Standardization of Verification &

Validation for Computational

Weld Mechanics
Paper V&V2012-6116

Session: 11-1 Standards Development Activities for Verification and

Validation: Part 1

ASME Verification and Validation Symposium (V&V2012)

Planet Hollywood Resort & Casino, Las Vegas
May 3, 2012

Dave Dewees, P.E.

The Equity Engineering Group, Inc.,
On behalf of the AWS A9 Committee on Computational Weld Mechanics
 AWS A9 CWM Committee
• The American Welding Society (AWS) A9 Committee on Computational Weld
Mechanics (CWM):

• Special thanks to the committee, Chair S.S. Babu and Vice-Chair G.

Sonnenberg for the opportunity to present the proposed standard on their
behalf
• The content of this presentation is largely taken directly from meeting
minutes, committee publications and the draft standard itself; therefore the
content is attributable to many people

2
 Introduction
• Distortion, residual stress and altered material properties are a
fundamental outcome of the welding process
• The welding community is largely forced to apply a trial and error
approach to obtaining a required end product, which is costly and
time-consuming
• Computational welding mechanics (CWM) has emerged over the last
decades to try and address these challenges; that is to reduce risk,
cost and span, while improving quality and predictability
• The use of CWM has however lagged behind related technologies
such as computational solid mechanics (CSM) and computational
fluid dynamics (CFD)
• This is in large part due to a lack of a standard verification and
validation framework, particularly since the typical CWM analysis is
considerably more involved than the typical CSM analysis

3
 Introduction
• In 2007, the American Welding Society (AWS) established a
technical committee (A9) with members representing the academic,
research and industrial communities to develop a standard for CWM
• This (draft) standard has now been completed and is in the balloting
stage, with publication expected in 2012
• The standard specifically addresses verification and validation of
CWM
• Verification tests the chosen mathematics, while validation
demonstrates that the reality being modeled (e.g. distortion,
residual stress, microstructure) is predicted with sufficient accuracy,
robustness and reliability
• The motivation and result from this multi-year process are
presented here

4
From Initial Meeting, 2007

5
From Initial Meeting, 2007

6
 Organization
• Initial task group has become current AWS A9 Committee on
Computational Weld Mechanics
• AWS is accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) to produce American National Standards
(ANS)
– All AWS standards must follow a formal and rigorous consensus
review and approval process prior to publication
– All AWS technical committee operate under the AWS Technical
Activities Committee’s (TAC) Rules of Operation
• AWS is required to make attempts to establish a balance of
interests on each technical committee; this is to help ensure
that
– ANS are produced in a open forum
– and that the resulting standard is acceptable to a majority of
those who may be affected

7
 Membership
• Roster has changed somewhat over the 4+ years of the committee,
and many people have provided insight and guidance
• The current roster is as follows:

• Note that John Gayler of AWS served as the committee secretary for several years and
guided the development of the standard so that it meets the stringent requirements of
AWS and an ANS

8
 Outreach
• As mentioned, varied and
robust participation is a
continued goal
• Welding Journal has been a
key vehicle for this
• Participation and contribution
is always encouraged

January 2010 Welding Journal

9
 CWM Standard
• Standard is titled “AWS A9.5:2012,
Guide for Verification and
Validation in Computation Weld
Mechanics”
• Abstract: “This standard provides
guidelines for assessing the
capability and accuracy of
computational weld mechanics
(CWM) models. This standard also
provides general guidance for
implementing verification and
validation (V&V) of computational
models for complex systems in
weld mechanics.”
• 26 working drafts leading up to
committee approval at the
beginning of this year, and
subsequent submission to the AWS
Standards Committee for review
and ballot

10
 High Level Goals
• The document should be kept
relatively simple and not get into
too many details
• It should provide a general
approach to weld modeling
• The level of the content and
language should be accessible to
non-simulation specialists, i.e.,
stakeholders, engineers
• Document should not be so
prescriptive that it limits innovation
and creativity
• It should refer heavily to already
published material
• ASME V&V, Guide for Verification
and Validation in Computational
Solid Mechanics, should be used as
an ideal template

