57

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the results and findings of the project. It includes the

project description, project structure, project capabilities and limitations, and

project evaluation results.

Project Description

The developed instructional device is a handheld tool for filler wire feeding

application in Oxy-acetylene welding, Gas tungsten arc welding and brazing

process. The project is designed to address the problems present in the

traditional way of feeding the filler wire by hand to the weld pool, thereby keeping

it stay at a safe distance from the work.

Figure 26 the appearance of the finished Wire Feeder

 58

It is composed of the Base handle, wire guide, rubber traction ring,

thumbwheel, thumb wheel guide, allen cap screw and square nut slide.

Project Structure

The developed Wire feeder is made out of locally available materials

namely, aluminum, brass, and rubber.

The Base Handle is where the whole device assembly is mounted. It is

made of aluminum flat bar which is machined according to design specifications.

The main reason in selecting aluminum as the material for the handle is because

of its lightweight and machineability.

Figure 27 presents the appearance of the Base Handle

The Wire guides are made out of two pieces of extruded brass rods

machine turned to size, threaded on one end and drilled with an orifice to

allow the round filler wire to pass through it in a very smooth manner. Both
 59

are screwed on opposite sides of the base handle where its central axis

aligns in between the thumb wheels thus, forming a funnel to guide the wire.

These wire guides also stabilizes the movement of the wire which aids in its

proper feeding to the weld pool.

Figure 28 Wire Guide

The Rubber traction ring is an important part of the wire feeder. Its main

purpose is to provide the gripping effect in order to move the wire towards the

work during the wire feeding operation.

Figure 29 the Rubber Traction ring

 60

The Thumb wheel is provided to control the speed of the wire feeding as

required by the type of welding operation. Since most welding operation requires

round bare wire as a filler rod to feed the weld deposit, the thumb wheels are

able to increase or decrease the rate of the wire feeding to the weld pool.

Figure 30 the appearance of the Thumb wheel

The Wheel Guide used to hold the alignment of the thumb wheels for the

correct feeding of the wire feeder.

Figure 31 the appearance of the Thumb wheel guide

 61

Square nut slide

The square nut slides are two pieces of aluminum square stocks

machined to fit into the rail of the aluminum base handle. Its main purpose is to

restrain the thumb wheel and guide together and facilitate easy access in the

holding force adjustment of the two thumb wheel against the wire to be fed into

the weld pool.

Figure 32 shows the two square nut slide

Project Capabilities and Limitations

The device is specifically designed to cater to the needs of a safe, proper

and uninterrupted filler wire feeding application. Moreover, since it is a portable

device, it can be carried anywhere in any work area where it is needed.

The study is limited in the design, development, testing and evaluation of

a prototype Wire Feeder. It is expected to cater to the needs of welding training

institutions, training center and industries where welding is involved in their skills

training and manufacturing processes.

The project is designed exclusively for manual filler wire feeding in Oxy-

acetylene welding (AOW) and tungsten inert gas arc welding (TIGW) processes
 62

as shown in figures 33 and 34. The maximum filler wire diameter that can be

accommodated by the device is 4mm.

Figure 33 presents the hand fed and the wire feeder method of feeding filler wire
in the weld pool as performed in oxy-acetylene welding.
(Photo taken in BIT welding shop, CIT – TUP Manila)

Figure 34 presents the hand fed and the wire feeder method of feeding filler wire
in the weld pool as performed in tungsten inert gas arc welding.
(Photo taken in PWS, MIRDC, DOST, Taguig)
 63

Project Performance Test Results

The instructional device was tested via comparative method specifically

against that of the conventional process of hand feeding wire into the weld pool.

Tests were facilitated through the assistance of ten (10) 3 rd year welding students

trained and highly knowledgeable in performing actual welding using Gas

tungsten arc process and Gas welding process. They were tasked to perform

three (3) trials in laying a 3 inch weld bead using the traditional way of hand

feeding filler rod to the weld zone versus the developed wire feeder device with

the following indicators; speed of welding as measured in seconds and

appearance of weld deposit through visual examination.

The data for speed and appearance of the experiments conducted for both

Oxyacetylene welding (OAW) and tungsten inert gas welding (TIG) outputs of

each student using the hand fed and the wire feeder method of feeding wire into

the weld zones were recorded and tabulated in a welding trials form as presented

in appendix D and E.

