You are on page 1of 11

International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Fatigue strength evaluation of self-piercing riveted Al-5052 joints under


different specimen congurations
Se-Hyung Kang a, Ho-Kyung Kim b,
a
Graduate School, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 139-743, Republic of Korea
b
Dept. of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 139-743, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, static and fatigue tests were conducted using coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear
Received 21 January 2015 specimens with Al-5052 plates for evaluation of the fatigue strength of the SPR joints. For the
Received in revised form 7 May 2015 coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear geometries, the ratios of the fatigue endurance limit to static
Accepted 10 May 2015
strength were 11%, 14% and 34%, respectively, assuming fatigue cycles of 106 for an innite lifetime. The
Available online 5 June 2015
equivalent stress intensity factor range can properly predict the current experimental fatigue lifetime.
Fatigue crack initiation occurred due to fretting damage between the upper and lower sheets and
Keywords:
between the rivet and these sheets.
SPR joints
Fatigue lifetime
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Coach-peel
Tensileshear
Equivalent stress intensity factor

1. Introduction under tensileshear and cross-tension congurations. They


observed that while the static strength of the self-piercing rivet
One of the main objectives in the automotive industry currently joint was about 1.5 times as large as that of the spot-welded joints,
is to reduce the weights of automobiles. To achieve this goal, a new the fatigue strength was increased by about three times in the ten-
joining technology as a replacement for spot welding in light- sileshear conguration. He et al. [3] investigated the strength,
weight metals, such as aluminum and magnesium alloys, is stiffness, impact resistance, failure modes and failure mechanisms
required in the automotive industry. Riveting methods are often of SPR joints with similar and dissimilar metal sheets consisting of
considered as substitutes for spot welding. Among the several an aluminum alloy and a copper alloy. They reported that the fati-
types of riveting methods available, the self-piercing riveting gue strength of SPR joints was largely affected by the properties of
(henceforth SPR) process is gaining in popularity due to its many the sheets and that both the static and fatigue strength of SPR
advantages. SPR does not require a pre-drilled hole, and this joints increased with an enhancement of the joint stiffness. Xing
method can be used to join a wide range of materials, including et al. [4] investigated the static and fatigue strength of
combinations of similar or dissimilar materials. multiple-rivet SPR joints. They reported that these levels are inu-
SPR is essentially a cold-forming joining process. During the SPR enced by the rivet number and rivet distribution pattern. Franco
process, a semi-tubular rivet is pressed by a punch into the sheets. et al. [5] investigated the possibility of joining aluminum alloys
The rivet pierces the upper sheet and ares into the bottom sheet and carbon ber composites using SPR. They reported large values
under the inuence of an upset die. A mechanical interlock is of the fatigue resistance of SPR joints, even for load amplitudes
formed between the two sheets, which is key to the structural close to the maximum static resistance of the joint and a fairly
strength of the joints. large range of fatigue strengths. Su et al. [6] investigated the fati-
The fatigue strength of the SPR joints has been investigated by a gue behavior of SPR and clinch joints in tensileshear specimens
number of authors for a number of materials [16]. For example, of aluminum sheets. They reported that the experimental fatigue
Mori et al. [2] examined the static and fatigue strengths of lives of these joints can be estimated using structural stress
spot-welded and self-piercing rivet joints in aluminum alloy sheets solutions.
However, fatigue lifetime data of a SPR joint is normally
reported as a function of the applied load range [79]. The reported
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 02 970 6348; fax: +82 02 979 7032. fatigue strength data are not high enough to apply the other types
E-mail address: kimhk@seoultech.ac.kr (H.-K. Kim). of specimens due to the obscurity of the various factors that govern

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.05.003
0142-1123/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868 59

Fig. 1. Stressstrain curves of the Al5052-H32 alloy.

Table 1
Mechanical properties of the Al5052-H32.

Material ru (MPa) ry (MPa) E (GPa) Elong. (%)


Al5052-H32 251.7 186.7 78.3 10

their fatigue strengths. The fatigue lifetime of a SPR joint specimen


is generally dependent on the load magnitude, the loading type,
the dimensions and conguration of the specimen, the sheet mate-
rial, and other factors. Even with the same rivet diameter, sheet
material, and sheet thickness, the load range amplitude represent-
ing the fatigue strength can differ from one specimen type to
another due to different loading types. Therefore, the fatigue
strength data for the SPR joints under several types of loading
are needed in order to design a structure with SPR joints. To solve
this problem, it is desirable to adopt general structural parameters,
such as the stress, strain, and multiaxial fatigue criteria, to assess
the fatigue lifetimes of these joints. Thus far, there has not been
any report on appropriate fatigue strength parameters to correlate
the fatigue lifetimes of SPR joints with different specimen
congurations.
Therefore, in this study, fatigue tests under constant amplitude
loads are conducted using coach-peel, cross-tension and tensile Fig. 2. Geometries of three types of SPR specimens: (a) coach-peel, (b) cross-
shear specimens of Al-5052 aluminum alloy sheets to evaluate tension and (c) tensileshear.
the fatigue strength of SPR joints under different specimen cong-
urations. The experimental fatigue lifetimes of SPR joint specimens
are also estimated using fatigue strength parameters. Finally,
appropriate parameters for evaluating the fatigue lifetimes of three
types of specimens are proposed.

2. Experimental procedure

2.1. Specimen preparation and fatigue test

Al5052-H32 aluminum alloy sheets with a thickness of 1.5 mm Fig. 3. Cross-section of the SPR joint after riveting.
were joined by SPR. Tensile tests on the sheet material were con-
ducted in order to obtain the tensile stressstrain curve for a respectively. Fig. 1 shows the engineering stressstrain curve for
FEM structural analysis. The tensile specimen was machined to a the Al5052-H32 alloy. The mechanical properties of the material
uniform gage length and width of 70 mm and 12.5 mm, are summarized in Table 1.
60 S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

Fig. 4. 2-D mesh about cross section from the center of the SPR joint.

Fig. 6. Punching force against the maximum tensileshear force for the SPR
specimens.

Fig. 7. Comparison of the applied load versus the displacement curves for the three
specimen types.

Coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear specimens, as


shown in Fig. 2, were utilized to evaluate the static and fatigue
strengths of the SPR joint. Steel rivets of 0.35 wt.% carbon steel
with an aluminum surface coating (Almac) were used. Rivets with
a diameter of 5.0 mm and a length of 5.0 mm were supplied by
Henrob Ltd. A servo-hydraulic universal testing machine (Instron
8516) with a capacity of 100 kN was used for the SPR joining, static
and fatigue tests. A special xture was used for the SPR joining pro-
cess. The xture consists of a punch, a die and a blank holder. The
xture is mounted into a universal testing machine by xing the
die and punch with hydraulic grips. During the SPR process, the
punch pushes the rivet through the hole in the blank holder, while,
Fig. 5. 3-D FEA models of SPR joints: (a) coach-peel, (b) cross-tension and (c) the die moves toward the blank holder to clamp the upper and
tensileshear specimens. lower sheets which are positioned between the die and the blank
S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868 61

holder. Fatigue tests were conducted at a load ratio R = (Pmin/Pmax) A joint specimen was modeled using solid elements of C3D6
of 0.1 at a frequency of 12 Hz for the tensileshear specimen and and C3D8. The models for the coach-peel, cross-tension and ten-
2 Hz for the coach-peel and cross-tension specimens. sileshear specimen were composed of 53,522 nodes with 44,480
elements, 57,176 nodes with 47,376 elements, 57,161 nodes with
47,576 elements, respectively. Contact between the rivet and sheet
2.2. Structural analysis of the SPR joint specimen and between the upper and lower sheet faces was introduced by
means of the masterslave technique. The friction coefcients
A three-dimensional nite element analysis (FEA) of a single between the rivet and sheet and between the upper and lower
self-piercing rivet was performed. The SPR joint, as shown in sheet faces were assumed to be 0.2 and 0.15, respectively [10].
Fig. 3, is not perfectly axisymmetrical. Therefore, the shape and True stressstrain curve data with a non-linear kinematic harden-
dimensions of the rivet after SPR joining were determined, as ing elasticplastic material model, as shown in Fig. 1, was adopted
shown in Fig. 4, after averaging the dimensions of the rivet from in the structural analysis.
its center. Finally, FEA models with a single SPR joint were com-
pleted for the coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear speci-
men geometries, as shown in Fig. 5. FEA analyses were carried 3. Experimental results and discussion
out using ABAQUS (version 6.6) for the solver and HyperMesh (ver-
sion 7.0) as the pre- and post-processor. 3.1. Optimal punching force for SPR joining

For SPR specimens, the joint strength is dependent on the sheet


thickness, rivet diameter, die geometry, joining force, and other
Table 2 factors. In this study, a series of monotonic tensile tests was con-
Summarized fatigue testing results for the (a) coach-peel, (b) cross-tension and (c)
ducted on tensileshear specimens with different amounts of
tensileshear specimens. Note: 1 and 2 depict cracking failure in the upper and lower
sheet, respectively.
punching force in an effort to determine the optimal punching
force.
Pamp (N) Nf (cycles) Failure type
Fig. 6 shows the punching force against the maximum tensile
(a) shear force for the SPR specimens in this study. Each data point is
166.1 14,646 1 the average value from two specimens. As the punching force
135.9 28,393 1
117.8 40,836 1
increases, the maximum tensileshear force increases continu-
99.6 71,030 1 ously. The peak value is reached at a punching force of 21 kN with
90.6 121,321 1 subsequent uctuation, as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, the optimal
87.6 429,880 1 punching force was determined to be 21 kN for the current SPR
81.5 732,905 1
joining condition. All of the coach-peel, cross-tension and ten-
75.5 399,278 1
69.4 1,785,200 1 sileshear SPR joint fatigue specimens were manufactured at the
optimal punching force of 21 kN.
(b)
340.7 51,232 1
327.6 71,473 1 3.2. Evaluation of the monotonic strength of SPR joints
288.2 97,449 1
275.1 191,206 1
262.0 299,691 1 Fig. 7 shows the monotonic test results after testing the force
248.9 334,617 1 against the displacement for the coach-peel, cross-tension and ten-
235.8 617,116 1 sileshear SPR specimens produced with punching force of 21 kN.
222.7 673,989 1
The coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear specimens exhibit
216.2 662,414 1
203.1 973,297 1
209.6 1,061,163 Non
(c)
1389.6 139,714 1
1327.8 239,369 1
1312.4 199,629 1
1296.9 340,824 1
1281.5 474,155 2
1273.8 554,891 1
1266.0 110,889 1
1250.6 463,045 1,2
1242.9 542,731 1,2
1235.2 432,344 2
1219.7 364,706 2
1212.0 744,908 2
1204.3 495,545 1
1204.3 1,177,302 1
1188.8 1,317,694 2
1173.4 912,297 2
1158.0 774,896 2
1158.0 640,458 1
1142.5 1,580,590 2
1142.5 984,742 2
1127.1 2,004,214 2
1080.8 1,909,862 2
1065.3 1,467,037 2
1034.4 1,944,137 2
1003.6 2,208,391 2
972.7 3,575,872 Non Fig. 8. Load amplitude against the number of failure cycles for the three types of
specimens.
62 S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

