Ultrasonic Testing as a Means for Quality Assurance in
Resistance Spot Welding
Dipl.-Ing. H. Polrolniczak, Moers
1. Introduction
Ultrasonic testing is one of the
nondestructive control meth-
ods which was discovered early
and continuously developed,
and which was also again and
again taken up whenever spot
weld quality had to be proved.
Its technical possibilities and its
economic significance, how-
ever, must be viewed within the
framework of other known test
methods.
This article deals with the use of
ultrasonic testing in automobile
manufacturing using spot-
welded steel sheets.
2. Quality features in resistance
spot welding
One quality feature, and thus also
a test feature, is the spot strength
(load bearing performance) and
the spot appearance (surface
quality). In almost all cases, the
spot strength is nevertheless the
decisive feature. Depending on
the intended use, it is completed
with other features, such as elec-
trode indentation on spot surface,
spots of arcing, width of gap be-
tween the sheets, flaws in the weld
nugget, etc.
However, it is only possible to def-
initely judge the tension-related
strength of a welded joint if the
tension and test load correspond
to each other. That means in the
case of shearing tension testing
by shearing test, in the case of top
ten-sion testing by top tension
test, etc.
However, mixed loads generally
occur. In these cases, the break-
ing load determined by a shearing
test is only an indirect measure,
deviating more or less from the
load actually sustained with mixed
loading.
One additional feature for the
strength attained is the spot di-
ameter determined by destroying
the welded joint. This nevertheless
depends, among other things, on
the type of test method on one and
the same welded joint. For ex-
ample, the shear tension test gener-
ally results in another spot diame-
ter than that of torsional test.
The nugget diameter is indepen-
dent of the type of test method
though it can only be determined
micrographically. Yet, this is like-
wise only an indirect measure of
the load to be sustained by the
spot weld in the actual load case.
However, compared with the spot
diameter, there is a much better
correlation between the nugget di-
ameter and the strength of the
spot. The nugget diameter “d” is
consequently the most revealing
indirect measure of the spot
strength.
In the Code of Practice 2902 Part
3, issued by the German Associa-
tion for Welding Technology (DVS),
a value of dN = 3.5 · t (t= sheet
thickness) is recommended as
minimum nugget diameter. This is
also the lower limit value for the
nugget diameter most frequently
determined in other specifica-
tions. The spot diameter is gener-
ally larger. Applied as standard ref-
erence value is the relation
dS = 1.2 · dN.
3. Measures for quality
assurance
The safest way to achieve the re-
quired quality of a spot weld, and
to keep it constant within a toler-
able variation range, is the optimum
setup of a suitable welding ma-
chine by well trained personnel.
Moreover, the invariable observ-
ance of the conditions given dur-
ing the machine setup, e.g. invari-
able material surface, constant
working area diameter of the elec-
trode, constant line voltage, etc.
However, in practice these ideal
conditions cannot be achieved.
3.1 Control systems
Efforts were made during the past
20 years, and are still made at pres-
1
ent, to develop control systems
which would keep the set spot
quality within a tolerable range re-
gardless of any interfering influ-
ences. In spite of great moments
of success [3, 4], e.g. compensa-
tion of interfering influences due to
shunting, line voltage drop, wear
of secondary cable, etc., it must
be established that certain inter-
ferences cannot be compensated.
Although these control systems
help to attain a considerable in-
crease in manufacturing reliability,
a certain error percentage is still to
be reckoned with. Whether or not
this still lies within a tolerable
range, has to be determined by
testing.
Since this unwanted operation
cannot be avoided, it should at
least cause as little cost as pos-
sible, coupled with a reliable test
result.
The test methods available are
briefly reviewed in the following.
3.2 Shop test methods
The methods used comprise
the button test, the destructive
chipping test, and the nonde-
structive chipping test. In the but-
Fig. 1: Simple chipping test
2
ton test and the destructive chip-
ping test, the spots are subjected
to load using simple test means,
without recording a measured
value, until they break. The type of
breakage and the size of the rup-
tured spot are used as evaluation
criteria.
The advantage of the chipping test
lies in the fact that it can also be
used on a finished component,
e.g. on a shell. However, it is most-
ly used as a nondestructive test in
these applications, i.e. load is not
applied all the way up to the break-
age of the welded joint. The costs
for this test are comparably low,
the same as the information from
the test results. This applies in par-
ticular to the nondestructive chip-
ping test. It can only be used for
detecting defective spots whose
strength already lies way below
the permissible minimun value,
e.g. so-called “stick welds”.
Added to this is the fact that the
test results vary within a wide tol-
erance range due to the relatively
indefinite test conditions which
cannot be constantly observed.
Another disadvantage of the de-
structive chipping test, besides
the relatiely indefinite test condi-
Advantages:
+ easy to do
+ can be done on finished part
+ “nondestructive” test
Disadvantages:
– unreliable test result
– only rough information on quality
– unequal loading possible
– strong influence of dimensions
tions, is the noise, which puts a
strain on the inspector, and the
considerable percentage of scrap
produced.
3.3 Destructive tests using
testing machines
There are a number of standard-
ized test methods for this purpose,
including the shearing test, the
peeling tensile test, the top tensile
test, and the torsional test. Their
advantage is that the strength
tested under defined conditions
in each case, e.g. shearing load
at the breakage of the welded
joint, is reliably determined. This
statement should be qualified by
saying that only information on the
strength under the selected test
load can be obtained, e.g. the pure
top tension, and not on the mixed
loads generally occurring.
A disadvantage of these methods
is the fact that a test on the finished
component is not possible.
3.4 Nondestructive test
methods
With reference to the steel sheet
structures viewed here, especially
within automobile manufacturing,
all other known nondestructive test
methods, except for the ultrasonic
test, are insignificant [4]. This
statement applies to magnetic-
particle testing, dye-penetration
testing, eddy current testing, po-
tential measurement testing, and
X-ray testing. The strength-rele-
vant flaws are either not detected,
or the flaw detected is so large that
it can already be detected by a
simple visual inspection.
3.5 Micrographic examination
The micrographic examination en-
ables assessments to be made
 sons. This leads to the implemen-
tation of sampling tests. It goes
without saying that the frequency
with the unreliable, yet low-cost,
nondestructive chipping tests is
higher than with the micrographic
examination giving reliable results,
yet requiring a lot of cost and en-
ergy.

4. Comparison between
chipping test and ultrasonic
test

If we look at the test methods usu-

ally applied to in-process tests at
a higher test frequency and
acceptable with regard to their
costs, only the chipping test and
the ultrasonic test are competitive
in principle.

Some of the most important fea-

tures of both test methods are list-
ed in Table 1.

Fig. 2: Ultrasonic testing of spot welds The accuracy of the test result de-
pends on the manual skill or the
feeling and the experience of the
about nugget geometry, internal in 3.4, all other test methods are inspector both in chipping tests,
flaws, and structure. The good used in the production. A 100% Fig. 1, and in ultrasonic testing,
correlation between nugget volume test is nevertheless not Fig. 2.
geometry and the results of possible for economic reasons
destructive tests using standard- and, in the case of destructive test Apparently, there’s no further pos-
ized test methods makes the re- methods, also for technical rea- sibility to limit the influence of the
sults of a micrographic examina-
tion an important and reliable, if
only indirect, assessment scale Feature Destructive Nondestructive Ultrasonic test
chipping test chipping test
for the strength of a spot weld.
Test on a finished yes yes yes
component to a limited degree
Three disadvantages limit the ap- Test on a coated no no yes
component
plication of this test method:
Test scrap produced yes no no
Touch-up work of tested possible only to a yes no
a) The spot has to be destroyed. spot is necessary limited degree
b) The test cannot be carried out Danger of accident and yes yes no
on the finished car body to be noise nuisance
Expenditure on test low low relatively high
further used. equipment
c) Test costs are relatively high in Amount of training low low clearly higher than with
comparison with all other test required the chipping test
methods. Reliability of test results poor very poor partly good, partly not
yet clarified, please see
text of this publication
With the exception of the nonde-
structive test methods mentioned Table 1: Comparison between chipping test and ultrasonic test

3
inspector on the test result in the
chipping test which has now been
used for decades.
In the ultrasonic test, on the other
hand, there is a chance to become
largely independent of the subjec-
tive assessment made by the in-
spector concerning evaluation of
the ultrasonic signal display by
computer-assisted evaluation
methods.
The first programs have been de-
veloped. Computer-based evalu-
ation criteria are currently being
worked out within the community
of interests called “Exchange of
experiences in ultrasonic testing
of resistance spot welds”.
This rough overview of the current
test possibilities already reveals
the reasons for the high motivation
with which the well-known, un-
solved test problem of nonde-
structive testing of spot welds
using ultrasonics has been taken
up again for some years now.
5. Ultrasonic testing of spot
welds
Ultrasonic spot weld testing was
the subject of intensive studies as
early as in the 60’s. The results
were at first promising, but were
not confirmed later on, especially
regarding the “stick weld” flaw [6].
The indisputably great advan-
tages of a nondestructive test of
spot welds, however, have always
- even until very recently - moti-
vated people to find a physically
unequivocal and definite solution
to the problem. Up to now, with-
out any practically acceptable re-
sults [7, 8, 11].
Parallel to the scientific studies,
the high quality requirements and
the simultaneous high cost pres-
4
sure have led to intensive efforts
within the automotive industry. As
early as in 1966, Henry Ford of-
fered a prize for a nondestructive
test method that would reduce the
high scrap cost accruing in con-
nection with destructive test
methods. Due to an advancement
in instrument technology, practi-
cal experiences in production
process, and experimental work,
FORD and some other automobile
manufacturers had so much con-
fidence in the reliability of ultra-
sonic testing in the late 80’s and
the early 90’s that they started to
use this method within the pro-
duction process.
The news of success received
from the use of this method in var-
ious companies, however, was
partly facing unsatisfactory results
from scientific studies.
The economic and technical sig-
nificance of nondestructive test-
ing of spot welds led to the situa-
tion in which sceptics and sup-
porters of ultrasonic testing were
already having mutual talks on this
subject in the early 90’s. It was es-
tablished at a relatively early stage
of the discussion that there are
areas in which ultrasonic testing
allows to obtain definite results
and areas in which definite results
cannot be obtained. This means a
field in which we do not have the
knowledge required, yet. It was
also established in mutual agree-
ment that it would be desirable
and necessary to deal with the
problem from a scientific angle,
but that the cost pressure in the
companies does not allow us to
wait until the pending physical is-
sues be scientifically clarified. A
permanent exchange of experi-
ences was then agreed upon be-
tween those interested in this in
order to clear up open issues, to
define uniform test conditions,
and to thus continuously extend
reliable application in the field of
ultrasonic spot weld testing by ex-
periences gathered from daily use
within companies and from the ev-
idence delivered by way of exper-
iments.
This type of procedure is not
meant to and cannot replace the
missing scientific basis, all the
more since the number of experi-
mental studies required can be
limited by clarified physical corre-
lations. The general validity of the
test results would be easier to as-
sess and the costs for the further
development of ultrasonic testing
could be reduced.
The members of this community
of interests include at present
almost all German automobile
manufacturers, two ultrasonic
instrument manufacturers as well
as one training institute and test
laboratory for welding technology.
The reliability of the test result in
ultrasonic testing was at first
meant to be clarified by two
pooled tests. The companies par-
ticipating were AUDI, BMW, Daim-
ler Benz AG, FORD, OPEL. The
tests were coordinated and evalu-
ated by the training institute and
test laboratory for welding tech-
nology (SLV) in Duisburg. The re-
sults were not enough to convince
sceptics [9].
All parties involved were neverthe-
less of the opinion that the great
advantages of nondesctructive
testing to be expected were rea-
son enough to continue with the
work. According to this, the area
within which a reliable test result
can be obtained through ultrason-
ic testing is being outlined at pres-
ent by means of an intensive ex-
change of experiences within the
companies involved, and by joint
examinations. The most recent
tests, described below, show very
positive results.
 Electrode material:
CuCrZr
Form:
Sample- Samples
series A S, V, U, K
Sample Samples
series B R, E, A, W
Sample Samples
series C C, O, X, Z
Electrodes for all sample series were the same
Spot diameter dS determined in torsional test.
Table 2: Test tasks regarding ultrasonic testing of spot-welded joints
5.1 Joint examinations to
prove the reliability of test
results obtained from
ultrasonic spot weld tests
The tests described form a part of
a test program aiming at defining
the possibilities and limits of non-
destructive testing of resistance
spot welds using ultrasonic test
methods.
5.1.1 Experimental check
as to whether or not
nugget diameters falling
below the limit values can
be identified
The test problem referred to spot
welded joints having three
different degrees of difficulty,
see Table 2.
Test samples having four different
nugget diameters between “stick
weld” and “spatter limit” were
made and tested within each
group of welded joints. The tests
were carried out by five inspectors
from five different automobile fac-
tories. The samples to be tested
were each coded in such a way
that the inspector did not know the
diameter of the weld nugget. Two
of the inspectors used additional
computer-assisted evaluation
methods. The ultrasonic signal
Sheet
Material thickness
[mm]
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
Sheet 1 Sheet 2
St 14.03 St 14.03 1.0 1.0
ZstE 300 IFHR 340 1.8 1.0
BHZE 75/75 ZE 75/75
St 06 ZFRB St 06 ZFRB 0.64 0.64 8.4 10.0 2.5
120g/m2 120g/m2
Nugget diameter dN determined micrographically.
displays were generated manually
in this method, the evaluation
being carried out automatically by
a PC. The program for this pur-
pose had been created by an au-
tomobile manufacturer in cooper-
ation with the Krautkrämer com-
pany.
All inspectors carried out the
tests under the same conditions,
i.e. the same test equipment was
used. Each inspector carried out
and evaluated the test alone, and
all samples were tested twice,
each time using a different coding.
The ultrasonic displays were doc-
umented for all tests. This made it
possible to discuss any evalua-
tions deviating from the others
after the 1st test round, taking the
corresponding ultrasonic displays
into consideration. The knowl-
edge gained on the basis of the
discussion and the agreements
made in this connection could
then be taken into account by the
inspector in the 2nd test round.
Test result
In comparison with previous joint
examinations and with reference
to the present test problems, the
result was extraordinarily encour-
aging. This is probably due to ad-
Welding vanced instrument technology
parameters and progress with regard to the
Basic setup
knowledge of test techniques.
Most of all it is remarkable that the
so-called “stick weld” (large-area
lack of penetration of the weld
[kN] Fe
[Per] 1s
[kA] 1s
nugget) was correctly identified by
all five inspectors in all three test
6.9 10 2.5 jobs. This does certainly not mean
that a generally valid answer
8.5 9.0 2.5 would have been found to the con-
troversial question still being dis-
cussed as to whether or not stick
welds can be identified using ul-
trasonics. However, it is a fact that,
with reference to the present test
problems and to the boundary
conditions, five different inspec-
tors evaluated all three welding
tasks correctly.
The summarized results of all tests
are shown in an overview in the
Tables 3, 4 and 5. The evaluation
exclusively referred to the nugget
diameter as being OK or NOK.
Any other notes, e.g. “blowholes”,
were not taken into account for the
evaluation OK or NOK.
Summing up it can be said that the
relatively easy task of welding
St14.03, having a sheet thickness
of 1 mm can be mastered (sample
series A, Table 3).
The nugget diameter of the sample
series AU was practically on the
limit with 4.05 mm so that evalua-
tion could be made with OK and
with NOK. A field-oriented, gener-
ally binding rule still remains to be
worked out to specify how to deal
with these types of borderline
cases.
The sample series B, Table 4, rep-
resents an incomparably more dif-
ficult test task with unequal sheet
thicknesses and materials which
are more difficult to weld. Two out
of five inspectors had evaluated
incorrectly in the series BE. The
5
 Exchange of experiences in US testing of spot welds at SLV in Duisburg Date: 7. u. 8. 4. 1997
Probe: G20 MN 4,0
Probe diameter: 4,0 mm
Test instrument: USD 15 S
Weld OK if dL ≥ 4 tmin corresponds to Serias A ≥ 4,0 mm Material: St 14.03, t = 1,0 mm

1st test sequence 2nd test sequence Computer-assisted evaluations (*)

Nugget dia. [mm]

Spot dia. [mm]

Specimen no.

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget
Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes
OK / NKO

iOK/NOK
Operator

OK/NOK

OK/NOK
“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”
Burnt

Burnt

Burnt

Burnt
Remark Remark
#

#
1 NOK NOK NOK NOK x
2 A NOK Loose NOK NOK x
3 0,0 0,00 NOK x NOK x
4 S NOK NOK
5 (3) (v = 0 %) NOK x NOK x
1 NOK NOK >4,0 NOK NOK x
2 A NOK NOK NOK x
3 2,0 2,24 NOK x x Borderline case to OK NOK x Borderline case to OK
4 V NOK NOK
5 (1) (v = 3,2 %) OK x NOK x
1 OK OK >4,0 OK OK
2 A ? Unclear evaluation due to unvalid echo – Evaluation not possible (A-scan) NOK x
sequence
3 4,05 4,18 OK x Borderline case to OK NOK
4 U OK OK
5 (2) (v = 2,1 %) OK OK
1 OK OK OK OK
2 A OK With intermediate echo OK With intermediate echo OK
3 5,1 5,85 OK OK
4 K OK OK
5 (4) (v = 1,0 %) OK OK

# lack of fusion / bad through-welding at the border to the “stick weld”, however, still OK.
(*) Manual testing using “Ultradoc VO.9 Beta”, computer-assisted evaluation of the ultrasonic displays generated.
( ) No. = key code for the 2nd test round. Status: 22.9.97

