I know this is a really stupid question <ducking for cover>. I'm happy for someone to say 'google XXX' or 'search XXX'. I really did try to search google and search this forum. So here goes -- does FCAW-G give more penetration/strength than FCAW-S? AKA, if I had the same equipment and ability to gasless vs dual shield...is there a structural advantage of FCAW-G?
http://www.lincolnelectric.com/en-us/su ... rodes.aspx
Similar process but diferent capabilities. Each has benefits in a given application while strength is rated by the tensil strength of the wire you choose. (Strength) is also a relative term depending on settings, base metal, and weld orientation.
Similar process but diferent capabilities. Each has benefits in a given application while strength is rated by the tensil strength of the wire you choose. (Strength) is also a relative term depending on settings, base metal, and weld orientation.
I have more questions than answers
Josh
Josh
Thank you Poland. I appreciate the article.
As mentioned in the article, FCAW-S has a more globular weld deposit profile (if it can even be said that way) and FCAW-G has a more spray profile. This is my confusion -- are they saying that FCAW-G is a type a spray transfer or just 'spray like'? I initially read it as 'spray like'. However, assuming that it is spray transfer, when comparing FCAW-S to FCAW-G on thick materials, the advantage of FCAW-G would be the ability to use relatively smaller wire (as compared to self shielded FCAW-S wire for the same sized metal) while allowing for adequate penetration. Is that a good way of understanding it? This is a bit confusing for me.
As mentioned in the article, FCAW-S has a more globular weld deposit profile (if it can even be said that way) and FCAW-G has a more spray profile. This is my confusion -- are they saying that FCAW-G is a type a spray transfer or just 'spray like'? I initially read it as 'spray like'. However, assuming that it is spray transfer, when comparing FCAW-S to FCAW-G on thick materials, the advantage of FCAW-G would be the ability to use relatively smaller wire (as compared to self shielded FCAW-S wire for the same sized metal) while allowing for adequate penetration. Is that a good way of understanding it? This is a bit confusing for me.
- MinnesotaDave
-
Weldmonger
-
Posts:
-
Joined:Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:57 pm
-
Location:Big Lake/Monticello MN, U.S.A.
From that article, why did you decide that the size of the wire was important?medsar wrote:Thank you Poland. I appreciate the article.
As mentioned in the article, FCAW-S has a more globular weld deposit profile (if it can even be said that way) and FCAW-G has a more spray profile. This is my confusion -- are they saying that FCAW-G is a type a spray transfer or just 'spray like'? I initially read it as 'spray like'. However, assuming that it is spray transfer, when comparing FCAW-S to FCAW-G on thick materials, the advantage of FCAW-G would be the ability to use relatively smaller wire (as compared to self shielded FCAW-S wire for the same sized metal) while allowing for adequate penetration. Is that a good way of understanding it? This is a bit confusing for me.
Where are you getting the language of "more globular" or "spray like" ?
- image.jpeg (21.04 KiB) Viewed 768 times
- image.jpeg (43.24 KiB) Viewed 768 times
Dave J.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw~
Syncro 350
Invertec v250-s
Thermal Arc 161 and 300
MM210
Dialarc
Tried being normal once, didn't take....I think it was a Tuesday.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw~
Syncro 350
Invertec v250-s
Thermal Arc 161 and 300
MM210
Dialarc
Tried being normal once, didn't take....I think it was a Tuesday.