Weld symbol

Date 11-20-2014 18:45

Smartin,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Appreciate your coming here to ask your question.

Now, at first glance on my part, it appears it could be ISO/EN standards weld symbol. It is nothing I am familiar with right off hand for AWS.

Hopefully some of our overseas people will see this and help out. I'll look more at AWS symbols when I can get to my books.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By smartin Date 11-20-2014 18:48

Thanks welderbrent. You are probably right about it being European. It is a drawing from Germany. Let´s hope some one knows

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 18:53

That makes sense. Rather settles that part of it. I thought I had a chart for ISO on my computer but can't find it at the moment. I'll see what I can find on line.

Brent

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 18:52

Well, without some more info a couple of things come to mind, someone could be requiring the weld to be finished flush but usually a finish symbol will be over the weld symbol. Or, could be applying to a seam weld on both sides which is not correctly drawn.

Now, these comments are if someone were attempting to apply AWS A2.4 Weld Symbols to show what they want.

Otherwise, I think I am back to my original comment, looks to be EN/ISO.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By SCOTTN

Date 11-20-2014 19:12

I did some research but was unable to find anything that matches the posted detail. I did, however, find a book that shows ISO and AWS symbols for the same types of joints. I thought it may be of value. I've put it in my library:

http://yusuf.mansuroglu.com/Welding_Symbols_on_Drawings.pdf

Just zoom in for easy reading.

By WeldinFool (**)

Date 11-20-2014 19:18

I work for the US division of a European company, and we work with European drawings more often than not. I have a pretty good library of EN and ISO standards and reference books, but could find nothing that looks like that. I wonder if it is used to indicate some sort of NDT testing? Or maybe insulation requirements? Instrumentation? Flow metering? Now I'm curious...

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 19:31

I think you will find the details for the weld linked to (a) located in the tail.

Welcome to the forum!

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-20-2014 23:51 Edited 11-21-2014 14:15

I agree Larry, because those lines running parallel to either side of the reference line of the welding symbol are representing a flat finish on both sides of the joint and as Lawrence pointed out, the tail is the key to finding the rest of the details which in my opinion doesn't follow how the contour or finish supplementary symbols should be used as part of the welding symbol whether it be ANSI or ISO... In other words, like Brent already mentioned an incorrect use of a contour symbol if in fact the contour symbol could have been used within the detailed welding symbol...

Now the exception would be to use the finish symbols separate from the main welding symbol because there was already too much clutter within the welding symbol and is what the tail is referring in detail "a". Although at the moment nothing comes to my mind of a justifiable example where this use of a finish symbol independent of a welding symbol is logically necessary... FUBAR IMHO!!! :lol:

Respectfully, :twisted:

Henry

By S J

Date 11-20-2014 19:39

My suggestion is to ask your manager or customer liaison representative - assuming that you do not have direct contact with your client. And, many Germans do speak our language these days.

The symbol pictured in the link you provided is perhaps misleading and incomplete, and nothing like it comes to mind from my recollection of brief exposures to ISO weld symbol standards.

If it is describing finishing condition(s), then the process information and joint configuration is perhaps missing - if not included in a drawing note.

The possibility also exists that it is a joke or a mistake or a spot weld.

And, please don't say "you dog you"!

By Andrew Luby Date 11-21-2014 13:28

In the tail ISO symbols generally tell us the process and the quality required and a number of other things.

In ISO 2553 that given symbol you have does not show up .

In ISO 4063 the process referred to is 91 which is Brazing.

The A could refer to the quality level required or a number of other things as listed in ISO 2553, or there is that off chance that it is something specific to that customer :eek:

.

At the end of the day a print is for "clear communication" and if it is not clear then it requires a trip or a phone call to the guy who drew it up.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-21-2014 15:34

Hi Andrew Luby,

That does make sense and now the question that comes to mind is; does the letter "A" refer to detail or section "A"? Also, the number "9" could have been used instead as well according to ISO 4063 since it is used for: "Brazing, soldering and braze welding" or in German: "Hard- en zachtsolderen en soldeerlassen" If there was to be a specific type of brazing, then the numbers 911 to 926 are specific brazing processes that can be used and if none of the processes match a specific process listed in ISO 4063, then the number 93 is to be used for "Other Brazing Processes" or in German: "Andere (hard)soldeerprocessen"... This can be found in the .pdf below on page 4 of 5:

http://www.ceweld.com/sites/default/files/Proces%20nummer%204063%202009_0.pdf

Now for ISO 2553, and how those two supplementary [Flat(Usually finished flush)] symbols are incorporated into the overall symbolization scheme without an accompanying elementary symbol strikes me as being possibly incorrect because of what is written in page 6, 4.3 Supplementary symbols where it states: "Elementary symbols may be completed by a symbol characterizing the shape of the external surface or the shape of the weld... The recommended supplementary symbols are given in Table 3... The absence of a supplementary symbol means that the shape of the weld surface does not need to be indicated precisely... Examples of combination elementary and supplementary symbols are given in tables 4 and A3... Note 2: Although it is not prohibited to associate several symbols, it is better to represent the weld on a separate sketch when symbolization becomes too difficult..."

