Testing adhesive joints

A sealant s adhesion is commonly studied by 180 degree peel tests such as ASTM C794 or by tensHe/adhesion joints tests such as ASTM C719. The adhesion test protocol should simulate actual field conditions as closely as possible. Sealants often have good adhesion to dry substrates, but this adhesion may be quickly destroyed by water. Because most sealants are exposed to water over their lifetime, adhesion testing should include exposure to water for some length of time. ASTM C719 is one of the better tests to determine a sealant s adhesion durabHity as it exposes sealants to seven days of water immersion. 

DeVries. K. L. and Borgmeier. P. R- Interpreting Adhesive Joint Tests. 2 International Congress on Adhesion Science and Technolog, Ed. K.L. Mittal. 135. VSP. NL. 2002. [lljKinloch. A. J., Adhesion and Adhesives Science and Technology. Chapman and Hall. New York, 1987. 

Salt water and especially salt spray are known to have a deleterious effect on adhesive joints. Testing for the effects of salt spray (salt fog) is usually carried out using ASTM B117-03, Standard Method of Salt Spray (Fog) Testing. ... 

From the previous discussions it is obviously difficult to state exact values of Gc and Kc without defining the mode of loading, test rate and temperature, etc. Nevertheless, representative values for a range of adhesive joints tested at room temperature and a moderate rate of test are given in Table 7.2, with the aim of imparting to the reader the typical values obtained and their positions relative to other materials. 

Another important aspect of testing the adhesive as part of an adhesive-joint system is that the joint presents a number of options for the location of the failure path. Failure may be cohesive in approximately the center of the adhesive layer. It may be cohesive but near the interface as is often seen in peel testing. It may be interfacial along the adhesive-substrate interface or it may run entirely within an interphase, for example, within a metal oxide/ adhesive interphase region. The failure path could run cohesively through the substrate, for example, the crack could run in the interlaminar region of a fiber-reinforced polymer composite substrate (Kinloch et al. 1992). Finally, some combination of the above could occur. Each of these options for the failure path may lead to a different fi-acture resistance being measured and thus adhesive-joint tests and their interpretation are necessarily more complex than bulk adhesive studies. 

Finally, a major goal of fracture mechanics has been to derive geometry-independent values of the fracture parameter Gc. Great progress has been made in this endeavor with the determination of Gic from standardized bulk and adhesive-joint tests and G from geometry-independent peel tests. However, great care is required with the interpretation of these fracture parameters. 

The present work was done with the aim to evaluate the efficiency of the acoustic emission method as a diagnostic tool for analysing a carbon plastic composite and its adhesive joints. The samples of the carbon plastic type UKN-5000 were used in the test. Non-defected samples and samples with artificial defects were tested. 

By testing the adhesive joints for the shift, the loading curve appears to be almost linear until the destruction point. The acoustic noise curves for the weak samples are describing an increased activity at tbe initial loading moment, and just before tbe destruction. The strong samples are acoustically little active up to the start of the macro-destruction. 

The analysis of the test results shows that non-defect adhesive joints of the carbon plastic are acoustically less active than the glued main material. This can be explained by absence of plasticization effect of the die (adhesive layer). The value of the breaking point ("C ) at the adhesive joints shift is 9,6 M Pa. 

By working trough the method of the AE diagnostics, and as it was with carbon plastic case, the adhesive joint were tested by the step- and two-multiple loading. 

The test with the step loading shows that acoustic activity of the solid adhesive joints in the tested carbon plastic is quite low. The maximum on the endurance area was fixed at the predestructive moment. The last is evidence to the fact that the prevailing defect of the adhesive joints is starting its development at the loading level, which is close to the destruction point. 

To examine the accumulation effect activity ( A ZT) in the adhesive joints of the carbon plastic, the artificial defects were made. The samples were loaded up to the stress of 0,6"Zf. The test has showed (table 2) that in the weak samples the acoustic emission, at the repeated loading, will start at the point, which is smaller, than initial loading. While, the weaker sample, the bigger value of the "S. ... 

Thus, carrying out tests of the samples shows that the acoustic emission method is quite effective at the quality estimation of carbon plastic and its adhesive joints. Depending on the chosen diagnostic diagram of the construction material loading, the criteria parameters are K, S or AS (a C). 

Acoustic emission test of adhesive joints of the carbon plastic UKN-5000. 

