On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance?
Is a non‐conformity in the weld seam of a bridge a reason to refuse acceptance or even a safety risk? Behind this lies the controversially discussed question of whether non‐conformities to the technical design standards, e.g. the evaluation groups according to DIN EN ISO 5817, constitute “acceptance...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | ce/papers 2023-09, Vol.6 (3-4), p.1545-1549 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1549 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3-4 |
container_start_page | 1545 |
container_title | ce/papers |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Volz, Michael Spannaus, Max Nagel, Sven |
description | Is a non‐conformity in the weld seam of a bridge a reason to refuse acceptance or even a safety risk? Behind this lies the controversially discussed question of whether non‐conformities to the technical design standards, e.g. the evaluation groups according to DIN EN ISO 5817, constitute “acceptance criteria” or “quality guidelines” for steel construction. Often the economic success of a project depends on the answer to this question. Nevertheless, there is currently no uniform procedure on how to deal with deviations and which methods are permitted in addition to reworking or rejecting components to prove usability. This regulatory gap is unsatisfactory for all project participants and the subject of many legal disputes. Particularly due to the simplified applicability and the increasing sensitivity of non‐destructive testing methods and the associated partly detective checks of steel structures, irregularities are detected that no longer reflect the original quality‐assuring idea of non‐destructive testing. The actual component function thereby recedes into the background and the question arises as to whether one can or even must demand zero‐defect tolerance from steel construction as a craft. In our article we go into the background of these questions and give recommendations for action based on our project experience, which should help to carry out even large and complex projects to everyone's satisfaction. Using individual examples, we show the connection between design rules and execution standards and explain the possibilities in the evaluation of detected non‐conformities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cepa.2739 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_cepa_2739</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>CEPA2739</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1099-97d59f3d51620477737e60145ad99198aceb241c633ecfe565c34ffc64bd2da73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAUhS0EElXpwBt4ZUjxTxLXE6qqApUqlQHmyL25VoMSu7JdlTLxCDwjT0JDGVhY7rnDd87wEXLN2ZgzJm4Bt2YslNRnZCAKpjPFVHH-578koxhfGWNScD4RYkC6laNpg9TEiDF26BL1ljrvvj4-wTvrQ9ekBuOYLiLFN4RdarzrmZgQ2-MNO0i7gJEaCsHYRPdN2tB3DJ7WaBESTb7FYBzg3RW5sKaNOPrNIXm5nz_PHrPl6mExmy4z4EzrTKu60FbWBS8Fy5VSUmHJeF6YWmuuJwZwLXIOpZQIFouyAJlbC2W-rkVtlBySm9MuBB9jQFttQ9OZcKg4q3pVVa-q6lUd2dsTu29aPPwPVrP50_Sn8Q2iUW1-</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance?</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Volz, Michael ; Spannaus, Max ; Nagel, Sven</creator><creatorcontrib>Volz, Michael ; Spannaus, Max ; Nagel, Sven</creatorcontrib><description>Is a non‐conformity in the weld seam of a bridge a reason to refuse acceptance or even a safety risk? Behind this lies the controversially discussed question of whether non‐conformities to the technical design standards, e.g. the evaluation groups according to DIN EN ISO 5817, constitute “acceptance criteria” or “quality guidelines” for steel construction. Often the economic success of a project depends on the answer to this question. Nevertheless, there is currently no uniform procedure on how to deal with deviations and which methods are permitted in addition to reworking or rejecting components to prove usability. This regulatory gap is unsatisfactory for all project participants and the subject of many legal disputes. Particularly due to the simplified applicability and the increasing sensitivity of non‐destructive testing methods and the associated partly detective checks of steel structures, irregularities are detected that no longer reflect the original quality‐assuring idea of non‐destructive testing. The actual component function thereby recedes into the background and the question arises as to whether one can or even must demand zero‐defect tolerance from steel construction as a craft. In our article we go into the background of these questions and give recommendations for action based on our project experience, which should help to carry out even large and complex projects to everyone's satisfaction. Using individual examples, we show the connection between design rules and execution standards and explain the possibilities in the evaluation of detected non‐conformities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2509-7075</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2509-7075</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/cepa.2739</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>acceptance criteria ; inspection ; non‐conformity ; Steel structures ; welding</subject><ispartof>ce/papers, 2023-09, Vol.6 (3-4), p.1545-1549</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors. Published by Ernst & Sohn GmbH.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1099-97d59f3d51620477737e60145ad99198aceb241c633ecfe565c34ffc64bd2da73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fcepa.2739$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fcepa.2739$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Volz, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spannaus, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagel, Sven</creatorcontrib><title>On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance?</title><title>ce/papers</title><description>Is a non‐conformity in the weld seam of a bridge a reason to refuse acceptance or even a safety risk? Behind this lies the controversially discussed question of whether non‐conformities to the technical design standards, e.g. the evaluation groups according to DIN EN ISO 5817, constitute “acceptance criteria” or “quality guidelines” for steel construction. Often the economic success of a project depends on the answer to this question. Nevertheless, there is currently no uniform procedure on how to deal with deviations and which methods are permitted in addition to reworking or rejecting components to prove usability. This regulatory gap is unsatisfactory for all project participants and the subject of many legal disputes. Particularly due to the simplified applicability and the increasing sensitivity of non‐destructive testing methods and the associated partly detective checks of steel structures, irregularities are detected that no longer reflect the original quality‐assuring idea of non‐destructive testing. The actual component function thereby recedes into the background and the question arises as to whether one can or even must demand zero‐defect tolerance from steel construction as a craft. In our article we go into the background of these questions and give recommendations for action based on our project experience, which should help to carry out even large and complex projects to everyone's satisfaction. Using individual examples, we show the connection between design rules and execution standards and explain the possibilities in the evaluation of detected non‐conformities.</description><subject>acceptance criteria</subject><subject>inspection</subject><subject>non‐conformity</subject><subject>Steel structures</subject><subject>welding</subject><issn>2509-7075</issn><issn>2509-7075</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAUhS0EElXpwBt4ZUjxTxLXE6qqApUqlQHmyL25VoMSu7JdlTLxCDwjT0JDGVhY7rnDd87wEXLN2ZgzJm4Bt2YslNRnZCAKpjPFVHH-578koxhfGWNScD4RYkC6laNpg9TEiDF26BL1ljrvvj4-wTvrQ9ekBuOYLiLFN4RdarzrmZgQ2-MNO0i7gJEaCsHYRPdN2tB3DJ7WaBESTb7FYBzg3RW5sKaNOPrNIXm5nz_PHrPl6mExmy4z4EzrTKu60FbWBS8Fy5VSUmHJeF6YWmuuJwZwLXIOpZQIFouyAJlbC2W-rkVtlBySm9MuBB9jQFttQ9OZcKg4q3pVVa-q6lUd2dsTu29aPPwPVrP50_Sn8Q2iUW1-</recordid><startdate>202309</startdate><enddate>202309</enddate><creator>Volz, Michael</creator><creator>Spannaus, Max</creator><creator>Nagel, Sven</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202309</creationdate><title>On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance?</title><author>Volz, Michael ; Spannaus, Max ; Nagel, Sven</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1099-97d59f3d51620477737e60145ad99198aceb241c633ecfe565c34ffc64bd2da73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>acceptance criteria</topic><topic>inspection</topic><topic>non‐conformity</topic><topic>Steel structures</topic><topic>welding</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Volz, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spannaus, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagel, Sven</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ce/papers</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Volz, Michael</au><au>Spannaus, Max</au><au>Nagel, Sven</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance?</atitle><jtitle>ce/papers</jtitle><date>2023-09</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>3-4</issue><spage>1545</spage><epage>1549</epage><pages>1545-1549</pages><issn>2509-7075</issn><eissn>2509-7075</eissn><abstract>Is a non‐conformity in the weld seam of a bridge a reason to refuse acceptance or even a safety risk? Behind this lies the controversially discussed question of whether non‐conformities to the technical design standards, e.g. the evaluation groups according to DIN EN ISO 5817, constitute “acceptance criteria” or “quality guidelines” for steel construction. Often the economic success of a project depends on the answer to this question. Nevertheless, there is currently no uniform procedure on how to deal with deviations and which methods are permitted in addition to reworking or rejecting components to prove usability. This regulatory gap is unsatisfactory for all project participants and the subject of many legal disputes. Particularly due to the simplified applicability and the increasing sensitivity of non‐destructive testing methods and the associated partly detective checks of steel structures, irregularities are detected that no longer reflect the original quality‐assuring idea of non‐destructive testing. The actual component function thereby recedes into the background and the question arises as to whether one can or even must demand zero‐defect tolerance from steel construction as a craft. In our article we go into the background of these questions and give recommendations for action based on our project experience, which should help to carry out even large and complex projects to everyone's satisfaction. Using individual examples, we show the connection between design rules and execution standards and explain the possibilities in the evaluation of detected non‐conformities.</abstract><doi>10.1002/cepa.2739</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2509-7075 |
ispartof | ce/papers, 2023-09, Vol.6 (3-4), p.1545-1549 |
issn | 2509-7075 2509-7075 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1002_cepa_2739 |
source | Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | acceptance criteria inspection non‐conformity Steel structures welding |
title | On the assessment of non‐conformities. Is execution of steel structures a craft with zero defect tolerance? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T00%3A48%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20assessment%20of%20non%E2%80%90conformities.%20Is%20execution%20of%20steel%20structures%20a%20craft%20with%20zero%20defect%20tolerance?&rft.jtitle=ce/papers&rft.au=Volz,%20Michael&rft.date=2023-09&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=1545&rft.epage=1549&rft.pages=1545-1549&rft.issn=2509-7075&rft.eissn=2509-7075&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/cepa.2739&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3ECEPA2739%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |