Steel sheet with hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating and process to produce it

Abstract

Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer, in which the coating of the steel strip is carried out in a bath of molten zinc alloy, the zinc alloy in the coating of: 0.3-2.3 weight % magnesium; 0.6-2.3 weight % aluminum; optional <0.2 weight % of one or more additional elements; unavoidable impurities; the remainder being zinc in which the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-12 m.

Claims

1. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer, wherein the zinc alloy consists of: 1.6-1.9 weight % aluminium, wherein magnesium is present such that the amount of aluminium in weight % is the same as the amount of magnesium in weight % plus or minus a maximum of 0.3 weight %; optional <0.2 weight % of one or more additional elements selected from the group consisting of Pb, Sb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Ni, Zr and Bi; unavoidable impurities; the remainder being zinc; wherein the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-12 m, wherein the silicon content in the zinc alloy layer is below 0.0010 weight %.

2. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-10 m.

3. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-8 m.

4. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-7 m.

5. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the one or more additional elements are present in the zinc alloy coating, each <0.02 weight.

6. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the one or more additional elements are present in the zinc alloy coating, each <0.01 weight %.

7. Automotive part manufactured from a steel strip according to claim 1.

8. Steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating layer according to claim 1, wherein the level of Mg is 1.3-1.7%.

9. Process for producing a steel strip provided with a hot dip galvanized zinc alloy coating of claim 1, comprising: hot dip galvanising the steel strip with the zinc alloy coating layer, in which the coating of the steel strip is carried out in a bath of molten zinc alloy, wherein the zinc alloy consists of: 1.6-1.9 weight % aluminium, wherein magnesium is present such that the amount of aluminium in weight % is the same as the amount of magnesium in weight % plus or minus a maximum of 0.3 weight %; optional <0.2 weight % of one or more additional elements selected from the group consisting of Pb, Sb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Ni, Zr and Bi; unavoidable impurities; the remainder being zinc; wherein the zinc alloy coating layer has a thickness of 3-12 m, wherein the silicon content in the zinc alloy layer is below 0.0010 weight %.

10. Process according to claim 7, wherein the temperature of the bath of molten zinc is kept between 380 C. and 550 C.

11. Process according to claim 7, wherein the temperature of the steel strip before entering the bath of molten zinc alloy is between 380 C. and 850 C.

12. Process according to claim 7, wherein the temperature of the steel strip before entering the bath of molten zinc alloy is between the temperature of the bath of molten zinc alloy and 25 C. above the bath temperature.

Description

(1) The invention will be elucidated hereinafter, in which some experiments are described and some test results are given.

(2) First, the test results are given in the following eight tables.

(3) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 composition of bath and coating Bath Bath Coating Coating Coating Coating Ref# Al % Mg % g/m2 Al % Mg % Fe % 1 0.2 0.5 99 0.4 0.5 2 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.11 3 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.18 4 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.14 5 1.9 1.0 2.0 0.9 0.07 6 1.1 1.1 42 1.3 0.9 0.29 7 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.15 8 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.14 9 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.6 0.26 10 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.7 0.10 11 2.5 2.0 2.5 1.8 0.05 12 1.0 2.1 77 1.2 1.8 0.13 13 1.0 2.1 39 1.2 1.8 0.21 14 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 0.15 15 1.0 2.5 1.1 2.8 0.06

(4) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 corrosion resistance of flat panel Bath Bath Coating Corrosion Ref# Al % Mg % thickness (m) flat panel 1 0.2 0.0 10 0 2 0.5 0.5 4 0 3 0.5 0.5 6 + 4 0.5 0.5 8 ++ 5 0.5 0.5 10 ++ 6 0.2 0.5 14 + 7 1.0 0.9 6 ++ 8 1.0 0.9 7 ++ 9 1.0 0.9 10 ++ 10 1.0 0.9 11 ++ 11 1.0 1.0 6 + 12 1.0 1.0 6 ++ 13 1.9 1.0 20 +++ 14 1.1 1.1 4 +++ 15 1.1 1.1 6 +++ 16 1.1 1.1 7 +++ 17 1.1 1.1 10 ++++ 18 1.1 1.1 11 ++++ 19 1.2 1.2 6 ++ 20 1.5 1.5 6 ++++ 21 1.7 1.7 6 ++++ 22 2.5 2.0 25 ++++ 23 1.0 2.1 5 + 24 1.0 2.1 6 + 25 1.0 2.1 10 +++ 26 1.0 2.1 11 +++ 27 2.1 2.1 6 ++++ Qualification: 0 = no improvement as compared to regular HDG (0.2% Al) of 10 m in SST + = improvement up to a factor 2 ++ = improvement up to a factor 4 +++ = improvement up to a factor 8 ++++ = improvement more than a factor 8

(5) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 corrosion resistance of deformed panel Bath Bath Coating Corrosion Ref# Al % Mg % thickness (m) deformed panel 1 0.2 0.0 10 0 2 1.0 1.0 6 + 3 1.0 1.0 6 ++ 4 1.0 1.0 3 0 5 1.1 1.1 13 +++ 6 1.2 1.2 6 + 7 1.2 1.2 6 ++ 8 1.5 1.5 4 + 9 1.5 1.5 6 ++ 10 1.7 1.7 4 ++ 11 1.7 1.7 6 ++ 12 2.1 2.1 4 ++ 13 2.1 2.1 7 ++ Qualification: 0 = no improvement as compared to regular HDG (0.2% Al) of 10 m in SST + = improvement up to a factor 2 ++ = improvement up to a factor 4 +++ = improvement more than a factor 4

(6) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 galling performance Bath Bath Coating Galling performance Ref# Al % Mg % thickness (m) Cylindrical side Flat side 1 0.2 0.0 7.0 5 4 2 0.2 0.0 7.0 5 4 3 1.0 0.9 6.3 1 1 4 1.0 0.9 5.2 1 1 5 1.2 1.2 5.9 1 1 6 1.2 1.2 5.9 1 1 7 1.5 1.5 5.9 1 1 8 1.5 1.5 5.5 1 1 9 1.7 1.7 5.6 1 1 10 1.7 1.7 6.4 1 1 11 2.1 2.1 7.5 1 1 12 2.1 2.1 5.1 1 1 Qualification: 1. Excellent (no deep scratches, homogenous surface) 2. Good (a few scratches may occur) 3. Moderate (stained or slightly scratched surface) 4. Poor (some large scratches) 5. Very poor (Heavily scratched/worn surface, material break-out)

(7) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 surface quality Bath Bath Coating Coating Ref# Al % Mg % Surface quality Formability 1 0.2 0.0 0 0 2 0.5 0.5 + 0 3 0.2 0.5 0 4 0.8 0.9 + 0 5 1.0 0.9 + 0 6 1.0 1.0 + 0 7 1.9 1.0 + 8 1.1 1.1 + 0 9 1.2 1.2 + 0 10 1.5 1.5 + 0 11 2.0 1.6 + 0 12 0.9 1.6 + 0 13 1.7 1.7 + 0 14 2.5 2.0 15 1.0 2.1 + 16 2.1 2.1 + 0 17 1.0 2.5 + Qualification: Surface quality 0 = equal to panels from a 0.2% Al-bath produced in the same way + = better = worse Qualification: Formability 0 = no cracks present on 0T-bend = cracks present

(8) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 dross formation Bath Bath Ref# Al % Mg % Dross formation 1 0.2 0.0 0 2 0.5 0.5 + 3 0.2 0.5 4 0.8 0.9 + 5 1.0 0.9 + 6 1.0 1.0 + 7 1.9 1.0 + 8 1.1 1.1 + 9 1.2 1.2 + 10 1.5 1.5 + 11 2.0 1.6 + 12 0.9 1.6 + 13 1.7 1.7 + 14 2.5 2.0 + 15 1.0 2.1 + 16 2.1 2.1 + 17 1.0 2.5 Qualification: More oxidic dross formation than on a regular (0.2% Al) bath 0 Similar amounts of oxidic dross formation than on a regular (0.2% Al) bath + Less oxidic dross formation than on a regular (0.2% Al) bath

(9) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 spot weldability Bath Bath Coating Ref# Al % Mg % thickness (m) Weldability 1 0.2 0.0 10 0 2 0.5 0.5 10 0 3 1.0 1.0 10 0 Qualification: 0 = similar welding range = smaller welding range + = larger welding range

(10) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 bath temperature Coating Bath Bath Bath Bath thickness Surface Dross Corrosion Ref# Al % Mg % Temp SET (m) quality Formability formation flat panel 1 1.0 0.9 410 430 6 + 0 + ++ 2 1.0 0.9 460 550 7 + 0 + ++ 3 1.0 0.9 460 475 6 + 0 + ++ 4 1.0 0.9 460 475 6 + 0 + ++ 5 1.1 1.1 405 420 11 + 0 + +++ 6 1.1 1.1 460 475 11 + 0 + +++ 7 1.1 1.1 410 480 7 + 0 + +++ 8 1.1 1.1 460 475 6 + 0 + +++ SET = strip entry temperature

(11) The steel used for the experiments is an ultra low carbon steel having the composition (all in weight %): 0.001 C, 0.105 Mn, 0.005 P, 0.004 S, 0.005 Si, 0.028 Al, 0.025 Alzo, 0.0027 N, 0.018 Nb and 0.014 Ti, the remainder being unavoidable impurities and Fe.

(12) The steel panels have been made from cold rolled steel and have a size of 12 by 20 cm and a thickness of 0.7 mm. After degreasing they have been subjected to the following treatment:

(13) Step 1: in 11 seconds from room temperature to 250 C. in an atmosphere of 85.5% N.sub.2, 2% H.sub.2, 11% CO.sub.2 and 1.5% CO;

(14) Step 2: in 11 seconds from 250 C. to 670 C. in the same atmosphere as in step 1;

(15) Step 3: in 46 seconds from 670 C. to 800 C. in an atmosphere of 85% N.sub.2 and 15% H.sub.2;

(16) Step 4: in 68 seconds from 800 C. to 670 C. in the same atmosphere as in step 3;

(17) Step 5: in 21 seconds from 670 C. to the strip entry temperature (SET), usually 475 C., in the same atmosphere as in step 3;

(18) Step 6: dipping in liquid zinc alloy, usually at 460 C. for 2 seconds, and wiping the zinc layer on the steel panel with 100% N.sub.2 to regulate the coating weight;

(19) Step 7: cooling in 60 seconds to 80 C. in 100% N.sub.2.

(20) In some experiments the atmosphere in step 1 and 2 has been changed to 85% N.sub.2 and 15% H.sub.2, but no effect on the coating quality has been observed.

(21) A Fischer Dualscope according to ISO 2178 has been used to determine the coating thickness at each side of the panel, using the average value of nine points.

(22) In table 1, the alloy elements in the zinc bath used for coating the steel panels and the alloy elements in the coating itself are given. Usually, the amount of aluminium in the coating is slightly higher than the amount of aluminium in the bath.

(23) In table 2 the corrosion of a flat panel (not deformed) is indicated for a large number of panels. The coating thickness varies. As can be seen, for small amount of Al and Mg the coating has to be thicker to get a better corrosion resistance. For higher amounts of Al and Mg even with a thin layer a very good corrosion resistance can be achieved. A good result can be achieved with 0.8 to 1.2 weight % Al and Mg for higher coating thicknesses; a very good result can be achieved with 1.6 to 2.3 weight % Al and Mg for thin coating layers.

(24) The corrosion resistance has been measured using the salt spray test (ASTM-B117) to get an idea of the corrosion resistance under severe, high chloride containing, wet conditions, which represents some critical corrosive automotive as well as building microclimates.

(25) The test has been performed in a corrosion cabinet wherein the temperature is maintained at 35 C., while a water mist containing 5% NaCl solution is continuously sprayed over the samples mounted into racks under an angle of 75. The side of the sample to be evaluated for its corrosion behaviour is directed towards the salt spray mist. The edges of the samples are taped off to prevent possible, early red rusting at the edges disturbing proper corrosion evaluation at the surface. Once per day the samples are inspected to see if red rust is occurring. First red rust is the main criterion for the corrosion resistance of the product. Reference product is conventional hot dip galvanized steel with a 10 m zinc coating thickness.

(26) Table 3 shows the corrosion resistance of deformed panels. Deformation has been done by an Erichsen 8 mm cup. As can be seen, the corrosion resistance here depends to a large extend on the coating thickness of the zinc alloy layer. However, it is clear that a higher amount of the alloy elements Al and Mg results in a better corrosion resistance of the zinc alloy layer.

(27) Table 4 shows the galling performance of the hot dip galvanised steel. All coatings for which the bath contained approximately 1 weight % Al and Mg and more show an excellent galling performance. The galling performance has been measured using the linear friction test (LFT) method. This method uses severe conditions to accelerate galling. The method uses one flat tool and one round tool to develop a high-pressure contact with the sample surface. The tool material used was in accordance with DIN 1.3343.

(28) For each material/lubrication system, strips of 50 mm width and 300 mm length were pulled at a speed of 0.33 mm/s between the set of tools (one flat, one round) pushed together with a force of 51N. The strips were drawn through the tools ten times along a testing distance of 55 mm. After each stroke the tools were released and the strips returned to the original starting position in preparation for the next stroke. All tests were conducted at 20 C. and 50% humidity.

(29) Visual analysis of the LFT samples was conducted to assess the extent of galling on the surface of the samples. Three people made an independent assessment of the scarred surface and the median result was recorded. Galling is ranked on a scale of 1 to 5, as defined under table 4.

(30) Table 5 shows the surface quality and formability of a number of panels. The surface quality has been measured by visual inspection of the panels on bare spots, irregularities sticking from the surface (usually caused by dross) and the general appearance or homogeneity of gloss over the panel. As follows from the table, the surface quality is good between approximately 0.5 weight % Al and Mg and 2.1 weight % Al and Mg. With higher amounts of aluminium, the amount of dross in the bath increases, resulting in a lower surface quality. The formability of the coating has been measured by visual inspection on cracks in the coating after a full bend (0 T) of the panel. With higher amounts of magnesium the formability appears to decrease.

(31) Table 6 shows that the dross formation is less than for a conventional zinc bath when the amount of Al and Mg is between approximately 0.5 and 2.1 weight %. The dross formation has been judged quantatively as compared to the amount of foam and adhering dross measured for four bath compositions: Zn+0.2% Al, Zn+1% Al+1% Mg, Zn+1% Al+2% Mg and Zn+1% Al+3% Mg. For these four bath compositions, argon gas has been bubbled for 2.5 hours through the liquid zinc alloy in a vessel to break up the oxide film layer on the surface. After this, the foam on the surface is removed and weighed. The rest of the bath is poured into an empty vessel and the remaining dross adhering on the wall of the original vessel is also removed for weighing. This leads to the following results in Table 9:

(32) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 dross Foam on surface Adhering dross on Zinc bath (%)* wall (%)* GI = Zn + 0.2% Al 1.7 1.4 Zn + 1.0% Mg + 1.1 1.1 1.0% Al Zn + 2.0% Mg + 1.2 1.3 1.0% Al Zn + 3.0% Mg + 15 / 1.0% Al *Measured as percentage of the total amount of liquid zinc in the vessel.
This measurement was in agreement with the observations during the dipping experiments that clearly showed less dross formation onto the zinc bath for the Zn+1% Al+1% Mg and Zn+1% Al+2% Mg composition.

(33) Table 7 shows that only a few spot weldability tests have been performed. The weldability appears not to be influenced by the amount of Al and Mg in the zinc bath. A weld growth curve has been made by making welds with increasing welding current with electrodes of 4.6 mm in diameter and a force of 2 kN. The welding range is the difference in current just before splashing and the current to achieve a minimum plug diameter of 3.51 t, with t the steel thickness. Table 7 shows that 0.5% and 1% Mg and Al-alloyed coated steel have a similar welding range as regular galvanized steel.

(34) Table 8 shows that the influence of the temperature of the bath and the temperature of the strip when it enters the bath is minimal. A temperature of 410 C. or 460 C. of the bath appears to make no difference, and the same holds for a strip entry temperature of 420 C. or 475 C.

