Minimization of welding residual stress and distortion in

large structures
P. Michaleris The Penn State University, University Park, PA
J. Dantzig and D. Tortorelli University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana, Urbana, IL

Abstract
Welding distortion in large structures is usually caused by buckling due to the residual stress. In
cases where the design is fixed and minimum weld size requirements are in place, the thermal
tensioning process has proven effective to reduce the welding residual stress below the critical
level and eliminate buckling distortion. In this work, a systematic design approach using
conventional finite element analysis, analytic sensitivity analysis, and nonlinear programming is
implemented to investigate and optimize the thermal tensioning process.

1 Introduction
The trend in current design and manufacturing practice is to reduce product weight through the
use of weldable high strength materials in thin sections. However, use of thin section materials
increases the susceptibility of a structure to buckling during manufacturing due to the welding
residual stress. Buckling distortion can also degrade the product performance, increase
manufacturing cost due to the poor fit-up and the need for straightening, reduce structural
integrity and cause excessive product rejection. Buckling distortion can be eliminated by either
increasing the rigidity of the structure through improved designs or by reducing the welding
residual stress through process modifications.
Over the past fifteen years, the finite element method has been used to predict distortion and
residual stress due to welding. Simulations of welding processes involve thermo-mechanical
finite element analyses of the weld zone. Many investigators (Refs. 1- 5) have performed
transient nonlinear thermal analyses and small deformation quasi-static elasto-plastic analyses.
Following such analyses, Michaleris and DeBiccari (Refs. 6-7) have demonstrated that the
welding residual stress can be accurately predicted and consequently applied as a pre-stress in a
buckling analysis of a structure.
Reducing the welding heat input and modifying the structural configuration reduces the
occurrence of buckling (Refs. 6-9). Design considerations, however, may impose limits on such
modifications. In this case, new manufacturing techniques such as thermal tensioning can be
used to eliminate buckling due to welding. The thermal tensioning technique for controlling
welding residual stress and distortion as discussed by Burak et al. (Refs. 10-11) involves
generating a tensile strain at the weld zone, prior to and during welding, by imposing a steady
state temperature differential. Recently, Michaleris and Sun (Ref. 12) used a thermo-elastoplastic model to demonstrate that the thermal tensioning process minimizes the welding residual
stress by reducing the plastic strain accumulation during welding. However, generating a steady
state temperature differential prior to welding requires the use of heat sinks (cooling devices) that
are impractical, costly, and environmentally unfriendly. Therefore, the development of a thermal
tensioning process (referred to here transient thermal tensioning) that uses transient temperature
1

differentials is desirable. Such transient differentials can be generated by a moving heat source.
Effective implementation of this tensioning process requires determining the appropriate
intensity, size and location of the heat source such to minimize the welding residual stress.
Unfortunately, even for simplified geometries, a conventional parametric study for determining
the appropriate process parameters is impractical as the number of process configurations is
prohibitively large. To resolve this problem we use, sensitivity analysis and optimization that has
proven successful in determining optimum designs for linear (Refs. 13-14) and nonlinear (Refs.
15-16) problems with large numbers of design variables.
In this work, a systematic design approach using conventional finite element analysis, analytic
sensitivity analysis, and nonlinear programming is implemented to investigate and optimize the
transient thermal tensioning process.

2 Transient Thermal Tensioning Process

The transient thermal tensioning device investigated here consists of two heating bands traveling
along with the welding torches (Figure 1). Flame heating is investigated due to the low
acquisition and operational cost. Then, the design of a transient thermal tensioning device
becomes the determination of the width of the heating bands (d1), length of the heating bands
(d2), offset from the first torch (d3), and offset from the weld centerline (d4) that minimize the
welding residual stress without degrading material performance with undesirable metallurgical
transformations. A separate set of design variables (d1- d4) must be determined for each weld
heat input, panel and stiffener thickness combinations.

