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

net/publication/228835224

Correlation between macro/micro structure and mechanical properties of

dissimilar rsw of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel and AISI 1008 low carbon
steel

Article · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

19 200

3 authors, including:

Mehdi Mansouri Majid Pouranvari

Sharif University of Technology
44 PUBLICATIONS   167 CITATIONS   
136 PUBLICATIONS   4,126 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

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

Transient liquid diffusion bonding of superalloys View project

RSW of Nimonic C263 nickel based super alloy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Majid Pouranvari on 06 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Association of Metallurgical Engineers of Serbia Scientific paper
AMES UDC: 628.477:669.715

CORRELATION BETWEEN MACRO/MICRO STRUCTURE AND

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF DISSIMILAR RESISTANCE SPOT
WELDS OF AISI 304 AUSTENITIC STAINLESS STEEL AND AISI 1008
LOW CARBON STEEL

Mehdi Mansouri Hasan Abadi1, Majid Pouranvari2*

1
Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch, Najfabad, Iran
2
Islamic Azad University, Dezful Branch, Dezful, Iran

Received 20.04.2010
Accepted 05.06.2010

Abstract
Structure-properties relationships in dissimilar resistance spot welding of AISI
304 austenitic stainless steel (SS) and AISI 1008 low carbon steel (CS) are investigated.
Differences in physical and mechanical properties of both steel sheets affect resistance
spot weldability of this combination. Weld nugget shape is asymmetrical and the final
fusion line shifts from sheet/sheet interface into the higher resistivity side (i.e. AISI
304). Fusion zone microstructure was ranged from Ferrite-Austenite-Martensite to full
martensite depending on the melting/dilution ratio of base metals. Criteria for selection
optimum welding condition for dissimilar combination are discussed. It was shown that
generally there is a direct relation between mechanical performance (peak load and
failure energy) and FZ size of low carbon steel side. The peak load of CS/CS and
SS/LCS was nearly same due to the fact that the pullout failure mode of SS/CS welds is
initiated from CS base metal. However, the failure energy of the later was greater than
the former weld which is a function of higher ductility of SS that helps increasing
plastic deformation during process of pullout failure.
Key words: Resistance spot welding; Failure mode; Dissimilar metal joints

Introduction
Resistance spot welding (RSW) is considered as the dominant process for joining
sheet metals in automotive industry. Typically, there are about 2000–5000 spot welds in
a modern vehicle. Simplicity, low cost, high speed (low process time) and automation
possibility are among the advantages of this process. Quality and mechanical behavior
of spot welds significantly affect durability and crashworthiness of the vehicle [1]

*
Corresponding author: Majid Pouranvari [email protected]
134 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

Resistance spot welding is a process of joining two or more metal parts by fusion
at discrete spots at the interface of work pieces. Resistance to current flow through the
metal work pieces and their interface generates heat; therefore, temperature rises at the
interface of the work pieces. When the melting point of the metal is reached, the metal
will begin to fuse and a nugget begins to form. The current is then switched off and the
nugget is cooled down to solidify under pressure [2].
There are generally three indexes for quality control of resistance spot welds:
i) Fusion zone size (FZS): FZS which is defined as the width of the weld nugget
at the sheet/sheet interface in the longitudinal direction is the most important factors in
determining quality of spot welds.
ii) Weld mechanical performance
Spot weld mechanical performance is generally considered under static/quasi-
static and fatigue loading condition. The tensile-shear test is the most widely used test
for evaluating the spot weld mechanical behaviors in static condition [3]. Peak load,
obtained from the tensile-shear load - displacement curve, is often used to describe spot
welds mechanical behaviors. In addition to peak load, failure energy can be used to
better describe the spot weld mechanical behaviors. Failure energy is a measure of weld
energy absorption capability, and its higher value demonstrates the increase in weld
performance reliability against impact loads such as accidents [4, 5].
iii) Failure mode
Failure mode is the manner which spot weld fails. Generally, the resistance spot
weld (RSW) failure occurs in two modes: interfacial and pullout [6-8]. Fig.1 shows
typical fracture path during mechanical testing of spot weld. In the interfacial mode,
failure occurs via crack propagation through fusion zone (Path A); while, in the pullout
mode, failure occurs via nugget withdrawal from one sheet. In this mode, fracture may
initiate in BM (Path B), HAZ (Path C) or HAZ/FZ (Path D) depending on the base
metal and the loading conditions.

