Friction Stir Welding
This article summarizes a paper entitled, “An Evaluation of Friction Stir Spot Welding as a Method for Joining Ultra-thin Steel Sheet,” by Y. Hovansk, et al.H-10
The study analyzes Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) as a process for assembly of two sheet stack ups. The steel sheet used for this study is CR4-GI, a hot dip galvanized ultra-low carbon interstitial free steel with a tensile strength of 280 MPa. Thicknesses of both 0.45 and 1.2 mm were used to create dissimilar thickness, two-sheet stack-ups. Preparation for joining via FSSW did not alter the zinc coating. FSSW joints were evaluated in lap shear tensile, T-peel, and cross tension.
FSSW welds were welded with an EKasin injection molded, silicon nitride tool shown in Figure 1. All welds were performed at 1600 rpm.
Figure 1: Representative Picture of a Silicon-Nitride FSSW Tool with a 10-mm-diameter Shoulder and a 1.15-mm Probe Length.H-10
The zinc coating that originally covered the sheet surface was extruded beneath the FSSW tool to the outer edges of the weld as seen in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows a representative weld on a T-peel specimen.
Figure 2: Optical Image of the Top Surface of a Friction Stir Spot Weld in CR4-GI.H-10
Figure 3: A T-Peel Specimen Produced on a 25-mm-wide Strips with FSSW 0.45- to 1.2-mm-thick CR4-GI.H-10
A minimum of 25 specimens were produced for each geometry tested, however, these specimens were performed at various times throughout weld development and data is shown below. Figure 4 shows the load-extension curves for a set of nine friction stir spot welds. Figure 5 shows a representative fracture of lap-shear tensile specimen.
Figure 4: Test Results for Lap-Shear Tensile Data of Friction Stir Spot Welds in 0.45-mm CR4-GI.H-10
Figure 5: Friction Stir Spot Weld in 0.45-mm CR4-GI Fractured in Lap-Shear Tensile.H-10
Figure 6 shows the load-extension curves for a set of eight friction stir spot welds tests in T-peel. A representative fracture of T-peel specimen is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6: Test Results for T-Peel Data of Friction Stir Spot Welds in 0.45-mm CR4-GI.H-10
Figure 7: Friction Stir Spot Weld in 0.45-mm CR4-GI Fractured in T-Peel.H-10
Figure 8 shows the load extension curves for a set of 13 friction stir spot welds tested in cross tension. Representative geometry and fracture of cross tension specimen are shown in Figure 9.
Figure 8: Test Results for Cross-Tension Data of Friction Stir Spot Welds in 0.45-mm CR4-GI.H-10
Figure 9: Friction Stir Spot Weld in 0.45-mm CR4-GI Fractured in Cross-Tension.H-10
A table showing the overall results for the FSSW joints produced herein are shown in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Summary of Fracture Loads and Energies from Friction Stir Spot Welds made in Ultra-Thin CR4-GI for Three Unique Test Configurations.H-10
While each specific test orientation demonstrated the ability for the weld nugget to pull out of the ultra-thin top sheet and remain with the lower 1.2-mm-thick sheet, the overall ratios between fracture loads suggest there is an area for improvement with respect to T-peel.
Arc Welding
This article summarizes a paper by W. Mohr and N. Kapustka, EWI, entitled, “Fatigue of GMAW-P Lap Joints in Advanced High-Strength Steels.”M-13
EWI has performed fatigue tests on welds from four Advanced High-Strength Steels (AHSS) in the uncoated condition. The materials were provided in three thicknesses as follows, 2.0-mm DP 780, 1.8-mm 590 SF, 2.0-mm DP 980, and 2.8-mm CP 800. Referring to Figure 1(a), welding parameters were selected to meet the weld profile requirements listed below:
The travel speed to achieve such combinations was 23 mm/s for three of the sheets and 13 mm/s for the 2.8-mm-thick CP 800. Figure 1 shows a completed panel.
