Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / HSS weld Symbol
- - By garygfc Date 09-25-2011 00:13
Hello all, our shop is getting ready to build some HSS trusses out of 4x4x.375. A question has come up about a weld detail shown on design drawings. It is for a double flare- bevel groove weld with no weld size call out. Would AWS A2.4 6.2.2  apply to flare bevel groove welds making this weld a full pen weld. I have attached a drawing showing weld detail.
Attachment: Hsstubeweld.xps (53k)
Parent - - By 99205 (***) Date 09-25-2011 04:49
Refer to D2.4 (2007) Annex D - D5.9.2 for guidance.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-25-2011 15:35
I would ask the designer for clarification.

Assuming you are working to the requirements of D1.1, a standard flare bevel has a maximum weld size based on the radius of the rounded edge. However, the designer may be looking for something more substantial, i.e., a CJP groove made with backing. Tubular connections can be very dicey. For instance, if the tubular connection is welded as a CJP, there can be no starts and stops right where the welder is most likely to initiate and terminate the welds, at the corners.

The designer should be very clear on the design requirements. If there are any questions, ask, better yet, insist on complete information. Make the designer earn his money just as you do. There is nothing better than a sketch of the weld cross section when there is any doubt about what is expected.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Skaggydog (**) Date 09-25-2011 17:59
I've got nothing better to do at the moment than to talk out my ass so, here gos.
  First I would go with what 99205 said, but I would take into consideration the weld symbols for the other 2 sides of the tube. The way it is drawn it is already prepared for a CJP w/out backing.  I've even gotten away with arguing that with tubes joined in that formation a CJP is pre qualified without backing.  It is so easy for the person making the original call to use the tail and put CJP or PP, but NOOoo, they got to piss us off, so that we call them and ask and then they say it means whatever they say it means and act like they are smarter because they knew what they meant and we didn't.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-26-2011 14:00
You never fail to scare the hell out of me.

Anyone with a fundamental ability to read English should be able to understand that open root joints are not prequalified and to convince a client that it is prequalified is doing our industry a serious disservice. 

Scallywag is a much more appropriate handle Skaggy. I hope you aren't a CWI, if you are, your certification should be pulled for a breach of ethics.

Al
Parent - By Skaggydog (**) Date 09-27-2011 02:31
Maybe you're right 803056, how's Scampydog sound?  I think the women would find that name more amorous than Skaggy.

No, I am not an AWS CWI, so I know that a good weld is still a good weld whether it's prequalified, qualified or unqualified and it looks just the same for NDE. 
No, I did not convince a client, it was a CWI, no doubt no one ever read his reports.

And thanks for the poking fun at the way AWS handles unethical CWIs.
Parent - - By Skaggydog (**) Date 09-27-2011 15:59
And P.S.  803056, My copy of D1.1 2010 is in English and it says that you are wrong about "Anyone with a fundamental ability to read English should be able to understand that open root joints are not prequalified ..."   You should have said, "Most open root joints under D1.1 are not prequalified."  Or, perhaps, open root joints under Code... are not prequalified.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-28-2011 01:24
OK Skaggy.

Al
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-28-2011 02:23
"Or, perhaps, open root joints under Code... are not prequalified."

I believe that's exactly what Al said since the word "prequalified" does directly associate itself with every "Welding code or standard" that I know of Skaggy.:twisted::eek::roll::lol::cool:

And after all... That is what we're talking about... "SEMANTICS..."
They can really twist the heck out of a discussion into what amounts to being a disagreement.:confused::sad::eek::roll::lol::wink::cool:

Reso pectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By waccobird (****) Date 09-25-2011 19:27
garygfc

As Al has said query the Engineer.
More than likely it will not have to be cjp they will want you to develop a certain strength.
A question, is your company supplying the calculations for the connections.
If so this weld symbol should be queried to them.

Good Luck
Marshall
Parent - - By rshanks (**) Date 11-08-2011 19:07
I have a question, to some of the comments regarding about CJP made from one side, D1.1 (2010) @ 3.13.2, BACKING : Prequalified CJP groove welds made from one side, Quote "EXCEPT AS ALLOWED FOR TUBULAR STRUCTURES" must have steel backing. If it's allowed on tubular structure as read in clause 3 can it not be written as a prequal????? When reading from 3.13 to 3.13.5.1 I see gray areas then go to the commentary C4.13 and it 's cloudedeven more, seems to be counterdictive????
Parent - By ozniek (***) Date 11-09-2011 13:06
Hi rshanks

My reading of this is as follows: (Assuming AWS D1.1)

1) No butt weld without backing is pre-qualified. (Plate or tubular)
2) Tubular T,Y,K welds are pre-qualified without backing. (See 3.13.4 and Fig 3.6)

The original post had a sketch which would fall within the definition of a T, Y, K connection. Whether it is pre-qualified would depend on the angles and a couple of other issues.

Regards
Niekie
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Technical Standards & Publications / HSS weld Symbol

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill