Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computational Materials Science

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

Accurate prediction of residual stress in stainless steel welds

M.C. Smith a,⇑, P.J. Bouchard b, M. Turski b, L. Edwards c, R.J. Dennis d
a
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation, Gloucester GL4 3RS, UK
b
The Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
c
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), PMB 1, Menai 2234 NSW, Australia
d
Fraser Nash Consultancy Ltd., 1 Trinity Street, College Green, Bristol BS1 5TE, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Measurements of stress–strain properties and residual stress in purpose-designed one and three-pass
Received 27 June 2011 groove-weld specimens are used to optimise a mixed hardening constitutive model for simulating resid-
Received in revised form 17 August 2011 ual stresses in austenitic Type 316 stainless steel weldments. It is demonstrated that isotropic hardening
Accepted 20 October 2011
over-predicts the tensile magnitude of welding residual stress in the benchmark specimens, while pure
Available online 13 December 2011
kinematic hardening gives an under-prediction of longitudinal stresses in parent material close to the
weld. The most accurate predictions are those based on optimised mixed isotropic–kinematic formula-
Keywords:
tions combined with a multi-pass moving heat source welding analysis.
Weld residual stress
Mixed hardening
Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Annealing
Finite element method
Measurement
Validation

1. Introduction engineering steels to cyclic thermo-mechanical loading. Mixed

Finite element (FE) computational methods are being applied
with increasing frequency to predict residual stresses in welded
engineering structures [1–4]. However, these methods involve
complex non-linear analyses where many assumptions and
approximations have to be made by the analyst [5]. Given the com-
plexity of the analyses being attempted, it is entirely possible to
produce plausible but incorrect residual stress predictions. For
example, the deceptively simple problem of a single weld bead
deposited on a flat plate has proved to be a challenge for both
the measurement and the prediction of weld residual stresses
[6–10].
The material hardening constitutive model used in weld resid-
ual stress calculations can have a crucial influence on the accuracy
of predicted results [11–15]. The plastic response of an austenitic
steel to a welding thermo-mechanical cycle is potentially complex,
both because of the wide range of imposed temperature, strain rate
and strain range, and because of the potential for recovery, recrys-
tallisation, creep and visco-plastic effects at high temperatures
[16]. Pure isotropic and pure kinematic hardening models are often
used because they are easy to apply using limited materials data,
but they do not accurately describe the response of austenitic
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)1452 653132; fax: +44 (0)1452 653025.
E-mail addresses: mike.smith@edf-energy.com, mike.ann.smith1@me.com
(M.C. Smith).
isotropic–kinematic hardening is more realistic, and such models
are available in commercial finite element codes such as ABAQUS
[17]. But there are many ways of fitting these models and the re-
quired details are rarely published. Usually, their implementation
is simplified in order to produce a computationally robust model
that may be fitted using a practicable amount of materials charac-
terisation testing.
In this paper we set out to identify an optimised approach for
simulating the hardening behaviour of austenitic stainless steel
weldment materials (i.e. parent and weld metal) that results in
the most accurate prediction of residual stresses in benchmark
multi-pass weld specimens.
2. Approach
An optimised strategy for predicting accurate distributions of
residual stress in stainless steel weldments is developed using
multiple measurements from purpose-designed welded bench-
mark specimens. A set of benchmark specimens are made from
AISI Type 316L austenitic steel plate and contain one, two or three
superimposed manual metal arc (MMA) weld beads laid in a
groove. The groove-weld test specimens are manufactured under
closely controlled conditions. Transient temperatures during weld-
ing are recorded using thermocouple arrays and measurements of
distortion and residual stress made on the completed specimens.
Both diffraction and strain relief techniques are used to ensure
greater confidence in the residual stress measurements.

0927-0256/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.commatsci.2011.10.024
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328
First, the measured temperature histories during welding, and
cross-sectional macrographs revealing the extent of the weld fu-
sion boundary, are used to calibrate the size, shape and intensity
of the heat source used in computational simulations of the
groove-weld specimens. Second, the final deformed shape of the
three-pass benchmark specimen is used to evaluate the merit of
performing a moving heat source simulation instead of a simpified
‘‘block-dumped’’ analysis (i.e. where the entire length of the weld
bead is simultaneously introduced into the model).
Several different strategies are used to derive isotropic–kine-
matic hardening model parameters suitable for simulating the
thermo-mechanical behaviour of welding. The required tensile
data are derived from isothermal strain-controlled cyclic tests on
small-scale parent material and partially annealed weld metal
samples representative of the groove-weld test specimen materi-
als. The test parameters (temperature, strain rate and strain ampli-
tude) are selected based upon information from previous FE
simulations of welding.
The residual stress measurements from the one and three-pass
groove-weld specimens are then compared with predictions from
several hardening model variants to evaluate the most accurate
modelling approach.
Finally, the performance of the preferred material hardening
models is checked by comparing the predicted yield strength vari-
ation across the three-pass groove-weld with the measured stress–
strain response within the weld, heat affected zone (HAZ) and un-
strained parent material on either side of the weld. The spatially re-
solved stress–strain measurements are obtained from cross-weld
tensile specimens extracted from the three-pass groove-weld spec-
imen. This comparison is used to confirm that sufficient isotropic
hardening is included in the mixed hardening models and to assess
the annealing strategy adopted in the simulations.
3. Test components
3.1. Benchmark groove-weld specimens
A set of groove-weld test specimens, having the pre-weld
geometry illustrated in Fig. 1, was designed for the simulation opti-
misation studies. The groove is partially or fully filled with one,
two or three superimposed stringer beads, producing welds with
minimum variation in thermal history, dimensions, and residual
stress over much of the length of the specimen. The variation in
number of passes produces weld and adjacent HAZ material that
has undergone either one, two or three clearly defined thermo-
mechanical cycles.
Fig. 1. Layout of groove weld benchmark specimen before welding.
313
Four specimen base-plates were machined from 50 mm thick
AISI Type 316L austenitic stainless steel plate remaining from the
NeT Task Group 1 international round robin [6]. This material
had already been extensively characterised for that project. The fi-
nal size of each specimen was (200  180  25) mm with a 10 mm
deep groove machined into the top surface at the centre parallel to
the long edge (see Fig. 1).
After machining, three of the specimens were instrumented
with thermocouples and strain gauges. The thermocouple posi-
tions were carefully chosen so that transient measured tempera-
tures could be used to calibrate the welding heat input
(effectively the weld efficiency, g) during subsequent FE analysis.
They were thus located sufficiently far from the welding torch to
ensure that their response was insensitive to details of the welding
heat source type, size, and shape, but close enough to allow accu-
rate determination of the welding efficiency [7,9].
A MMA process was employed to deposit the weld beads with a
target electrical heat input of 1.8 kJ/mm. The welder was in-
structed to produce as uniform a weld as possible. All relevant
welding parameters were recorded for use in subsequent FE anal-
yses, in addition to the transient thermocouple and strain gauge re-
sponses. The plates were left unrestrained during welding, because
this is the only boundary condition that can be unambiguously
reproduced in subsequent FE simulations. One plate was welded
with a single stringer bead, one with two superimposed stringer
beads, and two plates with three superimposed beads. All beads
were laid in the same direction. A completed, instrumented
three-pass specimen is shown in Fig. 2.
3.2. Cross-weld samples
A 25 mm long slice of material was removed from the weld stop
ends of the single-pass, two pass, and one of the three-pass groove-
weld specimens. The transverse cut faces were polished and etched
to reveal the cross-sectional weld bead fusion boundary profiles,
see Fig. 3. The fusion boundaries at this cut face, 25 mm from the
stop end, were judged to be representative of mid-length ‘‘steady
state’’ welding conditions.
A further 3 mm thick slice was then removed from the weld
stop end of each of the three specimens for production of ‘stress
free’ combs, for the measurement of the unstressed lattice param-
eter, a0, using neutron diffraction.
A 50 mm long slice was then removed from the stop end of the
remaining three-pass groove-weld specimen. Two flat-sided cross-
weld tensile specimens having the design shown in Fig. 4 were
electro-discharge machined from the inside edge of the block (i.e.
314 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

Fig. 2. Completed 3-pass groove weld specimen, showing top surface

thermocouples.

from weld material that would have been laid down under near
steady state conditions). The tensile specimens were extracted in
such a way to ensure that the gauge length passed through the first
and final weld beads.