Fig.1 General fracture path during mechanical testing of resistance spot welds, IF:
Interfacial Failure (Path A), PF: Pullout Failure (Path B, Path C and Path D)

Spot weld failure mode is a qualitative measure of the weld quality. Failure mode
can significantly affect load bearing capacity and energy absorption capability of RSWs.
Generally, the pullout mode is the preferred failure mode due its higher associated
plastic deformation and energy absorption. Thus, vehicle crashworthiness, as the main
concern in the automotive design, can dramatically reduce if spot welds fail via
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 135

interfacial mode. The pullout failure mode during quality control indeed indicates that
the same weld would have been able to transmit a high level of force, thus cause severe
plastic deformation in its adjacent components, and increased strain energy dissipation
in crash conditions [9]. Therefore, it is needed to adjust welding parameters so that the
pullout failure mode is guaranteed.
The majority of the research investigations in spot welding have been carried out
on the welding of similar sheets. However, in many applications, spot welds are made
between different materials as mechanical properties are tailored to local requirements
[10]. Despite various applications of dissimilar RSWs, reports in the literature dealing
with their mechanical behaviors are limited. Resistance spot weldability diagrams and
guidelines are almost for low carbon resistance spot welds. There are few documented
data for spot welding of stainless steel. Dissimilar resistance spot welding of low carbon
steel and austenitic stainless steels has been studied by some researchers [11-14].
Alenius et al. [11] studied weldability of various dissimilar metal joint between
austenitic stainless steel and non-stainless steels. They concluded that the strength of the
dissimilar joint in tensile-shear test is dictated by strength and thickness of non-stainless
steels. Poggio et al. [14] studied spot welding behavior of Dissimilar
DP600/304stainless steel joint.
The aim of the present paper is to investigate and analyze structure-properties
relationships of dissimilar AISI 304/AISI 1008 resistance spot welds.

Experimental procedure
A 1.1 mm thick AISI 1008 galvanized low carbon steel (CS) and 1.2 mm thick
AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel (SS) sheets were used as the base metals, in this
research. The chemical composition of galvanized carbon steel (CS) and stainless steel
(SS) is given in Table 1.

Table1. Chemical composition of test materials (%wt)

Element C Mn Si Cr Ni Mo
SS 0.035 1.08 0.388 18.47 9 0.561
CS 0.065 0.404 0.095 0.017 0.032 0.004

Spot welding was performed using a PLC controlled 120 kVA AC pedestal type
resistance spot welding machine operating at 50 Hz. Welding was conducted using a 45-
deg truncated cone RWMA Class 2 electrode with 7-mm face diameter. To dissimilar
RSW of SS and CS, welding time and electrode force were kept constant at 12 cycles
and 4.2 kN and welding current was varied step by step from 7 to 14 kA.
The tensile-shear test was used to explore mechanical properties of the joints.
Fig.2 shows the sample dimensions. Samples were prepared following AWS standard
[15]. Mechanical tests were performed at a cross head of 2 mm/min with an Instron
universal testing machine. Peak load and failure energy (measured as the area under the
load-displacement curve up to the peak load) were extracted from the load-displacement
curve (see Fig.3). The Failure mode was determined from the failed samples.
136 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

Fig.2 Sample dimensions of tensile-shear test

Fig.3 A typical load-displacement curve of spot welds during tensile-shear test

Samples for metallographic examination were prepared using standard

metallography procedure. Optical microscopy was used to examine the microstructures
of the joints. Fusion zone size of the spot welds was measured using optical microscope.
Microhardness test was used to determine the hardness profile of the joints, using a
100g load on a Shimadzu microhardness tester. The microhardness traverses were
performed on a diagonal covering microstructural zones in both sheets. The indentations
were spaced 0.3 mm apart.

Results and discussion

Macro/Micro-struccture of dissimilar SS304/CS RSW
Fig.4 shows a typical macro/micro structure of a dissimilar resistance spot weld
between low carbon steel (CS) and austenitic stainless steel (SS). As can be seen, the
joint region consists of three distinct structural zones:
i) Fusion Zone (FZ) or weld nugget,
ii) Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), and
iii) Base Metal (BM).
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 137

Fig.4 Structure of Dissimilar SS/CS spot weld

Two interesting features of the FZ are as follows:

(i) Asymmetrical shape of the weld nugget. The FZ size and the penetration
depth of the SS side are larger than those of the CS side. Differences in the thermal
conductivity and electrical resistivity of two steel sheets lead to an asymmetrical weld
nugget in dissimilar metal joints. Thermal conductivity and electrical resistivity
significantly affect weld nugget formation and weld nugget growth. It is reported that
the electrical resistivity of austenitic stainless steel and low carbon steels are, 72 and
12μΩcm [11], respectively. Lower electrical resistance of carbon steels, which is even
lower for low carbon galvanized steel sheet, and its higher thermal conductivity
compared to stainless steel leads to smaller FZ size in the former.
(ii) Unlike similar RSW joints, final solidification line is not located at
sheet/sheet interface but shifts to the higher resistively side; here, stainless steel. Since
the FZ size at sheet/sheet interface is the main controlling factor of the spot weld
mechanical performance; shifting the final solidification line form sheet/sheet interface
towards higher resistively side can affect the mechanical performance.
Fig.5 shows the hardness profile of the CS/SS RSW. As can be seen, the
hardness of the FZ is significantly higher than the hardness of both BMs. Weld FZ
microstructure of dissimilar CS/SS RSWs can be predicted by constitution diagrams
e.g., Schaeffler diagram [16]. It should be noted that the application of this diagram
might be inaccurate due to the very high cooling rates of RSW process. The FZ
microstructure of dissimilar CS/SS RSWs depends on the chemical composition of the
BMs and the dilution (defined as the carbon steel to the weld nugget volume ratio).
Dilution is controlled by welding parameters. In the applied welding conditions the
138 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

dilution was measured as 40%. According to Schaeffler diagram, a martensitic structure

is expected to from in the FZ, as confirmed by the much higher hardness of the FZ
relative to the BMs.

Fig.5 A typical hardness profile of SS/CS RSW

The HAZ of CS side experienced significant microstructure alterations as

indicated by by hardness profile. However, it should be noted that, since austenitic
stainless steel base metal is not transformable, no phase transformation occurs in the
HAZ. However, grain structure of this region is affected by welding process. Some
grain growth was observed adjacent to the weld nugget. It worth mentioning that the
extent of grain growth for austenitic stainless steels is a lot less than ferritic steels [17].
A serious matter during austenitic stainless steel welding is the precipitation of
chromium carbides in grain boundaries which can dramatically reduce corrosion
resistance of the joint [17]. In this study, Murakami etching solution (10g KOH, 10g
K3[Fe(CN)6], 100 ml H2O), which is very sensitive to chromium rich particles, was used
to investigate the formation of chromium carbides in HAZ. However, no such particles
were observed in this region which can be ascribed to resistance spot welding high
cooling rate which in turn significantly reduces the holding time in the temperature
range of chromium carbide precipitation. Low carbon content of the investigated steel
hinders the formation of these detrimental precipitates, too.

Effect of welding parameters on weld attributes

Welding parameters can significantly affect the weld nugget growth and FZ
microstructure. FZ sizes were measured at the sheet/sheet interface in the longitudinal
direction on the metallographic cross section of the welds. Since the weld nugget shape
is asymmetrical, the FZ size were measured at both side: weld nugget width at the
sheet/sheet interface in carbon steel side (CS FZ size) and weld nugget width at the
sheet/sheet interface in stainless steel side (SS FZ size). Fig.6 shows variation of FZ
sizes as a function of welding current. Fig.7 shows macrograph of dissimilar SS/CS
RSWs at various welding current. As can be seen, the FZS of both stainless and
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 139

galvanized steel sides increases with the welding current at a decreasing rate with the
exception of really high currents (more than 11.5 kA) which show a slight decrease in
the FZS due to expulsion.

Fig.6 Effect of welding current on the FZ size in both SS and CS side

Fig.7 Effect of welding current on the weld nugget growth:

(a) 8kA, (b) 9kA, (c)10 kA,(d)11kA,(e)12kA,(f)13kA,(g)14 kA

Fig.8 shows variation of FZ hardness as a function of welding current. FZ

Hardness of CS/SS RSWs is a function of its microstructure which in turns governs by
the FZ chemical composition which is a mixture of composition of SS and CS.
140 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

According to the Schaeffler diagram the FZ microstructure dictated by dilution ratio. As

can be seen, increasing welding current up to 8.5 kA increases dilution ratio. However,
after this point, dilution ratio is almost independent from welding current. As can be
concluded from Schaeffler diagram increasing dilution ratio of SS304 and CS beyond
21% leads to formation a martensitic structure. According Schaeffler diagram and
corresponding dilution ratios, spot welds made at welding current lower than 8.5kA
exhibit Ferrite+Austinite+Martensite microstructure as verified by low FZ hardness
value of these welds.

Fig.8 Effect of welding current on the FZ hardness, dilution, failure mode and the
predicted microstructure using Schaeffler diagram

Criteria for selection of optimum welding parameters

In order to selection of optimum welding parameters for SS/CS dissimilar
resistance spot welding the following points should be considered:
i) FZ size is the most important parameters in determination of mechanical
properties of RSWs.The larger the FZ size, the higher the strength is. FZ size is
governed by heat generated during welding process which is in turn controlled by
welding parameters. Generally, the higher the heat input (i.e. higher welding current,
higher welding time and lower electrode force), the higher FZ size is.
ii) Electrode indentation depth should be kept at a minimum value. It has been
shown that increasing indentation depth; decreases the weld load carrying capacity and
the energy absorption capability [6, 18]. The electrode indentation depth depends on
electrode pressure and the temperature of electrode/sheet interface. The later is a
function of heat generated during welding. Increasing heat input increases the electrode
indentation depth.
iii) Severe expulsion (i.e. molten metal ejection from weld nugget) should be
prevented during welding. Increasing heat input increases the temperature of
electrode/sheet interface which in turn increases the degree of plastic deformation that
can occur in the sheet surface under electrode pressure. Spot welds with expulsion
exhibit severe electrode indentation. Also, expulsion can reduce weld nugget size [6].
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 141

iv)Welding parameters should be adjusted such that the pullout failure mode is
obtained during mechanical testing. Spot welds during their service life experience
complex loading condition including shear, tensile, compression, bending and torsion
stresses. In this work, however, the tensile-shear laboratory test can be considered as the
baseline for failure mode based on the fact that the RSWs show greater tendency to fail
in interfacial failure mode during this loading condition in comparison to other ones
such as peel test, coach peel test and cross tension [9]. Accordingly, failure mode during
tensile-shear test is a conservative measure for quality control of spot welds. RSWs
failed in pullout mode during tensile-shear test are expected to fail in pullout mode
during cross-tension, peel and chisel tests. Pouranvari et al. [7] proposed a simple
analytical model to predict minimum FZS required to ensure pullout failure mode of
spot welds during the tensile-shear test. Critical FZS (dCr) was attributed to sheet
thickness (t) and weld nugget to failure location hardness ratio (HWN/HFL), as follows:
H FL
d Cr = 8 t
HWN (1)

According to this model, the ratio of the hardness of FZ to the hardness of pullout
failure location is the most important metallurgical factors governing the failure mode
of RSWs. For a constant sheet thickness, those spot welds having low HFZ/HFL exhibit
higher susceptibility to the interfacial failure mode. High hardness of the fusion zone
relative to the failure location encourages the failure initiation in the base metal or HAZ.
According to this model, it is needed to adjust welding parameters so that the
dilution is sufficiently high to produce a martensite structure in the FZ. For a
quantitative analysis of failure mode, the minimum FZ size to ensure pullout failure
mode during the tensile-shear test can be calculated as follows:
Failure location during tensile-shear test is where the hardness is lower.
Therefore, the failure location during tensile-shear test of SS/CS RSWs is at CS base
metal. By substituting HWN/HCS=2.7 (the value is approximately constant for all spot
welds made with IW>8kA) and tGS=1.1mm in the equation, critical weld size is
calculated to be 3.26mm. Therefore, welding parameters should be adjusted such that
spot weld with nugget size greater than 3.26 mm can be obtained. Effect of welding
current on the failure mode of SS/CS RSWs is shown in Fig.7.
v) Welding parameters should be adjusted such that the carbide precipitation in
the HAZ of stainless steel kept at the minimum value. The precipitation of Cr-carbide
depends on the peak temperature which experienced by the HAZ and the holding time
in the temperature range of chromium carbide precipitation [17]. Increasing the welding
current and welding time increases the risk of carbide formation.
vi) To achieve a sound weld (i.e. without porosity and void), a sufficient
electrode force and holding time should be used. Sufficient electrode force and holding
time guarantees the complete solidification of liquid weld nugget under proper electrode
pressure. It has been proved that longer holding times and higher electrode force help to
reduce shrinkage voids. However, excessive electrode force may reduce the weld
nugget size.
Fig.9 shows the effect of welding current on the peak load and energy absorption
of SS/CS RSWs. As can be seen increasing welding current up to 11.5kA leads to
increasing peak load and energy absorption. However, increasing welding current
142 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

beyond 11.5 kA does not affect peak load. However, welding currents beyond 11.5kA
reduce energy absorption of spot welds. According to above criteria, the following
welding parameters were selected to obtain a spot weld with good quality:
Electrode force: 4.2 kN
Welding time: 12 cycles
Welding current: 11-12 kA

Fig.9 Effect of welding current on the peak load and failure energy of SS/CS dissimilar
RSW

With the use of these welding parameters a spot weld with sufficient weld nugget
size (about 6.2-6.5 mm), without expulsion, with a limited electrode indentation,
without porosity and voids in the welds and without carbide-precipitation was obtained
( See Fig.10). Also, this specimen was failed in pullout failure mode (see Fig.10).

Fig.10 Macrostructure and fracture surface of dissimilar SS/CS RSW made at optimum
welding conditions
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 143

The mechanical strength of spot welds is determined mainly by the weld nugget
size at sheet/sheet interface. As mentioned above, the weld nugget of SS/CS RSW is
asymmetrical and the FZ size of CS side is lower than SS side. Therefore, the
mechanical strength of SS/CS RSWs is determined by CS side FZ size. Fig.11 shows
the effect of CS side FZ size on the peak load and failure energy of SS/CS RSWs. As
can be seen there is direct relations between mechanical performance (peak load and
energy absorption) and FZ size of CS side.

a b
Fig.11 Effect of FZ size of CS side on the a) peak load and b) failure energy of SS/CS
dissimilar RSW

Comparsion of mechanical properties of similar and dissimilar joints

Peak load of the RSWs depends on several factors including the physical weld
attributes (mainly FZ size and indentation depth), the failure mode and the strength of
the failure location.
Failure energy of RSWs, measured as the area under the load-displacement curve
up to the peak point, can be expressed as follows:
l max
Energy A bsorption = ∫ F dl ∝ Pmax × l max
o (2)
Where, Pmax is the peak load and lmax is the maximum displacement,
corresponding to the peak load. Maximum displacement (lmax) which represents ductility
of the spot welds depends on the ductility of the failure location. Therefore, the energy
absorption depends on the factors governing the peak load and the ductility of the
failure location.
Three sheet combinations including SS/SS, CS/CS and SS/CS were spot welded
as per welding parameters given in Table 2.

Table2. Welding schedules used to produce spot welds with set-up weld size of 5.5(t)1/2
Joint type Welding current Welding time Electrode force
CS/CS 11.5 kA 12 cycles 4.2 kN
SS/SS 10 kA 12 cycles 4.2 kN
CS/SS 11 kA 12 cycles 4.2 kN
144 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

The selected welding schedules were designed to produce a target weld size of
6mm or 5.5(t)1/2, where t is the sheet thickness, which is commonly used as maximum
weld nugget size without expulsion. To account for the differences in FZ sizes, the
values of peak load and failure energy were normalized by dividing to FZ size (D). As
can be seen in Fig.12a, peak load of SS/SS is higher than CS/CS RSWs. This is function
of its higher BM strength. However, peak load of CS/CS and SS/CS is nearly same.
This is due to the fact that the PF failure mode of SS/CS welds is initiated from CS base
metal, as indicated in Fig.10. As a direct result of this phenomenon, it can be concluded
that the pullout peak load of the SS/CS is dictated by the CS base metal tensile strength.
Despite the same peak load of SS/CS and CS/CS, the failure energy of former is higher
(see Fig.12b). This can be related to higher ductility and strain hardening coefficient of
SS which helps increasing plastic deformation during process of pullout failure. High
failure energy of SS/SS weld is a function of SS base metal higher peak load and high
ductility as well as its high strain hardening coefficient.

a b
Fig.12 Comparison of mechanical properties of similar and dissimilar combination a)
Peak load b) failure energy

