How to call out weld symbol

[radiocontrolhead]

Hi All,

I'm having an issue calling out the welding procedure correctly. I have two beams intersecting and sitting on top of an embedded plate. I would like there to be weld between the embedded plate and the connection between the two surfaces of the bottom flanges of beams.

I imagine there to be a first pass to bring the embed plate to one of the surfaces of the beams, then a final weld to close up the entire gap (pull depth groove weld). It's the first weld I am unclear on.

Thank you

 

[skeletron]

Are the bottom elevations of the beams identical? Could a shim plate or backing bar be used to make up the difference instead of weld?

 

[CANPRO]

Not sure I follow the question. Sounds like you’re either wondering about the 1st pass on the groove weld, or how they might secure the beams in place during welding.

Assuming you’re the designer (and not the fabricator/contractor), I have this to say:

If you’re wondering about the 1st pass in the groove, then you don’t need to worry about that - specify the weld you require and the fabricators weld procedure will take care of the rest.

If you’re wondering about how they secure the beam to the embedded plate before starting the groove weld, then your involvement depends on the structure. If it’s a simple structure with static loads then I think you should just specify the weld and move on. If it’s a dynamically loaded structure with fatigue considerations then you’re slightly more involved. You may need to put some restrictions on the size and location of the tack welds depending on the governing code. In any case it’s not a bad idea to specify the tack welds be consumed by the final weld in order to remove any discontinuities created by tack.

 

[radiocontrolhead]

Skeletron,

I suppose it could be but I would want a weld along the embedded plate below.

Bottom elevations of the beams are identical. Same beam shape.

CANPRO,

I am the designer and I am wondering about how the beam is secured to emb plate. The structure is under simple static loading(building).

I was thinking along the same lines of just specifying the full depth groove weld which will inherently weld the embedded plate (acting as a backing plate) to the connection.

 

[dhengr]

Radiocontrolhead:
You might want to have the beam on the left bear a bit more on a larger embedded pl. Without knowing more of the dimensions, loads, etc. it is tough to know exactly what to say about that detail. Why is there no connection btwn. the two beam webs? You’re not assuming this is a particularly good moment connection, are you? You could a allow a 1/16th to 1/8” open land at the root of the groove. Thus, the first pass penetrates the base pl. and both flgs. You should provide a vert. cope in the beam web on the left, so you can physically access the groove around that web area, i.e. run the weld through. You probably don’t need that full groove which is expensive to prep. and fill, so an alternative might be to nibble a partial groove in the flg. on the rt. beam, and fill that PJP groove btwn. the two flgs. Now you don’t have to make the cope in the left beam web either.

 

[CANPRO]

So are you trying to get that weld to do double duty - transfer flange forces and also transmit loads to the embededded plate? If you don’t need to develop the full strength of the beam flange, I suggest switching to a partial penetration weld and not combining the embedded plate in the mix. Unless there are loads being transmitted to the embedded plate, you’re essentially using the embed as a backing bar - which wouldn’t be recommended if for no other reason than fit-up on site.

If you wanted that weld to transfer beam to beam loads and beam to embed loads, I suggest finding another route for one of those loads. The state of stress in the weld under this scenario would not be well defined.