I see this on every architectural drawing I look at. Fab shop drawings are more detailed and easier to understand. But, when it comes time to erect the structure, the architect's drawings are usually the only thing I have available. At that point, as an inspector, I usually confer with the erector foreman. I typically have very good relationships with the erectors because I let them know that we're all there to do the same job - build a structure in accordance with the approved specs and drawings. Once this is established, the erectors are generally happy to work with me in figuring out where all the welds need to be placed. More callout information would be nice, but I understand that too much information on the print can become confusing and cluttered.
Greetings R Haman,
WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!
An interesting question and comments.
We need to clarify a couple of things.
First, An architect will often not use correct symbols. They are putting an idea down that engineers then clarify for the contractor to bid from which is then further clarified by the steel detailer.
Second, welding symbols can often be clarified by knowing the applicable code and type of work being performed.
Never depend on things we have seen and heard. There is lots of misinformation out there. Just because the Arch or Eng uses it does not mean it is correct. If there is a discrepancy it should always be clarified. Do not assume anything and regardless of trust relationships with the fabricator/erector, not a safe place to go to make sure of the intent of the engineer. The fabricator will always side on the cheapest and easiest way for their crew to complete the job and make a profit.
Having said that (above) there are usually phrases in the Contract documents that when a welding symbol is missing or even other information, if you are sure of the application and have other similar joint/weld points on other shop or erection drawings you can do them the same.
One of the first places to go then if this is at all related to AWS codes, D1.1, D1.3, D14xx, etc, would be A2.4 Welding Symbols. It tells us that usage of the 'TYP' in the tail must be for identical applications of the weld symbol. So also does the chapter on Welding Symbols in the WIT book used to teach the General Knowledge portion of the CWI exams. And you can go to the Figures in those books that give you visual support of the text description.
Now, your pic is a little hard for me to make sure of the application, but there appears to be two identical parts that that weld would be used on. The shorter one has it's own welding symbol so is not included with the 'TYP'. The second on that is the same approx 9" as the one that has the welding symbol with 'TYP' in the tail does not have a welding symbol pointing to it's welds. This would be a correct usage.
In MY Opinion it would be incorrect to use it to apply to the welds on the other shorter part. They are not 'identical' which is a key word in the books that show us the application of welding symbols and what the end product of a symbol should look like. Now, again, sometimes there are 'schedules' on plans that will give you variations of 'TYP' applications for bolting, openings, base plates, joist sizes, beam sizes, gussets, etc. In that case they give you one visual and leave the 'lengths' and other information up to the schedule.
Just my two tin pennies worth.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day and a very MERRY CHRISTMAS and a HAPPY NEW YEAR, Brent
Brent
The fabricator will always side on the cheapest and easiest way for their crew to complete the job and make a profit.
this is what we do
cheaper= lower bids=more work=more$$$
easier=quicker work=more work=more$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
but must be done correct
we have both signed a payroll check for employees
the more $$$$$$$$$$$ we get
the better bonus they get this time of the year
I love welding, but everyone needs $$$$ to pay the bills
just my thoughts
Merry Christmas, my friend
sincerely,
Kent
Absolutely true Kent and I am not begrudging anyone a profit margin.
But the inspector needs to be very careful about going to the fabricator to work out a clarification.
The engineer should always be the go to guy.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent
my very good friend
99% correct
always go to the top of the chain
whoever has final ok
ego warning....even if it is Kent, as the fabricator
the final call is the top link in the chain
put all the liability on the top link
and the engineer is never that person
you have the local building inspector, or nuke inspectors, or nasa inspectors, etc, etc, etc
have everyone agree
then the whole chain holds the load
because we all make mistakes
except for Al Moore
merry Christmas Al
sincerely,
Kent
You are very correct that there are times when one must go to others instead of the engineer.
But, almost always, and especially when dealing with an uncertainty about the prints, as in this case, the engineer should be that person. He is the only one that can really tell you what was intended for the welds there because he knows what he intended the weld loads to be and how they need to carry that load.
But there will indeed be questions that need the attention of the Local Building Official Having Jurisdiction, or other senior project managers of what ever source the job is controlled by.