maximum forces of approximately 700 N, 1650 N and 3450 N, fatigue lifetimes and failure modes are summarized in Table 2.
respectively. The upper and lower sheet partially separated and Fig. 8 shows the applied load amplitude against the fatigue life-
failed after they reached the peak amount of force. The magnitudes times for the coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear speci-
of displacement for the coach-peel and cross-tension specimens mens. The fatigue failure time was dened as a visible failure of
were greater than that for the tensileshear specimen under the the specimen. The fatigue strength of the tensileshear specimens
same applied load. This implies that SPR joints are vulnerable to was found to be much higher than those of the coach-peel and
coach-peel and cross-tension loading as compared to tensileshear cross-tension specimens. The difference is primarily due to the
loading. This also occurs in spot-welded and mechanical pressed loading conditions on the SPR joint. The load amplitudes, corre-
joints [11]. sponding to the fatigue strength at 106 cycles for the coach-peel,
cross-tension and tensileshear specimens, are 71 N, 210 N and
3.3. Evaluation of the fatigue lifetimes of SPR joints 1150 N, respectively. These values are approximately 11%, 14%
and 34% of the corresponding static strengths. The coach-peel
Fatigue tests were conducted on SPR joint specimens, with and cross-tension specimen geometries have very low fatigue
three types of geometries under a controlled cyclic load. The ratios, compared to that of the tensileshear geometry, similar to

Fig. 9. Maximum principal stress distribution of SPR joints for fatigue lifetimes of 1.0  106: (a) coach-peel, (b) cross-tension and (c) tensileshear.
S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868 63

Fig. 10. Fatigue failure specimens: (a) coach-peel, (b) cross-tension, (c) tensileshear in the high-loading range and (d) tensileshear in the low-loading range.

Fig. 11. Fatigue-fractured surface of the coach-peel experiment specimen in the low-loading condition (Pmax = 154.3 N); (a) fracture surface of the front view, (b) enlarged
local area marked in (a), (c) enlarged local area of the crack initiation location, (d) enlarged local view of the area around the rivet, and (e) enlarged local area of the at
fracture surface.

the behavior of spot-welded and clinched joints [11]. The load from the FE analyses. The von Mises stress was found to be not
amplitude as a function of the number of failure cycles can be as good as the maximum principal stress for identifying potential
expressed as: Pamp 715:5  N 0:166 , Pamp 1967:3  N 0:162 and crack initiation positions. Fig. 9 shows the maximum principal
P amp 3395:5  N 0:078 for the coach-peel, cross-tension and ten- stress distribution around the rivet at fatigue lifetimes of 106 for
sileshear specimens, respectively. the three specimen geometries. Fig. 9(a) shows the stress distribu-
tion of the coach-peel specimen at P = 129 N with a maximum
stress of approximately 203 MPa. Fig. 9(b) shows the stress distri-
3.4. Structural analysis results bution of the cross-tension specimen at P = 408 N with the maxi-
mum stress of approximately 217 MPa. These maximum stresses
The fatigue crack initiation sites observed in the experiments for the coach-peel and cross-tension specimens are located at fay-
are close to the locations with the maximum principal stresses ing (bottom) surface of the upper sheet near the rivet shank,
64 S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

Fig. 12. Fatigue-fractured surface of a cross-tension specimen under a low-loading condition (Pmax = 582.3 N): (a) fracture surface of the front view and (b) enlarged local area
indicated in (a), (c) enlarged local area of the crack initiation location, (d) enlarged local view of the area around the rivet, and (e) enlarged local view of the at fracture
surface.

Fig. 13. Fracture surfaces of the upper sheet of the tensileshear specimen in a high-loading condition (Pmax = 2882 N).

identical to the crack initiation site. Fig. 9(c) shows the stress dis- adopting cyclic stressstrain curve data may produce better results
tribution of the tensileshear specimen at P = 2653 N. The maxi- than the true stressstrain curve for a structural analysis of a joint
mum stress of approximately 312 MPa is located at the rivet tail, under repeated loading.
which is in contact with the lower sheet, close to the crack initia-
tion site. The value of 312 MPa is much higher than ultimate ten- 3.5. Fatigue failure mode
sile strength of the Al5052 H32 sheet (=252 MPa). The excessive
stress level is partially caused from the FEA, which did not account The fatigue-fractured surfaces and wear scars at the interfaces
for the residual stress produced during SPR joining. Furthermore, between the aluminum sheet and rivet were investigated by a
S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868 65

Fig. 14. Fracture surfaces of the lower sheet for the tensileshear specimen in the low-loading condition (Pmax = 2230 N).

