Search results

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

From when we, as humans, first lashed a pointed stone to a split straight stick to make a more effective spear for hunting to now when we fasten and bond ablative ceramic tiles to the frail metal skin of the Space Shuttle to allow safe re‐entry from manned excursions into space, joining has been a pragmatic, albeit critically important, fabrication process. As we move beyond the Industrial Age to the ages of Information Technology, Nanotechnology, and Biotechnology, joining must move from a secondary process for manufacturing objects or articles from pre‐synthesized and pre‐shaped materials to a primary process for combining materials into fundamental structures as these structures and even materials are being synthesized; where the boundary between the materials and the structure becomes blurred. This paper attempts to catch a glimpse of the future where joining comes of age to become an enabling technology practiced as much or more by technicians or physicians than as a trade practiced by helmeted welders or hard‐hatted riveters.