fcaw mcaw

By eekpod

Date 03-22-2008 12:30

I thought mcaw was a bird with a long beak, kinda like a parrot. (sorry I'm tired)

By motgar

Date 03-24-2008 18:04

That is a macaw.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-22-2008 13:30

Darren

AWS D1.1 Considers Solid GMAW wire and MCAW fillers to be in the same class and the same process, while FCAW to be in it's own class and is defined as a seperate process.

ASME is a bit different but I'll let somebody else make the notes on that.

By 803056

Date 03-22-2008 16:55

ASME doesn't differentiate between GMAW and FCAW for welder performance qualification.

ASME Section IX uses the electrode form to differentiate between GMAW and FCAW for procedure qualification.

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 03-23-2008 08:32

Hello Al, codes aside, I would like to hear your take on FCAW-g versus FCAW-s. I have the hardest time understanding how welder certification regimens classify these two processes to be interchangeable with one another. I guess I am continually wondering why a welder can do a certification test for FCAW-g and then turn right around and go out and be qualified to run the FCAW-s on a job site. I believe that anyone who has run these two processes can see the vast difference in skills required to be successful with one or the other. Now with the introduction of further issues such as FEMA, which requires particular FCAW-s wires which are a whole other breed of cat from even their predecessors, I wonder why someone hasn't called foul and required a different welder qualification procedure the same way that they have differentiated between GMAW and FCAW. Sorry to sidetrack this thread, but I haven't fully understood this and am wondering what others thoughts are on the topic. Best regards, Allan

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 03-23-2008 14:29 Edited 03-23-2008 14:33

Allan

I agree with you. I also find it strange that the differences between the types and even the brand names of the different FCAW-S electrodes are not essential variables. In many of the Lincoln wires, something a simple as the aim point of the electrode in the joint is different from wire class to wire class, and will make the difference between a "good and a bad" weld (Using the terms loosely.). The ESO on self shielded FCAW electrodes is often varied to accomplish different weld profiles and deposition rates. Not so on FCAW-G. I would also like to see an essential variable for fore-hand and back-hand welding. Higher deposition rates attained by longer stick-out does not give the same mechanical properties and weld homogeniety.

This would not affect most shop operations, as they usually only use one type and brand of electrode at a time. In field erection welding operations, it would present a financial burden, but I find that the field welding operators are the people who need the training the most.

By 803056

Date 03-23-2008 17:39 Edited 03-23-2008 17:48

Gentlemen;

I agree with both of you.

That's where we have a responsibility to the company or our client to go over and above the minimums requirements established by the various codes when the they don't adequately address the issues of the "real world".

As a third party inspector, we can't enforce any more than the minimum requirements of the applicable welding code or standard unless there are additional requirements listed in the project specifications. My take on most codes is that "they are better than a sharp stick in the eye", but they leave a lot to be desired.

The minimalist approach of ASME Section IX and AWS B2.1 does not address all the factors I consider to be important to produce sound welds on a consistent basis. It is my option to include all those additional factors when I qualify a procedure or a welder. It is up to the fabricator and their personnel to recognize that meeting the minimum requirements of the standard may not be sufficient to ensure the desired results. That's where someone with welding experience, rather than someone that "read a book once", understands what it takes to produce sound welds in a consistent manner.

I'll give you a real "for instance"; the welding codes, all of them, permit a welder that passes a groove test to be automatically qualified to deposit fillet welds. My experience has been that the majority of welders that passed the grooved test first will fail the fillet break test. However, few welders that pass the fillet weld break test first will fail the groove test. For that reason, I try to insert a requirement that all welders take a fillet break test before working on a project. I listen to the howls of protest from the welders and then watch them fail the test once or twice before they pass it successfully, usually after a few demonstrations or comments about their technique. The number of rejected welds on a project where the welders are tested are dramatically fewer than on those projects where previous qualifications are accepted.

Unfortunately, few companies would be willing to support a welder financially to sit on a committee that develops welding standards. They don't even want to send staff personnel to committee meetings any more. Thus, the committees are composed of "desk jockeys" rather than welding practitioners. Just look at the list of names of committee members listed in a standard and find out how many have "hands-on" welding experience. Don't misunderstand me, I know all too well the costs in time and cold cash it takes to participate on a committee. I know the time and effort each member of a committee puts into committee work. They do their honest best to churn out a standard or code that produces the best return for the money spent by a company that meets the code requirements without overburdening them with unnecessary requirements or paperwork. The standards and codes have to be voted upon and approved by the entire committee consisting of some of the members have a high level of expertise and some with less expertise. Unless the majority of the committee members agree (and other committees that have oversight responsibilities), the additional requirements fail to be included in the final standard or code.

