0
RESEARCH PAPERS: Heat Transfer in Manufacturing

# Influences of Sign of Surface Tension Coefficient on Turbulent Weld Pool Convection in a Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) Process: A Comparative Study

[+] Author and Article Information
Nilanjan Chakraborty

CFD Laboratory, Engineering Department,  Cambridge University, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1PZ, United Kingdomnc246@eng.cam.ac.uk

Suman Chakraborty1

Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, Indiasuman@mech.iitkgp.ernet.in

1

Corresponding author.

J. Heat Transfer 127(8), 848-862 (Mar 03, 2005) (15 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1928913 History: Received August 03, 2004; Revised March 03, 2005

## Abstract

The effects of positive and negative surface tension coefficients $(∂σsur∕∂T)$ on both laminar and turbulent weld pool convection are numerically studied for a typical gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) process. Three-dimensional turbulent weld pool convection in a pool is simulated using a suitably modified high Reynolds number $k‐ε$ model in order to account for the morphology of an evolving solid-liquid interface. Key effects of the sign of surface tension coefficient $(∂σsur∕∂T)$ on the turbulent transport in a GTAW process are highlighted by comparing the turbulent simulation results with the corresponding ones from a laminar model, keeping all other process parameters unaltered. A scaling analysis is also performed in order to obtain order-of-magnitude estimates of weld pool penetration for both positive and negative surface tension coefficients. The scaling analysis predictions are in good agreement with the numerical results, in an order-of-magnitude sense.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Schematic diagram of a GTAW process

Figure 4

Temperature distribution for the laminar case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=−0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters; temperature labels are in degrees Celsius. The contour label 1500°C represents the melting temperature of the base metal.

Figure 5

Velocity distribution for the laminar case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=−0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal sectional mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters.

Figure 6

Temperature distribution for the turbulent case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters; temperature labels are in degrees Celsius. The contour label 1500°C represents the melting temperature of the base metal.

Figure 7

Velocity distribution for the turbulent case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal sectional mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters.

Figure 8

Temperature distribution for the turbulent case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=−0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters; temperature labels are in degrees Celsius. The contour label 1500°C represents the melting temperature of the base metal.

Figure 9

Velocity distribution for the turbulent case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal sectional mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters.

Figure 10

Distribution of turbulent kinetic energy with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters, and turbulent kinetic energy labels are in m2∕s2.

Figure 11

Distribution of dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters, and turbulent kinetic energy labels are in m2∕s3.

Figure 12

Distribution of turbulent kinetic energy with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=−0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters, and turbulent kinetic energy labels are in m2∕s2.

Figure 13

Distribution of dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=−0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters, and turbulent kinetic energy labels are in m2∕s3.

Figure 2

Temperature distribution for the laminar case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters; temperature labels are in degrees Celsius. The contour label 1500°C represents the melting temperature of the base metal.

Figure 3

Velocity distribution for the laminar case with Uscan=8.89mm∕s, power=3.6kW, η=0.9, and ∂σsur∕∂T=0.0005N∕mK. (a ) Top view, (b ) longitudinal sectional mid plane, and (c ) cross-sectional mid plane. All dimensions are in meters.

## Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections