UNI 1310 welding symbol

Date 09-05-2007 20:29

I'm not sure if the attachment went through or not, I "can't see it from my house" but indications say it might be. I apologize to everyone for my experimentations.

By new tito (***)

Date 09-05-2007 21:06

cant see it from my house either

By 803056

Date 09-06-2007 00:15

I didn't see an attachment, but what you describe sounds like an ISO welding symbol.

The solid line is the arrow side of the weld joint. The dashed lines represent the other side of the weld joint. So, if the weld symbol for the fillet or groove weld is on the dashed line, the weld is on the other side of the joint. If the weld symbol is on the solid line, the weld is on the arrow side of the joint.

Whether the dashed line is above or below the solid line isn't significant if I remember correctly.

I hope this helps.

Best regards - Al

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 09-06-2007 16:12

It does help. I suspected that might be the case from the way the symbols were used but there were some inconsistencies in the symbols that clouded the issue.

And I don't know why the jpg attachment didn't attach - I thought I followed the "help" information but I must be missing something.

Thank you

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-06-2007 16:32

Chet,

with regard to the attachment issue, please allow me to state a small hint coming from Ross (AWS Marketing), treating the embedding of pictures etc. and been posted in the Off-topic Bar and Grill Section at that time:

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=54021#pid54021

Normally this should work...

Best,
Stephan

By ross

Date 09-06-2007 17:23

Put the attachment on AFTER you post the post wording. Go back and look at the post after you make it, and click on the blue "Attach" link under your post to add the jpg.

Ross
AWS Marketing

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 09-07-2007 16:40

I did just that. I posted first, then opened it and clicked "attach". I browsed for my file, selected it, and clicked "embed". I tried several times - it "seemed" like it might have gone out OK but there was nothing there. I'll try again another time - I'm under the gun at the moment.
Thank you.

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-08-2007 19:40 Edited 09-08-2007 19:47

Chet,

please allow to let me coming back to your topic.

Founded on what Al has profound stated (once again :-) ) with respect to the ISO Standards for Welding Symbols, I have tried to find out what the Italians may perhaps use to draft their drawings.

In my assumption I guess they should - as well as all the other European Countries - use the Euronorm Standards for Welding Symbols and their representation. These standards are intermediately in a large extent conform to the ISO standards.

Therefore I have tried to find some particular information about the German Standards which could be - in my opinion - identical to what the Italian company has used when they have passed on their drawings to you.

In Germany we have used at that time the German Standard DIN 1912 for Welding Symbols. Due to the European Community and their efforts to modify all national standards for implementing European ones we are meanwhile using the Euronorm (EN) Standard EN 22553. This standard treats the use of welding and additional symbols in engineering drawings on a European level.

What I have found in my "library" was not so bad, but as you probably can imagine it is all written in German language. Thus it is most likely "useless" for you - as far as I think.

However, I sat down today and have tried to "modify" the information what I personally have available, by using my picture editing program to pass on some details to you. It was sure extremely time consuming (thanks to my family for their patience with me) but hopefully it will make it possible that your inquiry can be answered in a sufficient amount. This would be my largest pleasure after I have finished now.

I have prepared some jpeg's which I will embed into a pdf. By reading the files I am certain that you could compare if this what the Italians have used is similar to what the EN 22553 Standard states.

Some further details for the correct understanding of the jpeg's I would like to list here afterwards. The first jpeg (Euronorm_22553_General_Instance) is to be read by knowing the sense of the numeration (1... 7).

