![Weld throat thickness Weld throat thickness](/uploads/1/1/1/6/111636511/547531080.jpg)
Design Throat Thickness Weld Converter
Throat thickness – e.g. For a T-Fillet Joint – equals the height of the smallest rectangular triangle projectable in to the transversal cross section of the fillet weld. This, actually, proves independent of the external shape (transversal cross section) of the fillet weld, being either 'Flat', 'Concave' or 'Convex'. Theoretical Throat = 0.7 x Size. Unequal Leg Fillet Weld For unequal leg fillet welds, the “size” of the weld is the leg length of the largest right triangle which can be inscribed within the fillet weld cross section. Slip-on and Socket Welded Flanges. = 1.4 T1 or thickness of the Hub, whichever is smaller, but not less than 1/8 in. Throat thickness welded, No approval range t t 30mm t 5mm 3 Thickness Throat Thickness Test Piece Thickness (t) Fillet welds Qualified by butt welds:- The throat thickness approval range is based on the deposit thickness and the plate.
Weld Throat Size
I tend to agree with what you're saying, i.e.: '.. I think they're reading a bit too much into your simple question.'
Despite the obvious lack of detailed information only to be provided by the gentlemen who did start this thread. My question is, who actually says that 'determine' doesn't mean 'measure' in the OP context?
And although loads of information is available filling whole handbook pages and certainly also this forum, you made a good point in my eyes.
Actually it is thus surely unneeded to add anything more, however, here's my tiny addendum for what its worth.
Throat thickness – e.g. for a T-Fillet Joint – equals the height of the smallest rectangular triangle projectable in to the transversal cross section of the fillet weld. This, actually, proves independent of the external shape (transversal cross section) of the fillet weld, being either 'Flat', 'Concave' or 'Convex'. See sketches embedded.
From that, a stringent geometrical relationship can be deduced. I.e. 'leg length', say 'z', theoretically equals in general throat thickness, say 'a' times ~1.414 (square root of 2) or:
z = a x 2^1/2.
The OP makes use of metric dimensions in his question. Might be he's from Europe. And although, as being comprehensively stated along this thread, codes and standards, the parent metal and its mechanical properties, the consumable(s) and design loads, etc. etc. play major parts, some rough rules of thumb are available that could find mention.
E.g. it should be understandable to the OP that a minimum leg length or throat thickness needs to be considered in any respect. That is, as he had used the 3 mm in wall thickness, dropping the wall thickness below 3 mm should not mandatorily mean to linearly decrease the weld throat thickness (or leg length) either.
At least in Europe to the best of my knowledge, international standardisation tends toward limiting the maximum throat thickness of a fillet joint. That is. It shall not exceed 0.7 times the weldments minimum wall thickness, or:
a_max =< 0.7 t_min [mm]
However, it must lie above or equal to 3 mm, independent of what the minimum wall thickness says.
I seem to recall some European institutions (e.g. shipbuilding) require the minimum throat thickness to be computed as:
a_min = [(t_min+t_max)/3]^1/2 [mm]
Leg length shall not go below 1.4 times 'a' in this partciular case.
Nonetheless I do hope the OP does not use these information for building subsea- or pressure vessels.
I couldn't forgive myself namely if somebody would be saying 'Ouch!' someday.
EDIT: Corrected some typos.
Despite the obvious lack of detailed information only to be provided by the gentlemen who did start this thread. My question is, who actually says that 'determine' doesn't mean 'measure' in the OP context?
And although loads of information is available filling whole handbook pages and certainly also this forum, you made a good point in my eyes.
Actually it is thus surely unneeded to add anything more, however, here's my tiny addendum for what its worth.
Throat thickness – e.g. for a T-Fillet Joint – equals the height of the smallest rectangular triangle projectable in to the transversal cross section of the fillet weld. This, actually, proves independent of the external shape (transversal cross section) of the fillet weld, being either 'Flat', 'Concave' or 'Convex'. See sketches embedded.
From that, a stringent geometrical relationship can be deduced. I.e. 'leg length', say 'z', theoretically equals in general throat thickness, say 'a' times ~1.414 (square root of 2) or:
z = a x 2^1/2.
The OP makes use of metric dimensions in his question. Might be he's from Europe. And although, as being comprehensively stated along this thread, codes and standards, the parent metal and its mechanical properties, the consumable(s) and design loads, etc. etc. play major parts, some rough rules of thumb are available that could find mention.
E.g. it should be understandable to the OP that a minimum leg length or throat thickness needs to be considered in any respect. That is, as he had used the 3 mm in wall thickness, dropping the wall thickness below 3 mm should not mandatorily mean to linearly decrease the weld throat thickness (or leg length) either.
At least in Europe to the best of my knowledge, international standardisation tends toward limiting the maximum throat thickness of a fillet joint. That is. It shall not exceed 0.7 times the weldments minimum wall thickness, or:
a_max =< 0.7 t_min [mm]
However, it must lie above or equal to 3 mm, independent of what the minimum wall thickness says.
I seem to recall some European institutions (e.g. shipbuilding) require the minimum throat thickness to be computed as:
a_min = [(t_min+t_max)/3]^1/2 [mm]
Leg length shall not go below 1.4 times 'a' in this partciular case.
Nonetheless I do hope the OP does not use these information for building subsea- or pressure vessels.
I couldn't forgive myself namely if somebody would be saying 'Ouch!' someday.
EDIT: Corrected some typos.