Relationship between failure behaviour and

weld fusion zone attributes of austenitic

stainless steel resistance spot welds

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

P. Marashi*1, M. Pouranvari2, S. M. H. Sanaee1, A. Abedi3, S. H. Abootalebi4

and M. Goodarzi5
Resistance spot welding was used to join austenitic stainless steel sheets. Mechanical properties
of the spot welds were evaluated using tensile shear test. Mechanical behaviour was described
by peak load, failure energy and failure mode. The relationship between weld fusion zone
attributes and failure behaviour was studied. Generally, it was observed that increasing fusion
zone size is accompanied by an increase in load carrying capacity and energy absorption
capability. However, when expulsion occurs, despite almost constant weld fusion zone size,
energy absorption capability reduces significantly due to increase in electrode indentation depth.
Considering the failure location and failure mechanism in the tensile shear test, minimum required
fusion zone size to ensure the pull-out failure mode was estimated using an analytical model.
According to this model, in addition to sheet thickness, ratio of fusion zone hardness to failure
location hardness is the key metallurgical factor governing failure mode of spot welds during the
tensile shear test.
Keywords: Resistance spot weld, Failure mode, Fusion zone size, Austenitic stainless steel

Introduction
Resistance spot welding is widely used to join sheet
metals in the automotive industry. The quality and
performance of the spot welds significantly affect the
durability and safety design of the vehicles. Spot weld
performance refers to both overload and fatigue
performance. Although most of the spot welds fail
through a fatigue mechanism,1,2 accidents, rough roads
or driving conditions which apply excessive loads on the
vehicle, are some of the cases which can cause overload
failure.3
The tensile shear test is the most widely used test for
evaluating the spot weld mechanical behaviour in static
conditions because of its simplicity and for the fact that
many of welded structures are designed to carry the
tensile shear loads. Peak load, obtained from the tensile
shear load displacement curve, is often used to describe
spot welds mechanical behaviour. In addition to the
peak load, failure energy can be used to better
characterise the spot weld mechanical behaviour.

Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Amirkabir University

of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Metallurgy, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran
4
Materials and Energy Research Center, Karaj, Iran
5
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Iran University of
Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
2

*Corresponding author, email pirmarashi@yahoo.co.uk

1506

2008 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 26 August 2007; accepted 16 October 2007
DOI 10.1179/174328408X262418

Failure energy is a measurement of weld energy

absorption capability whose higher value demonstrates
an increase in weld performance reliability against
impact loads such as accidents.4,5
Generally, the resistance spot weld (RSW) failure
occurs in two modes: interfacial and pull-out. In the
interfacial mode, failure occurs via crack propagation
through fusion zone, while in the pull-out one, failure
occurs via complete (or partial) nugget withdrawal from
one sheet. The failure mode under which RSWs fail, can
significantly affect their carrying capacity and energy
absorption capability. Spot welds that fail in the nugget
pull-out mode provide higher peak loads and energy
absorption levels than spot welds that fail in the
interfacial fracture one. To ensure reliability of spot
welds during vehicle lifetime, process parameters should
be adjusted so that the pull-out failure mode is
guaranteed.69
Weld nugget size is the most important parameter
determining its mechanical behaviour. Various industrial standards have recommended a minimum weld size
for a given sheet thickness. For example, American
Welding Society, American National Standards Institute
and Society of Automotive Engineers (AWS/ANSI/
SAE)10 have recommended equation (1)
d~4t1=2

(1)

Nowadays, application of stainless steel in car body is

under review. Most of the present guidelines and
recommendations are for low carbon steel and there is

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

Marashi et al.

