Assessment of Numerical Procedures for
Residual Stress Analysis of Multipass Welds
The effects of heat input magnitudes and prescribed initial temperature conditions
for welds on residual stresses are discussed
BY J. K. H O N G , C.-L. TSAI A N D P. D O N G
ABSTRACT. Two-dimensional finite ele-
ment modeling procedures are ad-
dressed to predict the residual stressesfor
multipass welds. A generalized plane
strain model with a five-pass weld in a
plate and an axisymmetric model with a
six-pass girth weld in a pipe are consid-
ered. Element rebirth and pass-lumping
techniques are employed in both models.
The combined heat input using surface
and body flux components is applied in
simulating arc heat effects. In the gener-
alized plane strain model, the calculated
temperature histories and stresses are
compared with the measured ones.
Residual stress results are compared be-
tween non-lumped and lumped models.
In the pipe girth-weld model, the calcu-
lated residual stresses are compared with
the experimental data. The effects of heat
input magnitudes and prescribed initial
temperature conditions for welds on resid-
ual stressesare discussed in this article.
Introduction
Researchers have attempted to estab-
lish empirical approaches for under-
standing the behavior of materials during
welding. To date, due to the complexity
of the welding process, thermal and me-
chanical behaviors of weldment are not
completely understood. Considerable ef-
fort has been devoted to develop numer-
ical solutions to predict the thermal and
mechanical responses in weldments. Al-
though some insightful results have been
obtained, most of the numerical proce-
dures are usually extremely complex and
difficult to implement in dealing with re-
alistic welded structures.
J. K. HONG and P. DONG are with the Cen-
ter for Welded Structures Research, Battelle
Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. C.-L.
TSAI is with the Department of Industrial,
Welding and System Engineering at the Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio.
372-s I SEPTEMBER 1998
There are many publications on weld
modeling using finite element analysis
(FEA) techniques (Refs. 1-13). Recently,
additional effort (Refs. 11, 12) has been
made to develop simplified FEA proce-
dures so that realistic temperature/stress
histories in a weldment can be simulated
with commonly available FEA packages.
Representative publications on FEA tech-
niques for the multipass welds can be
found (Refs. 1-6).
The thermal and mechanical response
of a weldment is a three-dimensional (3-
D) problem that requires a considerable
amount of computational time. The com-
putational time required to simulate a
multipass weld increases in proportion to
the number of weld passes. Therefore, it
is necessary to develop cost-effective
procedures to reduce the computational
time while preserving the accuracy of the
solution. To reduce the computational
time, a two-dimensional (2-D) analysis
can be carried out with appropriate sim-
plifying assumptions depending upon the
nature of the problem (Refs. 1,2, 5). To in-
troduce welding travel speed effect in the
2-D model, the ramp heat input function
has been developed (Ref. 1). Further-
more, some investigators have recently
studied lumped pass modeling tech-
niques (Refs. 13-16) to reduce the com-
puting times for multipass welding cases.
KEY WORDS
Combined Heat Input
Element Rebirth Technique
Finite Element Analysis
Initial Temperature Condition
Multipass Welds
Ramp Heat Input Function
Residual Stress
Pass-Lumping Technique
To include the multipass effect, the el-
ement rebirth technique can be used as
one of the few reasonable methods that
can be readily incorporated in the exist-
ing commercial FEA packages. In this
technique, the element groups represent-
ing each weld pass are generated along
with the FEA meshes for the workpiece.
These element groups are kept inactive
until a designated "rebirth" time, accord-
ing to specified pass sequences, is ap-
proached in the simulation (Refs. 1, 5).
These techniques are applied to the
residual stress analysis of a given welded
joint. Considerable care needs to be ex-
ercised by an experienced analyst to cor-
rectly implement these numerical proce-
dures, particularly for multipass welds.
The simulation becomes even more com-
plicated if phase transformation effects
need to be incorporated (Refs. 7-10), al-
though simplified numerical procedures
have been investigated (Refs. 11, 12).
In this study, simplified numerical pro-
cedures based on a commercial FE pack-
age, ABAQUS (Ref. 17), were investigated
for residual stress analysis in multipass
welds. A generalized plane strain model
for a five-pass weld in a plate and an ax-
isymmetric model for a six-pass girth
weld in a pipe were used for this purpose.
Element rebirth and pass-lumping tech-
niques were employed in both models.
Finite Element
Modeling Procedures
Heat SourceModel
To simulate arc heating effects during
welding, the equivalent heat input can be
assumed as the combination of both sur-
face and body heat flux components (Ref.
5). Therefore, the total heat input can be
written as
Q = Q s + QB (1)
Table 1 - - Pass Sequences and Welding Parameters of Each Pass for a Five-PassWelded Plate~'~

Welding parameters
Passsequence Pass No. Current (A) Voltage (V) Speed (in./min)

(a) Ref. 1.
I
I1 12"

EfJ'J'IJ'A
1
2
3
4
5
215
205
215
210
210
24
25
26
24
24
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4

where (~s and (~B

indicate heat con- tl
HeatFlux --xl00 (%).
tents resulting from tl + t2
a specified surface
flux and body heat According to the previous work (Ref. 1), it
flux, respectively. was observed that a ramp-up time, tl, of
In addition, the 20 % of the actual weld time, tl + t2, gave

/ Time (sec.)
surface heat flux
was assumed to be
in the form of a
Gaussian thermal
distribution (Ref. 5),
while the body heat
the best correlation with the gas metal arc
welding (GMAW) experimental data. The
total area under the curve (Fig. 1) is kept
constant to ensure that the same total heat
input to the model is maintained.
In this study, if the total time and the
t2 ~,<-- t3 --~ flux was assumed percentage of ramp heat time were de-
constant in this termined, the ramped heat input effects
study. The ratio of were calculated by a user subroutine
Fig. I -- Ramped heat input function• (Ref. 17).
Qs/QB
can be adjusted to Weld Metal Initial Temperature Conditions
achieve an accu-
rate representation In simulating GMA welding
of fusion zone. processes, weld metal can be assumed to
be deposited at melting temperature.

,Z
Ramped Heat Input However, this often complicates the fi-
nite element procedures using some of
A ramp heat the commercial finite element codes
input function has (e.g., ABAQUS) and requires additional
been developed to solution steps in the thermal analysis. As
1-,. ,-1 Time gradually apply a result, some authors in previous publi-
tl t2 the heat flux with a cations only assumed ambient tempera-
variable amplitude ture as the initial temperature conditions
(a) to the model, as for the weld metal. However, in studies
discussed by a by Karlsson, et al., (Refs. 18, 19), the au-
number of earlier thors adopted melting temperature as the
publications (Ref. 1, 2). In addi- initial temperature for the reborn ele-
n

£ gliti tion, to avoid numerical diver-
• iffil gence problems due to a sudden
qeq n
increase in temperature, the
~ t~ln
iffil ramped heat input procedure en-
ables a 2-D cross-section model
to include the effect of a 3-D mov-
ing arc in a consistent manner.
The ramp function considers the
out-of-plane heat transfer effects
on a specified 2-D cross section as
• / Time the arc approaches, travels across
and departs from it. As shown in
t,,--Z5
n
ments (deposited weld metal) in calcu-
lating the resulting thermal strains. Josef-
son (Ref. 20) used a similar approach.
In this study, two different prescribed
initial temperature conditions, i.e., room
temperature and melting temperature,
were employed for the weld metal and
their effects on predicted residual stresses
were compared.
Temperature Solution Procedures

i=I n
Fig. 1, the actual welding time for
the arc to travel across the unit
thickness of the model is tl + t2.
Co) The term t3 indicates the ramp-
down time and is assumed to be
Fig. 2 - - Definition of ramp functions for heat flux the same as tl. The temperature
before and after lumping (Re£ 16): A - - Ramp functions profiles can be affected by the
of welding passes before lumping; g - - ramp function ratio of the ramp-up time, tl, over
after lumping. the time period, tl + t2, i.e.,
According to Lindgren, et aL (Ref. 21 ),
if the residual stresses are of primary in-
terest, the temperature history can be cal-
culated from simple analytical solutions.
As such, the thermal material properties
are assumed to be independent of the
temperature. In addition, Landau, et al.
(Ref. 22), discussed that the residual
stress solutions are not sensitive to the de-

