Search results

Joining, while first and foremost a pragmatic undertaking, concerned more with needs and results than with theory, will likely have to change with the dawn of the twenty‐first century to a true science. As materials become ever‐more sophisticated in their chemical composition, molecular morphology, micro‐ and nano‐structure, and macro‐structural arrangement to provide ever‐better functionally specific properties, a more complete and precise understanding of how such materials can be joined for optimal effectiveness and efficiency will become essential. Traditional options for joining will surely evolve – sometimes to provide unimagined capabilities. But, in addition, totally new methods will almost certainly emerge as evolution of materials gives way to revolution to meet unimagined new designs and design demands. This paper takes a glance at the past and a hard look at the present in the hope of catching a glimpse of the future.

This fifth part of a comprehensive six‐part series of articles presents a systematic procedure for formalising the generation of alternative concepts for a particular design employing integral snap‐fit attachments. With the procedure, the alternatives generated are representative of the entire pertinent design space, since they include alternative attachment interface geometries, assembly procedures, attachment features, and constraint options for a particular application. The procedure is easy to use, effective and efficient, and results in a number of alternatives which are sufficient to represent the entire pertinent design space, but not so large as to preclude selection of a best concept using an optimisation method.

Weld‐bonding combines the physical force‐based process of welding with the chemical force‐based process of bonding or, more properly, adhesive bonding. When done properly, the claim is that a hybrid process results which offers the best of both processes; the high joint efficiency, resistance to diverse and complex loading, and temperature tolerance of welding; the load‐spreading, stress concentration‐softening, and structural damage tolerance of adhesive bonding. And, beyond these individual process attributes, there are claims, or at least predictions, of synergistic benefits in the form of improved energy absorption and fatigue life for demanding applications. However, it is difficult to find reliable data in the open literature to support these real or potential benefits. Furthermore, complications in performing the hybrid process in practice place an even greater premium on process control than normal. This paper explores the question, “Is it all worth it?” The paper delves into the theory underlying weld‐bonding, the facts concerning the process including pluses and pitfalls, and considers where the process could or should go from here.

Being inherently a non‐pressure fusion process, laser‐beam welding (LBW) has been shown to have difficulty compared to resistance spot welding for weld‐bonding Al alloy structures, despite the many structural and manufacturing productivity advantages. Study of laser‐beam weld‐bonding of Al‐alloy structure for automobile assembly has led to a technique that appears to have both technical feasibility and production utility. The use of LBW through a hole in a pressure‐applying probe has proven to allow the production of contamination‐free spot welds through pre‐applied pre‐cured structural adhesive. The general approach, along with some details to still be overcome, is presented for both information and solution.

This first part of a comprehensive six‐part series of articles on integral attachment using snap‐fit features familiarizes the reader with the key terms relating to the subject. Every area of study and practice must have associated with it a language to express objects, actions, and ideas. To understand any subject, understanding the language is essential. Developing clear, concise, unambiguous definitions of key terms is a tedious but necessary and critical first step to promoting understanding by allowing effective and efficient communication. These terms and definitions have been carefully compiled and thoughtfully refined from a broad industrial base, published literature, and university‐based research. They are the beginning of a lexicon for the embryonic but promising technology of integral attachment using snap‐fit features.

A formalized, systematic approach to product design, using integral snap‐fit features to accomplish assembly was revealed in the first six parts of this series of papers. This final part applies the developed methodology to a case study, thereby familiarising readers with use of the methodology in practical design situations.

The third part of a comprehensive six‐part series on a promising and growing approach to mechanical attachment amenable to automation. Integral snap‐fit attachment design has traditionally focused almost exclusively on the individual features that actually accomplish locking between parts of an assembly (e.g. cantilever hooks, bayonet‐fingers, compressive hooks, traps, and others). The placement and orientation of features that facilitate or enhance engagement or eliminate unwanted translation, rotation or vibration, i.e. locating features and enhancements, are rarely considered. Here, describes integral features classified as locks, locators or enhancements. More importantly, presents a systematic six‐step approach or methodology to guide designers at the higher, attachment or conceptual design level (as opposed to lower, feature or detail design level).

An ongoing revolution in the development and implementation of new materials has placed new demands on the ability to join these materials into devices, parts and components, and devices, parts and components into packages, assemblies and structures for both electrical and mechanical applications. Looks at the past successes and shortcomings of traditional joining technologies. Presents some obvious and some not‐so‐obvious directions as one attempt at prognostication of the needs for new joining technologies for the forthcoming new century.

Suggests that, without question, while every step in a systematic approach to the design of parts for assembly using integral snap‐fit features is important, none is more important than selecting locking features. After all, it is these features that hold the assembly together. While quite different in appearance and details of their operation, all integral locking features comprise a latch and a catch component to create a locking pair. Proper, no less optimum, function requires that such locking pairs be selected using a systematic approach. Presents that approach as a six‐step methodology, but first, defines and describes latch and catch components, bringing order to their apparent boundless variety. Demonstrates the utility of the methodology with a real‐life case study.