It is allowable to weld a groove with a reinforcing fillet over it in T and corner joints like this. The symbol is wrong - It should show the bevel symbol as a PJP weld would, and then the fillet moves away from the reference line and looks kind of like a flag on bottom of the weld symbol...
Backgouging is removing the (polluted) root of a weld from the opposite side of the joint until you expose sound metal from the first weld. The purpose of removing the polluted metal is to prepare for a back weld from the 2nd side of the joint to finish a CJP weld. So if they are showing a...
If your application is structural, you'll want to work out of AWS D1.6.
If your material is true sheet (< ~1/4") and not structural (architectural, HVAC, etc) you might try AWS D1.9 which is base-metal agnostic and covers all kinds of welds.
@WeldTx, I don't know a dollar figure, but I can tell you the people really doing well for themselves are working on shutdowns out in the desert. A lot of them work a shutdown and then don't work for the rest of the year.
BU-2 requires a back weld or backing weld with backgouging. The only way to do the joint without qualifying it is to weld from one side - (either the main face, or what you call the seal weld,) remove the root of that weld (you can use carbon arc or grinding) and then welding the opposite side...
Nutte, no prequalified welds have a weld size greater than the depth of preparation, but you could qualify a procedure that did provided you can prove the veld size with the macroetch.
Lion06, As per D1.1 2.2.5.3 either way is acceptable. At a minimum, the contract documents are required to show PJP or CJP. Anything further is up to you to specify or leave up to the contractor, including weld size (code minimums will apply if you don't specify) and groove type.
KootK, AWS renamed 'effective throat' as 'weld size.' I have no idea if CWB did the same. As far as I know, only the name changed, not the concept.
As for assuming the worst, it might be better to specify the weld size you require, and make it the contractor's problem to use an appropriate...
Assuming you're governed by US codes:
Flare bevel and flare vee welds are PJP welds. If you look in AISC 360 table J2.2, they show the effective weld sized for flare bevel and flare vee welds as a function of process, position, and radius. This information is also in AWS D1.1 Table 2.1...
That you're looking for is called a flare vee weld. The symbol looks like a flare bevel, except instead of a straight line on the left side, there's a mirror image of the flare shape from the right.
The OP said that this question is specifically for D1.3 on 11 ga material. I think the question still stands that according to fig 2.6, the visible face of the plug weld should be larger than the hole size. 2.2.6 also says that the weld should be specified (via symbol) by the effective diameter...
Gtaw, agreed. Alternately, the contractor may use processes that are prequalified, namely GMAW with a transfer mode other than short circuit (spray, or I suppose globular) or FCAW.
Sammy19, I think note 'a' is simply reinforcing the previously stated rule. In the 2008 edition, it is listed for every prequalified GMAW joint. This doesn't mean that the joint designations without note 'a' have prequalified status with GMAW-S or GTAW, since they already specify the process as...
bb29510 Understood, but the book and the digital download both cost the same amount, and the book actually costs them money to produce. Besides, I've got a bandsaw, so if I really wanted to copy it, a binding wouldn't stop me. It totally makes sense that it has to be a legal/authorized copy I...
