Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

LETTER You may also like

- Investigation of the bilayer region of metal
Mixing of multiple metal vapours into an arc vapor in a helium tungsten inert gas arc
plasma on stainless steel by imaging
plasma in gas tungsten arc welding of stainless spectroscopy
Keigo Tanaka, Masaya Shigeta, Manabu
Tanaka et al.
steel
- Plasma–weld pool interaction in tungsten
inert-gas configuration
To cite this article: Hunkwan Park et al 2017 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 43LT03 J Mougenot, J-J Gonzalez, P Freton et al.

- Numerical study of the effects and

transport mechanisms of iron vapour in
tungsten inert-gas welding in argon
Junting Xiang, Hunkwan Park, Keigo
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Tanaka et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 134.58.253.30 on 24/03/2022 at 08:05

 Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03 (7pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aa8b06

Letter

Mixing of multiple metal vapours into an

arc plasma in gas tungsten arc welding
of stainless steel
Hunkwan Park1 , Marcus Trautmann1,2, Keigo Tanaka3, Manabu Tanaka3
and Anthony B Murphy1
1
CSIRO Manufacturing, PO Box 218, Lindfield, New South Wales 2070, Australia
2
Institute of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Dresden University of Technology,
George-Bahr-Str. 3c, D-01069 Dresden, Germany
3
Joining and Welding Research Institute, Osaka University, 11-1 Mihogaoka, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047,
Japan

E-mail: hunkwan.park@csiro.au and tony.murphy@csiro.au

Received 22 July 2017, revised 4 September 2017

Accepted for publication 7 September 2017
Published 3 October 2017

Abstract
A computational model of the mixing of multiple metal vapours, formed by vaporization of
the surface of an alloy workpiece, into the thermal arc plasma in gas tungsten arc welding
(GTAW) is presented. The model incorporates the combined diffusion coefficient method
extended to allow treatment of three gases, and is applied to treat the transport of both
chromium and iron vapour in the helium arc plasma. In contrast to previous models of
GTAW, which predict that metal vapours are swept away to the edge of the arc by the plasma
flow, it is found that the metal vapours penetrate strongly into the arc plasma, reaching the
cathode region. The predicted results are consistent with published measurements of the
intensity of atomic line radiation from the metal vapours. The concentration of chromium
vapour is predicted to be higher than that of iron vapour due to its larger vaporization rate.
An accumulation of chromium vapour is predicted to occur on the cathode at about 1.5 mm
from the cathode tip, in agreement with published measurements. The arc temperature is
predicted to be strongly reduced due to the strong radiative emission from the metal vapours.
The driving forces causing the diffusion of metal vapours into the helium arc are examined,
and it is found that diffusion due to the applied electric field (cataphoresis) is dominant. This
is explained in terms of large ionization energies and the small mass of helium compared to
those of the metal vapours.

Keywords: gas tungsten arc welding, computational modelling, multiple metal vapours,
combined diffusion coefficient method, cataphoresis

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction During the GTAW process, an arc is formed between a tung-

sten cathode and an anode workpiece in a shielding gas at
Gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) is an important thermal atmospheric pressure, usually argon, helium or a helium–
plasma application and is widely used in industry, particularly argon mixture, transferring a strong heat flux to the workpiece.
for welding of stainless steel, aluminium alloys and titanium. Metal vapour is produced by evaporation from the molten pool

1361-6463/17/43LT03+7$33.00 1 © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03

