As Ford spends big, GM joins aluminum with simple welds

[matthewq4b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5P7AhQ3HNs

 

 

Looks like it breaks through the surface oxide just fine to me and comes out as a text book perfect AL spot weld, no discolouration like ribbon spot welding, no burning, no mushrooming.

 

And this is not accepting GM's word it is as good , that would be governed by standard engineering practices. If the welds are meeting the engineering standards for spot welds then it is as good simple as that. And really no ONE would be trying to pass off substandard welding as it is easily provable and quantifiable can you say law suit, that GM can not win no matter how it is spun. And they would have nothing to gain especially if the intent is to market it as stated as it will be tested by other users before implementation. But I'm sure you would have taken a similar stance to dual circuit master cylinders. Just cause Ford did not do it it can't be any good.

Have another glass of cool aid.

 

And GM can patent it all they like, all it takes is for someone to change couple items enough to clear the patent, not like has ever happened before. Once you know the fundamentals almost anything can modified enough to not be caught up in a patent infringement.

 

If you notice the material in this demonstration is not just two layers of 20 or 22 gauge sheet , But three layers of what looks like 16 gauge plus.

As I said I suspect there is some frequency manipulation going on here to allow this to be as quick and clean as it is.

 

Matthew

Edited December 5, 2014 by matthewq4b

[Pioneer]

You'll never know if it's a good weld until you either use ultrasound on it, or break the welds with a destructive testing gun. A cold weld can look good visually.

 

Metal also looks a lot thinner than some of the panels I've seen. There are also 4 distinct alloys. I'm still not buying they they have the answer by a few circles in a cap.

[matthewq4b]

The circles would be just to insure a proper contact to get through the oxide layer to inure the high resistance point is at the joint between materials and not the electrodes. That has always been one of the big issues with spot welding AL. The feed back and weld control is a much much larger portion of the equation. And really it is only in the last couple years we have seen welders on the market that can provide this kind of feed back, it would prevent burning the rings off the electrodes and marring the surface of the work. It likely is a staged ramp up of current, frequency and clamping force till critical temp/resistance is reached. It most definitely is not the old method of spot welding were you clamp the piece then just put the juice to it for a set period of time.

 

And your right you can't tell with any weld looking at it if it is any good unless it is chuck full of porosity or has obvious under cutting. But I'm pretty they have tested this quite thoroughly. And as stated before GM has been doing this since 2010 and just now utilizing it wider applications so obviously they have they spent their time working out bugs and inconsistency's. This is not something they just invented and put in to wide spread use right away. It has been developed over time and I imagine improved over the last several years. I would have more concerns with the all AL body of the F150 than these welds as even today near everybody on occasion has still suffered at some point from stress fractures in the steel body's of vehicles and that is after over a century of experience making steel bodied vehicles and extensive computer modeling.

This at least has actual time in use behind it.

 

Matthew

Edited December 5, 2014 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

But I'm pretty they have tested this quite thoroughly. And as stated before GM has been doing this since 2010 and just now utilizing it wider applications

 

That device in the video that scribes the circles onto the electrode tip?

 

That seems to have been patented in 2007 (7,249,482). I can't find their other patents related to this system, but I expect they have a similar vintage.

 

GM's patents for their welding system would have been published and known to Ford before they started working on the aluminum F150. I don't think that Ford was unaware of GM's approach. Certainly, they would have known that GM was using this method when they did routine teardowns on Escalades, Suburbans, and Corvettes.

 

And I tend to agree with Pioneer, in that Ford opted not to go this route for defensible reasons.

[matthewq4b]

GM has been spot welding smaller AL assembles since the 2010MY

 

Yup Ford sure did have reasons to go this route (rivets and adhesive) , known engineering, known cost coefficient, existing design standards in place, and available expertise using these methods.

Ford jumped in with both feet and went from a few small sub assemblies to a whole vehicle body. The engineering peoples needed to design such a structure would have extensive experience with riveting and adhesives and not so much with spot welding as it has been until just recently limited to a very few select specialized applications. So Ford went with what was widely known and used as they had enough engineering and design challenges ahead with out adding a method of fastening that has not been widely used or has a vast expertize base avalible.

 

Even GM realizes this and is not jumping in whole hog but doing it incrementally with ever larger spot welded subassemblies to gain the experience and to develop the methodology of building and design.

 

The design of structures differs substantially if the method of fastening is different. How many individuals do think there are on the planet that have extensive experience designing large spot welded sheet aluminum structures especially something as complex as a vehicle structure that has meet stringent crash standards ? I can tell ya exponentially fewer than for riveting and adhesive.

 

Ford choose the way they did due to time constraints and resources as stated before. It was a short goal decision to get it to market asap, if Ford had chosen to go with a primarily spot welded structure it would have likely added a year or two to the launch as it would have required developing some new methodologies for assembly and design and that would have added signifigent cost to an already costly project. Even with the project I was involved with the design time and cost for a spot welded structure was longer with spot welds than using rivets and adhesive simply due to the lack of available expertize and resources.

 

And if you think that Ford will stick with primarily riveted and adhesive fastened structures for the long run you are kidding your self.

 

 

Matthew

Edited December 5, 2014 by matthewq4b

[RichardJensen]

Ford jumped in with both feet and went from a few small sub assemblies to a whole vehicle body.

 

Yes. In 2003. With the Jaguar XJ.

 

 

Ford choose the way they did due to time constraints ... a short goal decision to get it to market asap

 

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2015-ford-f-150-prototypes-have-been-working-at-a-gold-1583036296

 

Ford had aluminum attribute prototypes on job sites in 2011

 

As far back as 2008, Ford began work to ensure that 90% of its customers would be no more than a two-hour drive from a collision-repair specialist who knew how to work with aluminum.

...

As early as 2009, Ford built two rounds of prototypes as proof of concept and to gain confidence in aluminum usage.

 

http://fortune.com/2014/07/24/f-150-fords-epic-gamble/

 

Ford has spent over six years on this truck. If they were 'rushing' this product to market 'asap', they did a lousy job of it. The current F150 sat on the market for 10 years a full three years longer than both of its predecessors.

 

it would have required developing some new methodologies for assembly and design and that would have added signifigent cost to an already costly project.

 

 

So the GM process--or some variant, thereof---which they claim enables them to switch to aluminum without retooling would have 'added significant cost' to a program that already involves spending over a billion dollars converting two body shops to assemble primarily by means of adhesive and rivets with welding confined to the truck bed?

[RichardJensen]

if you think that Ford will stick with primarily riveted and adhesive fastened structures for the long run you are kidding your self.

 

And you're kidding yourself if you think that GM's approach is going to lead the way.

[matthewq4b]

Exactly Ford already had experience with Rivets and adhesive it was a known quantity and this was long before AL spot welding tech was at the stage it is today it has nothing to do with it being superior.

And Richard I cant expect you understand what is involved with adopting a completely new fastening method. Rivets and adhesive are a known quantity with tables already established X load on X material with x adhesive requires x size of rivets at X spacing and gives x safety margin, there are no proven available tables like this currently for these structures with spot welds. They can tabulated from basic engineering formulas but then require repeated destructive testing to confirm and set a base line average to build the tables.

 

. Going to any thing beyond already established procedures would require and extensive addition of time. It would have not been 6 years but 8 or 9 or 10. and Quite frankly the tech was not available when Ford started the project and apparently had no interest in moving beyond it, there was no way they were going to chuck a few years of R&D out the window to start from near scratch.

They needed to get the truck to market and not make it a decade long research platform it had to be done as quickly as possible and as cost effectively as possible. ASAP , that does not mean cutting corners or doing it half assed. it means ASAP.

Maybe your definition of that is half assed, but my mine sure as the hell is not. That means using what resources are available to do it as quick as you can and in turn that means utilizing established methods that don't require extensive research especially when there is a crap load of it already to do. Anything beyond that is not ASAP as now you are adding time to do R&D for items or procedures that could have already been accomplished with traditional methods to accomplish the same end goal. And do you think Ford had the spare resources to dive in to this in the time frame required ?

 

You forget Ford is in the business to make money and will cut corners any where they can to save a buck with out grossly negatively impacting the product and even then not always. It does not matter who it is all companies do that.

 

Ford did the best they could with what was available at the time given the cost and time restraints, they could have friction stir welded all the joints which is superior to both systems is it cost practical, absolutely not. Was spending the time and resources to go to a new fastening system for a project already under way, no.

 

Spot welding Aluminium is starting to replace riveting and adhesives in multiple applications across multiple disciplines and industries why do think this is ? cause it is grossly inferior ? of course not, it 's cause it has the potential to be more cost effective and yields an equivalent or even better product. The fact it is an option now for a lot of applications where as just few years ago it was not sort of says it all.

 

This is the next advancement in sheet aluminium fastening and it is not just GM trying to move away from rivets, but multiple industries across multiple disciplines are slowly moving away from rivets in sheet aluminium, especially in high stress locations, it is being replaced with friction stir welding , spot welding , and high freq high speed automated tig.

Ships and steel structures and boilers all moved away from riveting, as welding technology progressed riveting fell by the way side, as welding was faster and less costly. This is no different not one bit.

 

Your issue here is GM helped pioneer it, and that is one narrow and obtuse point of view.

If Ford had done this it would be the best thing ever.

 

Your have drank so much kool aid you don't know any different any more.

 

If you really think that a more costly slower method is not going to be replaced by faster less costly method that can yield equivalent or superior results, you're delusional.

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

Good grief Matt, thank you for finally coming around and answering your own damn question.

 

there are no proven available tables like this currently for these structures with spot welds.

 

 

 

The question to be asked is why did not Ford do this ?

 

Are you satisfied now? Or are you going to continue lecturing us about how it would have been irresponsible for Ford to use this technology, and about how Ford is not using the most efficient CURRENTLY PRACTICABLE method, and contradicting yourself in every post?

[RichardJensen]

And, by the way:

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US20140048523?dq=ford+aluminum+weld&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QPGBVLC3B4qcygT1gYKQAQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg

 

A high capacity aluminum spot welding trans-gun includes a pair of opposed electrodes, a weld control that controls the operation of the trans-gun, and a transformer that regulates the voltage to the trans-gun having a primary input voltage and secondary output voltage. A liquid-cooled high voltage primary conductor electrically connects the weld control to the transformer primary input and a low voltage secondary conductor electrically connects the transformer secondary output to the welding gun to energize the opposed electrodes.

 

[RichardJensen]

Your issue here is GM helped pioneer it, and that is one narrow and obtuse point of view.

 

My issue is that GM has no credibility to make claims like this.

 

By externally verifiable metrics, their build quality and engineering is worse than Ford's, their claimed innovations in other fields have failed to deliver at anywhere near the promised capability (dual mode hybrid? Voltec platform?), and if this approach were truly "ready for prime time", then why is GM refusing to commit to a full aluminum truck body with the next gen. Silverado/Sierra?

 

I'd love to come up with an example of GM or Fiat/Chrysler coming up with a technological innovation that merits favorable mention, but I can't, because--as borne out by their bottom lines--these are not well-run companies.

 

However, I'll tell you who I WILL give credit to: Honda

http://world.honda.com/news/2012/4120906Weld-Together-Steel-Aluminum/

 

When Honda tells me that they've solved a technological challenge, they've got credibility.

[silvrsvt]

However, I'll tell you who I WILL give credit to: Honda

http://world.honda.com/news/2012/4120906Weld-Together-Steel-Aluminum/

 

When Honda tells me that they've solved a technological challenge, they've got credibility.

 

Though I do have to wonder about the effects of having two dissimilar materials in direct contact with one another. I've seen galvanic corrosion first hand on Aluminum inner hull/armored steel plate on Bradleys while in the Army..basically have rust running down where the bolts hold the two together.

[matthewq4b]

Good grief Matt, thank you for finally coming around and answering your own damn question.

