![Bearing over greasing failures ]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/bearingovergreasingfailures-200524152820-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Structural Damage and Maintenance Day 3
- 1. Structural Damage &Maintenance – Day 3
- 2. 2 Presenter Background (Enter summaryof presenter skills and work history) Content for this slide will be entered by the Trainer.
- 3. FIRE PRECAUTIONS HEALTHAND SAFETY COFFEE BREAKS RESTROOM BREAKS NO MOBILES NO SMOKING Make sure all safety equipment discussed in the course are available for demonstration. 3 Ground Rules
- 4. 4 Course Objectives The aimof this presentation is to provide a consistent test/fail guideline for light and heavy vehicle inspections that are in line with the RTA Guide.
- 5. 5 Learning Outcome At theconclusion of this course delegates should be able to: Identify the different designs used by vehicle manufacturers to ensure occupant protection. Understand the use of new material technology used within vehicle manufacturing. Understand modern repair practices, methods and procedures inclusive of equipment used. Be able to recognise poor repair practices carried out inclusive of chassis, outer body and joining methods used.
- 6. • Analyse weldingfaults found in completed delegates practical session • How gap and profile can highlight bad repair practices carried out • The relationship between bad body repairs and mechanical components and operation • Vehicle safety systems including pedestrian • Windscreens and ancillary fittings • Vehicle modifications • Corrosion forms and effect • End of course test 6 Day 3 Agenda
- 7. Joining Using the samplesthat you have created and the assessment sheet provided. 1) Can you recognise any possible faults? 2) What are the results of the joints in terms of weld bead width, penetration and the bead height? 3) What are the results of the destructive testing? 7
- 8. Case study Firstly weshall look at the area of impact and make a judgement about the repair to be carried out. In other words we will appraise the damage. Has this repair been completed correctly or incorrectly? 8
- 9. Case study The doorhas to be removed to facilitate repairs to the vehicle. The door is wedged closed. The outer skin is removed to reveal the hinges. 9
- 10. Case study With thedoor removed the damage is revealed. 10
- 11. Case study A pullis made on the out sill skin and this is then removed to reveal damage to the inner panels. 11
- 12. Case study Pulls aremade on the inner panels to bring the sill area into alignment. This will alleviate some stress on both the floor and ‘B’ pillar. 12
- 13. Case study Pulls aremade on the inner panels to bring the sill area into alignment. This will alleviate some stress on both the floor and ‘B’ pillar. 13
- 14. Case study Portions ofthe outer ‘B’ pillar and inner reinforcement panels are removed. This allows access to the inner sill and floor area and inner ‘B’ pillar. 14
- 15. Second hand donorpanels removed from another damaged vehicle are prepared. Cut lines are measured on the outer panels. Case study 15
- 16. Case study The outerskin is cut and spot welds drilled. 16
- 17. Case study Inner panelis removed and made ready for fitment. 17
- 18. Case study Inner panelis welded into place and an anti corrosion weld thru primer has been applied. 18
- 19. Case study Outer panelsection is welded in place. The job is finished and awaiting the door to be fitted. 19
- 20. Case study Final inspectionand everyone is happy. But is this car safe to drive? 20
- 21. Case study Review Whatproblems were we able to identify if any? 1) No repair method was evident. The technician was working to an old repair method that was commonly used when vehicles were manufactured from mainly mild steel. 2) Cuts were made in an area that is likely to have been high strength steel. These areas were MAG welded. The heat from welding would of damaged any high strength steel used in the intermediate panel. 3) Spot welds were not use as the holes made from drilling would have been plug welded. Plug welding would not be to the manufacturer’s standard. The heat would also damage any high strength steel used in the intermediate panels. The outer panel would also sustain damage from the heat being applied. 21
- 22. Case study Aluminium repair. Areplacement leg and inner wing will be replaced. 22
- 23. Case study Rivets thatdiffer from the original manufacturers are used in conjunction with adhesive. 23
- 24. Case study Review Whatproblems were we able to identify if any? 1) This repair may look very different to the original but it has in fact been completed to the manufacturers standard. Group Discussion on findings. 24
- 25. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Absorption zones will have a lack of function when bad repairs have been carried out. 25
- 26. Is it importantto raise an issue if an area only appears partly damaged? 26 Recognise Evidence of Bad Repairs
- 27. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Sometimes even the smallest piece of evidence can point to repairs having been carried out. 27
- 28. Checking for differentnuts and bolts. Sometimes the wrong ones have been replaced and differ from one side of the vehicle to the other. Is this new bolt of the correct strength and length? Could the suspension fail under normal load stress? Recognise Evidence of Bad Repairs 28
- 29. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Steering and suspension systems with visible faults and their impact on roadworthiness. 29
- 30. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs As the angle of U-joint operation increases so does the load on the joint. For this reason design engineers limit the angle at which U-joints must work. Modifying vehicle suspensions by raising or lowering can increase driveshaft angle and cause repeated U-joint failures. 30
- 31. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Wheels that lean in or out at the top or bottom. Most wheels and tires should appear to stand up straight when viewed from a straight ahead position. This applies to front as well as rear wheels. 31
- 32. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Has a door been repaired? If so then what is the state of the side impact protection beams? 32
- 33. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs Misalignment of the body panels indicate frame or unibody damage. Excessively wide or narrow gaps between body panels point to underlying problems. Gaps that vary from one end to the other (i.e. wide on one end and narrow on the other). Also be aware, a vehicle may have damage even with no misalignment to the body panels. 33
- 34. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs A wheel that is not in the centre of the wheel opening, when looking from the side is a sign of frame or suspension damage. This is particularly true when the other three wheels appear normal. Vehicles will often pull toward the side with the setback wheel when driven. 34
- 35. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs A vehicle that leans more than 13MM from one side to the other is another sign of damage. Any vehicle may lean a slight amount, but excessive leaning often indicates frame and unibody damage. 35
- 36. Vehicle Identification Number Whenrepairs have been carried out on the front of a vehicle and panel replacement has taken place, the vin plate is removed from the old panel and affixed to the new. The rivets used differ from those used by the manufacturer. This sometimes is evident when tapping the plate with a finger as the plate will have slight movement that factory fitted ones do not have. 36
- 37. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs 37
- 38. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs 38
- 39. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs 39
- 40. Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs 40
- 41. Pedestrian safety systems Vehicledesign now includes pedestrian safety systems across a range of vehicles. This is not all makes or models. Some models will have adaptive bumper systems and in some cases these work in conjunction with bonnet airbags or lower screen airbags. 41
- 42. Pedestrian safety systems Ifrepairs are not carried out in the correct manner pedestrian safety systems can fail to function correctly. For example, a sensor is damaged in a collision and if not replaced this will affect the bonnet air bag deployment. Front bumpers not fitted correctly or that may still hide physical damage can cause more harm to a pedestrian than they were designed to do. 42
- 43. Pedestrian safety systems Thebasic idea has been around for some time now! 43
- 44. Windscreens Damaged windscreens cause problemsfor the drivers visibility when driving. European testing has defined areas for the amount and size of stone chips and cracks. 44
- 45. Windscreens Damage to thewindscreen can cause visibility problems for the driver especially when driving at night as other vehicle's lights can be refracted across the screen. 45
- 46. Mud flaps If mudflaps are missing this could lead to corrosion issues in other areas around wheel arches, or under sills and floorplan areas. Although this is not a fail area it can lead to a possible answer to corrosion within the aforementioned areas. 46
- 47. 47 Recognise Evidence ofBad Repairs A number of different factors can cause tyre wear, for example: Anything that alters the original design. Many things can change dynamic- alignment and go undetected in a static check. Typical examples include, a change in vehicle height, worn or bent components and any modification to the wheels or suspension.
- 48. Corrosion Corrosion and itseffects. 48
- 49. Corrosion is notconfined to steel only, but can be found on aluminium parts as well. Corrosion Corrosion evident after a repair process has been carried out No corrosion is visible when the repair has been completed correctly 49
- 50. Have any safetyfeatures been overlooked? Modifications and kits 50
- 51. With modifications andkits in mind, make a list of the issues you may come across. We shall discuss your findings. 51 Modifications and kits
- 52.