Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

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

Susceptibility to interfacial failure mode in similar and dissimilar resistance spot

welds of DP600 dual phase steel and low carbon steel during cross-tension and
tensile-shear loading conditions
M. Pouranvari ∗
Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful, Iran

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

Article history: The paper investigates the failure mode transition from interfacial to pullout in similar and dissimilar
Received 25 September 2011 combinations of DP600 dual phase steel and low carbon steel (LCS) under tensile-shear (TS) and cross-
Received in revised form 5 March 2012 tension (CT) loading conditions. In both CT and TS loading conditions, a transition in the failure mode
Accepted 13 March 2012
from interfacial to pullout was observed with increasing fusion zone size beyond a critical value (DC ).
Available online 23 March 2012
The tendency to fail in interfacial mode during the CT loading was increased in the order of LCS/LCS,
DP600/LCS and DP600/DP600. It was shown that interfacial to pullout failure mode transition during
Keywords:
the CT test is governed by the fracture toughness of the fusion zone and strength of the pullout failure
Resistance spot welding
Dual phase steel
location (i.e. heat affected zone). It was shown that increasing carbon equivalent of the fusion zone
Dissimilar welding promoted interfacial failure mode in CT loading condition. The high carbon equivalent of DP600 steel led
Failure mode to formation of hard and brittle martensite, which in turn promotes crack propagation through fusion
zone. In DP600/LCS combination, decreased carbon equivalent and fusion zone hardness through dilution
with the LCS promotes pullout failure at smaller weld sizes. DC during the TS loading is increased in the
order of DP600/LCS, LCS/LCS and DP600/DP600. No correlation between fusion zone carbon equivalent
and the tendency to fail in IF mode during TS loading was found. Failure mode transition during the TS
loading is controlled by hardness of fusion zone and stiffness of the joint. The lowest DC for DP600/LCS is
a function of its high fusion zone hardness (in comparison to LCS/LCS combination) and its low stiffness
(in comparison to DP600/DP600 combination).
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Weldability of the DP steel is one of the key factors govern-

Advanced high strength steels (AHSSs) have been introduced
to the vehicle designs in an effort to increase the collision energy
management and passenger safety, while maintaining or reducing
the vehicle weight, which in turn creates better fuel economy. The
AHSSs under consideration are dual phase (DP) steels, transforma-
tion induced plasticity steel, complex phase steels and martensitic
steels. Ferrite–martensite DP steels is one of the most common
AHSSs, which are currently used in automotive industry. Dual phase
(DP) steels possess a unique microstructure consisting of soft ferrite
and hard martensite that offers favorable combination of strength,
high work-hardening rate, ductility and formability. Due to these
features, automotive companies are finding that the use of these
steels can enable them to not only reduce the overall weight of an
automobile, but also offer improved crash protection to the vehicle
occupants [1–3].
∗ Tel.: +98 9124075960, fax: +98 21 88522421.
E-mail address: mpouranvari@yahoo.com
ing its application in the automotive industry. Resistance spot
welding (RSW) is the predominant process in the sheet metal join-
ing particularly in the automotive industry. The integrity of the
resistance spot welds is critical to the overall integrity and relia-
bility of an automobile [4]. The failure of a single spot-weld could
totally destroy the energy absorption capacity of a crash mem-
ber. This fact is widely recognized by the automotive community.
Widespread use of the AHSSs brings substantial weight saving;
however, increases the risk of the fracture. Failure of the spot welds
in general, and in these new types of steel in particular, has become
a challenge for the steel and automotive industry [5].
Vehicle crashworthiness, which is defined as the capability of
a car structure to provide adequate protection to its passengers
against injuries in the event of a crash, largely depends on the
integrity and the mechanical performance of the spot welds [6,7].
Energy absorption capability is an important parameter in vehicle
crashworthiness, which in turn is affected by microstructure of the
material. Due to welding thermal cycle the designed microstruc-
ture of the AHSS is destroyed. Microstructure development during
RSW is significantly affected by base metal (BM) chemistry, initial

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2012.03.040
130 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138

microstructure of BM and the high cooling rates inherent to RSW Table 1

Chemical composition of the base metals used in this study (wt.%).
process [8]. It is reported that the cooling rate during RSW changes
from roughly 3000 K s−1 for 2.0 mm thickness to over 105 K s−1 for Steel C Mn Si S P Fe
thicknesses less than 0.5 mm [9]. These cooling rates are sufficient DP600 0.135 1.28 0.388 0.004 0.038 Base
for producing martensite in fusion zone (FZ) of dual phase steels and LCS 0.065 0.204 0.095 0.017 0.018 Base
even in low carbon steels [10–14]. Heat affected zone (HAZ) soften-
ing (reduction of hardness of the HAZ with respect to the BM) due
to martensite tempering is also reported in some grades of AHSS
hardness values (HV) of the fusion zone and pullout failure location,
during RSW (i.e. DP780, DP980 and martensitic grades) [10–14].
respectively.
This complex microstructure development can impact the failure
The objective of the research is to detail the failure mode of simi-
behavior of AHSS RSWs and therefore, the effects of welding on the
lar and dissimilar resistance spot welds between DP600 dual phase
crash performance should be investigated.
steel and low carbon steel. It is noticeable that during service, spot
Overload failure mode is a qualitative criterion for spot weld
welds in automotive structures can experience both shear loading
performance, which is widely used in the manufacturing environ-
due to the relative displacement or rotation of the adjacent sheets
ment [11]. Generally, the resistance spot weld (RSW) failure occurs
and tensile loading due to the separating forces applied between
in two modes: interfacial and pullout. In the interfacial mode, fail-
the adjacent sheets in a direction normal to the sheets [27]. There-
ure occurs via crack propagation through fusion zone; while, the
fore, failure under both loading condition is critical in automotive
other one, failure occurs via nugget withdrawal from one of the
applications. In this paper, interfacial to pullout failure mode transi-
sheets [15–17]. The failure mode under which RSWs fail, can sig-
tion during the tensile-shear and cross-tension test is investigated
nificantly affect their carrying load capacity and energy absorption
and analyzed. The tensile-shear sample geometry is chosen as a
capability. It is believed that vehicle crashworthiness, the main
representative case for predominantly shear load (i.e. shear force
concern in the automotive design, can be dramatically reduced if
to the sheet/sheet interface). The cross-tension test is chosen as
spot welds fail via the interfacial mode [18,19]. Interfacial weld
a representative case for predominantly tensile loading condition
failures at low loads can adversely affect the load distribution, caus-
(i.e. normal force to the sheet/sheet interface).
ing buckling and reducing crushing energy absorption of structural
members [7]. As a result, it is needed to adjust welding parameters
2. Experimental procedure
so that the PF mode is guaranteed.
It is shown through several studies that spot welds of AHSS
Two millimeters thick uncoated low carbon steel (LCS) and
exhibits higher tendency to fail in interfacial failure mode com-
2 mm thick DP600 dual phase steel sheets were used as the base
pared to traditional automotive steels (i.e. low carbon and HSLA
metals. The chemical composition and mechanical properties of the
steels) [14,11,15,16,20,21]. The transition from IF mode to PF
base metals are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Resis-
mode is generally related to the increase in the size of FZ above
tance spot welding was performed using a 120 kV A AC pedestal
a minimum value [13,14,11,15]. The minimum FZ size (DC ) is a
type resistance spot welding machine, controlled by a PLC operat-
function of sheet thickness and BM/HAZ/FZ materials properties
ing at 50 Hz. Welding was conducted using a 45◦ truncated cone
[14,11,22–24].
RWMA Class 2 electrode with 8-mm face diameter.
Due to its significant impact on the joint reliability, the failure
To study the effects of the welding conditions on the weld per-
mode has been an interesting issue for some recent studies. Chao
formance, several welding schedules were used. Electrode force
[25], based on the competition between shear plastic deformation
and holding time were selected based on the thickness of the base
in nugget circumference (i.e. nugget pullout) and crack propagation
material and were kept constant at 5.1 kN and 0.2 s, respectively.
in weld nugget (i.e. interfacial failure mode), derived an equation
Welding current was increased step by step from 7.5 to 11.5 kA
for critical weld nugget size (DC ) in the cross-tension test as follows:
at welding times of 0.5 s. Welding parameters were chosen below
 2/3 the expulsion limit to avoid undesirable failure mode [8]. Seven
HAZ
DC = 0.86 t 4/3 (1) samples were prepared for each welding condition including three
KCFZ
samples for the tensile-shear test, three samples for the cross-
where t is sheet thickness,  HAZ is the shear strength of the HAZ and tension test and one sample for metallographical investigation and
KCFZ is the fracture toughness of the fusion zone. measurement of weld size.
Marya et al. [11] using regression of experimental data devel- In order to evaluate the mechanical performance and failure
oped an equation to predict DC during the tensile-shear test, which mode of the spot welds, the tensile-shear test and cross-tension
is described as follows: test were performed. Samples were prepared according to AWS
H −1.24 standard [28]. The test schematics and sample dimensions for
DC = 0.53t 3.22 + 8.48
max
(2) the tensile-shear and cross-tension are shown in Fig. 1a and b,
Hmin respectively. The mechanical tests were performed at a cross
where Hmax and Hmin are maximum and minimum hardness values head of 10 mm/min with an Instron universal testing machine.
in the HAZ. Peak load (measured as the peak point in the load–displacement
In the light of failure mechanism, using a simple stress analysis, curve) and the failure energy (measured as the area under the
Pouranvari et al. [26] proposed an analytical model predicting fail- load–displacement curve up to the peak load) were extracted
ure mode of spot welds during the tensile-shear test. They related
DC to the hardness ratio of FZ to the pullout failure location, as
Table 2
follows,
Tensile properties of the base metals used in this study.a
4t
H 
PFL
DC = (3) Steel YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) n K (MPa) EL (%)
Pf HFZ
DP600 345 615 0.18 1000 22
where P is the porosity factor (=1 if no porosity/void is present in LCS 185 330 0.24 600 43
the fusion zone), f is the ratio of shear strength to tensile strength a
YS, yield strength; UTS, ultimate tensile strength; n, strain hardening coefficient;
of the FZ (=0.5 according to Tresca criterion), HFZ and HPFL are K, strength coefficient; and EL, total elongation.
 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138 131

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Failure mode

Two distinct failure modes were observed during both tensile-

Fig. 1. Test configuration and sample dimensions (a) tensile shear test and (b) cross-
tension test.
from the load–displacement curve. The data points for peak
load and failure energy are the average of the measured values
for three specimens. Failure modes of the spot welded spec-
imens were determined by the examination of the fractured
samples.
Samples for the metallographical examination were prepared
using standard metallography procedure. Nital etching reagent was
used to reveal the macrostructure and microstructure of the sam-
ples. The microstructure of various zones was studied using an
optical microscope. Weld nugget (fusion zone) sizes were mea-
sured for all the samples on the metallographic cross-sections
of the welds. Vickers microhardness test was performed using
an indenter load of 100 g for a period of 20 s to obtain diag-
onal hardness. The hardness indentations were spaced 0.3 mm
apart.
shear and cross-tension tests in similar and dissimilar LCS and
DP600 steel. Fig. 2 shows fracture surface of dissimilar DP600/LCS
spot welds failed in IF and PF mode in both loading conditions. Fig. 3
shows a typical macrostructure of DP600/LCS and the schematic
failure path during IF (Path A) and PF mode (Path B and C) during
TS and CT loading. It has been shown experimentally that under CT
loading, the PF failure is initiated from the stronger side [13]. As can
be seen, the PF failure is initiated from DP600 steel. It is shown that
in CT loading, the nugget pullout failure path is through the harder
HAZ (see Path B in Fig. 3).
One of the interesting phenomena observed in this research is
that pullout failure of dissimilar DP600/LCS during TS loading con-
dition is initiated from stronger side, DP600 (see Fig. 2b). This is in
contrast to general expectation that the pullout failure in TS loading
condition is occurred in the softer region of the weldment. There
are limited reports on this abnormal phenomenon. Hernandez et al.
[13] reported that the pullout failure DP600/DP780 dissimilar spot
weld in the tensile-shear test is initiated from the stronger side
(i.e. DP780). The reason of this abnormal phenomenon is explained
elsewhere [8,29]. As can be seen in Fig. 2, the pullout failure mode
in TS test is a double-thickness failure (i.e. failure occurred in both
sheets), while, the pullout failure in CT test is not a double-thickness
failure. During double pullout failure in TS loading, failure first ini-
tiated in DP600 steels (see Path CI in Fig. 3) and then propagated in
the LCS (see Path CII in Fig. 3).
Since, the FZ size is one of the key controlling factors for fail-
ure mode, the effect of welding current on the FZ size of similar
and dissimilar combinations was studied (Fig. 4). As can be seen in
Fig. 4, increasing the welding current leads to increase in FZ size due
to generation of higher heat input. The difference in weld nugget
growth of similar and dissimilar welds is due to differences in elec-
trical resistivity. The presence of the martensite and higher content
of alloying elements, particularly Si in DP600, increase the resistiv-
ity of the material, which in turn affects the weld nugget growth
[16].
After macrostructure analysis, the welded samples were sub-
jected to the tensile-shear and cross-tension tests. Failure modes
of spot welds for various welding condition were determined by
examination of the weld fracture surfaces for similar/dissimilar
combinations. Table 3 shows correlation between FZ size and
observed failure modes during TS and CT loadings. Maximum FZ
size leading to the IF mode and minimum FZ size leading to the PF
mode in both loading conditions are given in Table 3.
3.2. Failure mode transition in cross-tension test
Effect of fusion zone size on the cross-tension failure mode is
show in Table 3. To explain the IF to PF transition behavior, the
following points should be considered:

Table 3
Hardness characteristics and failure mode of the investigated RSWs combinations.

Materials combinations LCS/LCS DP/DP DP/LCS

FZ carbon equivalent (wt.%) 0.085 0.323 0.187
FZ hardness (HV) 242 382 313
HFZ /0.5(HBM1 + HBM2 ) 1.98 1.9 2.34
Tensile-shear failure IF D ≤ 7.3 mm D ≤ 8.4 mm D ≤ 6.65 mm
mode PF D ≥ 7.9 mm D ≥ 9.1 mm D ≥ 7.2 mm
Cross-tension failure IF D ≤ 3.2 mm D ≤ 6.3 mm D ≤ 4.2 mm
mode PF D ≥ 3.6 mm D ≥ 7.5 mm D ≥ 4.9 mm
132 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138

Fig. 2. Observed failure modes during (a) cross-tension (CT) test and (b) tensile-shear (TS) test.

(i) According to Fig. 5, during CT test, the notch at sheet/sheet
interface experiences Mode I of loading condition (i.e. opening
mode). Therefore, the stress intensity factor in Mode I (i.e. KI )
is the driving force of the failure. Consequently, the interfacial
failure in the cross-tension test is controlled by the fracture
toughness of the FZ (KCFZ ). The resistance against the interfacial
failure of the spot welds with a given fusion zone size is deter-
mined by KCFZ . Therefore, increasing the fracture toughness of
the FZ (KCFZ ) decreases the tendency to fail in the IF mode.
(ii) According to Fig. 5, shear stress at nugget circumference (i.e.
HAZ) is the driving force for PF mode during CT test. Hence, the
higher the HAZ strength, the lower the tendency to fail in the
PF mode.
(iii) Accordingly, in the similar/dissimilar spot welds the tendency
to fail in the pullout mode (i.e. decreasing DC ) is proportional
to the ratio of the fracture toughness of the FZ to the shear
strength of the HAZ (i.e. DC ∝ ( HAZ /KCFZ )).
It is well known that in steels the yield strength is proportional
to hardness while fracture toughness is in inverse proportional to
hardness. Therefore, it can be deduced that:
(DC )cross-tension ∝ HHAZ × HFZ (4)
Hence, to analyze the failure mode transitions of spot welds, the
hardness characteristics of the welds should be investigated. Fig. 6
shows the hardness profile of DP600/DP600, LCS/LCS and dissimilar

Fig. 3. A typical macrostructure of DP600/LCS dissimilar RSW along with fracture path during TS and CT loading: in both loading conditions, interfacial failure mode (Path
A) is accompanied with crack propagation in fusion zone (FZ), in cross-tension pullout failure mode (Path B) crack propagated in through thickness direction through hard
HAZ region, in tensile-shear test pullout failure mode crack propagated in through thickness direction of both sheets, first in DP600 base metal (Path CI ) and then in LCS base
metal (Path CII ).
 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138
Fig. 4. Effect of welding current on the FZ size of similar and dissimilar combina-
tions.
Fig. 5. Schematic representation of spot weld under cross-tension loading: the
notch at sheet/sheet interface experience Mode I of fracture mechanics (i.e. opening
mode). While, the HAZ experiences nearly homogenous shear stresses.
Fig. 6. Typical hardness profiles for similar and dissimilar combinations of DP600
and LCS.
133
combination of DP600/LCS. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the FZ hard-
ness increases in order of LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS and DP600/DP600.
The difference in the FZ hardness of the similar and dissimilar
combinations is influenced by the chemical composition and the
microstructure of the FZ. Fig. 7 shows typical FZ microstructures of
similar and dissimilar combinations. The chemical composition of
the FZ is a mixture of the composition of each of the base metals.
Hence, the FZ hardness is affected by the mixing/dilution degree
of the base metals. The FZ chemical composition of a dissimilar
combination can be estimated by averaging the LCS and DP600
base metal; assuming the same melting ratio for each, for the sake
of simplicity. Therefore, the chemical composition of dissimilar
DP600/LCS fusion zone is estimated as Fe–0.1C–0.742Mn–0.241Si.
The hardness of the non-equilibrium phases in steels is a function
of the carbon content and the alloying elements. To examine the
effect of alloying elements, the Yurioka carbon equivalent [30] was
calculated for each fusion zone according to Eq. (5):
 Si Mn Cu Ni Cr + Mo + Nb + V

CEY = C + A(C) · 5B + + + + +
24 6 15 20 5
where
A(C) = 0.75 + 0.25 tan h{20(C − 0.12)} (5)
The calculated carbon equivalent for LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS and
DP600/DP600 fusion zones are given in Table 3. Fig. 8a shows the
correlation between FZ hardness and carbon equivalent confirming
a direct relationship. The higher carbon equivalent of the DP600
makes its FZ harder as compared to the LCS. As can be seen in Fig. 7,
decreasing carbon equivalent from DP600/DP600 to DP600/LCS and
LCS/LCS combinations increases the volume fraction of side plate
ferrite in the FZ microstructure resulting in reduction of FZ hard-
ness.
It is interesting to note that the peak hardness in HAZDP of
dissimilar DP600/LCS is comparable to the FZ hardness of the
DP600/DP600. Mixing the DP600 steel (C = 0.135, Mn = 1.82) and
LCS (C = 0.065, Mn = 0.204) reduces the hardenability of the FZDP/LCS
compared to the HAZ at the DP600 side. Therefore, higher hardness
of HAZDP /FZ boundary can be attributed to its higher hardenability
rather than the FZDP/LCS .
Table 3 shows the hardness characteristics and failure mode
of similar and dissimilar welds. During cross-tension test the ten-
dency to fail in IF mode increased in order of LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS
and DP600/DP600. The high tendency of DP600/DP600 welds to fail
in IF mode during cross tension test is a function of its higher HAZ
and FZ hardness. Indeed, the hard martensite in FZ provides easy
crack propagation path during cross-tension testing and promotes
interfacial failure. In DP600/LCS combination, decreased carbon
equivalent and fusion zone hardness through dilution with the
LCS promotes button pullout at smaller weld sizes. On the other
hand, the low tendency of LCS/LCS welds to fail in IF mode during
cross-tension test is a function of its lower HAZ and FZ hardness.
Fig. 8b shows the correlation between FZ carbon equivalent and
minimum FZ size required to ensure PF mode during CT test. As
can be seen, increasing carbon equivalent of the FZ reduces the ten-
dency to fail in PF mode and therefore increases the critical FZ size.
This is due to the fact the hardness of FZ and HAZ are interlinked to
the carbon equivalent. It should be noted that the presence of the
shrinkage void, which is usually a common problem during RSW
of DP steels, increases the tendency to fail in the interfacial mode.
The susceptibility to the shrinkage formation is strongly linked to
carbon and alloying elements and the presence of S and P [31,32].
Therefore, the higher the carbon equivalent, the higher the ten-
dency to shrinkage voids formation. This factor, in turns affect the
susceptibility to fail in IF mode.
134 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138

Fig. 7. Typical FZ microstructure of (a) DP600/DP600, (b) DP600/LCS and (c) LCS/LCS RSWs.

3.3. Failure mode transition in the tensile-shear test elsewhere [29]. In this section, a summary is given for the purpose
of comparison to the cross-tension test.
IF to PF failure mode transition in similar and dissimilar DP600 According to Table 3, DP600/DP600 welds exhibit the highest
and LCS combinations during TS loading condition is detailed tendency to fail in the interfacial mode during the tensile-shear
 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138
Fig. 8. Effect of carbon equivalent on the (a) FZ hardness, (b) minimum FZ size
required to obtain PF mode during cross-tension loading and (c) ductility ratio,
average ductility ratio is reported for each combination.
test. However, in comparison with the similar combination, when
DP600 sheet is welded to LCS, PF mode was obtained at a much
smaller FZ size. As can be seen in Fig. 9 shows there is no correlation
between FZ carbon equivalent and the minimum FZ size required
to obtain PF mode during TS mode. To explain the IF to PF transition
behavior, the following points should be considered:
135
Fig. 9. Effect of hardness ratio (ratio of FZ hardness to the average hardness of the
base metals) and carbon equivalent of the FZ on the minimum FZ size required to
ensure PF mode during TS loading.
(1) In the tensile-shear test, the driving force for the IF mode is the
shear stress at the sheet/sheet interface which depends on the
area of the weld nugget in the sheet/sheet plane. Therefore, the
resistance against the interfacial failure of the spot welds with
a given fusion zone size is determined by the FZ hardness [29].
An increase in the FZ hardness decreases the tendency to fail in
the IF mode.
(2) The driving force for the PF mode is the tensile stress at the
nugget circumference [33,34]. Tensile stress is mainly induced
by the bending moment as a result of overlapping of the two
sheets and rotating of the weld nugget during the shear-tensile
test. In fact, the tensile bending stresses play an important role
in the pullout failure mode. There is a relationship between the
degree of rotation during the tensile-shear test and the failure
mode [35]. The stiffer the sample (i.e. less rotation), the suscep-
tibility to the interfacial failure mode is higher. Therefore, the
BM with higher yield and tensile strength generally has a higher
tendency to fail in the IF mode. Hence, the higher the stiffness,
the lower the tendency to fail in the PF mode there is. As a first
approximation, the stiffness of the sample can be related to the
average hardness of the base metals.
(3) Accordingly, in the similar/dissimilar spot welds the tendency
to fail in the pullout mode (i.e. decreasing DC ) is proportional
to the ratio of the hardness of the FZ to the (average) hardness
of the base metal(s) [29]. Therefore,
0.5(HBM1 + HBM2 )
(DC )tensile-shear ∝ (6)
HFZ
The values of this hardness ratio for similar and dissimilar com-
binations are given in Table 3. Fig. 9 shows the effect of hardness
ratio on the minimum FZ size required to ensure PF mode during
TS mode. Therefore, the high DC of DP600/DP600 can be attributed
to its lower hardness ratio. The low DC of DP600/LCS is an outcome
of its higher FZ hardness (compared to LCS/LCS RSW) and its lower
stiffness (compared to DP600/DP600 RSW).
3.4. Comparison of failure mode transition in cross-tension and
tensile-shear test
In comparison to the tensile-shear test, failure mode during
cross-tension test exhibited two distinct features:
136 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138
Fig. 10. Effect of FZ size on the (a) peak load and (b) failure energy of similar and
dissimilar combinations of DP600 and LCS resistance spot welds during TS loading
conditions. Spot welds failed in PF mode are indicated in the plots. Conventional
recommendations of 4t0.5 are also superimposed to Fig. 10a indicating that this sizing
criterion is not proper for obtaining PF mode in TS loading for all combinations.
(i) Minimum FZ size required to ensure pullout failure mode
during cross-tension test is much lower than that of in
the tensile-shear test. For example, during the tensile-shear
DP600/DP600 welds were failed in PF mode when the FZ size is
higher than 9.1 mm, while, during cross-tension test PF mode
was obtained in welds with FZ size higher than 7.5 mm. As men-
tioned above, in the TS test, the driving force for the PF mode
is the tensile stress at the nugget circumference while in the
CT test, the shear stress at the HAZ is the driving force. During
the cross tension test, the nugget circumference is subjected to
nearly homogenous shear deformation. It is well known that the
shear strength of the metals is lower than their tensile strength.
This point can partly explain the higher tendency of CT samples
to fail in PF mode.
(ii) According to Table 3, during CT test, tendency to fail in IF mode
increased in order of LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS and DP600/DP600.
While, in TS test DP600/LCS welds exhibits the lowest ten-
dency to fail in IF mode. This difference between two loading
conditions can be explained by considering the notch behav-
ior in these loading conditions. The notch in the tensile-shear
test experiences Mode II loading while; in cross-tension test,
it experiences Mode I. In mode I loading condition the driving
Fig. 11. Effect of FZ size on the (a) peak load and (b) failure energy of similar and
dissimilar combinations of DP600 and LCS resistance spot welds during CT loading
conditions. Failure modes of spot welds are indicated in (a). Conventional recom-
mendations of 4t0.5 are also superimposed to (a) indicating that this sizing criterion
is not proper for obtaining PF mode in CT loading for DP600/DP600 combinations
all.
force for the crack growth is high and the plastic deformation is
hindered, while, in mode II the driving force for crack growth is
low and plastic deformation is promoted [36]. Consequently,
the interfacial failure mode in the tensile-shear test is con-
trolled by the hardness of the FZ, while interfacial failure in
the cross-tension test is controlled by the fracture toughness of
the FZ.
3.5. Mechanical properties in TS and CT loading condition
Mechanical properties of the weld are described in terms of
peak load and failure energy. Peak load of the RSWs depends on
several factors including the physical weld attributes (mainly FZ
size and indentation depth), the failure mode and the strength of
the failure location. Failure energy of RSWs, measured as the area
under the load–displacement curve up to the peak point, depends
on the factors governing the peak load and the ductility of the failure
location.
Fig. 10 shows the effect of FZ size on the peak load and energy
absorption of similar and dissimilar combinations of DP600 and LCS
 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138
Table 4
Fusion zone size and mechanical properties of spot welds made with welding current of 11.5 kA in tensile-shear and cross-tension loading conditions (all combinations failed
in pullout mode in this condition).
Materials combination FZ size (mm) TS peak load (kN)
DP/DP 8.82 23.4
DP/LCS 8.10 20.6
LCS/LCS 7.89 12.3
in CT loading. Fig. 11 shows the effect of FZ size on the mechan-
ical performance in TS loading. As can be seen, generally there
is a direct proportion between the mechanical properties (peak
load and energy absorption) and the FZ size. Increasing FZ size,
increases overall bond area and also promotes PF mode versus IF
mode, resulting in an improved mechanical performance. There-
fore, it can be concluded that the FZ size is the key important factor
controlling the load bearing capacity and energy absorption capa-
bility of similar and dissimilar combinations of DP600 and LCS in
both CT and TS loading conditions.
Peak load and failure energy of similar and dissimilar combi-
nation in TS and CT loadings condition, are compared at 11.5 kA
welding current (where spot welds for all combinations were failed
in the PF mode). Table 4 shows the FZ size and mechanical prop-
erties of each combination during TS and CT loading conditions. In
order to compare the mechanical properties of similar and dissim-
ilar combinations, to account for the differences in the FZ size, the
values of the peak load and failure energy should be normalized.
Since the load bearing area in PF mode is proportional to FZ size (D)
[15,24], the values of peak load and failure energy are normalized by
dividing by the FZ size (D). As can be seen in Fig. 12, the TS normal-
ized peak load (and CT normalized peak load) of the DP600/DP600
Fig. 12. Normalized peak load and failure energy of similar and dissimilar com-
binations of DP600 and LCS during (a) tensile-shear and (b) cross-tension loading
conditions.
137
CT peak load (kN) TS failure energy (J) CT failure energy (J)
16.0 42.1 120.3
14.2 51.3 120.0
9.9 43.0 147.7
is higher than that of the LCS/LCS RSWs, as a result of the former’s
higher BM strength (and HAZ hardness). However, TS and CT nor-
malized peak load of DP600/DP600 and DP600/LCS is nearly equal,
owing to the fact that the PF failure mode of DP600/LCS welds is
initiated from DP600 size in both loading conditions.
Despite similar TS normalized peak loads of DP600/LCS and
DP600/DP600, the TS normalized failure energy of the former is
higher (see Fig. 12a). This can be ascribed to the higher ductility of
the LCS, which helps increasing the plastic deformation during the
process of the double-thickness failure. The high failure energy of
LCS/LCS weld is a function of its much higher base metal ductility.
According to Fig. 12b, CT normalized failure energy increases in
order of LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS and DP600/DP600. The lowest failure
energy of DP600/DP600 is due to higher hardness and hence lower
ductility of its fracture path (i.e. HAZDP ) as compared to ductility of
fracture path of LCS/LCS (i.e. HAZLCS ).
As can be seen the peak load in CT loading is lower than TS load-
ing conditions. Fig. 8c shows the effect of FZ carbon equivalent on
the ratio of peak load in CT to TS loading which is so called ductil-
ity ratio. As can be observed, increasing carbon equivalent reduces
the ductility ratio. As can be seen, DP600/DP600 RSWs exhibits the
lowest ductility ratio, about 0.57, due to its higher carbon equiva-
lent.
4. Conclusions
Interfacial to pullout failure mode transition of similar and dis-
similar combinations of DP600 dual phase steel and low carbon
steel (LCS) in tensile-shear and cross-tension loading conditions is
analyzed and compared. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this study:
1. In both CT and TS loading conditions, a transition in the failure
mode from interfacial failure mode to pullout failure mode was
observed with increasing fusion zone size caused by increasing
welding current. There is a critical FZ size (DC ) beyond that the
pullout mode is obtained. The critical FZ size in TS loading was
larger than CT loading condition.
2. DC during the cross-tension test was increased in the order of
LCS/LCS, DP600/LCS and DP600/DP600. Interfacial to pullout fail-
ure mode transition during the cross-tension test is controlled
by the fracture toughness of the FZ and strength of the failure
location (i.e. HAZ). The lowest critical FZ size for LCS/LCS is a
function of its lower FZ and HAZ hardness.
3. Carbon equivalent of FZ plays key roles in mechanical properties
of spot welds during cross-tension loading:
(i) It was shown that increasing carbon equivalent of the FZ
promoted interfacial failure mode. The high carbon equiv-
alent of DP600 led to formation hard and brittle martensite
which in turn promotes crack propagation through FZ which
is experiencing Mode I loading during cross-tension test. In
DP600/LCS combination, decreased carbon equivalent and
fusion zone hardness through dilution with the LCS promotes
button pullout at smaller weld sizes.
(ii) Increasing carbon equivalent decreases the ductility ratio
of spot welds. The ductility ratio was increased in order of
DP600/DP600, DP600/LCS and LCS/LCS combinations.
138 M. Pouranvari / Materials Science and Engineering A 546 (2012) 129–138
4. DC during the tensile-shear test is increased in the order of
DP600/LCS, LCS/LCS and DP600/DP600. No correlation between
FZ carbon equivalent and the tendency to fail in IF Mode during
TS loading was found. Interfacial to pullout failure mode transi-
tion during the tensile-shear test is controlled by the hardness
of the FZ and stiffness of the joint. Minimum FZ size to ensure
pullout failure mode (DC ) is proportional to the ratio of the (aver-
age) hardness of the base metal to the hardness of the FZ to the.
The lowest critical FZ size for DP600/LCS is a function of its high
FZ size (in comparison LCS/LCS RSW) and its low stiffness (in
comparison DP600/DP600 RSW).
5. FZ size was proved to be the key factors controlling peak load
and energy absorption of all combinations in both cross-tension
and tensile-shear loading conditions.
References
[1] S.J. Kim, C.G. Lee, I. Choi, S. Lee, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 32 (2001) 505–514.
[2] X. Sun, K.S. Choi, A. Soulami, W.N. Liu, M.A. Khaleel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 526 (2009)
140–149.
[3] P. Movahed, S. Kolahgar, S.P.H. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, N. Parvin, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 518 (2009) 1–6.
[4] M. Pouranvari, A. Abedi, P. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 13
(2008) 39–43.
[5] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, S.M. Mousavizadeh, Ironmaking Steelmaking 38
(2011) 471–480.
[6] X. Sun, E.V. Stephens, M.A. Khaleel, Eng. Fail. Anal. 15 (2008) 356–367.
[7] M.I. Khan, M.L. Kuntz, Y. Zhou, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 13 (2008) 294–304.
[8] M. Pouranvari, S.M. Mousavizadeh, S.P.H. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, M. Ghorbani,
Mater. Des. (2011) 1390–1398.
[9] J.E. Gould, S.P. Khurana, T. Li, Weld. J. 86 (2006) 111s–116s.
[10] C. Ma, D.L. Chen, S.D. Bhole, G. Boudreau, A. Lee, E. Biro, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 485
(2008) 334–346.
[11] M. Marya, K. Wang, L.G. Hector, X. Gayden, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 128 (2006)
287–298.
[12] F. Nikoosohbat, S.H. Kheirandish, M. Goodarzi, M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 26 (2010) 738–744.
[13] V.H.B. Hernandez, M.L. Kuntz, M.I. Khan, Y. Zhou, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 13
(2008) 769–776.
[14] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 15 (2010) 149–155.
[15] M. Pouranvari, H.R. Asgari, S.M. Mosavizadeh, P.H. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join. 12 (2007) 217–225.
[16] M.S. Khan, S.D. Bhole, D.L. Chen, E. Biro, G. Boudreau, J. van Deventer, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join. 14 (2009) 616–625.
[17] M.S. Khan, S.D. Bhole, D.L. Chen, G. Boudreal, E. Biro, J.V. Deventer, Can. Metall.
Q. 48 (2009) 303–310.
[18] M. Mansouri Hasan Abadi, M. Pouranvari, Metal. J. Metall. 15 (2009) 149–157.
[19] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Metal. J. Metall. 16 (2010) 133–146.
[20] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (2011) 8337–8343.
[21] S. Daneshpour, S. Riekehr, M. Kocak, C.H.J. Gerritsen, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.
14 (2009) 20–25.
[22] P. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, S. Amirabdollahian, A. Abedi, M. Goodarzi, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 480 (2008) 175–180.
[23] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Mater. Sci. Technol. 25 (2009) 1411–1416.
[24] X. Sun, E.V. Stephens, M.A. Khaleel, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 18s–25s.
[25] Y.J. Chao, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 8 (2003) 133–137.
[26] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, D. Safanama, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 528 (2011)
8344–8352.
[27] R.W. Rathbun, D.K. Matlock, J.G. Speer, Weld. J. 83 (2003) 207s–218s.
[28] Recommended Practices for Test Methods and Evaluation the Resistance Spot
Welding Behavior of Automotive Sheet Steels, ANSI/AWS/SAE D8.9-97.
[29] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, S.M. Mousavizadeh, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 15
(2010) 625–631.
[30] N. Yurioka, H. Suzuki, S. Ohshita, S. Saito, Weld. J 62 (1983) 147–153.
[31] A. Joaquin, A.N.A. Elliott, C. Jiang, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 24–27.
[32] J.E. Gould, D. Workmann, Fracture morphologies of resistance spot welds
exhibiting hold time sensitivity behavior, in: Eighth Sheet Metal Working Con-
ference, American Welding Society, Miami, FL, 1998.
[33] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 3647–3652.
[34] S. Zuniga, S.D. Sheppard, in: R.S. Piascik, et al. (Eds.), Fatigue and Frac-
ture Mechanics, ASTM STP 1296, vol. 27, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, 1997, pp.
469–489.
[35] J.A. Davidson, E.J. Imhof Jr., SAE Technical Paper No. 848110, 1984.
[36] R.W. Hertzberg, Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials,
2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1996.