Institut International International Institute

de la Soudure of Welding

DÉLÉGATION SLOVENE SLOVENIAN DELEGATION

IIS/IIW Doc.: VIII-1576-10

A concept of RSW monitoring system for a stable weld quality

By

Ivan Polajnar
Primož Podržaj

Faculty of Mechanical engineering,

University of Ljubljana,
SLOVENIJA

63th Annual Assembly of IIW

Istanbul, July 13th to July 16th, 2010
 A concept of RSW monitoring system for a stable weld quality

Ivan Polajnar, Primož Podržaj

University of Ljubljana, Faculty of mechanical engineering,
Aškerčeva 6, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija

Abstract
Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW) process produces strong side effects such as UV light, heat,
vibrations, acoustic emission and audible sound. In this paper measurements and analysis of
audible sound, generated during gas metal arc welding, are presented. Sound signal contains
more information about the welding process then welding current signal or welding voltage
signal. An additional advantage of sound is simplicity of its detection. Audio signal consists from
short disproportionate pulses - shock waves that are in correlation to the welding current. In
between shock waves, there is high frequency noise. At least two different mechanisms that
generate sound waves are present; Arc itself is acting like ionization sound source, producing high
frequency noise, shock waves are generated by arc ignition and arc extinction.

1. Introduction
In the field resistance spot welding quality assurance numerous studies were done in the world in a past
decade, which can be roughly divided into two separate content areas:
 Off-line, the non-destructive tests (visual, penetrante, ultrasound and / or X-ray methods) and
destructive tests (static and / or dynamic tensile tests with metallography examination);
 On-line, by indirect deduction of weld quality achieved from the results of monitoring the
dynamics of the welding process [1, 2].
Which method is more suitable for concrete situation depend on several factors, where the most critical
are performance cost and reliability of estimated quality. Cost of quality assessment is influenced by the
volume and frequency of conducting these assessments, but reliability of the assessment is not always
predictable. This is true in cases of large discrepancies between nominal and real values of input
parameters.
Important changes in the on-line procedures, in terms of reliability and industrial applicability, have
been achieved in recent years. This movement was also followed on the Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering, Ljubljana, in that way that we merged offline and online research in a unique way.
For the input parameters in general, vary within the permissible tolerances, and these changes may be:
 accidental, such as: type of material, thickness and condition of the workpiece surface, welding
force, welding voltage and current, or
 systemic, such as: electrode temperature and electrode tip diameter [3, 4].
Our approach to research is based on realistic situations in the average industrial environments. This
means that for the most of the input parameters (type and thickness of the workpiece, welding current
and time) is assumed that their real value are within the permissible tolerances. In this case formation of
weld nugget is in the correct dimension and quality (without expulsion or cold weld). With monitoring
of multiple output parameters, we increase probability to found irregularities in the welding process.
Corrections in the welding process can be done by changing the heat input.
Mentioned approach to RSW quality assurance is a result of several years research study and it is not
subject to direct treatment in this paper. These results were obtained during welding of similar and
different materials used in daily industrial practice: mild steels, zinc-coated steels, high-strength steel
and various combinations of this materials.

2. Weld formation
The size of the nugget is limited by the thickness of the Workpieces and electrode diameters. The
welding nugget expands to the outer surfaces of the workpieces, the weld would collapse because of the
decreasing amount of solid material around the welding nugget, which is not able to withstand the
pressure of the electrodes anymore. The result is an expulsion of the molten material and although the
expulsion does not necessarily imply a decreased weld strength, a higher energy consumption, an
unsatisfactory visual appearance of the weld and a reduced corrosion resistance of coated materials.
There are two extremes in terms of the amount of generated heat during resistance spot welding: if the
amount of generated heat is too high, expulsion occurs; if the amount of generated heat is too low, the
welding nugget does not form at all (cold weld). The amount of generated heat must be between that
required for a cold weld and that required for expulsion (Fig. 1).
Welds closer to the expulsion point are preferred because of the larger welding nugget and the resulting
higher strength. The basic parameters that affect the amount of generated heat are:
(i) higher welding currents and therefore more heat generation
(ii) the welding time (if the heat generation is constant, the amount of heat generated is proportional to
the welding time)
(iii) the welding force (a higher welding force implies lower contact resistances, which under normal
conditions reduces the amount of heat generated).

