Gentlemen;

This is just one more case where the use of proper terminology would clarify the situation. The use of slang that differs from one section of the country to another, one country to another, and in some cases from one company to another located across the street can make communications difficult at best and in some case can result in catastrophic accidents.

This seems to be case in this thread. Let us take a look at the discussion so far. The post initially used the phrase “stitch weld.” The slight “jab” on my part simply stated I could not find the term “stitch weld” in my AWS 3.0, so I did not understand his question or comment. That was an exaggeration because “stitch weld” is included in AWS A3.0 as a nonstandard term for “intermittent weld.”

Then the thread takes a few twists and turns when the conversation again talks about stitch welding and then backstep welding pops up as means of controlling distortion. I believe many of us believe we know what a “stitch weld” is. The proper term, intermittent weld, is known to most of us as well. However I have heard the term used to describe a series of small tack welds and I have heard it used to describe intermittent groove welds and intermittent fillet welds that were intended to transmit the design loads. In the case of the tall vessel, were the “stitch welds” temporary tack welds or were they actually segments of the final weld that was part of a welding sequence used equalize and uniformly distribute the residual stresses to maintain alignment. I believe the description was adequate to convey the later was the case. However, my point still stands, because the term “stitch weld” was used in the context of erecting the vessel, another individual questioned whether the welders were using the backstep technique. 

It was a reasonable question. Clarification of the welding sequence is being sought. Would the question have to be asked if standard AWS terminology was? I cannot answer. The use of nonstandard terminology can cause confusion because we are never sure we are interpreting the words or terms we read properly.

We recently had an explosion that killed six workers that were “purging” a natural gas line feeding the boilers in a power plant under construction. I can only wonder if some “slang” term used by one of the workers was misinterpreted and contributed to the explosion. It is a reasonable question considering there were members in that crew from Canada, Louisiana, as well as New England. Even the word “purging” is suspect considering it was used by a reporter that had no idea of what “purging” means. It was a word he or she overheard and it could have easily been the wrong use of the term. The question remains, “What were the workers doing at the time of the accident?”

I have worked in the field many years in many parts of this country. I know how trades people love to make up names and terms for common day items or event. Some of the terms are ones that many of us would not use in mixed company. There times they are used with a wink of the eye to intentionally confuse the newcomer to the group.

Several years ago I was recruited to teach welding fundamentals for a major aircraft engine manufacturer. Part of the classroom lecture covered common welding processes, including gas tungsten arc welding. One of the client’s engineers made it his mission to correct my use of terminology. He informed me that they did no gas tungsten arc welding at their facility. They only used “heliarc welding” and that his welders were “heliarc welders” and they did not use the gas tungsten arc welding process. A couple of days later he stopped by the classroom to tell me they did not make auotgenous welds, but they did make “dry pass welds”.

It was interesting that the client had published their own standard addressing welding and brazing terms and definitions. As a matter of point, each welder in the course was provided with a copy of the standard. The standard stated that the terms and definitions were the same as AWS A3.0 and included some that were unique to their industry. I told the engineer I would change my curriculum to include the words “heliarc” and “dry pass welding” if he could find them in the company’s standard as standard terminology.
He could not find either term, but he did find autogenous weld and gas tungsten arc welding in the standard.  He never visited the classroom again.

Why perpetuate incorrect or nonstandard terminology? It only leads to confusion under the best of circumstances unless the goal is to make the newcomer feel inadequate. It is so much easier to communicate effectively when standard terminology is used. It is an easy means to mitigate the opportunities for miscommunication.

I would rather like to think that we espouse the use of the proper terminology so that when someone comes to us for an answer to a problem we promote the use of proper terminology to minimize the possibility of miscommunication. I believe this is more important than ever considering we have regular contributors from around the world. A recognized “welders” language is a very valuable asset that can make communication more effective. 

Can you imagine lying on the operating table and overhearing your surgeon say to the attending nurse, “Nurse, can you move that do-hickey to the left a little while I remove the, what do you call it, you know the little squishy thing?”

Best regards - Al