Weld symbols for hidden edges

You don't indicate the size of Item 2. Are edges 2 and 3 actually accessible with a welding gun?
The most straight-forward way to indicate the welds would be to take the cross-section, i.e., side view you have and show a single sided filled symbol pointing to each edge that you would like to be welded. If you want all 4 edges welded, draw 4 symbols. I don't believe there is any consistent interpretation as to what the double sided fillet symbol is really referring to, edge 1 and 4 vs. edge 1 and 2. If the correct interpretation was 1 and 2, then you would probably need a second double fillet symbol at the top of your picture to indicate edges 3 and 4. The key to the symbols is to use a form and quantity of symbols that most easily identifies, without confusion, exactly what it is you want accomplished.

I agree with ajh1 that the double fillet weld callout on this drawing might be confusing for the fabricator.

Identifying all 4 welds in the cross section is the most clear way to explain what you want.

Thanks for the quick answers, friends!

Of course it is right to assume all corners are accessible with a welding gun.

I had given just a simple example. The actual drawing is cluttered like hell!
If more leaders are added for different edges to be welded, the drawing would become more lousy, and that is my main problem.

As per the latest ISO standards, does the double fillet weld call-out mean welds @ visible edge 1 & hidden edge 2? That is the only question I have..
I am not worried about edges 3 & 4

Hope to see answers soon. Thanks a lot!

I think someone who is intimately familiar with the standard would likely understand what the callout was intended to direct the welder to do- but the edges are far enough apart that in my experience, a fabricator might not understand without some thought.

Individual callouts would be the best course of action; if you need additional views so that the callouts can be added without cluttering things up, so be it.. I design big complicated weldments a lot, and it's rare that all the callouts for dimensions and welds and tolerances and everything else all fit easily in one view.

By looking at the question, the design symbol created a confusion, i.e. the fillet welds could be either the edges 1 & 2 or 1 & 4.
First, on the Fig.2, the edges 2 & 3 should be shown as dotted lines, instead of solid line.
IMO, if said the "raised hoop" is large with good access to edges 2 & 3, the welding is for the edges 1 &2. Otherwise, it could be for the edges 1 & 4. So, as a result, there is a 50% chance that the product is to be made and accepted per the current design intend.

It may be allowable to skip putting the weld types on the symbol and add a flag at the end with drawing notes indicating the type. This would allow more compactly representing the welds on the field of the drawing.

As far as I can tell from the AWS version, there is no hesitancy to having a tremendous number of detail views so that only a few symbols are applied in any one of them. It seems like this makes for better traceability, which is a higher priority than clutter avoidance. I concluded this because the AWS symbols seem intentionally not compact and the examples have no guidance for complex weldments, even though such weldments are common.

Thanks friends!

I am enlightened now!