Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 231
Shunting Effect in Resistance Spot Welding
Steels — Part 2: Theoretical Analysis
Minimum weld spacing can be quantitatively predicted based
on the process parameters and welding schedules
BY Y. B. LI, B. WANG, Q. SHEN, M. LOU, AND H. ZHANG
KEYWORDS
Critical Weld Spacing
Shunting
Resistance Spot Welding
Model Development
ABSTRACT
Shunting is a phenomenon difficult to avoid in production
welding, and it is of practical interest to quantitatively determine
the minimum weld spacing. However, the large number of fac-
tors involved in shunting make it difficult to isolate their influ-
ence, let alone obtain a quantitative understanding of their ef-
fects. In this study, the shunting process was understood through
an analysis of the electrical resistances along the welding and
shunting paths. An analytical model was derived based on the
equivalence of the joule heat generated in welding and that was
needed to create the weldment. The constants in the model were
determined through experiments. Using the experimental re-
sults from a previous study, specific models were derived for sev-
eral gauges of mild and dual-phase steels of various surface con-
ditions. The models were then used to study the effects of process
parameters on the minimum weld spacing needed to create cer-
tain sizes of shunted welds. The critical or minimum weld spac-
ing was then plotted as a function of several variables. The ef-
fects of several process variables such as electrode force, welding
time, shunt weld size, and sheet thickness on shunting were
clearly demonstrated. Such relationships are crucial in under-
standing the effects of process variables on shunting, and can be
used in quantitative determination of minimum weld spacing to
avoid the adverse effect of shunting and put as many welds as
possible onto a structure.
Introduction
Shunting in resistance spot welding is the diversion of the weld-
ing current from the weld to be made to a nearby existing weld
(Ref. 1). If a significant proportion of welding current flows
through the previously made weld, the heat generated may not be
sufficient for making a weld of designated size. In general, shunt-
ing may have significant influence on weld quality when making
more than one weld on a workpiece, which is common in sheet
Y. B. LI, Q. SHEN, and M. LOU are with Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. B. WANG is with Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China.
H. ZHANG (hozhang@eng.utoledo.edu) is with University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
metal manufacture and repair. Quantitatively predicting the crit-
ical weld spacing to avoid significant reduction in weld size due to
shunting has practical significance (Ref. 1). The distribution of
welding current in shunting is illustrated in Fig. 1. The proportion
of the diverted current is determined by the relative electrical re-
sistance values in the shunting and welding paths. Therefore, de-
termination and control of relative resistance in welding are of ul-
WELDING RESEARCH
timate importance. Helped by the advances in numerical
simulation techniques, efforts have been made to analyze the ef-
fect of shunting on weld nugget growth (Refs. 2–4), with some im-
plication on the critical weld spacing. However, the highly variable
and dynamic nature of electrical and thermal processes in weld-
ing makes it difficult to quantitatively understand the effect of
shunting either by analytical analysis or numerical modeling. Be-
cause of a serious lack of material properties, especially as func-
tions of temperature, a numerical modeling of the resistance spot
welding process generally relies on idealized material behaviors
and process setup. As a result, numerical predictions are more
qualitative than quantitative, and empirical studies such as the
ones by Howe (Ref. 5) and Wang et al. (Ref. 6) have been domi-
nant in shunting study.
Fig. 1 — Schematic of shunting in resistance spot welding.
The limitations of empirical investigations are apparent. First
of all, it is difficult to identify or isolate the influence of any indi-
vidual variable as there are a large number of variables involved
and extensive interactions exist among them in shunting. All of the
welding parameters, i.e., welding current, time, and electrode
force, and material properties such as bulk resistivity and surface
conditions impact shunting to a more significant and complex ex-
tent than they do in making a single spot weld. In addition, other
factors of a more random nature such as electrode wear, electrode
alignment, and workpiece fitup may also affect the shunting
process. Considering all these effects would make an experiment
WELDING JOURNAL 231-s
Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 232
Fig. 2 — Cross-sectional views of the shunt and shunted welds made on 2-
mm bare mild steel, with 8-mm weld spacing. The shunted welds were made
with a PVC plastic film placed on the faying interface. The welding parame-
ters were welding current = 6 kA, welding time = 500 ms, and electrode force
= 2.8 kN.
matrix too complex to handle. As revealed in the work by Wang et
al. (Ref. 6), many material and processing factors such as the elec-
trode force affect shunting, and their effects also strongly depend
on the values of other variables: increasing the electrode force re-
duces shunting when the weld spacing is large, while it actually
promotes shunting when the weld spacing is small when welding
thin sheets. The large number of variables and their complicated
interactions also make it difficult to obtain an accurate account of
the influence of an individual factor through experiments alone.
On the other hand, theoretical analysis is difficult considering the
number of variables involved and the limited knowledge on the
material properties governing the physical processes during weld-
ing, especially their dependence on temperature, which makes
shunting a very dynamic process. In this study, an analytical model
was developed based on the understanding of the physical
WELDING RESEARCH
processes involved in shunting, and the numerical values of the co-
efficients in the model were derived from the experimental results
obtained in a previous study (Ref. 6).
Modeling of the Shunting Process
As resistance spot welding is basically a joule heating process,
an understanding of shunting can be achieved through an analy-
sis of the electrical resistances involved in the process. A common
welding mode in industrial applications, constant current welding
mode was assumed in the model development. For simplicity only
the nearest neighboring weld was considered, and the influence of
all other welds was assumed negligible. The electrical process of
shunting is readily represented by flowing electric current through
a simple electric circuit, identical to that in Fig. 2 in Ref. 6, con-
sisting of several resistors based on the effects of various portions
of the sheet stack-up on heat generation and electric current flow,
which can be derived from the schematic in Fig. 1. First, the con-
tact resistance at the electrode-sheet interface could be significant
in affecting the welding process. However, it can be assumed iden-
tical for the weld being made (the shunted weld) and its shunt weld
and, therefore, its effect can be ignored for simplicity and it can
be excluded in the study of the shunting effect. As a result, the
number of resistances needed to be considered in developing the
shunting model is reduced, and they can be classified according to
their contributions to welding and shunting, along their respective
paths.
The electrical resistance to the shunting current IS, in the path
through the previously made weld (shunt weld) can be assumed to
be dominated by bulk resistance, and approximated as
2L
R ∝ρ
bS bulk
A
S
where L2 = D2 + t2, and the dimensions are illustrated in Fig. 1. D
is the horizontal projection of the shunting current path L. Its
value can be assumed as
Spacing – αd0 – βdI
where Spacing is the distance between the centers of the shunt and
232-s AUGUST 2013, VOL. 92
Fig. 3 — Schematic of loading on half of the sheet stack-up approximated as
a cantilever beam, with one end “fixed” by the shunt weld.
shunted welds (marked as “Weld Spacing” in Fig. 1), α and β are
constants used to specify the ends of the shunting path between
the shunt weld and the indentation impression mark. These two
constants would assume a value of 0.5 if the shunting current flew
directly from the edge of the indentation mark to the edge of the
shunt weld, which is the shortest path as can be seen in Fig. 1. The
metallography in Fig. 2 of welds made on a 2.0-mm mild steel
sheet with 8-mm weld spacing from an experimental study of
shunting (Ref. 6) shows they should be slightly smaller than 0.5.
From the figure it can be seen that the outlines of the heat-
affected zones (HAZ) of the shunted welds are asymmetric, indi-
cating uneven heating during welding. The HAZ of a shunted
weld has upper and lower left corners extending to the electrode
contact surfaces, which are different from those on the right side,
indicating possible concentrated electric current passing through
these areas. Similar phenomenon has been observed in other
shunting welds in experiments (Ref. 6). Consider the upper left
corner of the HAZ in the first shunted weld (the second in the se-
quence) in Fig. 2. As the darkened area near the electrode surface
is located inside the edge of the indentation mark, it is reasonable
to assume that the shunting current path starts from this place, not
the indentation edge. For the same reason the center of the shunt-
ing path is assumed passing through a point inside the shunt weld,
not on its edge. Considering the possible shunting path revealed
by this figure, the vertical projection of the shunting path should
also be slightly smaller than 2t as exhibited in Fig. 1. Because of
this, γt instead of t, where γ is smaller than unity should be used
for calculating L, i.e.,
L2 = (Spacing – αd0 – βdI)2 + (γt)2
The average cross-sectional area of the shunting path, AS, can be
assumed to be proportional to the average of the projected areas
of the shunt weld and the electrode indentation onto the shunting
path, i.e.,
1⎛1 1 ⎞ 1 ⎛ ⎞
A ∝ ⎜⎜ 1π d 2 + π d 2 ⎟⎟ sinθ = π ⎜ d 2 + d 2 ⎟sinθ
S
2⎝4 0
4 I
⎠ 8 ⎝ 0 I ⎠
where θ is as shown in Fig. 1. As sinθ≈t/L, the bulk resistance of
the shunting path is
(Spacing −αd ) + (γ t )
2 2
L2 − βd
0 I
R ∝ρ =ρ
bS bulk ⎛ 2 ⎞ bulk ⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ d 0 + d I2 ⎟ t ⎜ d 0 + d I2 ⎟ t
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
The influence of other possible factors on RbS can be assumed
unchanged during shunting, and lumped into a constant CbS for
quantifying the bulk resistance of the shunting path
Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 233

the left by the shunt weld when the shunted weld is being made as
shown in Fig. 3, the actual force at the faying interface, Fappl, is
(Spacing −αd ) + (γ t )
2 2
− βd different from the applied electrode force, Felectrode, because of
0 I
R =C ρ (1) the resistance of the top sheet to bending. This is similar to an
bS bS bulk ⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ d 0 + d I2 ⎟ t analysis of expulsion in resistance welding by estimating the net
⎝ ⎠
force exerted by the electrodes at the faying interface (Ref. 7). Ap-
As the original faying interface is eliminated in the shunt weld, proximating the top (or bottom) sheet as a cantilever beam allows
the contact resistance in the shunting path can be assumed to be for an estimate of the force at the faying interface that is respon-
zero. The bulk resistance of the welding path can be derived in a sible for affecting the contact resistance when making the shunted
similar manner as RbS: weld. Through an analogy to the maximum deflection under a con-
centrated loading as formulated in any fundamental structural
analysis such as Ref. 8, the following relation can be derived for
2t
R ∝ρ the configuration in Fig. 3:
bW bulk
A
bW

The cross-sectional area of the welding path can be approxi- t3

F =F −η
mated by the average of the contact area at the faying interface appl electrode 3
(or the projected area of the shunted weld), and that at the elec-
trode-sheet interface
(Spacing − 0.5d ) 0

1⎛1 1 ⎞ The coefficient η represents the influence of the sheet width

A = ⎜⎜ π d 2 + π d 2 ⎟⎟ and material strength. Therefore, the contact resistance at the fay-
bW
2⎝4 I 4 ⎠ ing interface along the welding path can be expressed as
And RbW can be written as the following, with a constant CbW for
σ
the effect of all other fixed variables
(
= C ρ +C ρ ) y

WELDING RESEARCH
R (3)
cW cW 1 bulk cW 2 cont
t3
t F −η
electrode
=C ρ
(Spacing − 0.5d )
R (2) 3
bW bW bulk
d 2 +d 2 0
I

The contact resistance at the faying interface in the welding Considering the electric circuit consisting of the shunting and
path can be assumed to stem from a cylinder of a mixture, here- welding paths, the shunting current IS can be related to the over-
all current inI the Rbw + Rcw
secondary loop, I,I in the form of
after called “contact cylinder,” of the bulk metal and the sub- S = (4)
stances/contaminants on the surfaces. This cylinder has a height RbS + RbW + RcW
of lo and cross-sectional area of AW, which is a function of the ap-
plied electrode force. The contact resistance is affected by the
electrode force squeezing the weld stack-up, and such effect is re- From this equation it can be seen that a large resistance of the
flected by the deformation of this contact cylinder, approximated shunting path reduces the value of shunting current and, there-
as σy/σappl × lo. A base metal with a high yield stress, σy, resists fore, the shunting effect. The welding current is expressed in a
the deformation and reduction of electrical resistance; a large similar way as
electrode force generates a large applied stress at the faying in-
terface, σappl, and reduces contact resistance. Therefore, the con- Rbs
tact resistance at the faying interface, RcW, based on the afore- IW = I (5)
RbS + RbW + RcW
mentioned discussion, can be assumed

σ
R
cW (
= C ρ
cW 1 bulk
+C ρ
cW 2 cont )σ y
A
The dependence of the shunted weld on the shunt weld size,
welding time, current, and electrode force, in addition to the sheet
appl W
thickness and strength, can be derived by considering the equiva-
The constants CcW1 and CcW2 can be regarded as the weight- lence of heat needed for making the shunted weldment and the
ing factors of the contributions from the bulk and surface resist- heat generated through joule heating along the welding path.
ances in the contact cylinder. They contain the effects of surface The shunted weldment can be divided into two parts, and dif-
contaminants, other surface characteristics such as roughness and ferent amounts of heat are needed to create them. One is the weld
coating, and the contact cylinder height. The net force exerted on nugget. It can be approximated by an ellipsoid with a volume
the faying interface at the shunted weld, resulting from the applied
electrode force, is Fappl = σapplAW, and the contact resistance can 4 ⎛⎜ d ⎞⎟⎛⎜ d ⎞⎟
therefore, be expressed as
3 ⎝ 2 ⎠⎝ 2 ⎠
1
3
( )
π ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ λ d = πλ d 3

σ
R
cW
= C ( ρ
cW 1 bulk
+C ρ
cW 2 cont )F y where λ is a constant, representing the ratio of the height of the
ellipsoid nugget to its diameter. On the other hand, the joule heat
appl is also consumed to generate the HAZ, the volume of which can
The net force at the faying interface, Fappl, is usually smaller be approximated by the difference between a cylinder of size
than the electrode force. Although it is difficult to accurately cal-
⎛ ⎞ 1
(2t )⎜⎜⎝ π4 d
culate its value, it can be estimated through a structural analysis 2⎟ 2
of the forces acting on the welding stack-up. ⎟ = π td
By considering the top sheet as a cantilever beam “fixed” on ⎠ 2

WELDING JOURNAL 233-s

Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 234

and that of the nugget. Therefore, the total heat needed for the model make accurate analytical calculation of the constants irrel-
shunted weldment is approximately evant. The constants in Equation 6, however, can be determined
⎛1 ⎞ ⎛1 ⎞ and the equation explicitly expressed using the experimental re-
1
c ⎜⎜ πλ d 3 ⎟⎟ + c ⎜⎜ π td 2 − πλ d 3 ⎟⎟ = c ′ d 3 + c ′ td 2 sults such as those obtained in Ref. 6.
n h n h Before fitting the equation using the experimental observa-
⎝3 ⎠ ⎝2 3 ⎠
tions, a simplification is necessary on the constants of Equation 6.
In the above expression, the coefficients on the left-hand side First, both α and β can be chosen as 0.495, so the shunting current
represent the unit heats needed for making the nugget and the path extends just slightly into the electrode impression mark and
HAZ, and they can be lumped up as on the right-hand side for the shunt weld, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Similarly, γ can be taken as
convenience. 0.95. As the accurate bulk and contact resistivity values are gen-
The heat needed comes from resistance heating, and using erally difficult to obtain, their effects can be better represented by
Equation 5 the joule heat can be expressed as lumped coefficients, determined through curve fitting using ex-
perimental results that are categorized according to the surface
⎛ ⎞2 conditions. Standard curve fitting procedures such as those pro-
(R )τ ( )
2⎜
R ⎟ R +R
I2 +R =I bS τ vided by commercial software packages can be used in the calcu-
W bW cW W ⎜R +R +R ⎟ bW cW W
lation. Equation 6 can be simplified, by consolidating the coeffi-
⎝ bS bW cW ⎠
cients, as
Here τW is the welding time and I is the total welding current
used when making the shunted weld. Equating the joule heat to
that needed for making the weld produces the relationship be- ⎛ ⎞2
( ) ( )
2 2
⎜ 0.95t + Spacing − 0.495d − 0.495d ⎟
tween the shunted weld size and the welding parameters, material ⎜c 0 I ⎟
properties, and premade shunt weld size: ⎜ 3 ⎛ 2 ⎞ ⎟
⎜ ⎜ d 0 + d I2 ⎟ t ⎟
⎛ ⎞ 2 ⎝ ⎠
( )⎟⎟
t ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
⎜C ρ + C ρ +C ρ ⎜ c1 d 3 + c2 td 2 ⎟⎜ d 02 + d I2 ⎟ t 2 ⎜ c t cσ ⎟
⎝ ⎠⎝ ⎠ 6 y
⎜ bW bulk d 2 + d 2 cW 1 bulk cW 2 cont ⎜+c4 5 +c
4
⎟
⎜ I ⎟ ⎜ 2
d +d 2
c t3 ⎟
⎜ σ ⎟ ⎜ I F − 7 ⎟
WELDING RESEARCH

c ′ d 3 + c ′ td 2 = I 2τ electrode
⎜
( )
3⎟
n h W ⎜ y ⎟ ⎜ Spacing − 0.5d ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎝ 0 ⎠
⎜F t3 ⎟
−η ⎛ 2⎞
2

( ) + (Spacing − 0.495d )
2
⎜ electrode ⎟
( ) ⎜ 0.95t ⎟
3
⎜ ⎟ = I 2τ − 0.495d
Spacing − 0.5d W ⎜ 0 I ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
⎛ ⎞2 ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ c t cσ ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 5 +
6 y ⎟ (7 )
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 ⎟
⎜ d + d c t3 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ I F − 7
⎜ electrode 3⎟
⎜
⎜
⎟
⎟
⎜
⎝ (
Spacing − 0.5d ) ⎟
⎠
( ) ( )
2 2 0
⎜ Spacing − α d − β d + γ t ⎟
0 I
⎜ C ρ ⎟
bS bulk ⎛ 2 ⎞
⎜ 2
⎜ d0 + d I ⎟t ⎟
⎝ ⎠ The constants in Equation 7, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5, c6, and c7, can be
•⎜ ⎟ (6)
⎜ ⎟ determined through experiments with sufficient replications and
( ) ( )
2 2
⎜ Spacing − α d − β d + γt ⎟ as many combinations of variables as possible. They are clearly
⎜C ρ 0 I t ⎟
+C ρ material dependent, and the surface condition plays an important
⎜ ⎛ ⎞
d +d ⎟
bS bulk 2 bW bulk 2 2
⎜ d + d 2 ⎟t role in affecting the values of these constants. It should be noted
⎜ ⎝ 0 I ⎠ I ⎟
⎜ ⎟ that although the model shown in the equation is generic, a fitted
⎜ σ ⎟
⎜
⎜
+ (
C ρ
cW 1 bulk
+ C ρ
cW 2 cont ) y

t 3
⎜ F − η
electrode
( )
3
⎜ Spacing − 0.5d
⎝ 0
Although Equation 6 is derived using several assumptions and
simplifications, it outlines the fundamental relationship among
the variables when welding with a shunt weld. Welding spacing, as
an important welding process parameter, can be determined using
this relation. In addition, it provides a quantitative guidance for
selecting welding parameters in order to achieve quality welds
under restraints of weld spacing, as often seen in engineering de-
sign of welding. The constants in Equation 6 have to be deter-
mined through carefully planned experiments for practical use.
Examples
The model shown in Equation 6 relates the shunted weld to the
shunt weld and other process variables. However, the material
properties and process parameters are not sufficient, even if they
are available, to determine the constants in the model. The influ-
ence of the unavoidable random factors as well as the large num-
ber of assumptions and simplifications made when deriving the
⎟
⎟
model developed for a specific material system should be limited
to that material in the ranges of the relevant material properties.
⎟ To illustrate the procedure of determining the constants and
⎟ the use of the model in understanding shunting, the experimental
⎠
observations in a previous study (Ref. 6) were used to obtain the
explicit models for the material systems studied. The experiments
include two types of materials: mild steel (MS) and dual-phase
steel (DP) of several gauges. Several types of surface conditions
were used, including bare steel surface, pure zinc-coated or hot-
dipped galvanized (HDG) surface, plastic insertion of a thin
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film, and their combinations. Because of
the overwhelming influence of the contact resistance the experi-
mental data were classified into four groups according to the sur-
face conditions at the faying interface for the shunted welds: bare
steel surface (MS), zinc-coated (HDG) surface, bare steel (MS)
+ plastic insert, and zinc-coated (HDG) + plastic insert. The val-
ues of these four types of contact resistances are expected to be
very different, in addition to being unknown. Therefore, they were
treated separately to avoid complications and inaccuracy in quan-
tifying the shunting relations using Equation 7.
The constants in the equation were determined through curve
fitting using Mathematica8™ (Ref. 9) for each of the four types of
surface conditions. A fixed size of electrode indentation, dI, taken

234-s AUGUST 2013, VOL. 92

Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 235

Table 1 — Constants of Equation 7 for the Materials with the Four Types of Surface Conditions Tested in the Experiments

Mild steel (bare) Mild steel (bare) + plastic insert DP steel (HDG) DP steel (HDG) + plastic insert

c1 1.22239 × 10–9 8.93766 × 10–14 2.37641 × 10–9 3.32993 × 10–9

c2 3.08145 × 10–17 2.68256 × 10–9 1.73576 × 10–12 4.75207 × 10–15
c3 378747.0 492327.0 240506.0 526676.0
c4 158244.0 329371.0 169569.0 23620.0
c5 0.893066 0.0868412 0.0916093 3100.98
c6 0.892577 0.0868538 0.0918372 2.927
c7 0.999269 1.00023 1.00044 772.487

as 5.0 mm from the experiments, was used in the curve fitting. In A

curve fitting, the physical meaning of the constants should not be
sacrificed for the closeness of numerical fitting. For instance, a
negative c7 produces a better numerical fitting than a positive one.
However, it makes no physical sense according to the analysis in
the previous sections on the cantilever beam as demonstrated in
Fig. 3. In the present study, certain conditions were imposed on
such coefficients in order to preserve their physical meaning. The
constants determined for the four types of surface conditions are
listed in Table 1.
The values of the constants in the table vary in drastic ranges.
The main reason is that the units of the variables in Equation 7
were not made consistent, for the convenience of practical weld-

WELDING RESEARCH
ing. For instance, the unit of sheet thickness in the equation is mil-
limeter while that of the yield strength of material is MPa. This
can be observed by comparing the coefficients c3 and c6, while the B
former is for the dimensions, with a large value, and the latter cor-
responds to pressure with a much smaller value.
The accuracy of the models in Table 1 was verified by compar-
ing the two sides of Equation 7. Very small differences between
the values of the two sides were obtained for all the sets of exper-
imental observations and, therefore, the models were considered
valid. The fitted models shown in Table 1 can be used to study the
influence of various parameters. As weld spacing is the most im-
portant parameter in weld design, it was expressed in this study as
a function of other variables. The weld spacing needed to obtain
a shunted weld of certain size was expressed as a percentage of the
shunt weld size, in order to meet the requirements of weld qual-
ity, mainly in terms of weld size, in practice.
Fig. 4 — Effect of sheet thickness on weld spacing: A — Of the mild steel with
Effect of Sheet Thickness d0 = 4.8 mm, I = 6 kA, σy = 205 MPa, F = 2.3 kN, τ = 350 ms; B — of the
HDG DP steel with d0 = 5.9 mm, I = 8 kA, σy = 665 MPa, F = 4.0 kN,
τ = 500 ms.
Figure 4 shows the required weld spacing to achieve a certain
sized shunted weld goes up with sheet thickness. As expected, a
large weld spacing is necessary in order to have a shunted weld of tic insert when welding DP steels — Fig. 4B. The effect of plastic
size close to that of the shunt weld. For 0.5-mm bare mild steels, insert in HDG DP steels is not as significant as in the MS. This
an increment of little more than 1 mm is needed when the shunted could be the result of a nullified influence of the zinc coating by
weld size goes from 70 to 85%, and then 100% of that of the shunt the plastic film.
weld, as seen in Fig. 4A. Such an increment is more than 3 mm for
the 3-mm sheets. A greater increase in weld spacing is necessary Effect of Welding Time
when a plastic film was inserted in the faying interface. The plastic
insertion clearly raises the contact resistance and, therefore, the In Fig. 5, the shunt weld size was fixed at 4.8 mm for a 1.5-mm
electrical resistance along the welding path, amplifying the shunt- MS. It shows that increasing welding time is an effective means of
ing effect. However, this effect is thickness dependent. For thin minimizing the effect of shunting as it puts more heat into a weld
sheets, a larger weld space is necessary for the bare steels than for and reduces the weld spacing needed. When welding time is short,
those with a plastic insert, and the latter overtake the former when the time to melt the interface takes a significant proportion of the
the sheet thickness goes beyond the range of 1.5–1.7 mm. In gen- entire welding time. The electric current diverted by the shunt
eral, shunting is more sensitive to sheet thickness when the plastic weld results in a large percentage of heat loss, and a large weld
insert is used, implying that the contact resistance along the weld- spacing is necessary in order to avoid shunting. With a long weld-
ing path plays a decisive role in shunting. A sizeable difference ex- ing time, however, it takes a small fraction of the total time for the
ists between these two types of interfaces for thick sheets as well. contact resistance to disappear when the interface melts, and
For instance, the 3-mm sheet with plastic insert needs a weld spac- more current and heat are distributed to the shunted weld as a re-
ing of 45 mm, 12 mm larger than that without the plastic insert. sult. This effect is more profound when the plastic insert is used
Similar to that observed in the MS, the weld spacing goes up at the faying interface. The diversion of electric current from the
with sheet thickness for both zinc-coated and zinc-coated + plas- welding path into the shunting path is magnified by the plastic in-

WELDING JOURNAL 235-s

Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 236
sert when welding time is short, and less heat is directed to the
shunted weld, resulting in a larger weld spacing necessary than in
a bare steel. When the welding time is long, however, the in-
creased contact resistance from the plastic insert actually works to
the benefit of reducing weld spacing because more heat is gener-
ated at the shunted weld compared with the case of bare steel. This
explains that the weld spacing needed for welding with the plastic
insert is significantly smaller than that without the plastic insert.
Effect of Electrode Force
Comparing Fig. 6A with Fig. 5, it can be seen that the influence
of electrode force on weld spacing is similar to that of welding
time. A large electrode force reduces the contact resistance in the
welding path, as can be seen from Equation 3. Therefore, a small
weld spacing is allowed with large electrode forces. Figure 6 also
shows the electrode force has a smaller effect when the plastic in-
sert was used at the faying interface. This is related to the way the
plastic-inserted interface evolves during welding. Under a large
WELDING RESEARCH
Fig. 5 — Dependence of weld spacing on welding time for the mild steel with
d0 = 4.8 mm, I = 6 kA, σy = 205 MPa, F = 2.3 kN, t = 1.5 mm.
electrode force, a certain amount of (molten) plastic is “sealed”
by the electrode force exerted at the faying interface, and this
amount doesn’t change much with increasing electrode force. As
a result, the contact resistance is largely determined by the “en-
trapped” polymer, and the electrode force, which is the dominant
factor on steels without plastic insert, is less effective in creating
an intimate contact between the two sheets. Therefore, with the
existence of plastic film at the interface, the electrode force has a
lesser effect compared with that of a bare interface.
It is interesting to see that in the DP steels, the dependence of
weld spacing on electrode force shows similar trends in the HDG
and HDG + plastic insert specimens. With a loose requirement
of the shunted weld reaching 70% of the shunt weld in size, the
plastic insert makes negligible difference. When making larger
shunted welds, however, the difference in weld spacing between
those of the original HDG and plastic-inserted HDG faying in-
terfaces goes up, yet the difference is virtually a constant. There-
fore, the influence of electrode force on weld spacing is similar
with these two types of contact interfaces. This appears related to
the zinc coating. The existence of pure zinc on the surface reduces
the contact resistance, while inserting a plastic film at the faying
interface does the opposite. Increasing the electrode force
squeezes some of the molten zinc out of the contact area to its pe-
riphery. But this part of the zinc still contributes to conducting
electric current along the welding path, as it accumulates along the
periphery of the contact area, forming a ring of molten zinc.
Therefore, increasing the electrode force has a smaller effect on
changing the contact resistance, resulting in a smaller decrease in
weld spacing as shown in Fig. 6B than observed in the uncoated
mild steels in Fig. 6A. The increased joule heating, along with a
236-s AUGUST 2013, VOL. 92
A
B
Fig. 6 — Effect of electrode force on weld spacing: A — Of the mild steel with
d0 = 4.8 mm, I = 6 kA, σy = 205 MPa, t = 1.5 mm, τ = 350 ms; B — of the
DP steel with d0 = 5.9 mm, I = 8 kA, σy = 665 MPa, t = 1.2 mm, τ =
500 ms.
corresponding decrease in weld spacing, results from a decrease
in contact resistance and an increase in welding current when in-
creasing the electrode force on the original zinc-coated interface.
A similar process could occur in the plastic-inserted stack-up. The
larger contact resistance with the plastic insert generates more
heat compared to the one of original surfaces, and results in
smaller weld spacing when making similar sized welds.
Effects of Other Factors
As several DP steels of different grades were used in the ex-
periment, the yield strength can be regarded as a variable. The
weld spacing requirements as functions of yield strength from 300
to 900 MPa are plotted in Fig. 7. Similar to the dependence of weld
spacing on other variables in the HDG DP steels, the yield
strength of the sheet material has a smooth effect on the weld
spacing. Increasing the yield strength results in an increase in weld
spacing at a fixed electrode force, as a sheet with a large yield
strength is less compliant and a small intimate contact is produced
at the faying interface. However, such an intimate contact has a
smaller impact on the overall contact resistance in HDG steels, as
the molten zinc can easily fill the root opening at the faying inter-
face. A larger rise in weld spacing should be expected when weld-
ing bare steels.
The horizontal projected length and, therefore, that of the
shunting path decrease when the shunt weld size increases as seen
in Fig. 1. The actual shunting path and, therefore, the shunting ef-
fect change along with the shunt weld even with fixed weld spac-
ing. Figure 8 shows the dependence of weld spacing on the shunt
weld size in order to achieve a certain sized shunted weld. As ex-
pected, weld spacing increases with the shunt weld size, and for
the same sized shunt weld a larger shunted weld requires a larger
weld spacing.
The combined effect of the electrode force and welding time
on weld spacing can be presented using a contour plot as shown
Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 237
Fig. 7 — Effect of sheet yield strength on weld spacing in HDG steels. d0 =
5.9 mm, I = 8 kA, F = 4.0 kN, t = 1.2 mm, τ = 500 ms.
in Fig. 9. For this bare steel, both the electrode force and welding
time reduce the weld spacing needed to produce a weld of the
same size as the shunt weld. Increasing either electrode force or
welding time individually can shorten the weld spacing from ap-
proximately 32 to 26 mm, and simultaneously raising these two
welding parameters to 3.0 kN and 500 ms, respectively, may ren-
der an identical-sized weld to the shunted one with a weld spac-
ing of only 21 mm.
Fig. 8 — Effect of shunt weld size on weld spacing in bare MS steels. σy = 205
MPa, I = 6 kA, F = 2.3 kN, t = 1.5 mm, τ = 350 ms.
When a plastic film was inserted into the faying interface when
making the shunted weld, the effects of electrode force and weld-
ing time on the required weld spacing were different from those
observed in welding bare steels. In Fig. 10, a long welding time re-
duces the weld spacing, which is similar to what was observed in
Fig. 5, while the weld spacing is fairly insensitive to the electrode
force. This observation is consistent with that in Fig. 6A, where in-
creasing electrode force is no longer effective in reducing weld
spacing when the electrode force reaches a certain level. The
largest weld spacing appears at the corner of maximal electrode
force and minimal welding time. The different roles the electrode
force plays in welding bare and plastic insertion-filled faying in-
terfaces are the result of the containment of the plastic film in the
contact area by the electrode force, as discussed in the previous
section on the effect of electrode force. As the plastic insertion
represents an extreme of contaminated sheet surfaces that is not
normally encountered in practice, the trend, rather than the value,
of the weld spacing shown in the figure is more important. Many
of the surface contaminates such as grease, etc., may disappear
under the intensive heating in resistance spot welding and, there-
fore, their influence on weld spacing is more suitably represented
by Fig. 9 than Fig. 10.
Fig. 9 — Contour plot of
weld spacing vs. electrode
force and welding time for a
bare mild steel. d0 = 4.8
mm, σy = 205 MPa, I = 6
kA, t = 1.5 mm, and the
shunted weld size is identi-
cal to that of the shunt weld.
Weld Spacing Requirements
In welding design, it is often necessary to determine the weld
spacing as a function of sheet thickness. In Fig. 11, the weld spacing
needed for different gauges of MS and zinc-coated DP steels is plot-
WELDING RESEARCH
ted, in order to create a shunted weld of the same size as the shunt
weld. Note that different welding parameters are used for predict-
ing the weld spacing in these two types of materials, based on the ac-
tual values obtained from the experiments. For the ease of use in
welding practice step functions were created. It shows that the weld
spacing required for welding the MS is larger than that for the DP
steel, largely due to the difference in the surface resistance between
the steels used in the experiments. The MS steel was uncoated in fab-
ricated condition, while the DP steels were hot-dip coated with zinc.
A faying interface covered by pure zinc has significantly lower elec-
trical resistance than that of a bare steel. As a result, the current in
the shunting path takes a smaller portion than in a bare steel stack-
up. Therefore, the weld spacing required to avoid shunting in the
coated steel is smaller than in the bare steel. This effect is offset
slightly, though, by the yield strength of the DP steels, because a steel
of higher yield strength usually requires a larger weld spacing as it
takes more electrode force to create an intimate contact at the fay-
ing interface. For a fixed electrode force, a large weld spacing is re-
quired when the material is strong, as seen in Fig. 7.
Fig. 10 — Contour plot
of weld spacing vs. elec-
trode force and welding
time for a bare mild steel
with a plastic insert at
the faying interface: d0
= 4.8 mm, σy = 205
MPa, I = 6 kA, t = 1.5
mm, and the shunted
weld size is identical to
that of the shunt weld.
WELDING JOURNAL 237-s
Li Supplement July 2013_Layout 1 7/12/13 3:23 PM Page 238

tems in the range of experiment. Extrapolation is not recom-

mended, especially in the cases of large variation in contact re-
sistance.
Acknowledgment

Author B. Wang gratefully acknowledges the financial support

from Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of P.R.
China (Project No. LQ12E05006).

References

1. Tumuluru, M. D., Zhang, H., and Matteson, R. 2011. Procedure de-

Fig. 11 — Weld spacing as a function of sheet thickness. The shunted weld is
assumed to have an equal size to the shunt weld. For the MS, d0 = 4.8 mm,
σy = 205 MPa, and the welding parameters are I = 6 kA, τ = 350 ms, and F
= 2.3 kN; and for the hot-dipped DP steels, d0 = 5.9 mm, σy = 665 MPa,
and the welding parameters are I = 8 kA, τ = 500 ms, and F = 4.0 kN.
Summary
WELDING RESEARCH
velopment and practice considerations for resistance welding. ASM Hand-
book on Welding (Volume 6). Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International.
2. Chang, H. S. 1990. A study on the shunt effect in resistance spot
welding. Welding Journal 69(8): 308-s to 317-s.
3. Tsai, C. L., Dai, W. L., Dickinson, D. W., and Papritan, J. C. 1991.
Analysis and development of a real-time control methodology in resist-
ance spot welding. Welding Journal 70(12): 339-s to 351-s.
4. Browne, D. J., Chandler, H. W., Evans, J. T., James, P. S., Wen, J.,
and Newton, C. J. 1995. Computer simulation of resistance spot welding
in aluminum (Part 2). Welding Journal 74(12): 417-s to 422-s.
5. Howe, P. 1994. Spot weld spacing effect on weld button size. Pro-
ceedings of Sheet Metal Welding Conference VI, Paper C03. AWS Detroit
Section.
6. Wang, B., Lou, M., Shen, Q., Li, Y. B., and Zhang, H. 2013. Shunt-
ing effect in resistance spot welding steels — Part 1: Experimental study.
Welding Journal 92(6): 182-s to 189-s.

In this study, the shunting process was analyzed and an analyt- 7. Zhang, H., and Senkara, J. 2012. Resistance Welding: Fundamentals
ical model was produced. Using the models for several material and Applications. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, 2nd edition, Boca
Raton, London, New York.
systems developed by fitting the experimental observations, the
8. Gere, J. M., and Timoshenko, S. P. 1997. Mechanics of Materials,
influences of several factors on the minimum weld spacing were PWS Publishing Co.
explicitly and quantitatively expressed. The important findings are 9. Mathematica 8, Wolfram Research, Inc., v. 8.0.1.0, Copyright
summarized as follows: 1988–2011.
1. The analytical model fits well with the experimental results
on all four types of drastically different surface conditions for the
mild and dual-phase steels of various gauges;
2. For all the factors considered, without exception, a large Publish Your Research in the
weld spacing is always needed in order to make a large shunted
weld;
3. In general, the required minimum weld spacing goes up with
the sheet thickness, and a high contact resistance at the faying in-
terface amplifies this dependence;
4. The effect of electrode force is accurately accounted for in
the analytical model by considering the net force at the faying in-
terface. In general, it reduces the weld spacing required. However,
and You’ll Get
its effect on weld spacing is affected by other factors, such as the  Q Your research sent to more than 68,000
surface condition; American Welding Society members
5. Welding time is effective in reducing weld spacing, and an  Q Your published paper posted on the AWS
excessive contact resistance such as generated by inserting a plas- Web site for FREE access worldwide
tic film at the faying interface may help in minimizing the weld (www.aws.org/w/a/research/index.html)
spacing by generating more heat at the shunted weld;  Q
6. The models also allow for an understanding of the effect of The most recent Impact Factor of 1.00
sheet yield strength. A sheet of high yield strength requires a large  Q No page charges
weld spacing because of its high resistance to deformation under
an electrode force;  Q Your paper printed in full color
7. The size of the shunt weld directly affects shunting as it dic-  Q Electronic submission and tracking through
tates the shunting path; Editorial Manager
8. Contact resistance plays a dominant role in shunting, and (www.editorialmanager.com/wj)
zinc-coated surfaces generally behave significantly different than  Q Every research paper published in the
bare steels; Welding Journal since 1970 available FREE
9. The models also reveal the complex interactions among the on the AWS Web site
process parameters in affecting shunting. For instance, the elec- (www.aws.org/wj/supplement/supplement-
trode force and welding time interact with the surface contact re- index.html)
sistance in affecting shunting. Such an interaction is prevalent in
shunting. far,, the most peopl
By far people,
e, at the least cost,
Through a carefully planned experiment, this analytical model will be exposed to your research when you
can be used to describe the influence of process parameters on publish in the world-respected
world-respected
shunting in resistance spot welding a specific material. The con- W
Welding
elding Journal
clusions derived, however, are only applicable to the material sys-

238-s AUGUST 2013, VOL. 92