Figure 1: Zone of suitable combinations for basic welding parameters for welding uncoated steel

If an appropriate combination of parameters (workpieces, electrode diameters, force, welding current

and time) is chosen, there are no disturbances, an acceptable weld is produced.

3. Resistance spot welding control

3.1 Welding control without feedback
The main task of a RSW control system is to control the RSW process in such a way that a weld with
optimum weld strength is formed. The amount of generated heat was controlled by the operator. He
observed the weld region and decided when to stop the welding process, based on the colour of the weld
and his experience.
The first RSW control systems were used in order to ensure a higher degree of accuracy for the
parameter settings than could be achieved by human welding operators.
This type of RSW control enabled the production of welding schedules. These are procedures that are
designed to help choose the welding parameters for achieving a good weld. One such welding schedule
is shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Welding schedule for low carbon steel sheets

The starting point is the nugget diameter, which should correspond to the sheet thickness. Depending on
the welding time (long, medium or short), the authors can obtain the welding current and the welding
force. The minimum weld strength can be obtained as well. Although there are a lot of researches to
improve welding schedules, this type of approach to welding will always encounter the following
problems:
(i) there is an ever increasing number of different materials being used in RSW. These materials can be
combined (one sheet of one material and one sheet of another). If different materials and the varying
geometry of the electrodes, different welding machine types, etc., are added, an enormous number of
welding schedules are needed to cover all the possible combinations
(ii) the welding schedule type of approach supposes that there are no disturbances during the welding
process. Such a supposition is never exactly true. The level of disturbances can be limited (by cleaning
the surface, for example), but this is time consuming and expensive.
Because the welding schedule approach fails when there are disturbances present, another type of
approach is needed. In such an approach, it should be possible to adjust the parameters online, reflecting
the development of the welding nugget, which can be monitored using online measurements.

3.2 Welding based on feedback control

The main task during resistance welding is to control the process in such a way that a weld with
optimum strength is formed. It is important that the performance of the control system does not
deteriorate if disturbances are present, and for this reason, a control system that can control the quality
of the weld online is needed.
The basic block diagram of a control system is shown in Fig. 3.The main idea of the feedback control
system is that the controlled variable (via feedback) is compared with the reference input. The control
elements can then control the system on the basis of the actuating signal.

Figure 3: Block diagram of feedback system

Two conclusions follow if it is applied to the resistance welding:

(i) the weld strength is the controlled variable
(ii) the value of the welding current, the time of its flow and the electrode diameter are the reference
inputs.
The problems associated with the implementation of this basic block diagram for RSW are as follows:
(i) the weld strength (the controlled variable) would have to be measured in real time, which is
impossible because the weld strength is only known after the weld has cooled down. In fact the cooling
process itself can affect the welding strength
(ii) the model of the controlled system (the dependence of the weld strength on the actuating signal) is
not known exactly (iii) there are many different combinations of reference inputs that result in an
appropriate weld strength (a lower welding current can, for example, be compensated by a longer
welding time, and vice versa, within certain limits, as shown in Fig.1.
For the time being, therefore, it is impossible to design a control system capable of controlling the weld
strength directly. As a result, the focus has turned to other variables (signals) that are correlated with the
weld strength and can also be measured. The following signals, as found in literature, are of importance:
(i) welding voltage, welding current and dynamic resistance
(ii) welding force
(iii) electrode displacement
(iv) ultrasound transmission
(v) acoustic and sonic emission
(vi) infrared light emission and thermoelectric voltage.
Measurement based control systems can be divided into three groups:
(i) feedback control system (FCS): an FCS adjusts the parameters during the welding process, as
suggested in Fig.3. The welding parameters are, therefore, changed during the welding process
(ii) weld to weld control system (WWCS): a WWCS adjusts the parameters from one weld to another.
An example of such a system would be current stepping. The amount and the instant of welding current
increase must however be determined from signal measurement. Classical current stepping, where
welding current is increased after a predetermined number of spot welds had been made, is therefore not
a feedback control system
(iii) monitoring system (MS): an MS only detects whether the weld has an appropriate weld strength
(weld diameter). An example of such a system is non-destructive evaluation procedure, which estimates
the weld strength. If the weld strength is not sufficient, another spot weld can be made in the vicinity in
order to ensure the strength of the joint assembly.
Only the FCS is a feedback control system in the sense known from control system theory. The WWCS
and MS are in fact systems with constant welding parameters, but they differ from the previously
mentioned constant welding current control systems due to a corrective action on the basis of measured
signal(s) from the current weld. The corrective action is then applied to the subsequent welds or
additional welds can be added.
The authors have a closer look at the measured signals (variables) and control strategies used.

