IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO.
1, FEBRUARY 2006
A Real-Time Prediction Model of Electrode
Extension for GMAW
Zafer Bingul, Member, IEEE, and George E. Cook, Life Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents the development of an electrode
extension model for the gas metal arc welding process based on
the process voltage. The full dynamic model for the electrode ex-
tension is derived by combining a dynamic resistivity model with
the voltage model. The electrode extension model was found to be
represented mathematically by a nonlinear, time-varying, second-
order ordinary differential equation. This model can be used in
through-the-arc sensing and arc length control systems. To exper-
imentally verify the model, the process dynamics were excited by
a continuous sinusoidal variation of arc current. Using a constant
current power source with the electrode positive, sinusoidal pertur-
bations of variable amplitude were superimposed on the current
to allow direct measurement of changes in electrode extension, arc
length, and total voltage. A high-speed video system was used to
capture the experimental electrode extension dynamics. The model
was verified by comparing the frequency response of the model to
the frequency response of the real process. Agreement between
the simulations and the experimental results was found to be very
good. The accuracy of this model was found to be approximately
±0.6 mm, which is considered to be suitable for process control
applications.
Index Terms—Arc welding, control, electrode extension, model-
ing.
NOMENCLATURE
A Cross-sectional area of electrode (mm2 ).
Ea Length dependence of arc voltage (V/mm).
H Heat content (J/mm3 ).
Hc Knee of resistivity versus heat content curve
(J/mm3 ).
h One integration step.
i Welding current (A).
J Current density (A/mm2 ).
l Distance measured along electrode (mm).
la Arc length (mm).
L Electrode extension length (mm).
Rarc , Ra Arc column resistance (Ω).
RL Resistance of electrode extension (Ω).
T Temperature (K).
v Wire feed rate (mm/s).
vm Melting rate (mm/s).
v0 Steady-state wire feed rate for t < 0 (mm/s).
Va Anode drop (V).
Manuscript received January 5, 2004; revised April 9, 2004. Recommended
by Technical Editor J. van Amerongen.
Z. Bingul is with the Mechatronics Department, Kocaeli University, 41040
Kocaeli, Turkey (e-mail: zaferb@kou.edu.tr).
G. E. Cook is with the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science De-
partment, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 USA (e-mail: george.e.
cook@vanderbilt.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMECH.2005.863366
1083-4435/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
47
VA Sum of cathode drop, arc column drop, and anode
drop (V).
VC Cathode drop (V).
VL Voltage drop along electrode extension (V).
Vl Varc Arc column drop (V).
V0 Constant in arc voltage model (V).
VT Total welding voltage (V).
W Action integral (J/(Ω mm4 )).
x1 State variable (= L) (mm).
x2 State variable (= vm ) (mm/s).
ρ Density (g/mm3 ).
Ψ Resistivity of wire electrode (Ω mm).
I. INTRODUCTION
AS metal arc welding (GMAW) is one of the most
G frequently used industrial processes and today, 40% of
the welding operations in the United States use the GMAW
process [1]. It is considered one of the most significant
applications of industrial robots because of high productivity,
reliability, ease of use, fluxfree operation, and ease of automa-
tion. However, robotic welders themselves cannot cope with
wide variations in joint fitup or workpiece position. Therefore,
improved automation of the welding processes has become
increasingly important in the push for higher weld quality,
safety, and reduced manufacturing cost.
The type of metal transfer across the arc is related to the par-
ticular GMAW variation and depends on the welding current
density related to the electrode wire size and the welding cur-
rent, wire feed rate, and arc voltage. According to research based
on high-speed photography and high-speed camera techniques,
three types of metal transfer are basically identified according
to the shape of the droplets: globular, spray (free flight trans-
fer), and short circuiting metal transfer (dip transfer). Projected,
streaming, and rotating transfers are additional subsets of spray
metal transfer, which has advantages such as high deposition
rate, good fusion and penetration, good bead appearance, and
capability of using large-diameter wires. In this study, an elec-
trode extension model for the GMAW process is developed for
the spray metal transfer mode.
