Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Advanced Joining Processes

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-advanced-joining-processes

A Review on the Modeling of the Clinching Process Chain - Part I:

Design Phase
Britta Schramm a, *, Sven Martin b, Christian Steinfelder c, Christian R. Bielak d,
Alexander Brosius c, Gerson Meschut d, Thomas Tröster b, Thomas Wallmersperger e,
Julia Mergheim f
a
Applied Mechanics, Paderborn University, Warburger Straße 100, Paderborn 33098, Germany
b
Chair for Automotive Lightweight Design, Paderborn University, Warburger Straße, Paderborn 33098, Germany
c
Chair of Forming and Machining Processes, TU Dresden, George-Bähr-Straße 3c, Dresden 01069, Germany
d
Laboratory for Material and Joining Technology, Paderborn University, Warburger Straße 100, Paderborn 33098, Germany
e
Institute of Solid Mechanics, TU Dresden, George-Bähr-Straße 3c, Dresden 01069, Germany
f
Institute of Applied Mechanics, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Egerlandstraße 5, Erlangen 91058, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In many areas of product manufacturing, constructions are often mechanically joined of different materials to
Mechanical joining realize assemblies of various complexity with numerous point-shaped connections. Thereby, clinching is a
Clinching frequently used joining technology. For the prognosis of the joinability and the life cycle of a connection, nu­
Multi-material design
merical modeling of the complete joining process chain is essential, considering (i) the design phase, (ii) the
Joint topology optimization
joining process itself, and (iii) the resulting properties of the connection in the operational phase. This holistic
Load path analysis
Finite elements modeling approach enables the comprehension of the complex cause-and-effect relationships in mechanical
joining of different materials (e.g. aluminum, steel and fiber-reinforced composites). Furthermore, the in­
teractions between the production process and the subsequent operational loadings and environmental in­
fluences require a transferable design method for load-adapted, mechanically joined assemblies. This paper is the
first part (part I) of a series of reviews summarizing the current state of research on modeling and simulation of
clinching. In this context, the present paper deals with the joining process chain and its challenges as well as
methods for the modeling and the optimization of clinch joints in the design phase. The simulation of the
clinching process is subject of part II. The influences of the operational phase, e.g. corrosion phenomena and
fatigue crack growth, are considered in part III of our review series.

Introduction contributes to a better safety and a higher environmental sustainability

The use of mechanical joining technologies offers the possibility of
joining various material-geometry combinations for a wide range of
applications, e.g. vehicle assemblies, machine and plant constructions as
well as medical and household applications (Davies, 2012; Mallick,
2020). For lightweight structures, mechanical joining is a promising key
technology for reducing energy consumption as well as harmful emis­
sions. This is especially important against the background of economical
series production with more varied products and even shorter model
cycles. Thereby, an intelligent mix of materials (e.g. aluminum, steel and
fiber-reinforced composites) enables an optimal lightweight construc­
tion (Anderson et al., 2018; Angelo and Ravisankar, 2019) and also
(Schleinkofer et al., 2018; Taub and Luo, 2015).
The joining technologies mentioned in DIN 8593-3 (2003) and DIN
8593-5 (2003) gain particular importance for multi-material design
(Barnes and Pashby, 2000). These technologies allow joining of different
sheet metal materials with and without additional auxiliary joining
parts. The demand of single-stage processes increases in order to reduce
complexity and to avoid positioning inaccuracies between a pre-hole
and the joining tools (Mori and Abe, 2018). A frequently used joining
technology that enables joining of different materials without any
additional auxiliary joining parts is clinching.
In the clinching process two or more overlapping parts are joined by
cold forming using a punch and a die, see Fig. 1a). The joining parts are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: schramm@fam.upb.de (B. Schramm).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajp.2022.100133
Received 21 July 2022; Received in revised form 14 October 2022; Accepted 23 October 2022
Available online 2 November 2022
2666-3309/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B. Schramm et al.
first partially penetrated and then compressed so that an inseparable
connection is created by cold forming. This generally results in a form-fit
and friction-fit mechanically joined connection (Abe et al., 2012), which
defines the properties of the entire clinched assembly. A clinch joint is
characterized by geometrical values, see Fig. 1b). Tactile measurable
parameters are the bottom thickness of the joining element and its
diameter. The decisive sizes, which are measured destructively based on
microsections, are the interlock and the neck thickness of the joint.
Thereby, the interlock is the key parameter influencing the properties of
the joint under normal load, whereas the neck thickness is crucial for the
shear load resistance (Wang et al., 2018).
Certain limitations of the clinching process have led to the devel­
opment of further variants. Chen et al. (2021) point out that the flat
clinching process has more benefits than the conventional clinching
process. A geometric protrusion on the lower surface, which is charac­
teristic for the conventional process, can be completely avoided by flat
clinching. This is accompanied by lower manufacturing costs and time,
lower tool costs and lower wear as well as no need for coaxial alignment
of upper and lower dies (Neugebauer et al., 2020). A further develop­
ment is the flat-clinch-bonding process which combines flat clinching
and adhesive bonding in order to guarantee the assembly handling
strength (Gerstmann and Awiszus, 2021). For a large discrepancy in
mechanical properties and thickness, hole clinching is suggested (Peng
et al., 2020). Friction clinching is another concept of clinching that
differs from the conventional process. The sheet is heated by a rotating
tool, which leads to an increase in the formability of the material
(Lambiase et al., 2017). Babalo et al. (2020) present another new joining
technique which is called high-speed mechanical clinching and results in
an improved joint strength. Further variants of the clinching process and
their comparison are also considered by Eshtayeh and Hrairi (2016) as
well as by Peng et al. (2020).
For the analysis of the properties of the clinched connection ’trial and
error’ methods and experience-based approaches are commonly used
(Meschut and et al., 2022). These approaches, however, can only react
to a very limited extent to external process influences and are currently
rigidly configured for the respective material-geometry combination.
Hence, they have to be laboriously adapted to new material-geometry
combinations each time. This procedure is very costly and
time-consuming. Therefore, the production of a functional clinched as­
sembly requires a systematic, method-based approach considering the
entire joining process chain starting with the initial design phase of a
product with clinch joints, followed by the clinching process until the
end of the operational phase.
To contribute to the design and optimization of clinching processes
as well as of clinched assemblies, our publication series presents a re­
view of the state of the art focusing on the simulation chain of the
clinching process chain. The research is subdivided into the following
three parts: the design phase (part I, present paper), the joining phase
(part II, Schramm et al., 2022) and the operational phase (part III,
Fig. 1. a) Clinching process, b) quality relevant parameters of clinch joints (Bielak et al., 2021a). ”Reprinted from Journal of Advanced Joining Processes, 3, Ch.R.
Bielak et al., Numerical analysis of the robustness of clinching process considering the pre-forming of the parts, 100038, Copyright (2021), with permission
from Elsevier.”
2
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
Schramm et al., 2022). This subdivision is also outlined in Fig. 2.
Previous review papers mostly refer to only one aspect of the simu­
lation of this process chain, for example, the application of finite
element analysis in clinching processes (Eshtayeh and Hrairi, 2016; Qin
et al., 2021) and in clinched joints (He, 2010) or the optimization of
clinching tools (Lee et al., 2017). Other review papers (Eshtayeh et al.,
2016; He, 2017) focus on clinching of particular materials. For example,
Galińska and Galiński (2020) report on the mechanical joining of
fiber-reinforced polymer composites to metals. To our best knowledge,
our paper series is the first review that covers the simulation of the entire
process chain.
The present review paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, the
joining process chain and its challenges are presented. Research ques­
tions are derived which are addressed in all three parts of our review
series. The positioning of joints and the resulting loads play a decisive
role in the design of joints. Therefore, Section 3 reviews the state of the
art of the design phase for an optimal arrangement of clinch joints and
focuses on analytical and numerical methods in order to determine and
optimize the number and distribution of multiple joints in an assembly.
In the summary in Section 4, the state of the art and research of the
design phase is shortly recapitulated and open questions are pointed out.
The joining process chain and its challenges
Fig. 3 gives an overview about the process chain for the
manufacturing of a joined assembly in the automotive sector. Numerical
modeling of this complete joining process chain essentially considers
three phases: (i) the design phase, (ii) the joining process itself and (iii)
the subsequent operational phase. A consistent consideration of all these
phases is required for a process-reliable production and for the fulfill­
ment of function over the entire lifetime.
Complex components are manufactured from individual sheets
which are combined by many clinch joints. Thereby, the joined con­
nections have the characteristic function to transfer different loads (e.g.
static, cyclic, impact) from one part to the other. These different loads
lead to various stress situations in the proximity of the clinch joint
defining its overall requirements’ specification. In this context, re­
quirements may include, for example, the application of a specific ma­
terial with a certain sheet thickness (Peng et al., 2021). This
material-geometry combination, however, might require other process
variables and different tooling (punch and die geometries) in order to
obtain feasible joints (He, 2017). Within the operational phase, the
clinch joints have to be able to achieve the desired lifetime. Hereby, it
has to be considered that different materials, sheet thicknesses as well as
tool geometries have an impact on the strength and the load-bearing
capacity of the assembly (Wang et al., 2014). The latter can also be
affected by corrosion (LeBozec et al., 2012) and crack growth within the
structure (Su et al., 2015). To achieve a load-bearing assembly, each
single clinch joint has to be realized in such a way that its resulting
B. Schramm et al. Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133

Fig. 2. Detailed description of the simulation chain of the clinching process.

