5 major differences between MIG and FCAW welding

MIG welding requires external gas and is cleaner, ideal for thin materials. FCAW is versatile, self-shielded, better for thick materials and outdoor use, faster, and less sensitive to surface contaminants.

Electrode Type

Metal inert gas welding employs a solid wire electrode continuously fed from a spool through the welding gun and into the molten weld pool. This method needs a clean environment to operate safely, as the solid wire does not automatically deal with contaminants such as rust or oil. Meanwhile, flux-cored arc welding deploys a hollow wire filled with flux. While welding, the flux core in the wire melts to create the gas shield around the weld, protecting it from contamination automatically.

It distinguishes FCAW as the superior option for working in outdoor conditions and on imperfectly clean surfaces. Consequently, although two candidates show a comparably high level of effectiveness, the question of the best option has a simple answer. MIG welding is best in a small fabrication workshop, while FCAW is superior in a shipbuilding facility. Indeed, when the task consists of small, aesthetic welding in the workshop, the results may testify to the reality. Meanwhile, even though I use either 0.6mm or 1.2 mm wire in either location, the result will likely be clearer and rather visible in the workshop.

Although the job conditions and the limitations should also be considered, not merely the properties of welding. A shipyard has large scale, robust constructions, and a hefty gauge of steel. This venue’s odd shapes and heavy conditions are better accommodated with FCAW, which can handle the heavier gauges of steel. Simultaneously, the electrodes for this welding method come in sizes from tiny 0.8mm to 1.2 mm to oversized 1.6 mm. This option depends on both the penetration force needed and the thickness of the object being welded.

Meanwhile, MIG welding is best in the workshop. The wire diameters for the method may vary significantly from 0.6 mm for thin sheets of metal up to 1.2mm for thicker sections of steel. The factors also have consequences for the appearance and cleanness of welds. The cost considerations lead to a similar result. FCAW costs more by the kilogram for the material in the conditions mentioned above, costing around $3.50 per kilogram. Meanwhile, MIG welding’s standard solid wire costs $2.50 per kilogram on average. Many workers can experience greater expenses if they have to buy cleaning or solution to remove contaminants from the surface to properly MIG weld.

Shielding Gas

Metal Inert Gas (MIG) welding is totally dependent on external shielding gases such as argon, carbon dioxide, or a mixture of the two to protect the welding arc and pool from the surrounding atmosphere. Shielding gas supplies an arc appropriate for MIG welding, which makes it unfavorable in environments prone to winds as this may disrupt the flow and balance of the outer gases. Seventy-five percent argon and twenty-five percent carbon dioxide is the common gas mixture to use, which is relatively balanced for MIG welding.

The mixture provides a good balance between proper arc stability and reduced spatter. On the other hand, Flux-Cored Arc Welding uses a wire that has sufficient flux in its core, and when burned, it generates a shielding gas designed to protect the weld area. Since the welding operation is already a part of its function, FCAW becomes more efficient and flexible than MIG welding. In the context of construction, a self-shielded FCAW could benefit a construction team with a project such as an outdoor framework for a new building. In this case, the team could experience occasional shifts in the direction and the speed of the wind.

In comparison to the external gases, MIG welding would especially face risks of weld defects in such an arrangement. The welding arc and pool of MIG ought to be shielded by a constantly and endlessly flowing typical gas mixture; yet since the wind would shift with time, gas flow also would be disrupted with time. The self-shielded FCAW, however, does not depend on the gases in the surrounding, and its welding operation would not be interrupted by the displacement of gases around it.

Cost-wise, MIG welding is less expensive to set up as the main cost on the FCAW is in its wire and not the gases, but in high volume welding the on-going costs of the gases, including refills of the tanks, can become quite high with gases costing between $20 to $50 per cylinder. A typical cylinder can last for about 10 hours of continuous welding.


Usability and Application

The Metal Inert Gas welding is best used in locations that require a high level of accuracy and cleanness. When repairing a vehicle or working in an indoor manufacturing setting, welders are given a rare opportunity to make aesthetically pleasing welds. In such a setup, the welder has a high degree of control over the bead and a minimum level of spatter. This is especially beneficial when working on thin materials and the final result is required to be appealing to the eyes. For example, welders who work with an auto body utilizing the MIG welding capability may have the vehicle look as if it never went through an accident. Such a vehicle, having been welded using MIG welding, has all the panels looking clean and having been worked on by a welder who has skillful hands. In most cases, the panels have only a thickness of 2-3 millimeters that can be worked on cleanly without leaving unnecessary amount of grinding and sanding.

