Weldability and Performance of

GMAW Joints of Advanced High-

Strength 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-AC05-
00OR22725 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

2.0mm DP600 uncoated-tensile tested 2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm Boron non-heat treated uncoated- 2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoated-
2.0mm DP980 uncoated-tensile tested tensile tested tensile 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%
245%
250%

Normalized Joint Strength

2000
209% 205% 203%
197%
181% 182% 200%
1500 164%
154%
150%

1000 100%
1593 1689 100%

500 972 986 924

848 861 896 50%
693 690 734 721 714
636 641 641 647 577 654 543
352 395
0 0%
DR210 DP600 DP600 DP600 HSLA590 DP780 Boron, UHT M130 DP980 M220 Boron, HT
HDGI, A HDGI, B
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
 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% 99% 100%

96%
100%
2000 89% 88% 87%

Joint Efficiency
73% 80%
1500
56% 55% 60%
45%
1000
1593 1689 40%

500 972 986 924

848 861 896 20%
693 690 734 721 714
636 641 641 647 577 654 543
352 395
0 0%
DR210 DP600 DP600 DP600 HSLA590 DP780 Boron, UHT M130 DP980 M220 Boron, HT
HDGI, A HDGI, B
Base Metal

Tensile Strength of Weld Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal Joint Efficiency

Joint efficiency = weld strength/BM strength

www.autosteel.org
 HAZ Softening Does Not Affect
Fatigue Failure Location

2.0 mm DR210 uncoated-fatigue tested, 2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-fatigue tested, 2.0 mm DP600 uncoated-fatigue tested,
1,164,447 cycles at 1200/120 lbs 749,637 cycles at 1200/120 lbs 177,810 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-fatigue tested, 2.0 mm DP980 uncoated-fatigue tested, 2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoated-fatigue
819,203 cycles at 1200/120 lbs 543,481 cycles at 1200/120 lbs tested, 106,413 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

www.autosteel.org
 S-N Fatigue Data (Regression Plots)
Baseline Welding Condition

Boron HT
300 Boron UHT
DP600 Bare
DP780
HSLA 590
Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

DP980
200 DR210
M130
M220

DR210
Boron HT
100

1000
3 10000
4 100000 1000000 10000000
10 10 105 10 6 7
10
Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org
 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

300
2.0mm DP780 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters
Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

200

100

1000
3 10000
4 100000 1000000 10000000
7
10 10 105 6
10 10
Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org
 DP980 Fatigue Life
Baseline vs. Improved Welding Parameters

2.0mm DP980 Bare Baseline Welding Parameters

300 2.0mm DP980 Bare Improv ed Welding Parameters
Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

200

100

10003 10000 100000

5 1000000
6 10000000
7
10 10 4 10 10 10
Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org
 Fatigue Life Comparison

2.0mm HSLA 080 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

300 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)

200

100

Baseline Range

1000 3 10000
4 100000 1000000 10000000
10 10 10 5 106
10 7

Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org
 Microstructure Effects of
Microstructure on Fatigue Life

DP600 Bare Regression

300 DP600 Bare Test Data
HSLA 590 Regrssion
HSLA 590 Test Data
Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

DP600 GI Regression
DP600 GI Test Data
200

100

1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

Cycles to Failure

www.autosteel.org
 Effects of Local Geometry and
Material Strength on Fatigue Life
N total = N i + N p Paris law for propagation
Coffin-Manson Equation for initiation

1 ac da
Np = 917
(S aF (a) ) b = 0.1667log 2.1+
m
C a0
Su
'f = 0.95Su + 370MPa

1 2( f m )
1
' b

Ni = a p = 1.187x10 /Su
5

2 K f S
T
Ni: initiation life
K t 1 Np: propagation life
K f = 1+
1+ p
a S: nominal stress range
Kt: stress concentration factor
Kf: Fatigue notch factor
0.469
T
K t = 1+ 0.5121 0.572 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 B Improvement in Crack Initiation

Toe Angle: 45o Toe Angle: 30o Improvement
Life
Toe Radius: 1.0mm Toe Radius: 2.5mm in Kf
Mild (300MPa) DP780
5% 151% 176%
10% 223% 302%
20% 463% 829%
30% 906% 2098%
40% 1688% 4955%
50% 3014% 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

Welding Process Weld Performance

& Parameters Properties

Structural
Process Model
Model

Microstructural
Experiments
Model

Thermal Weldment Structure-Property

History Microstructure 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 Analysis Outputs

Thermal
Properties Thermal Analysis
Temperatures
Heat Generation & Flow
Welding
Parameters
Phase Weld/HAZ
Joint Configuration &
Transformation Microstructure
Boundary Conditions
Analysis & Properties

Composition &
Initial Microstructure
Mechanical Analysis Residual
Elasticity Stresses &
Mechanical Plasticity Distortions
Properties

www.autosteel.org
 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