Fig. 3. Simulation chain of a clinched assembly with the aim of adapting the resulting properties of a clinch joint to the specification of requirements .

properties meet or exceed the aforementioned requirements. The
resulting properties are, for example, (i) a certain neck thickness and
interlock, (ii) defined positions of the clinch joint within the assembly,
and (iii) the strength of the clinch joint for various loadings.
In order to determine the strength behavior of a clinch joint,
experimental tests are carried out (Chen et al., 2019; He et al., 2014).
Depending on (i) the type of connection, (ii) the joint characteristics,
and (iii) the type of loading, e.g. shear, normal load or mixed mode,
different failure modes occur when clinched constructions are tested
destructively. The failure modes can basically be categorized into a neck
fracture mode, a button-out mode (Lee et al., 2017) or a mixed failure
mode (DIN EN ISO 12996, 2013), see Fig. 4. Decisive for the cause of

3
B. Schramm et al.
Fig. 4. Typical failure modes of clinch joints (according to DIN EN ISO 12996 (2013); DIN ISO 16237 (2015); DVS/EFB (2021))
failure are especially (i) the prevailing stress situation, (ii) the complex
material behavior considering friction, plasticity and damage mecha­
nisms as well as often (iii) wrongly executed or overstressed joints.
The interaction between the requirements and the resulting prop­
erties leads to an iterative optimization of the position and distribution
of the clinch joints, taking into account their manufacturability. This
joinability depends among other things on the structural design and the
design of the joints, the resulting stress situation and the material.
Hereby, many different material-geometry combinations (Bielak et al.,
2021b) are possible resulting in complex cause-and-effect relationships.
Hence, in the initial design phase of the assembly, the loads, the ge­
ometry and the material of the individual parts are roughly determined.
Then, the joining design is initially defined. According to Eggink and
Groll (2020), it is characterized by the sum of all joining elements,
whereby a single joining connection is completely described by its
technology, location and properties. With (i) the experience of de­
signers, (ii) guidelines, (iii) characteristic values of previously used
joints and with (iv) the help of artificial intelligence, an initial joining
design can be derived. In addition to the pure joint load capacity, the
joining process steps have to be taken into account. Despite the
increasing use of numerical methods like the finite element method
(FEM), until now the design of mechanically joined connections is
generally done heuristically and based on empirical knowledge (Eggink
and Groll, 2020). For an assessment of the joinability, a thorough un­
derstanding of the relationships between the component’s geometry and
the load of an individual joint has to be taken into account and included
into the design method.
Furthermore, the joining process itself is also very important for the
reliability of the resulting joints and has to be considered in the simu­
lation of the process chain. Thereby, joining-specific material properties
and characteristics (e.g. ductility, strength, stiffness, tendency to dam­
age or cracks) can significantly limit the range of suitable joining pa­
rameters and must be examined from a fundamental scientific point of
view (Varis and Lepistö, 2003). Material modeling is an important
prerequisite for the simulation of mechanical joining processes. In
addition to the accurate modeling of large plastic strains, the description
of the damage behavior (Lambiase and Di Ilio, 2016) is also important in
order to optimize the clinching joining processes as done by Roux and
Bouchard (2013). The pre-deformation of parts to be joined, e.g. by
forming processes, can result in anisotropic material behavior (Saberi
et al., 2008) which has to be considered for the simulation of the forming
and testing of clinch joints (Dean et al., 2017). For the exact simulation
of the joining process, especially with anisotropic, heterogeneous
joining partners, (i) the complete description of the three-dimensional
stress state is required, (ii) accurate material models including finite
strain plasticity and damage for metals have to be applied, and (iii)
multi-scale material models are necessary for fiber-reinforced polymers
in order to take into account their complex damage behavior (Gude
4
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
et al., 2015).
During the operational phase, corrosive issues (Montemor, 2016)
and their influences on mechanical properties of joined materials
(LeBozec et al., 2012) as well as the initiation (Su et al., 2015) and
propagation (Zhang et al., 2020) of fatigue cracks can lead to failure of
joined assemblies. Especially for connections of different materials with
a large difference in the electrochemical potential, the time-dependent
influence of corrosion on damage has to be considered. Furthermore,
cracks, which have been developed during the joining process or initi­
ated by the operational load, can (further) propagate due to the opera­
tional loading situation. Therefore, the corrosive assessment as well as
the fracture mechanical evaluation of mechanically joined connections
complete the consistent simulation of the process chain.
For the analytical/numerical prognosis of the joinability and the
operational properties along the life cycle of clinched connections, an­
swers to the following research questions are essential:
Q1: Which methods exist to predict the loading of clinch joints during
the design phase?
Q2: What is the minimal number of clinch joints and their optimal
distribution within an assembly?
Q3: Which process parameters are significant for the joining process
and how do they affect the resulting properties of the clinch joint?
Q4: What is the role and the influence of damage during the clinching
process and how can it be modeled and simulated?
Q5: How does corrosion affect the load-bearing capacity and the
service life of a clinched assembly?
Q6: How does fatigue crack growth occur in clinched assemblies and
how does it affect the remaining service life?
Answers to these questions enable target-oriented changes to the
joining processes and process steps in consideration of (i) the design
phase, (ii) the joining process and (iii) the operational phase.
Modeling clinch joints in the design phase
In this section, an overview about the state of art and research of
methods for the design and the assessment of joints will be presented.
Starting with analytical methods for describing the load situation in the
joint itself in Section 3.1, Section 3.2 provides an overview about
modeling techniques for joined connections based on the finite element
method. Section 3.3 considers methods for optimizing the overall
joining design. In the following Section 3.4, the concept of load path
analysis for describing the force flow in joints is introduced as a possible
alternative or complementary method to the methods mentioned before.
Finally, the robustness of optimization-based methods against un­
certainties is considered in Section 3.5.
B. Schramm et al.
Analytical design of mechanical joints
There is a general need for developing and using analytical methods
for the design of mechanical joints in order to enable (i) a direct
determination of the mechanical and geometrical properties of the
clinch points and (ii) the direct integration into the initial design phase
of clinched components. Unfortunately, there is no uniform analytical
method for determining the properties of mechanical joints. Therefore,
different approaches were investigated for numerous mechanical joining
technologies. Hahn et al. (2000) developed a design concept for
self-pierce riveted steel components that are predominantly subjected to
varying stresses. Chergui (2004), on the other hand, provided a design
concept proposal for self-pierce riveted aluminum components. Both
approaches are based on previously experimentally determined char­
acteristic values of the point-shaped connections. By using correction
factors, the model of Chergui (2004) is subsequently adjusted and the
damage accumulation is considered for lifetime prediction. Hahn et al.
(2000) and Chergui (2004) pointed out the problem of the design
method, which (i) does not cover all joining technologies and which (ii)
requires different procedures for the experimental determination of the
characteristic values of the joints. Hence, the development of a uniform
procedure for the characterization of mechanical joints is investigated
from different perspectives.
The definition of a specific yield strength to characterize the
behavior of the joint according to the U.S. military standard (Military
Handbook, 1998) is not sufficient since it does not capture only the joint
behavior, but rather the entire specimen. At this specific yield strength,
plastic deformations may already be present in the joint, which will lead
to premature failure if the joint is loaded again. Furthermore, the
deformation of the joint has a very small influence on the overall
deformation of the specimen. This makes a reliable characterization of a
joint difficult. Fuchs et al. (2009), therefore, proposed the experimental
determination of an equivalent yield force as a basis for the design of the
joint. This equivalent yield force concept takes into account both the
maximum force of a joint and its ductility. Thus, this value is a combined
strength-deformation value.
Furthermore, analytical approaches for mechanically joined con­
nections are available, which describe the joint behavior for different
loading conditions. In this context, the study of Liu et al. (2021) on the
analytical model of joint strength prediction of flat-clinching and of Lee
et al., 2017 on the design of mechanical clinching tools have to be
mentioned. As another example, the analytical method for determining
the pull-out force of clinch joints according to Coppieters et al. (2012) is
described in the following in more detail. First, the authors investigated
different failure mechanisms for given loads: either the neck of the joint
cracks, the joint unbuttons or a combination of both failure types occurs.
Applying a pure pull-out force to the connection frequently leads to neck
fracture, plastic deformations in the joining area or a combination of
both. To derive an analytical expression for the pure pull-out strength of
a clinched connection the slab equilibrium technique is used. Small el­
ements are extracted from the deforming connection and a force balance
is performed on these small slabs. The resulting differential equations –
relating the stresses in the joint to geometrical variables in the defor­
mation process – are solved analytically by using specific simplifying
assumptions. Both numerical and experimental results are used subse­
quently to calibrate the analytical method.
Concluding, analytical methods would be excellent approaches for
the determination of the properties of clinch points and for the initial
design phase of clinched components. But, as has been shown, there is
no uniform analytical method for determining the properties of me­
chanical joints, in particular for different load cases. The presented
analytical approaches are based on simplifying assumptions and are
often not adequate to represent the characteristics of the mechanical
joints. Hence, there is a great desire for further development of exact and
efficient analytical methods which is an important point for future
research work in the framework of clinched structures.
5
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
Numerical design of mechanical joints
It has been shown that analytical methods are limited for application
in design processes of clinched structures. Therefore, numerical methods
are required to better assess the joint’s behavior. In the present section,
we demonstrate the application of the finite element method in the
design of joined connections. The modeling effort of a joint depends on
the type of model, which in turn is chosen with respect to (i) the required
result accuracy, (ii) the number of joints, (iii) the analysis type, and (iv)
the computational resources. The finite element simulation of mechan­
ical joints can either be performed by a finely discretized, ideal geometry
on which stress and strain fields are resolved and evaluated in detail, as
has been shown by Bielak et al. (2021b) for clinch joints and by Bier and
Sommer (2015) for self-piercing riveted joints, or by equivalent models
which are calibrated by means of experimental data and/or by numer­
ical results of finely discretized finite element models (Breda et al.,
2017). Due to the high computational effort the first variant is only used
for a small number of joints and for the design of equivalent models. For
reasons of efficiency, equivalent joint models are applied for the
calculation of large assemblies.
The focus of equivalent joint modeling is laid on the correct repre­
sentation of the mechanical behavior of clinched components, on the
correct prediction of their stiffness and strength (Khalkhali and Mian­
doabchi, 2020) or on the investigation of the dynamic behavior of
structures with joints (Bograd et al., 2011; Yunus et al., 2018). Ac­
cording to Hanssen et al. (2010), different equivalent modeling ap­
proaches for point connectors are available. For example, (i)
node-to-node constraints, (ii) node-to-surface, and (iii)
surface-to-surface constraints by contact formulations are used.
Furthermore, beam, rod, brick or cohesive elements are applied for the
connector, see Fig. 5 for some exemplary equivalent joint models. To
calibrate the equivalent models, either experimental tests, which expose
the mechanical behavior of the joint (Breda et al., 2018), or numerical
simulations with validated finely discretized finite element (FE) models
(Bérot et al., 2014) are required.
The experimental calibration of equivalent joint models requires that
load-displacement relations, experimentally obtained for one clinch
joint by adequate experimental tests, are reproduced by the equivalent
joint model. An experimental test, which is often used for that, is the
modified Arcan test. Within this experiment, mixed-mode loading can be
applied to the joint, as first proposed by Langrand et al. (2002) for riv­
eted joints and modified for clinch joints by Coppieters et al. (2013).
Furthermore, shear lap tests, peel tests, cross tension tests or H tension
tests are used (Breda et al., 2017).
Fig. 5. Different equivalent joint models for a rivet: (a) beam element, (b)
hexahedron element, (c) constrained element, (d) cluster of four hexahedron
elements (adapted from Sommer and Maier (2011)).
B. Schramm et al.
An equivalent joint model for clinch joints is presented in Breda et al.
(2017), which consists of a beam-like connector element with six de­
grees of freedom, three relative displacements and three rotations. It is
connected to the joining partners, usually discretized with shell ele­
ments, within a coupling zone, which represents the area of influence of
the clinch joint, see Fig. 6 for the graphical presentation of a similar
approach of Hanssen et al. (2010) for rivets. This coupling zone is either
assumed to be rigid, which is denoted as kinematic coupling (Breda
et al., 2017), or the forces and moments within the connector element
are distributed to the nodes within the coupling zone. This is suggested
by Weyer et al. (2006) for self-piercing rivets. Breda et al. (2017) point
out that kinematic coupling results in stiffer behavior of the connector
element than structural distributed coupling and is in their study closer
to the experimental results for clinch joints, compare Fig. 7.
The constitutive behavior of the equivalent joint model is usually
nonlinear and described by elastic, plastic and damage/failure parts,
which are formulated in terms of relative displacements/rotations and
related forces/moments. Elastic parameters are specified separately for
the normal and shear directions and are calibrated by experimental
tests. In Weyer et al. (2006) a coupled plasticity model is suggested for
self-piercing rivets, which only requires one experimental test for the
calibration. A yield surface is defined by means of an equivalent normal
force, which also contains the moments, and an equivalent shear force,
which combines both tangential forces. The initial yield forces in normal
and tangential direction can be specified separately, but a coupled
equivalent hardening law is introduced. Breda et al. (2017) illustrate
that an uncoupled representation of the hardening law, i.e. independent
definitions of hardening laws in normal and tangential directions, is
more appropriate for equivalent clinch joint models. In Weyer et al.
(2006) and Grujicic et al. (2014) the failure initiation is defined by
means of the equivalent plastic deformation and the mode-mix ratio.
Hanssen et al. (2010) introduce a damage parameter, which increases
with the equivalent deformation, depends on the mode-mix ratio and
accounts for the correct behavior during unloading.
In Breda et al. (2019) the effect of the anisotropy of the base material
on the calibration process of an equivalent joint model is analyzed. It is
shown that for an accurate calibration of the axial elastic and plastic
behavior of the equivalent joint model the residual stress state and the
plastic anisotropy of the sheets have to be taken into account. Since the
consideration of the entire process chain is often very expensive, the
definition of a correction factor to approximate the residual stress state
Fig. 6. Connector element, represented by the rivet node, and its coupling zone
which represents the domain of influence of the joint (Hanssen et al., 2010).
"Reproduced from Hanssen, A.G. et al. A large-scale finite element
point-connector model for self-piercing rivet connections. European Journal of
Mechanics - A/Solids, 2010; 29(4):484-495. Copyright ©2010 Elsevier Masson
SAS. All rights reserved.")
6
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
in the base material is identified as a point for future research. Grujicic
et al. (2014) presented a three-step computational procedure to define
and calibrate an equivalent joining point model for self-piercing rivets.
Thereby, the joining process is taken into account and a virtual valida­
tion with several loadings was performed. The equivalent joining point
models show a very good representation of the joint strength, ductility
and overall toughness as compared to finely discretized FE models.
Bérot et al. (2014) propose an alternative method based on virtual
three-dimensional elements. These virtual elements have their own
equivalent constitutive model and replace the initially finely discretized
joint. This approach introduces some simplifications compared to the
simulation with the fine discretization, but does not represent an alter­
native to the standard connector elements due to its high computational
effort. The applicability of equivalent joining point models that were
calibrated for one joining point to structures with several joining points
was investigated in Breda et al. (2018). The equivalent joining point
model from Breda et al. (2017) was used to simulate structures which
contain multiple clinched joints. It was found that the stiffness of the
structure was overestimated which was attributed to the significantly
high peel moments in the clinched joints. More research is needed to
better understand the interaction effects in structures with multiple
clinch points.
For other joining processes, such as spot welding, further equivalent
joint models have been introduced and explored. For example, in
Ho-Nguyen-Tan and Kim (2020), the joint locations themselves are
finely discretized based on interface shell elements and linked to the
coarsely meshed global structure. The applicability of this approach is
limited since these special element formulations are not included in
common FE codes and require implementation via user subroutines. In
De Alba Alvarez et al. (2014), a surface-to-surface constraint consisting
of an array of springs is proposed, which successfully reduces mesh
sensitivity in static and dynamic simulations. The formulation and
validation of a connector element for multi-layer multi-steel grade spot
welds are presented in Chtourou et al. (2017). Khandoker and Takla
(2014) introduce six different equivalent joint models for spot welds to
be used in the FE simulation of automotive assemblies. Due to the large
number of spot welds in these structures, the focus in this work is mainly
on the efficiency of the equivalent models. Choi et al. (2012) investigate
the effect of the strain rate on the damage behavior of spot welds during
an impact test. They propose an equivalent joint model which includes
the experimentally observed rate-dependency. When simulating an
impact test with a top-hat profile, they achieved much better agreement
of the deformation and failure of the profile than without the rate
dependent equivalent joint model. A review of equivalent joint models
for spot welds is given in Palmonella et al. (2005).
The equivalent models are very efficient and can be used to accu­
rately represent the global load-displacement responses of joined
structures (this addresses research question Q1). However, if one is
interested in local quantities, such as the stresses in the joint or in the
base material in the proximity of the joint, finely discretized finite
element models are needed. These detailed FE models are not used in
combination with equivalent joint models. In addition, pre-stresses and
pre-damage introduced during the joining process can only be taken into
account indirectly in the equivalent models, via the experimental cali­
bration. This is discussed for clinch joints by Martin et al. (2022) and for
self-piercing riveted joints by Bier and Sommer (2015). Therefore, crack
initiation in the base material resulting from the interaction between the
joint and base material stresses can only be predicted to a limited extent.
Fig. 8 shows the numerical results of the stress distributions within a
lap shear test for three different modeling techniques of a self-piercing
rivet connection. On the left, the results of a detailed, finely dis­
cretized FE model are shown. The simulation in the middle uses an
equivalent joining point model (constrained SPR3 model in LS-DYNA)
with undamaged sheets. In Fig. 8 (right), the same equivalent joining
point model is applied, but a hole in the connection area is taken into
account (Bier and Sommer, 2015). The mesh of the detailed model is
B. Schramm et al. Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133

Fig. 7. Structural distributing vs. kinematic coupling of the connector element to the coupling zone and the related load-displacement curves for a pull-out test
(adapted from Breda et al. (2017)). ”Reprinted from Thin-Walled Structures, 113, A. Breda, S. Coppieters, D. Debruyne, Equivalent modelling strategy for a clinched
joint using a simple calibration method, 1-12, Copyright (2017), with permission from Elsevier”

Fig. 8. Simulation results of lap shear tests with equivalent stress (von Mises) as contour plot at the point of maximum force for three different modeling techniques
(left to right: detailed model, joint specific equivalent model with undamaged sheets, joint specific equivalent model with hole in the connection area) (Bier and
Sommer, 2015).

adaptively refined in the connection area, while a homogeneous mesh is
applied for the equivalent model. Therefore, three different stress dis­
tributions are obtained for the simulation of the same joint. Only the fine
discretization of the detailed model (Fig. 8 (left)) allows to accurately
calculate the stresses close to the joining point and the stress gradients
caused by contact and notch effects. The coarse discretizations used in
the simulations with equivalent joining point models (Fig. 8 (middle,
right)) lead to lower stresses in the base material. Neglecting the
pre-hole (Fig. 8 (middle)) amplifies this effect and makes it impossible to
design the point-shaped connection considering maximum stresses.
In conclusion, equivalent models can represent the global load-
displacement curves of clinched structures. In order to obtain local in­
formation of the deformations and stresses within the structure, espe­
cially in the surrounding of the clinch point, detailed finite element
simulations based on 3D continuum models are required. Therefore,
both modeling techniques of clinch joints, (i) based on a finely dis­
cretized, ideal geometry or (ii) using calibrated equivalent joint models
are important for the design and the assessment of joints and joined
assemblies (research question Q1). For real world applications, e.g. in
automotive industry, based on complex structures with many joints,

7
B. Schramm et al.
equivalent joint models are applied to obtain the global behavior. In
order to determine the local stress-strain-behavior, an efficient coupling
between the equivalent modeling technique and the detailed finite
element method, e.g. by sub-model techniques, would be desirable.
Design layout optimization procedure
In order to meet the requirements of automotive assemblies in terms
of static and dynamic operating loads as well as short-term dynamic
crash loads, the joints are essential. In today’s automotive bodies, there
are several thousand point-shaped connections. These joints have to be
arranged in such a way that (i) the compliance with the specified load
requirements (Yamaguchi et al., 2008), (ii) the joining safety of the
joining partners, (iii) the accessibility to the joining position, and (iv)
the robustness against process uncertainties (e.g. the location of joints,
defective joints) are ensured. Thereby, the general objective is the
reduction of the number of joints in order to reduce process times and
production costs. According to Huang and Arora (1997) a high number
of joints in assemblies precludes user-guided optimization and also
significantly restricts the application of conventional algorithms for
optimizing the arrangement and the amount of joints. Many of the
existing optimization methods deal with spot weld joints. Amorim and
Lima (2014) present a methodology for assessing the influence of spot
welds on a vehicle body node on the basis of the finite element method
and a design of experiment (DOE) analysis. An artificial bee colony al­
gorithm with sequential Kriging optimization is used by Fang et al.
(2014) to optimize spot-welded joints. Yan et al. (2021) report on a size
optimization procedure for irregularly spaced spot welds. However,
since these joints themselves as well as their connection to the envi­
ronment are represented in automotive assemblies as discrete structural
elements, the studies related to spot weld joints can be transferred to
other joining elements as well.
The following three methods have been identified by Ryberg and
Nilsson (2016) in order to reduce the number of spot welds in auto­
motive assemblies (this addresses research question Q2):
• ranking based selection,
• joint topology optimization and
• size optimization of a parametrized model.
Ranking based selection deals with the successive removal of joints
and considers the extent to which this affects the properties of the
overall assembly. Hereby, the status of each joint is represented by a
binary variable indicating an existing joint (”1”) or a missing joint (”0”),
respectively. This method is applied, for example, in Savic and Xu
(2003) to reduce the number of spot welds in different assemblies
considering static stiffness load cases and/or modal analysis. Here,
optimized solutions are found by excluding the most critical joints on the
basis of stress values. For the minimization of the number of spot welds
in a body in white (BIW), Ouisse and Cogan (2010) removed less
important joints in each iteration. For this, all load cases have been
simulated and the spot welds have been ranked according to their strain
energies, forces or stresses in the spot weld elements, respectively. After
summing up these ranks, as proposed by Savic and Xu (2003), the least
important spot welds were eliminated. For the identification of the least
important joints, Ouisse and Cogan (2010) used the relative elastic
strain energy. Further alternative optimization algorithms are discussed
by Hasegawa et al. (2007) and Mario et al. (2013) aiming at reducing
computational costs and improving convergence. It should be noted that
ranking based selection can consider both linear and non-linear load
cases and does not require any optimization (Ryberg and Nilsson, 2016).
However, according to Yang et al. (2019), the result of the ranking based
selection might be influenced by the initial joint distribution. In addi­
tion, spot welds once removed cannot be reapplied. An advancement of
this method by Bhatti et al. (2011) enables the reactivation of spot welds
in sensitive regions by using an adaptive optimization algorithm. The
8
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
authors illustrate the procedure by means of a BIW for a car. The used FE
model of the BIW, the initial spatial distribution of spot welds as well as
their optimized distribution are shown in Fig. 9.
Nowadays, joint topology optimization is very often used in order to
optimize joint distributions (Ryberg and Nilsson, 2016). This method is
based on topology optimization (Bendsøe and Sigmund, 2003; Bendsøe
and Kikuchi, 1988), which was initially used to identify the best possible
material distributions within a variety of advanced numerical studies
and industrial applications. Reviews by Eschenauer and Olhoff (2001)
and by Deaton and Grandhi (2014) are available focusing on the opti­
mization of continuum structures. A comparative review on this topic
has been written by Sigmund and Maute (2013). With respect to me­
chanical joining, joint topology optimization can be used for optimizing
spot weld arrangements. Thereby, each spot weld is defined as a design
parameter characterized by an artificial density. This density indicates
whether the joint is maintained or eliminated. Approaches based on
spring elements with variable stiffness representing the connections can
be traced back to Jiang and Chirehdast (1997). In addition, bar and solid
elements with variable density have been used by Yang et al. (1996) to
model spot welds. Other investigations with regard to the reduction of
number of spot welds and their optimization in a BIW were carried out
by Wang et al. (2003) using modal analysis and by Puchner et al. (2006)
considering stiffness and/or fatigue behavior in order to find improved
spot weld distributions. By simultaneously optimizing both the joint
layout and the body sheet thickness, Yamaguchi et al. (2008) deter­
mined the lightest-weight solution while keeping the body stiffness and
the number of spot welds constant. Long et al. (2016) introduced a to­
pology optimization approach with continuous solid elements in order
to solve the disadvantage of restricted element positions due to discrete
elements. Yang et al. (2019) even extended the method by performing
topology optimizations at global and local levels. Advantage of the joint
topology optimization is the possibility to combine it with classical to­
pology optimization. In this context, Woischwill and Kim (2018) pro­
posed a method which enables the determination of the optimal
topology of multi-material components and simultaneously of the
optimal joining design (e.g. the quantity and the type of joints as well as
their distribution) between dissimilar materials. Their method is based
on an approach where the optimization problem is decomposed into two
smaller subproblems: (i) multi-material topology optimization (MMTO)
and (ii) multi-joint topology optimization (MJTO). The objective of
MMTO is to determine the optimal distribution of two solid materials,
whereas MJTO aims at reducing the total joining cost while keeping the
compliance of the domain equal to or less than the optimal objective
function value of the original MMTO subproblem (Woischwill and Kim,
2018). The authors demonstrated the functionality of their method by
means of different examples, e.g. the Messerschmitt-Bölow-Blohm beam
in Fig. 10. Here, the optimal distribution of two structural materials
(steel and aluminum) and two joint types (weld and bond) was found
while minimizing both structural compliance and joining cost. However,
Pakalapati et al. (2011) point out that joint topology optimization is
restricted to linear load cases.
In contrast to ranking-based selection and topology optimization, the
third method size optimization of a parameterized model uses spot weld
densities along connection lines as variables and optimizes them
(Ryberg and Nilsson, 2016). According to Yan et al. (2021), this method
can be further classified into two groups: (i) weld layouts with an
equal-spacing design and (ii) weld layouts with an unequal-spacing
design. Size optimization of a parameterized model is successfully
applied by different authors considering various combinations of static
and/or dynamic loading scenario. For example, this method is used for
the optimization of a spot welded-thin-walled hat section by Xiang et al.
(2006), of a foam filled spot-welded column by Shariati et al. (2010) as
well as of vehicle structures by Patil et al. (2014) and by Wu et al.
(2010). In general, the model is parameterized to reduce the number of
variables of the model (Ryberg and Nilsson, 2016). Hereby, a certain
number of spot welds in a defined area (e.g. lines along all spot weld
B. Schramm et al. Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133

Fig. 9. Illustration of optimizing the spatial distribution of spot welds (adapted from Bhatti et al. (2011)): a) FE model of BIW, b) Initial distribution of spot welds, c)
Optimized distribution of spot welds (black: retained, green: removed, red: added). ”Reprinted from Computers & Structures, 89, Q.I. Bhatti, M. Ouisse, S. Cogan, An
adaptive optimization procedure for spot-welded structures, 1697-1711, Copyright (2011), with permission from Elsevier”

Fig. 10. Comparison between multi-material topology optimization (top) and multi-joint topology optimization (bottom) for the Messerschmitt-Bölow-Blohm beam
(Woischwill and Kim, 2018). ”Reprinted from Journal of Advanced Joining Processes, 115, C. Woischwill and I.Y. Kim, Multimaterial multijoint topology optimi­
zation, 13-28, Copyright (2018), with permission from John Wiley and Sons”.

flanges affected by the optimization) is treated as a design variable the influences of the joining process, i.e. change of material and geo­
instead of considering each spot weld individually. For the approxima­ metric properties (e.g. residual stresses, pre-deformation or damage),
tion of detailed models and the reduction of computational time, met­ are not considered.
amodels can be used in size optimization. However, if these metamodels
cannot be sufficiently realized, detailed simulations have to be directly
Load path analysis as a design tool for joined structures
incorporated within the optimization process. Ryberg and Nilsson
(2016) highlight that size optimization can consider load cases based on
Besides the presented methods for the design of the joints and their
simulations of both linear and non-linear systems simultaneously.
distribution, there are further methods for the design process. Based on
However, accurate model preparation and coupling between the opti­
joined assemblies, load values can be determined for individual joints,
mization software and a pre-processor are also essential.
which can then be used in a detailed analysis of the joint. The load path
As has been shown by a comparison of the mentioned methods in
analysis is appropriate to visualize load paths in components during the
Ryberg and Nilsson (2016) for different load cases, an optimal solution is
design process and is usually based on results of a finite element analysis
not achieved by ranking-based selection, as it is not an optimization
(FEA). This enables the analysis of the load distribution in a single joint,
method in the mathematical sense. Topology optimization enables the
in a component or in an overall assembly. Results from the simulation of
removal of approximately twice the amount of spot welds and is addi­
the clinching process can be used in a following simulation of the
tionally characterized by lower modeling and computational efforts
loading of a single joint for its detailed analysis. The visualization of load
than size optimization of a parameterized model. However, it is gener­
paths in components allows the assessment of the design and structural
ally limited to load cases based on linear analyses. In contrast, size
integrity and can qualitatively show how the loads are redistributed in
optimization of a parameterized model is suitable for a combination of
case of local damage (Kelly and Elsley, 1995). The load path analysis can
simulations of linear and non-linear systems, whereby this is accompa­
also be used to analyze alternative load paths for changes in lifetime
nied by a significant effort in terms of model preparation as well as
(Marhadi and Venkataraman, 2009) and is suitable for identifying crit­
time-consuming simulations. Ryberg and Nilsson (2016) conclude that
ical regions in a component (Kelly et al., 2011a). It is increasingly used
the last two methods have the best potential to identify redundant spot
in civil engineering for the design of reinforced concrete structures. The
welds and, hence, to optimize the structure: (i) topology optimization
design of reinforced concrete using load path analysis is listed in the
for load cases involving simulations of linear systems and (ii) size
standard as an acceptable alternative to stress trajectories and stress
optimization of a parameterized model for more complex, nonlinear
distributions analysis for the design of truss models (DIN EN 1992-1-1,
analyses. A shortcoming of the presented optimization methods is that
2004). Li et al. (2005) used the load path analysis for designing the

9
B. Schramm et al. Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133

fiber orientation in fiber-reinforced plastic composites. Suzuki et al. Marhadi and Venkataraman (2009) presented a comprehensive
(2020) applied the load path visualization for the fiber optimization for overview of the different methods of load path analysis including an
additive manufacturing of composites. Another field of application for assessment of their performance. The easiest form of load path analysis
load path analysis is the construction of steel structures. For these is based on the direction vectors of the largest principal stress in the
structures, Moldenhauer (2012) applied the load path analysis to screw integration points from the FEA. This approach provides good results for
connections and rivet joints. Here, the load path in a connection plate regions with low shear stress and without multi-axial stress states
with four riveted joints was analyzed. Moldenhauer (2017) also used the because the principal stress vectors align along an expected load path if
developed method for optimizing the orientation of fibers in fiber-plastic the proportion of the smallest principal stress is low.
composites. In order to overcome the limitations regarding the visualization of
The approach by Moldenhauer (2012) is based on the general shear stress, Kelly and Elsley (1995) developed an alternative calcula­
equations of force equilibrium tion approach for load paths and presented a basic approach based on an
iterative solution for the calculation of the rotation angle β. This rotation
σ ij,j + fi = 0 , (1)
angle results from the stress tensor and coordinates from the FEA. In the
first step for identifying load paths, it is necessary to define an exami­
where σ are the mechanical stresses and f are the volume forces. σ ij,j
nation direction (in this case the x-direction of the coordinate system).
represents the derivative of the stress component σ ij with respect to the
The assumption is that a force equilibrium (F1 = F2 ) along a path be­
spatial direction xj .
tween the point of force application and the bearing exists. For plane
By neglecting the volume forces, this results in the force equilibria in
stress, the coordinate system u − v rotated by an angle β to the original
x-, y- and z-direction
x − y-system is introduced, see Fig. 11a). The obtained stresses in the u,
∂σ xx ∂σ xy ∂σ xz v-coordinate system read
+ + =0 (2)
∂x ∂y ∂z σxx + σ yy σ xx − σ yy
σ uu = + cos2β + σxy sin2β (5)
2 2
∂σ yx ∂σ yy ∂σ yz
+ + =0 (3)
∂x ∂y ∂z σxx + σ yy σ xx − σ yy
σ vv = − cos2β − σxy sin2β (6)
2 2
∂σ zx ∂σzy ∂σ zz
+ + = 0. (4) σxx − σ yy
∂x ∂y ∂z σ uv = − sin2β + σ xy cos2β. (7)
2
Then, the stresses (or forces) can be computed at the edges of the finite Please note that the rotation of the local coordinate system is per­
elements in the respective directions and load paths can be determined. formed under the condition that an equilibrium exists between the
Please note that the resulting forces at the edges of the elements are projection of the shear stress σ uvx and normal stress σuux projected onto a
dependent on the chosen examination direction.

Fig. 11. (a) Rotation, i.e., stresses in the x − y- and the rotated u − v-coordinate system. (b) Calculation scheme for load paths in x-direction of the coordinate system,
according to the approach by Kelly and Elsley (1995). (c) A simple hole plate under tensile loading with two exemplary load paths.

