Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

PAPER You may also like

- Spatial structure of the arc in a pulsed
Numerical simulation of droplet detachment in GMAW process
R Kozakov, G Gött, H Schöpp et al.
pulsed gas–metal arc welding including the - Spectroscopic investigation of the high-
current phase of a pulsed GMAW process
influence of metal vapour M E Rouffet, M Wendt, G Goett et al.

- Effect of current waveforms on metal

To cite this article: M Hertel et al 2013 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 224003 transfer in pulsed gas metal arc welding
C S Wu, M A Chen and Y F Lu

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 193.191.150.3 on 21/03/2022 at 08:09

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 (11pp) doi:10.1088/0022-3727/46/22/224003

Numerical simulation of droplet

detachment in pulsed gas–metal arc
welding including the influence of
metal vapour
M Hertel1 , A Spille-Kohoff 2 , U Füssel1 and M Schnick1
1
Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Surface and
Manufacturing Technology, George-Bähr-Str.3c, D-01069 Dresden, Germany
2
CFX Berlin Software GmbH, Karl-Marx-Allee 90 A, D-10243 Berlin, Germany
E-mail: Martin.Hertel@tu-dresden.de

Received 23 November 2012, in final form 14 February 2013

Published 16 May 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysD/46/224003

Abstract
A numerical model of the droplet detachment of a gas–metal arc welding process is presented.
The model is based on the volume of fluid method and focuses on the detailed description of
the interaction between the arc and the anodic wire electrode. The influence of metal vapour
on the arc plasma and the arc attachment at the wire is taken into account. The formation of
metal vapour at the wire is described self-consistently as a function of the wire temperature by
the help of the Hertz–Knudsen–Langmuir equation. Results are presented for a pulsed
gas–metal arc welding process with a wire of mild steel and argon as the shielding gas.
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction minimum, different proportions of metal vapour have been

In gas–metal arc welding (GMAW) an electric arc is
established between a continuously fed consumable wire and
the workpiece. The arc is used to melt the electrodes and to
detach the droplets from the molten wire. Usually, the wire
has an anodic and the workpiece a cathodic polarity.
On the one hand, the deformation of the electrodes
and thus the metal transfer is mainly influenced by the
characteristics of the arc and its attachment at the electrode
surfaces. On the other hand, the arc is affected by the shapes
of the electrodes and their temperatures.
Numerous experimental and numerical studies have been
made to understand the complex interactions between an
electric arc and metallic electrodes in welding processes.
Topical reviews can be found among others in [1, 2]. Many
studies have been carried out for TIG processes. However,
spectroscopic investigations on GMAW arcs [3–9] show that
the temperature distribution and thus all other arc properties
differ significantly from those of a TIG process. For arcs in
pure argon, the temperature was found to have a local radial
minimum on the arc axis. Corresponding to the temperature
measured.
In recent years, the role of metal vapour in GMAW
has been discussed intensively [2]. Schnick et al [10]
present a numerical investigation of a stationary GMAW arc
in which they point out that the high radiative emission of
metal vapour causes the minimum in the radial temperature
distribution. The temperature minimum was calculated for
different net emission coefficients (NECs) from the literature
[11]. Furthermore, the characteristics of the arc, e.g. the
current path and the attachment of the arc at the wire electrode
change dramatically with increasing vaporization rates [11].
In his treatment, Schnick uses an interface tracking
technique with fixed shapes for the electrodes. The
computational domains of the gas and the electrodes are
separated by gas–solid interfaces which could be used to
implement additional boundary conditions. The influence of
the metal vapour formation is implemented by a flux boundary
condition at the gas side of the gas–wire interface for the
mass, momentum and energy equations. The calculation of
the vaporization mass flux is based on an assumed vaporization
profile which is related to the wire feed rate. By this approach,

0022-3727/13/224003+11$33.00 1 © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