3.3. Stress–strain test specimens

Isothermal monotonic and uniaxial cyclic (low cycle fatigue)

stress–strain test data are required to fit the parameters for mate-
rial hardening models. No new tests on the groove-weld base
material were performed as sufficient data were available from
other research studies [18,19]. Instead, testing concentrated on
representing the complex behaviour of weld metal.
Single weld pass tensile and low cycle fatigue specimens were
fabricated by extracting cylinders of test material from high heat
input (typically 2.5–3.0 kJ/mm) single-pass groove-welds. Exten-
sion pieces were then electron-beam welded to either end of each
cylinder before machining to the final specimen geometry. This
procedure gave 4 mm gauge diameter weld metal specimens com-
pliant with the relevant standards [20–22]. The test specimens
were then given a ‘‘spike anneal’’ heat treatment in order to simu-
late the effect of adjacent bead deposition in a multi-pass weld.
This was achieved by rapid induction heating to a peak tempera-
ture of 850 °C followed by unassisted air cooling to ambient tem-
perature. This heat treatment reduced the 1% proof stress of the
single-pass material by about 35 MPa to 364 MPa.
Multi-pass weld tensile and low cycle fatigue specimens of the
same design were also made by extracting samples from a large mul-
ti-pass weld pad. This pad was fabricated using MMA electrodes of
the same specification used to manufacture the welded benchmark
Fig. 3. Transverse macrographs taken from 25 mm sections cut from the weld stop
specimens. Tensile tests at room temperature revealed that the mul- end of (from top to bottom) single-pass, two pass, and three-pass groove weld
ti-pass pad material had a 1% proof stress of 424 MPa. A full solution specimens.
heat treatment at 1050 °C for 45 minutes applied to the multi-pass
pad specimens reduced the 1% proof stress of the pad material by for both monotonic and cyclic testing, and strain range for cyclic
about MPa to 325 MPa. While solution heat treatment probably re- testing. Strain rates were chosen to be representative of conditions
sults in mechanical properties most representative of virgin weld during the later part of cooling, when the temperature is below
metal after deposition, it overstates the softening effect of adjacent 600 °C, the material has significant strength, and the final tensile
bead deposition, a process experienced by every weld bead in a mul- residual stress field is developing. Strain ranges for cyclic testing
ti-pass weld except the final capping bead. were chosen to be representative of the average strain range expe-
rienced by weld metal, and by parent material in the HAZ adjacent
4. Measured data to the weld.
Table 1 provides details of the stress–strain data used to derive
4.1. Stress–strain properties hardening parameters for the groove-weld parent and HAZ materi-
als. Monotonic tensile test data for the AISI Type 316L plate mate-
Results from previous FE simulations of a number of weldment rial were obtained from the European network project, NeT [6].
configurations were used to inform the choice of strain rate used Extensive isothermal monotonic and cyclic stress–strain data for
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 315

Fig. 4. 50 mm section cut from the weld stop end of a three-pass groove weld specimen, showing locations of cross-weld tensile specimens.

Table 1
Monotonic and cyclic uniaxial test data for Type 316 parent materials used to derive Lemaitre–Chaboche model parameters.

Source Material Available data

NeT task Group 1 AISI type 316L plate Monotonic stress–strain: room temperature, 275 °C, 550 °C, 750 °C; 3 tests at each temperature,
[6] 2.8  104s1
VORSAC project AISI type 316H forging (ex-service steam Monotonic testing at two strain rates and in two orientations from room temperature to 1200 °C, 62
[18,19] header) tests
Circumferential direction, 4.2  105 s1, 100 °C intervals from RT to 1200 °C, plus 275 °C, 525 °C
and 850 °C
Circumferential direction, 4.2  104 s1, 100 °C intervals from RT to 400 °C, then 900 °C, 1000 °C,
1100 °C
Axial direction, 4.2  105 s1, RT and 525 °C
Isothermal cyclic testing at a total strain range of 3%, at 4.2  105 s1 from room temperature up to
900 °C, 19 tests

RT = room temperature.

AISI Type 316H stainless steel were obtained from the VORSAC
Euratom Vth Framework project [18,19]. The uniaxial cyclic tests
employed a high total strain range of 3%, which is a reasonable
bound to the average cyclic strain ranges expected in HAZ material
close to a weld.
Details of the weld stress–strain properties obtained at several
temperatures up to 950 °C are listed in Table 2. A strain rate of
4  104 s1 was employed for most of the tests. The cyclic tests
were performed at a total strain range of 1.5%, which bounds the
average strain range expected for weld metal deposited in a mul-
ti-pass weld.
4.2. Cross-weld stress–strain mapping by ESPI
Tensile tests on cross-weld specimens (Fig. 4) were designed to
obtain a continuous record of the tensile property variation across
the three-pass groove-weld. During tensile testing surface strain
was measured using electron speckle pattern interferometry (ESPI)
to provide a continuous record of the full field surface strain, there-
by allowing the monotonic stress–strain curve to be extracted at
any point along the specimen. Full details of the technique and
measurements are given in [23].
4.3. Groove weld deformation by laser scanning
The shortened 170  180  25 mm specimens were scanned
using a coordinate measuring machine fitted with a laser probe,
to produce 3D models of the final welded configuration. These
were required primarily to allow design and control of the neutron
diffraction residual stress measurements but also provided an
accurate record of the distortion introduced by welding.
4.4. Groove-weld residual stresses by neutron diffraction
Residual stress measurements were made on transverse cross-
sections at mid-length of both the single-pass and the three-pass
groove-weld specimens, using neutron diffraction and the contour
method. Details of measurements on the single-pass weldment can
be found in [24,25].
Neutron diffraction residual strain measurements were carried
out on the Engin-X instrument at the ISIS facility of the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory, UK [26]. The experiments were planned and
controlled using the SScanSS software package [27]. By using the
3D laser scan of the test specimen deformed shape in the software,
each measurement was positioned with high precision. Measure-
ments were made in three orthogonal directions at a number of
locations in a transverse plane at bead mid-length. All diffraction
measurements were made using a (4  4  4) mm gauge volume.
Measurements of the stress-free lattice parameter, a0, in both par-
ent and weld metal were made using a comb specimen extracted
from the three-pass specimen, and small cuboids extracted from
a similar specimen manufactured by the same welder on the same
day using the same welding parameters and consumables, and the
same 316L parent material [28].
316 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

Table 2
Monotonic and cyclic uniaxial test data for Type 316L weld metal used to derive Lemaitre–Chaboche model parameters.

Material Available data

Multi-pass pipe girth weld (VORSAC Monotonic testing at two strain rates and in two orientations from room temperature to 1000 °C, 33 tests
project, [18]) Longitudinal direction, 4.2  105 s1, 20 °C, 275 °C, 525 °C, 700, 850 °C, 1000 °C
Longitudinal direction, 4.2  104 s1, 20 °C, 275 °C, 525 °C, 700, 850 °C, 1000 °C
Transverse direction, 4.2  105 s1, RT and 525 °C
Single-pass weld laid in a groove Monotonic testing at 4  104 s1 in longitudinal direction from room temperature to 950 °C, 15 tests
5 specimens tested at RT (2 as-received, 4 spike-annealed at various temperatures)
9 specimens tested at 200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C, 700 °C, 900 °C, 2 at each temperature except 900 °C, all spike-annealed at 850 °C
Isothermal cyclic testing at a total strain range of 1.5% and same strain rate, two specimens each at 20 °C, 200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C,
and 700 °C, all spike-annealed at 850 °C
Multi-pass weld pad Monotonic testing at 4  104 s1 from room temperature to 950 °C, 16 tests
Six specimens tested at RT (1 spike-annealed at 850 °C, 3 solution-treated at 1050 °C)
10 as-received specimens tested at 200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C, 700 °C, 900 °C, 2 at each temperature
Isothermal cyclic tensile testing at a total strain range of 1.5% and same strain rate, two as-received specimens each at 20 °C,
200 °C, 400 °C, 600 °C, and 700 °C

RT = room temperature.

4.5. Groove-weld residual stresses by the contour method
The contour method is a destructive strain relaxation technique
that can map the direct component of residual stress normal to a
cut surface in a relatively cheap and time-efficient manner [29].
The technique is based on Bueckner’s superposition principle
[30], where a specimen containing residual stresses is cut into
two parts and the resulting relaxed surface displaced shape (con-
tour) is measured. The measured surface contour is then restored
to its original flat profile in an elastic FE model, replicating the ori-
ginal residual stress field. This procedure allows the full field resid-
ual stress normal to the cut surface to be measured on the cut
plane. The contour method was applied to the one and three-pass
groove-weld specimens after neutron diffraction measurements
were complete in order to map the distribution of longitudinal
residual stress on a transverse plane (i.e. perpendicular to the
weld) located at specimen mid-length [24,25].
5. Lemaitre–Chaboche mixed hardening model
The Lemaitre–Chaboche hardening model [31] is designed pri-
marily to represent cyclic inelastic loading of metals. The mixed
isotropic–kinematic formulation allows the model to describe both
the Bauschinger effect, where the yield is reduced upon load rever-
sal after plastic deformation during initial loading, and cyclic hard-
ening with plastic shakedown, where soft or annealed metals tend
to harden towards a stable limit during cyclic loading. Both these
phenomena are important during welding.
The Lemaitre–Chaboche model is implemented in the ABAQUS
FE code [17] where the non-linear kinematic and isotropic parts
of the model are defined separately as follows.
The kinematic component describes translation of the yield sur-
face in stress space via the backstress tensor a. The pressure-inde-
pendent yield surface, f, is defined by the function:
f ðr  aÞ ¼ r0
where r0 is the radius of the yield surface and f(r  a) is the equiv-
alent von Mises stress, defined by:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 egy is to fit the parameters C, c, and r|0 to the monotonic tensile
f ðr  aÞ ¼ ðS  adev Þ : ðS  adev Þ
2 response of the material up to a suitable maximum plastic strain.
here adev is the deviatoric part of the backstress tensor, and S is the
deviatoric stress tensor, defined as S = r + pI, where S is the stress
tensor, p is the equivalent pressure stress, and I is the identity
tensor.
Kinematic hardening is defined as an additive combination of a
purely kinematic term (the linear Ziegler hardening law) and a
relaxation term (the recall term), which introduces nonlinearity.
When temperature and field variable dependencies are omitted,
the kinematic hardening law is:
X 1 
a_ ¼ C i 0 ðr  aÞe_ pl  ci ae_ pl ð3Þ
i
r
where C defines the initial kinematic hardening modulus, and c
determines the rate at which the kinematic hardening modulus de-
creases with increasing plastic deformation. r is the stress tensor,
r0 is the equivalent stress defining the size of the yield surface,
and e_ pl is the equivalent plastic strain rate.
The isotropic hardening component of the model defines the
evolution of the yield surface size, r0, as a function of the equiva-
lent plastic strain, or plastic path length, epl .
pl
r0 ¼ rj0 þ Q inf ð1  ebe Þ ð4Þ
where r|0 is the yield stress at zero plastic strain, and Qinf and b are
material parameters. Qinf is the maximum change in the size of the
yield surface, and b defines the rate at which the size of the yield
surface changes as plastic straining develops. The amount of isotro-
pic hardening thus depends on the total plastic path length in the
structure: a larger number of low amplitude strain cycles are re-
quired to achieve the same amount of hardening as a few large
amplitude strain cycles.
5.1. Fitting mixed hardening model parameters
The five parameters for the mixed-hardening model are nor-
mally fitted to the results of isothermal monotonic tensile tests
and cyclic uniaxial strain-controlled tests.
The three kinematic parameters C, c, and r|0 are fitted first. The
most accurate idealisation of the cyclic response is obtained by fit-
ting C and c to the shape of the saturated cyclic stress–strain loop
from a symmetric strain-controlled test. However, this does not
ð1Þ predict the monotonic response of austenitic stainless steel well.
The model is too ‘‘soft’’, with the proportional limit stress too
low, and insufficient work hardening beyond the peak strain of
the cyclic test used for fitting. This limitation can have a significant
impact on weld residual stress computations. An alternative strat-
ð2Þ
Integration of the backstress evolution law of Eq. (3) over a half cy-
cle yields the relationship:
X C i  

r ¼ rj0 þ 1  expðepl ci Þ ð5Þ
i
ci
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328
Eq. (5) may be fitted to the monotonic true stress vs. plastic strain
response of the material up to a chosen peak plastic strain, the mag-
nitude of which depends on both the expected peak monotonic
strain excursion expected in the structure, and the need to produce
acceptable cyclic stress–strain loop shapes.
Once the kinematic parameters have been chosen, the isotropic
parameter Qinf is obtained from cyclic test data with an appropriate
strain range. It is defined as the difference between the peak stress
at the peak strain of the first loading quarter cycle and one half the
total stress range, Dr/2, either at saturation or at a cycle number
deemed appropriate. The hardening rate parameter b is then fitted
to achieve an appropriate hardening rate.
For welding simulations the above procedure can be used to fit
the model to measured isothermal stress–strain data at various
temperatures. However, the transient thermo-mechanical history
experienced during welding is complex, with potentially a wide
variation in strain range, strain rate and temperature. The rela-
tively simple mechanical constitutive model cannot explicitly han-
dle all of these variables, and this can present problems with its
implementation, for example:
 The isotropic hardening parameters Qinf and b can only be fitted
over a single strain range, whereas for stainless steel the
amount of cyclic isotropic hardening tends to increase with
increasing strain range.
 The kinematic parameters Ci and ci cannot vary with strain
range and are used to describe both the monotonic and cyclic
response of the material. This can lead to difficulties in match-
ing both the monotonic and cyclic response.
 The model is calibrated using the results of isothermal uniaxial
tests, where the loading is proportional (the principal stress
axes do not rotate). The actual hardening behaviour of a mate-
rial during a thermo-mechanical fatigue cycle (TMF loading) or
under non-proportional loading may differ from that observed
in an isothermal uniaxial test.
5.2. Weld metal fitted parameters
The kinematic parameters C, c and r|0 were fitted to the mono-
tonic true stress vs. plastic strain response up to 2% plastic strain of
spike annealed single-pass weld metal under the constraints of
both temperature-independent c, and of only a single C, c pair at
each temperature.
The isotropic parameters Qinf and b were fitted over the first ten
cycles of loading, because the weld metal was observed to first
cyclically harden, taking 10–20 cycles to achieve saturation, and
then later to soften. It was judged appropriate to fit only to the ini-
tial hardening part of the response since the total plastic path
length and the number of cycles were close to the values expected
in a typical multi-pass weld.
5.3. Parent material fitted parameters
Monotonic and cyclic stress–strain data for AISI Type 316 par-
ent material from several sources, see Table 1, were used to devel-
op three model fits to the kinematic parameters:
(a) The first used similar assumptions to the weld metal fit,
namely temperature-independent c, and only a single C, c
pair at each temperature. This fit used the largest available
single-cast database of monotonic data; that is VORSAC tests
[18] performed at the slow strain rate of 4.2  105 s1, fit-
ted out to 5% plastic strain to reflect the higher strain excur-
sions expected in parent material. The VORSAC cast of 316H
material has a higher yield strength than the 316L plate used
in the current study, so the fitted kinematic parameters were
317
adjusted by altering r|0 to achieve the correct 1% proof stress
using a procedure developed and validated in [32]. This fit is
identified as ‘‘mixed-n’’.
(b) The second fitting approach took advantage of the improved
functionality available in ABAQUS version 6.8 and higher,
and fitted up to four C, c pairs at each temperature, still
within the constraint of temperature-independent c. This
fit used plate-specific tensile data [6] obtained at a more rel-
evant strain rate of 4  104 s1. The fit was limited to 2%
plastic strain. This model fit is identified as ‘‘mixed-rr’’.
(c) The third approach fitted the kinematic parameters to the
saturated cyclic response, rather than the monotonic
response. These parameters had been obtained during the
VORSAC project, and fortuitously predicted a 1% proof stress
very close to that of the 316L plate used in the current study,
so could be used with no further modification. This fit is
identified as ‘‘mixed-mm’’.
A paucity of cyclic test data (because many specimens buckled)
led to an alternative fitting approach for the isotropic parameters.
First, it was observed that the available cyclic tests all cyclically
hardened to close to the 0.2% proof stress of the available multi-
pass weldment data. Secondly, it was noted that hardness maps
for Type 316 stainless steel weldments show a smooth increase
through the HAZ with no significant discontinuity at the fusion
boundary [23,32]. Qinf was thus derived from the difference be-
tween the 0.2% proof stress of multi-pass weld data [18], taken
to represent the cyclically saturated response, and the monotonic
stress at 0.75% total strain. The hardening rate parameter, b, was
selected to achieve saturation in 20 cycles at 1.5% total strain
range, with a single value used at all temperatures.
5.4. Characteristics of the fitted models
Fig. 5 compares the predictions of the fitted weld metal model
with the measured monotonic and cyclic response at room temper-
ature. The monotonic response is represented well, although the
restriction to a single C–c pair has led to a slight over-prediction
of the monotonic response close to the proportional limit. As ex-
pected, the cyclic response is ‘‘over-predicted’’, in the sense that
the model predicts a less pronounced Bauschinger effect than ob-
served in the tests, with the predicted cyclic response outside
and more rhomboidal than the observed response. It is also evident
that weld metal cyclically saturates very rapidly, with little change
in the stress–strain loops after the first full cycle.
The three parent mixed hardening material models predict
rather different cyclic responses. Fig. 6 plots the predicted response
for the first half cycle of a test with 2% total strain range. The peak
stress achieved on initial loading is approximately the same for all
three models, because they agree at around 1% total strain. This
would not be the case if load reversal occurred after a different ini-
tial loading strain. On unloading, the stress achieved depends
strongly on both the mixed model and the unloading strain incre-
ment. Thus the onset of reversed yield is predicted over a large range
of stress between +40 MPa and 200 MPa, while at zero strain the
three models agree closely again. Although material in a multi-pass
weld undergoes several complete loading cycles, the differences be-
tween the models tend to persist after repeated load reversals.
6. Prediction of weld residual stresses
A programme of FE modelling was undertaken in order to opti-
mise and validate the mixed hardening material models. A 3D half-
model of the groove-weld specimen was constructed for weld
residual stress simulation, as shown in Fig. 7a, using the ABAQUS
318 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

500 dimensions as the groove-weld model, but with the mesh designed
Cyclic test t3_217
Weld mixed model
to allow removal and subsequent loading of the cross-weld tensile
400
Monotonic test ZS15 specimens.
Monotonic test ZS13
300
6.1. Thermal analysis of welding
200
Stress (MPa)

An accurate thermal simulation of the welding process is a pre-

100
requisite for obtaining an accurate prediction of residual stresses,
0 since the applied temperature field creates the thermal strain his-
tory that loads the structure. The thermal simulation requires de-
-100 tailed knowledge of the welding conditions.
-200 A specialised welding heat source fitting tool [33], was used to
optimise a simple ellipsoidal volumetric heat source. This enabled
-300 the welding efficiency, g, and heat source geometry to be opti-
mised to match both the observed fusion boundaries and the mea-
-400
sured transient temperatures in the specimen during welding. First
-500 the global heat input was calibrated by matching the measured re-
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
sponse of far-field thermocouples [7,10] that were insensitive to
strain (%) the heat source shape. With g known, the heat source geometry
Fig. 5. Comparison of the weld metal mixed hardening model with the measured
was adjusted to predict the observed fusion boundary, giving an
monotonic and cyclic response at room temperature. optimised near-field solution.
Both block-dumped and MHS thermal simulations of welding
were then performed using ABAQUS. In both cases the analysis
400 commenced with removal of the elements representing beads 2
mixed n and 3. Bead 1 was then heated in situ by the chosen heat source.
In the block-dumped simulation the entire bead was heated simul-
300 mixed mm
taneously, while in the MHS simulation the source moved progres-
mixed rr
sively from one end of the bead to the other. The portion of the
200 bead not already laid down was thermally isolated from the
remainder of the mesh by using ABAQUS field-variable dependent
100
material properties. When the field variable is set to 2, the integra-
Stress (MPa)

tion point concerned has its conductivity reduced by two orders of

0 mal level. As the torch approaches, the field variable is changed
-100
-200
-300
-400
-1 -0.5 0 0.5
Strain (%)
Fig. 6. Comparing the predicted responses after first load reversal of mixed-
hardening material models with different parameter fitting strategies.
FE code [17]. The model made provision for the introduction of one,
two or three superimposed weld beads (not shown in Fig. 7a), and
had a mesh design optimised for a full moving heat source (MHS)
weld analysis with simulation of progressive addition of weld filler
material. Although the groove-weld specimen appears to be almost
two dimensional, and therefore amenable to simplified 3D ‘‘block-
dumped’’ analysis techniques in which the entire bead length is
deposited simultaneously, it was judged important to make the
most accurate simulations possible. The model was constructed
using 20-node reduced integration solid elements, with elements
close to the weld bead employing a hybrid formulation (see
Fig. 7b). It contained 102,294 nodes and 23,700 elements. Heat
transfer elements substituted for the mechanical elements for
the initial thermal analysis.
A second FE model with a finer mesh was constructed to simu-
late the cross-weld stress–strain tests. This had the same external
magnitude, while when it is set to 1 the conductivity is at its nor-
smoothly from 2 to 1 over a distance equal to the effective torch
radius, thereby smoothly interpolating the thermal conductivity
[34]. After welding of pass 1 was complete, the specimen was al-
lowed to cool to the inter-pass temperature. The procedure was re-
peated for beads 2 and 3, starting with re-activation of the relevant
elements, and then the entire specimen was allowed to cool to
ambient conditions.
The thermal properties assumed for Type 316L stainless steel
material are given in Table 3. The thermal analyses assumed that
heat was lost from the plate due to free convection and radiation.
1 1.5
Radiative heat transfer was based upon heat exchange with a large
enclosure at 20 °C, with an emissivity of 0.35. Temperature depen-
dent convective heat transfer coefficients were applied to the top
surface of the plate, varying smoothly from 4.2 W/m2 K at 20 °C
to 13.5 W/m2 K at 1400 °C. The sides and bottom of the specimen
reach much lower temperatures than the top surface, so fixed con-
vective heat transfer coefficients of 3.0 W/m2 K and 7.0 W/m2 K
were applied to the plate bottom and sides respectively.
6.2. Mechanical analysis of welding
The groove-weld plate was assumed to be unrestrained during
welding, with a symmetry condition on the plate longitudinal
mid-plane and sufficient additional restraints merely to prevent ri-
gid body motion. Several small displacement mechanical analyses
were performed, examining the effects of material hardening mod-
el, high temperature annealing behaviour, and thermal modelling
strategy on the predicted stress and displacement fields. All fol-
lowed the same basic analysis route.
The analyses commenced with removal of beads 2 and 3, leav-
ing bead 1 in situ at ambient temperature. The transient tempera-
ture history for pass 1 was then applied. Block-dumped analyses
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 319

Fig. 7. 3D half-model of groove weld. (a) Complete mesh with weld beads removed. (b) Transverse cross section at mid-length showing hybrid elements in weld bead and
HAZ.

