See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233563572

Failure of resistance spot welds: Tensile shear versus coach peel loading
conditions

Article  in  Ironmaking & Steelmaking · February 2012

DOI: 10.1179/1743281211Y.0000000066

CITATIONS READS

19 2,993

2 authors:

Majid Pouranvari Pirooz Marashi

Sharif University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology
136 PUBLICATIONS   4,185 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   3,388 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TLP bonding View project

Transient liquid diffusion bonding of superalloys View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Majid Pouranvari on 31 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear
versus coach peel loading conditions
M. Pouranvari*1 and S. P. H. Marashi2
This paper aims at investigating the failure behaviour of resistance spot welds under tensile shear
(TS) and coach peel (CP) loading conditions. A failure mechanism was proposed to describe both
interfacial and pullout failure modes in each loading condition. The mechanisms were confirmed
by SEM investigations, examining the cross-sections of the fractured welds to detail the fracture
path. The experimental results showed that in the pullout failure mode during TS testing, necking
is initiated at the nugget circumference in the base metal, and then failure propagates along the
nugget circumference in the sheet, leading to the final fracture, while pullout failure during the CP
test occurred by crack initiation and propagation near the weld nugget/heat affected zone
boundary. The interfacial failure to pullout failure mode transition in the TS and CP tests was also
studied. The critical weld nugget size required to ensure the pullout failure mode was obtained for
each loading condition. The critical fusion zone size to ensure pullout failure mode during the TS
test was larger than that of the CP test. It was found that the load bearing capacity of the spot
welds under CP is significantly lower than that of the TS test.
Keywords: Resistance spot welding, Failure, Mechanical properties

Introduction (ii) weld mechanical performance: spot weld

Vehicle crashworthiness, which is defined as the
capability of a car structure to provide adequate
protection to its passengers against injuries in the event
of a crash, largely depends on the integrity and
mechanical performance of spot welds.1 Resistance spot
welding is the dominant process in sheet metal joining.
To ensure and maintain the structural integrity of the
automotive body structure under service condition such
as a crash situation, the remotest possibility of produ-
cing even one or two defective welds in a critical
component needs to be eliminated.2 Therefore, evalua-
tion of spot weld quality is a vital issue for the reliability
of the vehicle and for improving the economics of
vehicle production. Evaluating spot weld quality
requires studying welding process variables and weld
performance interrelations.
There are generally three indexes for the quality
control of resistance spot welds (RSWs):
(i) fusion zone (FZ) size: FZ size, which is defined
as the width of the weld nugget at the sheet/sheet
interface in the longitudinal direction, is the most
important factor in determining the quality of
the spot welds3–7
1
Young Researchers Club, Dezful Branch, Islamic Azad University, Dezful,
Iran
2
Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding author, email mpouranvari@yahoo.com
mechanical performance is generally considered
under static/quasi-static and fatigue loading
conditions; pot welds in real service condition
experience complex loading conditions, including
shear, tensile, compression, bending and torsion
stresses8
(iii) failure mode: this is the manner in which the spot
weld fails. Failure mode and failure mechanism
largely depend on the complex interplay between
the weld geometry and the material properties of
the FZ/heat affected zone (HAZ)/base metal
(BM) as well as the test geometry and the stress
state in each weld.9–12 Therefore, the prediction
of the failure mode and failure location is a
challenging issue. Generally, the RSW failure
occurs in two modes: interfacial failure (IF) and
pullout failure (PF).9–12 Figure 1 shows typical
fracture paths during the mechanical testing of a
spot weld. In the interfacial mode, failure occurs
via crack propagation (path A), while in the
pullout mode, failure occurs via nugget with-
drawal from one sheet. In this mode, fracture
may initiate in BM (path B), HAZ (path C) or
HAZ/FZ (path D), depending on the BM and
the loading conditions. Spot weld failure mode is
a qualitative measure of the weld quality. Failure
mode can significantly affect the load bearing
capacity and the energy absorption capability of
RSWs. Generally, the pullout mode is the pre-
ferred failure mode due to its higher associated
plastic deformation and energy absorption.

ß 2012 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 4 May 2011; accepted 3 October 2011
104 DOI 10.1179/1743281211Y.0000000066 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2
 Pouranvari and Marashi
1 General fracture paths during mechanical testing of
RSWs: IF, path A; PF, paths B, C and D
Thus, vehicle crashworthiness, as the main
concern in automotive design, can dramatically
reduce if the spot welds fail via interfacial mode.
The PF mode during quality control indeed
indicates that the welds have been able to
transmit a high level of force, thus causing severe
plastic deformation in its adjacent components
and increased strain energy dissipation in crash
conditions.12 Therefore, it is needed to adjust the
welding parameters so that the PF mode is
guaranteed.
Although the spot weld has been used extensively, a
simple failure criterion that is able to predict the failure
strength of a spot weld subjected to various loading
conditions does not exist.8 A study towards better
understanding the failure mechanism under various
loading conditions is the first step to develop a failure
criterion for RSWs. Therefore, the aim of the present
work is to investigate the failure modes and failure
behaviour of RSWs under two loading conditions: the
tensile shear (TS) test and the coach peel (CP) test. The
TS sample geometry is chosen as a representative case
for predominantly shear load (i.e. shear force to the weld
interface). The CP test is chosen as a representative case
for predominantly tensile/bending loading condition.
Experimental
A 1?5 mm thick uncoated low carbon steel of the type
used in the automotive industry was used in the
investigation. The chemical composition of the steel is
Fe–0?04C–0?21Mn–0?03Si–0?04Al–0?01S–0?008P. Spot
welding was performed using a 120 kVA ac pedestal
type resistance spot welding machine controlled by a
PLC (Progrmmable Logic Controller). Welding was
conducted using a 45u truncated cone RWMA class 2
(Cu–Cr–Zr) electrode with 7 mm face diameter. In all
the experiments, the electrode pressure and the squeez-
ing, welding and holding times (i.e. electrode holding
time after welding current off) were kept constant at
4 bars and 45, 12 and 15 cycles respectively. The welding
current was changed from 10 to 14 kA. The aim of this
experiment set is the investigation of the effect of
physical weld attributes (more importantly weld FZ size)
on the weld performance. Seven samples were performed
per welding condition, including three samples for the
TS test, three samples for the CP test and one sample for
weld size measurement.
The TS and CP tests were used to characterise the
mechanical properties of the welds. The dimensions of
the samples are shown in Fig. 2. Quasi-static mechanical
Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
2 Dimensions of specimens for a tensile shear test and
b coach peel test
tests were performed at a crosshead of 2 mm min21 with
an Instron universal testing machine. The peak load was
extracted from the load–displacement curve. The failure
modes of the samples were determined by examining the
fracture surfaces. Micrographs of the cross-section of
failed spot welds were examined in order to understand
the failure mechanism.
Samples for metallographic examination were pre-
pared using standard metallography procedures. Weld
microstructures and macrostructures were examined
under optical microscopy. Weld nugget (FZ) sizes were
measured on the weld cross-section parallel to the rolling
direction. Etching reagent (4% nital) was used to reveal
the fusion line boundary. A Vickers microhardness test
was performed along the interfacial line and 50 mm
above the weld centreline using 100 g load on a Bohler
microhardness tester.
Results and discussion
Microstructure and hardness profile of joint
The macrostructural characteristics of the RSWs,
particularly the FZ size as well as the microstructural
and hardness characteristics of the RSWs, play impor-
tant roles in their failure behaviour and failure mode.
Rapid heating and cooling induced by the resistance
spot welding thermal cycles significantly alter the
microstructure in the joint zone. A typical macrostruc-
ture of the joint is shown in Fig. 3a, indicating three
distinct zones, namely, FZ, HAZ and BM.
The hardness profile of the joint is shown in Fig. 3b.
The hardness variation across the joint can be analysed
in terms of the microstructure of the joint. The BM
microstructure, as depicted in Fig. 3c, consists of ferrite
grains; the corresponding hardness is 125 HV. The FZ
consists of a directional columnar structure growing
towards the weld centreline (Fig. 3d). The microstruc-
ture of the FZ, as shown in Fig. 3e and f, mainly consists
of lath martensite with boundaries decorated by the
grain boundary ferrite and Widmanstätten ferrite. Some
bainite and polygonal ferrite were also observed in the
FZ (Fig. 3f). The formation of martensite in the FZ
explains the higher hardness of the FZ compared to the
BM hardness. Despite the low carbon content of the BM
and its ferritic structure, the martensite phase was
formed due to the high cooling rate of the RSW process.
Martensite formation in the FZ of low carbon steels is
reported by several researchers.10,13–15 Martensite for-
mation in the FZ is attributed to the high cooling rate of
Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2 105
