Weld-All-Round Symbol for Pipe?

Date 10-22-2003 18:07

Hi Karsten,
I agree with your interpetation of the symbol you described.
See AWS A2.4-98
This example is not showing a groove weld but the intent would be the same....Look at Figure 9 on the bottom of page 18 in your AWS A2.4-98(pipe with base/cap plate seal welded all around with an 1/8" fillet). It shows the symbol "without" the all around circle and the extent of welding expected. Also an example of the same type thing "with" the all around circle included in the symbol on page 17 of the same Figure 9(for shapes other than pipe).
I agree, if the intent was not for it to be continuous, for the circumference of the pipe, a length would have been specified in the symbol.
My answer would be "no" the all around symbol does not have to be shown for that intent on pipe.
Hope this helps support your case,
John Wright

By kmadsen Date 10-22-2003 18:10

Thanx John,
I was looking at an older version of A2.4

Cheers,
Karsten

By pino

Date 10-22-2003 18:15

Being a fitter that graduated from conestoga college I believe that your assumtion is right. I dont believe I've ever seem a weld all around symbol used in conjunction with a groove weld. I've only ever seen it used as far as fillet welds are concerned. However according to and I realize that this is not a pipe code 47.1 and 59 indicate that this is a weld all around the entire joint not indicating as to what type of joint though. If you want to look at it in a logical kind of way you wouldnt stitch weld a pipe togeather that I am aware of.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 10-22-2003 18:25

I also agree with your interpretation. The all-around symbol isn't hurting anything other than to raise doubt when it isn't there, but it isn't needed because a full length joint is the entire circumference.
Chet Guilford

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-23-2003 13:00

I was looking at that AWS 2.4-98 and it has a Welding Symbols Chart in the back on page 106 that has something sorta funny shown.

Check out the field weld symbols under supplementary symbols. They are in the box between the Weld-All Around symbol and the Melt-Thru symbol. Did you notice anything funny about how this is labeled?

John Wright

By boilermaker (**)

Date 10-23-2003 15:59

JW, I don't have that chart, but have seen the melt through symbol before...We attend welder orientation for Exelon Nuclear, and the Welding Administrator didn't even know that symbol existed..and He also is a welding engineer...Does the melt through symbol used on pipe and tube welds indicate that you can not have any internal concavity?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-23-2003 17:38

I can't speak for ASME and other codes which govern piping. I'll leave those codes to others that are more familiar with them.

D1.1 however, mentions the root being visually inspection for qualification of WPS's and a 1/16" maximum concavity is permitted, and a 1/8" maximum melt through. Also these limits are permissible provided the total weld thickness is equal to or greater than the thickness of the base metal. -per Paragragh 4.8.1 (4)&(5) of D1.1:2002.
Hope this answers your question
John Wright

By thirdeye (***)

Date 10-23-2003 17:47

John,

You are an excellent proofreader, maybe you should receive an AWS tee shirt? I checked our older wall charts and they don't show this error.
However, the old charts don't show the field symbol below the reference line even though it is quite common.

boilermaker, the melt-through symbol is used for complete root penetration (plus reinforcement) when welds are made from one side.
The reinforcement can be unspecified or the dimension can be called out to the left of the symbol.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-23-2003 18:55

Something else has been mis-typed in the index of the 2002 D1.1, look up "melting-through" and notice the reference to paragraph 4.8.11 (5), If you look that up you'll notice that there is no paragraph 4.8.11.
Well, since I live in a glass house, I'm not slinging any rocks at anyone.
I mis-read, mis-type and mis-spell all of the time. I butcher the English language most everyday unintentionally.
John Wright

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 10-23-2003 19:16

I have been over to our engineering dept. many times trying to figure out the intentions of weld symbols that can't be performed as drawn on the shop drawings. People really don't know the symbols like they should, because in structural detailing you have to put the weld symbols on the shop drawings. Many detailers will simply copy the weld symbol that the engineer shows on the contract drawings. No one catches that it can't be done as drawn until the shop sees it and attempts to comply with the drawing. Partial pen. symbols seem to cause the most the most confusion trying to get the depth of bevel and weld size in the correct order and location. Computers stick all sorts of symbols on drawings with the new detailing software and many times the detailer don't know enough about the symbol to know if it is correct or not. Many years ago when I started out in the drawing room, I was guilty of the same thing. No one was able to show me the correct symbols until I started using the manual of steel construction and found the prequalified joints section and actually took time to read it. Symbols are neglected during the detailer trainee training process and is something that is learned over the years by trial and error.
John Wright

By thirdeye (***)

Date 10-23-2003 20:00

Karsten,

I got off the weld-all-around subject and forgot to include this in my earlier post. In A2.4-98, see 3.10.2 Circumferential Welds.