Changes in the welding environment can result in defective
welds. The main defects are inadequate penetration, insuffi-
cient fusion, porosity, spatter, and undercut. To prevent these
defects and to obtain good quality welding results, it is nec-
essary to detect and control the heat input through control of
the arc length. Furthermore, certain welding parameters (elec-
trode extension and arc voltage) must be estimated in real time
to decide which action(s) must be taken to achieve arc stabil-
ity. To obtain desirable quality in welds requires the following
48
objectives, which can only be achieved by monitoring and con-
trolling the process parameters that affect the weld quality in
real time. These process parameters are online prediction of
electrode extension, online detection of contact-tube-to-work
distance (CTWD), control of weld bead geometry, control and
detection of droplet transfer, and assessment of arc stability. The
problem in achieving these objectives is that they are not inde-
pendent of each other and hence they limit each other. To get
optimum weld quality for different welding conditions and to
control the process for a wide range of parameters, an accurate
mathematical model for the welding process is needed.
GMAW is a highly complex process that has not yet been
fully described mathematically. It can be considered to be a
multivariable system, and its inputs and outputs are closely cou-
pled to each other. The substantial nonlinearities arising in the
modeling of gas metal arc welding are mainly due to the com-
plex nature of the melting process and the degree of coupling
between system variables in this melting region. Arc current is
an important physical quantity and influences the process char-
acteristics in a number of a ways (i.e., metal transfer, penetration
characteristics, wire melting, arc instability). These properties
all have different dependencies on arc current, but these cou-
pling dependencies have not been expressed mathematically in
dynamic welding conditions. Frequently, these variables, such
as electrode length, arc resistance, electrode voltage drop, and
wire melting rate, cannot be easily quantified and measured.
This causes lack of information about the dynamic behavior of
these parameters. Furthermore, Joule heating in the electrode
extension preheats the electrode materials, and this creates a
memory or a time delay element for the travel of the elec-
trode extension. These effects (nonlinearity, time variance, and
coupling) must be taken into account to model the process;
otherwise, their effects on the behavior of the systems cannot
be seen accurately. Steady-state modeling efforts that do not
consider these effects are not sufficient to explain the process. If
welding parameters are determined dynamically, a deterministic
dynamic model for the GMAW process, which yields optimum
balance between electrical energy and mass transfer, can be
found [2]. Therefore, it is essential to examine both the static
and dynamic relationships of the welding parameters to have a
broad perspective and understanding of the characteristics of the
GMAW process.
A number of publications have addressed modeling of the
GMAW process. Under the spray transfer mode of the GMAW
process, Halmoy [3] developed a mathematical model for the
voltage across the electrode extension and wire melting rate
in the steady state. He also applied this mathematical model
adapted with power source dynamic equation, electrode exten-
sion dynamic equation, and wire melting rate equation to simula-
tion of seam tracking [4]. Huismann and Hoffmeister [5] studied
wire melting rate in terms of the contact resistance, electrode
extension, current, and anodic heat. Xu et al. [6] modeled the
arc in a one-dimensional free burning arc and the welding anode
energy conservation in a one-dimensional second-order differ-
ential equation. Sinusoidal current perturbations below 4 Hz
are slow enough to produce significant changes in the weld
characteristics, especially melting rate and electrode extension.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2006
Shepard [7] and Quinn et al. [8] investigated this influence
using a linearized model and steady-state nondimensional pa-
rameters, respectively. Drawbacks of these studies are that Bode
analysis for frequency-domain analysis requires a linear model
or linearized model around the operating point. This method
is not practical for highly nonlinear systems and using the
steady-state nondimensional parameters for frequency-domain
analysis does not help understand the large-scale dynamics of
the process.
In this paper, a model based on the voltage-current character-
istic of the process and a dynamic resistivity model was devel-
oped for fundamental understanding of the process. First, char-
acteristics of the process are reviewed, particularly as it relates
to the electrical parameters of the process. Also, a voltage model
combined with a temperature-dependent resistivity model will
be modified to obtain the mathematical form of the electrode
extension equation. In all cases, for the GMAW process consid-
ered, the electrode was positive and the workpiece was negative.
II. ARC CHARACTERISTICS
A. Process Voltage Model
In practice, it is very difficult to separate the arc voltage from
total voltage because the electrode voltage drop is unknown.
