Journal of Materials Processing Technology 157–158 (2004) 3–7

Stand off’s indirect estimation in GMAW

S.C. Absi Alfaro∗ , G.C. Carvalho, S.A. de Melo Júnior
GRACO, Automation And Control Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty Of Technology,
University Of Brasilia 70910-900, Brazil

Abstract

This work was aimed at developing a methodology for the estimation of the contact tip-to-workpiece distance (stand off) in the gas metal arc
welding (GMAW) process. The proposed methodology was based on the measurement of the electrical resistance between the contact tip and
the workpiece during the short circuits in the dip transfer mode of metal transfer (dip resistance). The time periods in which the short-circuits
were occurring, were identified based on the positive cycles of the time derivative of the welding current signal, together with the analysis of
the welding voltage. The experimental part of this work was carried out in three basic parts: (a) determination of the working envelop for the
welding parameters; (b) acquisition of welding data from controlled welding trials and the development of multiple regression models; and
(c) validation of the chosen model. The weld beads were laid using an AWS A5.18/79 welding wire of 0.8 mm diameter, C25 shielding gas
(Ar + 25% CO2 ) on 1/4 in. (6.25 mm) mild steel plate workpieces (ABNT 1020). A multiple linear regression model was developed having as
independent variables the wire feed speed, the average welding current (measured on-line), the average dip-resistance (measured on-line) and
some second order interactions between these variables, and the predicted stand-off as the dependant variable. The standoff obtained from
the validation weld runs were in good agreement with the predicted values. Errors around 4% were observed.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Welding monitorin; GMAW; Stepwise multiple regression analysis

1. Introduction is based on the acquisition of visual data that is synchronized

Gas metal arc welding (GMAW) is one of the processes
of manufacturing and repair that has been increasingly used
in industrial assembly lines. This is due to its versatility and
the levels of productivity that it offers. When, however, the
process is automated there are certain difficulties associated
with the use of the correct parameters and their values. This is
due to the set of variables involved and their control. There are
also the ever-present errors that are inherent to the equipment
and methods that are used. These exist even in the case of
robotic systems.
Various proposals have been made to overcome these
problems. These include an investigation by Saini and Floyd
of the sound emitted during the GMAW process [3]. They
proposed an on-line control of the process based on the char-
acteristics of the arc, the welding pool, and the mode used to
transfer the material. Another method has also been used that
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sadek@unb.br (S.C. Absi Alfaro).
with electronic sensors. This is used to establish the mode of
metal transfer. This method has a great effect on the penetra-
tion, heat flow and limits of parameters and positions that are
available for welding [4,7,8].
However, the control of any process must be based on an
analysis of the control variables themselves. Various possibil-
ities may be found in the literature. Some were mentioned by
Carvalho [1]. Among these the method proposed by Norrish
(1992) stands out [2]. This includes monitoring the voltage in
the arc, the short-circuit current and the arc and short-circuit
times. Ogunbiyi and Norrish (1996) proposed an analysis of
the standard deviation and the coefficient of variation with a
view to identifying the stability of the process. There is also
a proposal by Needham (1985) that the difference between
arc time and short-circuit time be maintained within prede-
fined limits and as constant as possible when the material is
being transferred by short-circuit. Another possibility is to
measure the area under the graph (I × V) which corresponds
to each cycle of a short-circuit and then calculate the stan-
dard deviation of these areas for a predetermined number of

