Weld Symbol Simplification

[KeithJC]

Hi All,

Regarding simplification of weld symbols on drawings I was wondering about a survey of industry standards and best practices for a couple of cases:

1. In the case of an all around weld that spans weld types but with no special preparation is it normal/acceptable to group the callout into one symbol type and list it as all around?

Eg: A 2" square piece of HSS butts into the center of another 2" square piece of HSS; technically this is flare bevel on two sides and fillet on two sides; is it normally acceptable to call out one or the other and list it all around (where in the all around it is generally understood to apply the default type)? or is it more appropriate to specifically call out each weld appropriately.
Another example of this would be a mitered corner where the technical definition of the weld changes as it goes around the corner.​

2. Is it normal for non-critical applications to apply the weld symbol and no default size (where default size is assumed by geometry)? In the strict sense the engineer responsible should be detailing the weld size explicitly but is there a provision (I have not yet read the standards fully) in the welding standard for a default weld size that would allow the extra information to be removed from the drawing and un-clutter it?

Thanks,

 

[gtaw]

The welding standard may have a default, but it would depend on the code. As a minimum, the designer should at least include "CJP" in the tail of the welding symbol if complete joint penetration is required. If a partial joint penetration weld of a certain size is required, include the joint penetration, i.e., weld size, enclosed by "( )" with the notation "PJP" in the tail of the welding symbol.

As for fillet welds, if no size is specified, AWS D1.1 says the fillet weld shall develop the full strength in both shear and tension as the adjacent members.

Best regards - Al

 

[KeithJC]

Thanks Al, that clears it up quite a bit; As I understand your answer unless I have specific reason for needing a weak weld (save time/cost heat) or a CJP weld it would be common practices to just use the symbol with no size and allow D1.1 to dictate the size of weld from the min and max tables (for which it is assumed the welders are heavily acquainted and so can easily and reasonably be left off the drawing).

For a weld that changes around the profile and requires no special preparation then is common and acceptable practice to just identify it with one of the weld symbols involved and use the "all around" indicator to indicate it and then allow the situation geometry and D1.1 to dictate the weld style and size?