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 373-s

tails of the temperature distributions. quence and weld-
In this study, various finite element ing parameters xl~
8 0.5
heat flow solution procedures were in- shown. The ther-
vestigated for the stress analysis of a six- mal and mechani- 0.4
pass girth weld. The effects on residual cal material prop- ~_ e
stress predictions were discussed. erties for both base ~ s 0.3 ~
and weld metal i
Element Rebirth Technique were assumed 0.2
1
based on ASTM
The element rebirth technique (Ref. 5) A36 mild steel, as 0.1
was employed to include the multipass shown in Fig. 3 as a
weld metal deposition effects. With this function of temper- o , I ! I i I

technique, the elements simulating each ature. The strain- 0 400 800 12o0 160o 2000 24o0
weld pass are grouped at model genera- hardening behav- TemPerature ( F )
tion stage. During analysis, these element ior at room (a)
groups (i.e., weld passes) are first re- temperature is
moved and then reactivated at a specified shown in Fig. 4. An
moment to simulate a given deposition isotropic harden-
sequence of weld passes. When a group ing plasticity
of weld elements are activated, specified model was used. 4o
initial temperatures are imposed for all A 2-D plane 35 Y£*kl r a m s (XlO~)

the nodes associated with the weld ele- model was used, 30
9

ments. shown in Figs. 5 ~ 2s !

and 6. The total "-~
Y o u n m ' * ModUlU* 011o)
.[
Lumped (Grouped) Weld Passes number of ele- a+, 20
ments used in the "[~ ,5
,|
Residual stress analysis for complex model is 867. Gen- ,o
6
welded structures with multipass welds eralized plane s
often requires the use of lumped passes strain conditions
5
to reduce computational time and sim- were assumed in o
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
plify analysis procedures. Along this line, the residual stress o Tempermture ( F )
Rybicki, et al. (Ref. 14), studied multipass analysis to take
girth welds by combining all passes in into account of the (b)
lumped layers each of which represented deformation be-
several welds. Ueda, et aL (Ref. 15), also havior in the out- Fig. 3 - - Temperature-dependent material properties o f ASTM A36 mild
investigated the lumped-pass technique of-plane direction. steel for finite element analysis (Ref. 1): A - - Thermal material proper-
for a narrow-groove weld. They con- ABAQUS (Ref. 17) ties; B - - mechanical material properties.
cluded that the number of welding passes was employed for
in thick plates can be significantly reduced the transient tem-
without affecting the accuracy of the perature and sub-
analysis Lee (Ref. 16) proposed a lumped- sequent residual
pass procedure with which heat flux mag- stress analyses. In "~
nitudes were calculated in an accumula- performing the .~
tive manner and heating duration was temperature analy-
determined in an averaged sense-- Fig. 2. sis, it was further 1.20 oy
In this study, Lee's lumped-pass pro- assumed that the
cedure was analyzed in detail to com- initial temperature 1.15 oy
pare with the results without using conditions for both Oy
lumped-pass procedures. base and weld
metal were at a
Case Studies uniform tempera-
ture 70°F (21.1°C),
To investigate the adequacy of various i.e., room tempera-
numerical procedures as discussed ture, in the heat
above, detailed case studies on a five- flow analysis. The 0 0.02 0.04 P l a s t i c strain
pass weld in a plate and a six-pass pipe heat loss coeffi-
girth weld are presented below. cient assumed for
all surfaces is Fig. 4 - - Strain hardening effect used for ASTM A36 steel.
A Five-PassWeldin a Plate 0.0001 Btu/in2 °F.
Other heat loss
Assumptions and Analvsis Procedures mechanisms such as radiation and forced Total heat input was assumed to be in
convection due to shielding gas were ne- the form of 20% of surface flux and 80%
The details of the five-pass weld are glected. Similarly, radiation and convec- body flux. The heat input was imposed
given in Table 1 (Ref. 1). The weldment is tion influences on the microstructures and onto the specified newly activated ele-
15 in. long, 8 in. wide and Y2in. thick. The cooling rates of weld metal, as well as heat ments representing a depositing pass at a
gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process losses or gains from phase transformation, given time. The surface heat flux was fol-
was simulated according to the pass se- were neglected. lowed by the modified Gaussian distrib-

374-S I SEPTEMBER 1998

 lumped heat input modified by a weight
factor to avoid overheating around the
4 weld area.
15 inches

