A general review of geometric shape imperfections types and causes

Job Knowledge

Part 1. Introduction
In the job knowledge series welding imperfections such as cracks, lack of fusion, penetration and
porosity have been discussed. This article looks at those imperfections related to poor geometric shape
and will concentrate on the following:
Excess weld metal
Undercut
Overlap
Linear misalignment
Incompletely filled groove
Such imperfections might be considered as anomalies in the joint and they willalways be present to
some degree so that it becomes necessary to separate the acceptable from the unacceptable. This is
done by following guidance given by the application standard, which was the basis for the component
design, and/or by direction, as set out in the job contract. Examples of standards that might be referred
to are:

PD 5500 Specification for unfired fusion welded pressure vessels.

BS EN ISO 5817 Welding. Fusion-welded joints in steel, nickel, titanium and their alloys (beam

welding excluded). Quality levels for imperfections

AWS D1.1 Structural welding code - Steel

Excess weld metal

(also called cap height, overfill or reinforcement)

Fig.1. Excess weld metal

This is weld metal lying outside the plane joining the weld toes. Note that the term 'reinforcement',
although used extensively in the ASME/AWS specifications is avoided in Europe as it implies it adds
strength to the welded joint, which is rarely the case.

Common causes

This imperfection is formed when excessive weld metal is added to the joint, which is usually a result of
poor welder technique for manual processes but may be due to poor parameter selection when the
process is mechanised. That is, too much filler metal for the travel speed used. In multi-run welding a
poor selection of individual bead sizes can result in a bead build-up pattern that overfills the joint.
Different processes and parameters (eg voltage) can result in different excess weld metal shapes.

Acceptance
The acceptability of this imperfection is very dependent on the application in which the product will be
used. Most standards have limit, related to material thickness (eg 10%), but also have a maximum upper
limits. Both the ratio and the maximum may be related to the severity of service that the component is
expected to see. The following table gives examples taken from BS EN ISO 5817.
Excess weld metal limits for quality levels:
Severity of service
Moderate, D
Stringent, B
Limit (up to maximum) h = 1mm + 0.25 b h = 1mm + 0.1 b
Maximum
10 mm
5 mm
Transition required
smooth
smooth
Where: h = height of excess & b = width of bead (see figure 1)
An important reason for limiting the height of excess weld metal is that it represents a non-value added
cost. However, it must be remembered that the height of the weld cap influences the resultant toe
blend. A sharp transition causes a local stress concentration that can contribute to loss of strength,
which is particularly important in fatigue situations. As a result most specifications state that 'smooth
transition is required'.

Avoidance
If the imperfection is a result of welder technique then welder retraining is required. For mechanised
techniques an increase in travel speed or voltage will help to reduce cap height.

Undercut

Fig.2. Undercut
This is an irregular groove at the toe of a run in the parent metal.
The figure shows undercut at surface of a completed joint but it may also be found at the toes of each
pass of a multi-run weld. The latter can result in slag becoming trapped in the undercut region.

Common causes
When arc and gas welding, undercut is probably the most common shape imperfection. With singlesided pipe welds it may also be found at the bore surface. It may also be seen on the vertical face of
fillet welds made in the horizontal vertical position.
A wide spreading arc (high arc voltage) with insufficient fill (low current or high travel speed) is the usual
cause. However, welder technique, especially when weaving, and the way the welding torch is angled
can both cause and be used to overcome undercutting (ie angled to push the weld metal to fill the
melted groove). High welding current will also cause undercut - this is generally associated with the
need for a high travel speed to avoid overfilling of the joint.

Acceptance
Largely because this imperfection is widespread, most standards permit some level of undercut
although they do require that a 'smooth transition is required. The limits in BS EN ISO 5817 range from
0.5mm (stringent) to 1mm (moderate) for thickness (t) greater than 3mm (more stringent limits are
required for t 0.5 to 3mm), while AWS D1.1 has a limit of 1mm.
Measuring undercut can be a problem because of the small size of the imperfection compared with the
general environment where there can be mill scale, irregularities in the surface and spatter.
In critical applications the imperfection can be 'corrected' by blend grinding or by depositing an
additional weld bead.

