Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure

mode of resistance spot welds

M. Pouranvari1, H. R. Asgari2, S. M. Mosavizadch3, P. H. Marashi*4 and
M. Goodarzi5
In the present paper, effects of welding current, welding time, electrode pressure and holding
time on the weld nugget size were studied. A failure mechanism was proposed to describe both
interfacial and pullout failure modes. This mechanism was confirmed by SEM investigations. In the
light of this mechanism, the effect of welding parameters on static weld strength and failure mode
was studied. Then, an analytical model was proposed to predict failure mode and to estimate
minimum nugget diameter (critical diameter) to ensure pullout failure mode in shear tensile test.
On the contrary to existing industrial standards, in this model, critical nugget diameter is attributed
to metallurgical characterisation of material (weld nugget hardness to failure location hardness
ratio), in addition to sheet thickness. For a given sheet thickness, decreasing HHWN FL
increases
interfacial failure mode tendency. The results of this model were compared with experimental data
and also with the literature.
Keywords: Resistance spot welding, Weld nugget size, Failure mode, Shear tensile test

Introduction integrity. Therefore, understanding spot welds mechan-

Resistance spot welding (RSW) is considered as the
dominant process for joining sheet metals in automotive
industry. Typically, there are about 2000–5000 spot
welds in a modern vehicle. Simplicity, low cost, high
speed (low process time) and automation possibility are
among the advantages of this process.
Owing to the weld thermal cycle a heterogeneous
structure will be created in spot weld and the region
around it. Spot weld and its surrounding area can be
divided into three zones:
(i) fusion zone or weld nugget (melted and resoli-
dified region)
(ii) heat affected zone (HAZ), a region which is not
melted but undergoes structural changes owing
to welding heat
(iii) base metal (BM) (see Fig. 1).
Geometrically, spot weld causes an external crack at the
joint.1 Also, electrode forces create an indentation and
therefore stress concentration in the sheet (Fig. 1). These
two factors (structural and geometrical changes) reduce
load capacity of the joint compared with the BM.
Vehicle crashworthiness depends on the weld structural
1
Material science and engineering Department, Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
Material Science Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
3
Material Science and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Tehran
University, Iran
4
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, PO Box 15875 4413, Iran
5
Material science and engineering Department, University of Science and
Technology of Iran, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author, email pirmarashi@yahoo.co.uk
ical behaviour under different loading conditions is
important.
Spot weld failure analysis is largely divided in two: the
overload failure and the fatigue analysis. Accidents,
rough roads or driving conditions which apply excessive
load on the vehicle, are some of the cases which can
cause overload failure.2
Spot weld failure mode is a qualitative measure of the
weld quality. Generally, spot weld failure occurs in two
modes: interfacial and pullout. In interfacial mode,
failure occurs through nugget, while in pullout mode,
failure occurs by complete (or partial) withdrawal of
nugget from one sheet. The shape of load displacement
curve under shear tensile test for both interfacial and
pullout modes is drawn schematically in Fig. 2. Load
carrying capacity and energy absorption capability for
those welds fail under interfacial mode, are much less
than those which fail under pullout mode. To ensure
reliability of spot welds during vehicle lifetime, process
parameters should be adjusted so that pullout failure
mode is guaranteed.
Weld nugget size is the most important parameter
determining its mechanical behaviour.3–5 Various indus-
trial standards have recommended a minimum weld size
for a given sheet thickness. For example, American
Welding Society/American National Standards
Institute/Society of Automotive Engineers (AWS/
ANSI/SAE)6 has recommended equation (1)
d~4t1=2 (1)
where d and t are weld nugget diameter and sheet
thickness in mm respectively. However, this criterion

ß 2007 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 10 August 2006; accepted
DOI 10.1179/174329307X164409 Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2007 VOL 12 NO 3 217
 Pouranvari et al.
1 Schematic of spot weld macrostructure
(sheet thickness rule) does not always give the best
result. For example, Sawhill et al.7 and Pollard8 have
demonstrated that to ensure pullout failure mode for
high strength steels, a bigger weld nugget diameter is
required compared with the recommended values by
equation (1). Therefore, it seems that metallurgical
factors should be considered, in addition to sheet
thickness.
Chao9 developed two equations for calculating failure
load under two failure modes, interfacial and pullout, in
cross-tension test of spot welds, using fracture
mechanics and plastic collapse respectively. Based on
the analysis of competition of these two failure modes,
the minimum weld nugget size for a given sheet metal
thickness to ensure a pullout failure was obtained.
Although his analytical formula relates the minimum
weld nugget diameter to fracture toughness of weld
nugget and fracture strength in shear of HAZ, he tried to
show that his model is not material dependence.
Sun et al.10 proposed an analytical model to determine
the failure mode of an aluminium resistance spot weld
during cross-tension test based on lower bound limit
load analysis. Since spot welding of aluminium is very
sensitive to expulsion, they account volume fraction of
porosity in interfacial failure load formula. It was
concluded that nugget diameter, sheet thickness and
level of weld porosity are the main factors influencing
the cross-tension failure mode of an aluminium spot
weld.
In the present paper, the effect of welding parameters
on nugget growth, then spot weld failure mechanism are
discussed and in the light of this mechanism, the effect of
welding parameters on static weld strength and failure
mode was studied. A simple analytical model is
2 Load displacement diagram for both failure modes
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
3 schematic representation of weld schedules used in
this investigation
proposed to predict minimum weld nugget size to ensure
pullout failure mode in shear tensile test. Finally, the
results of this model is compared with experimental data
and also to the results presented in the literature.
Experimental
A 0.8 mm thick uncoated low carbon steel of the type used
in automotive industry was used in this investigation.
Yield strength of this sheet steel was 180 MPa and its
ultimate tensile strength was 330 MPa. The chemical com-
position of the steel is Fe–0.0097N–0.011S–0.0093P–0.02Cr–
0.004Mo–0.035Ni–0.039Al–0.032Si–0.189Mn–0.045C. Welds
were made using a 120 kVA ac pedestal resistance spot
welder. All test used class 2 (CuzZrzCr) truncated
electrodes with a tip face diameter of 5 mm. The welding
schedule is shown in Fig. 3. Shear tensile test samples
were prepared according to ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8.9-97
standard.6 Figure 4 shows the sample dimensions.
Sample width was chosen so that it does not affect weld
strength and therefore in shear tensile test spot weld
strength is evaluated rather than BM strength.
According to Zhou et al.,11 in order to avoid sample
width effect on weld strength and failure mode, equation
(2) should exist between sample width W and sample
thickness t
W ¢Wcritical,1 ~13:4z18:59t (2)
According to the equation (2), minimum sample width
should be 28 mm. This condition was met in this
investigation (W545 mm). Shear tensile tests were
performed using an Instron universal testing machine
with strain rate of 2 mm min21 and force displacement
curve was recorded simultaneously. Pmax was extracted
from force displacement curve (Fig. 2), nugget diameter
4 Shear tensile sample dimension for 0.8 mm thick sheet
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 218
 Pouranvari et al. Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds

welding heat input. By increasing weld current and weld

5 Nugget size variations versus current
was measured for each sample and failure mode was
determined from failed samples. Fractographic studies
carried out by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Microhardness test was performed along interfacial line
and 100 mm above weld centreline using 100 g load.
Results and discussions
Effect of welding parameters on nugget size
Welding current and time
The effects of welding current and time on nugget size
(diameter) are presented in Table 1. Also Fig. 5 shows
changes in nugget diameter as a function of welding
current. Volume of melted nugget is a function of
time produced heat increases which in turn, increase the
diameter of nugget. As can be seen in Fig. 5 for tw59
cycles, the slope of nugget diameter variation with
welding current is not constant for all current values.
Two parameters influence the growth rate of nugget:
increase in electrical resistance owing to temperature
increase in the weld nugget, and electrical resistance
reduction owing to nugget size increase. At early stages
of nugget growth, because of the small size of the
nugget, the former (heat increase owing to welding
current or time increase) has more pronounce effect.
However, as the nugget size increases, electrical resis-
tance reduction owing to this size increase becomes more
effective; therefore, the growth rate of nugget decreases
by increasing welding current and welding time.
Therefore, at high welding currents, nugget size remains
almost constant.
Effect of holding time on nugget size
Table 2 shows the variations of nugget size with holding
time. As can be seen, nugget size is independent from
holding time. Electrode holding time on solidifying
nugget does not affect the generated heat at welding
point and therefore does not change the volume of the
melt.
Effect of electrode pressure on nugget size
Table 3 shows nugget size variations with electrode
force. As the electrode force increases, the nugget size
decreases. Contact resistance at faying surface domi-
nates the nugget development, which in turn is strongly
affected by electrode pressure.12 Electrode force increase
reduces local thickness of metal sheets between two
electrodes, slightly and increases the contact area at the
interface (owing to the change in surface roughness).13
As resistance is directly related to the length and

Table 1 Effect of welding current and time on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*

Welding conditions{ Welding conditions{

Welding Peak Nugget Welding

Failure Peak load, Nugget diameter, Welding time, current, Failure load, diameter, time, Welding
mode kN mm cycles kA mode kN mm cycles current, kA

IF 3.2 2.2 7 7 IF 3.7 2.4 5 8

IF 4.2 3.1 7 8 IF 4 2.8 6 8
PF 4.5 3.8 7 9 IF 4.2 3.1 7 8
PF 4.8 4.2 7 10 PF 4.3 3.65 8 8
PF 5 5 7 11 PF 4.8 4.2 9 8
IF 3.8 2.8 9 7 PF 4. 3.5 5 9
PF 4.8 4.2 9 8 PF 4.2 3.7 6 9
PF 5 5.2 9 9 PF 4.5 3.8 7 9
PF 4.9 5.1 9 10 PF 5 5.1 8 9
PF 5 5.2 9 11 PF 5 5.2 9 9
*IF is interfacial failure mode and PF is pullout failure mode.
{
In all cases the holding time is 5 cycles and the electrode pressure is 3 bar.

Table 2 Effect of holding time on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*

Holding time, cycles Nugget diameter, mm Peak load, kN Failure mode

0 3.60 4.32 PF
5 3.65 4.30 PF
20 3.70 4.40 PF
50 3.60 4.25 PF
90 3.65 4.40 PF
*PF is the pullout failure mode.

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2007 VOL 12 NO 3 219

 Pouranvari et al.
6 Different failure modes: a interfacial, b pullout, c partial pullout followed by BM tearing
7 Stress distribution at nugget centreline and circumfer-
ence during shear tensile test
indirectly to the contact area, force increase reduces the
resistance and therefore, the generated heat at the metal
sheets interface. Thus, the weld nugget size decreases.
Failure mode
Figure 6a illustrates an interfacial failure mode while a
pullout failure is illustrated in Fig. 6b. As can be seen, in
the latter, nugget is completely pulled out from the metal
sheet leaving the hole in the other sheet. In the sample
shown in Fig. 6c, nugget is partially pulled out and then
failure continued by BM sheet tearing. These failure
types are also categorised as pullout mode. At this point,
failure modes are considered.
Shear tensile spot welds failure mechanisms
Under shear tensile test, in order to align with the
applied force direction, the nugget rotates first. At this
stage, stresses are distributed at the interface (weld
centreline) and weld circumference according to Fig. 7.
A simple model for describing stress distribution in spot
weld under shear tensile test is shown in Fig. 7. Shear
stresses are dominant at the interface. At the nugget
circumference, stresses are shear tensile at position A
and shear compression at position B.
In pullout failure mode, when there is certain amount
of rotation, the tensile stresses formed around the
nugget causes plastic deformation in sheet thickness
direction. Finally, necking occurs at A sites as tensile
force increases. These A sites are located in HAZ or in
the BM. Necking does not occur in B sites because
normal stresses are compression type in these sites. This
necking is more severe in one of the sheets than in the
other. The stress concentration caused by the uneven
Table 3 Effect of electrode pressure on nugget diameter, peak load and failure mode*
Electrode pressure, bar Nugget diameter, mm
2.5 4.20
3.0 3.65
3.3 2.67
3.5 2.50
4.5 2.10
*PF is pullout failure mode and IF is interfacial failure mode.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
8 Image (SEM) of necked region of spot weld failed in
pullout mode under shear tensile test
necking in the two sheets leads to the failure of spot weld
from one sheet. If the necking area is continually
stressed, the nugget will eventually shear off from the
other sheet.
Note that although shear is the dominant loading
mode in shear tensile test, the mechanism of pullout
failure has tensile nature. To further verify this point, a
pullout failed shear tensile sample was cleaned ultra-
sonically and the fracture surface in necking region was
examined under a SEM. The shape of the dimples
depends on the loading conditions. Void coalescence by
stress being normal to the overall plane of fracture
creates dimples equiaxed while shear loading will create
elongated dimples.14 The near circular dimples shown in
Fig. 8 indicate that the fracture mechanism is ductile
and failure occurred under tensile stress. This result is
consistent with work carried out by Choa15 who studied
failure mechanism of pullout failed resistance spot weld
during shear tensile test. Therefore, it is concluded that
driving force for pullout failure mode is tensile stress.
Peak load, kN Failure mode
4.56 PF
4.30 PF
4.00 IF
3.66 IF
2.56 IF
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 220
 Pouranvari et al.
9 Image (SEM) of fracture surface of spot weld failed in
interfacial mode under shear tensile test
As can be expected, driving force for interfacial failure
mode is shear stress. In interfacial failure mode, high
shear stress is created at the interface. Shear stress
exceeds nugget shear strength, before tensile stresses
cause necking around the nugget, and hence, failure
occurs at the interface. Therefore, interfacial failure
mode occurs with a shear mechanism in the shear tensile
test. To further verify this point, an interfacial failed
shear tensile sample was cleaned ultrasonically and
the fracture surface was examined under a SEM. The
elongated dimples shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the
failure mechanism is shear. Dimples indicate that in this
case, interfacial fracture is ductile similar to pullout
fracture.
Effect of welding parameters on spot welds strength and
failure mode
Influence of variation in welding current and welding
time on the ultimate tensile shear strength (peak load)
and failure mode of the spot weld has been shown in
Table 1. The effect of holding time and electrode
10 Pmax variations versus current
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
11 Expulsion reduces melt volume in nugget
pressure on peak load and failure mode of spot weld
has been shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. For more
illustration the effect of welding current on peak load
has been shown in Fig 10.
The mechanical properties of a spot weld primarily
depend on its physical attribute particularly weld nugget
size, which is essentially governed by welding parameter,
and microstructure of failure location which determines
its strength and ductility. To achieve maximum strength,
a spot weld must have a nugget size large enough to
provide, greater resistance as compared with BM or
HAZ, whichever is stronger.
As the restraining of a nugget of large diameter is
greater than that with smaller nugget, large rotation
occurs during shear tensile test. This affects the stress
distribution in weld interface and weld circumference.
Moreover, the larger weld size increases the overall bond
area. Both reduce tendency for interfacial failure owing
to higher shear resistance of weld nugget and essentially
increase the required load to produce failure.
As can be seen in Table 1, increasing welding current
and welding time increase spot weld strength as a result
of increased nugget diameter. Figure 5 shows that at
high current region at t59, the nugget diameter is
constant (Fig. 3) and consequently weld strength is
independent of the current value.
According to the results presented in Table 1, failure
occurs under interfacial mode for low welding current
and welding time, while for higher welding current and
welding time it transforms to pullout mode. This is due
to the increase in weld nugget diameter with increasing
welding current and welding time. On the other hand, by
increasing welding current and welding time, nugget
internal forces (owing to metal melting, expansion and
so on) exceed the electrode force and expulsion occurs.16
As can be seen in Fig. 11, expulsion reduces melt volume
in the nugget causing shrinkage and porosity formation
during solidification. Therefore, excessive welding cur-
rent and welding time do not increase nugget size and
strength; however, create undesired features in the weld,
sheet separation and electrode wear.
As mentioned above, holding time does not affect
weld nugget size; however, it may affect phase transfor-
mation and resulting microstructure, because during
holding time, weld joint cools down faster under
electrode force. Microhardness study on spot welds
made by various holding times shows that average
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 221
 Pouranvari et al.
hardness of HAZ increases by increasing holding time.
Increasing holding time from 0 up to 90 cycles increased
HAZ average hardness from 240 to 270 HV.
Table 2 shows that increasing holding time does not
have significant effect on weld strength. Since weld
nugget sizes in these cases do not change, it appears that
the weld peak load is dictated by BM strength rather
than by HAZ strength. This confirms that pullout failure
of spot weld occurs at HAZ/BM boundary or BM.
As can be seen in Table 1, for the investigated
material, holding time does not affect failure mode,
because it does not affect weld nugget size.
Electrode force, although is a necessary parameter to
create a joint, its excessive increase reduces the nugget
size significantly. Therefore, it reduces weld strength
dramatically (see Table 3). Electrode force increment
changes the failure mode from pullout to interfacial
owing to its significant affect on the weld nugget size
decrement (see Table 3).
Analytical model to predict spot welds’ failure
mode
As mentioned above, the driving force for interfacial
and pullout failure mode are shear stress and tensile
stress respectively. Each driving force has a critical value
and the failure occurs in a mode which reaches its critical
value sooner. Weld nugget size is the most important
parameter determining stress distribution. For small
weld nuggets, shear stress reaches its critical value before
tensile stress causes necking; therefore, failure tends to
occur under interfacial failure mode. Thus, in this
section it is tried to determine a critical nugget size to
ensure pullout failure.
Failure is a competitive process, i.e. spot weld failure
occurs in a mode which needs less force. Therefore, to
construct a model for predicting failure mode, first it is
necessary to obtain mathematical equations expressing
failure load for both interfacial and pullout modes.
Considering nugget as a cylinder with diameter d and
height 2t, failure load at the interfacial failure mode PIF
could be expressed as equation (3) assuming uniform
distribution of shear stress in weld interface
 2
pd
PIF ~ tWN (3)
4
where tWN is the weld nugget shear strength and d is the
weld nugget diameter.
As it was mentioned before, pullout failure mode
occurs under tensile mechanism. It is assumed that
failure occurs when maximum radial stress at the
circumference of one half of the cylindrical nugget
reaches the ultimate strength of the failure location.
Therefore equation (4) is suggested for pullout failure
of spot weld in shear tensile test
PPF ~pdt(sUTS )FL (4)
where (sUTS)FL is the ultimate tensile strength of failure
location. In equation (4) thickness reduction owing to
indentation is neglected
Since failure mechanism in pullout mode is localising
necking through thickness direction, it is expected that
failure occurs in easier necking regions (i.e. lower
hardness). According to Zuniga and Sheppard,17 spot
weld failure in HSLA steel shear tensile samples occurs
in HAZ/BM boundary or in BM. For low carbon steels,
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
12 Failure load versus weld nugget diameter for both
interfacial (broken line) and pullout (solid line) failure
modes
failure is expected to occur in the same regions.
However, as Ghosh18 noted, for those steels, which
experience softening in HAZ, failure occurs in this
region.
When failure occurs in BM or HAZ/BM boundary,
equation (4) becomes
PPF ~2prt(sUTS )BM ~pdt(sUTS )BM (5)
where (sUTS)BM is BM ultimate tensile strength.
Although this is a simplified equation, it is in good
agreement with the proposed empirical equations.19,20
For example, Sawhill and Baker19 presented
PPF ~fdt(sUTS )BM
in which f is a constant between 2.5 and 3.1. Lin et al.21
have suggested somewhat similar equation for spot weld
failures using lower bound limit load analysis. Figure 12
illustrates failure load versus nugget diameter for both
interfacial (broken line) and pullout (solid line) failure
modes according to equations (3) and (4). Below critical
nugget diameter, interfacial failure is dominant (because
spot weld nugget needs less load for this failure mode to
occur), while for larger nugget diameters, pullout failure
is the dominant failure mode. To obtain critical nugget
diameter dCr, equations (3) and (4) are intersected
resulting in equation (6)
(sUTS )FL
dCr ~4t (6)
tWN
It can be seen unlike industrial standards, which relate
dCr to sheet thickness only; equation (6) is taking BM
and weld nugget strength into account, too.
It is found that dCr depends on weld nugget strength
and failure location strength. Since determination of
mechanical properties of various regions of spot weld is
difficult, owing to their small scale, hardness profile was
used for estimating ultimate strength. It is well known
that the ultimate strength of metal is proportional to
their hardness. Figure 13 illustrates hardness profile for
a spot weld, which has failed under interfacial mode.
Hardness profile consists of three zones along the
interface of the sheets. These three zones correspond
to fusion zone (weld nugget), HAZ and BM. Weld
nugget hardness is considerably higher than that of BM
owing to the formation of hard martensite.
One interesting feature of weld spot hardness profile is
the hardness uniformity of the weld nugget zone. This
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 222
 Pouranvari et al.
13 Typical hardness profile of spot weld
14 CCT Diagram of steel used in this investigation
shows that owing to very high cooling rate, the resulted
microstructure is not affected by small cooling rate
variations in different points of weld nugget. Using a
thermodynamical method, Bhadeshia et al.22 proposed a
model for steel phase transformation prediction, based
on chemical composition. The resulted cooling trans-
formation (CCT) diagrams were used by Babu et al.23
for resistance spot weld microstructure prediction. The
predicted Bhadeshia CCT diagram produced using Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) website24 for low
carbon steel, which is investigated in the present paper,
is presented in Fig. 14. According to this diagram,
martensite formation critical cooling rate of 1000 K s21
is determined for this steel. According to Volger,25
15 Microstructure of a BM and b weld nugget
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
16 Three-dimensional representation of equation (7)
cooling rate during resistance spot weld is 1000 K s21 at
zero holding time. Cooling rate can increase to
10 000 K s21 by increasing holding time.26 Therefore,
it could be expected that first, weld nugget microstruc-
ture consists of martensite even for low carbon steel and
second, weld nugget hardness is uniform throughout
weld nugget zone. As shown in Fig. 15a, microstructure
of low carbon steel used in this investigation is ferritic
with a small amount of Fe3C. While, as can be seen in
Fig. 15b, the microstructure of weld nugget consists
almost entirely of martensite.
On the other hand, according to Tresca criterion,
shear ultimate strength is half of the tensile ultimate
strength. Therefore equation (6) can be rewritten as
(sUTS )FL (H)FL
dCr ~4t : ~8t (7)
(0 5sUTS )WN (H)WN
Again, equation (7) attributes critical weld nugget
diameter to failure location/weld nugget hardness ratio,
in addition to sheet thickness.
Figure 16 shows equation (7) in three-dimensions.
Gray surface shows the critical values for weld nugget
diameter. Above this, pullout is dominant failure mode
and below that, interfacial failure mode is dominant one.
As can be seen, for a constant hardness ratio, the thicker
the sheet thickness, the higher the dCr. On the other
hand, for constant sheet thickness, decreasing
(H)WM
(H)FL
increases interfacial failure mode tendency.
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 223
 Pouranvari et al.
17 Comparison of predicted nugget diameter for transi-
tion of failure modes obtained using equation (8) with
test data21 and recommended value for nugget dia-
meter by AWS/ANSI/SAE
Therefore, the above equation attributes the critical
weld nugget diameter to metallurgical factors in addition
to sheet thickness.
Model verification:
At this point the proposed model is compared and
verified with experimental results.
For resistance spot welds of low carbon steel used in
the present study, weld nugget hardness is about twice
the BM (failure location) hardness. A typical spot weld
hardness profile is shown in Fig. 13. Therefore, equation
(7) will be
dCr ~4t
Weld nuggets with diameters are lower than critical
diameter failure under interfacial mode and those with
higher diameter than critical diameter failure under
pullout mode. dCr is calculated as 3.2 mm for investi-
gated sheet metals (t50.8 mm). As can be seen in
Tables 1–3, this value is at the border of those weld
nugget failed under interfacial modes and those which
failed under pullout mode.
VandenBossche27 investigated failure mode in shear
tensile test. He used 15 different types of steel including
low carbon steel and high strength low alloy, steels with
206–655 MPa yield strength and 0.64–2.03 mm thick-
ness. The results of his experiments on 20 test groups are
presents in Fig. 16. VandenBossche did not report
nugget and BM hardness. Here, nugget/BM hardness
ratio is assumed to be 2. This is a conservative assump-
tion for HSLA samples failure prediction. Equation (8)
is also plotted in Fig. 17. As it can bee seen, equation (8)
estimates critical nugget diameter with good approxima-
tion. The significance of VandenBossche results (Fig. 17)
is showing the importance of metallurgical factors in
Table 4 Summary showing materials, hardness and failure mode*
Failure mode
Nugget diameter according dCr according to
to AWS/ANSI/SAE equation (7) PF
5.36 6.43 d.6.7
5.36 8.52 d<8.8
5.36 7.8 d.8
*PF is pullout failure mode and IF is interfacial failure mode.
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
spot weld failure mode analysis. AWS recommended
equation (1) superimposed in this graph (Fig. 17). As
can be seen, in many cases, weld nugget sizes recom-
mended by AWS are not sufficient to ensure pullout
failure mode in shear tensile test.
Marya et al.28 have investigated spot weld failure
modes in shear tensile test for DP600, DP780 and
DP980 dual phase steels. For higher grade dual phase
steels, a hardness reduction occurs in HAZ compared
with BM, because martensite is tempered in this region;
therefore, failure occurs in HAZ. Marya et al. have
reported BM hardness, minimum hardness and max-
imum hardness (which occurs on the weld nugget edge)
and failure modes for these three steels. These data
together with dCr, predicted by equation (7), and d
recommended by AWS are summarised in Table 4.
These data show that, first, the higher (H)(H)FL the lower
WM
the dCr. At first glance, it seems that high strength dual
phase steel grades (e.g. DP980) are more pronounced to
interfacial failure mode owing to their higher weld
nugget hardness. However, owing to HAZ softening,
spot weld tends to fail at HAZ rather than throughout
weld nugget. Hence, dCr is lower for DP980 compared
with DP780. Second, equation (7) predicts dCr with a
good approximation. Third, weld nugget sizes recom-
mended by AWS equation is not sufficient to ensure
pullout failure mode in shear tensile test.
The proposed analytical model in the present paper is
a rather simplified one. The present work is a step
towards more research about spot weld failure mode
which is vital for vehicle crash worthiness analysis.
Metallurgical aspects should be considered more ser-
(8) iously in future research in this field.
Conclusions
1. Increasing weld current and weld time increase
weld nugget diameter and therefore weld strength.
However, for higher welding current and welding time,
weld nugget diameter and strength remain constant.
2. Holding time does not affect weld nugget diameter,
strength and failure mode of the investigated steel.
3. Although applying force is necessary for weld
nugget formation in resistance spot welding, overloading
causes excessive reduction of weld nugget size, failure
strength and changes failure mode from pullout to
interfacial.
4. According to the proposed mechanism, for shear
tensile test, nugget size is the most important controlling
parameter determining stress distribution in the weld
nugget interface and its circumference. Fracture
mechanism in interfacial mode is shear, while in pullout
failure is tensile.
5. According to the suggested model, dCr depends not
only on the thickness but also on the failure location
(H)WM
IF (H)FL Hmax<HWM Hmin<HFL HBM Material
d,6.5 2.24 448 200 200 1.8 DP600
d<8.7 1.69 448 265 270 1.8 DP780
d,7.1 1.85 480 260 305 1.8 DP980
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2007 VOL 12 NO 3 224
 Pouranvari et al.
hardness to weld nugget hardness ratio. For a given
sheet thickness, decreasing (H)(H)FL increases interfacial
WM
failure mode tendency.
6. In certain conditions, AWS/ANSI/SAE recommen-
dation for nugget size is not an appropriate criterion for
ensuring pullout failure mode of spot welds during shear
tensile test.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to Novinsazan Setareh Sanat
Company for providing spot welding machine for this
investigation. The authors’ thanks also go to Amir
Kabir University of Technology for providing founda-
tions for this research.
References
1. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203–
1221.
2. P. Wung: Exp. Mech., 2001, 41, 107–113.
3. J. M. Sawhill and J. C. Baker: Weld. J., 1980, 59, 19s–30s.
4. J. Heuschkel: Weld. J., 1952, 31, 931s–943s.
5. M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 2003, 82, 72s–77s.
6. American Welding Society: ‘Recommended practices for test
methods for evaluating the resistance spot welding behavior of
automotive sheet steel materials’, ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8.9-97, 1997.
7. J. M. Sawhill, H. Watanabe and J. W. Mitchell: Weld. J., 1977, 56,
217s–224s.
8. B. Pollard: Weld. J., 1974, 53, 343s–350s.
9. J. Chao: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 133–137.
10. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens, R. W. Davies, M. A. Khaleel and D. J.
Spinella: Weld. J., 2004, 83, 188s–195s.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure mode of resistance spot welds
11. M. Zhou, S. J. Hu and H. Zhang: Weld. J., 1999, 78, 305s–312s.
12. A. Khan, L. Xu and Y. J. Chao: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 1999, 4,
201–207
13. Q. Song, W. Zhang and N. Bay: Weld. J., 2005, 84, 73s–76s.
14. W. Hertzberg: ‘Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering
materials’, 1996, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
15. Y. J. Chao: ASME. J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 2003, 125, 1–8.
16. J. Senkara, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 2004, 83, 123–13.
17. S. Zuniga and S. D. Sheppard: in ‘Fatigue and fracture mechanics’,
Vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, (ed. R. S. Piascik et al.), 469–489; 1997,
Philadelphia, USA, ASTM.
18. P. K. Ghosh, P. C. Gupta, P. Ramavtar and B. K. Jha: Weld. J.,
1991, 70, 7s–14s.
19. J. M. Sawhill and J. C. Baker: Weld. J., 1980, 59, 19s–30s.
20. H. Lee, N. Kim and T. S. Lee: Eng. Fract. Mech., 2005, 72, 1203–
1221.
21. H. Lin, J. Pan, S. R. Wu, T. Tyan and P. Wung: Int. J. Solids
Struct., 2001, 39, 19–39.
22. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia and L. E. Svensson: in ‘Mathematical
modeling of weld phenomena’, (ed. H. Cerjack and K. E.
Easterling), 109–180; 1993, London, Institute of Metals.
23. S. S. Babu, B. W. Reimer, M. L. Santella and Z. Feng: Proc. 8th
Sheet Metal Welding Conf., Detroit, MI, USA, October, 5–2, 1998,
AWS.
24. Oak Ridge National Laboratory: available at http://engm01.
ms.ornl.gov.
25. M. Volger: ‘Investigation of resistance spot weld fomation’, PhD
thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1993.
26. W. Chuko and J. E. Gould: ‘Development of appropriate resistance
spot welding practice for transformation-hardened steels – phase 2:
evaluation of post-weld cooling rate techniques’, Report to the
American Iron and Steel Institute, 2002.
27. J. VandenBossche: ‘Ultimate strength and failure mode of spot
welds in high strength steels’, SAE paper 770214, 1977.
28. M. Marya, K. Wang, L. G. Hector and X. Gayden: J. Manufact.
Sci. Eng., 2006, 287–298.
2007 VOL 12 NO 3 225