The summary and discussions of the gathered and tabulated data for

speed and appearance of the experiments are presented in tables 4 and 5.

 64

Table 4 shows the summary of result between the Hand Fed and the Wire
Feeder Methods for Oxy-acetylene welding process

SUMMARY FOR OXY-ACETYLENE WELDING PROCESS

HAND FED WIRE FEEDER DEVICE
Manual manipulation by Manual manipulation using the
Hand Feed device
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Average
Speed of 92.31 89.41 86.70 54.38 55.13 55.17
welding in
seconds
Overall
Average 89.47

54.89
Appearance Δ Δ Δ Ο Ο Ο
of or or or or or or
Weld Deposit 2.15 2.25 2.45 2.65 2.70 2.90

Overall 2.28 2 2.75

Appearance Satisfactory Very Satisfactory

Discussions on the Results of Student Assisted Experiments for OAW

In terms of speed of welding all ten (10) students showed longer time in

laying a bead weld using the hand fed method compared to that of the wire

feeder. The reason for this setback is that the hands were exposed periodically to

heat causing them to stop welding and pause for a while thus interrupting the

welding operations. The overall average speed in using the hand fed method was

89.47 seconds while with the aid of the wire feeder device, the overall average

speed was 54.89 seconds. This shows that using the device, students were

made aware of their proximity to the heat generated by the gas flame or arc of
 65

welding thereby keeping their hands stay at a safe distance from the weld pool

and preventing any interruption in the welding operations which is enough reason

for faster and efficient welding.

On the other hand, in the appearance of welding deposit under hand fed

method, the overall appearance garnered an overall rating of 2.28, equivalent to

satisfactory and 2.75 overall for the wire feeder assisted method equivalent to a

descriptive rating of very satisfactory proving that welding with the device can

result in sound and good quality welds.

Figure 35 shows a three (3) inch weld bead using Oxy-acetylene

welding process in Hand Fed versus the Wire feeder
comparative visual examination of test results by the
students
 66

Table 5 shows the summary of result between the Hand Fed and the Wire
Feeder Methods for Gas tungsten arc welding process

SUMMARY FOR GAS TUNGSTEN ARC WELDING PROCESS

HAND FED WIRE FEEDER DEVICE

Manual manipulation by Manual manipulation using the
CRITERIA Hand Feed device
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Average
Speed of 86.80 83.21 79.41 52.37 52.45 51.71
welding in
seconds

Overall
Average 83.14

Average52.18
Appearance X ∆ ∆ Ο Ο Ο
of or or or or or or
Weld Deposit 1.50 2.30 2.45o 2.55 2.85 2.90

Overall 2.08 2.76

Appearance Satisfactory Very Satisfactory
r

Discussions on the Results of Student Assisted Experiments for TIG

The same result was proven using Gas tungsten arc welding wherein in

terms of speed of welding, shows that most students weld faster using the

instructional device, as shown in Table 5. The overall speed for the hand fed

method was computed at 83.14 seconds, while 52.18 seconds overall speed

using the instructional device was derived. In terms of overall appearance, the

hand fed method came out with a 2.08 overall numeric rating equivalent to the

descriptive rating of satisfactory. On the other hand, the overall rating of the wire
 67

feeder assisted welding in TIG was 2.75, equivalent to the descriptive rating of

very satisfactory. These results showed that welding with the wire feeder is also

beneficial for tungsten inert gas arc welding in as far as the attainment of quality

welds is concerned.

It was also observed that frequent welding stoppages or interruptions for

both OAW and TIG welding processes took place in the hand fed method of wire

feeding. This is attributed to the unawareness of the welder that the filler wire

becomes shorter as the welding progresses causing their hands to get near the

welding flame or welding arc.

Furthermore, based on examined weld outputs, the overall appearance on

both welding process shows that using the Wire Feeder device produces a sound

and straighter weld profile with lesser discontinuities compared to the Hand fed

method as shown in Figures 35 and 36.