Conclusions
Resistance spot welding of dissimilar AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel and AISI
1008 low carbon steel is investigated. From this study the following conclusions can be
drawn:
1-Compared to similar welds, weld nugget of dissimilar SS/CS RSWs has two
distinct features: Asymmetrical shape ( FZ size of SS side is greater than that of for CS
side due to its higher resistivity) and shifting of final solidification line from sheet/sheet
interface into the SS side. As a direct result, the mechanical performance of dissimilar
SS/CS is determined by FZ size of CS side.
2-In dissimilar RSWs of low carbon and austenitic stainless steel, microstructure
and hardness of the fusion zone which are controlled by dilution and fusion zone size of
low carbon steel side mainly govern the failure mode. By increase in welding current,
increasing fusion zone size coupled with the formation a martensitic fusion zone will
lead to transition from interfacial to pullout failure mode.
3-It was shown that generally there is a direct relation between mechanical
performance (peak load and failure energy) and FZ size of low carbon steel side.
Mansouri et al- Correlation between Macro/Micro Structure and Mechanical Properties... 145

4- The peak load of CS/CS and SS/LCS was nearly same due to the fact that the
pullout failure mode of SS/CS welds is initiated from CS base metal. However, the
failure energy of the later was greater than the former weld which is a function of higher
ductility of SS that helps increasing plastic deformation during process of pullout
failure.

Acknowledgment:
Authors would like to thank Islamic Azad University, Najafabad Branch for
providing funding for this research project.

List of abbreviations:
BM: Base Metal
CS: Carbon Steel
FZ: Fusion Zone
FZS: Fusion Zone Size
HAZ: Heat Affected Zone
IF: Interfacial Failure Mode
lmax :Maximum displacement corresponding to the peak load.
Pmax :Peak load
PF: Pullout Failure Mode
RSW: Resistance Spot Weld
SS: Stainless Steel

Refrences

[1] X. Sun, E. V. Stephens, M. A. Khaleel, Engineering Failure Analysis,15

(2008),356-367.
[2] J C Feng, Y R Wang , Z D Zhang, Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining, 11(2006), 154-
162.
[3] H. Zhang, J. Senkara, Resistance welding: fundamentals and applications, Taylor
& Francis CRC press; 2005.
[4] M. Zhou, H. Zhang and S. J. Hu: Weld. J., 82 (2003), 72s–77s.
[5] Zuniga S. M., Predicting overload pull-out failures in resistance spot welded,
Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University,1994.
[6] Goodarzi M., Marashi S.P.H., Pouranvari M, J. Mat. Process. Tech, 209 (2009),
4379-4384
[7] Pouranvari M., Asgari H. R., Mosavizadeh S. M., Marashi P. H, Goodarzi M.,
,Sci.Technol. Weld. Joining, 12(2007), 217-225.
[8] Chao Y. J., Failure mode of resistance spot welds: interfacial versus pullout, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Joining, 8 (2003),133-137.
[9] Marya M.and Gayden X.Q., Weld J., 84 (2005),197s–204s.
[10] V. H. Baltazar Hernandez, M. L.Kuntz, M. I. Khan, Y. Zhou, Sci Tech Weld
Join, 13 (2008), 769-776.
[11] M. Alenius, P. Pohjanne, M. Somervuori and H. Hanninen: Weld. J., 85 (2006),
305s–313s.
 146 MJoM Vol 16 (2) 2010 p. 133-146

[12] R. Kacar and A. Hasanbasoglu: Mater. Design, 28 (2007), 1794–1800.

[13] A. Hasanbasoglu , R. Kacar. J. Mater. Sci. Tech, 22(2006),375–381.
[14] S. Poggio, M. Ponte, C. Gambaro, J. Adamowski, Resistance spot welding of
advanced high strength steel DP600, Super High Strength Steels. Proc. 1st
International Conference, Rome 2005, 1-13.
[15] Recommended Practices for Test Methods and Evaluation the Resistance Spot
Welding Behavior of Automotive Sheet Steels, ANSI/AWS/SAE D8.9-97.
[16] A. L. Schaeffler, Metal Progress, 56(1949), 680-680B.
[17] C. Lippold , D. J. Kotecki, Welding Metallurgy and Weldability of Stainless
Steels, John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
[18] Pouranvari M., Abedi A., Marashi P., Goodarzi M., Sci. Technol. Weld. Joining,
13 (2008), 39-43.

View publication stats