Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcsr

Stress biaxiality-based residual stress assessment in welded T-joints using

the blind-hole method
Chuanxi Li a, Bohai Ji a, *, Yue Yao b
a
College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Jiangsu Open University, Nanjing 210036, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The blind-hole method is widely used to measure the welding residual stress (WRS) in welded steel structural
Steel truss bridge connections such as T-joints. To enhance the test accuracy, a rapid WRS evaluation method considering stress
T-joint level and biaxial stress ratio was developed and validated. The proposed method was applied to measure the WRS
Welding residual stress
distributions of T-joints in steel truss bridges, and a finite element model (FEM) simulating the WRS was verified
Blind-hole method
Stress biaxiality
by the test results. On this basis, the effects of welding parameters and geometric configuration of T-joints on
WRS were analyzed by the validated FEM. The results show that the maximum error from ignoring the hole edge
plasticity or stress biaxiality is about 20%, and the proposed method can effectively reduce the WRS measure­
ment error caused by the above factors. The results of the experiment and FE analysis demonstrate that the WRSs
in T-joint are in an obvious biaxial stress state, which further proves that it is necessary to consider stress
biaxiality in calibration for the blind-hole method.

1. Introduction consider the deformation of each direction and be directly calculated by

Steel trusses are common structural forms of steel bridges [1], and
welding technology has become prevalent in connecting various com­
ponents of steel truss bridges. Nevertheless, due to uneven heating and
cooling in the welding process of the main girder, the welding area is
subjected to tensile residual stresses [2], which elevates the average
stress, increases the fatigue crack growth rate, and reduces the fatigue
life [3–5]. Obviously, it is of great significance to obtain the welding
residual stress (WRS) of the main girder welds accurately for the fatigue
performance evaluation.
The blind-hole method has been extensively utilized for measuring
WRS due to its simple operation and minimal structural damage [6].
However, at high-stress levels, plastic strain occurs at the hole edge due
to stress concentration after drilling. The formula calculating the WRS is
derived when the hole edge is in an elastic state, which means the
calculation results may have a large error when the hole edge enters a
plastic state [7,8]. To reduce the adverse effects of plastic deformation,
different methods are developed to correct the strain release coefficients
(SRCs) A and B [9–13]: (1) grading calibration method; (2) plastic
correction based on the distortion energy; (3) plasticity correction curve
method; (4) iterative correction method. The distortion energy can
the tested strains and has strong practicability.
SRCs are usually calibrated by the uniaxial stress [14,15], while the
WRS is usually in a biaxial stress state in thin and medium-thickness
plates [16]. The SRCs calibrated by the uniaxial tensile test are inade­
quate to apply to deformation-induced biaxial stress states [17]. In
addition, the stress state also affects the stress concentration caused by
drilling, which further affects the measured relaxed strains [18].
Therefore, the SRCs calibrated by biaxial stress can truly reflect the
relationship between the released strain and WRS [19]. However, the
biaxial stress calibration method has not been widely used, and the
possible reasons are as follows: (1) due to the different combinations of
stress states and stress levels, the calibration experiments of biaxial
stress are time-consuming; (2) the WRS fields are unknown in the actual
structure, and the biaxial stress ratio and stress level cannot be obtained
in advance, which may be difficult to determine the SRCs corresponding
to a particular biaxial stress state. In summary, if the above difficulties
can be overcome, the test accuracy of the blind-hole method will be
further improved.
This study aims to develop a rapid WRS evaluation method consid­
ering stress biaxiality effect, which could directly predict WRS by
measured strains and effectively improve the test accuracy of the blind-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bhji@hhu.edu.cn (B. Ji).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2024.108610
Received 5 December 2023; Received in revised form 22 February 2024; Accepted 9 March 2024
Available online 16 March 2024
0143-974X/© 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

test results, and the influences of welding parameters and geometric

configuration of T-joints on WRS were analyzed by the validated FEM.
Furthermore, the stress state of the T-joint welds was verified by the
results of the experiment and FEA, which further proves that the ne­
cessity to consider the stress biaxiality for the blind-hole method.

2. Calibration methods of SRCs

2.1. Determination of SRCs

When adopting the blind-hole method to determine the WRS, the

released strains corresponding to strain gauges 1 to 3 (Fig. 1) were
initially measured. Subsequently, the WRS could be calculated by the
Kirsch Eq. [20], specifically, Eq. (1).
⎧ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
⎪ ε1 + ε3 1
⎪
⎪ σ1 =
⎪ − (ε1 − ε3 )2 + (2ε2 − ε1 − ε3 )2
⎪
⎪ 4A 4B
⎪
⎨ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ε + ε3 1
σ2 = 1 + (ε1 − ε3 )2 + (2ε2 − ε1 − ε3 )2 (1)
⎪
⎪ 4A 4B
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2ε2 − ε1 − ε3
⎪
⎩ tan2θ =
ε3 − ε1
where A and B are the SRCs, determined by material properties, hole
diameter, and rosette gauge size; ε1, ε2, and ε3 represent the released
Fig. 1. The strain-gauge rosette for the blind-hole method. strains along the corresponding directions; σ 1 and σ 2 are the principal
stresses; and θ is the direction angle of the principal stress.
hole method. In addition, the developed method was adopted to deter­ To eliminate the error induced by plastic strain at the hole edge, a
mine the WRS distribution of T-joints in steel truss bridges. On this basis, known stress field was applied to the experimental specimen (Fig. 2) for
the finite element model (FEM) simulating the WRS was verified by the SRC grading calibration. Following Eq. (1), the SRC can be determined:

Fig. 2. Calibration specimen and load (unit: mm).

Fig. 3. The SRCs calibration model (unit: mm).

2
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

⎧ ε1 + ε3 Table 1
⎪
⎪ A=
⎪
⎨ 2(σ1 + σ 2 ) Parameters of SRC formula.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (2) Designation d (mm) b (mm) a (mm) r1 (mm) r2 (mm)
⎪
⎪ (ε1 − ε3 )2 + (2ε2 − ε1 − ε3 )2
⎪
⎩B = Parameter value 0.75 0.7275 1.5 1.75 3.25
2(σ1 − σ 2 )
In accordance with GB/T 31310–2014 [21], a uniaxial stress field is
imposed on the specimen. Strain gauge 1 is oriented parallel to the di­ ⎧ ∫ r2 ∫ b
cos2β [ x ]x=r2
⎪
rection of the loading stress, and the maximum principal stress σ1 equals ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
S1 =
r 2
dxdy = 2 arctan
b x=r1
⎪
the stress induced by the loading stress. Under these conditions, with σ 1
r1 − b
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∫ r2 ∫ b [ ]x=r2
= σ, σ 2 = 0, θ = 0, the SRCs calculation formula can be simplified to Eq. ⎨ cos4β x
S2 = dxdy = − 2b (5)
(3): ⎪
⎪ r1 − b r2 x2 + b2 x=r1
⎪
⎪ [ ]x=r2
⎧ ⎪
⎪ ∫ ∫
ε1 + ε3 ⎪
⎪
r2 b
cos4β 2 x
⎨A = ⎪
⎪ S = dxdy = − b ( )
2σ ⎩ 3 2
(3) r1 − b r4 3 x2 + b2 x=r1
⎩ ε1 − ε3
B=
2σ
where E andμ represent Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of the
material; d represents the radius of the hole; a and b represent the length
2.2. Finite element model
and the half-width of the strain gauge; r1 and r2 represent the distances
from the hole center to both ends of the strain gauge; r = (r1 + r2)/2,
The biaxial stress field can be easily simulated in the FEM, and the
which represents the distance from the center of the strain gauge to the
biaxial stress ratio can also be arbitrarily specified, overcoming the
hole center; κ represents the correction coefficient, which is equal to
limitations of calibration tests. Additionally, the principle, boundary
1.065; S1, S2, and S3 represent the area integral parameters of the
conditions, and loads for calibrating SRCs using the FEM are identical to
released strain based on the rosette gauge. The values and corresponding
those for experimental calibration. Operational errors are also effec­
meanings of each parameter in the formula are presented in Table 1 and
tively avoided. Consequently, a FEM established in ABAQUS software
Fig. 1, respectively.
was employed to calibrate the SRCs in the present research. To enhance
Fig. 4 shows that the absolute values of the experimentally calibrated
calculation efficiency, the FEM length was simplified to 100 mm, while
SRCs are smaller than those calibrated by the FEM in this paper, but
maintaining consistent width and thickness with the calibration spec­
their growth trends are similar, which preliminarily proves the ratio­
imen. The rationality of the simplified model has been proved by
nality of the established FEM. Furthermore, to mitigate the influence of
Ref. [15].
experimental errors on the SRCs calibration results, we introduce
The C3D8R eight-node linear brick element was employed with
Kirsch's theoretical solution and the FE calibration results from
varying mesh densities. Element sizes near the hole were set to 0.15 mm,
Ref. [15].
while sizes in other areas reached as large as 5 mm. The FEM comprised
When the calibration stress f1 is below 0.5fy, the average errors for A
440,612 nodes and 360,762 elements, respectively. The biaxial stress
and B are 1.46% and 3.0%, respectively. This suggests that the SRCs
field was loaded to the four sides of the FEM. Additionally, k (i.e., f2/f1)
obtained by uniaxial stress calibration align well with Kirsch's theoret­
was defined as the stress ratio. Both f1 and f2 were the applied external
ical solution. However, when the calibration stress f1 exceeds 0.5fy and
stresses, with f1 exceeding f2 [15]. A fixed constraint (i.e., UX = UY=UZ
continues to increase, due to the influence of plastic deformation at the
= 0) was applied at the midpoint of the model to prevent rigid body
hole edge, the absolute values of SRCs for uniaxial calibration gradually
displacement. The geometric size and arrangement of the rosette gauge
increase and move away from the theoretical solution. Therefore, when
(TJ120–1.5-Φ1.5) in the model mirrored those in the calibration test
the calibration stress f1 exceeds 0.5fy, the SRC calibration results from
(Fig. 3). Q345qD steel with an elastic modulus of 2.06 × 105 MPa and a
Ref. [15] are introduced for comparison with the FE calibration results
Poisson's ratio of 0.3 was used in the FEM, and the stress-strain rela­
in this study. It's evident that the SRCs from the FE calibration align with
tionship was detailed in Ref. [15]. A hole with the diameter of 1.5 mm
the trend observed in Ref. [15], with average errors for A and B below
and depth of 1.8 mm was drilled at the center of the strain rosette. After
3%. In conclusion, the established FEM is accurate and suitable for SRC
drilling, the average value of each node was taken as the released strain.
calibration under biaxial stress.
The released strain and stress field parameters were then substituted
into Eq. (2) to obtain the SRCs.
2.4. The SRCs by biaxial stress calibration
2.3. Validation of the model
To study the effect of biaxial stress calibration on the SRCs, cali­
bration stresses f1 and f2 were applied to the above FEM. The stress ratio
To validate the accuracy of the FEM, a uniaxial stress field was
k ranged from − 0.8 to 0.8. The biaxial stress magnitude (i.e., stress level)
applied. According to GB/T 31310–2014 [24], the calibration stress f1
was quantified by the von Mises equivalent stress fEq. [23], as shown in
ranged from 0.1fy to 0.9fy, with f2 set to 0. The SRCs calibrated by the FE
Eq. (6). Fig. 5 reveals that when the stress level is below 0.5fy, the SRCs
method were then compared with Kirsch's theoretical solution. For the
remain relatively constant, suggesting little impact from the stress ratio
case of through-hole, when the material was in the linear elastic range,
and stress level. However, when the stress feq exceeds 0.5fy, attributed to
the formulae for calculating SRCs based on Kirsch's theory were [22]:
the plastic deformation of the hole edge, the absolute values of SRCs
⎧
⎪ 1 + μ d2 increase with the stress level. At the same stress level, the absolute
⎪ A = − κ⋅ ⋅
⎪
⎨ 2E r1 r2 values of SRCs increase with an elevated stress ratio, which can be
[ ( ) ] (4) attributed to the plastic strain transferring to ε1 and the relative decrease
⎪
⎪B = − 1
⎪
⎩
3
(1 + μ) d2 S2 − d4 S3 + (1 − μ)d2 S1 of ε1 [15]. Furthermore, the errors between the SRCs obtained through
2abE 2
biaxial stress calibration and uniaxial stress calibration rise with an in­
crease in the stress level. For instance, when feq is 0.9fy, the absolute
values of A and B at a stress ratio of 0.8 increase by 7.9% and 51.3%,
respectively, compared to a stress ratio approaching 0.