Avoidance
This imperfection may be avoided by reducing travel speed and/or the welding current and by
maintaining the correct arc length.

Overlap (cold lapping)

Fig.3. Overlap
This is an imperfection at a toe or root of a weld caused by metal flowing on to the surface of the parent
metal without fusing to it. It may occur in both fillet and butt welds.

Common causes
This is often caused by poor manipulation of the electrode or welding gun, especially when the weld
pool is large and 'cold', where the welder allows gravity to influence the weld shape before

solidification. Tightly adherent oxides or scale on the metal surface can also prevent the weld metal
fusing with the parent metal to cause the overlap imperfection.

Avoidance
Avoidance is achieved through an acceptable level of welder skill and a reduction in weld pool size
(obtained by reducing current or increasing travel speed). Adequate cleaning of the parent plate is also
important.

Acceptance
Standards rarely allow the presence of this imperfection, unless the length is short (eg BS EN ISO 5817
for moderate quality level D). Overlap can be very difficult to detect, especially if it is extremely small.

Linear misalignment

Fig.4 Linear misalignment

(Also known in the USA as high-low).
This imperfection relates to deviations from the correct position/alignment of the joint.

Common causes
This is primarily a result of poor component fit-up before welding, which can be compounded by
variations in the shape and thickness of components (eg out of roundness of pipe). Tacks that break
during welding may allow the components to move relative to one another, again resulting in
misalignment.

Acceptance
The acceptability of this defect is related to the design function of the structure or pipe line either in
terms of the ability to take load across the misalignment or because such a step impedes the flow of
fluid.
Acceptance varies with the application:
BS EN ISO 5817 relates misalignment to wall thickness but sets maximum limits (eg for material
thickness t>3mm and moderate limits of imperfections D, = 0.25 x t, with a maximum of 5mm).
AWS D1.1 allows 10% of the wall thickness up to a maximum of 3mm.

The consequence of linear misalignment can, when welding is carried out from one side, be lack of root
or sidewall fusion to give a sharp continuous imperfection along the higher weld face toe. In some
situations linear misalignment in the bore of a pipe can lead to in-service problems where turbulence of
the carrier fluid in the pipe creates subsequent erosion.

Incomplete filled groove

Incomplete filled groove

This is a continuous, or intermittent, channel in the surface of a weld, running along its length, due to
insufficient weld metal.

Common causes
This problem arises when there has been insufficient filler metal (current or wire feed too low or too
high a travel speed) so that the joint has not been sufficiently filled. The result is that the thickness of
weldment is less than that specified in the design, which could lead to failure.

Acceptance
Most standards will not accept this type of imperfection, except perhaps over short lengths and even
then a smooth transition is required. The designer expects the joint to be adequately filled, but not too
much so (see excess weld metal).
Often the presence of this imperfection is an indication of poor workmanship and could suggest that
further training is required.

Continuation
Part 2 looks at shape imperfections such as excess penetration and root concavity and highlights shape
imperfections related to fillet welded joints.

A general review of the causes and acceptance of

shape imperfections - Part 2
Job Knowledge

Click here for Part 1.

This second article on shape imperfections refers mostly to fillet welds but there are two additional butt
weld imperfections that require some comment.

Excessive penetration (Excess penetration bead)

Fig.1. Excess penetration

Excess weld metal protruding through the root of a fusion (butt) weld made from one side only.
With pipe welding this type of imperfection may cause effects in the fluid flow that can cause erosion
and/or corrosion problems.

Common causes
Penetration becomes excessive when the joint gap is too large, the root faces are too small, the heat
input to the joint is too high or a combination of these causes.

Acceptance
The criteria which sets the level of acceptable penetration depends primarily on the application code or
specification.
BS 2971 (Class 2 arc welding) requires that the 'penetration bead shall not exceed 3mm for pipes up to
and including 150mm bore or 6mm for pipes over 150mm bore'.
BS 2633 (Class 1 arc welding) gives specific limits for smaller diameters pipes, eg for pipe size 25-50mm
the maximum allowed bore penetration is 2.5mm.
ASME B31.3 bases acceptability on the nominal thickness of the weld, for instance, allowing for a
thickness range of 13-25mm up to 4mm of protrusion. However, ASME notes that 'more stringent
criteria may be specified in the engineering design'.
BS EN ISO 5817 (Quality levels for imperfections), which supersedes BS EN 25817, relates the acceptable
protrusion to the width of the under-bead as follows:
Severity of service
Limit (up to maximum)
Maximum

Moderate, D
h 1mm + 1.0 b
5 mm

Stringent, B
h 1mm + 0.2 b
3 mm

For thicknesses > 3mm where: h = height of excess & b = width of root (see Fig.1)

Avoidance
It is important to ensure that joint fit-up is as specified in the welding procedure. If welder technique is
the problem then re training is required.

Root concavity (suck-back; underwashing)

Fig.2. Root concavity

A shallow groove that may occur in the root of a butt weld.

Common causes
Root concavity is caused by shrinkage of the weld pool in the through-thickness direction of the weld.
Melting of the root pass by the second pass can also produce root concavity.
This imperfection is frequently associated with TIG welding with the most common cause being poor
preparation leaving the root gap either too small or, in some cases, too large. Excessively high welding
speeds make the formation of root concavity more likely.

Acceptance
The root concavity may be acceptable. This will depend on the relevant standard being worked to. For
example:
BS 2971 requires that:
a) there is complete root fusion
b) the thickness of the weld is not less than the pipe thickness.
ASME B31.3 requires that the 'total joint thickness, including weld reinforcement, must be greater than
the weld thickness'.
BS EN ISO 5817 sets upper limits related to the quality level, eg for thicknesses > 3mm Moderate, (D), h
0.2t but max 2mm for Stringent, (B), h 0.05t but max 0.5mm. Furthermore, a smooth transition is
required at the weld toes.
In effect the standards require that the minimum design throat thickness of the finished weldment is
achieved. If the first two conditions of acceptance are met but the weld face does not have a sufficiently
high cap, additional weld metal may be deposited to increase the throat.

Avoidance
It is important to ensure that joint fit-up is as specified in the welding procedure and that the defined
parameters are being followed. If welder technique is the problem then retraining is required.

Fillet welded joints

This Section should be read in conjunction with Job Knowledge 66 Fillet welded joints - a review of the
practicalities.

Excessive convexity

Fig.3. Excessive convexity

This feature is also covered by the definition for excess weld metal, see Part 1, and may be described as
weld metal lying outside the plane joining the weld toes. Note that the term 'reinforcement', although
used extensively in the ASME/AWS specifications is avoided in Europe as it implies that excess metal
contributes to the strength of the welded joint. This is rarely the case.

Common causes
Poor technique and the deposition of large volumes of 'cold' weld metal.

Acceptance
The idealised design requirement of a 'mitre' fillet weld is often difficult to achieve, particularly with
manual welding processes.
BS EN ISO 5817 acceptance is based on a mitre fillet weld shape with a specific design throat and any
excess weld metal is measured in relation to this mitre surface. The limits for this imperfection relate the
height of the excess metal to the width of the bead with maximum values ranging from 3mm for a
stringent quality level to 5mm for a moderate quality level. Surprisingly, there is no reference to a
'smooth transition' being required at the weld toes for such weld shape.
AWS D1.1 also has limits relating width to acceptable excess as follows:
Width of weld face Maximum convexity

W 8mm
2mm
W <8 to W<25mm 3mm
W 25mm

5mm

Avoidance
Welder technique is the major cause of this problem and training may be required. It is also important
to ensure that the parameters specified in the welding procedures specification are adhered to.

Oversize fillet welds (welds with a throat larger than

required by the design)

Fig.4. Oversize fillet weld

As discussed in Job Knowledge 66, oversize fillet welds can represent a significant additional cost and
loss of productivity.