Pouranvari and Marashi Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
3 a typical macrostructure, b typical hardness profile, c BM microstructure, d columnar grain in FZ and e, f FZ micro-
structure
the resistance spot welding process due to the presence of
water cooled copper electrodes and their quenching effect
as well as the short welding cycle. It was shown through
modelling that spot welds with thicknesses of up to 2 mm
typically solidify in ,3–4 cycles.13 Gould et al.14 devel-
oped a simple analytical model predicting the cooling rates
of RSWs. According to this model, the cooling rate for
1?5 mm thickness is y4000 K s21. For steels, the required
critical cooling rate to achieve martensite in the micro-
structure can be estimated using the following equation16
log v~7:42{3:13C{0:71Mn{
(1)
0:37Ni{0:34Cr{0:45Mo
where v is the critical cooling rate in K h21. The calculated
critical cooling rate for the investigated steels is
y3885 K s21. Since the cooling rate experienced in the
FZ is higher than the critical cooling rates needed for
martensite formation, it is not surprising that a martensite
structure is present in the FZ.
The formation of various products during the decom-
position of austenite during cooling can be explained as
follows.17 On cooling at below A3 temperature, austenite
begins to transform. Allotriomorphic ferrite is the first
phase to form. This ferrite phase grows in the form of
layers, tending to decorate the austenite grain boundaries.
106 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2
During the transformation, carbon accumulates ahead
of the ferrite, slowing the growth rate as the layer
thickens. Conversely, Widmanstätten ferrite grows in
the form of plates or laths, permitting carbon to be
partitioned to the sides. This allows the plates to leng-
then at a steady rate, which is much faster than the
thickening of allotriomorphs. Bainite formation occurs at
lower temperatures, sometimes accompanied by the
precipitation of cementite. Any remaining austenite then
either decomposes into martensite or is retained in small
quantities in the microstructure.17
Failure mechanism during TS test
Two types failure mode were observed during the TS
tests, i.e. IF and PF modes, as shown in Fig. 4. A simple
model describing the stress distribution at the interface
and circumference of a weld nugget during the TS test is
shown in Fig. 5:
(i) as can be seen in Fig. 5, shear stresses are
dominant at the interface. In the IF mode
(corresponding to path A in Fig. 1), the shear
stress at the sheet/sheet interface is the driving
force of the failure. Figure 6 illustrates an SEM
image of the fracture surface of a spot weld failed
in IF mode during TS test showing elongated
dimples. The shape of the dimples depends on the
 Pouranvari and Marashi
a interfacial mode; b pullout failure mode
4 Failure modes of spot welds during tensile shear test
5 Simple model describing stress distribution at interface
and circumference of weld nugget during tensile shear
test
loading conditions. The elongated dimples indi-
cate that the IF failure mode during TS test has a
shear nature
(ii) as can be seen in Fig. 5, one leg of the lower sheet
and one leg of the upper sheet are subjected to
tensile stress. The tensile stress at the nugget
circumference is the driving force for PF mode.
In PF mode, when there is certain amount of
rotation, the tensile stresses formed around the
nugget cause plastic deformation in the sheet
thickness direction. Necking occurs at both
loaded legs of the TS sample as the tensile force
increases. Generally, the necking occurs in BM
(corresponding to path B in Fig. 1) or HAZ/BM
(corresponding to path C in Fig. 1). Necking is
not equal in both sheets. The stress concentration
caused by the uneven necking in the two sheets
leads to the withdrawal of the spot weld from one
6 Fracture surface SEM image of spot welds failed in IF
mode during TS test
Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
7 Typical macrograph of fracture surface cross-section of
spot welds which was failed via pullout failure mode
during tensile shear test
sheet. In order to understand the failure mechan-
ism, optical micrographs of the cross-sections of
the spot welded joints after the TS test are
examined. Figure 7 shows the macrograph of the
fracture surface of a spot weld which failed at
pullout mode. The failure of the spot weld
appears to be initiated near the middle of the
nugget circumference and then propagated by
necking/shear along the nugget circumference
until the upper sheet is torn off. The necking
location in the TS test is dictated by the hardness
profile. As can be seen, necking is initiated at the
BM (corresponding to path B in Fig. 1), where its
low hardness in comparison with HAZ and FZ
can provide a preferential location for necking
during the TS test. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the strength of the spot welds in the TS test is
dictated by the BM strength rather than HAZ or
FZ. Figure 8 shows the SEM image of the
fracture surface in the necking region of a sample
failed in PF mode, showing near circular dimples
which are indicators of failure under stress being
normal to the overall plane of fracture.
8 Fracture surface SEM image of spot welds failed in PF
mode during TS test
Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2 107
Pouranvari and Marashi Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel

a interfacial mode; b pullout failure mode

9 Failure modes of spot welds during coach peel test

decreases by the rotation of the initial moment arm part.

Hence, the edge of the weld nugget undergoes relatively
concentrated tensile stress from the bending moment.
Figure 10 shows a simple model describing the stress
distribution at the interface and circumference of a weld
nugget during the CP test:
(i) in the IF mode, the tensile stress at the sheet/sheet
interface is the driving force of the failure.
Figure 11 illustrates the SEM image of the
fracture surface of a spot weld failed in IF mode
during CP test, showing near equiaxed dimples.
This confirmed that the driving force for the IF
mode in CP test is tensile stress
(ii) according to Fig. 10, bending stress is the driving
force for PF mode during the CP test. Figure 12
illustrates the SEM image of the fracture surface
10 Simple model describing stress distribution at inter- of a spot weld failed in the PF mode during the
face and circumference of weld nugget during coach CP test, showing near elongated dimples. This
shear test confirmed that the driving force for PF mode in
the CP test is bending stress. In order to under-
Therefore, it is concluded that the driving force stand the failure mechanism in PF mode during
for the PF mode is the tensile stress. the CP test, micrographs of the cross-sections of
Failure mechanism during CP loading condition
Two types of failure mode were observed during the CP
tests: IF and PF modes, as shown in Fig. 9. As can be
seen, the spot weld which failed in the IF mode exhibits
a smooth fracture surface and undergoes little plastic
deformation during the failure process, indicating low
failure energy. However, the spot weld which failed in
PF mode exhibits significant deformation, indicating
higher energy absorption compared to IF mode. An
undeformed CP specimen contains a moment arm
between loading line and weld nugget. As the applied
eccentric load P increases, the effective moment arm

11 Fracture surface SEM image of spot welds failed in IF 12 Fracture surface SEM image of spot welds failed in
mode during CP test PF mode during CP test

