Double-sided notched weld bead height
Thread Content
Yesterday, a colleague from the quality inspection department asked me how to establish the inspection standards for welds with double-notched edges (steel plate thickness of 10 mm, δ1=6). He cited Table 10-3 in GB150-1998, which specifies that the weld bead height should be between 0 and 15% of δ1, with a maximum value of 4 mm; therefore, the weld bead height should be 0.9 mm. However, the actual weld bead height was higher, so he asked the workshop to grind the welds. If the workshop comes to me, how should I explain it? When I was at other factories before, welds of no more than 1.5 mm were generally considered acceptable.
Hehe, why does the 10mm section need to have double bevels? Was it specified in the drawings or decided by your welding technicians? It seems like it’s not necessary at all. I think a internal groove with a one-sided welding process that results in a double-sided finished shape will suffice; in this case, a residual height of ≤1.5 mm will be adequate. If a double-sided groove is really necessary, then it has to be done according to the standards, and the workers will have to grind it – but I imagine they’ll be cursing under their breath. Of course, it is necessary to control the excess height.
In our factory, the excess height of V-groove welds is kept within 1.5 MM. I haven’t worked with X-groove welds yet; I’m new to this field. Please offer me some guidance, experts
Hehe, my friends, the colleagues in your quality control department didn’t read GB150-1998 thoroughly. Ask them to take a look at Amendment 1 to GB150-1998; it contains modifications and additions regarding the issue of weld bead height. It states that \"when the calculated percentage value is less than 1.5, it should be taken as 1.5.\" In other words, if you use double-bevel grooves on a 10mm thick plate, the maximum weld bead height can be 1.5mm, because the values calculated using δ1 or δ2 are both less than 1.5, so 1.5 is used as the standard value. No wonder the workers in the workshop turned to you; however, it would be better if they approached the quality control department, as that would be more fair. Are you working in welding processes? I believe you haven’t seen the contents of the amendment sheet either; otherwise you wouldn’t have agreed to the Quality Control Department’s suggestions. Standards need to be considered in their entirety, otherwise one might be misled by incomplete knowledge. Last edited by yaoyongyoyo on 2009-3-14 at 16:31.]
The guy on the 4th floor is right; I did forget the amendment form, shame on me. I still don’t understand why the original poster and the others used double bevels
First of all, thank you all for your detailed explanations. The diameter of the equipment cylinder is 600; the internal notch was created by manual welding, while the external area was cleaned using carbon arc gas gouging (it should be a double-sided notch).
As long as it is no more than 1.5mm, it is acceptable.
Now, many devices imported from abroad have no visible welds. I wonder if their welds were polished off or what was done to them.
The poster might have used a single-sided groove and then cleaned the root area
Welding after root cleaning also falls under the category of double-sided grooves; one just needs to keep in mind the changes specified in the modification order