Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2 Load displacement diagram for both failure modes 4 Shear tensile sample dimension for 0.8 mm thick sheet
Table 1 Effect of welding current and time on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*
Table 2 Effect of holding time on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*
0 3.60 4.32 PF
5 3.65 4.30 PF
20 3.70 4.40 PF
50 3.60 4.25 PF
90 3.65 4.40 PF
*PF is the pullout failure mode.
Failure mode
Figure 6a illustrates an interfacial failure mode while a
pullout failure is illustrated in Fig. 6b. As can be seen, in
the latter, nugget is completely pulled out from the metal
sheet leaving the hole in the other sheet. In the sample
shown in Fig. 6c, nugget is partially pulled out and then
8 Image (SEM) of necked region of spot weld failed in
failure continued by BM sheet tearing. These failure
pullout mode under shear tensile test
types are also categorised as pullout mode. At this point,
failure modes are considered.
necking in the two sheets leads to the failure of spot weld
Shear tensile spot welds failure mechanisms from one sheet. If the necking area is continually
Under shear tensile test, in order to align with the stressed, the nugget will eventually shear off from the
applied force direction, the nugget rotates first. At this other sheet.
stage, stresses are distributed at the interface (weld Note that although shear is the dominant loading
centreline) and weld circumference according to Fig. 7. mode in shear tensile test, the mechanism of pullout
A simple model for describing stress distribution in spot failure has tensile nature. To further verify this point, a
weld under shear tensile test is shown in Fig. 7. Shear pullout failed shear tensile sample was cleaned ultra-
stresses are dominant at the interface. At the nugget sonically and the fracture surface in necking region was
circumference, stresses are shear tensile at position A examined under a SEM. The shape of the dimples
and shear compression at position B. depends on the loading conditions. Void coalescence by
In pullout failure mode, when there is certain amount stress being normal to the overall plane of fracture
of rotation, the tensile stresses formed around the creates dimples equiaxed while shear loading will create
nugget causes plastic deformation in sheet thickness elongated dimples.14 The near circular dimples shown in
direction. Finally, necking occurs at A sites as tensile Fig. 8 indicate that the fracture mechanism is ductile
force increases. These A sites are located in HAZ or in and failure occurred under tensile stress. This result is
the BM. Necking does not occur in B sites because consistent with work carried out by Choa15 who studied
normal stresses are compression type in these sites. This failure mechanism of pullout failed resistance spot weld
necking is more severe in one of the sheets than in the during shear tensile test. Therefore, it is concluded that
other. The stress concentration caused by the uneven driving force for pullout failure mode is tensile stress.
Table 3 Effect of electrode pressure on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*
test data21 and recommended value for nugget dia- the dCr. At first glance, it seems that high strength dual
meter by AWS/ANSI/SAE phase steel grades (e.g. DP980) are more pronounced to
interfacial failure mode owing to their higher weld
Therefore, the above equation attributes the critical nugget hardness. However, owing to HAZ softening,
weld nugget diameter to metallurgical factors in addition spot weld tends to fail at HAZ rather than throughout
to sheet thickness. weld nugget. Hence, dCr is lower for DP980 compared
with DP780. Second, equation (7) predicts dCr with a
Model verification: good approximation. Third, weld nugget sizes recom-
At this point the proposed model is compared and mended by AWS equation is not sufficient to ensure
verified with experimental results. pullout failure mode in shear tensile test.
For resistance spot welds of low carbon steel used in The proposed analytical model in the present paper is
the present study, weld nugget hardness is about twice a rather simplified one. The present work is a step
the BM (failure location) hardness. A typical spot weld towards more research about spot weld failure mode
hardness profile is shown in Fig. 13. Therefore, equation which is vital for vehicle crash worthiness analysis.
(7) will be Metallurgical aspects should be considered more ser-
dCr ~4t (8) iously in future research in this field.