108 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2

 Pouranvari and Marashi
13 Typical macrograph of fracture surface cross-section of spot welds that failed via pullout failure mode during coach
peel (CP) test
the spot welded joints after the CP test are
examined by optical microscopy. Figure 13
shows the macrograph of the fracture surface of
a spot weld which that failed at pullout mode
during the CP test. As can be seen, the failure
mechanism of the CP specimens is distinctly
different from that of the TS specimens. The PF
in the CP test is accompanied by crack initiation
and propagation. According to Fig. 13, crack
initiates beside the notch tip at or near the faying
surface. Crack initiation and propagation sites
are located in the coarse grained HAZ (corre-
sponding to path D in Fig. 1). Final fracture
occurs as the crack propagates through the sheet
thickness. The observed mechanism is in agree-
ment with the mechanism suggested by Zuniga
and Sheppard.18 They divided the failure
sequence of the spot welds in the CP specimens
into four stages: (1) propagation of the notch tip
toward the FZ; (2) large tensile strains at the
faying surface blunt the notch tip; (3) ductile
fracture initiation beside the blunted notch tip,
crack initiation occurs by microvoid coalescence;
and (4) final fracture occurs by crack propagation
through the thickness direction.
IF to PF mode transition
The FZ size is one of the key factors in controlling the
failure mode of spot welds. Figure 14 shows the co-
rrelation between the welding current, the FZ size and
the failure mode of the spot welds during TS and
14 Effect of welding current on fusion zone (FZ) size and
failure mode of spot welds during tensile shear (TS)
and coach peel (CP) tests
Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
CP. Increasing the welding current and welding time
increases the FZ size. It is well documented that
there is a critical FZ, above which the PF mode is
guaranteed.9–12,19,20 The critical FZ DC to ensure PF
mode was determined by examining the weld fracture
surfaces. The critical FZ size (defined as the FZ size
between the maximum weld size leading to IF mode
and the minimum weld size leading to PF mode) is
identified in Fig. 14. In order to avoid the IF mode, a
minimum welding current of 11 kA should be used for
welding the CP specimens, while a minimum welding
current of 12 kA is required to ensure PF mode for the
TS specimens. As can be seen, during the TS test, spot
welds with FZ sizes of .6?1 mm failed in the PF mode,
while during the CP test, spot welds with FZ sizes of
.5?5 mm failed in PF mode. Indeed, a smaller FZ size
is required for obtaining PF mode during the CP test in
comparison with the TS test (i.e. spot welds exhibit a
higher tendency to fail in IF mode during the TS test
rather than the CP test). To explain the IF to PF
transition behaviour, the following points should be
considered:
(i) in the TS test, the driving force for the IF mode is
the shear stress at the sheet/sheet interface, while
in the CP test, the tensile stress at the sheet/sheet
interface is the driving force. It is well known that
the shear strength of the metals is lower than their
tensile strength. This point can partly explain the
higher tendency of TS samples to fail in IF mode
(ii) the driving force for the PF mode in both TS and
CP tests is the tensile stress at the nugget
circumference. In the TS test, the tensile stress
15 Comparison of load–displacement of spot weld in CP
and TS loading conditions
Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2 109
Pouranvari and Marashi Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
16 Effect of FZ size on peak load in TS and CP tests
is mainly induced by the bending moment due to
the weld nugget rotation. The bending stresses
experienced by the CP samples are higher than
the TS samples due to its unique geometry. This
point can explain the higher tendency of the CP
samples to fail in PF mode.
Mechanical properties
As shown above, spot welds during TS and CP tests
exhibit different failure behaviours. A typical load–
displacement curve of the spot welds failing in the PF
modes is shown in Fig. 15. The welding conditions in the
two cases are the same. The load–displacement curves in
the TS and CP tests are different due to the CP test
configuration and its own deformation and failure
characteristics. The non-linear region in the curves is
attributed to the strain hardening of the samples. In the
TS test, the peak point corresponds to the necking in the
BM region. In the CP test, the peak point corresponds to
the crack initiation in HAZ. After reaching the peak
force, the force descends gradually with the tearing
process of the BM around the weld nugget. From
Fig. 15, the following points can be drawn:
(i) the load bearing capacity of spot welds under CP
is significantly lower than that of the TS test.
This can be attributed to the more complicated
stress state as well as the larger bending moment
applied to the weld during the CP test
(ii) the displacement to failure in the CP test is
significantly larger than that of the TS test. This
is due to the large deformation of the CP sample
induced by the bending moment
(iii) the energy absorption capability of spot welds in
CP test is lower than that of the TS test.
Figure 16 shows the relationship between weld FZ size
and peak load in both loading conditions of the TS and
CP tests. There is a direct relationship between FZ size
