Resistance Welding Steel to Aluminium
This article summarizes a paper entitled, “Process, Microstructure and Fracture Mode of Thick Stack-Ups of Aluminum Alloy to AHSS Dissimilar Metal Spot Joints”, by Luke Walker, Colleen Hilla, Menachem Kimchi, and Wei Zhang, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University.W-9
Researchers at The Ohio State University studied the effects of adding a stainless steel (SS) insert to a dissimilar Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS) to aluminum (Al) resistance spot weld (RSW). The SS insert was ultrasonically welded to the Al sheet prior to the RSW being performed. The purpose of the SS is to reduce the intermetallic layer that forms when welding steel to aluminum. This process increases the strength and toughness of the weld. In this study, the process is applied to three sheet (3T) stack up that contains one Al sheet and two 1.2 mm thick Press Hardened (PH) 1500 sheets. The joint strength is measured in lap shear testing and the intermetallic thickness/ morphology is studied after cross sectioning the welds.
During the microstructure evaluation it was noted that Al 6022 contained a larger nugget diameter as compared to the Al 5052 welds. A few potential reasons for the hotter welds were proposed including cleanliness of the electrodes, surface oxides, and thickness of the different alloys. The welds on the Al 5052 stack ups were made first on clean electrodes whereas the Al 6022 was made on potentially dirty electrodes that increased the contact resistance. The effects of different surface oxides are not likely given the SS sheet is ultrasonically welded but could still add to the higher heat input in the RSW. The Al 6022 is 0.2 mm thicker, which could increase the bulk resistance and decrease the cooling effect from the electrodes.
The 3T welds likely had much lower strength and toughness due to cracks that formed at the Al-SS insert interface. These can be attributed to an increase in intermetallic compound (IMC) thickness and the residual stress caused by the forge force. The IMC thickness was measured two ways: The first measurement was of the continuous IMC layer and the second was from the Al-Fe interface to the end of the IMC dendrites (Figure 1, 2 and Table 1). The Al 5052 observed the thickest continuous IMC layer but Al 6022 was close to the Al 5052 thickness. This can be attributed to the increased Si content of Al 6022 which has been shown to decrease the growth of Fe-Al intermetallics.
Figure 1: IMC in the Al Alloy 5052 to Stainless-Steel Weld.W-9
Figure 2: IMC in the Al Alloy 6022 to Stainless-Steel Weld.W-9
Table 1: IMC Thickness of Both the 5052 Weld and the 6022 Weld.W-9
Referencing Figure 3, the 2T stack-up has a higher tensile strength as well as significantly higher fracture energy absorbed compared to the 3T stack-ups. This is mainly attributed to the failure mode observed in the different stack-ups. The 2T welds had button pullout failure while 3T stack-ups had interfacial Failure.
![Figure 3: Failure Load and Fracture Energy [(A) Al to steel (Al-Us) welds and (B) steel to steel (Us-Us) welds (the 2T 6022 results are from previous work(10))]W-9](https://ahssinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/fig4-process.jpg)
Figure 3: Failure Load and Fracture Energy [(A) Al to steel (Al-Us) welds and (B) steel to steel (Us-Us) welds (the 2T 6022 results are from previous work(10))]W-9
The Al 6022 contains higher Si content which likely decreased the growth of the continuous IMC layer but not the overall IMC layer (as seen in Figure 4 and Figure 5) due to higher weld temperatures. The joint strength of the welds in the 3T stack-ups were closer to the expected weld strength unless there was expulsion that caused a 5-kN drop in strength.
