Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / FCAW/SMAW
- - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2009 18:05
Besides the issues from the early days of flux core can any1 thing of some reasons that FCAW would not be wanted by a customer?
MDK
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 05-05-2009 18:10
Lack of knowledge of the process. 

Misuse by a former contractor and recieved unacceptable product.

Do you mean FCAW-G (Dual Shield) or -S (Innershield)?

Innershield has really gotten a bad rap through the years, mostly from improper usage and application.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2009 18:36
Dual Shield
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 05-05-2009 18:58
Mike,
You list FCAW/SMAW, this combination has potential for issues. AISC 16.1-342 (J.2.7 commentary) touches on this briefly. Also, some of the early FEMA (seismic) recommended practices warned about mixing FCAW-S with SMAW.
Parent - - By Mikeqc1 (****) Date 05-05-2009 19:11
Its not both in 1 joint.
I have seen FCAW not allowed and SMAW to be used.
I was curious about what reasons FCAW would not be allowed.
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 05-05-2009 19:38 Edited 05-05-2009 20:34
Hogan and Brent hit on the predominant issues.

Gas shielded FCAW is sound as a dollar.  Over even the last 5 years there have been big improvements in the out of positon (E71T-X) Gas Shielded FCAW fillers.

We do alot of guided bends in all positions on unlimited thickness coupons and have found even at the highest manufacturer's suggested settings produce excellent results as the norm.  We don't do charpies due to lack of equipment So other will have to speak to that.  In fact we use 100% C02 rather than 75/25 and have had no problems and can still run .045 E71T-1 vertical at 400 ipm with excellent outcomes. We used ESAB 710X

I did do some process control and PQR consultation for a local Fabricator just this last month who went through an entire FCAW procedure qual on 6G, 1/2 inch square tubing w/backing along with welder performance on unlimited thickness plate in all positions... They conducted tensiles.. bends.. and RT...through a 3rd party lab,,, All were excellent results.  They used Lincoln electrodes and 75/25
Parent - - By hogan (****) Date 05-05-2009 19:43
I have dealt with some people that still distrust FCAW-S due to the issues with NR211.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 05-05-2009 21:34
And what hogan just stated is where I was going but thought I would ask a couple questions before I got too involved with an answer that may not have been what you were after Mike.

There is, after all, a huge difference between innershield and dual-shield. That followed only by the difference between someone who truly knows how to weld with it compared to someone who thinks if he can pull the trigger he is a welder regardless of which process we are talking about.

But once anyone puts a bad taste in someone's mouth for a process it is difficult to try to even get the opportunity to show them their perception is wrong.

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By eekpod (****) Date 05-06-2009 19:58
I used to work for a place that had an engineer who was not familier with it so he banned it.  He didn't like the fact that it was semi-automatic, and that the welder if he wanted to could just keep welding over any flaws if QC wasn't around.
Also, now that I have worked inspecting it for a few years the welders need to realize that it is a different process than GMAW.  SOme inexperencied guys see the spool of wire and the gun and think its the GMAW.  Then when I cut their full pen test plate and the backing bar falls off becasue there is an 1/8" thick root of slag because they went to slow and trapped slag in the root they fail.  If you looked at it visually it would look ok, a little thick but appearnace you'd never know, you have to cut or UT or x-ray it. 
Maybe they are worried about workmanship issues.
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 05-09-2009 15:18
I think it's mostly bad experiences and mistrust as stated in other responses.

In our company the folks with a pipe welding background call FCAW "sh** gun" because a gun is used to put down a lot if it very fast.

FCAW typically has marginal penetration, a lot of slag, etc. and improper techniques will lead to poor welds.  The trouble is that many welders believe they are doing good because the profiles look good, and little attention is paid to what is happening "underneath".  That stands to reason- none of us has X-ray vision and a large percentage of the welding will be visually examined only. 

Then along comes a job that requires UT or RT and there is "trouble in paradise".   "How can a weld look good on top but not underneath?".  "FCAW must not be any good because we don't have that problem with stick or TIG!".   Or someone has made a big mess instead of stopping and getting assistance.

FCAW gets blamed as being an inadequate process - when in reality it has often been used improperly.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 05-09-2009 16:58
Chet,

I don't know if I've ever responded to one of your posts before... Too busy sitting at your feet and listening..

But you said something here that I don't understand:

"FCAW typically has marginal penetration"

Every technical publication I've ever encountered, along with my own experience with trials, PQR's and etched comparisons say that of all the Arc welding processes, FCAW has the greatest penetration.  More than SMAW with any F group.. More than GMAW with spray transfer.  Only MCAW with it's high current density (akin to FCAW)  provides anything close to the penetration profile of Gas Shielded FCAW.

Even D1.1 prequalified joint details provide for smaller included groove angles because of the superior penetration of FCAW..... Also design criteria for fillet size is often smaller for FCAW Vs other processes because the fusion on the faying surfaces is so much deeper.

Now if the penetration is typically marginal because the FCAW is applied incorrectly typically, I can get on board with that.

Say more about what you were thinking on this one  :)

Thanks

Lar
Parent - - By CHGuilford (****) Date 05-11-2009 02:07
Even though FCAW is reputed to have good penetration, in practice it often doesn't.  You are correct that it is likely due to misapplication.