Table 3
Thermal and physical properties for AISI 316L material.

Temp °C Weld Parent Parent and weld Young’s modulus GPa

Specific heat kJ/Kg/°C Specific heat kJ/Kg/°C Conductivity W/m/°C Density Kg/m3 Thermal Exp  106 mm/mm/°C Parent Weld
20 0.488 0.492 14.12 7966 14.56 195.6 168.2
100 0.502 0.502 15.26 15.39 191.2 164.1
200 0.520 0.514 16.69 16.21 185.7 158.3
300 0.537 0.526 18.11 16.86 179.6 152
400 0.555 0.538 19.54 17.37 172.6 144.9
500 0.572 0.550 20.96 17.78 164.5 136.9
600 0.589 0.562 22.38 18.12 155.0 127.7
700 0.589 0.575 23.81 18.43 144.1 117.4
800 0.589 0.587 25.23 18.72 131.4 105.8
900 0.589 0.599 26.66 18.99 116.8 92.8
1000 0.589 0.611 28.08 19.27 100.0 78.3
1100 0.589 0.623 29.50 19.53 80.0 62.4
1200 0.589 0.635 30.93 19.79 57.0 44.5
1300 0.589 0.647 32.35 20.02 30.0 23.4
1400 0.589 0.659 33.78 20.21 2.0 1.6

Poisson’s ratio was set to 0.29 for parent material and 0.294 for weld metal.

heated the entire bead simultaneously, while the bead was heated
progressively from one end to the other in MHS analyses. The part
of the bead not yet deposited was mechanically isolated from the
remainder of the mesh using the same field variable approach
adopted for the thermal MHS simulations. In this case, the field
variable was initially set to 2, when the integration points con-
cerned had their mechanical properties set equal to those normally
assumed at 1400 °C. Here both the yield strength and elastic mod-
ulus are very low, so the bead makes no effective contribution to
the overall structural response. When the field variable was set
to 1 normal temperature dependent mechanical properties were
assumed. After completion of welding for pass 1, the plate was
cooled to interpass temperature conditions. Beads 2 and 3 were
then deposited using the same approach. The final residual stress
state was obtained by simulating removal of a 25 mm slice of
material from the stop-end of the specimen.
6.3. Material annealing behaviour
ABAQUS has a built-in annealing facility that can eliminate the
isotropic hardening history at a single temperature. However,
applying this facility in weld simulations tends to introduce dis-
continuities in equivalent plastic strain and yield strength and pro-
duce perturbations in predicted longitudinal stress in parent
320 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

Table 4
Room temperature mechanical properties of Type 316 material used in welding simulations.

Identifier Weld model Parent model kinematic parameter fit Isotropic annealing Kinematic annealing
behaviour temperature
Isotropic Perfectly plastic, ro = 446 MPa Piecewise linear isotropic, ro = 210 MPa Conventional, 1400 °C n/a
Mixed-n Mixed hardening model for MMA Single C, c pair fitted to monotonic VORSAC tests Conventional, 1050 °C 850 °C
single-pass weld metal ro = 232.9, C = 4997, c = 34 at 20 °C parent, 850 °C weld
ro = 280, C = 18,800, c = 150 at 20 °C Qinf = 191.6, b = 6.9, at 20 °C
Qinf = 69.1, b = 53.2, at 20 °C
Progressive Two-stage, 800 °C and
annealing 1300 °C
Mixed mm Single C, c pair fitted to saturated cyclic response of Conventional, 1050 °C 1000 °C parent,
VORSAC isothermal cyclic tests parent, 850 °C weld 850 °C weld
ro = 100, C = 52,506, c = 295.3 at 20 °C Conventional, 1050 °C
Qinf = 177.4, b = 5.3, at 20 °C parent, 850 °C weld
Mixed-rr Multiple C, c pairs fitted to monotonic tensile response
of NeT plate
ro = 125.6, C1 = 156,435, c1 = 1411, C2 = 6134,
c2 = 47.19, at 20 °C
Qinf = 153.4, b = 6.9, at 20 °C
Non-linear ro = 280, C = 18,800, c = 150 at 20 °C ro = 232.9, C = 4997, c = 34 at 20 °C n/a 850 °C
kinematic Qinf = 0 at 20 °C Qinf = 0 at 20 °C

Notes: Although space permits the presentation only of room temperature data, temperature dependent data were both derived and used for all analyses.
The units of ro, C, and Qinf are MPa; c and b are dimensionless.
The kinematic annealing temperature is the temperature at which C falls to zero.

material close to the weld fusion boundary. It was judged that high
temperature softening behaviour of Type 316 material could be
much better modelled by defining a two-stage annealing process.
Above a lower annealing temperature, T1, it is assumed that the
material ceases to exhibit any further isotropic hardening, but does
not lose any already accumulated at lower temperatures, while
above an upper annealing temperature, T2, the equivalent plastic
strain is set to zero, eliminating any prior isotropic hardening. A
user subroutine using the UHARD facility within ABAQUS was
developed to implement the two-stage annealing scheme with
the Lemaitre–Chaboche mixed hardening model (full details are gi-
ven in [35]). This advanced functionality was implemented for
both parent and weld material in one of the studies reported here.
Note that the kinematic hardening history is eliminated (or
‘‘annealed’’) at the temperature when the material becomes
elastic – perfectly plastic: that is, the back-stress is eliminated,
and the centre of the yield surface returns to the origin. This oc-
curred between 850 °C and 1000 °C for the models used in this
study, see Table 4.
6.4. Material hardening behaviour
A number of different material hardening models were used in
the mechanical simulations. These included pure isotropic harden-
ing, pure kinematic hardening, and the mixed isotropic–kinematic
formulations described earlier:
(a) The isotropic hardening analyses used a simple piece-wise
linear fit to the monotonic tensile response of parent mate-
rial, with a fully plastic cut-off at 10% plastic strain, coupled
with a perfectly plastic weld model, with its yield strength
set to the mean 1% proof stress of multi-pass weld metal.
A conventional ABAQUS annealing temperature of 1400 °C
was assumed for both constituents (see Section 6.3). Both
block-dumped and MHS analyses were performed for this
material behaviour combination, and the block-dumped
solution was mapped onto the cross-weld simulation mesh.
(b) The mixed-n analyses used a single C–c fit to the parent
monotonic response and the mixed hardening weld model,
with conventional ABAQUS annealing at 1050 °C for parent
and 850 °C for weld metal. Both block-dumped and moving
heat source analyses were performed for this material
behaviour combination, and the block-dumped solution
was mapped onto the cross-weld simulation mesh.
(c) The non-linear kinematic hardening analyses used the
mixed-n parent, and mixed hardening weld models, but with
Qinf set to zero to suppress isotropic hardening. Both block-
dumped and MHS analyses were performed for this material
behaviour combination. The ABAQUS annealing temperature
does not affect the kinematic response.
(d) The mixed-rr analysis used a multiple Ci–ci fit to the parent
monotonic response, and the mixed hardening weld model,
with conventional ABAQUS annealing at 1050 °C for parent
and 850 °C for weld metal. Only a MHS analysis was per-
formed for this material behaviour combination.
(e) The mixed-mm analysis used the single C–c fit to the parent
saturated cyclic response, and the mixed hardening weld
model, with conventional ABAQUS annealing at 1050 °C for
parent and 850 °C for weld metal. Only a MHS analysis
was performed for this material behaviour combination.
(f) Finally, a single block-dumped analysis was performed using
the same parent and weld models as the mixed-n analysis,
but using two-stage annealing (see Section 6.3), with lower
and upper annealing temperatures set to 800 °C and
1300 °C respectively. This solution was also mapped onto
the cross-weld simulation mesh
The physical properties used are given in Table 3, while the
room temperature hardening parameters are given in Table 4.
7. Results
7.1. 3-pass groove-weld deformation
Fig. 8 compares the measured bottom surface deformation
profile of the three-pass groove-weld specimen at the mid-length
measurement plane with three FE predictions. Two predictions
used a block-dumped simulation methodology, while the third
used a moving heat source. The groove-weld specimen showed
substantial deformation during welding, with the two halves of
the plate rotating about a plastic hinge beneath the weld. The
two block dumped predictions grossly under-predict the mea-
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 321

3.5

Measured profile
3 Isotropic hardening, block dumped

mixed hardening, block dumped

2.5 mixed hardening, moving heat source

2
y (mm)
1.5

0.5

0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
x (mm)

Fig. 8. Comparison of mid-length bottom surface profile of three-pass groove weld specimen with predicted profiles from block-dumped and moving heat source simulations.

