Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today Communications

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

Increasing the efficiency of computational welding mechanics by combining T

solid and shell elements
D.G. Karalis
Hellenic Navy, Hellenic Naval Academy, Mechanics & Materials Division, Marine Materials Laboratory, Hazjikyriakou Avenue, Piraeus 185 39, Greece

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper emphasizes the benefits encountered when solid and shell elements are combined in a single 3-D
Thermal analysis finite element analysis (FEA) thermomechanical model - simulating a typical problem of computational welding
Thermal stress analysis mechanics. In order to clearly obtain the aforementioned benefits, FEA models containing only solid elements
Welding are compared with FEA models containing a combination of solids and shells. More specifically, in the current
Residual stress
paper the post-weld heat treatment of a typical marine structure is simulated by using four different 3-D finite
Residual distortion
Solids
element analysis models. In the first model (model I), thermoplastic solid elements were used, whereas in the
Shells second model (model II), a mix of thermoplastic and thermoelastic solids was employed. In order to investigate
whether the combination of solids with shells can substantially increase the computational efficiency, and
therefore reduce the duration of the analyses and the model sizes, two more models were set up by combining
thermoplastic and thermoelastic solid elements with thermoelastic shells: constant (model III) and varying as-
pect ratio (model IV). As expected, these four models presented equivalent results as far as the calculation of the
thermally induced temperatures, displacements and stresses was concerned however, severe differences in
computational efficiency were observed. The aim of this paper is to quantitatively present the benefits en-
countered from the combination of solids with shells in thermal and thermal stress analyses and to discuss the
computational efficiency increase that was observed as a result of this element scheme. Important numerical
issues like position of the solid to shell transition area, coupling of solids and shells, and aspect ratio of the
elements, which affected the overall efficiency, are also discussed. As a result, increase in computational effi-
ciency was observed when solid elements were combined with shells of varying aspect ratio, the latter modeling
the far field area of the weld. This combination proved to be very beneficial in computational welding mechanics
and is expected to facilitate the simulation of thermal and thermal stress analyses of large scale welded structures
using the finite element method.

1. Introduction
Simulation of welding or post-weld heat treatment of large struc-
tures, such as ship sections, currently is a very difficult task. The
strongly nonlinear simulation which is normally carried out using a
staggered approach, involves the solution of the thermal and mechan-
ical problem, thus, transient temperature analyses and transient
thermal stress analyses have to be carried out [1]. Most often, these
analyses are carried out using the finite element method [2]. The
thermal analysis, besides the temperature distribution, provides the
extension of the heat-affected zone, heating and cooling rates, and the
final microstructure and hardness of the material, which are very im-
portant parameters for the design of the weld or the post-weld heat
treatment. On the other hand, the mechanical analysis provides the
residual stresses and distortions which are very important parameters
for the design of the weld, the selection of the welding sequence in
multi-pass welding and the quality of the welded structure.
The necessity of detailed results, especially at the vicinity of the
fusion zone, where large gradients through the thickness exists as far as
the thermal, mechanical and microstructural phenomena are con-
cerned, makes the use of 3-D solid elements inevitable. As a con-
sequence, the number of degrees of freedom (DOFs) that are required to
represent the modeled structure quickly reaches the computational
limits, making modeling of welding of large-scale structures (e.g.
marine structures) an unachievable task. Typical examples from the
published work of the last decade, where 3-D solid elements have been
used in welding simulations are listed in the reference section [3–16]. It
is therefore obvious, that in order to increase the computational effi-
ciency, which means to speed-up the analysis and minimize the com-
puter resources, the simulated problem size has to be reduced. Notice

E-mail address: KaralisDimitris@TEEmail.gr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2019.100836
Received 18 July 2019; Received in revised form 29 November 2019; Accepted 6 December 2019
Available online 09 December 2019
2352-4928/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D.G. Karalis Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836

