2013%20AEEA%20Journal

2013 Excellence Awards, Winning Nominations
TECHNICAL JOURNAL

2013 Excellence Awards, Technical Papers 1

Contents
About..........................................................................................................................................................3
The Engineering Excellence Awards .......................................................................................................3
The 2013 Excellence Awards Technical Journal ......................................................................................3
The SAE-A..................................................................................................................................................4
Being a member.....................................................................................................................................4
2013 Judging Panel.....................................................................................................................................5
Shane Richardson - Chair.......................................................................................................................5
Carl Liersch............................................................................................................................................5
Bill Malkoutzis.........................................................................................................................................5
Craig McCarthy.......................................................................................................................................5
Clint Steele.............................................................................................................................................6
Simon Watkins .......................................................................................................................................6
David Ford..............................................................................................................................................6
Damon Grimwood...................................................................................................................................6
Andrea Winkelmann ...............................................................................................................................6
Gold Award: DENSO Automotive Systems Australia, Benefits of 2-way TXV for Reverse Cycle RV Air-
conditioner..................................................................................................................................................7
Gold Award: GM Holden, VF Commodore Aluminium Engine Hood and Decklid .........................................13
Silver Award: GM Holden, 2013 – Holden VF Commodore Chassis Mass Reduction...................................18
Highly Commended Award: Suncorp Group, Development and Implementation of the Suncorp Vehicle
Repairer Standard for the Australian Smash Repair Industry ......................................................................22
Young Engineer Award: Penny Hoskin, Design Release Engineer – Instrument Panel and Console ............41
Post Graduate Student Engineer Award: Hai Wang & Do Manh Tuan, Robust Sliding Mode Control for Steer-
by-Wire Systems in Ground Vehicles .........................................................................................................46
Undergraduate Student Engineer Award: Shing Chak Sheung, Increasing the Torsional Rigidity of a Formula
SAE-A Space Frame Chassis through the Implementation of Carbon Fibre Panels .....................................56
Apply for the 2015 Excellence Awards .......................................................................................................66
SAE-A National Office Contact Details.......................................................................................................66

About
The Engineering Excellence Awards
The SAE-A Mobility Engineering Excellence Awards (MEEA), formally the Automotive Engineering Excellence
Awards, is the industry’s premiere event recognising outstanding contributions to advancing technologies in
the transport mobility field. The MEEA carries great prestige within the engineering mobility profession. Award
submission offers significant recognition, with all submissions being reviewed by senior engineers within the
industry, and promoted through the Society’s publications and media releases.
Each year nominations are sought from across the mobility engineering industry, including:
 Automotive
 Heavy On-Road
 Heavy Off-Road
 Rail
 4WD
 Caravan & Trailers
 Light Aero
 Commercial Aero
The Professional Engineering Award is presented to companies or institutions who produce a product, process
or service that shows a new, novel or unique concept that demonstrates exceptional engineering skills in the
field of endeavour.
The Young Engineer Award is presented to a Young Engineer, Technician or Tradesperson who has
demonstrated excellent performance through a combination of creativity, advanced learning and new
approaches.
The Student Project Award – Postgraduate is given to a student or group of students that develop a new, novel
or unique concept that demonstrates exceptional engineering skills in their field of endeavour, during their
postgraduate studies.
The Student Project Award – Undergraduate is given to a student or group of students that develop a new,
novel or unique concept that demonstrates exceptional engineering skills in their field of endeavour, during
their undergraduate studies.
The 2013 Excellence Awards Technical Journal
This Journal has been released in anticipation of the SAE-A’s 2014 Mobility Engineering Excellence Awards.
The technical papers from each of the 2013 award winners are featured in this publication in their original
wording along with the SAE-A’s judges’ comments associated with each submission.
DENSO Automotive Systems Australia and GM Holden both received the Gold Award for the 2013 Excellence
Awards, with GM Holden and Suncorp Group receiving the Silver and Highly Commended Award respectively,
Penny Hoskin, employee at GM Holden, was presented with the Young Engineer Award. In academia, Hai
Wang and Do Manh Tuan from Swinburne University were awarded Gold for the Post Graduate category, and
Shing Chak Sheung of The University of Melbourne was awarded Gold in the Undergraduate category.

The SAE-A
The SAE-A is a non-profit organisation that works to serve the needs of its members and to promote the
relevance of mobility related technologies to governments, industry and the community in general.
SAE-A is the world’s third oldest mobility society and was founded in Melbourne in 1927 to address the need
for further education for all facets surrounding Mobility Engineering and now encompasses all mobility
engineering industries in the Asia Pacific region.
The vision of the SAE-A is to advance the mobility engineering professions in Australasia through promoting
the transfer of technical knowledge and skills, encouraging research and development in the private, education
and government sectors and involving our members in the development and maintenance of Australasian and
global technical standards.
SAE-A membership encompasses the entire transport mobility sector:
Being a member
SAE-A fosters a welcoming and collegiate environment for mobility engineering professionals. Membership
provides the opportunity to:
SAE-A membership is valued by industry as being evidence of an individual’s commitment to continuous
personal and professional development. Members receive publications, have the opportunity to be involved in
industry groups and receive substantial discounts across networking and training opportunities.
Contribute to your
Engineering
Community
Advance your
Technical
Knowledge
Grow your Industry
Connections
Advance your
Career
Automotive 4WD & Offroad Camper & Caravan Agriculture Motorbike
Mining Aero - Commercial Aero - Light Body Repairers Aftermarket
Students &
Universities
Shipping Rail Heavy
Commercial
Bus & Public
Transport

2013 Judging Panel
Shane Richardson – Chair, SAE-A Excellence Awards
Dr Shane Richardson is Principal Forensic Engineer and Managing Director of Delta-V Experts. Shane leads
a team of Engineers focused on evaluating, understanding and describing forensic engineering issues. Shane
investigates the dynamic exchange of energy between objects be it a pedestrian and cyclist, car into a car,
400t haul truck into another 400t haul truck, maintenance evaluations, mechanical failure analysis or workplace
incident investigations. Shane also conducts dynamic vehicle handing tests and develops engineering solutions
to unique problems such as Roll Over Protective Structures, Road Roughness Monitoring systems and
instrumentation for sporting equipment.
Carl Liersch
General Manager, Bosch Chassis Systems Control Engineering in Australia. Carl has worked in the automotive
supplier industry for 27 years, with the last 24 of those years with Bosch. During that time Carl has worked
primarily with vehicle safety systems. He was involved with the introduction of ABS and Airbag technology to
Australia in the early 1990s via the Australian OEMs. Since 2000, has worked on Electronic Stability Control.
Carl has tuned ABS and ESC systems for each of the vehicle manufacturers in Australia, for Jaguar and Ford
in Europe and the USA, and for Toyota in Japan. He leads the Chassis Engineering division in Australia with a
team of 50 engineers supporting safety system projects in Europe, Japan, India, Malaysia, the USA, and
Australia.
Bill Malkoutzis
Proprietor, Talk Torque Automotive. Bill has 33 years working in the automotive industry with 13 of those with
Ford Australia, holding positions in both light and heavy vehicle design, test and development in Australia and
USA. He contributed to the development of F series trucks and the design and introduction of the Ford Capri
in Australia and USA. A further 13 years was with PBR Australia designing and developing braking systems
for customers in Australia, America, Asia, and Europe. Bill has operated his own automotive consultancy with
various ongoing commercial clients for eight years. He is also a VASS authorised signatory for modified light
vehicles as regulated by VicRoads. He is the Immediate Past President of the SAE-A Board, on which he has
served over five years, and served as SAE-A Excellence Awards Chairman for three years.
Craig McCarthy
Vehicle Drivability Quality Leader, Ford Asia Pacific. After completing an Apprenticeship in Automotive Engine
Machining and a B Eng (Mech), Craig worked for Holden Ltd as an Engine Dyno Test Engineer for four years
and as an Engine Calibration Engineer for six years. This included being the engine spark and knock calibrator
for the introduction of the High Feature V6 engine in the VE Commodore and the Buick in China. He then
worked at Prodrive as Calibration Supervisor on the new 5.0L Supercharged GT Falcon engine program and
for the Ford Motor Company as Senior Design Engineer for the intake manifold for the Falcon Liquid Phase
(LPi) injection program. He now works for Ford Asia Pacific as Quality Leader for Driveability on all Ford
products in the Asia Pacific Region.

Simon Watkins
Professor Automotive Engineering, RMIT. He worked for British Aerospace at the Harrier Jump Jet plant in the
UK and studied the aerodynamics of advanced ground transport vehicles at City University, London. In 1983
he moved to Australia and has since researched and taught at RMIT. He has experience in Micro plane, car,
truck and train aerodynamics and heads a research group in vehicle aerodynamics and acoustics, consisting
of several graduate students and associated staff. He also is past chair of the SAE (International) Road Vehicle
Aerodynamics Forum based in Detroit and the Aero-acoustic subcommittee. He is the Chair of the next Asia
Pacific Automotive Conference to be held in Melbourne preceding the Grand Prix and he hopes to see you all
there!
David Ford
A University of Melbourne Honours graduate in Mechanical Engineering, David is a Fellow of the Institute of
Engineers Australia, SAE-International and SAE-Australasia. He is a former Senior Vice President and
Treasurer of SAE-Australasia. He was a Product Planning Manager and Chief Engineer at Ford Motor
Company in Australia, moving to the Ford Motor Company USA in 1990 to take up Director/Executive positions
in Product Development. He retired 1998 to return to Australia, where he has maintained international and local
industry and academic contacts and local business interests. He has also served on advisory committees for
the Engineering Schools of Melbourne, RMIT and Swinburne Universities and was Deputy President of the
Committee of Convocation of the University of Melbourne.
Damon Grimwood
After graduating from RMIT Mechanical Engineering in 1999, Damon worked at GM Holden in a variety of roles
in the power train department, including hardware and calibration and has held roles across both validation
and development. For the last ten years he has been based at Holden’s Lang Lang Proving Ground working
on engine calibrations for both local and international GM products. Most recently he worked on the VF
Commodore and is now in a technical consulting role for calibrations that are developed in the Asia Pacific
region. He has studied Design of Experiments and has a Black Belt qualification in Design for Six Sigma
methodologies
Andrea Winkelmann
Beginning her automotive career in Germany and completing her engineering degree in the UK, Andrea
immigrated to Australia in 2005 to take the role of Senior Quality Engineer responsible for domestic vehicle
warranty issues at Ford. Now the Verification and Validation Program Lead for the Global Zeta Platform at GM-
Holden, she is responsible for the project management of vehicle/engine testing and system verification to
ensure that emissions standards, diagnostic functions and fail safe features conform to the relevant regulatory
requirements for Australian and global programs.
Andrea has recently been awarded the ISSI – Eddy Dunn Endowment International Fellowship to research into
the Impact of International Heavy Duty Vehicle OBD Regulation Amendments (2013 onwards) on the Service
and Repair Industry in Australia.

