Optimization of Resistance Welding Technology for Molybdenum Plates: Welding Practices Before Heavy-Weight Molybdenum Wire Drawing

In aerospace, nuclear engineering, and electronic component industries, molybdenum plates are critical materials due to their high melting points, low thermal expansion coefficients, and excellent electrical conductivity. However, challenges such as cold welds and grain coarsening often arise during molybdenum plate welding, directly affecting the yield rate of subsequent wire drawing processes. This article systematically explores the optimization of resistance welding technology for molybdenum plates, drawing from a 2025 industrial case study involving heavy-weight molybdenum wire production.

1. Core Challenges and Fundamental Principles of Molybdenum Plate Resistance Welding

The key contradiction in molybdenum plate resistance welding lies in balancing heat input control with material deformation suppression. Molybdenum’s melting point is 2623°C, but above 600°C, it is prone to recrystallization, leading to grain coarsening. Our team discovered in a 2025 case study that insufficient upsetting force in traditional processes resulted in retained cast structures in the weld zone, reducing wire tensile strength to below 50% of the base material.

Resistance welding generates heat through electrical resistance at the contact surface, followed by pressure application to achieve solid-state bonding. Its advantages include:

  • No filler metal required, avoiding impurity introduction;
  • Small heat-affected zone, suitable for thin plates;
  • High automation potential, ideal for mass production.

However, molybdenum’s resistivity (5.2×10⁻⁸ Ω·m) is higher than copper’s (1.7×10⁻⁸ Ω·m), necessitating optimized current density and welding time to prevent overheating.

2. Process Parameter Optimization: From Experimental Trials to Industrial-Scale Success

2.1 Interactive Effects of Key Parameters

The core parameters for molybdenum plate resistance welding include welding currentupsetting forcewelding time, and electrode pressure. Through orthogonal experimental design, we derived the following guidelines:

ParameterOptimization DirectionFailure Mode
Welding CurrentIncrease linearly with plate thicknessCold welds (low) or grain coarsening (high)
Upsetting Force≥80% of material yield strengthRetained cast structures (low) or cracks (high)
Welding Time0.1–0.3 secondsExpanded heat-affected zone (long)
Electrode PressureInversely proportional to current densitySplatter (low) or accelerated electrode wear (high)

2.2 Step-by-Step Operation Guide

Based on a 0.5mm-thick molybdenum plate welding case, we recommend the following process:

  1. Surface Preparation: Clean oxide layers with 10% hydrofluoric acid; target surface roughness Ra ≤ 0.8μm.
  2. Electrode Selection: Use CuCrZr alloy electrodes with an end diameter three times the plate thickness.
  3. Parameter Settings:
    • Current density: 120–150 A/mm²
    • Upsetting force: 80–120 MPa
    • Welding time: 0.15–0.25 seconds
  4. Cooling Control: Immediately cool with argon gas to below 200°C post-welding.
  5. Quality Inspection: Use ultrasonic testing to detect weld density; aim for no defects ≥φ0.2mm.

3. Common Pitfalls and Solutions

Pitfall 1: Blindly Pursuing High Current Densities

Problem: Some enterprises increase current density beyond 200 A/mm² for efficiency, leading to grain sizes exceeding 200μm in the weld zone and wire fractures during drawing.
Solution: Determine critical current density via thermal simulation (e.g., ≤150 A/mm² for 0.5mm plates).

Pitfall 2: Neglecting Dynamic Upsetting Force Compensation

Problem: Material softening during welding alters contact resistance; static upsetting force causes cold welds.
Solution: Implement servo pressure control to adjust upsetting force to 90% of material yield strength in real time.

Pitfall 3: Overlooking Post-Weld Heat Treatment

Problem: Direct wire drawing of welded molybdenum results in a 30% fracture rate at φ0.1mm.
Solution: Perform 1100°C/1-hour vacuum annealing post-welding to reduce weld zone hardness to HV280 or below.

4. Case Comparison: Traditional vs. Optimized Processes

Take a φ5.8mm molybdenum wire production case as an example:

MetricTraditional ProcessOptimized Process
Welding Strength (MPa)450–520680–750
Weld Zone Grain Size (μm)150–25030–80
Wire Drawing Yield Rate65%92%
Energy Consumption (kWh/kg)12.58.3

Optimizations include:

  1. Pulsed current control to reduce heat input by 40%;
  2. Segmented pressure application to prevent splatter;
  3. Custom cooling fixtures to achieve 150°C/s cooling rates in the weld zone.

5. Practical Checklist and Future Outlook

Pre-Welding Checks

  • Surface roughness of molybdenum plates ≤ 0.8μm;
  • Electrode end face parallelism ≤ 0.01mm;
  • Vacuum level ≤ 5×10⁻³ Pa.

In-Process Monitoring

  • Current fluctuation ≤ ±3%;
  • Upsetting force delay ≤ 0.02 seconds;
  • Weld zone temperature ≤ 800°C.

Post-Welding Inspections

  • Ultrasonic testing reveals no defects ≥φ0.2mm;
  • Hardness differential (weld/base material) ≤ 15%;
  • Tensile fracture exhibits ductile characteristics.

In the future, hybrid laser-resistance welding technologies may enable smaller heat-affected zones and higher precision. However, equipment costs remain a barrier to widespread adoption.