4. Measurement and control

4.1 Measurement of related variables
Measurement set-up
A possible basic measurement set-up is shown in Fig.4. Different sensors are used for different
variables. All the signals are read with the PC and the data acquisition system.

Figure 4: Schematic representation of measurements

The welding voltage can be measured directly on the electrodes. The welding current can be obtained
from the induced voltage measured with a Rogowsky coil. The ratio of the welding voltage to the
welding current varies during the welding process. For this reason, it is called the dynamic resistance.
The electrode displacement is the distance between the electrode tips, and can be measured in various
ways. The welding force is measured with a piezoelectric sensor. The ultrasound (US) transmission is
the ratio of the signals obtained from the US receiver and the US emitter. The acoustic and sonic
emission measurements detect the sounds emitted during the welding process. If the sensor is mounted
on the workpiece or the electrode, the term acoustic emission is used. If, however, a common
microphone is used, the term is sonic emission. The emitted infrared light and the thermal voltage are
used to measure the temperature on the surface of the weld.

Electrical variables
The electrical variables (welding voltage, welding current and dynamic resistance) are commonly used
because no expensive sensory equipment is needed. From a certain point of view, constant current
control could be included here as well. It has been included in the previous section, although feedback is
used to make the current constant. The value of the current itself is namely used according to welding
schedules and not with a feedback signal that is related to the growth of the welding nugget. Of course,
it is better to use signals that are closely related to the growth of the welding nugget. The dynamic
resistance is particularly important because it can be used to identify changes in the workpieces, special
for mild steel.

Electrode displacement
Electrode displacement is one of the most commonly used input signals in resistance spot welding
control systems. The initial drop of the electrode displacement curve is due to the welding force
bringing the workpieces into contact. The curve rises thereafter as a result of the thermal expansion.
After it reaches its maximum value, it drops due to the softening of the material. If an expulsion occurs,
there is a further significant drop in the electrode displacement. The exact shape of the electrode
displacement curve depends on the material used for the workpieces and their coatings. The first
controllers based on electrode displacement curves were designed to shut off the welding current at a
predetermined value of electrode displacement29,30 or electrode displacement rate. These types of
controllers were followed by controllers designed to track a predetermined electrode displacement
curve, which was obtained from measurements.

Ultrasound transmission
The transmissivity of an ultrasonic signal can be used to estimate the size of the weld. The first systems
used the ultrasonic signal to detect the austenite–perlite transformation during the cooling of the weld.
For this reason, they were not appropriate for FCS. The major drawback of these systems was that the
sensors were mounted on the workpieces. However, a major breakthrough was achieved when the
sensors were successfully mounted on the electrode holders. A control system based on transmissivity
curve tracking is described. The cost and the complexity of the necessary equipment limit the use of
ultrasound as a control signal.