So I think that those symbols which are straight lines parallel to the reference line on both sides are supplementary symbols improperly applied because there's no elementary symbol unless a is referring to specific drawing indicating an elementary symbol to be used, but I cannot find anywhere stating that this can be used in this manner except if one is applying Note 2 above and even then at best that note is vague in it's limitations... Here is the .pdf below for ISO 2553... A very interesting thread indeed! I learned a few things and that's always good!

http://ahhj.hfut.edu.cn/htdocs/ckfinder/userfiles/files/standard/guowai/ISO/2553.pdf

Respectfully,
Henry

By Andrew Luby Date 11-21-2014 16:23 Edited 11-21-2014 16:51

Hi Henry,

Under 4.2 Basic Welding Symbol

If joint details are not specified and the only requirement is to indicate that a joint is to be welded, the basic symbol shown in figure 1 may be used. In this case, a dual reference line is not required for system A (see 4.6.1A) as no details concerning the weld are being conveyed.

The basic welding symbol shall comprise of an arrow line, reference line and a tail.

So given this clause and looking at the symbol it looks like they may have used a "basic symbol" and have just designated that the weld must be flat.

Also just an FYI for anybody reading this. ISO 2553 was reprinted in 2013. With an addition to how Other and Arrow side are designated, ISO has now recognized there are different ways globally to designate this so they have adopted "system B" that now allows the use of the AWS system to designate Other and Arrow sides.

I recently purchased the standard due to a company in our schools district asking us to expose welders to ISO symbols. They informed us that they will be using exclusively ISO symbols on weldments.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-22-2014 00:41

Thank you for sharing that Andrew and "Weldcome" to the World's Greatest Welding Forum" of the AWS!!!
So ISO is now permitting the use of both systems to use in representing the reference line in a welding symbol with the use of system A and B - correct? Or have they retired the use of system A and instead have adopted system B as it's replacement Correct?

"So given this clause and looking at the symbol it looks like they may have used a "basic symbol" and have just designated that the weld must be flat."

You mean the brazing contour must be flat since the number 91 represents brazing as the process to use which is another form of a joining process, but the difference between the two is that one coalesces or fuses (Welding) with the base/parent metal either with either filler metal or welded autogenously without filler metal... And the other only joins the members together with a flux and brazing metal that doesn't fuse or coalesce with the base/parent metal being brazed and cannot be joined together with a bond without the use of brazing filler metal or autogenously - correct? Finally, the ISO basic welding symbol does not need to have an elementary symbol if no joint detail is specified in the design of the joint and those straight solid lines located above and below the reference line represent flat/flush supplementary contour symbols - correct?

Once again, "Weldcome" to the forum :grin:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Andrew Luby Date 11-22-2014 02:09

Thanks for the welcome Henry, I've been poking around for awhile now but never felt I could add something constructive to the conversations already in place.

To answer the first question.. Yes they now have two systems A and B for designating the Other and Arrow side of the reference line. System A still uses the old way and the new System B now uses the AWS way. Both still use the ISO ways to define the details of the weld size, length, pitch, intermittent, and etc.

"the ISO basic welding symbol does not need to have an elementary symbol if no joint detail is specified in the design of the joint and those straight solid lines located above and below the reference line represent flat/flush supplementary contour symbols - correct?"

One could only assume that is correct. ISO 2553 tells us a "Basic" Symbol is just the arrow and reference line and doesn't need the elementary symbol to define what type of weld it is or any other details. This symbol seems to look that way and then the engineer decided to tell us it must have a flat contour.

"You mean the brazing contour must be flat since the number 91 represents brazing as the process to use which is another form of a joining process, but the difference between the two is that one coalesces or fuses (Welding) with the base/parent metal either with either filler metal or welded autogenously without filler metal... And the other only joins the members together with a flux and brazing metal that doesn't fuse or coalesce with the base/parent metal being brazed and cannot be joined together with a bond without the use of brazing filler metal or autogenously - correct? "

If in fact the information in the tail refers to the welding process and not some other piece of information. I don't do much Brazing and when I have performed it I never had to worry about it not being flat.

You will have to excuse my limited knowledge of Brazing but I was unaware of being able to autogenously Braze. With Capillary action being the penetrating force I was under the impression that we always need a filler.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 11-22-2014 02:34

That's alright but, I in fact did state that one cannot braze together without the use of brazing filler metal or autogenously here:

"And the other only joins the members together with a flux and brazing metal that doesn't fuse or coalesce with the base/parent metal being brazed and cannot be joined together with a bond without the use of brazing filler metal or autogenously - correct? "

And like you mentioned, there cannot be any capillary action being the penetrating force without the use of a brazing filler... Anywho, it's not so important that you missed that. :grin:

Lately, I have been missing more stuff than I care to admit these days and mainly because I haven't seen my Eye doctor for my yearly appointment yet which by the way is on Friday of next week... :eek:

Hopefully there won't be any negative surprises discovered form the battery of tests I go though annually and all I need is a new prescription for my reading glasses.

Good talking to you.

Respectfully,
Henry

By Andrew Luby Date 11-22-2014 04:34

Hehe Ya now I got it. :grin:

it's been a long day.