Table 3: Test results from sample series A, comparison between destructive test and ultrasonic test.

mutual discussion about the ultra- thickness, and whether it would whether different judgements are
sonic displays showed that, on the be possible to achieve a higher re- made regarding the nugget diam-
one hand, the flaw echoes were liability of the test result by im- eter if the test is carried out from
wrongly interpreted and, on the proving instrument technology. the thinner or from the thicker side
other hand, the flaw echoes were of the sheet. The welds to be test-
not “peaked” to their optimum 5.1.2 Influence of the probe ed corresponded to the sample
value. In both cases, it is not a position with unequal series B from the test described
question of fundamental difficul- sheet thicknesses above, i.e. the test was carried out
ties with the principle of ultrason- on a combination of sheets having
ic testing, but of evaluation mis- In the discussions during the ex- thicknesses of 1.0 mm + 1.8 mm.
takes which can be avoided by change of experiences regarding Four different nugget diameters
exact definitions in training and ultrasonic testing, it had at first were again specified between
test instructions. been determined that the test of “stick weld” and “spatter limit” in
unequally thick sheets had to be these cases.
The sample series C, Table 5, carried out from the side of the
shows a medium-level degree of thinner sheet. According to the ex- Test equipment and boundary
difficulty. All inspectors neverthe- periences gathered in the compa- conditions were the same as in the
less had difficulties to “peak” well nies up to date, this enables a test described previously. The
interpretable displays. In spite of more definite and unequivocal tests were carried out by two in-
the mostly correct evaluation, judgement of the nugget size. spectors from two different auto-
there seems to be a limit in this However, the design conditions mobile plants.
case, most of all caused by the do not always allow testing from
small sheet thickness. It remains the side of the thinner sheet. An at- Both inspectors evaluated cor-
open in this case where the lower tempt was therefore made in an- rectly to 100 % in two separately
limit lies with regard to the sheet other joint examination to find out coded tests, both for a test from

6
 Exchange of experiences in US testing of spot welds at SLV in Duisburg Date: 7. u. 8. 4. 1997
Probe: G20 MN 4,0
Probe diameter: 4,0 mm
Test instrument: USD 15 S
Weld OK if dL ≥ 4 tmin corresponds to Serias A ≥ 4,0 mm Material: ZSIE300 BHZE 75/75, t = 1,8 mm
JFHR 340 ZE 75/75, t = 1,0 mm

1st test sequence 2nd test sequence Computer-assisted evaluations (*)

Nugget dia. [mm]

Spot dia. [mm]

Specimen no.

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget
Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes
Operator

OK/NOK

OK/NOK

OK/NOK

OK/NOK
“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”
Burnt

Burnt

Burnt

Burnt
Remark Remark
#

#
1 NOK NOK NOK NOK x
2 B NOK x “Stick” NOK x NOK x
3 0,0 0,00 NOK x NOK x
4 R NOK NOK
5 (4) (v = 24,70) NOK x NOK
1 NOK NOK NOK NOK x
2 B NOK < 4,0 Dm NOK x NOK x
3 2,7 2,67 OK x OK x
4 E NOK NOK
5 (2) (v = 16,22) OK OK
1 OK NOK OK NOK x
2 B OK OK NOK x
3 4,1 4,57 OK x OK
4 A OK NOK
5 (3) (v = 16,78) OK OK x
1 OK OK OK OK
2 B OK OK NOK x
3 5,1 5,87 OK x OK x
4 W OK OK
5 (1) (v = 9,32) NOK x NOK x

# lack of fusion / bad through-welding at the border to the “stick weld”, however, still OK.
(*) Manual testing using “Ultradoc VO.9 Beta”, computer-assisted evaluation of the ultrasonic displays generated.
( ) No. = key code for the 2nd test round.
Test from the thinner sheet side. Status: 22.9.97

Table 4: Test results from sample series B, comparison between destructive test and ultrasonic test.

Exchange of experiences in US testing of spot welds at SLV in Duisburg Date: 7. u. 8. 4. 1997

Probe: G20 MN 4,0
Probe diameter: 3,15 mm
Test instrument: USD 15 S
Weld OK if dL ≥ 4 tmin corresponds to Serias A ≥ 3,2 mm Material: St 06 ZFRB, (= 0,64 mm)

1st test sequence 2nd test sequence Computer-assisted evaluations (*)

Nugget dia. [mm]

Spot dia. [mm]

Specimen no.

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget

Small nugget
Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes

Blowholes
Operator

OK/NOK

OK/NOK

OK/NOK

OK/NOK
“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”

“Stick”
Burnt

Burnt

Burnt

Remark Remark Burnt

#

1 NOK NOK NOK x NOK x

2 C NOK NOK NOK x
3 0,0 0,0 NOK x NOK
4 C NOK NOK
5 (1) (v = 12,99) NOK NOK
1 NOK OK NOK NOK x
NOK/
2 C NOK OK x < dia., damping to the limit NOK x
Borderline case OK/NOK -
3 2,8 2,62 NOK x Flaw echo 10 % OK x Borderline case, nugget too small
4 O NOK NOK
5 (4) (v = 14,12) OK x NOK
1 NOK NOK x OK NOK x
2 C NOK NOK NOK x
3 32,0 3,26 NOK x NOK
4 X NOK NOK x
5 (3) (v = 11,31) NOK x NOK
1 OK OK OK OK
2 C OK OK NOK x
3 4,8 4,92 OK OK
4 Z OK OK
5 (2) (v = 10,39) OK OK

# lack of fusion / bad through-welding at the border to the “stick weld”, however, still OK.
(*) Manual testing using “Ultradoc VO.9 Beta”, computer-assisted evaluation of the ultrasonic displays generated.
( ) No. = key code for the 2nd test round. Status: 22.9.97

Table 5: Test results from sample series C, comparison between destructive test and ultrasonic test.

7
 Exchange of experiences in US testing of spot welds at SLV in Duisburg Date: 7. u. 8. 4. 1997 from which a spot surface is no
Probe: G20 MN 4,0
Probe diameter: 4,0 mm
longer suitable for ultrasonic test-
Test instrument: USD 15 S ing.
Weld OK if dL ≥ 4 tmin corresponds to Serias A ≥ 4,0 mm Material: ZSIE300 BHZE 75/75, t = 1,8 mm
JFHR 340 ZE 75/75, t = 1,0 mm

Within the framework of the joint

1st test sequence 2nd test sequence
examinations mentioned earlier,
Nugget dia. [mm]

1.1 “dünn” 1.1 “dick” 1.1 “dünn” 1.1 “dick”

first attempts to solve this problem
Spot dia. [mm]
Specimen no.

Small nugget
Small nugget

Small nugget
Small nugget

Blowholes
Blowholes

Blowholes
Blowholes

were therefore made.

OK/NOK
Operator

OK/NOK

OK/NOK
OK/NOK

“Stick”
“Stick”

“Stick”
“Stick”

Burnt
Burnt

Burnt
Burnt

#
#

#
#

2 B
NOK
NOK x NOK x NOK x NOK x
In the 1st section, production
3 0,0 0,09 NOK x NOK x NOK x NOK x parts from different plants were
G
(2) (v = 24,7)
evaluated. The results of this eval-
NOK uation, Table 7, show that due to
2 B NOK NOK NOK
x
x NOK
x
x
the fact that objective evaluation
3 2,7 2,67 NOK x NOK x NOK NOK
F criteria are missing, it is absolute-
(4) (v = 16,22) x
ly possible that the same spot sur-
OK
2 B OK OK OK OK face leads to subjectively different
3 4,1 4,57 OK x OK x OK OK evaluations.
H
(3) (v = 16,78)
OK To substantiate the reasons why a
2 B OK OK OK OK
3 5,1 5,87 OK x OK x OK x OK x
spot surface is not suitable for
T testing, clear and definite stan-
(1) (v = 9,32)
dards still remain to be fixed.
# lack of fusion / bad through-welding at the border to the “stick weld”, however, still OK.
(*) Manual testing using “Ultradoc VO.9 Beta”, computer-assisted evaluation of the ultrasonic displays generated.
“dünn = thin” Test from the thinner sheet side. “dick=thick” Test from the thicker sheet side. Status: 22.9.97
In the Table 7, this applies e.g. to
the terms “Surface too rough”,
Table 6: Influence of probe position with unequally thick sheets.
“Electrode indentation too deep”,
“Flanks of indentation too steep”,
“Surface burnt” and “Electrode in-
dentation canted”.
the side of the thinner sheet and nitely and unequivocally evaluable
for a test from the side of the ultrasonic signal display, is no It must of course be possible to
thicker sheet, please see Table 6. longer possible. There are no ob- make judgements with only a
jectively evaluable criteria for the small amount of work and cost re-
difficult decision as to the point quired. The measurement of the
5.1.3 Surfaces suitable for
testing