Designation to Type of Weld and Dimensions:

(1) Type of joint
(2) Symbol of Joint + Addenda Information (see also the Euronorm_22553_Basic_Symbols and Euronorm_22553_Compund_Symbol.jpeg)
(3) Length of welding seam, Number of single seam lengths

Additional manufacturing descriptions (following the "gab" or the "tail" of the "Arrow line"):
(4) Welding process according to EN 24063 (ISO 4063)
(5) Quality Classification according to EN 25817 for steel and EN 30042 (ISO 10042) for aluminum
(6) Working position according to EN 26947 (ISO 6947)
(7) Filler Material according to the specific Standard (e.g. EN 440 for GMAW)

The single descriptions on the "Arrow line" are to be selected by diagonal slash. What you can also see in the Euronorm_22553_General_Instance.jpeg is a rectangle (containing an A1) this is for describing additional details e.g. production data etc.

The most complex in the European Standardization is the fact, that one has the opportunity to use four (!) different options of symbolic representations for showing only one (!) welding detail, as to be seen in the Euronorm_22553_Symbol_Representation_4.jpeg. Therefore it is recommended to use only one of those four options to draft the engineering drawings within one welding job.

I guess nobody knows why this kind of procedure (four different options) has been decided by the European Community. It's a bit funny but this is Europe at its best.

Nonetheless, I would be very glad if I could have helped you with that...

Best regards,
Stephan

P.S. I hope that I have translated everything into an understandable terminology...

Attachment: Euronorm_22553_Pictures.pdf (679k)

By 803056

Date 09-08-2007 20:22

As always Stephan you have the inside "scoop" on the interpretation of European standards. Its fortunate for us to have you as a valued resource.

I do have another question relating to the welding symbols used in Europe. It has to do with the size of fillet welds. If I remember correctly, your welding symbols can specify the size of the leg or the dimension of the throat, but I can't remember how you differentiate between the two. Can you please refresh my memory for me.

Thank very much for your help.

Bes regards - Al

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-09-2007 08:34

Dear Al,

firstly thanks a lot for your kind response!

Secondly I'd like to apologize for the delay in replying, but you know mother and child were shuffling their feet yesterday :-).

Thirdly, yes you are correct! And it's a honor for me that you are asking for a brief clarification...

In Germany and the European Countries we use the throat for sizing a fillet weld.

This means we use the height of a rectangular isosceles triangle chosen to be transferred "into" the fillet weld's cross section. We call the size of it the "a"-size, or shortly "a" and use the [mm] for its dimensioning.

An "a" of "5" means thus that the height of the triangle is equivalent to 5 [mm].

But I mean to know that this is different to the United States of America, where - as far as I am informed correctly - the leg size of a rectangular triangle is used for this measure, isn't it?

I mean to have read several times in some drawings that this is called the "z"-size(?)

When we in Europe have to do with some US welding information regarding the "size" of a fillet weld we have to take care to converse what we are reading.

By using the leg size "z" divided by the square root of 2 we can achieve what we have to consider for calculating furthermore with "a".

By using the same example as above mentioned ("a" = 5 mm) we would get - please correct me when I'm wrong - a "z"-size of:

"a" x 1.414 = 5 [mm] x 1.414 = 7.07 [mm] = "z"

For specific applications (non isosceles triangle) e.g. when welding a lap joint, we use a "leg-ratio" of 1 : 1.5 ... 1 : 2 and calculate the "a-size" by using the legs "z1" and "z2":

"a" = 1.414 x "z1" where "z1" is smaller than or eqivalent to "z2".

Hmmm, I do really hope that I haven't made it to complicated again...

Thanks again and best regards,
Stephan

By 803056

Date 09-09-2007 20:02

Hello Stephan;

Just to make sure I have this right, I have attached two sketches in one file. One sketch lists all the "body parts" of my little alien buddy, the fillet weld. After all, it has three throats, one face, two legs, and two toes, so it must be from another planet.

The second sketch is what I believe I read in your response. Please correct m if I have it wrong.

Thanks for your help.

I checked with my hotel, they said there is internet access. Being a seasoned traveler, I never count on anything until I actually log on! Hopefully I will be on line this week.