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

limited information concerning spot weldability of

stainless steels. Therefore, investigating resistance
spot weld behaviour of these materials is of utmost
importance.
The objective of the research is to address the effects
of weld attributes, i.e. fusion zone size and electrode
indentation, on the peak load and energy absorption of
austenitic stainless steel AISI 304 spot welds. Critical
fusion zone size to ensure nugget pull-out mode during
the static tensile shear test is predicted using an
analytical model.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

Experimental
An austenitic stainless steel sheet with 12 mm thickness
was used as the base metal (BM), in this research. The
chemical composition of the BM was Fe18?47Cr9NiMn
0?462Cu0?016Nb0?388Si0?035C0?038P0?004S corresponding to AISI 304 stainless steel. Spot welding was
performed using a PLC controlled 120 kVA AC
pedestal type resistance spot welding machine. Welding
was conducted using a 45 deg truncated cone RWMA
class 2 electrode with 7 mm face diameter. Welding
current was varied from 2 to 14 kA and welding time,
electrode pressure and holding time were fixed at 12
cycles, 4 bar and 30 cycles respectively.
The static tensile shear test samples were prepared
according to ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8?9-97 standard.10 The
tensile shear tests were performed at a crosshead of
2 mm min21 with an Instron universal testing machine.
Peak load and failure energy (measured as the area
under the load displacement curve up to the peak load)
were extracted from the load displacement curve. The
failure mode was determined from the failed samples.
Samples for metallographic examination were prepared
using standard metallography procedures. Optical
microscopy was used to examine the microstructures
and to measure physical weld attributes. After complete
separation in the tensile shear test, failure location of
samples was examined using an optical microscope.
Microhardness test was used to determine the hardness
profile in horizontal direction (20 mm away from weld
centreline), using a 100 g load on a Shimadzu microhardness tester.

Results and discussion

Joint structure
Figure 1a shows a typical macrostructure of AISI 304
stainless steel RSW indicating that the spot weld nugget
formation causes microstructural and geometrical
changes in the BM.
Spot welding creates a natural notch at two sheet
metals joint spot (Fig. 1a), which affects its mechanical
behaviour. Electrode force creates indentation (Fig. 1a)
which itself produces stress concentration locations at
the indentation edges.
Owing to the weld thermal cycle, a heterogeneous
structure will be produced at the joint region. As can be
seen in Fig. 1a, the joint region consists of three distinct
zones: weld fusion zone (or weld nugget), heat affected
zone (HAZ) and BM. Weld nugget experiences melting
during welding and then resolidifies. As can be seen in
Fig. 1a, solidification structure of the weld nugget is
dendritic due to very high cooling rates in the spot
welding process. Figure 1b shows the microstructure of

1 Typical a macrostructure and b microstructure of weld

nugget of AISI 304 stainless steel

the weld fusion zone indicating an austenitic structure.

More precise microstructural examination revealed that
the weld nugget microstructure was free from delta
ferrite and is fully austenitic. Despite the fact that
Schaeffler diagram predicts two phases (austenite plus
ferrite) in AISI 304 weld nugget microstructure, under
rapid solidification condition such as laser beam
welding, a shift in solidification mode may occur.11 It
is generally believed that the change in solidification
mode can often result in a fully austenitic microstructure
compared to the two phase (ferrite plus austenite)
microstructure that is commonly found after primary
ferrite solidification.11,12 Although the change in solidification mode of stainless steel in resistance spot welding
has not been studied yet, very high cooling rate in
resistance spot welding process can explain the formation of a fully austenitic weld nugget, as it is the case for
laser beam welding. Volger13 reported a cooling rate of
1000 K s21 for resistance spot welding with zero holding
time. Increasing holding time increases cooling rate to
more than 10 000 K s21 due to cupper electrode
quenching effect.14 In no other conventional welding
processes, such high cooling rates can be generated.
It should be noted that, because austenitic stainless
steel BM is not transformable, no phase transformation
occurs in the HAZ. However, grain structure of this
region is affected by welding process. Some grain growth
was observed beside the weld nugget.
A serious matter during austenitic stainless steel
welding is the precipitation of chromium carbides in
grain boundaries which can dramatically reduce corrosion resistance of the joint.11 In this study, Murakami
etching solution (10 g KOH, 10 g K3[Fe(CN)6] and
100 mL H2O), which is very sensitive to chromium rich
particles, was used to investigate the formation of
chromium carbides in HAZ. However, no such particles
were observed in this region which can be ascribed to
resistance spot welding high cooling rate which in turn

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

1507

Marashi et al.

