designation uni-1310 welding

[soundsurf420]

Hi, I'm an engineering student. I would like to clarify the designation of welding.

the old norm uni-1310 of 1940 predicted the indication of the shape with a graphic sign accompanied by dimensional indications (and possible welding process). I came across this designation
40 and 60 are welding length and pitch, 2 is the number of cords
What does 5 indicate? the cord section radius?

 

[New Rider]

theoretically the 5 should indicate the height of the throat i.e. the measure from the hypotenus hypothetical of the cord and the opposite summit (point of meeting of the lembi)

 

[soundsurf420]

that is the height of the isoscele "triangle" that has for "base" the concavity?

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

https://www.promozioneacciaio.it/cms/it5420-quotatura-delle-saldature.asp

 

[meccanicamg]

I have under my hand the old uni 1310 and it shows that:
- lack of indication if the size of the throat section is referred to a or z and especially should be put before the triangle (however it is z)
- the triangle indicates that the angle cord (it is presumed concave but is not represented correctly because it should have the additional symbol above the triangle)
- number 2 strings
- length of cords excluding extremities 40mm
- /60 indication not in accordance. should report the jumping share between the two cords in brackets (20) or down there and not the whole of the cordsHowever the norm did not report all the indications so they invented some things over time. In fact the standard represented is the uni 1310:1940 replaced by the uni 1310:1986 which appears more articulated (which I also have on ancient books).
Therefore if you have to, use common sense and especially if all these years have passed it is worth making a sensible cord.
the only historical page is this:

 

[soundsurf420]

https://www.promozioneacciaio.it/cms/it5420-quotatura-delle-saldature.asp

This is the new legislation of 1986, I refer to the old one of 1940.

I have under my hand the old uni 1310 and it turns out that

Thank you

 

[MassiVonWeizen]

it will not be that of '40, but it also says what you need and nothing more than what is not indicated in the drawing you have attached.
in Table 5 of my link you can see that the radius is not indicated but the hypotenuse as an alternative to the side.
the quotation of the cords is the same in both versions.
the most correct question you had to ask was: the 5 indicates a or z? The answer would have been that the information is missing.

if you need to clarify the ideas on welding refer to new regulations