Zhang Æ Àíäí Ãðô 3

Recent Developments in Analysis and Testing
of Spot and Seam Welds

Dr. Shicheng Zhang
Brief review
The recent developments are characterised by the progress in
local approach which was first proposed by Pook in 1975.
The key to the local approach is the determination of local
stress parameter (LSP).
Different concepts are under development to get LSPs at spot
welds, especially for the automotive structures.
Various specimens are proposed for spot weld testing.
Source: SAE Papers 2001-01-0432 and 2005-01-0905, Detroit, USA; FEMFAT User Meeting, May 9-11, 2007, Steyr, Austria
Q&A about local stress parameters at spot welds

What are LSPs at spot welds?
They are structural stress, notch stress, S.I.F., J-integral,
CTOD and any describer of stress concentration.
Why do we need the LSPs?
Because they condensate fatigue test data.
How to determine the LSPs?
They can be numerically calculated (stress solver),
analytically
approximated (stress formulas) and experimentally measured
(strain gauge technique).
Structural stresses around a spot weld
Stress solver
Structural stress is
plate theory stress without singularity
linearly distributed over sheet thickness
output stress of shell elements (FEM)
Structural stress is denoted as (=r ui ).
Notch stress around a spot weld
Stress solver
Notch stress is denoted as k .

Stress solver
A stress solver for spot welds

Input : ij
Stress components around a spot weld
The Stress Solver

A package of analytic solutions to spot welds
Output : r , k , K, J, ,
Structural stress, Notch stress, S.I.F., J-integral, Crack growth angle, T-stress
A package of solutions to spot welds
Stress solver
r max{ui ,li}
k n
4 3
{ui uo li lo [2(ui li )2 (uo lo )2
2(ui li uiuo uilo uoli lilo )]1/ 2 }

1 3
KI [ (ui uo li lo ) 5 2 (qu ql )] t
6 2
1
2
2
2
KII [ (ui li ) (qu ql )] t
Keq KI2 KII KIII
4
3 5
2
(ui li ) t
KIII
2
(12 )t 2
2
[4(ui li uili ) (uo lo )2 2(uiuo uilo uoli lilo )]
48E
A package of solutions to spot welds
Stress solver
arctan 3(ui li )
ui uo li lo
3uo 2ui lo
4
T T
ui li uo ui li lo
4
T 32li uo
lo lo
4
T
uo
Finite element model
Stress solver
Diameter of the spoke pattern = Nugget diameter

