Weld Metal Ductility in Aluminum Tailor Welded Blanks

R.W. DAVIES, M.T. SMITH, H.E. OLIVER, M.A. KHALEEL, and S.G. PITMAN

The objective of the research described in this article was to characterize and numerically describe
the ductility of weld material in aluminum tailor welded blanks under uniaxial tension conditions.
Aluminum tailor welded blanks consist of multiple thickness and alloy sheet materials welded together
into a single, variable thickness blank. To evaluate the mechanical properties of the weld material in
these tailor welded blanks, a series of tensile specimens containing varying ratios of weld and
monolithic material in the gage area of the specimen were tested. These experimental results show
that increasing the amount of weld in the cross-sectional area of the specimen decreases the ductility
of the specimen and that the weld characteristics have a pronounced impact on ductility. Using the
experimental results and classical tensile instability and necking models, a numerical model was
developed to describe the ductility of the weld metal. The model involves basic material properties
and an initial imperfection level in both the weld and monolithic materials. The specimens studied
were produced from 1- to 2-mm AA5182-O aluminum alloy sheet material welded into blanks using
an autogenous gas tungsten arc welding process.

I. INTRODUCTION Prior research has focused on the problem of describing

THE automobile industry is continually working to
develop and apply technology that reduces the cost and
weight of automobiles. The intent of these efforts is to mini-
mize the energy consumption and environmental impact of
vehicles. Tailor welded blanking is a technology that allows
vehicle designers to reduce component weight and the num-
ber of components in a structure without compromising the
final strength, stiffness, and durability of the component.
Tailor welded blanks consist of multiple sheet materials
joined with welds to produce a single variable thickness
and/or alloy stamping blank. Automobile manufacturers are
finding more and more applications for the use of steel
tailor welded blanks in current vehicle designs. Currently,
aluminum tailor welded blanks are being investigated for
potential use in aluminum intensive vehicles to further
reduce vehicle weight.
A photograph of a prototype aluminum tailor welded
blank is shown in Figure 1. The formability of aluminum
tailor welded blanks currently is an area of considerable
interest to the automobile industry.[1–3] Although tailor
welded blank technology is effective at minimizing material
use and thus vehicle weight, the stamping process is compli-
cated by the existence of welds in the blank.[4,5] Product
design and process reliability for components produced in
this way become critical issues when compared to designs
and processes based on monolithic sheet stamping. From a
process modeling standpoint, the weld produces a geometric
discontinuity that is more difficult to accurately model than
monolithic sheet stamping. In addition, if a model does
accurately predict the stress and strain imposed on the weld
during stamping, the weld metal limits of formability are
substantially unknown.
R.W. DAVIES, Senior Development Engineer, M.T. SMITH, Technical
Group Manager, and M.A. KHALEEL and S.G. PITMAN, Staff Engineers,
are with Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA
99352. H.E. OLIVER, Team Leader of Project Engineering and Technology,
is with the Reynolds Metals Company, Chester, VA.
Manuscript submitted August 17, 1999.
the formability of aluminum tailor welded blank material in
stamping applications.[6–10] Most of this research has focused
on performing simulative stamping tests and placing welds
within a standard size tensile specimen. These methods pro-
vide insight into the combined properties of the material,
but they offer limited quantitative means of describing the
weld metal ductility individually. The research described in
this article produced a series of tensile specimens with the
weld oriented longitudinal to the tensile axis. The specimens
were designed with varying amounts of cross-sectional gage
area, which resulted in varying amounts of specimen gage
area comprised of weld material. The experimental results
exhibit a trend that indicates increasing the amount of weld
in the specimen gage area will lead to a decrease in tensile
elongation. Using these experimental results and the classical
theories of tensile instability and necking presented by
Hart[12] and Ghosh,[13] a model of weld material ductility is
developed. The numerical model is based upon the existence
of an initial imperfection in the cross section of the
specimens.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The tailor welded blank materials characterized in this
study were autogenously gas tungsten arc welded AA5182-
O alloy in 1- to 2-mm combinations. The monolithic sheet
materials were manufactured through conventional direct
chilling and rolling techniques. All test materials were col-
lected from the same material lots, though the lot for each
thickness was different. Saran et al.[11] and Pickering et
al.[6] described the butt-welding process used to produce the
subject materials. Figure 2 illustrates the typical geometry
and microstructure of the welds. The grain size of the weld
material is significantly larger than the grain size observed
in the monolithic sheets. In addition, the weld material exhib-
ited larger equiaxied grains in the center of the weld and
columnar grains leading to the monolithic sheet interface.
Microhardness investigation of the non-heat-treatable
AA5182-O alloy showed neither a significant strength varia-
tion nor a heat-affected zone in the weld region or sur-
rounding areas.

