QAR: Click Here
Conditions for approval required by: Julien Gauther
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Form restricted to registered, logged in users. Please return to the home page and use the Create Account option.
RTR – EN3820-050027
EN3820 latest issue is EN3820:2017. I think there is a wrong copy/paste in the list of reference documents since EN2549 is called instead of EN3820.
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Qualification by analogy:
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with lockwire holes, split pin holes and both of them if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. => Agreed.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
RTR – EN3381-060024AF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 645 parts have been ordered.
For dimensions check, 45 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 645 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 7 / Rejection number = 8)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4072-080042AE
Latest issue of EN4072 is: EN 4072:2016 (E). Is there any major difference between EN 4072:2016 (E) and 07/2009?
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificates (DYNAMET and ATI) do not mention AMS4967 if I am not mistaken. Could you please clarify?
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
Appendix 3: fatigue test result. Why is it written “not broken” against the value 114500 cycles?
On Acceptance Test Report, 483 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 40 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 483 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
On Acceptance Test Report, surface treatment has been performed as per MIL-C-83488 type II, class 3.
On RTR, clause 5, Aluminum IVD has been performed as per MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3.
EN4072 specifies MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3 (or EN6118).
RTR – EN2549-100022F:
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws because it is mentioned that failure initiated at first thread engaged (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 138 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 20 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, do we consider 20 or 50 bolts that have been controlled? Indeed, in CoC, we have these two values.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 138 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 138 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN3037-050021RF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
For ISO3452, do we speak about ISO 3452-1:2013, Corrected version 2014-05-01?
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Clause 2: max thread major diameter equals to D1min – 0,025 with D1min = 5 – 0,022.
So, max thread major diameter = 5 – 0,022 – 0,025 = 4,953 mm.
In clause 2, it is written 4,950 mm.
This is not a significant difference, but something to point out.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 220 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 220 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4127-050011
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
Appendix 3 tension fatigue: all bolts broke before reaching 130000 cycles, but results are compliant. Where are failures located?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 40 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, it is not clear since we have 50 and 32 parts mentioned. Could you please clarify?
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI.
If we consider a mfg batch of 40 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 40 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4130-050018
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas (rounded shapes) in the head and thread. Where does it come from?
In CoC/Test Report (appendix 11), we have double shear test results, but they appear only in CoC. It should be preferable to add this test and associated results in the rest of this RTR, as it is the case for tensile and fatigue tests.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 150 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 150 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 150 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
Many thanks in advance for replying,
Best regards,
Julien
RTR – EN3820-050027
EN3820 latest issue is EN3820:2017. I think there is a wrong copy/paste in the list of reference documents since EN2549 is called instead of EN3820.
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Qualification by analogy:
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with lockwire holes, split pin holes and both of them if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. => Agreed.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
RTR – EN3381-060024AF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 645 parts have been ordered.
For dimensions check, 45 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 645 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 7 / Rejection number = 8)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4072-080042AE
Latest issue of EN4072 is: EN 4072:2016 (E). Is there any major difference between EN 4072:2016 (E) and 07/2009?
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificates (DYNAMET and ATI) do not mention AMS4967 if I am not mistaken. Could you please clarify?
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
Appendix 3: fatigue test result. Why is it written “not broken” against the value 114500 cycles?
On Acceptance Test Report, 483 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 40 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 483 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
On Acceptance Test Report, surface treatment has been performed as per MIL-C-83488 type II, class 3.
On RTR, clause 5, Aluminum IVD has been performed as per MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3.
EN4072 specifies MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3 (or EN6118).
RTR – EN2549-100022F:
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws because it is mentioned that failure initiated at first thread engaged (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 138 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 20 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, do we consider 20 or 50 bolts that have been controlled? Indeed, in CoC, we have these two values.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 138 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 138 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN3037-050021RF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
For ISO3452, do we speak about ISO 3452-1:2013, Corrected version 2014-05-01?
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Clause 2: max thread major diameter equals to D1min – 0,025 with D1min = 5 – 0,022.
So, max thread major diameter = 5 – 0,022 – 0,025 = 4,953 mm.
In clause 2, it is written 4,950 mm.
This is not a significant difference, but something to point out.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 220 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 220 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4127-050011
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
Appendix 3 tension fatigue: all bolts broke before reaching 130000 cycles, but results are compliant. Where are failures located?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 40 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, it is not clear since we have 50 and 32 parts mentioned. Could you please clarify?
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI.
If we consider a mfg batch of 40 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 40 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
RTR – EN4130-050018
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas (rounded shapes) in the head and thread. Where does it come from?
In CoC/Test Report (appendix 11), we have double shear test results, but they appear only in CoC. It should be preferable to add this test and associated results in the rest of this RTR, as it is the case for tensile and fatigue tests.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 150 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 150 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 150 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
Many thanks in advance for replying,
Best regards,
Julien
For sample sizes:
In section “additional documents”, powerpoint presentation “AHG Sampling plan”, slide 8 states that AHG will use ASQ-H1331.
First, as per SAE AS9138, clause 7.2, we have the following equivaleces:
“ANSI/ASQ Z1.4, which is equivalent to ISO 2859-1, JISZ9015-0 and JISZ9015-1, and GB/T 2828.1;”.
Then, ASQ-H1331 states that: “The c=0 plans in Table 1 are “associated” with the AQLs of ANSI Z1.4. In all of these plans, the protection afforded to the consumer is equal to or greater than the ANSI Z1.4 plans.”
“As discussed in this book, the c=0 plans were designed essentially to be equal or greater in consumer and average outgoing quality limit (AOQL) protection than the corresponding ANSI Z1.4 plans. ”
Thus, by considering AS9138, ANSI ASQ Z1.4 is equivalent to ISO2859-1 and customer protection is equal to or greater than ANSI ASQ Z1.4 by applying C=0 plans as per ASQ-H1331 (C=0 sampling plans).
Conlusion for sampling: agreed.
Some questions are still pending:
RTR – EN4072-080042AE
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
RTR – EN2549-100022F:
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws because it is mentioned that failure initiated at first thread engaged (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
RTR – EN3037-050021RF
Clause 2: max thread major diameter equals to D1min – 0,025 with D1min = 5 – 0,022.
So, max thread major diameter = 5 – 0,022 – 0,025 = 4,953 mm.
In clause 2, it is written 4,950 mm.
This is not a significant difference, but something to point out.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
RTR – EN4130-050018:
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
Appendix 3 tension fatigue: all bolts broke before reaching 130000 cycles, but results are compliant. Where are failures located?
Many thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Julien
RTR – EN3820-050027
EN3820 latest issue is EN3820:2017. I think there is a wrong copy/paste in the list of reference documents since EN2549 is called instead of EN3820.
Yes, it will be updated.
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Qualification by analogy:
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with lockwire holes, split pin holes and both of them if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. => Agreed.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
It is grinding burn. There is no special specification concerning this defect on ISO9152 so AHG apply the requirement of the NAS4004. This part in compliance with this standard.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance.
RTR – EN3381-060024AF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 645 parts have been ordered.
For dimensions check, 45 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 645 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 80 parts (Acceptance number = 7 / Rejection number = 8)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance.
RTR – EN4072-080042AE
Latest issue of EN4072 is: EN 4072:2016 (E). Is there any major difference between EN 4072:2016 (E) and 07/2009?
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)?
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Material certificates (DYNAMET and ATI) do not mention AMS4967 if I am not mistaken. Could you please clarify?
The material certificate mentions out standard for material the SB/TA (or SM/TA) which mention the AMS4967. Furthermore, the specific tests of AMS4967 (compare to AMS4928 mention in the certificate) were performed and are compliant. Those tests are mechanical tests after heat treatment.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests.
Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
Appendix 3: fatigue test result. Why is it written “not broken” against the value 114500 cycles?
On Acceptance Test Report, 483 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 40 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 80 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 483 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 5 / Rejection number = 6)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance.
On Acceptance Test Report, surface treatment has been performed as per MIL-C-83488 type II, class 3.
On RTR, clause 5, Aluminum IVD has been performed as per MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3.
EN4072 specifies MIL-DTL-83488, type II, class 3 (or EN6118).
As we know the MIL-DTL-83488 replace the MIL-C-83488. The MIL-C-83488 can be notice in the Acceptance Test Report to satisfy a customer needed.
RTR – EN2549-100022F:
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests ? Agreed.
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws because it is mentioned that failure initiated at first thread engaged (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
This is a copy/paste mistake. The tensile tests were performed on a specimen. The appendix will be updated.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 138 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 20 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, do we consider 20 or 50 bolts that have been controlled? Indeed, in CoC, we have these two values.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 138 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 138 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance.
RTR – EN3037-050021RF
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
For ISO3452, do we speak about ISO 3452-1:2013, Corrected version 2014-05-01?
There are two dates in our version of this standard (see picture below). We wrote the first date and you the second but it seems we have the same standard.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests ? Agreed.