Therefore, quantifying the electrode voltage drop is necessary to
find the arc voltage, which is used as an input for many welding
control applications. Because the arc voltage is such a large part
of the total voltage around the welding circuit, its behavior is
also very important in determining the voltage in the constant
current mode and the current in the constant voltage mode.
The arc is typically described as having three separate regions:
two of these, the anode and cathode regions, are very thin layers
surrounding the electrodes; and the third region, the arc column,
makes up the distance between the anode and cathode regions.
According to this description, the total welding voltage can be
separated into four parts: electrode extension drop (VL ), cathode
drop (Vc ), arc column drop (Vl ), and anode drop (Va ). This is
given as
VT = VL + Vc + Vl + Va . (1)
A significant part of the voltage drop occurs in the short anode
and cathode fall regions; the remainder of the drop is linear with
distance along the arc. The cathode and anode drops can be
considered to be a function of arc current for a given shielding
gas, as well as for the cathode and anode materials. The cathode
fall (10–20 V) is typically somewhat higher than the anode fall
(1–10 V). The power dissipated in these regions is typically
60% to 70% of the total arc power. The electric field in the
anode and cathode regions is about 106 to 108 V/m. In the arc
column, it is much lower, around 103 V/m [9]. The arc column
can be considered to be in both mean partial thermal equilibrium
(excited states of the neutral atoms are in equilibrium with the
free electrons) [10], [11] and electrical equilibrium (electrical
parameters such as resistivity reach a steady state), which makes
modeling efforts easier. Haidar [12] believed that the assumption
of partial local thermal equilibrium (MPTE) is valid for electron
number densities higher than 1021 m−3 .
BINGUL AND COOK: A REAL-TIME PREDICTION MODEL OF ELECTRODE EXTENSION FOR GMAW
Fig. 1. Gas metal arc welding terminology and process voltage distribution.
From the standpoint of simplifying the expression, the total
voltage (Fig. 1) can be rewritten as follows:
VT = VL + VA
where VA is the summation of the last three terms in (1). For
the spray transfer mode of the GMAW process, the electrode
wire is heated according to Ohm’s law as it is fed through
the electrode extension. The electrode voltage drop along the
electrode extension is the product of the welding current and
resistance of the electrode extension
VL = iRL .
The Ohmic heating increases linearly with resistance of the elec-
trode extension. The current changes in the process cause signif-
icant temperature changes along the electrode extension. These
changes lead to a temperature-dependent resistance, which pro-
duces the electrode voltage drop. The basic equation for the
resistance is given by
Ψ(T )
RL = L (4)
A
t
where Ψ is the temperature-dependent resistivity, and L is the
electrode extension length.
There have been numerous models developed for the arc volt-
age in the gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) and GMAW pro-
cesses [13]–[15]. These models illustrate that there is a strong
functional relationship between the arc voltage, arc length, and
arc current. One of these models developed by Shepard [7] for
GMAW is given as
Varc = V0 + iRarc + Ea la
where V0 is constant, Rarc is the current dependence of arc
voltage, and Ea is the length dependence of the arc voltage. Also,
Bingul [15] found that the voltage and current relationship for
different arc lengths (l = 10, 8, 6, and 4 mm) is highly nonlinear
in the low current area, and it can be approximated as a straight
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
49
Fig. 2. Experimental arc voltage–current characteristics.
line in the high current area as shown in Fig. 2. The CTWD
was fixed at 25.4 mm, with different electrode extensions for
each run. Data were recorded for a 1.2 mm (0.045 in.) wire and
argon +2% oxygen shielding gas of a flow rate of 16.5 L/m
(35 cfh). The linearity in (5) results from the following two
characteristics of the arc. First, the electrical conductivity or
resistivity for argon gas as a function of temperature is assumed
to be linear at the electrode tip because the peak temperature of
the arc does not vary significantly over a large range of current.
(2)
Second, the mean electric field along the arc length is constant
after local thermal equilibrium is reached [16].