I'm sure there are a few committee members, whether they are on AWS or ASME committees, that agree with us, but apparently they are a minority and without enough votes to include the additional requirements in the final document. So, it is up to us to do what is best for the company and do what it takes to ensure the best welding practices are the norm not the exception. That's where our experience comes into play. That's what differentiates those of us with "hands-on experience" and those that only "attended the class".

The same is true of any discipline, be it welding, design, NDT, or basket weaving. The committees that develop the standards are comprised of those individuals that are intimate with different aspects of the discipline. While it might not be perfect, it is a good system and it produces some noteworthy standards. Compare the codes and standards published by AWS and ASME to those published by "closed" committees that appear to be self serving. It is my understanding that you can't be a member of a committee sponsored by some of these "self serving organizations" unless you are a member (which is limited to only those companies directly involved in the manufacturing of their product). So all in all, the standards and codes produced by AWS and ASME are outstanding and are used worldwide. That's pretty impressive in my opinion. My compliments to those individuals that donate their time and money to participate on the various committees that produce the multitude of standards relating to my work and my livelihood.

Happy Easter - Al

By aevald

Date 03-23-2008 21:11

Hello Joe, thank you for the reply. At the same time that I disagree with the allowance of qualification for many of the different processes under an umbrella type of certification. I also realize that most individuals that will be welding with these processes will be tested by the various employers with the specific process before they are allowed to apply thismselves to do this welding. The reason that I have brought this up has much to do with the certification system in the state that I reside in. In Washington state they have a system of certification referred to as WABO, basically this is an extention of the AWS system of certification and based upon AWS D1.1 structural standards and the other structural standards as they apply. In our state, individuals will test and receive WABO certification for the various processes, the WABO agency will then distribute welder certification cards to the successful candidates. Once these cards are issued they become the property of the cardholder, in other words they are not company specific like many other types of certifications. As this is the case, these individuals will likely go to an employer and be subjected to some sort of internal test and upon successful completion of this testing the company will use the individuals WABO number to verify certification compliance. I see both pitfalls and advantages to this system of welder certification. I believe there are other states, cities, municipalities, and such that have similar set-ups in place. Since AWS and ASME are major players in these systems I reason that it could be generally beneficial to take a more specific role in spelling these items out a bit more clearly, this might provide more incentive to these other jurisdictions to be more specific as well. Al, I hope that you read this as well, I also greatly appreciate your commentary on the subject. Best regards, Allan

By 803056

Date 03-23-2008 22:03

The three of us are singing the same tune and I believe we all agree. However, the three of us are practitioners and we see the differences between the processes and the electrodes on a day to day basis.

The problem is that only a few of the people that sit on the various committees developing welding standards have the hands-on experience that we and others that work at the "trade" have. Few of them have first hand knowledge of welding. Some of them have taken a course or two on the subject of welding, but I doubt more than a handful of them have actually earned their living as a welder at any time in their career. As such, a quick comparison between GMAW and FCAW or comparing gas shielded FCAW to self shielded FCAW produces few apparent differences to them. I would venture to say that it would be like the three of us going to the feed store to buy a bale of hay. Unless you are a farmer, one bale of hay pretty much looks like the next.

It is important to keep in mind that the "code" set the minimum requirements and that bar as we know is set fairly low. It is up to the fabricator or manufacturer to do what is necessary to ensure the products they produce will perform as intended. If the companies did that, the lawyers would not be as busy as they are.

How can we change the situation? We would have to gain membership on the committees charged with developing the welding standards that affect us, i.e., D1.1, Section IX, etc. Getting on those committees is not easy because everyone wants to be a part of those committees. Short of being a voting member, there is little we can do that will directly influence the actions of those committee.

We discuss subjects of common interest here in the forum, but I doubt there are more than a few individuals that sit on the Section IX or D1.1 committees read what we minions have to say on the subjects. Other than a few rare occasions, we don't hear from them. However, I do recognize their vantage point is different than mine and their interests are not the same as mine.