(35) The above results can be summarised as follows: an amount of 0.3-2.3 weight % magnesium and 0.6-2.3 weight % aluminium in the coating of hot dipped galvanised strip will result in better corrosion resistance than the corrosion resistance of conventional galvanised steel. The corrosion resistance is very good when the amount of both aluminium and magnesium in the coating is between 1.6 and 2.3 weight %, even for thin coating layers. The corrosion resistance is good when the amount of both aluminium and magnesium is between 0.8 and 1.2 weight % for thin coating layers, and very good for thicker coating layers. The amounts of the alloying elements should be not too high to prevent dross formation.

(36) Furthermore, a trial has been performed on a pilot line with two compositions of Mg and Al additions according to the invention as can be found in the following table 10:

(37) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 pilot line compositions Name composition Al % bath Mg % bath MZ_trial1 0.85 1.05 MZ_trial2 1.40 1.65 MZ_trial2 (2nd sample) 1.46 1.68

(38) The bath contained no Si (<0.001%), but some pollutions of Cr (<0.005%) and Ni (0.009%) due to the dissolution of stainless steel from the pot material and bath hardware (sink roll, etc.). No measurable amount of Si was found in the bath (<0.001%). Further process parameters are chosen to represent the common practice of commercial hot dip galvanising lines as closely as possible, see Table 11:

(39) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 process parameters Process parameter Value Steel grade Ti-IF (=Ti-SULC) Steel gauge 0.7 mm Strip width 247 mm Temperatures annealing cycle Direct Fired Furnace preheating till 410 C. Radiant Tube Furnace at 800-820 C. (30 s) Annealing cycle H.sub.2 content 5% (rest N.sub.2) Dewpoint in furnaces 24 C. to 32 C. Strip Entry Temperature between 475 and 500 C. Zinc bath temperature between 455 and 460 C. Wiping gas N.sub.2 Knife gap 0.6 mm Line speed 34 m/min (and another trial at 24 m/min)

(40) Various coils were produced with different coating thicknesses (by variation of N.sub.2 pressure, temperature and knife-strip distance in the gas knives) and some resulting compositions of the coatings can be found in the following table 12:

(41) TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 coating compositions coating weight # Al % Mg % Fe % Cr % Ni % Si % per side (g/m.sup.2) 1A 1.08 1.07 0.27 0.006 <0.005 <0.001 76.5 1B 1.14 1.09 0.32 0.006 <0.005 <0.001 78.3 2A 1.12 1.07 0.29 0.007 <0.005 <0.001 61.0 2B 1.15 1.07 0.32 0.007 <0.005 <0.001 62.2 3A 1.06 1.06 0.26 0.007 <0.005 <0.001 62.1 3B 1.16 1.07 0.39 0.007 <0.005 <0.001 52.4 4A 1.68 1.71 0.35 0.006 0.010 <0.001 40.9 4B 1.77 1.76 0.61 0.008 0.014 <0.001 33.8 5A 1.67 1.73 0.34 0.006 0.008 <0.001 43.2 5B 1.71 1.73 0.45 0.007 0.010 <0.001 34.5

(42) Samples 1-3 were made from composition MZ_trial1, samples 4+5 from MZ_trial2. These values are obtained by dissolution of the zinc coating by pickling acid with an inhibitor and weighing the weight loss to determine the coating weight. The solution is analysed by ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emmission Spectroscopy). Si-contents have been determined on a separate sample, by a photometric technique.

(43) During the production of the thicker coatings (>8 m per side) with the MZ_trial2 bath composition, some sagging of the coating occurred that leads to a homogeneous cloudy-like pattern. These sags were heavier for higher coating weights. Lowering the line speed from 34 m/min to 24 m/min also increased the sagging pattern. To find more evidence for the relation between line speed and sagging patterns, some additional panels were produced on the lab simulator.

