Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Dependence of overload performance on weld attributes for resistance spot

welded galvanized low carbon steel
M. Goodarzi a , S.P.H. Marashi b,∗ , M. Pouranvari c
a
Materials Science and Engineering Department, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, P.O. Box: 15875-4413, Tehran, Iran
c
Metallurgy Department, Faculty of Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Dezful Branch, Dezful, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microstructure and failure behavior of galvanized low carbon steel resistance spot welds were investi-
Received 22 July 2008 gated. Failure mode, peak load and energy absorption obtained in tensile-shear test were used to describe
Received in revised form 22 October 2008 spot welds performance. It was found that weld fusion zone size, electrode indentation and expulsion can
Accepted 16 November 2008
significantly affect the mechanical performance of spot welds. Failure mechanism of spot weld which fail
via pullout mode during tensile-shear test was “through thickness” localized necking in the base metal.
Keywords:
However, those spot welds which have experienced severe expulsion during welding, failed at the fusion
Resistance spot welding
zone/HAZ interface. This can contribute to the reduction in energy absorption capability of spot welds
Failure mode
Weld nugget
due to the harder microstructure of the fusion zone/HAZ compared to the soft ferritic base metal.
Expulsion © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Galvanized steel

1. Introduction Spot weld mechanical performance is generally considered

Resistance spot welding (RSW) is considered as the dominant
process for joining sheet metals in automotive industry. Typically,
there are about 2000–5000 spot welds in a modern vehicle. Sim-
plicity, low cost, high speed (low process time) and automation
possibility are among the advantages of this process. Quality and
mechanical behavior of spot welds significantly affect the durability
and crashworthiness of the vehicle (Sun et al., 2008).
Resistance spot welding is a process of joining two or more
metal parts by fusion at discrete spots at the interface of work-
pieces. Resistance to current flow through the metal workpieces and
their interface generates heat; therefore, temperature rises at the
interface of the workpieces. When the melting point of the metal is
reached, the metal will begin to fuse and a nugget begins to form.
The current is then switched off and the nugget is cooled down to
solidify under pressure (Feng et al., 2006).
There are generally three indexes for quality control of resistance
spot welds:
(i) Weld fusion zone size (FZS)
(ii) Weld mechanical performance
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 64542910; fax: +98 21 88522421.
E-mail addresses: pmarashi@aut.ac.ir, pirmarashi@yahoo.co.uk (S.P.H. Marashi).
under static/quasi-static and fatigue loading condition. The tensile-
shear test is the most widely used test for evaluating the spot weld
mechanical behaviors in static condition (Zhou et al., 2003). Peak
load, obtained from the tensile-shear load–displacement curve, is
often used to describe spot welds mechanical behaviors. In addi-
tion to the peak load, failure energy can be used to better describe
the spot weld mechanical behaviors. Failure energy is a measure
of weld energy absorption capability, and its higher value demon-
strates the increase in weld performance reliability against impact
loads such as those involved in accidents (Zhou et al., 1999).
(iii) Failure mode
Failure mode is the manner in which spot weld fails. Gener-
ally, the resistance spot weld (RSW) failure occurs in two modes:
interfacial and pullout (Chao, 2003). In the interfacial mode, fail-
ure occurs via crack propagation through the fusion zone; while,
in the pullout mode, failure occurs via complete (or partial) nugget
withdrawal from one sheet. Spot weld failure mode is a qualitative
measure of the weld quality. Failure mode of RSWs can signifi-
cantly affect their load carrying capacity and energy absorption
capability. Spot welds that fail in nugget pullout mode provide
higher peak loads and energy absorption levels than those spot
welds which fail in interfacial failure mode. To ensure reliabil-
ity of the spot welds during vehicle lifetime, process parameters
should be adjusted so that pullout failure mode is guaranteed

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2008.11.017
4380 M. Goodarzi et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384

Table 1
Chemical composition of test materials (%wt).

Element Galvanized steel

C 0.065
Mn 0.404
P 0.018
S 0.017
Si 0.095
Cr 0.017 Fig. 2. A typical macrostructure of galvanized low carbon steel weld nugget.
Ni 0.032
Mo 0.004
Cu 0.053 horizontal directions (20 ␮m away from weld centerline), using a
Nb 0.001 100-g load on a Shimadzu microhardness tester.
Fe Base

3. Results and discussion

(Pouranvari et al., 2007; Marashi et al., 2008; Marashi et al., in
press). 3.1. Joint structure
The objective of the research is to investigate the effect of weld
attributes (i.e. fusion zone size, electrode indentation) on the peak Fig. 2 shows the typical macrostructure of galvanized low carbon
load and energy absorption of galvanized low carbon steel spot steel resistance spot weld. As can be seen, the joint region consists
welds. Failure behavior and failure mode of spot welds were also of three distinct structural zones:
analyzed.
(i) Fusion Zone (FZ) or weld nugget which is melted during
welding process and is resolidified showing cast structure.
2. Experimental procedure
Macrostructure of the weld nugget consists of columnar grains.
(ii) Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) which is not melted but undergoes
A 1.1-mm thick galvanized low carbon steel sheet was used as the
microstructural changes.
base metal, in this research. The chemical composition of galvanized
(iii) Base Metal (BM).
low carbon steel is given in Table 1. Spot welding was performed
using a PLC controlled, 120 kVA AC pedestal type resistance spot
welding machine. Welding was conducted using a 45◦ truncated Fig. 3 shows the microstructures of BM and FZ. As shown in
cone RWMA, Class 2 electrode with 6-mm face diameter. Fig. 3a, the microstructure of base metal used in this investigation is
In all the experiments, electrode pressure and squeeze time were ferritic with a small amount of Fe3 C. Fig. 3b shows the microstruc-
kept constant at 4 bar and 45 cycles, respectively. In fixed weld- ture of weld nugget, which mainly consists of martensite. Despite
ing time of 10 cycles, welding current was changed from 10 kA to the low carbon content of the base metal, martensite phase was
12.5 kA. Moreover, in fixed welding current of 11.5 kA, welding time
was changed from 8 to 14 cycles.
The static tensile-shear test samples were prepared accord-
ing to ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8.9-97 standard (1997). Fig. 1 shows the
sample dimensions. Tensile-shear tests were performed at a cross-
head of 2 mm/min with an Instron universal testing machine.
Peak load and failure energy (measured as the area under the
load–displacement curve up to the peak load) were extracted from
the load–displacement curve. Failure mode was determined from
the failed samples.
For metallographic observation, samples were cut along the
center of the spot weld nugget in the direction of the width of
the sample. Subsequently, standard metallographic procedure was
applied for microstructural as well as macrostructural investiga-
tions. Optical microscopy was used to examine the microstructures
and to measure physical weld attributes. After complete separation
in the tensile-shear test, cross-section of the samples was exam-
ined with optical microscope and failure location was determined.
Microhardness test was used to determine the hardness profile in

Fig. 1. Dimensions of tensile-shear test specimens. Fig. 3. Microstructure of (a) base metal and (b) weld nugget.
 M. Goodarzi et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384
Fig. 4. A typical hardness profile of galvanized low carbon resistance spot welds.
formed due to high cooling rate involved in RSW process. Weld
fusion zone microstructure of low carbon steel RSWs depends on
the chemical composition of the sheet and cooling rate. Gould et al.
(2006) proposed a simple analytical model predicting cooling rate
during resistance spot welding. According to this model, cooling
rate for 1.1 mm thickness is about 8000 K s−1 . Presence of water
cooled copper electrodes and their quenching effect as well as
the short welding cycle can explain the high cooling rate of RSW
process. For steels, the required critical cooling rate for achiev-
ing martensite in the microstructure can be estimated using the
following equation (Easterling, 1993):
Log v = 7.42 − 3.13 C − 0.71 Mn − 0.37 Ni − 0.34 Cr − 0.45 Mo
where, v is the critical cooling rate in K h−1 .
For the investigated
steel, the critical cooling rate is about 2375 K s−1 . Since the cooling
rate exceeds the calculated critical value, it is expected that the
fusion zone microstructure consists of mainly martensite, as it is
observed.
Fig. 4 shows a typical spot weld hardness profile consisting of
three zones: weld nugget, HAZ and base metal. Weld nugget hard-
ness is about 2.4 times the value for base metal, due to martensite
formation in this zone. Weld nugget hardness is almost constant,
which shows that although cooling rate is not constant through-
out the weld nugget, it is fast enough to create a relatively uniform
microstructure in this zone. Hardness variation in HAZ is almost lin-
ear. HAZ severe microstructure gradient is due to weld cycle thermal
gradient which in turn causes high changes in hardness values.
3.2. Effect of welding parameters on the fusion zone physical
attributes
Fusion zone physical weld attributes such as fusion zone size
(FZS), weld penetration and electrode indentation are the most
important parameters governing the mechanical performance of
resistance spot welds. Physical weld attributes are significantly
affected by welding parameters such as welding current and weld-
ing time. Volume of melted metal is a function of heat input which in
turn is governed by the welding parameters such as welding current
and welding time.
At a given welding time of 12 cycles, the effect of welding current
on FZS of the resistance spot welds is shown in Fig. 5a. As can be
seen, increasing welding current is led to the increasing FZS. How-
ever, by increasing welding current beyond 11.5 kA, FZS decreases
due to expulsion. Expulsion can decrease FZS due to heat loss which
occurs when a volume of melt is expelled from the weld nugget.
Fig. 5b shows the effect of welding time on FZS of the resistance
spot welds at a given welding current of 11.5 kA. As can be seen, FZS
increases with increasing welding time at a decreasing rate with the
4381
(1)
Fig. 5. Effects of (a) welding current and (b) welding time on the fusion zone size.
exception of really high welding time (more than 12 cycles) which
shows a decrease in the FZS due to increasing heat loss to the weld
surroundings (heat loss is increased by increasing welding time).
Fig. 6 shows the effects of welding current and welding time
on the electrode indentation depth. According to Fig. 6, electrode
indentation depth is increased by increasing the welding time
and welding current. Electrode indentation, which can affect the
mechanical properties of the spot welds, depends on electrode pres-
sure and temperature of electrode/sheet interface. Increasing heat
input increases the temperature of the electrode/sheet interface
which in turn increases the degree of plastic deformation that can
occur in the sheet surface under electrode pressure. Spot welds with
expulsion exhibit severe electrode indentation.
Fig. 7 shows the effects of welding current and welding time
on the weld penetration depth (i.e. the weld nugget width through
sheet thickness direction). Increasing welding current and welding
time resulted in increasing weld penetration depth with the excep-
tion of high welding current and time, which can be attributed to
the increasing of electrode indentation as well as expulsion which
limits “through thickness” weld fusion zone growth.
It should be noted that, despite the fact that weld physical
attributes are significantly affected by welding current and welding
time, hardness of the fusion zone remains almost constant. This can
be related to very high cooling rate of resistance spot welding pro-
cess which resulted in the formation of a martensitic weld nugget
for all welding conditions.
3.3. Failure behavior and failure mode analysis
All galvanized low carbon steel spot welds experienced nugget
pull out failure during tensile-shear test in this study. Some of them
failed via complete nugget pull out failure (Fig. 8a) while, others
experienced sheet tearing after nugget withdrawing from one sheet
(Fig. 8b).
4382 M. Goodarzi et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384
Fig. 6. Effects of (a) welding current and (b) welding time on electrode indentation
depth.
Fig. 9 shows macrograph of cross-section of a failed spot weld
which was failed at pullout mode. The necking due to the plas-
tic deformation is evident in one leg. The failure of the spot weld
appears to be initiated near the middle of the nugget circum-
ference, and then propagated by necking/shear along the nugget
circumference until the upper sheet is torn off. The observed
mechanism is in agreement with that mentioned by Zuniga and
Sheppard (1997). All the spot welds failed in similar manner except
those which experienced severe expulsion, as discussed in the next
section.
Failure is a competitive phenomenon, i.e. spot weld failure
occurs in a mode which needs less force. The driving force for
interfacial failure mode and pull out failure modes are shear stress
and tensile stress, respectively (Pouranvari et al., 2007; Deng et al.,
2000). Each driving force has a critical value and the failure occurs in
a mode for which its driving force reaches the critical value, sooner.
Weld nugget size is the most important parameter governing stress
distribution. For small weld nuggets, shear stress reaches its critical
value before tensile stress causes necking; therefore, failure tends
to occur under interfacial failure mode.
Pouranvari et al. (2007) proposed a simple analytical model to
predict minimum weld nugget size required to ensure pullout fail-
ure mode of spot welds during the tensile-shear test. Critical fusion
zone size (dCr ) was attributed to the sheet thickness (t) and weld
nugget to failure location hardness ratio (HWN /HFL ), as follows:
HFL
dCr = 8 t
HWN
Fig. 7. Effects of (a) welding current and (b) welding time on weld penetration depth.
Spot welds with d < dCr tend to fail via interfacial failure and
welds with d > dCr tend to fail via nugget pullout failure mode.
According to this model, for a constant sheet thickness decreasing
weld nugget hardness to failure location hardness ratio, increases
the tendency to interfacial failure mode (i.e. large dCr ).
The above mentioned analytical model was used for a quanti-
tative analysis of failure mode. Failure location of resistance spot
welds is the location which experiences tensile stresses and severe
necking during tensile-shear test. As can be seen from Fig. 9, failure
location of samples which failed in the pull out mode is at the base
metal (BM). This can be attributed to the low hardness of the base
metal rather than HAZ and fusion zone which can provide a prefer-
ential location for necking during the tensile-shear test. Therefore,
by substituting HWN /HBM = 2.4 (the value is approximately constant
for all spot welds made) and t = 1.1 mm in Eq. (2), the critical weld
nugget size is calculated as 3.67 mm. All spot welds produced in this
investigation, have weld nugget size greater than the calculated dCr .
Therefore, it is expected that all of them fail via pullout failure mode
during tensile-shear test, as it was observed.
3.4. The effect of fusion zone size on peak load and energy
absorption
To completely explore the mechanical properties of the spot
welds, their energy absorption was measured, in addition to peak
load. Figs. 10 and 11 show the effect of fusion zone size on the
peak load and energy absorption of resistance spot welds, respec-
tively. Load carrying capacity and energy abortion capability of
spot weld is depend on its physical weld attributes, especially weld
nugget size, failure mode and failure location mechanical properties
(Pouranvari et al., 2008).
As can be seen from Fig. 10, generally, there is a direct rela-
tionship between peak load and fusion zone size. Peak point in
(2)
load–displacement plot of tensile-shear test corresponds to neck-
 M. Goodarzi et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384 4383

Fig. 8. Failure mode of galvanized resistance spot welds (a) complete pullout and (b) pullout followed by sheet tearing.

ing point at failure location for pull out mode. Increasing fusion energy absorption. As can be seen from Fig. 11, for a constant
zone size increases nugget resistance against rotation and there- FZS (e.g. 6.5 mm), expulsion free spot welds have significantly
fore, increases the required force for necking at failure location. higher energy absorption compared to spot weld with expulsion.
However, after a critical fusion zone size, peak load remains con- In addition, expulsion can reduce energy absorption to a value
stant. This can be attributed to balance between two factors: (i) lower than that of for expulsion free spot welds with smaller
increasing the FZS which increases the peak load and (ii) increas- FZS.
ing indentation depth which reduces the peak load. As can also
be seen from Fig. 10, expulsion has a minor effect on the peak
load.
As can be seen from Fig. 11 there is a general direct relation-
ship between energy absorption and FZS for expulsion free spot
welds. However, spot welds with expulsion show a decrease in

Fig. 9. Macrograph of fracture surface cross-section of spot weld that failed via
pullout failure mode. Fig. 10. Tensile-shear peak load versus fusion zone size.
4384 M. Goodarzi et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 4379–4384
Fig. 11. Tensile-shear energy absorption versus fusion zone size.
Fig. 12. Macrograph of fracture surface cross-section of expulsion experienced spot
weld that failed via pullout failure mode.
Reduction in the energy absorption of expulsion experienced
spot welds can be attributed to the change in failure location. Elec-
trode indentation can affect failure location. Increasing electrode
indentation due to the expulsion, increases stress concentration
at weld edge; therefore, failure location gets closer to WN/HAZ
boundary. Fig. 12 shows macrograph of fracture surface of a spot
weld which experienced expulsion, indicating the failure location
is at the weld nugget edge. Weld ductility for these samples is less
than its value for those samples which fail at base metal due to
higher hardness at the weld nugget edge. Therefore, failure at weld
nugget edge is associated with less energy absorption. Therefore,
maximum energy for those welds showing expulsion is less than
expulsion free welds with similar or even smaller weld nugget size.
Therefore, it can be concluded that in addition to FZS, failure loca-
tion of spot welds can significantly affect weld performance under
tensile-shear test.
Expulsion during welding is a common phenomenon in resis-
tance spot welding process. To ensure achieving a large weld nugget,
it is a common practice in industry to use high welding current and
welding time up to and beyond the expulsion limit. Indeed, in man-
ufacturing environment, many spot welds are made in expulsion
condition. Expulsion is often used as a visual indicator of a correct
welding process in steel spot welding (Zhang and Senkara, 2005).
However, considering the detrimental effects of the expulsion and
associated severe electrode indentation, as observed in this study,
it is needed to adjust welding parameters to produce a large spot
welds without expulsion for achieving a spot weld with high load
carrying capacity and energy absorption capability.
4. Conclusions
From this research the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Weld fusion zone size, electrode indentation and weld pene-
tration depth are significantly affected by welding current and
welding time.
2. Fusion zone size and electrode indentation depth are main fac-
tors controlling peak load and energy absorption of galvanized
low carbon steel resistance spot welds.
3. Energy absorption of galvanized low carbon steel resistance spot
weld is more sensitive to the expulsion compared to its peak
load. At a constant fusion zone size, energy absorption of expul-
sion free spot welds is significantly higher than those spot welds
experiencing severe expulsion during welding process.
4. Failure mechanism of spot welds which fail via pullout mode dur-
ing tensile-shear test was through thickness localized necking in
the base metal. However, those spot welds which have expe-
rienced severe expulsion during welding, failed at the FZ/HAZ
interface. This can reduce energy absorption of RSWs due to
harder microstructure (i.e. martensite) of the FZ/HAZ compared
to the soft ferritic base metal.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Novinsazan Setareh Sanat
Company for providing spot welding machine for this investigation.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the Amirkabir Univer-
sity of Technology for providing foundations for this research.
References
Chao, Y.J., 2003. Failure mode of resistance spot welds: interfacial versus pullout. Sci.
Technol. Weld. Joining 8, 133–137.
Deng, X., Chen, W., Shi, G., 2000. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the
mechanical behavior of spot welds. Finite Element Anal. Des. 35, 17–39.
Easterling, K.E., 1993. Modelling the weld thermal cycle and transformation behavior
in the heat-affected zone. In: Cerjak, H., Easterling, K.E. (Eds.), Mathematical
Modelling of Weld Phenomena. The Institute of Materials.
Feng, J.C., Wang, Y.R., Zhang, Z.D., 2006. Nugget growth characteristic for AZ31B
magnesium alloy during resistance spot welding. Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 11,
154–162.
Gould, J.E., Khurana, S.P., Li, T., 2006. Predictions of microstructures when welding
automotive advanced high-strength steels. Weld J. 86, 111s–116s.
Marashi, P., Pouranvari, M., Amirabdollahian, S., Abedi, A., Goodarzi, M., 2008.
Microstructure and failure behavior of dissimilar resistance spot welds between
low carbon galvanized & austenitic stainless steels. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 480,
175–180.
Marashi, P., Pouranvari, M., Sanaee, S.M.H., Abedi, A., Abootalebi, H., Goodarzi,
M., in press. Relationship between failure behavior and weld fusion zone
attributes of austenitic stainless steel resistance spot welds. Mater. Sci. Technol.
doi:10.1179/174328408X262418.
Pouranvari, M., Asgari, H.R., Mosavizadeh, S.M., Marashi, P.H., Goodarzi, M., 2007.
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds. Sci.
Technol. Weld. Joining 12, 217–225.
Pouranvari, M., Abedi, A., Marashi, P., Goodarzi, M., 2008. Effect of expulsion on peak
load and energy absorption of low carbon resistance spot welds. Sci. Technol.
Weld. Joining 13, 39–43.
Recommended practices for test methods and evaluation the resistance spot welding
behavior of automotive sheet steels. ANSI/AWS/SAE D8.9-97.
Sun, X., Stephens, E.V., Khaleel, M.A., 2008. Effects of fusion zone size and failure
mode on peak load and energy absorption of advanced high strength steel spot
welds under lap shear loading conditions. Eng. Failure Anal. 15, 356–367.
Zhang, H., Senkara, J., 2005. Resistance Welding: Fundamentals and Applications.
Taylor & Francis CRC Press, pp. 196–201.
Zhou, M., Zhang, H., Hu, S.J., 1999. Critical specimen sizes for tensile-shear testing of
steel sheets. Weld J. 78, 305s–313s.
Zhou, M., Zhang, H., Hu, S.J., 2003. Relationships between quality and weld attributes
of spot welds. Weld. J. 82, 72s–77s.
Zuniga, S., Sheppard, S.D., 1997. Resistance spot weld failure loads and modes in
overload conditions. ASTM STP 1296, 469–489.