it is possible to describe the physical processes at the electrode

surfaces very precisely. However, with this arc model it is not
possible to calculate the variable electrode shapes and therefore
the wire temperature distributions during the GMAW process.
Krivtsun et al [12] present a complex model of the electric
charge transfer in the anode region of an evaporating anode and
couples it with a simplified arc model [13]. The description of
the metal transfer is omitted.
To describe the interaction between the arc and the
electrodes in GMAW, several two [14–19] and three [20, 21]
dimensional models with different complexity have been
developed. In contrast to the approach of Schnick, all these
models use an interface capturing technique where an interface
function is used to describe the location of the interfaces in
the computational domain. The physical processes at the
interfaces are not described by flux boundary conditions but by
volumetric source terms in the conservation equations. Most
of these models omit the influence of metal vapour.
Haidar [18] presents a model in which he calculates the
vaporization mass flux using the Hertz–Knudsen–Langmuir Figure 1. Computational domain of a GMAW process on a cooled
equation as a function of a given temperature distribution in copper cathode determined by the experimental setup of Siewert
the electrodes. The formation of metal vapour is implemented et al [25].
by source terms in the total mass conservation equation and in
the mass conservation equation of the metal vapour component. of the numerical simulation of the droplet detachment in pulsed
Boselli et al [19] present a model of a pulsed GMAW gas–metal arc welding. The main findings will be summarized
process including the influence of metal vapour. The in section 5.
vaporization mass flux is calculated self-consistently by using
the calculated temperature distribution in the electrodes. The
formation of metal vapour is implemented by a source term in 2. Theoretical considerations
the mass conservation equation of the metal vapour component.
The presented model focuses on the detailed description of the
In a previous work by the authors [22], we have discussed
droplet detachment in GMAW. The description of the weld
an interface capturing approach to consider the interaction
seam will be omitted. The geometry of the computational
between the arc and the electrodes and the formation of metal
domain is determined by the experimental setup of Siewert
vapour at the surfaces as a function of the electrode temperature
et al [25]. In this configuration, the arc is established between
by the help of a simplified formulation of the vaporization mass
an anodic wire and a water cooled cathodic workpiece with a
flux by Zacharia et al [23].
In this paper, we discuss the developed droplet transfer central hole. The detached droplets fall through the hole in
model more in detail. We improve the accuracy of the the cathode and disappear from the effective area of the arc
calculation of the metal evaporation at the metal surfaces by process.
including the Hertz–Knudsen–Langmuir equation. In contrast By this configuration it is possible to keep the droplet
to the approaches mentioned above, the evaporation mass flux detachment in the experiment approximately rotationally
is calculated not only as a function of the electrode temperature symmetric over a longer period of time. In our model, we
but also as a function of the partial pressure difference between can thus reduce the computational domain to a six-degree
the phases. element with rotationally periodic boundary conditions at the
Furthermore, the transfer of mass between the phases side surfaces, see figure 1. An axisymmetric description of
by evaporation and condensation effects is considered. the problem is also possible but is not supported by the used
Evaporation leads to a transfer of mass from the metal phase three-dimensional software environment ANSYS CFX.
to the gaseous phase rather than to an increase in total In the rotationally periodic model, the interaction between
mass. Further, the influence of evaporation on the energy the wire electrode and the arc is described by a multiphase
conservation equations is considered because previous studies formulation. The solid and molten regions of the wire are
observed with the model of Schnick et al [11] show a big considered as liquid phase. The shielding gas and arc plasma
influence of metal evaporization on the arc attachment at the are considered as gaseous phase. The liquid and gaseous
wire electrode. phases are immiscible and are separated by a free surface which
The model is applied to a pulsed GMAW process, corresponds to the shape of the wire and the droplet. The water
which has been analysed by high speed cinematography cooled workpiece is implemented as a solid body with a fixed
[24] and droplet temperature measurements [25] as well as geometry.
spectroscopic measurements [7, 9]. The solid regions of the electrode are modelled by a high
In section 2, the theoretical background of the model is viscosity and an additional holding force to avoid unphysical
discussed. Sections 3 and 4 show the results and the discussion flow. The multiphase model is combined with the Maxwell

2
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

equations of electric potential and magnetic vector potential in Energy of the gaseous phase.
order to consider the electromagnetic effects inside the wire

∂ Fg ρg h g

electrode, the plasma and the solid cathode. In the gaseous + ∇· Fg ρg uhg
phase, we consider the influence of metal vapour which is ∂t
formed at the molten wire electrode.
 |j |2
= ∇· λg ∇ Tg + Fg + Fg QRAD
σ
+ MVAP hm − QHT . (7)
2.1. Governing equations
Energy of the metal phase.
In the multiphase model, the transport of the liquid phase is
calculated by the volume of fluid (VoF) method presented by ∂ (Fm ρm hm )
+ ∇· (Fm ρm uhm )
Hirt and Nichols [26]. The used software package (ANSYS ∂t
CFX) uses a compressive discretization scheme in both time |j |2
and space to minimize the smearing of the free surface. For the = ∇· (λm ∇ Tm ) + Fm + QSRF
σ
two-phase mixture we assume a uniform flow and pressure field − MVAP (HVAP + hm ) + QHT . (8)
resulting in homogeneous momentum equations with phase
weighted properties. Electric potential.
The gaseous phase (index g) consists of two components,
the shielding gas (A) and the metal vapour (B). The distribution ∇· (σ ∇ φ) = 0. (9)
of metal vapour in the plasma is calculated using an additional
transport equation. The liquid phase, in the following also Magnetic vector potential.
called metal phase (index m), consists of the solid (S) and the
 A = −µ0 j. (10)
liquid (L) component.
For each phase, a separate energy conservation equation Ohm’s law.
is solved. The energy equations of both phases are coupled j = −σ ∇ φ. (11)
by a heat transfer term. This results in the following equation
system. Magnetic field.
B = ∇× A.
 (12)
In equations (1)–(12), ρ is the mixture density, t is the time, u
Total mass. is the velocity, Fm is the volume fraction of the metal phase,
∂ρ
+ ∇ · (ρ u) = 0. (1) ρm is the metal phase density, MVAP is the mass source term
∂t of metal vapour due to vaporization effects, Fg is the volume
fraction of the gaseous phase, ρg is the gaseous phase density,
Mass of the metal phase.
Yg,B is the mass fraction of the metal vapour component in
∂Fm ρm the gaseous phase, n is the number density, mA and mB
+ ∇ · (Fm ρm u) = −MVAP (2) are, respectively, the average masses of the heavy species of
∂t X
the gaseous phase components, DAB is the combined binary
Fg = 1 − Fm . (3) diffusion coefficient from component A in component B from
the demixing formulation of Murphy [27], Xg,A is the molar
Mass of gaseous components. fraction of the shielding gas component in the gaseous phase,
Yg,A is the mass fraction of the shielding gas component in


