9 vs 12 copper rivets: Size, Application and Selection Guide

2025-07-28
Author: Rivmate Rivet

In traditional craftsmanship and structural reinforcement applications, copper rivets possess excellent ductility, corrosion resistance and retro aesthetic appeal. It is widely used in leather products, horse gear making, wooden ship restoration and various light structure assembly scenarios. In these practical applications, the selection of rivet sizes is of vital importance. Especially the two common models, #9 and #12, often appear in the selection lists of manufacturers and engineers. The “numbers” of copper rivets, such as #9 and #12, actually represent their diameter dimensions. It directly affects its load-bearing capacity, the thickness of applicable materials and the appearance of the finished product. Understanding the differences between 9 vs 12 copper rivets is essential for ensuring structural integrity, aesthetic balance, and installation efficiency.

This article provides a clear comparison of #9 and #12 copper rivets in terms of size, applications, and how to make the right choice for your specific project.

What Do Rivet Size Numbers Like #9 and #12 Really Mean?

When selecting copper rivets, understanding what the “#” size system represents is crucial to ensuring both structural integrity and compatibility with your application. Rivet size numbers like #9 and #12 follow standardized specifications based on shank diameter. This numbering system is clearly defined in industry standards such as those from the Industrial Fasteners Institute (IFI), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and commonly accepted leathercraft guidelines.

Apart from the diameter of the rod, the complete dimensions of the copper rivet also include the diameter of the head (Head Diameter) and the overall length (Overall Length). These three factors jointly determine the bearing capacity and applicable scenarios of the rivet. Here is a simple table showing the relationship between common rivet sizes and their dimensions:

Rivet Size (#)	Shank Diameter (inches)	Head Diameter (approx.)	Common Applications
#9	0.144 in	~0.312 in	Leatherwork, woodworking, light structures
#12	0.180 in	~0.375 in	Boat hull repair, heavy-duty assemblies

How Do 9 and 12 Copper Rivets Compare in Size and Strength?

When choosing copper rivets, the two common types, 9 copper rivets and 12 copper rivets, have significant differences in terms of size and performance. It can directly affect the load-bearing capacity and applicability of the riveted structure. The following are the key points for comparison:

1. Shank Diameter

The rod diameter of #12 copper rivets is approximately 1/4″ (≈ 6.4 mm), which is significantly thicker compared to #9’s 3/16″ (≈ 4.8 mm). This size difference not only enhances the tensile and shear resistance but also provides a more stable assembly and fastening effect. It is particularly advantageous in scenarios with frequent loading or high loads.

2. Rivet Head Diameter

The diameter of the head determines the pressure distribution between the rivet and the connected material. The size range of #12 heads is typically 7/16″ – 1/2″ (≈ 11 – 13 mm), significantly larger than that of #9, which is 3/8″ (≈ 9.5 mm). A larger head helps reduce indentation and prevent material deformation, making it suitable for soft or thin materials。Especially in situations where appearance and structural integrity are important.

3. Length Range

#12 copper rivets typically have lengths ranging from 1/4″ to 1″, covering a wider range of thickness combinations for fastening requirements. While #9 has a standard length usually ending at 3/4″. For multi-layer materials or structural components that require deeper penetration, #12 offers greater flexibility and engineering margin.

4. Tensile/Shear Strength

In terms of structural strength, since #12 has a larger cross-sectional area, it performs significantly better than #9 under tensile and shear loads. In practical applications, #12 is more suitable for areas that need to withstand dynamic loads, vibrations, or concentrated structural stresses. The use of #9 is usually more focused on size compactness or aesthetics rather than ultimate strength.

5. Application Suitability

#9 Copper Rivets: Often used for lightweight applications, such as leather goods crafting, furniture decoration, thin wood board connections, etc. They are characterized by ease of operation and exquisite appearance.
#12 Copper Rivets: Widely used in medium-load structural connections, such as ship repair, industrial sheet metal work, wooden decks, mechanical guards, etc. They emphasize their durability and load-bearing capacity.

