Implementation of Ultrasonic Welding in

the Automotive Industry

W
A Thesis Submitted To The University Of Manchester For The Degree
Of Doctor Of Engineering (EngD) In The Faculty of Engineering and
IE
Physical Sciences
EV

2012
PR

By
Nicholas William Wright
School of Materials




ProQuest Number: 10033945




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.



W

IE


EV
ProQuest 10033945

Published by ProQuest LLC (2018 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Contents

1 Introduction 21
1.1 Automotive Industry Drivers for Ultrasonic
Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.2 Ultrasonic Metal Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.3 The Engineering Doctorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.5 Ford Motor Company . . . . . . . . . .W

1.4 Jaguar Land Rover . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
28
IE
1.6 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.7 Summary by Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
EV

2 Literature Review 32
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
PR

2.2 Aluminium Joining Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.2.1 Friction Stir Spot Welding (FSSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.2.2 Self-Pierce Riveting (SPR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2.3 Resistance Spot Welding (RSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.4 Ultrasonic Welding Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2.4.1 Transducer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2.4.2 Impedance Matching Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.3 USW Bonding Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3.1 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.3.2 Oxide Layer Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.3.3 High Power USW Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.3.1 Initiation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.3.2 Transition Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1
CONTENTS 2

2.3.3.3 Saturation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.3.4 Microstructural Characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.3.4.1 Initiation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.3.4.2 Saturation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.4.3 Weld Interface Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.4 USW of Aluminium Alloys for Automotive Body Applications . . . . 54
2.4.1 USW Performance with Specimen Geometry . . . . . . . . . . 58
2.4.1.1 Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.4.1.2 Width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.1.3 Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.4.2 Failure Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.4.3 Residual Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

W
2.4.4 Dissimilar Metal Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Overview of Ford Research Laboratory USW Trials . . . . . . . . . .
66
66
IE
2.5.1 Tip Optimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.5.1.1 Tip Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
EV

2.5.1.2 Tip Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

2.5.1.3 Tip Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
PR

2.5.2 Product Clamping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

2.5.3 Tuning Disc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.5.4 Double-Sided Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.5.5 One-Sided Welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.5.6 Impact of Vibration Input Direction and Substrate Rolling
Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.5.7 Non-Destructive Testing and Process Monitoring . . . . . . . 79
2.5.8 Alternative Ultrasonic Metal Welding Methods . . . . . . . . . 80
2.5.8.1 Ultrasonic Torsion Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.5.8.2 Ultrasonic Seam Welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
CONTENTS 3

3 Overview of Experimental Equipment 83

3.1 Operation of the Sonobond CF18-R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.2 Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3.3 Mechanical Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.3.1 Lap Shear Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.3.2 T-Peel Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.3.3 Microhardness Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.4 Thermal Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.4.1 Emissivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.5 Optical Microscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.6 Scanning Electron Microscope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.7 Electron Back Scatter Diraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

3.8.1 Design of Experiments . . . . W

3.8 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 100
. 100
IE
3.8.2 Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.8.3 Boxplots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
EV

4 Mechanical Behaviour of USW in AA5754 103

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
PR

4.2 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

4.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.1 Weld Mechanical Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.1.1 Lap Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.1.2 Weld Failure Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.3.1.3 Weld Failure Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.3.2 Thermal Eects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.3.3 Energy Eect on Weld Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.3.4 Material Flow Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3.5 Grain Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.3.6 Microhardness Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
CONTENTS 4

5 Eect of Stack Orientation on USW Performance 123

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.2 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3.1 1.2 mm and 1.5 mm Stack Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.3.2 1.2 mm and 2.0 mm Stack Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.3.3 2.0 mm and 2.5 mm Stack Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

6 X350 Dash Panel Trial 135

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.2 USW Equipment Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

W
6.2.1 Trial Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.3 Installation Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
IE
6.3.1 Sticking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.3.2 Air Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
EV

6.3.3 Rivets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

6.3.4 Panel Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.3.5 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
PR

6.3.5.1 Sticking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

6.3.5.2 Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.3.5.3 Microstructural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.4 Ford Parameter Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.5 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.5.1 Strength and Sticking Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.5.2 Dimensional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.5.3 Coupon Assessment Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.5.4 Microstructural Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.5.4.1 Correlation of Microstructural Features with Weld
Sticking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
6.5.5 Comparison with RSW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
CONTENTS 5

7 Sensitivity to Equipment Design Variations 165

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
7.2 Experimental Set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.2.1 Component Simulation Panel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.2.2 Fixture Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
7.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.3.1 C-Frame Welder Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.3.2 Panel Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

8 Eect of Vibrational Response on USW Performance 175

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

W
8.2 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.2.1 Clamping Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
IE
8.2.1.1 Product Isolation Clamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
8.2.1.2 Flange Clamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
EV

8.2.1.3 Geometry Clamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

8.2.2 Panel Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.2.3 Fixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
PR

8.2.4 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

8.3 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.3.1 Baseline Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.3.2 DOE Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

9 Conclusions and Future Work 188

9.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.1.1 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.1.2 Production Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
9.1.3 Simulated Component Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
9.1.4 Jaguar Land Rover Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
9.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
CONTENTS 6

9.2.1 Ultrasonic Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

9.2.2 Non-Destructive Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
9.2.3 Ford Industrial Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

A X350 Dash Panel 201

B Eect of Vibrational Response on USW Performance 213

W
IE
EV
PR
List of Figures

1.1 X350 BIW joint stack ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 22

1.2 Business case for novel joining technologies . . . . . . . . . .... . 23
1.3 Audi A8 Body-In-White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 24
1.4 Examples of current models produced by Jaguar Land Rover ... . 26
1.5 Examples of current models produced by Ford . . . . . . . . .... . 28

W
2.1 Schematic illustration of FSW (SZ: stirring zone, TMAZ: Thermo-
mechanically aected zone, UZ: unaected zone . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
IE
2.2 Cross section of FSSW in aluminium sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.3 Schematic representation of the self-piercing riveting process . . . . . 35
EV

2.4 Cross section of a steel SPR in a multilayer joint stack of 4 aluminium

sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.5 External SPR button formed by rivet die set . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
PR

2.6 Schematic of resistance spot welding (RSW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.7 Cross section of RSW weld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.8 Ultrasonic welding systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.9 Ultrasonic transducer: (a) transducer assembly; (b) resonance be-
haviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.10 Energy ow of a piezoelectric generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.11 High resolution FEG-SEM images showing oxide dispersal in USW . 44
2.12 Schematic of the forces during welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.13 Dissection of heat transfer paths in USW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.14 Thermal measurements for the USW of 0.9 mm to 0.9 mm 6111 alu-
minium alloy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.15 Stages of ultrasonic weld development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7
LIST OF FIGURES 8

2.16 Cross sectional view of an emerging ultrasonic weld at its initiation

stage (0.1s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.17 Pulverisation type bond islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.18 Recrystallisation type bond islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.19 Cross sectional view of ultrasonic weld at saturation stage (0.4s) . . 53
2.20 Wave character of interface migration (a) splash, (b) roll over . . . . 53
2.21 Cross sectional views of weld interface motion revealed by Y-ZrO2
powders sprinkled at the interface prior to ultrasonic welding. Image
planes are (a) parallel and (b) vertical to the vibration direction . . . 54
2.22 Cross sectional SEM images of 3 main phenomena at weld migration
stage (a) splash, (b) roll over, (c) ripple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.23 Stages of heat treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.24 Dependence of failure load on top part thickness . . . . . . . . . . . 59

W
2.25 Inuence of the width of the top part on the break load of the joint .
2.26 Schematic of length test setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
61
IE
2.27 Relation Between the Weld Size and the Length of the Workpieces . 62
2.28 Impact of weldment geometry on weld strength . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
EV

2.29 Schematic of USW failure modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2.30 The fractures surfaces of failed weld coupons after lap shear testing
showing a change in fracture behaviour from interface cleavage at low
PR

energies to nugget pull-out at higher weld energies . . . . . . . . . . 64

2.31 Lap shear failure load as a function of welding energy . . . . . . . . 65
2.32 Zirconia tip trialled by Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.33 Various tip designs trialled by Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.34 Button formation as a function of weld strength and tip type . . . . 71
2.35 FWF tip types used in Ford study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.36 100K weld study equipment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.37 Isolation clamp schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.38 Schematic of tuning disc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.39 C-frame welder with dual wedge-reed systems and isolation clamp . . 76
2.40 Tensile strength of 2mm AA5754 coupons welded with single and dual
head systems at various energy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.41 One-sided ultrasonic metal welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
LIST OF FIGURES 9

2.42 One-sided USW performance veried by peel test . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2.43 Ultrasonic torsion welder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.44 Lap-shear tested ultrasonic torsional welds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.45 Ultrasonic seam welder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.1 Sonobond CF18-R Welder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.2 Details of clamp and rear of welder on CF18-R weld gun . . . . . . . 85
3.3 Details of front of welder on CF18-R weld gun . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.4 Impedance Matching and pneumatics control unit for CF18-R weld gun 86
3.5 Impedance Matching and Pneumatics Control Unit for CF18-R weld
gun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.6 Impedance matching unit for the CF18-R weld gun . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.7 Pneumatics control unit for the CF18-R weld gun . . . . . . . . . . . 88
3.8
3.9 W
FC2026 Power Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Rear panel connections on FC2026 power supply . . . . . . . . . . . 89
IE
3.10 Schematic of USW lap shear test coupon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.11 Lap shear testing setup, with indication of shim placement . . . . . . 91
EV

3.12 Routine tests for spot welded joints; (a) Chisel test, (b) Mechanised
testing and (c) Manual peel test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.13 T-peel testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
PR

3.14 T-peel strip test xture drawing (left) and picture (right) . . . . . . 94
3.15 Instron microhardness testing machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.16 Schematic of microhardness test on USW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.17 Testing emissivity of painted test coupons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.18 Thermal camera setup during welding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.19 Schematic of SEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3.20 Schematic of EBSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.21 Boxplot schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.1 Boxplots showing lap shear strength values with increasing welding
energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2 Boxplots showing weld failure energy with increasing welding energy 106
4.3 Fracture surfaces of coupons following lap shear testing . . . . . . . . 107
LIST OF FIGURES 10

4.4 Development of surface temperature with time in USW . . . . . . . 108

4.5 Thermal evolution of weld up to 275 °C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.6 Thermal evolution of weld above 150 °C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.7 Density prole for 5754 with increasing temperature . . . . . . . . . 111
4.8 Temperature prole for 5754 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.9 Phases present in 5754 at room temperature and maximum recorded
welding temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.10 Etched optical images of weld cross sections with increasing weld
energies: (a) 200 J/0.3 s, (b) 450 J/0.5 s, (c) 850 J/0.7 s, (d) 1250
J/0.9 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.11 Enlarged regions from the weld cross-sections, indicated by the white
boxes in gure 4.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.12 Schematic showing how roll-over could be caused by a net shear dis-

4.13 W
placement at the weld interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
SEM swirling in USW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
IE
4.14 EBSD map of 'ripple' in USW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.15 EBSD maps of a crack USW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
EV

4.16 Line plots of micro-hardness at set distance across the weld, with
increasing weld time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.17 Boxplot of hardness versus weld time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
PR

4.18 Comparison of microhardness across the weld interface for varying

weld times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.1 Lap-shear xture conguration prior to welding . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.2 Typical load-extension graph for lap-shear tests of ve USW's pro-
duced under the same conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5.3 The 2 dierent types of failure mode from a lap-shear test of USW.
Left: interfacial failure, right: button pull-out failure . . . . . . . . . 125
5.4 The eects of welding input energy on strength and nugget size of
specimen in 1.2_1.5 and 1.5_1.2 joint congurations . . . . . . . . . 126
5.5 Example optical microscope section through the 1.2_1.5 1000J weld,
which produced poor bond strength (~3.5 kN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.6 Optical microscope section through a 1.2_1.5 1350J weld, which pro-
duced high bond strength (4.3 kN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
LIST OF FIGURES 11

5.7 The eects of welding input energy on strength and nugget size of
specimen in 1.2_2.0 and 2.0_1.2 joint congurations at original weld-
ing parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
5.8 The eects of welding input energy on strength and nugget size of
specimen in 1.2_2.0 and 2.0_1.2 joint congurations at optimized
welding parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
5.9 Comparison of lap-shear strengths for the dierent parameter sets.
Original and optimized conditions are dened in the experimental
method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.10 Optical microscope section through a 2.0_1.2 1150 J weld, which
produced poor bond strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5.11 Optical microscope section through a 2.0_1.2 1450 J weld, which
produced good bond strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.12 The eect of welding input energy on strength of specimens in 2.0_2.5

W
and 2.0_2.5 joint congurations at the original welding parameters . 132
5.13 Eects of welding input energy on strength of specimen in 2.0_2.5
IE
and 2.0_2.5 joint congurations at optimized welding parameters . . 133
5.14 Comparison of lap-shear strengths for dierent parameter sets . . . . 134
EV

6.1 RHD Dash Cell showing dierent gauges of material that make up
sub-assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.2 Weld places on dash panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
PR

6.3 Initial USW machine set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.4 Modied set-up to enable welding of panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.5 Detail of Dash Panel Welding Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.6 View of dash cell from panel entry position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.7 View of dash cell from panel exit position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6.8 X350 panel being held in the xture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.9 Welds constrained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
6.10 Weld section schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
6.11 Equipment setup for Ford parameter study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
6.12 Tunnel forward weld data (1.2 to 2.0 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.13 Toe bar weld data (1.2 to 2.0 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6.14 Tunnel top data (1.2 to 1.4 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
LIST OF FIGURES 12

6.15 Scatterplot of strength and sticking for all welds (including 1 - 13) on
the dash panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
6.16 Boxplot of USW strength by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.17 Schematic showing measurements of USW samples . . . . . . . . . . 150
6.18 Measured distance A by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.19 Measured distance B by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
6.20 Measured distance C by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.21 Measured distance D by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.22 Measured distance E by weld location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.23 Coupon dimensions used for trial (mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6.24 Eects of width, overlap and placement on strength . . . . . . . . . . 154
6.25 Interaction plot for width, overlap and placement . . . . . . . . . . . 155

W
6.26 Measurement of weldment microstructural features . . . . . . . . . . 157
6.27 RSW weld placement on X350 dash panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
IE
6.28 RSW panel R29  Load/Extension curves with max load data . . . . 161
6.29 RSW panel L28  Load/Extension curves with max load data . . . . 161
EV

6.30 Boxplot of RSW strengths for each location and timer (MAD = Ma-
tuschek Adaptive, MCC = Matuschek Constant Current, Bosch =
Bosch Constant Current) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
PR

6.31 Comparison of mean RSW strength (pink) and mean USW strength
(green) by location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
6.32 Comparison of RSW and USW strength data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.1 Component simulation test panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.2 Schematic of weld placement and order on test panel . . . . . . . . . 167
7.3 Fixture design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.4 Panel orientation setup (0°) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.5 Boxplot of strength by machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.6 Variance test by machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
7.7 Boxplot of strength by angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
7.8 Boxplot of strength by weld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7.9 Scatterplot of strength versus button area (orientation) . . . . . . . . 174
LIST OF FIGURES 13

8.1 Product Isolation Clamp in O (a) and On (b) formats . . . . . . . . 177

8.2 Part clamping methods used in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
8.3 Fixture set up with 6 ange clamp points and the geometry clamp on 180
8.4 Scatterplot showing the baseline test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.5 Main eects plot for mean strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.6 Main eects plot for mean button area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.7 Notication of Clamp ID (X, Y, Z): Isolation Clamp (On/O), Flange
Clamp (0/2/6), Geometry Clamp (On/O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.8 Notication of Clamp ID (X, Y, Z): Isolation Clamp (On/O), Flange
Clamp (0/2/6), Geometry Clamp (On/O) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.9 Boxplots of mean strengths for each clamping combination . . . . . . 184
8.10 Boxplots of mean button areas for each clamping combination . . . . 184

W
8.11 Individual weld boxplot of 'best case scenario' . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
8.12 Scatterplot of 'best case scenario' vs baseline test . . . . . . . . . . . 185
IE
8.13 Scatterplot comparing with and without the non-buttons . . . . . . . 186
9.1 Ford and Gonzalez Production Systems USW setup . . . . . . . . . . 191
EV
PR
List of Tables

2.1 Composition of some aluminium alloys used for automotive body ap-
plications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1 Parameters used for dierent ultrasonic welding trials for 1.2 mm to
2.0 mm stack-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.2 Parameters used for dierent ultrasonic welding trials for 1.2 mm to

W
1.4 mm stack-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
6.3 Microstructural feature designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
IE
6.4 Pearson correlation coecients between microstructural features and
weld sticking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
EV

6.5 Correlations of signicant relationships between microstructural fea-

tures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
6.6 Strength data for lap-shear RSW panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
PR

7.1 DOE for sensitivity to equipment design variations study . . . . . . . 165

8.1 Outline of trials to be completed during scale up study . . . . . . . . 176

14
Abstract

Existing methods of joining automotive aluminium alloys are either expensive (Self
Pierce Rivets) or dicult to implement (Resistance Spot Welding). Ultrasonic spot
welding (USW) is a new alternative method using ~2% of the energy of resistance
spot welding. USW is a solid state welding process that combines vibration and
pressure at the interface of a joint to produce a weld. Much of the existing research
focuses testing under laboratory conditions, using simple coupon sample geometry,
and has proven to be an extremely robust process. This thesis shows a detailed

W
investigation into the implementation of USW on automotive body panels, in col-
laboration with Jaguar Land Rover. Weld performance, bonding mechanisms
IE
and temperature gradients found in AA5754 align well with other research conducted
using 6XXX series aluminium alloys. A laboratory trial was completed to verify all
joints could be achieved on a Jaguar XJ dash panel, followed by installation of a
EV

USW machine in a production cell. A detailed statistical analysis was performed

on strength and sticking data gathered from 60 Jaguar XJ dash panels that were
welded in the trial. Results showed diculty to apply USW in certain areas of the
panel, although previous trials had suggested it was possible.
PR

A collaboration with Ford Motor Company allowed research to be conducted

at the Ford Research and Innovation Center. Experiments were designed
to discover which elements of the USW equipment had the most profound eect on
weld strength, and a full factorial Design of Experiments was produced to nd the
most eective method of reducing variation in weld strength. Results showed that
the vibrational response of complex geometry parts makes USW very dicult to
predict, making it dicult to successfully implement in the automotive industry.

15
Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of
an application for another degree or qualication of this or any other university, or
other institution of learning.

W
IE
EV
PR

16
Copyright Statement

I. The author of the thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
thesis) owns the copyright in it (the copyright) and he has given The Uni-
versity of Manchester the right to use such Copyright for any administrative,
promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes.
II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accor-
dance with the regulations of the John Rylands Library of Manchester. Details

W
of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form
part of any such copies made.
IE
III. The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all other intel-
lectual property rights except for the copyright works (the Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs
EV

and tables (Reproductions), which may be owned by third parties. Such

Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made
available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the
relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.
PR

IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
exploitation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property Rights
and/ or Reproductions described in it may take place is available from the
Head of School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering.

17
Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would like to thank my many supervisors that guided me
through this project. I was rather forced upon Mike Shergold at Jaguar Land
Rover at the start of the project, but he has helped me through in every possible

way, and been something of a mentor through the challenges that are commonly
faced in industry. Dr Elizabeth Hetrick of Ford Motor Company allowed me to
carry out my studies at Ford Research and Innovation Center, in Michigan,
USA, which provided me with a valuable work experience that was hugely benecial

W
to the strength of this thesis. Dr Joseph Robson and Professor Philip Prangnell
helped start up the project and have helped keep me on track and made sure I
produce a nal thesis.
IE
I have also been given a huge amount of support in my day to day activities during
the project. The industrial trial was probably the greatest challenge during the
EV

project and would not have been possible without the help of Gareth Edgerton, who
programmed the robot. At the University of Manchester, Dave Strong, and
the team in C7 doing their research for LATEST2. The research teams at both
Ford and Jaguar Land Rover have been a huge help with day to day activities,
PR

but a special mention must got to Larry Reatherford and Anthony Grima at Ford
Motor Company for helping me set up various experiments, come up with ideas

and produce various sets of equipment that were vital to making this project as
unique and deep searching as it is.
Finally I would like to mention my family and friends who have helped me through
each stage of this project. James and Cian, for putting a roof on my head and
introducing me to life in Leamington Spa, and Ellie, Rick and Tom in Manchester.
My friends in Detroit who made the transition to living in a dierent country a
terric experience; Brian, Mike and in particular Chelsea, who put up with living
with me for a year, as well as providing a lot of fun. Joss helped give me that
nal push at the end, which was a key factor in actually getting it done. All the
superlads in England have helped keep my spirits up and oer encouragement at
various stages. In no particular order, Harmer, Mad Dog, Hibso, Gilbatron84 and
Fingers I oer my thanks! Last but not least, my mum, dad and sister. You've
all been incredibly supportive throughout the whole 4 years and I will be eternally
grateful. Now you can relax as it's over!
18
Abbreviations

2t Two sheet thicknesses joint

3t Three sheet thicknesses joint
4t Four sheet thicknesses joint
5XXX 'Five thousand' series aluminium alloy
6XXX 'Six thousand' series aluminium alloy
AA Aluminium Alloy
W
IE
Al Aluminium
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
EV

BIW Body In White

CAE Computer Aided Engineering
PR

CEO Chief Executive Ocer

CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DOE Design of Experiments
EngD Doctorate of Engineering
EBSD Electron Backscatter Diraction
EU European Union
EWI Edison Welding Institute
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FoNA Ford of North America
FRL Ford Research Laboratory
FSSR Friction Stir Spot Welding

19
LIST OF TABLES 20

FWF Internal designation code for Ford-developed proprietary tip geometry

GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding
GPS Gonzalez
HAZ Heat Aected Zone
HP High Power
IR Infra Red
ISSR Interferometric Strain/Slope Rosette
JLR Jaguar Land Rover
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
LHD Left Hand Drive
LP Low Power

W
LVDT Linear variable dierential transformer
MIG Metal Inert Gas
IE
NDT Non Destructive Testing
EV

NVH Noise Vibration Harshness

PAG Premier Automotive Group
PCP Pre-Clamping Pressure
PR

REHEV Range Extended Hybrid Electric Vehicle

RHD Right Hand Drive
RIC Research and Innovation Center (Ford)
RMS Root Mean Square
RSW Resistance Spot Welding
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
SPR Self Piercing Rivet
SUV Sports Utility Vehicle
USW Ultrasonic Spot Welding
X350 Jaguar XJ
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Automotive Industry Drivers for Ultrasonic

Welding

W
The current environmental pressures on automotive companies to produce 'greener'
cars have been increasing over the last decade. European and United States gov-
IE
ernments have now set targets for average CO emission levels that vehicle manu-
2

facturers product range must abide by for their cars to be road legal. One of the
EV

most eective ways of reducing the CO emissions is reducing the road weight of
2

the vehicle. A typical family saloon car has a body almost entirely made from steel
and has a curb weight of around 1500 kg with CO emissions of around 144 g/km.
2

European Union (EU) targets of 130 g/km have been set for all automotive manu-
PR

facturers for 2013, and it looks likely that most manufacturers will miss this target
[1].
Increased use of aluminium instead of steel for automotive body structures can
provide up to a 40% reduction in weight of a vehicle giving up to 10% reductions
in CO levels. Aluminium also oers the benets of better corrosion resistance and
2

is highly recyclable. However, the use of aluminium has some challenges that have
prevented it's widespread use: cost of the raw material and the challenges of joining
aluminium. The price of the raw material is something that has prohibited the
use of Al in true mass produced vehicles (≥100000 vehicles per annum), restricting
it to premium vehicles of which a much lower quantity are produced. The other
factor, which signicantly increases cost is the joining methods that can be employed.
Current joining methods for aluminium vehicles, such as self pierce rivets (SPR)
have high consumable costs and add weight to the vehicle, but implementing fusion
methods used for joining steel body structures, such as resistance spot welding
(RSW), is challenging due to a number of factors described in more detail in section
2.2.3. The energy consumption for a RSW is approximately 50 kJ. Solid state friction

21
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 22

welding processes are able to produce welds of comparable strength to RSW with
an energy consumption over an order of magnitude lower [REF]. Ultrasonic spot
welding (USW) provides a possible solution to the problem, and may allow mass
production of the all aluminium vehicle.
Ultrasonic welding is currently only suitable for joints of two sheets of metal, known
as a 2t (2 sheet thicknesses) joint. Figure 1.1 shows a typical body structure known
as the Body-in-White (BIW), which is the heaviest part of a car, typically accounting
for between 25 and 35% of the complete car's weight [2]. The BIW for an aluminium
vehicle is typically made from 5XXX series aluminium alloys, known for their duc-
tility and lack of heat treatability. For more information on the materials used in
automotive applications see section 2.4. The BIW is made up of a combination of 2t,
3t and 4t joints which, at Jaguar Land Rover, are all currently produced using
Self Pierce Rivets (SPR's). For more information on alternative joining processes
see section 2.2.

W
IE
EV
PR

Figure 1.1: X350 BIW joint stack ups

The BIW of a current all-aluminium vehicle such as the Jaguar XJ (codenamed

X350) is seen in gure 1.1. The vehicle is made up of 3200 SPR joints which have
high consumable costs and add excess weight to the body structure. USW could be
used to replace SPR joints, lowering the cost and the weight of the vehicle, improving
recyclability and decreasing cycle time, as well as improving the carbon footprint
due to fewer processes. Computer aided engineering (CAE) models developed by
JLR have indicated that 450 joints must be kept as SPR's for durability and strength
reasons, should any other joining process be implemented alongside it. The CAE
models have also calculated the remaining 2750 SPR joints are the equivalent of 3867