Distinction of weldment, welding assembly,welding structure?

Date 03-30-2011 11:43

Well, never let it be said that AWS is deeply concerned about true clarification when staking out their turf and establishing normalizing definitions from on high. IMO weldment is a weld.

By 803056

Date 03-30-2011 15:16

A weldment is a standard term and it is defined in AWS A3.0. The other terms are "nonstandard" and don't appear in AWS A3.0.

I would venture to say that the terms "welding assembly" and "welding structures" are not terms that are technically correct. I would consider them to be akin to the use of the word "ain't" or "silver soldering" in a casual conversation, but they have no place in a technical discussion.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 03-30-2011 16:45

Al,
You're right.
Welding assembly and welding structure would be part of fabrication/erection communicaiton but not standardized definition.
Assembly and structure could be something you define in the your Manual.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-30-2011 19:37

When based around technical discussions it is difficult to go beyond anything that has proper defining terms.

As such, only a weldment has a standardized definition.

BUT, to me in my limited work around shops and structures, I would say they all pretty well describe the same thing. But you could also take several weldments which were each prefabbed as small portions of a project and combine them into a larger weld assymbly which then becomes part of the welded structure.

LOL!! Now, if that doesn't confuse the OP nothing will.

I would agree that those terms would have to be clarified and defined by those using them. A company could do so in it's own Policy or QC Manual or individuals could just ask the person using the term to explain.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By js55

Date 03-31-2011 11:48

Having revisited this thread I thought I'd toss a little fly in the ointment. I do not believe that just because AWS has as yet not seen fit to annoint the terms 'welded structure' or 'welded assembly ' with the holy water of 3.0 that these terms are not readily undertstood and consistently used in industry specific technical applications. I mean really, how many of us beside toddlers would have a need to reference a dictionary for terms like water or cloud? Or have we ever referenced a dictionary for terms such as this? And yet communication of their meaning and distinction does quite well, even in technical meteorological discussions.
I think there is an argument to be made that the continued and stubborn use of 'non standard' terms in spite of AWS annointment is testimony to the fact that quite often these terms convey something more accurately and more conveniently than the 'globalization' agenda of 3.0.
And it is not as though other governing bodies don't utilize their own definitional applications, in which case it becomes turf war and only contributes to a breakdown in communication, AND a testimony, not to better communication, but more effective marketing wherein people who have been communicating quite well for decades are suddenly told they haven't been, and now must adjust their vernacular to the annointed global usage.
And if we wish to make the legalistic argument keep in mind that lawyers are seldom, if ever concerned with better communication as much as they are circumventing communication to achieve a specific agenda.

By 803056

Date 03-31-2011 13:43 Edited 03-31-2011 14:36

Let's revisit the original post. The terminology was not "welded structure" or "welded assembly." The terms used in the post were "welding structure" and "welding assembly." Clearly, the use of incorrect terminology here has lead to some confusion for those of us that elected to respond.

In my case, I can honestly say I have no idea what a “welding structure” is, nor do I know what a “welding assembly” is. Is a “welding structure” a structure that does welding, like a welding machine? A “welding assembly”; is it an assembly that welds? Or is it more likely local lexicon originated by a “Swamp Yankee” of Eastern Connecticut or a “Hillbilly” from Appalachia or one of those crazy “Rednecks” of the Sunny South? I don’t know. I cannot find either of the terms in AWS A3.0 or my Webster’s Dictionary. I’m stumped!

You might think you know what they mean, but are you willing to put hard money and maybe your life on the line? Miscommunication is a problem that is encountered on a daily basis by companies contracting work to other countries. It can lead to mistakes that are expensive to correct. The use of proper terminology in technical discussions is essential when trying to communicate effectively and efficiently. Dictionaries and glossaries are essential tools in the technical world. That is why ASME, API, AWS, and even military standards contain glossaries that define terminology that is unique to that document. AWS does not have a lock on proper terminology; however, A3.0 is referenced by just about every standard that addresses welding for terms not defined in their respective glossaries.

That being said, I have noticed that several AWS committees have elected to use nonstandard terminology in their documents without clarification in their glossaries. I usually hear about it when one of my clients calls me and asks what the clause means. It causes confusion when the nonstandard terminology is not clear or not defined because the reader cannot find the nonstandard technical term in A3.0. At best it can be confusing, at worst; it makes the committee look a little silly.

