Introduction

A solution to improve the spot weld strength is to add a HS adhesive to the weld. Figure 1 illustrates the strength improvement obtained in static conditions when crash adhesive (example: Betamate 1496 Dow Automotive) is added. The trials are performed with 45-mm-wide and 16-mm adhesive bead samples.

Figure 1: TSS and CTS on DP 600.A-16

Figure 1: TSS and CTS on DP 600.A-16

 

Another approach to improve the strength of welds is done by using laser welding instead of spot welding. The technologies based on remote welding optics have been introduced and a high productivity can be obtained. The effective welding time is maximized and a wide variety of weld geometries becomes feasible. Compared to spot welding, the main advantage of laser welding, regarding mechanical properties of the joint, is the possibility to adjust the weld dimension to the requirement. One may assume that, in tensile shear conditions, the weld strength depends linearly of the weld length (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Tensile-shear strength on laser weld stitches of different length.A-16

Figure 2: Tensile-shear strength on laser weld stitches of different length.A-16

 

Comparing spot weld strength with laser weld strength cannot be restricted to the basic tensile shear test. Tests were performed to evaluate the weld strength in both quasi-static and dynamic conditions under different solicitations, on various UHSS combinations. The trials were performed on a high-speed testing machine, at 5 mm/min for the quasi-static tests and 0.5 m/s for the dynamic tests (pure shear, pure tear or mixed solicitation) (Figure 3). The strength at failure and the energy absorbed during the trial have been measured. It should be noticed that the energy absorbed depends also on the deformation of the sample. However, as all the trials were made according to the same sample geometry, the comparison of the results is relevant. Laser stitches were done with a 27-mm length. C- and S-shape welds were performed with the same overall weld length. This lead s to various apparent length and width of the welds. A shape factor, expressed as the ratio width/length of the weld, can be defined according to Table 1.

Figure 3: Sample geometry for quasi-static and dynamic tests. A-16

Figure 3: Sample geometry for quasi-static and dynamic tests. A-16

 

Table 1: Shape factor definition.A-16

Table 1: Shape factor definition.A-16

 

The weld strength at failure can be easily described with an elliptic representation, with major axes representing pure shear and normal solicitation (Figure 4). For a reference spot weld corresponding to the upper limit of the weldability range, globally similar weld properties can be obtained with 27-mm laser welds. The spot weld equivalent length of 25-30 mm has been confirmed on other test cases on UHSS in the 1.5- to 2-mm range thickness. It has also been noticed that the spot weld equivalent length is shorter on thin mild steel (approximately 15-20 mm). This must be considered in case of shifting from spot to laser welding on a given structure. There is no major strain rate influence on the weld strength; the same order of magnitude is obtained in quasi-static and dynamic conditions.

Figure 4: Quasi-static and dynamic strength of welds, DP 600 2 mm+1.5 mm. A-16

Figure 4: Quasi-static and dynamic strength of welds, DP 600 2 mm+1.5 mm.A-16

 

The results in terms of energy absorbed by the sample are seen in Figure 5. In tearing conditions, both the strength at fracture and energy are lower for the spot weld than for the various laser welding procedures. In shear conditions, the strength at fracture is equivalent for all the welding processes. However, the energy absorption is more favorable to spot welds. This is due to the different fracture modes of the welds. IF fracture is observed on the laser welds under shearing solicitation (Figure 6). Even if the strength at failure is as high as for the spot weds, this brutal failure mode leads to lower total energy absorption.

Figure 5: Strength at fracture and energy absorption of HF1500P 1.8-mm + DP 600 1.5-mm samples for various welding conditions. A-16

Figure 5: Strength at fracture and energy absorption of HF1500P 1.8-mm + DP 600 1.5-mm samples for various welding conditions. A-16

 

Figure 6: IF fracture mode (left), “plug-out” fracture mode (right). A-16

Figure 6: IF fracture mode (left), “plug-out” fracture mode (right).A-16

 

Figure 7 represents the energy absorbed by omega-shaped structures and the corresponding number of welds that fail during the frontal crash test (here on TRIP 800 grade). It appears clearly that laser stitches have the highest rate of fracture during the crash test (33%). In standard spot welding, some weld fractures also occur. It is known that UHSS are more prone to partial IF fracture on coupons, and some welds fail as well during the crash test. By using either Weld-Bonding or adapted laser welding shape, there is no more weld fractures during the test, even if the parts are severely crashed and deformed. As a consequence, higher energy absorption is also observed.