Figure 36 shows a 3inch weld bead using Gas tungsten arc welding
process in Hand Fed versus the Wire feeder comparative
visual examination of test results by the students
 68

Project Evaluation Results

To determine the acceptability and performance of the Wire feeder, the

researcher conducted an evaluation involving a total of 30 respondents. These

respondents were categorized in three groups composing of faculty members,

welding experts/practitioner and 3rd year welding students, who have specialized

working knowledge in the different welding processes.

The respondents evaluated the project based on the following criteria:

functionality, workability, economy, safety and instructional applicability. Table 8

shows the indicators used in the evaluation of the project.

Among the respondents were ten (10) are faculty members, ten (10)

welding experts/practitioner and ten (10) welding senior students, who were

requested to evaluate the device.

Table 6 Presents the Number of Respondents per Category

Category Number of Respondents

1 Faculty Members 10
2 Welding experts/practitioner 10
3 Senior welding students 10
Total 30

Table 7 shows the five (5) different criteria in evaluating the project. In

each criterion, there are three (3) indicators that used to describe the project

during the evaluation. This will serve as part of the evaluation instrument in

evaluating the project with corresponding numerical rating.

 69

Table 7 Criteria for Project Evaluation

CRITERIA INDICATORS
Convenience in the dispensing of filler wire in the
weld pool
A. FUNCTIONALITY Distribute sufficient amount of filler wire in the weld
deposit
Facilitates sound and acceptable weld deposit
Availability of materials needed
B. WORKABILITY Fabrication
Appropriateness of size and structure
Economy in terms of materials needed
C. ECONOMY Economy in terms of time/labour spent
Economy in terms of machine/s required
Provides safety in the attainment of quality welds
D. SAFETY Absence of sharp corners
Provide utmost protection to the operators hands
Enhancement of knowledge and information transfer
Reinforcement of student's interest in welding
E. INSTRUCTIONAL
process
APPLICABILITY
Improvement of manipulative skill in wire feeding
operation

Indicators Faculty Welding Senior Mean Descriptive

Members Experts/ Welding Rating
Practitioner Students
1.1 Convenient Very
dispensing of filler to 4.40 4.00 4.70 4.37 Acceptable
the weld pool
1.2 Distribute sufficient Very
amount of filler wire Acceptable
in the weld deposit 4.40 4.20 4.40 4.33
1.3 Facilitates sound
and acceptable weld Very
deposit 4.60 4.70 4.20 4.50 Acceptable
Overall Mean Very
4.47 4.30 4.43 4.40 Acceptable
Table 8 Respondents Mean Rating in Terms of Functionality
 70

Functionality of the Project

The functionality aspect of the device as shown in Table 8, got an overall

mean of = 4.40, which falls within the range of the scale “Very Acceptable” The

highest among the three indicators under functionality has a mean of = 4.50

falls within the “Very Acceptable” range of the scale, means that the evaluators

found the device can facilitate sound and acceptable weld deposit.

Table 9 Respondents Mean Rating in Terms of Workability

Indicators Faculty Welding Senior Mean Descriptive

Members Experts/ Welding Rating
Practitioner Students
2.1 Availability of Highly
materials 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.70 Acceptable
needed
Highly
2.2 Fabrication 4.70 4.60 4.80 4.63 Acceptable

2.3 Appropriateness Highly

of size and 4.60 4.80 4.90 4.77 Acceptable
structure.
Highly
Overall Mean 4.67 4.70 4.73 4.70 Acceptable

Workability of the Project

In terms of workability, as shown in Table 9, the device falls within the

range of the scale “Excellent”, with an overall mean of =4.70. The senior

welding students gave a rating of =4.73 which is higher than the average mean
 71

of faculty members and welding expert/practitioner of =4.67 and 4.70

respectively. The prototype got the highest mean of =4.77, under the indicator

“Appropriateness of size and structure” only proves that the respondents found

the device very handy and easy to manipulate.