Fig. 9. Predicted stresses on the measurement plane of a groove weld specimen after pass 3 for ‘‘mixed-rr’’ analysis. (a) Transverse stress (S11). (b) Longitudinal stress (S33).

sured deformation, with relatively little sensitivity to material
hardening model, while the MHS simulation predicts approxi-
mately the correct deformed shape (the average vertical displace-
ment at the edge of the plate is over-predicted by about 8%
compared with under-prediction by a factor of nearly 5 for the
block-dumped analyses). At first sight this is a surprising discrep-
ancy, given that a specimen of this design might be thought ame-
nable to block-dumped analysis. It appears that progressive bead
deposition, with elements ahead of the torch isolated from the
remainder of the mesh, allows considerably more plastic rotation
than any quasi-2D approach. Note that an additional large dis-
placement sensitivity analysis produced little difference in the
displacement results.
7.2. 3-pass groove-weld residual stresses
There is much less difference between residual stresses pre-
dicted by the two bead deposition methodologies. MHS predictions
are subtly better than block-dumped predictions using the same
material model, so only these are compared with residual stress
measurements. Nevertheless, the block-dumped predictions would
normally be judged perfectly acceptable.
Fig. 9 plots predicted transverse and longitudinal stresses on the
measurement (mid-length) plane of the three-pass specimen for
the mixed-rr analysis. High residual stresses are predicted near
the middle of the specimen, as would be expected, with both trans-
verse and longitudinal stresses peaking in weld beads 1 and 2, and
322 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

350
ND measured stress
300
Mixed-rr
250 Isotropic hardening

200 Non-linear kinematic hardening

Stress (MPa) 150

100

50

-50

-100

-150
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance above weld root (mm)
(a)
700
ND measured stress
600 Contour method measured stress
Mixed-rr
Isotropic hardening
500
Non-linear kinematic hardening
Stress (MPa)

400

300

200

100

0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance above weld root (mm)
(b)
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted through-wall stress distribution at mid-length of the three-pass groove weld specimen, showing the effect of moving from
isotropic through kinematic to mixed hardening material models. (a) Transverse stress (S11). (b) Longitudinal stress (S33).

a further peak in transverse stress on the bottom face of the
specimen.
Because both plastic deformation during welding and residual
stresses are concentrated in the centre of the specimen, the most
appropriate residual stress measurement profile to compare with
predictions is a through-thickness ‘‘drill-down’’ line on the weld
centre-line at specimen mid-length. A similar through-wall line
was found to give most insight into simulation performance for a
single weld bead-on-plate benchmark [8,10,11,36].
Fig. 10 compares measured transverse and longitudinal stresses
in the three-pass specimen with predictions made using isotropic,
kinematic and a mixed hardening model (mixed-rr with a multiple
Ci–ci fit to the parent monotonic response). The results show a very
clear ranking in predictive performance of the models. The isotro-
pic model over predicts the amplitude of both components of
stress by a considerable margin. The kinematic model performs
well except for a notable under-prediction of the longitudinal com-
ponent of stress in parent material just below the weld root (ordi-
nate values, x < 0). The mixed-rr solution agrees best with the
measurements except in weld metal (ordinate values, x > 0), where
it over-predicts the stress by 100 MPa in the longitudinal direc-
tion. The increase in predicted stress from this model at the fusion
boundary may be owing to the use of ‘‘spike-annealed’’ rather than
solution heat-treated stress–strain properties in the weld mixed
hardening model.
Fig. 11 compares measured transverse and longitudinal stresses
in the three-pass specimen with predictions made using the three
mixed hardening fits. Predicted stresses in weld metal differ little,
because all three simulations use the same weld model. However,
there are subtle differences between the predicted stresses in par-
ent material, particularly in the longitudinal direction. The mixed-n
single C–c fit to the monotonic parent response over-predicts lon-
gitudinal stresses in parent material more than 5 mm beneath the
weld root. The mixed-mm fit to the saturated cyclic response
under-predicts the longitudinal stress, but gives the best fit to
transverse stress measurements. Conversely the mixed-rr model
gives closest agreement with measurements in the longitudinal
direction.
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 323

300
ND measured stress
250
Mixed-n
200
Mixed-rr

150 Mixed-mm

Stress (MPa) 100

50

-50

-100

-150
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance above weld root (mm)
(a)
500

450

400

350
Stress (MPa)

300

250

200
ND measured stress
150
Contour method measurement
100 Mixed-n
Mixed-rr
50
Mixed-mm
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance above weld root (mm)
(b)
Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and predicted through-wall stress distribution mid-length of the three-pass groove weld specimen, showing the effect of different mixed
hardening material model parameter fitting strategies. (a) Transverse stress (S11). (b) Longitudinal stress (S33).

7.3. 1-pass groove-weld residual stresses 7.4. High temperature annealing

Fig. 12 compares measured transverse and longitudinal stres-
ses in the single-pass specimen with predictions made using
isotropic, kinematic, and the mixed-rr model. The relative perfor-
mance of the models is the same as observed in the three-pass
specimen, despite the shorter plastic path and single load cycle,
with the mixed-rr model providing the most accurate prediction
in parent material. However, this model over-predicts the longi-
tudinal component of stress in the weld metal by 200 MPa as
opposed to 100 MPa for the three-pass specimen. Also contrast
the transverse stresses which are over-predicted by 75 MPa as
opposed to the close agreement found with the three-pass
specimen.
Fig. 13 compares measured transverse and longitudinal stresses
in the single-pass specimen with predictions made using the three
mixed hardening fits. Here the mixed-mm model gives the most
accurate stress predictions for parent material.
Finally, Fig. 14a illustrates how the high temperature annealing
model affects mixed hardening stress results in weld metal and a
small annulus of HAZ material close to the weld. The stress varia-
tion in the HAZ is marginally smoother in the two-stage annealing
simulation, while the stresses in weld are somewhat higher for
two-stage annealing. The reasons for this behaviour can be seen
in Fig. 14b, which plots the plastic path length along the same
through-wall line. In parent material the move from full annealing
at 1050 °C to two-stage annealing at 800 °C and 1300 °C has the
beneficial effect of removing the sharp and unrealistic peak in
the plastic path length. Whereas in weld metal, the change from
full annealing at 850 °C to two-stage annealing has increased the
plastic path in beads 1 and 2, since they are no longer fully an-
nealed by deposition of an adjacent weld bead unless they melt.
Thus two-stage annealing offers a means of reducing unrealistic
perturbations in predicted stress in HAZ material adjacent to the
324 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

300
ND measured stress
250
Mixed-rr
200
Isotropic hardening
150
Non-linear kinematic hardening
Stress (MPa)

100

50

-50

-100

-150
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Distance above weld root (mm)
(a)
600

