Editorial

A perspective on residual stresses in welding

A. De*1 and T. DebRoy2
Welding induced residual stress occurs due to non-uniform simultaneous heating and cooling,
local variation in shrinkage because of variable cooling rates in different regions of the weld, and
strains associated with metallurgical phase transformations. The residual stress in a welded joint
can augment the externally applied load and cause structural failure. Prediction and mitigation of
residual stresses still remain important issues in welding. The purpose of this special issue of
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining is to present recent research on calculation,
measurement and alleviation of residual stresses in welding.
Keywords: Welding, Residual stress

Introduction (3D) analysis considering both conduction and convec-

Residual stress in welding occurs due to misfit between
different parts, different phases, or different regions
within the same part arising out of non-uniform thermal
strain, and strains arising from solidification and solid-
state phase transformations.1 During welding, the region
around the weld pool is inevitably associated with tensile
residual stresses in the direction of welding and the
tensile stresses are balanced by compressive stresses
further from the weld line.2 Welding induced tensile
residual stress promotes brittle fracture, buckling
deformation, and stress-corrosion cracking, and reduces
the fatigue life of welded structures in service.2–5
Accurate quantitative estimation of residual stress in
welded fabrications including repair welds is of sig-
nificant interest.5–7 This special issue intends to assim-
ilate recent activities towards estimation, measurement,
and mitigation of welding induced residual stress.
The primary focus of research on welding induced
residual stress has been to develop mathematical models
to estimate and experimental techniques to measure and
mitigate residual stress for various joint geometries and
welding conditions. The efficacy of various stress-
relieving techniques has remained another important
area of research. The objective of this article is to
provide a perspective of recent research activities on
residual stress in welding.
The estimation of welding-induced residual stress
based on analytical calculations of the temperature field
has resulted in limited success.8–10 Computer based
numerical models gained considerable attention because
realistic boundary conditions, temperature dependent
material properties and complex joint geometries could
be considered. However, the numerical models faced
three major challenges. First, an accurate estimation of
the temperature field in a weld needs three-dimensional
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay, India
2
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA, USA
*Corresponding author, email de.amitava@gmail.com
tion modes of heat transfer.11,12 Such calculations are
computationally intensive. Second, the natural evolution
of thermo-mechanical strains as the weld pool solidifies
and cools down to the room temperature depends on the
transient temperature field and the mechanical con-
straints posed by the joint geometry, which are often too
complex to consider.5–7,13 Third, the constitutive models
that can accurately describe the thermo-elastic-plastic
stress–strain response of materials and consider the
influence of solid-state phase transformation are rarely
available for many engineering alloys.5–7
The numerical models to estimate welding induced
residual stress started with the two-dimensional (2D)
axisymmetric thermo-mechanical analysis by Hibbit and
Marcal14 for gas metal arc (GMA) welding. Since then a
large number of 2D models15–33 have been developed
considering different welding processes and joint geo-
metries. These models could consider evolution of tem-
perature and resulting thermo-mechanical stress fields
on a plane usually perpendicular to the welding direction
assuming plane stress (zero out-of-plane stress), plane
strain (zero out-of-plane strain) or axisymmetric condi-
tion. Thus, the 2D models could not compute long-
itudinal residual stress and its influence on the
corresponding transverse and normal components in a
realistic manner. In spite of those limitations, the 2D
models set the roadmap towards quantitative evaluation
of welding induced residual stress.
Karlsson and Josefson,34 and Tekriwal and Mazumdar35
started 3D analysis to compute welding induced re-
sidual stress and showed the need for simplifying
assumptions to avoid increased computational demand
required for 3D structures. For example, both the
works34,35 considered very coarse mesh and small
solution domain compared to the actual size of the
welded structure. Even with the recent improvement in
the computational hardware, comprehensive 3D
thermo-elasto-plastic analyses of large welded struc-
tures remain a major challenge. Significant efforts have
been made to examine the utility of 2D (plane stress,
plane strain or axisymmetric) analyses in predict-
ing residual stress in several joining processes and joint

ß 2011 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
DOI 10.1179/136217111X12978476537783 Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2011 VOL 16 NO 3 204

geometries considering both single- and multi-pass
welding.36–49 Remarkably, most of the modelling
attempts15–49 used a conduction heat transfer analysis
to predict the temperature field. Since convection is the
main mechanism of heat transfer in the weld pool, the
temperature and stress fields computed from heat
conduction models are susceptible to large errors,
particularly near the weld pool where temperature
changes are significant.
Thermo-mechanical analysis was also attempted in
Eulerian reference frame neglecting the edge effects to
achieve twofold benefits.50–53 First, a reduced solution
domain can be considered instead of the entire weld
structure. Second, a fine mesh is required only near the
weld seam to account for the steep temperature gradient
and the resulting thermal strain gradient. Although this
approach can increase computational efficiency, the
application of appropriate boundary conditions and the
calculation of the accumulated thermal strain remain as
important challenges. Ueda et al. proposed a simplified
procedure that computed local inelastic strain, referred
to inherent strain, considering only the weld area and
subsequently performed an elastic analysis of the entire
structure considering the inherent strains as equivalent
loads.54,55 Although this approach was tested in single-
and multi-pass welds,54,55 the restraint effect due to the
overall stiffness of a welded structure could not be
considered appropriately in the local thermo-mechanical
analysis.56–59 In recent years, efforts towards compre-
hensive 3D thermo-elasto-plastic analysis have been
further facilitated by the increased availability of finite
element method based commercial software.60,61
In steel welds, the transformation strains due to solid-
state phase transformation such as austenite to marten-
site or ferrite during cooling can strongly influence the
residual stress.17,19,34 The kinetics of solid-state phase
transformations under the conditions of welding has still
remained a difficult area in weld modelling.11,12,62–67
Nevertheless, attempts to include the effect of solid-state
phase transformation on volumetric strain and yield
strength of weld material in modelling residual stresses
are reported in recent studies.68–78 Taljat et al.69
performed a 2D thermo-mechanical analysis using
ABAQUS for GTA spot welding of HY-100 steel
considering the volumetric strain due to austenite to
martensite transformation. Further models58,70–72
showed that the consideration of volumetric strain due
to austenite to martensite transformation could improve
the estimated residual stresses markedly in welds of
medium to high carbon steel, and stainless steel. Deng
et al.73,74 and Lee et al.75,76 used Johnson–Mehl–
Avrami–Kolmogorov and Koistinen–Marburger equa-
tions to track respectively austenite to bainite and
austenite to martensite transformations, and considered
their influence on the volumetric strain and yield
strength in computing residual stress in high strength
carbon steels welds. The influence of phase transforma-
tion on mechanical properties, in particular during load
reversal, was also considered by Yamamoto et al.77 in
estimating residual stress in high strength steel and by
Feng et al.78 in aluminium alloys.
Direct measurements of residual stresses by destructive
techniques such as slitting, hole-drilling and contour
methods and non-destructive techniques based on labo-
ratory and synchrotron X-ray and neutron diffraction
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Editorial
have remained as important areas of research.79–91 All
these techniques usually measure the residual strain over
a sample gauge volume that approximately corresponds
to the resolution of the measured values. The neutron
diffraction, in particular, is capable of evaluating residual
stress in three orthogonal directions deep inside a welded
structure with a spatial resolution of 1 mm or smaller. In
contrast, the synchrotron X-ray can measure residual
stress in two dimensions while the high-energy shorter
wavelength radiation allows a fast measurement suffi-
ciently deep in the weld. The laboratory X-ray based
measurements, however, has remained an effective tool to
measure surface and sub-surface residual stress. The
synchrotron X-ray and neutron diffraction methods are
usually preferred as they are non-destructive and free
from near surface defects that inhibit the use of other
techniques, and also facilitate mapping of stresses over a
large area. Comparison between the neutron and X-ray
based diffraction techniques has shown that the for-
mer is capable of monitoring bulk residual strain while
the later can be used to characterise small-scale residual
strain variation such as the strains in crystallographic
structure.79–87 Both synchrotron X-ray and neutron
diffraction are also used to trace the in situ evolution of
residual strain.86,88 Recently, a destructive technique such
as the contour method involving monitoring of released
strain during wire-electron discharge machining cutting
of weld samples is also found effective in thick welded
structure.89–91 One important outcome of these studies is
the quantitative establishment of the nature and magni-
tude of residual stresses in friction stir welded joints in
comparison to conventional fusion welded joints of alumi-
nium as well as of steels.