Table 10 Respondents Mean Rating in Terms of Economy

Indicators Faculty Welding Senior Mean Descriptive

Members Experts/ Welding Rating
Practitioner Students
3.1 Economy
in terms of
materials 4.70 4.80 4.40 4.63 Highly
needed Acceptable
3.2 Economy
in terms of
time/labour 4.50 4.80 4.70 4.67 Highly
spent Acceptable
3.3 Economy
in terms of Highly
machine/s 4.90 4.60 4.80 4.77 Acceptable
required
Highly
Overall Mean 4.70 4.73 4.63 4.69 Acceptable

Economy of the Project

The data shown in Table 9 is the overall mean of the project in terms of

economy. The device got =4.69, which falls under the limits of the descriptive

rating of “Highly Acceptable”. Among the evaluators, welding experts/practitioner

got the highest overall mean of =4.73 that falls within the descriptive rating of

“Highly Acceptable” indicating that the device is economically viable. The data
 72

also shows that the indicator under “Economy in terms of machine/s required” got

the highest mean of =4.77.

Table 11 Respondents Mean Rating in Terms of Safety

Indicators Faculty Welding Senior Mean Descriptive

Members Experts/ Welding Rating
Practitioner Students
4.1 Provides
safety in
the attain- Highly
ment of 4.80 4.90 4.70 4.80 Acceptable
quality
welds
4.2 Absence of
sharp Highly
corners 4.80 4.50 4.30 4.53 Acceptable
4.3 Provide
Utmost pro-
tection to Highly
the opera- 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.60 Acceptable
tors hands
Highly
Overall Mean 4.70 4.67 4.57 4.64 Acceptable
Safety of the Project

Table 11 shows the result of the evaluation in terms of safety. Safety got

an overall mean of = 4.64 and falls under the “Highly Acceptable” descriptive

rating. The senior students rated safety with an average =4.57, while the

welding experts/practitioner gave a rating of =4.67. Since, the device is a

safety enhancement in wire feeding operation, the faculty respondents gave the

highest rating of =4.70, attesting that the device is safe to use during laboratory

shops.
 73

Indicators Faculty Welding Senior Mean Descriptive

Members Experts/ Welding Rating
Practitioner Students
5.1 Enhancement
of knowledge Highly
and informa- 4.70 4.80 4.60 4.70 Acceptable
tion transfer
5.2 Reinforcement
of student's
interest in 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.60 Highly
welding Acceptable
process
5.3 Improvement
of manipulati-
ve skill in wire 4.70 4.80 4.80 4.77 Highly
feeding opera- Acceptable
tion.

Overall Mean 4.63 4.73 4.70 4.69 Highly

Acceptable
Table 12 Respondents Mean Rating in Instructional Applicability

Instructional Applicability of the Project

The instructional applicability’s evaluation data shown in Table 12 have

generated an overall mean of =4.69 and falls under the descriptive rating

“Highly Acceptable”. The faculty evaluators rated the device with an average of

=4.63, welding experts/practitioner gave the highest rating of =4.73 and

senior students deliver a positive rating of =4.70. A mean of =4.77 under the

safety indicator “Improvement of manipulative skill in wire feeding operation”

 74

proves that the prototype can be used as an aid in the actual application of wire

feeding in oxy-acetylene, gas tungsten arc welding and brazing process.

Table 13 Summary of the Evaluation Result on the Performance of the Wire

Feeder

Weighted Descriptive
Criteria Mean Rating

A. Functionality 4.40 Highly Acceptable

B. Workability 4.70 Highly Acceptable
C. Economy 4.69 Highly Acceptable
D. Safety 4.64 Highly Acceptable
E. Instructional Applicability 4.69 Highly Acceptable
Overall Weighted Mean 4.62 Highly Acceptable

The data in Table13 show the computed weighted mean per evaluation

criterion of the project as well as the overall weighted mean in terms of the

following; Functionality obtained =4.40 with a descriptive rating of “Highly

Acceptable”. It proves that the device is functional and can perform accurately and

satisfactorily feeding of wire filler to the weld pool. Workability, on the other hand,

has an average weighted mean of = 4.70, with the descriptive rating of “Highly

Acceptable”.

The material used in the project was an aluminum which very lightweight

and corrosion resistant. Both economy and instructional applicability has the 2 nd

highest numerical rating with an average mean of = 3.83. This shows that the

device is economical because of locally available materials and its instructional

applicability has been proven also by the evaluators. Lastly, Safety has generated
 75

an overall weighted mean of = 4.64, the third highest numerical rating proven to

be a safety enhancement device in filler wire feeding operation.

Overall, all the evaluation indicators obtained a “Highly Acceptable”

descriptive rating.