Figure 7: Welding process and weld shape influence on the energy absorption and weld integrity on frontal crash tests. A-16

Figure 7: Welding process and weld shape influence on the energy absorption and weld integrity on frontal crash tests. A-16

 

Regarding stiffness, up to 20% improvement can be obtained. The best results are obtained with continuous joints, and particularly using adhesives. Adhesive bonding and weld- bonding lead to the same results of the stiffness improvement only being due to the adhesive, not to the additional welds.

Figure 8 shows the evolution of the torsional stiffness with the joining process.

Figure 8: Evolution of the torsional stiffness with the joining process.A-16

Figure 8: Evolution of the torsional stiffness with the joining process.A-16

 

Optimized laser joining design leads to same performances as a weld bonded sample regarding fracture modes seen in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Validation test case 1.2-mmTRIP 800/1.2-mm hat-shaped TRIP 800.

Figure 9: Validation test case 1.2-mmTRIP 800/1.2-mm hat-shaped TRIP 800.

 

Top-hat crash boxes were tested across a range of AHSS materials including DP 1000. The spot weld’s energy absorbed increased linearly with increasing material strength. The adhesives were not suitable for crash applications as the adhesive peels open along the entire length of the joint. The welded bond samples perform much better than conventional spot welds. Across the entire range of materials there was a 20-30% increase in mean force when WB was used. The implications of such a large increase in crash performance are very significant. The results show that when a 600 MPa steel is weld bonded it can achieve the same crash performance as a 1000 MPa steel in spot-welded condition. It is also possible that some down gauging of materials could be achieved, but as the strength of the crash structure is highly dependent upon sheet thickness only small gage reductions would be possible.

Figure 10 shows the crash results for spot-welded and weld-bonded AHSS.

Figure 10: Crash results for spot-welded and weld-bonded AHSS.

Figure 10: Crash results for spot-welded and weld-bonded AHSS.

 

Joint Performance Comparisons

There are numerous welding processes available for the welding of AHSS in automotive applications. Each of these processes has advantages and disadvantages that make them more or less applicable for particular applications. These qualities include joint efficiency, joint fit-up and design, joint strength, and stiffness, fracture mode, and cost effectiveness (equipment cost, production rates, etc.). The following data can allow for comparisons to be made for automotive application welding and joining processes, as well as possible repair substitutions.

Many tests were performed using lap and coach joints, reduced specimen overlap distance, and adjusted weld sizes to more closely represent typical joints consistent with automotive industry acceptance criteria. The tests were aimed at providing a baseline reference for a wide variety of welding and joining processes and material combinations. In general, there was no correlation between joint efficiency, normalized energy, and normalized stiffness. Joint efficiency was calculated by dividing the peak load of the joint by the peak load of the parent metal. Some processes, joint configurations and material combinations have high joint efficiency and energy, while others result in high joint efficiency but low energy. Few processes showed high values for all metrics across all materials and joint configurations (Figure 11). It was observed that peak loads tended to increase, on average, as material strength increased for lap joints (Figure 12). However, joint efficiency generally decreased as material strength increased. Therefore, joint strength did not increase in proportion to parent material strength increase for most of the processes and materials studied. Coach joints generally showed lower joint efficiency and stiffness than lap joints (Figure 13). Process and material combinations should be selected based on the required performance, joint design, and cost.A-12

Figure 11: Average peak loads (all processes combined).A-12

Figure 11: Average peak loads (all processes combined).A-12

 

Figure 12: Lap shear average joint efficiency, normalized energy and stiffness (all processes combined).A-12

Figure 12: Lap shear average joint efficiency, normalized energy and stiffness (all processes combined).A-12

 

Figure 13: Coach peel average joint efficiency, normalized energy and stiffness (all processes combined).A-12

Figure 13: Coach peel average joint efficiency, normalized energy and stiffness (all processes combined).A-12

 

All Processes General Comparison

Numerous tests were performed using the most popular automotive joining processes including RSW, GMAW/brazing, laser welding/brazing, mechanical fasteners, and adhesive bonding. Joint efficiency and normalized energy of all the processes were compared for HSLA steels, DP 600 samples, DP 780 samples, and M190 samples. Joint efficiency was calculated as the peak load of the joint divided by the peak load of the parent metal. Energy was calculated as the area under the load/displacement curve up to peak load.

The materials used consisted of 1.2-mm EG HSLA, 1.2-mm galvanized DP 600, 1.0-mm GA DP 780, and 1.0-mm EG M190. The testing configuration matrix (Table 2) lists the materials and process combinations studied. The tolerance of weld lengths is ±10%. Lap-shear joints were centered in the overlap for all processes except lap fillet welds and brazes. Coach-peel joints were centered in the overlap for all processes (Figure 14). A-12

Table 2: Lap-shear (left) and coach-peel (right) test configuration matrix A-12

Table 2: Lap-shear (left) and coach-peel (right) test configuration matrix.A-12

 

Figure 14: Lap-shear and coach-peel set-up.A-12

Figure 14: Lap-shear and coach-peel set-up.A-12

 

DP 600 samples, DP 780 samples, and M190 samples. Joint efficiency was calculated as the peak load of the joint divided by the peak load of the parent metal. Energy was calculated as the area under the load/displacement curve up to peak load.

Self-piercing riveting with adhesive gave the greatest overall joint efficiency for the HSLA lap shear tests, while laser obtained the largest normalized energy (Figure 15a and 15b).

Figure 15: Joint efficiency of HSLA lap-shear tests for all processes.A-12

Figure 15a: Joint efficiency of HSLA lap-shear tests for all processes.A-12

 

Figure 16: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 600 lap shear for all processes.A-12

Figure 15b: Normalized energy of HSLA lap-shear tests for all processes.A-12

 

Self-penetrating riveting with adhesive gave the greatest overall values for both joint efficiency and normalized energy for lap shear testing of DP 600 samples (Figure 16a and 16b). However, coach peel testing of DP 600 obtained the best results with laser welding (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 600 coach peel for all processes.A-12

Figure 17a: Joint efficiency of DP 600 lap shear for all processes.A-12

 

Figure 16b: Normalized energy of DP 600 lap shear for all processes.A-12

Figure 16b: Normalized energy of DP 600 lap shear for all processes.A-12

 

 

Figure 17: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 600 coach peel for all processes.A-12

Figure 17: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 600 coach peel for all processes.A-12

 

 

For the DP 780 lap-shear test, the best results out of all the tested processes were from laser/MIG welding, leading in both joint efficiency and normalized energy (Figure 18). Full laser welding produced the best results for coach-peel tests of the DP 780 samples (Figure 19).

Figure 18: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 780 lap shear for all processes.A-12

Figure 18: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 780 lap shear for all processes.A-12

 

Figure 19: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 780 coach peel for all processes.A-12

Figure 19: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of DP 780 coach peel for all processes.A-12

 

The M190 lap-shear samples had the best joint efficiency using RSW with adhesive, but full laser welding gave better normalized energy (Figure 20). The coach peel tests also had the best normalized energy with full laser welding. The best joint efficiency of the coach peel tests was produced from laser welding with staples (Figure 21).

Figure 20: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of M190 lap shear for all processes.A-12

Figure 20: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of M190 lap shear for all processes.A-12

 

Figure 21: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of M190 coach peel for all processes.A-12

Figure 21: Joint efficiency and normalized energy of M190 coach peel for all processes.A-12

Cost Effectiveness Comparison: Spot Welding to Spot/Laser Welding Mixture

When automotive manufacturers are weighing the advantages and disadvantages of RSW to those of a spot/laser welding mixture process, cost effectiveness is a major concern. Spot/laser mixture welding has 38% lower operation cost compared to full spot welding because the laser installation performs more welds than a spot welding robot. Also, there are fewer robots to maintain and less consumables. The global cost is similar, but the spot/laser solution is about 4% less expensive overall. Figure 22 shows a cost comparison of spot welding and spot/laser welding.

Figure 22: Cost comparison of spot welding and spot/laser welding.A-16

Figure 22: Cost comparison of spot welding and spot/laser welding.A-16

 

GMAW Compared to Laser Welding

When comparing the advantages and disadvantages of GMAW to those of laser welding in automotive applications, joint efficiency is a key subject. Numerous welds were made using both processes on 15- and 25-mm-thick pieces of materials varying in strength. All results showed that laser welding continuously had greater joint efficiency than GMAW (Figure 23).

Figure 23: Joint efficiency of GMAW and laser welding for various steel strengths.

Figure 23: Joint efficiency of GMAW and laser welding for various steel strengths.

 
Back To Top