Adhesion strength measurement

The plastic corrections for the data in Table 2 are high. They are 77% and 85% for the T-peel results and 81% for the fixed arm peel. In addition, the peel forces were low (of the order of 1 N) necessitating the use of a special air bearing system developed for these types of laminates. Consequently, there cannot be a high credibility associated with the adhesive strength measurements for these laminates. 

In future studies, we propose to add to the contact angle measurements (which probe only 5-10 A of the layer) XPS and FTIR spectroscopy analysis, in order to understand the kinetics of the reaction in the interior of the pulsed plasma polymer thin film. Once quantitative elucidation of the reactivity of the pulsed plasma polymer thin film has been fuUy accomplished, adhesion strength measurements will be performed and correlations between adhesion parameters and thermodynamic parameters wiU be explored. This wiU be the subject of a further paper. 

Amorphous PA (80)/SAN (20)/SMA Morphology/mechanical properties/ interfacial adhesion strength measured using an asymmetric double cantilever beam fracture test Cho et al. 1997, 1998... 

A fully automated microscale indentor known as the Nano Indentor is available from Nano Instmments (257—259). Used with the Berkovich diamond indentor, this system has load and displacement resolutions of 0.3 N and 0.16 nm, respectively. Multiple indentations can be made on one specimen with spatial accuracy of better than 200 nm using a computer controlled sample manipulation table. This allows spatial mapping of mechanical properties. Hardness and elastic modulus are typically measured (259,260) but time-dependent phenomena such as creep and adhesive strength can also be monitored. 

Fig. 5. Examples of ihe correlation between measured adhesive strength and (l+cos6). (a) Plot of data from Raraty and Tabor [171J for adhesion of ice to various solids, (b) Plot of data of Barbaris [172] for adhesion of a mixture of epoxy and polyamide resin to low density poly(ethylene) treated in various ways. Both figures from ref. [31], by permission.

Fig. 16. The results of Dyckerhoff and Sell for inlerfacial strengths measured hy butt-tensile tests for various lacquers (adhesives) against various plastics as a function of the surface energy, ys of the plastics. Arrows indicate the surface tensions of the adhesive, y, used in the generation of each curve, showing rough agreement with the requirement that a maximum in adhesion is achieved when yt ys (I kp/cm- 0.1 MPa). Redrawn from ref. [71. ...

Fig. 17. Adhesion energy G measured as a function of the surface density of the interfacial chains. It may noted that the strength measured in a peel test (a) is about 5 times larger than that measured using the JKR method (b). Further, a maximum exists in the value of G as function of the surface chain density. This is because of swelling effects at larger values of surface chain density. The open symbols represent the data for elastomer molecular weight Mo = 24,000 and the closed symbols represent the data for Mo = 10,000.

Mangipudi et al. [63,88] reported some initial measurements of adhesion strength between semicrystalline PE surfaces. These measurements were done using the SFA as a function of contact time. Interestingly, these data (see Fig. 22) show that the normalized pull-off energy, a measure of intrinsic adhesion strength is increased with time of contact. They suggested the amorphous domains in PE could interdiffuse across the interface and thereby increase the adhesion of the interface. Falsafi et al. [37] also used the JKR technique to study the effect of composition on the adhesion of elastomeric acrylic pressure-sensitive adhesives. The model PSA they used was a crosslinked network of random copolymers of acrylates and acrylic acid, with an acrylic acid content between 2 and 10%. 

Fig. 22. Nomialized pull-off energy measured for polyethylene-polyethylene contact measured using the SFA. (a) P versus rate of crack propagation for PE-PE contact. Change in the rate of separation does not seem to affect the measured pull-off force, (b) Normalized pull-off energy, Pn as a function of contact time for PE-PE contact. At shorter contact times, P does not significantly depend on contact time. However, as the surfaces remain in contact for long times, the pull-off energy increases with time. In seinicrystalline PE, the crystalline domains act as physical crosslinks for the relatively mobile amorphous domains. These amorphous domains can interdiffuse across the interface and thereby increase the adhesion of the interface. This time dependence of the adhesion strength is different from viscoelastic behavior in the sense that it is independent of rate of crack propagation.

Adhesive strength refers to the bond produced by contact of an adhesive to a surface. It used to be measured by peeling tests. This ultimate strength depends on temperature, applied pressure and time of contact. 

It is suggested that TOR having lower viscosity locates at the boundary of NR/EPDM layers, thereby increasing their interfacial strength. This was confirmed by measuring the adhesive strength (Ga) between NR and EPDM sheets with and without TOR as shown in Table 11.13. It is speculated that TOR is co-vulcanized with component elastomers, thereby increasing compatibility. 

Jimenez-Castellanos et al. developed a method to measure both the adhesional and frictional forces involved in the attachment of such tablets to mucosa. These researchers found that a good correlation existed between the maximal adhesion strength and polymer content of the tablets tested [155]. 

Scherf, J., Cohen, Y. and Wagner, H.D. (1992). Interfacial strength measurements in poly (p-phenylene benzobisthiazole)/epoxy composites. Intern. J. Adhesion Adhesive, 12, 251-256. 

---