(44) Experiments were performed similar to the process conditions as used for the other lab panels described previously. The bath compositions used for these experiments are 0.21% Al for galvanized material (GI) and 2.0% Al+2.0% Mg for the zinc alloy coating according to the invention (MZ), to increase the effect and study process parameters that can control it. The withdrawal speed of the panel (comparable to line speed), wiping volume (comparable to pressure of the wiping knives) and bath temperature have been varied. Thicker coatings were made to check for the sagging pattern. To test the effect of oxidation during wiping, some experiments were performed with CO.sub.2 in the wiping medium. Coating thickness on the front of the panel is measured and its sagging pattern evaluated (present or not present). The results are summarised in Table 13.

(45) As can be seen clearly from this Table 13, the GI bath also gives sagging patterns, but never for bath temperatures >490 C. (examples #2, 7, 10, 12 and 16). However, for GI a normal bath temperature is 460 C. in commercial production, and this does not lead to sagging, except for very thick coatings (>30 m). So, the withdrawal speed in a production line must be the reason that it does not occur, which is also shown by examples 10-16 (corresponding to a line speed of 15 m/min), that give no sagging, while it does give sagging at lower line speeds (examples 1-9).

(46) For the MZ composition, sagging patterns are found at all bath temperatures, but less frequently above 430 C., as can be seen in Table 13 (3-4 examples showed sagging patterns out of 19 examples at panels at bath temperature 460 C. and higher, while all panels at bath temperature lower than 460 C.). In combination with the commercial experience with GI, it is concluded that the bath temperature should be above 430 C. to get less chance on sagging patterns.

(47) Withdrawal speed has also influence on the MZ composition, higher withdrawal speeds (150 mm/s=9 m/min) or higher, does give less examples of sagging (5 out of 17) than below 150 mm/s (17 out of 21). Therefore, to produce a product without sagging patterns, the line speed should be higher than 9 m/min, preferably higher than 30 m/min, as found in the pilot line trial experiments.

(48) An explanation for the sagging patterns is the stability of the oxide film on the coating during wiping (see EP 0 905 270 B1). It was assumed that a thinner oxide would lead to less sagging problems. However, introduction of CO.sub.2 in the wiping gas in addition to some N.sub.2, did not change the sagging pattern formation, as can be seen by comparing example 42 and 43 to examples 48-51, that did both not lead to sagging patterns. It can also not alleviate sagging patterns, as can be seen by comparing example 18 with 22. Similarly, example 29 and 48 were repeated with air on the wipers, instead of N.sub.2, leading to the same sagging behaviour. Apparently, the sagging pattern is not influenced by oxidation of the wiping gas, and air can also be a wiping medium for the ZnAlMg bath compositions from this invention.

(49) TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 experiments process parameters sagging With- Coating pattern GI (0.21% Al) drawal wiping with Bath wiping thickness present or MZ (2.0% Al + speed N.sub.2 temperature with CO.sub.2 front (1 = yes, # 2.0% Mg) (mm/s) Nl/min ( C.) Nl/min (m) 0 = no) 1 GI 100 50 490 0 17.6 1 2 GI 100 50 520 0 17.7 0 3 GI 100 100 460 0 13.5 1 4 GI 100 100 460 0 15 1 5 GI 100 100 490 0 9 1 6 GI 100 100 490 0 10 1 7 GI 100 100 520 0 9.2 0 8 GI 150 100 460 0 14.4 1 9 GI 150 100 460 0 15.6 1 10 GI 250 25 520 0 28 0 11 GI 250 50 490 0 19.4 0 12 GI 250 50 520 0 19.1 0 13 GI 250 100 460 0 8.5 0 14 GI 250 100 460 0 9.3 0 15 GI 250 100 490 0 8 0 16 GI 250 100 520 0 11.2 0 17 MZ 50 50 460 0 12.2 1 18 MZ 50 50 460 50 13.5 1 19 MZ 50 100 430 0 13.8 1 20 MZ 50 100 430 0 14.8 1 21 MZ 50 100 430 0 15.5 1 22 MZ 50 100 460 0 13.4 1 23 MZ 50 100 490 0 11.9 1 24 MZ 50 150 430 0 13.2 1 25 MZ 50 150 460 0 10.6 1 26 MZ 100 100 400 0 23.9 1 27 MZ 100 100 400 0 26.3 1 28 MZ 100 100 430 0 22.1 1 29* MZ 100 100 430 0 23 1 30 MZ 100 100 460 0 7.8 0 31 MZ 100 100 460 0 7.8 0 32 MZ 100 100 460 0 18.8 0-1 33 MZ 100 100 460 0 18.3 1 34 MZ 100 100 460 0 19.2 1 35 MZ 100 100 490 0 19.9 1 36 MZ 100 100 490 0 20.5 0 37 MZ 100 150 400 0 16.4 1 38 MZ 150 100 460 0 9.1 0 39 MZ 150 100 460 0 8.2 0 40 MZ 150 100 460 0 22.1 0 41 MZ 150 100 460 0 22.1 0 42 MZ 250 50 460 50 31.2 0 43 MZ 250 50 460 50 29.3 0 44 MZ 250 100 400 0 19.4 1 45 MZ 250 100 400 0 19.3 1 46 MZ 250 100 430 0 19.4 1 47 MZ 250 100 430 0 19.6 1 48* MZ 250 100 460 0 12.7 0 49 MZ 250 100 460 0 12.9 0 50 MZ 250 100 460 0 13.3 0 51 MZ 250 100 460 0 13 0 52 MZ 250 100 490 0 18.8 0 53 MZ 250 100 490 0 21.5 0 54 MZ 250 150 400 0 15.6 1 *these experiments have also been performed with air wiping, instead of N.sub.2, leading to the same sagging behaviour.

