37 - Weldability and Performance of AHSS

Weldability and Performance of
GMAW Joints of Advanced HighStrength Steels (AHSS)

Zhili Feng*, John Chang**, Cindy Jiang*** and Min Kuo****
* Oak Ridge National Laboratory
** Ford Motor Company
*** AET Integration
**** Mittal Steel
www.autosteel.org
Acknowledgements
Research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, as part of the Automotive
Lightweighting Materials Program, under contract DE-AC0500OR22725 with UT-Battelle, LLC
www.autosteel.org
Challenges in Welding of AHSS

Higher carbon and alloying element contents make AHSS
more sensitive to the welding thermal cycle, resulting
greater variations of microstructures and properties of weld
Microstructure and properties can highly depend on
welding conditions and steel chemistry
Welding practices developed for one types of AHSS may
not apply to other types
Weld quality
Weld structural performance (static, fatigue, crash)
There are wide range of grades and types of AHSS and

they continue to evolve
www.autosteel.org
Objectives
Fundamental understanding and predictive
capability to quantify the effects of welding and
service loading on the structural performance of
welded AHSS auto-body parts
Welding techniques and practices to improve
structural performance of AHSS welded auto body
components
Develop design guidelines and weld performance
data for rapid structure design and prototyping,
CAE model for weld structure performance design
www.autosteel.org
Gas Metal Arc Welding

Materials: mild steel, HSLA, DP, TRIP, martensitic, boron
steel
Gauge: 2mm
Filler metal: ER70S-3
Under-matched for higher grade AHSS
Baseline comparison of different AHSS welds

Consistent weld profile, consistent welding heat input level, but not
optimized for different AHSS
Lap joint
Static and fatigue
Microstructure characterization and correlation to mechanical
property
www.autosteel.org
AHSS Material Matrix Tested

Group 2 (350 MPa ~500 MPa)
2.0mm DR210 Bare
Group 3 (500 MPa~ 800 MPa)

2.0mm DP600 Bare
2.0mm DP600 HDGI
2.0mm HSLA590 Bare
Group 4 (>800 MPa)
2.0mm DP780 Bare

1.5mm TRIP780 GA
2.0mm DP980 Bare
2.0mm M130 Bare, 2.0mm M220 Bare
2.0mm Boron HT Bare, 2.0mm Boron UHT Bare
From six different steel companies

www.autosteel.org
Microhardness Mapping:
HAZ Softening in Hardened Boron Steel
www.autosteel.org
Minimal HAZ Softening in HSLA 590
www.autosteel.org
HAZ Softening is More Pronounced in

Higher Strength Steels
HSLA590
DP980
Hardened Boron Steel
Hv normalized to mean value of base metal
www.autosteel.org
Failure Location, Static Tensile
2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-tensile tested
2.0mm DP600 uncoated-tensile tested
2.0mm DP980 uncoated-tensile tested
2.0 mm Boron non-heat treated uncoatedtensile tested
2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-tensile tested
2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoatedtensile tested
www.autosteel.org
Static Tensile Failure Location

Correlates to HAZ Softening Region
(DP980)
DP980
www.autosteel.org
Static Tensile Strength of AHSS Weld

(Lap joint, t=2mm)
Normalized Joint Strength (vs DR210)
2500
300%
263%
250%
197%
181%
209%
205%
203%
182%
200%
164%
1500
154%
150%
1000
100%
1689
1593
500
636 641
641 647
577 654
693 690
DP600
HDGI, A
DP600
HDGI, B
DP600
HSLA590
352 395
734
848
986
972
861 896
543
721
924
714
100%
50%
0%
DR210
DP780
Boron, UHT
M130
DP980
M220
Boron, HT
Base Metal
Tensile Strength of Weld
Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal
Normalized Joint Strength
Normalized Joint Strength = (weld strength of AHSS)/(weld strength of DR210)
www.autosteel.org
Normalized Joint Strength
245%
2000
Static Joint Efficiency vs BM Strength

(Lap joint, t=2mm)
The weld tensile strength of higher grade AHSS is lower than the base metal
The reduction is related to the softening in HAZ
Low heat input and/or fast cooling can be beneficial to minimize HAZ softening
2500
120%
99%
2000
100%
99%
89%
88%
96%
100%
87%
73%
80%
1500
56%
55%
60%
45%
1000
1689
1593
500
636 641
641 647
352 395
577 654
693 690
734
848
986
972
861 896
543
721
924
714
40%
20%
0%
DR210
DP600
HDGI, A
DP600
HDGI, B
DP600
HSLA590
DP780
Boron, UHT
M130
DP980
M220
Boron, HT
Base Metal
Tensile Strength of Weld
Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal
Joint efficiency = weld strength/BM strength
www.autosteel.org
Joint Efficiency
Joint Efficiency
HAZ Softening Does Not Affect

Fatigue Failure Location
2.0 mm DR210 uncoated-fatigue tested,

1,164,447 cycles at 1200/120 lbs
2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-fatigue tested,

749,637 cycles at 1200/120 lbs
2.0 mm DP600 uncoated-fatigue tested,

177,810 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

819,203 cycles at 1200/120 lbs

543,481 cycles at 1200/120 lbs
2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoated-fatigue

tested, 106,413 cycles at 1200/120 lbs
www.autosteel.org
S-N Fatigue Data (Regression Plots)

Baseline Welding Condition
Boron HT
Boron UHT
DP600 Bare
DP780
HSLA 590
DP980
DR210
M130
M220
Nominal Stress Range (MPa)
300
200
DR210
Boron HT
100
1000
3
10
10000
4
10
100000
105
Cycles to Failure
1000000
6
10
www.autosteel.org
10000000
7
10
Weld Profile Comparison:

Baseline vs. Improvement
2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Baseline
2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Improved
2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Baseline
2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Improved
www.autosteel.org
Fatigue Life Improvement by Welding

DP780: Over an Order of Magnitude at Low Stress Level
2.0mm DP780 Bare Baseline W elding Parameters

2.0mm DP780 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters
300
200
100
1000
3
10
10000
4
10
100000
5
10
1000000
6
10
Cycles to Failure
www.autosteel.org
10000000
7
10
DP980 Fatigue Life
Baseline vs. Improved Welding Parameters
2.0mm DP980 Bare Baseline Welding Parameters

2.0mm DP980 Bare Improv ed Welding Parameters
300
200
100
10003
10
10000
4
10
100000
5
10
1000000
6
10
Cycles to Failure
www.autosteel.org
10000000
7
10
Fatigue Life Comparison
2.0mm HSLA 080 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

2.0mm Boron HT Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters
300
200
100
Baseline Range
1000 3
10
10000
4
10
100000
5
10
1000000
6
10
Cycles to Failure
www.autosteel.org
10000000
7
10
Microstructure Effects of
Microstructure on Fatigue Life
DP600 Bare Regression
DP600 Bare Test Data
HSLA 590 Regrssion
HSLA 590 Test Data
DP600 GI Regression
DP600 GI Test Data
300
200
100
1000
10000
100000
Cycles to Failure
1000000
www.autosteel.org
10000000
Effects of Local Geometry and

Material Strength on Fatigue Life
N total = N i + N p
Np =
1
C
da
ac
a0
(S
aF (a)
'
1 2( f m )
Ni =
2 K f S
K f = 1+
Paris law for propagation

Coffin-Manson Equation for initiation
m
K t 1
a
1+ p
0.469
T
K t = 1+ 0.5121 0.572
917
b = 0.1667log 2.1+
Su
'f = 0.95Su + 370MPa

a p = 1.187x10 /Su
5
Ni: initiation life

Np: propagation life
S: nominal stress range
Kt: stress concentration factor
Kf: Fatigue notch factor
Su: ultimate strength
After: P. Darcis et al, 2006
F. Lawrence et al. 1995
www.autosteel.org
Improvement of Weld Profile May

Particularly Benefit AHSS
A
Toe Angle: 45o
Toe Radius: 1.0mm
B
Toe Angle: 30o
Toe Radius: 2.5mm
Improvement
in Kf
5%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Improvement in Crack Initiation

Life
Mild (300MPa)
151%
223%
463%
906%
1688%
3014%
DP780
176%
302%
829%
2098%
4955%
11032%
Improvement from A to B for 2.0mm DP780 would improve

Kf by 17% or fatigue life by 6.5 times
www.autosteel.org
Integrated Model to Predict Welding Effects

on AHSS Microstructure & Performance
Weld Performance
Properties
Welding Process
& Parameters
Thermal
History
Process Model
Structural
Model
Microstructural
Model
Experiments
Weldment
Microstructure
Structure-Property
Relation
Choose appropriate individual models for each physical process, and integrate them
Generally adopted for many welding processes
Many individual models are already available
www.autosteel.org
Modeling Approach
Inputs
Thermal
Properties
Analysis
Outputs
Thermal Analysis
Heat Generation & Flow
Temperatures
Phase
Transformation
Analysis
Weld/HAZ
Microstructure
& Properties
Welding
Parameters
Joint Configuration &
Boundary Conditions
Composition &
Initial Microstructure
Mechanical
Properties
Mechanical Analysis
Elasticity
Plasticity
www.autosteel.org
Residual
Stresses &
Distortions
Steel Microstructure Modeling based

on Phase Transformation Theories
USER INPUT:
Steel Chemistry
(C, Mn, Cr, Ni )
Hv in HAZ
Welding Thermal Cycle

(FEM simulation)
PHASE TRANSFORMATION
COMPUTATION ALGORITHMS
Transformation Thermodynamics
System equilibiria: Ts, A3, A1, Bs, Ms
Transformation driving force, G
Transformation Kinetics
Grain growth
Austenite formation on heating
Decomposition of austenite on cooling
ferrite, bainite, martensite, etc
Fraction of phases
Property Module
Hv, ys
www.autosteel.org
Microstructure Modeling:
Preliminary Results
HAZ softening predicted

Weld metal under development
Boron HT
DP980
www.autosteel.org
Concluding Remarks
Baseline static and fatigue properties are obtained for a
wide range of AHSS
Failure locations are different for static and fatigue loading
Different factors govern static strength are fatigue strength
Under-matched filler metal (ER70S-3) did not cause failure in the
weld metal
Fatigue Life
Steel grade dependency observed
Not influenced by HAZ softening
Considerable fatigue life improvement can be achieved by
improving the welding conditions
Static Strength
Extensive HAZ softening in higher grade AHSS welds can affect
the static strength, as the welds fail in the soften region
www.autosteel.org

37 - Weldability and Performance of AHSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

37 - Weldability and Performance of AHSS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

37 - Weldability and Performance of AHSS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weldability and Performance of

GMAW Joints of Advanced HighStrength Steels (AHSS)

Research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant

Challenges in Welding of AHSS

There are wide range of grades and types of AHSS and

Gas Metal Arc Welding

Baseline comparison of different AHSS welds

AHSS Material Matrix Tested

Group 3 (500 MPa~ 800 MPa)

Group 4 (>800 MPa)

2.0mm DP780 Bare

From six different steel companies

Minimal HAZ Softening in HSLA 590

HAZ Softening is More Pronounced in

Hardened Boron Steel

Hv normalized to mean value of base metal

Failure Location, Static Tensile

2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0mm DP600 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0mm DP980 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm Boron non-heat treated uncoatedtensile tested

2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-tensile tested

2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoatedtensile tested

Static Tensile Failure Location

Static Tensile Strength of AHSS Weld

Tensile Strength of Weld

Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal

Normalized Joint Strength

Normalized Joint Strength = (weld strength of AHSS)/(weld strength of DR210)

Normalized Joint Strength

Static Joint Efficiency vs BM Strength

Tensile Strength of Weld

Actual Tensile Strength of Base Metal

Joint efficiency = weld strength/BM strength

HAZ Softening Does Not Affect

2.0 mm DR210 uncoated-fatigue tested,

2.0 mm HSLA590 uncoated-fatigue tested,

2.0 mm DP600 uncoated-fatigue tested,

2.0 mm DP780 uncoated-fatigue tested,

2.0 mm DP980 uncoated-fatigue tested,

2.0 mm Boron heat treated uncoated-fatigue

S-N Fatigue Data (Regression Plots)

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

Weld Profile Comparison:

2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Baseline

2.0 mm DP780 Bare, Improved

2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Baseline

2.0 mm DP980 Bare, Improved

Fatigue Life Improvement by Welding

2.0mm DP780 Bare Baseline W elding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

DP980 Fatigue Life

Baseline vs. Improved Welding Parameters

2.0mm DP980 Bare Baseline Welding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)

Fatigue Life Comparison

2.0mm HSLA 080 Bare Improv ed W elding Parameters

Nominal Stress Range (MPa)