500

400

300
Stress (MPa)

200

100 ND measured stress

Contour method measurement
0
Mixed-rr
-100 Isotropic hardening

-200 Non-linear kinematic hardening

-15 -10 -5 0 5
Distance above weld root (mm)
(b)
Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and predicted through-wall stress distribution at mid-length of the single-pass groove weld specimen, showing the effect of moving from
isotropic through kinematic to mixed hardening material models. (a) Transverse stress (S11). (b) Longitudinal stress (S33).

fusion boundary, which is often a region of concern in structural
integrity assessments. However, two-stage annealing in weld me-
tal would lead to an unrealistic increase in weld metal residual
stress unless combined with other changes to the material model,
such as a lower unhardened yield strength.
7.5. Groove weld stress–strain properties
The residual stress comparisons imply that the mixed harden-
ing models examined produce a reasonably accurate prediction
of parent material hardening but a less satisfactory over-prediction
of weld metal properties. The performance of the hardening mod-
els can be assessed more directly through comparisons with mea-
sured stress–strain properties from the cross-welds [23], see
Section 4.2.
Predicted variations in 1% proof stress across bead 1 and bead 3
of the three-pass groove-weld specimen are compared with the
measurements in Fig. 15. The predictions are shown for both the
top and the bottom surfaces of the bead 3 cross-weld tensile spec-
imen, but only for the top surface of the bead 1 cross-weld tensile
specimen. Because the latter test specimen was cut from near the
bottom of the weld groove, the lateral extent of weld metal on the
lower surface was small, and therefore the upper surface was
judged most appropriate for comparison. The isotropic predictions
are derived from the full cross-weld test FE simulation described
earlier. The mixed hardening predictions are made by extracting
the plastic path length and backstress tensor components from
the relevant line in a weld simulation model and substituting these
into Eqs. (4) and (5) to calculate the stress after a further 1% plastic
strain. This simplified method does not require a full cross-weld
test simulation, and has been shown to give equivalent results [32].
The measured 1% proof stress for weld bead 3 rises smoothly as
the fusion boundary is approached, and then remains relatively
constant across the weld bead. The isotropic model clearly over-
predicts the yield strength in both weld and parent material. In
contrast, the mixed hardening model closely predicts the proof
stress variation at distances >7 mm from the weld centre-line. In
the HAZ close to the fusion boundary, the two-stage annealing
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 325

300
ND measured stress
250
Mixed-rr
200 Mixed-n

150 Mixed-mm

Stress (MPa)
100

50

-50

-100

-150
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Distance above weld root (mm)
(a)
600

500

400
Stress (MPa)

300

200

100 ND measured stress

Contour method measurement
0
Mixed-rr
-100 Mixed-n
Mixed-mm
-200
-15 -10 -5 0 5
Distance above weld root (mm)
(b)
Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and predicted through-wall stress distribution at mid-length of single-pass groove weld specimen, showing the effect of different mixed
hardening material model parameter fitting strategies. (a) Transverse stress (S11). (b) Longitudinal stress (S33).

model correctly predicts a smooth variation in 1% proof stress, al-
beit rising to a higher level than measured, while conventional
annealing at 1050 °C results in a sharp peak followed by an unre-
alistic trough. The 1% proof stress of the final weld bead is over-
predicted by 50 MPa.
The measured and predicted 1% yield strengths in the bead 1
specimen are compared in Fig. 15b. The measured 1% proof stress
rises steadily through parent and HAZ material to a peak of approx-
imately 450 MPa in the weld bead. It is seen that the isotropic
model over-predicts the yield stress in the parent and HAZ materi-
als, but marginally under-predicts yield of the weld metal (note
that the weld was treated as perfectly plastic in the analysis with
a yield strength of 446 MPa). In contrast the mixed hardening par-
ent model closely predicts the 1% proof stress at distances >7 mm
from the weld bead centre-line. The mixed hardening weld model
predicts a slightly higher 1% proof stress than the isotropic model
which is very close to the measured 1% proof stress. In the HAZ
close to the weld, that is in material which has experienced tran-
sient welding temperatures exceeding 800–850 °C, the yield
strength appears to be underpredicted by the mixed hardening
model using both annealing regimes. But the FE model for this case
does not represent the full width of weld metal present nor does it
represent the change in weld metal width through the thickness of
the test specimen. Thus the discontinuity and apparent under-pre-
diction of yield strength near the idealised weld fusion boundary
may not be real.
8. Discussion
If advanced FE based predictions of weld residual stress are to
be used in structural integrity assessments of safety critical com-
ponents, they must be underwritten by reliable measurements
on representative welded components (see Section III.15 of [5]).
In this study, different types of high quality measurement data
from advanced experimental techniques have been collected from
purpose-designed benchmark specimens and used to develop an
optimised strategy for predicting accurate distributions of residual
stress in austenitic stainless steel weldments.
The comparisons of results clearly show that isotropic hardening
models over-predict the magnitude of weld residual stresses. In
326 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328

500
conventional annealing
450
two-stage annealing

400

Stress (MPa)
350

300

250

200

150

100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Distance above weld root (mm)

(a)
0.10
conventional annealing
0.09
Isotropic hardening equivalent strain

two-stage annealing
0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance above weld root (mm)
(b)
Fig. 14. Showing the impact of material annealing assumptions on predicted through-wall stress and plastic path distributions at mid-length of three-pass groove weld
specimen, for mixed hardening material behaviour. (a) Predicted longitudinal stress. (b) Isotropic hardening plastic path length.

contrast, pure kinematic hardening tends to under-predict longitu-
dinal stresses in parent material close to the weld. The mixed hard-
ening models perform better in terms of predicting more accurate
residual stresses. Arguably the best residual stress predictions were
achieved for the groove-welds using the fit to the saturated cyclic
response implemented in the mixed-mm analysis. But this produced
an under-prediction of longitudinal stresses, caused by its poor rep-
resentation of the parent material monotonic stress–strain re-
sponse. Similar under-prediction has been observed by the
authors in other multi-pass weld validation studies (not yet pub-
lished) and in the VORSAC 65 mm thick multi-pass weld [13] which
used a similar model for the parent material. The multiple Ci–ci fit
to the monotonic tensile stress–strain response implemented in
the mixed-rr analyses also gave accurate stress predictions but re-
sulted in some under-prediction of transverse stress in parent
material in the three-pass specimen. The simpler single C–c fit
implemented in the mixed-n analyses performed less well, as would
be expected from its representation of the isothermal uniaxial re-
sponse, but is still a marked improvement over pure isotropic or
pure kinematic hardening. If the constitutive model were capable
of correctly modelling both the monotonic and cyclic responses,
then this would clearly be the best outcome.
The mixed hardening parent models also give a more accurate
prediction of the yield strength variation spanning cross-weld
specimens for material that has not experienced welding transient
temperatures exceeding 800–850 °C. Above these temperatures,
the method for handling high temperature inelastic strains impacts
the accuracy of predicted yield strength and local residual stresses.
Both single and two-stage ABAQUS annealing regimes were found
to give perturbations in predicted longitudinal stresses confined to
a small annulus of material adjacent to the fusion boundary,
although the latter helped to smooth the variation in material
hardening approaching the fusion boundary in the final weld pass
cross-weld specimen. Both the cross-weld studies and the pre-
dicted stress profiles show that new constitutive models are re-
quired to represent hardening/softening behaviour of weld metal
and the adjacent heat affected zone under high temperature cyclic
loading conditions associated with welding.
 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328 327

500

450

400

Stress (MPa)
350

300
ESPI -1.0%
mixed hardening, two-stage annealing, bottom
250
mixed hardening, two-stage annealing, top
isotropic hardening
mixed hardening, conventional annealing, top
200
mixed hardening, conventional annealing, bottom

150
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from gauge centreline (mm)
(a)
500

450

400
Proof stress (MPa)

350

300

250 ESPI 1%
isotropic hardening
estimated weld yield strength
200 mixed hardening, two-stage annealing
mixed hardening, conventional annealing

150
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from gauge centreline (mm)
(b)
Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and predicted cross-weld variation of 1% proof stress in a three-pass groove weld specimen, showing the effect of material hardening model
and high temperature annealing assumptions. (a) Weld bead 3 (last pass), cross-weld specimen. (b) Weld bead 1 (first pass), cross weld specimen.