Since welding induced residual stresses are common,
various methodologies to alleviate and mitigate the
stresses have been investigated. Mechanical92–95 and
thermal96–102 tensioning of the weld joints either during
or after welding are promising techniques to reduce
residual stresses. Such tensioning techniques can be
applied either globally to the entire component prior to
or during welding or locally to the weld area during
welding. For example, preheating of the entire compo-
nent to be welded reduces the temperature gradient
between the weld material and the surrounding parent
material thereby reducing the net thermal strain and
residual stress. Alternately, local hot or cold spots can
be applied using an external source respectively in front
of or immediately behind the welding heat source
resulting in a reduction in the local temperature gra-
dient, thermal strain and residual stress. In practice,
thermal tensioning methods are more difficult to apply
in actual welds due to complex joint geometries and the
difficulties involved in applying appropriate external
heat sources. Therefore, mechanical tensioning methods
are popular for this purpose. There is also recent
interest in engineering filler material composition in
fusion welding of steels that can generate compressive
strains due to solid-state phase transformation and hence,
counter localised high tensile residual stress.103–107 Both
experimental and theoretical calculations have indicated
that an appropriately engineered filler material can
counter local tensile residual stress by way of the strains
associated with solid-state phase transformation in welds
of complex steel materials effectively leading to a local
equilibrium of stresses.
2011 VOL 16 NO 3 205

Papers in this special issue
This special issue comprises of 13 original research
articles including five on modelling, six on experimental
measurement, and two on design of filler material
composition for mitigation of residual stress in welding.
STWJ invited contributions from many authors based
on publication records in the commonly available
electronic databases. The papers that were received were
peer reviewed in the usual manner. We thank all authors
for their contributions and welcome commentaries and
further contributions for the future issues of the journal.
Okano et al.108 used an arc physics based model to
estimate the surface heat source expression. A subse-
quent 3D sequentially coupled thermal and thermo-
mechanical analysis is done to estimate residual stress in
GTA welds of high strength structural steel for a wide
range of welding conditions.
The paper by Michaleris and Lawrence109 shows the
need for convective heat transfer based modelling of
temperature fields in computing residual stress. The
computed temperature field from a 3D conduction heat
transfer model was fairly successful to compute residual
stress in GMA welds but inadequate in laser-GMA
hybrid welds because the formation of a keyhole and the
resulting transport of heat in the weld pool could not be
considered. Computed temperature fields considering
convective transport of heat could predict residual stress
more effectively in laser-GMA hybrid welds.
Feulvarch et al.110 computed residual stress in multi-
pass pipe welds between ferritic and austenitic steels
considering the effect of solid-state phase transforma-
tion and temperature on material properties. A full 3D
analysis is shown to be requisite to predict residual stress
in multi-pass circular welds and 2D axisymmetric
analysis is justified for a few initial weld passes only.
To alleviate huge computational demand when
computing residual stress in large structure with many
weld joints, Biswas et al.111 has performed 3D thermal–
mechanical analysis in and around the weld areas and
subsequently, an elastic stress analysis of the entire
structure by imposing the local plastic strains as
boundary conditions. A significant reduction in the
computational demand with very little loss in accuracy
in prediction is reported.