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A U.S. GOVERNMENT WORK VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000—2755
NOT PROTECTED BY U.S. COPYRIGHT

Fig. 1—Photograph illustrating an aluminum alloy tailor welded blank after
a typical stamping operation. The blank is butt welded from three separate
flat sheets and then formed as shown. The door inner stamping consists
of AA5182-O in varying thickness. (Photo courtesy of Reynolds Metals
Company and Ogihara America Corporation.)
Fig. 2—Cross section through the weld looking normal to the axis of the
weld length. Portions of monolithic sheet material are shown on either side
of the weld. Specimen was anodized to expose structure.
The mechanical properties of two separate weld popula-
tions were investigated. The two populations were desig-
nated first generation and second generation, and they were
produced using an initial welding process for the first-gener-
ation population and a welding process believed to be more
refined for the second-generation population. The primary
difference between the two weld populations was that the
first-generation welds had approximately 20 times the num-
ber of internal weld voids than the second-generation mate-
rial (as determined by radiography). All tests were conducted
more than 1 month after the welding operations were com-
pleted, and the specimens were stored at room temperature
(nominally at 23 8C).
The uniaxial tensile specimens consisted of five specimen
designs. Figure 3 shows four of the specimens, which con-
sisted of both monolithic and weld material, in varying
amounts, in their gage areas. These specimens were designed
with the weld positioned relative to the tensile axis such
that the areas of the 1- and 2-mm monolithic sheets were
equal in cross section on either side of the weld. The mechan-
ical testing of the specimens required unique grips to uni-
formly hold the specimens. The grips consisted of stepped,
hardened steel pads that compensated for the differences in
2756—VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000
thickness and fully gripped the 1- and 2-mm sheets up to
the edge of the weld. Figure 4 illustrates the design used
for the fifth specimen, which was a miniature specimen that
consisted solely of weld material in the gage area. These
specimens were electron discharge machined from the center
of the weld material, parallel to the length of the weld. The
specimens were hand polished to the final test thickness. In
addition to the specimens prepared from the tailor welded
blanks, monolithic specimens were prepared for each of the
five specimen designs. Tensile tests for all the specimens
shown in Figure 3 were conducted using a constant crosshead
velocity of 12.7 mm/min. For the miniature specimen, a
crosshead velocity of 0.292 mm/min was used. All mechani-
cal testing of the weld and monolithic specimens were con-
ducted at room temperature.
The uniaxial tensile results are reported in the form of
true stress and true strain. For this study, the definition of
true strain is given by
«t 5 ln (1 1 e) [1]
and the definition of true stress is given by
st 5 se(1 1 e) [2]
where e represents the engineering strain in the specimen,
and se represents the engineering stress in the specimen.
The axial strains developed during tensile testing of the
specimens illustrated in Figure 3 were measured using an
extensometer that recorded strain from test initiation through
specimen failure. The extensometer was placed on the speci-
men in such a way that it recorded strain directly on the
weld bead. The miniature specimens shown in Figure 4
were tested without an extensometer. Since there was no
extensometer used for these miniature tensile tests, the gage
length was measured via an optical comparator on each
specimen and the initial gage length was used to calculate
the engineering strain. In these cases, the engineering strain
was calculated by dividing the displacement of the tensile
machine crosshead by the measured initial length.
III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Figures 5 and 6 are illustrations of representative true
stress vs true strain tensile results for first-generation and
second-generation weld materials, respectively. The figures
illustrate the effect the specimen design can have on the
true stress vs true strain curves. The first-generation weld
specimens in Figure 5 show a significant drop in specimen
ductility as the percentage of weld in the gage area increases.
The second-generation welds in Figure 6 show a less pro-
nounced degradation of ductility as the percentage of weld
in the gage area increases.
This observation led to the generation of the composite
plot of specimen true strain at localization vs the percent of
specimen gage area comprised of weld metal shown in Fig-
ure 7. True strain at localization was defined as the axial
true strain developed in the specimen at peak true stress
immediately prior to fracture. Three sets of data are shown
in Figure 7. The data set illustrates the monolithic material
true strain at localization experienced using the various ten-
sile specimen designs. The second and third data sets illus-
trate the effects of increasing weld percentage for the first-
and second-generation welds. Figure 7 shows that the first-
generation weld material appears to have a more detrimental
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 3—Drawings of four different tensile specimens with varying widths.
Fig. 4—Detailed drawing of the miniature tensile specimen.
effect on the tensile ductility than does the second-generation
weld material. There also was a considerable amount of
scatter present in the true strain at localization given identical
specimen design within the same sample population.
Another important observation is that no significant
change in the yield strength or strain-hardening characteris-
tics of the specimens was observed among the specimen
designs. Since changing the ratio of monolithic to weld
material in the gage area appears to have little impact on
the yield strength or hardening characteristics, it was con-
cluded that using identical yield strength and constitutive
relations to carry out numerical modeling was sufficiently
accurate for the given materials.
IV. DAMAGE MODEL
The quantitative description of the degradation of material
ductility in the weld was the focus of the modeling effort.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 5—Uniaxial tensile results for first-generation tailor welded blank
weld material. The data represent specimens of various width and percentage
of weld in the gage area.
The model chosen for application to the present problem
of predicting the tensile instability of the specimens was
presented by Hart[12] and later elaborated by Ghosh.[13] The
model is based upon a commonly used method of assuming
and quantifying an initial imperfection level in the gage area
of the tensile specimens. This concept of an initial geometric
imperfection is represented in Figure 8. The terminology
associated with the model can also be seen in Figure 8,
which theorizes that two separate regions exist in the gage
area. The first region is the homogeneous region, which
consists of a uniform gage area. The second region is an
area of imperfection that, for the purposes of the model, is
VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000—2757