Results and Discussions

Fig. 5 -- View of entire mode/for a five-pass welded plate.
Thermal Analysis

uted heat flux over The transient temperature histories

Weld toe the length of each during the first pass at '/~ in. and 1~in. from
X ~ - - ~ weld (Ref. 5). Body the weld toe on the top surface are shown
heat flux was uni- in Figs. 7A and 7B. The measured tem-
formly distributed perature data (Ref. 1) at the same posi-
over the length of tions are also plotted against the pre-
each weld layer. dicted results. Note Fig. 7A shows the
An arc efficiency temperature histories within the first 20 s,
of 85% was con- while Fig. 7B gives the entire temperature
"--"-t----'~
sidered for the net histories up to the steady-steady state, e.g.,
I i i i
heat input to the room temperature. A good agreement be-
y tween the finite element results and ex-
weldment. A ramp
time consisting of perimental measurements is evident.
20% of total heat
input time was Stress Analysis
used (Ref. 1). The
(a)
maximum allow- Five-Pass Model vs. Three Lumped-Pass Model
able temperature
change between Figure 8 shows the transverse residual
time increments stresses (perpendicular to the welding di-
was set to be 300°F rection) along the bottom and top sur-
(149°C). Interpass faces after final weld pass. The results of
temperature was the five-pass model and the three-pass
assumed to be at model (lumped) are compared. The dis-
room temperature. crepancy between the five-pass and
Three lumped- three-pass models appears to be signifi-
pass procedures cant near the weld toe. The measured
were investigated transverse stress from Tsai, et al. (Ref. 2),
for this case: A showed a higher magnitude than the fi-
Y nite element results - - Fig. 8B. The three-
five-pass model
(without lumping) pass models predicted lower stresses and
(Fig. 6A) ; a three a wider tensile stress zone than the five-
lumped-pass model pass model, since the lumped models
(b) (Fig. 6B) with an tend to introduce a higher heat content to
equivalent heat the weldment. The discrepancy becomes
input from Lee's less significant away from the weld toe.
Fig. 6 - - Finite element mode/for a five-pass welded plate: A - - Weld study (Ref. 16); Figure 9 shows the corresponding lon-
detail, five-pass model (nonlumped model); B - - weld detail, three-pass and, a three gitudinal residual stress distributions
model (lumped model). lumped-pass model (along the welding direction) on both the
(Fig. 6B) but with a bottom and top surfaces. The three-pass

7OO
A B
6OO oe • r • Measured(1/2")I1]j

. . I~ F E R e e u b ( 1 P 2 " ) I

• e&

O I . . . . OI
0 5 10 15 20 0 100 150 200 250 300
Time (Sec.) Time (See.)

Fig. 7 - - Comparison of measured (Ref. 1) and calculated temperature profiles for the first weld pass at ~ in. and ~,~in. from the weld toe on top sur-
face of a Vs-in.-thick plate model: A - - During heating; B - - during heating and cooling.

W E L D I N G RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 375-s

model without modification shows faces of the weldment after each pass. be the same as the base material. The de-
higher compressive stresses away from The transverse residual stresses at the tailed weld pass data with welding para-
the weld toe and a larger tensile stress weld toe were compressive in the begin- meters are summarized in Table 2. Ax-
zone within the weld area compared ning and became highly tensile after the isymmetry assumptions were used.
with the five-pass model. The experi- final (fifth) pass. Figures 12A and 12B Furthermore, symmetry conditions were
mentally measured value (Ref. 2) is also show the longitudinal residual stresses assumed with respect to the weld center-
shown - - Fig. 9B. along the bottom and top surfaces. The line. The total number of elements and
Figures 10A and 10B show the longitudinal residual stresses maintained nodes within the model are 294 and
through-thickness distributions of the a relatively high magnitude throughout 999, respectively.
transverse and longitudinal stress at % in. the five-pass depo-
from the weld centerline. It can be seen sition process. The
that all three models predicted a similar increase in magni-
general trend for the transverse residual tude was relatively
stress component. However, the through- small comparing 15
thickness variation from the five-pass with transverse
model is more significant than those from residual stresses. f0 -- 5 pass model ]
x ~ . . ~ . ~ . l k ~ ~ 3 pass model (w/o mo~[cation)
the three-pass models in which the stress Figures 13A and [ _x 3pas_s mod~l_(with mo(~/ification~J
magnitudes at both surfaces and the mid- 13B show the 5
dle section of the weld were underesti- through-thickness
mated. As for the longitudinal compo- transverse and lon- 50 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
nent, the lumped-pass models gitudinal stress
variation at 2/5 in. -5
overestimated the residual stresses
through the plate thickness. from the weld toe.
-10
Distance from weld toe on bottom surface (in.)
Lumoed-Pass Models A Six-PassGirth- (a)
Welded Pipe
As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, the in-
creased tensile zone sizes were Model Definition
attributed to the lumped heat in-
put effects. This clearly demonstrates that A six-pass girth-
the equivalent heat contents associated welded pipe was -- 5 pass moded
• ~ 3 pass model (w/o modification)
with lumped passes should be carefully considered in this ~Z x 3 pass model (with modification)
defined to obtain a reasonable residual section. This m 10 • Measured[2]
stress prediction, particularly for trans- model definition [¢
verse residual stress components. In the was consistent 15
lumped-pass model with a modified with that investi- !
weight function (reduced by 15% as a gated by Brust, et
weight factor), the improvement in resid- al. (Ref. 23), as
]o x ~ ..... _-llKllm~ it I ~ X, ll ii ill
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ual stress predictions can be seen, partic- shown in Fig. 14.
ularly for the longitudinal components. The pipe was made
of Type 304 stain-
Pass by Pass Residual Stress Develooment less steel. The cor- -10
Distance from ~ toe on top surface (in.)
responding mater-
Through Figs. 11-13, the detailed ial properties are ¢o)
residual stress development is further il- given in Fig. 15
lustrated using the five-pass model. Fig- (Ref. 23). The weld
ures 11A and 11 B show the transverse Fig. 8 - - Residual transverse stress distributions for a plate mode/: A - -
metal properties On bottom surface; B - - on top surface.
stresses along the bottom and top sur- were assumed to