formed on the workpiece, and its influence has been found to

be important in GTAW and other types of arc welding such
as gas metal arc welding (GMAW) [1, 2]. Mixing of metal
vapour into an arc plasma has two main effects: a decreased
temperature throughout the arc due to increased radiative
emission, and a lower current density near the workpiece due
to broadening of the conducting region because of the lower
ionization energy of metal atoms [2].
Several modelling and experimental studies have been per-
formed to understand mixing and demixing of metal vapour
and shielding gases [3–10]. To model diffusion of metal
vapour, several approaches have been used [2, 11]. The effec-
tive approach is the combined diffusion coefficient method,
which is equivalent to a full multicomponent diffusion treat-
ment for mixtures of homonuclear non-reacting gases, such as
a metal vapour and argon or helium, if local chemical equi-
librium can be assumed. Further, the method allows diffusion
due to different driving forces, such as gradients in composi-
tion, temperature and pressure, and applied electric fields, to
be taken into account [12, 13]. It has been successfully applied
to modelling diffusion of iron [3–5] and aluminium [6]
vapours in argon GMAW arcs. However, only less accurate
approximations, which do not allow all the driving forces for Figure 1. Schematic of the computational domain of stationary gas
diffusion to be considered, have been applied to GTAW arcs. tungsten arc welding.
For example, the binary diffusion coefficient approx­imation
Tanaka and Tsujimura [19] provided strong experimental
was used to model metal vapour in GTAW arcs by Zhao et al
evidence that the different metal vapours produced in weld-
[7] and Gonzalez et al [8]. This approximation is very sim-
ing of stainless steel have different distributions in the arc.
ple, but is not accurate at higher temperatures because it the
They investigated the transport of metal vapours in a station-
neglects the influences of dissociation and ionization. The vis-
ary helium GTAW arc by measuring the intensity of atomic
cosity approximation, which is more accurate, but does not
line emission from helium, chromium, manganese and iron.
allow diffusion driven by applied electric fields to be treated,
They found chromium and manganese vapours were carried
has been applied by several authors; for example by Lago et al
upwards from the workpiece through the arc column to the
[9] and Tanaka et al [10] in modelling the transport of metal
tungsten cathode surface. However, the results suggested that
vapour in GTAW arcs.
iron vapour was mainly carried away radially towards the edge
A further problem is that previous models have only
of the arc. They tentatively explained this by postulating that a
treated a mixture of two different gases, such as mixing of a
recirculating flow in the arc led to the upward transport of the
single metal vapour into a shielding gas, or demixing of two
chromium and manganese vapours. However, such recirculat-
gases in the shielding gas in the arc plasma. However, alloys
ing flows have not been predicted in arc models.
such as stainless steels, which are widely used in arc weld-
In this letter, we apply the combined diffusion coefficient
ing, contain several chemical elements, and multiple metal
method, extended to a mixture of three gases, to the diffu-
vapours are formed from their surface during the welding
sion of iron and chromium vapour formed by vaporization of
process. Ideally, the transport of multiple metal vapours
stainless steel in a stationary GTAW arc in helium. We com-
should be treated because this influences the thermophysi-
pare the predictions with the experimental results of Tanaka
cal properties of the plasma and therefore the distribution
and Tsujimura [19], and show that the measured differences
of temperature, current density, and flow velocity of the arc,
in transport of chromium and iron vapours are in fact due to
and the transfer of heat to the workpiece. Yamamoto et al
differences in the diffusive transport of the vapours, rather
[14] investigated the production and diffusion of differ-
than recirculation. We investigate the relative importance of
ent metal vapours from stainless steel in GTAW, but only
the different diffusive driving forces, and show that the strong
a single metal was considered in each calculation. In other
penetration of metal vapour in the arc column has a major
cases in which mixtures of three gases were modelled, it was
influence on the arc temperature.
assumed that two of the three gases were uniformly mixed
[15, 16]. However, this approach is not accurate in a plasma,
because demixing of the different gases takes place due to 2. Model description
the occurrence of dissociation and ionization [17]. Recently,
Zhang et al [18] extended the combined diffusion coefficient A schematic of the computational model is shown in figure 1.
method to a mixture of three ionized gases, making it possi- The geometry is 2D axisymmetric, and the computational
ble to treat the simultaneous diffusion of two metal vapours domain includes the arc plasma, tungsten cathode and anode
in an arc self-consistently. workpiece, using the methods presented by Tanaka et al [20].