Common causes
There are some welding related causes, eg high welding current, slow travel speeds, and some
supervision related (eg 'to be safe make this fillet bigger by x mm').

Acceptance
BS EN ISO 5817 has limits related to the actual throat (eg for stringent quality levels, the actual weld
throat [a] may exceed the nominal (design) weld throat [h] by 1+0.15a with a maximum of 3mm. For the
moderate quality level (D) the excessive throat thickness is unlimited.

Avoidance
Adhere to the specified welding procedure and parameters and do not add to the specified weld size.
Where possible mechanise the welding operation.

Undersized fillet welds (fillet welds smaller than those

specified)

Fig.5. Undersized fillet weld

Common causes
The welding related causes are associated with high welding speeds and low welding currents.

Acceptance
Therefore, it is normally assumed that fillet welds will be at least of the size specified. BS EN SIO 5817
states that limits to insufficient throat thickness are not applicable to processes with proof of greater
depth of penetration, therefore a fillet weld with an apparent throat thickness smaller that that
prescribed should not be regarded as being imperfect if the actual throat thickness with a compensating
greater depth of penetration complies with the nominal value. That is if we can be sure there is good
penetration the smaller fillet may be acceptable, however, this should be discussed with the designer of
the fabrication. The limits set by the standard.
Relying upon deep penetration to provide the required minimum design throat thickness can be difficult
to justify. Penetration is a weld characteristic that is hard to measure directly and reliance must be
placed on the stringent control of both the welding process and the welder. Manual welding can rarely
be relied upon to provide the required consistency but it is an option with mechanised welding systems.
Quality levels
Imperfection: fillet weld Moderate D
Intermediate C
Stringent B
having a throat
Long imperfections NOT permitted
NOT permitted
thickness smaller than
Short imperfections (see Fig.5) h 0.3mm+ 0.1 a
the nominal value
max 2mm
max 1mm

Avoidance
Adhere to the specified welding procedure and parameters. Use sufficient current and appropriate
travel speed. Where possible mechanise the welding operation.

Asymmetric fillet weld (a fillet weld where the legs are of

unequal length)

Fig.6. Asymmetric fillet weld

Common causes
Due to incorrect electrode positioning or to gravity pulling the molten pool towards one face of the
joint. It is an mainly a problem with fillet welds made in the horizontal/vertical (PB) position.

Acceptance
There are instances where asymmetry may be specified (eg to place the toe stress concentration in a
particular region).
BS EN ISO 5817 would, for a 10mm leg length fillet weld (ie 7.1mm throat) allow a difference in leg
lengths of about 2.5mm at the stringent quality level and 3.4mm at the moderate quality level.
Acceptance is related to the throat thickness.
The consequence of this imperfection is a significant increase in weld volume. Provided the leg length
requirement is achieved there would not be a loss of strength. Perhaps this is why, in other standards, a
requirement is not specified and the acceptability is left to the inspection personnel to make the
'engineering judgement'!

Poor fit-up

Fig.7. Poor fit-up

The most common imperfection is an excessive gap between the mating faces of the materials.

Common causes
Poor workshop practice, poor dimensioning and tolerance dimensions on drawings.

Acceptance
A major problem with fillet welds is ensuring the gap between the components is within defined limits.
BS EN ISO 5817 specifies the acceptance criteria as follows:
Quality levels
Moderate D

Intermediate C

Stringent B

h 1mm + 0.3 a h 0.5mm + 0.2 a h 0.5mm + 0.1 a

max 4mm
max 3mm
max 2mm
Where h = fit-up gap and a = fillet weld design throat
Figure 7 shows that the gap results in a reduction in the leg length on the vertical plate and this, in turn,
results in a reduction in the throat thickness of the joint. A 10mm leg length fillet with a root gap of
3mm gives an effective leg of 7mm (a throat of 4.9mm instead of the expected 7mm).
When the application of BS EN ISO 5817 is not required, the guidance of BS EN 1011-2 can be followed,
which recommends a maximum gap of 3mm. This standard also states that the size of the fillet weld can
be increased to compensate for a large gap.
This discrepancy is addressed within AWS D1.1. which permits a root gap of up to 5mm for material
thickness up to 75mm. However, 'if the (joint) separation is greater than 2mm the leg of the fillet weld
shall be increased by the amount of the root opening, or the contractor shall demonstrate that the
effective throat has been obtained'.
This Job Knowledge article was originally published in Connect, January 2004. It has been updated so the
web page no longer reflects exactly the printed version.

