Weld Symbols for Handrails

By eekpod

Date 12-13-2011 20:34

I ask becasue on the sides it's not a fillet weld.
Sorry about the giant pictures.

By Tommyjoking (****)

Date 12-13-2011 20:59

I think an "all around" symbol would be fine. But I have seen that joint refereed to as a fillet many times on a drawing...right or wrong.

By tighand430 (***)

Date 12-14-2011 04:22

You could do a fillet on the throats and a flare bevel on the ears. Bechtel has given us engineering drawings on structural tube like that since they are two different welds......but this is was a nuke so a lil bit touchy with the paperwork. If it's nothing where they're lookin at the drawings hard, I'd just stick with a fillet all around to simplify things.

By eekpod

Date 12-14-2011 11:29

thanks guys, that's why I asked.
Yes we all have seen fillet all around on the drawings, and as you pointed out that a flare bevel may be more accurate for the sides, but it's a technicalality if nothing else.
I was curious what others have seen or come across.
We will continue to go with the fillet all around like we have been, thanks

By Tyrone

Date 12-14-2011 11:32

Eekpod,
I would take Tighand's advice. If it's not critical, just use a fillet weld, all around.

On critical parts, I have specified fillet welds on the ends, and flare groove on the sides with miminum throat size.

Tyrone

By 803056

Date 12-14-2011 17:50 Edited 12-14-2011 18:00

Here's the most basic weldig symbol I can think of.

This would be acceptable on a contract drawing per AWS D1.1-2010 clause 2.3.5.3. If a partial joint penetration weld is sufficient, substitute PJP in the tail and add the joint penetration requirement below the reference line, i.e., (1/8) for example, if the joint is welded from the arrow side. Then it is left to the contractor to determine the actual joint detail.

Since the joint in the photograph is tube to tube it is a T, Y, or K joint, both having the same diameter. A fillet weld all around it ain't. A bevel groove preparation would work. The reinforcing fillets in the heel or toe would not be the basis of rejecting the completed weld.

Best regards - Al

BasicWeldSymbol-NoPrepCJP14-Dec-2011Model1.jpg (47k)

By bozaktwo1 (***)

Date 12-14-2011 18:01

Yep. Except I would even go so far as to replace "CJP" with "TYP" and put the all around in.

By 803056

Date 12-14-2011 18:12

Per AWS A2.4, all-around isn't necessary with round components.

"Typical" in the tail would be applicable if there are multiple joints that are the same.

A welding symbol without CJP in the tail or without a size indicated, i.e., (X) and PJP in the tail would be interpereted as a joint that is required to develop the strength of the adjacent member in tension and shear per AWS D1.1-2010 clause 2.3.5.3. In the case where the intersecting members are the same diameter and thickness; that a CJP in my world.

Best regards - Al