Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

PAPER You may also like

- Thomson scattering diagnostics of steady
Spatial structure of the arc in a pulsed GMAW state and pulsed welding processes
without and with metal vapor
process M Kühn-Kauffeldt, J-L Marqués and J
Schein

- Influence of metal vapour on arc

To cite this article: R Kozakov et al 2013 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 224001 temperatures in gas–metal arc welding:
convection versus radiation
Anthony B Murphy

- The effects of metal vapour in arc welding

Anthony B Murphy
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 193.191.150.3 on 21/03/2022 at 09:30

IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D: APPLIED PHYSICS
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 (13pp) doi:10.1088/0022-3727/46/22/224001

Spatial structure of the arc in a pulsed

GMAW process
R Kozakov1 , G Gött1 , H Schöpp1 , D Uhrlandt1 , M Schnick2 , M Häßler2 ,
U Füssel2 and S Rose2
1
Leibniz Institute for Plasma Science and Technology, Felix-Hausdorff-Str. 2, 17489 Greifswald,
Germany
2
Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Technische Universität Dresden, Georg-Bähr-Str 3c, 01062
Dresden, Germany
E-mail: kozakov@inp-greifswald.de

Received 30 November 2012, in final form 6 March 2013

Published 16 May 2013
Online at stacks.iop.org/JPhysD/46/224001

Abstract
A pulsed gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process of steel under argon shielding gas in the
globular mode is investigated by measurements and simulation. The analysis is focussed on
the spatial structure of the arc during the current pulse. Therefore, the radial profiles of the
temperature, the metal vapour species and the electric conductivity are determined at different
heights above the workpiece by optical emission spectroscopy (OES). It is shown that under
the presence of metal vapour the temperature minimum occurs at the centre of the arc. This
minimum is preserved at different axial positions up to 1 mm above the workpiece. In
addition, estimations of the electric field in the arc from the measurements are given. All these
results are compared with magneto-hydrodynamic simulations which include the evaporation
of the wire material and the change of the plasma properties due to the metal vapour admixture
in particular. The experimental method and the simulation model are validated by means of the
satisfactory correspondence between the results. Possible reasons for the remaining deviations
and improvements of the methods which should be aspired are discussed.
(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction Earlier models of GMAW process were made in analogy

The gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process is widely used
in industry. The welding wire and part of the workpiece
are melted by the electric arc which is burning in shielding
gas. The material transfer is performed by the droplets
of the welding wire. The pulsed GMAW process is a
modification which enables a one drop per pulse material
transfer. Depending on the current value the process can be
operated either in globular or spraying mode.
Magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the
GMAW process are able to build complex models which
describe the process as a whole including wire, arc and
workpiece. Nevertheless some simplifying assumptions are
usually made in the model which allow one to obtain solid
results with reasonable efforts. The proof of such assumptions
and their influence on the result can be made by comparison
with experimentally determined plasma parameters.
with the models for the tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding and
neglected metal vapour. In works [1, 2] the arc properties were
calculated using a steady-state model. Transient models of
the arc behaviour and droplet transfer were calculated using
MHD-volume of fluid (VoF) models [3–5]. However, in all
these publications the temperature distributions of the arc were
similar to those for TIG arcs and represented temperatures
at the arc axis between 16 000 and 25 000 K. On the other
hand, the results of experimental observations [6, 9] show
certain discrepancy with temperature profiles predicted by
these models. A temperature minimum at the centre of
spraying arcs in argon as well as in argon with small additions
of CO2 was identified [6]. Influence of the metal vapour on
the properties of the welding arc was intensively investigated.
The overview of the current knowledge on this topic can
be found in the review [7] and other papers in the journal’s
issue. In particular, the GMAW process was investigated in

0022-3727/13/224001+13$33.00 1 © 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001
Figure 1. Experimental set-up. M—mirror, SM—spherical mirror.
spraying [8] and globular [9] transfer modes. Also a special
case of the short-arc process was analysed [10, 11]. All
mentioned investigations have shown temperature minimum
in the metal vapour dominated region compared with the
surrounding shielding gas.
In addition, numerical models respecting metal vapour
were performed in order to investigate the cause of central
temperature minimum of GMAW arcs. It seems that the
radiation emission of metal vapour plasma [12–14] and the
convective cooling from the vaporising wire [15] are dominant
effects causing the temperature minimum. Current papers [16,
17] present GMAW models with VoF free surface modelling of
the droplet and MHD arc models with metal vapour. Therein
the vaporization of metal vapour is calculated using different
vaporization models.
Plasma parameters in the arc can be measured in sufficient
detail with the help of spatially resolved optical emission
spectroscopy (OES). This techniques allows one to determine
the temperature along the arc cross-section. Assuming
rotational symmetry of the arc the radial temperature and
particle density profiles are usually obtained. For better
understanding of physical processes inside the arc a 2D profile
of plasma parameters is of major importance. This paper
introduces results of OES measurements on a GMAW process
in globular transfer mode at different axial positions along
the arc. The experimental results are compared with MHD
simulations of the GMAW process.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the
experimental procedure and set-up are described. The results
of the measurements are presented in section 3. The model
used for the simulation is presented in section 4. Main results
of the simulation and experiment are compared and discussed
in section 5. Concluding remarks are summarized in section 6.
2. Experimental setup and evaluation procedure
2.1. Set-up
The experimental set-up is shown in figure 1. A commercially
available welding machine was used for the investigations as
already considered in [9]. The arc from the welding torch
fixed above a movable workpiece is simultaneously observed
2
R Kozakov et al
from the side by two spectrometers (75 cm and 50 cm Acton
Research) and a high-speed camera. By this arrangement the
horizontal cross-section of the arc at some height above the
workpiece was analysed. Different heights of observations
were chosen by simultaneous vertical shift of workpiece and
torch.
Two spectral regions were examined. One of them was
centred at 533 nm with spectral range of approximately 13 nm.
Iron line radiation could be observed in this region with
approximately 35 spectral lines. Another spectral region
was centred at 700 nm with spectral range of approximately
10 nm. Here the argon line 696.54 nm was examined. The
signal of side-on radiance (W nm−1 m−2 sr −1 ) was spectrally
resolved by a diffraction grating (1200 gr mm−1 ). The absolute
intensities of radiation were obtained by comparison with
radiation of a calibrated tungsten ribbon lamp.
The welding process was initiated in argon shielding gas
with mild steel S235 as a 10 mm thick workpiece and welding
wire G3Si1 of 1.2 mm diameter. The welding speed was
chosen to be 30 cm min−1 and wire feed rate of 4 m min−1 .
The welding parameters of the machine were adjusted to
obtain the arc of approximately 7 mm length. The measuring
positions were 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm above the workpiece. The
current values were recorded with an oscilloscope and a Hall
current transducer (LEM). The voltage was measured with a
differential probe.
2.2. Evaluation procedure
The total radiation flux emitted within a spectroscopic line can
be obtained by integration over the wavelength for each side-
on position y yielding the radiance (W m−2 sr −1 ). This can be
performed either by a numerical integration of the measured
data or by a fit procedure. In the latter case the intensity profile
at each side-on position is fitted with the assumed line profile.
In general the line profile is described by a Voigt function,
the convolution of a Gaussian and a Lorentz profile. In the
case of argon the Doppler width of the atomic line 696.54 nm
at a temperature of 20000 K is approximately 0.01 nm. The
measured line width in argon at atmospheric pressure arcs is
in our case of the order of 0.186 nm. Taking into account
the apparatus profile of the order of 0.06 nm it can be stated
that the measured line width is one order of magnitude larger
than Doppler width and is mainly due to the Stark broadening
caused by interaction of a free plasma electron with the electric
dipole induced in the argon atom by a previous interaction with
other plasma electrons. The Stark line broadening is described
by a Lorentz profile, and since this effect is more pronounced
than the Doppler broadening (described by a Gaussian), the
combined effect can be still described by a Lorentz profile:
I 2 1
Iλ = I0 +
2 , (1)
π λ λ−λ0
1+
λ/2
where I0 is the background radiation, λ0 is the line centre,
I is the total line intensity and λ is the full-width at half-
maximum (FWHM). In the case of a Lorentz profile the fit
parameter I (see equation (1)) is the ‘area under the curve’
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