Fillet welded joints - a review of the practicalities

Job Knowledge
Fillet welded joints such as tee, lap and corner joints are the most common connection in welded
fabrication. In total they probably account for around 80% of all joints made by arc welding.
It is likely that a high percentage of other joining techniques also use some form of a fillet welded joint
including non-fusion processes such as brazing, braze welding and soldering. The latter techniques are
outside the scope of this article.
Although the fillet weld is so common, there are a number of aspects to be considered before producing
such a weld. This article will review a number of topics that relate to fillet welded joints and it is hoped
that even the most seasoned fabricator or welding person will gain from this article in some way.
Common joint designs for fillet welds are shown below in Fig.1.

Fig 1. Common joint designs for fillet welds

Fillet weld features

ISO 2553 (EN 22553) uses the following notation as Figs.2 and 3 show.
a = throat thickness
z = leg length
s = deep penetration throat thickness
l = length of intermittent fillet

Fig. 2. Mitre fillet

Fig 3. Deep penetration fillet

Fillet weld shapes

Over specified fillet welds or oversized fillet welds

Fig 4. Weld sizes in relation to the required leg lengths or throat thickness
One of the greatest problems associated with fillet welded joints is achieving the correct weld size in
relation to the required leg lengths or throat thickness (Fig.4).
The designer may calculate the size and allow a 'safety factor' so that the weld specified on the
fabrication drawing is larger than is required by design considerations.
The weld size is communicated by using an appropriate weld symbol.
In the UK the weld size is frequently specified by referring to the leg length 'z' in ISO 2553 where the
number gives the weld size in millimetres as shown in Fig.5.

Fig 5. Weld size specification (UK)

In Europe, it is more common to find the design throat thickness, 'a' specified ( Fig.6).

Fig 6. Weld size specification (Europe)

Once the drawing has been issued to the shop floor, it is usual to find an additional safety factor also
being applied on by the welder or inspector. It is also common to hear 'add a bit more it will make it
stronger'.
The outcome is an oversized weld with perhaps an 8mm leg length rather than the 6mm specified by the
designer. This extra 2mm constitutes an increase in weld volume of over 80%.
This coupled with the already over specified weld size from the designer's 'safety factor' may lead to a
weld that is twice the volume of a correctly sized fillet weld.
By keeping the weld to the size specified by the drawing office, faster welding speeds can be achieved,
therefore increasing productivity, reducing overall product weight, consumable consumption and
consumable cost.
The other benefit is that, in the case of most arc welding processes, a slight increase in travel speed
would in most cases see an increase in root penetration so that the actual throat thickness is increased:
An oversized weld is therefore very costly to produce, may not have 'better strength' and is wasteful of
welding consumables and may see other fabrication problems including excessive distortion.

Lap joints welded with fillet welds.

As discussed earlier, oversized welds are commonplace and the lap joint is no exception. The designer
may specify a leg length that is equal to the material thickness as in Fig.7.

Fig 7. Lap joint - leg length specification

Strength considerations may mean that the fillet weld size need not be anywhere near the plate
thickness. In practice the weld may also be deficient in other ways for example:

Fig 8. Example showing an undersized fillet weld

Due to melting away of the corner of the upper plate (Fig.8), the vertical leg length is reduced meaning
that the design throat has also been reduced; therefore an undersized weld has been created. Care is
therefore needed to ensure that the corner of the upper plate is not melted away. Ideally the weld
should be some 0.5-1mm clear of the top corner (Fig.9).