10
B. Schramm et al.
reference axis (in this case the x-axis), see Fig. 11(b). Fig. 11(c) shows
the basic approach to analyze the load path according to Kelly and
Elsley (1995) for a simple hole plate under tensile loading in the x-di­
rection with two exemplary load paths.
Applying the addition theorems to Eqs. (5)-(7) results in Eqs. (8)-
(10):
σ uu = σ xx cos2 β + σ yy sin2 β + 2σxy sinβcosβ (8)
σ vv = σ xx sin2 β + σ yy cos2 β − 2σxy sinβcosβ (9)
( ) ( )
σ uv = − σxx − σ yy sinβcosβ + σ xy cos2 β − sin2 β (10)
The normal stress component σuu and the shear stress component σ uv
can be calculated by Eqs. (5) and (7) at a point on an arbitrary plane. By
applying Eqs. (8), (10) and (11), the angle β can be determined itera­
tively. In the next step, the angle of the tangents α – where α = β +90∘ –
can be used to build and visualize the load path. The exemplary load
paths shown in Fig. 11c) are related to an examination direction in the
x-direction of the coordinate system, i.e., the equilibrium of forces, in
which F2 − F1 = 0 is fulfilled. According to Kelly and Elsley (1995), this
results in
σ uux − σ uvx = σuu cosβ − σ uv sinβ = 0 . (11)
From Eq. (11) follows
σuu σ cos2 β + σ yy sin2 β + 2σ xy sinβcosβ
tanβ = = ( xx ) ( ) , (12)
σuv σ xy cos2 β − sin2 β − σ xx − σyy sinβcosβ
which – as the stresses σ uu and σ uv are dependent on β – has to be solved
iteratively.
Please note that in Waldman et al. (2002), an analytical solution
based on the work of Kelly and Elsley (1995) for determining the pro­
jection angle β is given for a specific case, i.e. a load path in x-direction.
In further work the visualization of load paths was investigated by
Kelly et al. (2011b). To depict the load path contour, a fourth-order
Runge-Kutta scheme is used for the identification of the load paths.
Kelly et al. (2011a) focused on the interpretation of load paths, provided
force flow diagrams based on exemplary loads and discussed them af­
terwards. Naito et al. (2012) used an index-based approach developed
by Takahashi and Sakurai (2005) to describe load transfer in structures
and applied it to components joined by spot welding. It is possible to use
the variable U∗ to determine whether or not a region of a structure has
the potential to transmit load. Hereby, the ’load path index’ U∗ (Naito
et al., 2012) is a measure of the strength of a connection between a load
application point or bearing point and any arbitrary point in between.
The assumption is that regions with a high U∗ value contribute more to
load transfer and the load paths can be built through the regions with the
highest U∗ values. The load path index U∗ is calculated using the strain
energy stored, see Eq. (13).
U
U∗ = 1 − (13)
U′
Here, U is the strain energy stored in the entire body when the point in
the body is unrestrained and U is the strain energy stored in the entire
′
body when the same point in the body is restrained. Furthermore, re­
gions can be identified where point shaped joints should be positioned in
order to achieve an effective load transfer to adjacent parts.
Gharibi et al. (2017) determined load paths in plates and shells by
using a load path function and Tamijani et al. (2018) developed a ’load
function method’ for the visualization of load paths in plane stress or
strain elasticity problems. The stresses are written in terms of a load
function which is derived from 2D equilibrium equations. The load path
can be calculated by using the gradient of the load function. Load paths
for plane stress structures are determined and compared to results from
Kelly et al. (2011a). As main advantages of the new method, Tamijani
11
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
et al. (2018) mention computational efficiency, computational
simplicity, elimination of post-processing for the visualization of
obtaining load paths and load flow information. The disadvantage of all
these approaches is the dependence of the solution on the alignment of
the coordinate system and thus of the examination direction to the
effective load and it is, therefore, not transferable to complex assemblies
without adjustments. Steinfelder and Brosius (2020) presented a new
approach for the analysis of a load. In comparison to other approaches,
this new method is independent of the alignment of the specimen in the
global coordinate system. The assumption for this new method is, that a
load can be represented independently of a (chosen) direction by an
effective force. The effective force is determined by stress components at
the considered point by using the principal stresses from the FEA.
Steinfelder et al. (2021) extended their approach and applied it to a
clinch joint in the next step. The investigation was carried out with a 2D
axisymmetric FE simulation of a clinch joint, in the cross tension test. By
computing the effective force, load concentrations in the component can
be identified and direction information for the load path analysis is
included. A further analysis strategy based on the FEA is proposed by
Wischer et al. (2021). The presentation was made by friction spun joint
connectors in order to identify the critical regions for load transfer. A
new approach based on the consideration of the deformation energy as a
function of a change in stiffness was developed for the evaluation of the
load-bearing behavior of the joined connection. The Young’s modulus is
reduced step by step for each element and the energy of the system is
calculated. The difference for every step is calculated by using the en­
ergy of an unaffected system. The energy difference provides informa­
tion about the contribution to load transfer of the individual areas.
Concluding, the load path analysis can be applied during the design
process of joined connections and can be seen as a possible alternative or
complementary method to the methods listed in Section 3.3. The in­
formation about the load distribution and the load path can be used in
the design phase to support the adjustment of the joint position, the joint
size and the joint quantity as well as a possible adaptation of the
component. It should be noted, that special attention has to be laid on
the choice of the evaluation direction within the load path analysis. The
methods presented here are aimed at research questions Q1 and Q2 and
can provide information on the distribution of joints and the prediction
of their load capacities.
Robustness in process design and evaluation of the reliability of joints
Manufacturing processes in general and, thus, also forming processes
such as joining are always subject to statistical fluctuations which are
usually not taken into account in deterministic design methods. The
stochastic influences acting on a process include, for example, material-
related variations (such as surface roughness, anisotropy, in­
homogeneities), tool-side variability (such as wear, temperature
dependence and tolerances) and process-side variations (such as punch
speed, press stiffness and blankholder force) (Col, 2003). In order to
prevent component misproduction and failure in service, conservative
safety factors are usually used. However, they limit the usable process
window and thus the material utilization (Wiebenga et al., 2014). In
addition, the safety factors are determined purely heuristically and,
strictly speaking, have to be calculated separately for each load case,
process and material, i.e. they are not adaptable.
Due to the high number of joints in a structure or assembly, it is not
possible to perform a verification for each joint. In addition, some joints
fail during operation due to cyclic loads and/or fatigue. A detailed dis­
cussion on the failure of joints due to fatigue cracks and corrosion will be
given in part III (Schramm et al., 2022) of this review series. For this
reason, in addition to the joint layout itself, there is also a great interest
in the robustness of the joint layout, i.e., the influence of the failure of
joints on selected design criteria.
To evaluate the robustness of joining layouts, Donders et al. (2006)
divided the existing joints in a vehicle body into two groups, damaged
B. Schramm et al.
and undamaged joints, based on a (weighted) selection probability. The
joints identified as damaged were removed from the model. Monte Carlo
robustness analyses were then performed to evaluate the torsion and
bending modes and to use them to analyze the effect of spot weld failure
on the dynamic vehicle characteristics. In Sommer et al. (2013), a
method for predicting the load-bearing capacity of similar spot-welded
joints of steel materials is presented. The aim of the study is to
describe the load-bearing capacity of these joints under scattering
influencing variables. This method and the results are limited in their
applicability in that dissimilar or multi-layer spot-welded joints are
predominant in automobiles. The robustness of a topology-optimized
spot-weld layout was demonstrated in Cui et al. (2014) using a truck
cab. The optimized layout increased the robustness compared to the
initial layout for static bending and torsion as well as the first modal
frequency. The selection of the joints was based on the strain energy
density. This approach is very similar to the criterion presented in
Donders et al. (2006). Bhatti et al. (2011) divide the cause of failure of
joints into the two categories, (i) manufacturing uncertainties and (ii)
fatigue. In the former category, a homogeneous statistical distribution of
defects is assumed, while for the latter, a selection is performed based on
the loading in the joints. The reason for this is that more heavily loaded
joints have a higher risk of failure than less heavily loaded ones. The
evaluation of the load intensity is based on an energy criterion, similar to
the one used for topology optimization (Bhatti et al., 2011). Monte Carlo
simulations with 200 samples were performed to investigate the
process-induced uncertainty. The large number of analyses to be per­
formed was taken as an opportunity in Bhatti et al. (2011) to introduce
an alternative method, the ’Info-Gap Robustness Analysis’, for evalu­
ating the robustness of joining designs. In this method, robustness is
defined as the worst case performance for a given level of uncertainty,
which is defined as the number of missing/failed joints. By means of this
robustness analysis a small number of critical joints can be identified.
The quality of these joints has to be controlled to ensure the safety of the
design. The methodology proposed in Ouisse and Cogan (2010) gives
not only indicators of the robustness of a joining design but also shows
the compromise between improved robustness and higher assembly and
quality control costs.
In summary, numerical methods exist to optimize not only the
number and position of joints in a structure, but also to determine the
robustness of the joining design with respect to the failure of individual
joints.
Summary
This paper is the first part of a series of three review papers sum­
marizing the current state of art and research on modeling and simu­
lation of clinching. It introduces the joining process chain and its
challenges and the state of the art in the design, simulation and opti­
mization of clinched assemblies.
An overview of the state of art and research of methods for the design
and the assessment of joints was presented. First, it was explained that
there exist some analytical models for determining the properties of
mechanical joints and the overall behavior of clinched structures.
However, due to their simplifying assumptions, the analytical methods
are often not adequate to represent the complex characteristics of the
mechanical joints. Therefore, further development of efficient and ac­
curate analytical methods for clinched structures is an important point
for future research.
Additionally, numerical methods were reviewed, especially the finite
element method, which is an established method for designing joined
connections. On the one hand, efficient equivalent joint models have
been developed and used for the representation of joined connections in
finite element models of large structures with many joints. On the other
hand, detailed models of individual joints provide well-resolved defor­
mation and stress fields in the clinch joint itself as well as in the sur­
rounding area. For industrial applications, in order to obtain both the
12
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
global behavior of the component and the local stress-strain-behavior
near the joints, an efficient coupling between the equivalent modeling
technique and the detailed 3D finite element approach would be rec­
ommended. Furthermore, optimization-based methods have been pre­
sented which are able to reduce the number of joints and optimize their
arrangement. As an alternative or complementary method for the design
and analysis of point-shaped joints, the load path analysis has been
introduced. The information stemming from the load path analysis –
obtained for a specified examination direction – can be used to optimize
joint position, joint size and number of joints. Finally, an overview of
specialized numerical methods to determine the robustness of the
joining design with respect to the failure of individual joints has been
given.
The methods presented here are able to answer the research ques­
tions ’Which methods exist to predict the loading of clinch joints during
the design phase?’ (Q1) and ’What is the minimal number of clinch
joints and their optimal distribution within an assembly?’ (Q2). As has
been shown, there exist a variety of numerical methods to treat me­
chanical clinching in the design phase. Unfortunately, it is an enormous
challenge to evaluate the different approaches. A recommendation for
validating the different numerical methods and associated software
tools is to define representative benchmark problems. Based on these
experimental results, a comparison and an evaluation can be performed,
similarly to existing other benchmark challenges in additive
manufacturing (Levine et al., 2020; NIST, 2022) or in failure mechanics
(Hinton et al., 2004). As the simulation chain of the clinching process
consists not only of the design phase, the further phases, i.e., the process
simulation of the clinching process and the operating phase (e.g.
corrosion phenomena and fatigue crack growth), are investigated in the
following parts II and III of this review series, respectively.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG, German Research Foundation), project number 418701707 - TRR
285. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support.
References
Abe, Y., Mori, K., Kato, T., 2012. Joining of high strength steel and aluminium alloy
sheets by mechanical clinching with dies for control of metal flow. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 212, 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.11.015.
Amorim, F., Lima, G., 2014. A methodology for assessing the influence of spot welds on a
vehicle body node using the finite elements method and a DOE analysis. SAE Tech.
Paper 2014-36-0373. https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-36-0373.
Anderson, K., Weritz, J., Kaufman, J., 2018. ASM Handbook: Aluminium Science and
Technology, Volume 2A. ASM International.
Angelo, P., Ravisankar, B., 2019. Introduction to Steels - Processing, Properties and
Applications. ASM Handbook. https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.
v02a.9781627082075.
Babalo, V., Fazli, A., Soltanpour, M., 2020. Experimental study of the mechanical
performance of the new high-speed mechanical clinching. Int. J. Lightweight Mater.
Manuf. 4, 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.11.004.
Barnes, T., Pashby, I., 2000. Joining techniques for aluminium spaceframes used in
automobiles: Part II - adhesive bonding and mechanical fasteners. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 99, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(99)00361-1.
Bendsøe, M., Sigmund, O., 2003. Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods and
Applications. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
662-05086-6.
Bendsøe, M.P., Kikuchi, N., 1988. Generating optimal topologies in structural design
using a homogenization method. Appl. Mech. Eng. 71, 197–224. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0045-7825(88)90086-2.
Bérot, M., Malrieu, J., Bay, F., 2014. An innovative strategy to create equivalent elements
for modelling assembly points in joined structures. Eng. Comput. 31 (3), 453–466.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-05-2012-0095.
B. Schramm et al.
Bhatti, Q., Ouisse, M., Cogan, S., 2011. An adaptive optimization procedure for spot-
welded structures. Comput. Struct. 89, 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruc.2011.04.009.
Bielak, C.R., Böhnke, M., Beck, R., Bobbert, M., Meschut, G., 2021. Numerical analysis of
the robustness of clinching process considering the pre-forming of the parts. J. Adv.
Join. Process. 3, 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajp.2020.100038.
Bielak, C.R., Böhnke, M., Bobbert, M., Meschut, G., 2021. Further development of a
numerical method for analyzing the load capacity of clinched joints in versatile
process chains. Conference ESAFORM 2021. https://doi.org/10.25518/
esaform21.4298.
Bier, M., Sommer, S., 2015. Modeling of self-piercing riveted joints for crash simulation
state of the art and future topics. 10th European LS-DYNA Conference, pp. 1–10.
Bograd, S., Reuss, P., Schmidt, A., Gaul, L., Mayer, M., 2011. Modeling the dynamics of
mechanical joints. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 25 (8), 2801–2826.
Breda, A., Coppieters, S., Debruyne, D., 2017. Equivalent modelling strategy for a
clinched joint using a simple calibration method. Thin Walled Struct. 113, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2016.12.002.
Breda, A., Coppieters, S., Kuwabara, T., Debruyne, D., 2019. The effect of plastic
anisotropy on the calibration of an equivalent model for clinched connections. Thin-
Walled Struct. 145, 106360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2019.106360.
Breda, A., Coppieters, S., Van de Velde, A., Debruyne, D., 2018. Experimental validation
of an equivalent modelling strategy for clinch configurations. Mater. Des. 157,
377–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2018.07.035.
Chen, C., Li, Y., Zhai, Z., Zhao, S., Zhang, P., Huang, M., et al., 2019. Comparative
investigation of three different reforming processes for clinched joint to increase
joining strength. J. Manuf. Processes 45, 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmapro.2019.06.009.
Chen, C., Zhang, H., Qin, D., Li, H., 2021. Joining different aluminum alloy sheets by flat
clinching process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 116, 1070–1079. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-021-07511-7.
Chergui, A., 2004. Beitrag zur ermüdungsgerechten Auslegung stanzgenieteter
Aluminium-Leichtbaukonstruktionen. Universität Paderborn.
Choi, Y., Kim, J., Park, Y., Rhee, S., 2012. Development of a spot weld analysis model
that incorporates strain rate. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 13 (2), 245–251. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12541-012-0030-6.
Chtourou, R., Leconte, N., Chaari, F., Haugou, G., Markiewicz, E., Zouari, B., 2017.
Macro-modeling of the strength and failure of multi-layer multi-steel grade spot
welds: Connector formulation, assembly model and identification procedure. Thin-
Walled Struct. 113 (C), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2017.01.023.
Col, A., 2003. Investigation on press forming scatter origin. Proceedings of the 6th
International ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming, pp. 183–186.
Coppieters, S., Lava, P., Baes, S., Sol, H., Van Houtte, P., Debruyne, D., 2012. Analytical
method to predict the pull-out strength of clinched connections. Thin-Walled Struct.
52, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2011.12.002.
Coppieters, S., Lava, P., Hecke, R.V., Cooreman, S., Sol, H., Houtte, P.V., Debruyne, D.,
2013. Numerical and experimental study of the multi-axial quasi-static strength of
clinched connections. Int. J. Mater. Form. 6 (4), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12289-012-1097-4.
Cui, A., Zhang, S.Z., Xu, L.J., Liu, H.Z., 2014. Topology optimization and robust analysis
of welding spot layout for a heavy duty truck cab based on element strain energy
density. Advances in Materials and Materials Processing IV. Trans Tech Publications,
Ltd, pp. 1284–1289.10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.887-888.1284
Davies, G., 2012. Materials for Automobile Bodies. Elsevier Science & Technology,
Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-66319-X.
De Alba Alvarez, R., Ferguson, N., Mace, B., 2014. A robust spot weld model for
structural vibration analysis. Finite Element. Anal. Des. 89, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.finel.2014.04.010.
Dean, A., Rolfes, R., Behrens, A., Bouguecha, A., Hübner, S., Bonk, C., Grbic, N., 2017.
Finite strain anisotropic elasto-plastic model for the simulation of the forming and
testing of metal/short fiber reinforced polymer clinch joints at room temperature.
AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 1896 AIP Publishing LLC, p. 030037.
Deaton, J.D., Grandhi, R.V., 2014. A survey of structural and multidisciplinary
continuum topology optimization: post 2000. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 49, 1–38.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-013-0956-z.
DIN 8593-3, 2003. Fertigungsverfahren Fgen - Teil 3: Anpressen, Einpressen;
Einordnung, Unterteilung, Begriffe. Beuth Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31030/
9500687.
DIN 8593-5, 2003. Fertigungsverfahren Fgen - Teil 5: Fgen durch Umformen;
Einordnung, Unterteilung, Begriffe. Beuth Verlag GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31030/
9500689.
DIN EN 1992-1-1, 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. CEN European Committee for standardization, Brussels.
DIN EN ISO 12996, 2013. Mechanical joining - Destructive testing of joints - Specimen
dimensions and test procedure for tensile shear testing of single joints. Beuth Verlag
GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31030/195961.
DIN ISO 16237, 2015. Mechanical joining - Destructive testing of joints - Specimen
dimensions and test procedure for cross-tension testing of single joints. Beuth Verlag
GmbH. https://doi.org/10.31030/2353055.
Donders, S., Brughmans, M., Hermans, L., Liefooghe, C., Van der Auweraer, H.,
Desmet, W., 2006. The robustness of dynamic vehicle performance to spot weld
failures. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42 (8), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
finel.2005.10.012.
DVS/EFB, 2021. 3420:2021-04. Clinching - Basics.
Eggink, D.H., Groll, M.W., 2020. Joining element design and product variety in
manufacturing industries. Procedia CIRP 88, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2020.05.014.
13
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
Eschenauer, H.A., Olhoff, N., 2001. Topology optimization of continuum structures: a
review. Appl. Mech. Rev. 54, 331–390. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1388075.
Eshtayeh, M., Hrairi, M., 2016. Recent and future development of the application of
finite element analysis in clinching process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 84 (9),
2589–2608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7781-z.
Eshtayeh, M., Hrairi, M., Mohiuddin, A., 2016. Clinching process for joining dissimilar
materials: state of the art. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 82 (1), 179–195. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-015-7363-0.
Fang, J., Gao, Y., Sun, G., Xu, C., Zhang, Y., Li, Q., 2014. Optimization of spot-welded
joints combined artificial bee colony algorithm with sequential kriging optimization.
Adv. Mech. Eng. 2014, 573694. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/573694.
Fuchs, N., Delin, M., Wanner, M.-C., Henkel, K.-M., 2009. Failure criteria in static and
fatigue tests, application in the case of mechanical joints. Conference: International
Automotive Body Congress 2009 and Global Powertrain Congress 2009 53.
Galińska, A., Galiński, C., 2020. Mechanical joining of fibre reinforced polymer
composites to metals – A review. Part II: riveting, clinching, non-adhesive form-
locked joints, pin and loop joining. Polymers 12 (8), 1681. https://doi.org/10.3390/
polym12081681.
Gerstmann, T., Awiszus, B., 2021. Hybrid joining: Numerical process development of
flat-clinch-bonding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 277, 116421. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2019.116421.
Gharibi, K., Hurley, J., Tamijani, A.Y., 2017. Determination of load paths in plates and
shells using load path function. 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference. AIAA SciTech Forum, p. 0207. https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2017-0207.
Grujicic, M., Snipes, J., Ramaswami, S., Abu-Farha, F., 2014. Process modeling, joint-
property characterization and construction of joint connectors for mechanical
fastening by self-piercing riveting. Multidiscip. Model. Mater. Struct. 10 (4),
631–658. https://doi.org/10.1108/MMMS-04-2014-0024.
Gude, M., Hufenbach, W., Kupfer, R., Freund, A., Vogel, C., 2015. Development of novel
form-locked joints for textile reinforced thermoplastices and metallic components.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 216, 140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2014.09.007.
Hahn, O., Kurzok, J., Jendrny, J., 2000. Dimensionierungskonzept für stanzgenietete
Stahlbauteile. Technical Report. Forschungsbericht der Studiengesellschaft
Stahlanwendung e.V.
Hanssen, A., Olovsson, L., Porcaro, R., Langseth, M., 2010. A large-scale finite element
point-connector model for self-piercing rivet connections. Eur. J. Mech. A/Solids 29,
484–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euromechsol.2010.02.010.
Hasegawa, H., Sasaki, H., Uehara, H., Kawamo, K., 2007. The optimisation of spot-weld
positions for vehicle design by using hybrid meta-heuristics. Int. J. Vehicle Des. 43
(1-4), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJVD.2007.012301.
He, X., 2010. Recent development in finite element analysis of clinched joints. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 48 (5-8), 607–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00170-009-
2306-2.
He, X., 2017. Clinching for sheet materials. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 18 (1), 381–405.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14686996.2017.1320930.
He, X., Zhao, L., Yang, H., Xing, B., Wang, Y., Deng, C., Gu, F., Ball, A., 2014.
Investigations of strength and energy absorption of clinched joints. Comput. Mater.
Sci. 94, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMMATSCI.2014.01.056.
Hinton, M., Soden, P., Kaddour, A.-S., 2004. Failure criteria in fibre reinforced polymer
composites: the world-wide failure exercise. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-080-44475-8.X5000-8.
Ho-Nguyen-Tan, T., Kim, H.-G., 2020. A novel scheme for modelling and analysis of spot-
welded shell structures using interface shell elements. Comput. Struct. 239, 106340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2020.106340.
Huang, M.-W., Arora, J.S., 1997. Optimal design with discrete variables: Some numerical
experiments. Int. J. Numer. Method. Eng. 40 (1), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0207(19970115)40:1<165::AID-NME60>3.0.CO;2-I.
Jiang, T., Chirehdast, M., 1997. A systems approach to structural topology optimization:
designing optimal connections. J. Mech. Des. 119 (1), 40–47. https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.2828787.
Kelly, D., Reidsema, C., Bassandeh, A., Pearce, G., Lee, M., 2011. On interpreting load
paths and identifying a load bearing topology from finite element analysis. Finite
Elem. Anal. Des. 47 (8), 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2011.03.007.
Kelly, D.W., Elsley, M., 1995. A procedure for determining load paths in elastic continua.
Eng. Comput. 12 (5), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/02644409510799721.
Kelly, D.W., Reidsema, C.A., Lee, M.C., 2011. An algorithm for defining load paths and a
load bearing topology in finite element analysis. Eng. Comput. 28 (2), 196–214.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02644401111109231.
Khalkhali, A., Miandoabchi, E., 2020. The application of equivalent modeling of joints
for bending simulation of hybrid aluminum/high strength steel thin-walled sections
joined by clinching. Thin-Walled Struct. 157, 107089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tws.2020.107089.
Khandoker, N., Takla, M., 2014. Tensile strength and failure simulation of simplified spot
weld models. Mater. Des. 54, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2013.08.070.
Lambiase, F., Di Ilio, A., 2016. Damage analysis in mechanical clinching: Experimental
and numerical study. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 230, 109–120. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.11.013.
