This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Failure mode transition in AHSS resistance spot welds. Part I. Controlling factors
M. Pouranvari a,∗ , S.P.H. Marashi b
a
Young Researchers Club, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful, Iran
b
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Failure mode of resistance spot welds is a qualitative indicator of weld performance. Two major types of
Received 24 February 2011 spot weld failure are pull-out and interfacial fracture. Interfacial failure, which typically results in reduced
Received in revised form 10 June 2011 energy absorption capability, is considered unsatisfactory and industry standards are often designed to
Accepted 10 August 2011
avoid this occurrence. Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) spot welds exhibit high tendency to fail in
Available online 19 August 2011
interfacial failure mode. Sizing of spot welds based on the conventional recommendation of 4t0.5 (t is sheet
thickness) does not guarantee the pullout failure mode in many cases of AHSS spot welds. Therefore, a
Keywords:
new weld quality criterion should be found for AHSS resistance spot welds to guarantee pull-out failure.
Advanced high strength steels
Resistance spot welds
The aim of this paper is to investigate and analyze the transition between interfacial and pull-out failure
Failure mode modes in AHSS resistance spot welds during the tensile–shear test by the use of analytical approach.
Microstructure In this work, in the light of failure mechanism, a simple analytical model is presented for estimating
the critical fusion zone size to prevent interfacial fracture. According to this model, the hardness ratio
of fusion zone to pull-out failure location and the volume fraction of voids in fusion zone are the key
metallurgical factors governing type of failure mode of AHSS spot welds during the tensile–shear test.
Low hardness ratio and high susceptibility to form shrinkage voids in the case of AHSS spot welds appear
to be the two primary causes for their high tendency to fail in interfacial mode.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The demand for high strength steel sheets having excellent duc-
tility has been increasing in the automotive industry in order to
improve the fuel efficiency of the vehicle, occupant safety and
reducing the car body weight. Due to their excellent strength
and formability, advanced high strength steels (AHSS) offer the
potential for improvement in vehicle crash performance without
extra weight increase [1]. AHSS steels include dual-phase (DP);
transformation-induced plasticity (TRIP); complex-phase (CP); and
hot-stamped or martensitic (M) steel grades.
Resistance spot welding is the dominant process to join sheet
metals in automotive industry. Considering development and com-
mercialization of AHSS for application in automotive bodies, there
is a need to study the spot welding behavior of these materials.
Without a thorough understanding of how to weld AHSSs, their
use and benefits within the automotive industry will be restricted.
Automotive structural assemblies use groups of spot welds
to transfer load through the structure during crash. Additionally,
spot welds can also act as fold initiation sites to manage impact
energy [2]. Joint failure, e.g. resistance spot weld (RSW) joint
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9124075960; fax: +98 21 88522421.
E-mail address: mpouranvari@yahoo.com (M. Pouranvari).
failure, has been identified as one of the key failure types when
vehicle crash occurs. Therefore, stiffness, strength and integrity of
a car body structure or any structure composed of sheet metals
strongly depend on the quality of the resistance spot welds (RSWs)
[3].
Failure mode of RSWs is a qualitative measure of the joint qual-
ity. Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of the main fracture
path during mechanical testing of spot welds. Basically, spot welds
can fail in three distinct different modes described as follows [4–6]:
(i) Interfacial failure (IF) in which, fracture propagates through
the fusion zone (FZ) (Fig. 1a).
(ii) Pull-out failure (PF) in which, failure occurs via the withdrawal
of weld nugget from one sheet (Fig. 1b). In this mode, fracture
may initiate in base metal (BM), heat affected zone (HAZ) or
HAZ/FZ depending on the base metal and the loading condition.
(iii) Partial interfacial mode (PIF) in which, fracture first propagates
in fusion zone (FZ) and then is redirected through thickness
(Fig. 1c).