2
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03
Table 1. Composition of SUS 304 used in calculation, and
properties of the component elements.
Fe Cr
Composition (mol %) 79.0 21.0
Boiling temperature (K) 3135 2755
Enthalpy of vaporization (kJ mol−1) 349.6 344.3
The steady-state model solves the equations of mass conserva-
tion, momentum conservation, energy conservation, and cur­
rent continuity. The transport of metal vapours by diffusion is
treated using the combined diffusion coefficient method [11,
13], including the recent extension to three gases by Zhang
et al [18], so that mixing of both iron and chromium vapours
with helium shielding gas can be considered. Two additional
equations for the conservation of mass fraction of the iron and
chromium vapours are required:
 
 ∇ · ρvYFe = −∇ · JFe + SFe (1)
 
 ∇ · ρvYCr = −∇ · JCr + SCr (2)
where ρ is the mass density, v is the mass-average velocity, YI
is the mass fraction, JI is the mass flux relative to the mass-
average velocity and SI is the source term related to vaporiza-
tion of metal at the surface of the workpiece; subscripts Fe
and Cr represent all species (neutral and singly- and multiply-
ionized atoms) in the iron and chromium vapour respectively.
The mass fraction of helium is determined after solving the
two equations for the mass fraction for iron and chromium
vapour using YHe = 1 − YFe + YCr . The mass flux of iron or
chromium vapour is calculated using the combined diffusion
coefficient method, and is given by
n2  
JFe = mFe mCr mHe DxFeCr ∇xCr + DxFeHe ∇xHe
ρ model [30], but was chosen to give comparable metal vapour
+ DPFe ∇ ln P + DEFe E − DTFe ∇ ln T (3)
 urements [19] with which the results are compared.
n2  
JCr = mFe mCr mHe DxCrFe ∇xFe + DxCrHe ∇xHe
ρ
+ DPCr ∇ ln P + DECr E − DTCr ∇ ln T (4)
 experimental results presented by Tanaka and Tsujimura [19].
where n is the number density, mI is the average masses of
the heavy species, xI is the sum of the mole fractions of the
species, P is the arc pressure, E is the applied electric field,
T is the arc temperature, DxIJ is the combined ordinary dif-
fusion coefficient, describing diffusion due to mole fraction
gradients, DPI is the combined pressure diffusion coefficient,
describing diffusion due to pressure gradients, DEI is the com-
bined electric field diffusion coefficient, describing diffusion
due to externally-applied electric fields and DTI is the com-
bined temperature diffusion coefficient, describing diffusion
due to temperature gradients. The source terms in (1) and
(2) are calculated using the Hertz–Knudsen–Langmuir equa-
tion to take into account evaporation and condensation of iron
and chromium vapours [5]. The required vapour pressures of
3
iron and chromium were obtained using the composition of
SUS 304 given in [19], and the boiling temperatures and latent
heats of vaporization given in [21]. These data are given in
table 1. The presence of minority elements in SUS 304, in
particular nickel and manganese, is neglected.
The model assumes the plasma is in local thermodynamic
equilibrium (LTE), and thermodynamic and transport proper-
ties were calculated using the methods presented by Murphy
[2]. The net radiative emission coefficients of iron vapour
were taken from Menart and Malik [22], and those of helium
were obtained from the work of Cressault et al [23], and those
of chromium vapour were obtained using the method of Cram
[24]; a 1 mm absorption length was used, and the values for
the gas mixtures were calculated using a mole-fraction aver-
age, as recommended by Gleizes et al [25].
The heat transfer between the arc plasma and the tung-
sten cathode and anode workpiece was calculated, taking
into account thermionic emission from the cathode, using the
method of Tanaka et al [20]. It was assumed that the weld-
pool surface remained flat, but flow in the weld pool was cal-
culated. A negative value of ∂γ/∂T , where γ is the surface
tension, was chosen, as is appropriate for low-sulfur stainless
steel, in treating the surface tension gradient (Marangoni)
force [10]. The thermophysical properties of tungsten were
taken from [20], and those of stainless steel (SUS 304) proper-
ties were obtained from [26, 27].
For simplification of the sheath region, the mesh size for
the anode region is chosen as 0.1 mm and the mesh size for
the cathode region is chosen as 0.05 mm [28, 29]. The temper­
ature of all external boundaries is set to 300 K, including the
workpiece due to the water cooling. The inflow rate of helium
shielding gas is 30 l min−1. Also, the metal vapours are not
