Process robustness and strength analysis of multi-layered dissimilar joints using ultrasonic metal welding
- 182 Downloads
This paper investigates the effects of process parameters on the joint strength and process robustness when multi-layered joints of dissimilar metals are produced by ultrasonic metal welding (UMW). Three layers of 0.3-mm aluminium sheet are welded with a single 1.0-mm copper sheet which is representative of electric vehicle battery interconnects. A process robustness study in which welding pressure, amplitude of vibration and welding time are varied to produce satisfactory welds is reported. The weld quality is evaluated by performing lap shear and T-peel tests where maximum loads are considered as the quality indicator. Response surfaces are developed to identify the relationship and sensitivity between the input process parameters and output quality indicators. A feasible weldability zone is defined for the first time by identifying the under-weld, good-weld and over-weld conditions based on load-displacement curves and corresponding failure modes. Relying on the weldability zone and response surfaces, multi-objective optimisation is performed to obtain maximum lap shear and T-peel strength which resulted in Pareto frontier or trade-off curve between both objectives. An optimal joint is selected from the Pareto front which is verified and validated by performing confirmation experiments, and further, used for T-peel strength analysis of different interfaces of the multi-layered joint. To conclude, this paper determines both the optimal weld parameters and the robust operating range.
KeywordsUltrasonic metal welding Automotive battery interconnects Joint strength Process robustness Response surface methodology Feasible weldability zone
This research is partially supported by the WMG Centre High Value Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult at The University of Warwick.
- 7.Lee SS, Kim TH, Hu SJ, Cai WW, Abell JA (2010) Joining technologies for automotive lithium-ion battery manufacturing: a review. In: ASME 2010 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, Pennsylvania, USA, pp 541–549Google Scholar
- 12.De Vries E (2004) Mechanics and mechanisms of ultrasonic metal welding. The Ohio State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 27.Shawn Lee S, Hyung Kim T, Jack Hu S, Cai WW, Abell JA, Li J (2013) Characterization of joint quality in ultrasonic welding of battery tabs. J Manuf Sci Eng 135 (2):021004–021004–021013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023364
- 39.Lee D, Kannatey-Asibu E, Cai W (2013) Ultrasonic welding simulations for multiple layers of lithium-ion battery tabs. J Manuf Sci Eng 135 (6):061011–061011–061013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025668
- 40.Shawn Lee S, Hyung Kim T, Jack Hu S, Cai WW, Abell JA (2015) Analysis of weld formation in multilayer ultrasonic metal welding using high-speed images. J Manuf Sci Eng 137 (3):031016–031016–031018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029787
- 41.Design Possibilities for the Chevy Bolt (2015) http://gm-volt.com/2015/06/19/design-possibilities-for-the-chevy-bolt/. Accessed 2017-07-05
- 42.Cai W, Blau PJ, Qu J (2013) Friction coefficients of battery metals and the usage in ultrasonic welding simulations. In: 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition (EVS27), 17-20 Nov. 2013, pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/EVS.2013.6914778
- 46.Kreye H. Melting phenomena in solid state welding processesGoogle Scholar
- 47.Harthoorn J (1978) Ultrasonic metal welding. Technische Hogeschool EindhovenGoogle Scholar
- 48.Li J, Han L, Zhong J (2008) Short-circuit diffusion of ultrasonic bonding interfaces in microelectronic packaging. 40 (5):953–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.2840
- 49.Montgomery DC (2017) Design and analysis of experiments. John wiley & sons,Google Scholar
- 50.Rakić T, Kasagić-Vujanović I, Jovanović M, Jančić-Stojanović B, Ivanović D (2014) Comparison of full factorial design, central composite design, and box-Behnken design in chromatographic method development for the determination of fluconazole and its impurities. Anal Lett 47(8):1334–1347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00032719.2013.867503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, vol 705. John Wiley & Sons,Google Scholar
- 52.Alfeld P (1989) Scattered data interpolation in three or more variables A2 - LYCHE, TOM. In: Schumaker LL (ed) Mathematical methods in computer aided geometric design. Academic Press, pp 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-460515-2.50005-6
- 53.Fujita K, Kounoe Y (2006) High-order polynomial response surface with optimal selection of interaction terms. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference. Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conferences. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-7054
- 54.Gencsoy H, Adams J, Shin SJU (1967) On some fundamental problems in ultrasonic welding of dissimilar metals. Weld J 46(4):145-s 5 (4):274Google Scholar
- 59.Das A, Franciosa P, Pesce A, Gerbino S (2017) Parametric effect analysis of free-form shape error during sheet metal forming. Int J Eng Sci Technol 9(09S):117–124Google Scholar
- 60.Das A, Franciosa P, Gerbino S, Williams D (2016) Prediction of geometric errors of stamped sheet metal parts using deviation field decomposition. In: International conference on competitive manufacturing (COMA), Stellenbosch, South Africa, pp 109–114Google Scholar
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.