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

2 Typical hardness prole of AISI 304 spot weld

1508

significantly reduces the holding time in the temperature

range of chromium carbide precipitation. Low carbon
content of the investigated steel hinders the formation of
these detrimental precipitates, too.
A typical weld hardness profile is shown in Fig. 2
indicating that there is a little variation across the joint.
However, the hardness of the weld nugget and HAZ is
somewhat lower than that of the BM. The lower
hardness of the weld nugget can be attributed to its cast
microstructure and the presence of coarse columnar
grains. Also, effect of previous work hardening, if any, is
completely removed in the fusion zone because of
melting.
Heat affected zone (HAZ) hardness of austenitic
stainless steel is dictated by recrystallisation, grain
growth and carbide precipitation. As mentioned above,
no significant amount of carbide precipitates were
formed during resistance spot welding. Therefore, slight
reduction in the hardness of HAZ can be attributed to
grain growth and lost of any possible previous workhardening. The hardness profile observed for 304 RSW
is in contrast with that of ferritic carbon steels in which
the fusion zone hardness is significantly higher than that
of the BM.5,6

Weld fusion zone growth

Mechanical properties of the spot welds are primarily
governed by physical attributes of the weld fusion zone,
particularly fusion zone size. Figure 3 shows the weld
macrostructures for different welding currents. Figure 4
shows the effect of the welding current on the fusion
zone growth. As can be seen, fusion zone size v. welding
current curve can be divided into four regions:
(i) region 1: in this region, the generated heat is not
enough to melt the sheet and weld nugget was
not formed
(ii) region 2: in this region, weld nugget was formed
and grew fast
(iii) region 3: in this region, growth rate is reduced
(iv) region 4: in this region which is accompanied by
expulsion, weld nugget size remained almost
constant.
Electrode indentation can affect spot weld mechanical
behaviour significantly. Increasing the welding current
increases the heat input and therefore, electrode
metal sheet interface temperature. The raise in temperature causes the plastic deformation to occur under

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

3 Physical weld attributes variation by increasing welding current from a to d: small weld fusion zone size (a)
for small welding currents leads to interfacial failure
mode; excessive welding current in (d) increases electrode indentation depth, reduces weld fusion penetration depth and signicantly reduces failure energy

electrode pressure and therefore, electrode indentation

depth increases (Fig. 3d). Fusion penetration depth also
can be increased by increasing welding current up to a
critical value (Fig. 3). The observed effect is the direct
consequence of weld nugget growth both along the
interface and through thickness (perpendicular to the
interface). However, after the critical point, increasing
electrode indentation depth restricts the increase in the
fusion penetration depth (Fig. 3d).

4 Fusion zone size variation v. welding current

Marashi et al.