3 Optimization of Thermal Tensioning

A parametric investigation to identify the desired combination of the four design variables d1 to
d4 would require numerous analyses. For example, if ten values of each design variable are
considered, then ten thousand combinations will need to be investigated. Each combination
includes the preparation, computation, and interpretation of ten thousand welding simulations.
Furthermore, a discrete (fixed values for the design variables) parametric space will most likely
miss an optimum combination. Finally, this exercise will need to be repeated for each weld heat
input, panel and stiffener thickness combination. Such a parametric investigation is practically
and economically unfeasible.
Rather than performing a parametric design analysis, the transient thermal tensioning process is
investigated here by solving an optimization problem stated as follows:
Identify di, i=1, n, such that:
min f (d 1 , d 2 ,..., d n )
for:

(1)

g j (d1 , d 2 ,..., d n ) 0

(d i )min

d i (d i )max

(2)

where, f is the objective function which quantifies the welding residual stress, n is the number of
design variables, di are the design variables, (di)min and (di)max are the minimum and maximum
values allowed for each of the design variables, and gj are a set of inequality constraints.
The problem defined by equations (1) and (2) is solved by the steepest descent method for
simplicity (Ref. 17). In the steepest descent method, an initial selection of the design variables is
iteratively modified until convergence is reached (Figure 2). At each iteration i, the objective
function gradient si is initially computed to check for convergence. If convergence is not
achieved, a line search is performed in the - si direction to determine the ai that minimizes where:
f (d i + ai s i )
f f
f
,
,K ,
)
s i = (
d1 d 2
d n
(3)
The line search direction of equation (3) is determined by computing the derivative (sensitivity)
of the objective function with respect to each design variable.

4 Numerical Approach
4.1

Analysis of the Forward problem

The residual stress is evaluated by performing a 2D transient heat conduction analysis followed
by a quasi-static elasto-plastic analysis assuming generalized plane strain conditions. In the
generalized plain condition, a model cross section is assumed to deform between two rigid
planes. This condition is acceptable for small sections (narrow panels). However for large
sections (wide plates), a loading on one part of the cross section will generate finite strains over
the entire section leading to inaccuracies. For example, Michaleris and DeBiccari, (Refs. 6-7)
show that under the generalized condition the computed welding residual stresses extend to
locations away from the weld. However, experimental measurements indicate that, in large
sections (wide panels) the residual stress gradually diminishes away from the weld (Ref. 8).
The analysis plane is set to a cross-section of the model perpendicular to the welding direction.
The governing equations consist of the energy balance equation (which neglects the stress power
so that the thermal analysis is independent from the mechanical analysis):
r

h
(kT) = 0
t

(4)

the mechanical equilibrium equation:

+ b = 0

and the mechanical constitutive law:

(5)



= C t p th

p = e p F (e p , , T )

(6)

0 Y (e p , , T )
where, r is the internal heat generation, h is the enthalpy, k is the thermal conductivity, t is time,
is stress, C the elastic constitutive tensor, t, p, and th are the total, plastic and thermal
expansion strains, b is the body force, ep is the equivalent plastic strain, F is the plastic flow rule,
and Y is the yield function. The system of equations (4-6) is solved using the finite element
method.
The welding heat input is modeled by a double ellipsoid body heat flux distribution (Ref. 3):

r=

6 3Qb f - 3X2b 2 + 3Yb2 2 + 3(Zb +2vt )2

e a b
c
abc

(7)

where, Qb is the welding heat input,= is the welding efficiency (set here to 80%) Xb, Yb, and Zb
are the local coordinates of the double ellipsoid model, a is the weld width, b is weld penetration,
c = a and f = 0.6 before the torch passes the analysis plane and c = 4a and f = 1.4 after the torch
passes the analysis plane, v is the torch travel speed, and t is the clock time.
The thermal tensioning heat source is applied on the top surface of the plate (Figure 1), and is
defined by an ellipsoid surface heat flux q:
q(x) = 4

3Qs -3 X s22 + Z s22

e d1 d2

(8)

where Xb and Zb, are the local coordinates of the surface ellipsoid defines as follows:

X s = x d 4 0.5d1

Z s = vt + d 3 0.5d 2

(10)

Qs is the flame heat flux per unit area, is the heating efficiency (set here to 30%), x is the
horizontal distance from the weld centerline, v is the welding torch travel speed, t is the clock
time, and d1 to d4 are the design variables (i.e. the width of the heating bands, length of the
heating bands, offset from the first torch, and offset from the weld centerline), respectively.
Generalized plane strain conditions are assumed in the mechanical analysis to account for the
out-of-plane expansion in the model. The out-of-plane strain z is assumed to have a linear
distribution over the analysis plane:
z = e x y + y x

(11)

where e is the out-of-plane strain at the coordinate origin and x and y are the strain variations in
the y and x axes respectively.
4.2

Sensitivity Analysis

The use of optimization drastically improves the ability to effectively design the thermal
tensioning process. However, optimization requires the computation of the derivative
(sensitivity) of the residual stress with respect to the design variables. The computational
approach of the sensitivity analysis is analogous to the approach presented Michaleris et al. (Ref.
15).
The gradient of the objective function is computed using the direct differentiation method (Ref.
15). First, the objective function f is expressed as a generalized response function of the
temperature, displacement, and plastic strain field:

f = f (T , u , p )

(12)

Then, the design derivative of the generalized function is computed by chain rule differentiation
of equation (12):
f
f T f u f p
+
=
+
(13)
di T di u di p di
The sensitivities of the temperature T, displacement u, and plastic strain p are computed by
differentiating the governing equations (4-6) which are now written in discretized residual form
as:
W (T ) = 0
R ( p , u, T ) = 0

(14)

H( p , u, T ) = 0
Differentiating and rearranging equations (14) yields the following expressions for the
sensitivities:
1

T
W W
=

di
T di
H
=

di
p

R R
u
=

di
u p

H u H H T

+
+
u di di T di

H H R R T R

u di T di
p
p

(15)

di

The inverse operators in equations (15) are equivalent to the consistent tangent operators that are
computed and inverted in the forward problem (Ref. 15), therefore the numerical overhead of
5

computing the design sensitivities is a very small fraction of that required for the forward
problem.

5 Computational Results
The proposed design algorithm is implemented to determine the optimum transient thermal
tensioning device for welding a 4 x 4 (101.6 x 101.6mm) stiffener with 3/16 (4.76 mm) thick
flange and web on a 3/16 (4.76 mm) thick, 2 (0.6 m) wide plate with 3/16 (4.76 mm) fillet
welds. Both plate and stiffener are made of AH36 steel. This configuration is identical to the
one selected by Michaleris and Sun (Ref. 12) in their investigation of steady state thermal
tensioning. The 2D finite element mesh used in this study is illustrated in Figure 3. Radiation
and convection boundary conditions are assigned for all free surfaces. A temperature dependent
free convection coefficient is used here and is plotted on Figure 4. The emissivity is set to 0.2.
The material properties and free surface boundary conditions are identical to those discussed in
Michaleris and DeBiccari (Ref. 7). The temperature dependent thermal conductivity K, and
specific heat Cp are plotted on Figure 4. The latent heat of fusion is set to 247 kJ/kg/C and the
density to 7.86 x 103 kg/m3. Elastic-plastic material response is assumed with isotropic work
hardening. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the temperature dependent mechanical properties.
The welding heat input Qb is set to 6682 J (25.7V, 260 A) for the first torch and 6180.5 J (26.3
V, 235 A) for the second. The thermal tensioning heat input is Qs set to 8.3e-4 J/in2 (0.5 J/mm2).
The welding travel speed is 24.72 ipm (10.5 mm/s). The thermal forward problem and
sensitivity analyses are performed in an enhanced version of the commercial code FIDAP (Ref.
18), while the mechanical forward problem and sensitivity analyses are performed in a
FORTRAN finite element code developed by the authors.
The bounds of the design variables are selected based on practical limitations (Table 1). The
initial design selected for the optimization consists of two square heaters located 2 away from
the weld centerline, and 5 ahead of the first welding torch.
Table 1. Bounds of design variables
Design
variable
d1
d2
d3
d4

Minimum
(in.)
1
1
0
2

Maximum
(in.)
12
12
12
4

The computed longitudinal welding residual stress for the initial selection of design variables is
illustrated in Figure 7. The weld region is under yield level tension which agrees with the
conventional welding results of Michaleris and DeBiccari (Refs. 6-7). The compressive residual
stress at the plates edge is 8.8 ksi (60.7 MPa) which is slightly higher than the conventional
welding case where the compressive stress is 8.062 ksi (55.9 MPa). Thus, the initial set of
design variables has an adverse effect on the residual stress.

The following two sections describe the optimization results for two choices of the objective
function.