Diameter of the central beam element = Nugget diameter
Stress solver
Application of the stress solver
Table 1. Stress intensity factors KI and KII at the leading vertex and KIII at the
side vertex of the weld spot, all in N/mm , under tensile-shear force F=1 kN
with nugget diameter d=5 mm and sheet thickness t=1 mm
3/2
Authors
Pook [2], Analytic approximation
Radaj and Sonsino[23], FEM
Smith and Cooper [15], FEM
Swellam et al. [16], FEM
Yuuki and Ohira [17], FEM+BEM
Zhang [24], Analytic approximation
Zhang, FEM
KI
163.3
60.0
63.2
64.2
55.5
55.1
77.9
KII
199.8
147.8
132.4
134.6
123.2
127.3
130.0
KIII
65.4
99.0
90.3
90.0
86.9
10
Application of the stress solver
Stress solver
11
Stress solver
Interface-force-based estimations
Fx
My
1.872K 2
dt
dt
Rupp et al.:
Maddox:
2Fx 6M y
r
2
dt t w
Sheppard:
ij
Zhang:
Fij
t1
Mz
Fz FyMy
Fx Mx
6Mij
FAi
2
ti
ti2
(i, j 1,2)
4F 6M 4Fz
dt dt2 d 2
4F
3 19
(1
k
dt
8
(F
Fx2 Fy2 ; M Mx M
t 6M
) 2 (1
dt
3F 2 3M 5 2Fz
KI
2d t dt t 3d t
2
3
2F
KII
d t
2
y
5d
) 4Fz (1
d 2
3t 2
t
KIII
2F 2 2Mz
2
d t d t
12
Stress formulas
Tensile-shear
1.273F
r
dt
4F
r
dt
1.273F
t
(10.430 )
k
dt
0.694F
Keq
dt
Keq KI2 K
2
II
13
Stress formulas
Hat-profile
0.637aMt
r
dtA
0.637aMt (10.347 t )
k
dtA
0.392aMt
Keq
Ad t
14
Double-cup
Stress formulas
1.273F
0.0938D
(cos
sin)
r
dt
t
1.273F
0.0938D
[cos
sin
k
dt
t
0.0458D
t
(0.430cos
sin) ]
t
0.318F
2
D2 2
Keq
(4.750cos 0.105 2 sin
t
dt
D
0.281 sin 2)1/ 2
t
15
Double-U
Stress formulas
1.273F
(b d)
[sin
cos
cossin]
r
4t
dt
4t
arctan
(b d) tan
1.273F
t
[(10.282
) sincos
k
dt
(b d)
4t
(10.651
) cossin]
4t(10.282 t / )
arctan
(b d)(10.651 t / ) tan
0.637F
[sin2 cos2
Keq
dt
2 (b d)2 2
cos sin2 ]1/ 2
12t2
=0 or /2
16
Double-U
Stress formulas
1.273F
(b d)
[sincos
cossin]
(1)
dt
4t
t
t
1.273F
(b d)
[(1 0.282 ) sincos
(10.651 ) cossin] (2)
k
dt
4t
0.637F
2 (b d)2
2
2
(3)
cos2 sin2 ]1/ 2
[sin cos
Keq
2
12t
dt
FEM:
Spoke pattern + Stress solver
Eq. (1)
Eq. (2)
Eq. (3)
17
Fatigue test data condensation

across different specimens
Stress formulas
18
Sources of scatter of fatigue data
Local geometry:
- Sheet thickness t;
- Spot diameter d;
- Notch radius .
Material:
- Composition;
- Micro-structure;
- Dislocation density.
Stress formulas
Welding effects:
- Residual stress;
- Material inhomogeneity;
- Welding defects.
Load/boundary condition:
- Stress ratio R;
- Definition of failure;
- Test conditions.
19
Optimization of spot weld distribution
Stress formulas
Durability reserve for every spot weld:
F
R 336
dt
N / mm3 / 2
Critical spot welds:

Spot welds with R<0 are dangerous.
Removable spot welds:
Spot welds with R 336 may be
saved.
Optimization:
Homogeneous distribution of Rvalue.
20
Strain gauge technique
Stress distribution around

a spot or similar weld
ij (r,) 0 [ An (r) cos(n)
n1
Bn (r) sin(n)]
ij1 (r) ij3 (r)
ij (r,)
cos
2
ij1 (r) ij3 (r)
cos2
2
ij2 (r) ij4 (r)
sin
2
ij2 (r) ij4 (r)
sin2
2
21
Non-destructive testing
of spot welds

Nugget
Inside stress at nugget edge is decisive.

The stress is inaccessible to measure.
Destructive measures may be taken.
Non-destructive method is desired.
Inside stress
Strain gauge
Strain gauge
Destructive:
(Japan)
Hole
Strain gauge
(BMW, Germany)
Removed (BAM, Germany)

Strain gauge
Non-destructive:
22
A strain gauge solution

to spot-welded lap joint
r Eds
[(2ds d)uo 4uo ]
2(1 2 )d
Ed t
KI I s 2 {[
12(1)d
uo (uo2 uo ) / x
3(3ds 2d) 5 2t
]uo 3 3uo}
2
3
2II Eds t 2d
s d
[(
)uo uo ]
KII
2
(12 )d 8
9 5
k
1
k Eds
{(2ds d)uo 4uo
2(12 )d
4 3
[(3ds 2d)uo
6uo 3[(2ds d)
uo 4uo ]2 [(3ds 2d)uo 6uo ]2 ]}
J Etds2
2
2 {3[(2ds d)uo 4uo ]2 [(3ds 2d)uo 6uo ]2}
192(1 )d
23
Virtual testing