Acoustic and sonic emission

There are many sources of sound emission during resistance welding. The magnitude of the acoustic
and sonic emission during the conduction of the welding current depends on the amount of heat being
generated, and is therefore correlated with the weld strength. Controllers based on acoustic and sonic
emission shut off the current at a predetermined number of emission counts. The major drawback of
acoustic emission is the need to attach the sensor either on the workpiece, which must be carried out for
each workpiece, and is therefore extremely time consuming, or on the electrodes, which results in a high
level of noise due to the flow of cooling water. Sonic emission is very easy to use. It has been
successfully used for weld strength estimation. The main problem for its widespread application is its
sensitivity to the surrounding noise that is present in a production environment.

Infrared light emission and thermoelectric voltage

The surface temperature of a spot weld can be measured using light emission and thermoelectric voltage
[the temperature (voltage) measured by a thermocouple]. The light emission signal is related to the weld
strength and can therefore be used as a control system input.
However, it is not suitable for a production environment because special attention is needed to ensure
constant surface emissivity, and even when this is ensured, the dirt and fumes produced during welding
can corrupt the signal.
Thermoelectric voltage is also not suitable for a production environment because of the difficulties
associated with thermocouple attachment. It is mainly limited to use during the cooling of the weld
region. The rate of cooling depends on the nugget size. Thermoelectric voltage is, therefore, more
appropriate for WWCS and MS than for FCS.

4.2 Control strategies

On–off type controller
The first type of measurement based feedback controller was the on–off type of controller shown in
Fig. 5.
Such a controller stops the welding at a predetermined value of one or more measured variables
(dynamic resistance, electrode displacement or electrode displacement rate, and acoustic emission). The
major drawback of this system is the need to determine the value of the variable at which the welding
should be stopped. This needs to be carried out using experiments. Some types of disturbances can,
however be avoided with this type of controller (shunting, for example).

Tracking controller
The on–off type of controller was followed by the tracking type of controller shown in Fig. 6. In this
case, the system adjusts the welding current in order to track a reference signal.

Figure 5: Schematic representation of on–off type of control system

Figure 6: Schematic representation of tracking type control system with PID control algorithm

This type of controller is designed to track a predetermined curve of different measured variables
(electrode displacement32–34 and ultrasound transmission). It is capable of producing better welds than
the on–off type of controller when there are a lot of disturbances. Reference curves for different
materials and workpiece thicknesses must still be obtained by experiment.
5. Power algorithms
These three algorithms are currently the most commonly used ones. Even artificial intelligence (AI)
systems might incorporate them. The constant current algorithm might for example be used in
connection with AI based WWCS or MS systems. All three of them will be introduced briefly.

5.1 Constant current algorithm

The algorithm is based on equation (1).
𝑡 2 (𝑡)𝑅 (𝑡)𝑑𝑡;
𝑄𝐺 = ∫0 𝑤 𝑖𝑤 𝑡 𝑅𝑡 = ∑𝑖=𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑅𝑖 (1)

It supposes constant heat input and therefore the total energy should be controlled by the welding time.
The problem is, however, that the power given by iw2Rt varies a lot because of the varying dynamic
resistance. The algorithm therefore does not take into account changing factors such as contact and bulk
resistances. It is, however, an ideal algorithm for a welding schedule approach, which gives suggestions
about the welding time and welding current for different material/thickness combinations. As the
welding current is measured very easily, this algorithm is very common.

5.2 Constant voltage algorithm

The algorithm is based on equation (2)

𝑡 𝑈𝑤 (𝑡)2
𝑄𝐺 = ∫0 𝑤 𝑑𝑡 (2)
𝑅𝑡

It also supposes constant heat input and has the same drawback as the constant current algorithm. In this
case the power is given by Uw2/Rt and also varies a lot because of the varying dynamic resistance.
Besides that, it is more difficult to measure voltage than current. The current is namely the same
throughout the secondary circuit, but the voltage is not constant. It has to be measured close to the
electrode tips, which might be difficult in practice.