∂ Fg ρg Yg,B
 the gaseous phase, p is the pressure, η is the mixture dynamic
+ ∇ · Fg ρg u Yg,B viscosity, g is the acceleration due to gravity, j is the electrical
∂t
  current density, B is the magnetic induction, FST and FSLD are
n2
= ∇ · Fg X
mA mB DAB ∇ Xg,A + MVAP (4) momentum source terms regarding effects of surface tension
ρg
and solid behaviour, uVAP  is the velocity vector of the metal
vapour source, hg , λg and Tg are the specific enthalpy, the
Yg,A = 1 − Yg,B . (5)
thermal conductivity and the temperature of the gaseous phase,
σ is the mixture electrical conductivity, QRAD is the energy
Momentum. source term regarding the energy loss in the plasma due to

 radiation, QHT is the energy source term regarding the heat
∂ (ρ ui ) ∂ ρ uj ui ∂p
+ =− exchange between the phases, hm , λm and Tm are the specific
∂t ∂xj ∂xi
enthalpy, the thermal conductivity and the temperature of the
 
  0 metal phase, QSRF is the energy source term regarding the
∂ ∂ui ∂uj
+ η + − ρg  energy balance at the free surface of the liquid phase, HVAP
∂xj ∂xj ∂xi 0 i is the heat of vaporization, φ is the electric potential, A is the
magnetic vector potential and µ0 is the magnetic permeability
+ j × B i + FST i + FSLD i + MVAP · uVAP i . (6) of free space.

3
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

2.2. Multiphase and Phase properties 2.3. Source terms

In the equation system we use phase weighted properties for On the right-hand side of the mass conservation equation of
the density ρ, the dynamic viscosity η, the thermal and the the metal vapour component (1) we include a mass source term
electrical conductivity λ and σ , which are calculated on the MVAP which takes into account the formation of metal vapour
basis of the volume fractions and properties of the gaseous (g) at the metal surfaces. The mass flux ṁVAP is converted into
and the metal phase (m). the volumetric source term MVAP by multiplying it with the
gradient of the volume fraction of the metal phase.
ρ = F g ρg + F m ρm (13)
Volumetric vaporization source.
η = Fg ηg + Fm ηm (14)
MVAP = ṁVAP |∇ Fm | . (30)
λ = Fg λg + Fm λm (15)
The mass flux ṁVAP at the free surface is calculated using a
σ = Fg σg + Fm σm . (16) formulation of the Hertz–Knudsen–Langmuir equation which
The properties of the gaseous phase are calculated as a function takes into account evaporation and condensation of metal
of the temperature Tg and the molar or mass fraction of vapour.

the gaseous phase components using plasma datasets from MB pVAP Xg,B pATM
the literature. The molar fractions of the gaseous phase ṁVAP = √ − . (31)
2π R Tm Tg
components Xg,A and Xg,B are calculated as follows:
 −1 In equation (31), R is the ideal gas constant and pVAP is the
Yg,A Yg,A Yg,B vapour pressure of the liquid metal which could be derived
Xg,A = + (17)
MA MA MB from the Clausius–Clapeyron equation as follows:
  
Xg,B = 1 − Xg,A . (18) −HVAP MB 1 1
pVAP = pATM exp − . (32)
R Tm Tm,B
In the above equations, MA and MB are the molar weights of
the gaseous phase components. In equation (32), pATM is the atmospheric pressure, HVAP is
The volume fraction of the liquid phase is calculated on the the heat of vaporization and Tm,B is the boiling temperature of
basis of the metal phase temperature Tm . the liquid metal.
    Two additional source terms are added to the right-hand
Tm − Tm,S side of the momentum equations (6). FST is the vector of the
Fm,L = max min ,1 ,0 (19)
Tm,L − Tm,S surface tension force according to the continuum surface force
model of Brackbill et al [28].
Fm,S = 1 − Fm,L . (20)
The solidus and liquidus temperatures Tm,S and Tm,L are Surface tension force.
material properties. The mass fraction of the metal phase  
∇ Fm ∇ Fm
components are calculated on the basis of the solid and liquid FST = −γmg ∇· . (33)
|∇ Fm | |∇ Fm |
densities of the metal phase.
In the above equation, γmg is the surface tension coefficient of
Fm,L ρm,L the electrode material to the shielding gas.
Ym,L = (21)
Fm,L ρm,L + Fm,S ρm,S FSLD is a source term to express the behaviour of the solid
regions in the metal phase below the melting point.
Ym,S = 1 − Ym,L . (22)
Depending on the volume and mass fractions of the metal phase Solid force.
components, the properties of the metal phase are calculated Ns
FSLD = −1010 4 ( u − uWire ) Fm Fm,S . (34)
as follows: m
ρm = Fm,S ρm,S + Fm,L ρm,L (23) In the above equation uWire corresponds to the velocity of the
ηm = Ym,S ηm,S + Ym,L ηm,L (24) wire electrode.
To consider the heat loss in the gaseous phase due to
λm = Ym,S λm,S + Ym,L λm,L (25) radiation processes, the NEC model is used. The NEC of
σm = Ym,S σm,S + Ym,L σm,L . (26) the gas mixture results from the molar weighted NECs of the
gaseous phase components A and B.
The enthalpy of the metal phase hm and its components could
be derived from the specific heats of the solid and liquid Net emission coefficient.
components cm,S , cm,L and the heat of fusion H .
QRAD = 4π(Xg,A NECA + Xg,B NECB ) (35)
hm,S = cm,S Tm (27) In the above equations, NECA and NECB are the NECs of the

 gaseous phase components.
hm,L = cm,S Tm,L + cm,L Tm − Tm,L + H (28)
The heat exchange between the phases is taken into
hm = Ym,S hm,S + Ym,L hm,L . (29) account by the source term QHT .

4
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003
Heat transfer between the phases.
 potential of 0 V. The current density at the wire inlet (BC) is
Tg
QHT = λ dT /δHT |∇ Fm | .
Tm
The formulation of QHT in equation (36) expresses the heat
exchange by heavy particles and is calculated on the basis of
an integral thermal conductivity between the metal and the
gaseous phase temperature and an assumed sheath length of
δHT = 0.1 mm [29] in which the heat transfer takes place.
In addition to the convective heat transfer by heavy
particles QHT we include a second energy source term in
the energy conservation equation of the metal phase which
includes the effects of sheath heating, vaporization cooling
and grey body radiation. The formulation of the anodic sheath
heating term is based on the ’LTE diffusion model’ of Lowke
and Tanaka [30].
Heat flow at the free surface.
QSRF = j · ∇ Fm φWF − 4
m σSB Tm |∇ Fm | .
In the above equation, j · ∇ Fm is the current density normal
to the electrode surface, φWF corresponds to the work function
of the wire material, m is the emissivity of the wire surface
and σSB is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant.
2.4. Boundary conditions
Figure 3 shows a side view on the computational domain of the
considered GMAW process on a water cooled copper cathode.
In the fluid domain (ABCDEFGJIA), we solve the entire
multiphase MHD-equation system presented in section 2.1. At
the top of the domain we define an inlet for the wire material
(BC) and the shielding gas flow (DE) (table 2). The volume
fraction of the metal phase at the wire inlet (BC) is defined as
a function of the wire diameter dWire .
 second-order high-resolution spatial discretization based on
1 for 2 x 2 + y 2
dWire
Fm,Wire = (38)
0 for 2 x 2 + y 2 > dWire .
At the ambient regions of the domain (EFG), we assume a
perfect shielding gas cover. The detached droplets leave the
computational domain via the outlet (AI). In the solid regions
of the copper cathode (GHIJ) we solve only the equations for
the electric potential (9) and the magnetic vector potential
(10). At the surface of the cooled copper cathode (GJI) we
assume a constant temperature of Tc = 300 K and define a heat
flux of heavy particles in the energy equation of the gaseous
phase on the basis of an integral thermal conductivity between
the copper and the gaseous phase temperature Tc and Tg ,
respectively, and an assumed sheath length of δHT = 0.1 mm
[30] for the heat transfer as follows.
Heat flow at the cathode surface.
 Tg
q̇ c = − λg dT /δHT .
Tc
M Hertel et al
At the side wall of the cathode (GH), we assume an electric
(36) set as a function of the wire diameter and the time-dependent
current regime IWire .
∂φ
− Fm,Wire σm = IWire 4/π/dWire
2
. (40)
∂y
2.5. Phase properties
In the considered GMAW process, argon is used as the
shielding gas. The wire is assumed to be of mild steel. During
the process, the ingredients of the electrodes vaporizes and the
shielding gas is enriched by metal vapour. We assume that the
major component of the wire is iron and that only iron vapour
is formed at the wire and droplet surfaces.
Equation (4) calculates the distribution of iron vapour
in the gaseous phase. Based on the molar fraction of the
iron vapour Xg,B and the local temperature of the gaseous
phase Tg , we calculate the thermophysical properties of the
(37) gaseous phase according to the datasets of Murphy for an Ar–
Fe mixture [27] and the NECs according to the datasets of
Menart et al [31].
A detailed description of the thermophysical properties of
the gaseous and the metal phase can be found in table 1.
2.6. Process parameters
In our investigations, we consider a pulsed GMAW process
with a frequency of 100 Hz, a wire diameter of 1.2 mm, a wire
feed rate of vWire = 4 m min−1 and a shielding gas flow rate
of 15 l min−1 . The current regime of the process is shown in
figure 2. For the ambient regions we assume a pressure of
pATM = 1 atm and a temperature of TAMB = 300 K.
2.7. Solution process
ANSYS CFX uses a pressure-based algorithm with a
a conservative finite volume method, and a second-order fully
implicit transient discretization. In each time step an iterative
scheme with so-called coefficient loops ensures convergence
to the implicit solution. Each coefficient loop, the governing
differential equations (1), (2), (4) and (6)–(10) are linearized
about their current solution, and these linearized equations
are solved consecutively with an algebraic multi-grid solver
with ILU smoother. All material properties and algebraic
relationships are updated each time they are needed. Time
step size can be adapted to the dynamics; we use 5 µs in high-
current phase and up to 100 µs in low-current phase ensuring
CFL numbers below 10.
3. Results
In numerical analyses with stationary arc models of the GMAW
process [10, 11] we see a significant influence of iron vapour
on the arc characteristics. Consequently, the arc properties
(39) (mainly temperature distribution and current path) change.
The amount of iron vapour in the arc is very crucial. However,
5
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

Table 1. Thermophysical properties of the gaseous and metal phase.

Gaseous phase (g) Metal phase (m)
Comp. (A) Comp. (B) Solid (S) Liquid (L)
Nomenclature Symbol Unit
Material — — Argon Iron Mild Steel
−3
Density ρ kg m ρg = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [27] 7200 [20] 7200 [20]
Dynamic viscosity η kg m−1 s−1 ηg = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [27] 1 [20] 0.006
Specific heat c J kg−1 K −1 cg = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [27] 700 [20] 780 [20]
Thermal conductivity λ W m−1 K −1 λg = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [27] 22 [20] 22 [20]
Electrical conductivity σ S m−1 σg = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [27] 7.7 × 105 [20] 7.7 × 105 [20]
Molar mass M kg kmol−1 39.95 55.85 —
Net emission coefficient NEC W m−3 sr −1 N EC = f (Xg,B , Tg ) [31] —
Work function φWF eV 4.5 —
Ionization potential Vi eV 15.76 —
Boiling temperature Tm,B K 3050 — —
Melting temperature T K — 1750 [20] 1800 [20]
Heat of fusion H J kg−1 — 2.47 × 105 [20]
Heat of vaporization HVAP J kg−1 — 7.34 × 106 [20]
Surface tension coefficient γ N m−1 — 1.2
Radiation emissivity — — 0.5

Table 2. Boundary conditions.

Boundary Volume Mass and Mass fraction Energy Energy Electric Magnetic
(boundary type) fraction momentum component B (gaseous) (metal) potential potential
∂Yg,B ∂Tg
AB (Symmetry) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 ∂u
∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂Tm
∂n
=0 ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
BC (Wire inlet) (equation (38)) u = uWire Yg,B = 0 Tg = TAMB Tm = TAMB (equation (40)) ∂Ai
∂n
=0
∂Yg,B ∂Tg
CD (Wall) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 u = 0 ∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂Tm
∂n
=0 ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
DE (Gas inlet) Fm = 0 u = uSG Yg,B = 0 Tg = TAMB Tm = TAMB ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
EF (Ambient inflow) Fm = 0 p = pATM Yg,B = 0 Tg = TAMB Tm = TAMB ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
∂Yg,B ∂Tg
EF (Ambient outflow) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 p = pATM ∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂Tm
∂n
=0 ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
FG (Ambient inflow) Fm = 0 p = pATM Yg,B = 0 Tg = TAMB Tm = TAMB ∂φ
∂n
=0 Ai = 0
∂Yg,B ∂Tg
FG (Ambient outflow) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 p = pATM ∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂Tm
∂n
=0 =0
∂φ
∂n
Ai = 0
GH (Wall) — — — — — φ=0 Ai = 0
HI (Wall) — — — — — ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
∂Yg,B ∂Tg
IA (Ambient outflow) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 p = pATM ∂n
=0 ∂n
=0 ∂Tm
∂n
=0 ∂φ
∂n
=0 ∂Ai
∂n
=0
∂Yg,B
GJI (Interface) ∂Fm
∂n
=0 u = 0 ∂n
=0 (equation (39)) ∂Tm
∂n
=0 — —

in stationary GMAW arc models, the vaporization source at
the wire and therefore the content of iron vapour in the plasma
can only be estimated.
In the presented numerical investigations we calculate the
vaporization at the wire self-consistently as a function of the
wire temperature which corresponds to the local temperature
of the metal phase. The vaporization mass source term is not
only present in the conservation equation of the iron vapour
component (4) but also as a sink term in the mass conservation
equation of the metal phase (2), the energy conservation
equation of the metal phase (8) representing the vaporization
cooling effect and a source term in the energy conservation
equation of the gaseous phase (7) representing the inflow of
additional gas which has to be ionized by the arc.
In our investigations, we consider a pulsed gas–metal arc
welding process with a given pulse regime for the current
shown in figure 2. In the following, the numerical results
are shown for different time points in the pulse regime. The
first time (T1) corresponds to the end of the pulse phase, the
second and the third times (T2 and T3) correspond to the
beginning and the end of the droplet detachment current phase
and the fourth time (T4) corresponds to the beginning of the
background phase.
Figure 4 show the calculated distribution of the
temperature of the gaseous and the metal phase, the molar
fraction of iron vapour, the current density and the radiation
intensity on the side view for these time points. Furthermore, a
comparison with high speed images on a cooled copper cathode
for the same current regime is displayed.
The maximum temperatures in the gaseous phase can be
assigned to the argon-dominated border regions of the arc. The
maximum temperatures calculated in this regions are around
15 000 K at the end of the pulse phase, around 13 000 K in
the droplet detachment phase and 10 000 K in the background
phase. The centre of the arc is characterized by a local radial
minimum in the temperature distribution. The temperatures in

6
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003
500
450 Current
Time 1
400
Time 2
350 Time 3
Time 4
Current [A]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time [ms]
Figure 2. Current regime of the considered pulsed GMAW process.
Figure 3. Boundary conditions and dimensions on a side view of
the rotationally periodic computational domain.
the arc centre are nearly equal over the entire pulse and lie in
the range 7000–8000 K.
In the pulse phase, the essential melting and therefore the
heating of the wire electrode takes place. The temperature
distribution in the wire electrode is mainly determined by the
local energy input by the recombining electrons at the wire
surface. The maximum temperatures in the metal phase can be
assigned to the surface of the detaching droplet. The maximum
surface temperatures calculated at the droplet surface are
around 2900 K at the end of the pulse phase, around 3000 K
in the droplet detachment phase and around 3000 K in the
background phase.
After the detachment of the droplet, the mean temperature
in the droplet decreases. The decrease in the surface
temperature is firstly caused by the omitted heat input by
resistive heating and sheath heating and secondly by the
vaporization cooling at the droplet surface and the unification
of the temperature in the droplet in consequence of the mixing
with colder material from the centre.
M Hertel et al
As a result of the high surface temperatures, iron vapour
is formed mainly at the tip of the detaching droplet. At the end
of the pulse phase (T1), we calculate a vaporization mass flow
of 22.4 mg s−1 corresponding to a relative vaporization rate
of 3.7%. By the arc flow, iron vapour is carried through the
centre of the arc. The maximum molar fraction of iron vapour
of about 100% is calculated directly below the detaching wire,
respectively, the droplet. By convective and diffusive transport
mechanisms, the iron vapour concentration decreases and was
calculated to be around 20–30% in the mid of the arc in the
pulse phase.
10 A high amount of the charge transfer at the wire takes
place above the constriction point of the wire electrode. This
condition is most pronounced for high currents. Figure 5
shows lines of equal electric potential and integral electrical
current at the end of the pulse phase. The integral current
can be calculated by integrating the axial component of the
current density over the flow area and is related to the absolute
current IWire . This formulation allows an estimation of the
amount of the current which is carried through the wire and
the adjacent plasma. At the constriction point of the wire, the
integral current is about 40%, which means that 60% of the
absolute current is carried through the adjacent plasma.
The constriction of the droplet due to the Lorentz force
is exclusively determined by the part of the current, which
flows through the constriction area of the wire electrode. The
calculated pinch force at the constriction area is therefore much
smaller than that predicted by other models. The presented
calculations explain why the constriction area of the droplet
is not dissolved explosively, which is the case for short arcs
in which the total current is flowing through the constriction
area.
The current density above the constriction point has a
high radial component. The Lorentz force, which is the cross
product of the current density and the magnetic field gets
therefore a high axial component. This part of the Lorentz
force inducing a flow which carries molten material through
the constriction point into the growing droplet. Figure 6 shows
the orientation of the Lorentz force and the resulting flow field
inside the droplet.
Furthermore, a high amount of sheath heating through
recombining electrons occurs above the constriction point.
4. Discussion
The distribution of the current density shows a large deviation
in comparison with predictions of other models of droplet
detachment in GMAW. For example, in comparison with
calculations of Hu [17], the arc attachment is located much
higher on the wire electrode.
With the presented model it is difficult to unambiguously
point out the dominant physical effect that mainly leads to the
change in the arc attachment. The major reason lies in the
fact that the surface of the wire electrode is determined by the
velocity distribution of the free surface which is influenced by
the actual model formulation and process parameters. A fixed
definition of the wire shape like in the case of Haidar [14] is not
possible. Therefore, even small changes in the physical model
7
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

temperature - gaseous phase [K]

temperature - metal phase [K]

molar fraction - iron vapour [–]

current density [Am–2]

radaition intensity [–]

Figure 4. Distribution of calculated process variables for different time steps in the pulse regime shown in figure 2 and comparision of the
calculated droplet shape and radiation intensity on a side view with high speed images.

result in different and sometimes unrealistic wire shapes which
would be difficult to compare.
It is clear that the arc attachment at the electrode is
determined by the distribution of the electrical conductivity at
the tip and the flank of the wire electrode. Thus two scenarios
leading to a shifting of the arc attachment from the tip to the
flank of the wire electrode are conceivable. First a reduction
in the electrical conductivity at the tip of the wire electrode or
second an increase in the electrical conductivity at the flank of
the wire electrode.
In recent publications [11, 14] we see a high influence
of the vaporization mass flux at the wire surface on the arc
attachment. The inflow of cold metal vapour from the surface
cools down the plasma in the near-surface areas and leads to
a reduction in the local electrical conductivity. This effect is
represented by the fourth term on the right-hand side of the