Yaghi et al.112 modelled residual stresses during
welding of P91 steel pipes and stress-relieving during
post weld heat treatment (PWHT) considering Norton’s
creep law during PWHT. The Norton creep constants
were obtained from experiments. The computed results
showed a significant reduction in the residual hoop and
axial stresses after PWHT, which was also verified
experimentally.
Assuncao et al.113 measured residual stresses by
neutron diffraction in conduction and keyhole mode
laser welds. The peak longitudinal tensile residual
stresses were found to be similar in both types of welds
while the former contained a larger stress affected
region. Suder et al.114 showed that the hybrid laser-
GTA welds can lead to nearly 50% higher tensile
longitudinal stress in comparison to a laser weld for a
constant weld penetration. This is significant since the
hybrid laser-GTA is often considered as a recourse to
laser welding to avoid the stringent requirement of joint
fit-up in the latter case. Thirumala et al.115 used neutron
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Editorial
diffraction to map 2D residual stresses in girth welds of
large diameter, thick walled X-65 carbon steel pipelines
used in the oil and gas industry. Residual stresses were
measured in a carbon steel weld with fully ferritic weld
metal and in an Inconel 625 dissimilar weld with fully
austenitic weld metal. Both types of the welds showed a
similar nature and magnitude of axial and hoop residual
stresses.
To estimate the residual strain, the diffraction me-
thods require a value for the stress-free lattice spacing,
which depends on the microstructure and is difficult to
assign reliably in dissimilar metal welds. Zhang et al.116
proposed a recourse to estimate the stress-free lattice
spacing as a function of the measured lattice spacing in
three orthogonal directions in the actual weld consider-
ing plane stress conditions. The proposed methodology
was tested in multi-pass GMA welds of 304L stainless
steel plates with nickel alloy 82 filler material. The
measured through-thickness residual stresses were in fair
agreement with similar results measured using the deep-
hole drilling technique.
Hashimoto117 proposed an improved X-ray based
measurement technique using a 2D detector combined
with multi-axial rocking for Ni-based alloy welds. In
such a case, the final weld microstructure is devoid of
solid-state phase transformations. The X-ray based
measurement is difficult due to the preferred orientation
of the unidirectional solidification and grain growth in
the heat-affected zone. The 2D detector combined with
multi-axial rocking is shown to be able to capture the
location of the maximum tensile residual stress fairly
accurately. The influence of the softening behaviour of
the material on the evolution and final residual stress
distribution in friction stir welds of AA6061 and of
AZ31B alloys are outlined in the paper by Woo and
Choo.118 The authors used neutron diffraction to
measure welding induced residual stress and standard
procedures to simultaneously evaluate the yield strength
and hardness at several locations in and around the weld
region.
The last two papers in this special issue examine the
role of filler material composition in balancing tensile
residual stress. Reddy and Ramana119 reported the
influence of filler wire composition on residual stress in
similar and dissimilar welds of maraging steel and
medium alloy medium carbon steel. In similar welds of
maraging steel and medium carbon steel, the measured
residual stresses were compressive and tensile, respec-
tively. In the dissimilar welds, the residual stress in
fusion zone was compressive in maraging steel and
tensile in medium carbon steels. In another interesting
work, Moat et al.120 showed that an engineered
martensitic filler metal with low-transformation-tem-
perature could counter the tensile residual stress in
typical ferritic and austenitic welds by exploiting the
strains associated with solid-state phase transformation.
Concluding remarks
The literature on residual stress in welding including the
papers in this special issue of STWJ shows the recent
advancements made in the field and indicates the
opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Improved
access to neutron and synchrotron X-ray diffraction has
certainly facilitated the use of diffraction based methods
for the measurement of residual stress. It is expected that
2011 VOL 16 NO 3 206

the use of these high energy beams for real-time studies
of phase transformations and the evolution of strains
during actual welding process will provide new insights
not easily attainable by other techniques. Such studies,
when appropriately planned, will also be able to provide
realistic constitutive relations during solid-state phase
transformation. Reliable constitutive equations are
needed for important engineering alloys that take into
account the influence of solid-state phase transforma-
tions on the mechanical behaviour of alloys. An
important research need in the area of residual stress
calculations is to use realistic 3D transient temperature
fields based on convective heat transfer in a computa-
tionally efficient manner. Finally, finding appropriate
ways to alleviate distortion and residual stress in welding
has remained an important priority. Designing appro-
priate filler materials that can counter local tensile
residual stress through the strains associated with solid-
state phase transformation will certainly remain an
important area of research. With the continuing
improvements in the software and hardware, realistic
determination of the nature and strength of the external
heat sources that can mitigate welding induced distor-
tion and residual stress is likely to be within the reach of
the welding research community.
References
1. P. J. Withers and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci. Technol.,
2001, 17, (4), 366–375.
2. H. V. Cordiano: ASME J. Eng. Ind., 1970, 92, (4), 86–92.
3. G. A. Webster and A. N. Ezeilo: Int. J. Fatigue, 2001, 23, S375–
S383.
4. P. Dong and F. W. Burst: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2000,
122, (3), 329–338.
5. P. Dong: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10, (4), 389–398.
6. P. Dong, J. K. Hong and P. J. Bouchard: Int. J. Press. Vessel Pip.,
2005, 82, (4), 258–269.
7. P. Dong: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2007, 129, (3), 345–354.
8. N. S. Boulton and H. E. L. Martin: Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 1936,
133, 295–347.
9. D. Rosenthal: Weld. J., 1941, 20, (5), 220–234.
10. Y. Shim, Z. Feng, S. Lee, D. Kim, J. Jaeger, J. C. Papritan and
C. L. Tsai: Weld. J., 1992, 71, (9), s305–s312.
11. S. A. David and T. DebRoy: Science, 1992, 257, (5069), 497–502.
12. T. DebRoy and S. A. David: Rev. Mod. Phys., 1995, 67, (1), 85–
112.
13. K. Masubuchi: ‘International series on materials science and
technology’, Vol. 33; 1980, New York, Pergamon Press.
14. H. D. Hibbit and P. V. Marcal: Comput. Struct., 1973, 3, 1145–
1174.
15. E. Friedman: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 1975, 97, (3) 206–
213.
16. E. F. Rybicki, D. W. Schmueser, R. W. Stonesifer, J. J. Groom
and H. W. Mischler: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 1978, 100,
256–262.
17. B. A. B. Anderson: ASME J. Eng. Technol., 1978, 100, 356–362.
18. E. F. Rybicki and R. B. Stonesifer: ASME J. Press. Vessel
Technol., 1979, 101, 149–154.
19. V. J. Papazoglou and K. Masubuchi: ASME J. Press. Vessel
Technol., 1982, 104, 198–203.
20. J. H. Argyris, J. Szimmat and K. J. Willam: Comput. Method.
Appl. M., 1982, 33, 635–666.
21. L. Lindgren and L. Karlsson: Int. J. Num. Meth. Eng., 1988, 25,
635–655.
22. M. Mochizuki, K. Enomoto, N. Okamoto, H. Saito and
E. Hayashie: Nucl. Eng. Des., 1993, 144, (3), 439–447.
23. J. K. Hong, C. L. Tsai and P. Dong: Weld. J., 1998, 77, (9), 372s–
382s.
24. M. Mochizuki, T. Hattori and K. Nakakado: ASME J. Eng.
Mater. Technol., 2000, 122, (1), 108–112.
25. M. Mochizuki, M. Hayashi and T. Hattori: ASME J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 2000, 122, (1), 27–32.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Editorial
26. L. Borjesson and L.-E. Lindgren: ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol.,
2001, 123, (1), 106–111.
27. M. V. Deo, P. Michaleris and J. Sun: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2003, 8, (1), 55–61.
28. D. Camilleri and T. G. F. Gray: Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng.,
2005, 13, (8), 1365–1382.
29. S. K. Khanna, X. Long, W. D. Porter, H. Wang, C. K. Liu,
M. Radovic and E. L. Curzio: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10,
(1), 82–87.
30. X. Long and S. K. Khanna: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10,
(1), 88–94.
31. Z. H. Zhang, Z. Zhang and J. T. Chen: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2005,
A403, (1–2), 340–348.
32. C. C. Tutum and J. H. Hattel: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2010, 15,
(5), 369–377.
33. H. S. Bang, H. S. Bang, Y. C. Kim and S. M. Joo: Comput. Mater.
Sci., 2010, 49, (2), 217–221.
34. R. I. Karlsson and B. L. Josefson: ASME J. Press. Vessel
Technol., 1990, 112, (1), 76–84.
35. P. Tekriwal and J. Mazumder: ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol.,
1991, 113, (3), 336–343.
36. S. Brown and H. Song: J. Eng. Ind. Trans. ASME, 1992, 114, (4),
441–451.
37. S. Brown and H. Song: Weld. J., 1992, 71, (2), 55s–62s.
38. Y. Dong, J. K. Hong, C. L. Tsai and P. Dong: Weld. J., 1997, 76,
(10), 442s–449s.
39. J. M. Zhang, P. S. Dong, F. W. Burst, W. J. Shack, M. E.
Mayfield and M. McNeil: Nucl. Eng. Des., 2000, 195, (2), 171–
187.
40. S. Sarkani, V. Tritchkov and G. Michaelov: Finite Elem. Anal.
Des., 2000, 35, (3), 247–268.
41. P. Dong: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2001, 123, (2), 207–213.
42. S. Fricke, E. Keim and J. Schmidt: Nucl. Eng. Des., 2001, 206, (2/
3), 139–150.
43. L.-E. Lindgren: J. Therm. Stresses, 2001, 24, 141–192, , 195–231, ,
305–334.
44. W. Jiang, K. Yahiaoui, F. R. Hall and T. Laoui: J. Strain Anal.
Eng., 2005, 40, (6), 587–597.
45. L.-E. Lindgren: Comput. Method. Appl. M., 2006, 195, (48–49),
6710–6736.
46. P. Ferro, H. Porzner, A. Tiziani and F. Bonollo: Modell. Simul.
Mater. Sci. Eng., 2006, 14, (2), 117–136.
47. D. Deng and H. Murakawa: Comput. Mater. Sci., 2006, 37, (3),
269–277.
48. P. Michaleris, L. Zheng, S. R. Bhide and P. Marugabandhu: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11, (6), 707–716.
49. S. K. Khanna and X. Long: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2008, 13,
(3), 278–288.
50. J. M. Bergheau, Y. Vincent, J. B. Lebolnd and J. F. Jullien: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2004, 9, (4), 323–330.
51. A. Bastier, M. H. Maitourmam, K. D. Van and F. Roger: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11, (3), 278–288.
52. X. L. Qin and P. Michaleris: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14,
(7), 640–649.
53. X. L. Qin and P. Michaleris: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14,
(7), 606–615.
54. Y. Ueda and M. G. Yuan: ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 1993,
115, (4), 417–423.
55. M. G. Yuan and Y. Ueda: ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 1996,
118, (2), 229–234.
56. M. Mochizuki, M. Hayashi and T. Hattori: ASME J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 1999, 121, (4), 353–357.
57. M. Mochizuki, M. Hayashi and T. Hattori: ASME J. Eng. Mater.
Technol., 2000, 122, (1), 99–103.
58. M. Toyoda and M. Mochizuki: Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater., 2004, 5,
(1/2), 255–256.