Fig 9. Ideally the weld should be 0.5-1mm clear of the top corner
It may be the designer may therefore specify a slightly smaller leg length compared to the thickness of
the component.
To compensate for this reduction in throat thickness it may be necessary to specify a deep penetration
fillet weld. This amount of additional penetration would need to be confirmed by suitable weld tests.
Additional controls may also be needed during production welding to ensure that this additional
penetration is being achieved consistently.
In addition to the reduction in throat thickness there is the potential for additional problems such as
overlap at the weld toe due to the larger weld pool size (Fig.10) or an excessively convex weld face and
consequential sharp notches at the weld toe (Fig.11).

Fig 10. Overlap at the weld toe due to the larger weld pool size

Fig 11. Excessively convex weldface and consequential sharp notches at the weld toe
Both the potential problems shown in Figs.10 and 11 could adversely influence the fatigue life of the
welded joint due to the increased toe angle, which acts as a greater stress concentration.
Poor fit-up can also reduce the throat thickness as in Fig.12. The corner of the vertical component has
been bevelled in the sketch in an exaggerated manner to illustrate the point.

Fig 12. Throat thickness may be reduced by poor fit-up

Summary
Fillet welded joints are not only the most frequently used weld joints but are also one of the most
difficult to weld with any real degree of consistency. Fillet welds require a higher heat input than a butt
joint of the same thickness and, with less skilled welders this can lead to lack of penetration and/or
fusion defects that cannot be detected by visual examination and other NDT techniques.
Fillet welded joints are not always open to NDT or are indeed time consuming to many non-destructively
testing techniques such as radiography or ultrasonic testing and the results are often difficult to
interpret. Inspection methods such as visual inspection, magnetic particle inspection and penetrant
inspection are surface examination techniques only and with visual inspection, much of the effort is
expended in measuring the size of the weld rather than identifying other quality aspects.
Fillet welded joints are therefore much more difficult to weld and inspect. Often the welds that are
produced are larger than they need to be or they may be of a poor shape which can adversely influence
their service performance.

To overcome these difficulties, designers need to specify accurately the most appropriate throat size
and welding personnel should strive to achieve the specified design size. Welders also need to be
adequately trained and sufficiently skilled to be capable of maintaining an acceptable weld quality.
This article was written by Mark Cozens of Weld-Class Solutions. Any enquiries regarding the content of
the article should be addressed initially to the Editor, Connect.

A review of the application of weld symbols on

drawings - Part 1
Job Knowledge
Weld symbols have been used for many years and are a simple way of communicating design office
details to a number of different industrial shop floor personnel such as welders, supervisors, and
inspectors. Subcontractors are often required to interpret weld symbols on engineering drawings, from
perhaps the main contractor or client. It is essential that everyone should have a full understanding of
weld symbol requirements to ensure that the initial design requirement is met.
There are a number of standards which relate to weld symbols including British, European, International
and American (American Welding Society) standards. Most of the details are often similar or indeed, the
same, but it is essential that everyone concerned knows the standard to be used. One of the first
requirements therefore is:

Which standard?
The UK has traditionally used BS 499 Part 2. This standard has now been superseded by BS EN 22553,
however in many welding and fabrication organisations there will be old drawings used that make
reference to out of date standards such as BS 499 Pt 2.
BS EN 22553 is almost identical to the original ISO 2553 standard on which it was based. Therefore we
can say, for at least this article's scope, there are no significant differences, but it is essential that the
reader consults the specific standard. The American system is also similar in many respects but will not
be covered here.

Basic requirements
All the standards have the same requirements in relation to the following items:
Arrow line and arrow head
Reference line

The arrow line can be at any angle (except 180 degrees) and can point up or down. The arrow head must
touch the surfaces of the components to be joined and the location of the weld. Any intended edge
preparation or weldment is not shown as an actual cross sectional representation, but is replaced by a
line. The arrow also points to the component to be prepared with single prepared components. See Figs.
1-4.