ORI GI NAL

Correct modeling for gaussian distributed heat source

on a nite thin rod
Nab Raj Roshyara
Received: 23 November 2008 / Accepted: 12 May 2009 / Published online: 9 June 2009
Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract One of the main problems which arise during
the computation of welding processes is the development
of a proper mathematical model for the distribution of heat
Power Density of a moving heat source. Though there has
been an extensive research done following Pavelic who had
proposed a formula of a Circular Source of Heat (see
Fassani (J Brazilian Soc Mech Sci 25:302305, 2003) in
1969 for the rst time, no one has yet been able to give a
crucial scientic idea for determining the heat source
parameters of Gaussian distributed spatial heat source. Due
to lack of clear mathematical modeling of Gaussian dis-
tributed heat Power Density, an accurate formula needs to
be developed. In this paper, I have proposed a completely
new idea to dene Gaussian distributed spatial heat source
for the one dimensional case. A simple and relevant
method has been adopted to elucidate the new idea.
1 Introduction
Let us consider a long thin rod of some heat conducting
material, which is of length L and whose surface and lateral
sides are perfectly insulated so that there is no loss or gain
of heat through the surface. Moreover, if initial temperature
of the rod is given by a function f(x), then temperature
distribution T(x, t) can be considered as the solution of one
dimensional initial value problem
qc
oTx; t
ot
k
o
2
Tx; t
ox
2
; t [0; 0 x L; 1
Tx; t f x; 0 x L; 2
oTx; t
x
j
x0
0;
oTx; t
x
j
xL
0; 3
where t is time, k is thermal conductivity, c is specic heat
capacity and q is density of the rod. Assuming that
temperature T(x, t) and all the material properties depend
only on the spatial coordinate x of the rod, solution of one
dimensional problem (1)(3) can be formulated as
Tx; t
_
L
0
f nHx; n; tdn; 4
where H(x, n, t) is Heat Kernel that satises heat equation
or partial differential equation (PDE) (1). Furthermore, if
the rod were innitely long, problem (1)(3) would become
well-known Cauchy problem whose fundamental solution
is written as
Tx; t
1

4pKt
p
_
1
1
f ne

xn
2
4Kt
dn; where K
k
qc
:
Next, we consider a steady state continuous heat source
qx tt moving with a velocity t on the long thin solid
of length L. Then, the temperature eld T(x, t) can be
formulated mathematically by PDE problem.
qc
oTx; t
ot
k
o
2
Tx; t
ox
2
qx tt; 5
which is associated with initial and boundary conditions (2)
and (3). The solution of problem (5) can be given as
N. R. Roshyara (&)
Department of Mathematics, Chemnitz
University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany
e-mail: rnab@mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de
123
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260
DOI 10.1007/s00231-009-0498-5
Tx; t
_
L
0
f nHx; n; tdn

_
t
0
_
L
0
qn ts
qc
Hx; n; t sdn ds; 6
where function H(x, n, t) is Heat Kernel that satises the
PDE (5) together with boundary condition (2). If the initial
temperature f(x) = 0, then Eq. 6 becomes
Tx; t
_
t
0
_
L
0
qn ts
qc
Hx; n; t sdn ds: 7
For our easiness, we assume f(x) = 0 for the rest of the
article. Heat Kernel H(x, n, t) can be determined by any
one of analytical methods such as separation of variables,
image method or Laplace transform method. Since our
main aim here is to present an accurate mathematical
model for Gaussian distributed heat source used in welding
phenomena, we avoid the comprehensive overview of the
existence and determination of such a Heat Kernel. A
detailed description about different kinds of Heat Kernels
can be found, for example, in [1]. One can also solve the
above mentioned heat equations by numerical methods like
Finite Element Method.
Suppose that the external heat source qx tt is nor-
mally (Gaussian) distributed and is dened as
qx tt Q
max
e

kxtt
2
d
2
x
; t [0; t [0; 8
where Q
max
(measure unit W/m) is the maximumvalue of the
Power Density that lies at the center x tt:The real number
k is a deviation coefcient and d
x
is a heat source parameter.
If g is the efciency of the arc (it may have a different value
for various processes), the total Power Density Q (measure
unit W) of the heat source can be dened as
Q g VoltageU CurrentI: 9
Since heat power follows Gauss distribution, it can also
be described as Q
_
1
1
qx ttdx: According to the
principle of Conservation of Energy, the value of Q
max
of
Eq. 8 can be determined as
Q
max

