The article in the last issue of Connect introduced the fillet weld, the least costly weld type

to make
since the components to be joined do not require flame cutting or machining of a weld preparation, the
pieces can be propped against each other and the welder can then deposit a single pass of weld metal
against a solid metal backing.
Whilst this sounds simple there are some aspects of making a fillet weld that must be taken into
account (in addition to those already mentioned in the previous article Design part 1).
Cooling rates in a fillet weld are greater than in a similar thickness butt joint. There are three paths by
which heat will be lost from the weld. This fact means that lack of fusion/cold start defects are more
likely, particularly in high thermal conductivity metals such as aluminium and the risks of cold cracking
are increased in carbon and low alloy steels. What may be acceptable in terms of heat input and/or
preheat temperature for a butt weld may therefore not be acceptable with a fillet weld configuration.
This point has sometimes been overlooked, particularly when welding on temporary attachments such
as strongbacks, where quality control may be somewhat lax. This has led to major cracking problems
for some fabricators.
Unlike a butt weld where the required weld throat is generally the thickness of the parent metal, the
size of a fillet weld is determined by the loads that it is expected to carry. It can therefore be of any
size that the designer specifies although there are practical limitations with respect to both minimum
and maximum throat thickness.
With the conventional arc welding processes it is difficult to deposit a fillet weld with a throat less than
some 2mm. This is in addition to the possibility of the lack of fusion/cold cracking mentioned above
due to the rapid cooling rates experienced by small fillet welds. The maximum size of fillet weld is
generally that of the thickness of the thinner of the two items being joined but very large fillet welds
may cause unacceptable distortion and/or extremely high residual stresses. In addition, above a
certain size it may be more economical to make a T-butt, rather than a fillet weld.
Although the throat thickness is regarded as being the most important dimension for design purposes
it is a fact that mechanical failure of fillet welds is often along the fusion line or through the parent
material itself. One reason for this in carbon or low alloy steels is that the weld metal is mostly
substantially stronger than the parent metal.
As mentioned in Connect article No. 90 there are a variety of fillet weld shapes that make the accurate
measurement of the throat thickness a little more difficult than may be first thought.
The throat is the shortest distance from the root to the face of the weld. To measure this dimension in
a regular mitre or flat faced fillet weld is relatively simple. The shape is that of an isosceles triangle,
the throat being 0.7 of the leg length. Convex, concave and deep penetration welds, however have
throat thicknesses as illustrated in Fig.1.

a) mitre fillet weld

Remember to override URL to include the JK number at the end.

e.g. /radiography-124/
/eddy-current-testing-123/