59. M. Mochizuki: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11, (5), 496–501.
60. R. V. Preston, H. R. Shercliff, P. J. Withers and S. Smith: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, (1), 10–18.
61. F. A. Soul and Y. H. Zhang: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11,
(6), 688–693.
62. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, L. E. Svensson and B. Gretoft: Acta
Mater., 2004, 33, (7), 1271–1283.
63. S. S. Babu, S. A. David, J. M. Vitek, K. Mundra and T. DebRoy:
Mater. Sci. Technol., 1995, 11, (2), 186–199.
64. Z. Yang and T. DebRoy: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1999, 30A, (3),
483–493.
65. W. Zhang, J. W. Elmer and T. DebRoy: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2002,
A333, (1/2), 320–335.
2011 VOL 16 NO 3 207

66. J. W. Elmer, T. A. Palmer, W. Zhang and T. DebRoy: Acta
Mater., 2003, 51, (12), 3333–3349.
67. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Weld. J., 2004, 83, (9), 237s–243s.
68. A. S. Oddy, J. A. Goldak and J. M. J. Mcdill: ASME J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 1992, 114, (1), 33–38.
69. B. Taljat, B. Radhakrishnan and T. Zacharia: Mater. Sci. Eng. A,
1998, A246, (1/2), 45–54.
70. S. H. Cho and J. W. Kim: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2002, 7, (4),
212–216.
71. M. Toyoda and M. Mochizuki: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol.,
2007, 129, (4), 619–629.
72. B. Chen, X. H. Peng, J. H. Fan and S. T. Sun: J. Mater. Process
Technol., 2008, 205, (1/3), 316–321.
73. D. Deng and H. Murakawa: Comput. Mater. Sci., 2008, 43, (4),
681–695.
74. D. Deng: Mater. Des., 2009, 30, (2), 359–366.
75. C. H. Lee and K. H. Chang: Comput. Mater. Sci., 2009, 46, (4),
1014–1022.
76. C. H. Lee and K. H. Chang: Comput. Struct., 2011, 89, (1/2), 256–
265.
77. J. Yamamoto, K. Hiraoka and M. Mochizuki: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2010, 15, (2), 104–110.
78. Z. Feng, X. L. Wang, S. A. David and P. S. Sklad: Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join., 2007, 12, (4), 348–356.
79. P. J. Withers and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci. Technol.,
2001, 17, (4), 355–365.
80. G. Albertini, G. Bruno, B. D. Dunn, F. Fiori, W. Reimers and
J. S. Wright: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1997, A224, (1/2), 157–165.
81. R. A. Owen, R. V. Preston, P. J. Withers, H. R. Shercliff and P. J.
Webster: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2003, A346, (1/2), 159–167.
82. A. P. Reynolds, W. Tang, T. G. Herold and H. Prask: Scr. Mater.,
2003, 48, (3), 1289–1294.
83. M. Peel, A. Steuwer, M. Preuss and P. J. Withers: Acta Mater.,
2003, 51, (16) 4791–4801.
84. G. Bruno and B. D. Dunn: ASME J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2004,
126, (3), 285–292.
85. A. Steuwer, M. J. Peel and P. J. Withers: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2006,
A441, (1/2), 187–196.
86. H. Dai, J. A. Francis, H. J. Stone, H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia and
P. J. Withers: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2008, A39, (13), 3070–3078.
87. S. Ganguly, V. Stelmukh, L. Edwards and M. E. Fitzpatrick:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2008, A491, (1/2), 248–257.
88. W. Woo, Z. Feng, X. L. Wang, D. W. Brown, B. Clausen, K. An,
H. Choo, C. R. Hubbard and S. A. David: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2007, 12, (4), 298–303.
89. Y. Zhang, S. Ganguly, L. Edwards and M. E. Fitzpatrick: Acta
Mater., 2004, 52, (17), 5225–5232.