Size and Performance Comparison Table: 9 vs 12 Copper Rivets

Parameter	#9 Copper Rivet	#12 Copper Rivet
Shank Diameter	≈ 3/16″ (approx. 4.8 mm)	≈ 1/4″ (approx. 6.4 mm)
Head Diameter	≈ 3/8″ (approx. 9.5 mm)	≈ 7/16″–1/2″ (approx. 11–13 mm)
Available Length Range	1/4″ – 3/4″	1/4″ – 1″
Material	Solid Copper	Solid Copper
Tensile/Shear Strength	Moderate	Higher
Typical Applications	Leatherwork, light woodworking, decorative joints	Boat hulls, structural repair, industrial use

Where Are Different Sizes of Copper Rivets Most Commonly Used?

Typical Application Scenarios of 9 Copper Rivets (Preferred for Lightweight Connections)

Leather Goods Manufacturing: 9-gauge copper rivets are widely used in leather goods. They are suitable for connecting components such as belts, horse tack, wallets, key cases, and vintage backpacks. Their compact size provides the necessary holding force without affecting the appearance of the finished product. They are typically used for localized reinforcement of non-load-bearing components, combining both decorative and functional purposes.
Thin Wood Panel Joining: In light wood structures such as furniture manufacturing, decorative crafts, and model construction, #9 copper rivets enable quick, high-density connections. Since they cause minimal deformation after riveting and are unlikely to split wood, they are often used for local connections in panels, decorative strips, or edging.
Lightweight mechanical assembly: This includes the connection and fixation of structures such as electrical enclosures, thin sheet covers, and small hardware brackets. While the shear strength of #9 rivets is limited, it is sufficient to meet the fixation requirements of non-structural components. Their copper material has excellent conductivity, enabling multifunctional integrated assembly in certain grounding or conductive structures.

Typical Application Scenarios of 12 Copper Rivets (For Medium Load Structural Reinforcement)

Thick leather or composite material fastening: 12 copper rivets can penetrate multiple layers of material without riveting failure. Due to their stronger clamping force, they prevent loosening or misalignment between materials, enhancing connection lifespan and safety.
Medium to heavy-duty wood structure repair: 12 copper rivets serve as ideal medium-load stress reinforcement fasteners. They are often used with copper washers to improve load distribution and corrosion resistance.
Shipbuilding and equipment maintenance: In high-strength environments such as wooden ship hulls and steel-wood hybrid structures, #12 copper rivets offer high shear strength and corrosion resistance. Copper exhibits excellent adaptability to seawater and humid environments, meeting the demands of long-term fatigue resistance and stability in such conditions.

How Do You Choose the Right Copper Rivet Size?

a. Select the Shank Diameter Based on Material Thickness

When choosing copper rivets, the rivet grip range is one of the most critical parameters for ensuring a secure and reliable connection. The grip range refers to the total material thickness that a rivet can effectively clamp during proper installation, typically measured in millimeters or inches.

How to Calculate Rivet Grip Range:

Grip Range = Total thickness of all materials being joined (including any spacers or inner layers)

Example:

If you’re fastening two layers of leather (2 mm and 1.5 mm thick) along with a copper washer (0.5 mm), the total thickness is 4 mm, so you should choose a rivet with a 3–5 mm grip range.

How to Match Grip Range with Shank Diameter:

Grip Thickness Range	Recommended Rivet Size	Description
2–4 mm	#9	For fine connections such as light-duty leather or thin sheet joints
3–5 mm	#9 (preferred)	Ensures enough deformation without loosening
5–7 mm	#12 (recommended)	Provides stronger clamping force for thicker, layered materials
7–10 mm	#12 (optimal)	Prevents under-clinching and ensures proper shear strength

Note: When the material thickness approaches the upper limit of the grip range, it’s best to choose a slightly longer rivet to avoid insufficient clamping and potential loosening.

Why Shank Diameter Affects Clamping Stability:

Smaller shank diameters (e.g., #9)deform more easily during riveting, making them suitable for light-duty assemblies.
Larger shank diameters (e.g., #12)deliver greater clamping force and resistance to deformation, especially ideal for harder materials, composite stacks, or load-bearing areas.

For instance, in an assembly involving wood + metal + leather with a total thickness of 6 mm, using a #12 copper rivet helps prevent slipping or noise caused by insufficient grip.

b. Pre-Drilled Hole Size Matching

To prevent rivet loosening or material cracking during assembly, it’s essential to use drill bits that precisely match the rivet size:

Rivet Size	Recommended Drill Bit	Tolerance Suggestion
#9	3/16″ (≈ 4.76 mm)	+0.1 ~ +0.2 mm
#12	1/4″ (≈ 6.35 mm)	+0.1 ~ +0.2 mm

A hole that’s too small may make rivet insertion difficult, while a hole that’s too large can compromise joint stability.

c. Tool Compatibility Requirements

Larger rivets such as #12 require more robust tools during installation, including larger dies, manual clamps, hydraulic riveters, or specialized jigs. Using standard tools for #12 rivets may result in incomplete deformation, affecting the overall strength of the connection. Therefore, we recommend:

#9: Can be installed using hand tools or lightweight rivet setters;
#12: Best installed using dedicated dies (die diameter 6.4–6.6 mm) and tools with adequate clamping force.

d. Structural Strength Requirements

If the joint will be subjected to significant shear force, tensile load, or long-term vibration, #12 copper rivets should be prioritized. Their larger cross-sectional area and wider head provide superior mechanical strength and fatigue resistance compared to #9 rivets.

Use #12 rivets especially in the following scenarios:

Equipment mounting surfaces
Mixed-material assemblies (e.g., metal + wood)
Load-bearing or high-vibration areas
Humid or corrosive environments

What Tools Are Needed for Copper Rivet Installation?

Installing copper rivets involves more than just the rivets themselves—choosing the right accessories and tools is key to ensuring clamping force, aesthetic quality, and connection reliability. Especially in industrial assembly or precision leathercraft, the compatibility between rivets and copper burrs, as well as proper tool selection, directly affects the final product’s performance.

①. Burr Compatibility

Copper burrs, also known as rivet washers or caps, are placed on the rivet’s tail end and serve three main purposes:

Enhance clamping force:Increase the bearing surface to improve rivet stability;
Prevent material tearing:Protect the joint surface from damage caused by rivet deformation;
Aesthetic and symmetry:Provide a neat appearance, especially important for exposed surfaces requiring uniformity.

Compatibility:

#9 rivets requireburrs sized for 3/16″ holes;
#12 rivets requireburrs sized for 1/4″ holes;
Burrs for these two sizes are not interchangeable, as using the wrong size may lead to insufficient clamping or installation failure.

②. Installation Tools and Die Selection

Rivet setting generally involves three basic tools: the setter (mandrel), anvil, and die/rivet tool system. Recommended selection guidelines are as follows:

Item	#9 Rivets	#12 Rivets
Manual Riveter	Small handheld riveter (light-duty)	Medium to large riveter or bench clamp system
Setter Diameter	Tail groove diameter ≈ 4.8 mm	Tail groove diameter ≈ 6.4 mm
Anvil Design	Matching groove to fit burr outer diameter	Larger groove with guiding effect
Hydraulic/Pneumatic Tools	Optional, suitable for batch work	Recommended to ensure consistency

If high consistency and efficiency are required, especially in production lines or heavy-duty connector operations. It is recommended to use a dedicated riveting tool head (with replaceable die) in conjunction with the hydraulic system. To ensure that the clamping depth and deformation of each rivet are uniform and consistent.

FAQs

1.Can 9 and 12 Copper Rivets Be Interchanged?

9 and 12 copper rivets differ significantly in shank diameter, head diameter, and clamping force. And requiring different drill hole sizes, burr specifications, and installation tools. Misuse may lead to:

Loose or off-center riveting;
Material cracking or insufficient clamping;
Inconsistent appearance or stress concentration in the structure.

2. Which Rivet Should Be Chosen for Different Material Thicknesses?

The decision should primarily be based on the grip range:

Material thickness ≤ 5 mm → recommended #9 copper rivet;
Material thickness > 5 mm → recommended #12 copper rivet;
For multi-layered or load-bearing structures → prefer #12 with matching copper burrs.

3. Are Copper Rivets Suitable for Electrical Grounding Applications?

Yes, and they offer advantages.

Copper inherently provides excellent electrical conductivity and corrosion resistance, making it ideal for grounding, anti-static, or shielding applications such as:

Electrostatic grounding clamps;
Connections between copper strips/bars and enclosures;
EMI shield mounting points.

4. Copper Rivets vs. Aluminum Rivets: Impact on Structural Strength

Comparison	Copper Rivets	Aluminum Rivets
Strength Performance	Higher shear and tensile strength	Moderate strength, lightweight
Corrosion Resistance	Excellent (especially in humid/marine environments)	Good, but prone to pitting corrosion
Ductility	High, suitable for forming	Moderate, prone to cracking
Electrical Conductivity	Excellent, ideal for grounding	Average, not preferred for conductive joints
Recommended Uses	Medium-load structures, electrical connections, corrosion-resistant applications	Light-load joints, weight-sensitive products

In summary, when structural strength, electrical performance, or harsh environments are critical, copper rivets offer superior safety and durability.

Choose Rivmate Copper Rivets

Whether you are engaged in leather crafting, woodworking assembly, or repairing traditional ship structures, choosing the right size of copper rivets is of utmost importance. Rivmate offers a full range of #9 and #12 copper rivets, strictly adhering to international standards to ensure precise dimensions and stable performance. Our rivets are made of high-purity solid copper and possess excellent corrosion resistance and structural strength. They are suitable for various handicraft and engineering applications.

Buy Rivmate copper rivets immediately to create stronger, more attractive and more reliable connections for your project!

How to Rivet Metal to Wood？

How to Rivet Metal to Woo

Purchasing cost of zinc plated blind rivets

What Is Riveting in Metal Work？

What Is Riveting in Metal

Custom Rivet Manufacturer in China - Custom Pop Rivets for your Project

What Metal Are Rivets Made Of

What Metal Are Rivets Mad

How to Install Pop Rivets? - Pull the Mandrel Until it Breaks

How to Rivet Metal to Metal

How to Rivet Metal to Met

Get Rivets Quotes Now

Wholesale Blind Rivets from Rivet Manufacturer

Strength of Welded vs Riveted Ship：A Comprehensive Guide

2025-07-24
Author: Rivmate Rivet

In the field of ship structure design and maintenance, the strength of welded and riveted ship connections has always been a core issue in ensuring ship safety and performance. The quality of structural connections directly affects the ship’s ability to withstand wave fatigue, corrosion resistance, and service life.

This article will conduct a comparative analysis of the two primary connection methods—“welded and riveted hulls”. It can help readers gain a comprehensive understanding of their differences in terms of material strength, manufacturing processes, and maintenance convenience.

Why focus on the strength of welded and riveted ship?

Since the late 19th century, shipbuilding technology has undergone significant transformations, shifting from a process primarily based on riveting to one dominated by welding. As a traditional shipbuilding technique, riveting was widely used in the construction of steel structures for battleships and large ocean-going vessels. However, since the mid-20th century, welding technology has gradually replaced riveting as the mainstream connection method for modern ship hull structures due to its advantages in lightweight design, high continuity, and improved manufacturing efficiency. However, this transition has also brought new challenges, such as residual stresses generated by welding, embrittlement of the heat-affected zone, and the formation of micro-cracks.

In modern times, despite the high level of maturity achieved by welding technology, riveting technology still retains its application value in certain ship repairs and historical hull restorations. However, the differences between the two in terms of mechanical properties, aging mechanisms, and reliability under extreme marine environments remain critical technical issues in engineering design, quality assessment, and failure analysis.

What Are the Basics of Riveting and Welding in Shipbuilding?

a. Overview of Riveting Technology

Riveting is a method of using mechanical force to connect two steel plates with metal rivets to form a permanent structure. It was the primary structural connection technology in early shipbuilding. The process involves: pre-drilling holes, heating the rivets, forming them through stamping, and cooling to create clamping force.