Failure mode
Nugget diameter according dCr according to
(H)WM
to AWS/ANSI/SAE equation (7) PF IF (H)FL Hmax<HWM Hmin<HFL HBM Material
5.36 6.43 d.6.7 d,6.5 2.24 448 200 200 1.8 DP600
5.36 8.52 d<8.8 d<8.7 1.69 448 265 270 1.8 DP780
5.36 7.8 d.8 d,7.1 1.85 480 260 305 1.8 DP980
*PF is pullout failure mode and IF is interfacial failure mode.
hardness to weld nugget hardness ratio. For a given 11. M. Zhou, S. J. Hu and H. Zhang: Weld. J., 1999, 78, 305s–312s.
12. A. Khan, L. Xu and Y. J. Chao: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 1999, 4,
sheet thickness, decreasing (H)(H)FL increases interfacial
WM
201–207
failure mode tendency. 13. Q. Song, W. Zhang and N. Bay: Weld. J., 2005, 84, 73s–76s.
6. In certain conditions, AWS/ANSI/SAE recommen- 14. W. Hertzberg: ‘Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering
dation for nugget size is not an appropriate criterion for materials’, 1996, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
15. Y. J. Chao: ASME. J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 2003, 125, 1–8.
ensuring pullout failure mode of spot welds during shear
16. J. Senkara, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 2004, 83, 123–13.
tensile test. 17. S. Zuniga and S. D. Sheppard: in ‘Fatigue and fracture mechanics’,
Vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, (ed. R. S. Piascik et al.), 469–489; 1997,
Acknowledgements Philadelphia, USA, ASTM.
18. P. K. Ghosh, P. C. Gupta, P. Ramavtar and B. K. Jha: Weld. J.,
The authors are thankful to Novinsazan Setareh Sanat 1991, 70, 7s–14s.
Company for providing spot welding machine for this 19. J. M. Sawhill and J. C. Baker: Weld. J., 1980, 59, 19s–30s.
20. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203–
investigation. The authors’ thanks also go to Amir 1221.
Kabir University of Technology for providing founda- 21. H. Lin, J. Pan, S. R. Wu, T. Tyan and P. Wung: Int. J. Solids
tions for this research. Struct., 2001, 39, 19–39.
22. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia and L. E. Svensson: in ‘Mathematical
References modeling of weld phenomena’, (ed. H. Cerjack and K. E.
Easterling), 109–180; 1993, London, Institute of Metals.
1. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203– 23. S. S. Babu, B. W. Reimer, M. L. Santella and Z. Feng: Proc. 8th
1221. Sheet Metal Welding Conf., Detroit, MI, USA, October, 5–2, 1998,
2. P. Wung: Exp. Mech., 2001, 41, 107–113. AWS.
3. J. M. Sawhill and J. C. Baker: Weld. J., 1980, 59, 19s–30s. 24. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: available at http://engm01.
4. J. Heuschkel: Weld. J., 1952, 31, 931s–943s. ms.ornl.gov.
5. M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 2003, 82, 72s–77s. 25. M. Volger: ‘Investigation of resistance spot weld fomation’, PhD
6. American Welding Society: ‘Recommended practices for test thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1993.
methods for evaluating the resistance spot welding behavior of 26. W. Chuko and J. E. Gould: ‘Development of appropriate resistance
automotive sheet steel materials’, ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8.9-97, 1997. spot welding practice for transformation-hardened steels – phase 2:
7. J. M. Sawhill, H. Watanabe and J. W. Mitchell: Weld. J., 1977, 56, evaluation of post-weld cooling rate techniques’, Report to the
217s–224s. American Iron and Steel Institute, 2002.
8. B. Pollard: Weld. J., 1974, 53, 343s–350s. 27. J. VandenBossche: ‘Ultimate strength and failure mode of spot
9. J. Chao: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 133–137. welds in high strength steels’, SAE paper 770214, 1977.
10. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens, R. W. Davies, M. A. Khaleel and D. J. 28. M. Marya, K. Wang, L. G. Hector and X. Gayden: J. Manufact.
Spinella: Weld. J., 2004, 83, 188s–195s. Sci. Eng., 2006, 287–298.