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.

Table 1:  Secondary Impedance Measurements.C-11

 

Table 2:  Coupon Material Information.

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)

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

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

Table 3: Weld Schedule Development.C-11

 

Table 4: Optimized Weld Schedules.

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.

Figure 3: Repeatability Push-Off Method A.C-11

 

Figure 4: Repeatability Push-Off Method B.

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.

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.

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.

Figure 7: Microhardness Traverse.C-11

Related Posts
Filter by
Post Page
Press Hardened Steels Steel Grades AHSS 1stGen AHSS Conventional HSS Citations Forming
Sort by

Martensite

Metallurgy of Martensitic Steels Martensitic steels are characterized by a microstructure that is mostly

8

M-62

Citation: M-62. M. Merklein, J. Lechler and T. Stoehr,

8

M-61

Citation: M-61. M. Merklein, M. Wieland, M. Lechner, S. Bruschi and

8

Press Hardened Steels Primer

PHS and PQS Overview   A Brief Overview of Press Hardening Press hardening (also

8

K-46

Citation: K-46. H. Kong, Q. Chao, B. Rolfe, and H. Beladi, “

8

G-43

Citation: G-43. C. Georges, T. Sturel, P. Drillet and J.-M.

8

L-43

Citation: L-43. H. Lanzerath, A. Bach, G. Oberhofer and H. Gese,

8