Crucial high strength steel questions

News Extra

The increased usage of high strength steels in car bodies is putting pressure on repairers worldwide as they battle to deal with the cars when they are damaged.
Because of the 10 year average age of the Australian fleet, the issues are taking longer to filter through than they are overseas. In the UK, three experts have put their collective experience on to ABP Online where they examined the issues behind repairing high strength steels. They are Ron Dobson, proprietor, Lancashire Motor Bodies (Atherton) Ltd, Colin Knight, chief estimator, Lancashire Motor Bodies (Atherton) Ltd and Mike Phoenix, independent specialist motor engineer. In addition to some solutions, they came up with questions which carry some alarming prospects.
What the experts said
We have 119 years collective experience of best quality vehicle body and chassis repairs. High strength steel, to the best of our knowledge, was first used in vehicle manufacture in the 1980s, mainly on chassis legs and inner sills. Poorly executed or even failed repairs were reported and some were consequently inspected and reported on by Mike Phoenix then employed by GAN Insurance (now Groupama Insurances). Enquiries were carried out and steps taken to ensure correct repair methods were used in repairs. No further problems ensued until the introductions of ultra high strength steels (UHSS). The problems at present appear to relate only to repair methods such as welding, brazing, straightening, jig manipulation, drilling, cutting and forming.
To the best of our knowledge no vehicle repairs involving UHSS materials have failed after repair and use.
Similarly and again to the best of our knowledge no failures have occurred in accidents/impacts after repair - although it is acknowledged that authorities have not, until recently, been specifically looking for failures and it is also likely that evidence may well be obscured in the consequences of a subsequent accident.
In our opinion, many people without any deep knowledge of repairs have become very vociferous on the subject of UHSS repair. 
The welding machine manufacturers and their agents claim that their machines will now spot weld all the grades of UHSS and mild steel. This information comes mainly from the welding salesmen/demonstrators. Are they really qualified to make these statements?
General Motors (GM) has issued a training film demonstrating UHSS repair methods. The majority of panel beaters who saw this came away quite dismayed at the complexity of the repair methods. On a recent visit to The Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre (Thatcham), repair methods in UHSS using the low temperature brazing technique were on display. The brazing joints had been dressed cosmetically at variance with GM?s instructions. The operatives at Thatcham explained this was necessary to avoid diminution in vehicle value claims due to visible repairs. Does this mean that Thatcham is acting on the instructions of the insurance industry in producing repair methods that are at variance with the vehicle manufacturers? methods?
The legal implications of non-declaration of previous repairs, incorrect repairs and appropriate repair methodology is now open to discussion. Does Thatcham, or any other body, test UHSS repaired vehicles to determine how they perform in a subsequent accident?
We feel that there is a case to employ a metallurgist who can report and recommend on the quality of repairs, the subsequent weakening of the joints and surrounding areas Ð one who can calculate the stresses involved on impact and the following jig pull and realignment, the effect on adjacent welds and joints.
Welding/brazing tests and various techniques were tested at Lancashire Motor Bodies in 2006. Ian White of North West Technical Services (NTWS), Mike Phoenix and other members of N.W.T.S. were present as were Ron Dobson, Colin Knight and various LMB staff members. The tests were carried out over concerns raised by technicians about the new materials they increasingly found themselves were working on.
These questions arose
* Have we reached the point where superficial cosmetic repairs can be considered safe, unless further research proves otherwise?
* It has been noted that much higher forces are required to realign bodies when connected on a body straightening system (Jig). Are there any consequences of jigging vehicles containing UHSS?
* Do invisible inner welds fail and are unnoticed during repair?
* Since most of the equipment at Thatcham is donated by the manufacturers /suppliers, does this in any way affect their impartiality?
* Has Thatcham carried out exhaustive tests and produced repair recommendations on all aspects of UHSS?  It appears that it has only researched 40 per cent specifications of current vehicles.
* Is there a conflict of interest between what the vehicle manufacturers and insurers (Thatcham) recommend in the way they suggest vehicles should be repaired following an accident?
* In the early days, Thatcham always appeared autonomous. Is appears now to be totally driven by insurance company funding with its only motive being cost cutting.
* Do jig manufacturers have the will and expertise to repair, test and report on completed repairs?
* Does the new Thatcham BSI Kitemark standard provide sufficient teeth to ensure the insurance repair market repairs vehicles back to pre-accident condition?
The issue of total losses 
Many repairers are now reluctant to repair the more heavily damaged vehicles containing UHSS.
Insurance engineers are, therefore, total lossing them as Category D (A damaged vehicle which the insurer has decided not to repair, but which could be repaired and returned to the road). These vehicles are then often auctioned on and repaired, re-sold and re-insured, all without a check of any sort. This practice is widely known as are those who procure the vehicles and return them to the road. But, in truth, the vehicles are bogged up mainly by unskilled workers without the correct repair equipment. This is an area which requires urgent attention. This sub-culture is not usually affiliated to any of the responsibile trade bodies and has been allowed to flourish for economic and often criminal reasons.
Conclusions
* Insufficient specialist knowledge of the subject is a major concern.
* Too many inexperienced/poorly informed people are becoming involved in this highly technical area.  
* Lack of research and testing hinders progress.
* Vested financial interests also hinder progress.
* Some of the vested interests are attempting to offset responsibility and liability to the repair trade.
* A lack of investment in equipment and training is prevalent in the repair industry.
* Comprehensive repair methods are not available
Some solutions
We feel the following recommendations should now be considered urgently by insurers, vehicle manufacturers and repairers to provide the necessary confidence required by motorists and pedestrians:
* An independently funded crash repair research centre.
* Results of repair methods to be crash tested before release.
* Input and validation from all sections of the repair industry.
* Insurance engineers to be fully trained.
* Insurance engineers to put safety before costs.
* The project to be overseen by the Department for Transpor