Failure mode can significantly affect load bearing capacity and
energy absorption capability of RSWs. Generally, the PF mode is
the preferred failure mode due to higher plastic deformation and
energy absorption associated with it [3,4]. Thus, vehicle crash-
worthiness, the main concern in the automotive design, can be

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.017
 Author's personal copy
8338 M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of various failure modes which can occur during
the tensile–shear test: (a) interfacial, (b) pull-out, (c) partial interfacial.
dramatically reduced if spot welds fail via the interfacial mode [5].
As a result, it is needed to adjust welding parameters so that the PF
mode is guaranteed.
Resistance spot welding behavior of low carbon steels and HSLA
steels is well understood through several researches carried out
in past years. However, resistance spot welding of AHSS is still a
challenging issue due to the reasons summarized below:
(i) Complicated microstructure development in the fusion zone
(e.g. martensite formation) and the heat affected zone (e.g.
martensite formation and HAZ softening due to marten-
site tempering) [7,8,5]. These complex non-equilibrium
phase transformations destroy the sophisticated designed
microstructure of AHSS and can affect the failure behavior of
AHSS RSWs and should be taken into account.
(ii) Increased tendency to fail in interfacial failure mode [7,5,9].
(iii) High susceptibility to the formation of shrinkage voids in FZ
due to their rich chemistry in comparison to low carbon steels
[10,11].
(iv) Highly prone to expulsion which can lead to reduced peak load
and energy absorption [3,12,13].
This two-part paper aims at investigating failure mode of resis-
tance spot welds of AHSS. For this purpose, weld fracture during the
tensile–shear quasi-static loading condition which serves as a good
indicator of failure energy under impact/crash loading conditions
[2,14] is fully discussed. Apart from countless resources available
to refer to, there are two main reasons behind choosing the test are
as follows:
(i) Spot welded structures are usually designed to carry the
shear–tensile loads. Even though, spot welds may experience a
combined loading condition in service.
(ii) RSWs show greater tendency to fail in the interfacial failure
mode during the shear–tensile test in comparison to other
Fig. 2. Critical weld size for a range of HSLA steels according to VandenBossche’s
work [20]. The 4t0.5 rule is also superimposed.
loading conditions such as peel, coach-peel and cross-tension
[10]. RSWs which fail in the PF mode during the test are also
expected to fail in the same mode during cross-tension, peel
and chisel tests.
The aim of the present part is to provide an analytical basis for
the prediction of the failure mode of AHSS RSWs and to enhance our
understanding of the factors governing the failure mode of AHSS
spot welds. In order to do so, first an overview on the subject is
presented, and after that a simplified improved model based on
metallurgical factors is introduced to analyze and predict the min-
imum FZ size in order to ensure PF mode during the tensile–shear
test.
In the second paper, failure mode transition of spot welds
is experimentally investigated. The applicability of the proposed
model is also examined for various grades of AHSS spot welds.
2. Failure mode transition
As mentioned above, one of the major problems regarding resis-
tance spot welding of AHSS is their high probability to fail in
interfacial mode [2,3,15–19]. The equation below describes the
minimum weld size for a given sheet thickness recommended by
various industrial standards to produce pull-out failure:
D = Kt 0.5 (1)
where D is weld nugget diameter in mm, t is sheet thickness in
mm and K is a constant ranging from 3 to 6 [14]. In automotive
industry, sizing of spot welds in most cases is based on the 4t0.5
rule [14,18,19]. However, this criterion does not always give the
best result. In some cases (particularly for AHSS RSWs), in order to
ensure the pull-out failure mode, a bigger weld nugget diameter
than the value recommended by 4t0.5 rule is required.
VandenBossche [20] investigated spot weld failure mode of 15
different types of steel including various grades of low carbon steel
and high strength low alloy steels with 206–655 MPa yield strength
and 0.64–2.26 mm thickness in tensile–shear test. He determined
the minimum weld size required to ensure PF mode for different
types of steels. The results of his experiments on 20 test groups are
presented in Fig. 2. Recommendation of 4t0.5 is also superimposed
in this graph. Following points can be drawn from this figure:
(i) No direct relationship can be proposed between critical weld
size and sheet thickness. This confirms the fact that in addi-
tion to sheet thickness, the critical weld size is also affected by
material’s properties.
