CE Marking / BS EN 1090

[matt1978]

Kent, your entitled to your opinion and I agree with much of what you of said, but I set this thread up originally to be an exchange of information because there are a lot of companies that have already gone through or are currently going through EN 1090 accreditation.

I am sure it wasn't meant in this way but a lot of your posts on this thread have been a little "shooting the messenger", Dimitri gains nothing at all from anyone within the UK becoming EN 1090 accredited or not, as far as I can see, he has a lot of knowledge on the subject and various norms associated with it and has been happy to share that knowledge.

Perhaps it would be best to start another thread if you want to discuss the merits (or not as the case maybe) of being within the EU and CE marking etc as I am sure there would be a lot of interesting debate on the subject, but I don't think its constructive to merge the two standpoints on this thread.

 

[Derry93]

Thank you D. I've had my head my stuck in 1090 for the last 6 months and I'm not sure I'm any the wiser!!! I would have thought a per project basis was the sensible interpretation of Table 24. Asking us to carry out NDT on a monthly basis would not be cost or time effective for our business. Would I be correct in interpreting table 24 as the following:
Exe 2 class - Fillet welds. Throat thickness of more than 12mm or material joined to greater than 20mm we would need to implement NDT to 5% ?

I think the auditor is trying to make things difficult for us. We have our ISO 9001, so we only required a stage 2 audit, our quotation was even stated this. However once we got our audit plan through, it was clear he would have liked a two day audit. We argued we didn't require this and their quotation from NB stated we didn't need it, however, we were still billed for 1.5 days audit (.5 day for off site report writing). Another NC we got was "Company has not yet formalised paint sprayer level of competence / technical assessment by Jotun" Now our paint sprayer has been spraying for years and we are more than happy with his competence and he is listed on the competence matrix as paint spraying. We check DFT was paint gauge and we have no issues whatsoever. But we got a NC because we didn't have him technically assessed by Jotun....

 

[Kent]

Dimitri, I am so sorry to be a pain. I am sure by this stage you have worked out I'm female and don't have a lot of welding knowledge, I've been threw into sorting this out. We only do fillet welds (normally 6mm) and the material welded would not be anymore than 20mm/25mm thick. I had thought looking at the standard we really wouldn't require a lot of NDT throughout the year, however the auditor has said on his report that we are implement a minimum monthly NDT schedule to be reviewed on his next audit visit. Could you (or anyone else) explain simply the requirements for NDT in simple terms?

Being a Female means nothing about your competency (the best Engineer in the world is quite likely of the same gender), not having a lot of welding knowledge as you state means you will also fit right in with many who are auditing and administering this and all those who voted for it.

 

[Kent]

Kent, your entitled to your opinion and I agree with much of what you of said, but I set this thread up originally to be an exchange of information because there are a lot of companies that have already gone through or are currently going through EN 1090 accreditation.

I am sure it wasn't meant in this way but a lot of your posts on this thread have been a little "shooting the messenger", Dimitri gains nothing at all from anyone within the UK becoming EN 1090 accredited or not, as far as I can see, he has a lot of knowledge on the subject and various norms associated with it and has been happy to share that knowledge.

Perhaps it would be best to start another thread if you want to discuss the merits (or not as the case maybe) of being within the EU and CE marking etc as I am sure there would be a lot of interesting debate on the subject, but I don't think its constructive to merge the two standpoints on this thread.

I do see that point and I don't wish to knock Dimitri personally. In fact he constantly questions why some things are being done by other consultants. Like many other I hoped for some clarity when I started reading this and the links etc. but it does seem day by day the waters are being muddied further. I hope only that I can add some common sense and perhaps a little humour?

Its seems as others are liking a lot of what I have said here others feel likewise? But I stand to be corrected by the forum members if I am wrong

I mean we have nearly come to 500 posts now and still we have questions from those who are writing the cheques and filling in the papers etc. Is it only me that sees the story that tells? Its all as clear as starbucks coffee at present

Heck we even have someone stressed enough to loose sleep over it

 

[matt1978]

Would be good if you did start another thread around this debate. I'd be interested to learn exactly what would happen if UKIP did win and we came out of Europe almost immediately.