My job, and yours, is to raise the bar when we can. When you test welders, there is nothing in the code that says you can't require a separate test for GMAW, FCAW-G, and FCAW-S. That's what I recommend to my clients. Is it more than what the code requires? Absolutely!

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 03-25-2008 02:43 Edited 03-25-2008 02:53

Hello Al, I think we are also experiencing something here that has shown up particularly strong in fairly recent years. For the most part there are still many who have learned their welding the old fashioned way: from a friend or relative, in someone's garage while working on a home project or something on the farm. This basic learning regimen worked great 40 or 50 years ago. Back then there were very limited types of materials that the general public was normally subjected to. You had your "steel", your "hard steel" and your "aluminum". You could arc weld some of this "stuff", or you could gas weld some of this "stuff", or if you knew someone that was high-ranking or made of money you could "heli-arc" some of this "stuff", providing they would share and let you use their high-fangled tig machine. We also had considerably less choices for filler metals, generally if you picked up an electrode you could probably use it on just about anything and be fairly successful with your repairs. Wire processes were in their infancy and limited to just a few choices and very basic machine technology. I believe that today we still have this sort of welding learning going on quite a bit, the difference is, now we have all sorts of different alloys of steels, we have an unending variety of stainless steels, duplexes, super-alloys and any number of other materials that are being used in construction, manufacturing, and all of the other industries that have become a part of our everyday life. Consider all of the different equipment technoligies that have been introduced into welding in the say past 20 years, exponentially we continue to increase in so many areas of the welding craft that specialization is certainly a reality and often necessary. Due to all of these different and often times specialized processes and materials it is so much more important for the industry to stress the need for proper procedures and applications of all of these new technologies. We haven't, as a society, come to realize that our old ways of welding and learning won't serve us as faithfully as was once the case since we have now progressed to our current level of technology and continue to do so at a scary rate. Not giving due consideration to all of the intricacies involved in today's welding world has and will lead to more instances of catostrophic failures and loss of life when the status quo prevails.
To some degree I believe that the code bodies are still stuck in some of the old-school thinking and haven't been willing to step-up and get with the times. I certainly realize that making changes to match current technology and processes will also cost a tremendous amount of money and resources. Likely, this has more to do with this subject than the lack of ability to make the changes. Overall, I do believe that we have a very good system for certification, inspection, and the like. It could stand to be better though, as all of the knowledge to make it better is readily available. Well, done with the rant for awhile again. Best regards everyone, Allan

By Jeffrey Grady (***)

Date 03-25-2008 03:28

WOW!!!
This thread is WAY beyond my level of comprehension. It sounds like a Physics debate. I just caught the thread title and it contained FCAW, and wham!, I grabbed onto with vigor. Now My head is spinning from reading this. I'm hoping some day I'll be able to decipher what was said...It all sounds like GREEK to me, But I read it all! Thanks Folks for being so extremely educated in this field. I know now that my simple questions aren't a real strai for You folks to answer. I will have plenty of questions about FCAW in the future, but for now i have info over load!
Respectfully, Jeffrey S. Grady

By 803056

Date 03-25-2008 03:56

You hit the nail square on the head.

The committees are comprised of manufacturers, users, consultants, etc. Each has an agenda in mind and a purpose for sitting on the committee. It would be easy enough to make the requirements so stringent no one would be able to implement them in a cost effective manner. You must always bear in mind that we live in a society that is based on cost. Nothing other than the dollar is sacred. We live in the land of whores and thieves.

Education is the key to keeping somewhat of a competitive edge over the competition whether that is the shop down on the next corner or on the other continent. Still, the cost must be kept in mind. Companies spend money only if there is an immediate payback or if they are forced to do so.

With that in mind the Navy requires welders to complete formal training and written examinations as part of the qualification process. The shipyards fought the requirement tooth and nail until the Navy said do it or lose the work.

Now for my question. How much class time do you allocate to welding theory? How much of your time is spend teaching skills? Do you feel you have sufficient time to teach your students all they need to know to be valued employees? Most schools concentrate on teaching skills because there are just so many hours in the curriculum. Where is the time best spent? Hard choices that are driven by time and dollar constraints.