uo (uo2 uo ) / x
Table 4. LSPs determined by the strain gauge solution in the virtual

testing (VT) compared with their finite element (FE) results for a tensileshear specimen with d=5 mm, t=1 mm and =0.2 mm under tensileshear force of F=1000 N; stresses are in N/mm , SIFs in N/mm and Jintegral in N/mm
2
Strain gauge solution
3/2
J-Integral
KI
KII
374.5
77.9
130.0
622.1
0.089
77.9
130.0
622.5
0.089
Finite element simulation 374.4
24
Monitoring LSPs

r k KI KII J
t,u,F
Strain gauge solution
Strain gauge apparatus
25
Conclusions
1. A stress solver for spot welds is generally developed.
a package of analytic solutions to spot welds is available.
the solutions provide an analysis tool for spot welds.
2. Approximate stress formulas for spot weld specimens are given.
LSPs at spot welds are directly related to the applied load.
the formulas are well suited for correlating fatigue data of spot welds.
3. A strain gauge technique is developed for tensile-shear spot welds.
LSPs at a lap spot weld are determined by two outer strain gauges.
the technique contributes to non-destructive testing of spot welds.
26
Limitations
The results presented are mainly valid for brittle fracture, high-cycle
fatigue and high-speed crash of spot welds.
For ultimate failure, low-cycle fatigue and low-speed crash, the results
are hardly applicable although they not necessarily always fail.
The material heterogeneity, residual stress and defects due to welding
are not considered.
The results are primarily linear solutions and large deformation, finite
strain and large plasticity are not considered.
27
Motivation and Objective
Motivation:
Automotive structures with a large number of spot welds
need simplified finite element modeling of spot welds.
A uniform spot weld model is desired for both NVH and fatigue simulations.
Objective:
Development of a simplified spot weld model capable of
delivering reliable natural frequency and modes
28
Test Coupons and Compoments
29
Coupon Size and Distribution of Spot Welds
a) 320 x 20 x 2
b) 320 x 20 x 2
c) 320 x 80 x 2
d) 320 x 80 x 2
length x width x thickness
30
Simplified Spot Weld Model
Beam element
z
y
x
Rigid bar element (RBE2)
Independent nodes
Dependent nodes
31
Comparison Test vs. Simulation
Mode Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
sym
torsion
asym
horizontal (y)
torsion
sym
torsion
asym
Exper.
90,62
278,12
478,75
860,00
FE- FEM/Exp
Calcul.
88,24
0,974
233,23
279,40
1,005
342,39
443,53
457,93
0,957
702,44
867,77
1,009
M ode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Type
sym
torsion
asym
torsion
sym
torsion
asym
torsion
Exper. FE-Calcul.
99,37
266,67
291,25
283,25
457,09
523,70
892,50
-
FEM /Exp
0,965
506,95
860,80
874,61
1040,74
0,973
0,968
0,980
-
32
M ode Type
1 sym
2 asym
3 sym
4
horizontal (y)
5
asym
Exper.
96,87
281,87
516,20
863,70
FECalcul.
95,92
281,32
509,93
597,05
862,18
FEM /Exp
Mode Type
0,990
0,998
0,988
0,998
1 sym
2 asym
3 sym
4 asym
5 horizontal (y)
Exper.
111,25
267,50
603,70
811,20
-
FE- FEM/Exp
Calcul.
110,31 0,992
266,64 0,997
579,41
0,960
804,23
0,991
934,66
-
33
Ruber suspension
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Type
sym
(vertical)
sym
(horizontal)
asym
(vertical)
asym
(horizontal)
Ring mode
Torsion
Torsion
Torsion
Ring mode
Resonance
Damping
frequency
in %
in Hz
Experi. Calcul. Experi. Calcul.
145,8
141,3
0,13 0,121
209,2
208,9
0,11
0,157
382,7
371,0
0,38
0,384
526,3
528,4
0,24
0,228
535,5
550,3
557,3
605,7
664,3
536,7
544,3
565,5
614,3
670,5
0,36
0,11
0,06
0,07
0,43
0,372
0,139
0,068
0,105
0,491
34
Mass - Spring System for Analysis
Vibration
d 2u
du
Keu FA cos t
M e 2 Re
dt
dt
35
Evaluation of Damping Value
Principle of full width at half maximum

