Fillet or Flare?

Date 01-23-2014 16:25

It looks like a flare bevel to me, but when a standard welding symbols simply does not convey the welding requirements, a detail showing the weld in cross section always works and is permitted by AWS A2.4.

Best regards - Al

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-23-2014 19:44

Computers plus lack of knowledge of specifications. Fillet welds are a common 'default' for anything unknown to the designer/engineer.

Skewed joints, flare bevels, and many more. (And, YES, it looks like a flare bevel to me as well.)

As Al stated, a picture is allowed and in most cases would be worth a thousand words. And definitely better than using wrong symbols just to have something on the plans.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By rmdrmd15 (**)

Date 01-27-2014 02:49

What if I said I was following AWS14.9 and per para 6.2 this was a fillet weld?? How would you correctly measure it in the field if you could not do a cross section? Would you measure it like a skewed fillet eventhough a gage wouldn't sit on the bottom plate correctly becuase it's a pipe? How would you check the throat? If I draw a triangle in the cross section, i could probably draw two or three depending if you put the triangle on the bottom leg or top leg or just in the center. Any suggestions?

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-27-2014 03:59

UUUMMMM....I'd say I need to find my copy of 14.9 for Hydraulic Cylinders and check it out. Because if they actually called anything that looked remotely like that a fillet weld...they either need to revise that or the definition of a fillet weld in all the older codes and Terms and Definitions. (I'm really stepping on some toes here if they did that)

But, to measure it? First, the inspector is almost never asked to check the throat dimension. How would he do that except at the very end of the weld? You would have to do destructive testing as opposed to NDT which includes VT. On skewed fillet welds the engineer and detailer are responsible to calculate the strength required through the throat and then give a leg dimension which the inspector can check with his handy dandy skewed weld gauge.

Partial Penetration welds we make sure the joint prep is as specified for the process and all other conditions including loss because they usually cannot guarantee weld all the way down to the bottom of the V that will give the amount/strength of weld desired for the application.

Flare bevel, same type of thing. Radius called out, depth of bevel, process, and any other variables then look at any measurable final cover.

Sometimes our job is not as much in proving rather they have the desired weld as it is that they have done all the prep work per the plans, approved drawings, wps, etc in order to give it the best possible chance of being what the engineer wants. There are some things you can never prove without doing Destructive Testing. And that just wouldn't do.

From all that I can picture in my mind it sounds like all you can do is make sure the prep is correct. Then, inspect the surface per any acceptance criteria they have specified.

Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 01-27-2014 06:11 Edited 01-27-2014 06:18

?
"You would have to do destructive testing as opposed to NDT which includes VT." If the inspector checked the joint out prior to welding then there wouldn't be a question as to what type of joint it would be... Also, when you write NDT Brent, are you also including RT or even UT
(especially if you're good enough with that method too)? Just saying. :eek:

And of course if there was another separate view of that joint in either the form of a photo or a drawing, we could end any speculation as to what type of joint that is and then decide with a confident level of accuracy the type of weld deposit we're looking @

Respectfully,
Henry

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 01-28-2014 09:47

I know Henry, but I was specifically addressing the fact that VT is also a form of NDT as most people recognize UT, RT, MT, PT, and others but forget that VT is also the first line of NDT. And yes, there are ways of using UT to verify depth of a PJP, IF there is proper access coupled with a good operator of the equipment.

Personally, I think it is partially because of all of the 'if's that they made so much of VT in regards to the work addressed in the codes. In several cases that is the only true line of accountability since the other disciplines may not be usable.

Fillet welds, skewed welds, occasionally PJP's and even CJP's are not going to have access and are only inspectable by VT. That is part of why some of them are to be continually inspected and all the other pre-work items (welder certs, wps's, etc) are to be taken care of, it gives us the best possible chance of successful completion of the weld. And there is nothing else available in many cases, only the external, after the fact, examination by 'trained' inspectors to say if the weld is 'acceptable' to the best of their ability to know.

Have a Great Day, Brent