Where would it leave firms relating to EN 1090 and in a wider sense CE marking in general. Would we refer back to the old Kite mark? Have our BS a standards been kept updated since they were succeeded by EN's?

 

[Hitch]

A good point you've bought up here Matt.

Hows about we try and get this one back on track a bit from here on please.

 

[Derry93]

Show them your method of working, on a "per project" basis, and if they won't accept it, ask them to show you were it is required on a timely schedule. They cannot ask for more stringent requirements than what's in the standards. make sure to point that out to them.

And don't ever apologize for being female, all of us guys wouldn't be worth squat if it weren't for you girls ;-)[/QUOTE]

Great advice - thank you

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

You're welcome :-)

Would I be correct in interpreting table 24 as the following:
Exe 2 class - Fillet welds. Throat thickness of more than 12mm or material joined to greater than 20mm we would need to implement NDT to 5% ?

Correct, you need to NDT 5% of those weldments (with a minimum of 900mm).
This is typically done per project. otherwise, it's hard to choose (and document) 5% out of different projects. this would require a different log of NDT, I mean a log that does not directly correlate to your projects. The way I suggest, is to make a complete file per project, this means having all material certificates (or copies) per project in one file, together with the checklist I mentioned, wps'ses used, ... and also a log of the NDT.
Filing NDT monthly requires a different set-up, and I wonder how you'll be able to find afterwards which welds of a specific project you NDT'd.

Another NC we got was "Company has not yet formalised paint sprayer level of competence / technical assessment by Jotun"Now our paint sprayer has been spraying for years and we are more than happy with his competence and he is listed on the competence matrix as paint spraying. We check DFT was paint gauge and we have no issues whatsoever. But we got a NC because we didn't have him technically assessed by Jotun....

If your paint sprayer works conform the requirements that are in part 2 of the 1090, then there is no reason to write a NC. I'm not too familiar with painting, so I'd say: check thoroughly what the requirements in the 1090-2 are (see also Annex F and EN ISO 12944-7), and if you fulfill those (can you measure coating thickness and such, dunno if this is required?) you're good. There is NO NEED whatsoever to have any qualification or assessment, as long as you can document that you work according the requirements.

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

Kent, your entitled to your opinion and I agree with much of what you of said, but I set this thread up originally to be an exchange of information because there are a lot of companies that have already gone through or are currently going through EN 1090 accreditation.

I am sure it wasn't meant in this way but a lot of your posts on this thread have been a little "shooting the messenger", Dimitri gains nothing at all from anyone within the UK becoming EN 1090 accredited or not, as far as I can see, he has a lot of knowledge on the subject and various norms associated with it and has been happy to share that knowledge.

Perhaps it would be best to start another thread if you want to discuss the merits (or not as the case maybe) of being within the EU and CE marking etc as I am sure there would be a lot of interesting debate on the subject, but I don't think its constructive to merge the two standpoints on this thread.

Matt, I fully understand Kent's point of view, and I can take his replies as well, I've got thicker skin than that to be bothered by this. I do appreciate however your suggestion of taking the discussion about the EN1090 merits (or not, as you said) to a new thread, as this is getting rather annoying, and does not contribute to this thread.
And I'd be happy to do a bit of 1090 bashing in that thread, as I'm one of the few who actually thoroughly read all parts of the whole damn thing. I can point out several mistakes in that standard, places where it contradicts itself or tech stuff that doesn't make sense. But I'm afraid that, with doing so, nobody actually gains a thing. So I won't. My job is, apart from the tech side of things, "translating" this standard into workable guidance documents (the "FPC handbook") that both SME and large firms can use, correct according this standard but without needless requirements like I've encountered millions of times. And I'm happy to share that knowledge, indeed, as that's something I enjoy doing.

 

[Kent]

Matt, I fully understand Kent's point of view, and I can take his replies as well, I've got thicker skin than that to be bothered by this. I do appreciate however your suggestion of taking the discussion about the EN1090 merits (or not, as you said) to a new thread, as this is getting rather annoying, and does not contribute to this thread.
And I'd be happy to do a bit of 1090 bashing in that thread, as I'm one of the few who actually thoroughly read all parts of the whole damn thing. I can point out several mistakes in that standard, places where it contradicts itself or tech stuff that doesn't make sense. But I'm afraid that, with doing so, nobody actually gains a thing. So I won't. My job is, apart from the tech side of things, "translating" this standard into workable guidance documents (the "FPC handbook") that both SME and large firms can use, correct according this standard but without needless requirements like I've encountered millions of times. And I'm happy to share that knowledge, indeed, as that's something I enjoy doing.

