Ultrasonic Spot Welding of Similar and Dissimilar Alloys for Automotive Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightweighting has been regarded as a key strategy in the automotive industry to improve fuel efficiency and reduce anthropogenic environment-damaging, climate-changing, and costly emissions. Magnesium (Mg) alloys and Aluminum (Al) alloys are progressively more used in the transportation industries to reduce the weight of vehicles due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. Similarly, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steel is widely used to reduce gauge thickness and still maintain the same strength, and thereby reduce vehicle weight as well. A multi-material design of automotive structures and parts inevitably involve similar Mg-to-Mg and dissimilar Mg-to-Al, Al-to-steel, and Mg-to-Cu joints. Ultrasonic spot welding (USW) – a solid-state joining technique has recently received significant attention due to its higher efficiency in comparison with conventional fusion welding techniques. In this study, USW was used to generate similar joints of low rare-earth containing ZEK100 Mg alloy sheets and dissimilar ZEK100-to-Al5754, Al6111-to-HSLA steel, and Mg-to-Cu joints at different levels of welding energy or welding time. To optimize welding process and identify key factors affecting the weld strength, microstructural evolution, microhardness test, tensile lap shear test, fatigue test, and fracture analysis were performed on similar and dissimilar ultrasonic spot welded (USWed) joints. Dynamic recrystallization and grain coarsening were observed during Mg-to-Mg similar welding while rapid formation and growth of interface diffusion layer were observed in all dissimilar joints in the present study. It was due to significantly high strain rate (~103 s-1) and high temperature generated via frictional heating during USW. The interface diffusion layer was analyzed by SEM, EDS and XRD phase identification techniques which showed the presence of eutectic structure containing intermetallic compounds (IMCs). As a result, brittleness at the interface increased. The Zn coating in dissimilar USWed Al-to-steel joints eliminated the formation of brittle IMCs of Al-F, which were replaced by relatively ductile AlZn eutectic. The optimum welding energy or welding time during similar and dissimilar USW of lightweight alloys with a sheet thickness of 1-2 mm was in the range of ~500 J to 2000 J (~0.25 s to 1 s).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".