8
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003
Figure 5. Lines
 x of equal electric potential and integral current
Irel = −2 π 0 jy x dx / IWire .
Figure 6. Calculated velocity distribution in the droplet induced by
the Lorentz force (yellow arrows) which results from the cross
product of the magnetic induction (red arrows) and the current
density (green arrows) on a front view (a) and on a isometric
view (b).
energy conservation equation of the gaseous phase (7). The
highest wire temperatures and thus the highest vaporization
rates can be found at the tip of the wire electrode. Consequently
this effect leads to a reduction in the electrical conductivity of
the plasma at the tip of the wire electrode.
Another reason for the changed arc attachment in the
presented model might be due to the treatment of the energy
equations for both phases. These are calculated separately and
coupled by an energy exchange term acting only in the free
surface region. This heat exchange term is represented by the
fifth term in the energy equations (7) and (8). Furthermore,
this heat exchange term is based on an integral thermal
conductivity from the metal phase temperature to the gaseous
phase temperature and an assumed sheath length. The resulting
temperature-jump at the free surface between the metal and the
gaseous phase also leads to a higher temperature in the gaseous
phase and therefore a higher electrical conductivity at the flank
of the wire electrode.
Currently the energy and electric charge transfer in the
sheath region of an evaporating anode are not fully understood.
The presented approach of using a heat exchange term between
the metal phase and the gaseous phase should be regarded
9
M Hertel et al
as a simplified treatment. Future droplet detachment models
should be more sophisticated to fully consider all physical
effects in the anodic sheath region. More complex approaches
can already be found in [12, 13] although in these publications
the droplet detachment is not regarded yet.
A realistic description of the arc attachment is crucial
not only for calculating the temperature distribution in the
plasma and in the wire electrode but also for predicting the
resulting droplet shape and properties. The local heat input
in the wire electrode is mainly driven by the sheath heating
through recombining electrons and therefore through the local
current normal to the metal surface. Thus, a non-realistic
treatment of the sheath region at the wire electrode can cause
very high-current densities resulting in an overheated wire even
for high vaporization rates. Additionally the arc attachment
influences the Lorentz force and therefore the resulting shape
of the droplet.
Significant uncertainties of the model may arise from the
VoF—multiphase formulation in which the surface is treated
as a free surface rather than a sharp interface. The interface is
presented in several volume elements of the mesh. Therefore,
the physical processes in the numerical model may be smeared
and be imaged insufficiently sharp.
Furthermore, the VoF method is renowned for inaccura-
cies especially in mass and energy conservation. By the use
of the second-order fully implicit transient discretization pro-
cedure the numerical inaccuracies can be limited. The conser-
vation equations for each time step are iterated until a spec-
ified convergence criterion for each conservation equation is
reached.
Nevertheless, actual OES measurements indicate that the
arc attachment is much wider than that predicted by other
models. The comparison of the temperature and metal vapour
distribution shows good agreement with measurements of
Tsujimura and Tanaka [8].
Furthermore, a comparison of profiles of metal vapour
mass fraction and temperature measured by Kozakov et al [9]
on a line 2.5 mm below the wire according to a pulse time of
1.6 ms also shows good agreement, figure 7. We assume that
the omission of the radiation transport in our model and the
violation of the LTE-assumption at the border regions of the
arc causes the main deviation in the centre and in the outside
areas of the arc.
Direct comparisons of the presented results of the pulsed
GMAW process with GMAW processes with a constant
current, e.g., from Haidar [14] or Hu and Tsai [17] are
difficult. However, all these calculations show that the
maximum temperatures are assigned to the surfaces in the arc
attachment regions and can approximately reach or exceed the
boiling point. Haidar [14] calculated maximum temperatures
over 3000 K even for high vaporization rates. Hu and Tsai
[17] calculated a maximum temperature of 2936 K. In our
calculations the maximum temperatures are between 2900 and
3000 K. In our opinion, the greatest effect on the maximum
droplet temperatures is the change in the arc attachment at the
wire. Thus the local energy input by recombining electrons
and therefore the heating of the droplet are limited.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003 M Hertel et al

100 24000

90 22000
Simulation Simulation
Mass Fraction Iron Vapour [%]

OES INP 20000 OES INP

80
18000
70

Temperature [K]
16000
60 14000
50 12000

40 10000
8000
30
6000
20
4000
10 2000
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
Radius [mm] Radius [mm]

Figure 7. Comparison of calculated and measured [9] profiles of iron vapour mass fraction (left) and temperature (right) on a line 2.5 mm
below the wire according to a pulse time of 1.6 ms shown in figure 2.

The droplet temperature calculated by Hu and Tsai [17]
and measurements by Siewert et al [25] support the thesis that
the droplet temperature decreases after the detachment.
5. Conclusion
A rotationally periodic model of the droplet transfer in GMAW
has been developed. The model focuses on the detailed
description of the interaction between the arc and the wire
electrode. The formation of metal vapour at the free surface
was implemented self-consistently as a function of the metal
phase temperature.
The presented model was applied to a pulsed GMAW
process. In particular, the distribution of the current density
differs significantly from predictions of other models. The arc
attachment is located much higher on the wire electrode. A
high amount of the charge transfer at the wire takes places
above the constriction point of the wire electrode. This
condition is most pronounced for high currents.
The high radial component of the current density causes
a high axial flow, which carries molten material above the
constriction point into the droplet. Furthermore, a high amount
of sheath heating through recombining electrons occurs above
the constriction point.
References
[1] Tanaka M and Lowke J J 2007 Predictions of weld pool
profiles using plasma physics J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40 R1
[2] Murphy A B 2010 The effects of metal vapour in arc welding
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434001
[3] Goecke S F 2004 Auswirkungen von Aktivgaszumischungen
im vpm-Bereich zu Argon auf das MIG-Impulsschweissen
von Aluminium Dissertation TU Berlin
[4] Metzke E and Schöpp H 2005 Spektralanalyse des
Metall-Lichtbogenplasmas Abschlussbericht ChopArc
[5] Zielinska S, Musiol K, Dzierzega K, Pellerin S, Valensi F,
de Izarra Ch and Briand F 2007 Investigations of GMAW
plasma by optical emission spectroscopy Plasma Sources
Sci. Technol. 16 832
[6] Valensi F, Pellerin S, Boutaghane A, Dzierzega K, Zielinska S,
Pellerin N and Briand F 2010 Plasma diagnostics in
gas–metal arc welding by optical emission spectroscopy
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434002
[7] Rouffet M E, Wendt M, Goett G, Kozakov R, Schöpp H,
Weltmann K D and Uhrlandt D 2010 Spectroscopic
investigation of the high-current phase of a pulsed GMAW
process J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434003
[8] Tsujimura Y and Tanaka M 2013 Plasma diagnostics in
gas–metal arcs during welding IIW Conf., SG 212, (Denver,
CO 2012) IIW Doc.212-1237-12
[9] Kozakov R, Gött G, Schöpp H, Uhrlandt D, Schnick M,
Hässler M, Füssel U and Rose S 2013 Spatial structure of
the arc in the pulsed GMAW process J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 46 224001
[10] Schnick M, Füssel U, Hertel M, Spille-Kohoff A and
Murphy A B 2010 Metal vapour causes a central minimum
in arc temperature in gas–metal arc welding through
increased radiative emission J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
43 022001
[11] Schnick M, Füssel U, Hertel M, Haessler M, Spille-Kohoff A
and Murphy A B 2010 Modelling of gas–metal arc welding
taking into account metal vapour J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
43 434008
[12] Krivtsun I, Demchenko V, Lesnoi A, Krikent I, Poritsky P,
Mokrov O, Reisgen U, Zabirov A and Pavlyk V 2010
Modelling of electromagnetic processes in system ’welding
arc—evaporating anode’: I. Model of anode region Sci.
Technol. Weld. Joining 15 457–62
[13] Krivtsun I, Demchenko V, Lesnoi A, Krikent I, Poritsky P,
Mokrov O, Reisgen U, Zabirov A and Pavlyk V 2010
Modelling of electromagnetic processes in system ‘welding
arc—evaporating anode’: II. Model of arc column and
anode metal Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 15 463–7
[14] Haidar J 1999 An analysis of heat transfer and fume
production in gas–metal arc welding. III. J. Appl. Phys.
85 3448
[15] Wang F, Hou W K, Hu S J, Kannatey-Asibu E, Schultz W W
and Wang P C 2003 Modelling and analysis of metal
transfer in gas–metal arc welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
36 1143

10
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224003
[16] Fan H G and Kovacevic R 2004 A unified model of transport
phenomena in gas–metal arc welding including electrode,
arc plasma and molten pool J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
37 2531
[17] Hu J and Tsai H L 2007 Heat and mass transfer in gas–metal
arc welding: II. The metal Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
50 808–20
[18] Haidar J 2010 The dynamic effects of metal vapour in
gas–metal arc welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
43 165204
[19] Boselli M, Colombo V, Ghedini E, Gherardi M and Sanibondi
P 2012 Dynamic analysis of droplet transfer in gas–metal
arc welding: modelling and experiments Plasma Sources
Sci. Technol. 21 055015
[20] Xu G, Hu J and Tsai H L 2008 Three-dimensional modeling
of the plasma arc in arc welding J. Appl. Phys.
104 103301
[21] Murphy A B 2011 A self-consistent three-dimensional model
of the arc, electrode and weld pool in gas–metal arc welding
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 44 194009
[22] Hertel M, Füssel U, Jäckel S and Schnick M 2011 A combined
numerical model of the arc and the droplet transfer for the
GMAW-process SG212: The physics of Welding Meeting
at the IIW Annual Assembly 2011 (Chennai, India)
IIW-Doc.212-1209-11
[23] Zacharia T, David S A and Vitek J M 1991 Effect of
evaporation and temperature-dependent material properties
11
M Hertel et al
on weld pool development Metall. Mater. Trans. B
22 233–41
[24] Rose S, Schnick M, Hertel M, Zschetzsche J and Füssel U
2010 Transient simulation of pulsed gas–metal arc welding
(GMAW) processes and experimental validation
Magnetohydrodynamics 46 403–12
[25] Siewert E, Schein J and Forster G 2013 Determination of
enthalpy, temperature, surface tension and geometry of the
material transfer in PGMAW for the system argon-iron J.
Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 224008
[26] Hirt C W and Nichols B D 1981 Volume of fluid (VOF)
method for the dynamics of free boundaries J. Comput.
Phys. 39 201–25
[27] Murphy A B 2001 Thermal plasmas in gas mixtures J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 34 R151
[28] Brackbill J U, Kothe D B and Zemach C 1992 A continuum
method for modeling surface tension J. Comput. Phys.
100 335–54
[29] Hu J and Tsai H L 2007 Heat and mass transfer in gas–metal
arc welding: I. The arc Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
50 833–46
[30] Lowke J J and Tanaka M 2006 ‘LTE-diffusion approximation’
for arc calculations J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
39 3634
[31] Menart J and Malik S 2002 Net emission coefficients for
argon-iron thermal plasmas J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
35 867