The mixed hardening weld models over-predict the longitudi-
nal component of residual stress in the single-pass weld by a large
margin and in the three-pass weld by 50–100 MPa. The cross-
weld specimens show that the yield strength of single-pass weld
metal is over-predicted by 50 MPa, while the almost fully hard-
ened bead 1 weld metal is accurately predicted. Together these
data suggest that the initial (as-deposited) weld material proper-
ties, based on spike-annealed single-pass weld metal, have too
high a yield strength, while properties for the fully hardened state,
based on the 0.2% proof stress of multi-pass weld metal, are about
right. As the yield strength of fully solution-treated weld metal is
about 40 MPa lower than the spike annealed single-pass weld me-
tal used, it is probably more appropriate to base the initial weld
properties on solution treated weld material, provided that it still
cyclically hardens to the yield strength of multi-pass weld metal.
Notwithstanding the caveats above, the approach adopted for
materials characterisation testing and model fitting appears to
be vindicated by the measured stresses and hardening in the
benchmark specimens. Thus the choices of strain rate and cyclic
strain range, and the decision to fit only the initial hardening
phase of the evolutionary cyclic response all appear to be appro-
priate. However, it must be remembered that the resulting hard-
ening models are optimised for predicting weld residual stresses,
and may not be suitable for predicting the response during
subsequent service loading if the characteristics of that loading
differ from welding. A possible example is low cycle fatigue,
where it might be appropriate to model cyclic softening from
the cyclically saturated condition, rather than initial evolutionary
hardening.
9. Conclusions
1. An optimised strategy for predicting accurate distributions of
residual stress in stainless steel weldments has been developed
using multiple measurements from purpose-designed welded
benchmark specimens.
2. The scope of experimental work performed is an exemplar for
future optimisation studies of this kind. In particular, measure-
ments of spatially varying stress–strain properties across the
weldment have been used to assess the adequacy of material
328 M.C. Smith et al. / Computational Materials Science 54 (2012) 312–328
hardening-softening models used in the FE analysis, and mea-
surements of residual stress from diverse techniques have been
used to evaluate the overall accuracy of the computational pre-
dictive procedures.
3. It has been demonstrated that isotropic hardening models over-
predict the tensile magnitude of welding residual stress in this
type of structure. In contrast, pure kinematic hardening results
in under-prediction of longitudinal stresses in parent material
close to the weld.
4. Mixed isotropic–kinematic formulations combined with a
multi-pass moving heat source produce the most accurate pre-
dictions of residual stress. The model of choice is one where the
kinematic parameters (which define the shape of the cyclic
hardening curve) are fitted to the monotonic uniaxial stress–
strain response as a function of temperature.
5. The initial stress–strain properties of deposited weld metal can
be based on solution heat treated single pass weld material,
provided that it cyclically hardens to the yield strength of
multi-pass weld metal.
6. A new two-stage annealing procedure for dealing with plastic
strains accumulating at high temperature in the weld simula-
tion has been shown to reduce discontinuities in results adja-
cent to the fusion boundary compared with single-stage
annealing, but neither approach is very satisfactory.
7. Improved constitutive models for stainless steel parent and
weld metal are needed to represent the monotonic and cyclic
stress–strain response more accurately, and to represent the
softening behaviour of weld metal and the adjacent heat
affected zone under high temperature cyclic loading conditions.
Acknowledgements
This paper is published with permission from EDF Energy Nu-
clear Generation Limited. Professor Bouchard gratefully acknowl-
edges Royal Society Industry Fellowship support and Dr Mike
Smith acknowledges a Royal Academy of Engineering Global Re-
search Award.
References
[1] J. Mackerle, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 4
(5) (1996) 501–533.
[2] J. Mackerle, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 10
(3) (2002) 295–318.
[3] L.-E. Lindgren, Computational welding mechanics. Thermomechanical and
microstructural simulations, Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, 2007.
[4] J. Zhou, H.L. Tsai, in: Z. Feng (Ed.), Welding heat transfer, processes and
mechanisms of welding residual stress and distortion, Woodhead Publishing in
Materials, 2005, pp. 32–98.
[5] British Energy Generation Ltd., Gloucester, UK, 2010.
[6] C.E. Truman, M.C. Smith, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
86 (2009) 1–2.
[7] M.C. Smith, A.C. Smith, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86
(2009) 96–109.
[8] M.C. Smith, A.C. Smith, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86
(2009) 79–95.
[9] P.J. Bouchard, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 86 (2009)
31–42.
[10] M.C. Smith, A.C. Smith, R.C. Wimpory, C. Ohms, B. Nadri, P.J. Bouchard, in:
ASME PVP2009-77157, American Sociery of Mechanical Engineers, Prague,
2009.
[11] M.C. Smith, B. Nadri, A.C. Smith, D.G. Carr, P.J. Bendeich, L. Edwards, in:
ASME PVP 2009-77158, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Prague,
2009.
[12] L.-E. Lindgren, Journal of Thermal Stresses 24 (2001) 195–231.
[13] S.K. Bate, P.J. Bouchard, in: ICRS6, Oxford, UK, 2000, pp. 1511–1518.
[14] K. Ogawa, L.O. Chidwick, E.J. Kingston, R.J. Dennis, D. Bray, N. Yanagida, in:
ASME PVP2008-61452, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago,
2008.
[15] J. Mullins, J. Gunnars, Materials Science Forum 681 (2011) 61–66.
[16] L.-E. Lindgren, K. Domkin, S. Hansson, Mechanics of Materials 40 (2008) 907–
919.
[17] ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual, Version 6.8, Simulia, Providence, RI, 2008.
[18] Lehrstuhl und Institut für Werkstoffkunde, Universität Karlsruhe, 1999.
[19] H. Keinänen, in: VTT Manufacturing Technology, 1999.
[20] British Standards Institute, 1990.
[21] British Standards Institute, 1992.
[22] British Standards Institute, 2001.
[23] M. Turski, M.C. Smith, P.J. Bouchard, L. Edwards, P.J. Withers, Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology 131 (2009).
[24] M. Kartal, M. Turski, G. Johnson, M.E. Fitzpatrick, S. Gungor, P.J. Withers, L.E.
Edwards, Materials Science Forum 524–525 (2006) 6716.
[25] M. Turski, L. Edwards, J. James, P.J. Bouchard, M.C. Smith, P.J. Withers, in: ASME
PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93991, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, Vancouver, Canada, 2006.
[26] J.A. Dann, M.R. Daymond, L.E. Edwards, J.A. James, J.R. Santisteban, Physica B:
Condensed Matter 350 (2004) E511–E514.
[27] J.A. James, J.R. Santisteban, L. Edwards, M.R. Daymond, Physica B 350 (1–3)
(2004) 743–746.
[28] P.J. Bouchard, M. Turski, M.C. Smith, in: ASME PVP2009-77234, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Prague, Czech Republic, 2009.
[29] M.B. Prime, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 123 (2001) 162–
168.
[30] H.F. Bueckner, Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
80 (1958) 1225–1230.
[31] J. Lemaitre, J.L. Chaboche, Mechanics of Solid Materials, Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
[32] M.C. Smith, in: British Energy, 2006.
[33] R.M. Smith, in: FEATPLUS Limited, Bristol, 2009.
[34] R.J. Dennis, N.A. Leggatt, A. Gregg, in: ASME PVP2006-ICPVT11-93907,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2006.
[35] ABAQUS, 2007.
[36] P.J. Bendeich, M.C. Smith, D.G. Carr, L.E. Edwards, in: ASME PVP2009-77584,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Prague, 2009.