The first steel mill I worked for, the test requirements were more of a suggestion than a rigid specification. I, a trained and skilled engineer with the capacity to make informed decisions, had to run all rejections by my boss who would tell me “it’s close enough” even if it wasn’t. Sometimes it bit us in the ass with warranty failures, but the warranties were probably cheaper than internal rejections (and what is brand perception worth?).
My second steel mill job, I was the one making the rejection decisions. I did the hard thing and rejected our failures but I also troubleshot them to prevent recurrence, making our product and capability better over time.
It very much matters who you buy your steel from; two mills can have vastly different performance for the same products based on how they handle these situations.
A lot of companies seems to do that a lot, cut corners on the quality a little bit, push out the extra reserve capacity, etc. Then when a complaint occurs y’all quality engineers get the short end of the stick. What doesn’t cost the company costs us more time, effort, mental and physical health.
I’m curious: is this a major lawsuit waiting to happen, or is the mill somehow protected from that?
I’m picturing a situation where bad steel is provided, used by the purchaser, and later the product they put the steel in fails, causing a serious accident, death, or other severe issue. does the mill’s responsibility somehow end at warranty replacement or have they created a bigger liability for themselves?
Elaine thomas did this, lied to her bosses, and the industry. People even considered her an expert. Reading the usdoj interviews with her, she may have just been arrogant, and kinda dumb.
During the November 19, 2019 interview, THOMAS criticized the -100F Charpy V-notch test. THOMAS said -100 F was a “stupid number” to test because
nothing operated at -100 F in the water. She also admitted, however, she did not know
the Navy’s reasoning for testing at this temperature. THOMAS acknowledged that
someone at Bradken had been changing failing -100F Charpy V-notch testing results to
passing. THOMAS also admitted that she could have been the one to raise the numbers because she believed the -100F Charpy V-notch testing was "a stupid stupid requirement.
When asked why she raised the yield strength numbers for the 1990 heat, THOMAS stated, “It looks like I raised the numbers to make it pass. This was not the right thing.” THOMAS said occasionally she would consider rounding up -100F Charpy V-notch results if the numbers were “super duper” close to passing.>
The first steel mill I worked for, the test requirements were more of a suggestion than a rigid specification. I, a trained and skilled engineer with the capacity to make informed decisions, had to run all rejections by my boss who would tell me “it’s close enough” even if it wasn’t. Sometimes it bit us in the ass with warranty failures, but the warranties were probably cheaper than internal rejections (and what is brand perception worth?).
My second steel mill job, I was the one making the rejection decisions. I did the hard thing and rejected our failures but I also troubleshot them to prevent recurrence, making our product and capability better over time.
It very much matters who you buy your steel from; two mills can have vastly different performance for the same products based on how they handle these situations.
A lot of companies seems to do that a lot, cut corners on the quality a little bit, push out the extra reserve capacity, etc. Then when a complaint occurs y’all quality engineers get the short end of the stick. What doesn’t cost the company costs us more time, effort, mental and physical health.
I’m curious: is this a major lawsuit waiting to happen, or is the mill somehow protected from that?
I’m picturing a situation where bad steel is provided, used by the purchaser, and later the product they put the steel in fails, causing a serious accident, death, or other severe issue. does the mill’s responsibility somehow end at warranty replacement or have they created a bigger liability for themselves?
This is indeed illegal and immoral. Example.
Elaine thomas did this, lied to her bosses, and the industry. People even considered her an expert. Reading the usdoj interviews with her, she may have just been arrogant, and kinda dumb.
Section 54 of the complaint against Elaine Thomas