The course I teach for my clients is forty hours in length. I spend about 40 per cent of that time on metallurgy and welding symbols, 40 per cent on welding documents (company welding procedures and welding and fabrication standards) and the remainder of the time is spent on terminology, processes, discontinuities, and quality control. It is a very difficult course and the passing rate is only about 70 to 80% for welders that have never taken one of my courses before. Usually clients send their newbie engineers and inspectors to the course to ensure everyone is singing from the same sheet of music by the time they're done. No one passes the class if they don't study the material. I had one class from a major defence contractor that decided that they were not going to study on their own time. The failure rate was 80% which I told the management was going to happen. At the end of the second class I had the manager come into the class and showed him the number of notebook binders left in the classroom. I told him those people would not pass the course because they were not doing the homework. As predicted, they failed and had their certs suspended until they did pass the examinations. It didn't take long to spread the word that Al's class wasn't like any class they had taken before! Needless to say, every class after that studied on their own and did the homework. The passing rate improved very quickly (for that client) and was about 95% thereafter.

In every new group there are one or two welders that will tell me they don't need to know everything that I cover for the work they are doing. I tell them they're right, but they'll need the information for their next job. That usually gets their attention.

Interesting point, I initially put the course together for clients engaged in military work, but the word has spread and now I teach it for clients that do nonmilitary work as well. Evidently, the investment in the training is cost effective and saves them money in reduced rework. Like I said, no company spends money unless there is a return on their investment.

You, Lawrence, and Henry keep up the good work your doing. We need more people like you that are willing and able to teach a new generation of welders.

Best regards - Al

By aevald

Date 03-25-2008 06:39

Hello again Al, darren, sorry to take this off-thread, but sometimes I have to go with the thoughts as they come to me. Quite some time before I started teaching on a full-time basis it was my understanding that 2 year associates degrees contained much more in the way of actual welding and welding theory. As academics became the focus of many states in conjunction with vocational training, this changed. At my institution there are probably 20+ credits that are devoted to academics that were not so before under the old system. The overall credits have a cap and by instituting these "other" requirements they have effectively reduced a large number of credits that could be devoted to other important welding related issues. Unfortunately, I see the need for all of these items with regard to education and would have rather seen the cap extended in lieu of simply trimming and reallocating credits.
At our facility we have roughly 8 to 10 different classifications of welding students working simultaneously, as they are welding and practicing we go from booth to booth and critique, watch, give examples, explain, answer questions, make suggestions for improvements, question and reason with them to make improvements that are understandable to them individually, and basically use a one-on-one approach to allow them to realize success. These one-on-one times are also the time to discuss real-world approaches and applications for what they are practicing and learning while in the welding lab. As much as possible, we try to incorporate welding challenges that mimic those of industry. We also promote collaborative learning amongst the students, students teaching students is often a much more effective and less intimidating process for many. This is generally accomplished without any prompting from an instructor, the majority of the time the seasoned students will naturally extend a helping hand to those with less experience. Much of the "theory" that you asked about is covered in this one-on-one manner but generally isn't realized until they actually go out into the working world. Another benefit to our students is the industry upgrade training that we often hold for local employers. In these instances the students will be in the shop at the same time as journeymen and others who come into the school to upgrade their skills. As they talk to these folks they realize the things that they have been told and are being taught are actually aligned with what is occurring in industry and that is a really terrific reinforcement for us. I guess I did it again. Done for now. Best regards, Allan

By HgTX

Date 04-08-2008 19:18

If you can spare the time and money to get yourself to the committee meeting, you don't actually have to be a voting member to be able to speak; you just have to be a voting member to be able to vote. (Okay, I have a history of being a lot more outspoken than yer typical committee visitor, but it seems to have worked for me--as long as I make sure I know what I'm talking about.)

Getting your issue onto the committee agenda, though, is another story. If you attend enough meetings, though, something relevant to your concern is bound to come up sooner or later, and if you attend enough meetings that people start to know who you are, you could volunteer your services to the subcommittee or task group chair to lead or at least participate in an ad hoc task group to revise the code as you see fit.

I wish I could give the magic formula for how to word a writtenn inquiry so that the concern gets discussed and addressed even if you can't be there, but it seems to depend on the whim of whose hands the inquiry passes through. I've seen perfectly good inquiries get nuked because they weren't in the form of a yes/no question (not that there's any such requirement for inquiries).

Hg