for evaluating damping values
d 2u
du
K e u FA cos t
Me
2 Re
dt
dt
FA
uA
2
Re (M e
Ke ) 2
1
f2 f1
d
z2 z1
Q
f0
Damping value
Re
Ke M e
36
Comparison of Relative Damping Values

Ruber suspension
Coupon
Measured Sheet
Coupon Node spacing l
damping d thickness length L of basic mode
t
250x20x1
0,112%
1.0
250
138.0
320x20x2 0,043%
2.0
320
178.0
900x30x10 0,0273%
10.0
900
500.0
t
l
L
2
Case
Experiment
Analysis
d1 / d2
d2 / d10
d1 / d10
2,6
2,4
1,6
1,6
4,1
3,8
d1 l1t2
2
d2 l2 t1
l1 L1
l2 L2
2
d2
l2 t10
2
d10 2l10 t2
l2 L2
l10 L10
d1
l1t10
l1 L1
d10 2l10 t12 l10 L10
37
Conclusions
A simplified spot weld model is developed for NVH simulations.
The model is validated by the coupon and component tests.
The same model may also be used for fatigue predictions with additional
data recovery.
Automatic generation of the model is supported at least

by preprocessors like ANSA and MEDINA.
38
Contents
Introduction
Joint Type in Consideration
Principle of SSZ/MSZ Method
Derivation of SSZ/MSZ Stresses
Derivation of Master S-N Curves
Comparison with FEMFAT Standard
Application Example
Weld data for Scenario Analysis
Potentials and Limitations of the Method
39
Joint Type in Consideration

Y/T-Joint
Overlap Joint
Butt Joint
Single Fillet
40
Principle of SSZ/MSZ Method

t2
s3
s1
s21
GP-force
t21
t1
t1
s22
Line force =
Procedure:
1) Identification of weld line
2) Definition of critical locations
3) Determination of line forces
4) Calculation of structural stresses
5) Estimation of notch stresses
SSZ =
Nodal force (GP-force)

Element length
Line force
Sheet thickness
MSZ = SSZNotch factor

41
Determination of Line Forces Based on Grid-Point

Forces (Nodal Forces)
Averaged over
Elements
Nodes
Averaged
on Nodes
Line forces and moments
Method of Dong,
Battelle
42
Line Forces Averaged over Elements

Linearly distributed line force fE to be determined by gridpoint forces FN:
FN,E3
FN,E1
fE
Grid Point
FN,E2
E1
E3
E2
Weld line
43
Total GP-Forces Weighted by Element Length

FN,total=FN,E1+FN,E2+FN,E3
l
F
F
1
N,E1 N,total l l
1 2
l
F
F
2
N,E2 N,total l l
1 2
N
l1
E1
l2
E3
E2
44
Converting of Forces into Line Forces

FN2,E1
FN1,E1
fN2,E1
fN1,E1
N1
N2
l1
2
f N1,E1 2FN1, E1 FN2, E1
l1
2
f N2,E1 2FN2, E1 FN1, E1
l1
E1
45
Validation of Line Force Calculation

A panel of size 30mm x 50mm with different meshes
under a transverse load is analyzed by NASTRAN;
Grid-Point-Forces (Nodal Forces)
along the reference line are evaluated;
Line forces are calculated and compared.
Reference line
30
mm
46
Validation of Line Force Calculation

Distorted mesh
Element size of 10 mm
5 mm
2.5 mm
Result:
Line forces averaged over elements
are less sensitive to mesh quality.
47
Derivation of Structural Stresses according to Zhang

(SSZ)
f3 m3 q
Geometry:
Sheet thickness:
t1, t2
Throat thickness:
a
Joint angle:
Weld angle:
d
Weld penetration rate: sin
Model size:
h1, h2, h3t2
t2
h3
m2
f2
3s3
s 212
s 22
q2
t1
a
d
s1
f1
q1
h2
m1
h1
48
Derivation of SSZ (Example: S21)

Simple beam theory:
f 6m
s m b 2
t
t
Effective height:
t2 sin
t t21 a
sin
Line force and moment:
f f3 cos() q3 sin()
m m3 c1 f3 sin() q3 cos()c2 f3 cos() q3 sin()
49
Derivation of SSZ (Example: S21)

f 6m
s 21 2
t
t
f cos() q3 sin()
3
t sin
a 2
sin
6m3 c1 f3 sin() q3 cos()c2 f3 cos() q3 sin()
2
t2 sin
a

sin
50
Derivation of SSZ (S1, S22 and S3)

Similarly:

t1
t2
a
6 m1 q1 h1
2 tan 2 sin sin
f1
s1
t1
t12
t (1 2) t1
6 m2 q2 h2 2
2 sin 2 tan
f
2
s 22
2
t1
t1

6 m3 q3 h3
f3
s3
t2
a
t2
t1

2 tan 2 sin sin()
2
t2
51
MSZ Notch Stresses

Analytic Approximation of Notch Effects in Seam Welds by
t j
k j s j 1 s
j
sj: SSZ stresses

kj: MSZ notch stresses (approximate)
j : Notch radius
ti : Effective thickness
s : Factor
Basis: Creager solution in Fracture Mechanics and its application to welded

joints, see:
[1] Tada, H., Paris, P. and Irwin, G. 1985. The stress analysis of cracks Handbook,
Paris Productions Incorporated and Del Research Corporation.
[2] Zhang, S. 1997. Stress intensities at spot welds. International Journal of Fracture 88, pp. 167-185.
[3] Zhang, S. 2001. Fracture mechanics solutions to spot welds. International Journal of Fracture 112, pp. 247-274.
52

t j
1
s
k j s j
j
Determination of tj
tj
s1
s2
s21
s22
s3
Y-joint
single fillet
t1
a
t1
t2
Overlap joint
Butt joint
t1
t1
t1
Y-joint
double fillets
t1
t2 sin a t2 sin
sin
t1
a
t
cos
t2
t2
2
2 2
s4
s5
s6
s7
t2
t1
t2
53
Determination of s-Factor
t j
k j s j 1 s
j
Y-joint
single fillet
Overlap joint
Butt joint
Y-joint
double fillets
1.0
0.58
0.85
1.0
54
Concept of j =0.05t
t j
k j s j 1 s
j
j=0.05t, t takes the following values:
s1
s2
s21
s22
s3
s4
s5
s6
s7
Y-joint
single fillet
t1
Overlap joint
Butt joint
t1
t1
t1
(t1+ t2)/2
t1
t2
(t1+ t2)/2
t1
t2
t2
t2
Y-joint
double fillets
t1
t2
t1
t2
Fictitious notch radius is 5% of sheet thickness (relative value)

instead of 0.05mm (absolute value).
55
Example of Fatigue Test

104
T-Joint (Alu)
Load case:
Load angle: 0
Failure criterion:
2% loss of stiffness (piston stroke)
that corresponds approximately
to crack initiation
5103
103
5102
AppliedForceAmplitudeFa[N]
Experiment
102
104
105
Cycles to Failure N
106
107
56
Correlation of Fatigue Test Data

1E+05
Fatigue test data
Y90F0DG25
Fatigue Test: 18 series

Material: AlMg3Mn
Y90F0DG40
Y90F0DG70
Y90F90DG25
1E+04
Y90F90DG40
Y90F90DG70
Y45F0DG90
Different joint types and loads:

Y45F90DG90
1E+03
IAXDG100
IAXDG70
in
1E+02
Appliedload
inNN
IAXVS07
Kraftamplitude
IAXVS15
IBIDG100
IBIDG70
IBIVS07
1E+01
1E+03
1E+05
1E+04
IBIVS15
1E+06
1E+07
Cycles to failure
Schwingspielzahl N
UAXDG100
UBIDG100
1E+05
Y90F0DG25
Y90F0DG40
Y90F0DG70
Y90F90DG25
Y90F90DG40
Y90F90DG70
Y45F0DG90
Y45F90DG90
IAXDG100
IAXDG70
IAXVS07
IAXVS15
IBIDG100
Psurvival =
90% 50%10%
1E+04
Different weld geometries:
1E+03
1E+02
MSZStressinMPa
Correlated by MSZ stress
MSZ-KerbspannungsamplitudeinMPa
1E+01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
Schwingspielzahl N
1E+06
Cycles to failure
1E+07
IBIDG70
IBIVS07
IBIVS15
UAXDG100
UBIDG100
MSZ Stress in MPa
57
Master S-N Curves

1E+05
Master S-N Curve

for Aluminium Alloys:
1E+04
1E+03
MSZinMPa
1E+02
1E+01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+06
1E+07
1E+06
1E+07
Schwingspielzahl N
1E+05
Master S-N Curve

for Steels:
1E+05
1E+04
1E+03
MSZinMPa
1E+02
1E+01
1E+03
1E+04
1E+05
Schwingspielzahl N
Cycles to failure
58
Two New Modules in Principle

SSZ-Method:
SSZ Stresses
Notch Factors
from FEMFAT Standard
Notch Factors
from MSZ-Approximation
S-N Curves
from FEMFAT Standard
Master S-N Curves

(User Defined)
MSZ-Method:
SSZ Stresses
59
Convention of SSZ in Seam Welds
Stress Ratio for

Determination of
Notch Stress*
Stresses for Damage

Calculations
T/Y-Joint, Single
Fillet
S1/S4; S3/S6; S22/S5
S1; S3; S21

(S6*); S22
T/Y-Joint,
Double Fillets
S1/S8; S3/S7; S5/S9
S1; S3; S5; S7
Overlap Joint
Butt Joint
S1/S4; S3/S21; S22/S5 S1; S3; S21; S22

S1/S2; S3/S4
S1; S2; S3; S4
* Only for SSZ Method

60
Comparison of Methods in FEMFAT

FEMFAT 4.7
SSZ-Method
MSZ-Method
Type of Stresses
Element stresses
Structural stresses derived

from grid-point forces
Applicable Stress
Components
, ||,
Determination of Notch
Factors
Damage Calculation
Notch factors from weld database; Membrane

and bending stress will be determined using
the stress ratio of the top and bottom side of
shell elements
Analytically estimated
notch factors
Compare notch stresses with joint-typedependent S-N curves from weld database
Compare notch stresses

with a Master S-N curve
61
Application Example on Coupon Level

Comparison of the assessment methods
100.000
SSZ-Method
MSZ-Method
10.000
FEMFAT 4.7
1.000
0.100
Damage[-]
0.010
0.001
0.000
Joint
Joint
Joint
TY/Joint
doubleY- LapJointButtJointTY/Joint
doubleY- LapJointButtJointTY/Joint
doubleY- LapJointButtJoint
middle of weld
N5
weld start
N2
weld end
N11
62
Scenario Analysis (Y-Joint, Single Fillet)

Good, Normal, Bad Weld Quality
Parameter:
a-Value: a (t1 t2 ) / 2
Weld angle:
Weld penetration:
d
sin
t2
Default Value:
0,6
0,5
0,3
Normal Weld Quality
Extreme Values:
0,5 0,707
0,4 0,6
0,1 0,5
Bad Weld Quality Good Weld Quality
63
Scenario Analysis (Y-Joint, Double Fillets)

Parameter:
a-Value 1: a1 1 (t1 t2 ) / 2
a-Value 2: a2 2 (t1 t2 ) / 2
Weld angle 1:
1 1
Weld angle 2: 2 2
Default Value:
1 0,6
2 0,6
1 0,5
2 0,5
Normal Weld Quality
Extreme Values:
0,5 1 0,707
0,5 2 0,707
0,4 1 0,6
0,4 2 0,6
64
Scenario Analysis (Overlap Joint)

Parameter:
a-Value:
a t2
Weld angle:
Weld penetration:
Default Value:
0,6
45
0
Extreme Values:
0,5 0,707
3045
0,25 0,25
a t2 cos
d

t2
Normal Weld Quality
65
Scenario Analysis (Butt Joint)

Parameter:
Extreme Values:
Default Value:
1,0
Weld width:
b t1
0,8 2,0
Weld reinforcement: e 1t1
1 0
0,2 1 0,2
Sheet offset:
v 2 (t2 t1 ) / 2 2 1,0 (1,0 2 1,0) *
Toe cut depth:
c1 k1t1
k1 0,1
0,2 k1 0
Root cut depth:
0,2 k2 0,1
c2 k2t1
k2 0,1
Toe cur depth:
c3 k3t2
k3 0,1
0,2 k3 0
Root cut depth:
0,2 k4 0,1
c4 k4t2
k4 0,1
* not a weld quality parameter
Normal Weld Quality
66
Potentials and Limitations of the Method

Potentials:
The SSZ/MSZ method allows weld geometry to be considered
explicitly in fatigue assessment.
Failure locations, notably, at weld root and toe, are clearly
indicated by the SSZ/MSZ stresses.
Weld quality can be evaluated by scenario analysis in three
classes of good, normal and bad weld quality.
Limitations:
MSZ notch stresses are only approximations.
SSZ/MSZ method is still not sufficiently validated in FEMFAT.
The relation between weld quality and weld geometry should be
further verified by experiment or experience.
67

Zhang Æ Àíäí Ãðô 3

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Zhang Æ Àíäí Ãðô 3

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Recent Developments in Analysis and Testing

of Spot and Seam Welds

Q&A about local stress parameters at spot welds

Structural stresses around a spot weld

Notch stress around a spot weld

Notch stress is denoted as k .

A stress solver for spot welds

The Stress Solver

A package of solutions to spot welds

{ui uo li lo [2(ui li )2 (uo lo )2

2(ui li uiuo uilo uoli lilo )]1/ 2 }

A package of solutions to spot welds

Finite element model

Diameter of the spoke pattern = Nugget diameter

Application of the stress solver

Application of the stress solver

Fatigue test data condensation

Sources of scatter of fatigue data

Optimization of spot weld distribution

Durability reserve for every spot weld:

Critical spot welds:

Strain gauge technique

Stress distribution around

ij (r,) 0 [ An (r) cos(n)

ij1 (r) ij3 (r)

Strain gauge technique

Inside stress at nugget edge is decisive.

Removed (BAM, Germany)

A strain gauge solution

Strain gauge technique

Strain gauge technique

Table 4. LSPs determined by the strain gauge solution in the virtual

Strain gauge solution

Finite element simulation 374.4

Strain gauge technique

Strain gauge apparatus

Motivation and Objective

Test Coupons and Compoments

Coupon Size and Distribution of Spot Welds

length x width x thickness

Simplified Spot Weld Model

Rigid bar element (RBE2)

Comparison Test vs. Simulation

Comparison Test vs. Simulation

Comparison Test vs. Simulation

Mass - Spring System for Analysis

Evaluation of Damping Value

Principle of full width at half maximum

Comparison of Relative Damping Values

d10 2l10 t12 l10 L10

A simplified spot weld model is developed for NVH simulations.

The model is validated by the coupon and component tests.

Automatic generation of the model is supported at least

Joint Type in Consideration

Principle of SSZ/MSZ Method

Nodal force (GP-force)

MSZ = SSZNotch factor

Determination of Line Forces Based on Grid-Point

Line Forces Averaged over Elements

Total GP-Forces Weighted by Element Length

Converting of Forces into Line Forces

Validation of Line Force Calculation

Validation of Line Force Calculation