How many times have members of this forum asked for clarification when the original post includes nonstandard terminology? While terms like ground clamp, weld puddle, and stinger are used in many of our day to day conversations, their use in a technical discussion is simply incorrect when the parties involved agree to use “standard terminology” that has been adopted by industry, i.e., AWS A3.0.

"I need a bottle of gas."

a) "I know what he means!"

b) "Well, I think I know what he means."

c) "I'm not sure what he means."

d) "I have no clue what he means."

What would your response be to the question?

That brings to mind a post I read on the Forum the other day. The question was with regards to what plastic is recommended for a "ground" (I added the " "). There were several responses with some good suggestions. However, I asked the question or interjected the suggestion that the individual was really looking for an "insulator", not a "ground". The meanings of the two terms are very different. Perhaps a very poor insulator could be used as a conductor to ground, but I don't believe that is what the individual had in mind. "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Regarding communication by lawyers; are you saying you truly believe lawyers do not use explicit terminology when they write? Just because we are not intimate with the terminology they use does not mean they are not communicating effectively, it simply means we are ignorant of their terminology and proper language usage. :grin:

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 03-31-2011 14:23

Well you see, I had taken it upon myself to adjust the tense of the adjective since a 'welding assembly' or 'welding structure' would neither be a weld, an assembly, or a structure since it is still in process. It wouldn't be anything as yet since welding is present tense whereas welded is past tense. Never mind the noun 'building'. Perhaps AWS can take that up at a later date and save us from our confusing ignorance there. We are constantly building buildings but we have never built a built. Oh, the confusion of it all!! There has never been such dire need of AWS. :wink:

By js55

Date 03-31-2011 14:27

PS:
Adjectives don't cause failures, incompetence does.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-31-2011 14:29

Yes but misunderstood adjectives can keep you from getting the desired end product no matter how well built it is.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 03-31-2011 14:38

And still, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" :lol:

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 03-31-2011 16:46

"No matter how well built it is?"
Interesting choice of words. The truth of it all lies right here. In the world of words reality doesn't matter. So now our thread has gone from a concern for viability to a concern for liability. And here is where we need our lawyer friends to guide us through the labyrinth of a word world of their creation.
Show of hands, if AWS A3.0 were the size of Tolstoy's War and Peace will we have actually improved our communication or mearly opened ourselves up for greater punctilio's (not an oxymoron-perhaps more numerous is better) of liability? :confused:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-31-2011 15:46

There is:

What I said;
What I meant by what I said;
What you heard;
What you thought you heard;
What you thought I meant by what you heard;
ETC!!!

You are very correct Al. Communications in any language are very delicate.

Thus the phrase: A picture is worth a thousand words. I often find myself pulling my soapstone out of my pocket and drawing a picture. And a poor one at that. In the shop I grab rem pieces of steel and put together a visual aid so there is NO QUESTION (??) of what I want and expect. You know how often I go back out later only to find something that doesn't look even close to what I asked for??!! I think they do it on purpose. :twisted:

I think it fair to tell the OP- NO. We haven't a clue what those terms may be referring to nor where you can find out. Ask the originator of the term for clarification.

Just my two tin pennies worth.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 803056

Date 03-31-2011 16:21

I agree with you on all counts regarding the use of sketches to clarify the word.

My boss used to say, "I can tell exactly where you've been working. All I have to do is look for the soapstone sketches on the wall. I might not know what the math is about, but it is better than a 'Killroy was here' drawing."

Best regards - Al

By 99205

Date 03-31-2011 23:16

I've always had a inner laugh when the boss says, "I know what I said but that's not what I meant".

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 04-01-2011 02:05

"welding structure" and "welding assembly."

Phrases like these result from insufficient twisting of the earlobes by the poster's 3rd grade English teacher.

This is a welding website So many of Us are pretty used to decipering what the poster maens, at least some of the time.

Non standard terminology?? It aint even proper English. :grin:

By Metarinka (****)

Date 04-05-2011 01:37

I just took a few technical writing classes so I'm getting a chuckle out of these replies.

The foundation of all technical and business writing is concise and clear expression of ideas. Which also means making things aren't overly technical if they don't have to be.

a welded structure or welded assembly is not a technical term, My guess would be some engineer or technical person in some firm started using it to differentiate between assembly the product that was built with bolts and the product that was formed with welding.

By 803056

Date 04-05-2011 03:24

Let's get back to the original post.

The terms were "welding structure" and "welding assembly."

Al

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 04-05-2011 03:42

With no other posts by the OP, I guess He is satisfied, given up on Us, or doesn't care anymore.