Prediction of Mechanical Properties in the Sub-Critical Heat Affected Zone of AHSS Spot Welds Using Gleeble Thermal Simulator and Hollomon-Jaffe Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring the mechanical properties of weld Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) remains one of the main challenges in the failure analysis of spot-welded components. Due to the small size of the HAZ and variation in the temperature history, different peak temperatures and cooling rates impose a range of phase transformations across the resistance spot weld. Among the HAZ sub-regions, the sub-critical HAZ (SCHAZ), which experiences temperatures below AC1 (350–650 °C), usually shows a reduction in the hardness in most of the modern AHSS grades due to the martensite tempering phenomenon. SCHAZ softening may lead to strain localization during loading. Therefore, it is important to characterize the local properties of the SCHAZ region to accurately predict RSW failure. However, it is not feasible to extract standard mechanical test specimens out of the SCHAZ of the spot-welded structure due to its small size. In this work, the SCHAZ of the spot weld for two AHSS, 3G-980 and PHS-1500, was simulated using a Gleeble® (Dynamic Systems Inc., 323 NY-355, Poestenkill, NY 12140, USA) 3500 thermo-mechanical simulator. An in-situ high-speed IR thermal camera was used to measure the entire temperature field during the Gleeble heat-treatment process, which allowed for the visualization of the temperature distribution in the gauge area. The temperature and hardness data were fit to a Hollomon-Jaffe (HJ) model, which enables hardness prediction in the SCHAZ at any given temperature and time. Using the HJ model, a heat treatment schedule for each material was chosen to produce samples with hardness and microstructure matching the SCHAZ within actual spot weld coupons. Tensile specimens were machined from the coupons heat treated using simulated heat treatment schedules, and mechanical testing was performed. The results showed that the 3G-980 SCHAZ has a slight increase in yield strength and tensile strength, compared to the base metal, due to the formation of fine carbides within the microstructure. In contrast, the SCHAZ of PHS-1500 showed a significant reduction in the yield and tensile strength with yield point elongation behavior due to the reduction of the martensite phase and an increase in carbide formation due to the tempering process.
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) | 0.000 | 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".