light and h is the Planck constant. Under assumption of local

Emission coefficient [10 W m nm sr ]
-1

thermal equilibrium (LTE) the density Ni is connected to the

40
-1

total density of atoms N0 by

30  
-3

gi Ei
20 Ni = N0 (T ) · exp − , (3)
Z(T ) kT
10
6

where gi is the statistical weight of the excited state, Z(T ) is

0 the partition function, calculated according to Planck–Larkin
Fe 526.954

Fe 532.804
Fe 527.036

40

Fe 537.149
approach [20], Ei is the energy level of the excited state and T

Fe 536.993
Fe 534.102
Fe 532.418
Fe 526.331 Fe 526.655

Fe 528.362

is the temperature. Combining both expressions one obtains

Fe 536.746
30
Fe 533.993

Fe 538.337
Fe 528.179

Mn 537.763
the relation
Fe 530.230

Fe 536.540
Fe 527.337

20
 
Fe 533.266

10
0
528
Figure 2. Example of the abel inverted spectrum of iron on the axis
of the arc. Top row measurement. Bottom row fit result with
individual line profiles shown. Experimental conditions: Ar;
I ≈ 450 A; U ≈ 32 V; vwire = 4 m min−1 . Time instance T2,
observation at 4.1 mm above workpiece.
or the total intensity of atomic transition. Performing this fit
procedure for all side-on positions yields the distribution of the
radiance I (y) for a given atomic line over the y-coordinate.
It should be noted that the Lorentz profile was used during
the fit procedure only for determination of total radiation
emitted within the line profile, or ‘area under curve’. The
additional information on lines widths was discarded since the
accuracy was not sufficient to make statement about real Stark
broadening. The correct procedure should use the Voigt profile
to be able to extract the real Lorentz component of the overall
broadening combined with careful analysis of instrumental
profile influence. If those requirements are fulfilled then
information on broadening of the lines can be used as an
additional tool for estimation of electron density or testing the
theories of broadening mechanisms, like for example in [19].
Under assumption of rotational symmetry of the arc, the
spectral emission coefficient as a function of the radial position
can be reconstructed from the radiance by Abel transformation.
2.2.1. Evaluation by means of Boltzmann plot of Fe lines.
The radiation from the arc core was analysed in the range from
526 to 540 nm. In that region many partially overlapping lines
of atomic iron and some ionic lines are present. The integration
of the radiance within the line profiles was performed by
simultaneous fitting of 19 lines with Lorentz profiles as shown
in figure 2. The separation of overlapping lines was made
possible by this procedure.
The emission coefficient εik of a line at the wavelength λik
is determined by the expression
εik = Ni · Aik ·
where Aik is the corresponding transition probability, Ni is
the density of atoms in the radiating state, c is the speed of
4π εik λik N0 (T ) Ei
= exp − . (4)
hcAik gi Z(T ) kT
530 532 534 536 538 The left-hand side of (4) can be determined experimentally,
Wavelength [nm] the right-hand side depends only on the temperature and the
upper energy level of the transition. Plotting left hand values
for several lines versus their upper energy levels in semi-
logarithmic scale one should obtain the straight line known as
Boltzmann–plot where the slope yields the plasma temperature
and the extrapolated value for Ei = 0 yields the total atom
density N0 . A selection (see table 1) of the fitted lines (typically
10) with low optical depth were included in the Boltzmann–
plot analysis. The estimation of optical depth can be found in
last column of table 1. For the estimation the Lorentzian line
profile with 0.2 nm FWHM was assumed. The optical depth
in the line centre calculated for the effective absorption length
of 1 mm is shown for the 50/50 mixture of Fe/Ar under LTE
conditions. The values for the typical temperature of 9000 K
are given. It is obvious that although not all atomic lines can
be considered as completely optically thin, the optical depth
does not exceed 0.4. The influence of such optical depth has
minor influence on temperature values, since it was determined
by the Boltzmann plot procedure. The influence on the total
density of species lies in some underestimation of real values.
The temperature uncertainty is obtained by the estimation
of covariance matrix for the slope and intercept parameters
of the Boltzmann plot. The relative uncertainty P of each
point in Boltzmann plot is determined from the measurement
uncertainty of emission coefficient and uncertainty of the
transition probability:

   
εik 2 Aik 2
P = + .
εik Aik
These values serve as weights of the individual points in the
Boltzmann plot. The resulting covariance matrix contains
variances of slope (temperature) and intercept (density).
2.2.2. Evaluation by means of single discrete argon line.
Temperature determination by a single line method is based on
the same assumptions as already mentioned for the Boltzmann
hc plot method. Expression (4) is also valid for a single argon
, (2) line. The only difference consists in additional information of
4πλik
the dependence N0 (T ) which is necessary for the temperature
determination. This can be taken from the plasma composition
calculations. In particular, the temperature dependence of the

3
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

Table 1. Characteristic of the iron lines selected for the Boltzmann 600 35
diagnostic method. Data taken from Kurucz spectral database [18].
500 30
Optical
Wavelength Aij Ei Ej depth 25
Nb (nm) (106 s−1 ) (eV) (eV) gi gj 0 l a 400
20

U [V]
1 526.331 5.157 3.2659 5.6211 5 5 0.038

I [A]
300
2 526.655 8.641 2.9982 5.3519 7 9 0.161 T1 T2 T3 T4 15
3 526.954 1.274 0.859 3.2114 11 9 0.376
4 527.036 2.472 1.6080 3.9600 5 3 0.093 200
10
5 527.337 0.528 2.4844 4.8352 1 3 0.006
6 528.179 3.26 3.0387 5.3856 5 7 0.045 100 5
7 528.362 7.997 3.2412 5.5873 7 7 0.086
8 530.230 6.252 3.2832 5.6211 3 5 0.046 0 0
9 532.418 15.04 3.2114 5.5396 9 9 0.223 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 532.804 1.147 0.9147 3.2412 9 7 0.256 t [ms]
11 533.266 0.635 4.1866 6.5111 5 3 0.0009
12 533.993 6.978 3.2659 5.5873 5 7 0.076 Figure 3. Voltage and current profiles and exposure instances for
13 534.102 0.407 1.6080 3.9289 5 5 0.027 the OES measurements.
14 536.540 0.934 3.5735 5.8838 11 9 0.009 same, the emission coefficient. The sum in parentheses in (5)
15 536.748 57.56 4.4156 6.725 7 9 0.186
changes its value for 696 nm argon line from ≈2 × 10−3 K−1
16 536.996 47.05 4.3716 6.680 9 11 0.197
17 537.149 1.046 0.9582 3.2659 7 5 0.163 at 8000 K up to ≈2 × 10−4 K−1 at 14 000 K. Taking 20%
18 538.337 55.95 4.3128 6.6154 11 13 0.302 uncertainty of emission coefficient we obtain the absolute
a
temperature uncertainty from 100 K at 8000 K up to 1000 K
Optical depth in line centre of Lorentz profile with 0.2 nm FWHM. at 14000 K.
Effective absorption length l = 1 mm. Calculated for LTE density
of Fe atoms at 9000 K in mixture 50% Fe + 50% Ar.
3. Experimental results
neutral atom density can be calculated based on simultaneous
The current pulse profile used in the welding process is shown
solution of Saha and quasi-neutrality equations for the pure
in figure 3. The corresponding voltage profile and time
argon at the pressure of 1 bar. Under the assumption that
instances of spectroscopic measurements (labelled T1, T2 T3
the region where the metal vapour plays a remarkable role
and T4) are also shown there. The radial temperature profiles
is restricted to the spatial extent of iron radiation, the rest of
were measured at four short time instances during the high
the arc can be considered as consisting of pure argon. Then the
current phase of the process whose duration is of approximately
right-hand side of expression (4) can be calculated for different
1.5 ms. The four measurements were performed with the delay
temperatures. By comparing the experimentally determined
incremented by 270 µs and the first one placed (T1) just after
left-hand side with the calculated right-hand side the point at
the beginning of the pulse. The four radial measurements in
which both parts coincide yields the plasma temperature.
time were repeated for four different axial positions along the
The uncertainty of temperature comes from error
arc above the workpiece. The welding torch and workpiece
propagation of the measured noise of the radiance Iλ (y). The
holder were shifted simultaneously in 1 mm steps between
error propagation from radiance to the emission coefficient
measurements. This procedure was aimed at obtaining the
depends on the chosen Abel inversion algorithm which results
measurements at heights 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm above the workpiece.
in emission coefficient uncertainty εik . This can be directly
However, the workpiece deformation due to the thermal
correlated with the uncertainty of the excited atoms density
expansion led to the real measurement height which was
Ni , see equation (2). The measured value of Ni depends non-
different from the set value.
linearly on the temperature (3). The temperature uncertainty
Thus, the set of 16 radial temperature and particle density
T can be written as
profiles was obtained. Each of 16 positions was measured
 
dT dNi −1 repeatedly for 25 times. The welding process was not perfectly
T = Ni = Ni . stable and sometimes the droplet detachment in the pulse
dNi dT
previous to measurement did not occur in the right time so
The derivative dNi /dT can be found from (4): that the arc was disturbed by the droplet. To avoid the
  influence of disturbed measurements a high-speed camera
dNi 1 dN0 Ei 1 dZ
= Ni + − was used for monitoring the welding process. Measurements
dT N0 dT kT 2 Z dT with disturbance were discarded but still at least 10 repeated
and finally measurements were available for each of the 16 profiles. An
example of the arc appearance for the second point in time at
 −1
1 dN0 Ei 1 dZ Ni different heights is shown in the high-speed images in figure 4
T = + 2
− . (5) (top row).
N0 dT kT Z dT Ni
The influence of variable measurement height was
The absolute uncertainty in temperature is proportional to the accounted for by the evaluation of the high-speed images. The
relative uncertainty in the excited atom density or, which is the actual height of the measurement was determined for each

4
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001
Figure 4. Examples of high-speed images. Top row—time instance T2 with underlaid measurement position pointed by laser. Bottom row
the real measurement heights for instances T1–T4. Exposure time 5 µs, neutral filter with 5% transmittance.
image corresponding to the recorded spectrum as illustrated
in figure 4 (bottom row). The deviation of the real height for
one measurement set (25 spectra) did not exceed 0.5 mm. A
maximum deviation of 1 mm between the real value and the
set value was observed. The distinction in the following text
is made between the set value of the measurement height and
the actual measurement height.
The images in figure 4 are taken with a high-speed camera
at 20 000 frames per second and exposure time 5 µs. The
neutral filter with transmittance of 5% was used and lens
aperture was almost fully closed. The resulting images show
well developed iron dominated core of the arc. The shielding
gas radiation is barely seen in these images. The reason
for this lies in the relatively small intensity of the argon
spectrum compared with that of iron. Images in figure 13
were taken with the same parameters but the gamma factor was
increased to 1.45. The argon shielding gas radiation becomes
more pronounced after such manipulation. Nevertheless the
absolute instensities of the iron and argon parts of the spectrum
differ by more than one order of magnitude. Due to the limited
dynamic range of the high-speed camera the real extent of the
argon radiation cannot be judged based on these images. One
have two options—either to get the image of iron dominated
core and almost nothing from shielding gas region, or get
overexposed core region and real extension of the shielding gas
region. The first option was chosen in our case. An example
for the mutual position of iron dominated core and shielding
gas can be found from the comparison of the radial dependence
of Ar and Fe line radiances, e.g., given our previous paper [9]
in figure 4. The real extension of shielding gas region can be
rather found in diagrams of radial temperature distribution.
As an example for reproducibility of the measurements the
complete set of the temperature profiles for time T2 at different
heights obtained in the measurements is shown in figure 5. The
welding process is not a perfectly repeatable one which causes
differences in the plasma properties between two sequential
current pulses. This fact is illustrated by the spreading
of the measured profiles. The difference in temperature is
about 1000 K for measurements based on the Boltzmann plot
evaluation for iron and 500 K for single line measurements of
argon except for arc fringes. It should be noted that the method
5
R Kozakov et al
of temperature determination from the argon line is based on
the assumption of pure argon atmosphere. This is definitely
not the case at the centre of the arc where significant metal
vapour amount is present. Therefore, the temperature values
at the centre of the arc determined by this method are omitted
in the following.
The Boltzmann plot evaluation of absolutely calibrated
spectra allows determining the total density of species from
the intercept of linear fit with y-axis in semilogarithmic plot.
The corresponding values of the neutral iron atom densities are
shown in figure 6. The knowledge on both temperature and iron
atom density allows the reconstruction of the relative amount
of metal vapour in the arc as follows. Plasma LTE composition
calculations of Fe–Ar mixture with different amounts of iron
give the set of N0Fe (T ) functions, all of which monotonically
decrease with temperature. Thus, for given experimental value
of T we obtain from calculations the possible range of total Fe
atom density when the mass fraction of iron changes between
0% and 100%. The measured N0 value which lies in this range
identifies uniquely the iron mass fraction which was present
in the moment of measurement. This point indicates that the
evaluation procedure relies heavily on the existence of LTE
when plasma can be characterized by a single temperature only.
In this case the excitation temperature of iron, determined from
Boltzmann plot is equal to the temperature. The possibility to
check the existence of LTE is generally given by the evaluation
of lines broadening. The dominating Stark broadening
depends on the electron temperature and density. Determining
those quantities from line widths information and comparing
them with the excitation temperature enables one to judge on
the existence of LTE. Such procedure was not possible in our
case. It was shown in [8, 21] that under similar experimental
conditions some results, such as, for example, different courses
of electron density and electron temperature profiles, indicate
possible limitations in LTE applicability. Nevertheless the
equality of electron and excitation temperatures was shown
in central regions of the arc column, where our Boltzmann
plot evaluation is also applied.
For each of the four times, the four typical profiles of
temperature and density were selected from the corresponding
sets similar to those shown in figures 5 and 6. The resulting
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

13 13

(a) (b)
12 12

Temperature [kK]
Temperature [kK]

11 11

10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

13 13

(c) (d)
12 12
Temperature [kK]

11 Temperature [kK] 11

10 10

9 9

8 8

7 7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 5. Set of temperature profiles for time instance T2 obtained after evaluation of repeated spectral measurements; (a) set 1 mm (real
average 0.8 mm), (b) 2 mm (1.7 mm), (c) 3 mm (3.4 mm) and (d) 4 mm (4.1 mm) above the workpiece. Results of both Boltzmann plot
evaluation of Iron lines and single line analysis of argon are presented. The results of single line analysis are not valid in the presence of
metal vapour. Temperature values at the arc centre are given by iron line analysis.

16 profiles of temperature and iron mass fraction are shown
in figures 7 and 8. The uncertainty of the temperature
measurements is shown by the error bars on the selected
temperature profiles in figure 7. The uncertainty of the metal
fraction can be roughly estimated to be equal to 50% based on
the data in figure 6.
As can be seen in figure 7, a temperature minimum occurs
in the arc centre where a significant amount of iron can be
found. These results conform to the measurements reported
earlier [6, 9]. The metal vapour constitutes up to 50% of the
gas at the centre of the arc. The data in figure 8 show that
the metal vapour concentration increases with distance from
the workpiece. In the beginning of the high current phase the
metal vapour seems to be distributed uniformly along the axis
of the arc (figure 8(a)). Later in the current pulse the vapour
concentration near the workpiece decreases.
The information on mass fraction of iron and temperature
gives the possibility to determine the radial profiles of the
electric conductivity. The results of the calculations are
shown in figure 9. The data of conductivity dependence
on temperature were taken from [22]. The presence of the
metal vapour reduces the electric conductivity in the arc centre
approximately by 30%. The electric conductivity profiles can
be used for the estimation of the electric field based on the
following consideration. The total electric current flowing
perpendicular to the horizontal cross-section of the arc is
defined by
  R
I= j dA = 2π Ez σ (r)r dr, (6)
S 0
where jz (r) = σ (r)Ez is the current density, R is the arc radius.
Here rotational symmetry and electric field Ez constant over
the arc cross-section is assumed. The integrals on the right-
hand side can be calculated based on data shown in figure 9,
and the electric field is obtained for the given current for the
respective axial position.
The estimations of electric field are summarized
in figure 10. The increase in the electric field with increasing
distance from the workpiece becomes obvious.
4. Numerical simulation
For the numerical simulation of the GMAW arc, we use
the commercial simulation software ANSYS CFX. The used
numerical model focuses on a detailed description of the

6
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

8 8

7 (a) 7 (b)
6 6

NFe [10 m ]
NFe [10 m ]

5 5

-3
-3

4 4

22
22

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]
8 8

7 (c) 7 (d)
6 6
NFe [10 m ]

5 NFe [10 m ] 5
-3

-3

4 4
22

22

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 6. Set of neutral iron density profiles for time instance T2 obtained after evaluation of repeated spectral measurements; (a) set 1 mm
(real average 0.8 mm), (b) 2 mm (1.7 mm), (c) 3 mm (3.4 mm) and (d) 4 mm (4.1 mm) above the workpiece.

physical processes in the arc and neglects the influence of
metal transfer. In the rotationally periodic steady-state model,
we treat the wire electrode and contact tube, the shielding gas
nozzle and the workpiece as solid bodies separated from the
fluid region by fluid–solid interfaces with a fixed geometry,
see figure 11.
In the solid domains for the wire (see the range ABPQN
in figure 11) and contact tube (BCQR), the shielding gas
nozzle (DGFE) and the workpiece (MJKL), we solve only
for the conjugated heat transfer, the electric potential and the
magnetic vector potential. In the fluid domain (remaining part
in figure 11), we solve an MHD equation system. The heat
loss due to radiation processes is treated by a net emission
coefficient model.
The equations for energy, electric potential and magnetic
vector potential are solved in a unified matrix and need no
boundary conditions at the fluid–solid interfaces. The mass
and momentum equations are solved only in the fluid domain,
assuming no slip walls at the fluid–solid interfaces.
The content of metal vapour in the shielding gas is
calculated, using the demixing model of Murphy [22]. In
addition to the convective and diffusive mixing, turbulent
effects are taken into account using the SST turbulence
model [23].
At the fluid–solid interface of the wire, we define an
additional mass flux which includes the formation of metal
vapour. The formulation of the mass flux term is based on an
assumed vaporization profile, shown in figure 11. The integral
value of the mass flux is related to the feeding rate of the wire.
At the ambient regions (GHIJ), we assume a perfect shielding
gas cover. A detailed description of the MHD-equation system
could be found in [14, 24].
In our calculations, we consider a pulsed GMAW process
using argon as the shielding gas. The wire and the workpiece
are assumed to be iron. Due to vaporization effects, the
shielding gas is loaded by iron vapour. The plasma is assumed
to be in LTE. Density, specific heat, thermal and electric
conductivity, and viscosity as well as the combined diffusion
coefficients are taken from the datasets of Murphy for argon–
iron mixtures [22]. The net emission coefficients for argon–
iron mixtures are taken from the datasets of Menart and
Malik [25].
A specific approach is used for the numerical simulation
of the arc at different times in the pulse phase of the
pulsed GMAW in correspondence with the OES measurements
(compare figure 3). At the time points of measurements, the
arc is assumed to be nearly in steady state and the droplet
has not been detached already. The properties of the arc are

7
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

14 14

(a) (b)
Temperature [10 K]

Temperature [10 K]
13 13
3

3
12 12

11 3.79 mm 0.86 mm 11 0.8 mm

1.31 mm
10 10
3.4 mm 1.72 mm
9 3.35 mm 9
4.1 mm
8 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

14 14

(c) (d)
Temperature [10 K]

Temperature [10 K]
13 13
3.4 mm
3

12 3 12

11 11
0.64 mm
10 10 0.7 mm
3.2 mm
9 9 4.4 mm
4.2 mm 2 mm
1.7 mm
8 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 7. Resulting temperature profiles for four time instances and different heights; (a) T1, (b) T2, (c) T3 and (d) T4. The real
measurement heights above the work piece are marked.

mainly influenced by the vaporization rate at the wire, since the
transport of metal vapour with the arc flow and the radiation
are high and therefore cause much smaller time scales as the
vaporization rate changes.
However, the amount of metal vaporized at the wire
electrode can only be estimated in the model used, since the
flow and the heat convection are not solved in droplet and
no self-consisted formulation of vaporization is implemented.
The vaporization rate is the most sensitive unknown in the
model. Based on the finding of earlier papers [26], that
the amount of evaporation affects mainly the diameter and
the shape of the metal vapour arc core, we varied gradually the
metal vaporization rate between 1% and 8% related to the
wire feed rate of 4 m min−1 or 6–48 mg s−1 , respectively.
The resulting arc shapes were compared with high-speed
images and OES measurements. The best match was found
for T1 with 2%, for T2 with 3%, for T3 with 4%, and for T4
with 5% evaporation related to the wire feed rate. Thus the
model indicates that the vaporization rate is increasing during
the pulse.
5. Comparison of experiment and simulation
The comparison of the simulation results and experimental
values are shown in figure 12. The data for temperature,
mass fraction of iron and electric conductivity for two spatial
positions are plotted in each diagram. The arc length of 7 mm
was considered in the simulations corresponding to the average
length in the experiment. The comparison is made for the
middle of the arc—approximately 4 mm and for the position
approximately 1 mm above the workpiece.
Experimental and calculated temperature profiles in
figure 12 show a similar structure—minimum at the centre
and broader wings at the periphery. Differences in the absolute
values reach from 1000 in the arc core (iron vapour dominated)
and 3000 K in the adjacent region (argon dominated) in the
instance T1 and 4000 K in the arc core and 2000 K in the
adjacent region for time instance T4. The experimental
uncertainty in temperature determination (see figure 7) is much
smaller than these discrepancies. The discrepancy in the
arc core can be explained by the different amounts of metal
vapour in experiment and model. The discrepancy in the
adjacent region can be explained by the systematic error in the
measurements which is due to the limited spacial resolution of
the optical system. The temperature profiles determined with
the argon line method cannot resolve the region adjacent to the
arc core and give smeared temperatures with lower amplitude.
Also, the experimental temperature profiles are broader in the
fringes of the arc than the calculated ones, in particular near to
the workpiece. A possible explanation can lie in the deviation

8
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

60 60

(a) (b)
Mass fraction of Iron [%]

Mass fraction of Iron [%]

50 50
4.1 mm
40 40
3.35 mm
30 30

20 20
3.4 mm
1.72 mm 0.8 mm
10
3.79 mm 0.86 mm 10

1.31 mm
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

60 60

(c) (d)
Mass fraction of Iron [%]

Mass fraction of Iron [%]

4.4 mm
50 50
4.2 mm
40 40
3.4 mm 3.2 mm
30 30
2 mm
20 20 0.7 mm
0.64 mm

10 10 1.7 mm

0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 8. Resulting Iron mass fraction profiles for four time instances and different heights; (a) T1, (b) T2, (c) T3 and (d) T4. The real
measurement heights above the work piece are marked.