allowed to enter through the computational domain. The max-
imum surface temperature of the workpiece is set to 2500 K;
this is slightly lower than the results of a time-dependent
concentrations between the steady-state model and the meas-
3. Results and discussion
We compare the predictions of our computational model with
Both calculations and measurements used an arc current of
150 A, a lanthanated tungsten cathode of diameter 3.2 mm
with 60° angle tip, a SUS 304 stainless steel workpiece and
an initial arc length of 3 mm. Note that in the experiment
there is some thermal expansion of the electrodes leading to a
decrease in arc length; this is neglected in the model.
Figure 2 shows images of Cr I, Fe I and He I line radiation
15 s after ignition of the arc, and predicted mole fraction dis-
tributions of chromium and iron vapours and helium shielding
gas. In interpreting the images of the line radiation, it should
be noted that (a) the lines that are measured (Cr I: 520.8 nm,
Fe I: 538.3 nm; He I: 587.6 nm) are of different strengths, with
the Fe I line weaker than the other two, (b) the metal vapours
ionize at much lower temperatures than helium, so that the
radiant intensities of the metal lines are peaked at much lower
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03
Figure 2. Comparison of the of distribution of atomic line radiation
(left) [19] and predicted mole fraction (right) for (a) chromium,
(b) iron and (c) helium.
temperatures (around 7000 K for Cr I, 8000 K for Fe I and 23
000 K for He I) [19], and (c) the radiative emission is imaged
along lines through the plasma, and no Abel inversion has
been performed. For these reasons, the intensity of radiation
cannot be directly compared with the calculated metal vapour
distributions. It is nevertheless instructive, after taking into
account these factors, to consider the correlations between the
measured and calculated results.
The measured intensity of Cr I radiation is strongest adja-
cent to the anode and the cathode (figure 2(a)). A particular
feature is that the intensity remains strong in a region extend-
ing radially from the cathode, about 1 to 2 mm above the cath-
ode tip. In contrast, the measured intensity of Fe I radiation
is only high near the centre of the anode and near the cath-
ode tip (figure 2(b)). The different distributions of Cr and Fe
close to the cathode were confirmed by elemental mapping
of the tungsten electrode after welding using field-emission
4
scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) [19]. A large
amount of chromium was observed on the cathode surface at
distances 1.8 mm and greater from the tungsten tip; however,
iron was not detected anywhere on the cathode. Note that
the temper­ature of the tungsten tip is greater than the boiling
point of iron and chromium, so it is not expected that metals
will remain on the cathode surface at distances within about
1.8 mm from the tip.
The predictions of the model show similar features. Close
to the anode, the concentration of chromium vapour is higher
than that of iron vapour, and the radial extent at any given
mole fraction is larger. This is a consequence of the higher
vaporization rate of chromium (2.63 mg s−1 compared to
1.26 mg s−1 for iron), which is due to the lower boiling point
and latent heat of vaporization of chromium, which lead to a
higher vapour pressure above the molten pool.
Near the cathode, a high concentration of chromium vapour
occurs about 1.5 mm above the cathode tip, and a region of
high concentration extends radially to about 2 mm. In con-
trast, the iron vapour is strongly concentrated directly below
the cathode tip. This is consistent with the measured Cr I and
Fe I radiation intensities show in figures 2(a) and (b), and also
the FE-SEM measurements discussed above.
Figure 2(c) shows a comparison of the intensity of He I line
radiation and the calculated mole fraction distribution. The
helium mole fraction is predicted to decrease in regions of
high metal vapour concentration, but remains above 0.9 eve-
rywhere. However, the intensity of the He I emission is very
weak. This can be explained by the high excitation energy of
He I, in combination with the relatively low temperature in
the arc. As noted above, the radiant intensity of the He I line
peaks at about 23 000 K. Figure 3(a) shows that the maximum
temper­ature is predicted to be only 13 300 K; at this temper­
ature, the He I emission is very weak.
The predicted maximum arc temperature is inconsistent
with published modelling results for GTAW arcs in helium
or Arcal.37 (70% helium and 30% argon) that consider the
influence of metal vapour. These papers predicted maximum
temperatures between 19 000 K and 22 000 K. In these models,
the metal vapour is predicted to be swept away radially by the
strong convective flow in the arc, which is axially downwards
near the cathode and then radially outwards close to the work-
piece, as shown by the streamlines in figure 3. This means the
metal vapour is predicted to remain close to the workpiece,
with no penetration into the main arc column [10, 31–33]. In
contrast, our calculations and the experimental measurements
presented in figure 2 demonstrate that iron and chromium
vapour are transported upwards into the arc column, as well
as radially outwards. This penetration of the metal vapour into
the arc column leads to a strong decrease in arc temperature
due to the cooling associated with the strong radiative emis-
sion from metal vapours.
To understand the reasons for the transport of metal vapour
into the arc column, we investigated the relative importance
of the different combined diffusion coefficients in determin-
ing the diffusive mixing of metal vapours with the helium
arcs. Figures 3(a)–(c) respectively show the temperature and
mole fraction of iron vapour calculated taking into account
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03
Figure 3. Distribution of temperature (left) and iron vapour mole
fraction, streamlines and weld pool shape (right) for calculation
(a) including all combined diffusion coefficients, (b) excluding
diffusion due to temperature gradient and (c) excluding diffusion
due to temperature gradient and applied electric field.
all combined diffusion coefficient terms ( DxIJ , DPI , DEI , DTI ),
excluding the temperature gradient diffusion term ( DTI ), and
excluding both electric field and temperature gradient diffusion
terms ( DEI and DTI ). Note that the pressure gradient diffusion
term ( DPI ) is negligible in welding arcs due to the very small
5
Figure 4. Combined electric field diffusion coefficients in a
mixture of 10% iron, 10% chromium and 80% helium by mass at
atmospheric pressure.
pressure gradients [2, 3]. The temperatures obtained includ-
ing all diffusion effects and excluding DTI are very similar.
The iron vapour mole fraction near the cathode tip is slightly
decreased, by about 0.01, when DTI is neglected. When, how-
ever, both DEI and DTI are neglected, the iron vapour produced
from the centre of the anode is swept away radially and does
not penetrate upwards, consistent with previously-published
results. The iron vapour in this case does not influence the
temperature of the arc column, which reaches approximately
21 800 K, also consistent with previously-published results.
Including the combined electric field diffusion coefficient
E
DI , and to a lesser extent the combined temperature diffusion
coefficient DTI , significantly influences the metal vapour dif-
fusion. Even though, the direction of the flow streamlines is
downward and outward, the metal vapours are able to reach the
cathode region by diffusion. Diffusion due to the applied elec-
tric field, known as cataphoresis, occurs when different atomic
species present have different ionization energies, and can be
stronger when there is a large atomic mass difference between
the species [34]. It has been shown to influence the diffusion
in argon–helium and argon–hydrogen GTAW arcs [34] and
of iron vapour in argon GMAW arcs. Because of the large
differences in ionization energy and atomic mass of helium
and metals such as iron and chromium, the strong influence
of cataphoresis is expected. Figure 4 shows combined elec-
tric field diffusion coefficients for helium, iron and chromium.
They are greatest in the temperature range for which only the
metal vapours are ionized, being zero or close to zero up to
about 4000 K, at which the metals begin to ionize, and then
large up to about 17 000 K, at which helium begins to ionize.
The differences between the distributions of chromium
and iron vapours in the arc are not fully understood. Possible
reasons include their different distributions near the work-
piece, due to the higher vapour pressure of chromium at lower
temper­atures, and also the different combined electric field
diffusion coefficients at low temperature (figure 4), due to
the lower ionization energy of chromium. Our initial invest­
igations suggest that the higher vapour pressure of chromium
is not the dominant factor.
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03
The effect of the metal vapour has previously been consid-