3
C. Li et al.
(a) A
Fig. 4. Comparative analysis of SRCs calibrated by different methods.
k k
S
k k
k k
k k
k
f f
f f
Fig. 5. Biaxial stress calibration results of SRCs.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
feq = f1 2 + f2 2 − f1 f2
2.5. Effect of SRCs calibration methods on residual stress calculation
To assess the influence of the calibration method on the WRS,
additional working conditions were considered for 0.2 ≤ k ≤ 0.8 (in
increments of 0.2), which were not accounted for in the SRC calibration.
Each working condition contained nine sets of data, ranging from 0.1 to
0.9 (in increments of 0.1). Initially, the release strains under the cali­
brated stress (i.e., the applied external stresses f1 and f2) were calculated.
Subsequently, employing the stress level and stress ratio of the selected
working conditions, the SRCs for uniaxial stress and biaxial stress cali­
bration were derived through two-dimensional linear interpolation
among the calibrated SRCs (see Fig. 5). Theoretical SRCs were calculated
using Eqs. (4) and (5). Finally, these released strains and SRCs were
inserted into Eq. (1) to compute the estimated stress under different SRC
calibration methods, as shown in Fig. 6. At low-stress levels, estimated
stresses from different calibration methods align well with the calibra­
tion stress. As stress level increases, the difference between estimated
stresses and calibration stresses gradually expands. One potential reason
for this difference is that the magnitude of the biaxial stress affects the
distribution of plastic strain in each direction around the hole edge.
As stress level increases, the absolute values of the SRC theoretical
solution are gradually smaller than those from FE calibration (see
Fig. 4). However, the residual tensile stress decreases with the increase
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610
(b) B
k=
k=
of the absolute values of SRCs [6]. Therefore, if the SRC theoretical
(6)
solution is still used to calculate the WRS, they will be overestimated. As
depicted in Fig. 6, under the studied working conditions, the difference
between the estimated stress calculated by the Kirsch theoretical solu­
tion (i.e., theoretical value) and the calibration stress reaches up to 20%.
Additionally, the estimated stresses obtained through biaxial stress
calibration align well with the calibration stresses, but the maximum
error between the estimated stresses obtained through uniaxial stress
calibration and the calibration stresses is close to 11%.
In summary, at low-stress levels, the estimated stresses calculated by
different SRC calibration methods align with the calibration stresses.
However, at high-stress levels, the estimated stresses calculated by the
Kirsch theoretical solution (neglecting the plastic effect) significantly
exceed the calibration stress, with a difference of up to 20%. In addition,
uniaxial calibration also results in a maximum error of nearly 11%.
Therefore, it's crucial to account for biaxial stress and the plastic effect at
the hole edge when adjusting the SRCs.
3. Plastic correction of SRCs considering stress biaxiality
3.1. Proposed evaluation framework for determining the WRS
During the test, the released strains ε1, ε2, and ε3 can be determined
from the rosette gauge. Nevertheless, the WRS is unknown, making the
stress level and biaxial stress unavailable. Obtaining the SRC for the
actual WRS field is challenging. On the one hand, the distortion energy
4
C. Li et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of the estimated stress calculated by different methods.
theory in material mechanics helps determine whether a material is
yielding [6,12,23]. Specifically, when the distortion energy factor S
reaches a critical value Scv, the material begins to yield. As a result, the
hole-edge stress level can be represented by the distortion energy factor
S, which can be calculated directly using the strain release strains ε1, ε2,
and ε3. On the other hand, according to the generalized formula of
Hooke's law (Eq. (7)), a functional relationship between εx/εy and σ x/σy
is established. This implies that the stress ratio (k) can be predicted by
the released strains ε1, ε2, and ε3.
( )/
{
εx = ( σ x -μσ y )/E
(7)
εy = σ y -μσ x E
Based on the analysis above, a rapid evaluation framework for WRS
considering the stress biaxiality effect was developed (Fig. 7). The spe­
cific steps were as follows: (1) Calculate the distortion energy factor S
based on the released strains, and compare it with the critical value Scv.
(2) if S ≤ Scv, indicating no yielding at the hole edge, calculate the SRCs
using Kirsch's theory (Eqs. (4) and (5)). If S > Scv, signifying yielding at
the hole edge, predict the stress ratio using the function k = k(εx/εy), and
calculate the corrected SRC based on the established mathematical
5
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610
model between SRCs, S, and k. (3) Calculate the WRS based on the
released strains, SRCs, and Eq. (1).
3.2. Derivation of the distortion energy factor S
The von Mises yield condition in plastic theory can be expressed as
[12]:
[ ]/
(σ1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ1 )2 6 = C (8)
where C represents the distortion energy. The material will yield only
when C reaches the yield limit. If the directions of σ x and σ y align with
the principal stresses of the WRS field, the von Mises yield condition for
the plane stress problem (i.e., σ1 = σ x, σ2 = σ y, and σ 3 = 0) will be
expressed as:
σx 2 − σx σy + σy 2 = σs 2 (9)
where σ s is the yield stress of the material. The functional relationship
between stress and strain is developed based on generalized Hooke's
law. Therefore, Eq. (10) is deduced by Eqs. (7) and (9).
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 9. Mathematical prediction model of the stress ratio.

