Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
01
Welding Training Comparative Study:Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
02 03
01. Introduction
02. International Fillet Welder GMAW Carbon Steel. Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic AT
03. Comparative Study
04. Questionnaires
05. Conclusions
This study is intended to compare in an existent course, the conventional welding training model that is being used nowadays, versus the new methodology proposal of SOLDAMATIC AUGMEN-TED TRAINING Technology (SATT). SATT focuses on optimizing costs, time and resources while avoiding risks or hazardous practices.
This new methodology available by a pioneer use of Augmented Reality, aimed to augment the trainees’ motivation and therefore their qualification.
Welding instructors around the world recognize that the traditional training method is suitable but inefficient, because of: high costs and insufficient time for practice, which provides in many cases, low qualified professionals unable to meet the industry requirements.
Besides, the traditional method inherently includes the possibility of physical risks for the stu-dents and harmful gases emissions to the environment.
The lack of qualified Welders creates a gap between the skilled workforce that the industry is de-manding and the certified students coming from training institutions.
Apart from the particularities of each welding process, the format of the courses follows a com-mon pattern: all the trainees start the course simultaneously receiving the theoretical contents in a conventional classroom, and after the number of hours established in the training program are imparted, at that point all the students pass to the workshop to practice welding taking for granted their previous skill and knowledge, as not all of them learn at the same rate and had the same background.
In the workshop, there is usually just one instructor for all the students, and together with the fact that the practices are done individually (one booth for each trainee), makes it impossible for the instructor to supervise what every student is doing simultaneously.
Therefore, errors are not going to be detected and corrected until much later. In short, it is a rigid methodology that is only structured in the basis of learning time structured around the course’s content, but not in the basis of the trainees’ capabilities and their learning evolution; and this is due to the fact that the traditional means do not allow an individualize training as it would be very expensive. But with new technological means that is now possible and even simplifies the instructor’s effort.
It is equally important to highlight the fact that welding materials and consumables are expensi-ve; therefore, we should make the most out of them. However, beginner students lack the skills,
01. Introduction
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
04 05
The experiences detailed on this report consist on a comparative study between the conven-tional training methodology and SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING methodology. The first one is composed of two stages: initially all the theory is given in a conventional classroom and after this the trainees move on to the wor-kshop to do the practical exercises using real equipment and consumables.
The SOLDAMATIC model starts providing the theoretical contents through the e-SOLDAMA-TIC platform and then the trainees continue learning now in the training center with a com-bination of theory (for review) and simulated practice in the SOLDAMATIC classroom. Fina-lly, the trainees finish their practices in the wor-kshop with real equipment.
This project allows comparing accurately the advantages and disadvantages of both me-
thodologies regarding the acquisition of pro-fessional skills, the training costs, the energy consumption, the waste of consumables, the emissions of harmful gases, and finally the qua-lity and the suitability of using simulation for training.
The Spanish Welding Association CESOL deve-loped the contents, both theoretical and prac-tical, for an International Fillet Welder course, in MIG (GMAW) process for carbon steel, fo-llowing the Guideline IAB-089r4-12 (part I) of the International Institute of Welding (IIW), pre-pared by the International Authorization Board (IAB) Group A WGA3a, which establishes the minimum requirements for the education, tra-ining, examination and qualification of Inter-national Welders. The content was exactly the same for both training methodologies used, and therefore all the students took the same qualification test at the end of the course.
02. International Fillet Welder GMAW Carbon Steel. Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic AT
concentration and experience required to fully utilize welding resources, therefore a dispropor-tional amount of resources are wasted by inexperienced students.
In the traditional method at the end of the course, all trainees finish the course simultaneously and normally they all pass, regardless of the different levels of acquired skills and knowledge. This problem is not exclusive to welding training, but to any technical discipline that requires dex-terous skills, since it is believed that the only way to assimilate these skills is to practice.
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
06 07
03. Comparative Study
First phase: Training experience in Asturias (Spain) comparing conventional model vs. Soldamatic model adapted to the format of traditional training (Soldamatic mixed).