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.09.002
4 S.C. Absi Alfaro et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 157–158 (2004) 3–7
Fig. 1. Schematic of the process setup used for the investigation.
cycles. This was proposed by Dithey et al. (1996). Moreover,
Carvalho himself has proposed an analysis of the stability of
the process using those voltage values that are beneath the
mean.
The present work proposes a method to measure the
“stand-off” indirectly using the welding current and voltage
that are obtained during GMAW. These were used to cal-
culate the transient rate of change of the current during the
short-circuit time. The mathematical model was obtained by
multiple regression and this may be used in a process control
method for welding.
1.1. Control of the GMAW process
The wire feed system is designed to maintain the wire ve-
locity at a pre-set value that is constant and independent of
the variations of the welding arc. Conventional welding pro-
cesses use constant voltage sources that automatically control
the length and stability of the arc [1,2]. Thus, an increase
in the length of the arc causes an increase in its voltage
and the output current is reduced as a result of the greater
demand for voltage. In this the rate of melting is reduced,
less wire is consumed and the length of the arc is reduced.
Something similar happens when the length of the arc is re-
duced, with the effect of increasing the current, increasing
the melting rate with the return of the arc to its original value
[2].
However, this method of control does not provide a weld
that has a good appearance and physical properties. In order
to obtain better results, in terms of quality, the variables
have to be controlled so that the process may be stabilized.
In order to predict its performance an input signal must be
obtained, processed and the result used to modify an output
signal. It is also essential to monitor the system to make
sure that it is always operating within predefined limits
[2].
Table 1
Limits for the values used during the experiments
Welding voltage Wire feed speed Stand-off
Between 17 e 30 V 4, 6, 8 e 10 m/min 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 e 18 mm
2. Procedure
The steps that were followed to obtain the required result
were as follows:
1. A program was developed to capture and process the weld-
ing data.
2. The scope of the study was defined.
3. An equation to estimate standoff was obtained. This was
based on the short-circuit resistance, the wire feed speed
(WFS) and the welding current.
4. The developed model was validated experimentally.
2.1. Establishing the scope of the study
The first step was to understand how the system works
during the welding process (see Fig. 1) and to define the
starting limits for the parameters and the variables to be used.
A study of the literature [5] and consultation with a welding
specialist led to the values shown in Table 1.
2.2. Data acquisition
A computer program with a graphical interface was used
to capture the data. This was compatible with the board used
in the laboratory.1 A trigger was configured in such a way
1 Characteristics of the data capture board: 16 12-bit analogic inputs
(earth); 4 analogic outputs; 24 programmable digital lines. Input voltages: 0
to 10 V/−5 to 5 V.
 S.C. Absi Alfaro et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 157–158 (2004) 3–7
that data collection would begin when the welding current
rose above 10 A. During data collection graphs of voltage
and current were shown for each window. They were based
on 1024 samples. When the welding was finished the data
capture was stopped and the following results were sent to a
text file:
size of the window (1024 samples per window);
sampling frequency (2500 Hz);
set stand-off at the welding source (SO);
wire feed speed set at the welding source (WFS);
voltage set at the welding source (Vset );
average voltage obtained at the welding source (Vmfmt );
average current obtained at the welding source (Imfnt );
signals from channel 0 (voltage);
signals from channel 1 (current).
2.3. Analysis of the welding data
Another computer program was prepared to analyze the
data after it had been collected. This program reads the data
that is produced in the previous step. It analyses each of
the data “windows” and calculates the means of the weld-
ing voltage, current and resistance. These values are shown
here plotted as a function of time. Here the time for each
window is 0.4096 s. If a regular frequency of short-circuits
can be observed in these graphs the program moves on to an-
other phase and the first derivative of the welding current is
obtained.
As is well known the derivative of an increasing function
is positive and that of a decreasing function is negative. When
a short-circuit occurs the welding current increases rapidly
as may be seen in Fig. 2. Further, while the short-circuit is
happening the arc practically vanishes and as a result the re-
sistance to the passage of the current tends to drop quickly
with the result that the short-circuit current increases. Based
on this when the welding current derivative is positive the val-
ues of the short circuit resistance and its mean are calculated.
Fig. 2. Graph of the voltage, current, and resistance during a short circuit in
GMAW.
5
Otherwise the derivative and the short-circuit resistance are
set to zero. These results are sent to a text file in the form of
a matrix.
2.4. Stochastic analysis
For this phase a program for statistical analysis was used.
With it various analyses may be undertaken until an adequate
model of the process under investigation is obtained. The
following steps were taken:
establishing the variables to be used in the model;
establishing that these variables are independent;
reaching an equation that may be used to estimate stand-
off.
Forward stepwise regression was used to discover those
variables that had the greatest influence on the process. This
involves including and excluding variables and finding the
combination that produces the largest F-value (variance ra-
tio).
The independence of the variables used in the study was
not all that clear. The requirements for the analysis are that
the variables are (i) independent, (ii) random, and (iii) have
a normal distribution of errors. Ridge regression was used to
test the independence of the variables. This provided the “co-
efficient × theta” graph. This should and did show a tendency
towards zero correlation.
The next step was to discover the mathematical model to
be used to estimate the stand off by multiple regression. The
analysis of variance was used to choose the model and the
largest F-value was the criterion of choice.
2.5. Validation of the model
The model was validated by carrying out new experiments
where the same variables, equipments, and procedures were
used as had been used in the estimation of the regression
equation. However, different values (albeit within working
limits) were used to those that had been used to obtain the
model. These tests were conducted according to a 23 factorial
design. The results furnished by the model were compared
with the set stand off values obtained before the start of the
welding process.
3. Results
The results are shown in the following figures and tables.
The Table 2 shows results obtained from the analysis of the
voltage and current signals obtained during the welding pro-
cess (GMAW) (see Tables 3–7 and Fig. 3).
SO = 23.270702 − 8.071033 × WFS + 0.401666 × Imexp
+ 53.008483 × WFS × Rccmedia − 3.174132
×Imexp × Rccmedia
6 S.C. Absi Alfaro et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 157–158 (2004) 3–7

Table 2
Analysis of the voltage and current signals
NRO SO (mm) WFS (m/min) Vset (V) Vmfnt (V) Vmexp (V) Imfnt (A) Imexp (A) Rccmedia (Ohm)
1 8 4 21 20 20 83 83.8 0.308384
2 8 4 23 20.2 20 85 85.3 0.290929
3 8 6 22 20 20.6 120 122.7 0.218371
4 8 6 23 21.8 21.6 121 124.2 0.222263
5 8 8 25 23.5 23.2 147 155.4 0.187302
6 8 10 26 24.5 23.8 188 190.3 0.145768
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . .
25 16 8 24 22.8 22.6 121 122.3 0.232269
26 16 10 24 22.7 22.3 137 137.1 0.204926
27 16 10 26 24.7 24.3 142 143.6 0.200853
28 18 4 20 19.3 19.1 66 67.5 0.377326
29 18 6 22 21.5 20.9 93 95.7 0.276575
30 18 8 24 22.8 22.6 117 119.3 0.239869
31 18 10 24 22.6 22.4 133 135.8 0.209656
SO, standoff value set within the robots movement program; WFS, wire feed speed; Vset , voltage set at the welding source; Vmfmt , mean welding voltage
obtained at the welding source; Vmexp , mean welding voltage obtain from the voltage signals of the experiment; Imfmt , mean welding current obtained at the
welding source; Imexp , mean welding current obtained from the current signals of the experiment; Rccmedia , mean short-circuit resistance of the experiment.

Table 3
Result obtained from the forward stepwise variable selection
Independent variable Coefficient Standard error t-value Significance level
Constant 23.270702 4.133501 5.6298 0.0000
WFS −8.071033 0.896089 −9.0070 0.0000
Imexp 0.401666 0.050576 7.9418 0.0000
WFS × Rccmedia 53.008483 4.158347 12.7475 0.0000
Imexp × Rccmedia −3.174132 0.295681 −10.7350 0.0000

Table 4 4. Discussion of the results

Results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the linear model
Type Sum of Degrees of Mean F-ratio P-value During the selection of the variables it was discovered that
squares freedom square there was an interaction between the wire feed speed and the
Model 273.433 4 68.3583 197.779 0.0000 mean current of the welding process with the mean short-
Error 6.56697 19 0.345630 circuit resistance. And as the wire feed speed is related to the
welding current2 and the welding current with the resistance
Table 5 it was necessary to use the ridge regression technique to see
Results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the non-linear modela whether these variables were independent. In Table 6 and the
Type Sum of Degrees of Mean F-ratio P-value theta x coefficient graph it may be seen that these variables
squares freedom square have a normal distribution. In other words this error will not
Model 63.4132 4 15.8533 200.375 0.0000 have a significant effect on the results.
Error 1.50324 19 0.0791180 Better results were not obtained when a non-linear model
a The results that follow are based on the linear model. was used, in spite of the fact that a superior F-value was
obtained. The analysis of variance shows that an F-value of
Table 6
Results obtained from the ridge regression
197.779 indicates a significant relationship between the vari-
ables. This may be seen in Table D of Box [6]. The value in
Theta WFS Imexp WFS × Rccmedia Imexp × Rccmedia
the table for these degrees of freedom is 7.26, much smaller
0.00 −5.28E+00 3.872946 3.646088 −1.21E+00 than that calculated for the present model.
0.05 −1.33E−01 −0.389771 1.053827 −3.48E−01
0.10 −5.44E−02 −0.433889 0.933635 −2.88E−01
It must be stated that the validity of the model is limited
.. .. .. .. .. to the conditions in which the experiments were carried out
. . . . . (welding process, type of gas and its rate of flow, rate of
0.90 −7.29E−03 −0.235702 0.406096 −8.82E−02 transfer, electrode diameter, etc.), to the type of gas that was
0.95 −7.01E−03 −0.228222 0.39265 −8.46E−02
1.00 −6.74E−03 −0.221188 0.380075 −8.13E−02
used and the work area (WFS, SO).
Theta, ridge regression parameter; WFS, wire feed speed; Imexp , mean weld-
ing current obtained in the experiment; Rccmedia , mean short circuit resis-
tance. 2 The faster the wire feed speed, the greater the welding current.
 S.C. Absi Alfaro et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 157–158 (2004) 3–7 7

Table 7
Result of the validation of the model
Run SO WFS Vset Vmfnt Vmexp Imfnt Imexp Rccmedia SO Error SOˆ(0.8) Error
(mm) (m/min) (V) (V) (V) (A) (A) (Ohm) estimated (%) estimated (%)
1 9 7 23 21.6 21.4 131 135.3 0.19631 9.7 7.3 9.6 6.4
2 17 7 22.5 21.3 21.3 104 107.8 0.251777 17.4 2.0 17.4 2.2
3 9 9 25 23.3 23.1 157 161.6 0.174853 9.3 3.0 9.2 2.7
4 13 9 24 22.7 22.4 137 139.6 0.197023 13.4 3.1 13.3 2.3
5 17 5 21 19.9 20 81 83.6 0.315428 16.4 3.6 16.4 3.7
6 13 5 20.5 19.4 19.4 87 90.4 0.289064 12.9 0.8 12.8 1.6
7 9 5 20 19.1 18.8 97 98.8 0.265522 9.7 7.8 9.7 7.7
8 13 7 23 21.7 21.6 117 120 0.223792 12.8 1.8 12.6 2.7
9 17 9 24.5 23.1 23 124 128.6 0.225998 17.9 5.1 18.0 5.7
Mean 3.8 3.9
Standard 2.4 2.2
deviation
SO estimated, standoff obtained from the linear model; SOˆ(0,8) estimated, standoff obtained from the non-linear model.

Fig. 3. Ridge trace.

5. Conclusions References

The work reported here permits the following conclusions:
The results show that the methodology is valid and that it
allows the establishment of a more complete control of the
process.
The errors that were observed may be due to: (a) the model
(in part); (b) inaccuracies in the welding data; (c) initial error
in positioning the robot to set the stand-off; (e) errors in the
wire feeding mechanism and (f) errors in the movement of
the arm of the robot.
The linear multiple regression model is a simpler model
and provides better results than the non-linear model.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thanks FINEP, CNPq, RHAE,
and FAP-DF for supporting this work.
[1] G.C. Carvalho, An Adaptive Control System for Off-line Program-
ming in Robotic Gas Metal Arc Welding. Cranfield, Ph.D. thesis,
School of Industrial and Manufacturing Science, Cranfield University,
1997.
[2] J. Norrish, Adv. Weld. Process, Bristol, UK, 1992.
[3] S. Saini De floyd, Na investigation of gas metal arc welding
sound signature for on-line quality control, Weld. J. (1998) 172s–
179s.
[4] N.M. Johnson, et al., Process control of GMAW: sensing of metal
transfer mode, Weld. J. (1991) 91s–99s.
[5] Welding Handbook, 6a edição, parte 2, AWS, United States of Amer-
ica, 1942.
[6] George Box, et al., Statistics for Experimenters, An Introduction to
Design, Data Analysis and Model Building, John Wiley & Sons, NY,
USA, 1972.
[7] P.E. Murray, Selecting parameters for GMAW using dimensional anal-
ysis, Weld. J. (2002) 125s–130s.
[8] J.H. Choi, J.Y. Lee, C.D. Yoo, Simulation of dynamic behavior in a
GMAW system, Weld. Res. Suppl. (2001) 239s–245s.