducer infoDeviation from perpendicular diagramMagnitude of UT readings in Seg SpliceScanning Patterns
• Commentary2008 Commentary
• Team China Letter #20
43
Sound Path and Defect Detection
44
9/21/2009
23
45 °As high as 12 db more than required to be rejectable per the most lenient criteria in the code
45
46
9/21/2009
24
AWS D1.5 2008 Section C6.26.3.2
Discontinuities that may lead to failure are reliably detected by the prescribed scanning procedures buy may not accurately be identified as rejectable.
When a defect is normal to the surface of the joint and completely surrounded by sound metal, there is a likelihood that it will be difficult to detect. Almost all of the sound may be reflected away with essentially non reflected back to the transducer.
47
If there are indications of flaw height, regardless of amplitude, a crack may be present and soundness should be verified by other wedge angles and locations or alternate inspection methods or tests.
Team China Letter #20
“increased incidence of cracks and relevant MT indications found by the Department’s QA METS inspectors on welds previously inspected and approved … by … QC”
• OBG: 63 Missed MT Indication since May 30, 2009• Tower: 22 Missed Indication by QC since April 15, 2009
4848
“Please investigate why these indications have gone undetected during the Magnetic Particle Inspection Procedure, and provide the Department of your findings.”