Related Resources: manufacturing

Selecting The Fastening Method Procedure and Calculator

Selecting Joining / Fastening Method Procedure and Calculator.

In order to select the most appropriate joining process, it is necessary to consider all processes available within the methodology. As technology specific selection criteria tend to be non transportable between domains, evaluating the merits of joining processes that are based on fundamentally dissimilar technologies requires a different approach. Differentiating between technology classes and process classes requires the comparison of specifically selected parameters. In order to evaluate a joint, consideration must be given to its functional, technical, spatial and economic requirements.

The joining process selection methodology is based on the same matrix approach used for Manufacturing Process Selection. Again, due to page size constraints and the number of processes to be detailed, each process has been assigned an identification code rather than using process names.

Things to know before using this tool:

  • Obtain an estimate of the annum and total production quantity.
  • Determine application engineering material types requirements.
  • Determine whether the fastening process should be Permanent, Semi-Permanent, or Non-Permanent

Material type – Accounts for the compatibility of the parent material with the manufacturing process, and is therefore a key technical selection factor. A large proportion of the materials used in engineering manufacture have been included in the selection methodology, from ferrous alloys to precious metals.

Materials Included within calculator: Iron, Carbon Steel, Steel Tool & Alloy, Stainless Steel, Copper & Alloys, Aluminum & Allows, Magnesium & Alloys, ZInc & Alloys, Tin & Alloys, Nickel & Alloys, Titanium & Alloys, Thermoplastics, Thermosets, Fire Resistant Composites, Ceramics, Refractory Metals, and Precious Metals.

Production quantity per annum – The number of components to be produced to account for the economic feasibility of the manufacturing process. The quantities specified for selection purposes are in the ranges:

Very low volume = 1 - 100
Low volume = 100 - 1000
Medium volume = 1000 - 10 000
Medium to high volume = 10 000 - 100 000
High volume 100 000+
All quantities

Preview: Selecting Joining / Fastening Method Procedure and Calculator

The following Joining / Fastening Method Calculators based on engineering material requirements are available (SEE BOTTOM OF WEBPAGE FOR PROCESS KEY CODE):

Calculator tools open in a new (popup) window

Iron, Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Nickel and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Carbon Steel Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Titanium and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Alloy Steel , Tool Steel Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Thermoplastics Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Stainless Steel Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Thermosets Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Copper and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Fire Resistant Composites Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Aluminum and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Ceramics Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Magnesium and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Refractory Metals Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Zinc and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Precious Metals (Gold, Silver, Platinum) Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Tin and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator Dissimilar Metals Joining / Fastening Method Calculator
Lead and Alloys Joining / Fastening Method Calculator  

Joining Process selection Criteria:

Functional – Functional requirements define the working characteristics of the joint. The functional considerations for a joint are degree of permanence, load type and strength. Degree of permanence identifies whether a joint needs to be dismantled or not. In most cases the permanence of a joining process is independent of its technology class. Degree of permanence provides a suitable high-level selection criterion that is not reliant on detailed geometry. Load type and strength are often mutually dependent and can be influenced by the geometric characteristics of the joint interface. As joint design is dissimilar for different technology classes, it is difficult to use load type or strength as a universal selection criteria. However, these considerations must be taken into account when evaluating suitable joining processes for final selection when appropriate.

Technical – Specific needs of components to be joined are categorized by the joint’s technical requirements. The technical considerations for a joint are material type, joint design and operating temperature. Material type is selected based on parameters defined by the 28 Selecting candidate processes product’s operating environment such as corrosion resistance. The material type is relevant to all joining technologies because they need to be compatible. Joint design is often defined by the geometry. However, if joining is considered prior to detailed geometry, the selected process can influence the design. Due to the fundamental differences in joint configurations, it is not suitable as a selection criterion for non-technology specific selection. Operating temperature influences the performance of most joining processes, although it should be considered during material selection. While an important aspect, its effect varies for different joining technologies. Therefore, consideration of operating temperature is more appropriate during final selection.


Spatial – Geometric characteristics of the joint are accounted for by the spatial requirements. The spatial requirements identified are size, weight, geometry and material thickness. The size and weight of components to be joined is considered and determined when their material is selected. As the selection methodology is intended for use prior to the development of detailed geometry, using geometry as a selection criterion would be contradictory. Material thickness has already proven to be a successful criterion in other selection methodologies, and the suitability of joining processes is easily classified for different thicknesses of material.

Economics – The economics of joining processes aligns the design with the business needs of the product. Economic considerations can be split into two sections: tooling and product. Tooling refers to the ease of automation, availability of equipment, skill required, tooling requirements and cost. Product economics relate to production rates and quantity. These business considerations are driven by the product economics as they determine the need for tooling and its complexity, levels of automation and labor requirements. Production rate and quantity are very closely linked. They can both be used to determine the assembly speed and the need for and feasibility of automation. However, as the selection methodology is to be used in the early stages of product development it is more likely that quantity will be known from customer requirements or market demand.

Category

Criteria

Description
Technological Functional
  • Degree of permanence
  • Loading type (static, cyclic, impact)
  • Strength
Functional requirements define the working characteristics of the joint.
Technical
  • Joint configuration / design
  • Operating temperature
  • Materials type
  • Material compatibility
  • Accuracy
Specific needs of components to be joined are categorized by a joints technical requirements.
Spatial
  • Material thickness
  • Size, weight
  • Geometry
Geometric characteristics of the joint are accounted for by the spatial requirements.
Misc.
  • Complexity
  • Flexibility (assembly/orientation)
  • Safety
  • Joint accessibility
  • Quality
Other important issues not considered by the above groups.
Economic
  • Production quality
  • Production rate
  • Availability of equipment
  • Ease of automation
  • Skill required
  • Tooling requirements
  • Cost
The economics of joining processes aligns the design with the business needs of the product.

Manufacturing Joining Process Key selection Matrix Codes

Welding Processes

W1 Cold Welding (CW)
W2 Diffusion Bonding (DFW)
W3 Explosive Welding (EXW)
W4 Friction Welding (FRW)
W5 Ultrasonic Welding (USW)
W6 Gas Welding
W7 Thermit Welding (Exothermic Welding)
W8 Seam Welding
W9 Flash Welding
W10 Electro-Slag Welding
W11 Projection Welding
W12 Spot Welding
W13 Metal Inert-Gas Welding
W14 Tungsten Inert-Gas Welding
W15 Manual Metal Arc Welding
W16 Submerged Arc Welding
W17 Flux Cored Arc Welding
W18 Plasma Arc Welding
W19 Stud Arc Welding
W20 Laser Beam Welding
W21 Electron Beam Welding
W22 Thermoplastic Welding

Brazing Processes

B1 Manual Torch Brazing
B2 Automated Torch Brazing
B3 Furnace Brazing
B4 Induction Brazing
B5 Resistance Brazing
B6 Dip Brazing
B7 Infrared Brazing
B8 Diffusion Brazing

Soldering Processes

S1 Manual Torch Soldering
S2 Automated Torch Soldering
S3 Furnace Soldering
S4 Induction Soldering
S5 resistance Soldering
S6 Dip Soldering
S7 Infrared Soldering
S8 Iron Soldering
S9 Wave Soldering

Adhesive Bonding

A1 Anaerobic
A2 Cyanoacrylate
A3 Emulsion
A4 Epoxy Resin
A5 Hot Melt
A6 Phenolic
A7 Polyurethane
A8 Solvent-Born Rubber
A9 Tape
A10 Toughened Adhesive
A11 Polyimide

Mechanical Fastening Methods

F1 Solid Rivet
F2 Tubular Rivet (Semi/Eyelet)
F3 Split Rivet
F4 Compression Rivet
F5 Flanging
F6 Staking
F7 Stapling & Stitching
F8 Crimping
F9 Seaming
F10 Nailing
F11 Snap Fit
F12 Press Fit
F13 Shrink & Expansion Fit
F14 Blind Rivet
F15 Retaining Ring (Clip, E-Clip, Cam, Clamp)
F16 Self-Tapping Screw
F17 Quick Release Devices (Clip/Lock/Latch/Cam/Clamp)
F18 Pins ( Taper/Spring/Grooved/Split)
F19 Tapered Key
F20 Magnet Devices
F21 Threaded Fasteners (Bolt Assembly/Screw Assembly)
F22 Anchor Bolt
F23 Threaded inserts

References:

Manufacturing Process Selection, For Design to Manufacture:
K. G. Swift
Department of Engineering, University of Hull, UK
J. D. Booker
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, UK
Redford, A. (1994) Design for assembly. European Designer, Sept/Oct, 12–14.
Swift, K. G., Raines, M. and Booker, J. D. (1997) Design capability and the costs of failure. Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, 211, 409–423.

Contribute Article
Spider Optimizer

© Copyright 2000 - 2020, by Engineers Edge, LLC www.engineersedge.com
All rights reserved
Disclaimer | Feedback | Advertising | Contact

Date/Time:


User Reviews/Comments:

There are currently no comments available.


Add a Comment (you must be logged in to post comment Register):
Name:
Email: (Optional)
Comment: