2025-12-29 – Weekly Welding News : Pulse MIG parameters for robots

Last week in our welding community, members were buzzing with technical discussions and practical advice. A significant focus was placed on optimizing welding parameters for robotic applications, while others delved into the nitty-gritty of TIG techniques. There was an engaging dialogue around tools that ensure precision in weld size calculations, and several members shared their experiences with equipment upgrades. Safety and efficiency remained a priority across discussions, emphasizing the importance of well-informed practices.


This Week’s Hot Topics

Pulse MIG parameter matrix for robots
Members are dissecting the complexities of setting up Pulse MIG parameters for robotic welders, aiming to enhance precision and efficiency in automated processes.
Read more here

Narrow groove TIG roots that hold
A deep dive into achieving durable TIG roots in narrow grooves, focusing on technique and filler selection to prevent welding defects.
Read more here

Trusted heat input/weld size calculator
This discussion revolves around finding reliable tools to calculate heat input and weld size, essential for maintaining quality and compliance in projects.
Read more here

Porosity acceptance on fillet welds
Exploring acceptable levels of porosity in fillet welds, members exchange standards and real-world experiences to better understand quality thresholds.
Read more here

Worth upgrading my MIG gun yet
Debate continues on the cost-benefit analysis of upgrading to a new MIG gun, with insights from those who’ve made the switch.
Read more here

Cold-water wet weld settings and safety
Safety tips and optimal settings are being discussed for wet welding in cold environments, crucial for those working in challenging conditions.
Read more here

Short classes that actually pay off
Members share recommendations for short welding courses that provide significant value and skill enhancement in a brief time.
Read more here

Your first arc, done safely
Advice for newcomers on striking their first arc safely, covering essential precautions and techniques to build confidence.
Read more here

Stinger that still locks at 90 ft
A discussion about finding a reliable stinger that maintains a strong grip even at extended lengths, crucial for long-reach tasks.
Read more here

Quick-change welding cart layout
Innovative ideas on organizing welding carts for quick setup changes, saving time and enhancing workflow efficiency.
Read more here


That’s all for this week. Keep sharing your insights and experiences, and let’s continue to support each other in our welding journeys.

I tie pulse frequency to robot travel speed — about 150 Hz at about 700 mm/min — to keep wet-in consistent; on aluminum I back it down a touch or you’ll see ‘cold lap’ on starts.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‌​⁠‌‌‌​‌‍‍⁠‌‍⁠‌‌​‌​‌‍​‌‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌‌​⁠‍‌‌⁠‌‍​⁠​‍‌⁠​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Quick example: on our Power Wave cells I run CTWD 12–14 mm and -5 to -10 arc length correction when the robot decelerates into corners; that cleaned up the ‘pepper’ and kept toe wetting consistent on 1.5 mm steel. If your source lacks arc-length control, @Renee_Welds, tie a small WFS droop (≈5%) to path speed instead, or you’ll chase underfill at restarts.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‍‍​⁠‌​‌​‌​‌‍‌‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍​‌‌⁠‍‍‌​‍‌​⁠‍‌​⁠​‍‌⁠‍‌‌‌‌‍‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​⁠‌‍‌‌​⁠‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Last week we fixed corner quality by switching to TPS/i travel‑speed adaptive pulse — stopped chasing Hz when the robot slowed. For fillet accuracy, I calibrate deposition by weighing a 60 s run; ours was 7% high, which is why legs were coming out fat, @benbake. Small caveat: on aluminum keep a gentle 10–12° push or you’ll see sooty starts.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌​​‌​‌‍‌​‍​​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌⁠‌‌‌‍‌⁠‍​‌​‌⁠‌‍⁠‍‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍‌‌‌‍‌‍‍⁠​⁠‍‌‌‌‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Chasing Hz per job drives me nuts, so on our robot fillets I sync pulse to the weave: 2–3 pulses per oscillation keeps wet-in even and reduces toe spatter; @benbake your speed tie-in works too, but this holds up better when the path slows into corners. If there’s no weave, I bump peak/base to about 3:1 with about 30% background and add a touch of burnback to prevent cold starts.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍​‌‍‌​‌‍‌⁠​⁠‍‌‌​⁠‌​⁠​​‌​‍⁠​⁠​⁠‌‌‌⁠‌‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‌‌‌‌​⁠‌​‌‍‍‌‌‌​​‌‌​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I get better robot starts by setting run‑in about 30% for about 100 ms and burnback at 0.8 mm on our ABB + TPS/i; that cleaned the pepper more than fiddling frequency and stopped cold starts. If you’re on 0.9 mm wire with short CTWD, keep burnback under 1.0 mm or you’ll crater; @mfgdave, does this line up with what you’re seeing?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌​‌⁠​⁠‌​​‍‌‍​‌‌​‌‍‌‌​⁠‌​‌​‌​⁠​‌​‌​‌​‌‍‌‍‍⁠‌‌​‍‌‍⁠⁠‌​‍​‌‌‌‌​⁠​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

On our Fanuc + Power Wave, holding CTWD at 15 mm and setting “trim -1” kept 6 mm fillets flat; the real win was 20 mm corner rounding so the pulse doesn’t stumble through bends. @anthony_k92 I’d skip weave sync unless you have to — if corners must stay sharp, pre-map a 5% peak drop over the last 8–10 mm and it stays clean.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‌​⁠​​‌⁠​‌‌⁠‍‌‌​‌⁠‌‌​‌‌​⁠‍​‍⁠‌‌‍‌‌‌‍‍⁠‌‍‍‍‌​‌‌‌⁠​‍​⁠‌​‌‌‍‍‌‌​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

But quick win on robots: crater fill 100 ms, 10% downslope; @benbake, fewer pinholes, but watch thin 3 mm.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌‌​⁠‌​​⁠‌‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‌​‌‍‍‌‌‍‍⁠​⁠‌⁠‌‍⁠‌‌‌‍‍​⁠​‍‌​⁠​‌‍‌​‌‍‍⁠​⁠‌​‌​⁠‍​⁠​‌​⁠‌‍‌‌​‍‌‍​‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