Smart questions
Smart answers
Smart people
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Member Login




Remember Me
Forgot Password?
Join Us!

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips now!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

Join Eng-Tips
*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Donate Today!

Do you enjoy these
technical forums?
Donate Today! Click Here

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.
Jobs from Indeed

Link To This Forum!

Partner Button
Add Stickiness To Your Site By Linking To This Professionally Managed Technical Forum.
Just copy and paste the
code below into your site.

BATman2 (Mechanical)
13 Sep 04 14:01
Hello All,

I have a deceptively simple question.

Suppose you have old drawing for a welding steel frame which includes flare bevel welds (single side).  No weld size or prep. size specified.   

The frame was fully analyzed via FEA assuming full connections (ie no special modeling for welds or hand calcs.), tested to static and crush strength, passed no problems.   Actual welds generally "fill the joint completely", not CJP but typicaly show melt through. CJP is NOT specified in the tail.

If asked to specify the weld size as function of T, the thickness of the thinnest part, what should that be based on the above?

Thanks,
Batman2
metengr (Materials)
13 Sep 04 15:44
Based on your information, I would refer you to AWS D1.1 Structural Welding Code - Steel for information on flare-bevel-groove weld size. I believe the section titled "Design of Welded Connections" contains the requirements for prequalified Flare-bevel-groove weld joints. I have a 1994 copy of the AWS D1.1, and the information presented in Figure 2.5 identified the weld size as 5/8T1 (the thickness of the member making the corner joint).
BATman2 (Mechanical)
13 Sep 04 15:55
metengr,

Thanks for your input.

My understanding of the code is that 5/8 T is the EFECTIVE SIZE, i.e. the throat used for calculation purposes, and in order to get that effective size, the joint must be filled flush per D1.1 - 1994 2.3.1.4. Filling flush would mean fill the joint to the degree possible.

My concern is new suppliers trying to bulid this will under fill, thinking the bead need only have a 5/8 T leg (thickness).  That is not same as throat in this case.

I feel the code is not clear here.  

Yours or anyone else's thoughts?
Batman2

metengr (Materials)
13 Sep 04 16:01
Batman2;
You can specify to have the weld joint filled flush as part of a process step or QC requirement.
metengr (Materials)
13 Sep 04 17:36
BATman2;
As a follow-up, the AISC also has some excellent information as to the design requirements for throat size for flare-bevel-welds. Check out the web site below;

http://www.aisc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Technical...

Under research, there is a paper on calculation of effective throat size for flare-bevel welds.
Some interesting background and information
HgTX (Civil/Environmental)
13 Sep 04 18:49
Chapter 2 of D1.1 is design, so it deals with theoretical issues.  For control over what the fabricators actually do, you need Chapter 5 on fabrication.  In particular, Figure 5.4 lists underfill as an unacceptable profile.  The referring code section is 5.24 (in D1.1-2004).  Don't let them tell you that a flare bevel weld doesn't count as a groove weld.

Hg
BATman2 (Mechanical)
14 Sep 04 8:19
metengr,

Excellent link!  Thanks so very much.  In that paper you can see what I am trying to avoid. Flare bevels that have throat depths of t or slightly greater is what is needed in my case. The "bridged" shaped welding is what I am trying to avoid.  

Why is this so complicated?  Well, we have two new suppliers working in two countries working with design drawings from a third supplier (OEM) from a third country.  All are required to work to D1.1. The original OEM "filled" the grooves to the best of my knowledge and conducted full scale plastic testing to qualify the design. As I said if 5/8T goes into the symbol, I am concerned some one will assume a smaller weld that OEM is OK (quicker, cheaper etc.).  They have several THOUSAND of these welds to make in the next 5 years.

HgTX  Thank you very much as well. I will hold my ground on this and we'll hold them to D1.1.

Batman2

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close