Durability stress

The slow rate of hydration for buried surfaces is desirable from a service point of view, but makes the study and evaluation of the durability of surface treatments difficult unless wedge tests (ASTM D3762) or similar tests are used to accelerate the degradation. As for the wedge test, the stress at the crack tip, together with the presence of moisture at the tip, make this a more severe test than soaked lap shear specimens or similar types and therefore a better measure of relative durability. 

Surface cleaning/etches. As with aluminum and titanium, the most critical test for bonded steel joints is durability in hostile (i.e., humid) environments. The fact that the problem is a serious one for steel was illustrated in a study [117] that compared solvent cleaned (smooth) 1010 cold-rolled steel surfaces with FPL aluminum (microrough) substrates. Although the dry lap-shear strengths were not markedly different, stressed lap-shear joints of steel adherends that were exposed to a humid environment failed in less than 30 days, whereas the aluminum joints lasted for more than 3000 days. 

Fig. 2. The pattern of developing deformations in filled systems, in which durability of structure t depends on the applied stress t,. In the figure...

It should be noted that this is quite an unusual law, since in other known cases durability of solids is expressed by stronger laws, namely, exponential or power laws. Thus, in the given example we cannot give a unified definition of yield stress. The work cited is the only published observation of the durability of a filler s structure in dispersion systems. Therefore at present it is difficult to say how much such phenomena are typical for filled polymers, but we cannot exclude them. 

During the last half-century, aeronautics technology has soared, with plastics playing a major role. Lightweight durable plastics and reinforced plastics (RPs) save on fuel while standing up to forms of stress like creep and fatigue, in different environments. 

Uniform wall thickness Wall requirements are usually governed by the load, the support needs for other components, attachment bosses, and other protruding sections. Designing a product to meet all these requirements while still producing a reasonably uniform wall will greatly benefit its durability. A uniform wall thickness will minimize stresses, differences in shrinkage, possible void formation, and sinks on the surface it also usually contributes to material saving and economy in production. 

The minimum thickness specification for an FML top liner covered with a layer of soil is 0.75 mm for an FML without a soil cover layer, the specification is 1.14 mm. An FML in a composite bottom liner system must be at least 0.75 mm thick. Even though these FML thicknesses meet U.S. EPA specifications, 0.75mm is not a suitable thickness for all FML materials. In fact, most FML materials installed at landfills are in the range of 1.50-2.50 mm in thickness. Other key factors affecting the selection of FML materials include chemical compatibility with waste leachate, aging and durability characteristics, stress and strain characteristics, ease of installation, and water vapor/ chemical permeation. 

---