Flare Bevel or Fillet

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 07-25-2008 17:10

Rey, I agree with the symbols on your sketch.

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-25-2008 17:57

The drawing illustrates the way I have looked at it but I am being pushed to show were it states this, I have looked in D1.1-2006 and A2.4-2007 and D14.3-2005 all standards our company uses but I have not found any place were it states specific condition were it changes. Maybe I have missed it I will keep looking I think everyone looks at the round tubing first and does not go past it even though it is large OD tubing.

Thanks for you reply
Rey

By eekpod

Date 07-25-2008 18:46

Don't forget to add weld sizes. I hate it when I get a flare bevel sign without a size, expecially if the radius is big, like yours is.
Otherwise it looks good to me.

I had a similer discussion with our detailers one time, and I asked them when a plate is installed on a pitch, when does it change from a fillet weld to partial pen bevel? To be honest they weren't entirely sure either. That's why I was questioning them, and why they picked a certain symbol on a drawing.

My thoughts on it are I "think" it may be tied in with the amount of gap your allowed in a filllet weld fit up. We all know D1.1 allows up to a 3/16" gap, but you must increase the size of the fillet weld by the size of the gap. But suppose the pitch of the plate results in a bigger than 3/16" gap, then you switch to a single bevel symbol. The pitch of the plate creates a natural root opening, that gets welded up resulting in a partial pen weld. Usually the other side gets a fillet weld.

Any thoughts? Chris

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-28-2008 14:53 Edited 07-28-2008 14:56

Good answer, I am the quality tech assigned to welding issues at our company it seems that are shop drawing are inconsistent and is causing confusion in what is acceptable welds by our welding personal so I was trying to find a section, note or detail in AWS codes.This is so I can answer the question from engineering department of (were does it say that?)

By Kix

Date 07-25-2008 18:50

I don't agree with the top weld symbol for the middle joint. It should still be a flare bevel because you are welding to a radiused piece. I agree with all the others though.

By eekpod

Date 07-25-2008 18:54

Well there you go, I guess the issue is how big of a radius does it take before it switches from a fillet to a flare bevel?

In this case I'd argue that a fillet weld is more applicable than a flare bevel, but if it were a 4" pipe, I would agree it's a flare bevel.

By Kix

Date 07-28-2008 13:00

Yeah, I guess this is one of those where the welder just takes the lead and gets the job done.;-)

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-28-2008 14:36

I am afraid so

By hogan

Date 07-25-2008 19:34

could it also be a skewed fillet?

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-28-2008 14:39

Possibly yes, Thanks

By 803056

Date 07-28-2008 18:53 Edited 07-28-2008 19:02

I would look at the problem as one in which you consider the dihedral angle between the plate and the surface of the object you are welding to.

If the dihedral angle is larger than 60 degrees, but less than 135, I would call it a fillet weld. Your situation is one in which the round component is very large when compared to the plate attachment and the weld required.

The flare bevel and the flare groove are a case where the size of the weld is limited because the "round" is small when compared to the attachment and there is a concern with the amount of weld and the amount of penetration that can be expected.

The "rules" listed in AWS for the flare bevel is 5/16 R is you are welding it with SMAW. In your case, that would be 5/16X7 or a little more than 2 inches. The weld size you are looking for is a fraction of that. It doesn't make sense in you case because the round is nearly tangent to the edge of the plate, i.e., there is no root opening and you are not looking to achieve joint penetration. If the flat plate attachment is 1/4 inch thick, the root opening would be on the order of 0.007 inch if the round is 14 inches in diameter. So, your analysis of that is correct.

The bottom sketch would be a fillet weld along the outside edge and a skewed weld on the inside where the dihedral angle is considerably less than 45 degrees. Once again, the rules for a flare bevel don't fit the situation, where as the rules for a skewed joint fit the situation better. I would hesitate to specify the "inner" weld a flare bevel.

That's just my opinion.

Best regards - Al

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-28-2008 19:53

Thanks

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-29-2008 03:52

I would also agree with Al's "opinion" with respect to the size of the dihedral angle!!!;) ;) ;)

Btw, How's it going there Al??? :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-29-2008 03:49 Edited 07-30-2008 11:09

I agree with you John except for the fact that none of the symbols have an arrow head attached to the end of each line (Leader?) that is connected or attached to the reference lines on any of the welding symbols, nor do they have any other pertinent info such as weld size, or any reference associated with any type of dimensions, or any other similar information unless all of that info will be located in the general notes which could be found as an attachment to these drawings so, everything is "copastetic" except for these minor observations. ;) :) :)

Hi Ray!
I respectfully disagree with you over the symbol you question, and I'll refer to AWS A3.0 2001, figures 8(H&I) on page 57, figure 9 on page 59 (F where the radius distance is less than the length of the planar surface representing the bottom plate in the illustration), figure 10 (C,E & F) on page 60, and figure26 (H) on page 88...

The standard definitions for a (A)"Flare-bevel-groove weld" is: "A weld in the groove formed between a joint member with a "CURVED' surface and another with a planar surface." "See figures 8(H), 9(F), 10(F), and 26(H)." None of these depict a radial distance or curved linear length that is longer or bigger than the adjacent planar surface, and that's my reasoning for respectfully disagreeing with your notable & keen observation.

Now here's where one can easily become confused or misinterpret the definitions because they at first look tend to contradict each other's definition of the "CURVED" surface, and only by observing the illustrations represented in the referenced figure does some of the ambiguity clear up somewhat, or even becomes less clear depending on one's own perspective... These figures which are referenced by the definitions also helped me understand why one can easily interpret the symbol you pointed out in question to be suspect as being the correct symbol to choose for that specific joint detail...

(B)"Flare-groove weld: A weld in the groove formed between a joint member with a curved surface and another with a planar surface, or between two joint members with curved surfaces. See figures 8(H), 8(I), 9(F), 9(G), 10(D), and 10(F). See also flare-bevel-groove weld and flare-V-groove weld."

(C)"Flare-V-groove weld: A weld in a groove formed by two members with curved surfaces. See figures 8(H), 9(G), and 10(D).

By reading the 3 different definitions above found on page 16, and observing all of the referenced figures found in AWS A3.0 2001, I've come to the conclusion that the only details that are noticeably missing are the arrowheads usually attached to the opposite end of the leader lines which are attached or connected to the reference lines in the welding symbols shown and as I stated before, certain dimensional and/or other pertinent info is not shown although might be found in the general notes, or are presumed as shop standard info for these specific type of joint details/data, and one would refer to a list or chart of some sort for the missing data. Interesting nonetheless!!!:) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-29-2008 04:04

Very Interesting to say the least!!!

I also agree with Hogan's observation, and Al's explanation of it possibly being a "Skewed" joint in which case as Hogan suggested, it would be a fillet weld...

If I were a betting man, I would also hesitate to call it a flare-bevel groove after reading Al's interpretation and on the other hand my initial post contradicts this one!!! Go Figure - Huh???

I believe that this example is a good one for the committee on welding symbols to clarify because of it's ambiguity. ;) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-29-2008 04:10

By 803056

Date 07-29-2008 15:46

Hello Henry;

How are you feeling these days. I hope you are doing well.

The "rules" for the flare bevel and flare V are listed in Table 2.1 of D1.1-2006. Similar table, different rules are listed in earlier editions.

Fillet weld requirements can be found in clause 2.2.4, skewed T-joints (notice they don't call the welds "fillet welds" in skewed T-joints) in clause 2.2.5.2(2) as well as 2.3.3.

