Sheet metal joining process selector

Abstract

Selecting the most suited manufacturing process for a specific product, as well as optimizing the design regarding manufacture and assembly, is actions that will directly impact on cost and quality, aiming at finding the best match between the product's functional requirements and the attributes of the processes, and it should be carried out in the first stages of product development. In this context, the literature presents some sheet metal joining process selection methods, which can be classified as: mechanical (forming), metallurgical (welding) and chemical (adhesive) processes. However, such methods are complex and not specific for thin sheet metal. Therefore, our goal is to propose a joining process selector for overlapping sheet metal, which can correlate the product's functional requirements with the technical characteristics of the processes (clinching, rivets and welding) in early stages of product development. Unlike what is found in the literature, this selector is subdivided into five different types of clinching processes. The selector design was based on the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) principle, which easily converts a product's functional requirements into an ordered joining process list. The joining process data collection was carried out from two approaches: quantitative (joining sheet thickness, joint dimensions, production batch and joining strength) and qualitative (type of material, surface finish and accessibility to perform the joining). Three products were chosen to validate the selector. The results were compared against the literature and commonly commercially employed processes. The application of the selector in commercial products showed compatibility with the literature as well as the commercially used processes. However, depending on the product, other requirements might be considered, such as availability of equipment and production costs.

On the applicability limits of double-sided self-pierce riveting

“…Even though DSSPR is a process whose development and application are still in its early stages when compared to other joining by forming processes such as SPR, it is important to point out that the joining process most widely used to produce lap joints in thin metal sheets is RSW. 11…”

“…Even though DSSPR is a process whose development and application are still in its early stages when compared to other joining by forming processes such as SPR, it is important to point out that the joining process most widely used to produce lap joints in thin metal sheets is RSW. 11 RSW is classified as a joining by welding process 12 and uses electric power to locally heat and melt the material of the sheets into a nugget while they are pressed together by a pair of electrodes. Because RSW is utilized as a reference to compare the morphology of the connections and the required forces and energies to assemble and destroy the joints against those produced by DSSPR, it was decided to use a tubular rivet geometry (Figure 3(a)) compatible with that of the welding nuggets (Figure 3(b)).…”

Connection of difficult-to-form sheets by clinching process: A review

“…Metals are traditionally connected using thermal welding technology. However, current thermal welding technology [16,17,[20][21][22][23][24] induces insurmountable metallurgical defects, especially for connecting sheets with different performances, including metal and non-metallic sheets. Clinching technology is regarded as an effective means of connecting similar and different sheets to meet the development needs of lightweight.…”

Automated joining element design for high product variety in the manufacturing industry

“…However, such information is rarely present during product design [34]. Furthermore, Bond et al [41] stated that the complexity and generality of many technology selection methods overshadow the required utility of having a simple tool that considers the product's functional requirements.…”

“…For example, studies have described many methodologies for selecting materials, processes, and technologies. These include multidisciplinary decision-making algorithms (e.g., [39]), knowledge base query tools (e.g., [40]), or simple tabular overviews (e.g., [41]). Usually, most methodologies first screen infeasible technologies and then rank the remaining ones according to a given set of criteria (e.g., [42,43]).…”