_
1
1
qx ttdx
_
1
1
e

kxtt
2
d
2
x
dx

k
p
d
x

p
p : 10
Substituting the value of Q
max
in Eq. 8:
qx ts
Q

k
p
d
x

p
p e

kxts
2
d
2
x
; t [0; t [0: 11
Power Density dened by Eq. 11 is identical to normally
distributed curve
gx
1

2p
p
r
x
e

xtt
2
2r
2
x
:
It is because for each standard deviation r
x
and for a given
heat source parameter d
x
, we can nd another real number
k so that the relationship between r
x
and d
x
can be
determined by a function F as
Fr
x
F
d
x

2k
p
_ _
)r
x

d
x

2k
p : 12
Let us now consider heat source qx tt is located at
point x tt and time t = s (See Fig. 1). Then Eq. 11 has
the form
qx ts
Q

k
p

p
p
d
x
e

kxts
2
d
2
x
: 13
If we look at the history of Gaussian distributed heat
source modeling, different trials for determining deviation
coefcient of spatial heat source have been done since
1969. In order to evaluate constant k, heat source parameter
d
x
has been dened until now in such a way that Power
Density at the two edges ts d
x
of the heat source (see
Fig. 1) falls to 0.5 q(0) (see the same argument for models
of circular, ellipsoidal, double ellipsoidal heat sources in
[2] p. 31). Based on this observation, the two edges ts d
x
contain only 5% of the maximum value Q
max
of heat power
distribution.
qd
x
Q
max
e
k
5%of Q
max
)e
k
0:05 )
k log0:05%

3:
Moreover, Power Density Q
max
in the existing model
has been dened not like as we dened in Eq. 10 but
slightly in a different way, namely,
Q
0
max

_
1
1
qx ttdx
_
ttd
x
ttd
x
e

kxtt
2
d
2
x
dx

k
p
erf

k
p
d
x

k
p : 14
erf(x) is error function dened as erfx
_
x
0
2

p
p
e
n
2
dn:
Substituting k = 3 and value of Q
0
max
into Eq. 8, we obtain
the one dimensional existing Gaussian heat source model
(a derivation for this formula can also be found in [3],
p. 303) as
Fig. 1 Normal distribution Q units of heat and corresponding
temperature
1254 Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260
123
qx tt
Q

3
p
erf

3
p


p
p
d
x
e

3xtt
2
d
2
x
: 15
Since
_
ttd
x
ttd
x
e

kxtt
2
d
2
x
dx %
_
1
1
e

kxtt
2
d
2
x
dx and 1 !
erf

x
p
!0:99 % 1 for all x C 3, we can omit erf

3
p

from Eq. 15 so that it becomes
qx tt
Q

3
p

p
p
d
x
e

3xtt
2
d
2
x
: 16
Note that Eq. 16 can also be obtained by substituting
k = 3 into Eq. 11. The main challenging task here is how
to determine the value of d
x
. Rykalin et al. contributed to
determination of deviation constant k = 3 for circular
disc model (there the deviation constant is denoted by C
([2], p. 26). Even though all of the existing Gaussian
distributed heat source formulae (for one dimensional
case, Eq. 16) are based on the above mentioned principle,
this is not a scientic and reasonable fact through which
one can justify that the existing formulae are correct.
Many critical questions can be raised against the
assumption on which current welding heat source
modeling is based. For example, why should there be
5% of Q
max
or q(0) at the edges ts d
x
(for circular disc
model on the circumference)? Why not something else?
Even if we accept this assumption as truth, another
question that troubles us is: What is the scientic
process through which the value of heat source parameter
d
x
can be predicted? Mathematically, it makes a sense to
say: The Power Density at edges x ts d
x
is 5% of
q(0). However, it has no meaning in practical sense
unless we know the value of heat source parameter d
x
because q(0) = Q
max
depends on the parameter d
x
(see
Eq. 10). If the reason behind application of above model
is that 95% of total heat-power Q is utilized in welding
process and the rest 5% is transferred outside of the
molten pool, then this argument is also incorrect.
q( d
x
) = 0.05 q(0) = q(0)e
-3
does not imply that
_
d
x
d
x
qxdx 95% of Q This is because:
_
d
x
d
x
qxdx
_
d
x
d
x
Q

3
p

p
p
d
x
e

3
2
x
d
2
x
dx Qerf(

3
p
0:9857 Q
99% of Q:
If we want to nd this value for two dimensional case,
we obtain 97.16% of Q. Therefore, the value of deviation
coefcient k and heat source parameter d
x
should not be
determined as done by Rykalin et al. but in such a way that
their values depend on three facts, namely, the amount of
heat Q, thermal properties of the material which is being
welded and velocity t of heat source. For example, if the
heat source moves slowly, then the depth of the weld pool
is bigger than if it is moving with a fast velocity.
The rest part of the paper is devoted to determining the
heat source parameter d
x
, the deviation constant k and their
relationship with the velocity of the heat source.
1.1 Modeling of one dimensional heat source
Depending on the physical nature of the given problem, we
can give any shape to heat source, such as a point, a line, a
surface or a volumetric shape which may have the standard
units W, W/m, W/m
2
and W/m
3
respectively. Furthermore,
heat sources may release energy either continuously or
spontaneously at specied times. If energy is released
spontaneously, then such a heat source is called Instanta-
neous Source (See [4], p. 219). While heat source qx tt
is moving continuously or instantaneously, temperature
solution T(x, t) has a skewed and elevated trail behind the
heat source. However, at every small instant time t = s,
heat power is distributed symmetrically with its highest
value at heat sources location. If we consider welding
process only at the moment t = s and neglect the rest of the
welding process, we can realize the equal possibility of
heat distribution in both directions. Moreover, the skewed
and elevated trail of temperature is a result of the move-
ment of heat source but not because of the asymmetric
distribution. That is why it makes sense if we consider
normally distributed heat power density unless any other
external forces are used to inuence the heat distribution
(e.g. pressure). Since heat tries to spread out as much as
possible from its higher concentration to lower concentra-
tion, we propose to dene rst a new term, the Melting
Power of given heat-power Q as follows.
Denition 1 The Melting Power of a given amount of
heat-power Q is dened as the largest volume of the
melting-zone which is possible to produce in 1 s by given
amount of heat Q. For one-dimensional case, Melting
Power is the largest length of the melting-zone which is
possible to produce in 1 s by Q units of heat. Its standard
unit of measurement should be m/s.
Now let us concentrate in nding the Melting Power in
one dimensional case. For this purpose, suppose that heat is
supplied for a unit time within the segment ts d
x
; ts
d
x
of a long thin rod as shown in Fig. 2. This type of
supply of power distribution can be represented by Eq. 13
which denotes the Normal Probability Distribution of Q
units of heat-power in such a way that there is exactly the
melting temperature h
m
at the two edges ts d
x
, and ts
d
x
at time t = s. Moreover, Melting Power (see denition
above) is moving with an optimal velocity t which is why
it can be described as the interval ts d
x
; ts d
x
:,
s [ [0, t]. This means, two edges ts d
x
, and ts d
x
of
Melting Power possess exactly the melting temperature h
m
as shown in Fig. 2.
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260 1255
123
According to [5] p. 256, heat strength is the temperature
h
m
to which the amount of heat liberated would raise a unit
volume (in our case unit length) of the substance. There-
fore, at the two edges ts d
x
and ts d
x
, power density
can be described as
qts d
x
ts qd
x