Gold Award:
DENSO Automotive Systems Australia,
Benefits of 2-way TXV for Reverse Cycle RV
Air-conditioner
Overview
Branded the DENSO RT1, this Gold Award winning design is a heat pump for recreational vehicle applications
which performs as an automotive grade air conditioning system.
Drawing on 40 years of experience in the Australian automotive industry, DENSO used the more complex, but
superior performing thermal expansion valve (TXV) metering device. In addition, The R-410A refrigerant used
in the new design is a highly efficient mixture with zero ozone depletion potential. Its characteristics permit the
use of a smaller displacement compressor, less copper coil and less refrigerant, while maintaining or
surpassing system efficiencies of equipment using the traditional R22 refrigerant.
Judges Synopsis
The Denso RT1 Caravan A/C System is fully developed and ready for market. The finished design has lifted
the features, technical application and performance standard of products in this category to a new level. Its
gains in efficiency, packaging, and environmental sustainability make it a significant game changer, not only in
the Australian market but quite likely internationally. It is rewarding to see an Australian company that supplies
most of the local automotive industry, diversify their product portfolio into an area that helps to ensure its future.

Benefits of 2-way TXV for Reverse Cycle RV Air-conditioner
Matthew Rizio, Vinh Lam, Ian Lavery
DENSO Automotive Systems Australia
ABSTRACT
DENSO has designed a new heat pump for
recreational vehicle applications, the first appliance
using the combination of R-410A refrigerant and 2-
way thermal expansion valve to improve compressor
efficiency over the range of operating conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Caravanning is an increasingly popular activity in
Australia. No longer basic mobile accommodation,
many caravan models nowadays resemble a luxury
apartment - with many of the modern conveniences
found in the family home. One accessory in greater
demand is air-conditioning. Although dedicated heat
pump A/C systems have been available for many
years, customers increasingly expect mobile A/C
systems to reflect the high performance, refinement
and technical sophistication of advanced residential
heat pumps.
Any heat pump system installed on a recreational
vehicle (RV) needs the durability to survive vibration,
UV exposure, temperature and poor-quality power
supplies; that is, forces well beyond those faced by
most domestic stationary systems. This limits the
choices of technologies applicable to RV heat pumps,
and presents a challenge when designing a new
appliance.
The DENSO RT1 caravan air-conditioner aims to
improve on existing products by:
i. reducing refrigerant pressure ratio across the
compressor;
ii. maintaining an optimum evaporating
temperature across the broadest range of
operating conditions; and
iii. attaining the desired pressure ratio across the
compressor as quickly as possible after start-
up.
Together, these improvements deliver to the
customer improved compressor Coefficient of
Performance (COP), higher cooling performance, and
faster delivery of cool or warm air after initial power-
up.
DENSO Australia’s singular approach is to adopt R-
410A refrigerant in combination with a thermostatic
expansion valve (TXV). This report details the theory
behind this approach and presents results of tests
when compared with a conventional RV heat pump
system (using R-407C refrigerant and a capillary tube
expansion device).
CONVENTIONAL RV HEAT PUMPS
Heat pumps operate by transferring heat using the
Carnot Cycle. In cooling mode, refrigerant gas is
compressed then passed through an external coil
(condenser), releasing heat to the outside air and
changing the state from a high pressure gas to a high
pressure sub-cooled liquid. This liquid refrigerant then
passes through an expansion device which creates a
pressure drop. The low pressure liquid goes through
an indoor coil (evaporator), absorbing heat from the
indoor air and again changing the state of the
refrigerant, this time into a low pressure
(superheated) gas before returning to the
compressor. This cycle is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Refrigerant circuit schematic in cooling mode

In heating mode, available heat is taken from the
outdoor air and transferred indoors. Figure 2 shows
that the refrigerant gas is compressed and passed
through the indoor coil (now the condenser) by means
of a reversing valve. Heat is released to the indoor air
and the refrigerant condenses into a high pressure
liquid. This liquid refrigerant enters the expansion
device, reducing its pressure before passing through
the outdoor coil (now the evaporator). This absorbs
heat from the outside air and again changes the state
of the refrigerant into a low pressure gas before
returning to the compressor.
Figure 2. Refrigerant circuit schematic in heating mode
KEY SYSTEM COMPONENTS
R-410A is being used to replace HCFC22 & R-407C
in new products. R-410A air conditioners are currently
available on a commercial basis in the USA, Asia,
Europe and Australia, along with a signiﬁcant pro-
portion of the duct-free products sold in Japan. “In
2002, approximately 5% of the equipment sold into
the US ducted residential market used R-410A. It is
likely that the US ducted residential market will mainly
use R-410A.”1
R-410A systems operate at pressures
approximately 50% higher than traditional refrigerants
such as R-407C and its predecessor, R22. The
increase in pressure offers higher efficiency than the
alternative refrigerants, but it also requires
components to be designed to withstand the
increased operating pressures.
Compressor – The primary purpose of the
compressor is to compress the refrigerant, adding
energy for the refrigeration cycle.
Heat exchangers – The heat exchanger is used to
transfer heat between the refrigerant and the
surrounding environment.
Fans – Indoor and outdoor fans are used to force air
through the heat exchangers and create air
circulation within the cabin.
Expansion Device – Capillary tubes are used as the
standard expansion device. The expansion device is
the primary focus of this technical report.
CAPILLARY TUBE EXPANSION DEVICE
A capillary tube is essentially a copper tube with a
tightly-controlled inner diameter (d) and a fixed length
(L). The pressure drop for the capillary is a function of
L and d, and is determined by the system designer for
a specified set of operating conditions.
Operating principle – The capillary tube functions due
to two main phenomena: liquid refrigerant flows at a
greater velocity than when it is a gas; and refrigerant
velocity increases with decreasing liquid temperature.
When refrigerant in the sub-cooled state enters the capillary, the
pressure drop is linear for some distance along the length of the
tube (until the pressure is reduced below the saturation point of
the refrigerant). This then causes the refrigerant to flash and
create bubbles, further reducing the liquid flow rate. The capillary
then begins to meter the refrigerant flow. Increasing the amount
of sub-cooling prior to entering the capillary increases the
distance along the capillary at which the bubbling occurs and the
flow rate increases. Accordingly, less sub-cool decreases the
length at which bubbling occurs and flow rate reduces.
To some extent, the balance between the flow rate of
the compressor and capillary will adjust for higher and
lower load conditions.
When the load increases, the evaporation rate also
will increase; eventually the evaporator will be starved
and more refrigerant will accumulate in the
condenser. This will then reduce the capacity of the
condenser as it fills with sub-cooled liquid and the
condensing temperature rises. This higher conden-
sing temperature causes the compressor mass flow
rate to drop while the capillary mass flow rate
increases. The system will attempt to rebalance
under these new operating conditions.
TXV EXPANSION DEVICE

The thermostatic expansion valve is a versatile
expansion device and is used in many automotive air-
conditioning and commercial refrigeration systems. It
maintains a constant level of superheat out of the
evaporator by adjusting the refrigerant flow rate.
Under low evaporator load conditions, the TXV will
reduce the flow rate and, under high load, the valve
will open, allowing more refrigerant to flow.
Most commonly, the TXV is a one-way device
suitable only for air-conditioning or heat pump
applications. A 2-way TXV permits the device to be
used for reverse-cycle applications; however, the
TXV design becomes slightly more complicated. In
addition to the conventional temperature-sensing
bulb, the 2-way TXV requires a suction pressure. This
applies a balancing force to the diaphragm, in
addition to the balancing spring.
A TXV maintains a predetermined level of superheat
in the compressor suction line. Figure 3 shows the 2-
way TXV used in the DENSO RT1 airconditioner. This
valve consists of a sensing bulb attached to the
suction tube, so that it senses the temperature of the
refrigerant returning to the compressor. The sensing
bulb applies a force (P1) to the top of the valve
diaphragm. There is also a return refrigerant pres-
sure-sensing tube which provides a force (P2) to the
opposite side of the diaphragm. This complements
the force applied by the balancing spring (P3). The
remaining two ports are connected to the evaporator
inlet and condenser outlet. By adjusting the preload
on the balancing spring (P3), the valve-metering
characteristics can be tuned to suit heating and
cooling operations for the particular refrigeration
system.
Figure 3. Structure of 2-way Thermal Expansion Valve (2-way
TXV)2
The sensing bulb measures the suction line
temperature and provides a corresponding force (P1)
on top of the diaphragm. As the superheat increases,
the valve orifice is forced downwards against the
spring, and flow rate increases.
In balanced operation, P1=P2+P3 and the refrigerant
flow remains steady.
Under high load conditions, the suction temperature
increases, so that P1>P2+P3 and the valve opens to
increase refrigerant flow until the target superheat is
achieved.
When the evaporator load is low, the suction
temperature will reduce so that P1<P2+P3. The valve
restricts refrigerant flow.
The refrigerant flow rate is proportional to the rate of
refrigerant evaporation in the evaporator, making the
valve capable of balancing flow conditions between
the valve and the compressor.
DENSO TXV SYSTEM
In comparison to a capillary, the TXV offers greater
control of system capacity over a wide range of
operating conditions. This ensures that the evapo-
rator operates efficiently under low, moderate and
high loads while maintaining a minimum level of
superheat to protect the compressor. “A Thermostatic
Expansion Valve will result in superior performance
over a wide range of operating conditions, as well as
energy and cost savings.”3
The compressor’s compression ratio is an indicator of
the refrigerant system efficiency. Figure 3 shows the
approximate relationship between coefficient of per-
formance (COP) and pressure ratio for the DENSO
RT1 compressor. The COP decreases as the
compression ratio moves higher, due to a reduction
in the compressor mass flow rate (because the
volumetric efficiency of the compressor is
decreasing). A lower evaporator pressure or higher
condenser pressure will increase the pressure ratio.
Hence, the mass flow rate through the compressor
lowers as the pressure ratio rises.
Figure 3. Compressor COP and Pressure Ratio relationship4