I may have to back pedal on the dihedral angle between the members. D1.1-2006 has different rules for welds in skewed T-joints that is more restrictive than those of the older editions of D1.1. For instance, D1.1-1979 says "Fillet welds may be used in skewed T-joints having a dihedral angle of not less than 60 degrees nor more than 135 degrees." The most recent edition (no, not the 2009 edition) does not refer to the weld in a skewed T-joint as a "Fillet Weld" if the dihedral angle is less than 80 degrees or more than 100 degrees. That's because the 2006 edition of D1.1 clause 2.2.5.2(1) states that "For fillet welds between parts with surfaces meeting at an angle between 80 degrees and 100 degrees, shop drawing shall show the fillet leg size." Clause 2.2.5.2.(2) states "For welds between parts with surfaces meeting at an angle less than 80 degrees or greater than 100 degree, the shop drawing shall show the detailed arrangement of welds and required leg size to account for the effects of joint geometry and, where appropriate, the Z-loss reduction for the process to be used and the angle."

Using the verbiage of Annex B, D1.1-2006, the fillet weld is appropriate for members with a dihedral angle of 60 degrees to 135 degrees. Annex B addresses welds between 60 degrees and 135 degrees and refers to "Effective Throats of Fillet Welds in Skewed T-Joints". From that I would deduce the term fillet weld is appropriate for those cases where the dihedral angle is between 60 degrees and 135 degrees, back where I started.

My philosophy is that I don't interpret the code, so I let the "opponent" call the weld a fillet weld or what ever he/she chooses, as long as the Z-loss factor is taken into consideration. This does lead to the question: "When is the fillet weld symbol appropriate?" As long as the discussion is limited to D1.1, I would suggest that the fillet weld symbol, where the leg of the fillet weld is specified, is appropriate for dihedral angles between 60 degrees and 135 degrees. Beyond those limits, someone, hopefully the designer, will consider the Z-loss and include a sketch of the weld cross section. The basis of my position is that a fillet weld is required to have fusion to the root. A weld in a skewed T-joint (dihedral angle of less than 60 degrees) is expected to have incomplete fusion in the root, thus the Z-loss. Interesting, very interesting.

Let's keep in mind that there are other welding standards and codes beyond D1.1. They may (and often do) take a different stance on subjects addressed by D1.1.

This is similar to a problem I have to work on today. I want to weld two intersecting heavy wall pipes together using fillet welds. The engineer says fillet welds aren't prequalified for the application. I have to present my case to show that fillet welds are permitted because the pipes are not the same diameter and the smaller pipe passes through the pipe having the larger diameter. Now I have to show the dihedral angle limitations are not violated as I work my way around the pipes. Some of my details are very close to those described in the original inquiry.

Best regards - Al

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-29-2008 18:45

Wow

I am new at this whole code and inspection ballgame about 6 months, the reason I was asked to do this current job was because I had vocational training in SMAW and had GMAW experience early in my career and all I have to say is I have some learning to do. I appreciate all of the responses and everyone's time.

By swsweld (****)

Date 07-30-2008 01:25

In D1.5:2008 Skewed T-Joints Figure 2.3-Details for Fillet Welds

a Angles smaller that 60 degrees are allowed; however, in such cases, the weld is considered to be a PJP groove weld.

It is as Al stated for fillet welds on skewed T-joints, 135 degrees max and 60 degrees min.

By 803056

Date 07-30-2008 03:26

Not to be argumentative, but where does D1.1 call the weld in a skewed T-joint a partial penetration groove weld. I must have missed it.

To keep consistent, may I suggest we limit the discussion to D1.1. The water gets very muddy when you compare one code or standard to another.

Best regards - Al

By swsweld (****)

Date 07-30-2008 12:36

Al,

It is in D1.5 Fig. 2.3

I posted this in relation to your previous post stating, " Let's keep in mind there are other standards and codes beyond D1.1. They may (and often do) take a different stance on subjects addressed in D1.1.

Maybe I should have stated the intent of my post.

After working the last year on an underground pipe job I try to avoid muddy water when possible :)

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 07-30-2008 03:47

Al, is the "Z-loss" refering to the reduced strength of the parent material in the Z axis? I am not familiar with welding codes [other than FC-2002] and the terminology that goes with them.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 07-30-2008 10:48

Hi Dave,
Z loss in so many words......D1.1 has a table(Table 2.2) that shows the dimn to be used dependant upon the welding process and the angle of the joint, but this Table is used in conjunction with Figure 3.11 which shows detailed drawings/sketches of skewed T joints and dimenions the "Z" loss which is basically a portion at the very bottom of the root where there is a lack of penetration due to lack of access with the electrode.

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 07-31-2008 04:01

Thanks John.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-30-2008 04:17 Edited 07-30-2008 11:19

Thanks a bunch for the update Al! ;) :) :)

It's almost coincidental that many times when a question similar to this one seems to be very similar to many applications that either you or myself, or any one of us who frequent this forum run into in our daily work experiences.:) :) :)

Btw Al, to answer your question as to how I'm feeling these days... Well, all I can say is that I haven't felt this good health wise in quite a long time, and it's funny that you asked because, I recently had my annual Liver Transplant clinic appointment last week, and the Doctors were "flabbergasted" by how healthy my almost 11 years young liver transplanted in me is doing!!! :) :) :) I'm happier than a pig in manure these days from that visit, and the cancer is no longer detectable at ALL!!! ;) ;) ;)

The only downside to the visit is that my PCP (Primary Care Physician) informed them that I'm losing bone density as a result of the anti rejection drug I must take twice on a daily basis which also temporarily was the cause for my victorious battle with the post-operative lymphatic disorder which was also caused by the amount of anti-rejection drugs I was on during the early years of recovering from liver transplant surgery... This is otherwise known as a form of cancer in the Lymph nodes. So this means that I'll have to go on some of that stuff that mostly women use for osteoporosis, but he hasn't gotten back to me as to which specific drug to put me on yet because he has to make sure there are no contraindications with my anti-rejection drug. :( :( :( Oh well, I guess if I could get my hands on that "Adamantium" that the "Wolverine" in "X-men" has that makes up his skeleton, it sure would eliminate the need for having to take another pill. ;) ;) ;)

I really believe very strongly that because I've increased the amount of daily & weekly work activity in my life, receiving such great unconditional Support & Friendship from folks like yourself, John Wright, Chet, Charles, GRoberts, Giavonni, Dave Boyer who has been through similar battles with his own health, and others like Joe Kane, Stephan - my esteemed colleague form Germany, Jon in Kazahkstan, Jeff, Lawrence of Aviation, Thirdeye, TommyJoking, the two Gerald's (Pipe Welder1999 & CWI555), Aevald, Bill Vanderhooth, Swnorris who never fails to amaze me with his wit & humor, Sourdough, Plasma Brain, Kix, 357max, Mountainman, Charles Welch, Bob Garner, Shane Feder, Raftergwelding otherwise known as Shad who needs our support, RonG, MDG CustomWeld, Bozaktwo1, Roadtrash, Phil Thomas, Fbrieden for his unflinching oversight in our spelling awareness, Webbcity for his kind messages from Alaska, MBSims, Michael Blaha who has to be my favorite Boilermaker brother who gives me a bellyfull of jokes and who I have great deal of respect for, eekpod, Ctacker, Zcat, JRW159 who got four diamonds faster than anyone in the history of the forum :), dbigkahunna, Johnnyh, Darren, welderdude, Rebekah, HgTX, and others for their humor, experiences & wit, and all of the others whom I apologize for not mentioning in here who over the years have been so supportive in helping me know that there is light at the other end of the tunnel - no matter how long, or deep that tunnel is!!! :) :) :)

Day after day, week after week, my stamina and endurance is coming back to where I'm very close to becoming free from the shackles of being disabled to the point where I could not work on a continual basis which was the case for too many years now, and for that I'm very Grateful!!! :) :) :) Last but not least, where would we all be without the wisdom from Chuck our great late friend from Avesta. :)