B. Resistivity Model
From a control standpoint, temperature, used as a control
input, is not easy to measure along the electrode extension,
and it also is highly dependent on the temperature boundary
(3) conditions, which change in the moving wire. For these rea-
sons, temperature dependence of the electrode resistivity in the
current-carrying moving wire is not easy to quantify. Thus, an-
other quantity that is a function of the resistivity and the tem-
perature is needed to serve as a bridge between them and to
simplify the complex temperature dependence in the moving
wire. This term is the action integral into which the effects of
the temperature-dependent resistivity of the moving electrode
are directly joined. It is defined as [7]
W (t) = J 2 (t) dt (6)
t−z /v
where J is the current density and z is the distance along elec-
trode extension.
To compute the time-varying, temperature-dependent resis-
tivity at the end of the electrode, the relationship between the
action integral, W , and resistivity, Ψ, has been developed using
mass and energy conservation laws [17], [18]. This relationship
is described as follows:
(5)  
b1 ea 1 W H ≤ Hc
Ψ(W ) = (7)
b2 kea 2 W H > Hc
where a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 , and k are the material constants.
Hc (4 J/mm3 ) is the heat content at the knee of the resistiv-
ity versus heat content curve. For steel, Hc (4 J/mm3 ) occurs
50 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2006

where h is the CTWD, which is equal to the sum of the electrode

extension and arc length. This equation is differentiated twice
with respect to time to obtain the second derivative of electrode
extension
d2 V T d2 J dΨ dJ dL dJ d2 J
2
= ARa 2 + L +Ψ + ΨL 2
dt dt dt dt dt dt dt
Fig. 3. Electrode model.
dΨ dJ dΨ dL d2 Ψ dL dJ
+L +J + JL 2 + Ψ
dt dt dt dt dt dt dt
at the austenizing temperature. The effects of the history of
the welding current on wire heating can be represented by the dΨ dL d2 L d2 L
+J + ΨJ 2 − Ea 2 . (11)
time-varying action integral, which is implemented in a simula- dt dt dt dt
tion program. In this simulation implementation, the electrode This expression is rearranged to give
extension can be divided into small portions by using a direct
relation between time and distance along the electrode d2 L 1 d2 V T ARa d2 J
= −
dl = v dt. (8) dt2 (JΨ − Ea ) dt2 (JΨ − Ea ) dt2
 
A spatially discretized electrode extension is illustrated in L dΨ dJ d2 Ψ d2 J
− 2 +J 2 +Ψ 2
Fig. 3. The action is computed for each element of length, which (JΨ − Ea ) dt dt dt dt
is the distance the electrode moves at the wire feed rate in one  
2 dJ dΨ dL
integration step (h). The time integration step must be decreased − Ψ +J . (12)
(JΨ − Ea ) dt dt dt
to ensure adequate spatial resolution, but decreasing the integra-
tion step results in increased computation time. Thus, finding To simplify the expression, it may be rewritten as follows:
the optimum step size is necessary to satisfy both constraints.
In the simulation program, the representation of the dis- d2 L D E 2F dL
= − L− (13)
cretized electrode extension is made in a one-dimensional array dt2 C C C dt
configured as a circular buffer. The buffer length was chosen where
to be 20 000 units, which are greater than the longest possible
electrode extension. A pointer is maintained that points to the ar- C = (JΨ − Ea )
ray member representing the electrode element just behind the  2 
d VT d2 J
contact tube; this can be thought of as the oldest element in the D= − AR a
dt2 dt2
array. At each time step of integration, the incremental action,  
J 2 h, is added to each element of the extension, the new element dΨ dJ d2 Ψ d2 J
E= 2 +J 2 +Ψ 2
set to zero, and the pointer decremented. dt dt dt dt
In Fig. 3, m is the current value of the buffer pointer; the  
extension is approximately k elements long, and N elements dJ dΨ
F = Ψ +J .
are maintained beyond the tip. The action of each element is dt dt
associated with the location of the boundary farthest from the To write this equation in the standard form of state equations,
contact tube. For the electrode tip located in the kth element, the principle of mass continuity is employed. The flow rate in
the action is evaluated as and flow rate out are wire feed rate (v) and melting rate (vm ),
 
L respectively. The system has one input, v, and one output, L.
W |z =L = W(m +k ) + [W(m +k +1) − W(m +k ) ] −k ,
vh Thus, the system is governed by a single differential equation
in L. The principle of mass conservation can be given in math-
L
k≤ < k + 1. (9) ematical form as
vh
d
(AρL) = Aρv − Aρvm . (14)
III. MODEL DERIVATION dt
The importance of the process voltage model is apparent since Assuming Aρ is constant, the equation becomes
it includes all information regarding current and arc length (elec-
dL
trode extension) dependences, and resistivity of the electrode. = v − vm . (15)
dt
It is known from Bingul et al. [17], [18] that the electrode ex-
tension model can be represented mathematically by a nonlin- Letting v0 = the steady-state wire feed rate for t < 0, and
ear, time-varying, second-order ordinary differential equation. defining the state variables as x1 = L and x2 = vm , we obtain
Knowing this fact and using the voltage model, an electrode dx1
model can be developed for the spray transfer mode range. Com- = v0 − x2
dt
bining (3), (4), and (5) yields the process voltage as follows:
dx2 d2 L
VT = V0 + JARa + JΨL + Ea (h − L) (10) =− 2 (16)
dt dt

Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
BINGUL AND COOK: A REAL-TIME PREDICTION MODEL OF ELECTRODE EXTENSION FOR GMAW
Fig. 4. Block diagram representation of the electrode model.
where x1 is the electrode extension and x2 is the melting rate.
By combining (13) and (16), the state-space representation of
the electrode model can be obtained as follows:
 dx 1        
0 −1 x1 1 0
dt
dx 2 = E −2F + 2F v 0 − D . (17)
dt C C x 2 C C
In terms of vector matrix notation, the equation can be written
compactly as
dX
= A(t)X + B(t)v0 − Z(t)
dt
where Z(t) represents systems disturbances. A block diagram
representation of the defined system is shown in Fig. 4.
IV. SINUSOIDAL CURRENT PERTURBATION EXPERIMENTS
In these experiments, a sinusoidal current perturbation was
used to excite the electrode extension dynamics in the constant
current GMAW process and to measure the sensitivity of elec-
trode extension to changes in arc current as a function of pertur-
bation frequency. The sinusoidal perturbations, of variable am-
plitude (40, 60, and 80 A peak-to-peak), were superimposed on
the current to allow measurement of changes in electrode exten-
sion, arc length, and total voltage. The sinusoidal perturbations
were varied in frequency from 0.5 to 4 Hz to obtain large-scale
dynamics of the welding parameters. Bead-on-plate welds were
made on steel with a 1.2-mm (0.045-in) diameter ER705-2 steel
wire. The welds were made using argon +5% CO2 as the shield-
ing gas. The contact-tip-to-work distance (CTWD) was 20 mm
(3/4 in) and the travel speed was set at 6 mm/s. During each weld,
arc current and process voltage were sampled at 5000 Hz. by
the data acquisition computer. Simultaneously, video images of
the weld area were taken at 2000 frames/s. The data acquisition
system (Fig. 5) includes two main components: a parallel digital
signal processor (DSP) platform and a series signal conditioning
input/output (I/O) subsystem. The first component was used for
monitoring and recording variables of the welding process. In
this system, four Texas Instruments TMS320C40 parallel DSPs
are interconnected to provide hard real-time process monitoring
and control. A Pentium class PC serves as the host computer
for the parallel-based platform. Real-time control, online pro-
cess data visualization (time and frequency), data logging, and
dynamic reconfigurability are just a few of the benefits avail-
able in this system. Table I shows peak-to-peak amplitude and
frequency for the sinusoidal current perturbation experiments.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
51
TABLE I
PARAMETERS FOR SINUSOIDAL PERTURBATION EXPERIMENTS
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To understand the dynamics of the process and the power
supply, a sinusoidal current excitation at different frequencies
(18) and amplitudes was used and simulations based on the previ-
ous model were run using the same data as in the experimental
welding conditions. The model’s prediction for the electrode
extension was compared with experiments for the electrode ex-
tension. The comparison of experimental and simulated results
provides a useful insight in establishing the dynamics of the
electrode extension resulting from the sinusoidal current exci-
tation. Using these experimental and simulation results, the L/i
response was generated.
With the sinusoidal current excitation, the simulation program
was run for 1.3 s because it is easy to visualize the dynamic be-
havior of the arc current and arc length, and to compare these
results with the experimental data for this time scale. The tran-
sient behavior of the electrode extension is illustrated in Fig. 6.
It is seen from Fig. 6 that agreement between the simulation and
experimental results are observed to be good, and the peak-to-
peak variation in the electrode extension is about 8 mm. Fur-
thermore, when the arc current is at a minimum, the electrode
extension reaches the maximum value after about 0.2 s. This
indicates that there is a phase difference between arc current
and electrode extension. According to the electrode extension
predicted from the simulation, the electrode voltage drop and
arc voltage were computed in Fig. 7. The electrode voltage drop
and the arc voltage were varied from 2.5 and 27 V to 5 and 35 V,
respectively. Fig. 8 shows the corresponding action, resistivity,
and melting rate as a function of time. It is apparent from Fig. 8
that the action and resistivity vary sinusoidally in response to
a sinusoidal excitation of the current, but a sinusoidal trend in
melting rate is not as clear as that for the action and resistivity.
This indicates that melting is time variant and that the process
is nonlinear.
The frequency response of the model was verified by exper-
iments in which 60 A peak-to-peak sinusoidal variations with
variable frequencies were superimposed on an average current
of 280 A. Fig. 9 presents the simulation and experimental re-
sults for amplitude and phase change of the electrode extension
52
Fig. 5. Overview of the equipment connections.
Fig. 6. Simulation and experimental results for sinusoidal current perturbation.
in response to arc current change. The agreement between ex-
perimental and theoretical results can be seen to be quite good.
It is seen from Fig. 9 that the electrode extension shows a higher
response in the frequency range less than 0.5 Hz. In contrast, it
decreases with increasing frequency in the frequency range 0.5
to 4 Hz. A similar trend is exhibited in the phase differences
between the electrode extension and arc current.
The electrode melting process in GMAW depends on electri-
cal current flow, with corresponding heat flow and mass transfer.
The time constant associated with changes in electrical current is
much smaller than those associated with heat and mass transfer.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2006
Fig. 7. Electrode voltage drop and arc voltage.
To show the importance of these constants in controlling and
modeling the process, an eigenvalue analysis for the previous
model was performed. In the literature, most of the process con-
trols use steady-state models, and the transient behavior of the
process and the corresponding time constants are not consid-
ered. Ignoring these constants makes the process only partially
controllable in a limited range, and using a steady-state model
rather than a dynamic model for control purposes causes unde-
sirable weld characteristics and unpredictable process behavior.
Therefore, it is important to know the time constants for a wide
range of the process to control the process more robustly.
BINGUL AND COOK: A REAL-TIME PREDICTION MODEL OF ELECTRODE EXTENSION FOR GMAW
Fig. 8. Action, resistivity, and melting rate as a function of time.
Fig. 9. Frequency response of the electrode extension change to arc current
change.
The time response of a complex system has contributions
from its component parts with their corresponding time con-
stants. The concept of a dominant time constant is based on the
dominant pole or eigenvalue. The dominant time constant is the
time constant corresponding to the pole or eigenvalue that is
closest to the jw axis. The reason is that this pole corresponds
to the largest time constant or slowest time response. By mod-
eling the welding process as a nonlinear second-order system
under the spray transfer mode region (13) and (18), the eigen-
values for electrode extension and melting were computed from
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
53
Fig. 10. Eigenvalue configuration for the electrode extension and melting
process.
the A matrix. It is seen that the A matrix is time variant, so the
eigenvalues of the A matrix are also a function of time. The
eigenvalues of the process are determined as follows:
 
 −λ −1 
|A − λI| =  E
−λ − 2F 
C C
2F E
= λ2 + λ+ = 0. (19)
C C
This characteristic equation can be solved for the eigenvalues in
real time.
To determine the dominant time constants of the process from
eigenvalue analysis, variable sinusoidal changes in current with
variable frequencies were applied to the process. As one exam-
ple, the eigenvalues corresponding to the electrode extension’s
state and the melting process’s state are illustrated in Fig. 10.
In this case, a 40 A peak-to-peak sinusoidal perturbation on an
average current of 280 A with frequency of 2 Hz was used. To
see where the real parts of the eigenvalues are located along a
horizontal axis, the resulting angle and magnitude of the eigen-
values are displayed as lines emanating from equally spaced
points along a horizontal axis. This is important to determine
the dominant eigenvalues of the process. The arrows seen in the
second plot indicate that the real part of the dominant eigen-
value is located at about 5 and the corresponding dominant time
constant can be calculated as 1/5 s for the melting process. In
the first plot, it is very difficult to determine the dominant eigen-
value because the location of the real part of the eigenvalues
varies from 0 to 500. However, the real part of the eigenval-
ues in this plot can be separated into two regions at about 220.
The eigenvalues in the first section are very close to each other,
and they vary with welding conditions over a wide range. Thus,
these variations may result from the internal or external process
noise, and the dominant time constant also varies with welding
conditions. The eigenvalues for cases above 220 may be caused
by the droplet transfer dynamics. The droplet frequency may
54
then be correlated with the real part of these eiegenvalues. This
dependence may present a potential sensor input, and this would
aid greatly in controlling the droplet transfer rate. For instance,
if a sinusoidal perturbation is superimposed on the background
current in the P-GMAW process, it may be possible to predict
the droplet transfer rate. For the spray transfer mode, detection
of the droplet from voltage signals and prediction of droplet
transfer rate from the voltage fluctuations are almost impossi-
ble because the fluctuations in the voltage are very small. The
power supply’s dynamics may be dominant on the eigenvalues
for cases above 500.
To see the typical problem of stiffness in the welding process,
the following assumption is made. If the dominant eigenvalue
corresponding to electrode extension dynamics is accepted to be
about 300, the stiffness ratio is then 60, which implies moderate
stiffness. Considering the whole process dynamics, the time con-
stant corresponding to the largest eigenvalue becomes insignifi-
cant and the time constant (order of 0.2 s) for the melting process
becomes dominant. Therefore, it can be concluded that because
the process dynamics settles in about 0.4 s, the welding process
includes a mixture of both fast dynamics and slow dynamics.
VI. CONCLUSION
Intelligent welding machines [19] need intelligent control,
which requires the complete dynamic process model. In this
paper, a dynamic model for the GMAW process has been de-
veloped based on a wire resistivity model. The model has been
shown to provide an accurate real-time prediction of electrode
extension. The dynamic model may be used, for example, in
robotic welding systems where welding parameters (current and
corresponding parameters such as arc length) must be tuned
during changing welding conditions. That is, disturbances to
the process or uncertainties in the welding conditions may re-
sult in a need for the welding process independent variables
to be changed during the weld. The dynamic model described
in this paper was specifically created as part of the dynamic
system model needed for model-based adaptive control of arc
length. A truly independent control of the arc length (output)
is difficult to implement because of a strong coupling between
arc length, temperature-dependent resistivity, and the melting
process, which are functions of the change in current density
(input). To achieve full control of arc length, some parameters
in the previous model must be predicted and controlled adap-
tively in real time. The dynamic model described here permits
design of an adaptive arc length control system capable of main-
taining the optimum solution of arc length for a wide range of
operating points.
REFERENCES
[1] Y.-S. Kim, D. M. Mckelligot, and T. W. Eager, “Analyses of electrode
heat transfer in gas metal arc welding,” Weld. J., vol. 70, pp. 20–31, 1991.
[2] C. R. Tolle, K. L. Kenney, J. W. James, D. P. Pace, H. B. Smartt, R.
A. Laviolette, A. D. Watkins, T. Wood, and D. L. Stoner, “Is there ev-
idence of determinism in droplet detachment within the gas metal arc
welding process?” in Trends in Welding Research: Proc. 6th Int. Conf.
ASM International, 2003, pp. 380–385.
[3] E. Halmoy, “Wire melting rate, droplet temperature, and effective anode
melting potential,” in Proc. Arc Physics and Weld Pool Behavior Int. Conf.,
London, U.K., 1979, pp. 49–58.
Authorized licensed use limited to: ULAKBIM UASL - KOCAELI UNIVERSITESI. Downloaded on October 19, 2009 at 15:53 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2006
[4] E. Halmoy, “Simulation of rotational arc sensing in gas metal arc welding,”
Sci Technol. Weld Joining, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 347–351, 1999.
[5] G. Huismann and H. Hoffmeister, “Sensing metal inert gas process by
measuring wire feedrate and current,” Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining, vol. 4,
no. 6, pp. 352–356, 1999.
[6] P. Xu, M. Rados, and S. W. Simpson, “Circuit simulation for gas metal arc
welding,” Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 341–346, 1999.
[7] M. E. Shepard, “Modeling of Self-Regulation in Gas-Metal Arc Welding,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Elect. Eng. Dept., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN, May
1991.
[8] T. P. Quinn, R. B. Madigan, and T. A. Siewert, “An electrode extension
model for gas metal arc welding,” Weld. J., pp. 241s–248s, Jun. 1994.
[9] J. F. Lancaster, Ed., The Electric Arc: The Physics of Welding, 2nd ed.
New York: Pergamon, 1986.
[10] J. Haidar, “Local thermodynamic equilibrium in the cathode region of a
free burning arc in argon,” J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys., vol. 28, pp. 2494–2504,
1995.
[11] J. J. Lowke, R. Morrow, and J. Haidar, “A simplified unified theory of
arcs and their electrodes,” J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys., vol. 30, pp. 2033–2042,
1997.
[12] J. Haidar, “Departures from local thermodynamic equilibrium in high-
current free burning arcs in argon,” J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys., vol. 30,
pp. 2737–2743, 1997.
[13] K. Goldman, “Electric arcs in argon,” in Physics of the Welding Arc, J. F.
Lancaster, Ed. London, U.K.: Institute of Welding, 1966, pp. 17–22.
[14] G. E. Cook, “Robotic arc welding: Research in sensory feedback control,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. IE-30, no. 3, pp. 252–268, Jun. 1983.
[15] Z. Bingul “Stability Consideration for the Gas Metal Arc Welding Pro-
cess,” Master’s thesis, Elect. Eng. Dept., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN,
Dec. 1996.
[16] C. J. Allum, “Power dissipation in the column of a TIG welding arc,” J.
Phys. D, Appl. Phys., vol. 16, pp. 2149–2165, 1983.
[17] Z. Bingul, “Dynamic Modeling of the Gas Metal Arc Welding Process,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Elect. Eng. Dept., Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, TN,
May 2000.
[18] Z. Bingul, G. E. Cook, and A. M. Strauss, “Dynamic model for electrode
melting rate in gas metal arc welding process,” Sci. Technol. Weld Joining,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 41–50, 2001.
[19] H. B. Smartt, C. R. Tolle, and K. L. Kenney, “Complex intelligent ma-
chines,” in Proc. 18th Symp. Energy Engineering Sciences, May 2000,
pp. 1–8.
Zafer Bingul (M’04) received the B.A. degree from
Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, in
1992, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Van-
derbilt University, Nashville, TN, in 1996 and 2000,
respectively, all in electrical engineering.
From 1999 to 2000, he was a Research Associate
in the Electrical Engineering Department, Tennessee
State University, Nashville, where he was engaged
in research and application of genetic algorithms for
multiobjective optimization problems. He is currently
an Assistant Professor of Mechatronics Engineering,
School of Engineering, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey. His research inter-
ests are robotics and welding automation, optimization, evolutionary algorithms,
and control.
George E. Cook (M’61–SM’81–F’88–LF’00) re-
ceived the B.E. degree from Vanderbilt University,
Nashville, TN, in 1960, the M.S. degree from the
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in 1961, and the
Ph.D. degree from Vanderbilt University in 1965, all
in electrical engineering.
He is currently a Professor of Electrical Engineer-
ing and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate
Studies, School of Engineering, Vanderbilt Univer-
sity. His research interests are robotics and industrial
automation with emphasis on welding automation.
Dr. Cook was a recipient of the American Welding Society’s Comfort A.
Adams Lecture Award and the 1993 Adams Memorial Award. He also received
the James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation’s 1981 Gold Award and a NASA
Space Act Award in 1987 for development of ROBOSIM, a robotics simulation
system. He has also been a Fellow of the American Welding Society since 1997.