Fig. 6—Uniaxial tensile results for second-generation tailor welded blank
weld material. The data represent specimens of various width and percentage
of weld in the gage area.
Fig. 7—Summary plot illustrating the relationship between the percentage
of weld in the gage area of a uniaxial tensile test and the achievable true
strain at localization.
Fig. 8—Illustration of the concept of an initial geometric imperfection in
the specimen gage area.
equated to an area of reduced cross section that is the reason
for, and the site of, strain localization and failure during
testing. This initial imperfection is also commonly described
as an initial damage.
The process of model development and solution involves
three major observations and steps. The fundamental obser-
vation is that, during the quasistatic analysis, the axial load
supported across the homogeneous and imperfection cross-
sectional areas of the tensile specimen must be equal. Since
2758—VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000
the axial loads in the two regions are equal, and the cross-
sectional areas of the two regions differ, the stress levels in
the two regions are not equal. Writing an equation for axial
load equilibrium during the tensile test yields
si (1 2 f ) Aoe2«i 5 sh Aoe2«h [3]
where si , «i and sh , «h represent the stresses and strains
inside and outside the imperfection region, respectively, and
Ao represents the original cross-sectional area in the homoge-
neous region. The variable f is the nondimensional represen-
tation of the size of the initial imperfection. A value of f 5
0 represents no imperfection, and a value of f 5 0.20 repre-
sents a 20 pct reduction in cross-sectional area in the gage
area relative to the homogeneous region.
Obtaining a numerical solution of Eq. [3] requires an
associated constitutive law to describe the relationship
between stress and strain. The constitutive relation chosen
for the current work is
s 5 K«n«˚ m [4]
where n and m are the strain-hardening coefficient and strain-
rate sensitivity, respectively, and K refers to a strength coeffi-
cient. Substitution of this constitutive law into Eq. [3],
obtained from load equilibrium, yields
(1 2 f )e2«i«ni«˚ mi 5 e2«h«nh«˚ mh [5]
The strain-rate sensitivity of AA5182 aluminum alloy is
very near zero at room temperature and has been shown to
vary between slightly negative to slightly positive depending
on the strain rate.[14] For the purposes of the current work,
the strain-rate sensitivity was assumed to be zero. Applying
this assumption reduces Eq. [5] to
(1 2 f )e2«i«ni 5 e2«h«nh [6]
The relationship shown in Eq. [6] is the fundamental relation
between the initial damage level, the constitutive law, and
the strain both inside and outside of the imperfection region
according to the model. The application of Eq. [6] involves
choosing values for both n and f that represent the materials
of interest and numerically solving the equation to obtain
the relationship between «i and «h. Once the relationship
between strain in the imperfection and homogeneous regions
are known, specimen failure is defined at the point where
further uniaxial elongation results in no significant additional
plastic strain in the homogeneous region.
The primary interest of the current work was quantifying
the level of imperfection that exists within the weld material
of the subject tailor welded blanks. Using Eq. [6] and the
strain-hardening exponent of n 5 0.32, which was experi-
mentally determined for the 1-mm monolithic sheet, a series
of numerical solutions were obtained. These results are pre-
sented in Figure 9. The results illustrate the effects of the
initial imperfection size on strain inside and outside the
imperfection site. This family of curves shows the predicted
levels of strain that will accumulate during a tensile test in
the homogeneous and imperfection region at various levels
of initial imperfection size. Each curve asymptotically
approaches a maximum strain in the homogeneous region,
and the level of the maximum homogeneous strain degrades
quickly with the introduction of increasingly large geometric
imperfections. The effect of the initial imperfection size on
the maximum predicted homogeneous strain is illustrated in
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A

