Interlocking, mechanical

The four main mechanisms of adhesion which have been proposed will now be considered in turn. Examples will be given in this chapter to illustrate the points which are discussed, and more examples are to be found throughout the text since subsequent chapters will draw heavily upon the ideas reviewed below. 

However, the attainment of good adhesion between smooth surfaces exposes the mechanical interlocking theory as not being of wide applicability. For example, the elegant work of Tabor et al. [1,2] who studied the adhesion between two perfectly smooth mica surfaces and Johnson et aL [3] who examined the adhesion to optically smooth rubber surfaces, clearly demonstrates that adhesion may be attained with smooth surfaces. Also, detailed examination of surfaces roughened by typical industrial pretreatment methods, for example, grit-blasted metallic substrates (Fig. 3.1), usually reveals little 

Optical micrograph of a section cut normal to an epoxy/abraded steel interface, (c) Talysurf profilometer trace for an abraded steel surface. 

Notwithstanding the above comments, there is much work to be found in the literature which convincingly demonstrates that increasing the surface roughness of the substrate may increase the measured strength of the adhesive joint. The important question that must be asked is does such an observation arise from a contribution from mechanical interlocking to the intrinsic strength of the interface, or from other causes  

---

Within the plane of a nonwoven material, the fibers may be either completely isotropic or there may be a preferred fiber orientation or alignment usually with respect to a machine or processing direction. In the case of thicker dry-laid nonwovens, fiber orientation may be randomized in the third dimension, ie, that dimension which is perpendicular to the plane of the fabric, by a process known as needle-punching (7). This process serves to bind the fibers in the nonwoven by mechanical interlocking. 

There are two mechanisms by which arching can occur particle interlocking and cohesive strength. The minimum outlet size required to prevent mechanical interlocking of particles is directly related to the size of the particles. The diameter of a circular outlet must be at least six to eight times the particle size, and the width of a slotted outlet must be at least three to four times the particle size. These ratios normally only govern the outlet size of mass flow hoppers if the particles are at least 0.6 cm or larger. 

An inversion of these arguments indicates that release agents should exhibit several of the following features (/) act as a barrier to mechanical interlocking (2) prevent interdiffusion (J) exhibit poor adsorption and lack of reaction with at least one material at the interface (4) have low surface tension, resulting in poor wettabihty, ie, negative spreading coefficient, of the release substrate by the adhesive (5) low thermodynamic work of adhesion ... 

Many of these features are interrelated. Finely divided soHds such as talc [14807-96-6] are excellent barriers to mechanical interlocking and interdiffusion. They also reduce the area of contact over which short-range intermolecular forces can interact. Because compatibiUty of different polymers is the exception rather than the rule, preformed sheets of a different polymer usually prevent interdiffusion and are an effective way of controlling adhesion, provided no new strong interfacial interactions are thereby introduced. Surface tension and thermodynamic work of adhesion are interrelated, as shown in equations 1, 2, and 3, and are a direct consequence of the intermolecular forces that also control adsorption and chemical reactivity. 

Procedures for testiug asphalt shingles resistant to wind blowup/blowoff when appHed on low slopes in accordance with manufacturer instmctions. Shingles are Type I, factory-appHed adhesive (self-sealing shingles) and Type II, lock-type, with mechanically interlocking tabs (ears). 

Mechanical interlocking of particles may occur during the agitation or compression of, for example, fibrous particles, but it is probably only a minor contributor to agglomerate strength in most cases. 

Figure 13.41 Three sources of supply and two bus couplers Figures 13.39-13.41 are mechanical interlocking schemes...

When the breaker (including an MCCB) is provided with an electrical closing mechanism through a motor or a solenoid, mechanical interlocking is not recommended as mechanical interlocking will make electrical closing redundant, for obvious reasons. 

The above discussion has tacitly assumed that it is only molecular interactions which lead to adhesion, and these have been assumed to occur across relatively smooth interfaces between materials in intimate contact. As described in typical textbooks, however, there are a number of disparate mechanisms that may be responsible for adhesion [9-11,32]. The list includes (1) the adsorption mechanism (2) the diffusion mechanism (3) the mechanical interlocking mechanism and (4) the electrostatic mechanism. These are pictured schematically in Fig. 6 and described briefly below, because the various semi-empirical prediction schemes apply differently depending on which mechanisms are relevant in a given case. Any given real case often entails a combination of mechanisms. 

Fig. 6. Four mechanisms of adhesion, (a) The adsorption mechanism (contact adhesion), (b) The diffusion mechanism (diffusion interphase adhesion), (c) The mechanical interlocking mechanism. (d) The electrostatic mechanism.

Regardless of which, or which combination, of the above mechanisms is responsible for adhesion in a given case, intimate molecular contact between the adhesive and adherend is required. This means that the contact angle of the liquid adhesive against the adherend surface should be as low as possible, and preferably 0°. For the case of contact adhesion, this is immediately evident, but in cases where mechanical interlocking is the primary mechanism for adhesion it is also the case because the adhesive must first be able to flow or wick into the pores of the... 

He concluded that for aluminium and titanium certain etching or anodization pretreatment processes produce oxide films on the metal surfaces, which because of their porosity and microscopic roughness, mechanically interlock with the polymer forming much stronger bonds than if the surface were smooth . 

In recent years there has been a renewed appreciation of potential beneficial effects of roughness on a macroscale. For example Morris and Shanahan worked with sintered steel substrates bonded with a polyurethane adhesive [61]. They observed much higher fracture energy for joints with sintered steel compared with those with fully dense steel, and ascribed this to the mechanical interlocking of polymer within the pores. Extra energy was required to extend and break these polymer fibrils. 

The surface preparation must enable and promote the formation of bonds across the adherend/primer-adhesive interface. These bonds may be chemical (covalent, acid-base, van der Waals, hydrogen, etc.), physical (mechanical interlocking), diffusional (not likely with adhesive bonding to metals), or some combination of these (Chapters 7-9). 

The scale of the microscopic surface roughness is important to assure good mechanical interlocking and good durability. Although all roughness serves to increase the effective surface area of the adherend and therefore to increase the number of primary and secondary bonds with the adhesive/primer, surfaces with features on the order of tens of nanometers exhibit superior performance to those with features on the order of microns [9,14], Several factors contribute to this difference in performance. The larger-scale features are fewer in number... 

A more recent process, the P2 etch [60], which uses ferric sulfate as an oxidizer in place of sodium dichromate avoids the use of toxic chromates, but still provides a similar oxide surface morphology (Fig. 15) allowing a mechanically interlocked interface and strong bonding [9]. The P2 treatment has wide process parameter windows over a broad range of time-temperature-solution concentration conditions and mechanical testing confirms that P2-prepared surfaces are, at a minimum, equivalent to FPL-prepared specimens and only slightly inferior to PAA-prepared surfaces [61]. 

---