Clause 2: max thread major diameter equals to D1min – 0,025 with D1min = 5 – 0,022.
So, max thread major diameter = 5 – 0,022 – 0,025 = 4,953 mm.
In clause 2, it is written 4,950 mm.
This is not a significant difference, but something to point out.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas on the bearing surface. Where does it come from?
This defect is generated by the chemical attack with no link to the material.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 220 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 220 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 200 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 50 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 32 parts (Acceptance number = 3 / Rejection number = 4)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance.
RTR – EN4127-050011
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests. ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
After some checks, it is a copy/paste mistake. The information will be modified to failure at the first thread engaged.
Appendix 3 tension fatigue: all bolts broke before reaching 130000 cycles, but results are compliant. Where are failures located?
This information is not recorded in our system.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 40 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, it is not clear since we have 50 and 32 parts mentioned. Could you please clarify?
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI.
If we consider a mfg batch of 40 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 40 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance
RTR – EN4130-050018
AMS4967 latest issue is revision M. Is there any major difference between this issue and issue mentioned in QTR (AMS4967 revision K)? Material certificate is compliant to AMS4967 revision L (May 2014).
Presently, we use internally the last version of this standard. It is a copy/paste mistake. Furthermore, thank to our impact study, we did not detect any major modification. Can be updated if necessary.
Bolts with no hole shall qualify bolt with holes if we consider mechanical, metallurgical and non-destructive tests ? Agreed.
Appendix 2 tensile tests: even if results are compliant (just above the minimum for one bolt), it is a bit surprising that failures are located under head since we have protruding heads (and not reduced). How can we explain that?
After some checks, it is a copy/paste mistake. The information will be modified to failure at the first thread engaged. Same mistake than EN4127.
Appendix 4: grain flow: we can see some white areas (rounded shapes) in the head and thread. Where does it come from?
It is a defect generated by the chemical etching process prior to observation (bubble in the chemical attack product). So, this is not a material defect.
In CoC/Test Report (appendix 11), we have double shear test results, but they appear only in CoC. It should be preferable to add this test and associated results in the rest of this RTR, as it is the case for tensile and fatigue tests.
Yes, the RTR will be updated.
Since this is a renewal, mandatory tests and associated sampling are those for acceptance, not for qualification.
On Acceptance Test Report, 150 parts have been manufactured.
For dimensions check, 32 bolts have been controlled.
For FPI, 32 bolts have been controlled.
ISO9152, table 3 specifies four different AQLs for characteristics: 0,065% for FPI and 1%, 2,5% and 4% for dimensions.
If we consider a mfg batch of 150 parts:
Sample size for AQL 0,065% = 150 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 1% = 13 parts (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1)
Sample size for AQL 2,5% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 1 / Rejection number = 2)
Sample size for AQL 4% = 20 parts (Acceptance number = 2 / Rejection number = 3)
See ISO9152, tables 3 and 4.
The AHG quality department commits to bring the sampling plans into compliance
Good afternoon M. Gauther,
Sorry for the question I missed on EN4072-080
RTR – EN4072-080042AE
Clause 6 states that tensile tests results have been obtained on test specimens coming from original wires and tested as per ISO6892 whereas Appendix 2 states that tensile tests have been done on screws (and CoC/Test Report on screws as well). Could you please clarify?
In this case, it was a specific customer request to perform the tests on parts. In fact this diameter is close to the limit and the test on part generally give good results.
Best regards
Eric Vermesse
Thanks to RTRs revisions C, it is clear for me now.
Moreover, in section “additional documents”, powerpoint presentation “AHG Sampling plan”, slide 8 states that AHG will use ASQ-H1331.
First, as per SAE AS9138, clause 7.2, we have the following equivaleces:
“ANSI/ASQ Z1.4, which is equivalent to ISO 2859-1, JISZ9015-0 and JISZ9015-1, and GB/T 2828.1;”.
Then, ASQ-H1331 states that: “The c=0 plans in Table 1 are “associated” with the AQLs of ANSI Z1.4. In all of these plans, the protection afforded to the consumer is equal to or greater than the ANSI Z1.4 plans.”
“As discussed in this book, the c=0 plans were designed essentially to be equal or greater in consumer and average outgoing quality limit (AOQL) protection than the corresponding ANSI Z1.4 plans. ”
Thus, by considering AS9138, ANSI ASQ Z1.4 is equivalent to ISO2859-1 and customer protection is equal to or greater than ANSI ASQ Z1.4 by applying C=0 plans as per ASQ-H1331 (C=0 sampling plans).
Conlusion: agreed.
Best regards,
Julien