feq/fy is >0.5, the two curves diverge. Hence, the distortion energy factor
S corresponding to feq/fy = 0.5 is defined as the critical value.
Fig. 7. The proposed WRS evaluation framework.
3.3. The SRCs correction

The key to the proposed WRS evaluation framework lies in the

mathematical model of the biaxial stress ratio k. According to Eq. (11),
the distortion energy factor S is linked to the released strains parallel and
perpendicular to the weld. The relationship between the stress ratio and
the corresponding strain ratio under working conditions (i.e., − 0.8 ≤ k
≤ 0.8) in Section 2.4 is fitted by an exponential function. Fig. 9 shows
that the correlation coefficient (R2) is close to 1, indicating a strong
correlation between the stress ratio and the corresponding strain ratio.
Hence, the developed mathematical model for predicting the stress ratio
is feasible.
For practical application, a functional relationship between the SRCs
and the distortion energy factor S was established (Figs. 10 and 11).
When S exceeds Scv, the absolute values of A and B increase linearly,
which is consistent with the results in Refs. [6,12]. To quantify the SRCs,
the relationship between the SRCs and S is fitted by a linear function.
The correlation coefficients (R2) between A and S are close to 1, and the
correlation coefficients between B and S are also nearly 1, indicating
that the fitting formula can be effectively used for calculating A and B.

3.4. Verification of the proposed method

Fig. 8. The relationship between the energy factor S and stress level.
[ /( ) ]2
σx 2 − σx σy + σy 2 = S E 1 − μ2 (10)
( )( ) ( ) crements of 0.1). C2 included additional data, with − 0.7 ≤ k ≤ 0.7
S = 1 + μ2 − μ ε x 2 + ε y 2
− 1 + μ2 − 4μ εx εy (11)
where S reflects the distortion energy in the corresponding stress state. E
represents the elastic modulus, and μ represents the Poisson's ratio;
when measuring the WRS using the blind-hole method, εx and εy
represent the released strains parallel and perpendicular to the weld,
respectively.
Based on the calculated data in Section 2.4, a functional relationship
was established between the stress level (feq/fy) and the distortion en­
ergy factor S. Fig. 8 illustrates that the distortion energy factor S in­
creases with the increase of stress level. The data for k = − 0.8 and k =
0.4 were fitted by the exponential function, and the correlation coeffi­
cient (R2) is close to 1.0, indicating a strong correlation between them.
When feq/fy is below 0.5, the two fitting curves coincide. However, when
Working conditions C1 and C2 were adopted to verify the proposed
evaluation method in Section 3.1. C1 included data used for SRCs cali­
bration, with − 0.8 ≤ k ≤ 0.8 (interval 0.2) and 0.1 ≤ feq/fy ≤ 0.9 (in­
(increments of 0.2) and 0.1 ≤ feq/fy ≤ 0.9 (increments of 0.1), not
considered in SRCs calibration. Based on the proposed evaluation
framework, the estimated stresses for working conditions C1 and C2
were calculated and compared with the corresponding calibration
stresses. The linear function y = x was used to fit the data in Fig. 12. The
correlation coefficients (R2) and the slopes are both nearly 1, and the
estimated stresses align well with the calibration stresses. This demon­
strates that the proposed method can be adopted for determining the
WRS in actual structures.

6
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 10. The relationship between the energy factor S and A.