On the other hand, the Flux-Cored Arc Welding would typically be best used in a technological system where there is a need for welding that is more robust. FCAW is not fussy about the cleanness of the welds, and as such, there can be rust and other contaminants on the steel that will be welded by the machine. FCAW excels in heavy construction where a structure has to be erected quickly, and as such, the finish is not too important. In some cases, the steel surfaces have to be cleaned using chemicals in order to prevent rusting, a process that may be skipped when using FCAW. FCAW is especially good for cases when the production was behind schedule but there was an attempt to catch up on time. At such a time the welder lays down one or more beads in a place in order to catch up on lost time. In a minimal amount of time, the bead is laid down so that the production of the weld may proceed further or come to an end.

Performance in Different Conditions

Metal Inert Gas (MIG) welding and Flux-Cored Arc Welding (FCAW) exhibit distinct behavior under changing environmental conditions. Specifically, each is suited to different settings based on the susceptibility of their shield to being blown away. MIG welding, which requires an external shielding gas of argon or argon and carbon dioxide, is very effective in controlled conditions. It is widely used in indoor workshops, where the weld is at very low risk of exposure by wind or moisture. At the same time, MIG is sensitive to any such disruption. Therefore, when outdoors or in a draft, the welder must design a wind shield of some kind to keep the gas near the weld pool. This measure adds time and cost to the procedure.

FCAW, however, comes with its flux core, which also generates a shielding gas. In other words, since no gas needs to be kept near the weld, it is much more robust in outdoor or adverse conditions. Even in strong winds, it can protect the weld pool with its generated flux. Production or repair work in construction sites, shipyards, and other similar locations would be best served by FCAW. This is particularly the case because one of the main advantages of FCAW becomes apparent in such settings.

The welder does not have to clean the surface too carefully nor does the assisted flux require the extensive surface cleaning with a grinder that a MIG weld would. In a ship repair, this could save valuable time because the vessel cannot stay stationary due to financial reasons. As such, the welds are usually harder wearing, but they are considered less attractive because they are slightly sloppier due to the welds being covered in slag. Suicide welds, namely those situated on the sides of buildings and bridges that are supposed to reshaped and recapped later, are also likely to be performed with FCAW.

The difference can be illustrated by comparing MIG and FCAW in a car repairing garage and in a bridge factory. An automotive factory’s welding requires precision and speed. MIG welding, which works on a lower voltage of about 15V to 24V for thin car panels, is ideal for such work. Such a range does not cause burn-throughs of thin sheets. In contrast FCAW is suited to bridge construction, which is not meant to be dismantled soon and is exposed to all the disturbing power of nature and all types of force on a regular basis. The FCAW is able to work on thinner panels or thicker sections, mostly on voltages of about 24V to 44V. It does not take too long for it to yield a deep, strong weld.

Overall Cost and Efficiency

In the case of Metal Inert Gas welding and Flux-Cored Arc Welding, the question of both initial and ongoing operational costs is very important since it determines which method may be most appropriate in a given situation. The advantages of MIG welding, which include finer control and a cleaner weld, come at the cost of requiring a constant supply of external shielding gas, which in many situations may quickly add up as an extensive expenditure.

A typical, popular mixture, 75% argon and 25% carbon dioxide, can cost about $30 to $100 per standard cylinder, depending on regional and supplier prices. The additional costs of gas regulators and hoses may add up to the total investment needed for the initial setup to be around $200 to $400. FCAW, on the other hand, might not require any gas other than that generated by the reaction of the welding wire with the molten slag surrounding the weld, reducing the cost of purchasing and storing additional gas. A slight disadvantage is that flux-cored wire is also generally more expensive than solid MIG wire, with regular prices at about 10-20% higher per pound.

This cost is often recouped by other means, such as the reduced surface preparation that comes as a bonus to the higher speeds at which the wire can be deposited, leading to reduced labor costs. In the case of a large construction project for which the member frameworks are being built out of steel, FCAW can be expected to be a more suitable process due to its faster deposition rates and reduced sensitivity to environmental conditions, which might make a MIG operation run even slower. A typical FCAW setup may be expected to reach deposition rates 25-30% higher than MIG, leading to shorter weld times and a more quickly completed project. Of course, the efficiency of each process is also dependent on the cost of time and labor, so in other situations, it may still be more efficient to use MIG welding.

Scroll to Top