Best regards - Al

Attachment: BodyPartsofaFilletWeld9-Sept-07.pdf (203k)

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 09-10-2007 00:54

Wow! Stephan, you put a lot of effort into this. It helps me out tremendously and I thank you very much for your help.
I am at home right now and only have slow dial up available, but I did manage to download your link and it is exactly the format that I was asking about.

Again, thank you.

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-10-2007 20:01

Dear Friends...

Chet!

Thank you so much for your kind response! It makes me truly happy if you could use the information.

This, and the message that the great gentleman Mr. Chuck Meadows is on the road to recovery have made my day today!

Al!

As always you impressed me!

I would have never guessed that a fillet weld would contain that much different "body parts".

I would wish you may allow to print that out..? Honestly I have done that already immediately... :-). It is a great and detailed help for me - as a German - to define the different parts and thus to be able for using the correct English technical terms! Thanks for that...

Yes Al, you are absolutely right with your second sketch and it makes me glad that you could understand what I have tried to explain. What is - for me - a very important detail as well, is that you have used the term "theoretical throat" which it is in fact. Within the European Standard symbolization is nothing told about the delta between the "theoretical" and the "effective" throat. I remember that we had a forum-discussion once where I asked you gentlemen about the differentiation between "depth of penetration" and "depth of fusion" (see also http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?pid=58149;hl=Penetration%20or%20Fusion#pid58149 ) and you Al as some other good spirits have explained me that time very patiently the fine differences in what both means. Well as far as I would say, the difference between the "theoretical" and the "effective" throat of a fillet weld could be named "depth of fusion" too?

However, in Germany when this dimension is a factor of constructive calculations and to be secured in its reproducibility under manufacturing conditions, it has to be proved within a "auditing of procedures" ("Verfahrensprüfung" in German language).

What I further did, I hope you may permit, is that I have prepared an additional little sketch (not as far as good as yours Al :-) ) to clarify a very small but important detail as I mean, in order to better understand the different possibilities to represent a welding joint in using the European Standard, please see also the "a-size".pdf.

Herein the fillet weld's height of 5 [mm] (a 5) or the "theoretical" throat is being used. When you would use now e.g. the alternative option to measure the "leg" of the fillet weld, you would have to draw in "z" instead of "a". For a theoretical throat of "a 5" it would then be "z 7", just as you have mentioned it.

My best regards to all of you,
Stephan

Attachment: a-size.pdf (14k)

By 803056

Date 09-10-2007 20:42

Hello Stephan;

Is this sketch in agreement with your interpretation?

Best regrds - Al

Attachment: BodyPartsofaFilletWeld9-Sept-07.pdf (203k)

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-11-2007 05:56

Good morning Al!

I hope you're doing fine...

Absolutely, it is!

With only - please allow - one very little and inconspicuous detail in difference.

With regard to the position of the "dashed" line in relation to the "Arrow Line" (is it named like that?).

Please allow therefore to attach two jpegs's as a kind of comparison between both details.

But please Al, everything I am stating here is just as far as I am informed - and I hope to be informed correctly - about the European Standardization in this field and thus everything I state is in all conscience.

I hope you may agree when I say that "Standardization" in any respect is a - very specific - continuously growing field and underlies by that continuous adjustments. Thus in my opinion only some very few experts may have the complete knowledge about the most current state of this subject.

Therefore it intermediately may also be possible that the representation of "continuous" and "dashed" line may have changed. Though I rather would not think so...

However, as always best regards,
Stephan

Attachment: Al___Throat_Drawing.jpg (24k)

Attachment: Al___Throat_Drawing_1.jpg (23k)

By 803056

Date 09-11-2007 11:27

Thanks Stephan.

Like I said, its been several years since I've seen these symbols.

We have become dependent on your expertise on anything that relates to European standards. That is to say, you are our expert.

Best regards - Al

By Stephan (***)

Date 09-11-2007 17:50

Hey Al,

thanks a lot, but please don't say so...

I feel truly honored by your words, but I guess this is much too much for my slender shoulders!

All the Best to you,
Stephan