5.3 Constant power algorithm

The main advantage compared to the constant current and constant voltage algorithms is that there is no
resistance in equation. That indicates that the power given by Uwiw can really be kept constant
throughout the welding cycle, which makes the constant power algorithm the preferred choice among
algorithms mentioned in this section. The possibility of overheating and hence expulsion is reduced due
to the constant power input. The only drawback compared to the constant current algorithm is the
necessity of voltage measurement.
The problem is, however, that more than 80% of the total generated heat is lost. So it is very difficult to
estimate the net heat used for welding nugget formation. For that reason, it is better to use signals that
are closely related to the growth of the welding nugget.

6. Artificial intelligence
The latest development in RSW control is the application of AI. Neural networks, fuzzy logic and
expert systems are the AI techniques that can be found in RSW applications.
Expert systems are currently only used to select the correct welding parameters. Fuzzy logic based
control systems are usually used for tracking type controllers. Dynamic resistance or electrode
displacement are used as a reference. Neural networks are by far the most commonly used AI technique
in RSW. They are used for weld nugget diameter or weld strength prediction or for weld classification.
The most commonly used network is a multilayer perception in connection with a back propagation
learning algorithm which can be used to get a function approximation. Besides this most common type
of neural network, which is used in a wide variety of scientific applications, other types of neural
networks have also been tested in RSW control.
Hopfield neural network is used for pattern recognition, for example. The dynamic resistance curve is
sampled at several different moments of time (e.g. 10). The values of dynamic resistances at these
moments are then quantised into several different levels (e.g. 6). As a result, a element pattern matrix
can be formed (e.g. 6 x 10). The value of the element is +1 if the related square is black and -1, if the
related square is white.
The pattern matrix R is input to the Hopfield neural network which classifies the pattern matrices (and
therefore the resistance curves) from different measurements into one of the five different classes based
on the similarity between the pattern matrix R and the prototype matrices for each of the five classes.
The strength of the weld can be estimated based on its classification into one of the five classes. These
applications can only be used for WWCS or MS. A FCS neural network application is also possible. A
set of input vectors is obtained from the measured signals (dynamic resistance, electrode displacement
and welding force) at different instants of time. The vector index therefore corresponds to the welding
time. The learning vector quantisation (LVQ) neural network can be used to detect this event. An input
to the network is the difference between the current input vector (vector index k) and the preceding
input vector (vector index k-1). The network is then trained to detect expulsion in different materials of
different thickness. The detection is being stated by classifying the differences into the expulsion or non
expulsion class. The LVQ based control system is consequently able to stop welding, when the
expulsion occurs. Control systems based on this approach, which should be able to predict expulsion (if
inverter based welding sources are used), are currently being developed.

7. Conclusion
In this article, the authors described the basic characteristics of RSW with the emphasis on its control.
The main problems and goals of RSW control are presented together with several approaches to solving
the problems. The authors also demonstrated how signals can be used in a feedback control system and
how these signals correlate with the size of the welding nugget and the weld strength. Different control
systems, incorporating on–off controllers, tracking controllers and AI based controllers, used in RSW
control, are also described. Research into RSW control is currently focused on using different input
signals in order to control the resistance welding of an ever increasing range of materials. The future
will see the development of more AI based techniques that will lead to better control of the resistance
welding process.

