316LN stainless steel is widely used in critical nuclear fusion structural components due to its excellent mechanical properties and machinability. However, its high thermal expansion coefficient and low thermal conductivity promote welding distortion, while work hardening causes residual stress accumulation. Thermo-elastic–plastic finite element modeling (FEM) is the primary numerical method for predicting these effects. Yet, despite hardware advances, full-scale simulations—especially for thick plates with multi-pass welds—remain computationally expensive, hindering the balance between efficiency and accuracy. To address the inherent trade-off between welding efficiency and dimensional accuracy in multi-pass, multi-layer welding of thick-section components, this study employs MSC. Marc to develop a finite element model of a 15 mm thick butt-welded joint fabricated from 316LN stainless steel. Three distinct heat source models—instantaneous, enhanced moving, and moving element-set—are systematically implemented to simulate transient temperature fields, residual stress distributions, and welding deformation. All numerical predictions are rigorously validated against experimental measurements to comprehensively assess both accuracy and computational efficiency. Results indicate that: (i) the predicted molten pool geometries and characteristic thermal cycle profiles from all three models exhibit strong agreement with experimental observations; (ii) longitudinal residual stress distributions predicted by all models align closely with measured values; (iii) transverse residual stresses predicted by the moving element-set and enhanced moving heat sources agree well with experiments, whereas those from the instantaneous heat source show marked deviation; (iv) angular distortion predictions from the moving element-set heat source achieve over 90% conformity with experimental data, while the instantaneous heat source substantially underestimates angular distortion, and the enhanced moving heat source yields approximately 65% agreement; and (v) in terms of computational efficiency, the instantaneous heat source requires only ~40% of the computation time needed by the moving heat source.
Qu et al. (Sun,) studied this question.