I am acronym-challenged, kindly expand FPBW.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Single sided V FPBW

It embarrasses me to have to ask again.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Full penetration butt weld....not a stretch IM for a welding forum.

david,

The proliferation of homemade acronyms, I suspect driven by the desperate need to stand out from the hordes on linkedin, is a plague. And if a person is looking for gratis assistance, they should make the effort to spell out the question sans jargon and acronyms.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Quote:

proliferation of homemade acronyms

I'd hardly call it homemade, it's quite commonly used all around the world along with FSBW (Full Strength). The exception I'm aware of is America where they seem to refer to the same thing as Complete Penetration. All the same thing.


Typically, in this part of the world at least (Australasia), a FPBW and FW would require separate qualification tests as they involve quite different processes.

I'm retired now, but 30 some years ago I was an AWS (American Welding Society) CWI (Certified Welding Inspector),
and there was no Butt Weld, it was a Butt Joint with a Groove Weld. Unless something has changed.

I've been a welding engineer my whole career and I've never heard this one before.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

The reason that I remember this, is that this was one of the Changeling (Trick)
questions on the CWI Exam.

So my understanding is that a butt Weld will only qualify a fillet Weld with a single sided beval with a backing strip (15614) but I know a lot of people who ask the same question am asking if a welder takes a full penetrated butt Weld (Vbutt) in the UK a welder will have to take a fillet and FPBW or a PPBW would be covered by a FPBW I did contact TWI and ask this question the answer was lots of welders who 90% of welds was butt welds failed on the fillet Weld test this is why its common for welders to take both types of welds, if I have asked the question wrong in any there's no need to judge hard am a learner and always say we have all learnt from someone in some way!!!!

Quote (Spalding123)

can a FPBW in plate also qualify you for a fillet Weld

* Yes, EN ISO 15614-1 (procedure qualification) does provide this (see your screenshot above). Mind that there is a clause for sl/ml with specific conditions. This makes it common to qualify a ml BW, sl FW and ml FW (unless you're working with <3mm plates/tubes).
* No, EN ISO 9606-1 (welder certification) states that BW only qualifies BW and FW only qualifies FW. see § 5.4 b).

Agent666,
No, it is not used all around the world.
Type FPBW into Google and see what you get.
Nothing from any codes / standards but a lot of links to Australian design specifications.
Other than what the OP has posted above I can find no other code/standard that has listed this.
AS/NZS 1554.1 lists Complete Penetration Butt Weld - not Full Penetration Butt Weld.
Please advise where you have got your info from.

Communication takes enough effort without dropping out entire words. Acronyms drop out words in bunches.
Where it becomes extreme is when insiders start using acronyms as verbs (just shoot me now).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Dekdee thank you for pointing this out I do apologise for this as its common talk in a work shop as I here a lot of the word FPBW I also see this on some drawings thanks for correcting this,kingnero great post explaining it in the best way

Thank you

Hi Dekdee, despite Google failing us, its a common term in common use in certain circles despite not being the way it might be strictly called up in their standards or codes as Spalding noted. As you point out complete penetration butt weld (CPBW) is used in AS/NZS1554 standards, cant argue with that.

But step inside any workshop or engineering consultancy who use this particular standard and you're unlikely to hear it talked about using this particular acronym (CPBW). FSBW or FPBW are almost exclusively commonly in use. I can't think of a case in 20 years when I've ever seen a NZ or Australian engineering drawing or shop drawing that referenced the correct CPBW nomenclature from 1554 in lieu of FSBW or less commonly FPBW.

I've worked on jobs in a number of countries around the world and worked with engineers from many more. So hardly representative of the entire world I guess. But most would understand what was meant no matter what the exact term used. Full penetration, complete penetration, full strength or even just butt weld or butt joint, etc, all mean the same thing to most engineers once they've had the acronym explained if they didn't work it out from the BW bit.

When an acronym is present the first time, it would be easier for everybody, if the full name is enclosed in the parentheses, or vice versa.

Quote (retired13)

When an acronym is present the first time

Most are best smothered in their cradle.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

There are some disparities between the terminology used by ASME, AWS, and other countries. Case in point; Butt Weld - ASME Section IX used to include the term "butt weld" to describe a Butt Joint or a complete joint penetration groove weld using AWS terminology. I see that the term "butt weld" has been dropped by ASME Section IX and even they have adopted the term "Butt Joint" as defined by AWS. Many engineers use the term butt weld to describe any complete joint penetration groove weld in any of the common joint types; butt, corner, or T-joint. You can't easily have a complete joint penetration groove weld in either the lap joint or edge joint. Likewise, it is unlikely one will have a complete joint penetration groove in either the flare bevel or flare V groove types. AWS considers a Butt Weld to be a type of welding process, i.e., flush upset butt weld.

Another example is "full penetration" versus "complete penetration". The preferred term per AWS A3.0 is "complete joint penetration". "Full joint penetration" or "full penetration" are both considered to be a nonstandard terms (slang)by AWS. It has been so for somewhere on the order of forty years.

Another example of a bit of confusion is the difference between a "chamfer" and a "bevel". Here in the US the term "chamfer" is used by machinists to define the internal acute angle along the edge of a part, whereas the "bevel" is the external angle (90 degrees minus the angle measure with a protractor) used to define the angle of a part prepared for a groove weld.

Considering this forum includes people from all parts of the world and all levels of expertise, I have to agree that the use of acronyms can be confusing. What is considered standard terminology in one country may well be nonstandard terminology in another country. Then again, I have to wonder if we are using what is considered standard terminology and what is the governing document you are using? As mentioned, here in the US and in many other countries, AWS A3.0 is the "standard" for welding, soldering, and brazing, but certain codes take liberties, i.e., “butt weld” and “root gap” as used by ASME (no longer defined by ASME Section IX), or in the recent past the word “land” as used by API 1104 (API has recently adopted AWS’ term “root face”).