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

a interfacial; b pull-out
5 Observed spot weld failure modes

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

Failure mode analysis

Two distinct failure modes were observed during the
static tensile shear test: interfacial fracture and nugget
pull-out (Fig. 5). Experimental results showed that
increasing welding current alters the failure mode from
the interfacial one to the pull-out one.
According to equation (1), the minimum weld nugget
size required to ensure that the pull-out failure mode
happens, for 1?2 mm thick stainless steel sheet, is
4?38 mm. However, as can be seen from Table 1, even
weld nugget with 4?5 mm diameter failed in the
interfacial mode.
In this section, a simple analytical model is proposed
to predict joint failure mode during the tensile shear
testing of austenitic stainless steel RSWs. As described
elsewhere,6,15 the driving force for interfacial failure is
shear stress along two sheets interface, while driving
force for pull-out failure is tensile stress around weld
nugget. 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, before tensile stress causes necking, shear stress
reaches its critical value; as a result, failure tends to
occur under the interfacial failure mode. Therefore, in
this section, it is tried to estimate a minimum fusion zone
size necessary to ensure nugget pull-out failure mode
during the tensile shear test.
Considering nugget as a cylinder with diameter d
and height 2t, failure load at the interfacial
failure mode PIF could be expressed as equation (2)
assuming uniform distribution of shear stress in the weld
interface
 2
pd
tWN
(2)
PIF ~
4
where tWN is the weld nugget shear ultimate strength.
In the pull-out failure mode, 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 (3)
is suggested for the pull-out failure of spot weld in the
tensile shear test6

6 Peak load v. fusion zone size in interfacial and pull-out

failure mode

PPF ~pdt(sUTS )FL

(3)

where (sUTS)FL is the ultimate tensile strength of failure

location. Note that in equation (3), thickness reduction
due to indentation is neglected.
Failure is a competitive process, i.e. spot weld failure
occurs in a mode which needs less force. Critical fusion
zone size dCr, which determines which one of the failure
modes happens, is shown in Fig. 6. Spot welds with
d,dCr tend to fail via interfacial failure and welds with
d.dCr tend to fail via nugget pull-out failure mode.
Therefore, to obtain critical nugget diameter dCr, equations (2) and (3) are intersected resulting in equation (4)
dCr ~4t

(sUTS )FL
tWN

(4)

Direct measurement of the mechanical properties of

different regions of spot weld is difficult. It is well known
that there is a direct relationship between materials
tensile strength and their hardness. Also, shear strength
of materials can be related linearly to their tensile
strength by a constant coefficient f. On that account,
equation (4) can be rewritten as follows
dCr ~4t

HFL
fHWN

(5)

According to equation (5), the critical fusion zone size

Table 1 Effect of welding current on weld nugget size, expulsion and failure mode*
Welding current, kA

10

11

12

13

14

Failure mode
Nugget size, mm
Expulsion

IF
3
No

IF
3.6
No

IF
4.5
No

PF
5.7
No

PFzST
5.8
No

PFzST
6
Weak

PF
6.8
Medium

PFzST
6.5
Medium

PFzST
6.7
Heavy

PFzST
6.6
Heavy

*IF: interfacial failure; PF: pull-out failure; ST: sheet tearing.

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

1509

Marashi et al.

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

7 Failure cross-section of overall macrograph (left) and failure initiation location where necking occurred due to tensile
stress and failure started (right): nal separation occurs at location where it is subjected to compressive stresses

1510

depends on the weld nugget and failure location

hardness, in addition to sheet thickness. For a constant
sheet thickness, decreasing the ratio of fusion zone
hardness to failure location hardness raises its tendency
to fail under the interfacial failure mode, i.e. larger dCr.
Marya et al.,16 in their work regarding the failure mode
of various grades of dual phase steel RSWs, found an
empirical inverse relationship between dCr and ratio of
maximum to minimum hardness of the spot welds, i.e.
HWN/HFL, too.
Figure 7 shows the cross-section of a sample failed
through the pull-out failure mode during the tensile
shear test. As can be seen, the location of the failure
initiation of the austenitic stainless steel spot welds in the
pull-out mode is at HAZ, beside the fusion zone. This
can be attributed to the softening effect of grain growth
in HAZ. Because there is no significant change in
hardness across the spot weld joint, stress concentration
at weld nugget edge can also lead to failure at the weld
nugget edge.
It is interesting to note that there is a distinct
difference between failure location of austenitic stainless
steel and ferritic carbon steel spot welds. As reported by
some researchers,6,17 spot weld failure in ferritic carbon
steel tensile shear samples occurs in HAZ/BM boundary
or in BM. This obvious difference can be ascribed to
different hardness profiles for these materials spot
welds. Hardness of fusion zone of ferritic carbon steel
is significantly higher than that of the BM because its
dominant microstructure is martensite.6 The differences
between hardness profiles of ferritic carbon steel and
austenitic stainless steel result in different failure
behaviours.
It is reported that the ratio of the ultimate shear
strength to ultimate tensile strength for 3xxx stainless
steel is y0?75.18 In the case of AISI 304 stainless steel,
the ratio of weld nugget hardness to failure location (i.e.
HAZ) hardness is y1?17 (Fig. 2). By substituting these
values in equation (5), critical fusion zone size is
calculated to be 5?47 mm. Table 1 shows that this value
clearly separates the interfacial and nugget pull-out
failure modes.
To further validate the proposed analytical model,
two additional sets of specimens were prepared using
different welding schedules and were used to produce
welds with different fusion zone sizes. In the first set,
efforts were directed to adjust welding parameters to
produce welds with fusion zone sizes smaller than the