11
 Specific Goals
• Standard should establish just the bare minimum requirements
which other proprietary models could be based upon
• Further publications should add (non-mandatory) detail:
– Recommended Practice for Describing Thermal Boundary Conditions
– Recommended Practice for Modeling Thermo-Mechanical Phenomena
– Recommended Practice for Describing Clamps and Fixtures
– Recommended Practice for Modeling Microstructure
– Recommended Practice for Integrated Models
– Recommended Practice for Verification, Uncertainty Estimation and
Sensitivity
– Recommended Practice for Documentation
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Materials 1: Steels
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Materials 2: Aluminum
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Fusion Welding – Arc
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Fusion Welding – Laser
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Fusion Welding –
Resistance
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Thin and Thick Plate
Geometry
– Exceptions and Modifications with reference to Large Scale Geometries

12
 Specific Goals
• Initial issue of standard
should be focused so that it
can be detailed enough to be
useful – arc welding
established as sole focus of
initial issue
• Thermo-mechanical effects,
microstructural effects,
residual stress, and
distortion should be covered
in standard
• Standard should not be
biased towards any
particular commercial
software

13
 Initial Development
• In addition to the high level intent just discussed,
initial detailed goals were established through
brainstorming and then voting:

• An industry survey was then performed, based on the

initial member survey, but with minimal feedback

14
 Implementation
• V&V as it relates to CWM, and as implemented by the A9 committee
is as follows (Welding Journal, Jan. 2010)
– Verification tests that the computational model solves the mathematical
equations that are the essence of the model with sufficient accuracy,
robustness, and reliability
– Validation tests that the computational model predicts the reality
relevant to the decision maker with sufficient accuracy, robustness, and
reliability
• A computational model that has been verified and validated for a
given end use can be used as a predictive tool for that end use
before any experiments are performed.

Cone 5 Side

O.D.

0.5 in

15
 V&V vs. Calibration
• Computational models that must be fitted to experimental data
before they can be used are called calibrated
• These calibrated models cannot predict the reality relevant to a
decision maker before the required experimental data are provided
• This is the reason that computational models that are verified and
validated are much more valuable and more useful than calibrated
computational models

16
 Contents of the Standard
• 6 sections and 3 annexes, currently
45 pages total
• Bulk of technical material is in
Sections 5 and 6
• Document is intended for a range of
users, from engineers performing
CWM to project managers
responsible for the incorporation of
the results into the larger project
framework
• Written in a format of increasing
technical information within each
subclause
• As a convenience, essential high-
level information is written at the
beginning of each subclause rather
than dispersed throughout them

17
 Section 5
• 5. Discussion of Computational Weld
Modeling Methods and Influences on
Analysis
31
30
180
77 177

178

193
175

– 5.1 Overview
171 176
71
153 160 166
70 145 179
135
69 114 125
105 174
96
68

– 5.2 Current State-of-the-Art in CWM

19 78
62 170
54 83
18
48 63 79
1 32 84 165
55
49

– 5.3 Key Analysis Inputs

2 33 80
56 159
3 81
57
58
67 121 143
82 112

– 5.4 Modeling of Heat Transfer During Welding

53
59
60
61 104 134
113
90 123

186
93 95 124

– 5.5 Microstructural Analysis 91 94

185
92

– 5.6 Modeling of Residual Stresses

47
17

– 5.7 Distortion Prediction

• Addresses the various components that
make up a CWM, including common or key
simplifications, and their qualitative impact
on analysis accuracy
• Underlying discussion is the assumption
that a CWM problem may be thought of as
falling in a continuum between analysis
complexity and required V & V

18
 Section 6
• 6. Validation of Residual Stress and Distortion Models
– Specific guidance and best practices on design and
execution of experiments for V&V of CWM
– Ranges from temperature measurement to
microstructure V&V

19
 Technical Cooperation
• “DIN SPEC 32534-1, Numerical Weld Simulation –
Execution and Documentation: Part 1: Overview”
published in 2011
• Is consistent with AWS A9 development through
contributions and coordination by Dr. Christopher
Schwenk (also an active AWS A9 committee member)
• Attempt at coordination with IIW working group on
CWM was less successful, though work on an ISO
standard is in the planning stages

20
 Final Thoughts
• As discussed in the 2010 WJ article, the fundamental
question for CWM is can the effects of welding be currently
predicted?
• The conclusion of the committee is that it can and has been
– but V&V is the missing ingredient for consistent, successful
application of this technology
• The draft V&V is relatively focused in scope, but a host of
detailed recommended practices are planned, and with the
current momentum, and increased participation, hopefully
will continue to close the implementation gap

21