Proper J-groove measurement

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-27-2014 19:45

Welcome to the forum Logan !

Sounds to me like you are describing a flare-bevel-groove weld with a reinforcing fillet.

See D1.1 2010 Fig 3.3 (page 84)
Also see *notes on page 77

Attaching the drawing would help

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-27-2014 20:26

Logan,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Great response from Lawrence in trying to ascertain exactly what your joint as well as the weld and/or welding symbol may look like.

But while waiting, I'm going to open keyboard and insert mind, the simple answer is NO, the fillet gauge is not the proper tool or inspection technique for measuring any groove weld.

Now, are you wondering about the size above or beyond the joint of the weld reinforcement? You describe a 3/16" groove weld with a convex finish. Inserting more of mind into gaping black hole, the 3/16" weld size in a J-groove would be the depth of the weld in the groove which could be from the same size to an 1/8th of an inch deeper (approx). Then, you can have weld reinforcement on top of that of approximately 1/8th" depending upon material in use. Is the 1/8th what you want to measure? You can't really measure the 3/16" if that is what you are after. Not without destructive testing. Unless it is a fillet weld instead of a J-groove.

You say a vertical plate against the side of a rectangular tube. Is the plate edge or face against the HSS (tube)?

Do you have the weld/welding symbol (know the difference I hope, or we can help you understand)? And a picture is worth 5000 words of my now mindless rambling (mind entire engulfed in black hole).

Mindlessly awaiting your response.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By loganswoods Date 08-27-2014 23:07

I stand corrected, it would be a flare-bevel-groove weld. I will attempt to attach the portion of the print I am refering to. The print is confidential so I cannot disclose the entire weldment.

Welderbrent, I guess I was unclear on how to interprit this symbol. From what you have said, the symbol is only giving the depth of weld. I am just trying to decifer what the engineer intended. After seeing Lawrence's attachment, I now see that if it was to have a 3/16" fillet on top, that would be an additional symbol steming from the flare-groove-symbol.

I think I am clear now. I just need to make sure the engineer meant to spec it that way...

Thanks,

Attachment: photo.JPG (25k)

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-28-2014 03:38

Logan, I presume that is your name since you didn't correct it's use in previous post,

If you look at Lawrence's attachment, it shows (E) which represents weld size and in this application for groove welds regardless of J or Flare it is for the depth of weld thickness. That is the weld size.

Now, if you picture that with S(E) the 'S' is for depth of bevel and the 'E' in parenthesis is for weld size which depending upon welding process, type of joint, etc will not always be equal numbers but can be. Since your .19 is in parenthesis it is for the weld size and as that decimal is just slightly over 3/16 I used the fraction to indicate size of weld (rambling more to myself as you probably know most of this, just clarifying my earlier post with the new information). And yes, if they had wanted extra material in the form of a fillet weld or surfacing weld they would have had to add the extension for additional weld symbol.

By adding the convex finish symbol they are indicating they do indeed want a somewhat convex finish which can be done naturally or artificially by grinding, chipping, etc but doesn't need to be if it is acceptable in the as welded condition.

Good luck with the project.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 08-28-2014 12:52

Agreed, I just didn't want to get into it that far with my explanation last night. These twenty hour days are killing me, brain is numb.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 08-28-2014 15:54

Been there before.

Al

By SCOTTN

Date 08-28-2014 16:21

Al,

You'd mentioned that the structural code limits the maximum prequalified weld size, as a function of the radius of the round edge. This weld size is either 1/2 r, 5/8 r, or 3/4 r, which is based on the process. One of the accompanying notes indicate that the weld size is based on the joints being welded flush. This note applies to each of the processes. In your experience, after welding, has the weld size, as determined by the 1/2 r, 5/8 r, or 3/4 r ever ended up being less than flush?

By 803056

Date 08-28-2014 16:29

D1.1 has provisions for that. You subtract the underfill from the weld size based on the radius, process, and position.

Al

By SCOTTN

Date 08-28-2014 17:15

Ok. Thanks. It just seems a bit contradicting for the note to say "weld size (E) is based on the joint being welded flush" though, it does take a lot of weld on the thicker walled HSS with a larger radius to get it flush.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 08-28-2014 20:07

Al can you explain this one more time S-L-O-W-L-Y

I'm trying to understand how to determine correct weld size on larger sections that (I think) would not need to be filled flush to have a correct weld size.

If you are welding thousands of these.... That's a lot of fill and time that may/might not be necessary.....

I'm just having a hard time getting my brain wrapped around this and somebody just asked me a very similar direct question about it.

By 803056

Date 08-28-2014 21:04 Edited 08-28-2014 21:43

D1.1 has provisions for determining the size prequalified flare groove weld. The assumption is that the joint is filled flush. The size is a function of the radius of the member forming the groove, the welding position, and of course, the welding process. This is detailed in Table 2.1 and clause 2.4.1.4.

If the loads are such that a maximum sized weld isn't necessary, the flare groove doesn't have to be welded flush. The same clause states that for grooves not filled flush, the underfill is deducted.

There is a quandary; clause 3.12.2.1(3) says the minimum weld size is determined per Figure 3.3. I believe this is a mistake, since Table 2.1 is the maximum flare groove weld size and Figure 3.3 is the minimum flare groove weld size. The formulas are the same. I suspect clause 3.12.2.1(3) should read "maximum" rather than "minimum.

Now it is time to check the AWS web site to see if there has been an errata issued. Well, I checked the web site and there has been no errata issued. I stand by my comment that I believe clause 3.12.2.1(3) is a mistake. It makes no sense to have both the min. and max. welds sizes be the same.

I would determine the minimum weld size as the larger of the size based on Table 3.4 or the size required to transfer the load.

Best regards - Al