We started this pioneer training experience in the Fundación Metal Asturias facilities in the north of Spain. Fundación Metal Asturias is a well-known vocational training center for metal workers and an ATB of CESOL with a long experience in welding training.
This phase of the experience required the deploying of the course in Soldamatic with the same limitations as of the conventional model. This means that Soldamatic had to be adapted to fit the practice time and money limitations of the conventional model. Therefore, we had to adapt the flexible Augmented Training model to a rigid one, by not allowing the students to spend the time needed with the simulators.
The requirement was to move all the students at the same time from theory to the simulators and then to the workshop, instead of doing it gradually when each of them gets skilled enough to reach the next step. 16 students started the course, 8 for each model, and all of them finished at the same time. Both models had their own welding instructor with similar amounts of experience and qualification.
The conventional model worked in the regular way: by instructing 20 hours of theoretical in-person classes and later students spent 120 hours practicing in the lab with real equipment following the practices and WPSs designed by CESOL.
The students of the SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING mixed method spent just 5 hours of theoretical in-person classes also using the simulator for practical demonstrations during this time, but to comply with the IW Guideline they needed to spend 15 more hours to complete the minimum 20 hours in-person, although they had the contents available in the e-Soldamatic platform outside class hours.
During practice time, the conventional method students initially spent 120 hours in the workshop working with real equipment and consumables. This meant a great waste of money and time, as they needed carbon steel plates and pipes, gas bottles (Ar-CO2 15%), wire, etc., during the entire time. They had 1 booth for each student (8 in total) fully equipped.
The SOLDAMATIC students once they learned the theory, they started working with the simulators performing the practices that were configured using the Teacher Software under the parameters
contained in the WPSs developed by CESOL. After the simulated practice they passed to the workshop where they had to share one booth for each 2 students (4 in total) which means that they could only practice half of the time. This, together with the fact that they had a predefined total amount of practice time, they had to reduce considerably the amount of practice time in the simulators, which is less than desirable.
Once the 147-hours course was completed the student took a theoretical exam monitored by the CESOL welding inspector. As well as the qualification tests in pipe-plate T-joints positions PD (4F) and PH (5F). The outcomes for all the students were not good at all: although the savings for the students using Soldamatic were great and the training level was similar for traditional and Soldamatic students, none of them passed the qualification tests mainly because of a lack of fusion (bend tests were not made during the training).
It was decided to extend the course by 75 more practice hours for some of the students (13, as the others were not able to continue for different reasons). The goal was to become skilled enough to pass the tests. After this additional practice time, the CESOL welding inspector tested the students for the second time and finally 7 students got their IW Diploma, 3 students from the traditional model and 4 from the SOLDAMATIC model.
Theoretical exams and qualification tests:
This means that in the first attempt a 0% of students were qualified, and in the second one only 37.5% of the traditional students passed and got their certificate and 50% of the SOLDAMATIC students got theirs. All of them were qualified for just 1 pass.
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
08 09
Second Phase: Training experience in Huelva (Spain) performing full Soldamatic model.
To complete the full experience, we also wanted to compare these results with full SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING model as it is designed: not based on fixed time for the course but on the trainees’ evolution and their skills’ acquisition, which means basically based on the instructor’s criteria. Therefore, few weeks later we started a new course with the same characteristics: the same IFW MIG course (same theory and practices developed by CESOL), organized by CESOL, funded by Seabery and with the support as sponsors of Voestalpine-Böhler and High School “Pintor Pedro Gómez”.
The welding instructor was the same as in the former experience. The experience took place in a welding workshop belonging to the Huelva City Council (which donated the facility for the course).This time the only constraint was to have the outcomes ready to be published in the IIW- Commission XIV 2014 Meeting in Seoul (South Korea), so we had a short time to deploy the full AUGMENTED TRAINING methodology of SOLDAMATIC.