ered to be relatively weak in GTAW due to low vaporization
rate, unlike the dominant effect of metal vapour on the arc
in GMAW [2]. In the case of the argon shielding gas, little
metal vapour is formed (less than 1 mol%) from the surface of
the workpiece. Metal vapour has an influence near the anode
surface, but experiments and modelling both show that the
upper region of arc plasma is not affected by metal vapour
[35–37]. However, for helium shielding gas, the vaporization
of the workpiece is increased, since the arc is constricted due
to helium’s high specific heat and low electrical conductiv-
ity at low temperature [38]. Further, cataphoresis is much
stronger for helium arcs, since the differences in ionization
energy and mass between helium and metals is much larger
than those between argon and metals. Therefore, we expect
that, even taking into account cataphoresis, the influence of
metal vapour on argon GTAW arcs will remain small.
4. Conclusions
We have used the combined diffusion coefficient method,
extended to a mixture of three gases, to treat diffusion of iron
and chromium vapours in helium shielding gas in GTAW of
stainless steel. In contrast with the predictions of previous mod-
els, we show that the metal vapours produced from the anode
workpiece are not fully swept away radially, but diffuse through
the arc column to the surface of the cathode. This is consis-
tent with published emission spectroscopy measurements.
Further, differences in the predicted distributions of chromium
and iron vapours explain the observed presence of chromium
and the absence of iron on the tungsten cathode. The predicted
arc temper­ature is much lower than that obtained in previous
models, due to strong radiation from the chromium and iron
vapours in the arc column. Cataphoresis, or diffusion due to the
applied electric field, is found to be the main mechanism for
penetration of the metal vapours into the arc column; this has
been neglected in previous models of GTAW. Cataphoresis is
expected to be less important for argon shielding gas, since it is
strongest when there are large differences in the ionization ener-
gies and masses of the gases. The results obtained shows that
the extended combined diffusion coefficient method has the
capability to capture the mixing and demixing of three gases,
such as two different metal vapours in an arc plasma.
Acknowledgments
One of the authors (ABM) gratefully acknowledges support
from the JWRI International Joint Research Collaborator
program at the Joint Usage/Research Center on Joining and
Welding, Osaka University. The authors also thank Drs John
J Lowke and Eugene Tam of CSIRO for helpful discussions.
ORCID iDs
Hunkwan Park https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9824-6089
Anthony B Murphy https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2820-2304
6
References
[1] Murphy A B 2015 A perspective on arc welding research:
the importance of the arc, unresolved questions and future
directions Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 35 471–89
[2] Murphy A B 2010 The effects of metal vapour in arc welding
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434001
[3] 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 22001
[4] Schnick M, Fuessel 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
[5] Hertel M, Spille-Kohoff A, Fussel U and 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
[6] Murphy A B 2013 Influence of metal vapour on arc
temperatures in gas–metal arc welding: convection versus
radiation J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 224004
[7] Zhao G Y, Dassanayake M and Etemadi K 1990 Numerical
simulation of a free-burning argon arc with copper
evaporation from the anode Plasma Chem. Plasma Process.
10 87–98
[8] Gonzalez J J, Gleizes A, Proulx P and Boulos M 1993
Mathematical modeling of a free-burning arc in the
presence of metal vapor J. Appl. Phys. 74 3065–70
[9] Lago F, Gonzalez J J, Freton P and Gleizes A 2004 A
numerical modelling of an electric arc and its interaction
with the anode: part I. The two-dimensional model J. Phys.
D: Appl. Phys. 37 883–97
[10] Tanaka M, Yamamoto K, Tashiro S, Nakata K, Yamamoto E,
Yamazaki K, Suzuki K, Murphy A B and Lowke J J 2010
Time-dependent calculations of molten pool formation
and thermal plasma with metal vapour in gas tungsten arc
welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434009
[11] Murphy A B 1996 A comparison of treatments of diffusion in
thermal plasmas J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 29 1922–32
