A New Approach of Characterisation

for Joint Specimens in Supporting

Fatigue Analysis
Dr. Zongjin Lu
Department of Materials Engineering
Jaguar Land Rover

Introduction
As the development of modern joining technology, more and more
new joints are used in automotive industry.
Fatigue characterization of the joint specimens is a fundamental
requirement for design and analysis activities.
Often a load-life relationship (F-N) is required with final failure of
specimens as the fatigue life.
Various types of specimens are used for fatigue characterisation,
such as over-lap shear, coach-peel, H-shear, H-peel, U-shape and
double-cup etc.
With more and more CAE methods applied in design and analysis,
the fatigue life to certain sized crack rather than the final failure is
required.
Due to the lack of common standard for fatigue testing of various
joint specimens, the test data are less comparable. One of the
most important issues is how to define of fatigue life.
The aim of this presentation is to present a method to define the
fatigue life in fatigue characterisation activities and its implication
to the fatigue analysis.
www.nafems.org

Fatigue Analysis Procedure

Geometry
FE Model

Materials
S-N, -N

Fatigue
Damage
(Fatigue Life)

Loading
Load-Time History

Optimization

www.nafems.org

Basic Fatigue Calculation

Sa
Sm=0

Sa1
Sa2

N1

n1

n2

N2

Miners Rule:

Fatigue Life:

ni
=1

i =1 N i

1
=
Fatigue life =
Damage

1
n

ni
Ni

i =1

www.nafems.org

Fatigue Test Specimens for Joints

F

F
A
A

F
F

www.nafems.org

Fatigue Tests for Joints

Traditional method Final life approach
Load control (constant load)
Tension-tension (often R=0.1)
Test terminated when fully fractured
Final life is defined as Fatigue Life
Recent method Fixed stiffness drop approach
Load control (constant load)
Tension-tension (often R=0.1)
Test terminated at certain amount of displacement or fully fractured
Dynamic stiffness drop to a certain level of its initial value (e.g. 10%
or 40%) is defined as Fatigue Life - Fixed Stiffness Drop Method

www.nafems.org

Fixed Stiffness Drop Approach

Dynamic Stiffness = Load Range / Displacement Range
20000

0.5

15000

0.4

10000

0.3

5000

0.2

Displacement [mm]

Stiffness [N/mm]

a%

Fatigue Life
0
0

500000

1000000

0.1
1500000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Failure Criterion Spot Welds

Failure criterion for singlespot weld specimens (ISO/FDIS 14324)
Failure is defined as the development of cracks of a specified
length (at least one diameter of the spot weld) on one or both
outer surfaces of the test specimens.
Automotive industry
Failure is defined as the development of cracks about one
diameter of the spot weld on one or both outer surfaces of the
test specimens.
Fatigue Test Fixed Stiffness Drop Approach
Stiffness drop depends on specimen geometry, loading mode
10% stiffness drop for shear mode
40% stiffness drop for peel mode

www.nafems.org

Spot Welds Lap-shear

Three regimes can be defined on the stiffness curve
Steel Spot welds lap-shear
30000

10%

Stiffness [Nmm]

25000
20000

Regime I

Regime II

Regime III

Regime I: Crack initiation

Regime II: Small crack propagation
Regime III: Rapid crack propagation

15000
10000

End of Regime II can be

defined as Fatigue Life
Stiffness Curve Method

5000

Fatigue Life
Fatigue Life

0
0

500000

1000000
1500000
N [cycle]

2000000

2500000

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
Consistent between two methods
Less Scatter when using Stiffness Curve Method
Steel Spot Welds - Lap-shear

100%

10% stiffness drop

Stiffness curve defined

Life Ratio to Final Failure [%]

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
1

Test

www.nafems.org

Spot Welds T-peel

Stiffness Curve Method is more conservative - Safe
Steel spot welds coach peel
1600

Stiffness [Nmm]

1200

40%

800

Regime III

Regime II

Regime I

Fatigue Life

400

Fatigue Life
0
0

100000

200000

300000

400000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
Better consistency when using Stiffness Curve Method
Less Scatter when using Stiffness Curve Method
Steel spot welds - Coach-peel

40% Stiffness drop

Stiffness curve defined

100%

90%

Life ratio to final failure

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
1

10

Test

www.nafems.org

ARPLUS Welds Lap-shear

Use Stiffness Curve Method to define the fatigue life - End of Regime II
Steel ARPLUS Lap-shear
30000

Stiffness [Nmm]

25000

10%

20000

Fatigue Life

15000

10000

Fatigue Life

5000
Regime I

Regime II

Regime III

0
0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
Better consistency when using Stiffness Curve Method
Less Scatter when using Stiffness Curve Method
ARPLUS Steel Welds - Lap-shear

10% stiffness drop

Stiffness curve defined

100%

Life Ratio to Final Failure [%]

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
1

Test

www.nafems.org

ARPLUS Welds Coach-peel

Stiffness Curve Method is more conservative - Safe
ARPLUS steel welds - Coach-peel
2000

Stiffness [Nmm]

1500

40%

1000

Regime III

Regime II

Regime I

Fatigue Life

500

Fatigue Life
0
0

50000

100000

150000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
Better consistency when using Stiffness Curve Method
Less Scatter when using Stiffness Curve Method
ARPLUS steel welds - coach peel

40% Stiffness drop

Stiffness curve defined

100%

90%

Life ratio to failure [%]

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
1

10

11

12

Test

www.nafems.org

How About Other Joints?

For spot welds and ARPLUS weld, the crack size can be clearly
defined and monitored, so that the relationship between crack size
and stiffness drop is well established. However in many cases the
crack size can not be seen before final failure, e.g. brazing, adhesive
bonding, MIG welds etc.

Crack propagation direction

Can we still used Fixed stiffness drop (10% for Shear and 40% for
Peel) or Stiffness Curve Method to define the fatigue life?

www.nafems.org

Steel Laser Brazing Lap-shear

10% stiffness drop is too close to the final failure - UNSAFE!!!
Steel laser brazing - lap-shear
60000
50000
40000
Regime II

Stiffness [Nmm]

10%

30000
Regime I

Regime III

20000

Fatigue Life
10000

Fatigue Life

0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
10% stiffness drop is nearly the same as final failure
Stiffness Curve Method is the only one to use
10% stiffness drop

Steel laser brazing - Lap-shear

Stiffness curve defined

Life ration to final failure

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
1

10

Test

www.nafems.org

Steel laser brazing Coach-peel

40% stiffness drop is in Regime III (Rapid Crack Propagation) UNSAFE!!!
Steel Laser brazing Coach Peel
7000
Regime II

Regime I

Stiffness [Nmm]

6000
5000

Regime III

40%

4000
3000
2000

Fatigue Life
Fatigue Life

1000
0
0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
Better consistency when using Stiffness Curve Method
40% stiffness drop method is less conservative
Less Scatter when using Stiffness Curve Method
Steel laser brazing - Coach-peel

40% Stiffness drop

Stiffness curve defined

100%

90%

Life ratio to final failure

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
1

10

11

Test

www.nafems.org

Hybrid Coach-peel
40% stiffness drop life is nearly the same as final failure UNSAFE!!!
Hybrid - Spot Weld+Adhesive - Coach Peel
50000

40000
Stiffness [Nmm]

Regime III

Regime II

Regime I

40%
30000

20000

Fatigue Life
10000

Fatigue Life

0
0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

N [cycle]

www.nafems.org

Method Comparison
40% stiffness drop is nearly the same as final failure
Stiffness Curve Method is the only one to use
40% stiffness drop

Hybrid-Spot weld+adhesive Coach-peel

Stiffness curve defined

100%

Life ration to the final failure

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
1

Test

www.nafems.org

Discussion

Simple Coupon

Complex Coupon

Component

If crack appeared
on one weld, the
other one will fail
very quickly

If crack appeared
on one weld, the
rest will fail but
not as fast as the
simple coupon

If crack appeared on
one weld, load will be
re-distributed needs
to be re-analysed with
modified model
www.nafems.org

Further Discussion
When a crack reaches the size of
the nugget at a Hot Spot, the
nugget will be no long to take the
load, the load will be redistributed.
The consequent result is
Neighbour nuggets take more load
and generate new cracks. Those
cracks are merged with the hot
spot crack to form a large crack
subsequently
The Hot Spot crack propagation
stops and new crack initiates in the
new location
In either case, single crack wont be able to propagate to the final size
of the fatigue test, so that crack size of nugget diameter should be
used as the failure criterion for CAE analysis.
www.nafems.org

Suggested Procedure
Use Stiffness Curve method for
joints characterisation

Sa

Normal analysis to get the fatigue

life of the hot spot

Modify the model by eliminating the

hot spot element and re-run the
analysis to find next hot spot
Carry on the above procedure until
the failure criterion for the component
is met
This method is also applicable for
other types of joints

www.nafems.org

Fatigue Analysis Procedure

Final Result
Loading

Yes

Load History

Materials
S-N

Geometry
FE Model

Fatigue Life
Calculation
for Hot Spot

Component
Component
Failure?
Failure?
No
Modify FE model
www.nafems.org

Conclusions
Three regimes can be defined on the stiffness curve
recorded during the fatigue test for joint specimens.
They are
Regime I: Crack initiation
Regime II: Small crack propagation
Regime III: Rapid crack propagation

The portion of each regime depends on material, joint

type and loading mode etc.
A new method, Stiffness Curve Method, has been
developed for defining the fatigue life of joint
specimens by using the end of Regime II on the
stiffness curve.
Fatigue analysis needs to be carried out in steps
www.nafems.org