Fig. XII-15. Diagram of peel test. A and B, adhesive joint C, double Scotch adhesive tape and D, rigid support. (From Ref. 107. By permission of IBC Business Press, Ltd.)...

The principal type of shear test specimen used in the industry, the lap shear specimen, is 2.54 cm wide and has a 3.23-cm overlap bonded by the adhesive. Adherends are chosen according to the industry aluminum for aerospace, steel for automotive, and wood for constmction appHcations. Adhesive joints made in this fashion are tested to failure in a tensile testing machine. The temperature of test, as weU as the rate of extension, are specified. Results are presented in units of pressure, where the area of the adhesive bond is considered to be the area over which the force is appHed. Although the 3.23-cm ... 

Fig. 1, Schematic of commonly u.sed methods for testing the strength of adhesive joints, (a) Peel test. Note that the peel angle can be changed depending on the test requirements, (b) Double overlap shear test. In this test, the failure is predominantly mode II. (c) Single overlap shear test. In this test the failure mode is mixture of mode I and mode II. (d) Blister test.

Eqs. 1-5 hold whether failure is interfacial or cohesive within the adhesive. Furthermore, Eq. 5 shows that the reversible work of adhesion directly controls the fracture energy of an adhesive joint, even if failure occurs far from the interface. This is demonstrated in Table 5, which shows the static toughness of a series of wedge test specimens with a range of adherend surface treatments. All of these samples failed cohesively within the resin, yet show a range of static toughness values of over 600%. 

Boerio, F.J. and Dillingham, R.G. In Mittal, K. (Ed.), Adhesive Joints Formation, Characteristics, and Testing. Plenum Press, New York, 1984. 

Table 1 contains the metal-to-metal engineering property requirements for Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 5-101, a structural film adhesive for metal to metal and honeycomb sandwich use in areas with normal temperature exposure. The requirements are dominated by shear strength tests. Shear strength is the most critical engineering property for structural adhesives, at least for the simplistic joint analysis that is commonly used for metal-to-metal secondary structure on commercial aircraft. Adhesive Joints are purposefully loaded primarily in shear as opposed to tension or peel modes as adhesives are typically stronger in shear than in Mode I (load normal to the plane of the bond) loading. 

Patel et al. [70] in a recent publication have explored the adhesive action of the mbber-siUca hybrid nanocomposites on different substrates. The rubber-silica hybrid nanocomposites are synthesized through in situ silica formation from TEOS in strong acidic pH within acryhc copolymer (EA-BA) and terpolymer (EA-BA-AA) matrices. The transparent nanocomposites have been apphed in between the aluminum (Al), wood (W), and biaxially oriented polypropylene (PP) sheets separately and have been tested for peel strength, lap shear strength, and static holding power of the adhesive joints. 

A. Kwakernaak, R. Exalto, and H. A. Hoff, in Adhesive Joints Formation, Characteristics, Testing, Kanzas, 1982, p. 103. 

An early study by Rudkin (1950) showed that substitution of OH groups with acetyl resulted in a significant decrease in bond strength between the wood and a UF resin in lap-joint tests. Vick and Rowell (1990) studied the adhesive bonding of acetylated yellow poplar, with 18 different thermoplastic and thermosetting adhesives. The effectiveness of the adhesives was examined by determination of bond shear strength (and wood failure) of 6 mm thick, bonded wood strips after conditioning at 27 °C and... 

Samples constructed from adherends which had been alkaline cleaned, lubricated or left untreated exhibited similar joint strength values and durability trends (Figure 10). Adhesive joints placed in the room temperature control environment or the 23 C water bath retained lOOZ and 92% of initial joint strength, respectively. Failure remained cohesive within the adhesive for all of the control samples and for the first 20 days of exposure in the 23 C water bath. After 20 days, some failure began to initiate at both the primer/steel and primer/topcoat interfaces. The adhesive/topcoat interface proved to be more durable than those found between the substrate/primer/topcoat layers. Samples exposed to the more severe salt fog, 60 C water bath and cycle tests were able to retain 70% to 50% of their initial strength over a 60-day exposure period. 

Dillard D A, Leichti K M, Lefebvre D R, Lin C, Thornton J S. Adhesively Bonded Joints, Testing, Analysis and Design, Baltimore, 1986, Proceedings p 83. 

---