Realize that I'm not talking about vertical FCAW welds - those normally penetrate very well; sometimes too well.  The trouble is with the 2F position which is probably 95% of all shop welds.

Sometime ago the Maine DOT was requiring fabricators using FCAW to give their welders a 2F tee test (horizontal fillet test) and cut them to check the penetration.  5/16" fillets were required to be run in a single pass.  I had witnessed dumpster loads of tee tests that didn't even penetrate to the root.  The scary part was that even 1/4" fillets didn't penetrate.  Polishing and macroetching were not needed to see it.
When I was in 3rd party inspection I saw the same thing everywhere I went and still see that today.

The problem is that many welders will turn their machines down to 'maintain better control' but the only way to build up fillet size at low heat inputs is to 'hold back the puddle'.  The welder thinks he/she has done a good job because 1) they did it just the way they were taught, 2) the bead looked good going in, and 3) the surface profile looks good.  They don't realize that if the puddle gets ahead of the arc, the energy is not getting down to the root.  These aren't people who don't care about their work (well, maybe some of them), they were genuinely trying to do a good job. 

I don't know if this is a problem in other areas, but in shop fabrication it takes "constant attention" to stay on top of the problem.

As far as "too busy sitting at your feet and listening"- that's a nice complement, and I thank you for it.  But I think you've racked up am impressive level of expertise in more areas than I have.  I don't always have time to read the forum but I don't skip over your posts when I see them.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 05-11-2009 05:41
Chet,

This is a great exchange..

I teach and consult.... Alot of time in the lab and some on the shop floor.. But not on the shop floor day in and day out.  So I don't hear things like you just mentioned.

So the things guys like you have to say hold great value to folks like me who have the task of preparing and sending welders to your shop to apply for jobs eh?

Thanks so much for the explaination... I'll keep this in mind next semester and put your observations to good use.
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 05-14-2009 13:01
I would agree with CGuilford, that when I give FCAW fillet tests, that the welder usually fails the first one becasue of lack of pentration at the root.  These are guys who passed a full pen test.  Once I cut the coupons and showed them, they would change their technique a little and they'd be all set.
Thats also why the start / stop is important to see if they can properly fuse the root at the start in the middle of the coupon.
Chris
Parent - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-14-2009 13:19
LOL...when I get a guy in here who is new to FCAW and has SMAW'd all his life, I get the opposite.....on the first try he usually blows holes through the backing bar because he doesn't move quick enough to keep up....LOL
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 05-14-2009 14:18
If the start and stop were required in groove welds, things would get interesting.
Parent - - By eekpod (****) Date 05-14-2009 17:44
Its still fun the watch when the backing bar falls off becasue they entraped sooo much slag in the root pass they they never touched the backing.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 05-14-2009 17:55
The ability to carry a large puddle and have it look "decent" would be a problem with any process. Below is flat FCAW with E71T1 .045. If I remember the flange is over 5/8" thick.

Parent - By hogan (****) Date 05-14-2009 19:37
that looks to be a good size pass for .045"
Parent - - By jwright650 (*****) Date 05-14-2009 18:00
I saved one of those "clean" backing bars from a TS splice that was done here in my shop.....I use it for a teaching tool for the new guys....LOL
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 05-19-2009 20:58 Edited 05-19-2009 22:44
I've encountered nearly every problem you gentlemen have mentioned.

Many of the problems can be attributed to welders that have little, if any, training other than on-the-job-training. Experience seems to indicate the vast majority of welder, on the order of 80 to 85%, have no formal training in their chosen field of endeavor. They only know what the welder or lead welder in the next booth taught them.

This is where a CWI with a strong welding background proves their worth. They often have the ability to work with the welder to correct the deficiencies in skills and they can educate the welder on some of the technical aspects of welding. Most welders respond favorably to any help from people that can "show" them how to do a better job. I know there are always a few "jug-heads" in every shop, but we can't relegate every welder to the "dungeon of stupidity" for the acts of a couple of "numbskulls".

Some of the issues with flux cored welding had to do with early development problems such as split electrode material wrapping around the drive rolls, missing flux in the core of the electrode, the use of excessive amounts of aluminum as a deoxidizer and subsequent loss of toughness, etc. Most of those early problems have been addressed, but we still have welders and management that attempt to use flux cored electrodes intended for use with robots and thin metals for semiautomatic welding of thick plate. We still have welders that believe flux cored electrodes listed as "multipass" means they don't have to chip and brush the slag from the completed weld beads. And we still have welders attempting to use a forehand technique rather than a backhand technique with dumbfounded looks on their face when they discover they have slag buried in the root. These are the people that scare the devil out of specification writers and the reason they elect to eliminate the potential problems by not permitting the use of FCAW.

This is where instructors like Lawrence and Fbrieden come into the picture. We depend on them and individuals like them to teach their students the technical aspects of welding as well as the skills necessary to deposit sound welds. They will have some students that excel and a few that squeak through, but never the less, we owe them our gratitude for providing us with a core of qualified welders. It would serve companies well to hire their welders from schools that have programs that turnout welders with both the knowledge and skills needed to produce "code" quality work. It may cost a little more in terms of wages, but the quality of the work produced will improve and the cost of repairs will be reduced, which results in savings for the employer and improve their profits.

Best regards - Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / Technical Discussions / FCAW/SMAW

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill