High Cycle Fatigue Behaviour of Resistance Spot Welded Joint

NAME

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Regent Education and Research Foundation Group of Institutions
Affiliated to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology
 High Cycle Fatigue Behaviour of Resistance Spot
Welded Joint

Report Submitted to
Regent Education and Research Foundation Group of Institutions for the partial fulfillment of the
degree
of
Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering
By

NAME (ROLL)

Under the Supervision of

PROFESSOR NAME
Associate Professor

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Regent Education and Research Foundation Group of Institutions
Affiliated to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology
JUNE 2025
© 2025, All rights reserved
 REPORT APPROVAL

This project report entitled “High Cycle Fatigue Behaviour of Resistance Spot Welded Joint” by “STUDENT
NAME” and supervised by “PROFESSOR NAME” is approved for the degree of Bachelor of Technology in
Mechanical Engineering.

Examiners

Supervisor(s)

Chairman

Date:
Place:

i
 DECLARATION

We declare that this written submission represents my ideas in our own words and where others' ideas or
words have been included, we have adequately cited and referenced the original sources. We also declare
that we have adhered to all principles of academic honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or
fabricated or falsified any idea/data/fact/source in our submission. We confirm that the work has not been
submitted to any other Institute for any degree or diploma. We understand that any violation of the above
will be caused by disciplinary action by the Institute and can also evoke penal action from the sources which
have thus not been properly cited or from whom proper permission has not been taken when needed.

Date:
Signature of the Students

ii
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Report entitled, “High Cycle Fatigue Behaviour of Resistance Spot Welded
Joint” submitted by “STUDENT NAME” to Regent Education and Research Foundation Group of
Institutions (Affiliated to MAKAUT), Barrackpore, West Bengal, India, is a record of bonafide Project
work carried out by them under my supervision and guidance and is worthy of consideration for the award
of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering of the Institute.

Dr. Pritish Banerjee

Associate professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Regent Education and Research Foundation Group of Institutions
Barrackpore, West Bengal, India
June 2025

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor PRO. NAME (Associate professor at Regent Education
and Research Foundation Group of Institutions) for his guidance, academic enragement and friendly
critique. His attitude and care helped me to complete this project on time.

I would also like to thank Mr. HOD NAME (HOD, Mechanical Department at Regent Education and
Research Foundation Group of Institutions) for his advice and cooperation. Lastly, I would also like to
thank all the teachers of our department and group members for their help and contribution to complete this
project.

iv
 Content
Page no.

Report Approval i

Declaration ii

Certificate iii

Acknowledgement iv

Content v

List of Figures vi

List of Tables vii

Chapter 1 Abstract 1

Chapter 2 Introduction 2

Chapter 3 Literature review 3

3.1 Fatigue Failure Modes for Resistance Spot Welds 3

3.2 Fatigue Performance of Resistance Spot Welds 3

3.2.1 Effect of Nugget Size

3.2.2 Effects of Sheet Parameters (Geometry/Material)

3.2.3 Effects of RSW Parameters 4

3.3 Fatigue Failure Characteristics 4

Chapter 4 Experimental procedure 5

4.1 Investigated Materials

4.2 Resistance Spot Welding (RSW) 6

4.3 Conventional Clinching (CCL) 8

4.4 High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Tests 9

Chapter 5 Results and discussion 11

5.1 Failure Modes

5.2 Results of the High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Tests 12

5.3. Cost Comparison 17

v
Chapter 6 Conclusions 18

Chapter 7 Reference 19

List of Figures
Figure 1 The geometry of the resistance spot welding (RSW) electrode. 6

Figure 2. The result of welding parameter optimization in the case of the aluminum/steel joints: (a)

the thinnest IMC layer (1.1 µm average) with 16.5 kA, 220 ms, and 2.5 kN; (b) the thickest IMC

layer (2.5 µm average) with 16 kA, 400 ms, and 2.5 kN. 7

Figure 3. The shape and the geometry of the resistance-spot-welded (RSW) specimens 8

Figure 4. Characteristics of the conventional clinching technology (adapted from [73]):

(a) the mainelements of conventional clinching technology, and (b) the structure of a clinched joint. 8

Figure 5. MTS electrohydraulic materials testing system with the clinching tool and the main

elements of the tool. 9

Figure 6. The shape of the specimens and the clinching tool and their geometrical dimensions 9

Figure 7. An example of the RSW joints/investigated high-cycle fatigue specimens for all

material combinations. 10

Figure 8. An example of the CCL joints/investigated high-cycle fatigue specimens for

all the material combinations 10

Figure 9. Failure modes during high-cycle fatigue testing of the RSW specimens: (a)

pull-out failure, (b) crack initiation in the HAZ and crack growth in the base material,

(c) crack initiation in the HAZ and interfacial failure, (d) interfacial failure 11

Figure 10. Failure modes during high-cycle fatigue testing of the CCL specimens: (a) button

neck fracture, (b) button neck fracture, (c) base material fracture and button neck fracture,

(d) crack initiation in the joint and crack growth in the aluminum alloy. 12

Figure 12. Comparing our results on RSW joints with relevant results that can be found in the literature 13

Figure 11. ΔL-N curves for the investigated similar and dissimilar RSW joints including

the failure modes. 13

Figure 14. Comparison of the RSW and CCL results on similar joints. 14

Figure 13. ΔL-N curves for the investigated similar and dissimilar CCL joints including

the failure modes. 14

Figure 15. Comparison of the RSW and CCL results on dissimilar joints 15

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Chemical composition of the investigated steel, according to the quality

certificate of the manufacturer, weight %. 5

Table 2. Chemical composition of the investigated aluminum alloys, according to the quality
certificates of the manufacturers, weight %. 5

Table 3. Base mechanical properties of the investigated materials, according to the quality
certificates of the manufacturers. 6

Table 4. Welding parameters for the resistance spot welding (RSW) experiments 7

Table 5. Characteristics of the ΔL-N curves for 50% probability based on the Basquin-type

equation 15

Table 6. Numerical comparison of the endurance limit values for the RSW and CCL joints 16

Table 7 shows a comparison based on different aspects of the RSW and CCL technologies 17

vii
 1. Abstract:
Materials for lightweight vehicle structures play an increasingly important role in both economic and
environmental terms; high-strength steels and aluminum alloys are suitable for this role. Resistance spot
welding (RSW) and conventional clinching (CCL) methods can be used for joining vehicle bodies and can
also be applied for aluminum/steel hybrid joints. Whereas vehicle structures are subjected to cyclic loading,
damages can occur due to high-cycle fatigue (HCF) during long-term operation. Systematic HCF test results
are rarely found in the literature, while HCF loading basically determines the lifetime of the hybrid joints.
The base materials 5754-H22, 6082-T6, and DP600 were used for similar and hybrid RSW and CCL joints,
and HCF tests were performed. The number of cycles-to-failure values and failure modes were studied and
analyzed. Based on the experimental results, HCF design curves belonging to a 50% failure probability were
calculated for all cases, and the curves were compared. Clear relationships were found between the failure
modes and fatigue cycle numbers for both joining methods. Considering the steel/steel joints as a base, the
load-bearing capacity of the hybrid joints is lower (48.7% and 73.0% for RSW, 35.0% and 38.7% for CCL)
and it is even lower for the aluminum/aluminum joints (39.9% and 50.4% for RSW, 31.7% and 35.0% for
CCL). With one exception, the load-bearing capacity of the CCL joints is higher than that of the RSW joints
(156.1–108.3%).
Keywords:
hybrid joining; aluminum/steel joining; resistance spot welding (RSW); conventional clinching
(CCL); high-cycle fatigue (HCF); failure mode

1
 2. Introduction:
Different structures and equipment are made up of several different elements, the features (e.g.,
material quality, characteristic geometric dimensions, and surface area) of which may differ significantly.
The construction of structures or equipment is inconceivable without the interconnection (joining) of the
individual elements, and the correlation of joining technologies is achieved within the structure–material–
manufacturing technology triangle. The diversity of structures, together with the economic and
environmental demands and constraints, require continuous innovation in joining technologies [1,2,3],
regardless of the size of the structures, but at different scales and/or levels [4].
Joining technologies play an exceptionally important role in all phases of a product’s life—these phases
include the design, development, fabrication, utilization, maintenance, and repair of a product as well as its
recycling and disposal [5]. As a direct consequence, joining technologies and joining processes can be
classified in several ways. They can be classified according to the size scale (e.g., micro/macro [4,5]), the
combined materials (e.g., similar/dissimilar [6]), the main effect that creates the joint (e.g., heat/force and
associated (plastic) deformation [2,7]), the variations within a process (e.g., clinching sheet materials [8]),
and the geometry of the joint (continuous/spot), and the list is continuous.
Among the various structures, particular attention should be paid to vehicular/automotive structures,
where a distinction can be made between those made of thicker plates (e.g., the chassis) and those made of
thinner plates (e.g., the car body). Although not exclusively, plate thickness influences the joining
technologies that can be used. Focusing on welding, fusion welding technologies may be preferred for
thicker plates (e.g., trucks, heavy machinery), while solid-state welding may be preferred for thinner plates
(e.g., cars). However, there are certainly processes (e.g., laser welding) that can be used regardless of the
plate or sheet thicknesses. For thinner plates, there is a wide range of combined processes, where the
combined formulation can have multiple meanings. It can be interpreted as a combination of several
technologies (e.g., forming and welding), as a combination of different processes from one technology (e.g.,
root welding by the tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding method, the welding of additional layers by the metal
inert gas (MIG) welding method, or laser MIG (or TIG) hybrid joining), or there are many variations of
joints made with auxiliary or additional elements (e.g., rivets, screws) [9,10].
Joining technologies involving significant plastic deformation are typical for thinner plates or sheets;
one of the characteristic technologies for car bodies is clinching. It is possible to clinch steel elements [11],
steel and non-steel elements, or metallic elements [12], and both metallic and non-metallic elements [10]. As
can be seen from the list, clinching technology can be used to join materials with significantly different
physical properties (e.g., metal and fiber-reinforced plastic, or steel and aluminum alloy). In addition to the
more typical two-plate joints, three-plate joints are also used [13].

2
 3. Literature review:

3.1) Fatigue Failure Modes for Resistance Spot Welds

Resistance spot welds can fail due to many factors such as mechanical properties of the base material,
welding time, welding force, sheet thickness, weld diameter. Interfacial (IF) mode, plug failure and pull-out
failure (PF) are the three modes of spot welds failure. Crack propagation in IF mode is through FZ and it has
a very high effect on the crashworthiness of the vehicle. In the PF mode, the weld nugget delaminates from
one or more sheets and crack propagates from the base metal or heat affected zone. This depends on the
sheet material and the geometry of the weld nuggets. Both these failure modes largely affect the energy
absorption capacity and load-bearing capacity of spot welds. Due to higher energy absorption in the PF
mode, spot welds are preferably designed considering the welding parameters for PF mode . The PF mode in
fatigue is divided into three stages: first, the initiation of fatigue crack, second, crack propagation through
sheet thickness and third, crack propagation through sheet width . A detail review of the effects of material
properties, sheet thickness and nugget size on the fatigue behavior of spot welds is discussed in this paper. 3.
Fatigue Performance of Resistance Spot Welds 3.2.1 Effect of Nugget Size A study on the effect of different
nugget diameters on the fatigue life of spot welds was done by . Spot welding was performed to join two
sheets of galvanized steel and austenitic stainless steel. The welding current was varied to get three different
nugget diameters of 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm. Fatigue tests were performed on the specimens to get the S-N
curve. The tests revealed similar fatigue life for all nugget diameters showing a little higher fatigue life for
6-mm nugget diameter.

3.2) Fatigue Performance of Resistance Spot Welds

3.2.1) Effect of Nugget Size:
A study on the effect of different nugget diameters on the fatigue life of spot welds was done by . Spot
welding was performed to join two sheets of galvanized steel and austenitic stainless steel. The welding
current was varied to get three different nugget diameters of 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm. Fatigue tests were
performed on the specimens to get the S-N curve. The tests revealed similar fatigue life for all nugget
diameters showing a little higher fatigue life for 6-mm nugget diameter.

3.2.2) Effects of Sheet Parameters (Geometry/Material):

Bae and Sohn[32] discusses the effect of residual stress, thickness, width and joining the angle of sheet on
fatigue life of spot-welds. Fatigue testing was performed for the tensile mode at frequency of 25Hz and
stress ratio 0. Variation in fatigue life for different thicknesses is not much significant. However, for smaller
loads, the fatigue life increases with an increase in thickness as higher thickness will have higher bending
rigidity. Fatigue life decreases as the joint angle increases. However, the effect of sheet width on fatigue life

3
is unpredictable. To consider the effect of residual stress, goodman equation was used to describe a fatigue
life equation. It was observed that the there is a significant decrease in fatigue life considering the residual
stress at the weld nuggets. Thus, it is essential to consider the residual stress while predicting the fatigue life.

3.2.3) Effects of RSW Parameters

Kang et al. studied the fatigue performance of three sheets of dual phase 600 and mild steel welded
separately. Two shapes of electrode tip B nose and E-nose were used for welding. Fatigue tests at a
frequency of 10 Hz and stress ratio of 0.01 were performed for both the specimens. Tests were also
performed for different indentation levels. The results show that the shape of the electrode tip did not affect
the fatigue life of DP600 steel spot welds. Also, fatigue life was not significantly affected by the different
indentation levels for both the materials. Dual phase 600 material showed larger fatigue life than mild steel.
Fig. 5 shows number of cycles to failure for DP600 and mild steel. Pal predicted the fatigue behavior of
spotwelds used to join sheets of martensitic steels. The welding conditions were varied by changing the
welding current, weld time and weld force. Thus, for every specimen, the nugget diameters obtained were
different. All the specimens showed similar fatigue characteristics at lower loads, but showed significant
variation at higher loads. At the higher loads, interfacial fracture is observed, which propagates through the
weld metal. However, the crack fails to propagate through the weld for lower loads. At the lower loads, plug
and hole fracture mode is observed. There is transition in fracture mode at 50% loading of the yield stress.

3.3) Fatigue Failure Characteristics

There is a lot of research where results on fatigue life of spot welds is studied. However, study on the
fatigue crack initiation and propagation is very difficult as fatigue cracks occur at a very critical area of spot
weld at the sheet interface. This area undergoes several microstructural changes and hence it is very difficult
to understand the fatigue mechanism from the point of fracture mechanics. Also, fatigue cracks are not
easily visible unless the specimen fails through the thickness. As direct observation was not possible,
scientist used instruments to study the crack nucleation and propagation after fatigue loading on spot welds .

4
 4. Experimental procedure:
4.1. Investigated Materials
DP600 (SSAB EMEA AB, Borlange, Sweden) steel was chosen as the steel part, and 6082-T6 and
5754-H22 alloys (both from Comhan Aluminium GMBH, Hagen, (NRW), Germany) were chosen as the
aluminum part; these materials are frequently used for automotive applications. The DP600 steel has
relatively low strength compared to other dual phase (DP) steels and contains hard martensite islands
embedded in a ferrite matrix with a dispersed distribution. The 6082-T6 aluminum alloy is heat-treatable and
has a higher strength and lower formability. The material contains mainly Si and Mg alloying elements,
causing ageing. Furthermore, it is more sensitive for welding, especially for softening in the heat affected
zone (HAZ), and hot cracking can easily occur too. The 5754-H22 aluminum alloy has good formability and
appropriate associated strength properties. Its main alloying element is Mg, and its strength can be increased
by forming, and then softened to a quarter of the hardness. The weldability of the alloy is favorable
compared to other aluminum alloys.

For the investigations, both similar (namely, steel/steel and aluminum alloy/aluminum alloy) and
hybrid (such as aluminum alloy/steel) RSW and CCL joints were produced. For a better comparison, the
base materials have a 1 mm thickness. Table 1 and Table 2 show the chemical composition of the steel and
aluminum base materials, respectively, and Table 3 summarizes their essential mechanical properties (yield
strength (Rp0.2), tensile strength (Rm), and elongation (A50)). The data in all three tables are taken from
quality certificates from the base material manufacturers.

Table 1. Chemical composition of the investigated steel, according to the quality certificate of the
manufacturer, weight %.

Table 2. Chemical composition of the investigated aluminum alloys, according to the quality
certificates of the manufacturers, weight %.

5
 Table 3. Base mechanical properties of the investigated materials, according to the quality certificates
of the manufacturers.

4.2. Resistance Spot Welding (RSW)

A TECNA 8007-type resistance spot welding machine (TECNA S. p. A., Bologna, Italy) was used with
a TE550 control module to form the RSW joints. The machine operates with AC, and the frequency of the
transformer was 50 Hz. A pneumatic system was used to ensure the welding force. The process was
controlled for a constant current, meaning that the welding current remained the same throughout the
process, while the voltage varied. The same welding electrode was applied for all material combinations; the
electrode material was CuCrZr (AVIVA Metals, La Seyne sur Mer, France) (RWMA (Resistance Welding
Manufacturing Alliance), class 2, where Cr = 0.5–1.5%, Zr = 0.02–0.2%, Cu = balance), and
furthermore, Figure 1 shows the electrode geometry (adapted from [68]).

Figure 1. The geometry of the resistance spot welding (RSW) electrode.

6
 The electrode pin diameter was 5 mm (which is recommended for 1 mm thick base materials), but it
was not flat, a radius of R = 50 mm was applied. There was no difference between the upper and lower
electrodes. Different welding parameters were used for the different base material combinations; the
parameter optimization was based on previous experiments [69,70,71] and possible practice (e.g., [72]). The
optimization was aimed at achieving the maximum tensile-shear force by varying the welding current and
the welding time. Table 4 shows the selected welding parameters for all material combinations.

Table 4. Welding parameters for the resistance spot welding (RSW) experiments.

The DP600/DP600 base material combination was welded with the lowest welding current and the longest
welding time (compared with the others). The aluminum/aluminum RSW joints required the highest welding
current and the shortest welding time. In the case of the aluminum/steel RSW joints, almost twice the
welding current was applied compared with the steel/steel combination, but the welding time was shorter,
because these parameters resulted in a thin intermetallic compound (IMC) layer with good tensile-shear
strength. The reason for the large difference in parameters comes from the significant differences in the
electrical resistance and thermal conductivity of the steel and the aluminum alloy. Based on our own
investigations, Figure 2 shows the differences in the IMC layers in the case of the aluminum/steel RSW
joints, illustrated by an optical microscope.

Figure 2. The result of welding parameter optimization in the case of the aluminum/steel joints: (a) the
thinnest IMC layer (1.1 µm average) with 16.5 kA, 220 ms, and 2.5 kN; (b) the thickest IMC layer (2.5 µm
average) with 16 kA, 400 ms, and 2.5 kN.

7
The shape and the geometrical dimensions of the RSW specimens can be seen in Figure 3 (adapted from
[68]).

Figure 3. The shape and the geometry of the resistance-spot-welded (RSW) specimens.

4.3. Conventional Clinching (CCL)

The clinching method is one of the most versatile mechanical joining methods, connecting two or more
sheets through a one-step process of local plastic deformation. The main elements of the technology are the
die (body and insert), the punch, and the blank holder, as shown in Figure 4a. During the conventional
clinching process, the sheets are placed on the die and the blank holder moves down, pushing them. After
that, the punch is moved downwards to stamp the sheets. The materials can flow in a downward direction,
fill the gaps on the die, and form a mechanical interlock between the sheets. The geometrical parameters,
such as the neck thickness (tN), the bottom thickness (tB), and the undercut (tC), are the most significant
parameters affecting the strength of the clinched joints (see Figure 4b).

Figure 4. Characteristics of the conventional clinching technology (adapted from [73]): (a) the main
elements of conventional clinching technology, and (b) the structure of a clinched joint.

8
 The clinched joints were made on an MTS electrohydraulic, computer-controlled, universal materials
testing system (MTS Systems, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) with a 250 kN maximum compressive loading
capacity. The equipment, together with a TOX tool (TOX® PRESSOTECHNIK GmbH & [Link],
Weingarten, Germany) mounted on the load frame, is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. MTS electrohydraulic materials testing system with the clinching tool and the main elements of
the tool.

The shapes of the specimens and the tool, along with the geometrical dimensions, can be seen in Figure 6.
The bottom thickness (see Figure 4b) of the investigated clinched joints was tB = 0.5 mm. The aim of the
selection of the (optimal) bottom thickness was to achieve the maximum tensile-shear force, taking into
account the favorable clinching force [73,74].

Figure 6. The shape of the specimens and the clinching tool and their geometrical dimensions.

4.4. High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Tests

The shape and the geometry as well as the major dimensions of the test specimens of all the base
material combinations for the RSW and CCL joints can be seen in Figure 3 and Figure 6, respectively. The
two parts of the specimens were cut from 1000 mm × 2000 mm sheets into 100 mm × 30 mm strips with
laser cutting. For the RSW specimens an overlap of 30 mm was used and for the CCL specimens an overlap
of 35 mm. The investigated joints of both technologies can be found at the geometrical center of the
overlapped area. Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the RSW and CCL joints, respectively, for all of the material
combinations.

9
Figure 7. An example of the RSW joints/investigated high-cycle fatigue specimens for all material
combinations.

Figure 8. An example of the CCL joints/investigated high-cycle fatigue specimens for all the material
combinations.

The HCF tests were executed based on the instructions of the relevant standard [75]. The tests were
performed using MTS electrohydraulic, universal materials testing equipment with an MTS FlexTest 40
controller (MTS Systems, Eden Prairie, MN, USA). The 5 mm overlapping difference has no effect on the
feasibility of the investigations and the comparability of the test results.
A sinusoidal loading wave form was applied, and during the entire test phase the load ratio (in our case
Fmin/Fmax) was R = 0.1, with a frequency of f = 30 Hz. Several load levels were selected and used during
testing of the RSW and CCL joints. Considering that the investigations were evaluated according to [76,77],
the load range levels were chosen as described in these sources. All tests were performed at room
temperature and in a laboratory environment (controlled air and humidity). Compliance with the testing
conditions detailed above ensured that they did not significantly affect the reliability of the results.

10
 5. Results and discussion

5.1. Failure Modes

After performing the high-cycle fatigue tests, the mode of failure was determined by visual inspection
(VT) of each specimen, for both technologies, one by one.

For the RSW technology, among the variations presented for static and cyclic failures ([46,78,79] and
[79,80,81], respectively), the following were relevant in our case: pull-out failure; crack initiation in the
HAZ and crack growth in the base material; crack initiation in the HAZ and interfacial failure; and
interfacial failure. Figure 9 shows an example for each case, for all of the material combinations.

Figure 9. Failure modes during high-cycle fatigue testing of the RSW specimens: (a) pull-out failure, (b)
crack initiation in the HAZ and crack growth in the base material, (c) crack initiation in the HAZ and
interfacial failure, (d) interfacial failure.

11
For the CCL technology, among the variations presented for static and cyclic failures [82,83,84,85] and [86],
respectively), the following were relevant in our case: button neck fracture; base material fracture; base
material fracture and button neck fracture; and crack initiation in the joint as well as crack growth in the
aluminum alloy. Figure 10 shows an example for each case, for all of the material combinations.

Figure 10. Failure modes during high-cycle fatigue testing of the CCL specimens: (a) button neck fracture,
(b) button neck fracture, (c) base material fracture and button neck fracture, (d) crack initiation in the joint
and crack growth in the aluminum alloy.

5.2. Results of the High-Cycle Fatigue (HCF) Tests

The number-of-cycles-to-failure values were registered at the end of the high-cycle fatigue tests. The
results were illustrated by the diagrams plotting load range (ΔL) against the number of cycles to failure (N),
applying a logarithmic scale for the number of cycles in the ΔL-N curves.

Straight lines are fitted to the measured ΔL-N points. The straight lines were determined by applying
the least squares method (in the lifetime stage) and calculating the mean values (in the endurance limit stage,
ΔLel); therefore, these lines are associated with a 50% probability of failure.

12
 Figure 11 shows the ΔL-N curves for the similar and hybrid RSW joints, including the failure modes.
The figure clearly demonstrates that the most common failure modes across the entire range were “crack
initiation in the HAZ and crack growth in the base material” and “crack initiation in the HAZ and interfacial
failure” (Figure 9b,c); the mode “pull-out failure” (Figure 9a) occurred at higher loads and lower cycles,
and the mode “interfacial failure” (Figure 9d) occurred at lower loads and higher cycles.

Figure 11. ΔL-N curves for the investigated similar and dissimilar RSW joints including the failure modes.

Figure 12 presents the HCF test results of all the RSW joint combinations, compared with data from the
literature from two sources [36,87]. The HCF resistance of the DP600/5754-H22 hybrid joints is
significantly better than that of the DP600/6082-T6 hybrid joints, and, furthermore, they are competitive
with the results found in the literature. According to data found in the literature [36], the endurance limit is
close to that of IF/6022-T4 hybrid and 6022-T4/6022-T4 similar joints, and demonstrates a slight difference
compared to our result (DP600/6082-T6, 5754-H22/5754-H22). It should be noted that in source [36] the
fatigue limit values were not determined; furthermore, wider and thicker specimens were used. For the
DP590/DP590 material combination [36], there were few measuring points, no fatigue limit value was
specified, and the tests were carried out on wider and thicker specimens. From this point of view, the
difference between the data measured on the DP600 and DP590 materials can be evaluated as large

Figure 12. Comparing our results on RSW joints with relevant results that can be found in the literature.

13
Figure 13 shows the ΔL-N curves of similar and hybrid CCL joint combinations, including the failure
modes. The figure clearly illustrates that different failure modes occurred for the similar DP600/DP600 and
the dissimilar joints, with the typical modes “base material fracture” (Figure 10b) and “button neck
fracture” (Figure 10a) occurring for higher loads and lower cycles, and the mode “base material fracture and
button neck fracture” (Figure 10c) occurring at lower loads and higher cycles. For the dissimilar joints, all
specimens failed in the mode “initiation in the joint and crack growth in the aluminum alloy” (Figure 10d)

Figure 13. ΔL-N curves for the investigated similar and dissimilar CCL joints including the failure modes.

Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the ΔL-N curves associated with a 50% probability of failure for the similar
and dissimilar material combinations. The trend from the figures is that the load-carrying capacity of the
conventionally clinched (CCL) joints exceeds that of the resistance-spot-welded (RSW) joints

Figure 14. Comparison of the RSW and CCL results on similar joints.

14
 Figure 15. Comparison of the RSW and CCL results on dissimilar joints.

Table 5. summarizes the characteristics of the ΔL-N curves for 50% probability for both joint methods
and all material combinations, using the Basquin-type [88] equation in the lifetime section, as follows:
ΔL = A × ln(N) + B ......................................................... (1)

Table 5. Characteristics of the ΔL-N curves for 50% probability based on the Basquin-type equation

among the RSW and the CCL similar joints, the DP600/DP600 combination had the best result, with
endurance limit values of 1282.5 N and 2007 N, respectively. Furthermore, the 6082-T6/6082-T6 and the
6082-T4/6082-T4 combinations resulted in the worst values, of 513 N and 636.75 N, respectively. In all
cases, results for the dissimilar joints were better than the corresponding results for the similar aluminum
joints. The data found in the literature are in accordance with our test results, with the DP600/5754-H22
joints showing a better high-cycle fatigue limit than the DP500/5754-H22 joints [31], where the

15
DP500/5754-H22 joints were performed using an REW process on thicker steel plates with the application
of a steel rivet on the aluminum side.

Two ratios have been defined for the numerical comparison of the endurance limit values of joints, one
within and one between the joining technologies, as follows:
ΔLel ratio(1) = (ΔLel,i/ΔLel,DP600/DP600) × 100…......................................... (2)
and
ΔLel ratio(2) = (ΔLel CCL,i/ΔLel RSW,i) × 100… ........................................... (3)
where “i” represents the material combinations. The calculated values of the two ratios are given in Table 6.

Table 6. Numerical comparison of the endurance limit values for the RSW and CCL joints.

Considering the steel/steel joints as a base, the load-bearing capacity of the hybrid joints is lower
(48.7% and 73.0% for RSW, 35.0% and 38.7% for CCL) and even lower for aluminum/aluminum joints
(39.9% and 50.4% for RSW, 31.7% and 35.0% for CCL). The results of our tests are in harmony with the
literature data (DP500/5754-H22). With one exception (DP600/5754-H22), the load-bearing capacity of the
CCL joints is higher than that of the RSW joints (156.1–108.3%).

16
5.3. Cost Comparison
Besides the HCF resistance, an overview of the aspects affecting costs can help find the applicable
process for joining. Table 7 shows a comparison based on different aspects of the RSW and CCL
technologies. The comparisons presented in the table are qualitative and relate only to the two technologies;
the qualifying indicators need to be interpreted in relation to the two technologies. Quantitative comparisons
require knowledge of global and local data (e.g., product characteristics, energy, wages, and overheads) that
are beyond the scope and purpose of this article.

In addition to the aspects presented in Table 7, other criteria may also be important. The loading of joints
and the quality requirements basically determine the applicable process. If the joint properties of clinched
joints meet the quality requirements, CCL can be cheaper than RSW.

17
 6. Conclusions:
Based on the investigations performed and evaluated, and with further regard to their results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• The investigated joining technologies issued comparable high-cycle fatigue (HCF) test results for the
similar and hybrid resistance-spot-welded (RSW) and conventionally clinched (CCL) joints made from
DP600, 5754-H22, and 6082-T6 base materials, both within and between the two technologies.
• For both the joining technologies used, the typical failure modes could be identified in the high-cycle
fatigue investigations. In the case of RSW, the most common failure modes across the entire range were
“crack initiation in the HAZ and crack growth in the base material” and “crack initiation in the HAZ and
interfacial failure”; furthermore, the mode “pull-out failure” occurred at higher loads and lower cycles, and
the mode “interfacial failure” occurred at lower loads and higher cycles. In the case of CCL, different failure
modes occurred for the similar DP600/DP600 and the dissimilar joints, with the typical modes “base
material fracture” and “button neck fracture” occurring at higher loads and lower cycles, and the mode “base
material fracture and button neck fracture” occurring at lower loads and higher cycles. For the dissimilar
joints, all specimens failed in the mode “initiation in the joint and crack growth in the aluminum alloy”.
• Based on a Basquin-type equation, applying the least squares method in the lifetime stage and further
calculating the mean values in the endurance limit stage, high-cycle fatigue limit curves (ΔL-N) can be
determined corresponding to a 50% probability of failure. In the case of both the similar and the hybrid
joints, the fatigue limit curves demonstrated that the load-bearing capacity of the CCL joints exceeds that of
the RSW joints. Compared to the steel/steel joints, the load-bearing capacity of the hybrid joints is lower
(48.7% and 73.0% for RSW, 35.0% and 38.7% for CCL), and it is even lower for the aluminum/aluminum
joints (39.9% and 50.4% for RSW, 31.7% and 35.0% for CCL). The load-bearing capacity of the CCL joints
is higher than that of the RSW joints (DP600/DP600: 156.1%, 6082-T4/6082-T4: 124.1%, 5754-H22/5754-
H22: 108.3%, and DP600/6082-T4: 112.2%) except for in the case of one joint (DP600/5754-H22: 82.7%).
• Since there is a difference between the two technologies in terms of the load-bearing capacity of the
joints under high-cycle fatigue loading conditions, their application can be chosen depending on the real
loading of a specified structural element.
• The investigations that have been started should be systematically continued. In order to compare the
behavior of hybrid joints, further investigations are needed: joints made with other technologies (e.g.,
friction stir welding) should be performed; a fatigue crack growth (FCG) test should be prepared, executed,
and evaluated on similar and hybrid joints made using different joining technologies; and the two different
technologies, as well as the HCF and FCG behaviors, should be compared to specify the optimal conditions
and areas for application. Where it is possible, fracture mechanical tests and assessment methods should be
prioritized.

18
 7. References:
1. Meschut, G.; Hahn, O.; Janzen, V.; Olferman, T. Innovative joining technologies for multi-material
structures. Weld World 2014, 58, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Buffa, G.; Fratini, L.; La Commare, U.; Römisch, D.; Wiesenmayer, S.; Wituschek, S.; Merklein, M. Joining
by forming technologies: Current solutions and future trends. Int. J. Mater. Form. 2022, 15, 27. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Merklein, M.; Jäckisch, M.; Kuball, C.M.; Römisch, D.; Wiesenmayer, S.; Wituschek, S. Mechanical
joining of high-strength multi-material systems—Trends and innovations. Mech. Ind. 2023, 24, 16. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Hu, A.; Janczak-Rusch, J.; Sano, T. Joining Technology Innovations at the Macro, Micro, and Nano
Levels. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Böllinghaus, T.; Byrne, G.; Cherpakov, B.I.; Chlebus, E.; Cross, C.E.; Denkena, B.; Dilthey, U.; Hatsuzawa,
T.; Herfurth, K.; Herold, H.; et al. Manufacturing Engineering. In Springer Handbook of Mechanical
Engineering, 1st ed.; Grote, K.-H., Antonsson, E.K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 523–785.
[Google Scholar]
6. Martinsen, K.; Hu, S.J.; Carlson, B.E. Joining of dissimilar materials. CIRP Ann. 2015, 64, 679–699.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Meschut, G.; Merklein, M.; Brosius, A.; Drummer, D.; Fratini, L.; Füssel, U.; Gude, M.; Homberg, W.;
Martins, P.A.F.; Bobbert, M.; et al. Review on mechanical joining by plastic deformation. J. Adv. Join.
Process 2022, 5, 100113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. He, X. Clinching for sheet materials. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2017, 18, 381–405. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
9. Gullino, A.; Matteis, P.; D’Aiuto, F. Review of aluminum-to-steel welding technologies for car-body
applications. Metals 2019, 9, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. EAA Aluminium Automotive Manual—Joining. 11. Joining Dissimilar Materials. European Aluminium
Association. 2015. Available online: [Link]
joining-dissimilar-materials_2015.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
11. Spisák, E.; Kascák, L. Joining car body steel sheets using the clinching method. Acta Mech.
Slovaca 2011, 15, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Mucha, J. Clinching technology in the automotive industry. Arch. Automot. Eng. 2017, 76, 75–94. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Kascák, L.; Spisák, E.; Majerníková, J. Joining three car body steel sheets by clinching method. Open
Eng. 2016, 6, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Yang, Y.; Luo, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Su, J. Dissimilar welding of aluminium to steel: A review. J. Manuf.
Process 2024, 110, 376–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Mehta, K.P. A review on friction-based joining of dissimilar aluminium-steel joints. J. Mater. Res. 2019, 34,
78–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Zvorykina, A.; Sherepenko, O.; Jüttner, S. Novel projection welding technology for joining of steel-
aluminum hybrid components–part 1: Technology and its potential for industrial use. Weld World 2020, 64,
317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, C.; Li, H.; Liu, Q.; Huang, C.; Zhou, K. Ultrasonic welding of aluminum to steel: A
review. Metals 2023, 13, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Haddadi, F. Microstructure reaction control of dissimilar automotive aluminium to galvanized steel sheets
ultrasonic spot welding. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2016, 678, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Zhao, D.; Ren, D.; Zhao, K.; Pan, S.; Guo, X. Effect of welding parameters on tensile strength of ultrasonic
spot welded joints of aluminum to steel—By experimentation and artificial neural network. J. Manuf.
Process. 2017, 30, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Patel, V.K.; Bhole, S.D.; Chen, D.L. Ultrasonic spot welding of aluminum to high-strength low-alloy steel:
Microstructure, tensile and fatigue properties. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 2014, 45, 2055–2066. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Sizhe, N.; Ming, L.; Yunwu, M.; Yongbing, L. Study on the microstructure and mechanical performance for
integrated resistance element welded aluminum alloy/press hardened steel joints. Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 2021, 800, 140329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

19
22. Sizhe, N.; Ming, L.; Zixuan, C.; Zelong, W.; Yunwu, M.; Shanqing, H.; Haiyang, L.; Yongbing, L.
Resistance rivet welding of multilayer dissimilar materials. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2023, 27, 6424–6437.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Guotao, Z.; Hang, Z.; Xianghe, X.; Guohua, Q.; Yongbing, L.; Zhongqin, L. Metallic bump assisted
resistance spot welding (MBaRSW) of AA6061-T6 and Bare DP590: Part II-joining mechanism and joint
property. J. Manuf. Process. 2019, 44, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Farid, H.; Fadi, A.F. Microstructural and mechanical performance of aluminium to steel high power
ultrasonic spot welding. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2015, 225, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Ying, L.; Ellis, M.; Hyeyun, S.; Menachem, K.; Wei, Z. Dissimilar metal joining of aluminum to steel by
ultrasonic plus resistance spot welding—Microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater. Des. 2019, 165,
107585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Baskoro, A.S.; Muzakki, H.; Kiswanto, G.; Winarto, W. Effect of interlayer in dissimilar metal of stainless
steel SS 301 and aluminum alloy AA 1100 using micro resistance spot welding. AIP Conf.
Proc. 2018, 1983, 040014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Shan, S.; Shujun, C.; Yu, M.; Jun, X.; Anupam, V.; Glenn, D. Joining Aluminium Alloy 5A06 to Stainless
Steel 321 by Vaporizing Foil Actuators Welding with an Interlayer. Metals 2019, 9, 43. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
28. Spisák, E.; Kascák, L. Mechanical Joining of Steel Sheets in Automotive Industry. Acta Mech.
Slovaca 2014, 18, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Ranfeng, Q.; Chihiro, I.; Shinobu, S. Interfacial microstructure and strength of steel/aluminum alloy joints
welded by resistance spot welding with cover plate. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 4186–4193.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Jianbin, C.; Xinjian, Y.; Zhan, H.; Ting, L.; Kanglong, W.; Ci, L. Improvement of resistance-spot-welded
joints for DP 600 steel and A5052 aluminum alloy with Zn slice interlayer. J. Manuf. Process. 2017, 30,
396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Aleksija, Ð.; Dragan, M.; Zijah, B.; Damjan, K.; Miodrag, M.; Biljana, M.; Vladislav, K. Microstructure and
Fatigue Properties of Resistance Element Welded Joints of DP500 Steel and AW 5754 H22 Aluminum
Alloy. Crystals 2022, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Sun, X.; Stephens, E.V.; Khaleel, M.A.; Shao, H.; Kimchi, M. Resistance Spot Welding of Aluminum Alloy
to Steel with Transition Material From Process to Performance Part I: Experimental Study. Weld. J. 2004, 2,
188–195. [Google Scholar]
33. Weihua, Z.; Daqian, S.; Lijun, H.; Yongqiang, L. Optimised design of electrode morphology for novel
dissimilar resistance spot welding of aluminium alloy and galvanised high strength steel. Mater.
Des. 2015, 85, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Weihua, Z.; Daqian, S.; Lijun, H.; Dongyang, L. Interfacial microstructure and mechanical property of
resistance spot welded joint of high strength steel and aluminium alloy with 4047 AlSi12 interlayer. Mater.
Des. 2013, 57, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Rendong, L.; Yanjun, W.; Shuangjian, C.; Dong, L.; Xing, X.; Shanglu, Y. Improving the performance of
steel aluminum resistance spot welding joints based on steel coating design. Mater. Lett. 2023, 353, 135291.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Jidong, K.; Harish, M.R.; David, R.S.; Blair, E.C. Tensile and Fatigue Behaviour of AA6022-T4 to IF Steel
Resistance Spot Weld. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2017, 5, 1425–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Harish, M.R.; Jidong, K.; Liting, S.; David, R.S.; Blair, E.C. Effect of specimen configuration on fatigue
properties of dissimilar aluminum to steel resistance spot welds. Int. J. Fatigue 2018, 116, 13–21. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Nannan, C.; Hui-Ping, W.; Blair, E.C.; David, R.S.; Min, W. Fracture mechanisms of Al/steel resistance
spot welds in lap shear test. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2017, 243, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Zixuan, W.; Hui-Ping, W.; Nannan, C.; Min, W.; Blair, E.C. Characterization of intermetallic compound at
the interfaces of Al-steel resistance spot welds. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2017, 242, 12–23. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Liting, S.; Jidong, K.; Mark, G.; Xu, C.; Amberlee, S.H.; Blair, E.C. Fatigue life assessment of Al-steel
resistance spot welds using the maximum principal strain approach considering material inhomogeneity. Int.
J. Fatigue 2020, 140, 105851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

20
41. Liting, S.; Jia, X.; Jidong, K.; Amberlee, S.H.; Hassan, G.-A.; Blair, E.C. Fatigue behavior of three-sheet
aluminum-steel dissimilar resistance spot welds for automotive applications. Procedia Struct.
Integr. 2023, 51, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Al-Filfily, A.A.; Al-Adili, A.S.; Sar, M.H. Strength of resistance spot welding of aluminum alloy AA6061 to
carbon steel using different filler materials. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 881, 012067. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Daqian, S.; Yueying, Z.; Yanjun, L.; Xiaoyan, G.; Hongmei, L. Microstructures and mechanical properties
of resistance spot welded joints of 16Mn steel and 6063-T6 aluminum alloy with different electrodes. Mater.
Des. 2016, 109, 596–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Seungmin, S.; Dae-Jin, P.; Jiyoung, Y.; Sehun, R. Resistance Spot Welding of Aluminum Alloy and Carbon
Steel with Spooling Process Tapes. Metals 2019, 9, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Baskoro, A.S.; Muzakki, H.; Kiswanto, G. Mechanical Properties and Microstructures on Dissimilar Metal
Joints of Stainless Steel 301 and Aluminum Alloy 1100 by Micro-Resistance Spot Welding. Trans. Indian
Inst. Met. 2019, 72, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Karim, M.A.; Manladan, S.M.; Afroz, H.M.M.; Jin, W.; Krishna, T.; Ji, C.; Kim, D.B.; Park, Y.-D. Critical
effect of heat input on joint quality in resistance element welding of Al and steel. J. Manuf.
Process. 2023, 95, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Günter, H.; Meschut, G. Joining of ultra-high-strength steels using resistance element welding on
conventional resistance spot welding guns. Weld World 2021, 65, 1899–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Mirza, F.A.; Macwan, A.; Bhole, S.D.; Chen, D.L.; Chen, X.G. Effect of welding energy on microstructure
and strength of ultrasonic spot welded dissimilar joints of aluminum to steel sheets. Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 2016, 668, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
49. Dash, S.S.; Biswas, S.; Peng, H.; Jiang, X.Q.; Li, D.Y.; Chen, D.L. Deformation behavior of dissimilar
ultrasonic spot-welded joints of a clad 7075 aluminum alloy to galvanized highstrength low-alloy
steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2024, 894, 146179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Kapil, A.; Vivek, A.; Daehn, G. Dissimilar impact spot welding of high-thickness aluminum-steel sheets
using vaporizing foil actuators. Manuf. Lett. 2024, 41, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Chu, M.; He, X.; Zhang, J.; Lei, L. Clinching of similar and dissimilar sheet materials of galvanized steel,
aluminium alloy and titanium alloy. Mater Trans. 2018, 59, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Mozetic, H.; da Rocha, R.P.; Riffel, M.H.; Schaeffer, L. Application of the process of joining sheet by
mechanical cold forming (clinching) using dissimilar materials. Obs. De La Econ. Latinoam. 2023, 21,
27717–27734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Ismail, M.; Buang, A. Precision joining of steel-aluminum hybrid structure by clinching process. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2018, 12, 25–36. Available
online: [Link] (accessed on 10 October 2024).
54. Lee, C.J.; Kim, J.Y.; Lee, S.K.; Ko, D.C.; Kim, D.M. Parametric study on mechanical clinching process for
joining aluminum alloy and high-strength steel sheets. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2010, 24, 123–126. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Tenorio, M.B.; Lajarin, S.F.; Gipiela, M.L.; Marcondes, P.V.P. The influence of tool geometry and process
parameters on joined sheets by clinching. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2019, 41, 67. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
56. Ge, Y.; Xia, Y. Dynamic behavior of self-piercing riveted and mechanical clinched joints of dissimilar
materials: An experimental comparative investigation. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6463576. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Jiang, T.; Liu, Z.X.; Wang, P.C. Quality inspection of clinched joints of steel and aluminum. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2015, 76, 1393–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Ewenz, L.; Kuczyk, M.; Zimmermann, M. Approach to transferring force-based fatigue curves into stress-
related fatigue curves for clinch joints. Mater. Res. Proc. 2023, 25, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Harzheim, S.; Ewenz, L.; Zimmermann, M.; Wallmersperger, T. Corrosion phenomena and fatigue behavior
of clinched joints: Numerical and experimental investigations. J. Adv. Join. Process 2022, 6, 100130.
[Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Yang, C.; Yao, J.; Niu, Y.; Wang, R.; Kang, J. Fatigue life analysis of steel-aluminium non-rivet
connection. J. Plast. Eng. 2021, 28, 154–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

21
61. Kamble, P.; Mahale, R. Simulation and parametric study of clinched joint. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3,
2730–2734. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 10
October 2024).
62. Hörhold, R.; Müller, M.; Merklein, M.; Meschut, G. Mechanical properties of an innovative shear-clinching
technology for ultra-high-strength steel and aluminium in lightweight car body structures. Weld
World 2016, 60, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Gao, X.; Chen, C. Transformation of the failure state for the clinched joints of dissimilar materials using an
auxiliary layer. Eng. Fail Anal. 2023, 146, 107106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
64. Ma, Y.; Akita, R.; Abe, Y.; Geng, P.; Luo, P.; Tsutsumi, S.; Ma, N. Mechanical performance evaluation of
multi-point clinch-adhesive joints of aluminum alloy A5052-H34 and high-strength steel JSC780. Automot.
Innov. 2023, 6, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
65. Zhang, Y.; Wang, C.; Shan, H.; Li, Y.; Luo, Z. High-toughness joining of aluminum alloy 5754 and DQSK
steel using hybrid clinching-welding process. J. Mater. Process Technol. 2018, 259, 33–44. [Google
Scholar] [CrossRef]
66. Gao, L.H.; Kang, G.S.; Lee, C.J.; Kim, B.M.; Ko, D.C. Application of Friction Stir Hole Clinching to
Joining of Dissimilar Materials. International Symposium on Green Manufacturing and Applications, 2017,
PP152. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 10
October 2024).
67. Barimani-Varandi, A.; Aghchai, A.J. Electrically-assisted mechanical clinching of AA6061-T6 aluminum to
galvanized DP590 steel: Effect of geometrical features on material flow and mechanical strength. Mech.
Ind. 2020, 21, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
68. Meilinger, Á.; Cserépi, M.F.; Lukács, J. Behaviour of aluminium/steel hybrid RSW joints under high cycle
fatigue loading. Weld World 2024, 68, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Gáspár, M.; Tervo, H.; Kaijalainen, A.; Dobosy, Á.; Török, I. The Effect of Solution Annealing and Ageing
During the RSW of 6082 Aluminium Alloy. In Vehicle and Automotive Engineering 2. VAE 2018; Lecture
Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Jármai, K., Bolló, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 694–
708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
70. Meilinger, Á.; Prém, L.; Abd Al Al, S.; Gáspár, M. Comparion of RSW technologies on DP steels with
modified instrumented Charpy impact test. Weld World 2023, 67, 1911–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
71. Alden, A.A.A.S.; Gáspár, M.; Meilinger, Á. Properties of hybrid aluminium-steel joints made by resistance
spot welding. Defect Diffus. Forum 2022, 416, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Abd, A.A.S.A.; Meilinger, Á.; Gáspár, M.; Lukács, J. High Cycle Fatigue Testing of Lap Shear RSW Joints
from Martensitic MS1400 Steel Sheets. Mater. Sci. Forum 2023, 1095, 139–151. [Google Scholar]
[CrossRef]
73. Kovács, P.Z.; Lukács, J. Mechanical Investigations of EN AW 5754 Aluminium Alloy Clinched Joints.
In Research Results at the Institute of Materials Science and Technology, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc—Yearbook 2022, 1st ed.; Koncsik, Z., Lukács, J., Eds.;
University of Miskolc: Miskolc, Hungary, 2022; pp. 17–24. [Google Scholar]
74. Kovács, P.Z.; Tisza, M. Investigation and finite element modelling of technological parameters of clinched
joints. Anyagmérnöki Tudományok 2016, 39/1, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
75. ISO 14324; Resistance Spot Welding—Destructive Tests of Welds—Method for the Fatigue Testing of Spot
Welded Joints. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
76. JSME S 002; Standard Method of Statistical Fatigue Testing. The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers:
Tokyo, Japan, 1981.
77. Nakazawa, H.; Kodama, S. Statistical S-N Testing Method with 14 Specimens: JSME Standard Method for
Determination of S-N Curves. In Statistical Research on Fatigue and Fracture. Current Japanese Materials
Research, 1st ed.; Tanaka, T., Nishijima, S., Ichikawa, M., Eds.; Elsevier Applied Sciences: Essex, UK; The
Society of Materials Science, Japan: Kyoto, Japan, 1987; Volume 2, pp. 59–69. [Google Scholar]
78. Qian, C.; Ghassemi-Armaki, H.; Shi, L.; Kang, J.; Haselhuhn, A.S.; Carlson, B.E. Competing fracture
modes in Al-steel resistance spot welded structures: Experimental evaluation and numerical prediction. Int.
J. Impact. Eng. 2024, 185, 104838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
79. Aydin, K.; Hıdıroğlu, M.; Kahraman, N. Enhancing weld strength in high-strength steels: The role of
regional preheating in RSW. Mater Test. 2024, 66, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

22
80. Khaleel, H.H.; Mahmood, I.A.; Khoshnaw, F. Fatigue and impact properties of single and double resistance
spot welding for high-strength steel used in automotive applications. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2023, 45,
155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
81. Yagita, R.; Abe, Y. Effects of sheared edge and overlap length on reduction in tensile fatigue limit before
and after hydrogen embrittlement of resistance spot-welded ultra-high-strength steel sheets. Metals 2023, 13,
2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
82. Chen, C.; Zhao, S.; Han, X.; Zhao, X.; Ishida, T. Experimental investigation on the joining of aluminum
alloy sheets using improved clinching process. Materials 2017, 10, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
83. Lei, L.; He, X.; Yu, T.; Xing, B. Failure modes of mechanical clinching in metal sheet materials. Thin-
Walled Struct 2019, 144, 106281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
84. He, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xing, B.; Gu, F.; Ball, A. Mechanical properties of extensible die clinched joints in
titanium sheet materials. Mater Des. 2015, 71, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
85. Dzupon, M.; Kascák, L.; Cmorej, D.; Ciripová, L.; Mucha, J.; Spisák, E. Clinching of high-strength steel
sheets with local preheating. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
86. Liu, F.; Chen, W.; Deng, C.; Guo, J.; Zhang, X.; Men, Y.; Dong, L. Research advances in fatigue behaviour
of clinched joints. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 127, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
87. Yu, Z.; Ma, N.; Murakawa, H.; Watanabe, G.; Liu, M.; Ma, Y. Prediction of the fatigue curve of high-
strength steel resistance spot welding joints by finite element analysis and machine learning. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2023, 128, 2763–2779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
88. Basquin, O.H. The exponential law of endurance tests. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting
(X), Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 28 June–2 July 1910; American Society for Testing and Materials: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1910; pp. 625–630. [Google Scholar]
89. Peng, J.; Fukumoto, S.; Brown, L.; Zhou, N. Image analysis of electrode degradation in resistance spot
welding of aluminium. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join. 2004, 9, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
90. Zhong, L.; Yu, W.; Jia, L.; Han, L. Study on Influence of Electrode Type on Weld ability of TL091 Al.
Alloy in Medium Frequency RSW. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2023, 2706, 012028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
91. Varis, J. Economics of clinched joint compared to riveted joint and example of applying calculations to a
volume product. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2006, 172, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef

23