Figure 1: Completed Panel.M-13
Specimens were cut from the lap-welded panels in a configuration recommended by Z 2275, with minimum reduced sections of 20-mm wide, with 20-mm radii on both sides to a full width of 30 mm, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Specimen Design.M-13
Fixtures for the bend testing had eight, 6.3-mm radius rollers, four on top and four on the bottom, with offsets of the roller centers to accommodate the lap-joint configuration and the differing sheet thicknesses. The interior span was 120 mm, while the exterior span was 210 mm. The full bending fixture, with a specimen inserted, is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Bending Test Fixture.M-13
Weld profiles were achieved that met the weld profile requirements for each sheet material type. These weld profiles are shown for the four sheet materials in Figure 4. Fatigue testing results in tension at R = 0.3 gave lifetimes between 30,000 and 9 million cycles, with run-outs at 10 million cycles, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Cross Sections of Lap Joints (etched with 2% Nital).M-13
Figure 5: Results of Fatigue Testing in Tension at R= 0.3.M-13
Weld root cracking dominated in the 590 SF, as well as the DP 780 and DP 980, with an example shown in Figure 6. Weld toe cracking was observed on the 2.8-mm-thick CP 800, with an example shown in Figure 7.
Figure 6: Example for a Root Crack Breaking Through the Weld Metal on DP 980.M-13
Figure 7: Example of a Toe Crack Breaking Through the Base Metal.M-13
Fatigue testing in bending at R = -1 gave lifetimes between 30,000 and 2 million cycles, with run-outs on tests that continued to up to 7 million cycles, as shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Four-Point Bending Tests at R = -1.M-13
Taking the differing thicknesses, minor variations in minimum width, and the stress concentrations from the radii into account, the concentrated stress range was calculated to compare the four materials on a common basis, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Concentrated Stress Range versus Lifetime for Tension Tests.M-13
The fatigue cracks initiated at the root for the 1.8-mm 590 SF on both tension and bending testing. The fatigue cracks initiated at the weld toe for the 2.8-mm CP 800 on both tension and bending testing. The fatigue cracks initiated from the weld root in the tension testing and from primarily the weld cap in bending testing, for the 2.0-mm-thick DP 780 and 2.0-mm-thick DP 980.
RSW Joint Performance Testing
This articles summarizes a paper entitled, “New Test to Analyze Hydrogen Induced Cracking Susceptibility in Resistance Spot Welds,” by M. Duffey.D-10
This study aims to develop a new weldability test to analyze the susceptibility of HIC in RSW of different steels. A total of eight different steel samples were analyzed with their carbon content, associated American Welding Society (AWS) carbon equivalencies, and gauges shown in Table 1. All materials were tested in the full-hard condition (all have been cold-rolled).
Table 1: Tested Steels, Carbon Equivalencies, and Steel Gauge.D-10
The associated parameter ranges for welds made with each steel are in Table 2. The resistance spot weld was made in the middle of the sheets, as shown in the test setup in Figure 1. There was a total of 18 test samples (nine not painted and wiped, nine painted) for each material tested.
Table 2: Welding Parameters.D-10
Figure 1: HIC Test for Resistance Spot Welds Schematic.D-10
Figure 2A shows the results of the 3- × 3-in. tests. Figure 2B shows the results of the 4- × 4-in. tests. Figure 2C shows the results of the 5- × 5-in. tests.
Figure 2: Results of the Three Different Test Sizes on AHSS.D-10
Cracks consistently initiated at the periphery of the weld nugget where the two steel sheets came together. Cracks then propagated either in the weld metal or HAZ, as shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3: Cracking in the Weld Metal of Steel 8.D-10
Figure 4: Cracking in Both the Weld Nugget and HAZ in Steel 8.D-10
Figure 5 displays the results from Steels 1, 4, and 5. Steel 1 is the most resistant (of the three) to HIC. For the three steels shown in Figure 5, the crack length (at each gap spacing) was longer for the painted sample than the non-painted sample.
Figure 5. Test Results for Steels 1, 4, and 5.D-10
The microstructure of IF Steels 1-3 (Figure 6A) was ferrite. The microstructure of the high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) Steel 4 (Figure 6B) was a mixture of grain boundary ferrite, martensite, and possibly some bainite. The microstructure of the specialty alloy Steels 5-7 and AHSS Steel 8 (Figure 6C) was entirely martensite.
Figure 6: Microstructures of the Different Weld Nuggets.D-10
Figure 7 shows the fracture surface of a crack completely through Steel 7.
Figure 7: Fracture Surface of Cracked Weld in Steel 7.D-10
The average and maximum hardness results of spot welds in each material are summarized in Figure 8.
Figure 8. The Average and Maximum Hardness of HAZ and Weld Nugget in Resistance Spot Welds of Each Steel.D-10
Figure 9 is a graph that displays the carbon equivalence, number of washers where cracking first began, and average hardness of the weld nugget and HAZ in each steel.