5.1.1 Minimum Stress at the Plates Edge

The objective function is set to the absolute value of the longitudinal residual stress of the
element located at the edge of the plate (location A in Figure 3). After six iterations, the
optimization converges towards the heating elements that are illustrated in Figure 8. The heater
width (d1) is 8.72 (221.6 mm), the heater length (d2) is 8.19 (208 mm), the offset form first
torch (d3) 1.3 (33.2 mm), and the offset from the weld centerline (d4) is 3.6 (90.5 mm). The
corresponding longitudinal residual stress is illustrated in Figure 9. As seen in the figure, the
residual stress at the plates edge is negligible, however, a band of tensile residual stress is
generated next to plates edge. This is caused by the plastification of the plate due to excessive
pre-heat.
To avoid optimization solutions that may plastify the plate, the optimization problem can be
modified by:
1) Imposing constraints to limit the peak temperature over the application region of the heating
bands
2) Imposing constraints to limit the plastic strain over the application region of the heating
bands
3) Modifying the objective function to include the effects of residual stress in application
region of the heating bands
The following section explores the option 3 above.

5.2

Minimum Sum of Squares Stress on the Plate

The objective function is selected as the sum of squares of the residual stress of all the elements
on the plate located two inches away from the weld centerline (location B in Figure 3).
An optimum design is reached after ten design iterations resulting to an approximately zero value
objective function, which corresponds to negligible residual stress over the plate two inches away
from the weld centerline. The optimal heating elements are illustrated in Figure 10 where it is
seen that the heat width (d1) expands over the entire plate width and the heater length (d2) is
7.35 (186.7 mm). A zero offset form the first torch (d3) is required and the minimum allowable
offset from the weld centerline (d4) is computed. This result is attributed to the thermal diffusion
from both heating pads and welding torches.
The computed residual stress using the optimum heater configuration of Figure 10 is illustrated
in Figure 11. The residual stress at the weld region is tensile with magnitude of about half the
room temperature yield stress. A small compressive stress region exists around the weld to
balance the tension of the weld. The residual stress over the plate two inches away from the weld
is negligible. Figure 12 illustrates the computed temperature history at seven points (P1 though
P7) located on the bottom of the plate (Figure 3). As seen in the figure, the peak temperature in
the plate is 530 oC. This temperature does not cause adverse metallurgical transformations on the

material. However, if high temperatures were found to cause undesirable transformations on the
material, constraints on peak temperature could be added in the optimization set up (equation (2))
to exclude such heating configurations from the solution.

6 Discussion
This study demonstrates that numerical optimization and finite element analysis can be combined
to minimize residual stress and distortion using the thermal tensioning process. The generalized
plane condition has been used in this study to minimize model size and computational time. In
comparisons with experimental measurements in narrow panels (2 wide), the generalized plane
strain condition has given accurate results for modeling conventional welding (Ref. 7) and
welding with thermal tensioning (Ref. 12). However, additional numerical and experimental
research is needed to verify the general applicability of the generalized plane strain condition for
modeling welding under thermal tensioning, especially for wide panels. In wide panels,
inaccuracies may be introduced due the fact that in the generalized plane strain condition a
loading on one part of the cross section generates finite strains over the entire section. Therefore,
the restraint caused by a wide panel will be overestimated and therefore it will artificially reduce
the tension generated by the heaters. Using the generalized plane condition, a wide panel is
expected to require heaters extending over the entire panel width. The numerical approach
presented here can be expanded to 3D finite element formulations to investigate wide panels.

7 Conclusions
The numerical investigation presented here demonstrates the effectiveness of using numerical
analysis and optimization to design the thermal tensioning process. The transient thermal
tensioning using no cooling and localized heating can produce panels with zero residual stress on
the plate. Such panels will have no buckling distortion (Refs.6-7). They will also have improved
structural integrity. Furthermore, they will have negligent longitudinal shrinking. Thus they will
facilitate the implementation of a neat cut manufacturing approach.
The computational approach can easily accommodate design or material limitations by
introducing constraints on the optimization set up. For example, constraints on peak
temperatures can ensure that heating does not cause adverse metallurgical transformations. The
approach can also be extended to 3D finite element formulations to investigate wide size panels.

8 Acknowledgment
This work was funded by the Navy Joining Center, Columbus, Ohio. The United States
Government, Navy Joining Center, and Edison Welding Institute make no warranties and assume
no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information
disclosed in this report. Reference to commercial products, processes, or services does not
constitute or imply endorsement or recommendation.

9 References
1.

S.B. Brown and H. Song, Implications of Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulations of

Welding of Large Structures, Welding Research Supplement, Welding Journal, 71(2):55s62s (1992)

2.

A. Chakravarti, L.M. Malik, and J. Goldak, Prediction of Distortion and Residual Stresses in
Panel Welds. Symposium on Computer Modeling of Fabrication Processes and Constitutive
Behavior of Metals. Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 547-561 (1986)

3.

