select
navigate
switch tabs
Esc close

Fastener size choice for a through-hole in 4 mm anodized aluminum plate

0
K
3

Hi!

 Designing a lightweight enclosure for a small UAV component, using 4 mm thick anodized aluminum sheets. For the assembly, I need to fasten this plate to a 3D-printed ABS bracket underneath, which acts as a support and needs to be removable. The bracket is tapped, and I’m trying to decide what screw size to use for the through-hole in the aluminum that allows solid clamping without too much play or risk of deforming the hole over repeated assemblies.

Would you size the hole just clearance for an M4, or would M3.5 make more sense considering the wall thickness and material combo? This will likely be assembled/disassembled a dozen times during maintenance.

    • K

      Hi!

       Designing a lightweight enclosure for a small UAV component, using 4 mm thick anodized aluminum sheets. For the assembly, I need to fasten this plate to a 3D-printed ABS bracket underneath, which acts as a support and needs to be removable. The bracket is tapped, and I’m trying to decide what screw size to use for the through-hole in the aluminum that allows solid clamping without too much play or risk of deforming the hole over repeated assemblies.

      Would you size the hole just clearance for an M4, or would M3.5 make more sense considering the wall thickness and material combo? This will likely be assembled/disassembled a dozen times during maintenance.

      0
    • E

      I’d use M4, especially. An M4 screw gives you a bit more strength and better load distribution during clamping, which helps prevent fretting or hole deformation over repeated cycles. You’ll want a standard clearance hole—around 4.3 mm—for the aluminum plate. Since ABS is relatively soft compared to aluminum, the extra thread engagement from the M4 will actually help avoid stripping the tapped holes over time. Plus, you’ve got decent material thickness in the plate to back it up.

      0
      Reply
    • K

      Would an M3.5 be a safer bet for weight savings?

      0
      Reply
      • e
        Kirk Jarvis

        Maybe if you were really pressed for grams, but in UAV work, reliability usually wins over a few grams. M3.5 screws are much also less common, which could complicate sourcing. M4 is a solid, standard choice with good longevity, and easier to find replacements if needed.

        If removability is a key factor, then I’d design to insert nuts or brass inserts into the pillars. The slight extra weight will be compensated by much better re-use characteristics.

        0
        Reply
Fastener size choice for a through-hole in 4 mm anodized aluminum plate
Your information:




Suggested Topics

Topic
Replies
Views
Activity
DFM check: Is this part a “nightmare” to machine?
Hi! Designing a custom housing for a prototype. I’ve got features on all six sides, and I’m realizing this is going to need a ton of CNC setups. In your experience, is it better... read more
J
P
6
36
Mar 31
Robust actuator-to-brake pedal joint for angled, high-force actuation
hi, i am designing a push-rod connection between a linear actuator and a vehicle brake pedal for a durability test setup. The actuator can apply 750 N, and the pedal rotates through its travel,... read more
f
H
W
12
193
Mar 16
Flatness GD&T for 6061 plates
For a mounting plate for a precision sensor (about 200 mm × 200 mm) I was going to call out a flatness of 0.05 mm, but my senior engineer says that’s overkill and will double the machining... read more
K
E
U
3
379
Mar 14
ISO 2768-mK vs specific tolerances
Hey guys, I’m getting some pushback from our shop lead. I’ve been dimensioning every single feature on a new manifold block because I’m paranoid about fitment, but he says the drawing is "unreadable" and... read more
l
P
2
469
Mar 14