The effect of pressure ratio on COP is significant.
Doubling the pressure ratio has the effect of
(approximately) halving the compressor COP. This
emphasizes the value of maintaining a low pressure
ratio to ensure optimum COP and refrigeration
system efficiency.
By maintaining a stable pressure ratio overall
operating circumstances, the refrigerant mass flow
rate through the compressor remains stable and the
volumetric efficiency of the compressor can be
maintained closer to the optimum level.
A low pressure ratio ensures:
 Efficient operation through higher volumetric
efficiency and reduced energy consumption;
 Extended compressor life because mechanical
and thermal stresses are reduced; and
 Smooth operation providing increased user
comfort and reduced compressor cycling.
These advantages need to offset the added
complexity in engineering, validation, part design and
assembly.
TEST RESULTS
Testing at design (standard) and off-design (low &
high load) conditions for two DENSO air conditioner
systems (one with a capillary and the other fitted with
a TXV) in heating and cooling mode was performed
under the conditions outlined in Table 1.
Test Conditions Indoor Outdoor
Cooling
Low Load 16°C 16°C
Standard 27°C 35°C
High Load 30°C 48°C
Heating
Low Load 0°C 0°C
Standard 20°C 7°C
High Load 25°C 25°C
Table 1. Design and off-design test conditions
Figure 4 shows that the capillary system has a pres-
sure ratio of 5.1 under normal conditions. This drops
to 4.5 under low load, but increases to 5.8 under high
load. Under the same conditions, the TXV system
shows a normal pressure range of 3.4, which
increases to 4.2 under low load and 4.0 under high
load.
Figure 4. Effect of system load on compression ratio
In heating, the situation is similar. The capillary
system has a pressure ratio of 6.8 in standard
conditions, which drops to 5.9 when the load is
reduced, but increases to 7.6 when the load
increases. The TXV system demonstrated a very
stable pressure ratio of 4.4~4.6 over all tested
conditions.
Under comparable conditions, the TXV equipped
system shows consistently lower and more stable
compressor load regardless of the operating
conditions. This provides the opportunity for
increased energy savings, extended compressor life,
and better user-comfort.
By keeping the pressure ratio low, it is possible for the
system to operate at higher ambient conditions
without exceeding the compressor operating
parameters. Simply, the unit will operate in hotter
conditions without causing the compressor to
overload and shut down.
Figure 5 shows the evaporating temperature under
various load conditions. Higher values indicate
increased efficiency. In standard and high load
conditions, the TXV provides consistently higher
evaporating temperatures.
Figure 5. Evaporating temperature

As indicated in Figure 6, the TXV-equipped system
provides a much more rapid rise in discharge
temperature. This indicates an increased level of heat
output provided by the compressor, once started in
heating mode. The TXV system can provide a ΔT of
15°C in ca. 60 seconds. The refrigerant temperature
reaches 30°C at the indoor heat exchanger within 3
minutes of the compressor starting, a rise of
approximately 7°C/minute. Within 5 minutes, the
refrigerant temperature reaches 40°C and begins to
level off. In contrast, the capillary tube system takes
almost four minutes to provide a ΔT of 15°C and >10
minutes to reach 30°C. This is after the compressor
starts and the temperature is rising at an
approximately linear rate of 2.5°C/minute. The steep
temperature rise exhibited by the TXV system
provides rapid heating in cold conditions, because the
system is able to fully adjust to these off-design
conditions.
Figure 6. Compressor discharge temperature
CONCLUSION
Caravan heat-pump manufacturers have until now
favored capillary tubes as an expansion device to
meet the durability challenges in application. DENSO
has demonstrated, and described here, that
thermostatic expansion valves can deliver im-
provements that, in important part, address rising
customer expectations of caravans.
The TXV system has thus been demonstrated to:
i. maintain a more stable pressure ratio across
the range of operating conditions;
ii. operate the refrigeration system at lower
pressure ratios at medium and high load; and
iii. enable faster warm-up from start under low
loads in heating mode.
Together, these improvements offer the potential for
higher energy efficiency and comfort to caravan
owners.
REFERENCES
1. IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the
Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,
(2005) Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto, et al.
2. The two (one) – way thermal expansion valve,
(2011) Zheijiang Chunhui Intelligent Control
Company Ltd
3. Technical Sheet: Buying a central air
conditioner? Ask for a TXV! (2006) Pacific Gas
and Electric Company.
4. [Tecumseh HGA5512 compressor], Tecumseh
Products Company Ltd, Brazil.
CONTACT
Matthew Rizio
DENSO Automotive Systems Australia Pty Ltd.
2-46 Merrindale Drive
CROYDON, VIC 3136
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS,
ABBREVIATIONS
Capillary tube: A small diameter copper tube used
as a refrigerant flow control device.
COP: Coefficient of Performance is the ratio of
thermal energy transfer (heating or cooling) to the
energy input to the compressor (electrical).
R-410A: A blend of equal parts difluoro-
methane (R32) and pentafluoroethane (R125) hydro-
flurocarbon (HFC) refrigerants used for air conditio-
ning applications.
Reversing valve: A 4-way valve used to change the
direction of refrigerant flow allowing heating and
cooling modes.
Subcool: The temperature decrease of a refrigerant
below its saturation temperature for a particular
pressure.
Superheat: The temperature increase of a refrigerant
above its saturation temperature for a particular
pressure.
TXV: (Thermostatic Expansion Valve) A device used
in refrigeration systems to control refrigerant flow by
maintaining a constant level of superheat.

Gold Award:
GM Holden,
VF Commodore Aluminium Engine Hood and
Decklid
Overview
Also receiving a Gold Award was the GM Holden entry for the VF Commodore Aluminium bonnet and boot lid.
Driving the design was the aim to achieve mass reduction. These components saved 12 kg while delivering
the additional benefits of achieving excellent Pedestrian Protection scores for the bonnet as part of its Five Star
ANCAP rating and enabled the use of an auto-rise boot lid system.
Judges Synopsis
In pursuit of significant vehicle mass reduction, Holden looked for ways to reduce the mass of the new VF
Commodore hood and deck lid, whilst retaining or enhancing performance. After extensive engineering
analysis, including detailed redesign to ensure low levels of pedestrian head impact, and in the face of the
challenging form-ability of the suitable aluminium they succeeded with a net mass reduction of 12 Kg. The
resulting lightweight enclosures could be formed using slightly modified production techniques and permitted
an auto-rise opening deck lid using a 4-bar link hinge - a first for the Global GM Corporation.

GM Holden VF Commodore Aluminium Engine Hood and
Decklid
GM Holden Engineer (engine hood): Andrew Juriansz
GM Holden Engineer (decklid): Adam Chitts
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
Two of the many highly anticipated features of the all
new GM Holden VF Commodore are the aluminium
hood and decklid. Mild steel is generally used by
automotive manufacturers for these stamped panels.
But in the case of the more fuel efficient VF
Commodore, steel could not deliver the desired mass
targets. By using aluminium for these panels, Holden
achieved a first for an Australian manufactured
vehicle. For the decklid, the use of aluminium from a
conventional form die was also a GM corporation first.
The use of aluminium panels was a strategic direction
set by Holden to reduce the mass of the VF
Commodore and improve fuel economy. The GM
6000 series grade aluminium alloy was chosen by
Holden based on GM global experience with using
this material for engine hoods. The mass saved by
using aluminium was 5kg on the decklid and 7kg on
the hood. The mass reduction achieved on the
decklid also enabled the auto-rise opening feature
that was incorporated into the system. This auto-rise
decklid using a 4-bar multi-link hinge is another first
for GM.
The largest engineering challenge experienced
throughout design and development was with
formability of aluminium. Aluminium is generally
harder to form into shapes compared to mild steel as
it does not elongate as much as mild steel before it
fractures or splits. Generally, mild steel can withstand
up to 25% thinning before the risk of panel splitting.
In contrast, aluminium can only withstand
approximately 20% thinning. This drives additional
challenges with draw die design and limits the
complexity of the shapes that can be formed.
An additional significant challenge for the hood
related to Pedestrian Protection (Pedpro) and vehicle
safety requirements. Aluminium’s material properties
and surrounding architectural packaging constraints
made the program Pedpro targets difficult to achieve.
It took detailed engineering and four times the amount
of development that it would have normally taken if
the hood was made from conventional mild steel.
The use of aluminum in these panels was a calculated
risk that Holden took to improve the product. And the
customer is now in a position to enjoy the benefits of
the engineering ingenuity.
PRODUCT CONCEPT: ALUMINIUM DECKLID
The breakdown of the aluminium decklid and its
surrounding sub-system can be seen in the following
diagrams.
The design of the aluminium decklid overcame many
engineering challenges:
1. Achieve the mass saving target set by the
Holden VF program management team.
The final production decklid mass was 6.95kg
and exceeded the 7.5kg target set by the

Program team. This represents a 5 kg mass
reduction relative to the outgoing model. The
target was achieved by optimally balancing
panel thickness (gauge), panel formability and
strength requirements.
2. Maintain the Holden Design Studio styling
exterior theme.
With a minimal level of feature-line radius
softening acceptable to the Design Studio,
there was not a great deal of scope to change
the shape of the decklid to address panel
formability issues encountered during the
design development. A top level priory was set
by the program team to maintain the lip feature
size and shape as this was a styling feature that
stood out as a key visual feature and integrated
the rear of the vehicle with interfacing surfaces.
3. Maintain critical lip radius size for
aerodynamic drag performance.
To minimise overall vehicle drag and improve
fuel efficiency, the VF Commodore integrated a
lip feature formed into the aluminium decklid
outer panel. The lip height and radii were critical
because these features controlled air flow
separation points to reduce drag on the vehicle.
4. Ensure decklid shape (inner and outer
panels) can be manufactured from
aluminium.
Using a conventional 4 stage press die train,
GM standards for A-class surface quality were
achieved. This die configuration for aluminium
is a first for Holden and GM. Low level reject
rates were also met to support Holden Vehicle
Operations build volume requirements.
Significant challenges arose throughout the project
in the initial die design stage using formability
analysis tools. Further challenges were revealed
throughout the physical die tryout stages in Japan
(die manufacture origin) and Australia (home line
press location). Decklid outer panel formability was a
major concern with analysis predicting a 20% scrap
rate with panel splits occurring in the initial draw die
stage (first of 4 operations). A sensitive balance
existed between surface quality issues, splitting on
the outer panel due to draw die constraints, the
complex shape and the aluminium material
formability properties. Maintaining the complex
shape to achieve the Design Studio theme and aero
performance directly conflicted with manufacturing
quality panels without wrinkles or splits. Extensive
die development, by Holden and the supplier
Hirotec, using formability simulation prior to
production tool manufacture was required.
Additionally, once tools where complete, extensive
die tuning was undertaken to finally achieve a
product that meets both surface quality standards
and low reject rate targets.
PRODUCT CONCEPT: ALUMINIUM ENGINE
HOOD
The breakdown of the aluminium hood and its
surrounding sub-system can be seen in the following
diagrams.
Aluminium provided significant mass savings and
generated creative solutions to the following
challenges:
1. Achieve mass saving target set by the
Holden VF program management team.
The VF hood mass is 9.35kg and achieved the
program target. This represents a 7kg mass
saving relative to the outgoing model. In
addition, production confirmation testing has
shown that the hood can be further lightened by
removing the hood rear centre Pedpro
stamping. This bracket was originally added to
compensate for the soft unsupported plenum
but analysis has since been shown to be
conservative.

2. Meet Pedpro and 5-Star vehicle safety
targets without costly architectural changes.
The VF Commodore has a stiff frame, powerful
engine configurations, and large wheels.
Unfortunately, architectural characteristics,
such as upturned flanges on body upper rails,
large engines near the underside of the hood,
high stiff wheel towers and a shallow plenum,
produce large rigid areas under the hood which
work against Pedpro. When combined with
aluminium’s need for roughly 10% deeper
sections than steel to provide equivalent energy
absorption, initial Pedpro results were marginal.
Through virtual analysis, complex shapes were
driven into the hood to optimise performance.
The hood needed to be soft in the front but not
collapse in the centre. Large holes in the hood
beams and a complex centre shape that uses
the front rail to support the hood centre
resulted. Hood side beam stiffness was also
reduced by large cut-outs. To compensate, a
continuous down-standing flange was
squeezed into the small space between the
body rail, the fender cut line and the wheel strut
pot hole clearance zone. The plenum had to be
tuned to stiffen the shallow centre while
avoiding stiffening the supported areas in the
same packaging space. Additional complexity
was introduced when the plenum was changed
from plastic to steel to reduce noise transfer
into the cabin. Even the engine cover was
styled and modified to support Pedpro. Similar
large, high powered cars like Jaguars, BMW
sedans and future GM models overcome the
issues listed above with costly active hood
hinges that lift the hood before the pedestrian
impact. The VF Commodore achieves the
Pedpro performance through refinement by a
tireless engineering team. It exceeded the 10
point target set by the program by achieving an
ANCAP score of 13.41 points. The process to
achieve the target scores generated more than
four times the normal development workload.
3. Maintain Holden Design Studio styling
exterior theme.
As with the decklid, the new Commodore
achieves differentiation with pronounced
shapes along the hood panel. The main hood
radius formability requirements were challenged
early by studio designers, leading to
collaboration with the best formability experts
available within GM and Hirotec. Die design
work typically planned for much later in the
program was pulled forward and prototype
tooling was used to study the challenges. The
high quality Japanese prototype tooling allowed
tuning to achieve production strain patterns and
evaluation of skid lines caused by the sharp
hood radius. A team of experts from Holden
and the supplier Hirotec were brought to Japan
to judge the quality balance and plan processes
and tooling shapes to meet the challenge. The
initial hood radius height, slope along the side,
radius width, and sculpted radius shape were
all balanced to deliver a sharp panel
appearance that still meets strict panel quality
standards. Although aluminium is softer than
steel and more easily scuffed when pulled over
die shapes, the Commodore hood achieves a
shape that is more characteristic of steel
panels.
4. Ensure hood shape is not impacted by
handling prior to baking.
By their nature, hoods rarely carry structural
vehicle loads and are constantly expected to
reduce mass while covering large areas. The
result is a thin floppy outer panel adhesive
bonded to a stiff webbed inner panel. Additional
stiffness is achieved in the hemmed joints with
the use of structural adhesives that set when
baked through the painting process. However,
aluminium hems lack the same residual hem
clamp force and adhesive glass bead retention
force found in steel hems. This increases the
risk of part deformation when handling parts
before the adhesive sets. For this reason
induction coil heating is used to spot cure two
part epoxy in the VF Commodore hood. The

tooling was expensive, complex, and difficult to
commission in Australia due to long delivery
times for spares. Despite these challenges the
hood and decklid are induction cured to
increase un-baked stiffness through the plant
and achieve excellent dimensional stability for
fit and finish of vehicles.
MARKET DEMOGRAPHIC AND NEEDS
In an ever increasing competitive Australian
automotive market, customers will find the VF
Commodore to be a great looking, value for money,
safe car with exciting performance and fantastic fuel
economy for its size. The aluminium hood and
decklid certainly contributed to this.
The hood and decklid are visually prominent parts
and the formability limitations of aluminium were
overcome to contribute to the contemporary
appearance of the car. The clever design of the
hood lets the car achieve impressive Pedpro
performance. The reduction of mass contributed to
the customer’s need for improved fuel economy. The
reduction in mass also enhances the vehicle’s sports
performance. Faster acceleration, shorter stopping
distances and dynamic handling give the customer
an exciting product that is consistent with the Holden
brand.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND
SUSTAINABILITY
The reduced mass from the hood and decklid
improve fuel economy and reduce CO2 emissions
compared to the outgoing model. The aluminium
blank shapes used to manufacture the panels
maximise material utilisation and minimise scrap. All
scrap aluminium generated during the
manufacturing process is recycled. The materials
that constitute the VF Commodore engine hood and
decklid are 100% recyclable.
PRODUCT AVAILABILITY
Full validation testing and certification of the
products have been completed. These products are
currently available as part of the Holden VF
Commodore range at Holden dealerships from June
2013.
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
These products are engineered to be fit for use
through the life of the car. Aluminium will be used for
the whole VF product lifecycle. The grades of
aluminium chosen for the engine hood and decklid
meet all of GM’s durability requirements. The
aluminium grades also provide excellent corrosion
resistance, improving quality throughout the life of
the vehicle. The engineering learnings are being
applied in other parts of GM.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other engineering challenges and opportunities
arose by using aluminium. These include:
1. The light weight decklid enabled the system to
function as a full ‘auto-rise’ system without
excessive closing efforts. This would not have
been possible with a heavier steel decklid.
2. Any steel components in direct contact with the
aluminium panels, such as hinges, are required
to be electro-coat painted to provide a
protective barrier between the steel and the
aluminium. This is to avoid galvanic corrosion
between the two dissimilar materials.
3. Changing from steel to aluminium presented
challenges for maintaining hood torsional
stiffness during opening or closing. Despite this,
the hood structure was optimised to allow the
use of only one gas strut to support the hood
when open. The single strut is cheaper and
lighter than two struts, has reduced labour in
assembly and increases system robustness for
the customer.
4. Aluminium is more difficult to handle than steel.
For this reason, specialised packaging,
stringent logistics and material control and
temperature controlled shipping and storage
was implemented to ensure the aluminium
blank’s shelf life is optimised and surface
quality is maintained.
CONCLUSION
These products are a culmination of the efforts of
various teams across Holden, GM North America,
Hirotec and the supplier community. The benefit to
GM and the customer is a stylish vehicle with
improved fuel efficiency due to mass savings and
aerodynamic drag performance. The use of
aluminium for these panels is a first for an Australian
designed and manufactured vehicle. Some of the
knowledge developed from this project is a first for
Holden and GM – this will serve as a key enabler for
new GM aluminium engine hoods and decklids for
future generation vehicles.

Silver Award:
GM Holden,
2013 – Holden VF Commodore Chassis Mass
Reduction
Overview
The VF Commodore Chassis Mass Reduction program took the Silver SAE-A Award for achieving a 38 kg
weight saving and adding new driving and fuel saving technologies while replacing more than 60% of
components. Among the mass reduction changes were Aluminium replacing cast iron in suspension and brake
booster components, reduced size exhaust system, revised differential, brake modulator and pedal assembly,
lighter steering and road wheels.
Judges Synopsis
The VF Commodore chassis mass reduction project provided an impressive reduction of 38kg through a
systemic and strategic approach. Mass reduction has a doubling effect upon the cost and environmental effects
of a vehicle. Reducing weight will initially reduce the energy and cost required to produce the vehicle. However,
it also reduces the cost and energy used to operate the vehicle throughout its life. A defining feature of this
project was that the weight reduction had to have no negative effects upon safety or driver experience. This
made the challenge a highly constrained one. Nevertheless, through an excellent example of systemic
engineering, the weight reduction was achieved successfully.

2013 – Holden VF Commodore Chassis Mass Reduction
GM Holden
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The Holden Commodore VE platform has been in
production since 2006 and has constantly seen
improvements in fuel consumption. These
improvements have been mainly due to engine and
transmission improvements combined with some
mass reduction. The VF Commodore program had
the largest mass reduction target so far to deliver an
aggressive fuel economy target. With large portion of
the mass of the car in the chassis, a significant mass
reduction needed to come from the chassis
components.
As well as mass reduction, the VF Commodore
chassis program was also looking for improved
refinement and application of advanced chassis
technology. The application of some chassis
technology such as the electric power steering and
electric park brake resulted in additional mass which
needed to be minimised and offset by reductions in
other area’s to ensure a net reduction in mass.
Typically mass reduction requires significant
investment and an increased component cost. With
limited investment and a price sensitive market,
careful consideration was needed to ensure that we
achieved the best result within a strict budget. Many
possible mass reduction technologies were evaluated
for the size of the mass reduction versus other
benefits. Some areas of potential mass reduction
including the front and rear sub frames were not
progressed in favor of components that added
additional benefits such as reduced unsprung mass
or improved braking efficiency.
The result of the study showed the most effective use
of available capital was in reducing the mass of front
steering knuckles, tension arms, wheels, springs,
brake apply system, brake modulator, exhaust
system, propshafts, driveshafts, steering column and
differential. In each of these areas there were
additional tangible benefits to the customer that went
beyond mass reduction.
Holden engineers have shaved 38 kilograms of mass
from the VF chassis, replaced more than 60 per cent
of components and added new driving and fuel saving
technologies.
PRODUCT CONCEPT
VF exhaust system for the Evoke model aggressively
targeted mass reduction, without impacting on noise
and engine performance. The resulting package
maximised the available space to develop a new
single pressed rear muffler. Through use of several
CAE tools, an exhaust configuration that achieved all
performance requirements and the required mass
reduction was developed.
Moving from cast iron to aluminum front knuckles and
tension arms resulted in a 3.8 kg reduction in
unsprung mass improving road holding, rolling
comfort, harshness, and isolation. CAE tools were
utilised to improve the strength and stiffness of the
knuckle over the VE knuckle and go straight to hard
tools with no physical testing.

The brake apply system adopted an aluminum
booster shell and steel master cylinder realising a
2.8kg improvement over VE. A through-bolt design
ties the booster shell back to the pedal box improving
stiffness and, as a result, also improves pedal feel
and performance. The new configuration enables
deletion of the mod plate resulting in a lighter dash
panel offering further mass savings. The VF brake
modulator is 1.8kg lighter, physically smaller and
faster allowing additional functionality over the
previous model.
The pedal system was redesigned with a focus on
mass reduction and improved stiffness. Glass filled
nylon carrier housing supports all foot pedals. Thin
steel tubular brake pedal was used for mass saving
and increased stiffness compared to MY12. A glass
filled nylon clutch pedal offers additional mass saving
over MY12. The new carrier houses the steering
column FOD seal and mounts to both the dash panel
and the IP beam for additional subsystem stiffness.
A 7kg reduction was achieved for the Evoke
differential by moving from a 210mm to a 195mm ring
gear. The ring gear is now welded to the differential
case, in place of bolting the ring gear which enables
the housing to be reduced in size. A smaller
differential centre has also been used, and the pinion
flange has been optimised. Further fuel economy
improvements have been achieved through angular
contact ball bearings on the pinion axis and high
efficiency gear oil. These changes alone improved
fuel economy on cycle by 0.03L/100km
The MY14 Light Weight Steering Column is an
advanced engineering solution that offers customers
a more versatile steering interface with multiple
functionalities and an advanced crash management
system that meets and exceeds regulatory and
environmental requirements. The design
incorporates a mounting bracket made of light weight
magnesium which offers 16% increased lateral
stiffness and a 5 Hz increment in natural frequency.
While dropping 1.1kg aids in lower cost and improved
fuel economy, the MY14 column also offers several
other distinct advantages over its predecessor such
as improved idle shake, 5 star ANCAP capability,
better front-of-dash sealing and improved road
isolation.
Holden took a different approach in designing the
MY14 cast wheel for the entry model Evoke. The
styling surfaces were developed with the intent of
maximising lateral stiffness at the lowest mass.
Balancing styling, mass and stiffness targets resulted
in a great looking wheel that weighs 0.39 kg lighter
and 3.7 KN/mm stiffer than its predecessor. The
higher lateral stiffness results in lower road noise from
the tyre and wheel system. Also, lower rotational
mass results in less rotational inertia and aids fuel
economy. The reduction in unsprung mass makes the
wheel less prone to damage from unwarranted road
hazards.
MARKET DEMOGRAPHIC AND NEEDS
The MY14 Holden Commodore has a large and
diverse range of model variants, each focusing on a
different customer demographic; from sports models
like the SV6 and SS, to luxury models such as the
Calais and Caprice, to the track-focused SSV Redline
models. MY14 also marks the introduction of a new
variant for North America, to be badged as the
Chevrolet SS.
A large portion of the chassis mass reduction efforts
were focused at the best-selling and fuel economy
leading 3.0l Evoke model. This model received a

completely new differential and exhaust system.
When determining candidates for reducing mass,
extra consideration was given to reducing the mass
of components that were common across every
model like the front knuckle, brake booster and ABS
modulator.
All of the major systems that we targeted for mass
reduction had additional benefits for the customer,
ensuring best use of available capital. Examples in
the following table.
Thanks in part to the chassis mass reduction
program, the MY14 Commodore has been able to
achieve, and even exceed the expectations of the
customer demographic; which has come to know the
Commodore as a brilliant all-round performer that
punches well above its RRP.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND
SUSTAINABILITY
Improving fuel economy and reducing CO2 emissions
were the main focus areas for the VF Commodore
engineering program. A big driver in this was to
reduce vehicle mass and the chassis mass reduction
program was a large contributor to this goal. Further
to the mass reduction, improvement in fuel efficiency
came from a new differential in 3.0L V6 models,
thanks to its new angular contact ball bearings.
The entry level petrol Evoke sedan was set a CO2
emissions target of <200 g/km. Mass optimisation
across the vehicle, aerodynamic drag reduction, and
electric power steering to minimize parasitic losses,
resulted in an ADR81/02 certified emissions figure of
198g/km CO2. This corresponds to a 4 ½ star Green
Vehicle Guide rating.
Replacing cast iron components with aluminum has
added environmental life cycle benefits for the vehicle
and aluminum is less energy intensive to recycle then
cast iron. Further, the corrosion resistance of the
aluminium chassis components means that they
maintain their appearance in service without having
to rely on additional painting processes. Removing
the painting processes from the manufacture of parts
provides flow on environmental benefits.
PRODUCT AVAILABILITY
The reduced mass Commodore chassis was part of
the 2014 model year VF program and has been fully
developed for market. VF Commodore went into
production in May 2013 in Australia. Some of the
mass reduced components are also part of the
Chevrolet SS program that started exports to North
America in September 2013
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE
These new components will be used for the life cycle
of the existing Commodore vehicle. The life cycle of
the current vehicle will not be disclosed for
commercial reasons. Learning’s from the engineering
of new components is shared globally and can be
used in other GM products around the world.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Careful consideration was also given to the remaining
components not specifically targeted for mass
reduction as components that required tooling
changes throughout the program were required to be
mass neutral or mass reduction before getting
approved.
For the new chassis technology, which by design
would be significantly heavier than the previous VE,
rigid mass targets were given at the beginning of the
program. As an example, the Electric Power Steering
was given an aggressive mass target that ensured it
was no more than 1.5 kg heavier than a hydraulic
system. A hollow rack bar was developed to ensure
the mass target was met. As a result, it is only
steering gear with a hollow rack bar currently used
within GM.
Mass reduction
initiative
Approx
mass
reduced
Additional benefit
Cast Iron to Aluminum
suspension components
7.6 kg Reduced unsprung mass,
increased stiffness over
previous model
Reduced size exhaust
system
8.3 kg Improved Aero, better
sound quality
3.0 Lt Differential 7.0 kg Reduced rotating friction
and improved N&V
Brake Modulator 1.8kg Faster processing time
more functionality
AL booster , pedal asm 2.8 kg Stiffer apply system
resulting in better brake
pedal feel
Lighter steering column 1.1 kg Improved idle shake, 5
star NCAP capability,
better front of dash
sealing and improved
road isolation.
Evoke wheel mass
focus
1.6 kg lower road noise

Highly Commended Award:
Suncorp Group,
Development and Implementation of the
Suncorp Vehicle Repairer Standard for the
Australian Smash Repair Industry
Overview
A welcome Awards entry from the insurance industry earned a Highly Commended Award for the Suncorp
Group. The entry is a Vehicle Repair Standard – an engineering led framework that encourages vehicle
repairers to outperform minimum standards.
Developed through extensive industry consultation, the program encourages industry investment, repair best
practice, commitment to training and apprentice development and customer focus repairs. The Vehicle Repair
Standard was developed in response to the significant escalation in the technical and engineering complexity
of motor vehicles. It will also fill the gap – there is no vehicle repair standard in Australia.
Judges Synopsis
Suncorp have presented an insightful and structured methodology which will provide a pathway for the
Australian automotive repair industry to improve work shop equipment, processes and staff training and
development. The work undertaken by Suncorp to develop programs with Skills Australia demonstrates
commitment. The effort invested by the company to significantly improve the Australian automotive repair
industry is worthy of a Highly Commended Award.

Development and Implementation of the Suncorp Vehicle
Repairer Standard for the Australian Smash Repair Industry
Andreas Sandvik1
, Chris Jones1
, Rob Bartlett2
and Shane Richardson1
1
Delta-V Experts and 2
Suncorp Group
ABSTRACT
In light of increased challenges related to vehicle
repair, Suncorp engaged in a twelve month process
to develop and consult upon a new level of
certification for repairers – the Suncorp Vehicle
Repair Standard.
There has been no significant progress in the
Australian repair industry relating to the development
of a repair standard and specific repair criteria. By
comparison, the automotive industry is continuously
progressing with advanced materials and
construction methods. Concerns regarding the
quality of repairs and repair methodology have been
previously raised as repair facilities are not audited or
required to meet a minimum repair standard. This
paper outlines a range of standards for repair facilities
that Suncorp is implementing to standardise the
Suncorp supplier base and the Australian repair
industry. A self-audit based system is adopted with
development teams responsible for visiting repair
facilities and auditing their compliance against the
requirements. This is intended to provide a standard
which will ensure the highest quality of repairs are
conducted and ensuring all vehicles repaired, are
repaired to a safe standard.
INTRODUCTION
Suncorp is Australia’s largest general insurer.
Through its insurance brands association with the
vehicle repair section, it has repaired millions of
vehicles over its history, with around 500,000 new
repairs each year. In recent years there has been a
significant escalation in the technical and engineering
complexity of motor vehicles, a challenge the repair
sector has been working hard to meet but with varying
degrees of success.
Suncorp identified gaps in the repair market it
believed could be assisted by improved identification
of minimum standards for vehicle repairers. With the
assistance of repairer advisory councils and
engineering consultants, it reviewed a range of repair
facilities and determined a minim level based on
vehicle repairer standard covering technical
standards, equipment and training, that is to be
incorporated in repair contracts.
An initial assessment of various repair facilities in
Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland was
conducted to establish the benchmark standard.
Questions were posed to the owner(s) and
technicians to establish how vehicles were assessed,
what tools were used and what resources were used
to complete the repair. Particular attention was paid
to the processes of repairing the vehicles and what
resources were used to ensure they were repaired to
a safe standard.
A minimum standard was developed and repair
facilities were audited against that standard. Further
developments were made by classifying repair
facilities into two categories, driveable repairs (non-
Structural), and Structural repairs. The repair grades
were based on a criterion focused around the abilities
of the facility to conduct repairs to a safe and
satisfactory standard.
The development of this standard is intended to bring
Australia into line with the United Kingdom, United
States of America, Japan, and the European Union.
The desired effect is to set the benchmark for repair
standards in Suncorp and Australia, to ensure the
continued development of the repair industry is
meeting the requirements of the current and future
generations and technologies of the automotive
industry.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
A number of international standards and guidelines
have been identified through a variety of
organisations.
Australia, by comparison, does not have a specific
standard or guideline for automotive collision repair.
The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association
(AAAA) made a submission to the Commonwealth
Consumer Affairs Advisory Council (CCAAC) in which
it identified that Australia does not presently have any
regulations to protect competition in the vehicle repair
and service sector [1]. Further, vehicle
manufacturers, importers and distributors are not
obliged to make technical and diagnostic information
available to repairers outside of their authorised
dealer networks.

Each state provides some information on their
websites aimed at vehicle repairs. There is however
no specific information available to the public or
vehicle repair facilities. The advice from each state is
similar in that repairers are instructed that it is their
responsibility to obtain the manufacturer’s guidelines
prior to repairing a vehicle. If the information is not
provided by the manufacturer, then the vehicle is to
be repaired by an authorised repairer for that model
and make.
PAS 125:2011
PAS 125:2011 [2] is a British Standard which
specifies requirements for automotive damage
repairs. PAS 125 does not cover repairs for
motorcycles, 3 wheeled vehicles or vehicles with a
GVM (Gross Vehicle Mass) of over 5 tonnes.
PAS 125 provides detailed guidelines and
requirements for those conducting repairs, which
includes documenting and specifying:
1. The category of repair to be undertaken;
2. People authorized to participate in the particular
repair process;
3. Repair method(s) to be applied;
4. Equipment and tools to be used;
5. Parts and controlled consumables required;
6. Quality control;
7. Repair process management.
It is identified that current and ongoing training needs
for those involved in the repair process should be
documented and evaluated. In addition, inductions
for the intended role of the individual involved are
required as are evaluations of the training
effectiveness.
A guideline for a person to be able to demonstrate
their competency is provided, which requires an
individual to demonstrate a variety of skills and
knowledge prior to being able to undertake the repair
process.
Repair methods are covered, which include access to
documented work instructions for all types of vehicles
and the damage repair likely to be undertaken. This
information, and the ability to demonstrate the
application of this material, shall be made available
on request. The repair process and vehicle should be
documented and made available on request.
Equipment required for the repair process will be
dependent on the particular repairs required. If the
equipment is not available for a type of vehicle or
repair, the repair facility cannot conduct the repairs.
The equipment should be calibrated and maintained
as per the requirements of the equipment
manufacturer.
Replacement parts are required to be Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts, or parts which
have been certified to the quality and performance
equivalent to the original parts. This must be self-
assessed or validated by an independent third party.
The replacement parts are required to be
manufactured according to the specifications and
production standards provided by the vehicle
manufacturer.
Repair quality control requires the repairer to have in
place and operate a documented quality control
procedure appropriate for validating the quality of
each repair. Record of the repair quality control
outcomes shall be made and signed off for each
repair undertaken.
Internal auditing of the repair process shall be
established and documented, to ensure that over a
12 month period each type of repair process
undertaken is audited at least once. Each repair
process should be audited against the requirements
of PAS 125. Any issues shall be identified and
examined with the finding documented. Corrective
action and the effectiveness off the corrective action
shall be assessed.
PAS 125 provides three repair categories:
1. Category 1 which is defined as being the repair
of dents, paint scratches and or gouges. There
is no replacement of parts;
2. Category 2 is defined as being the repair of
dents, paint scratches and gouges, trim, removal
and refitting or replacement of bolt-on parts such
as bumpers, doors and reinforcing bars;
3. Category 3 is defined as being the repair of
dents, paint scratches and gouges, trim,
replacement and repair of panels, replacement
and repair of Structural parts and body shell and
chassis replacements.
Thatcham
Thatcham (or The Motor Insurance Repair Research
Centre) is a not-for-profit organisation aimed at
carrying out research for reducing the cost of motor
insurance claims whilst maintaining safety standards.
Thatcham publishes detailed repair manuals for
specific vehicles which are available to paid
members. Thatcham is based in the United Kingdom
and focuses on European vehicles.

The repair manuals provided by Thatcham are known
as the ‘Thatcham Methods’ and cover topics which
include:
1. Specific panel replacement including details on
the procedure required to carry out the task;
2. Instructions on where to cut specific panels, how
to weld or join panels and reassemble the
vehicle;
3. Mechanical, electrical and trim repairs;
4. Diagrams and illustrations of the repairs in detail;
5. Specifications for bolts and fasteners including
torque settings.
The Thatcham Methods are available for most
European vehicles however there is little or no
information for the Australian vehicle market. Thus
only vehicles which are also sold in Europe are
currently covered by the Thatcham Methods (e.g.
Mercedes-Benz, BMW, some Toyotas).
Kitemark
The Kitemark for vehicle damage repair is a scheme
based on the technical specification PAS 125. It is an
initiative set up as a result of BSI (British Standards
Institution), Thatcham and various insurance and
motoring bodies within the United Kingdom.
Kitemark provides an accreditation system which
demonstrated to the insurance industry and general
public that repairs are to a high standard of quality
and safety. Kitemark was developed as an
independent and impartial accreditation system.
As with PAS 125, Kitemark separates the repair types
into three categories:
1. Cosmetic – Basic damage such as dents,
bumper scuff, minor paint or panel damage and
is aimed for Cosmetic repair facilities;
2. Structural Steel – Replacement and repair of
quarter, rear or sill panel(s), welded, bonded and
sever damage repair. Repair may require
replacement of Structural components;
3. Structural Specialist – Repair to vehicles with a
specialist structure which will require specific
methods, such as the handling of aluminium,
carbon fibre and plastics.
Kitemark also provides a checklist for repair facilities
to enable a ‘self-audit’ to evaluate current procedures,
quality control processes, general repair practice and
training.
The Jiken Centre (JKC)
JKC is a Japanese organisation dedicated to
increasing the benefit of repair costs and restoration
costs for car users. JKC also conducts research
through the Research Council for Automobile Repairs
(RCAR) for the purposes of training adjusters and
insurance companies, creating repair guides and
evaluating repair times for repairing vehicles and
researching car structures for repairs and safety of
repairs.
JKC provide specialist training for Japanese vehicles
and some imported vehicles. In 2011 JKC included a
special training program for hybrid and electric
vehicles.
JKC conduct collision testing for new models from the
manufacturers under identical conditions and compile
the results in reports. Suggestions are added by JKC
on ways to lower body repair costs and improve the
repair methods. Some investigations into actual
collisions which occur on the roads are undertaken
and compared to collision tests. The comparisons
are made and studied to compare international
collision test criteria with Japanese criteria and actual
collisions.
JKC will disassemble and investigate a vehicle
(including imported vehicles) and a comparison is
made between the domestic market and the imported
vehicles. Repair times and guidelines are
subsequently created under the name ‘JKC Repair
Time Table’ and ‘Assess Pro II’. JKC also publish the
‘Kozo Chosa Series’, which is a series of reports on
the Structural investigations of vehicles covered
under the JKC Repair Times.
Automotive Technician Accreditation (ATA)
ATA is a competency based certification of an
individual’s current level of competency. It is
governed by the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI).
The content and structure of the accreditation are
routinely assessed and reviewed to ensure they
remain current. ATA is a governing body within the
United Kingdom associated with accrediting
repairers.
In order for an individual to receive ATA, they are
required to pass a series of practical skills and
knowledge modules at an approved ATA centre. To
maintain their accreditation they must be reassessed
every three years.
Accreditation is available in a variety of area
including:
1. Air Conditioning;
2. Cosmetic repair;

3. Electric vehicles;
4. Paint;
5. Panel.
Each area contains a number of modules which in
themselves contain a set of key criteria and
requirements, with identified skills requirements.
Society of Automotive Engineers International
The SAE publishes standards in relation to the repair
of vehicles. SAE is primarily a United Sates of
America based organisation.
SAE J2376 – 2011 [3] defines the types of information
required by the collision repair industry to properly
restore light-duty, highway vehicles to their pre
collision state. This SAE standard references SAE
J1828 which relates to dimensional guidelines for
collision repair, I-Car and Tech-Cor Research
Bulletins.
SAE J1828 – 2008 [4] is intended to provide repairers
with reference and dimensional measurements to
achieve a cost-effective repair that will ensure
customer satisfaction. This standard describes the
methods, tolerances and procedures for repairing
vehicles based on information provided by the
manufacturers. It is not vehicle specific however it
provides manufacturers, research centres and
repairers with a standardised format for the
presentation of vehicle dimension data, tolerances
and other information. This dimensional data can
then be used in the diagnosis and repair of vehicles
involved in collisions.
Right to Repair
Right to Repair refers to petitions and Acts in the
United States and Europe which would require
automotive manufacturers to provide the same
information to independent repair facilities as they do
for dealer or affiliated repair facilities.
The Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act in the
United States refers to several proposed bills and
state legislatures first introduced in 2001. However no
version of the legislation has become law. Although
the legislation is yet to become law, voluntary
agreements have been reached between automotive
manufacturers and independent repair facilities to
provide the same information, service and training.
The Right to Repair Campaign within Europe relates
to the right for consumers to have their vehicles
serviced and maintained at any workshop, not
manufacturer controlled only. This requires access to
all technical information relating to the vehicles.
There is however legislation in Europe, namely the
‘Euro 5’ Regulation 715/2007/EC which came into
force in September 2009 and requires technical
information for newly type-approved vehicles,
however it does not cover existing vehicles. This is
commonly referred to as ‘block exemption’. The
widening of the campaign aims to gather support and
pressure the European Union to create legislation to
require manufactures to provide all technical
information, services and support to independent
repair facilities relating to all vehicles.
European Union Legislation
Legislation which has been based on Right to Repair
has been implemented within the European Union.
This legislation requires that certain information must
be shared with independent repairers.
Technical Information which is to be shared can be
found under Article 6(2) of the European Commission
Regulation (EC) No. 715/2007. Some of the
information required to be shared is listed below:
1. Vehicle identification;
2. Service handbooks;
3. Technical manuals;
4. Component and diagnosis information;
5. Wiring diagrams;
6. Diagnostic trouble codes (including
manufacturer specific codes);
7. Software calibration identification number
applicable to a vehicle;
8. Repair and maintenance procedures;
9. Specific software.
US Final Rule
Manufacturers in the US are required to make
information available to any person engaged in the
servicing and repair of motor vehicles. This
information is to be made available under 38430
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 124 / Friday, June 27,
2003 / Rules and Regulations. Some of the
information is listed below:
1. Manuals, technical service bulletins, diagrams
and charts;
2. Trouble codes and parameters;
3. Emissions related repair information;
4. Any information related to the service, repair,
installation or replacement of parts or systems
developed by third party suppliers for OEMs.

Comparison
It has been identified that there is no specific
legislation or programs in place to assist repairers
with the acquisition of resources specific to
manufacturers. If this information (repair manuals in
particular) is not made available to the repair industry,
then the quality of repairs cannot be guaranteed and
it is unlikely that a repairer will be able to return the
vehicle to OEM standard (or the pre collision state).
The European Union and the United States each
have some form of legislation or regulation which
requires that manuals and technical information and
more, is made available to the repair industry. Some
resources are currently available to the repair
industry, however many of these are related to the
European and American vehicle markets and are not
specific to Australia.
The current information available within Australia
places the responsibility on the repairer, who is
required to ‘request’ the information and manuals
from the manufacturer. The manufacturer is not
required or obliged to divulge this information.
Based on this, there is a significant gap between the
international guidelines, standards and regulations
when compared with that which is current within
Australia.
VEHICLE REPAIRER ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA
Fifteen Australian repairer facilities across three
states were visited and assessed by a team of
engineers. The repair facility was documented and
the technicians were consulted on how repairs were
undertaken. Photographs were taken and the
relevant equipment and repair methodologies
documented.
During the visits, a number of specific questions were
asked which included:
1. What resources were used and/or obtained to
ensure that vehicles were brought back to OEM
standard and where were they obtained from?
2. What procedures are in place from when the
vehicle was quoted to when the vehicle was
returned to the customer following the repair?
3. What issues were commonly experienced by the
repair facility?
4. How does the repair facility track and monitor the
quality of repairs and work being conducted?
5. What support was provided by manufacturers,
paint suppliers and equipment suppliers?
Identified Best Practices
Based on the visits, a number of best practices were
identified relating to the management, operation,
equipment and technical abilities of the repair facility.
This has been utilised to develop a list of best
practices for repair facilities in Australia.
Human Resources and Management:
Good practices in relation to the management of the
staff, the management of the work and the day to day
running of the facility were identified. This is identified
as consisting off:
1. Staff should be adequately trained:
a. Certificate 3 or be under an apprenticeship.
With appropriate ratios of qualified trades
people on the shop floor to apprentices.
b. Staff should receive ongoing training from
the relevant bodies (ICar, AARN and
Thatcham Automotive Academy) and/or
companies (e.g. The paint supplier
AkzoNobel, DuPont), to ensure that training
in new technologies and methodologies are
provided to the staff.
i. Courses can also be used to ensure
that staff are specifically trained in the
repair of particular vehicles (for
example gold and platinum ICar
statuses).
c. Staff database is maintained which details
skills, training and upwards and downwards
supervisory responsibility.
2. Best practice relating to heavy hit repair facilities
should consist of:
a. Qualified, trained and experienced staff;
b. Providing ongoing training for their staff
(attending courses/receiving
instructions/training from accredited
institutions); and
c. Maintaining a staff database (desirably the
database would allow online access).
3. A best practice heavy hit repair facility should be
able to demonstrate that staff are being
developed, either through sending staff to
courses offered by the paint supplier, ICar,
AARN or other accredited training courses, or
through in-house training by a certified trainer or
instructor.
4. A networked management system, such as
C360, Constellation or PNet, which can monitor
and track the progress of the vehicles and staff
within the facility.

a. A system which can also provide OH&S
reminders and/or alerts would be beneficial
and highly recommended.
b. A system which incorporates a tracking
system (particularly one with barcodes)
enables:
i. Systematic approach to the repair
process;
ii. Monitoring of the workflow;
iii. Allowing assessments of productivity
and the work methods.
5. It is recommended that a best practice heavy hit
repair facility has management system.
Desirably the management system is:
6. Networked (and allows online access).
7. Allows a program of work to be identified and
also allows relevant documents to be attached to
the program of work i.e. manufacturers repair
method(s) or parts orders;
8. Allows time and date stamped images of the
repair process to be added to the job history, so
that there is image history of the repair.
Repair Process:
A number of good practices relating to the repair
process were identified. They are as follows:
1. Access to manufacturer manuals or repair
processes or documented advice from the
vehicle manufacturer (the original equipment
manufacturer) with respect to specific repair
method(s) to be used on a specific vehicle.
a. AARN, ICar and Thatcham can also be
consulted with respect to the repair
process.
i. However, AARN, ICar and Thatcham
repair process cannot be used as an
alternative to the original equipment
manufacturer unless explicitly
endorsed by the original equipment
manufacturer to do so.
2. It is mandatory that a best practice heavy hit
repair facility has:
a. Access to original equipment manufacturer
repair manuals for the vehicle make and
model being repaired; and
b. The required information from original
equipment manufacturer repair manual for
the make and model of vehicle being
repaired is accessible to all relevant
employees.
i. Alternative repair processes can only
be used if endorsed by the original
equipment manufacturer.
It is recommended that the management system
documents (and desirably trace and track) the
information used to repair a vehicle. Desirably
an inbuilt quality check would cross check that
only the relevant vehicle manufacturer and
model information is used on a repair.
Without original equipment manufacturer repair
manuals (or approved alternatives such as Thatcham
systems) repair facilities would not be able to repair
a vehicle to the appropriate standard. It is
recommended that vehicle repair facilities be
endorsed to repair only vehicles make and models
which they can demonstrate that the repairer has
access to authorised original equipment
manufacturer repair manuals and documentation (or
approved alternatives).
It was identified that some repairers found it difficult
in some cases to obtain information from the original
equipment manufacturers in relation to the repair
manuals for specific vehicles. It is critical that
manufacturer’s release information to repairers or to
repairers selected by individual original equipment
manufacturers to ensure repairs are conducted in a
safe and efficient manner.
Approved specifications and repair methods must be
sourced for the particular vehicle and repair which is
required. The specifications and methods must be
kept and recorded. This information must then be
provided to the technician. This process must be
recorded and documented. If it is not possible to
obtain the specifications and required repair process,
the repair facility must have a documented process
which is followed by the technician. The documented
process should outline what procedures are to be
followed by the technician, where information is to be
sourced from, who is to be consulted and what types
of repairs should be carried out.
The repair facilities should move away from a “quote
based repair” towards a “method based repair”
process. Repair facilities should ensure that the
required repair processes are identified and followed
to restore the vehicle to its original state.
Compliance:
An overarching “compliance” will be provided to
ensure a minimum industry standard is attained,
giving confidence to consumers and insurers as to the
base level competence, and the ability to observe
outperformance. The compliance of a repair facility
will identify that they have met the minimum

