Dissimilar resistance spot welding of DP600

dual phase and AISI 1008 low carbon steels:

correlation between weld microstructure and
mechanical properties
M. Pouranvari*1, S. P. H. Marashi2 and S. M. Mousavizadeh3
The aim of this work is to investigate and analyse the microstructure and mechanical properties of
dissimilar low carbon steel/dual phase steel (DP600) resistance spot welds. The failure modes of
spot welds during the tensile–shear test were detailed by examination of the weld fracture
surfaces. Relationships between the fracture path and the mechanical properties (peak load and
energy absorption) were developed using the observed microstructures in the fusion and heat
affected zones. It was found that the failure of DP600/low carbon steel is initiated from the
stronger side (i.e. DP600 side). This was explained in terms of hardness profile, difference in
tensile strength and workhardening behaviour of the base metals. A transition in the failure mode
from interfacial failure mode to pullout failure mode was observed with increasing the fusion zone
size caused by increasing the welding current. However, when expulsion occurred, the spot
welds failed in the partial thickness–partial pullout mode, with reduced energy absorption and
peak load, compared to those spot welds with the same or smaller nugget size, which failed in the
pullout mode. This can be related to the low ductility of the location of the failure initiation (i.e. heat
affected zone of DP600 side) in this mode.
Keywords: Resistance spot welding, Dual phase steel, Dissimilar welding, Failure mode, Microstructure

Introduction use of advanced high strength steels (AHSSs) brings

Dual phase (DP) steels possess a unique microstructure
consisting of soft ferrite and hard martensite that offers
favourable combination of strength, high workharden-
ing rate, ductility and formability. Owing 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.1,2
Weldability of DP steel is one of the key factors
governing its application in the auto industry. Resistance
spot welding is the predominant process in sheet metal
joining, particularly in the automotive industry. The
integrity of the resistance spot welds is critical to the
overall integrity and reliability of an automobile3,4 as the
failure of a single spot weld could destroy the energy
absorption capacity of a crash member. This fact is widely
recognised by the automotive community. Widespread
1
Materials and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Dezful Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Dezful, Iran
2
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University
of, Technology, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Materials Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University,
Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author, email mpouranvari@yahoo.com
substantial weight saving; however, it increases the risk of
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 industries. The complexity of
the spot welds comes from a number of factors, as
follows:
(i) failure mode and failure mechanism of spot
welds are complicated phenomena: failure
mode and failure mechanism are largely
dependent on the complex interplay among
weld geometry, fusion zone (FZ)/heat affected
zone (HAZ)/base metal (BM) properties, test
geometry and stress state in each weld;5–7
therefore, failure mode and failure location
are not known in advance
(ii) spot welds do not exhibit a homogeneous
structure: owing to the weld thermal cycle,
three distinct microstructural zones (i.e. FZ,
HAZ and BM) are created in the weld and its
vicinity; since analysis of the spot weld failure
requires the characterisation of the failure,
strain hardening and strain rate sensitivity
properties of FZ and HAZ, microstruc-
tural heterogeneity further complicates the
failure analysis and prediction of the failure
mode8,9

ß 2011 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 12 November 2010; accepted 25 April 2011
DOI 10.1179/1743281211Y.0000000024 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6 471
Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
(iii) strength mismatch among FZ, HAZ and BM
creates strain concentration at the lowest
strength microstructural zone; therefore, to
predict the spot weld failure, the strain gradient
should be determined8
(iv) geometrically, a spot weld causes an external
crack at the joint;9 moreover, applying electrode
force during the resistance spot welding process
creates an indentation, and therefore, the stress
concentration is created at the indentation
wall;10,11 therefore, the stress concentration
associated with these two effects should be
considered in the analysis of the spot weld
failure.
The resistance spot welding behaviour of low carbon
steels (LCSs) and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels
is well understood through several researches carried out
in the past years. However, the resistance spot welding
of AHSS is still challenging due to some reasons, which
are summarised below:
(i) complicated microstructure development in FZ
(e.g. martensite formation) and HAZ (e.g.
martensite formation and HAZ softening due
to martensite tempering);12–14 this complex
microstructure development can impact the
failure behaviour of AHSS RSWs and should
be taken into account
(ii) increased tendency to fail in interfacial failure
(IF) mode (crack propagation through FZ
failure mode)12,14–16
(iii) high susceptibility to formation shrinkage voids
in FZ due to their rich chemistry in comparison
to LCSs17–20
(iv) high prone to expulsion that can lead to reduced
peak load and energy absorption.3,21,22
An unavoidable practical requirement in modern auto-
motive construction technology is dissimilar resistance
spot welding of AHSSs and traditional steel grades.
Understanding the failure mode and the failure beha-
viour of similar spot welds is straightforward. However,
the failure behaviour of dissimilar RSWs can be
problematic due to the following:
(i) the difference in the physical properties of the
BMs
(ii) the difference in the materials properties (strength,
ductility and workhardening) of the BMs
(iii) the more complicated microstructural gradient
across the weld.
The increased use of AHSSs has led to a wider range of
possible material combinations in the resistance spot
welding of the body in white assemblies. The majority of
the research investigations into spot welding have
focused on the welding of similar sheets. Despite various
applications of dissimilar RSWs, reports in the literature
dealing with their mechanical behaviour are limited.23–28
Alenius et al.23 studied the weldability of various
dissimilar metal joints between austenitic stainless steel
Table 1 Chemical compositions of base metals used in
this study/wt-%
C Mn Si S P
DP600 0.135 1.28 0.388 0.004 0.038
LCS 0.065 0.204 0.095 0.017 0.018
472 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO
and non-stainless steels. They concluded that the
strength of the dissimilar joint in tensile–shear test is
dictated by the strength and thickness of non-stainless
steels. Marashi et al.24 studied the microstructure and
failure behaviour of dissimilar RSW between galvanised
LCS and AISI 304 stainless steel RSWs. They found
that the hardness of the FZ, which is governed by the
dilution between two BMs, and the FZ size of the
galvanised carbon steel side govern the failure mode.
For spot welds made at low welding currents, the low
FZ hardness and the small FZ size led to experiencing
interfacial mode during shear–tensile test.
For spot welds made at high welding currents, the
higher hardness of FZ due to martensite formation and
the larger FZ led to experiencing pullout failure (PF)
mode during the tensile–shear test. Pouranvari and
Marashi25 presented a comparative study on the failure
mode transition from IF to PF for similar and dissimilar
resistance spot welds of low carbon and austenitic
stainless steels. They found that the dissimilar welds
exhibit the lowest tendency to fail in IF mode. Poggio
et al.26 studied the spot welding behaviour of dissimilar
DP600/AISI 304 joint. Daneshpour et al.,27 in their
work on the resistance spot welding of DP780 and deep
drawing steel (DC04), concluded that the static tensile–
shear behaviour of dissimilar DP780/DC04 welds is
comparable to that of the resistance spot welds of DC04
due to the joint strength being governed by DC04. Khan
et al.28 investigated the static and fatigue performance of
DP600/HSLA350. They concluded that the fatigue
performance of dissimilar material HSLA350/DP600
spot welds was similar to that of similar HSLA350/
HSLA350 spot welds. Hernandez et al.29 studied the
mechanical behaviour of the resistance spot weld of
DP600 spot welded to HSLA, DP780 and TRIP780.
They concluded that a PF mode with improved
mechanical properties was obtained when DP600 is
paired with other AHSSs compared to the DP600
welded to itself, which is prone to IF and poor
mechanical properties, given the same weld size.
The aim of this paper is to investigate and analyse the
microstructure–mechanical property relationship of dis-
similar resistance spot welds between DP600 and LCSs.
Experimental
A 2 mm thick uncoated st14 LCS and a 2 mm thick
DP600 DP steel sheet were used as BMs. The chemical
compositions and mechanical properties are presented in
Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Resistance spot welding was
performed using a 120 kVA ac pedestal type resistance
spot welding machine controlled by a programmable
logic controller operating at 50 Hz. Welding was
conducted using a 45u truncated cone RWMA class 2
electrode with an 8 mm face diameter.
Table 2 Tensile properties of base metals used in this
study*
YS/MPa UTS/MPa n K/MPa EL/%
Fe DP600 345 615 0.18 1000 22
LCS 185 330 0.24 600 43
Base
*YS, yield strength; UTS, ultimate tensile strength; n, strain
Base
hardening coefficient; K, strength coefficient; EL, total elongation.
6
 Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs

a three distinct zones FZ, HAZDP,LCS and BMDP, LCS; b BMLCS; c BMDP; d FZ; e, f higher magnification of d in two differ-
ent locations; g BMLCS/HAZLCS; h HAZLCS near the FZ; i BMDP/HAZDP; j middle of HAZDP; k HAZDP adjacent to FZ
1 Microstructure gradient in DP600/LCS RSW

To study the effects of the welding conditions on the
weld performance, several welding schedules were used.
Electrode force and holding time were selected based on
the thickness of the base material and were kept
constant at 5?1 kN and 0?2 s respectively. The welding
current was increased step by step from 7?5 to 13 kA at
welding times of 0?5 s. The critical welding conditions
leading to expulsion were recorded. Four samples were
prepared for each welding condition, including three
samples for the tensile–shear test and one sample for
the metallographical investigation and measurement of
weld size.
In order to evaluate the mechanical performance and
failure mode of the spot welds, a tensile–shear test was
performed. Samples were prepared according to the
American Welding Society standard.30 The coupon
dimension for the tensile–shear was 140660. The
mechanical tests were performed at a crosshead of
10 mm min21 with an Instron universal testing machine.
The peak load (measured as the peak point in the load–
displacement curve) and the failure energy (measured as
the area under the load–displacement curve up to the
peak load) were extracted from the load–displacement
curve. The data points for peak load and failure energy
are the average of the measured values for three
specimens. The failure modes of the spot welded
specimens were determined by examination of the
fractured samples. The fracture surface of some samples
was examined under a scanning electron microscope
(SEM).

Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6 473

Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
2 Typical diagonal hardness profile of DP600/LCS dissim-
ilar RSW
Samples for metallographical examination were pre-
pared using a standard metallography procedure. Nital
etching reagent was used to reveal the macrostructure
and microstructure of the samples. The microstructure
of various zones was studied using an optical micro-
scope. Weld nugget (FZ) sizes and average electrode
indentations were measured for all the samples on the
metallographic cross-sections of the welds.
A Vickers microhardness test was performed using an
indenter load of 100 g for a period of 20 s to obtain
diagonal hardness. The hardness indentations were
spaced 0?3 mm apart.
Results and discussion
Microstructure and hardness profile
The macrostructural characteristics of the RSWs,
particularly the FZ size and microstructural and hard-
ness characteristics, play important roles in their failure
behaviour and failure mode. The rapid heating and
cooling induced by the resistance spot welding thermal
cycles significantly alter the microstructure in the joint
zone. A typical macrostructure of DP600/LCS RSW is
shown in Fig. 1a indicating three distinct zones, namely
FZ, HAZ and BM.
The hardness profile of the joint is shown in Fig. 2.
The hardness variation across the joint can be analysed
in terms of the microstructure of the joint. The LCS BM
microstructure, as depicted in Fig. 1b, consists of ferrite
grains; the corresponding hardness is 135 HV (Fig. 2).
The DP600 microstructure, as shown in Fig. 1c, is
composed of dispersed martensite islands embedded in a
ferrite matrix; the corresponding hardness is 200 HV
(Fig. 2). As can be seen in Fig. 1d–f, FZ exhibits a
complex microstructure including columnar grains of
martensite, upper bainite, allotriomorphic ferrite and
Widmanstätten ferrite with an average hardness of
300 HV (Fig. 2). The martensite formation in the FZ
is attributed to the inherently high cooling rate of the
resistance spot welding process due to the presence of
water cooled copper electrodes and their quenching
effect as well as the short welding cycle.13 The formation
of bainite and martensite in the FZ explains the higher
hardness of the FZ compared to the BM hardness.
474 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6
3 Schematic representation of various failure modes that
can occur during tensile–shear test
The hardness of the HAZ in both sides is higher than
the BM hardness due to the formation of non-
equilibrium phases. The microstructure was more
heterogeneous in the HAZ than in the FZ, as verified
by the hardness profile. The material in the HAZ
experiences a peak temperature and a cooling rate,
which is inversely proportional to its distance from the
fusion line.31
Thus, the high thermal cycle gradient coupled with the
resulting austenite grain structure can explain the
observed microstructure gradient in the HAZ. The
HAZLCS microstructure near BMLCS (Fig. 1g) consists
of ferrite and some pearlite colonies. The region next to
the fusion boundary of the LCS side (Fig. 1h) exhibits
polygonal ferrite and some lower bainite. The HAZDP
microstructure near the BMDP (Fig. 1i) exhibits a ferrite–
pearlite/martensite microstructure. On approaching the
fusion boundary, the volume fraction of martensite, and
therefore the hardness of the material, is increased due to
the formation of rich austenite during the dissolution of
martensite. Moreover, some Widmanstätten ferrite, grain
boundary ferrite and bainite are observed by approaching
the FZ (Fig. 1j).
One of the interesting features of the DP600/LCS
hardness profile is the sharp change in the hardness
profile in the HAZDP/FZ boundary. The microstruc-
ture of the HAZDP near the FZ (Fig. 1k) almost
entirely consists of martensite and grain boundary
ferrite. The hardness of this region is 400 HV (Fig. 2).
In this region, which experiences grain coarsening
during the thermal cycle of the welding process, both
high cooling rate and large grain size coupled with the
formation of the carbon rich austenite grain promote
the formation of martensite. Therefore, the sharp peak
in HAZDP/FZ can be attributed to the formation of
hard martensite.
It should be noted that the chemical composition of
the FZ is a mixture of the composition of each BM, and
hence, the FZ hardness is affected by the mixing of the
BMs. The mixing of DP600 (C50?135, Mn51?28) and
LCS (C50?065, Mn50?204) resulted in the reduction of
the hardenability of the FZ rather than the HAZ of the
DP600 side. The peak hardness in the HAZDP is 1?3
times higher than that of the FZ. As will be discussed
later in this paper, this hardness characteristic can affect
the failure behaviour of dissimilar DP600/LCS RSW.
Finally, it is noted that no softening is detected in the
HAZ/BM interfaces. An HAZ softening is generally
observable in DP steel containing higher martensite
volume fraction (e.g. DP780 and DP980).4,14
 Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs

a general view; b low magnification of void area; c high magnification of void area indicating dendritic fracture surface;
d low magnification of some cracks adjacent to shrinkage void; e higher magnification of d; f dimples in fracture surface;
g cleavage fracture surface observed in edge of FZ
4 Fracture surface of DP600/LCS spot weld that was failed in IF mode during tensile–shear test

Failure mode of dissimilar DP600/LCS welds
during tensile–shear test
The failure mode of RSWs is a qualitative measure
of the joint quality. Figure 3 shows the schematic
representation of the main fracture path during the
mechanical testing of the spot welds. Basically, spot
welds can fail in four distinct modes described as
follows:5,14,15
(i) interfacial failure mode in which fracture
propagates through the FZ (path A)
(ii) pullout failure mode in which failure occurs via
withdrawal of the weld nugget from one sheet;
in this mode, fracture may initiate in the BM
(path B), HAZ (path C) or HAZ/FZ (path D),
depending on the metallurgical and geometrical
characteristics of the weld zone and the loading
conditions
(iii) partial interfacial mode in which fracture first
propagates in the FZ and then redirected
through the thickness direction (path E)
(iv) partial thickness–partial pullout (PT-PP) mode
in which a slant crack propagates into the FZ
and some part of mating sheet thickness is
removed during separation.
As mentioned above, one of the major problems in the
RSW of AHSSs is their high susceptibility to IF. Since the
tendency to fail in IF mode during tensile–shear test is
higher than the cross-tension test, the tensile–shear test

Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6 475

Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
a crack initiation from DP side; b crack propagation from LCS; c type 1 of final fracture; d type 2 of final fracture
5 Stages of double pullout failure mode of DP600/LCS RSW during tensile–shear test
was chosen to examine the fracture characteristics and
mechanical behaviour of spot welds. The observed
failure modes during the tensile–shear test are described
below.
Interfacial failure mode
Figure 4a shows a typical fracture surface of a spot
weld that failed in IF mode. The spot weld has failed
through the weld nugget centreline. High susceptibility
to the IF mode is one of the important issues in the
weldability of the AHSS. Macroscopic observation of
the fracture surface at low magnification indicates that
the IF mode is accompanied with almost no plastic
deformation. Many of the spot welds that failed in the
IF mode exhibit voids in their FZ fracture surface.
Figure 4b shows the magnified view of the void region
in the FZ. Figure 4c shows the higher magnification
view of the void region of Fig. 4b, indicating a dendritic
fracture surface. It provides evidence that these cracks
result from solidification shrinkages.
The presence of solidification cracks in the weld nugget
was reported by several researchers.17,18 Moreover, there
are also some cracks in the weld nugget (Fig. 4d). Higher
magnification of these cracks (Fig. 4e) reveals a dendritic
surface, which implies that the observed cracks are due to
solidification shrinkage. The fracture surface (Fig. 4f)
exhibits dimples, which are characteristic of the ductile
fracture, in spite of the hard structure of the FZ. In some
regions, at the weld nugget edge, where the hardness was
the highest, the fracture surface shows a cleavage fracture,
which is a typical indicator of the brittle fracture (see
Fig. 4g). The causes of IF are detailed in the section on
‘Analysis of the failure mode’.
Pullout failure mode
Pullout failure mode was also observed in this study
(Fig. 5). According to the macroscopic observation, the
476 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6
PF of dissimilar RSW between DP600 and LCS can be
divided into three stages:
Stage I: in all the spot welds that failed in the PF
mode, the failure started by crack initia-
tion from the DP steel side (Fig. 5a)
Stage II: as the crack propagated along the nugget
circumference in the DP side, another
crack/necking was initiated in the LCS
side (Fig. 5b)
Stage III: the final stage of the complete separation
occurred in two different types:
Type 1: complete nugget pull out from
the DP steel side with some sheet
tearing of the LCS side (Fig. 5c)
Type 2: complete sheet tearing in the
LCS side and nugget pull out
from the DP steel side (Fig. 5d).
This failure mode has two interesting features. The PF is a
double thickness failure: generally, during the PF mode of
the LCSs, crack initiation and propagation occur in one
sheet; however, in the case of the double thickness failure,
the crack propagates in both sheets (see Fig. 5b). One of
the interesting phenomena observed in this research is the
location of failure initiation in the pullout mode. As can be
seen from Fig. 5a, the failure is initiated from the DP600
steel side. Since the generally accepted failure mechanism
of the PF mode is through thickness necking,6,8 it is
expected that the failure of the tensile–shear test samples
would occur in the softer region of the spot weld. For
example, it was reported that the PF location in similar
LCS, HSLA and DP600 is located in the BM8,32 due to its
lower hardness compared to FZ and HAZ. It was reported
that the PF location of DP980/DP980 spot welds is at the
HAZ softening region.22 Moreover, it was observed that
the PF location of SS304/LCS dissimilar spot welds is in
the LCS side due to its lower hardness.24 However, in this
study, as it is obvious from Fig. 5, failure is initiated from
 Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs

6 Typical fracture surface of PT-PP failure mode observed during tensile–shear test of dissimilar DP600/LCS welds

the stronger BM, i.e. DP600. There are limited reports on the electrode pressure. Spot welds with expulsion exhibit
this abnormal phenomenon. Hernandez et al.29 reported severe electrode indentation. As can be seen, by
that the PF DP600/DP780 dissimilar spot weld in the increasing the welding current, a transition in the failure
tensile–shear test is initiated from the stronger side, i.e.
DP780. They attributed this phenomenon to the difference
between the workhardening of DP600 and DP780. In the
current study, the observed phenomenon can be explained
as follows.
The yield strength of LCS is lower than DP600. Thus,
during loading, the LCS sheet experiences yielding
first and starts to workharden and can cause strain
transferring to DP600. Moreover, it is believed that
the high peak hardness in the FZ/HAZDP can act as a
metallurgical notch, inducing stress concentration in
the DP600 side. This can affect the strain distribution
and promote failure initiation at the DP600 side. It can
be concluded that the hardness profile, the difference in
tensile strength of the BMs and the difference in
workhardening behaviour of the BMs are key factors
influencing the PF location of dissimilar spot welds.
Failure location can significantly affect the mechanical
properties of the spot weld. As a direct result of this
phenomenon, the pullout peak load of the DP600/LCS
is dictated by the DP600 BM tensile strength.

Partial thickness–partial pullout failure mode

Figure 6 shows a typical fracture surface of the spot welds
that failed in the PT-PP mode. In this failure mode, part of
the mating sheet thickness is removed during separation,15
as can be seen in Fig. 6. Failure is initiated from the notch
located in the HAZDP and then propagates into FZ.
Unlike the PF mode, PT-PP is not a double failure mode,
and failure occurs only in one sheet.
Analysis of failure mode
The failure mode of RSWs during the tensile–shear test
depends on several physical and metallurgical weld
attributes, including FZ size, electrode indentation and
hardness characteristics of the weld as well as shrinkage
voids. Figure 7a shows the effect of the welding current
on the FZ size, electrode indentation and failure mode
of the spot welds. The FZ size increases proportionally
with increasing welding current; however, it is reduced 7 a effect of welding current on FZ size and electrode
when expulsion occurs. Increasing the welding current indentation depth, b effect of welding current on tensile–
increases the temperature of the electrode/sheet inter- shear peak load and energy absorption and c effect of FZ
face, which in turn increases the degree of plastic size on peak load and energy absorption of DP600/LCS
deformation that can occur in the sheet surface under dissimilar RSWs

Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6 477

Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
mode from IF to PF was observed. In high welding
currents, when expulsion occurred, the failure mode was
changed from PF to PT-PP mode.
The occurrence of IF depends on several factors, as
follows:
(i) small weld nugget size: it is well known that there
is a critical FZ size to ensure PF mode.4,5,7 As
can be seen in Fig. 7a, those spot welds with an
FZ size smaller than 7 mm tend to fail in
interfacial mode. Therefore, the welding para-
meters, namely welding current, welding time
and electrode force, which determines weld heat
input, should be adjusted so that the sufficient
weld size is obtained
(ii) presence of shrinkage void and solidification
crack in nugget: it is shown that the presence of
voids in the weld centreline can increase the
critical FZ size.19,20 The presence of preferential
crack paths, such as porosity or solidification
cracks, can allow a crack to initiate at the surface
notch and to propagate from one porosity or
crack location to another along the surface of
the weld.33 Furthermore, the presence of voids
in the FZ decreases the effective FZ size and thus
the area of the load bearing surface in IF mode
(i.e. sheet/sheet interface area). In fact, a small
weld nugget coupled with porosity and solidifi-
cation cracks increases the experienced shear
stress during the tensile–shear test at the faying
surface and promotes the IF of the joint. It is
shown that a longer weld time and a higher
electrode force help in reducing the solidification
voids and cracks17
(iii) chemical composition of FZ: the chemical com-
position of FZ can affect the hardenability of the
FZ and its susceptibility to the formation of
solidification defects. The higher carbon equiva-
lent from elements of manganese, etc. makes the
weld hard and brittle, which congregated in the
grain boundaries and increased the boundary
energy to easily cause solidification cracks.18
Segregation of trace elements, such as S and P,
in the material composition to the grain bound-
aries induces an intercrystalline fracture.33,34 It is
of note that the higher hardenability of steel,
which aids in the formation of hard martensite in
FZ, also provides preferential paths for crack
propagation through the weld FZ and thus
increases the sensitivity to IF mode in some
loading conditions, such as peel and cross-tension
loading.12,33,34
According to Fig. 7a, the FZ size is not the only
governing physical parameter for the failure mode.
Welds with FZ sizes of .7 mm do not always guarantee
PF mode. Despite their large FZ size, spot welds made
with the welding currents higher than 11?5 kA failed in
the PT-PP mode, not in the PF mode. These spot welds
experienced expulsion during welding and exhibited
increased electrode indentation. Increasing the indenta-
tion depth increases the stress concentration at the edge
of the weld nugget size. This fact affects the failure mode
in two ways:
(i) increasing the electrode indentation reduces the
tendency to fail in the IF mode and promotes
nugget withdrawal from one of the sheets due to
478 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6
the increased stress concentration at the indenta-
tion wall
(ii) the increased stress concentration at the weld
nugget edge can change the fracture path. The
fracture during the PF mode of dissimilar DP600/
LCS is initiated from the BMDP and terminated
in the BMLCS. However, in PT-PP mode, the
increased stress concentration at the weld nugget
edge promotes failure initiation from this site.
The change in the failure location due to the
increasing indentation is previously reported in
similar LCS and DP steel RSWs.3,21,22 In PT-PP
mode, the crack follows a slant path from the FZ/
HAZDP into the weld nugget and then may
redirect perpendicular to the weld interface.
Mechanical properties of dissimilar DP600/LCS
during tensile–shear test
The 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. The failure energy of
RSWs, measured as the area under the load–displace-
ment curve up to the peak point, can be expressed as
follows
ð
lmax
Energy absorption~ F dl! Pmax lmax (1)
o
where Pmax is the peak load, and lmax is the maximum
displacement corresponding to the peak load. The
maximum displacement lmax, which represents the
ductility of the spot welds, depends on the ductility of
the failure location. Therefore, the energy absorption
depends on the factors governing the peak load and the
ductility of the failure location.
Figure 7b shows the effect of the welding current on
the peak load and the energy absorption. As can be seen,
a direct relationship between the welding current and the
mechanical performance of the weld is not always
established. The mechanical properties of the RSWs
depend on several factors, including physical weld
attributes (mainly FZ size and indentation depth),
failure mode and strength/ductility of the failure
location. Figure 7c shows the effect of the FZ size on
the peak load and energy absorption. The following
points can be drawn from Fig. 7:
(i) before expulsion, there is a direct relationship
between FZ size and peak load (and energy
absorption). Increasing the welding current
resulted in a higher heat generation at the
interfaces. This leads to the formation of the
larger FZ and increases the overall bond area.
Moreover, this promotes the PF mode versus the
IF mode. These facts can explain increasing the
peak load and energy absorption until the optimal
welding current is received
(ii) after expulsion (welding currents higher than
11?5 kA), the peak load reduced slightly, while
the energy absorption reduced significantly,
despite the large nugget size. For example, the
peak load and the energy absorption of the spot
welds made at 12?5 kA (FZ size58?1 mm) are
,18 and 50% lower than those for the spot welds
made at 11?5 kA (FZ size58?2 mm) respectively.
 Pouranvari et al.
8 Tensile–shear load–displacement curve for IF, PF and
PT-PP mode (IF mode, welding current of 8?5 kA; PF
mode, 11?5 kA; PP-PT mode, 12?5 kA)
Since the FZ size is very similar, this significant
reduction in the mechanical performance should
be related to the change in the failure mode.
Figure 8 compares the load–displacement curve of the
DP600/LCS spot weld in three different failure modes.
Spot welds that failed in the IF mode have a
characteristic load–displacement curve. The peak point
in the load–displacement curve corresponds to the crack
initiation from the notch into the FZ. The load
immediately drops to zero due to the rapid crack
propagation in the FZ. For PF mode, the peak point
corresponds to the crack initiation from the notch DP
steel side. Unlike the IF mode, here, the load–displace-
ment curve has a long ‘tail’ corresponding to the post-
failure mode. In this failure mode, the load is gradually
decreased. As can be seen, after reaching the peak load,
there is continuous energy absorption due to the tearing
of the BM. This fact contributes to the total energy
absorption of the spot welds (i.e. the area under the
load–displacement curve up to the final fracture point).
It should be noted that PF spot welds with type 2 final
separation have a longer tail than type 1 due to the
complete tearing of the BM. The observed changes in
the slope of the tail segment of the load–displacement
correspond to the changes in the crack propagation
path, as explained above. The load–displacement curve
of the PT-PP mode exhibits a smaller tail compared to
the PF mode.
The influence of the strength/ductility of the failure
location on the peak load and energy absorption
depends on the failure mode. If spot welds fail in the
IF mode, the strength and ductility of the FZ are
important for the mechanical properties of the weld. If
spot welds fail in the PF mode, the strength and ductility
of the failure location (i.e. BMDP in the DP600/LCS spot
welds) determine the mechanical properties of the spot
weld. In this case, the FZ properties are not critical for
the determination of the weld mechanical properties. In
PT-PP failure mode, the properties of the FZ/HAZDP
affect the mechanical properties of the joint.
As can be seen in Fig. 7, the PF mode exhibits the
highest peak load. The higher peak loads in PF mode
compared to IF mode is a function of the higher weld
FZ size. Despite the similar/higher FZ size of the spot
weld nuggets in PT-PP mode, they sustain a lower force
Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
compared to PF mode as a result of their higher
electrode indentation. The stress concentration asso-
ciated with the electrode indentation promotes prema-
ture failure.35 In some cases, the peak load of the IF
mode is higher than that of the PT-PP mode.
As can be seen in Fig. 7, the PF mode exhibits the
highest energy absorption. It is noticeable that if the
total failure energy (the area under the load–displace-
ment curve up to the failure point) is calculated, the
difference between the energy absorption in various
failure modes is more pronounced. The higher failure
energy of the PF mode compared to the IF mode is due
to its higher plastic deformation experienced during this
failure process. In addition, the process of double PF is
accompanied with higher plastic deformation compared
to the traditional PF mode. This can increase the strain
energy dissipation in the crash conditions. The PT-PP
mode exhibits a lower failure energy compared to the PF
mode. In some cases (welding current of 9–10 kA), the
failure energy of the PT-PP welds is even lower than that
of the IF mode. The low ductility of the failure initiation
location (HAZ of DP600) and the low fracture tough-
ness of the fracture path coupled with the higher
electrode indentation can explain the lower failure
energy of the PT-PP mode. Therefore, despite its nearly
similar appearance to pullout mode, the PT-PP failure
mode should be distinguished from the PF mode during
mechanical testing for quality control. As shown in this
study, one implication of this failure mode is the reduced
peak load and energy absorption. Therefore, this failure
mode should be avoided. To obtain PF failure mode,
expulsion and severe electrode indentation should be
avoided in addition to ensuring a large weld nugget size.
It is noticeable that during service the spot welds in
automotive structures can experience both shear loading
due to the relative displacement or rotation of the
adjacent sheets and tensile loading due to the separating
forces applied between the adjacent sheets in a direction
normal to the sheets.36 Therefore, the peel or cross-
tensile strength is as critical in automotive applications.
To reach a more complete understanding of the welda-
bility of dissimilar DP600/LCS RSWs, it is necessary to
further assess the failure mode and mechanical proper-
ties of the joints in other loading mode, particularly peel
and cross-tension tests.
Conclusions
The microstructure and mechanical properties of dis-
similar resistance spot welds between DP600 ferrite–
martensite DP steel and AISI 1008 LCS were investi-
gated. The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study.
1. The microstructure and FZ size of DP600/LCS
dissimilar RSW are functions of the mixing degree of the
two BMs and the high cooling rates inherent to the RSW
process. The FZ microstructure exhibits a complex
microstructure of upper bainite, martensite, allotrio-
morphic ferrite and Widmanstätten ferrite. The peak
hardness in the HAZ of DP600 was greater than the FZ
hardness due to the higher hardenability of D600
compared to FZ.
2. Increasing the welding current led to the failure
mode transition from interfacial mode to pullout mode.
A further increase in the welding current caused severe
Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6 479
Pouranvari et al. Dissimilar spot welding of DP600 dual phase and AISI 1008 LCSs
expulsion and indentation, leading to the change in the
failure mode to PT-PP mode.
3. The failure location of DP600/LCS in PF and PT-
PP modes did not follow the general expectations, i.e.
failure initiated from the stronger side (DP600 side).
4. Before expulsion, there was a direct relationship
between FZ size and mechanical properties. However,
on expulsion, the peak load and the particularly energy
absorption were significantly reduced. The reduction in
the failure energy was related to the PT-PP failure mode.
For similar weld size, the peak load and the energy
absorption of the spot welds in the PT-PP failure mode
were significantly lower than that in the PF mode. This
can be attributed to the low ductility of the failure
location (i.e. HAZ of DP600), low fracture toughness
path (i.e. FZ) and higher electrode indentation of the
PT-PP mode.
References
1. S. J. Kim, C. G. Lee, I. Choi and S. Lee: Metall. Mater. Trans. A,
2001, 32A, 505–514.
2. X. Sun, K. S. Choi, A. Soulami, W. N. Liu and M. A. Khaleel:
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, A526, 140–149.
3. M. Pouranvari, A. Abedi, P. Marashi and M. Goodarzi: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2008, 13, 39–43.
4. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens and M. A. Khaleel: Eng. Fail. Anal., 2008,
15, 356–367.
5. M. Pouranvari, H. R. Asgari, S. M. Mosavizadeh, P. H. Marashi
and M. Goodarzi: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2007, 12, 217–225.
6. S. Zuniga and S. D. Sheppard: in ‘Fatigue and fracture mechanics’,
(ed. R. S. Piascik et al.), Vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, 469–489; 1997,
Philadelphia, PA, ASTM.
7. M. Marya, K. Wang, L. G. Hector and X. Gayden: J. Manuf. Sci.
Eng., 2006, 128, 287–298.
8. S. M. Zuniga: ‘Predicting overload pull-out failures in resistance
spot welded’, PhD thesis, Stanford University, Menlo Park, CA,
USA, 1994.
9. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203–
1221.
10. Z. Han and J. E. Indacochea: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 1993, 2,
437–444.
11. M. Goodarzi, S. P. H. Marashi and M. Pouranvari: J. Mater.
Process. Technol., 2008–2009, 209, 4379–4384.
12. M. Pouranvari and S. P. H. Marashi: ‘Key factors influencing
mechanical performance of dual phase steel resistance spot welds’,
Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2010, 15, 149–155.
13. J. E. Gould, S. P. Khurana and T. Li: ‘Predictions of micro-
structures when welding automotive advanced high-strength steels’,
Weld. J., 2006, 86, 111s–116s.
14. M. I. Khan, M. L. Kuntz and Y. Zhou: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2008, 13, 294–304.
480 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2011 VOL 38 NO 6
15. J. E. Gould and W. Peterson: ‘Advanced materials requires
advanced knowledge: understanding resistance spot weld perfor-
mance on AHSS’, Official Publication of the Fabrication and
Manufacturing Association International, Vol. 35, (8), http://
www.Fmanet.org
16. M. Marya and X. Q. Gayden: ‘Development of requirements for
resistance spot welding dual-phase (DP600) steels. Part 2: statistical
analyses and process maps’, Weld. J., 2005, 84, 197s–204s.
17. C. Ma, D. L. Chen, S. D. Bhole, G. Boudreau, A. Lee and E. Biro:
‘Microstructure and fracture characteristics of spot-welded DP600
steel’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2008, A485, 334–346.
18. A. Joaquin, A. N. A. Elliott and C. Jiang: Weld. J., 2007, 86, 24–27.
19. M. Pouranvari, P. Marashi, M. Goodarzi and H. Bahmanpour:
‘Metallurgical factors affecting failure mode of resistance spot
welds’, Proc. Materials Science and Technology 2008 Conf.,
Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 2008, AcerS/AIST/ASM/TMS,
2465–2475.
20. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens and M. A. Khaleel: Weld. J., 2007, 86, 18s–
25s.
21. H. Zhang and J. Senkara: ‘Resistance welding: fundamentals and
applications’; 2005, Boca Raton, FL, Taylor & Francis, CRC
Press.
22. F. Nikoosohbat, S. H. Kheirandish, M. Goodarzi, M. Pouranvari
and S. P. H. Marashi: Mater. Sci. Technol., 2010, 26, 738–744.
23. M. Alenius, P. Pohjanne, M. Somervuori and H. Hanninen: Weld.
J., 2006, 85, 305s–313s.
24. P. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, S. Amirabdollahian, A. Abedi and
M. Goodarzi: Mater. Sci Eng. A, 2008, A480, 175–180.
25. M. Pouranvari and S. P. H. Marashi: Mater. Sci. Technol., 2009,
25, 1411–1416.
26. S. Poggio, M. Ponte, C. Gambaro and J. Adamowski: ‘Resistance
spot welding of advanced high strength steel DP600’, Proc. 1st Int.
Conf. on ‘Super high strength steels’, Rome, Italy, November
2005, AIM, 1–13.
27. S. Daneshpour, S. Riekehr, M. Kocak and C. H. J. Gerritsen: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14, 20–25.
28. M. S. Khan, S. D. Bhole, D. L. Chen, E. Biro, G. Boudreau and
J. van Deventer: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14, 616–625.
29. V. H. B. Hernandez, M. L. Kuntz, M. I. Khan and Y. Zhou: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2008, 13, 769–776.
30. ‘Recommended practices for test methods and evaluation the
resistance spot welding behaviour of automotive sheet steels’,
ANSI/AWS/SAE D8?9–97.
31. K. Easterling: ‘Introduction to the physical metallurgy of welding’,
259; 1983, London, Butterworths.
32. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203–
1221.
33. W. L. Chuko and J. E. Gould: Weld. J., 2002, 82, 1s–8s.
34. J. E. Gould and D. Workmann: ‘Fracture morphologies of
resistance spot welds exhibiting hold time sensitivity behaviour’,
Proc. 8th Sheet Metal Welding Conf., Miami, FL, USA, October
1998, American Welding Society, Paper 1–1.
35. Z. Han and J. E. Indacochea: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 1993, 2,
437–444.
36. R. W. Rathbun, D. K. Matlock and J. G. Speer: Weld. J., 2003, 83,
207s–218s.
Copyright of Ironmaking & Steelmaking is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.