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

calculated dCr. Spot welds with fusion zone sizes of 3?8,

4?9 and 5?2 mm were obtained. All of these samples
failed via interfacial failure mode during the tensile shear
test, as predicted by the analytical model. In the second
set, efforts were directed to adjust welding parameters to
produce welds with fusion zone sizes larger than the
calculated dCr. Spot welds with fusion zone sizes of 5?6,
6?1 and 6?4 mm were obtained. All of these samples
failed via pull-out failure mode during the tensile shear
test. These results confirmed the ability of the model to
predict the failure mode of the austenitic stainless steel
RSWs. A similar approach was used to predict failure
mode of low carbon steel and dual phase steel spot
welds.6
Although failure mode of low carbon RSWs can be
accurately predicted using conventional weld size
recommendation of d54t1/2, it is not sufficient to ensure
that the nugget pull-out failure mode will happen during
the tensile shear test, when HWN/HFL is low, e.g. in the
case of austenitic stainless RSWs. Therefore, metallurgical factors including HWN/HFL should be also
considered to more precisely analyse and predict the
failure mode of resistance spot welds.

Mechanical behaviour
Load carrying capacity and energy absorption capability
of spot welds depend on their physical attributes,
especially fusion zone size, failure mode and failure
location mechanical properties. The experimental results
indicate that welding current has a significant effect on
the load carrying capacity and energy absorption
capability of the spot welds under the tensile shear
static test. As can be seen from Fig. 8, upon increasing
the welding current, the peak load increases. However,
for higher welding currents, the peak load is almost
constant. The peak point in load displacement plot of
the tensile shear test corresponds to the point of crack
propagation through the weld nugget for interfacial
mode and to the necking point at failure location for the
pull-out mode. In the interfacial failure mode, increasing
fusion zone size results in increase in joint area which in
turn increases the resistance of the weld nugget to the
interfacial failure mode. In the pull-out failure mode, the
bigger the weld nugget size, the higher its resistance
against rotating is during the tensile shear test, which
itself affects stress distribution at the weld interface and
its circumference. Therefore, both these factors contribute to higher required force for the failure. Figure 9

Marashi et al.

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

8 Effect of welding current on peak load and failure

energy

shows relationships between the peak load and fusion

zone size, indicating that with increasing fusion zone
size, the peak load also increases. Therefore, weld nugget
size is the most important parameter to control load
carrying capacity of the joints.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, weld energy absorption
capability rises by increasing welding current; however,
it sharply decreases by heavy expulsion. Increasing
welding current increases the probability of expulsion
occurrence as well as its severity (Table 1). Figure 10
reveals that before heavy expulsion, there is generally a
direct relationship between energy absorption capability
and the fusion zone size. However, after a critical point,
energy absorption capability sharply decreases due to
high electrode indentation depth. Reduction of failure
energy at points higher than the critical welding current
can be assigned to severe electrode indentation (Fig. 3d).
Therefore, it could be concluded that energy absorption
capability is more sensitive to electrode indentation
depth compared to peak load. Thus, as mentioned
above, to fully describe the spot weld quality, in addition
to peak load, energy absorption capability should be
considered.

Conclusions
Based on the experimental results in combination with
the findings from the analytical model, the following
conclusions can be drawn:

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

10 Effect of weld fusion zone size on energy absorption

1. Critical weld nugget diameter recommended by

AWS/ANSI/SAE is not sufficient to guarantee the pullout failure mode for AISI 304 resistance spot welds.
2. Failure location for AISI 304 RSW in pull-out
failure mode is at HAZ, beside the weld nugget. The
proposed analytical model successfully predicts the
critical weld fusion zone size for AISI 304 spot welds.
According to this model, low ration of fusion zone
hardness to failure location hardness increases the
tendency of spot weld failure to occur in the interfacial
failure mode during the tensile shear test. Metallurgical
characteristics of welds should be considered to predict
and analyse the spot weld failure mode more precisely.
3. Before expulsion, fusion zone size is the most
critical factor to determine the weld quality in terms of
peak load and energy absorption.
4. In situations where heavy expulsion occurs, despite
of approximately constant weld fusion zone size, energy
absorptions of spot welds are reduced significantly due
to high electrode indentation depth.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Novinsazan Setareh
Sanat Co. for providing a spot welding machine for this
investigation. The authors would also like to acknowledge AmirKabir University of Technology for providing
foundations for this research.

References

9 Effect of weld fusion zone size on peak load

1. G. Fourlaris, S. J. Hambling and T. B. Jones: Mater. Sci. Technol.,

2006, 22, 39244.
2. S. J. Hambling, T. B. Jones and G. Fourlaris: Mater. Sci. Technol.,
2004, 20, 114321150.
3. P. Wung: Exp. Mech., 2001, 41, 1072113.
4. M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 2003, 82, 72s277s.
5. M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 1999, 78, 305s2313s.
6. M. Pouranvari, H. R. Asgari, S. M. Mosavizadeh, P. H. Marashi
and M. Goodarzi: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2007, 12, 2172225.
7. P. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, S. Amirabdollahian, A. Abedi and
M. Goodarzi: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2007.07.007.
8. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens and M. A. Khaleel: Eng. Failure Anal.,
2007, doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2007.01.018.
9. J. Chao: Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 1332137.
10. Recommended practices for test methods and evaluation the
resistance spot welding behavior of automotive sheet steels
materials, ANSI/AWS/SAE/D8?9297, American Welding
Society, Miami, FL, USA, 1997.

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

1511

Marashi et al.

Relationship between failure behaviour and weld fusion zone attributes of RSWs

Published by Maney Publishing (c) IOM Communications Ltd

11. J. C. Lippold and D. J. Kotecki: Welding metallurgy and

weldability of stainless steels; 2005, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
12. S. A. David, J. M. Vitek and T. L. Hebble: Weld. J., 1987, 68,
289s2300s.
13. M. Volger: Investigation of resistance spot weld formation, PhD
thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1993.
14. J. E. Gould, S. P. Khurana and T. Li: Weld. J., 2006, 86,
111s2116s.

1512

Materials Science and Technology

2008

VOL

24

NO

12

15. X. Deng, W. Chen and G. Shi: Finite Elem. Anal. Des., 2000, 35,
17239.
16. M. Marya, K. Wang, L. G. Hector and X. Gayden: J. Manufact.
Sci. Eng., 2006, 128, 2872298.
17. S. Zuniga and S. D. Sheppard: in Fatigue and fracture mechanics,
Vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, (ed. R. S. Piascik et al.), 4692489; 1997,
Philadelphia, PA, ASTM.
18. Available at: http://www.accuratescrew.com/info/material.htm