Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • 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!
  • Students Click Here

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

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

Check the new Table J2.4 -- minimum size of fillet welds.

For as long as I've been around, the minimum size has been based on the thicker of the parts joined. This table uses the THINNER part. I checked with AISC for this and it is correct.

It would be interesting to know how many people read right over this and don't notice the change.


RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

I think they finally fixed an error !!!

RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

It depends on how you define an error. It intentionally used the thicker one for years and now they intentionally changed it to thinner. It has something to do with modern welding practices, but was over my head, not being a welding expert.

I do think it's the single goofiest code change that I've ever seen.


RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

I retract my eariler statement.  I was thinking of the MAXIMUM fillet size, which was to "not exceed the thickness of the thinner part".  Is that still the case?

RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

The maximum size didn't change. It's the same as the 3rd Edition LRFD which is something like 1/16" thinner than the thickness of material for material 1/4" or over, and equal to the material for material less than 1/4". Note that this is along an edge of material, like at a lap joint, not at a tee-type joint, like a column flange to column base plate. AISC has a bunch of FAQ that address this commonly confused issue. The base metal strength check, which is not really new, helps to avoid unreasonably large fillet welds in tee-type joints. Other than that, I don't know that there is a technical max, although common sense dictates welds that are not huge.

Have a good weekend (what's left of it).


RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

My understanding was that the minimum size was set by the thicker piece to ensure adequate heat generation to allow for a good weld.  Do they address preheat now as part of the minimum weld?

RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

structuresguy typed: "My understanding was that the minimum size was set by the thicker piece to ensure adequate heat generation to allow for a good weld.  Do they address preheat now as part of the minimum weld?"

That's always been my understanding also, but apparently times change. The following is from the new Commentary:

"Table J2.4 provides the minimum size of a fillet weld for a given thickness of the thinner part joined. The requirements are not based on strength considerations, but on the quench effect of thick material on small welds. Very rapid cooling of weld metal may result in a loss of ductility. Further-more, the restraint to weld metal shrinkage provided by thick material may result in weld cracking. The use of the thinner part to determine the minimum size weld is based on the prevalence of the use of filler metal considered to be ‘low hydrogen’.  Because a 5/16 in. (8 mm) fillet weld is the largest that can be deposited in a single pass by the SMAW process and still be considered prequalified under AWS D1.1, 5/16 in. (8mm) applies to all material ¾ in. (19 mm) and greater in thickness, but minimum preheat and interpass temperatures are required by AWS D1.1. Both the engineer of record and the shop welder must be governed by the requirements."

It's definitely intentional, but I still think it's the goofiest code change I've ever witnessed!!


RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

AWS D1.1 has basically been operating with the "thinner" material for years.  They have had the same table as AISC except there was a footnote that basically said, "if you have a low-hydrogen electrode then use the table based on the thinner material."  As noted in the AISC Commentary most electrodes are now low-hydrogen.  AISC is just catching up to where AWS has been for 15 years.

RE: New Table J2.3 Watch Out!

Typically for HSS connections, I often go 10% greater than the  thinnest wall thickness.  Research has show this is appropriate and many European standards reflect this.


Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

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! Already a Member? Login


eBook - Rethink Your PLM
A lot has changed since the 90s. You don't surf the Web using dial-up anymore, so why are you still using a legacy PLM solution that's blocking your ability to innovate? To develop and launch products today, you need a flexible, cloud-based PLM, not a solution that's stuck in the past. Download Now
White Paper - Using Virtualization for IVI and AUTOSAR Consolidation on an ECU
Current approaches used to tackle the complexities of a vehicle’s electrical and electronics (E/E) architecture are both cost prohibitive and lacking in performance. Utilizing virtualization in automotive software architecture provides a better approach. This can be achieved by encapsulating different heterogeneous automotive platforms inside virtual machines running on the same hardware. Download Now
White Paper - The Criticality of the E/E Architecture
Modern vehicles are highly sophisticated systems incorporating electrical, electronic, software and mechanical components. Mechanical systems are giving way to advanced software and electronic devices, driving automakers to innovate and differentiate their vehicles via the electric and electronic (E/E) architecture. As the pace of change accelerates, automotive companies need to evolve their development processes to deliver and maximize the value of these architectures. Download Now

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