Because we already had data from the former traditional course from the first phase in Asturias, this time we just developed the course using just SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING, with similar conditions as before: there were 7 students (6 + 1 substitute), 3 simulators and 6 welding booths. During the course two welding machines broke down so the students only used 4 booths most of the time.
Once the recruitment of the students was made, the instructor allowed them to start learning theory through the e-Soldamatic Platform also with on-line tutorials, giving just 2 days (10 hours) of in-person classes.
Also using the simulator for practical demonstrations, and fulfilling the additional 17 hours to complete the 27 established in the guideline with the simulators, in a more practical way. The rest of the time they had the contents available and could learn at their own pace. 22 guys started and the instructor proposed up to 4 intermediate exams (also carried out through the e-Soldamatic platform) to determine who had learned enough to go to practice, and he selected 7 students (6 men and 1 woman).
These students first started practicing with the simulators (students pair in couples) following the WPSs developed by CESOL, that were formerly uploaded to the system, exactly in the same order as they would have to do later in the workshop. However, with the simulator they had the real-time on-screen help icons to learn properly the manual skills (travel speed, arc length, angles, etc.) and technical parameters (voltage, intensity, current, wire speed, etc.). They had the possibility of performing every practice in 3 difficulty levels with different help icons and tolerance thresholds. Once the instructor determined that they were skilled enough they moved on to the lab.
Finally, the results for the theoretical exams and qualification tests were:
This means that a 57,15% of SOLDAMATIC students were qualified, 34,4% more than the conventional model and even the 3 trainees that failed to reach the IW Diploma, they got the ENAC homologation for PD (4F) position issued by CESOL. And they did it with much less workshop time, and consumables and energy consumption. Let’s see it in the next comparative table.
03. Comparative Study
Método tradicional vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
03. Comparative Study
Método tradicional vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
04. Questonnaires
Método tradicional vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training Traditional Methodology vs Soldamatic Augmented Training
016 01717
05. Conclusions
The results obtained have been very clarifying and favorable to the full SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING method in all the parameters compared.
With similar number of trainees for each model, the full Soldamatic methodology was able to reduce 17% total training time in comparison with the time needed by the traditional model. For this traditional model we had to increase the estimated training time by 51% more time, as initially no trainee was qualified. The same happened with Soldamatic mixed with traditional format. This means that the most effective way to deploy the model is with a flexible timeframe.
Regarding the time spent in the workshop, which is the most expensive part of welding training, the full Soldamatic method shortened waste of consumables by reducing 56% the average time that the in the workshop, so we can conclude that being flexible and adapt the time to each trainee progress instead of the opposite brings much better results: the most
skilled ones finish before than the rest which needed more practice time, and this makes the system very efficient.
Using the Teacher Software is really easy for the instructor to apply this methodology and monitor what every trainee is doing at any time, having absolute control over the training process.
But this is not all about economic and time savings but also about quality of training, and here full SOLDAMATIC AUGMENTED TRAINING again demonstrated its great advantages by qualifying 57% of the trainees as International Fillet Welders (37,4% more than traditional method), while all the rest passed de theoretical exams (IW Guidelines Modules A and SM) and got the ENAC homologation by CESOL for PD position. Meanwhile neither the traditional model nor the Soldamatic method used with a rigid timeframe, were able to qualify any IW in the first attempt during 147 hours of training. We had to expand the course 75 more hours to get
16
the trainees ready for the qualification tests, and then only 37% of trainees got qualified.
This is very valuable information that highlights SOLDAMATIC’s capacity to provide high quality training in less time. Again we are talking about efficiency but without lowering quality.
Regarding economic constrains the outcomes were really impressive: Despite the lack of experience and even resources of this pioneer training experience, the full SOLDAMATIC
AUGMENTED TRAINING method accomplished a savings of 68% less consumables than the traditional methodology so we got wonderful results.
And finally something that is really quite difficult to measure but we could verify during the course was the trainees’ motivation. The “gamification” of the training process makes it easy for young people that felt enthusiastic with the experience and with no doubt they felt attracted to welding.