I hope that life is treating you, and the rest of the folks I mentioned well also, and the ones I forgot to mention because lord knows you all deserve it!!! :) :) :)
So I hope that some of my good vibes tends to rub off on all of you in these increasingly tough economic times. I need to hit the rack, and get some shut eye - Good Morning ;)

I also have re-established contact with my little brother in NYC who has managed to avoid me for close to 15 years now, and it sure feels good to know him once again!!! :) :) :)

Thanks for asking Al! Yeah!!! Things are much smoother in my life these days, and the future sure does look bright!!! ;) :) ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 07-30-2008 06:30

Henry, good to hear Your health has improved, wish You luck with the bone density issues. My Mom has been on one of the bone density drugs for a while, and the Dr. says Her bone density has actually increased.

I am on a chemo break presently, and hoping to be involved in a clinical trial of a new drug that hopefully controlls My tumor growth without as severe a side effects as chemo. I am feeling good but have about 1/2 the energy I had before I had cancer.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 07-30-2008 10:50

Good News Henry, glad to hear you feeling better these days and that the Dr is pleased with your progress.

By jrw159

Date 07-30-2008 11:41

Henry,
Glad to hear you are feeling as good as you are. You look like it as well. :-) Best of luck with the bone density stuff.

I just want to say that your strength, just like others on this forum with health issues, amazes and inspires me. I have been EXTREMLY lucky in my life to not have had any serious health issues, and I thank God on a daily basis for this.

Stay strong, happy and as busy as you can. :-)

You, as with others that have health issues, will be in our prayers.

jrw159

By 803056

Date 07-30-2008 12:59

I'm happy to hear everyone is doing well and feeling better than they have.

I hope your new treatment is successful Dave.

It is amazing how we take our health for granted until it starts to fail us.

As for the Z-loss factor, it is the area of the weld root that we anticipate incomplete fusion, incomplete penetration, slag, porosity and those discontinuities that are generally contribute to a volume of weld metal in the root that is unsound. As in the case of a partial joint penetration groove weld, when the groove angle is too small (less than 60 degrees), it is difficult if not impossible to achieve fusion in the root area. D1.1 has provisions where the designer reduces the expected weld size of the PJP groove weld by 1/8 inch, i.e., depth of preparation minus 1/8 inch, depending on the process and welding position. In the case of the skewed T-joint, like the partial joint penetration groove weld, the weld size is discounted by the Z-loss factor, i.e., a value subtracted from the apparent weld size (legs or throat) to account for the unsound weld in the root. Z-loss factor can be considerably greater than 1/8 inch. 3/8 inch is listed for the Z-loss for an angle between 45 and 30 degrees if FCAW-G is used in the vertical or overhead positions.

Best regards - Al

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 07-31-2008 04:03

Thanks Al.

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-29-2008 15:23

This is great answer from Henry and exactly what I was look for.

Thanks,
Rey

By Raghubir Singh Date 07-31-2008 05:34

Sir

i am new in this forum
please tell me the thickness of shell you just give the diameter of shell and not evev any description about weld metal thickness

with regards

raghubir singh

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-31-2008 11:18

Weldcome to this forum Raghubir!!!

What shell are you referring to??? I ask this because nowhere in the drawing attached to the first post who is making the initial query is there a notation specifying a shell of any sort.

Now there is an object the is circular in shape but, if I were you, I wouldn't assume that it's a shell of some sort.

By the way, are you here in the US of A or overseas???

Respectfully,
Henry

By R McLead (**)

Date 07-31-2008 20:18 Edited 07-31-2008 22:21

The drawing that was submitted was only for joint geometry and yes usually in our weldments the round member or shell is .375" to .50"wall tubing. Welding sizes were left off of drawing that would be shown on actual shop drawing along with arrow end. This is not an actual part it was drawn quickly for the above reason because it would have been difficult to describe in words.