In the early 20th century, especially during World War I and World War II, most merchant ships and warships (such as the “Titanic” and “Missouri”) used riveted structures. Common materials include carbon steel and medium-strength structural steel, with rivets typically being solid cylindrical in shape, relying on construction experience to ensure quality.

The advantages of riveting include high connection reliability, controllable process, and strong fatigue resistance. However, it also has limitations such as low construction efficiency, heavy weight, and high labor costs.

b. Overview of Welding Technology

With the development of arc technology and materials science, welding technology rapidly replaced riveting as the mainstream process in the mid-20th century. Common welding methods include:

MIG welding (Metal Inert Gas Welding): suitable for thin plates, high efficiency, and high automation;
TIG welding (Tungsten Inert Gas Welding): high precision, suitable for stainless steel and aluminum alloys;
Manual Metal Arc Welding (SMAW): Flexible operation, suitable for on-site maintenance and medium-to-thick plate connections.

The primary advantages of welding over riveting include better structural continuity, higher overall stiffness, weight reduction, material savings, and labor savings. Disadvantages include: significant thermal effects on weld quality, susceptibility to stress concentration, and high technical requirements for operators.

c. Technological Evolution Timeline: Transition from Riveting to Welding

Mid-to-late 19th century: Riveting was the primary method for constructing steamship structures;
1910s–1940s: Riveting was widely used in warships and ocean-going vessels during wartime;
1950s onwards: Welding technology was standardized and gradually replaced riveting, being applied to main ship types such as oil tankers, warships, and container ships;
After the 1970s: Modular shipbuilding became widespread, and automated welding technologies (such as welding robots and laser welding) developed rapidly;
Currently: Welding has become the mainstream connection method, with riveting used only for minor repairs, cultural relic restoration, or special design requirements.

Strength of Welded vs Riveted Ship：What Are the Differences？

I. Differences in Structural Response under Static and Dynamic Loads

Under static loads, welded structures typically exhibit higher overall strength and stiffness due to their continuous connections and absence of sectional weakening. However, under dynamic loads (such as wave impact, propeller vibration, and navigation loads), structural rigidity may instead lead to stress concentration, particularly at welded joints.

In contrast, riveted structures, though slightly less rigid, possess a certain degree of flexibility due to their point-like, discrete connections, enabling them to absorb part of the local stress under dynamic loads and exhibit better load-distribution capabilities. This is particularly evident under conditions of repeated impacts or irregular waves, where the structural response is more moderate.

II. Stress concentration and crack propagation in welded joints

The strength of welded joints is typically higher than that of the base material, but their heat-affected zones (HAZ) are prone to stress concentration and microcrack initiation points. Especially in areas such as thick plate joints, large transverse welds, and corner welds, geometric discontinuities and metallurgical changes can reduce local fatigue strength. If stress is not properly distributed, microcracks may rapidly propagate under high-cycle cyclic loads, leading to sudden structural failure.

Additionally, residual stresses generated during welding can compound external working loads, reducing fatigue life, especially in seawater corrosion environments where weld zones are more prone to becoming initiation points for stress corrosion cracking (SCC).

1. Stress Concentration and Microcrack Initiation in the Heat-Affected Zone (HAZ)

The heat-affected zone is the region adjacent to the weld where the base material undergoes thermal cycling but remains unfused. The microstructure in this region undergoes recrystallization, hardening, or softening, often forming non-uniform structures such as martensite or bainite, leading to:

Increased local hardness, reducing fracture toughness;
Discontinuous microstructure, prone to initiating initial defects;
Concentration of residual stresses from processing, reducing material plasticity.

2. Residual Stress Superposition Effect

The welding process involves high-temperature melting and rapid cooling, introducing residual tensile and compressive stress fields in the weld center and surrounding materials. Typical characteristics include:

Residual tensile stresses in the weld zone can reach 60–80% of the base material’s yield strength;
Tensile stresses and actual working stresses act in combination, causing the critical strain for crack initiation to be reached prematurely;
Compressive stress zones may release stress in the opposite direction under subsequent vibration or corrosion, causing structural stress fluctuations.

3. Fatigue Crack Propagation Path and Rate Control

Once microcracks initiate, their propagation behavior is influenced by multiple factors including material toughness, plate thickness, and load frequency:

Under high-cycle fatigue conditions (>10⁶ cycles), cracks propagate at a stable rate along the weld toe (the interface between the weld and the base material);
If an external corrosive medium (such as seawater or electrolyte) is present, it can easily induce stress corrosion cracking (SCC);
Crack propagation rates follow Paris’s law:
Δa/ΔN = C(ΔK)ⁿ, where ΔK is the range of stress intensity factors.

Experiments show that in welds where residual stress elimination measures have not been taken, cracks enter an uncontrollable growth zone after 10⁵–10⁶ cycles, causing a sharp decline in the remaining structural life.

III. Stable Performance of Riveted Structures in Terms of Fatigue Life

Although riveting is a traditional process, it demonstrates stable durability under repeated loads and high-cycle fatigue conditions. The reasons are as follows:

Rivet connections allow for slight displacement, which helps relieve stress.
Rivets compress steel plates to create local preload, enhancing interface friction and effectively suppressing fretting;
The failure of a single rivet does not immediately affect the overall structure, providing higher redundancy.

In wartime naval vessels and early merchant ships, riveted hulls demonstrated longer fatigue life and impact resistance, making them suitable for operating environments with drastic changes in speed and complex conditions.

IV. Comparison of corrosion resistance and sealing performance

Welded structures inherently offer superior sealing performance. Due to the formation of continuous joints through metal fusion, welded joints generally exhibit excellent watertight and airtight properties before cracking, making them particularly suitable for areas with stringent sealing requirements, such as fuel tanks, ballast tanks, and hull sections below the waterline. Under proper welding techniques and effective protective measures (e.g., coatings, cathodic protection), welded structures demonstrate strong corrosion resistance.

The weld zone is also a sensitive point for localized electrochemical corrosion. Especially in cases of weld spatter, slag inclusion, coating damage, or brittle transformation of the heat-affected zone, microcells may form, leading to pitting or crevice corrosion. Additionally, improper alloy combinations (such as stainless steel welded to carbon steel) may also cause galvanic corrosion.

In contrast, riveted structures have natural gaps and contact surfaces, which can serve as pathways for seawater infiltration and retention. Once coatings are damaged or rivets become loose, moisture can circulate within the interlayers, leading to typical crevice corrosion or oxygen difference battery corrosion. This is also the root cause of common issues such as rivet rust expansion, rivet loosening, and plate seam bulging in older riveted ships during their later service years.

However, riveting also has certain redundancy advantages: even if individual rivets corrode and fail, the overall connection structure will not immediately collapse, demonstrating a certain degree of fault tolerance. Additionally, riveted areas often use thick coatings or gap-filling materials to enhance protective performance, making them suitable for non-sealed compartments or deck attachment connections.

How to Choose Between Welded and Riveted Structures in Ship Design?

a. Structural Selection Preferences for Different Ship Types and Applications

In modern shipbuilding engineering, welding has become the mainstream connection process, but whether it will completely replace riveting still depends on the specific ship type, mission attributes, and service requirements:

Commercial cargo ships and oil tankers: Emphasizing large-scale modular construction and structural rigidity, these vessels prioritize fully welded structuresto reduce weight, enhance cargo efficiency, and accelerate construction speed.
Warships and destroyers: In terms of high-speed maneuverability and impact resistance, higher requirements are placed on structural fatigue strength and local redundancy. A hybrid design of main structure welding + local riveting reinforcementis generally adopted to enhance damage resistance and maintainability.
Passenger ships and ferries: Emphasize comfort and safety redundancy, with high requirements for compartmentalization, fireproofing, and vibration suppression. Welding is primarily used, but riveting is still applied locally in decorative compartments or historical restoration projects.
Submarines and special-purpose vessels: Sealing and pressure resistance are critical, necessitating fully welded airtight structures and comprehensive non-destructive testing.

b. Engineering trade-offs between cost, strength, and lifespan

Welded connectionstypically have lower manufacturing costs, higher material utilization rates, and support automation and modular prefabrication, making them suitable for industrialized mass production;
Riveted connectionshave higher per-point costs and rely heavily on manual labor, but offer unmatched advantages in terms of fatigue lifespan and multi-point redundancy.