501

40

- - 5 pass model 30 I-~p~=de' I

~ : t ~ ~ x ~ 3 passmodel(WOmodification) J I \ = \ I ~ 3palmmodel(~0modlfk~tion)I
z~ ] \ ~ X I 3 pass model(v,tthmodlflcation)I
I \ .\ x 3 passmOdel(withmodification x

\
I . . 2.5. . 3 .
2 3.5 4
- f o ~ ,<~J~.~xxx x x ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ x
-20 J
Distancefrom'~,eId toe on bottom surface (in.) Distance from ~ l d toe on bottom surface (in.)

(a) (a)

Fig. 9 - - Residual longitudinal stress distributions for a plate model: A - - O n bottom surface; B - - on top surface.

376-s I SEPTEMBER 1998

 7.5
iX 3passmodel(w~modlfication) I /
~

~ 2.5
5 ~ 45¸

[
"4
f
--~-- ~ = : mm~o~)l(w/o modlf'¢ation)]
x 3 pass model (with modfflcatJon)~

t[4o
. .' '.'~_o2, o.',5 o2~ .~ZI .' i
x

~ -5

-7.5

-10 O 0.C5 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0,35 0.4 0.45 0,5
Distnace from bottom to top surface (in.) Distance from bottom to top surface (in.)
(a) Co)

Fig. 10 - - Through-thickness residual stress distributions at 2~ in. from the weld toe for a plate model: A - - Transverse stress distributions; B - - lon-
gitudinal stress distributions.

50

-- 5 p u s model
3 pass model (w/o modification)

[ x 3pass mode withmodifinaSon

~35
-5 ~

-10 J
30
Distance from ~ toe on bottom audace (in.) 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
(a) Distance from bottom to top surface (in.)
Co)

Fig. 11 - - Residual transverse stress distributions after immediate passes for a plate model: A - - O n bottom surface; B - - on top surface.

30 "-

1ol
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
_~ ......... .-.-.-.=.. _ ~ ~ =
-10
-10 -
Distance from wek:ltoe on bottomsurface (in,)
D~lance from ~ toe cn top surface (in.)
(a)
(b)

Fig. 12 - - Residual longitudinal stress distributions after immediate passes for a plate model: A - - On bottom surface; B - - on top surface.

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT[ 377-S

 10 q

[
io ' i . i ' i .' i

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Distar~ce from bottom to top surface (in.) D~tarTce from r~torn to top sudace (in,)
(a) (b)

Fig. 13 - - Through-thickness stress distribution at 2,~in. from the weld toe after immediate passes for a plate model: A - - Transverse stress distribu-
tions; B - - longitudinal stress distributions.

The analysis procedures are similar to Table 2 - - Pass Sequences and Welding Parameters of Each Pass for a Six-Pass Girth-Welded
those described in the above, except that Pipe Model ~
(1) weld metal initial temperature at de-
position was assumed at either room or Welding parameters
melting temperature; (2) various arc effi- PassNo. Layer No. Heat input (kJ/mm) Speed (mm/s)
ciency factors were assumed, (see Table
1 1 0.88 1.57
3, note that Case D with 108% arc effi- 2, 3 2 0.45 8.13
ciency was arbitrarily selected); and (3) 4, 5, 6 3 0.45 8.13
linear kinematic hardening was assumed.
(a) Ref. 23.

Results and Discussions Effects of Heat Input

Predictions vs. Measurements Figures 18 and 19 show the residual Passea 4 = 6

stress distributions along the inner and
Figures 16 and 17 show the compari- outer surfaces with various conditions Passes 2- 3

son between the finite element results described in Table 3, with prescribed
Root Pass
(Case A) and experimental data (Ref. 23). room temperature conditions for weld
Figures 16A and 16B show the axial metal. Note that the predicted residual
residual stress distributions along the stress distributions are rather similar. (a)
outer and inner surfaces, respectively. In Among them, Case D (with an unrealisti-
Figure 16A, the FEA results show a good
agreement with the experimental mea-
surements. In Figure 16B, the predictions Centcrline
gave higher values than those obtained !
5.0" !
from experiments. Figures 17A and 17B
show the circumferential (hoop) residual
stress distributions along the outer and
inner surfaces, respectively. The pre-
o.3_ I I I [It;/ll',','~lLIl~
i
dicted and measured hoop residual R=6.0" i
stresses on the outer surface showed a
significant variation (Fig. 17A), particu-
larly at the weld toe. However, the over-
I '
(b)
all trends between the predictions and
measurements appear in reasonable
agreement. Hoop residual stresses with a Fig. 14 - - Finite element model for a six-pass girth-welded pipe: A - - View o f weld area; B - - en-
high magnitude were predicted for the tire view o f the axisymmetric pipe model.
inner surface, extending a few weld
widths from the weld centerline
- - Fig. 17A.
In what follows, various heat input con- cally high heat input) showed a little Effects of Weld Metal Initial Temperature
ditions (see Table 3) and their effects on more deviation far away from the weld.
residual stress predictions will be exam- Note that the weld metal initial tempera- Figures 20 and 21 show the predicted
ined with respect to Case A. tures in these cases were assumed to be residual stress distributions along outer
at room temperature. and inner surfaces with different heat

378-s I SEPTEMBER 1998

 o'u, o'y, E ~ E T ,
v ksj ksi_ psi

0.34~-80 - 32 - 3 0 ~ ' ~
0"33 ~- 75 - 30 " 28 r
0.32 - 70 - 28 - 261- ~
o,

0.28 - 50 - 20 - 18 "~ ~y ;,
° . 2 , 1 - ~ - ,~ - ,, r ~ ~ \ ~ , , . o
o . 2 , , - , 0 - ,o . , ~ ~ j ~ . . . . ~ \ \ I
o.2~- ~ - ,,, ,2 r ~ ~,.,.\ \ ~,oo
0 2 , _ ~ 0 _ ,~ ,o r / \ ~ \ \ I
o.,,_~o_,o: ~r / \ ~ ~ \ t ",°
0.~,_,,. o, , r / ~ ~ \\i..o
o~o_,oj_ ~: 2 !_ ~-~----~-~ ~"~.1
o,.-~-2~ o° 2oo .oo ~oo ~OOm.~r, O O % . ~ 2 o o ,.oo ,~oo ,~oo 2ooo ~ °

Fig. 15 - - Temperature-dependent material properties of 304 stainless steel for finite element stress analysis (Ref. 23).

inputs, as shown in Table 3, and the pre-

Table 3 - - Combination of Heat Inputs for a Six-Pass Girth-Welded Pipe scribed melting temperature initial con-
ditions for weld metal. Again, the results
are essentially similar among all the
Percent heat input Initial prescribedtemperatureconditions cases. Case G showed some deviations
Case (%) Weld metal Base metal from the rest starting from about 2 in.
A 72 Room temperature Room temperature away from the weld centerline.,
B 62 Room temperature Room temperature From a practical standpoint, the results
C 82 Room temperature Room temperature (Figs. 18-21) suggest that the predicted
D 108 Room temperature Room temperature residual stress distributions do not seem
E 50 Melting temperature Room temperature
F sensitive to the detailed heat input para-
40 Melting temperature Room temperature
G 72 Melting temperature Room temperature meters and the prescribed initial temper-
ature conditions for weld metal deposio

60
=l
I--FE Results(CaseA)I

='°1 ~
4O

i'u"'~[~] I
2o Weld

I,
t 0 ol, ~., o:= ~ . ~ - , . ~ ,., ,.~ ,., ,

'2;-'"-
~-20 ~

i
- - F E Reeults (Case A)
• Measured [23

Distance from we~l centerlble on OUter surface (in.)

(a)
Distance |tom weld centedine on inner surface (in.)

(b)

Fig. 16 - - Comparison o f the calculated (CaseA heat input) and measured (Ref. 23) residual axial stresses for a pipe model: A - - On outer surface;
B - - on inner surface.

WELDING RESEARCH SUPPLEMENT I 379-s

 607
-- FE Results(CaseA)
- - F E Results(CaseA) • Measured[23]
40~ • Measured23 40

20

:or ~' _ : ~ \ * '

[
~o I '
If o, i
I 0.2
I
0.4

120~ W~ld [ ~-20 (--~," W e l d

-40

-60 J
Distancefrom weld centedlneon outersurface(in.) -60
Distancefrom weld centerlineon innersurface(in.)
(a) (b)

Fig. 17. - - Comparison of the calculated (Case A heat input) and measured, Ref. 23) residual hoop stresses for a pipe model: A - - On outer surface;
B - - on inner surface.

607

40-

20-
[
o,
~ 0 ,i o1 5 J 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0.5 ~ "..... i ' i ' ' ' 7.~ -~¸ 5
~ -20~ ¢~-20 ~

21'
-40

-60
Distancefrom weldcenterllneon outersurface(in.) Distancefrom weld centedineon innersurface (in.)
(a) Co)

Fig. 18 - - Residual axial stresses for different heat input magnitudes for a pipe model (prescribed initial temperature for weld metal is room temper-
ature): A - - On outer surface; B - - on inner surface.

6O 6O

~20~
[
[° 05 . . . . . .

..=-20

-40-

.60 ]
.60 ¸
Distancefrom w@dcentedineon outersurface(in.) Distancefrom weld centerIneon innersudace(in.)
(a) Co)

Fig. 19 - - Residual hoop stresses for different heat input magnitudes for a pipe model (prescribed initial temperature for weld metal is room tem-
perature): A - - On outer surface; B - - on inner surface.

380-s I SEPTEMBER 1998

 60

~. 20
[
~ 0 0 : 5 j 1 : 5 ' 2 2 : 5 ' 3 3 : 5 4 - " 4'.~"- : ~"5 ~o
~ ~ ~
-40~

-60 J -60 ~
I
Distance from weld centerUne on outer surface (in.) Distance from weld centedine on inner surface (in.)
(a) (b)

Fig. 20 - - Residual axial stresses for different heat input magnitudes for a pipe model (prescribed initial temperature for weld metal is melting tem-
perature): A - - On outer surface; B - - on inner surface.

60

4O
40

~.~ 2O

0 ~, . . . . . . .
J
1 °

~-2o

-40

-60
Distance from weld centerUne on outer surface (in.) Distarcefrom weld centedine on inner surface (in.)
(a) Co)

Fig. 21 - - Residual hoop stresses for different heat input magnitudes for a pipe model (prescribed initial temperature for weld metal is melting tem-
perature): A - - On outer surface; B - - on inner surface.

tion effects, as long as the fusion zone for
each pass is adequately modeled.
Conclusions
In this article, various simplified resid-
ual stress modeling procedures were ex-
amined in detail using two multipass
weld examples. The following observa-
tions can be made in light of the case
studies performed:
1) If lumped-pass models are used, the
transverse residual stresses tend to be un-
derestimated due to the higher amount
equivalent heat input. However, the cor-
responding longitudinal residual stresses
can still be reasonably predicted. Further
improvement can be achieved by intro-
ducing the weighted factor approach pre-
sented in this study.
2) The modeled weld pass profile in
terms of both size and shape dominates
the final residual stress distributions. Spe-
cial care must be exercised in defining
and presenting weld pass profiles to
achieve an adequate accuracy in residual
stress predictions.
3) Predicted residual stress results in this
study are shown to be insensitive to the de-
tailed heat input parameters and initial
temperature settings for deposited passes.
Advantages can be taken to simplify the
thermal analysis procedures without jeop-
ardizing the accuracy of residual stress so-
lutions. This will be extremely beneficial
for analyzing complex structures.
Acknowledgement
The presented work was sponsored in
part by the Edison Welding Institute under
the EWl Cooperative Research Program.
References
1. Shim, Y. L., Feng, Z., Lee, S., Kim D.,
Jaeger, J., Papritan, J. C., and Tsai C.-L. 1992.
Determination of residual stressesin thick-sec-
tion weldments. Welding Journal 71 (9): 305-s
to 312-s.
2. Tsai, C.-L., Kim, D. S., Shim, Y. L., Feng,
Z., Lee, S., and Jaeger, J. 1991. Determination
of Residual Stress and Effects in Thick Section
Weldments for Hydraulic Structures. Research
Report of Army Corps of Engineers.
3. Feng, Z., Jaeger, J., Kim, D., Lee, S., Pa-
pritan, J., Shim, Y. L., and Tsai, C.-L. 1989. Fi-
nite Element Modeling of Welded Thick Plates
for Bonneville Navigation Lock. Research Re-
port of Army Corps of Engineers.
4. Tsai, C.-L., Lee, S. G., Shim, Y. L., Jaeger,
J., and Chasten, C. 1992. Experimental Verifi-
cation of Modeling Techniques of Thermal-Re-
lated Welding Problems. The Winter Annual
Meeting of the ASME, Orlando, Fla.
5. Hong, J. K., Dong, P., and Tsai, C.-L. Fi-
nite element simulation of residual stresses in
muhipass welds. 1994. International Confer-
ence Proceedings on Modeling and Control of
Jointing Processes, ed. T. Zachria, American
Welding Society, Miami, Fla., pp. 470-476.
6. Dong, Y., Hong, J. K., Tsai, C.-L., and
Dong, P. 1997. Finite element modeling of
residual stresses in austenitic stainless steel

W E L D I N G RESEARCH S U P P L E M E N T [ 381-s
pipe girth welds. Welding Journal 76(10): 442-
s to 449-s.
7. Josefson, B. L. 1983. Stress redistribution
during annealing of a multi-pass butt-welded
pipe. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
105: 165-170.
8. Karlsson, L. 1986. Thermal stresses in
welding. Thermal Stresses, ed. R. B. Het-
narski,Vol. 1, pp. 300-389. North-Holland,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
9. Goldak, J. Modeling thermal stresses
and distortions in welds. 1990. Recent Trends
in Welding Science and Technology, eds. S. A.
David and I. M. Vitek, pp. 71-82. ASM Inter-
national, Material Parks, Ohio.
10. Andersson, B. A. B. 1978. Thermal
stresses in a submerged-arc welded joint con-
sidering phase transformations. Journal of En-
gineering Materials and Technology 100(4):
356-362.
11. Hibbitt, H. D., and Marcal, P. V. 1973.
A numerical, thermo-mechanical model for
the welding and subsequent loading of a fab-
ricated structure. Computer & Structures
3:1145-1174.
382-s [ SEPTEMBER 1 9 9 8
12. Argyris, J. H., Szimmat, J., Willam, K.
J. 1982. Computational aspects of welding
stress analysis. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 33: 635-666.
13. Leung C. K., and Pick, R.J. 1990. Finite
element analysis of multipass welds. Welding
Research Council Bulletin 356:11-33.
14. Rybicki, E. F., and Stonesifer, R. B.
1979. Computation of residual stresses due to
multipass welds in piping systems. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology 101 : 149-154.
15. Ueda, Y., and Nakacho, K. 1982. Sim-
plifying methods for analysis of transient and
residual stresses and deformations due to
multi-pass welding. Trans. of JWRI 11:
95-104.
16. Lee, S. G. 1992. Modeling of Residual
Stress In Thick Section Weldments, Ph.D. ds.,
The Ohio State University.
17. ABAQUS User's Manual. 1995. Hib-
bitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., Province, R.I.
18. Karlsson, C. T. 1989. Finite element
analysis of temperatures and stresses in a sin-
gle-pass butt-welded pipe - - influence of
mesh density and material modeling. Engi-
neering Computations 6:133-141.
19. Karlsson, R. I., and Josefson, B. L.
1990.Three-dimensional finite element analy-
sis of temperatures and stresses in a single-pass
butt-welded pipe. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology 112:76 -84.
20. Josefson, g. L. 1982. Residual stresses
and their redistribution during annealing of a
girth-butt welded thin-walled pipe. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology 104: 245-250.
21. Lindgren, L.-E. 1986. Temperature
fields in simulation of butt-welding of large
plates. Communications in Applied Numerical
Methods, Vol. 2, pp. 155-164.
22. Landau, H. G., Weiner, J. H., and
Zwicky, E. E., Jr. 1960. Thermal stress in a vis-
coelastic-plastic plate with temperature-de-
pendent yield stress. Journal of Applied Me-
chanics 27(2): 297-302.
23. Brust, F. W., and Stonesifer R. B. Effect
of Weld Parameters on Residual Stresses in
BWR Piping Systems. NP-1747, Final report by
Battelle, Columbus Laboratories to Electric
Power Research Institute, March 1981.