Merry Christmas one and all, He Is In Control, Brent
I second Brent's advice.
Thanks for the Compliment Kent. I hope you never meet my wife. I'm sure she would burst your bubble with her binds recording all my mistakes.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone.
Best regards - Al
Brent,
I think you have answered my question when you mention "identical" verses similar. Being a welder of 30+ years I've seen many correct, and incorrect, welding symbols as well as interpretations.
As a welder/fabricator who has sorted through drawings with a magnifying glass at times - I asked the question to help me in my change of career to the person who is detailing those drawings with an empathy for the guy in poor lighting, with small drawings, and a multitude of "similar" weld conditions trying to build a part.
The drawing I supplied is one I see often by the other detailers in my office that is sent to our fab shop. Something we have discussed is using a set of standard details for the various weld conditions to help remove the clutter. After reading the input I have received here, it would seem that those standard details may not be correct either.
Anyway; I thank you all for the input and look forward to asking/answering additional questions.
Rob
Forgot to mention the irony; I am now the person that as a welder I loved to beat up on... Ever seen the movie Liar-Liar, the bathroom scene??
By welderbrent 
Date 12-27-2014 14:54
Edited 12-27-2014 15:19
So, now I have some additional information which allows a more complete answer to your question. See, without knowing the exact purpose of your query and your position in the question (welder, in house inspector, detailer, engineer, TPI, etc) it is difficult to give real exact guidance.
So, as the detailer for your company, or a customer, your first responsibility when unsure about a weld symbol is to go to the engineer and make sure of what they want and see how they would call it out. The second is to the applicable codes and in my previous advice A2.4 Welding Symbols to make sure it is being done the way the code responsible organization directs for uniformity.
Next, there is some wiggle room but normally by using additional details and notes where you could do as you originally asked when one is drawing in house details for their own company. Eliminating clutter and making the floor welder/fitter's jobs easier.
My advice would be just so, use a large enough detail to keep the welders and fitters from having to struggle to see the application and use a 'TYPICAL' detail with schedules or notes (normally found along the right hand side) to describe and include all applicable welds that would be included.
The use of a common detail can be found often in plans. Since your joint is the same only the lengths differ you could accomplish this in a clear and concise manner.
As originally asked I felt the terms from the codes best described your answer and would be a basic 'no'. But, that answer does not have to be all inclusive if other arrangements are made to make sure it is handled in a non confusing, code acceptable, manner.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
"I'm kicking my a**!!" That scene is a classic...
We have a shop standard for shear bars with short slots for 3/4" high strength bolts. I'm unsure how to post an actual detail, but the particulars are below. Our drawings are computer generated, so showing the weld size on the shop drawings is not an issue. Everyone in the shop knows that when they see p2 on a drawing, they already know that it has two - 13/16 x 1 slotted holes, and that it gets a 1/4" fillet weld on each side. When they see a p6 on a drawing, they already know that it has six - 13/16 x 1 slotted holes, and that it gets a 1/4" fillet weld on each side... and so on. Our detailers use this standard whenever possible, and if a connection requires anything beyond our standard, the detailer assigns the connection plate a different assembly mark. Regardless if it's a beam to beam connection, or if it's a beam to column connection (excluding narrow wide flange columns), this is what we use.....
Mark Size No. Holes Holes/Spcg. Horiz Ga. All Edge Dist. Horiz. Slot Fillet Weld
p2 FB 4 x 3/8 x 0-6 2 1 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p3 FB 4 x 3/8 x 0-9 3 2 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p4 FB 4 x 3/8 x 1-0 4 3 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p5 FB 4 x 3/8 x 1-3 5 4 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p6 FB 4 x 3/8 x 1-6 6 5 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p7 FB 4 x 3/8 x 1-9 7 6 @ 3 " 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p8 FB 4 x 3/8 x 2-0 8 7 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p9 FB 4 x 3/8 x 2-3 9 8 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
p10 FB 4 x 3/8 x 2-6 10 9 @ 3" 2 1/2" 1 1/2" 13/16 x 1 1/4" both sides