 

 

 

 

Are you satisfied now? Or are you going to continue lecturing us about how it would have been irresponsible for Ford to use this technology, and about how Ford is not using the most efficient CURRENTLY PRACTICABLE method, and contradicting yourself in every post?

 

I still stand by that Ford should have been looking at this ages ago, especially since short of some of the EU builders they traditionally have been the largest users of sheet aluminium in vehicles and have been doing so the early 80's. There was no reason what so ever they could have not been exploring this tech or at least farmed it out to have it in house for future use considering the future potential cost savings and the planned expanded use for sheet AL alloys in vehicles.

 

GM has also seen this coming and chose to try to solve one of the single biggest cost disadvantages to AL construction of vehicle structures BEFORE proceeding with large AL vehicle structures. Also GM does not have any where near the in house expertize that Ford does with AL structures they are developing it incrementally with ever larger components. If GM committed to make their next Gen all aluminium I would have to question the wisdom of that given their current limited experience. In fact I question Ford with this as their claims as being the latest and greatest and best on the market, so lets hope this is not another 6.0L fiasco. Fundamentally the 6.0L is a good engine it was the stuff that was never accounted for or considered that sunk it and that can happen with anything.

 

 

 

And Honda has adapted friction stir welding to handle dissimilar metals I'm aware of this tech and it has been used for dissimilar metals already, still as Silver said the jury is still out this one. Unless the alloy they are using will solder it's self to the steel and that is a possibility as there AL alloys that will in affect solder themselves to steel. There's a potential for galvanic corrosion between the two soldered or not. This is even more of an issue in vehicles where the body is used as the electrical systems return.

 

And why would you post a patent for a weld gun cable ? Its the supply feed cable and nothing more. and has little to no bearing at what is being discussed. All Ford did was put a cooling jacket around conductors and put it in a single package. Ingenious but not new by any stretch as liquid cool jacketed conductors are not new. This a patent for the application to a weld gun. Nothing to advance the actual process of welding the material, this about increasing the mobility of the weld gun.

You're grasping at straws Richard.

 

Yes GM may not have much credibility in fact none of the manufacturers really do considering their past histories and Ford is no exception in overstating claims that never come to pass that is part of the PR part of the industry.

 

And really even the worse run companies can still crank out breakthrough technological developments they usually though are so poorly run they are not be able to exploit the benefits of these technologies.

 

Try to be more objective with stuff. This is not new unproven tech, and it already has been in use for several years now. Someone drug an old story and republished it to take some focus off the new AL F150 as that is what PR depts. do.

 

But you are trying to dismiss the credibility of something that is ALREADY proven and been in use for years. That is the issue you dismissed something just cause it came from GM and did not bother to follow up with any up research to see if it was even a valid claim or some yoyo making pie in the sky promises, in this case the tech is well proven and has been in use for several years now, those are the facts. You blindly dismissed it with no fore thought on your part at all, regardless of the reasons why you did that, that is what was done. And that is a narrow minded obtuse point of view no matter how you cut it.

 

 

Matthew

[RichardJensen]

Whatever Matt. Have it your way. GM, with absolutely no history of innovating aluminum assembly methods (or even doing a good job with steel) has magically solved every single problem with high volume aluminum production all at once, except they won't use their new wonder-technology to build complete bodies in aluminum.

[jpd80]

Welding aluminum would give GM's constructional process an easier switchover from steel, that's what's at bottom of this.

Ford has changed its whole process to match the constructional needs of aluminum with rivets and adhesive, it is going

to a process well and truly proven by Jaguar/Land Rover and others which is now less risky than trying something like

aluminum welding which GM until now has limited to minor panels, not whole cabins or vehicles.

 

Which ever way you slice this, Ford transitioned when the plant needed to be gutted anyway, so the cost was going to be

there regardless of the chosen material. GM has committed to HT steel, it won't change again for another four years so

no matter what anyone thinks either way, Ford will have four years of high volume constructional experience in aluminum

by the time GM is launches it first high volume product - that may or may not be a huge advantage, the benefit Ford gets

is in having a well seasoned production line that's ready to adapt to any new process developments like aluminum welding.

 

From that point of view, Ford will then be at far less risk with its processes than GM, the "risky" time for Ford is now and if

it gets through the launch period smoothly, I think there will be happy days ahead..

Edited December 7, 2014 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

I'm still trying to figure out why, if this approach is so efficient and cost-effective and would give GM a sizable cost advantage against Ford, why they're not using it to build entire trucks in aluminum.

[Pioneer]

There's no extra capacity to produce more aluminum right now, so even if they could produce it with this method, they can't. Alcoa and Novelis are building new facilities and expanding existing ones right now just to keep up with the contracts they signed with Ford.

 

Ford planned ahead. Locked everything up. They bought capacity for current and future models. Everybody else is going to have to wait.

[twintornados]

...Ford planned ahead. Locked everything up. They bought capacity for current and future models. Everybody else is going to have to wait.

 

Or go knock on Beijings' door...

[Pioneer]

 

Or go knock on Beijings' door...

Good luck with that. The aluminum we are using has a shelf life. 90 days from rolling it to stamping, then another 90 to go through the heat treat ovens. How long does a freighter usually take to cross the Pacific?

[RichardJensen]

Interesting info.

 

Also, Ford seems to have learned their lessons from this debacle:

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1012944717336886240

[Anthony]

Can't see the full story without a login?

[RichardJensen]

I saw it this AM. Maybe because I clicked to it from Google?

 

Basically, Ford had to write down a billion dollars in assets in 2001 because they committed to an enormous palladium buy without hedging the price risk.

[Anthony]

Yowza!

[matthewq4b]

Whatever Matt. Have it your way. GM, with absolutely no history of innovating aluminum assembly methods (or even doing a good job with steel) has magically solved every single problem with high volume aluminum production all at once, except they won't use their new wonder-technology to build complete bodies in aluminum.

 

 

Well not sure I would say that. They have innovated the with the aluminium center section of the new vette as being the first major AL spot welded auto sub assembly from any, no one else has ever done that , so that certainly qualifies as innovative. Getting to full bodies will happen in time. GM does not have the experience that Ford does with full AL bodies plus they are laying the ground work and engineering/ design for building with spot welds in AL so lots on their plate to figure out as joints and seams will be far different with spot welds than rivets especially in high stress locations. Full AL bodies will come in time with spot welding that is an inevitability. Question is how much time.

This is one of the few instances that GM is actually doing something the right way. Logical progressive development and not the usual half baked half engineered tech that normally exits their engineering an design departments. Whether this is on purpose or by accident (no supply in volume needed etc) is a question no one here can answer.

 

China is a the largest producer of Aluminium several times over (accounting for almost half of total global production), so there is the opportunity for supply their. Pure AL or the bauxite ore it comes from has no shelf life, once alloyed though that can change and may have a shelf life (depending on alloy) from time of production to time of stamping especially if the stampings are complex. And transit times between China and NA for cargo (excepting crude) usually range between 9 and 13 days. It would surprise me at all if some Chinese sourced AL is not used in the F150.

 

Ford is not using this tech currently for a few simple reasons, not actually proven in product , Rivets and adhesive are, no available proven engineering data to work from, Ford never explored this tech in depth so you can't use what you don't develop, and given the importance of this launch they have to mitigate as much risk as possible and that meant using tech they are familiar with and had experience in.

 

The question that you have to ask is why did GM decide to start exploring this tech years ago with no major plans for extensive AL use on the horizon and Ford did not, with future plans of extensive AL use on the horizon. As there is a signifigent cost benefit and not just in plant switch overs. GM may have got a win here looking far ahead and Ford may have dropped the ball. And that is ok, ALL the manufactures have fails and wins, some just have more than others, and even that changes decade to decade.

 

The palladium story is an interesting read and looks like they learned the lesson on volatile commodities.

 

 

Matthew

[Hugh]

Considering aluminium demand, I wonder if the mines in Quebec are still collecting bauxite?