[12] Murphy A 1993 Diffusion in equilibrium mixtures of ionized
gases Phys. Rev. E 48 3594–603
[13] Murphy A B 2014 Calculation and application of combined
diffusion coefficients in thermal plasmas Sci. Rep. 4 4304
[14] Yamamoto K, Tanaka M, Tashiro S, Nakata K, Yamamoto E,
Yamazaki K, Suzuki K, Murphy A B and Lowke J J 2009
Numerical simulation of diffusion of multiple metal
vapours in a TIG arc plasma for welding of stainless steel
Weld. World 53 R166–70
[15] Park H, Mudra M, Trautmann M and Murphy A B 2017 A
coupled chemical kinetic and nucleation model of fume
formation in metal–inert-gas/metal–active-gas welding
Plasma Chem. Plasma Process. 37 805–23
[16] Ogino Y, Hirata Y and Murphy A B 2016 Numerical
simulation of GMAW process using Ar and an Ar–CO2 gas
mixture Weld. World 60 345–53
[17] Murphy A B 1997 Demixing in free-burning arcs Phys. Rev. E
55 7473–94
[18] Zhang X N, Murphy A B, Li H P and Xia W D 2014
Combined diffusion coefficients for a mixture of three
ionized gases Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 23 65044
[19] Tanaka M and Tsujimura Y 2012 Visualization of metal
vapor behavior in TIG welding Quart. J. Jpn. Weld. Soc.
30 164–70
[20] Tanaka M, Terasaki H, Ushio M and Lowke J J 2002 A
unified numerical modeling of stationary tungsten-inert-gas
welding process Metall. Mater. Trans. A 33 2043–52
J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50 (2017) 43LT03
[21] Zhang Y, Evans J R G and Yang S 2011 Corrected values for
boiling points and enthalpies of vaporization of elements in
handbooks J. Chem. Eng. Data 56 328–37
[22] Menart J and Malik S 2002 Net emission coefficients for argon-
iron thermal plasmas J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 35 867–74
[23] Cressault Y, Rouffet M E, Gleizes A and Meillot E 2010 Net
emission of Ar–H2–He thermal plasmas at atmospheric
pressure J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 335204
[24] Cram L E 1985 Statistical evaluation of radiative power losses
from thermal plasmas due to spectral lines J. Phys. D: Appl.
Phys. 18 401–11
[25] Gleizes A, Cressault Y and Teulet P 2010 Mixing rules for
thermal plasma properties in mixtures of argon, air and
metallic vapours Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 19 55013
[26] Traidia A, Roger F and Guyot E 2010 Optimal parameters
for pulsed gas tungsten arc welding in partially and fully
penetrated weld pools Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 1197–208
[27] Kim W-H and Na S-J 1998 Heat and fluid flow in pulsed
current GTA weld pool Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
41 3213–27
[28] Lowke J J and Tanaka M 2006 ‘LTE-diffusion approximation’
for arc calculations J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 39 3634–43
[29] Lohse M, Siewert E, Hertel M, Füssel U and Rose S 2015
Modelling of the cathode sheath region in TIG welding
Weld. World 59 705–11
[30] Yamamoto K, Tanaka M, Tashiro S, Nakata K, Yamazaki K,
Yamamoto E, Suzuki K and Murphy A B 2008 Metal
vapour behaviour in thermal plasma of gas tungsten arcs
during welding Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 13 566–72
[31] Yamamoto K, Tanaka M, Tashiro S, Nakata K and
Murphy A B 2009 Metal vapor behavior in GTA welding
of a stainless steel considering the marangoni effect IEEJ
Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 4 497–503
[32] Tashiro S, Zeniya T, Yamamoto K, Tanaka M, Nakata K,
Murphy A B, Yamamoto E, Yamazaki K and Suzuki K 2010
Numerical analysis of fume formation mechanism in arc
welding J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43 434012
[33] Mougenot J, Gonzalez J J, Freton P and Cressault Y 2013
Argon and Arcal.37 plasma characteristics in a TIG
configuration J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 495203
[34] Murphy A B 1998 Cataphoresis in electric arcs J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 31 3383–90
[35] Etemadi K and Pfender E 1985 Impact of anode evaporation
on the anode region of a high-intensity argon arc Plasma
Chem. Plasma Process. 5 175–82
[36] Gonzalez J J, Bouaziz M, Razafinimanana M and Gleizes A
1997 The influence of iron vapour on an argon transferred
arc Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 6 20–8
[37] Mougenot J, Gonzalez J-J, Freton P and Masquère M 2013
Plasma–weld pool interaction in tungsten inert-gas
configuration J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 46 135206
[38] Tanaka M and Lowke J J 2007 Predictions of weld pool
profiles using plasma physics J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.
40 R1–23