Weldability and Performance of

GMAW Joints of Advanced HighStrength Steels (AHSS)

Zhili Feng*, John Chang**, Cindy Jiang*** and Min Kuo****
* Oak Ridge National Laboratory
** Ford Motor Company
*** AET Integration
**** Mittal Steel

www.autosteel.org

Acknowledgements

Research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, as part of the Automotive
Lightweighting Materials Program, under contract DE-AC0500OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC

www.autosteel.org

Challenges in Welding of AHSS

Higher carbon and alloying element contents make AHSS
more sensitive to the welding thermal cycle, resulting
greater variations of microstructures and properties of weld
Microstructure and properties can highly depend on
welding conditions and steel chemistry
Welding practices developed for one types of AHSS may
not apply to other types
Weld quality
Weld structural performance (static, fatigue, crash)

There are wide range of grades and types of AHSS and

they continue to evolve

www.autosteel.org

Objectives
Fundamental understanding and predictive
capability to quantify the effects of welding and
service loading on the structural performance of
welded AHSS auto-body parts
Welding techniques and practices to improve
structural performance of AHSS welded auto body
components
Develop design guidelines and weld performance
data for rapid structure design and prototyping,
CAE model for weld structure performance design

www.autosteel.org

Gas Metal Arc Welding

Materials: mild steel, HSLA, DP, TRIP, martensitic, boron
steel
Gauge: 2mm
Filler metal: ER70S-3
Under-matched for higher grade AHSS

Baseline comparison of different AHSS welds

Consistent weld profile, consistent welding heat input level, but not
optimized for different AHSS
Lap joint
Static and fatigue
Microstructure characterization and correlation to mechanical
property

www.autosteel.org

AHSS Material Matrix Tested

Group 2 (350 MPa ~500 MPa)
2.0mm DR210 Bare

Group 3 (500 MPa~ 800 MPa)

2.0mm DP600 Bare
2.0mm DP600 HDGI
2.0mm HSLA590 Bare

Group 4 (>800 MPa)

2.0mm DP780 Bare

1.5mm TRIP780 GA
2.0mm DP980 Bare
2.0mm M130 Bare, 2.0mm M220 Bare
2.0mm Boron HT Bare, 2.0mm Boron UHT Bare

From six different steel companies

www.autosteel.org

Microhardness Mapping:
HAZ Softening in Hardened Boron Steel

www.autosteel.org

Minimal HAZ Softening in HSLA 590

www.autosteel.org

HAZ Softening is More Pronounced in

Higher Strength Steels
HSLA590

DP980

Hardened Boron Steel

Hv normalized to mean value of base metal

www.autosteel.org

Failure Location, Static Tensile

2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0mm DP600 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0mm DP980 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm Boron non-heat treated uncoatedtensile tested

2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoatedtensile tested

www.autosteel.org

Static Tensile Failure Location

Correlates to HAZ Softening Region

(DP980)
DP980

www.autosteel.org

Static Tensile Strength of AHSS Weld

(Lap joint, t=2mm)
Normalized Joint Strength (vs DR210)
2500

300%
263%

250%
197%
181%

209%

205%

203%

182%

200%
164%

1500

154%

150%
1000

100%
1689

1593

500
636 641

641 647

577 654

693 690

DP600
HDGI, A

DP600
HDGI, B

DP600

HSLA590

352 395

734

848

986

972

861 896
543

721

924
714

100%
50%
0%

DR210

DP780

Boron, UHT

M130

DP980

M220

Boron, HT

Base Metal

Tensile Strength of Weld

Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal

Normalized Joint Strength

Normalized Joint Strength = (weld strength of AHSS)/(weld strength of DR210)

www.autosteel.org

Normalized Joint Strength

245%

2000

Static Joint Efficiency vs BM Strength

(Lap joint, t=2mm)
The weld tensile strength of higher grade AHSS is lower than the base metal
The reduction is related to the softening in HAZ
Low heat input and/or fast cooling can be beneficial to minimize HAZ softening

2500

120%
99%

2000

100%

99%

89%

88%

96%

100%

87%
73%

80%

1500
56%

55%

60%

45%

1000

1689

1593

500
636 641

641 647

352 395

577 654

693 690

734

848

986

972

861 896
543

721

924
714

40%
20%
0%

DR210

DP600
HDGI, A

DP600
HDGI, B

DP600

HSLA590

DP780

Boron, UHT

M130

DP980

M220

Boron, HT

Base Metal

Tensile Strength of Weld

Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal

Joint efficiency = weld strength/BM strength

www.autosteel.org

Joint Efficiency

Joint Efficiency

HAZ Softening Does Not Affect

Fatigue Failure Location

2.0 mm DR210 uncoated-fatigue tested,

1,164,447 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-fatigue tested,

749,637 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm DP600 uncoated-fatigue tested,

177,810 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-fatigue tested,

819,203 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm DP980 uncoated-fatigue tested,

543,481 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoated-fatigue

tested, 106,413 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

www.autosteel.org

S-N Fatigue Data (Regression Plots)

Baseline Welding Condition
Boron HT
Boron UHT
DP600 Bare
DP780
HSLA 590
DP980
DR210
M130
M220

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

300

200

DR210

Boron HT
100

1000
3

10

10000
4

10

100000
105
Cycles to Failure

1000000
6

10

www.autosteel.org

10000000
7

10

Weld Profile Comparison:

Baseline vs. Improvement

2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Baseline

2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Improved

2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Baseline

2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Improved

www.autosteel.org

Fatigue Life Improvement by Welding

DP780: Over an Order of Magnitude at Low Stress Level

2.0mm DP780 Bare Baseline W elding Parameters

2.0mm DP780 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

300

200

100

1000
3

10

10000
4

10

100000
5

10

1000000
6

10

Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org

10000000
7

10

DP980 Fatigue Life

Baseline vs. Improved Welding Parameters

2.0mm DP980 Bare Baseline Welding Parameters

2.0mm DP980 Bare Improv ed Welding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

300

200

100

10003

10

10000
4

10

100000
5

10

1000000
6

10

Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org

10000000
7

10

Fatigue Life Comparison

2.0mm HSLA 080 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

2.0mm DP780 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters
2.0mm DP980 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters
2.0mm Boron HT Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

300

200

100

Baseline Range
1000 3

10

10000
4

10

100000
5

10

1000000
6

10

Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org

10000000
7

10

Microstructure Effects of
Microstructure on Fatigue Life
DP600 Bare Regression
DP600 Bare Test Data
HSLA 590 Regrssion
HSLA 590 Test Data
DP600 GI Regression
DP600 GI Test Data

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

300

200

100

1000

10000

100000
Cycles to Failure

1000000

www.autosteel.org

10000000

Effects of Local Geometry and

Material Strength on Fatigue Life
N total = N i + N p
Np =

1
C

da

ac
a0

(S

aF (a)

'
1 2( f m )

Ni =
2 K f S

K f = 1+

Paris law for propagation

Coffin-Manson Equation for initiation
m

K t 1
a
1+ p

0.469

T
K t = 1+ 0.5121 0.572

917
b = 0.1667log 2.1+

Su

'f = 0.95Su + 370MPa

a p = 1.187x10 /Su
5

Ni: initiation life

Np: propagation life
S: nominal stress range
Kt: stress concentration factor
Kf: Fatigue notch factor
Su: ultimate strength
After: P. Darcis et al, 2006
F. Lawrence et al. 1995

www.autosteel.org

Improvement of Weld Profile May

Particularly Benefit AHSS

A
Toe Angle: 45o
Toe Radius: 1.0mm

B
Toe Angle: 30o
Toe Radius: 2.5mm

Improvement
in Kf
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%

Improvement in Crack Initiation

Life
Mild (300MPa)
151%
223%
463%
906%
1688%
3014%

DP780
176%
302%
829%
2098%
4955%
11032%

Improvement from A to B for 2.0mm DP780 would improve

Kf by 17% or fatigue life by 6.5 times

www.autosteel.org

Integrated Model to Predict Welding Effects

on AHSS Microstructure & Performance

Weld Performance
Properties

Welding Process
& Parameters

Thermal
History

Process Model

Structural
Model

Microstructural
Model

Experiments

Weldment
Microstructure

Structure-Property
Relation

Choose appropriate individual models for each physical process, and integrate them
Generally adopted for many welding processes
Many individual models are already available

www.autosteel.org

Modeling Approach
Inputs
Thermal
Properties

Analysis

Outputs

Thermal Analysis
Heat Generation & Flow

Temperatures

Phase
Transformation
Analysis

Weld/HAZ
Microstructure
& Properties

Welding
Parameters
Joint Configuration &
Boundary Conditions
Composition &
Initial Microstructure
Mechanical
Properties

Mechanical Analysis
Elasticity
Plasticity

www.autosteel.org

Residual
Stresses &
Distortions

Steel Microstructure Modeling based

on Phase Transformation Theories
USER INPUT:
Steel Chemistry
(C, Mn, Cr, Ni )

Hv in HAZ

Welding Thermal Cycle

(FEM simulation)

PHASE TRANSFORMATION
COMPUTATION ALGORITHMS
Transformation Thermodynamics
System equilibiria: Ts, A3, A1, Bs, Ms
Transformation driving force, G

Transformation Kinetics
Grain growth
Austenite formation on heating
Decomposition of austenite on cooling
ferrite, bainite, martensite, etc
Fraction of phases

Property Module
Hv, ys

www.autosteel.org

Microstructure Modeling:
Preliminary Results

HAZ softening predicted

Weld metal under development

Boron HT

DP980

www.autosteel.org

Concluding Remarks
Baseline static and fatigue properties are obtained for a
wide range of AHSS
Failure locations are different for static and fatigue loading
Different factors govern static strength are fatigue strength
Under-matched filler metal (ER70S-3) did not cause failure in the
weld metal

Fatigue Life
Steel grade dependency observed
Not influenced by HAZ softening
Considerable fatigue life improvement can be achieved by
improving the welding conditions

Static Strength
Extensive HAZ softening in higher grade AHSS welds can affect
the static strength, as the welds fail in the soften region

www.autosteel.org