4. WRS measurement for T-joints 4.2. WRS measurement

4.1. Specimen design and measurement point distribution The WRSs of the T-joints were measured by the blind-hole method,
with the test device and procedure depicted in Fig. 14. Initially, the
To further validate the proposed WRS evaluation method and measured area was polished and cleaned. The rosette gauge was
determine the WRS distribution of T-joints considering stress biaxiality, mounted with adhesive on the measuring point in the specified direc­
two T-joint specimens were designed following the ‘Standard Drawing of tion. Subsequently, a hole with a diameter of 1.5 mm and a depth of 1.8
Steel Truss Composite Girder Bridge’ [24] published by the Ministry of mm was drilled at the center of the rosette gauge. To prevent eccentric
Transport of China in 2019. One of these specimens was utilized to drilling, the drill was calibrated and fixed in advance. Strains were
supplement the test data. T-joint specimens were welded using Q345qD recorded before and after drilling, and the WRS was evaluated by the
steel plates, and their dimensions were shown in Fig. 13. Following the method proposed in Section 3.1.
completion of the first weld, the second welding operation took place
after the specimen temperature returned to its initial level. The welding
4.3. Measurement results
parameters were set at 280 A for current, 30 V for voltage, and a welding
speed of approximately 8 mm/s.
4.3.1. Effect of different evaluation methods on WRS
The WRSs of the T-joint specimens were measured along three
To validate the proposed WRS evaluation method (see Fig. 7) for its
different paths, located on a specific section surface. To avoid the in­
applicability in actual welded structures, the WRS of the T-joint spec­
fluences of arc starting and extinguishing at both ends of the weld on the
imen was calculated using various SRC calibration methods based on
WRS, measurement sections were chosen away from the specimen ends.
experimental test data, and the results were also compared. Given the
The coordinates of the measurement sections were x = 150 mm (path 1),
significant impact of different SRC calibration methods on LWRS (see
x = 300 mm (path 2), and x = 450 mm (path 3), as shown in Fig. 13. The
Fig. 6), LWRS is solely analyzed here. Furthermore, due to the similarity
measurement paths were distributed on the top and bottom surfaces of
of WRS distributions on different paths, the LWRS distributions under
the flange, as well as the surfaces on both sides of the web. The distance
different calibration methods were analyzed, specifically on the top
between measuring points near the weld was about 5 mm, while the
surface of the flange and the web on Path2 and Path3 (see Fig.13), as
distance between measuring points away from the weld gradually
depicted in Figs. 15 and 16.
increased, as shown in Fig. 13. Each path consisted of 43 measurement
The LWRS distributions on Path2 and Path3 calculated by different
points, including 15 on the top surface of the flange, 14 on the bottom
SRCs calibration methods appear similar, with SRCs calibration methods
surface of the flange, and 14 on both sides of the web. The drilling po­
exhibiting a slight influence on LWRS at lower stress levels. As stress
sition and geometric dimensions of the rosette gauge at the measuring
levels increase, the high-value LWRSs calculated with SRCs theoretical
point are shown in Fig. 3.
solution surpass those calculated with uniaxial FEM calibration,
whereas those obtained by uniaxial FEM calibration exceeded those

7
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 11. The relationship between the energy factor S and B.

Fig. 12. Comparison between the estimated results and calibration values.

derived from the proposed evaluation method. This aligns with the
findings of Section 2.5 and Ref. [15], as elaborated in Section 2.5,
indicating that the test data was reasonable in this paper.
For the top surface of the flange (see Fig. 15), the LWRS calculated
using Kirsch's theoretical solution and uniaxial FEM calibration are at
most 33 MPa and 13 MPa greater than those calculated using the pro­
posed evaluation method. Likewise, for the web surface (see Fig. 16), the
LWRS calculated using Kirsch's theoretical solution and uniaxial FEM
calibration are at most 31 MPa and 12 MPa higher than those obtained
from the proposed evaluation method. The primary reason for the
deviation in LWRS peak values is that Kirsch's theoretical solution ne­
glects plastic effects and stress biaxiality, while uniaxial FEM calibration
overlooks stress biaxiality. Consequently, when plastic deformation
occurs at the hole edge, the WRS calculation results ignoring plastic
effects and stress biaxiality are overestimated [15]. This indicates that
the proposed WRS evaluation method can reduce the high-level WRS
induced by plastic effects and stress biaxiality. This conclusion, along
with the research findings in Section 3.4, collectively demonstrates the
validity of the proposed approach.

8
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 13. Measurement paths and measurement points on each path (unit: mm).

(b) Drilling (c) After drilling

Fig. 14. Measurements in the blind-hole method.

Fig. 15. LWRS on the flange top surface under different evaluation methods.

9
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 16. LWRS on the web surface under different evaluation methods.

Fig. 17. The WRS distribution of flange.

4.3.2. WRS distribution in T-joints using the proposed method
The WRS distribution on the top surface of the flange is depicted in
Fig. 17(a) and (b). The WRS along the welding direction is longitudinal
WRS (LWRS), while the WRS perpendicular to the welding direction is
transverse WRS (TWRS). The peak LWRS appears near the centerline of
the flange, averaging about 300 MPa. Continuing away from the flange
centerline of the flange, the LWRS on the top surface rapidly decreases,
becoming compressive at approximately 40 mm. The TWRS distribution
generally mirrors the LWRS distribution, averaging nearly 150 MPa.
However, the peak stress position for TWRS is not aligned with the
centerline of the flange, possibly due to inherent uncertainties in the
blind-hole method [25,26]. In summary, tensile WRS is concentrated