from the LTE assumption. On the one hand the description of
the plasma with single temperature is then inconsistent. On
the other hand the temperature profiles in the fringes were
obtained with the evaluation of single argon line with the help
of equation (4). This evaluation procedure is underlined with
the LTE calculation of the plasma composition and is known to
lead to overestimations of the temperature [27, 28]. Possible
reasons for deviations in the simulation are discussed later in
this section.
The experimentally defined iron mass fraction is by a
factor of about two lower than the simulation results. The
discrepancy is likely to be caused by the non-self-consistent
description of the metal vapour in the simulation. In addition,
the limited accuracy and reproducibility in the experimental
determination of the iron atom densities (compare values
in figure 6) must be considered. However, a sufficient
qualitative coincidence is obtained—broader profiles with
lower amplitude near the workpiece and narrower profiles with
higher amplitude in the arc centre.
The electric conductivity profiles show similar qualitative
structure. The remaining discrepancies are mostly associated
with the similar deviations in the temperature profiles.
The electric field given in figure 10 determined from
the measurements can be compared with the axial electric
field values on the arc axis from the MHD simulations (also
given in figure 10). A sufficient agreement is obtained. The
values of the conductivity in fringes of the arc are probably
overestimated in the measurements and underestimated in the
simulation which lead to the larger values of axial electric field
in the simulation.
In addition to the spectroscopic measurements, the high
speed images of the arc can also be used to evaluate the
accuracy of the simulation. The simulation model considers
the local net radiation emission within the arc. Hence, the
side-on view of the arc, e.g. the side-on radiance, can be
calculated by integrating the radiation emission in a certain
direction. Assigning colours to the radiation according to
the wavelength—blueish for iron radiation whose visible part
lies presumably in the range 400–550 nm and reddish for
the argon radiation whose visible part lies mostly in the
range 600–800 nm—one obtains images shown in the right
column of figure 13. These images can be compared with
experimental images taken by the high-speed camera (left
column of figure 13). A quite good agreement of the arc
structure is obtained expect for an underestimation of the width
of the argon range in the simulation.
In addition to the non-self-consistent description of the
metal evaporation another incompletion of the simulation

9
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

8 8

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

-1

-1
-1
(a) (b)

-1
3.35 mm
6 6
3

3
4 0.86 mm 4
0.8 mm
1.31 mm
4.1 mm 1.72 mm
2
3.79 mm 2 3.4 mm

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]
8 8
electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

-1

-1
(c) (d)
-1

-1
6 6
3

3
4 4
0.64 mm 0.7 mm

2
4.2 mm 2 mm 2 3.2 mm
3.4 mm
4.4 mm 1.7 mm

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 9. Resulting electric conductivity profiles for four time instances and different heights; (a) T1, (b) T2, (c) T3 and (d) T4. The real
measurement heights above the work piece are marked.

18

16

14
electric field [V/cm]

12

10

6 ( ) T1
4 ( ) T2
( ) T3
2
( ) T4
0 Figure 11. Computational domain of the GMAW arc model [14].
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
axial position [mm]
and its re-absorption in other spatial regions is not included
Figure 10. Comparison of axial electric field determined according in this approach. It is expected by the authors that the
to (6) (open symbols) and simulation result (full symbols). inclusion of an appropriate radiation transport model in the
MHD simulation will lead to broader temperature profiles and
model may be a main reason for remaining deviations between reduce the deviations. This inclusion is planned for future
experimental and simulation results. This concerns the modelling work.
approach of the net emission coefficient to describe the
radiation loss in the arc. The net emission approach considers 6. Conclusion
to some extent not only the local radiation emission but also
the local radiation absorption and enables an overall sufficient The high current phase of a pulsed GMAW process in argon
description of the arc energy balance. However, the transport in globular mode has been investigated. Radial profiles of
effect by radiation emission in one spatial region of the arc temperature, mass fraction of iron and electric conductivity

10
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001 R Kozakov et al

1.0 10

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

-1
16

-1
mass fraction of Iron [%]
0.8 8
14

3
Temperature [kK]

0.6 6
12

10 0.4 4

8 0.2 2

6 0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

1.0 10

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

-1
16

-1
mass fraction of Iron [%] 0.8 8

3
14
Temperature [kK]

0.6 6
12

0.4 4
10

8 0.2 2

6 0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

1.0 10

electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]

-1
16

-1
mass fraction of Iron [%]

0.8 8

3
14
Temperature [kK]

0.6 6
12

0.4 4
10

8 0.2 2

6 0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

1.0 10
electric conductivity [10 Ω m ]
-1

16
-1
mass fraction of Iron [%]

0.8 8
3

14
Temperature [kK]

0.6 6
12

0.4 4
10

8 0.2 2

6 0.0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
radial position [mm] radial position [mm] radial position [mm]

Figure 12. Comparison of simulation results (solid curves) and experimental values (symbols). Left column—temperatures, middle
column—mass fraction of iron and right column—electric conductivity. Time instances from T1 (top) to T4 (bottom). Black curves
represent approximately 1 mm above the workpiece, blue curves represent approximately middle of the arc.

at different heights above the workpiece were determined by to describe the arc at the points in time which has been
optical emission spectroscopy and the analysis of iron and investigated in the measurements.
argon atom lines under the assumption of LTE. Experimental Very similar structures and a sufficiently good quantitative
errors are estimated which are quite low at least in the case agreement in the plasma properties have been obtained in
of the temperature, except for the outer arc fringes. The axial the simulation and in the measurements which is assessed
electric field was also estimated based on the measurement as a general validation of both the simulation model and the
results. A magneto-hydrodynamic model of the arc assuming experimental method. Therefore, the model is well suited to
rotational symmetry, steady-state and LTE and considering study the basic physical mechanisms which lead to the arc
the admixture of iron vapour in argon, the resulting change structure with peculiarities like the strong radiation and the low
of the thermodynamic and transport properties and the net temperature and conductivity in the metal dominated arc core.
emission as well as demixing and turbulence has been adapted The detailed discussion of the arc structure and the underlying