You know what this is so far down the line that I think a "sticky" guide with a very simple step by step might be much appreciated by may. Be honest now try and read though it all 469 posts! it only creates more confusion

 

[Kent]

Would be good if you did start another thread around this debate. I'd be interested to learn exactly what would happen if UKIP did win and we came out of Europe almost immediately.

Where would it leave firms relating to EN 1090 and in a wider sense CE marking in general. Would we refer back to the old Kite mark? Have our BS a standards been kept updated since they were succeeded by EN's?

I think we might have to re-instate. whatever your politics its becoming plain through the rest of Europe that this will end its just a case of when and which nations come out of it best and first. Thank goodness we buy far more than we sell within Europe. EN1090 and the contradictions and errors Dimitri speaks of above are just part of the whole "rule makers gone mad" that has spoilt what was once just a "common market"

 

[GRUMPY1950]

Quick question do you think cattle grids would have to conform to EN 1090 standards

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

You know what this is so far down the line that I think a "sticky" guide with a very simple step by step might be much appreciated by may. Be honest now try and read though it all 469 posts! it only creates more confusion

It's a bit more complicated than following a simple step by step guide.
That's why consultants for this exist. And what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another. Case by case, you see... Different workplaces, different methods, and all of them can be correct even while they differ.
For what it's worth, I suggest reading part 2 thoroughly, and start from there. A lot of the questions here, can literally be found there. It's a problem that the EN1090 references a lot of other standards, and you should buy them each in order to fully understand all requirements. But most of the times, you only need one table, one parameter or one line of text from that standard, you'd have to be a fool to throw money at those other standards when there's actually only a few you really need. Like the 5817.
So, I don't have the time to write a step by step guide that covers all situations, but I'm happy to answer any questions that might pop up.

And no, cattle grids aren't structural so they don't fall under the EN1090, see the 1st paragraph (Scope) of EN1090-1

 

[short circuit]

how does bs1090 and bs3834 relate to each other please

 

[GRUMPY1950]

Thanks for your reply but with there being a pit underneath them and the structure forming effectively a bridge spanning that pit, and vehicles and personal crossing that structure, I question your opinion.

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

The definition of construction products is very clear: either buildings or civil works. I really doubt anyone would consider cattle grid as a bridge. It certainly isn't covered in the eurocode EN1993-2 ( steel bridges).

As for the 1090 and 3834, there is a one-way link: in order to get your 1090 certification, you need to fulfill the relevant 3834 part. Not the other way.

 

[short circuit]

so what does all that mean in layman terms without sounding rude. as im stuggle to get my head around all this CE accreditation

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

If you make blacksmith items, garden decorations in steel or stainless steel, fencing that does not fall under "structural products" (like to separate one garden from another), ... , you can carry on without problems.
If you make (or alter, like sawcutting, ...) structural products however, you should get certified according to EN1090. If you start from the beginning, look for the CPR (305/2011) on the internet, it's a free pdf, and buy the EN1090-2, and read both of those documents. I'd say 90% of what you need to know, can be found in those two documents. The 3834 are issues for waaaay later on your way.

 

[Kent]

When the steel waggon or Travis Perkins truck delivers over my cattle grids I should call them structural for sure, this fact surprises me Dimitri but of course you cant make cattle grids for the cost they can be imported from China for now and repairs (which are very common in rural areas and are not covered being not fabricated items brought to site?) you see I have been listening even if it is confusing

 

[Dimitri De Spiegeleer]

You see, we do agree after all. Noone will deny that they don't serve a structural purpose. In fact, I think the weldments on such structures are more important than on much "structural" steelwork. But these aren't listed in the scope of the EN1090. Neither is offshore work, railroad rolling equipment nor aviation. It's not because it is not covered by the 1090, that sloppy work is allowed... On the contrary (a lot of my work is outside the 1090, for instance)