Lambiase, F., Paoletti, A., Di Ilio, A., 2017. Advances in mechanical clinching:
employment of a rotating tool. Procedia Eng. 183, 200–205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.021.
Langrand, B., Patronelli, L., Deletombe, E., Markiewicz, E., Drazétic, P., 2002. An
alternative numerical approach for full scale characterisation for riveted joint
B. Schramm et al.
design. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 6 (5), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1270-9638
(02)01174-4.
LeBozec, N., LeGac, A., Thierry, D., 2012. Corrosion performance and mechanical
properties of joined automotive materials. Mater. Corros. 63 (5), 408–415. https://
doi.org/10.1002/maco.201005888.
Lee, C.J., Lee, S.K., Kim, B.M., Ko, D.C., 2017. Failure mode dependent load bearing
characteristics of mechanical clinching under mixed mode loading condition.
Procedia Eng. 207, 938–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.855.
Lee, C.J., Lee, S.K., Ko, D.C., Kim, J.Y., 2017. Design of mechanical clinching tools for
joining of aluminium alloy sheets. Mater. Des. 31, 1854–1861. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.matdes.2009.10.064.
Levine, L., Lane, B., Heigel, J., Migler, K., Stoudt, M., Phan, T., Ricker, R., Strantza, M.,
Hill, M., Zhang, F., et al., 2020. Outcomes and conclusions from the 2018 AM-bench
measurements, challenge problems, modeling submissions, and conference. Integr.
Mater. Manuf. Innovat. 9 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40192-019-00164-1.
Li, R., Kelly, D., Crosky, A., Schoen, H., Smollich, L., 2005. Improving the Efficiency of
Fiber Steered Composite Joints using Load Path Trajectories. J. Compos. Mater. 40
(18), 1645–1658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998306060168.
Liu, C., Han, X., Wu, W., Yang, B., 2021. Study on the analytical model of joint strength
prediction of flat-clinching. J. Brazil. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 43, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40430-021-03185-0.
Long, H., Hu, Y., Jin, X., Yu, H., Zhu, H., 2016. An optimization procedure for spot-
welded structures based on SIMP method. Comput. Mater. Sci. 117, 602–607.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.08.058.
Mallick, P., 2020. Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles.
Elsevier, Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2018-0-04153-5.
Marhadi, K., Venkataraman, S., 2009. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative
information provided by different structural load path definitions. Int. J. Simul.
Multidiscip. Des. Optim. 3 (3), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1051/ijsmdo/2009014.
Mario, P., Roger, C., Bernhard, H., 2013. BIW Optimization by Means of an Automated
CAE Process for the Reduction of Welding Points, pp. 321–327.
Martin, S., Bielak, C.R., Bobbert, M., Tröster, T., Meschut, G., 2022. Numerical
investigation of the clinched joint loadings considering the initial pre-strain in the
joining area. Prod. Eng. 16 (2), 261–273.
Meschut, G., et al, 2022. Review on mechanical joining by plastic deformation. J. Adv.
Join. Process. 5, 100113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jajp.2022.100113.
Military Handbook, U.S., 1998. Metallic Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle
Structures. Standard.
Moldenhauer, H., 2012. Die Visualisierung des Kraftflusses in Stahlbaukonstruktionen.
Stahlbau 81 (1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/stab.201201473.
Moldenhauer, H., 2017. Beanspruchungsgerechte Faserplatzierung in Faser-Kunststoff-
Verbunden, Konstruktion. Springer VDI Verlag 6, 68–74.
Montemor, M., 2016. Corrosion issues in joining lightweight materials: A review of the
latest achievements. Phys. Sci. Rev. 1, 20150011. https://doi.org/10.1515/psr-
2015-0011.
Mori, K., Abe, Y., 2018. A review on mechanical joining of aluminium and high strength
steel sheets by plastic deformation. Int. J. Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 1 (1), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.02.002.
Naito, T., Kobayashi, H., Urushiyama, Y., 2012. Application of load path index U* for
evaluation of sheet steel joint with spot welds. SAE Technical Papers. SAE
International.
Neugebauer, R., Todtermuschke, M., Mauermann, R., Riedel, F., 2020. Overview on the
state of development and the application potential of dieless mechanical joining
processes. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 8, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)
60121-6.
NIST, 2022. Ambench 2022. https://ambench2022.nist.gov/; accessed: 2022-09-12.
Ouisse, M., Cogan, S., 2010. Robust design of spot welds in automotive structures: A
decision-making methodology. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 24, 1172–1190. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.09.012.
Pakalapati, V., Katkar, V., Babar, R., 2011. CAE based multi objective optimization
approach for spot weld connections layout in automotive structure. SAE Technical
Paper Series. SAE International in United States. https://doi.org/10.4271/2011-01-
0794.
Palmonella, M., Friswell, M.I., Mottershead, J.E., Lees, A.W., 2005. Finite element
models of spot welds in structural dynamics: review and updating. Comput. Struct.
83 (8-9), 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.11.003.
Patil, S.A., Moradi, R., Lankarani, H.M., 2014. Vehicle Mass Optimization for Frontal
Structure Using I-Sight and Study of Weld Parameterization for Mass Improvement.
In: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Vol.
46613. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/
IMECE2014-37311.V012T15A011
Peng, H., Chen, C., Ren, X., Wu, J., 2021. Development of clinching process for various
materials. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 119, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-021-08284-9.
Peng, H., Chen, C., Zhang, H., Ran, X., 2020. Recent development of improved clinching
process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 110, 3169–3199. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-020-05978-4.
Puchner, K., Dannbauer, H., Meise, M., 2006. Spot weld optimization regarding stiffness
and fatigue using standard software. SAE 2006 World Congress & Exhibition. SAE
International. https://doi.org/10.4271/2006-01-1247.
Qin, D., Chen, C., Ouyang, Y., Wu, J., Zhang, H., 2021. Finite element methods used in
clinching process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 116 (9), 2737–2776. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-021-07602-5.
Roux, E., Bouchard, P.-O., 2013. Kriging metamodel global optimization of clinching
joining processes accounting for ductile damage. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213 (7),
1038–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.01.018.
14
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
Ryberg, A.-B., Nilsson, L., 2016. Spot weld reduction methods for automotive structures.
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 53, 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-015-
1355-4.
Saberi, S., Enzinger, N., Vallant, R., Cerjak, H., Hinterdorfer, J., Rauch, R., 2008.
Influence of plastic anisotropy on the mechanical behavior of clinched joint of
different coated thin steel sheets. Int. J. Mater. Form. 1 (1), 273–276. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12289-008-0349-9.
Savic, V., Xu, S., 2003. Fixed weld reduction method for optimal spot weld pattern
design. SAE Tech. Paper 2003-01-1304. https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-1304.
Schleinkofer, U., Laufer, F., Zimmermann, M., Roth, D., Bauernhansl, T., 2018. Resource-
efficient manufacturing systems through lightweight construction by using a
combined development approach. Procedia CIRP 72, 856–861. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.123.
Schramm, B., Friedlein, J., Gröger, B., Bielak, C., Bobbert, M., Gude, M., Meschut, G.,
Wallmersperger, T., Mergheim, J., 2022. A review on the modeling of the clinching
process chain - Part II: the joining process. J. Adv. Join. Process., 100134 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jajp.2022.100134. In this issue.
Schramm, B., Harzheim, S., Weiß, D., Joy, T., Hofmann, M., Mergheim, J.,
Wallmersperger, T., 2022. A review on the modeling of the clinching process chain -
Part III: the operational phase. J. Adv. Join. Process., 100135 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jajp.2022.100135. In this issue.
Shariati, M., Allahbakhsh, H., Saemi, J., Sedighi, M., 2010. Optimization of foam filled
spot-welded column for the crashworthiness design. Mechanika 83.
Sigmund, O., Maute, K., 2013. Topology optimization approachesa comparative review.
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 48, 1031–1055.
Sommer, S., Maier, J., 2011. Failure modelling of a self piercing riveted joint using LS-
DYNA. LS-DYNA - 8th European Users Conference, Vol. 5, pp. 1–11.
Sommer, S., Steffes-lai, D., Clees, T., 2013. Consideration of process-related variations of
spot welded joints. ATZ worldwide 115 (12), 44–49.
Steinfelder, C., Brosius, A., 2020. A New Approach for the Evaluation of Component and
Joint Loads Based on Load Path Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 134–141.
Steinfelder, C., Martin, S., Brosius, A., Tröster, T., 2021. Load path transmission in
joining elements. Sheet Metal 2021. Trans Tech Publications Ltd,
pp. 73–80.10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.883.73
Su, Z.M., Lin, P., Lai, W.J., Jwo, P., 2015. Fatigue analyses of self-piercing rivets and
clinch joints in lap-shear specimens of aluminum sheets. Int. J. Fatigue 72, 53–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2014.09.022.
Suzuki, T., Fukushige, S., Tsunori, M., 2020. Load path visualization and fiber trajectory
optimization for additive manufacturing of composites. Addit. Manuf. 31, 100942.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100942.
Takahashi, K., Sakurai, T., 2005. Expression of load transfer paths in structures. Trans.
Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. Ser. A 71 (708), 1097–1102. https://doi.org/10.1299/
kikaia.71.1097.
Tamijani, A.Y., Gharibi, K., Kobayashi, M.H., Kolonay, R.M., 2018. Load paths
visualization in plane elasticity using load function method. Int. J. Solid. Struct. 135,
99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.11.013.
Taub, A., Luo, A., 2015. Advanced lightweight materials and manufacturing processes for
automotive applications. MRS Bull. 40, 1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1557/
mrs.2015.26.
Varis, J., Lepistö, J., 2003. A simple testing-based procedure and simulation of the
clinching process using finite element analysis for establishing clinching parameters.
Thin-Walled Struct. 41 (8), 691–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8231(03)
00026-0.
Waldman, W., Heller, M., Kaye, R., Rose, F., 2002. Advances in two-dimensional
structural loadflow visualisation. Eng. Comput. 19 (3), 305–326. https://doi.org/
10.1108/02644400210697456.
Wang, C.C., Kam, H.K., Cheong, W.C., 2014. Effect of tool eccentricity on the joint
strength in mechanical clinching process. Procedia Eng. 81, 2062–2067. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.286.
Wang, L., Basu, P.K., Leiva, J.P., 2003. Design optimisation of automobile welds. Int. J.
Veh. Des. 31 (4), 377.
Wang, M.H., Xiao, G.Q., Li, Z., Wang, J.Q., 2018. Shape optimization methodology of
clinching tools based on bezier curve. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94 (5–8),
2267–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0987-5.
Weyer, S., Hooputra H, Zhou, F., 2006. Modelling of self-piercing rivets using fasteners in
crash analysis. 2006 ABAQUS USERS Conference, pp. 511–526.
Wiebenga, J., Atzema, E., An, Y., Vegter, H., van den Boogaard, A., 2014. Effect of
material scatter on the plastic behavior and stretchability in sheet metal forming.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 214 (2), 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmatprotec.2013.08.008.
Wischer, C., Steinfelder, C., Homberg, W., Brosius, A., 2021. Joining with friction spun
joint connectors–manufacturing and analysis. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., Vol.
1157 IOP Publishing, p. 012007.
Woischwill, C., Kim, I.Y., 2018. Multimaterial multijoint topology optimization. Int. J.
Numer. Method. Eng. 115 (13), 1552–1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.5908.
Wu, X., Xia, Y., Zhou, Q., Cai, W., Tilove, R.B., 2010. Spot weld layout optimization with
manufacturing constraints for vehicle structural performance. In: ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Vol. Volume 3:
Design and Manufacturing, Parts A and B, pp. 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1115/
IMECE2010-40376.
Xiang, Y., Wang, Q., Fan, Z., Fang, H., 2006. Optimal crashworthiness design of a spot-
welded thin-walled hat section. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 42 (10), 846–855. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.finel.2006.01.001.
Yamaguchi, A., Wakana, G., Obayashi, K., Okabe, T., Müller-Bechtel, M., 2008. Spot-
weld layout optimization for body stiffness by topology optimization. SAE World
Congress & Exhibition. SAE International. https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-0878.
B. Schramm et al.
Yan, L., Guo, Q.-T., Yang, S., Liao, X.-W., Qi, C., 2021. A size optimization procedure for
irregularly spaced spot weld design of automotive structures. Thin-Walled Struct.
166, 108015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2021.108015.
Yang, R.J., Rui, Y., Mohammed, A., Singh, G., 1996. Spot weld/adhesive pattern
optimization. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Vol. 97591. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/96-DETC/DAC-1478.
V003T03A002
15
Journal of Advanced Joining Processes 6 (2022) 100133
Yang, S., Lei, Y., Qi, C., 2019. An adaptive multi-step varying-domain topology
optimization method for spot weld design of automotive structures. Struct.
Multidiscip. Optim. 59, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-2068-2.
Yunus, M., Rani, M.A., Sani, M., Aziz Shah, M., 2018. Finite element model updating of
riveted joints of simplified model aircraft structure. AIP Conference Proceedings,
Vol. 1952. AIP Publishing LLC. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031975.
Zhang, X., He, X., Wei, W., Lu, J., Zeng, K., 2020. Fatigue characterization and crack
propagation mechanism of self-piercing riveted joints in titanium plates. Int. J.
Fatigue 134, 105465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105465.