Q

k
p
d
x

p
p e
k
qch
m
: 17
We have now derived an expression for d
x
but we still
need to determine the value of k. Therefore, we need
further calculation. Equation 17 can be re-written as
2ke
2k
2p
qch
m
d
x
Q
_ _
2
: 18
Equation 18 is identical with equation ye
y
= z which has an
innite number of solutions y corresponding to each (non-
zero) value of z. However, we can solve it with the help of
LambertW function named after Johann Heinrich Lambert.
Denition 2 LambertW function is the inverse of function
g : C !C given by g(y) = ye
y
. This means, LambertW(y)
is the complex valued function that satises (see [6]).
LambertWy e
LambertWy
y:
Using this denition, we can determine the value of k from
Eq. 18 as
k
1
2
LambertW 2p
qch
m
d
x
Q
_ _
2
_ _
:
In order to calculate the value of LambertW function, we
can use any mathematical software such as Maple, Matlab,
Mathematica etc. as mentioned below.
Example 1 If we want to calculate k with Maple, then we
can use the commands as follows.
[restart: g: = Q/(rho*c*delta[x]*sqrt(Pi))*sqrt(lambda)*
exp(-lambda): c: = 600.0: rho: = 7.820*10^ (-6):
[theta[m]: = 1500: [delta[x]: = 10: Q: = 450.0:
[solve (theta[m] = g, lambda);
{k = 0.09245457148}, {k = 1.478481171}
In above example, we see that LambertW function
provides us with two real values of k. This means we have
two distributions of heat-power Q which give exactly the
melting temperature 1,500C at x = d
x
= 10 as shown in
the Fig. 3. In order to determine which of these two curves
represents the power distribution in which we are interested
in, we rst need to have the knowledge of upper and lower
limits of deviation-coefcient k and Melting Power. As
shown in Fig. 4, the principle of conservation of energy
says that total energy Q emitted in 1-s can be written as
Q
_
d
x
1
qxdx Q
h
m

Q
!h
m

_
1
d
x
qxdx; 19
where Q
h
m

is the energy needed to raise the temperature

of the melted part from its room temperature to its melting
temperature. Moreover Q
!h
m

is the part of heat Power

Density which is applied after it acquires the melting
temperature h
m
.
1.2 Determination of upper and lower limits of Melting
Power and deviation coefcient
The values of the integrals possessed by Eq. 19 can be
determined as
_
d
x
1
qxdx
_
1
d
x
qxdx
Q1 erf

k
p

2
: 20
Fig. 2 Normal distribution Q units of heat and corresponding heat
strength
Fig. 3 Graph of q(x) with (a) d
x
= 10, k = 1.4785, (b) d
x
= 10,
k = 0.0925 and (c) d
x
= 15.4713, k = 0.5
Fig. 4 Normal distribution Q units of Heat power
1256 Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260
123
Therefore, we can write Eq. 19 as
Q Q
h
m

Q
!h
m

Q1 erf(

k
p
: 21
The total energy possessed by a body is dened as
Energy(E massm heat capacityc
change in temperature Dt:
Moreover, mass of a substance can be described as
mass(m density(q volume(V:
By applying these two relations and assuming that
the room temperature in comparison with the melting
temperature is relatively equal to zero, the energy required
to raise the temperature of the melted part of a substance
from its room temperature to its melting temperature can
be given by Q
h
m

qVch
m
: In one dimensional case, this
can be illustrated as
Q
h
m

2qcd
x
h
m
: 22
Substituting value of Q
h
m

in Eq. 21:
Q
!h
m

Qerf(

k
p
2qcd
x
h
m
: 23
Denition 3 The energy which is known as latent heat of
fusion or Melting Enthalpy is dened as the amount of heat
necessary to change one kilogram of a solid to a liquid
without a temperature change. The latent heat of fusion of
mild steel is given as h = 247 9 10
3
J/kg.
According to Denition 3, the minimum energy which is
necessary for the phase transformation (from solid to
liquid) of the melted part of welding material can be
described as Q
melt
= hm = hqV, where h is the enthalpy of
the welding-material. For the one-dimensional case, this
energy is given by
Q
melt
2hqd
x
: 24
Therefore, the total energy which is necessary to raise
the temperature of the melted part of a thin rod from its
melting temperature h
m
to its boiling temperature h
b
can be
described as
Qh
b
h
m
% 2qcd
x
h
b
h
m
Q
melt
: 25
Remark In Eq. 25, we have used sign &because after the
melting process occurs, thermal parameters of liquid form
of welding material are not exactly equal to its thermal
properties while it is in solid state.
We can now predict that energy Q
!h
m

;shown in Fig. 6,
should always be greater than or equal to the energy Q
melt
and smaller than the energy Q(h
b
- h
m
). Mathematically,
this can be described as
Q
melt
Q
!h
m

2qcd
x
h
b
h
m
Q
melt
: 26
From Eqs. 22, 23, 24 and (26), we have
2qd
x
h ch
m
Qerf(

k
p
2qd
x
h ch
b
: 27
Hence considering the rst two terms of inequality (27)
rst and then its last two terms, we can determine the upper
and lower limits of Melting Power 2d
x
as
Qerf

k
p

2qh ch
b

d
x

Qerf

k
p

2qh ch
m

: 28
Substituting value of d
x
from Eq. 17 into Eq. 28, we obtain

p
p
ch
m
2h ch
b

k
p
e
k
erf

k
p

p
p
ch
m
2h ch
m

: 29
1.3 Determination of the size of melting power
and deviation coefcient
In Example 1, we wanted to nd out the Normal Distri-
bution of Power Density given by Q = 450 J/s so that
Melting Power 2 d
x
mm/s is produced. However, using
LambertW function, we obtain two values of k namely
k
1
= 0.0925 and k
2
= 1.479. Next we test the validity
of these two values of k. Suppose that welding material
is mild steel whose thermal properties are given by
h
m
= 1,500C, h
b
= 3,000C, h = 247 9 10
3
J/kg, q =
7.820 9 10
-6
kg/mm
3
, c = 600 J/kg/C.
Substituting k = k
1
into inequality (29), we obtain
0.3897 B 0.8323 B 0.696, which is an incorrect inequal-
ity. Using k = k
2
, inequality (29) becomes 0.39 B 0.303 B
0.695, which is also impossible. Therefore, for both values
of k, we have

k
p
e
k
erf

k
p

62

p
p
ch
m
2h ch
b

p
p
ch
m
2h ch
m

_ _
:
At this particular case, we have found that k
1
does not
satisfy the upper limit of inequality (29). This means with k
1
,
one cannot produce melting-zone at all (see the corresponding
curve in Fig. 3). Similarly, k
2
does not satisfy the lower limit
of inequality (29). That is why distribution of Power Density
obtained by the deviation coefcient k
2
is also inappropriate
because the highest value of Power Density at the center of
the heat source exceeds the boiling temperature. In the same
way, we can test the validity of size of Melting Power
2d
x
= 20 mm/s by substituting d
x
= 10 and k = k
1
rst and
then d
x
= 10 and k = k
2
in inequality (29).
From the discussion mentioned above, we can conclude
the followings. For a given xed heat-power Q, if 2d
x
is
smaller than the Melting Power (see Denition 3), then
there are two real values of k and we get two temperature
distributions as it is shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, both of
the two power distributions may not be optimal as we have
seen in Example (1). If 2d
x
is exactly equal to the Melting
Power, then there exists only one real value of k and we
have a unique distribution as shown by the black curve in
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260 1257
123
Fig. 3. Similarly, if 2d
x
is larger than the Melting Power,
then all of the solutions of k are complex numbers. This
means we do not have sufcient heat power to produce
melting-zone of length 2d
x
in 1 s.
After having the knowledge from above mentioned
illustration, it is nowclear that we are in search of such value
of k which gives us the largest possible melting-zone 2d
x
produced in 1-s by applying heat energy Q = 450 J. Dif-
ferent graphs between k and the mathematical expression
given by q(d
x
) - 1,500, with different values of d
x
but a
xed value of Q = 450 J, where q(d
x
) is calculated from
Eq. 13, is shown in Fig. 5. In this gure, the graph of
function q(15.4713) - 1,500 shows that its value is zero
only at k
1
2
. Hence the Melting Power that can be produced
by Q = 450 J amounts of heat is given by 2d
x
= 30.9426.
Thus we have got success practically to nd the Melting
Power for a particular case. The following Claim speaks
about the general method of nding the Melting Power.
Claim 1 The largest melting-zone which is possible to
produce in 1 s from the given Q units of heat-power can be
determined as 2d
x
2
Qe

1
2

2p
p
qch
m
:
Moreover, there exists unique value of k which provides
us with the largest melting-zone produced in 1 s by given
heat power Q. For one-dimensional case, the value of k
can be determined as k
1
2
.
Proof The value of d
x
given by Eq. 17 is a function of

k
p
e
k
and can be re-written as
d
x
F

k
p
e
k

Q

k
p
e
k

p
p
qc h
m
: 30
Lemma 1 For any given positive real a, the function
given by =k k
a
e
k
; has its maximum and unique value
at k = a. Furthermore, if a
m
n
, then the maximum value
of function =k is given by =
m
n
_ _

m
n
_ _m
n
e

m
n
e

m
n
ln
m
n
1
:
According to Lemma 1, function F

k
p
e
k
given by
Eq. 30 has its maximum and unique value at k
1
2
: Hence
the largest melting zone obtained in 1 s by given Q
amounts of heat (i.e. Melting Power) can be illustrated as
2d
x
mm/s where
d
x

Q

k
p

p
p
qch
m
e
k

Qe

1
2
ln
1
2

1
2

p
p
qch
m

Qe

1
2

2p
p
qch
m
: 31
Now the only remaining thing to prove is to inquire if
the value of d
x
given by Eq. 31 satises inequality (28).
Substituting the value of d
x
in inequality (28):
erf

k
p

2h ch
b

1
2

2p
p
ch
m

erf

k
p

2h ch
m

: 32
Taking only the second and third expressions of
inequality (32), we obtain
h ch
m
ch
m
_ _

p
p
erf

1
2
_ _ _

2
p
e

1
2
)
h
ch
m
0:4107:
We can claim that this inequality is always true because
the value of enthalpy h is always much smaller than the
product of heat capacity and melting temperature.
Therefore, d
x
given by (31) does not exceed the upper
limit. Again considering only the rst and second term of
inequality (32), it can be proved that the relation is valid for
the given values of h c, h
m
and h
b
. Thus, Melting Power
2d
x
mm/s is always possible with a given optimal velocity t.
Hence, the Gaussian distribution of Power Density of a
one-dimensional moving heat source can be illustrated as
qx tt
Q

2p
p
qcd
x
e

xtt
2
2d
2
x
; d
x

Qe

1
2

2p
p
qch
m
: 33
1.4 Relation between velocity of heat source
and melting power
According to newly the proposed idea of heat source,
Power Density moves in such a way that the shape of
resultant melting-zone coincides with the size of Melting
Power. For instance, one dimensional heat source has
Melting Power 2d
x
mm/s. This means in order to produce
the melting zone of length exactly equal to 2d
x
in reality,
heat source should move with the velocity slightly greater
than 2d
x
mm/s. Therefore, the velocity t should be given by
jtj !2d
x
mm=s| i.e. t j j !

2
p
Qe

1
2

p
p
qch
m

: In other words, if we
have velocity jtj !2d
x
mm=s, then the resultant melting
zone that can be produced in 1-s is slightly greater than 2d
x
.
2 Results and discussion
In order to compare our newly proposed heat source (11)
based on Melting Power, and the heat source (15) based on
classical principal, we have derived the analytical solutions Fig. 5 Graph of function q(d
x
) - 1,500 with different value of d
x
1258 Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260
123
of the temperature elds of both old and new heat source
model by using Heat Kernel derived fromLaplace transform
method. Numeric computations were carried out by the
mathematical software Maple. A comprehensive detail of
the Heat Kernel and numerical treatment for Integration
process of Eq. 7 is explained in [7]. The thermal parameters
used for calculation were c = 600 J/kg/C, k = 0.029
J/mm/s/C, q = 7.820 9 10
-6
kg/mm
3
and melting tem-
perature h
m
= 1,500C. The Welding parameters used for
calculation are voltage U = 10 V, current I = 5 A, arc
efciency g = 0.9. Moreover, heat source is moving with
velocity t 2d
x
on a very thin insulated rod of length
1,000 mm. Using Eq. 31, heat source parameter d
x
for the
newly dened heat source model can be determined as
d
x
= 15.47 mm. This means according to our model, Mel-
ting Power of given Power Density Q = gU I = 450 W/s is
determined by 2d
x
= 30.94 mm/s. Similarly, the maximum
Power Density at the center of heat source, given by Eq. 10
can now be calculated as Q
max
= 11.61 mm/s (corresponds
with temperature 24.73.082C) and the maximum values of
power density at two edges ts d
x
are given by qts
d
x
7:038 W=mm (corresponds exactly with the melting
temperature h
m
= 1,500C). Note that both of the above
models neglect the melting enthalpy. That is why the pre-
dicted temperature of the melted part of the material is
relatively higher than the reality.
Figures 6 and 7 prove that our model is true because in
Fig. 6, we can observe clearly that the resulting temperature
prole w. r. t. x at time t = 1 s remains above 1,500C only
within the interval [0, 30.94]. That means in the rst second,
the melting zone is 30.94 mm. Similarly, the lengths of the
melting zone in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 s are 61.88, 92.82, 123.76,
154.70, 185.60 and 216.58 mm respectively. We have also
computed the temperature proles w.r.t. x at time t at dif-
ferent points x = 30.94, 61.88, 92.82, 123.76, 154.70,
185.60 and 216.58 mm. Figure 7 shows that temperature
curves at above mentioned points acquire the melting
temperature h
m
= 1,500C at time t = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 s respectively. In one dimensional case, the temperature
rises up at the beginning (see Fig. 7) and then remains
constant after acquiring its highest value. In Fig. 6, we see
that the highest value acquired by the temperature curve at
x = 30.94 mm has slightly smaller than the highest value
acquired by other temperature curves. This is because in the
rest part of the rod (i.e. x [30.94 for 1 s), there is always
extra energy transmitted during the time when the heat
source was behind it.
Remark The reason why the length of melting zone is
increasing every second by 30.94 mm (as shown in Fig. 6)
is that we are working here with a very thin and insulated
one dimensional rod. That means energy can only ow
forwards (i.e. in the same direction where heat source is
moving). However, in front of the melting zone heat source
is located and has higher temperature than behind. That is
why once the temperature acquires its highest value, it
remains unchanged until heat source is removed from the
rod. However, this is not the case for two or three
dimensional piece of working material.
As discussed earlier, we do not know how to nd the
value of heat source parameter d
x
for the existing heat
source model. Moreover, it is impossible to calculate the
maximum power density Q
max

Q

3
p

p
p
erf

3
p
d
x
unless we x
the value of d
x
. In order to x the value of d
x
for old heat
source model, several experimental trials have been done
but it hasnt been succeeded until now.
Table 1 shows a comparative study between the existing
model and newly proposed principle.
Figures 8 and 9 describe the temperature proles due to
the existing heat source model (15) where heat source
parameter is chosen as d
x
= 7 mm because it is one of the
value for mild steal suggested by Nguyen N.T. (see [8]).
Moreover, velocity for the old heat source model is given
by 2 9 d
x
mm/s = 14 mm/s. The temperature elds
obtained by the existing heat source model are shown in
Figs. 8 and 9. We can observe that they have a unrealistic
temperature prediction because the hightest temperature in
these gures remains above 6,000C which is impossible.
From the heat source dened as newly proposed method,
we got the highest temperature around 3,000C which
Fig. 6 Temperature prole due to newly proposed heat source w. r. t.
x at different time t = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 s
Fig. 7 Temperature prole due to newly proposed heat source w.r.t.
time t at different points x = 30.9, 61.88, 92.82, 123.76, 154.70,
185.60 and 216.58 mm
Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260 1259
123
comes to reality. Moreover, if we had not ignored the heat
power needed for melting enthalpy, then temperature
would have remained much below to 3,000C.
3 Conclusion
We have explored an alternative idea for Gaussian dis-
tributed heat source observation. It helps us to determine
heat source parameter, optimal velocity of moving heat
source and the Melting Power (see Denition 3). The
fundamental fact in the newly proposed alternative idea of
heat source modeling is that we rst determine the Melting
Power and then we keep an optimal balance between the
velocity and the physical structure of the heat source so that
the resulting melting-zone is almost equal to the Melting
Power. Moreover, we observe the welding process here in
such a way that we are just pushing the Melting Power
towards the positive direction of the x-axis with an optimal
velocity t.
Acknowledgments To Prof. Dr. Arnd Meyer, faculty of mathe-
matics TU Chemnitz and Dr. Ulrich Semmler, faculty of Engineering
TU Chemnitz, Germany, I am much indebted for their inspiration and
the valuable time which they have spent on commenting and advising
me during my research work. A Special Thanks to Dr. Gehard Wil-
helm and Firma Linde AG Pullach, Germany for the excellent support
throughout the nal stages of my research work. Many thanks to Dr.
Micheal Lorenz, Dr. Torston Hein, Ms. Susanne Jantos, Ms. Divya
Peter, Jens Gietzelt and Netra P. Paudel for their help in proofreading
the draft material and providing comments and suggestions. I would
like to acknowledge the help and support received from my host
family Jantos. Finally acknowledgements go to my loving parents.
Without their love and encouragement, I would not gain what I have
achieved until now.
References
1. Kevorkian J (1993) Parital differential equations (analytical
solution techniques). Chapman& Hall, ISBN: 0-412-05131-1
2. Goldak JA, Akhlaghi M (2005) Computational welding mechanics.
Springer Science ? Business Media Inc, ISBN-10:0-38723287-7
3. Fassani RNS, Trevisan OV (2003) Analytical modeling of
multipass welding process with distributed heat source. J Brazilian
Soc Mech Sci 15(3):302305
4. Ozisik MN (1993) Heat conduction, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
5. Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC (1959) Conduction of heat in solids, 2nd
edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
6. Corless R. http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/rcorless/frames/PAPERS/
LambertW/, Homepage
7. Roshyara NR (2008) Analytical approaches of approximate
solutions and nite element calculations for temperature elds in
welding. Master Thesis, Chemnitz University of Technology,
Chemnitz Germany. http://www.people.imise.uni-leipzig.de/nab.
raj.roshyara/MSc_Thesis_Roshyara.pdf
8. Nguyen NT et al. (2004) Thermal analysis of welds. WIT Press,
Boston, ISBN: 1-85312-951-8
Table 1 Comparative study of
heat source parameters of
existing and newly proposed
model
Newly proposed model Existing model
Coefcient k
1
2
Coefcient k = 3
Heat source parameter Heat source parameter
d
x

Qe

1
2

2p
p
qchm
: d
x
is undened
Maximum power density Maximum power density
Q
max
qch
m

e
p
(a known
quantity since d
x
is known)
Q
max

Q

3
p

p
p
erf

3
p
dx
(an unknown quantity since d
x
is unknown)
Optimal velocity is known in
this model i.e.
In this model, we do not know how to
determine the optimal velocity.
t !2d
x

2
p
Qe

1
2

p
p
qchm
:
Fig. 8 Temperature prole due to existing model of heat source w.r.t.
x at different time t = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 s
Fig. 9 Temperature prole due to existing heat source model w.r.t.
time t at different points x = 14, 28, 42, 56, 84, 98, and 112 mm
1260 Heat Mass Transfer (2009) 45:12531260
123