 Author's personal copy
M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
(ii) Sizing based on the 4t0.5 rule does not guarantee PF mode
in many cases particularly for sheet thicknesses more than
1.5 mm.
Sawhill et al. [21] and Pollard [22] have reached the same con-
clusion for high strength steels. Results achieved by Marya et al.
[23] and Sun et al. [3,18,24] also show that conventional recom-
mendation of 4t0.5 is not sufficient to obtain the PF mode for DP600,
DP780, DP980, DP800, TRIP800 and aluminum spot welds. There-
fore, it seems that in addition to sheet thickness, metallurgical
factors should be considered to precisely analyze and predict RSWs
failure mode.
The first attempt to analyze the failure mode of spot welds was
made by VandenBossche [20]. A weld sizing criterion was devel-
oped based on the premise that the fracture will happen in the
region that first yields (HAZ or weld nugget). The following equa-
tion describes the resulting criterion for pull-out failure
D     1/2
yBM w ing and fracture mechanics calculations to predict the failure load
= 1.5
t C yFZ t
where  yBM is tensile yield strength of the base metal,  yFZ is tensile
yield strength of the fusion zone, and w is the specimen width.
In order to safely predict the failure mode, the first model went
through some corrections. The modified equation is as follows:
D     1/2
yBM w is a critical sheet thickness above which the expected failure mode
= 0.54 +3
t C 1.54yBM + 572 t could be changed from pull-out to interfacial failure. Also, they con-
According to this criterion, spot welds with (D/t) ≥ (D/t)C will fail
in the PF mode. Despite the fact that his model requires some cor-
rection factors to safely predict the failure mode, it showed that in
addition to depending on the sheet thickness, the critical weld size
is also a function of materials properties.
Smith [25] derived an equation for critical weld nugget size
in the cross-tension test based on the competition between shear
plastic deformation in nugget circumference (i.e. nugget pull-out)
and crack propagation in weld nugget (i.e. interfacial failure mode).
The equation is as follows:
 2/3
BM
DC = 2.93 t 4/3
KCFZ
where  BM is the shear strength of the base metal and KCFZ is the
fracture toughness of fusion zone.  BM and KCFZ can be obtained
from experimental data.
Following Smith’s approach, Chao [6] developed a similar equa-
tion for critical weld nugget size in the cross-tension test. Although
his model relates the critical weld size to fracture toughness of weld
nugget and fracture strength in shear of HAZ, he tried to show that
his model is not material dependent. The suggested formula is:
DC = 3.41 t 4/3
According to his statement, the ratio of HAZ /KCFZ
can be considered
constant for different type of RSWs made on steels.
Sun et al. [24] proposed an analytical model to determine the
failure mode of aluminum spot welds in the cross-tension test
based on the lower bound limit of load analysis. The equation used
to determine the critical weld size during cross-tension test is:
3.2 t
DC =
P As mentioned above, the driving force for the IF is the shear
where P is the porosity factor (=1 if no porosity is present in the
fusion zone). According to this model, the main factors governing
the cross-tension failure mode of aluminum spot welds include
weld nugget size, sheet thickness and level of the weld porosity.
8339
Fig. 3. A simple model describing stress distribution at the interface and circumfer-
ence of a weld nugget during the tensile–shear test.
They have also used a similar approach to estimate the DC for AHSS
steels spot welds during cross-tension test [5].
Radakovic and Tumuluru [26] employed finite element model-
(2) and failure mode of AHSS resistance spot weld. The force required
to cause a complete weld button pull-out failure was found to be
proportional to the tensile strength and the thickness of the base
material as well as the weld nugget size. On the other side, the
force required for IF mode was related to the fracture toughness of
the weld, sheet thickness, and weld diameter. Results achieved by
their models showed that for advanced high-strength steels there
(3)
cluded that the higher the strength of the steel base metal, the more
prone it will be to the interfacial failure.
3. Analytical model to predict the failure mode transition
In this section a modified model based on metallurgical fac-
tors is presented to analyze and predict the minimum FZ size in
order to ensure PF mode during the tensile–shear test. First, fail-
ure mechanism of spot welds under the tensile–shear loading is
considered. Fig. 3 shows a simple model describing stress distribu-
tion at the interface and circumference of a weld nugget during the
tensile–shear test. Shear stresses are dominant at the interface. At
the nugget circumference, stresses are shear–tensile at position T.
(4)
In the IF mode, the shear stress at sheet/sheet interface is the driv-
ing force of the failure. In PF mode, when there is a certain amount
of rotation, the tensile stresses formed around the nugget cause
plastic deformation in sheet thickness direction. Finally, necking
occurs at T sites as the tensile force increases. These T sites are
located in HAZ or in the BM. The necking is not equal in both sheets
and the stress concentration caused by the uneven necking in the
two sheets leads to the withdrawal of the spot weld from one sheet.
Indeed, the failure of resistance spot welds during the
tensile–shear test can be described as a competition between the
shear plastic deformation of the fusion zone (i.e. IF mode) and the
(5)
necking in the base metal (i.e. PF mode) [27]. Fig. 4 shows the
cross section of a spot weld which has failed in the interfacial fail-
ure mode. Necking is initiated in the base metal region; however,
before its propagation in through-thickness direction, the shear
stress reaches its critical value at the weld interface and conse-
quently the failure occurs. Shear deformation can be clearly seen
in the weld centerline. In the IF mode the maximum local strain
occurs in the nugget while in the PF mode the maximum local strain
(6) is concentrated in the HAZ/base metal transition zone [26,28].
stress along the sheet/sheet interface; while, the driving force for
PF is the tensile stress around the weld nugget [29–31]. There is
a critical value for each driving force and the failure occurs in
a mode reaching its critical value more readily. Among all the
 Author's personal copy
8340 M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
Fig. 4. Fracture cross section of a spot welds failed in the interfacial mode [27]. Shear deformation is obvious in the weld centerline.
parameters involved, weld nugget size is the most important
parameter which determines the stress distribution in the weld. In
welds having small nugget size, the shear stress reaches its critical
value before the necking occurs in the base metal. As a result, failure
tends to happen under interfacial failure mode. Increasing the weld
nugget size, increases the weld nugget resistance against interfa-
cial (i.e. shear) failure. Therefore, there is a critical weld nugget size
to ensure the PF mode.
Spot welds usually fail in the mode requiring less force during
fracture. In order to develop a model that predicts the failure mode,
the first necessary step is to develop equations that calculate the
required force for each failure modes to happen.
First, let us consider the peak load of failure for the spot weld
in the interfacial mode. For a cylindrical nugget with diameter of D
and height of 2t, the failure load at the interfacial failure mode (PIF )
can be expressed using Eq. (7):
 2
FIF = D FZ
4
where  FZ is the shear strength of the fusion zone.
Some of the most probable defects which might happen during
resistance spot welding of AHSS are porosity and shrinkage voids.
Fig. 5 shows a typical fracture surface of a spot weld which has
failed in the IF mode. The shrinkage voids are evident in the frac-
ture surfaces which result from the inability of a solid or semisolid
to accommodate the thermal shrinkage strain associated with the
weld solidification and cooling. Higher magnification view of the
void region indicating a dendritic fracture surface can be seen in
Fig. 5. Fracture surface of a spot weld that has failed in interfacial mode.
the bottom of Fig. 5. It proves that these voids are the result of
solidification shrinkage. The presence of shrinkage voids and solid-
ification cracks in the weld nugget has been reported by several
researchers [11,12,16,32].
The effect of voids and porosities on the failure load depends
both on the location of the defect and the failure mode of the joint.
Experiments have shown that the porosities are mainly located at
the center of the weld nugget [11,32]. As confirmed by the finite
element modeling [14,31], in the PF mode, load is mainly carried
by HAZ while the center region of the nugget is mostly stress free.