8. References
[1] H. B. Cary: ‘Modern welding technology’; 2002, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.
[2] D. J. Darrah: Weld. J., 1995, 8, 53–55.
[3] M. Krause: ‘Widerstandspreßschweißen’ (Resistance spot welding); 1993, Du¨ sseldorf,
Deutscher Verlag fu¨ r Schweißtechnik DVSVerlag GmbH.
[4] S. A. Westgate: Schweißen Schneiden, 2003, 5, 256–260.
[5] R. Bothfeld: Schweißen Schneiden, 1994, 1, 25–28.
[6] M. Kimchi: Weld. J., 1984, 2, 58s–63s.
[7] P. H. Thornton, A. R. Krause and R. G. Davies: Weld. J., 1996, 3, 101s–108s.
[8] P. Podrzˇaj, I. Polajnar, J. Diaci and Z. Karizˇ: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 3, 250–254.
[9] D. K. Aidun and R. W. Bennett: Weld. J., 1985, 12, 15–25.
[10] B. M. Brown: Weld. J., 1987, 1, 18–23.
[11] D. W. Dickinson, J. E. Franklin and A. Stanya: Weld. J., 1980, 6, 170s–176s.
[12] J. Bond: Weld. Rev. Int., 1991, 3, 162–163.
[13] DVS:, ‘Widerstandspreßschweißen von Sta¨hlen bis 3 mm einzeldicke – vorbereitung und
durchfu¨hrung’ (Resistance spot welding of up to 3 mm thick steel sheets – preparation and
execution), DVS-Merkblatt 2902, Deutscher Verband fu¨ r Schweißtechnik DVS-Verlag GmbH,
Du¨ sseldorf, Germany, 1978.
[14] N. T. Williams and J. D. Parker: Int. Mater. Rev., 2004, 2, 45–75.
[15] N. T. Williams and J. D. Parker: Int. Mater. Rev., 2004, 2, 77–108.
[16] J. J. D’Azzo and C. H. Houpis: ‘Linear control system analysis and design: conventional and
modern’, 4th edn; 1995, New York, McGraw-Hill.
[17] J. H. W. Broomhead and P. H. Dony: Weld. Met. Fabr., 1990, 6, 309–314.
[18] M. Towey and D. R. Andrews: Weld. Met. Fabr., 1968, 10, 383–392.
[19] S. A. Gedeon, C. D. Sorensen, K. T. Ulrich and T.W. Eagar: Weld. J., 1987, 12, 378–385.
[20] W. F. Savage, E. F. Nippes and F. A. Wassell: Weld. J., 1978, 2, 43s–50s.
[21] A. G. Livshits: Weld. J., 1997, 9, 383s–390s.
[22] S. R. Patange, T. Anjaneyulu and G. P. Reddy: Weld. J., 1985, 12, 33–38.
[23] Y. Cho, Z. Kim and S. Rhee: Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. B, Eng. Manuf., 2001, 11B, 1529–1538.
[24] F. Garza and M. Das: Circ. Syst., 2001, 1, 41–44.
[25] R. D. Beemer and T. W. Talbot: Weld. J., 1970, 1, 9s–13s.
[26] F. Eichorn, S. Singh, M. Emonts and B. Leuschen: Schweißen Schneiden, 1980, 12, 491–496.
[27] M. Hao, K. A. Osman, D. R. Boomer and C. J. Newton: Weld. J., 1996, 1, 1s–8s.
[28] S. R. Lee, Y. J. Choo, T. Y. Lee, M. H. Kim and S. K. Choi: J. Manuf. Syst., 2001, 5, 320–328.
[29] M. Janota: Schweißtechnik, 1977, 9, 400–402.
[30] J. L. Taylor and P. Xie: Met. Constr., 1987, 2, 72–75.
[31] R. T. Wood, L. W. Bauer, J. F. Bedard, B. M. Bernstein, J. Czechowski, M. M. D’Andrea and R.
A. Hogle: Weld. J., 1985,
[32] 12, 26–30.
[33] H. S. Cho and D. W. Chun: IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 1985, IE-32, (3), 234–238.
[34] H. S. Chang, Y. J. Cho, S. G. Choi and H. S. Cho: J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Contr., 1989, 2, 332–336.
[35] K. Haefner, B. Carey, B. Bernstein, K. Overton and M. D’Andrea: J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Contr.,
1991, 1, 104–112.
[36] C. L. Tsai, W. L. Dai, D. W. Dickinson and J. C. Papritan: Weld. J., 1991, 12, 339s–351s.
[37] Y. S. Zhang, X. Y. Zhang, X. M. Lai and G. L. Chen: Sci. Technol.
[38] Weld. Join., 2007, 5, 449–454.
[39] S. I. Rokhlin, R. J. Mayhan and L. Adler: Mater. Eval., 1985, 7, 879–883.
[40] N. Blumentritt: Weld. World, 2002, 7, 297–307.
[41] I. Polajnar: J. Mech. Eng., 1999, 4, 147–153.
[42] S. A. Gahr and C. H. Payne: West. Electr. Eng., 1979, 4, 21–29.
[43] H.-J. Schwalbe and G. Hanke: Mater. Technol. Test., 1986, 7, 264–269.
[44] P. Podrzˇaj, I. Polajnar, J. Diaci and Z. Karizˇ: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 4, 399–405.
[45] S. J. Vahaviolos, M. F. Carlos, S. J. Slykhous and S. J. Ternowchek: Mater. Eval., 1981, 11,
1057–1060.
[46] S. J. Vahaviolos: Mater. Eval., 1984, 12, 1650–1655.
[47] R. K. Snee and J. L. Taylor: Met. Constr. Br. Weld. J., 1972, 4,142–148.
[48] H. Polrolniczak: ‘Zersto¨ rungfreies pru¨ fen, u¨berwachen und regelen als mittel der
qualita¨tssicherung beim widerstandspunktschweißen’ (Non-destructive testing, monitoring and
 control as a means of resistance spot welding quality assurance), Widerstandsschweißen: 4
Jahrzehnte Sondertagung – Ru¨ ckblick und Ausblick, DVSBerichte Band 165; 1995, Du¨
sseldorf, DVS-Verlag GmbH.
[49] microJoining Solutions: ‘Feedback mode selection for small and miniature scale resistance
welding’, available at: http://www.microjoining.com/microTips_pdf/
microTip_Resistance_Feedback%20Modes.pdf
[50] M. Namiki and K. Nishizawa: US patent 4792656, 1988.
[51] S. Ishikawa: US patent 5523541, 1996.
[52] M. Namiki: US patent 4734556, 1988.
[53] H. Thier: ‘Ein quantitatives expertensystem zum widerstandspunktschweißen’ (Quantitative
expert system for resistance spot welding), Widerstandsschweißen: 4 Jahrzehnte Sondertagung –
Ru¨ckblick und Ausblick, DVS-Berichte Band 165; 1995, Du¨ sseldorf, DVS-Verlag GmbH.
[54] X. Chen and K. Araki: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Intell. Process. Syst., 1998, 1, 190–194.
[55] R. W. Messler, M. Jou and C. J. Li: IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 1995, 2, 1757–1763.
[56] Y. S. Zhang, H. Wang, G. L. Chen and X. Q. Zhang: Meas. Sci. Technol., 2007, 3, 867–876.
[57] K. A. Osman, A. M. Higginson, H. R. Kelly, C. J. Newton, D. J. Browne and D. R. Boomer:
Intell. Eng. Syst. Artif. Neural Networks, 1994, 4, 1109–1114.
[58] J. D. Brown, M. G. Rodd and N. T. Williams: Ironmaking Steelmaking, 1998, 3, 199–204.
[59] U. Dilthey and J. Dickersbach: ISIJ Int., 1999, 10, 1061–1066.
[60] Y. Cho and S. Rhee: Meas. Sci. Technol., 2000, 8, 1173–1178.
[61] J. Shriver, S. J. Hu and P. Huei: Proc. 1998 ASME Int. Cong. And Exp., Anaheim, CA, USA,
November 1998, ASME, 201–211.
[62] M. T. Hagan, H. B. Demuth and M. Beale: ‘Neural network design’; 1996, Boston, MT, PWS
Publishing Company.
[63] Y. Cho and S. Rhee: IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., 2004, 2, 330–334
[64] P. Podrzˇaj, I. Polajnar, J. Diaci and Z. Karizˇ: Meas. Sci. Technol., 2004, 3, 592–598.