Selection of Optimum Welding Condition using Experimental Design Methods for the Automatic GMA Welding Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The welding parameters directly affect the weld forming and the joint performance in GMA (Gas Metal Arc) welding.Because of the many parameters involved in the automatic arc welding process, it is often not realistic to use traditional experimental methods such as full factorial design.Therefore, it is important to find the good experimental design method for determining the welding parameters that obtain an optimal joint quality with a minimal number of experiments.Therefore, this study is aimed at investigating the effect of DOE (Design of Experiment) methods on bead width of mild steel parts welded by the automatic GAM welding process.Taguchi method was employed to study effect the welding parameters and optimization of bead width, while Box-Behnken method was utilized to develop a mathematical model relating the bead width to welding parameters such as welding voltage, arc current, welding speed and CTWD (Contact Tip to Work Distance).The S/N (signal-to-noise) ratio and the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) were employed to find the optimal bead width in automatic GAM welding process.Confirmation tests were carried out illustrating the effectiveness of the Taguchi method.The results showed that welding current mainly affected the bead width.The predicted bead width of 3.12mm was in agreement with the confirmation tests.With the regression coefficient analysis in the Box-Behnken design, a relationship between bead width and welding parameters was obtained.A second-order empirical model has also been established between the welding parameters and the bead width as welding quality.The developed model is adequate to navigate the design space.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".