quotation welding according to one en 22553

[radio]

I have a doubt about the correct symbolism to use to quote the soldering you see in the annex.
normal use of a combination of graphic symbols such as the one you see in the upper part in the figure, this combination is expressly mentioned in the aws while in the uni en 22553 no, in paragr. 4.2 and 4.3 we talk about possibility of combination of graphic signs and additional graphic signs, but it is not treated the case in question.
As far as I am concerned, I will continue to use the upper symbolism, which seems sufficiently intuitive to me; the cad that I use now also gives me the possibility to concatenate symbols as you see below in the annex, what do you prefer or what do you think is more correct?

Bye.

 

[Marco74]

I have a doubt about the correct symbolism to use to quote the soldering you see in the annex.
normal use of a combination of graphic symbols such as the one you see in the upper part in the figure, this combination is expressly mentioned in the aws while in the uni en 22553 no, in paragr. 4.2 and 4.3 we talk about possibility of combination of graphic signs and additional graphic signs, but it is not treated the case in question.
As far as I am concerned, I will continue to use the upper symbolism, which seems sufficiently intuitive to me; the cad that I use now also gives me the possibility to concatenate symbols as you see below in the annex, what do you prefer or what do you think is more correct?

Bye.

I think you could find the answer in the annex.

Bye.

 

[radio]

I think you could find the answer in the annex.

Bye.

Unfortunately, in the baldassini, and in the other document, there is an extract of 22553 and does not add anything; the welds I have to quote is not quoted.
I could use the only corner symbolism indicating full penetration, but I think it is not correct and also dangerous, as the operator may be facing by mistake to a flap not prepared with the bevel, and the only angle welding indication could make so that it does not notice the error.

Bye.

 

[Marco74]

Unfortunately, in the baldassini, and in the other document, there is an extract of 22553 and does not add anything; the welds I have to quote is not quoted.
I could use the only corner symbolism indicating full penetration, but I think it is not correct and also dangerous, as the operator may be facing by mistake to a flap not prepared with the bevel, and the only angle welding indication could make so that it does not notice the error.

Bye.

but if you use a symbolism like that attached, going to change the symbol of the head welding with the one at the corner?
I don't know much about welding symbolism, but I hope I've been useful.
Bye.

 

[radio]

but if you use a symbolism like that attached, going to change the symbol of the head welding with the one at the corner?
I don't know much about welding symbolism, but I hope I've been useful.
Bye.

no, it is not correct, the image you post refers to a v welding with resumption to the reverse and subsequent sanding; what I need to know is if two welds on the same side It is correct to quote them as from my initial question.
Thanks anyway, bye.