Figure 4: EDS Line Scan of the IMC in Location 2 on the 5052 3T Sample (SS stands for austenitic stainless steel 316).W-9
Figure 5: EDS Line Scan of the Intermetallic Layer at Location 1 on the 6022 3T Sample (SS stands for austenitic stainless steel 316).W-9
Laser Welding
This article is a summary of the paper entitled, “IMPROVEMENT OF DELAYED CRACKING IN LASER WELD OF AHSS AND 980GEN3 STEELS”, by Linlin Jiang, Kyle Kram, and Chonghua Jiang.L-62
Researchers from AET Integration, Inc. worked on developing welding techniques that mitigated delayed cracking issues when laser welding Advanced High-Strength Steels (AHSS) and 3rd Gen AHSS. Stitch welds are most likely to have delayed cracking issues therefore the test specimen were cross tension samples with stitch welds. The test was run with ten specimens for each material with the same parameters. The specimen were visually inspected after welding in intervals from 30 min to 12 hours for 48 hours. The specimen were then inspected using X-ray analysis, cross-sectioning, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Cracks were observed in the weld schedules used in Figure 1 and 2, and no cracking was observed in the welding schedules developed by researchers as seen in Figure 3 and 4 by altering parameters such as laser power, travel speed, beam oscillation, and defocusing techniques. The techniques are currently patent-pending and were not discussed in the research paper. Further validation tests on 3rd Gen steels is expected in the future.
Figure 1: Delayed Crack in Weld of Material A. (Top) Crack from top surface, (Bottom) Cross Section of Crack.L-62
Figure 6: Delayed Cracking in Weld of Material B, (Top) X-ray, (Bottom) Cross section of crack.L-62
Figure 3: Examples of Visual Inspection Photographs. (Top) Top surface, Material A, (Middle) Top surface, Material B, (Bottom) Top surface, Material C.L-62
Figure 4: Examples of Cross Section Photographs. (Top) Cross section of weld center, Material A; (Bottom) Cross section of weld crater, Material A.L-62
Laser Welding
This article summarizes the findings of a paper entitled, “Hot cracking investigation during laser welding of high-strength steels with multi-scale modelling approach”, by H. Gao, G. Agarwal, M. Amirthalingam, M. J. M. Hermans.G-4
Researchers at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) in The Netherlands and Indian Institute of Technology Madras in India attempted to model Hot Cracking susceptibility in TRIP and DP steels. For this experiment, TRIP and DP steels are laser welded and the temperatures experienced are recorded with thermocouples at three positions. Temperatures experienced during welding are measured and used to validate a finite element model which is then used to extract the thermal gradient and cooling rate to be used as boundary conditions in a phase field model. The phase field model is used to simulate microstructural evolution during welding and specifically during solidification. The simulation and experimental data had good agreement with max temperature deviation below 4%.
Summary
Referencing Figure 1 (Figure 6 in the original paper) which shows the microstructure where the dendritic tips meet the wel, centerline, it is observed that TRIP steels reach a solid fraction of 93.7% and DP steels reach a solid fraction of 96.3% meaning that TRIP steels have a larger solidification range than the DP steels. Figure 8 shows the phosphorus distribution where the dendritic tips reach the weld centerline. TRIP steels show a concentration of up to 0.55 wt-% where segregation occurs compared to the original composition of 0.089 wt-%. DP steels show a max of 0.06 wt-% which is significantly lower than the TRIP steels. In addition to phosphorus, Al is seen in high concentration in TRIP steels which contributes to the broder solidification range. A pressure drop is the last factor contributing to the Hot Cracking observed in TRIP steels(figure 2). The pressure drop is due to a lack of extra liquid feeding in the channels and forms a pressure difference from the dendrite tip to root. The pressure drop in TRIP steels is calculates to 941.2 kPa and 10.2 kPa in DP steels. The combination of element segregation, pressure drop, and thermal tensile stresses induced during laser welding results in a higher Hot Cracking susceptibility in TRIP steels as compared to DP steels.
Figure 1: Phase distributions in the TRIP and the DP steel when the dendritic tips reach the weld centreline.G-4
Joining
The unique physical characteristics of Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) present some challenges to welding and bonding processes. AHSS differ from mild steels by chemical composition and microstructure, and it’s important to note that their microstructures will change from welding operations. For example, intensive localized heat associated with some welding processes causes a significant change in the local microstructure, and hence affect properties. Due to fast Cooling Rates (CR) typical in welding, it is normal to see martensite and/or bainite microstructures in the weld metal and in the Heat-Affected Zone (HAZ).
When joining AHSS, production process control is important for successful assembly. Manufacturers with highly developed joining control methodology will experience no major change in their operations. Others may require additional checks and maintenance. In certain instances, modifications to equipment or processing methodologies may be required for successful joining of AHSS.