Fig. 9—Illustration of the strain inside vs outside the imperfection site for
various levels of initial imperfection as predicted by the model. The curves
shown were produced using a strain-hardening exponent of n 5 0.32 and
a strain-rate sensitivity of m 5 0.
Fig. 10—An illustration of the effects of imperfection size on the strain
in the homogeneous area as predicted by the model. The curve shown was
produced using a strain-hardening exponent of n 5 0.32 and a strain-rate
sensitivity of m 5 0.
Figure 10, which shows that an initial imperfection size of
0.01, or 1 pct of the specimen cross section, yields a predicted
maximum homogeneous strain of approximately 0.24. Fig-
ure 10 also shows that introducing an initial imperfection
of 0.2, or 20 pct of the specimen cross section, reduces the
predicted maximum homogeneous strain to approximately
0.075.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
V. APPLICATION OF DAMAGE MODEL
The damage model presented in the current work assumes
that the undamaged weld material behaves in uniaxial ten-
sion identically to the monolithic material, except that weld
material possesses an increased level of geometric imperfec-
tion or damage. This assumption, together with the model
discussed above and the experimental results, was used to
quantitatively determine the level of imperfection in the
subject specimens that produces a correlation between the
experimental results and the model.
The first issue was establishing the level of damage in
the monolithic material that approximates the experimental
results of the monolithic material. The average value of true
strain at localization for the 1 mm monolithic specimens
of all specimen designs was 0.24. Iteratively solving the
preceding numerical model to determine the level of initial
imperfection that predicts this true strain at localization
yielded a value of f 5 0.01. This damage level in the mono-
lithic material agrees with damage levels proposed by other
investigators[13] and also shows that the monolithic materials
have relatively low imperfection levels.
Establishing the level of damage that exists solely in the
weld material was accomplished using the results of the
miniature tensile tests. These specimens contained only weld
material in their gage area and therefore offered the most
representative and exclusive test of the weld material. The
average true strain at localization for the first-generation
weld material was 0.10. Iteratively solving for the level of
imperfection required in the model to predict this level of
homogeneous strain yielded a value of f 5 0.14. The average
true strain at localization for the second-generation weld
material was 0.18. Iteratively solving for the level of imper-
fection required in the model to predict this level of homoge-
neous strain yielded a value of f 5 0.04.
The prediction of the true strain at localization of the
specimens that contained both monolithic and weld material
required a method to establish total damage based on two
independent damage levels. The method used was a linear
combination of the two damage levels based on the percent-
age of the materials that exist in the gage area of the speci-
men. The equation used to establish the composite level of
damage in these partial weld material specimens was
Amono fmono 1 Aweld fweld
f5 [7]
Ao
where Amono and Aweld represent the cross-sectional areas of
the monolithic and weld materials in the gage area, respec-
tively, and fmono and fweld represent the level of damage in
the monolithic and weld materials, respectively. Figure 11
presents a family of curves that show the effect of various
levels of weld material imperfection on the model predicted
true strains at localization. For all curves in Figure 11, the
monolithic damage level was assumed to be f 5 0.01.
To compare the experimental results presented previously
and the model predictions of the material performance, the
experimental results were plotted with the results obtained
from the numerical model. Figure 12 is a plot of the first-
generation weld material experimental results and the model
results, and Figure 13 is a plot of the second-generation
experimental results and the model results. In both cases,
the level of imperfection in the monolithic material was f 5
VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000—2759

Fig. 11—Summary plot illustrating the relationship between the percentage
of weld in the gage area of a uniaxial tensile test and the achievable true
strain at localization according to the model.
Fig. 12—Summary plot illustrating the ability of the proposed damage
model to predict the achievable true strain at localization of the first-
generation welds.
Fig. 13—Summary plot illustrating the ability of the proposed damage
model to predict the achievable true strain at localization of the second-
generation welds.
2760—VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000
Fig. 14—Tensile results of miniature tensile specimens taken from the
monolithic and weld material compared to the results of a standard ASTM
A517 (12.7-mm gage width) tensile test. Miniature weld material specimen
shown was selected from a region with no detectable weld voids.
0.01. The level of imperfection in the first- and second-
generation materials was f 5 0.14 and 0.04, respectively.
Since the levels of imperfection in both the monolithic and
weld material were determined from the same experimental
data, it is not remarkable that the model predictions of aver-
age true strain at localization correlate well at the 0 and 100
pct weld in the gage area of the specimens. The significance
of the data shown in Figures 12 and 13 is the correlation
between the model results and the experimental data between
the conditions of 0 and 100 pct weld material in the gage area.
VI. DISCUSSION
A. Material Properties and Associated Assumptions
Establishing a model to describe the flow characteristics of
multiple materials within a single tensile specimen requires
either varying constitutive relations and compatibility condi-
tions or some simplifying assumptions. The current model
formulation assumes the yield strength, strain-hardening
coefficient, and strain-rate sensitivity are equal in the mono-
lithic sheets and subject weld materials. The limitations of
this assumption are clear, particularly if one attempts to
apply the existing model to a steel tailor welded blank that
may have regions of relatively strong and brittle martensitic
structure in the weld material. Uniaxial tensile results com-
paring the true stress vs true strain for miniature monolithic,
miniature weld, and standard full-sized (ASTM E8) mono-
lithic materials are shown in Figure 14 for the subject
AA5182 materials. The miniature specimen data in this fig-
ure were collected from a region of a weld material that
had no detectable porosity, as observed via radiography and
microscopy. In Figure 14, it can be seen that the three differ-
ent stress vs strain curves agree well with the assumption
of identical constitutive relations. The existence of weld
voids and irregular external weld geometry is believed to
be the primary influence on the true strain at localization
for the subject welds.
B. Effects of Varying Experimental Specimen Design
The experimental results of the uniaxial data exhibit sig-
nificant variation in the true strain at localization in the
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Fig. 15—Illustration of the effects of varying the tensile specimen design
on the achievable true strain at localization. All data shown are from
monolithic material specimens prepared to the drawings in Figs. 3 and 4.

monolithic specimens. Some variation may be expected,

however. The current variation levels approaching 0.15 true
strain appear to be more than normally anticipated. The
cause for this may be understood by evaluating the true strain
at localization of the monolithic specimens as a function of
specimen design. Figure 15, an illustration of the true strain
at localization for the monolithic material as a function of
the specimen gage area, shows that the design of the speci-
men plays a significant role in the achievable true strain at
localization during tensile testing of monolithic materials.
This variation as a function of specimen design increases
the amount of variation that one might expect when trying
to determine the weld material properties with varying and
unique specimens. Since there is no standard that covers the
design of tailor welded blank tensile specimens, the unique
design that individual investigators use may result in varia-
tion in the reported properties.
The weld method and tensile specimen design may also
have a significant impact on the mechanical properties
reported for tailor welded blank weld materials. Laser weld-
ing, electron beam welding, gas tungsten arc welding, and
the variations of these methods used to produce tailor welded
blanks may all produce varying weld geometry. Each weld-
ing process may also invalidate the assumptions of identical Fig. 16—Micrographs of first-generation weld specimen fracture surface.
The micrographs show the overall weld region (center) and areas showing
constitutive laws in the weld and monolithic regions, or lack of fusion (top) and complete fusion (bottom). Approximately 20 pct
may produce a heat-affected zone near the weld. For these of the weld’s cross section shows lack of fusion.
reasons, the most effective way to analyze the mechanical
properties of the weld materials in tailor weld blanks in
uniaxial tension may be to perform testing using miniature C. Origins of Weld Metal Imperfections
specimens. The use of miniature specimens (containing only
In an effort to quantify the effects of different types of
weld material) avoids the need to somehow deconvolute imperfections, an investigation of the origin of imperfections
weld material properties from specimens that contain three was made. The traditionally held conception is that small
different materials with unique mechanical properties. Use microstructural or minute geometric imperfections on the
of miniature specimens may also offer the advantage of order of f 5 0.005 or 0.01 exist in every sheet material as
allowing researchers to accurately assess the effects of weld a practically unavoidable manufacturing legacy. However,
porosity on the weld material properties. Larger specimens this traditional perspective is based on analysis of wrought
effectively use monolithic materials to bridge the weld mate- monolithic materials, which have low levels of imperfection,
rial and associated defects that ultimately may prove detri- and this preconception of nearly immeasurable geometric
mental to the material, thereby overestimating the ductility imperfection is not valid for weld materials, which have
of the weld material. imperfection levels that approach f 5 0.15. In the case of

METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000—2761


Fig. 17—Fracture surface of miniature tensile specimen. Specimen shows
regions of voids and lack of fusion (bottom) and full fusion regions with
ductile fracture characteristics.
the weld material, exterior surface irregularity and internal
voids or porosity probably are the primary contributors to
geometric imperfection.
The surface roughness of the weld material varied
depending on the side and location of the weld evaluated.
The surface roughness of the welds and the monolithic sheets
were evaluated using a standard stylus-type surface
roughness tester (Mitutoyo SJ-201, Japan), with five sam-
pling lengths over a total length of 2.5 mm. The average
surface roughness (Ra) of the monolithic sheet was 0.8 mm,
whereas the average surface roughness of the weld material
was 8.7 mm. The maximum surface roughness (Ry) of the
monolithic sheet was 8 mm, and the maximum surface
roughness of the weld material was 46 mm. Using the Ry
of the weld material and dividing by the weld material
thickness yields a potential initial imperfection of nearly f
5 0.02, which results from the surface irregularity on one
side of the weld alone. Though the surface irregularity may
be significant, other factors may have a more substantial
impact.
An additional and likely dominant contribution to the
imperfection in the weld material is the internal voids or
porosity that may form during solidification of the weld
metal. These voids, which are internal to the material, result
in reduced cross-sectional areas in the gage area of the
2762—VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000
material. The number and size of these voids varies signifi-
cantly with different weld process methods, and the number
of these voids appears to have a dominant effect on the weld
material true strain at localization. The primary differences
between the first- and second-generation materials evaluated
in this work were the number and size of the internal voids
in the material. The weld voids in the first-generation welds
are illustrated on the fracture surfaces in Figures 16 and 17.
Figure 16 shows that approximately 20 pct of the cross-
sectional area of the weld consists of a series of voids and
material exhibiting lack of fusion. The figure also shows
regions of the weld that exhibit good material fusion and
ductile fracture characteristics. Figure 17 is an illustration
of a fracture surface of a first-generation weld material from
a miniature tensile specimen. This miniature specimen also
shows voids on the fracture surface, along with regions of
ductile fracture. The fact that these voids are on the fracture
surface and are visibly larger in size as the true strain at
localization decreases suggests that voids are significant con-
tributors to strain localization and failure in aluminum tailor
welded blanks. Moreover, the existence of the voids on the
fracture surface lend creditability to the numerical modeling
of the tensile tests using a method based on the reduced
weld material ductility resulting from pre-existing geomet-
ric imperfections.
VII. SUMMARY
The ductility of autogenously welded AA5182-O alumi-
num tailor weld blanks was experimentally studied using a
variety of longitudinal tensile specimen designs. The results
of these studies show that increasing the percentage of weld
material in the cross-sectional area of the specimen decreases
the ductility of the specimen and that the weld characteristics
have a pronounced impact on ductility. Using the experimen-
tal results obtained, a level of weld metal imperfection was
established. This information was integrated with classical
tensile instability and necking methods to develop a numeri-
cal model to quantitatively describe the ductility of the weld
metal in the tailor welded blanks. The results of the work
show that the level of weld material porosity significantly
impacts the ductility of the weld material, and that the numer-
ical model is capable of accurately describing the weld mate-
rial effect on the properties of longitudinal tensile specimens.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated
by Battelle for the United States Department of Energy. This
work was supported by the United States Department of
Energy Office of Transportation Technology.
REFERENCES
1. B. Irving: Welding J., 1994, Dec., pp. 47-50.
2. Automotive Eng., 1997, Dec., pp. 33-35.
3. Automotive Eng., 1997, Dec., pp. 29-31.
4. J.M. Story, S. Heinemann, and S. Naefeler: Light Metal Age, 1998,
Oct., pp. 40-47.
5. M.F. Shi, K.M. Pickett, and K.K. Bhatt: SAE Technical Paper Series,
SAE paper 930278, SAE INTERNATIONAL, Warrendale, PA, 1993.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
 6. E.R. Pickering, M.A. Glagola, R.M. Ramage, and G.A. Taylor: SAE
Technical Paper Series, SAE paper 950722, SAE INTERNATIONAL,
Warrendale, PA, 1995.
7. M.C. Stasik and R.H. Wagoner: in Aluminum and Magnesium for
Automotive Applications, J.D. Bryant, ed., TMS, Warrendale, PA,
1996, pp. 69-83.
8. F.I. Saunders and R.H. Wagoner: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1996, vol.
27A, pp.2605-16.
9. P. Martin, R. Zhang, B. Altshuller, M.J. Finn, and M.J. Worswick:
Proc. Int. Symp. on Light Metals 1998, Calgary, AB, Canada, August
16–19, 1998, M. Sahoo and C. Fradet, eds., Canadian Institute of
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum, Montreal, Quebec, 1998. pp.
409-23.
10. Yoshida, Y. Yamasaki, S. Kabasawa, and M. Ono: NKK Tech. Rev.
No. 72, 1995, pp. 28-35.
11. M.J. Saran, E.R. Pickering, M.A. Glagola, and R.T. VanDyke: Materi-
als and Body Testing, SAE Int. Body Engineering Conf. Expos., SAE
INTERNATIONAL, Warrendale, PA, 1995, pp. 120-24.
12. E.W. Hart: Acta Metall., 1967, vol. 15, pp. 351-55.
13. A.K. Ghosh: Acta Metall., 1977, vol. 25, pp. 1413-24.
14. K. Higashi, T. Mukai, K. Kaizu, S. Tsuchida, and S. Tanimura: J.
Phys. IV, 1991, vol. 1, pp. 347-52.
VOLUME 31A, NOVEMBER 2000—2763