11
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001
Figure 13. Comparison of images of high-speed camera (left
column) and side-on radiation resulting from the model calculations
(right column). For experimental images the exposure time 5 µs and
neutral filter with 5% transmittance was used. The scale is given in
millimeters. From top to bottom—time instances T1 to T4.
balances of energy and momentum by means of more detailed
model results is out of the scope of this paper and will be given
elsewhere [29].
Remaining discrepancies concern the absolute values of
temperature and iron mass fraction as well as the width of the
arc fringes and the values of the arc electric field. Therefore,
additional improvements of the model as well as of the analysis
of spectroscopic measurements are aimed for forthcoming
work. In the case of both methods the assumption of LTE has
to be critically evaluated. It may lead to overestimations of the
temperature in the arc fringes by the measurements and also
overestimations of the arc electric field by the MHD model. In
addition, the improvement of the simulation by the inclusion
of an appropriate radiation transport model including iron as
well as argon radiation may result in broader arc structures
(metal core as well as argon arc) closer to the measurements.
12
R Kozakov et al
Effort should also be spent to improve the description of the
metal evaporation at the melted wire tip which probably will
decrease the present overestimation by the model.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the DFG (grant no. UH 106/3-1,
WE 4416/1-1, FU 307/5-110).
References
[1] Jönsson P G,Westhoff R C and Szekely J 1993 Arc
characteristics in gas-metal arc welding of aluminium using
argon as the shielding gas J. Appl. Phys. 74 5997
[2] Spille-Kohoff A 2005 Numerische simulation des
ChopArc-Schweißprozesses Final Research Report:
ChopArc (Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag)
[3] Haidar J 1998 An analysis of the formation of metal droplets
in arc welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 31 1233
[4] 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
[5] 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
[6] Zielińska S, Musioł K, Dzierże
ga K, Pellerin S, Valensi F,
de Izarra C and Briand F 2007 Plasma Sources Sci. Technol.
16 832–8
[7] Murphy A B 2010 The effects of metal vapour in arc welding
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434001
[8] 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
[9] Rouffet M E, Wendt M, Gött 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
[10] Wilhelm G, Gött G, Schöpp H and Uhrlandt D 2010 Study of
the welding gas influence on a controlled short-arc GMAW
process by optical emission spectroscopy J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 43 434004
[11] Wilhelm G, Kozakov R, Gött G, Schöpp H and Uhrlandt D
2012 Behaviour of the iron vapour core in the arc of a
controlled short-arc GMAW process with different
shielding gases J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45 085202
[12] Schnick M, Füssel U, Häßler M, Hertel M and Spille-Kohoff A
2008 Effects of metal vapor in GMA welding—numerical
investigations in diffusion effects of metal vapor and its
influences on arc behavior Proc. 8th Int. Symp. of the
Japanese Welding Society and IIW Intermediate Meeting
(Kyoto, Japan, 2008)
[13] 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
[14] Schnick M, Füssel U, Hertel M, Häßler 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
[15] Haidar J 2010 The dynamic effects of metal vapour in gas
metal arc welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 165204
[16] Hertel M, Spille-Kohoff A, Füssel U, Schnick M 2013
Numerical simulation of droplet detachment in pulsed
gas–metal arc welding including the influence of metal
vapour J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 224003
[17] Boselli M, Colombo V, Ghedini E, Gherardi M and
Sanibondi P 2012 Dynamic analysis of droplet transfer in
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 (2013) 224001
gas–metal arc welding: modelling and experiments Plasma
Sources Sci. Technol. 21 055015
[18] Kurucz R L and Bell B 1995 Atomic Line Data Kurucz
CD-ROM No 23 (Cambridge, MA: Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory) www.cfa.harvard.edu/amp/
ampdata/kurucz23/sekur.html
[19] Zielinska S, Pellerin S, Dzierzega K, Valensi F, Musiol K and
Briand F 2010 Measurement of atomic Stark parameters of
many MnI and Fe I spectral lines using GMAW process
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434005
[20] Ebeling W, Kraeft W-D and Kremp D 1976 Theory of Bound
States and Ionization Equilibrium in Plasmas and Solids
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag)
[21] Valensi F, Pellerin S, Boutaghane A, Dzierzega K, Pellerin N
and Briand F 2011 LTE Experimental validation in a gas
metal arc welding plasma column Contrib. Plasma Phys.
51 293–6
[22] Murphy A B 2001 Thermal plasmas in gas mixtures J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 34 R151
[23] Menter F R 1994 Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications AIAA J. 32 1598–605
13
R Kozakov et al
[24] Hertel M, Schnick M, Füssel U, Gorchakov S A and
Uhrlandt D 2010 Numerical simulation of GMAW
processes including effects of metal vapour and sheath
mechanisms at the electrodes Magnetohydrodynamics
46 363–370
[25] Menart J and Malik S 2002 Net emission coefficients for
argon-iron thermal plasmas J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
35 867–74
[26] Schnick M, Füssel U and Spille-Kohoff A 2010 Numerical
investigations of the influence of design parameters, gas
composition and electric current in plasma arc welding
(PAW) Welding World 54 R87–96
[27] Farmer A J D and Haddad G N 1988 Rayleigh scattering
measurements in a free-burning argon arc J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 21 426
[28] Cram L E, Poladian L and Roumeliotis G 1988 Departure
from equilibrium in a free-burning argon arc J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 21 418
[29] Schnick M, Hertel M, Fuessel U and Uhrlandt D 2013
Energy balance in MIG arcs. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
46 224002