Table 3
EDX analysis on the fretting region for tensileshear specimens under the low- specimen at Pmax = 154.3 N. Fig. 11(c), (d), and (e) are enlarged g-
loading condition (Pmax = 2230.2 N) (wt.%). ures of locations (2), (3), and (4) in Fig. 11(b), respectively. Fatigue
Element Rivet Bare surface of Al-5052 Fretted surface of Al-5052
crack initiated at (2) and propagated into (3) and (4) in Fig. 11(b).
As shown Fig. 11(c), fatigue crack initiated at the location
C 9.61 3.04 1.40
corresponding to the left edge of the sheet at location 1 in
N 1.31
O 16.48 6.64 47.08 Fig. 11(a), coming into contact with the rivet and then propagating
Mg 3.08 0.35 in the direction indicated by the arrow, as shown in
Al 4.02 87.24 20.35 Fig. 11(d) and (e).
Si 1.03 0.33
Fig. 12 shows the fatigue-fractured upper sheet of the
Cl 0.43
Fe 0.34 0.76
cross-tension specimen at Pmax = 582.3 N. Fig. 12(b) is an enlarged
Zn 32.55 21.60 view of the 1 location in Fig. 12(a). Fig. 12(c), (d), and (e) are
Sn 34.02 8.13 enlarged views of locations (2), (3), and (4) in Fig. 12(b), respec-
Total 100 100 100 tively. Fatigue crack initiated at location (2) and propagated into
locations (3) and (4) in Fig. 12(b). As shown in Fig. 12(c), fatigue
crack initiated at the location corresponding to the left edge of
scanning electron microscope (SEM, Model JSM 6400) in an energy the sheet in location 1 in Fig. 12(a), coming into contact with
dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis. In monotonic tests, a rivet was the rivet and propagating in the direction indicated by the arrow,
pulled out of the lower sheet with large plastic deformation near as shown in Fig. 12(d) and (e). Oxidized (black) wear was observed
the rivet. However, the failure modes of the fatigue test differed due to rubbing between the rivet shank and the upper sheet.
from those of the monotonic tests. Fig. 10(a) and (b) shows the fati- Bolt generally causes fretting damage during fatigue due to very
gue failure type for the coach-peel and cross-tension specimens, small relative displacement of the contacting surfaces of between
respectively, where fatigue crack initiation generally occurred near the upper and lower sheets and between the bolt and these sheets
the rivet on the upper sheet and propagated across the upper [12]. The condition of the SPR joints is similar. Fig. 13 shows the
sheet. Fig. 10(c) shows the fatigue-failed tensileshear specimen fatigue-fractured surfaces of the upper sheet of the tensileshear
in a high-loading (low fatigue lifetimes) region (P = 1273.8 < specimen under a high-loading condition (Pmax = 2882 N).
Pamp < P = 1420.4 N). This type is typically an eyebrow failure. A Oxidized black wear debris was observed on the upper sheet
fatigue crack generally initiated on the faying (bottom) surface of caused by it rubbing against the lower sheet. Several
the upper sheet slightly away from the rivet shank due to fretting micro-cracks (as denoted by the square in Fig. 13) are visible in
damage. It then propagated through the upper sheet thickness per- the fretting region. The fatigue crack initiated on the faying (bot-
pendicular to the loading direction. Therefore, the tensileshear tom) surface of the upper sheet due to fretting. A crack grew
specimens mainly failed due to fatigue with crack growth in the through the upper sheet thickness and propagated perpendicular
upper sheet, as shown in Table 1. Fig. 10(d) shows the fatigue- to the loading direction, nally resulting in a fracture with exces-
failed tensileshear specimen in the low-loading (high fatigue sive plastic deformation.
lifetimes) region (P = 1003.6 < Pamp < P = 1188.8 N). Fatigue crack Fig. 14 shows the fretting region of the SPR joint with the ten-
initiation generally occurred near the rivet tail on the lower sheet sileshear specimen geometry under a low-loading condition
due to fretting damage. The crack then propagated across the lower (Pmax = 2230 N). Fretting wear patterns and multiple crack initia-
sheet perpendicular to the loading direction. tion sites are visible at the interface between the lower sheet and
Fig. 11(b) is an enlarged gure of the 1 location Fig. 11(a), the rivet skirt. For this specimen, it can be judged that crack initi-
showing the fatigue-fractured upper sheet of the coach-peel ation occurred due to fretting at the interface between the rivet
66 S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

shank and the lower sheet, after which the crack propagated along engineering components. In this study, the von Mises stress, max-
the sheet thickness. imum principal stress and SWT (SmithWatsonTopper) fatigue
The chemical compositions of the fretting zone of the lower parameter [13] are selected to predict the fatigue lifetimes for
sheet in Fig. 14, the bare Al-5052 sheet and the rivet were analyzed the three types specimen geometries. The von Mises effective
using an EDX system and compared, as shown in Table 3. stress is generally used to predict the fatigue failure lifetimes of
Additional elements of Si, Fe, Zn, Sn, Cl and N were detected in components with complicated geometries. The maximum princi-
the fretting zone, compared to the chemical compositions of the pal stress was chosen because FEA results reveal that the locations
bare Al-5052 sheet surface without fretting, suggesting that these with the maximum principal stress coincide with the crack initia-
elements stemmed from contamination due to rubbing by the rivet tion sites of the three specimen geometries. The SWT fatigue
during fatigue cycling. Specically much more oxygen exists in the parameter is frequently correlated fatigue lifetimes of components
fretting zone, indicating that this fretting zone is oxidized. In under multiaxial loading [13]. Therefore, the SWT relationship was
summary, Fig. 15 shows the fretting region of the tensileshear utilized to evaluate the fatigue life of the SPR joints. SWT relation-
specimen with a SPR joint under the high and low load ship is expressed as shown below [13],
conditions.
0 2
De1 rf
3.6. Application of multiaxial stress fatigue criterion to fatigue lifetimes rmax
1 2Nf 2b r0f e0f 2N f bc f Nf 1
2 E

SPR joints that undergo fatigue loading generally experience where, De1 =2 is the maximum principal strain amplitude and rmax 1
multiaxial stresses. Several multiaxial fatigue criterions [1316] is the maximum stress on the De1 plane. Thus, the SWT FP (fatigue
have been proposed to predict fatigue lifetimes of many parameter) of the term on the left in Eq. (1) was selected to evaluate

Fig. 15. Fretting region of the tensileshear specimen with a SPR joint under (a) high-loading and (b) low-loading conditions.
S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868 67

Fig. 16(a), (b), and (c), the effective stress, the maximum principal
stress, and SWT fatigue parameter are not sufcient to correlate
the fatigue lifetimes for the coach-peel, cross-tension and tensile
shear specimen geometries of SPR joints.
For spot welds, crack tips or notch tips arise due to the geome-
try along the nugget circumference. Stress intensity factor (SIF)
solutions for spot welds at critical locations have been developed
to investigate the fatigue lifetimes of spot welds [17]. For SPR
joints, their faying surface of SPR joints, i.e., where two sheets
are joined, can be considered as a crack or notch. Cracking initiates
from faying surfaces partially due to fretting, meaning that SPR
joints, similar to spot-welded joints, can be evaluated by fracture
mechanics to investigate the fatigue lifetimes of SPR joints in var-
ious types of specimens. Therefore, the SIF can be used to correlate
the fatigue data of the three types SPR specimens. In this study, the
SPR joints in the test specimens are considered to be identical to
spot-welded joints. Thus, the SIFs of spot-welded joints were
directly adopted to calculate the SIFs of the SPR joint specimens.
The equivalent SIFs at the spot weld in various geometries of spec-
imens are known [17]. The equivalent SIF at a spot weld are shown
below,

eF
K cp
eq 1:103 p 2
dt t

cF
K ct
eq 0:108 p 3
dt t

F
K tseq 0:694 p 4
d t

for the coach-peel, cross-tension and tensileshear spot welds spec-


imen geometries, which have the corresponding superscript nota-
tion of cp, ct and ts. Here, F is the applied load range, d (=5 mm) is
the rivet diameter, t (=1.5 mm) denotes the specimen thickness, c
(=50 mm) is the load spacing, and e (=15 mm) represents the eccen-
tricity, as shown in Fig. 2. The test data in terms of the load range
were converted with the aid of formulas into the equivalent SIF
range.
As shown in Fig. 17, the equivalent stress intensity factor range
(R  0.90) shows a good correlation with experimental fatigue

Fig. 16. The experimented fatigue lifetimes for SPR joints as a function of (a) the
maximum von Mises stress, (b) the maximum principal stress and (c) the SWT
multiaxial fatigue criteria.

the fatigue lifetimes of the SPR joints. The stress and strain distribu-
tion obtained from the FE models was used as a parameter to deter- Fig. 17. The experimental fatigue lifetimes as a function of the effective stress
mine the fatigue lifetime of each specimens geometry. As shown in intensity factor range for SPR joints.
68 S.-H. Kang, H.-K. Kim / International Journal of Fatigue 80 (2015) 5868

describes the experimental fatigue lifetime data under various


loading conditions, compared to the effective, maximum principal
stress and the SWT fatigue parameter, such that the fatigue life-
times for SPR joints can be predicted quantitatively for any type
of specimen through the equivalent stress intensity factor range.
Failure modes of the fatigue test differed from those of monotonic
tests. For the coach-peel and cross-tension specimens, fatigue
crack initiation generally occurred near the rivet on the upper
sheet and propagated across the upper sheet. However, for the ten-
sileshear specimen, fatigue cracking generally initiated on the
faying surface of the upper sheet slightly away from the rivet shank
due to fretting damage. It then propagated through the upper sheet
thickness perpendicular to the loading direction in the
high-loading test region. Fatigue crack initiation generally
occurred near the rivet tail on the lower sheet due to fretting dam-
age. The crack then propagated across the lower sheet in the
low-loading test region.

Acknowledgements

This study was nancially supported by Seoul National


University of Science & Technology. The authors would like to
Fig. 18. Estimated fatigue lifetimes using the equivalent stress intensity factor acknowledge Monotec Korea for providing the rivets and the x-
range versus the experimental fatigue lifetimes for the three types specimens. ture for the SPR process.

lifetime data, compared to data based on the effective, maximum References


principal stress and SWT fatigue parameter. This fact indicates that
the crack initiation and growth near the SPR joint circumference [1] Fu M, Mallick PK. Fatigue of self-piercing riveted joints in aluminum alloy
are controlled by the stress intensity factors of the cracks near 6111. Int J Fatigue 2003;25:1839.
[2] Mori K, Abe Y, Kato T. Mechanism of superiority of fatigue strength for
the joints. The results of the comparison of the calculated and aluminum alloy sheets joined by mechanical clinching and self-pierce riveting.
experimental fatigue lifetimes using the equivalent stress intensity J Mater Process Technol 2012;212:19005.
factor range are shown in Fig. 18. It can be seen in this plot that [3] He X, Zhao L, Deng C, Xing B, Gu F, Ball A. Self-piercing riveting of similar and
dissimilar metal sheets of aluminum alloy and copper alloy. Mater Des
most of the data points fall within a factor of three. Thus, it is pos- 2015;65:92333.
sible to achieve a good correlation between the experimental and [4] Xing B, He X, Zeng K, Wang Y. Mechanical properties of self-piercing riveted
calculated fatigue lifetimes with the stress intensity factor for joints in aluminum alloy 5052. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2014;75:35161.
[5] Franco GD, Fratini L, Pasta A, Ruisi VF. On the self-piercing riveting of
SPR joint. Therefore, in the engineering eld, for fatigue analysis
aluminum blanks and carbon ber composite panels. Int J Mater Form
of automotive body structure with SPR joints, the joint can be sim- 2013;6:13744.
ply modeled, instead being modeled in detail, as connection ele- [6] Su Z, Lin P, Lai W, Pan J. Fatigue analyses of self-piercing rivets and clinch joints
ments which transfer forces and moments similarly to in lap-shear specimens of aluminum sheets. Int J Fatigue 2015;72:5365.
[7] Han L, Chrysanthou A, Sullivan JMO. Fretting behavior of self-piercing riveted
spot-welded joint. Finally, the fatigue strength of SPR joint can aluminium alloy joints under different interfacial conditions. Mater Des
be determined simply with geometrical dimensions and applied 2006;27:2008.
loads under various loading conditions. [8] Huang Z, Zhou Z, Huang W. Mechanical behaviors of self-piercing riveting
joining dissimilar sheets. Adv Mater Res 2010;97101:39325.
[9] Miyashita Y, Teow YCJ, Karasawa T, Aoyagi N, Otsuka Y, Mutoh Y. Strength of
4. Conclusion adhesive aided SPR joint for AM50 magnesium alloy sheets. Proc Eng
2011;10:25327.
[10] Porcaro R, Hanssen AG, Langseth M, Aalberg A. The behaviour of a self-piercing
In this study, static strength and fatigue tests were conducted riveted connection under quasi-static loading conditions. Int J Solids Struct
with coach-peel, cross-tension and tensile-shear specimens with 2006;43:511031.
[11] Krause AR, Chernenkoff RA. A comparative study of the fatigue behavior of
Al-5052 plates for an evaluation of the fatigue strength of SPR
spot welded and mechanically fastened aluminum joints. SAE technical paper
joints. A structural analysis of the three types of specimens was series 950710; 1995.
carried out using the nite element code ABAQUS. For the ten- [12] Zografos A, Dini D, Olver AV. Fretting fatigue and wear in bolted connections: a
sileshear specimen with Al-5052 plates, the optimal applied multi-level formulation for the computation of local contact stresses. Tribol Int
2009;42:166375.
punching force for the SPR joining process was found to be 21 kN [13] Smith RN, Watson P, Topper TH. A stress strain function for the fatigue of
using the current sheet thickness of 1.5 mm and the geometrical metal. J Mater 1970;5:76778.
dimensions of the rivet. For the coach-peel, cross-tension and ten- [14] Fatemi A, Socie DF. A critical plane approach to multiaxial fatigue damage
including out-of-phase loading. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
sileshear geometries, the fatigue endurance limits were deter- 1988;11:14965.
mined to be 71 N, 1460 N, and 1150 N, respectively, assuming [15] Li J, Zhang ZP, Sun Q, Li CW, Qiao YJ. A new multiaxial fatigue damage model
fatigue cycles of 106 for an innite lifetime. The corresponding for various metallic materials under the combination of tension and torsion
loadings. Int J Fatigue 2009;31:77681.
ratios of the fatigue endurance limit to the static strength were [16] Glinka G, Shen G, Plumtree A. A multiaxial fatigue strain energy density
11%, 14% and 34%. This indicates that the SPR joints are vulnerable parameter related to the critical plane. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
to coach-peel and cross-tension loading, compared to tensile 1995;18:3746.
[17] Zhang S. Stress intensities at spot welds. Int J Fract 1997;88:16785.
shear loading. The equivalent stress intensity factor range suitably

You might also like