Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Welding Gas P-8173
Welding Gas P-8173
Welding Gas P-8173
Kevin A. Lyttle Praxair, Inc., U.S.A. Senior Development Associate W.F. Garth Stapon Praxair, Inc., U.S.A. Marketing Manager Metal Fabrication
The Effect of Shielding Gas on Wire Cost (CO2 vs. Argon + CO2 Blend)
To determine the extent to which differences in bead shape and overweld affect wire cost, examine the following 3/16" and 1/4" fillet weld examples: Deposition Efficiency (%) Lbs. of Weld Metal Required per Foot (lb/ft) Lbs. of Wire Required per Foot (lb/ft) Wire Cost per Foot @ $0.65/lb** ($/ft) Extra Wire Cost per Foot of Using CO2 ($/ft) 3/16" Fillet CO2 89 0.100 0.109 0.076 0.019 Ar + CO2* 97 0.080 0.082 0.057 1/4" Fillet CO2 89 0.151 0.170 0.116 0.030 Ar + CO2* 97 0.128 0.132 0.086
Figure 1
This chart illustrates how the range of efficiencies for the gas-shielded arc processes are a result of different gas blends.
* Contains 92% argon and 8% CO2 ** The wire cost will vary depending on AWS type, diameter, geographical location, and quantity purchased
Figure 2
blends with lower CO2 percentage (by volume) will more consistently achieve the desired results. Plate surface conditions can also affect welding speed and bead appearance. Heavy rust, mill scale, or oil can reduce the travel speed and adversely affect weld bead appearance. The use of clean, sandblasted plate or plate with only a light mill scale minimizes these problems. Welding speed increases for gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) and plasma arc welding (PAW) can be measured directly as the gas or the gas blend is changed. On the other hand, when considering gas metal arc welding (GMAW), additional factors must be taken into account (such as wire feed speed and arc voltage) to achieve the full potential improvement. shielding of the weld puddle. Spatter can also accumulate on the contact tip and interfere with wire feeding. Removal of spatter from nozzles, tips, and the finished workpiece decreases the duty cycle of the welder. Since the use of argon-based shielding gases can decrease the amount and size of the spatter generated, less cleanup is required, thus maintaining the duty cycle at a higher level than when CO2 is used. Weld spatter does not become part of the weld itself, so as lost material, it increases the overall material costs for welding. This spatter loss is reflected in the deposition efficiency of the welding process. As spatter losses decrease, deposition efficiency increases. As Figure 1 shows, the range of efficiencies for the gas-shielded arc processes are largely a result of the different gas blends that can be used. Using the proper shielding gas will ensure that the deposition efficiency is as high as possible for the process used. For example, the deposition efficiency of a GMAW operation using 100 percent CO2 shielding is typically 88 percent to 92 percent. By replacing CO2 with an argon-10 percent CO2 shielding gas blend, the efficiency increases to 95 percent to 97 percent. More of the
wire purchased ends up as deposited weld metal. Fumes and gases are created by the effect of the intense heat of the arc on the consumables used and the interaction between the ultraviolet radiation of the arc and its surrounding atmosphere.
Less fume is generated by argon-shielded welding processes. For example, in solid wire GMAW, the fume level generated using an argonbased gas blend is about one-third of that generated when 100 percent CO2 is used for shielding. Similarly, the fume
generated by an argon-shielded metalcored wire is about 25 percent of what is found with a 100 percent CO2-shielded, large diameter, flux-cored wire. Less fume makes it easier to maintain an acceptable working environment for the welder and reduces costs associated with filtering and recirculating shop air near welding operations.
Consumables Costs
Argon + CO2 0.100 35 22 0.032 35 0.45 (45%) 0.710 0.65 0.97 (97%) 0.080 0.054 0.796 0.085
0.025 35 22 0.008 35 0.40 (40%) Costs (2) ($/ft) 0.800 0.65 0.89 (89%) 0.100 0.073 0.881
c. Welding Speed (in/min) 1. Shielding Gas Total Cost(1) ($/ft) d. Labor and Overhead Rate ($/h) e. Operator Duty Cycle(4) 2. Labor and Overhead Total f. Wire Cost ($/lb) g. Deposition Efficiency(5) h. Lbs. of Weld Metal Required for 3/16" fillet (lb/ft) 3. Wire Total Cost(3) ($/ft) 4. Total (1 + 2 + 3) ($/ft) 5. Savings Using Argon + CO2 Blend ($/ft)
When determining consumables costs, the wire and shielding gas price should be considered together because of the effect shielding gas has on deposition efficiency (see Figure 2). Highly oxidizing shielding gases such as pure CO2 require welding wires with additional deoxidizers. This is because of the loss of alloying elements in reactive gases like CO2. If 100 percent CO 2 shielding is changed to argon with 8 percent CO2 added, a less expensive welding wire may be substituted because of the improved alloy retention with argon-based shielding gases. This change may result in as much as a 25 percent savings in wire cost while maintaining mechanical properties, ease of operation, and increasing welding travel speed.
Note 1: Pricing reflects cylinder gases supply. The shielding gas and wire costs will vary depending on the geographical location, quantity purchased, and supply method. Note 2: The foregoing computations were based on average figures obtained from different sections of the country. To determine how your operation might fare by substituting an argon mixture for CO2, simply insert the correct numbers for your area and your company in the appropriate columns. axb (1) Shielding Gas Total Cost = c x 60 (min/h) 12 (in/ft) (2) Labor and Overhead Total Costs = (3) Wire Total Cost = fxh g d c x e x 60 (min/h) 12 (in/ft)
(4) Operator duty cycle is the amount of time an operator is actually welding versus time spent on related activities such as setup, cleanup, or other nonwelding functions (5) Deposition Efficiency in arc welding is the ratio of the weight of deposited weld metal to the net weight of the filler metal used. Deposition Efficiency (%) =
Figure 3
Shown here is a cost comparison between an argon-based gas mixture and CO2.
total of 54 welders on all shifts per day. After switching to an argon-blend gas, the increase in welding speed of 38 percent (13 inches per minute to 18 inches per minute), the 3 percent increase in welder duty cycle, and the decrease in overwelding (shown by the required weld metal per foot of fillet weld) generated savings of more than $250,000 per year. In addition, fume generation rates were reduced, also leading to cost savings.
that serves a diverse group of industries through the production, sale, and distribution of atmospheric, process, and spe-
Cost Comparison per Foot of Weld (CO2 vs. Argon + CO2 Blend)
CO2 a. Shielding Gas Cost ($/ft3) b. Gas Flow Rate (ft3/h) c. Welding Speed (in/min) 1. Shielding Gas Total Cost(1) ($/ft) d. Labor and Overhead Rate ($/h) e. Operator Duty Cycle
(4)
Argon + CO2 0.025 40 18 0.011 35 0.33 (33%) 1.179 0.75 0.96 (96%) 0.135 4 0.106 1.296
Gas Supply
Shielding gas is available in highpressure cylinders and in liquid form with transportable or stationary storage tanks (the product is vaporized for use). The cost of the product, as well as the distribution system, depends on the gas blend used, consumption patterns, location of equipment, and the presence of a gas distribution piping system. A second portion of gas cost involves managing the amount of gas used in the welding operation. Pipelines should be frequently inspected for leaks and repaired if needed. Cylinder gas blends should be purchased from a reliable supplier so that product composition and quality does not vary from the top to the bottom of the cylinder. This minimizes the return of unused product as a result of poor shielding gas performance. The use of metered orifices in place of flowmeters can help reduce gas consumption on a per-station basis.
2. Labor and Overhead Total Costs(2) ($/ft) f. Wire Cost ($/lb) g. Deposition Efficiency
(5)
h. Lbs. of Weld Metal Required for 1/4" fillet (lb/ft) i. Fume Generation Level (mg/g) 3. Wire Total Cost
(3)
($/ft)
4. Total (1 + 2 + 3) ($/ft) 5. Savings Using Argon + CO2 Blend ($/ft) 6. Yearly Savings
0.620
$ 285,000
Note 1: Pricing reflects bulk gases supply. The shielding gas and wire costs will vary depending on the geographical location, quantity purchased, and supply method.
Note 2: The foregoing computations were based on average figures obtained from different sections of the country. To determine how your operation might fare by substituting an argon mixture for CO2, simply insert the correct numbers for your area and your company in the appropriate columns. (1) Shielding Gas Total Cost = axb c x 60 (min/h) 12 (in/ft) d c x e x 60 (min/h) 12 (in/ft) (3) Wire Total Cost = fxh g
Conclusion
Understanding the real factors that influence welding cost can lead to a more productive welding operation and better bottom line profitability. q Kevin Lyttle, is Sr. Development Associate at Praxair, Inc., Tarrytown Technical Center, 777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York 10591-6714, phone: 914-345-6449, fax: 914-789-6405. W.F. Garth Stapon is Marketing Manager/Metal Fabrication at Praxair, Inc., 39 Old Ridgebury Road, Danbury, Connecticut, 06810-5113, phone: 203-8372431, fax: 203-837-2505. Praxair is an international industrial gases company
(4) Operator duty cycle is the amount of time an operator is actually welding versus time spent on related activities such as setup, cleanup, or other nonwelding functions (5) Deposition Efficiency in arc welding is the ratio of the weight of deposited weld metal to the net weight of the filler metal used. Deposition Efficiency (%) = Deposited Weld Metal Filler Metal Consumed
Figure 4
This chart shows a companys actual cost comparison analysis after switching from a CO2 shielding with solid wire to an argon-blend gas.
Reprinted with permission from PRACTICAL WELDING TODAY September/October 1997 issue 833 Featherstone Road Rockford IL 61107 815-399-8700
WORLD HEADQUARTERS Praxair, Inc. 39 Old Ridgebury Road Danbury, CT 06810-5113 Tel: 1-800-PRAXAIR (1-800-772-9247) (716) 879-4077 Fax: 1-800-772-9985 (716) 879-2040 Internet: www.praxair.com e-mail: info@praxair.com
The information contained herein is offered for use by technically qualified personnel at their discretion and risk, without warranty of any kind. Praxair is a registered trademark of Praxair Technology, Inc. 1997, Praxair Technology, Inc.
P-8173
3M
10/97