and peak load; however, the peak load in the CP test has
a low sensitivity to FZ size in comparison with the TS
test. In addition, beyond a critical FZ size, there is no
increase in the CP strength of the spot welds.
Conclusions
The failure behaviour of RSWs under TS and CP
loading conditions was investigated. A failure mechan-
ism was proposed to describe both IF and PF modes in
110 Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO
each loading condition. The mechanism was con-
firmed by SEM investigations of cross-sections of
fractured weld to detail the fracture path. In light of
the above examinations, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. The CP specimens in PF mode failed by initiation
and propagation of a crack beside the blunted notch tip.
The TS specimens in PF mode failed by through
thickness necking.
2. In pullout mode, the failure locations of the CP
and TS specimens were in the BM region and coarse
grain HAZ respectively.
3. There is a minimum FZ size to ensure PF mode
during the mechanical testing of RSWs. The critical FZ
size to ensure PF mode during the TS test was larger
than that of the CP test. This was explained in terms of
stress state at the sheet/sheet interface and the nugget
circumference.
4. The load bearing capacity of spot welds under CP
is significantly lower than that of the TS test. The
displacement to failure in the CP test is significantly
larger than that of the TS test. The energy absorption
capability of the spot welds in the CP test is lower than
that of the TS test.
References
1. M. Pouranvari, A. Abedi, P. Marashi and M. Goodarzi: ‘Effect
of expulsion on peak load and energy absorption of low carbon
resistance spot welds’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2008, 13, 39–
43.
2. N. T. Williams and J. D. Parker: ‘Review of resistance spot welding
of steel sheets. Part 1. Modelling and control of nugget formation’,
Int. Mater. Rev., 2005, 49, 45–75.
3. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens and M. A. Khaleel: ‘Effects of fusion zone
size and failure mode on peak load and energy absorption of
advanced high strength steel spot welds under lap shear loading
conditions’, Eng. Fail. Anal., 2008, 15, 356–367.
4. M. Goodarzi, S. P. H. Marashi and M. Pouranvari: ‘Dependence
of overload performance on weld attributes for resistance spot
welded galvanized low carbon steel’, J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2009, 209, 4379–4384.
5. J. Heuschkel: ‘The expression of spot-weld properties’, Weld. J.,
1952, 31, 931s–943s.
6. B. Pollard: ‘Spot welding characteristics of HSLA steel for
automotive applications’, Weld. J., 1974, 53, 343s–350s.
7. M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: ‘Relationships between quality
and weld attributes of spot welds’, Weld. J., 2003, 82, 72s–77s.
8. H. Zhang and J. Senkara: ‘Resistance welding: fundamentals and
applications’; 2005, Boca Raton, FL, Taylor & Francis CRC Press.
9. M. Pouranvari and S. P. H. Marashi: ‘Key factors influencing
mechanical performance of dual phase steel resistance spot welds’,
Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2010, 15, 149–155.
10. M. Goodarzi, S. P. H. Marashi and M. Pouranvari: ‘Dependence
of overload performance on weld attributes for resistance spot
welded galvanized low carbon steel’, J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
2009, 209, 4379–4384.
11. M. Pouranvari, H. R. Asgari, S. M. Mosavizadeh, P. H. Marashi
and M. Goodarzi: ‘Effect of weld nugget size on overload failure
mode of resistance spot welds’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2007, 12,
217–225.
12. M. Pouranvari and S. P. H. Marashi: ‘Similar and dissimilar RSW
of low carbon and austenitic stainless steels: effect of weld
microstructure and hardness profile on failure mode’, Mater. Sci.
Technol., 2009, 25, 1411–1416.
13. M. V. Li, D. Dong and M. Kimchi: ‘Modeling and analysis of
microstructure development in resistance spot welds of high
strength steels’, SAE technical paper no. 982278, SAE Inter-
national, Warrendale, PA, USA, 1998.
14. J. E. Gould, S. P. Khurana and T. Li: ‘Predictions of micro-
structures when welding automotive advanced high-strength steels’,
Weld. J., 2006, 86, 111s–116s.
15. M. Santella, S. S. Babu, B. W. Reimer and Z. Feng: ‘Influence of
microstructure on the properties of resistance spot welds’, in
2
 Pouranvari and Marashi
‘Trends in welding research’, (ed. S. A. David et al.), 605–609; 1999
Materials Park, OH, AWS Internationa.
16. K. E. Easterling: ‘Modelling the weld thermal cycle and transfor-
mation behaviour in the heat-affected zone’, in ‘Mathematical
modelling of weld phenomena’, (ed. H. Cerjak and K. E.
Easterling); 1993, London, The Institute of Materials.
17. A. De, C. A. Walsh, S. K. Maiti and H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia: Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 391–398.
View publication stats
Failure of resistance spot welds: tensile shear versus coach peel
18. S. Zuniga and S. D. Sheppard: in ‘Fatigue and fracture mechanics’,
(ed. R. S. Piascik et al.), Vol. 27, ASTM STP 1296, 469–489; 1997,
Philadelphia, PA, ASTM.
19. X. Sun, E. V. Stephens, R. W. Davies, M. A. Khaleel and D. J.
Spinella: ‘Effects of failure modes on strength of aluminum
resistance spot welds’, Weld. J., 2004, 83, 188s–195s.
20. Y. J. Chao: ‘Failure mode of resistance spot welds: interfacial
versus pullout’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 133–137.
Ironmaking and Steelmaking 2012 VOL 39 NO 2 111