Therefore, the strength of the spot welds which fail via pull-out
mode is not considerably affected by the porosity at the center of
the weld nugget. However, in the IF mode, porosity decreases the
load bearing surface area and thus, decreases the spot welds failure
strength. It is interesting to note that the AHSS are highly prone to
the shrinkage void formation. This fact has been recognized as one
of the main reasons for high susceptibility of the AHSS steels to the
(7) IF mode [5,7,13,32]. Therefore, porosity level of RSWs should be
taken into account for the modeling of the failure load in the inter-
facial failure mode. Here, similar to Sun et al. [24] in the modeling
of the failure load of the Al spot weld under cross-tension test, a
porosity (void) factor (P) can be defined as follows:
Atotal − APorosity
P= , 0≺P≤1 (8)
Atotal
where Atotal is the total area of the fusion zone on the faying inter-
face, and Aporosity is the projected area of the porosity in the fusion
zone and on the faying interface of the weld. The modified version
of Eq. (7) will be:
 2
FIF = P D FZ (9)
4
Now, consider the peak load of the spot weld PF mode. PF mode is
accompanied by plastic deformation. As plastic deformation con-
tinues, finite deformation of the material near the nugget takes
place and the specimen geometry changes significantly. It is not
easy to obtain closed form of the analytical solution with the consid-
eration of the finite deformation and the plastic deformation [33].
Here, simplified assumptions are considered in order to establish a
simple relationship between the failure load, sheet thickness and
the failure location strength of the spot welds in the PF mode. It is
assumed that in this mode, failure is initiated when the maximum
experienced radial tensile stress at nugget circumference reaches
the ultimate tensile strength of the failure location. Therefore, fail-
ure load in the PF mode can be expressed as:
FPF = D t PFL (10)
where  PFL is the ultimate tensile strength of the PF location. Based
on the failure mechanism of spot welds under tensile–shear test
and despite the fact that general loading mode is shear, it should
be noted that failure has a tensile nature. This is why the value of
ultimate tensile strength of the failure location is used in Eq. (10).
 Author's personal copy
M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
Table 1
Failure location of the spot welds during the quasi-static tensile–shear test.
Material Failure location
Low carbon steel BM
HSLA steel BM
DP600 BM
DP780 BM/HAZ
D980 HAZ
AISI 304 FZ/HAZ
Eq. (10) is in good agreement with some proposed empirical
equations, although simplified. For example, the following relation
is developed by Sawhil and Baker [34] for the tensile–shear strength
(F) of the spot welds:
F = m t D BM
where  BM is the ultimate tensile strength of the BM and m is a
material dependent coefficient, with a value ranging from 2.5 to
3.1.
Table 1 summarizes the experimentally determined
failure location of various types of spot welds made on
steel in the tensile–shear test. Dominant failure mecha-
nism in the tensile–shear test is through-thickness necking
[27,28,30,33,35,36]. Therefore, the location of the failure in the PF
mode in this test is governed by hardness profile characteristics of
the weld. Necking tends to occur where hardness has its lowest
value. It has been experimentally shown that in the low carbon
steel RSWs, the necking is initiated from the BM [27,36]. Similar
observations have been made for HSLA steels and DP600 RSWs
[33,35]. This can be attributed to the low hardness of the BM
rather than HAZ and FZ which can provide a preferential location
for necking during the tensile–shear test. However, it is reported
[5,37] that the spot welds experiencing HAZ softening during
welding, such as DP780 and DP980, tend to fail from this zone.
Moreover, it is reported [38] that in the case of AISI 304 RSW the
PF location is at FZ/FZ transition zone.
As mentioned earlier, failure of spot welds is a competitive pro-
cess: failure occurs in a mode which needs less force to happen. To
ensure the PF mode, the following inequality should be satisfied:
FPF ≺ FIF
Therefore, to obtain the critical FZ size, DC , Eqs. (9) and (10) are
intersected resulting in Eq. (13):
4tPFL
DC =
pFZ
Critical fusion zone size (DC ), determining the dominant failure
mode, is shown in Fig. 6. In spot welds with FZ size smaller than
Fig. 6. Peak load vs. fusion zone size in IF and PF modes.
8341
Reference
[27,36]
[35]
[35]
[5]
[37]
[38]
(11)
Fig. 7. Effect of metallurgical factors on the failure mode transition of spot welds.
DC , FIF < FPF and therefore, interfacial mode would happen. In spot
welds with FZ size larger than DC , FPF < FIF and therefore, welds tend
to fail via the preferred pull-out mode.
Direct measurement of mechanical properties of different
regions of spot weld is difficult. In the case of hardness, it is well
known that there is a direct relationship between the materials
tensile strength and their hardness. Shear strength of the materials
can also be related linearly to their tensile strength by a constant
coefficient, f. According to Tresca criterion, f is 0.5. Therefore, Eq.
(14) can be rewritten as follows:
4t
H 
PFL
DC = (14)
Pf HFZ
where HFZ and HPFL are the hardness of the fusion zone and pull-out
failure location, respectively.
4. Factors affecting the failure mode of the spot welds
during the tensile–shear test
Although the model proposed here is a simplified model, it
provides an adequate understanding to study the failure mode tran-
sition of spot welds, qualitatively. The applicability of this model to
(12) quantitatively predict the failure mode is discussed in the second
part of this paper [39].
According to this model, factors influencing failure mode tran-
sition of RSWs include:
(13)
(i) Fusion zone size:
The FZ size is the most important parameter governing the
failure mode of RSWs. The larger the FZ size (i.e. larger bond
area) the lower the shear stress experienced by sheet/sheet
interface (i.e. the higher the resistance to the interfacial failure).
FZ size which determines the overall bonding area of the joint
is controlled by heat input which in turn is governed by the
welding parameters mainly welding current, welding time and
electrode force.
(ii) Porosity and shrinkage voids in the weld nugget:
Porosity and shrinkage voids in the weld nugget decrease
the area of the load bearing surface in IF mode (i.e. sheet/sheet
interface area). This leads to the development of much higher
shear stress at the interface and consequently promotes IF
mode (see Fig. 7). Therefore, it is necessary to reduce/eliminate
the shrinkage voids via proper control of welding process
variables. It is shown that longer holding time and higher
electrode force can reduce the shrinkage voids [11,12]. From
material’s chemistry point of view, it is shown that materials
with rich chemistry promote the formation of shrinkage voids
[12]. Richer chemistry of AHSS compared to low carbon steel
 Author's personal copy
8342 M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
can partly explain the more susceptibility of AHSS to interfacial
fracture in comparison with the mild carbon steels.
(iii) Hardness ratio of FZ to pull-out failure location:
For a constant sheet thickness and porosity level, those spot
welds having low HFZ /HPFL exhibit higher susceptibility to the
interfacial failure mode. Higher hardness value of the fusion
zone relative to the hardness of failure location encourages the
failure initiation in the base metal or HAZ (see Fig. 7). Hardness
of fusion zone of steel RSW, which is dictated by its microstruc-
ture, depends on the chemical composition of the sheet and
the cooling rate. The ratio of HFZ /HPFL is also dependant on the
material being spot welded and the effect of weld thermal cycle
on the metallurgical properties of welded joint.
Therefore we have:
HFZ
= f (BM chemical composition, BM microstructure,
HPFL
× sheet thickness, holding time)
Typically, fusion zone hardness value of the mild steel RSWs is
about 2–3 times higher than the base metal hardness [18,30].
Therefore, in the case of low carbon steel, PF mode should be
the dominant failure mode. However, in the case of AHSS spot
welds, the HFZ /HPFL is lower than that of the low carbon steel
RSWs due to the higher BM hardness of AHSS. This explains
the high susceptibility of the AHSS to interfacial failure mode
in comparison with the low carbon steels. Accordingly, it is of
great importance to study the effect of this metallurgical factor
on weld failure mode.
(iv) Sheet thickness:
Sheet thickness has multiple effects on the failure mode:
(a) Thicker sheets require larger FZ size to ensure the PF mode.
There is a relationship between the degree of the rotation dur-
ing the tensile–shear test and the failure mode [40]. The stiffer
the sample (i.e. less rotation), the more susceptible the spot
weld is to the interfacial failure. Increasing the sheet thick-
ness increases sample stiffness which in turn hinders the easy
rotation of the spot welds during the tensile–shear test. As a
consequence, it can increase the required force for the necking
and therefore, the interfacial failure mode is promoted.
It should be noted that in this model, the effect of electrode
indentation on the thickness of the failure location is ignored.
The severe change in the geometry due to the indentation
can cause stress concentration at the root of the indentation
wall which in turn promotes the yielding of the nugget cir-
cumference in the through-thickness direction during loading.
Therefore, increasing the electrode indentation can encourage
the spot weld to fail in the PF mode. However, this parame-
ter has detrimental effects on the weld quality in terms of load
carrying capacity and energy absorption capability [17,37,41].
(b) Increasing the sheet thickness reduces the cooling rate during
resistance spot welding which in turn can reduce the fusion
zone hardness.
(c) The tendency to form shrinkage voids increases as the sheets
become thicker [12].
All of these factors can contribute to the promotion of the inter-
facial failure mode.
At the end, it can be concluded that the failure mode of spot
welds is a complex phenomenon affected both by geometrical and
metallurgical factors. In Part 2 of this paper [39], the experimental
investigations on the failure mode transition of AHSS spot welds
are presented and the validation of the proposed model is also
discussed [39].
5. Conclusion
Failure mode of the AHSS resistance spot welds during the
quasi-static tensile–shear test is investigated through analytical
approach. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. Weld fracture of the AHSS spot welds is a complicated phe-
nomenon which involves interaction among the geometrical
factors, weld metallurgical properties and loading mode. In the
tensile–shear test with great tendency to fail in interfacial mode,
the hardness ratio of fusion zone to pull-out failure location and
the porosity level of the fusion zone are primary factors influ-
encing type of weld fracture.
2. The low value of hardness ratio and the high tendency to shrink-
age void formation are the two main reasons that explain the
high susceptibility of the AHSS spot welds to fail in the IF mode.
3. Based on the failure mechanism of the spot welds in the
tensile–shear test, a simple analytical model is proposed to pre-
dict the minimum FZ size (DC ) to ensure the pull-out failure
mode:
4t
H 
PFL
DC =
Pf HFZ
where t is the sheet thickness, P is the porosity factor, f is the ratio
of shear strength to tensile strength of the FZ, HFZ and HPFL are
hardness values (HV) of the fusion zone and pullout failure location,
respectively.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Islamic Azad University, Dezful
Branch for the financial support of this work.
References
[1] M.D. Tumuluru, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 31–37.
[2] W. Peterson, J. Borchelt, Maximizing Cross Tension Impact Properties of Spot
Welds in 1.5 mm Low Carbon, Dual-phase, and Martensitic Steels, SAE Technical
Paper Series, SAE 2000-01-2680.
[3] X. Sun, E.V. Stephens, M.A. Khaleel, Eng. Failure Anal. 15 (2008) 356–367.
[4] P. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, S. Amirabdollahian, A. Abedi, M. Goodarzi, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A 480 (2008) 175–180.
[5] M.I. Khan, M.L. Kuntz, Y. Zhou, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 13 (2008) 294–304.
[6] Y.J. Chao, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 8 (2003) 133–137.
[7] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 15 (2010) 149–155.
[8] J.E. Gould, S.P. Khurana, T. Li, Weld. J. 86 (2006) 111s–116s.
[9] J.E. Gould, W. Peterson, Fabricator 565 (2005) 34–35.
[10] M. Marya, X.Q. Gayden, Weld. J. 84 (2005) 197s–204s.
[11] C. Ma, D.L. Chen, S.D. Bhole, G.A. Boudreau, B.E. Lee, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 485 (2008)
334–346.
[12] A. Joaquin, A.N.A. Elliott, C. Jiang, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 24–27.
[13] M. Pouranvari, P. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, H. Bahmanpour, Metallurgical fac-
tors affecting failure mode of resistance spot welds, in: Materials Science and
Technology, 5–9 October, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, AcerS/AIST/ASM/TMS,
2008, pp. 2465–2475.
[14] H. Zhang, J. Senkara, Resistance Welding: Fundamentals and Applications, Tay-
lor & Francis CRC Press, 2005.
[15] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, S.M. Mousavizadeh, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining
15 (2010) 625–631.
[16] M. Marya, X.Q. Gayden, Weld. J. 84 (2005) 172s–182s.
[17] M. Pouranvari, A. Abedi, P. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 13
(2008) 39–43.
[18] X. Sun, E.V. Stephens, M.A. Khaleel, Weld. J. 86 (2007) 18s–25s.
[19] V.H.B. Hernandez, M.L. Kuntz, M.I. Khan, Y. Zhou, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining 13
(2008) 769–776.
[20] J. VandenBossche, Ultimate strength and failure mode of spot welds in high
strength steels, SAE paper 770214, 1977.
[21] J.M. Sawhill, H. Watanabe, J.W. Mitchell, Weld. J. 56 (1977) 217s–224s.
[22] B. Pollard, Weld. J. 53 (1974) 343s–350s.
[23] M. Marya, K. Wang, L.G. Hector, X. Gayden, J. Manufact. Sci. Eng. 128 (2006)
287–298.
 Author's personal copy
M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 8337–8343
[24] X. Sun, E.V. Stephens, R.W. Davies, M.A. Khaleel, D.J. Spinella:, Weld. J. 83 (2004)
188s–195s.
[25] R.A. Smith, Sizing of spot welds by elastic/plastic analysis, in: Fracture and
Fatigue: Elasto-plasticity, Thin Sheet and Micromechanics Problems, 3rd Euro-
pean Colloquium on Fracture, September 8–10, London, Pergamon Press, pp.
49–56.
[26] D.J. Radakovic, M.D. Tumuluru, Weld. J. 87 (2008) 96s–105s.
[27] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Mater. Des. 31 (2010) 3253–3258.
[28] S. Brauser, L.A. Pepke, G. Weber, M. Rethmeier, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527 (2010)
7099–7108.
[29] M. Pouranvari, H.R. Asgari, S.M. Mosavizadeh, P.H. Marashi, M. Goodarzi, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Joining 12 (2007) 217–225.
[30] Y.J. Chao:, ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 125 (2003) 1–8.
[31] X. Deng, W. Chen, G. Shi, Finite Elements Anal. Des. 35 (2000) 17–39.
[32] J.E. Gould, D. Workman, Fracture morphologies of resistance spot welds
exhibiting hold time sensitivity, in: Proceedings of Sheet Metal Welding Con-
ference VIII, AWS Detroit Section, Detroit, MI, 1998.
8343
[33] P.C. Lin, S.H. Lin, J. Pan, Eng. Fract. Mech. 73 (2006) 2229–2249.
[34] J.M. Sawhill, J.C. Baker, Weld. J. 59 (1980) 19s–30s.
[35] S. Zuniga, S.D. Sheppard, in: R.S. Piascik, et al. (Ed.), Fatigue and fracture
mechanics, vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, ASTM, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 469–489;
1997.
[36] M. Goodarzi, S.P.H. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209
(2009) 4379–4384.
[37] F. Nikoosohbat, S.H. Kheirandish, M. Goodarzi, M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 26 (2010) 738–744.
[38] P. Marashi, M. Pouranvari, S.M.H. Sanaee, A. Abedi, H. Abootalebi, M. Goodarzi,
Mater. Sci. Technol. 24 (2008) 1506–1512.
[39] M. Pouranvari, S.P.H. Marashi, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, submitted for publication.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2011.08.016.
[40] J.A. Davidson, E.J. Imhof, Jr., SAE Technical Paper No. 848110, 1984.
[41] H. Zhang, Weld. J. 78 (1999) 373s–380s.