J. Goldak, A. Chakravarti, and M. Bibby, A new finite element model for welding heat
sources. Metallurgical Transactions B 15B:299-305 (1984)

4.

L. Karlsson, M. Jonsson, L.E. Lindgren, M. Nasstrom, and L. Trovie, Residual Stressses and
Deformations in a Welded Thin-Walled Pipe. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
(Publication) PVP Weld Residual Stresses and PlasticDeformation Jul 23-27 1989 v 173
Honolulu, HI, (1989).

5.

A.R. Ortega, J.F. Lathrop, R.E. Corderman, E.A. Fuchs, B.V. Hess, K.W. Mahin, A.F.
Giamei, Analysis of buckling distortion in bead-on-plate Ti 6-4, Proceedings of the 1995 7th
Conference on Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes, Sep
10-15, 249-256 (1995)

6.

P. Michaleris, and A. DeBiccari, A Predictive Technique for Buckling Analysis of Thin

Section Panels due to Welding, Journal of Ship Production, 12(4): 269-275 (1996)

7.

P. Michaleris, and A. DeBiccari, Prediction of Welding Distortion, Welding Journal, 76,

172-s-181-s, (1997)

8.

K. Masubuchi, Analysis of Welded Structures. Oxford, Pergamon Press, (1980)

9.

K. Terai, Study on prevention of welding deformation in thin-skin plate structures. Kawasaki

Technical Review, no. 61, pp. 61-66 (1978)

10. Ya.I. Burak, L.P. Besedina, Ya.P. Romanchuk, A.A. Kazimirov, and V.P. Morgun,
Controlling the Longintudinal Plastic Shrinkage of Metal during Welding, Avt. Svarka,
1977, No.3, pp.27-29 (1977)
11. Ya. I. Burak, Ya.P. Romanchuk, A.A. Kazimirov, and V.P. Morgun, Selection of the
Optimum Fields for Preheating Plates before Welding, Avt. Svarka, 1979, No.5, pp.5-9
(1979)
12. P. Michaleris, and X. Sun. Finite Element Analysis of Thermal Tensioning Techniques
Mitigating Weld Buckling Distortion, Welding Journal, 76(11): 451-457s, (1997)

13. K. Dems, and Z. Mroz, Variational Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Thermoelasticity,

Journal of Thermal Stress, 10, 283-306 (1987)
14. Haug, E.J., Choi, K.K., and Komkov, V., Design Sensitivity Analysis of Structural Systems.
Academic Press, New York. (1986).
15. P. Michaleris, D.A. Tortorelli, and C.A. Vidal, Analysis and Optimization of Weakly
Coupled Thermo-Elasto-Plastic Systems with Applications to Weldment Design,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 38, 1259-1285, (1995)
16. D.A. Tortorelli, M.M. Tiller, and J.A. Dantzig, Optimal Design of Advanced Parabolic
Systems-Part I. Fixed Spatial Domain with Applications to Process Optimization, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 113, 141-155, (1994)
17. N.G. Vanderplaats, Numerical Optimization Techniques for Engineering Design. Mc GrawHill, (1984)
18. FIDAP, Fluent, Inc, Nashua, NH.

10

Figure 1. Welding with the transient thermal tensioning process

11

Figure 2. Illustration of steepest descent method in a 2D design space.

d2

f1
s1

f2
f3

s2
s3

d1
f1 > f2 > f3

12

Figure 3. Finite element mesh.

P7 P6 P5 P4 P3 P2 P1

A
B

13

Figure 4. Thermal properties of AH36 steel (Michaleris and DeBiccari, 1997).

14

Figure 5. Mechanical properties of AH36 steel (Michaleris and DeBiccari, 1997).

15

Figure 6. Yield strength of AH36 steel (Michaleris and DeBiccari, 1997).

16

Figure 7. Longitudinal residual stress for initial design (MPa).

17

Figure 8. Configuration for minimum stress on plates edge (dimensions in mm).

18

Figure 9. Longitudinal residual stress for minimum stress on the plates edge (MPa).

19

Figure 10. Configuration for minimum sum of squares stress on plate (dimensions in mm).

20

Figure 11. Longitudinal residual stress for minimum sum of squares on plate (MPa).

21

Figure 12. Computed temperature history for minimum sum of squares on plate.

22