Contributions
		Contributed from Rolf Unternaehrer: The following is from Bill Marvel, a regular on the RV group on Yahoo: I got his permission to have this published in our chapter 124 newsletter. Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us still building or with completed RVs (as will those planning on building in the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and which are OK. This is obvious when there is a cosmetic problem, but when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or over driven rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or over driven rivet affect it? Frankly, I made the decision that the risk of damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at issue. Now I have some hard data to go by. What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long. These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. See the photo below. Of the 10 total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets and the other five used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the inboard lower skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.  Six of the test coupons, with the AN 470s on the left and the AN 426s on the right.  Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and 1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Picture grabbing and suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5 inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A 1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area. Since I know that some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall into this category -- pretty close but not perfect. The grossly over and under driven rivets were really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. These were so far off that you would easily recognize them in your own work and know there was a problem immediately. The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was done at a structural test lab in Paramount that works mostly with civil engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched, cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. This was my definition of joint failure and not the actual separation of the coupons into two parts. I was interested in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure state without destroying the joint completely by tearing it in two. I was very curious as to how things > would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test done. Which do you think would hold best? That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300 pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet, .032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still going strong. Before showing you the numerical results, I will give a brief summary of them:  1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as much as I had thought. However, and this is very important, initial failure of the dimpled construction was not catastrophic and occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast, initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane! 2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength. 3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and results (my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as compared to properly driven rivets. 4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any real faith in it. 5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a joint make of grossly under driven ones.  6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly under driven AN 426 joint.  7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.  To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven rivets. AN 426 AD 3 Table Condition Force at failure Nature of failure Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping and head distortion Slight under 1775 Same Correct 2025 Same Slight over 1975 Same Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line AN 470 AD 3 Table Gross under 1100 Rivet tipping plus one sheared rivet Slight under 1600 Catastrophic - 5 sheared rivets! Correct 1625 Catastrophic - 6 sheared rivets! Slight over 1750 Catastrophic - 6 sheared rivets!  Gross over 1500 Rivet tipping plus sheet tear at rivet line. Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area most of us have undoubtedly thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of these flying formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if under driven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something from this. I certainly did.  Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832 7617  P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013  San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334  One good deed beats 100 good intentions...