We could do ourselves a favor by sticking with standard terminology, perhaps double checking a specific term with a current edition of “standard terms and definitions” used in your particular country. It is surprising to see how often what we think is standard terminology is in fact considered “slang” or simply local vernacular.

How many of you know what a “dry pass” weld is? It is a term used by a jet engine manufacturer here in the US. No one else uses the term and their engineers just assumes everyone knows what they were referring to. To that, all I can say is, “Duh?” I pointed out the discrepancy to one of their welding engineers. All that accomplished was to really tic him off.


Best regards - Al

I agree. Don't forget ISO standards, where we have our very own pile of abbreviations. Yes, Europe is represented here, albeit by a minority.

Quote (gtaw)

How many of you know what a “dry pass” weld is?

Curious now. Please, do enlighten us...

I'll give it some time and then I'll tell you what a "dry pass" weld is to that one engine manufacturer. Since you aren't familiar with the term, would you like to hazard a guess?

Which of the following is the correct term?
welding helmet or welding hood
ground clamp or work piece connector
ground cable or work cable (lead)
inner shield electrode or self shielded flux cored electrode
gas shielded flux cored electrode or outer shield electrode
3G or vertical groove position
flat groove position or 1G
partial joint penetration or complete joint penetration
complete joint penetration groove weld or partial joint penetration groove weld
Is it a T-joint or is it a fillet weld? (Confused? So was I)
Is the fillet weld a partial penetration weld or does the fillet weld have to be complete joint penetration weld or is the fillet weld expected to be fused to the joint root?


I could go on for days. I find it interesting that many of us have become so familiar with slang terminology that we don't even recognize is as such. As professionals, do we have a responsibility to make an effort to use the correct terminology or is that some other Egghead's job? The slang even creeps into some of our standards. The typical response is, "Everyone knows what we mean." My response is, "Really?" They should visit a few of our forums sometime.

Best regards - Al

A guess: dry, as in no filler added?

Welding helmet
I guess work piece connector, as there is no "ground" in the secondary circuit of a welding machine.
Work cable, for the same reason
FCAW-S (self shielded)
FCAW-G (Gas shielded)
No idea, keep in mind we have our own position designations (PA, PB, ...)
Don't know, but I can deduce what a FPBW in reality is.
There is a difference in ISO: T joints are to be completely welded. As opposed to a double sided (either beveled or straight) fillet weld
...

Butt weld is defined in CSA W59 - 2018 and in AWS D1.1 - 2015 (I don't have 2020) as a "non-standard term for a weld in a butt joint".

I differentiate between a groove weld and a fillet weld as follows:

A fillet weld goes on the joint, a groove weld goes in the joint.

A fillet weld is expected to be fused to the root, but not necessarily beyond the root. This so we can determine the theoretic throat dimension to calculate the strength of the fillet weld. If the fusion of the fillet weld does not extend to at least the root, the theoretic throat dimension is shorter than what is assumed in the strength calculations. Oops, there goes another structure!

What I am leading up to is, "What is a completely welded T-joint?" Seriously, what is meant?

Best regards - Al

My interpretation would be (depending on thickness) one or both sides of the "top" plate bevelled so that all contact between both plates is fused. See attached picture for an example of what I mean (bottom part is a large round bar in the picture, but think of it as a thick plate in this context).

• https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=3bec2f4f-7784-41da-9a91-9

Hi all well I have to admit I have stated something in a different manner to what we all have different understanding of but I have learnt something from this as gtaw has stated it is best to stick to the standard terminology instead of slang werds

Thanks

Without doubt the most egregious example in the welding marketing world is CMT or Cold Metal Transfer, from a company who shall remain nameless.

Personally, I like my metal transfer to be hot, extremely hot. Silly marketing confections like CMT suggest to me some deep-rooted techno-psychological issue, and have the effect of warning me off.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Cold metal transfer, yup, with you on that one! Leave it to the marketeers to set their product apart from the rest of the herd and scare the smart customers into the arms of their competition.

So, back to you KingNero. What you illustrate with the photomacrograph appears to be something a little less than a complete joint penetration groove weld. I do see some incomplete penetration in the root, thus it is not complete joint penetration. The red arrow is pointing to dark line that appears too straight and true to be a crack and it appears to exhibit some incomplete fusion to the left side.

On the correct terminology, not bad my friend! And yes, the dry pass is an autogenous weld.

To say "Step inside any shop" as justification for certain terminology would put us all back into the days of huge reptiles and other scary thing that could gobble us up in the blink of an eye! Let's say the terminology is imprecise and leave it at that.

Best regards - Al

Al,
I am on a B31.3 committee and we are currently considering a ballot related to Lack of Fusion and Lack of Penetration.
I have tried to point out to fellow committee members that our code references AWS 3.0 for terminology and both those terms are considered "non-standard" (slang) terms.
Incomplete Fusion and Incomplete Penetration are the correct terminology.
If we, as the code creators cannot get it right then it makes it pretty damn hard for the actual users of the code.
Cheers,
Shane

Amen to that brother.

I sit on a several of AWS committees and get to review many AWS standards. It is amazing how often nonstandard terms are used and get overlooked during the review process. We get so used to seeing and hearing those terms that they don't register when we read them.

I remember reviewing one of the ASME's construction codes a few years ago so I could include any revisions in one of my courses. They referred to AWS A3.0 in two places, but in each case they referenced a different edition. Nothing we humans create is perfect. I try to keep that in mind when working with a code, but there are cases where, well, there's just no damn justifiable excuse, thus we have the "Farm Code".

Best regards - Al