10
C. Li et al.
Fig. 18. The WRS distribution of web.
Fig. 19. The FEM for WRS simulation.
near the weld, while compressive WRS is prevalent farther away from
the weld.
The WRS distribution on the bottom surface of the flange is shown in
Fig. 17(c) and (d). The distributions of LWRS and TWRS mirror that on
the top surface. A substantial tensile WRS is evident near the weld, with
an average peak close to that on the top surface, aligning with other test
results [27]. The WRS distributions on the top and bottom surfaces of the
flange are similar, mainly due to the less pronounced temperature
gradient along the thickness direction during thin plate welding [15].
The WRS distribution on the web surface is illustrated in Fig. 18. The
LWRS distribution closely resembles the TWRS distribution, with peaks
near the weld toe and average peaks of 292 MPa and 153 MPa,
respectively. Notably, the peak TWRS is significantly smaller than that
of the LWRS. One possible explanation is that the longitudinal temper­
ature gradient induced by the movement of the welding heat source is
greater than the transverse temperature gradient, and the longitudinal
stiffness of the specimen surpasses the transverse stiffness. In addition,
around 30 mm from the weld toe, the WRS transitions from tensile stress
to compressive stress, forming a self-balanced distribution of tensile and
11
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610
compressive stresses, affirming the reliability of the measured results.
In summary, tensile WRS is concentrated in a narrow region near the
weld, exhibiting a large stress gradient. Other areas display compressive
WRS, forming a self-equilibrated distribution. The TWRS distribution
closely mirrors that of the LWRS, but the peak TWRS is significantly
smaller. Furthermore, WRS measurement results indicate predomi­
nantly positive stress ratios in most areas of T-joints. Stress ratios in
high-stress regions can reach 0.6 and potentially higher in low-stress
areas, demonstrating that T-joint WRSs typically exist in a biaxial
stress state. Hence, it is crucial to account for the stress biaxiality of the
WRS field in SRC calibration.
However, the above experimental results only quantify the WRS of T-
joint specimen with specific parameters. Numerical simulation serves as
an effective supplementary method, providing easy access to consider
the effects of key parameters on WRS.
5. Numerical simulations of the WRS
5.1. Welding process simulation
5.1.1. Finite element model
A finite element model was established in ABAQUS to simulate the
welding process of the T-joint specimen, as illustrated in Fig. 19. To
enhance calculation efficiency, the longitudinal dimension of the model
was adjusted to 500 mm based on the study by Ref. [4], while the other
dimensions remained consistent with those of the specimens in Section
4.1. The global mesh size was set to 50 mm, with mesh refinement near
the weld to 2 mm. Hexahedral elements were used for the global and
refined regions, while tetrahedral elements were employed for the
transitional regions. The FEM comprised 76,096 nodes and 71,294 ele­
ments, respectively. During the welding simulation, a birth-death
element technique was utilized to numerically simulate the filling pro­
cess of the weld. The second welding pass was performed when the
specimen temperature decreased to the initial temperature. The base
metal of the model was Q345qD steel [4,28], with its temperature-
dependent material properties depicted in Fig. 20. It was assumed that
the material properties of weld material were the same as the base metal.
5.1.2. Thermal analysis
A sequentially coupled three-dimensional thermomechanical anal­
ysis was performed to simulate the welding process. Temperature field
calculations were conducted using DC3D8 elements. Thermal boundary
conditions were applied to the model to simulate the heat exchange
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 20. Temperature-dependent properties of Q345 steel.

(a) Double ellipsoid heat source mode (b) ）Geometrical relationshi

Fig. 21. Welding process simulation of T-joints.

between the specimen and the ambient, which includes natural con­
vection and radiant heat. The environmental temperature was set to
20 ◦ C. To enhance calculation efficiency, the radiative heat was equated
to convective heat based on several trial calculations, with the convec­
tion coefficient of 15 W/(m2•◦ C). The latent heat of solid-liquid trans­
formation was 260 kJ/kg. The welding heating process was simulated
using the double ellipsoid heat source model depicted in Fig. 21(a).
However, a coordinate transformation was required for the double
ellipsoid heat source model for T-joints, as illustrated in Fig. 21(b). The
transformation coordinates were represented by Eqs. (12) and (13). This
heat source model was loaded by the DFLUX subroutine and represented
by Eqs. (14) and (15).

Fig. 22. The comparison between simulated and measured results.

12
C. Li et al. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610

Fig. 23. Effect of the welding speed on WRS near the weld.

y1 = (y − y0 )cosθ + (z − z0 )sinθ (12) model to continue stress calculations. The stress calculation utilized the
same FEM as thermal calculations, with the only difference being the
z1 = − (y − y0 )sinθ + (z − z0 )cosθ (13) change in element type from DC3D8 to C3D8R. The mechanical
√̅̅̅( ) ( boundary conditions of the model are illustrated in Fig. 19. To avoid
)
6 3 ff Q 3x2 3y2 3z2 rigid body motion, fixed constraints were applied on one side of the
qf (x, y, z) = √ ̅ exp −
̅̅ − 2 − 2 ,x ≥ 0 (14)
af bcπ π af 2 b c flange, namely UX = UY = UZ = 0, while releasing the constraint in the
y-direction on the opposite side of the flange, that is, UX = UZ = 0.
√̅̅̅ ( )
6 3(fr Q) 3x2 3y2 3z2 Constraint in the z-direction was released at the top of the web, that is,
qr (x, y, z) = √̅̅̅ exp − − 2 − 2 ,x < 0 (15)
ar bcπ π ar 2 b c UX = UY = 0. Phase transformation effect was ignored because of its
little impact on WRS for low-carbon steel [29].
where Q = ηUI represents the magnitude of the heat input, in which η, U,
and I are the efficiency, welding voltage, and current respectively (Q =
10,800 J for this paper); af, ar, b, and c are the geometric parameters of 5.2. Comparison between FEA and experimental measurement
the heat source; ff and fr denote the fractions of the heat deposited in the
front and rear quadrants, which satisfy ff + fr = 2 (ff = 0.7, fr = 1.3 for To verify the rationality of the FEM, simulated welding deformation
this paper). and WRS were compared with the measured values. Fig. 22(a) shows the
flange deformation characteristics and displacement values from nu­
5.1.3. Mechanical analysis merical simulation align with the measured results of T-joint specimens
After the temperature field was obtained through thermal calcula­ in Section 4.1 and Ref. [30]. Fig. 22(b) demonstrates overall agreement
tion, the temperature history was applied as a predefined field to the between the measured and simulated WRS. Deviations at individual
points in the WRS may arise from measurement errors, which can be

13
C. Li et al.
Fig. 24. Effect of the flange thickness on the WRS near the weld.
deemed normal. Thus, the established FEM is well-suited for conducting
a parametric analysis of WRS.
5.3. Parametric analysis
5.3.1. Welding speed
To study the WRS fields near the weld of T-joints at varying welding
speeds, the WRSs were compared at speeds of 8 mm/s, 10 mm/s, 12
mm/s, and 14 mm/s in Fig. 23. F16W14S8 indicates a flange thickness of
16 mm, web thickness of 14 mm, and welding speed of 8 mm/s.
As the welding speed increases from 8 mm/s to 14 mm/s, the peak
LWRS near the flange weld toe decreases from 270.4 MPa to 216.2 MPa,
and the peak LWRS near the web weld toe decreases from 322.4 MPa to
205.9 MPa, representing a reduction of about 20.3% and 36.2%,
respectively. This decrease is primarily attributed to the reduced heat
source loading time and heat input per unit length, leading to a decrease
in the maximum temperature in the welding area [31]. Moreover, the
TWRSs near the weld toes of the flange and web undergo minimal
changes at different welding speeds. The average values are about 150
MPa and 130 MPa, respectively. Additionally, the TWRS is notably
smaller than the LWRS, and the stress ratio k falls between 0.50 and
0.70, indicating a biaxial stress state near the T-joint weld.
14
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610
5.3.2. Component plate thickness
To study the WRS fields near the weld of T-joints at varying plate
thickness, the WRSs were compared at speeds of 18 mm, 20 mm, 22 mm,
and 24 mm in Fig. 24.
As the thickness of the flange plate increases from 18 mm to 24 mm,
the peak LWRS near the flange weld toe rises from 305 MPa to 321 MPa,
and the peak TWRS increases from 260 MPa to 290 MPa, representing
increments of 5.2% and 11.5%, respectively. This rise is primarily
attributed to the increased internal constraint resulting from the thicker
component plate, leading to higher WRS [32]. However, when the
flange plate thickness increases from 18 mm to 24 mm, the average
LWRS decreases from 246 MPa to 237 MPa, and the average TWRS
decreases from 110 MPa to 77 MPa, resulting in decreases of 3.7% and
3.0%, respectively. This indicates that the component plate thickness
has contrasting effects on the WRS near the weld toes of the flange and
web, aligning with findings in Ref. [33]. Additionally, the WRS fields
remain in a biaxial stress state at varying plate thickness, with the TWRS
significantly smaller than the LWRS, and the maximum stress ratio k
being around 0.50.
6. Conclusions
To enhance the accuracy of the blind-hole method, a rapid WRS
C. Li et al.
evaluation method considering the stress biaxiality effect was developed
and validated, which utilized the distortion energy to assess the stress
level at the hole edge and subsequently employed either the SRC theo­
retical solution or SRC modified value to determine WRS. Additionally,
the WRS distribution of T-joints was measured using the proposed
method, and the stress state of the welds was verified through experi­
mental and FEA results. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) Neglecting the plastic effect results in an overestimation of the
WRS, with a maximum error of 20%. The uniaxial calibration
ignoring stress biaxiality leads to a maximum error of WRS
calculation results approaching 11%;
(2) We proposed a rapid WRS evaluation method accounting for
stress biaxiality, which could directly predict the WRS by
measured strains. The correlation coefficients between the esti­
mated stresses and the calibrated values are close to 1.0, showing
good agreement between the results;
(3) The TWRS distribution closely mirrored that of the LWRS in T-
joints, with tensile WRS concentrated near the weld. The peak
TWRS was notably smaller than that of the LWRS, and the WRSs
in the T-joint were in an obvious biaxial stress state, with stress
ratios at some points near the weld reaching approximately 0.7.
(4) The impact of flange thickness on WRS is less significant
compared to welding speed. Flange plate thickness has opposite
effects on the WRS near the weld of the flange and web.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Chuanxi Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Investiga­
tion, Writing – original draft, Formal analysis. Bohai Ji: Writing – re­
view & editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Yue Yao:
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
This work is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (No. 52378153). The assistances are gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] C. Cui, Q.H. Zhang, Y. Bao, Y.Z. Bu, Y. Luo, Fatigue life evaluation of welded joints
in steel bridge considering residual stress, J. Constr. Steel Res. 153 (2018)
509–518, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.11.003.
[2] S.D. Liang, Z.Y. Jie, K.N. Wang, Numerical simulation and ultrasonic measurement
on welding residual stresses of full penetration U-shaped stiffening ribs, Structures
46 (2022) 322–335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.10.072.
[3] Ž. Božić, S. Schmauder, H. Wolf, The effect of residual stresses on fatigue crack
propagation in welded stiffened panels, Eng. Fail. Anal. 84 (2018) 346–357,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.09.001.
[4] F. Jiang, Z.Q. Fu, B.H. Ji, L. Wan, Fatigue life evaluation of deck to U-rib welds in
orthotropic steel deck integrating weldment size effects on welding residual stress,
Eng. Fail. Anal. 124 (2021) 105395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2021.105359.
[5] R. Haghani, M. Al-Emrani, M. Heshmati, Fatigue-prone details in steel bridges,
Buildings 2 (2012) 456–476, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2040456.
[6] Q. Zhao, K.S. Chen, M.Z. Chen, B. Briseghella, Z.Y. Guo, G.T. Yang, Use of plastic
correction formula to improve accuracy of welding residual stress test with blind-
15
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 216 (2024) 108610
hole method, Trans. Tianjin Univ. 24 (2018) 480–488, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12209-017-0091-9.