90. M. B. Prime, T. G. Herold, J. A. Baumann, R. J. Lederich, D. M.
Brown and R. J. Sebring: Acta Mater., 2006, 54, (15), 4013–4021.
91. A. A. Shirzadi and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2010, 15, (6), 497–499.
92. A. S. Munsi, A. J. Waddell and C. A. Walker: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2002, 7, (1), 51–55.
93. D. A. Price, S. W. Williams, A. Wescott, C. J. C. Harrison,
A. Rezai, A. Steuwer, M. Peel, P. Staron and M. Kocak: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2007, 12, (7), 620–633.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Editorial
94. J. Altenkirch, A. Steuwer, P. J. Withers, S. W. Williams, M. Poad
and S. W. Wen: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14, (2), 185–192.
95. S. W. Wen, P. A. Colegrove, S. W. Williams, S. A. Morgan, A.
Wescott and M. Poad: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2010, 15, (6),
441–447.
96. P. Michaleris and A. de Biccari: Weld. J., 1997, 76, 172–180.
97. P. Michaleris and X. Sun: Weld. J., 1997, 76, 451–457.
98. M. V. Deo and P. Michaleris: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8,
(1), 49–54.
99. J. Li, Q. Guan, Y. W. Shi and D. L. Guo: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2004, 9, (5), 451–458.
100. E. M. van der Aa, M. J. M. Hermans and I. M. Richardson: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2006, 11, (6), 488–495.
101. C. J. Rosen, A. Gumenyuk, H. Zhao and U. Dilthey: Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join., 2007, 12, (7), 614–619.
102. J. G. Richards, P. B. Prangnell, P. J. Withers, S. W. Willams,
T. Nagy and S. Morgan: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2010, 15, (2),
156–165.
103. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2004, A378, (1/2), 34–
49.
104. J. A. Francis, H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia and P. J. Withers: Mater.
Sci. Technol., 2007, 23, (9), 1009–1020.
105. A. A. Shirzadi, H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, L. Karlsson and P. J.
Withers: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14, (6), 559–565.
106. J. A. Francis, H. J. Stone, S. Kundu, H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia,
R. B. Rogge, P. J. Withers and L. Karlsson: ASME J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 2009, 131, (1), 1–8.
107. H. Murakawa, M. Beres, C. M. Davies, S. Rashed, A. Vega,
M. Tsunori, K. M. Nikbin and D. Dye: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2010, 15, (5), 393–399.
108. S. Okano, M. Tanaka and M. Mochizuki: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2011, 16, (3), 209–214.
109. P. Michaleris and A. R. Lawrence: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011,
16, (3), 215–220.
110. E. Feulvarch, V. Robin and J. M. Bergheau: Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2011, 16, (3), 221–226.
111. P. Biswas, N. R. Mandal and S. Das: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2011, 16, (3), 227–231.
112. A. H. Yaghi, T. H. Hyde, A. A. Becker and W. Sun: Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 232–238.
113. E. Assuncao, S. Ganguly, D. Yapp, S. Willams and
A. Paradowska: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 239–243.
114. W. Suder, S. Ganguly, S. Williams, A. M. Paradowska and P.
Colegrove: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 244–248.
115. N. S. Thirumalai, T. G. Herold, H. J. Prask and R. Ayer: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 249–253.
116. W. Zhang, Z. Feng and P. Crooker: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2011, 16, (3), 254–260.
117. T. Hashimoto, Y. Osawa, S. Hirano, M. Mochizuki and
K. Nishimoto: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 261–266.
118. W. Woo and H. Choo: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3),
267–272.
119. G. M. Reddy and V. Ramana: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16,
(3), 273–278.
120. R. J. Moat, H. J. Stone, A. A. Shirzadi, J. A. Francis, S. Kundu,
A. F. Mark, H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, L. Karlsson and P. Withers:
Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 16, (3), 279–284.
2011 VOL 16 NO 3 208