|
|
|
|
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199 |
Please review the AMS 2430 draft incorporating the changes from the January 2010 meeting at Asilomar located at the SAE website in the SE Subcommitte area. Please review and provide comments in the Committee Work Area by 25 Feb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199 |
The majority of the Aerospace community does not follow the guidelines for part peening time set forth in AMS 2430. Perhaps AMS 2430 should be amended to show both methods and force the cognizant engineering organization to choose which method they want employed.
Aerospace Prime 1
Peening cycle time shall be the longer of time to reach Almen Strip saturation or 100% coverage. Undocumented practice by this prime but it’s the only way they will approve a peening process.
Aerospace Prime 2
Peening time shall be the longer of the time to achieve full surface coverage, or the time to achieve Almen Strip saturation.
Aerospace Prime 3
Peening time shall be the longer of time to reach Almen Strip saturation or 200% coverage.
Aerospace Prime 4
a. The minimum part peening time shall be the time required to achieve 100 percent coverage. Coverage shall be determined on the part being processed.
b. For drawings calling out more than 100 percent coverage the peening time shall be multiple of the time to achieve 100 percent coverage.
Last edited by Walter; 05/12/11 08:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 341 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 341 Likes: 1 |
How can 3 out of 4 get it wrong? Only Prime #4 is doing a scientifically provable method of peening coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 1999
Posts: 199 |
Good question
Prime 3's practice until now was undocumented, a revision to their internal specifications is in the works. I tried very hard to make them see the light but this is what they want to do. At least now we have a documented process.
Prime 2 used to have both methods listed in their specifications in different locations of the document. Unfortunately they removed the correct one in the last revision. (ask Pete why)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 7 |
Hi Guys, having to work within the aircraft specifications as mentioned is disconcerting to say the least, especially when referred to other sections in the manufactures Standard Practices Manual that mentions peening IAW AMS 2430! The manufactures in the airline industry seem to have been left behind at the level shot peening was 5 or 6 years ago. We have been pushing for them to update their specifications for a couple of years now. There is some talk from one of our OEM’s for change to align with AMS2430. Lets hope it gains momentum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