[7] J. Gibmeier, M. Kornmeier, B. Scholtes, Plastic deformation during application of
the hole-drilling method, Mater. Sci. Forum 347-349 (2000) 131–137, https://doi.
org/10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/MSF.347-349.131.
[8] J.P. Nobre, M. Kornmeier, B. Scholtes, Plasticity effects in the hole-drilling residual
stress measurement in peened surfaces, Exp. Mech. 58 (2017) 369–380, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11340-017-0352-5.
[9] B. Qiang, Y.D. Li, Y. Gu, D.D. Boko-haya, Uncertainty of strain release coefficients
for the blind-hole procedure evaluated by Monte Carlo simulation, Mater. Test. 59
(2017) 630–634, https://doi.org/10.3139/120.111052.
[10] A.M. Nawwar, K. Mclachlan, J. Shewchuk, A modified hole-drilling technique for
determining residual stresses in thin plates, Exp. Mech. 16 (1976) 226–232,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02329273.
[11] D. Vangi, S. Tellini, Hole-drilling strain-gauge method: residual stress
measurement with plasticity effects, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 132 (2010) 011003,
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3184030.
[12] H.Y. Zhao, Y.W. Shi, Y. Pei, Y.P. Lei, Y.J. Chen, On the correction of plasticity effect
at the hole edge when using the Centre hole method for measuring high welding
residual stress, Strain 32 (1996) 25–129, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1475-
1305.1996.TB01017.X.
[13] Y.B. Wang, G.Q. Li, S.W. Chen, The assessment of residual stresses in welded high
strength steel box sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 76 (2012) 93–99, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.03.025.
[14] A. Giri, C. Pandey, M. Mahapatra, K. Sharma, P.K. Singh, On the estimation of error
in measuring the residual stress by strain gauge rosette, Measurement 65 (2015)
41–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEASUREMENT.2014.12.047.
[15] Y.D. Li, J. Wu, B. Qiang, S.T. Zhou, W.Q. Liu, C.R. Yao, Measurements of residual
stresses in a welded orthotropic steel deck by the hole-drilling method considering
stress biaxiality, Eng. Struct. 230 (2021) 111690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2020.111690.
[16] H. Fang, Mechanics of Welding Structure, China Machine Press, Beijing, 2008 (in
Chinese).
[17] A. Hannon, P. Tiernan, A review of planar biaxial tensile test systems for sheet
metal, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 198 (2008) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2007.10.015.
[18] J.P. Nobre, A.M. Dias, J. Gibmeier, M. Kornmeier, Local stress-ratio criterion for
incremental hole-drilling measurements of shot-peening stresses, J. Eng. Mater.
Technol. Trans. ASME 128 (2006) 193–201, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2172623.
[19] Y. Ohtake, S. Rokugawa, H. Masumoto, Geometry determination of cruciform-type
specimen and biaxial tensile test of C/C composites, Key Eng. Mater. 164–165
(1999) 151–154, https://doi.org/10.4028/WWW.SCIENTIFIC.NET/KEM.164-
165.151.
[20] S.P. Timoshenko, J.N. Goodier, Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970.
[21] GB/T 31310–-2014, Metallic Material-Determination of Residual Stress-Hole
Drilling Strain-Gauge Method, Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2014 (in Chinese).
[22] H.N. Chen, A discussion of calculation of coefficients a and B by blind-hole-drilling
method, Mechan. Strength 11 (2) (1989) 31–36 [in Chinese], 10.16579/j.issn.1001
.9669.1989.02.009.
[23] D. Vangi, M. Ermini, Plasticity effects in residual stress measurement by the hole
drilling method, Strain 36 (2000) 55–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-
1305.2000.tb01174.x.
[24] Zhejiang Institute of Communications Company Limited, Standard Drawing of
Steel Truss Composite Girder Bridge, Zhejiang Institute of Communications Co.,
Ltd., Hangzhou, 2018 (in Chinese).
[25] D. Peral, J.D. Vicente, J.A. Porro, J.L. Ocaña, Uncertainty analysis for non-uniform
residual stresses determined by the hole drilling strain gauge method,
Measurement 97 (2017) 51–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2016.11.010.
[26] G. Schajer, E. Altus, Stress calculation error analysis for incremental hole-drilling
residual stress measurements, J. Eng. Mater. Technol. Trans. ASME 118 (1) (1996)
120–126, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2805924.
[27] H.Y. Ban, G. Shi, Y. Bai, Y.J. Shi, Y.Q. Wang, Residual stress of 460 MPa high
strength steel welded I section: experimental investigation and modeling, Int. J.
Steel Struct. 13 (4) (2013) 691–705, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-013-4010-1.
[28] X.L. Cao, S.Q. Shen, M. Wu, Z.Q. Tao, et al., Residual stresses of 550 MPa high
strength steel welded cruciform sections: experimental and numerical study,
Structures 44 (2022) 579–593, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.08.024.
[29] D. Deng, FEM prediction of welding residual stress and distortion in carbon steel
considering phase transformation effects, Mater. Des. 30 (2) (2009) 359–366,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.04.052.
[30] G.M. Fu, M.I. Lourenco, M.L. Duan, S.F. Estefen, Influence of the welding sequence
on residual stress and distortion of fillet welded structures, Mar. Struct. 46 (2016)
30–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2015.12.001.
[31] N.R. Mandal, Ship Construction and Welding, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd,
Singapore, 2017.
[32] N.X. Ma, Y. Ueda, H. Murakawa, H. Maeda, FEM analysis of 3-D welding residual
stresses and angular distortion in T-type fillet welds, Join. Weld. Res. Inst. 24 (2)
(1995) 115–122.
[33] Q.H. Zhang, Y. Ma, C. Cui, X.Y. Chai, S.H. Han, Experimental investigation and
numerical simulation on welding residual stress of innovative double-side welded
rib-to-deck joints of orthotropic steel decks, J. Constr. Steel Res. 179 (2021)
106544, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106544.