A minimum value is always speci- Test piece spots allowing spots not allowing Remarks
testing a test
fied for judging the strength of a 1, 22, 23 all spots – Remove spatter (with 1)
spot weld, e.g. minimum nugget 2 c, d, e, f, g, h a, h Doubts with inspector X,
diameter 3.5* t from the sheet surface possibly too
“rough”
thickness. As opposed to this, 3 to 13 all (inspector Z) all (inspectors X, Y) Electrode indentation too
there are four quality classes deep and indentation
flanks too steep, outer
specifying the demands set on the sheet not welded, test
surface. Among them is the qual- must therefore be made
from the flange
ity class 4 with the classification
21 all, except for a a and b Holes, surface burnt
“Without any special demands on and b (a and b)
quality”. 31 – all Position of weld nugget
indefinite (oblique, offset
with regard to electrode
This can include surfaces which indentation)
are so strongly deformed that a 32 all, except for a a Electrode indentation
too deep, canted (with a)
perfect coupling of the probe, and
therefore the generation of a defi- Table 7: Visual evaluation of different production parts by the inspectors X, Y, Z

8

Fig. 3: Example of a design element to which the chipping test cannot be applied for
geometrical reasons.
surfaces can therefore probably
be ruled out for a quick test during
the production process.
It is possible that a solution for the
technique of generating the ultra-
sonic display can be found in the
course of the continued studies.
6. Summary
If we try to define the current po-
sition of ultrasonic spot weld test-
ing, we must establish that only
the chipping test is to be seen as
a competitive in-process test
method.
However, the chipping tests are
noisy and unreliable with regard to
their test result, especially in non-
destructive testing. In addition, a
considerable amount of scrap is
produced in the destructive chip-
ping test. These are disadvan-
tages that can be avoided with ul-
trasonic testing.
Moreover, ultrasonic testing has
the additional advantage of being
used for the optimization of weld-
ing parameters, especially on new
machines. This enables a faster
setup of the welding machine,
which leads to a considerable re-
duction of test scrap.
In some cases, there is no alter-
native to ultrasonic testing as an
in-process test method for a fin-
ished component. This can be the
case, e.g. due to the component
geometry and the spot arrange-
ment, Fig. 3. This likewise applies
to the spot-welded stick joint
which is already unrecoverably
destroyed using the nondestruc-
tive chipping test.
A number of important questions
block the path for unreserved use
of ultrasonic testing, e.g. whether
so-called “stick welds” can be
tested or not, which have not been
scientifically clarified to every-
body’s satisfaction, and that more
recent scientific studies using
state-of-the-art instrument tech-
nology are missing.
The cost pressure and increased
demands on the quality assurance
have nevertheless motivated the
user to undertake considerable ef-
forts, independent of any scientif-
ic knowledge, in order to make use
of the great advantages of ultra-
sonic testing. The success
achieved in field applications is in-
disputable. In many cases, the
practical demonstration of test re-
liability is given. The correspond-
ing experiences within the individ-
ual companies must nevertheless
be limited to the individual task, to
the specific boundary conditions
and to the qualification of the cor-
responding inspector carrying out
the test.
A generally valid application of the
pragmatical values is often not
possible due to unclarified physi-
cal issues.
For some time now, the experi-
ences gathered from the practical
use with almost all German auto-
mobile manufacturers have been
exchanged, mutually discussed
and open issues have been clari-
9
fied by field-oriented joint exami-
nations.
The positive outcome of the tests
described in this article shows
that an area can be marked out
within which a nondestructive
test using ultrasonics is possible
with a sufficiently reliable test
result for practical work in the
field. The systematic continuation
of this exchange of experiences
will also enable to judge the
cases in which a test is still too
unreliable at present. Further-
more, it will be possible to reduce
the area in which there is not
enough knowledge of ultrasonic
testing.
The test results presented here are
part of the joint projects belonging
to the the study group “Exchange
of experiences in ultrasonic test-
ing”.
The tests were carried out by in-
spectors from AUDI, BMW, Daim-
ler Benz AG, FORD and VW,. The
preparation of samples and their
mechanical testing were carried
out by the Training Institute and
Test Laboratory for Welding Tech-
nology (SLV) in Duisburg.

An important interim result of the

previous efforts already applies at
this stage:

1. The nondestructive chipping

test can be fully replaced with
the technically more revealing
and economically more
attractive ultrasonic test.

2. The number of destructive

tests can be reduced by the
use of ultrasonic test tech-
nology.

At the moment, the scope of in-

spector training required is being
determined within the framework
of projects for a directive from the
German Association for Welding
Technology (DVS) “Inspector in re-
sistance welding”. Well trained in-
spectors and uniform test prin-
ciples are indispensable prerequi-
sites for successful use of ultra-
sonic testing.

It is to be hoped that the neces-

sary scientific support in order to
clarify physical correlations will
soon take place with the same
topicality and intensity as the
intensive efforts made by the in-
dustry.

10
Bibliography
[1] DVS-Merkblatt 2902 Teil 3 (1991)
Widerstandspunktschweißen von
Stählen bis 3 mm Einzeldicke,
Konstruktion und Berechnung.
(Resistance spot welding of steels
up to 3 mm individual thickness,
design and calculation.)
[2] DVS-Merkblatt 2902 Teil 4 (1978)
Widerstandspunktschweißen von
Stählen bis 3 mm Einzeldicke,
Vorbereitung und Durchführung.
(Resistance spot welding of steels
up to 3 mm individual thickness,
preparation and implementation.)
[3] Polrolniczak, H.
Verbesserung der Fertigungs-
sicherheit beim Widerstands-
punktschweißen durch Steuer-
und Regelgeräte mit elektrischer
Führungsgröße
DVS-Berichte Band 143,
S. 175/82, Deutscher Verlag für
Schweißtechnik, Düsseldorf 1992
(Improvement of manufacturing
reliability with resistance spot
welding by controlling devices
with electrical reference variable)
[4] Polrolniczak, H.
Zerstörungsfreies Prüfen,
Überwachen und Regeln als Mit-
tel der Qualitätssicherung beim
Widerstandspunktschweißen
DVS-Berichte Band 165, Seite
54-69, Deutscher Verlag für
Schweißtechnik, Düsseldorf 1995
(Nondestructive testing, monitor-
ing and controlling as means of
quality assurance with resistance
spot welding)
[5] DVS-Merkblatt 2916
Prüfen von Punktschweißungen
(Testing of spot welds)
[6] Deutsch, V.
Ultraschallprüfung von Punkt-
schweißungen, Zuschrift zum Auf-
satz Wüstenberg
Materialprüfung 32 (1990/10)2
(Ultrasonic testing of spot welds,
reply to the Wüstenberg essay)
[7] Wüstenberg, H.
Stellungnahme zum Leserbrief
von Prof. Volker Deutsch
“Ultraschallprüfung von Punkt-
schweißungen”
Materialprüfung 32 (1990/10)
(Comment on the letter to the
editor by Prof. Volker Deutsch
“Ultrasonic testing of spot welds”)
[8] Industrieuntersuchungen SLV
Duisburg
Ultraschallprüfung von Wider-
standspunktschweißungen,
1. und 2. Ringversuch
(Ultrasonic testing of resistance
spot welds, 1st and 2nd pooled
test)
[9] Industrieuntersuchungen SLV
Duisburg
3. und 4. Gemeinschaftsversuch
(Erfahrungsaustausch Ultraschall-
prüfung von Schweißpunkten)
(3rd and 4th joint test (exchange of
experiences in ultrasonic testing
of spot welds)
[10] Wüstenberg, H., Rotter, B.,
Krause, H.J.
Ultraschallprüfung von Punkt-
schweißverbindungen durch Ab-
bildungsverfahren
Materialprüfung 32 (1990)
(Ultrasonic testing of spot-welded
joints by display methods)
11

Krautkrämer GmbH & Co. oHG
Robert-Bosch-Str. 3
D-50354 Huerth (Efferen)
P.O.Box 1363
D- 50330 Huerth
Phone: +49-22 33-601-0
Fax: +49-22 33-601-402
E-Mail: Hotline@Krautkramer.de
Printed in Germany · SD 297 (5/99)
Krautkramer Branson Buehler Krautkramer Ltd Krautkramer France
50 Industrial Park Road University of Warwick ZAC Sans Souci
P.O. Box 350 Science Park 68, chemin des Ormeaux
Lewistown GB-Coventry CV4 7HS F-69760 Limonest
PA 17044 Phone: +44-24-7669-0069 Phone: +33-72-179220
Phone: +1-717-242-0327 Fax: +44-24-7669-3032 Fax: +33-78-475698
Fax: +1-717-242-2606 E-Mail: buehlerkrautkramer E-Mail: krautkramer
E-Mail: infolink@Krautkramer.com @compuserve.com @compuserve.com
www.krautkramer.com