45

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter contains the development strategy that includes the project

design and development, operation and testing procedure involved and the

evaluation procedure to measure the project acceptability.

Project Design

The Wire Feeder for Oxy-acetylene welding, Gas tungsten arc welding

and brazing is a unique design developed to aid students in filler wire feeding

application. It is made from Aluminum for lightweight handling. The project was

designed to address the existing problems of weldors regarding the inaccuracy in

the hand fed filler wire feeding method. Most weldors experience hard time in

wire feeding. One must possess steady hands and a good hand–to-eye

coordination in order to evenly feed the molten pool with the right amount of filler

metal to obtain a satisfactory weld.

The Wire Feeder design allows it to be compact, ergonomic and very

functional. It diminishes the possibility for the weldors to suffer burns during wire

feeding operation. It also aids in the accuracy in delivering a steady and right

amount of filler metal in the molten pool by a turn of the thumb wheel.

The Wire Feeder design has seven major parts which consists of the

following: Base Handle, Wire guide, Rubber traction ring, Thumb wheel, Thumb

wheel guide, Square nut slide and the Allen cap screw.
 46

5
2

Figure 17 Exploded view of the initial Wire Feeder Device

Project Development

1. Base handle

1.1 Acquire aluminum flat bar 105 mm x 40 mm x 20mm.

1.2 Set into milling machine vise

1.3 Fasten 25 mm end mill

1.4 Fabricate the figure according to plan.

Figure 18 Profile view of the base handle

 47

2. Wire guide

2.1 Acquire 5/16Ø x 80mm in length brass rod.

2.2 Fasten the work piece in the lathe chuck.

2.3 Drill through hole 4mmØ.

2.4 Perform knurling operation on the wire guide

2.5 Turn work piece according to plan which includes threading

Figure 19 profile view of the wire guide

3. .Rubber traction ring

3.1 Acquire rubber sole 5mm thick.

3.2 Fabricate rubber traction ring according to plan.

Figure 20 Two rubber traction rings

 48

4. Thumb wheel

4.1 Acquire 25mm x 12mm solid brass rod.

4.2 Perform knurling operation on work piece.

4.3 Drill through hole 10mmØ.

4.4 Drill hole 12.5Ø mm x 5mm depth.

Figure 21 Design illustration of the thumb wheel

5. Thumb Wheel guide

5.1 Acquired brass material 15mmØ x 15 mm

5.2 Fasten material on the lathe chuck

5.3 Drill 5/32 through hole

5.4 Counter bore 5/16

5.5 Machine according to plan

 49

Figure 22 illustration of the thumb wheel guide

6. Square nut slide

6.1 Acquire aluminum plate 10mm x 10mm x 5mm

6.2 Drill through hole 3mm Ø.

6.3 Hand Tap 4.5mm NC thread to work piece.

Figure 23 illustration of the square nut slide

 50

7. Allen Cap Screw

7.1 Acquire allen cap screw 5/16 NC-24 x 12.5mm

Figure 24 illustration of the allen cap screw

 51

Project Development Flowchart

START

CONDUCT
PERFORMANCE
REFERENCES, IDEAS
AND CONCEPTS
TESTING

NO
PASSED?
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING (SKETCHES
AND DRAWINGS)
YES

CONDUCT
NO ACCEPTABILITY
Is plan
EVALUATION
Ok?

YES
NO
ACCEPTABL
IDENTIFICATION AND E?
ACQUISITION OF
NEEDED SUPPLIES &
MATERIALS
YES

PROJECT
DOCUMENTATION
IDENTIFICATION AND
PREPARATION OF
TOOLS, EQUIPMENT
AND MACHINES
IMPROVEMENT,
NEEDED
RECOMMENDATIONS
AND SUGGESTIONS

FABRICATION
PROCEDURES AND
POSSIBLE END
MODIFICATIONS

NO Is
prototype
Operation
al?
YES

Figure 25 Flowchart of the study

 52

Operation, Testing and Evaluation Procedure

Operation Procedure

Filler wire feeding enhancement device capable of accurately and

satisfactorily supply the filler wire to the weld pool without frequent stoppage

resulting to a sound weld profile. In order to properly operate the device, the

following steps emphasizing on the selection of the round filler to use for the

operation and insertion of the filler wire, are listed:

1. Select the correct round filler wire for the welding operation;

2. Insert the filler wire to the filler wire guide;

3. Adjust the allen cap screw to tighten the setting enough to permit the

right hold for the filler wire ;

4. Move the thumbwheel to check if the filler wire will move smoothly;

5. Pre heat the weld specimen and start feeding the wire to the weld pool;

For detailed information regarding the operation, usage and adjustment of

the device, please refer to the user’s manual in Appendix J.

 53

Testing Procedure

Performance testing of the device within its working parameters was done

through an actual welding using Gas Tungsten Arc Welding process and Gas

Welding process. The test was a comparative evaluation between the unaided

hand feeding of filler wire to that of the feeder device through a set of three trials

in down hand bead weld laying on a piece of sheet metal having a bead length of

three (3) inches. Actual comparative testing was based on two areas of concern

namely; speed of welding and appearance of weld deposit.

Performance testing was conducted using a group of ten (10) senior

welding students with working knowledge on both oxy-acetylene and tungsten

inert gas arc welding processes. In the testing, the students first performed

welding on the two processes without the device and afterwards with the feeder

device.

Testing for its efficiency was measured in terms of speed in time of

welding via stop watch on each of the trials while the quality of weld in terms of

appearance of the bead was evaluated through visual examination of each of the

finished weld trials and the results were labeled with symbols for confidentiality

where “O”, for very satisfactory, equivalent to a numeric rating of 3.0; “Δ”, for

satisfactory, equivalent to a numeric rating of 2.0; and “X”, for needs

improvement, equivalent to a numeric rating of 1.0.

A matrix showing the outcome of tests was utilized to determine the

difference between them. The matrix format is shown in Table 2. Since the
 54

project was focused on two conditions, the conditions were tested and compared

with the conventional filler wire hand feeding method.

The results of this performance testing conducted are discussed and

presented in the next chapter. Furthermore, the results of the tests were utilized

as evidence before the device was evaluated by the panel of experts.

Table 2 presents the developed evaluation instrument in matrix form to record

student outputs for both oxy-acetylene welding and tungsten inert gas
welding processes using the hand fed and wire feeder device methods
of feeding filler wire into the weld zone.

Name of Student Welding Process

HAND FED WIRE FEEDER DEVICE

Criteria Manual manipulation by Manual manipulation using the

Hand Feed Device
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Efficiency

Speed of welding
in seconds

Quality

Appearance of
weld deposit

Legend on Appearance of Weld:

Ο = 3.0 or Very Satisfactory

Δ = 2.0 or Satisfactory

X = 1.0 or Needs Improvement

 55

A likert scale specially developed to measure the overall quality of weld in

terms of its appearance is given below:

Numeric Rating Adjectival Rating Symbol Rating

1.00 – 1.50 Needs Improvement X

1.51 – 2.50 Satisfactory Δ

2.51 – 3.00 Very Satisfactory Ο

Evaluation Procedure

The acceptability evaluation was conducted using a survey instrument

utilizing the standard format for prototype projects approved by the College of

Industrial Education. The device was evaluated through the following criteria

namely; Functionality, Workability, Economy, Safety and Instructional Applicability

each having a set of three (3) indicators answerable in a scale of 1 to 5, where

five (5) is the highest and one (1) is the lowest. (Please refer to Appendix F). The

results were tabulated and the mean justified the rate of the device.

A total of thirty (30) individuals paneled the evaluation composed of ten

(10) faculty members from TUP and other institutions offering welding

engineering technology; ten (10) welding practitioners/experts; and ten (10)

senior welding students (Third year WET) of the College of Industrial Technology

(CIT). These people were tapped because of their line of expertise in performing

welding operations as well as teaching and imparting skills, knowledge and

correct attitude towards work in welding.

 56

Treatment of Data

After the evaluation, the data were collated and tabulated. The mean

scores (X) for every criterion was computed and the grand mean (X) was derived

from the mean scores of each criterion. At this point, numeric ratings with

adjectival equivalents were also derived.

This is where:

Grand Mean (X) = x / N

Where:

X = the average mean

N = the total number of criteria for evaluation

This is further interpreted in accordance to the likert scale with the

corresponding adjectival rating:

Table 3 Likert scale used in the evaluation of the device

Numeric Rating Adjectival Rating

4.51 – 5.00 Highly Acceptable

3.51 – 4.50 Very Acceptable

2.51 – 3.50 Acceptable

1.51 – 2.50 Fairly Acceptable

1.00 – 1.50 Not acceptable