CHOOSING THE RIGHT CONSUMABLES TO REDUCE WELDING COST

Kevin A. Lyttle Praxair, Inc., U.S.A. Senior Development Associate W.F. Garth Stapon Praxair, Inc., U.S.A. Marketing Manager Metal Fabrication

Reprinted from Practical Welding Today September/October 1997

The impact of shielding gas on production and labor costs

By Kevin Lyttle and W. F. Garth Stapon hen considering the total cost of welding, it is important to understand how the choice of consumables can influence the bottom line. Often, it is not the cost per pound or cost per cubic foot of the consumables that is important; it is their impact on productivity and possible labor savings that counts. For industrialized nations (North America, Europe, and Japan), about 85 percent of the total cost of welding is attributed to labor, 9 percent to consumables (wire and gas), 4 percent to equipment, and 2 percent for power. These statistics show that reducing labor costs by 10 percent through productivity improvements (such as increased travel speed, less overweld, minimum postweld cleanup, etc.) would generate significant savings overall. These hidden savings would exceed a 10 percent reduction in the price of wire or shielding gas. Many times, the focus on cutting the cost of consumables misses the larger objective of significant cost reductions that accrue through savings in labor and overhead, the dominant cost factors in most welding operations. The proper selection of shielding gas and wire electrode can reduce labor and overhead costs by increasing welding speed and duty cycle while decreasing postweld cleanup time. The effect of proper shielding gas selection on the welding operation can result in a significant reduction in overall cost.

Typical Deposition Efficiencies

GTAW (TIG) . . . . . . . . . .95-100 percent GMAW (MIG) . . . . . . . . . . .88-98 percent GMAW-P (pulsed) . . . . . . .97-99 percent FCAW (gas shield) . . . . . .85-90 percent FCAW (self shield) . . . . . .75-85 percent PAW (plasma arc) . . . . . .95-100 percent SMAW (stick) . . . . . . . . . . .50-65 percent

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.

Effect of Shielding Gas on Welding Speed

If welding speed can be increased, labor and overhead charges per unit of weld will decrease accordingly, which decreases bottom-line welding costs. Maximum welding speed depends largely on the shielding gas selected and its inherent heat transfer properties, oxidizing potential, and metal transfer characteristics. Gases with high thermal conductivity produce the hottest and most fluid weld puddle. Gases with high oxidizing potential are more effective at reducing surface tension of the weld puddle to provide better wetting of the weld bead to the base material. Inert gas blends that promote spray transfer provide the highest level of wire electrode deposition efficiency and generally higher travel speeds. In addition to the shielding gas and weld bead size, other factors that affect welding speed include current and voltage, weld position (flat, vertical up, etc.), joint fit-up, and the mode of travel (manual versus mechanized). Maximum usable welding speed for any grouping of consumables is higher in mechanized applications with clean plate and good fit-up. In manual welding, operator skill is often the limiting factor, as shielding gases can produce welds at speeds higher than the capabilities of the operator. If welding is mechanized, carbon dioxide (CO2) can produce a higherspeed weld on thin-gauge material when burn-through is not a problem. However, when fit-up is poor or burnthrough problems are evident, argon

* 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

Effect of Shielding Gas on Duty Cycle and Cleanup

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. When CO2 shielding is used, spatter can accumulate in the gas nozzle of the welding gun and interfere with proper

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

Cost Comparison per Foot of Weld (CO2 vs.Argon + CO2Blend)

CO2 a. Shielding Gas Cost ($/ft3) b. Gas Flow Rate (ft
3/h)

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)

Total Cost of a Shielding Gas

Shielding gas costs are typically between 1 percent to 5 percent of total welding costs, depending on the deposition rate of the application being considered. A typical cost comparison between an argon-based gas mixture and CO2 is shown in Figure 3. When the increase in duty cycle (from 40 percent to 45 percent due to less postweld cleanup and equipment maintenance) and deposition efficiency (from 89 percent to 97 percent due to reduced spatter and fume) resulting from the use of argon are considered, the total cost per foot of weld is less with an argon mixture than with CO2. Another cost analysis is shown in Figure 4. In this example, 100 percent CO2 shielding is used with solid wire. This company purchases about 70,000 pounds of wire per year and employed a

(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 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-

cialty gases, and high-performance surface coatings.

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

0.010 40 13 0.006 35 0.30 (30%) 1.795 0.65

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)

0.88 (88%) 0.155 12 0.115 1.916

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

(2) Labor and Overhead Total Costs =

(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