that reduction of the problem size does not necessarily imply modeling
of a physically smaller structure, but modeling of the structure with less
computational cost (less DOFs).
One way to decrease the DOFs in computational welding mechanics
is to combine solid elements with shell elements in a single finite ele-
ment analysis model formulated in 3-D space.
Encouraging examples of this technique in welding simulations are
presented in [17–19]. In [17], the authors utilized fine brick elements
for meshing the main computational zone of a 3-D FEA model, whereas
the rest of the model was meshed by coarse shell elements. In [18,19],
the authors developed 3-D FEA models in order to predict welding
distortions and residual stresses but besides the use of solid-only ele-
ment models they also combined solids and shells in order to increase
the computational efficiency. They concluded that this combination of
solids with shells resulted in reduction of the total computational time Fig. 2. The modeled structure containing a plate and a welded stiffener.
by 42% and 40%, respectively.
Note that as there are no severe restraints on the aspect ratio of the
yet which quantitatively presents the benefits and drawbacks (with
shell elements; fewer shell elements can be used to model large areas of
respect to the computational efficiency), as well as a methodology of
the structure where large through-thickness temperature gradients do
combining the use of solid elements and shell elements compared to
not exist. Thus, a dense mesh of thermal solid elements and thermo-
models using only solid elements in Computational Welding Mechanics.
plastic solid elements can be used to represent the area close to the
The aim of this paper is to quantitatively present the benefits en-
fusion zone, whereas a sparse mesh of thermal shells and thermoelastic
countered from the combination of solids with shells in thermal and
shells can be used in order to model the far field region.
thermal stress analyses and to discuss the computational efficiency in-
A problem that arises from the combination of solids with shell
crease. Important numerical issues like position of the solid to shell
elements is the compatibility across the coupling region. In thermal
transition area, coupling of solids and shells, and aspect ratio of the
analysis, both elements have similar DOFs, the nodal temperatures. In
elements, which affected the overall efficiency, are also discussed.
mechanical analysis, solid elements have three translational DOFs per
node, whereas the shells also have additional rotational DOFs. As a
result, the coupling compatibility has to be solved prior to setting up a
2. Preprocessing of the models
model which combines both types of the elements. One way to solve the
coupling problem of shells and solids is to use two additional beam
Four different finite element analysis models were set up simulating
elements [20] that are connected perpendicularly to the node of the
the post-weld heat treatment of the welded structure depicted in Fig. 2.
shell (see Fig. 1a). A second way is to use the penetration method [21],
The specific structure, which is typical in marine applications, refers to
where the shell elements penetrate into the solids at the area of cou-
a plate and a welded stiffener.
pling (see Fig. 1b). Alternative ways entail using fictitious shell planes
For every model, the thermal analysis and the post mechanical
perpendicular to the original shell plane or via multipoint constraint
analysis (thermal stress analysis) were carried out in a staggered ap-
(MPC) equations [22] (see Fig. 1c).
proach. Thus, the calculated temperatures of every time step of the
As far as the author is aware, there has not been a paper published
thermal analysis were imported into the mechanical model, in order to

Fig. 1. Coupling of shells and solids: (a) using additional beams, (b) using penetrating shells, (c) using perpendicular shells.

2
D.G. Karalis
Fig. 3. Model I containing only solid elements. Yellow, green and cyan colored
elements refer to thermal solids in thermal analysis and thermoplastic solid
elements in the mechanical analysis. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
calculate the thermally induced displacements, strains and stresses. The
four different models that were set up are described below.
Model I. The specific model was set up using thermal solids for the
thermal analysis and thermoplastic solid elements for the mechanical
analysis. The dimensions of all elements (except those modeling the
area very close to the fusion zone) were equal to 5 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm
(aspect ratio 1:1:1). The latter model is considered as the “reference”
model. Model I is depicted in Fig. 3.
Model II. Model II is similar to Model I. The only difference is that
in the mechanical analysis, a very big part of the structure was modeled
using thermoelastic solid elements instead of thermoplastic solid ele-
ments. More specifically, in Model II thermoelastic solid elements were
used to model the material that did not experience heating higher than
ΔT = +18 K (see transition areas in Fig. 4, ΔT level will be discussed
later). The aim of Model II was to confirm that the solid-to-shell tran-
sition areas were properly positioned by comparing the results of
Models I and II and to investigate any benefit obtained as a result of the
combination of thermoelastic and thermoplastic solid elements.
Model III. The specific model is based on Model II and combines
shells with solid elements. More specifically, in the mechanical analysis,
the thermoelastic solid elements of Model II were replaced by ther-
moelastic shell elements modeling the mid-plane of the plate. In the
thermal analysis, thermal shells replaced the thermal solids, accord-
ingly. In order to provide exactly the same nodes for the application of
the boundary conditions with respect to the models I and II, a narrow
band of solid elements were also coupled with shells at the edges of the
Fig. 4. Model II is similar to Model I and contains only solid elements. Yellow,
green and cyan colored elements refer to thermoplastic solid elements, whereas
the brown colored elements refer to thermoelastic solid elements in the me-
chanical analysis. All elements refer to thermal solids in thermal analysis. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
3
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
Fig. 5. Model III containing both solid and shell elements. Yellow, green, and
cyan colored elements refer to thermoplastic solid elements, whereas the brown
colored elements refer to thermoelastic solid elements in the mechanical ana-
lysis. Grey colored elements refer to thermoelastic shell elements in the me-
chanical analysis. All elements refer to thermal elements in thermal analysis.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
model. Model III is depicted in Fig. 5. Similarly to Models I and II, the
dimensions of all elements (except those describing the area very close
to the fusion zone) were equal to 5 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm (aspect ratio
1:1:1) for the solids and 5 mm x 5 mm for the shells (aspect ratio 1:1).
The thickness of shells was set equal to 10 mm. At the transition areas,
the penetration depth of shells into the solids was set equal to 2 ele-
ments (penetration depth will be discussed later). Model III aims at
quantitatively assessing the benefits obtained by the combination of
solid elements and shells in 3-D computational welding mechanics.
Notice that in order to make a fair comparison, solid and shell elements
of the same dimensions (5 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm and 5 mm x 5 mm re-
spectively) and aspect ratios (1:1:1 and 1:1, respectively) were used in
Models I, II and III.
Model IV. The specific model is similar to Model III. The only dif-
ference is that shell elements of geometrically varying aspect ratios
(from 1:1 up to 1:7) were used. Thus, compared to Model III the number
of DOFs was severely reduced. The aim of Model IV was to confirm that
the use of shell elements of varying aspect ratio, modeling the far field
region of the weld, in combination with solid elements modeling the
area at the vicinity of the fusion zone, is beneficial in computational
welding mechanics. Model IV is depicted in Fig. 6.
3. Models summary
The number and the element types that were used in the four dif-
ferent models are summarized in Table 1.
Fig. 6. Model IV is similar to Model III and contains solids (aspect ratio 1:1:1)
and shell elements of varying aspect ratio (up to 1:7).
D.G. Karalis
Table 1
Number of elements, element types, dimensions and aspect ratios used for every model.
Thermal analysis
Model I 31400 solids
(reference) (31400 elements in total)
Model II 31400 solids
(31400 elements in total)
Model III 11800 solids
10800 shells
(22600 elements in total)
Model IV 11800 solids
3900 shells
(15700 elements in total)
4. Simulation parameters
The entire duration of the post-weld heat treatment simulation,
which was assumed to be carried out by a moving arc, was equal to
500 s with the first 100 s simulating the moving arc and the remaining
400 s simulating the cooling phase. The heat input was applied on the
basis of the double ellipsoid distribution of the arc [23,24] of which
dimensions were obtained from the size of the modeled fusion zone.
The arc velocity was set equal to 5 mm/s and the arc efficiency was
properly selected in order to heat the fusion zone up to 707 K (434 °C).
As far as the boundary conditions are concerned, for the thermal part,
both convection and radiation were applied to all free surfaces. More
specifically, the convection coefficient was set equal to h = 10 W/m2K
for the treated surface of the fusion zone and h = 5 W/m2K for the rest
surfaces. The emissivity was set equal to ε = 0.9 for the treated surface
of the fusion zone and ε = 0.8 for the rest of the surfaces. The ambient
temperature was set equal to Tamb =298 K for both convection and
radiation. The boundary conditions for the mechanical analysis were
applied to the nodes of the solids in all models as depicted in Fig. 7.
Temperature dependent thermal and mechanical properties were
assigned for all elements simulating the steel structure. The yield stress
of the steel was set equal to 250 MPa at room temperature and isotropic
hardening was applied [20]. Eight-node 3-D solids and four-node 3-D
shells were used in all simulations [21]. Material and geometry non-
linearities were taken into account. All analyses were executed using
the same desktop computer (Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.0 GHz, Intel
82945 G Express Chipset family, single HDD).
5. Results
Transient and residual results of the four models are depicted in
Fig. 8–10. More specifically, the temperature distributions during the
treatment (t = 50 s) and after cooling (t = 500 s) of the structure are
Fig. 7. The boundary conditions used for the mechanical analysis in all models;
the “T” symbol refers to translational restriction along the specified direction.
4
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
Mechanical analysis Aspect ratios and dimensions
31400 thermoplastic solids Solids 1:1:1
(31400 elements in total) 5 × 5 × 5 mm3
9800 thermoplastic solids Solids 1:1:1
21600 thermoelastic solids 5 × 5 × 5 mm3
(31400 elements in total)
9800 thermoplastic solids Solids 1:1:1
2000 thermoelastic solids 5 × 5 × 5 mm3
10800 thermoelastic shells Shells 1:1
(22600 elements in total) 5 × 5 mm2
9800 thermoplastic solids Solids 1:1:1
2000 thermoelastic solids 5 × 5 × 5 mm3
3900 thermoelastic shells Shells up to 1:7
(15700 elements in total)
depicted in Fig. 8.
In Fig. 9, transient Von Mises stress (t = 50 s) and transient dis-
placement magnitude (t = 50 s) of the four models are depicted.
The residual stresses and residual displacement magnitudes
(t = 500 s) of the four models are depicted in Fig. 10.
In Fig. 11, the histories of the temperatures and the Von Mises
stresses of the fusion zone surface which is located at mid-length of the
treated weld are depicted for all four models.
The transient displacement magnitudes of the most distorted nodes
(see red colored areas of the displaced models in Fig. 10), are depicted
in Fig. 12.
6. Discussion
From the results presented in Figs. 8–12, it is concluded that the
four models present very similar results in engineering terms. More
specifically:
1 The four thermal models provided almost identical results as far as
the transient and the final temperatures are concerned (see Figs. 8
and 11). Regarding transient stress and transient displacement
magnitude, the three models provided very similar results, pre-
senting negligible deviations (see Figs. 9 and 12).
2 The histories of temperatures and Von Mises stresses of the fusion
zone surface presented no significant differences among the four
models (see Fig. 11). The same was also observed for the histories of
the displacement magnitudes of the most distorted nodes (see
Fig. 12). A small difference (+3.2%) of the displacement magni-
tudes among models II, IV and I, III was observed.
3 Almost identical results were obtained as far as the residual stresses
and residual displacements are concerned (see Figs. 10, 11 and 12).
More specifically, the four models present almost the same long-
itudinal bending and angular distortion after the end of the treat-
ment.
Thus, one can conclude that the four models are equivalent as far as
the calculation of the thermally induced temperatures, displacements
and stresses are concerned. The question that arises is whether this
combination of shells and solids in a single thermomechanical 3-D
model (Models III and IV) provides a more efficient method for the
analysis and design of the welded structure by means of the finite
element method. In order to answer this question, the benefits as well as
a few drawbacks that were encountered during the numerical simula-
tion of the four different models are discussed below.
6.1. Analysis duration and model size
Two of the biggest concerns in computational welding mechanics
are the duration of the simulation and the final model size.
D.G. Karalis
Fig. 8. Temperature distributions during the treatment (t = 50 s) and after cooling (t = 500 s) of the structure.
In the case of Model I (reference model), the thermal analysis lasted
4 h and 11 min while the final model size was equal to 1.54 GB. The
duration of the thermal analysis of Model II was equal to 4 h and 22 min
while its size was the same as Model I, equal to 1.54 GB. The duration of
the thermal analysis of Model III was equal to 2 h and 2 min, thus sig-
nificant reduction compared to the reference model was observed.
Severe reduction was also observed as far as the final model size is
concerned, which in Model III was equal to 0.98 GB. The results,
however, were controversial for the case of the mechanical analysis.
Model I took 30 h and 20 min to complete and required 9.56 GB of disc
space. The mechanical analysis of Model II lasted 39 h and 25 min,
whereas the final model size was equal to 9.54 GB. Unfortunately, the
duration of the analysis of Model III was equal to 54 h and 45 min but
5
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
the final model size was reduced to 6.84 GB.
Model IV, which is the model of the greatest interest in the current
work, was the fastest among the other three models, requiring 1 h and
49 min for the thermal analysis and 23 h and 23 min for the mechanical
analysis. The size of Model IV was also strongly reduced, as the thermal
model size was equal to 0.71 GB while the mechanical model size was
equal to 4.71 GB. The results are summarized in Table 2 and Figs. 13
and 14.
From the results presented in Table 2 and Figs. 13 and 14, the fol-
lowing is concluded:
1 In the thermal analyses, there was a significant benefit regarding the
analysis duration and the final model size when thermal shell
D.G. Karalis
Fig. 9. Transient Von Mises stress and transient displacement magnitude of the structure (t = 50 s).
elements were combined with thermal solid elements (compare
Models I and III where elements of the same dimensions and aspect
ratios have been used). On the other hand, in the mechanical ana-
lyses the same combination resulted in severe increase of the
durations of the analyses, but strong reduction of the final model
sizes (again, compare Models I and III). Thus, computational effi-
ciency increase was not accomplished for the mechanical analyses
between Models I and III.
2 Model II did not provide any benefit regarding the computational
efficiency with respect to Model I.
3 The combination of solids with shell elements of varying aspect ratio
(from 1:1 up to 1.7) provided indisputable benefits regarding
6
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
analyses durations and model sizes (compare Models I and IV). Here
it has to be emphasized, that this substantial storage benefit (up to
54.2%) is very important in case of convergence study analyses
[25], where multiple executions have to be performed for both the
thermal and the mechanical analyses. As a result, Model IV proved
to be the most efficient model among the four developed in the
current work.
The author would like to mention that the evolution of computer
performance over the last four decades increasingly allowed researchers
to simulate large 3-D structures using solid elements. Typical examples
of large scale welding simulations using only solid elements are listed in
D.G. Karalis
Fig. 10. Residual Von Mises stress and residual displacement magnitude (t = 500 s, displaced scale factor = 10).
[26–32]. As the processing speed of the computers, as well as the their
storage media capacity are expected to increase in the forthcoming
decades, more complicated FEA models are expected to be developed,
aiming to solve increasingly more complicated systems of equations.
Thus, any attempt to adopt new flexible modeling techniques, like the
one proposed in the current paper, in order to reduce the problem size,
seems to be in the right direction.
6.2. Solid to shell transition area
In the presented models, the transition area between the solids and
the shells was positioned at the material that experienced temperature
7
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
difference up to ΔT = +18 K (see Fig. 4). Sensitivity analyses which
were carried out (and are not presented herein) showed that moving
this transition area towards the fusion zone, in order to further increase
the area that is modeled with thermoelastic shell elements and thus
increase the computational benefit, resulted in different transient and
residual response between Models I and II. This is attributed to the
higher temperatures (higher ΔT) that are realized closer to the fusion
zone and the fact that the material exceeds thermoelasticity at these
regions. As a result, prior to developing Model IV, the analyst should at
least set up Model II in order to locate the boundary between the
thermoplastic and thermoelastic behavior of the material.
D.G. Karalis Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836

Fig. 11. History of temperatures and Von Mises stresses of the fusion zone at mid-length for the four different models.

Fig. 12. Transient displacement magnitudes of the most distorted nodes (see also Fig.10).

Table 2
The duration of the analyses (CPU-time), the final model sizes of the four
models and the percentage of difference with respect to the reference model.
Thermal analysis Mechanical analysis

Model I 4 h 11 min, 30 h 20 min,

(reference) 1.54 GB 9.56 GB
Model II 4 h 22 min (+4.4%) 39 h 25 min (+29.9%)
1.54 GB (0%) 9.54 GB (−0.3%)
Model III 2 h 2 min (−50.6%) 54 h 45 min (+80.4%)
0.98 GB (−36.2%) 6.84 GB (−28.4%)
Model IV 1 h 49 min (−56.5%) 23 h 23 min (−22.9%)
0.71 GB (−54.2%) 4.71 GB (-50.7%)

Fig. 13. Analysis duration versus the number of elements used.

8
D.G. Karalis
Fig. 14. Model size versus the number of elements used.
6.3. Shell penetration depth
In the current simulation the penetration depth of the shell elements
was set equal to a two-element depth (see Figs. 1 and 6). One element
penetration depth analyses (not presented herein) resulted in different
results between Model I and Models III and IV. Thus, several sensitivity
analyses have to be carried out prior to finalizing Model IV, in order to
optimize the depth penetration of the shells.
6.4. Aspect ratio of the shells
Notice that as mentioned in section §1, one of the biggest benefits
when using shells is that there are no severe restraints on their aspect
ratio. Thus, a sparse mesh of shells (Model IV, see Fig. 6) allows the
severe reduction of DOFs and provides a very efficient numerical si-
mulation. The latter was clearly confirmed from the results presented in
§5 and §6. Here it has to be noted that this sparse mesh of quadrilateral
shells does not provide a convenient future basis for the application of
the external operating loads [25] (e.g. distributed nodal hydrostatic
pressures or thermal loads etc.). As a result, Model IV is very efficient,
at least for the calculation of the thermally induced temperatures,
displacements and stresses.
7. Conclusion
On the basis of the results presented in the current paper, the fol-
lowing is concluded:
• Increase in computational efficiency without compromising the ac-
curacy of the results was obtained when shell elements of varying
aspect ratio were used to model the far field region of the weld, in
combination with solid elements modeling the area at the vicinity of
the fusion zone. The benefit in computational efficiency pertains to
reduction of the analysis duration and model size. The reduction of
the analysis duration in the simulated case of the current paper was
equal to 56.5% for the thermal analysis and 22.9% for the me-
chanical analysis (average 39.7%), whereas the model size reduc-
tion was equal to 54.2% and 50.7% (average 52.4%), respectively.
• The combination of solids with shells in computational welding
mechanics requires preliminary investigation and optimization re-
garding the position of the solid to shell transition area and the
coupling of the shells with solids (penetration depth in the current
case).
This combination of solids with shells lightens the computational
cost and facilitates the simulation of thermal and thermal stress ana-
lyses of large scale welded structures using the finite element method.
9
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
Data availability
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot
be shared at this time due to technical or time limitations.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
D.G. Karalis: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
There are no interests to declare.
References
[1] D. Radaj, Heat Effects of Welding, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992.
[2] L.-E. Lindgren, Finite element modeling and simulation of welding part 1: increased
complexity, J. Therm. Stress. 24 (2001) 141–192.
[3] F. Kong, R. Kovacevic, 3D finite element modeling of the thermally induced residual
stress in the hybrid laser/arc welding of lap joint, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 210
(2010) 941–950.
[4] L. Gannon, Y. Liu, N. Pegg, M. Smith, Effect of welding sequence on residual stress
and distortion in flat-bar stiffened plates, Mar. Struct. 23 (2010) 385–404.
[5] C.-H. Lee, K.-H. Chang, Prediction of residual stresses in high strength carbon steel
pipe weld considering solid-state phase transformation effects, Comput. Struct. 89
(2011) 256–265.
[6] C. Heinze, C. Schwenk, M. Rethmeier, The effect of tack welding on numerically
calculated welding-induced distortion, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (2012)
308–314.
[7] W. Jiang, Y. Zhang, W. Woo, Using heat sink technology to decrease residual stress
in 316L stainless steel welding joint: finite element simulation, Int. J. Press. Vessel.
Pip. 92 (2012) 56–62.
[8] D. Camilleri, N. McPherson, T.G.F. Gray, The applicability of using low transfor-
mation temperature welding wire to minimize unwanted residual stresses and
distortions, Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 110 (2013) 2–8.
[9] D. Deng, H. Murakawa, Influence of transformation induced plasticity on simulated
results of welding residual stress in low temperature transformation steel, Comput.
Mater. Sci. 78 (2013) 55–62.
[10] M. Islam, A. Buijk, M. Rais-Rohani, K. Motoyama, Simulation-based numerical
optimization of arc welding process for reduced distortion in welded structures,
Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 84 (2014) 54–64.
[11] N. Yadaiah, S. Bag, Development of egg-configuration heat source model in nu-
merical simulation of autogenous fusion welding process, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 86
(2014) 125–138.
[12] A.A. Bhatti, Z. Barsoum, H. Murakawa, I. Barsoum, Influence of thermo-mechanical
material properties of different steel grades on welding residual stresses and angular
distortion, Mater. Des. 65 (2015) 878–889.
[13] S. Shadkam, E. Ranjbarnodeh, M. Iranmanesh, Effect of sequence and stiffener
shape on welding distortion of stiffened panel, J. Constr. Steel Res. 149 (2018)
41–52.
[14] E.D. Derakhshan, N. Yazdian, B. Craft, S. Smith, R. Kovacevic, Numerical simulation
and experimental validation of residual stress and welding distortion induced by
laser-based welding processes of thin structural steel plates in butt joint config-
uration, Opt. Laser Technol. 104 (2018) 170–182.
[15] C.-l. LI, D. Fan, X.-q. Yu, J.-k. Huang, Residual stress and welding distortion of Al/
steel butt joint by arc-assisted laser welding-brazing, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc.
China 29 (2019) 692–700.
[16] B. Kumar, S. Bag, Phase transformation effect in distortion and residual stress of
thin-sheet laser welded Ti-alloy, Opt. Lasers Eng. 122 (2019) 209–224.
[17] M.R. Forouzan, S.M.M. Nasiri, A. Mokhtari, A. Heidari, S.J. Golestaneh, Residual
stress prediction in submerged arc welded spiral pipes, Mater. Des. 33 (2012)
384–394.
[18] M. Perić, Z. Tonković, A. Rodić, M. Surjak, I. Garašić, I. Boras, S. Švaić, Numerical
analysis and experimental investigation of welding residual stresses and distortions
in a T-joint fillet weld, Mater. Des. 53 (2014) 1052–1063.
[19] J. Shen, Z. Chen, Welding simulation of fillet-welded joint using shell elements with
section integration, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (2014) 2529–2536.
[20] L. Andersen, Residual Stresses and Deformations in Steel Structures, PhD Thesis
Department of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, Technical University
of Denmark, 2000.
[21] ALGOR® Documentation, Algor Inc., 2007.
[22] N. Osawa, K. Hashimoto, J. Sawamura, T. Nakai, S. Suzuki, Study on shell–solid
coupling FE analysis for fatigue assessment of ship structure, Mar. Struct. 20 (2007)
143–163.
[23] J. Goldak, A. Chakravarti, M. Bibby, A new finite element model for welding heat
sources, Metall. Trans. 15B (1984) 299–305.
[24] J. Goldak, M. Bibby, J. Moore, R. House, B. Patel, Computer modeling of heat flows
in welds, Metall. Trans. 17B (1986) 587–600.
D.G. Karalis
[25] D.G. Karalis, N.G. Tsouvalis, V.J. Papazoglou, D.I. Pantelis, A practical flow dia-
gram for the solution of complex non-linear thermo-mechanical numerical models,
Comput. Mater. Sci. 95 (2014) 288–301.
[26] J. Guirao, E. Rodriguez, A. Bayon, F. Bouyer, J. Pistono, L. Jones, Determination
through the distortions analysis of the best welding sequence in longitudinal welds
VATS electron beam welding FE simulation, Fusion Eng. Des. 85 (2010) 766–779.
[27] J. Guirao, E. Rodriguez, A. Bayon, J. Pistono, L. Jones, FEM simulation of a small EB
welded mock-up and new sequence proposed to improve the final distortions,
Fusion Eng. Des. 85 (2010) 181–189.
[28] J. Wang, M. Shibahara, X. Zhang, H. Murakawa, Investigation on twisting distortion
of thin plate stiffened structure under welding, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212
10
Materials Today Communications 22 (2020) 100836
(2012) 1705–1715.
[29] G.S. Brar, C.S. Singh, FEA of residual stress in cruciform welded joint of hollow
sectional tubes, J. Constr. Steel Res. 102 (2014) 44–58.
[30] D.-f Fu, C.-q. Zhou, C. Li, G. Wang, L.-x. Li, Effect of welding sequence on residual
stress in thin-walled octagonal pipe-plate structure, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc.
China 24 (2014) 657–664.
[31] Y. Li, K. Wang, Y. Jin, M. Xu, H. Lu, Prediction of welding deformation in stiffened
structure by introducing thermo-mechanical interface element, J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 216 (2015) 440–446.
[32] Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, The influence of welding mechanical boundary condition on the
residual stress and distortion of a stiffened-panel, Mar. Struct. 65 (2019) 259–270.