(50) On some of the pilot line material, laser-welding tests have been performed and compared to commercial GI with the following parameters in Table 14:

(51) TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 laser welding tests Coating type Coating thickness Sheet thickness GI 7-8 m 0.8 mm MZ_trial2 7-8 m 0.7 mm MZ_trial2 4-5 m 0.7 mm

(52) It is expected that laser welding will be used more in the future to connect steel parts in the automotive industry. In the conventional butt-welding configuration there is hardly an effect of the coating on the weldability, in the overlap configuration for laser welding however the presence of zinc has a big influence on the welding behaviour. During the welding process the zinc will melt and evaporate, the zinc vapour is trapped between the overlapping sheets. The build-up of vapour pressure between the sheets leads to blowouts of the melt pool, which results in (heavy) spatter. To prevent this, a spacer between the steel sheets at the weld can be used. However, in practice this will lead to higher costs. It is known that thin GI coatings lead to fewer problems than thick zinc coatings.

(53) Three test materials were cut to rectangular samples of 250125 mm in size (the long edge is in the rolling direction), these test coupons were placed in a welding jig and clamped firmly. An overlap length of 50 mm was used, this is a larger overlap than normally used in manufacturing but prevents that any edge effect influences the welding process. The clamping pressure was applied as close as possible to the welding zone (16 mm apart). The weld position was in the centre between the clamps. For the laser welding experiments a 4.5 kW Nd:YAG laser and a robot carried HighYag welding head was used producing a laser spot size of 0.45 mm (mono focus).

(54) For the welding tests with spacer, strips of paper were used as the spacer to create a small gap of about 0.1 mm between the sheets. Samples of the three materials were welded with the spacers between the sheets with 4000 W of laser power at a welding speed of 5 m/min and without shielding gas. All these welds showed perfect weld bead appearance without any pores.

(55) To quantify the weld appearance of the welds made without spacers the number of through thickness pores were counted. The number of these pores were assessed by examining transmission of light.

(56) A low welding speed gives the best weld bead appearance with the least through thickness pores. The best results were achieved with the combination of a low welding speed of 2 m/min and a high laser power of 4000 W. At this setting the sample coated with the thick (7-8 m) MZ_trial2 coating performed worse than the GI coated material with a similar coating thickness: 15 versus 7 through thickness pores per sample. At this setting the thin (4-5 m) MZ_trial2 coated material performed slightly better than the GI coated material: 5 and 7 through thickness pores per sample, respectively.

(57) These results can be summarized as follows: the coating thickness should be less than 7 m and at least 3 (for corrosion resistance) to get a good laser weldability without spacer.

(58) It will be appreciated that the coatings and the coating method can also be used for strip having a composition different from that used for the above experiments.