Figure 9: Carbon Equivalency vs. Number of Washers to Initiate Cracking.D-10
Projection Welding
placeholder
Projection Welding
This paper summarizes a paper, entitled “Resistance Welding Projection Methodologies as Applied to Hot-Stamped Boron”, by D. Crist, et al.C-11
The study focuses on two different Resistance Projection Welding approaches and compares the welding parameters, mechanical properties and destructive results. Table 1 lists the secondary impedance measurements and Table 2 lists the material information for the PHS-CR1500T-MB-AS.
Table 1: Secondary Impedance Measurements.C-11
Table 2: Coupon Material Information.C-11
The thickness of the material chosen was 1.80 mm and the weld coupon dimensions are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Weld Coupon Dimensions (not to scale).C-11
The projection weld nut used for testing is an M6 hex flange, three projections, non-piloted weld fastener. Detailed dimensions are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Projection Weld Nut.C-11
Table 3 lists the weld schedule methodologies tested in this study. Table 4 shows the optimized weld schedules based upon push-off strength and visual weld flash level.
Table 3: Weld Schedule Development.C-11
Table 4: Optimized Weld Schedules.C-11
Repeatability testing for both Methods A and B are shown in Figures 3 and 4. The data produced for Method B shows a higher average of repeatability.
Figure 3: Repeatability Push-Off Method A.C-11
Figure 4: Repeatability Push-Off Method B.C-11
Two different failure methods were observed. Figure 5 shows full thickness buttons were pulled thought the flange for Method A and Figure 6 demonstrates partial thickness failure for Method B.
Figure 5: Method A (17.0 kA, 100 ms, 1000 lb.) Common Failure Mode.C-11
Figure 6: Method B (35.0 kA, 14 ms, 2500 lb.) Common Failure Mode.C-11
Figure 7 shows the microhardness traverse results for both Methods A and B. Method A yields a much larger HAZ. Method B shows a much smaller HAZ, less impact on the base material, and appears to be a solid state bond.
Figure 7: Microhardness Traverse.C-11
Projection Welding
This article summarizes a paper entitled, “Weld Quality Study of Projection Nut Welding with Modular Weld Head”, by F. Jiao, et al.F-7
The study investigates the weld quality of projection nut welding with a patent pending “quick release” modular weld head.
The weld nuts used in the study were 3 projection hex-flanged M6 weld nuts. Operating weld currents ranged from 26-32 kA. The welding time was 5 cycles and the applied electrode force was 450 lb. Figure 1 shows the set up for each test. Figure 2 shows the disassembled parts of the quick release modular weld head. Table 1 lists the material properties of the weld faces.
![Figure 1: Projection Nut Welding Set-Up [(a) with regular weld head, (b) with quick-release modular head, and (c) welding parts set up].](https://ahssinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3122_fig1.jpg)
Figure 1: Projection Nut Welding Set-Up [(a) with regular weld head, (b) with quick-release modular head, and (c) welding parts set up].F-7
Figure 2: Disassembled Parts of Patent-Pending Quick-Release Modular Weld Head.F-7
Table 1: Material Properties of Weld Faces.F-7
Figure 3 shows the cross section images of the projection welds. Both welds made a weld with 100-micron penetration. The weld made with the regular head had a slightly deeper HAZ as indicated by the dashed line. Figure 4 shows the microhardness profile of both projection welds. Generally, the hardness profile of the welds is quite similar.
![Figure 3: Optical Microscope Images of the Projection Welds After Etching [(a) with regular head (b) with modular head].](https://ahssinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3122_fig3.jpg)
Figure 3: Optical Microscope Images of the Projection Welds After Etching [(a) with regular head (b) with modular head].F-7
Figure 4: Microhardness of the Projection-Welded Sample with Different Weld Heads.F-7
Figure 5 shows the results of tensile testing on both projection welds. The fracture load with the modular head is higher than that with the regular head at 26 kA. At other currents, the fracture load is very similar.
Figure 5: Variation of Fracture Load with Weld Current for Different Weld Head.F-7
Figure 6 shows the weld thickness difference between the modular head and the regular head. The results indicate the weld performance of both heads is very similar up to 1000 welds.
Figure 6: Variation of Weld Thickness Difference Between Regular Head and Modular Head.F-7
![Figure 1: Projection Nut Welding Set-Up [(a) with regular weld head, (b) with quick-release modular head, and (c) welding parts set up].](http://ahssinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3122_fig1.jpg)
![Figure 3: Optical Microscope Images of the Projection Welds After Etching [(a) with regular head (b) with modular head].](http://ahssinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/3122_fig3.jpg)
