Community Tip - Visit the PTCooler (the community lounge) to get to know your fellow community members and check out some of Dale's Friday Humor posts! X
OK, I am about to begin an argument with my company (Older employees and shop personel) about the fact that they want us to have Dual dimensions in our weld symbols. They have alreadybeen doingthis for years but our welds have never been real accurate callouts. And we already add a "crosshatch" to show where the weld goes (this is another issue I have but I am starting small on my arguments this time). Yes our drawings are all dual dimensioned so they assume they want the welds also dual dimensioned. I'm not sure what their arguments are going to be when we sit down but I can only imagine.I looked in the AWS A2.4:2012 standard and found:
6.16 U.S. Customary and SI Units. The same system that is the standard for the drawings shall be used on welding symbols. Dual units shall not be used on welding symbols. If it is desired to show conversions from SI to U.S. Customary Units or vice versa, a table of conversions may be included on the drawing.
So, the way I read this is that no matter how the drawing is dimensioned, the welds should never be dual dimenioned but only use the primary unit of measure on the drawing. And if a conversion is needed, to do that conversion by either adding a chart for the user to convert or refer to the AWS A1.1, Metric Practice Guide for the Welding Industry.
Any and all input to help me in my quest would be greatly appreciated. I think I will need more agument points to bring up when I get this meeting as there are a lot of old school hard headed thinkers of :we have done it all these years so why change now"
Also, the two major solid modeling packages we use, both do not use a dual dimensions weld, nor do they even allow the option to create one without making special symbols (which we have done before) and this is just fueling me more to drive this change of being correct from here on forward.
Thanks,
Shane Villafuerte
Shane,
Ouch....I have been in that spot a few times on my road too. Don's suggestion is great andhas taken the respectful route and listed diplomatically the way to stay out of weeds. I think I have used every one of those and gotten bloody on more than one occasion.
It really will come down to who has the power and authority in the battle. I have found that by allowing the "other side" to present their case as to why it is important is a good thing. Then simply provide the evidence on how much it will cost them, either in productivity gain/loss, error potential, ECN's correcting those errors, etc..... Usually people will fight for simple reasons: to be "right", convenience for them or from an emotional/vested interest perspective. Sit back, ask why it's important and listen. Then tell them what the reality is if they make that decision. If there is a BossMan responsible and he has to pay for it, well, it's on him and you have a bit more job security.
My $.02