CHAPTER-4 Finite Element Model Selection 4.1 Introduction Finite element simulation of the welding is computationally very expensive, partly because of highly non-linear formulation and partly because of its transient solution. Due to the non availability of sufficient computational power and data storage in the past, most of the welding simulations were performed with certain level of simplifications such as reducing a three dimensional problem to a two dimensional either using plain stress/strain or axisymmetric formulations. These simplifications drastically reduce computational time but some times make the results erroneous because of over simplification. This is why several studies for example Karlsson et al. [1], Goldak et al. [2], Runnemalm and Lin {3] and Lindgren [4] advocated the use of three dimensional models for appropriate results Goldak et al. [5] in 1999 analyzed the possibility of using real time computational weld mechanics with reference to the rapidly growing computational power. Based on the development pace in the past, he anticipated that computational weld mechanics will soon be faster than the real world welds. Computational time for thermal stress analysis depends on several factors such as part geometry, level of discritization, number of load steps, number of substeps in each load step and nature of non-linearities involved etc. To analyze complex real world problems using more detailed FE models, the demand for increased computational power is continuously growing with time. However, the most recent developments in the computer hardware/sofiware had made it possible to use three dimensional FE models for welding simulation problems (at least for simple geometries and single pass welds) with fair accuracy and affordable computational time. The availability of computational power alone does not provide sufficient justification for using three dimensional FE models in welding simulation. If a two dimensional 96model provides sufficient engineering judgment of residual stresses and deformations in a welded structure then the use of three dimensional model will merely be a wastage of time and resources. However, the decision of the use of three-dimensionat model is strictly based on the scope of study and nature of target application. In the present dissertation the target application is the pipe-flange joint. It may have two types of in- service problems; joint sealing (concemed with gasket behavior which strongly depends ‘on the welding deformations) and joint strength (concerned with stress corrosion cracking or brittle fracture etc. and has strong dependence on residual stress state in the bulk). In all the previous FE studies, the flange joint’s performance is analyzed without taking into account the welding distortion and residual stresses [6-10]. This is highlighted as one of the major causes of joint failure during the experimental studies by Abid et al. [10,12}. Itis a well-known fact that circumferential welding produces residual stresses in and around the weld bead resulting in a distorted final geometry. It is mainly attributed to highly non-uniform temperature field around the weld pool which results in large plastic strain. In addition, clastic bending stresses arc also found outside the weld zone. ‘The most of the simulation work for circumferential welding is performed for butt welded pipes by using the assumption of rotational and lateral symmetry (symmetry across the weld centerline) such as, Rybicki et al. [13-15]. However, experimental work by Jonsson and Josefson [16] and some three-dimensional FE studies e.g. [17-19]. reported deviations from rotational symmetry, especially at the beginning and end of the welding cycle for pipe-pipe welding with lateral symmetry. By using a full three- dimensional model for multi-pass welding of pipes, Fricke et al. [20] concluded that residual stresses are by no means axisymmetric. The FE model of the pipe—flange joint is different from the pipe-pipe model, as it has asymmetric geometry across the weld centerline. For the pipe-flange joint, Troive and Jonsson [21] and Troive et al. (22) presented experimental and two-dimensional FE results for welding distortions. In the present chapter, a comparative study of a two-dimensional axisymmetric and a three dimensional FE analysis of welded pipe-flange joint is presented for residual stresses and deformations to identify their relative merits or demerits. The main objective in this chapter is to study the profile of residual stresses in the welded pipe flange joint and its variation in the axial and circumferential directions. Similarly the estimation of true extent of deformations in view of their impact on joint performance will be discussed. o7Based on the results of this preliminary study the type of finite element modet is selected for upcoming parametric studies. 4.2 Finite Element Models In both two- and three-dimensional models the flange is considered to have no bolt holes assuming that this geometrical simplification has no significant effect on distortion and residual stress. In order to facilitate data mapping from thermal to structural analysis, the same FE model is used in both thermal and structural analyses, except for a change in the clement type. ‘The axisymmetric two-dimensional FE model in Figure 4.1 represents a section of the pipe-flange joint, This model consists of 3336 nodes and 3137 elements. The flange is represented by 1873 elements and 1264 elements are for the pipe. At the weld centerline, the clement size is 0.5 mm in the radial and 0.3 mm in the axial direction. The element type for the thermal analysis is PLANESS which is a inear 4 node quadrilateral elements with single degree of freedom ie. temperature on each node. The element type in structural analysis is PLANE42 which is also a linear 4 noded element with two translation degree of freedoms at its each node. Approximately same size of V-groove as used in the three-dimensional model, discussed below, is achieved by deactivating the elements in this region. 4.2.2. ‘Three-dimensional FE Model The three-dimensional FE model (Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3) contains a total of 25488 nodes with associated 21456 elements. Among these, 8496 elements are on the pipe side, whereas, the remaining 12960 clements are on the flange side. Higher temperature and flux gradients are expected in and around the fusion zone (FZ) and HAZ; therefore, a relatively fine mesh is used within a distance of 10 mm on both sides of the weld centerline. Away from the HAZ, the element size increases with increase in distance from the centerline. Being the area of major concern, the description of the clement size is limited to the FZ and HAZ only. In the axial direction, within the anticipated HAZ, the element size varies from 0.6 to 1.25 mm, whereas in the circumferential direction, the average length of the element is 2.4 mm 98