During the design phase, the relationship between the three must be balanced based on the service life, maintenance frequency, and load type. For example, for civilian ships with tight schedules but moderate service lives, welding is the preferred option; while military high-reliability platforms may use localized riveting to extend the service life of critical components.

c. Construction Cycle, Maintainability, and Long-Term Cost Considerations

Welded structures have shorter construction cycles and higher automation levels, making them suitable for modern shipyard production processes. However, once welds crack or corrode, on-site repairs are challenging and require highly skilled personnel and specialized equipment;
Riveted structures are relatively easy to repair, with damaged sections capable of being replaced individually, making them suitable for field repairs or emergency situations where welding equipment is unavailable;
From a lifecycle costperspective, welded structures may incur higher maintenance costs, particularly in harsh environments (such as polar regions, tropical climates, or highly corrosive waters), which impose stricter requirements on surface protection and crack monitoring.

What Are the Future Trends in Welded vs. Riveted Ship Construction?

With the rise of multi-functional ships and complex platforms, single connection processes are no longer able to meet the comprehensive requirements of structural diversity, reliability, and maintainability. In recent years, more and more shipyards have begun to explore a composite structure strategy of “welding + riveting.” For example, continuous welding is used in high-stiffness areas such as the main keel and main beams of ship compartments, while riveting/screw fastening methods are retained or reintroduced for compartment partitions, non-structural attachments, and easily maintainable areas.

Additionally, with the advancement of smart manufacturing technology, automated welding equipment has become the mainstream construction method, particularly in modular shipbuilding, enabling efficient and consistent weld quality control:

Laser welding, friction stir welding (FSW), and multi-axis arc welding robots are widely used for welding thin plates, irregular structures, and high-strength steel materials;
Digital welding monitoring systems significantly reduce human error and defect rates through real-time temperature control, stress feedback, and visual tracking.

Sustainable shipbuilding

Under the global trend of carbon neutrality, the impact of connection processes on energy consumption, material recycling, and manufacturing carbon footprints has increasingly become a design constraint:

Although welding has high material utilization, it has high heat input and energy consumption, especially in thick plate welding, where carbon emissions are significant;
Riveting has lower energy consumption but high material addition rates and structural weight, which are unfavorable for fuel efficiency and emission reduction goals;
Modern shipbuilding is gradually introducing “green connection” solutions such as removable fastening and non-thermal connections, with screw/clip-on interfaces already achieving preliminary application in equipment-level modules;
Additionally, the recyclabilityof connection materials themselves (such as stainless steel and high-strength aluminum alloys) has become one of the evaluation criteria, driving the full-chain greening from material selection to connection methods.

In the future, the selection of connection methods will not only be a structural mechanics issue but also a comprehensive reflection of energy efficiency, environmental compliance, and manufacturing intelligence levels.

Welded or Riveted Ship: Which One to Choose?

In the contemporary shipbuilding and repair industry, the core logic behind choosing between welding and riveting is primarily based on the following points:

Structural Strength and Sealing Performance
Welded joints offer superior structural integrity and sealing performance, making them suitable for withstanding high-strength loads and harsh environments; Riveted joints, while structurally stable, have minor gaps compared to welded joints, resulting in weaker sealing performance.
Manufacturing Efficiency and Cost Control
Welding processes have high automation levels, short production cycles, and are suitable for large-scale and rapid shipbuilding, with relatively lower costs; riveting is primarily manual labor, resulting in longer cycles and higher labor costs.
Maintenance and Replacement Convenience
Riveted structures allow for localized disassembly and replacement, with repairs requiring no damage to large structural areas; welding structures are complex to repair and require specialized welding equipment and skills.
Material Adaptability and Durability
Welding has higher material requirements, with some high-strength or special alloys being difficult to weld; riveting has a broader application range, particularly for thin plates or connections between different materials.