requirements to enable them to effectively operate as
a repair facility. Repair facilities must meet the
minimum requirements of a category before they are
allowed to conduct any repairs to vehicles.
Structural Repairs:
Structural repairs are classified as being the repair of
dents, paint scratches and gouges, trim, removal and
refitting of bolt-on parts such as bonnets, doors,
bumpers, replacement and repair of panels requiring
cutting and welding, repair and replacement of
Structural parts including chassis members and bolt-
on chassis related parts and body shell and chassis
replacements. Structural repairs are considered to be
the most severe and extreme repairs, which require
particular knowledge, skill sets and equipment to
complete. Structural Repair facilities will be certified
to conduct all (economical) repairs to a vehicle, and
as such are required to demonstrate the competency
and skills to a very high level.
The skills required are:
1. Bonding, welding and other joining techniques;
2. Heavy Structural repair techniques:
a. Competence, training and certification to
use equipment such as welders and
chassis straightening equipment;
b. Repair of high strength steel;
c. Repair and replacement of chassis rails and
bolt on Structural components.
3. Ability to remove and replace SRS components
and systems;
4. Ability to identify, replace and test Airbag Control
Modules and other electronic devices;
5. Identification of materials;
6. Skills and knowledge in repairing and identifying
high strength steel, plastic and aluminium;
7. Autoglazing;
8. Vehicle Damage Assessment (VDA);
9. Air Conditioning (recommended);
10. Mechanical, electrical can trim repairs
(Recommended);
11. Paintless Dent Removal (PDR);
12. Panel processes;
13. Refinishing;
14. Paint;
15. Identification of repair methods required;
16. Interpretation of manufacturer repair guidelines.
The repair facility must be able to demonstrate their
competency in the above upon request. This can be
through producing documentation that identifies that
the individuals working on the vehicles have
undertaken the required specific training courses and
programs to become certified at the particular repairs.
Structural facilities must have a competent Vehicle
Damage Assessor (VDA), Master Technician
(Certificate 4) or competent Senior Technicians
(Certificate 3) who can assess vehicles for repair.
The assessor must be able to identify the repair
methods required, document the methods and
provide the information to the Technicians and Senior
Technicians who will conduct the repair. This
procedure must be documented and it must be
identified what type of repair methods are required,
who has identified this and who this information has
been passed onto.
Driveable Non-Structural Repairs:
DNS repairs are classified as being repairs which
include dents, paint scratches and gouges, trim and
the removal and refitting of bolt-on parts such as
doors and bumpers. Replacement of chassis,
steering, suspension and brake parts are not
considered to be DNS repairs.
The skills required are:
2. Air Conditioning;
3. Mechanical, electrical can trim repairs;
4. Panel processes;
5. Refinishing;
6. Paintless Dent Removal (PDR);
7. Trim and minor body repairs
8. Paint;
9. Ability to remove and replace SRS components
and systems;
11. Identification of repair methods required;
12. Interpretation of manufacturer repair guidelines.
As with Structural repairs, the repair facilities must be
able to demonstrate their competency in the above on
request. A DNS repair facility should have a minimum
of one Senior Technician (Certificate 3) to four
Technicians (Certificate 2). Technicians must be
supervised and instructed by the Senior Technicians.
Documentation of the training and competence of the

persons employed must be kept and made available
upon request.
Repair facilities classified ‘Compliant’ will have met
the minimum requirements for what a repair facility is
required to comply with.
Non-Compliant Repair Facilities
Repair facilities which fail to meet the minimum
standards required, shall be considered ‘Non-
Compliant’ and should not be admitted to the Suncorp
repair panel..
In order for a repair facility to be considered to be non-
compliant, the following criteria should be met:
1. Lack of adequately trained individuals (e.g.
individuals have not completed the required
certificate, no additional training or update
courses being attended);
2. No defined work flow (i.e. there is no organised
system of work within the repair facility);
3. Poor quality (and lack of) tools and equipment
for staff;
4. Lack of occupational health and safety
guidelines and poor workplace practices;
5. Poor quality of repairs, identified through poor
customer satisfaction or third party audit);
6. No defined repair procedures, practices or
documentation.
7. Not meeting the specific criteria set out in
Suncorp documentation
Control and Auditing Process
Each repair facility will be required to identify
evidence associated with the audit of their facility. It
is to be expected that some facilities will specialise in
one area (for example DNS) rather than being
involved in heavy Structural repairs). This does not
identify one facility as being superior to another.
Vehicles will ideally be in the facility for a few days at
a maximum for less complex repair. Thus if the same
facility also repairs structural vehicles, there is likely
to be issues related to the workflow within the shop
area. As such repair facilities working on heavy
structural repairs (complex repairs and a lower turn
around rate) may have issues if less complex repairs
(high turn around rate) are also repaired in the same
area. This could be overcome by having multiple
shop areas or buildings to segregate the types of
repair to ensure that the workflow remains ideal.
In order to test compliance of the repair facility, it must
be audited to ensure it meets the minimum
requirements. Two types of auditing can be
considered as acceptable:
1. Self-auditing using a checklist;
2. Independent third party audit.
Ideally, self-auditing would be preferred however in
some circumstances a third party audit may be
required, particularly if a repair facility has failed to
meet the minimum compliance requirements.
Auditing of the repair facility should occur on a rolling
48 month basis, to ensure that the standard of the
repair facility is kept up to date and that repair facilities
are not failing to meet the minimum compliance
standard.
Where self-auditing is not an option, an independent
third party can inspect the repair facility and conduct
an audit. This audit should be same as that which is
required in the self-auditing process to provide a
degree of consistency for the classifications. All
audits are reviewed and approved by Suncorp.
The proposed auditing process is shown in Figure 2,
where the red lines and arrows identify a negative
response (not accepted) or a poor performance or
repair, and the green lines and arrows indicate
acceptance (certification) and positive outcomes.
Figure 2: Flowchart of the auditing process.

FUTURE PROGRESS
With standards, guidelines and minimum
expectations set, a plan to move the repair industry
forward must be identified.
It is to be expected that initially (within the first 12
months), most repair facilities will be in the process of
undertaking upgrades or adjusting to the criteria for a
given repair classification. For that reason transition
timeline has been identified and communicated.
There will also likely be repair facilities that do not
meet the minimum standards. Some of these repair
facilities will likely make improvements such that they
can meet these standards. It would be expected that
by the end of the initial 12 month period, most repair
facilities will have identified their preferred
classification and are aligning themselves with the
standards required. It is important to identify that
some repair facilities will be in the ‘Transition Period’
where they may not meet their desired (or minimum)
standards, but are in the process of transitioning into
the new system. It is at the discretion of the insurer
or assessor to identify and enforce the length and
requirements of the transition period. Intent and
progress is a key determining factor for continued
association at this point.
Within 24 months, it is to be expected that the
transition periods will have concluded (not including
repair facilities who wish to change their
classification) and no repair facilities will be below the
minimum standards. Any facilities not meeting the
minimum certification requirements should be
excluded from conducting repairs until all necessary
improvements have been made and checked via a
third party audit.
Initial Stages
Repair facilities should be provided with the criteria
and minimum standards required for each
classification. The repair facilities should then be
allowed a short period of time to assess themselves
and make the necessary improvements. Repair
facilities which are recommended for a self-auditing
process should be identified and notified. Those
repair facilities which are identified as requiring a third
party assessment should also be identified, notified
and an audit should be organised once the allotted
time has concluded.
The following guidelines are recommended in relation
to the selection of repair facilities for self-audits:
1. Low rate of vehicles being returned for repairs to
be assessed or fixed;
2. High customer return rate;
3. Good reputation within the repair industry;
4. Ability to identify and provide evidence of training
and certification of individuals;
5. Ability to identify and provide evidence of
equipment and tools being upgraded;
6. Ability to identify and provide evidence of
workplace and repair practices, guidelines,
manuals and other sources used within the
repair facility.
Repair facilities can be provided with the Identification
Checklist so that they can identify, and if selected,
conduct a self-audit against the requirements for each
classification. Repair facilities that are not willing to
be audited should be considered to be non-compliant.
Random inspections of self-audited repair facilities
should be undertaken to ensure self-audits are
conducted in accordance with the guidelines.
Within 6 months (30 September 2014 conclusion), all
repair facilities should have undergone the self-audit
or third party audit and be classified. This time limit is
set by a transitional period rules at the discretion of
the insurer.
Figure 4: The proposed transition stages a repair facility should be
expected to undertake is shown in this diagram.

Figure 4 shows a flowchart illustrating the process for
repair facilities chosen to be self-audited. For repair
facilities that require a third party audit, the flowchart
will still be applicable, however the repair facility will
immediately be identified for a third party audit.
Figure 4 identifies the ongoing processes which the
repair facility must undertake in relation to ongoing
development.
Following the initial 12 month period, repair facilities
should be classified in one of the three categories or
be in a transition period. Within 24 months, repair
facilities that are unable to meet the minimum
requirements should no longer be considered for
repairing vehicles.
Transitional Period
A transition period will be allowed to allow repair
facilities time to make or implement the necessary
changes and procedures to improve their
classification for the purpose of the audit. In order for
a repair facility to be eligible for the transition period,
they must:
1. Demonstrate the ability to want to make the
necessary improvements and changes;
2. Draft a procedure or map to show how they
intend to reach the desired classification rating;
3. Provide evidence as requested to show that
progress is being made. This can be through
producing the following documents or evidence:
a. Papers or documents relating to current or
planned training of individuals;
b. Evidence to indicate a desire or plan to
upgrade equipment;
c. Draft copies of required plans and
procedures;
d. Any other evidence desired by the insurer.
4. Identify or create a ‘proactive’ rather than
reactive approach to keeping up to date with
required technologies and / or standards;
5. Effective and well documented workflow
procedures (refer to Figure 5);
6. Effective and well documented quality control
process.
The transition period is 6 months for the main
elements, with certain items having extended periods
(water born paint etc) unless there are exacerbating
circumstances, which should be at the approval of the
insurer. The transition stages a repair facility should
undertake can be viewed in Figure 4.
Figure 5: An exemplar workflow procedure for a repair facility.
TRAINING AND ACCREDITATION
Once a vehicle repair facility has been classified to
perform a certain type of repair (i.e. Structural, DNS
or Non-Compliant) it is the obligation of the repair
facility to recognise what needs to be done in terms
of training to maintain compliance against the
standard.
New Individuals
Persons classified as New Individuals would be
required to complete the skill set training program to
be a certified vehicle body repairer. After which the
qualified technician will be required to be assessed
every 3 years on his/her accredited courses for the
qualification. New courses may be required to be
completed as the previously completed courses may
be out of date, updated and replaced. The technician
will be instructed on additional and/or refresher
courses that would have to done after the 3 year
assessment. Figure 6 shows the path that new
individuals must follow in order to become and remain
certified repairers.
Existing Individuals
Two new skills sets approved developed by Suncorp
and approved by Auto Skills Australia (AURSS00023
and AURSS00024) are a potential stepping stone to
higher qualifications for the industry. These training
units are to be rolled out to recommended repairers,
with 50% of all panel staff in repairer facilities
expected to be assessed and gap trained within two
years of the program commencement.

2013%20AEEA%20Journal

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 2013%20AEEA%20Journal

Similar to 2013%20AEEA%20Journal (20)

2013%20AEEA%20Journal