The coating methods for AHSS are similar to those for mild steels. Welding of either AHSS or mild steels with coatings will generate fumes. The amount and nature of fumes will depend on the coating thickness, coating composition, joining method, and fillers used to join these materials. The fumes may contain some pollutants. The chemical composition of fumes and the relevant exhaust equipment must meet appropriate regulatory standards. Thicker coatings and higher heat inputs cause more fumes. Additional exhaust systems should be installed. While welding AHSS (with or without metallic or organic coatings and oiled or not oiled) gases and weld fumes are created similar to mild steels. The allowed fumes or gases must comply with respective national rules and regulations.
Joining Processes
Considering recent developments of hybrid approaches to welding, there are now over 100 types of welding processes available for the manufacturer or fabricator to choose from. The reason that there are so many processes is that each process has its list of advantages and disadvantages that make it more or less appropriate for a given application. Arc welding processes offer advantages such as portability and low cost but are relatively slow and use a considerable amount of heating to produce the weld. High energy density processes such as laser welding generally produce low heat inputs and fast welding speeds, but the equipment is very expensive and joint fit-up needs to be ideal. Solid-state welding processes avoid many of the weld discontinuities produced by those requiring melting (fusion), but they may be expensive and often are restricted to limited joint designs. Resistance welding processes are typically very fast and require no additional filler materials but are often limited to thin sheet applications or very high-production applications such as in the automotive industry.
Most welding processes produce a weld (metallic bond) using some combination of heat, time, and/or pressure. Those that rely on extreme heat at the source such as arc and high energy density processes generally need no pressure and relatively small-to-medium amounts of time. This section introduces joining processes that are applicable to HSS automotive applications, while describing unique process attributes.
Joining, Laser Welding, Press Hardened Steels
This studyR-25, conducted by the Centre for Advanced Materials Joining, Department of Mechanical & Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, and ArcelorMittal Global Research, utilized 2mm thick 22MnB5 steel with three different coating thicknesses, given in Table 1. The fiber laser welder used 0.3mm core diameter, 0.6mm spot size, and 200mm beam focal length. The trials were done with a 25° head angle with no shielding gas but high pressure air was applied to protect optics. Welding passes were performed using 3-6kW power increasing by 1 kW and 8-22m/min welding speed increasing by 4m/min. Compared to the base metal composition of mostly ferrite with colonies of pearlite, laser welding created complete martensitic composition in the FZ and fully austenized HAZ while the ICHAZ contained martensite in the intergranular regions where austenization occurred.
Table 1: Galvanneal Coatings.R-25
Figure 1: Base metal microstructure(P=pearlite, F=ferrite, Γ=Fe3Zn10, Γ1=Fe5Zn21 and δ=FeZn10).R-25
Figure 2: Welded microstructure — (a) overall view, (b) HAZ, (c) ICHAZ at low and (d) high magnifications, (e) UCHAZ (f) FZ, and (g) coarse-lath martensitic structure (where M; martensite, P: pearlite, F: ferrite).R-25
Given the lower boiling temperature of Zn at 900 °C as compared to Fe, the interaction of the laser with the Zn plasma that forms upon welding affects energy deliverance and depth of penetration. Lower coating weight of (100 g/m2) resulted in a larger process window as compared to (140 g/m2). Increased coating weight will reduce process window and need higher power and lower speeds in order to achieved proper penetration as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Depth of penetration due to varying welding parameters was developed:
d=(H-8.6+0.08C)/(0.09C-4.8)
[d= depth of penetration(mm), H= heat input per unit thickness(J/mm2), C= coating weight(g/m2)]
Given the reduction in power deliverance, with an increase in coating weight there will be an expected drop in FZ and HAZ width. Regardless of the coating thickness, the HAZ maintained its hardness between BM and FZ. No direct correlation between coating thickness and YS, UTS, and elongation to fracture levels were observed. This is mainly due to the failure location being in the BM.
Figure 3: Process map of the welding window at coating weight of (a) 100 g/m2, (b) 120 g/m2, and (c) 140 g/m2.R-25
Figure 4: Heat input per unit thickness vs depth of penetration.R-25
