0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

0 просмотров18 страницLibro para análisis de uniones adhesivas

Feb 06, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

Libro para análisis de uniones adhesivas

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

0 просмотров18 страницLibro para análisis de uniones adhesivas

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh

over a wide temperature range

Lucas F.M. da Silvaa,, R.D. Adamsb

a

Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica e Gestão Industrial, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias,

4200-465 Porto, Portugal

b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, BS8 1TR Bristol, UK

Available online 30 October 2006

Abstract

The objective of this investigation was to design a joint, suitable for use from low to high-temperatures, by the combination of two

adhesives, one for strength at high-temperatures and one for strength at low-temperatures. Such a joint is needed for the fuselage of

supersonic aircraft, where aluminium or titanium /composite joints are common and kinetic heating at high speeds can lead to high skin

temperatures.

The mixed modulus concept described by Hart-Smith is the starting point of the analysis. At high-temperatures, a brittle adhesive

(high modulus) in the middle of the joint retains the strength and transfers the entire load. At low-temperatures, a ductile adhesive at the

ends of the joint is the load-bearing adhesive. To guarantee that the load is transferred through the low-temperature adhesive, the ends of

the overlap can be stiffened.

A numerical analysis was carried out using ﬁnite element models to study the stress distribution in a mixed adhesive joint so as to ﬁnd

the best possible design of titanium/titanium and titanium/composite double lap joints. It has been shown that, for a joint with dissimilar

adherends, the combination of two adhesives gives a better performance (increased load capacity) over the temperature range considered

than the use of a high-temperature adhesive alone.

r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Epoxy; High-temperature adhesives; Composites; Titanium and alloys; Finite element analysis; Mechanical properties of adhesives; Joint

design

55 1C to more than 200 1C, but this is unlikely in the near

Adhesives suitable for high-temperatures are generally future.

brittle at low-temperatures, giving low joint strengths at The solution proposed and investigated in the present

low-temperatures. On the other hand, adhesives suitable study is to make a mixed adhesive joint for low-and high-

for low-temperature are too weak or degrade at high- temperatures with a combination of two adhesives. Mixed

temperatures so that they cannot carry signiﬁcant loads at modulus joints have been proposed in the past [2–4] to

temperatures above their glass transition temperature (Tg). improve the stress distribution and increase the joint

Adhesive joints used in supersonic aircraft need to with- strength of high modulus adhesives. The stiff, brittle

stand low and high-temperatures, typically from 55 1C adhesive should be in the middle of the overlap, while a

(depending on altitude) to as much as 200 1C or more. As low modulus adhesive is applied at the edges prone to stress

an example, if a supersonic aircraft ﬂies at Mach 2.7, the air concentrations.

friction at this speed would generate a surface temperature Semerdjev [2] reported that the strength of single lap

of about 232 1C [1]. It may eventually be possible to joints can be increased by approximately 20% by varying

the adhesive rigidity along the overlap length.

Corresponding author. Fax: +351 22 508 1445. Srinivas [3] studied single lap joints, lap strap joints and

E-mail address: lucas@fe.up.pt (L.F.M. da Silva). double lap joints using a closed-form elastic analysis.

0143-7496/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.09.007

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 363

on the maximum peel and shear stresses. He found that, for

all cases, the maximum peel and shear stresses of a joint

with a stiff adhesive alone are higher than when it is used in EHTA = ELTA

combination with a ﬂexible adhesive. Similarly, the

maximum peel and shear stresses in a ﬂexible adhesive Low temperature

are less when it is used in combination with a stiff adhesive,

but the decrease is less important than for the case of a stiff

EHTA < ELTA

adhesive alone.

Patrick [4] also discusses the idea of having a joint with Fig. 1. Stiffening of the ends of the overlap.

various adhesives calling it the ‘graded seal’ concept, where

one or more thin layers of suitable modifying material are

used to reduce the stress concentrations. Such a concept not been extended to solve the problem of adhesive joints

would be particularly beneﬁcial for bonded adherends with that need to withstand low and high-temperatures. The ﬁrst

dissimilar coefﬁcients of thermal expansion. Patrick [4] also to recognize the use of the mixed adhesive joint for low and

proposed the use of a layer of a material that possesses a high-temperature applications was Hart-Smith [6]. At high-

thermal expansion coefﬁcient intermediate between that of temperatures, a high-temperature adhesive (HTA) in the

the two adherends. Another possible application is for middle of the joint retains the strength and transfers the

designs of bonded adherends with different stiffenesses. In entire load while a low-temperature adhesive (LTA) is the

this case, the adhesive shear strains are higher at the end load bearing component at low-temperatures, making

from which the less stiff adherend extends. Incorporating the HTA relatively lightly stressed. At low-temperatures,

one or more sections of different adhesives in the joint the load must essentially be supported by the LTA. If its

with the more ductile adhesive at the end where is the less modulus is of the same order as the modulus of the HTA,

stiff adherend should reduce the adhesive shear stress most of the load will be carried by the LTA. However, if its

concentration. modulus is much lower than the modulus of the HTA, then

The previous authors discussed the mixed adhesive joint the HTA might still be critically loaded. One possibility is

concept only theoretically. Recently, Pires et al. [5] have to stiffen the ends of the overlap where the LTA is as

tested joints with two adhesives and proved that the mixed shown in Fig. 1.

adhesive method gives an improvement in joint perfor- Hart-Smith’s proposition [6] has never been fully

mance. The experimental results of bi-adhesive aluminium investigated in the published literature and the main

single lap joints showed that it is possible to increase by objective of this paper is to assess if a mixed adhesive

22% the joint strength of either of the adhesives used joint has an increased load capacity over a joint with a

alone. The authors also studied the concept theoretically. HTA alone. A full theoretical analysis needs to be carried

The effect of the relative overlaps of a ﬂexible adhesive out so as to understand the stress distribution in a mixed

(DP490 with E ¼ 1:8 GPa) and a stiff adhesive (ESP110 adhesive joint and to ﬁnd the most suitable design, together

with E ¼ 5:9 GPa) was studied using the ﬁnite element with a series of tests on real joints. These tests will be

method. The stress distribution of the linear and non-linear reported elsewhere.

analysis showed that the stiff adhesive was the load-

carrying adhesive. The length ratio (ﬂexible adhesive 2. Finite element analysis considerations

overlap/stiff adhesive overlap) that gave the minimum

peak stresses in the stiff adhesive was 1.4. The ﬁnite element program ABAQUS was used to study

Although the experimental results of Pires et al. [5] are the stress distribution. The basic geometry, showing the

promising, the joints they produced were of poor quality boundary conditions and the mesh, is presented in Fig. 2.

due to the partial mixing of the two adhesives during the The overlap length is typical of those found in aircraft

joint preparation. In effect, the manufacture of such joints structures. Single lap joints (SLJ) and double lap joints

is particularly difﬁcult. As pointed out by Hart-Smith [6], (DLJ) were studied. For DLJs, only half the model was

during bonding there is a tendency for the stiff adhesive, analysed because of symmetry.

which is in the middle, to squeeze out the ﬂexible adhesive. A two-dimensional model was used. Although the

The use of a stiff adhesive in the middle of the joint to stresses are not perfectly uniform in the width direction

increase the strength of a ﬂexible adhesive alone is doubtful due to lateral straining [7,8] and anticlastic bending [7,9], a

in the light of the production difﬁculties involved. 2D analysis [10] has shown that a plane strain approach is

However, it is certainly advantageous when compared to satisfactory. Quadrilateral, reduced integration, general-

a stiff adhesive alone. ized plane strain elements were used for both the adherends

The technique of using multi-modulus adhesives has and the adhesives. Generalized plane strain elements were

been used for increasing the joint strength of single used instead of the more commonly employed plane strain

adhesive joints, although the published work is scarce elements because they allow a certain amount of out-of-

and needs more development. In effect, that concept has plane transverse deformation. The formulation involves a

ARTICLE IN PRESS

364 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

25 SLJ

50 25

2

1

2

230

25 25

DLJ 50

2

1

2

230

Overlap mesh

Fig. 2. Basic model geometry with boundary conditions and ﬁnite element mesh. All dimensions in mm. The joints are 25 mm wide.

model that lies between two planes that can move with DLJ. Like the shear stresses, these peak at the ends of the

respect to each other, and hence, cause strain in the overlap. Their impact on inducing composite failure, due to

direction perpendicular to the plane of the model that the low transverse (through the thickness) tension strength,

varies linearly with respect to position in the planes. These was recognized by Adams et al. [11]. The inner composite

elements also allow transverse thermal expansion to take adherend splits apart locally due to peel stresses, thereby

place. destroying the load transfer capacity between the inner and

The mixed adhesive joint must be able to be stressed over the outer adherends. Because of the absence of overall joint

many cycles from low to high-temperatures. It is not rotation in a DLJ and the nature of the failure criteria, the

designed to operate just at low or just at high-temperatures; analysis was linear elastic.

otherwise, it would be better to use either a HTA or a LTA The adhesive shear stresses were taken along a line

alone. This means that, to design a mixed adhesive joint, passing through the middle of the adhesive. A comparison

the failure criterion is not the failure of the joint but its was made between the ﬁnite element analysis (FEA) and

initial yielding, whether in the adhesives or in the the analytical solution of Hart-Smith [6] for DLJs as shown

adherends. This point is critical because if the yielding in Fig. 3 (the adherend and adhesive properties are those

load in the mixed adhesive joint is lower than the failure listed in Tables 1–3). The two solutions compare well,

load given by the HTA alone, then the merit of using the which validates the mesh density used as well as the shear

mixed adhesive joint is arguable. The failure criterion will stress location in the FEA. For the composite transverse

be the initial yielding of any part of the joint. The possible stresses and the adherend tensile stresses, the failure

failure modes considered here are: criterion was applied at the Gauss points.

(i) Shear yielding of the adhesive (mid line of adhesive 3. Adhesive properties

layer).

(ii) Transverse or interlaminar (tensile) failure of the The stiff and brittle HTA modelled in this investigation

composite. was Redux 326 (Hexcel Composites), which is a modiﬁed

(iii) Tensile yielding of the adherends at the overlap. bismaleimide (BMI), and the ductile and less stiff LTA was

Supreme 10HT (Master Bond), which is a modiﬁed epoxy.

Since it is known that the joint can be loaded beyond the The measurement of the mechanical properties has been

initial yield point, this criterion of failure will always presented in a previous paper [12]. The Redux 326 adhesive

predict lower failure loads than will be achieved in practice, has a service temperature of up to 230 1C.

i.e., it is a safe prediction. The adhesive properties were determined in uniaxial

It will be shown in Section 5 of this paper that, for the tension from bulk specimens and in pure shear from the

present adhesives, it is better to study the mixed adhesive thick adherend shear test (TAST) at 55, 22, 100 and

joint as a DLJ. In the DLJ, the adhesive peel stresses are 200 1C. The Redux 326 properties were measured in the

reduced and it is commonly accepted that the adhesive fails ﬁlm form with a woven glass carrier and also in the paste

in shear [6]. However, peel stresses are also present in the form. In a joint, the adhesive is primarily loaded in shear or

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 365

peel, especially in the SLJ. Whether in shear or in peel, modulus of the resin. Therefore, the failure will be mostly

supported ﬁlm adhesives will behave much like the resin. In governed by the properties of the resin. The SLJ results

peel, the adhesive is loaded in the transverse direction. In presented in a previous paper [12] prove this, as the

this case, the modulus of the supported ﬁlm is close to the difference between paste and ﬁlm is very close. The

properties of the resin alone were therefore chosen for

the simulations.

It is easy to ﬁnd the yield stress of metals because there is

usually a clear transition between elastic and plastic

behaviour. However, for polymers, the elastic region may

not be linear and it is difﬁcult to ﬁnd the value of the stress

corresponding to initial yielding. Various authors have

proposed ways of determining the yield stress. Young and

Lovell [13] state that the exact position of the yield point is

very difﬁcult to determine and so deﬁne yield as the

maximum point on the stress-strain curve. This procedure

is valid when the adhesive behaves elasto-plastically.

Another method is to calculate a proof stress by

constructing a straight line with the same gradient as the

modulus but offset by 0.1% or 0.2% strain. For strain

hardening adhesives, the yield stress can also be deﬁned by

the intersection of a line tangent to the linear elastic region

and a line tangent to the non-linear or plastic region of the

actual stress–strain curve, such as in the bilinear model [6].

This method was used to calculate the yield stress for

Supreme 10HT at 55 and 22 1C because the adhesive

strain hardens at those temperatures, as shown in Fig. 4a.

At 100 1C, Supreme 10HT is elasto-plastic and, at 200 1C, it

behaves linearly until fracture. Thus, at 100 and 200 1C, the

yield stress was taken as the ultimate strength. For Redux

326 (see Fig. 4b), at 55, 22 and 100 1C, the adhesive is

brittle and has linear behaviour until fracture; at 200 1C, it

behaves elasto-platically. Thus, the yield stress was taken

Table 2

Titanium (Ti–6Al–4 V) properties (E measured dynamically in ﬂexure; n

and sy measured on dogbone specimens; CTE measured according to

Lord [14])

22 1C 106.3 0.33 935 8.5

100 1C 102.4 0.33 852 8.5

200 1C 97.2 0.33 721 8.5

Fig. 3. Comparison between Hart-Smith’s closed-form analysis [6] and the

ﬁnite element analysis. All dimensions in mm. The extrapolated values are in a smaller font size.

Table 1

Adhesive properties (E and n measured on bulk specimens; ty measured by the TAST; CTE measured according to Lord [14])

E (GPa) n ty (MPa) CTE (106 1C1) E (Gpa) n ty (MPa) CTE (106 1C1)

22 1C 3.45 0.36 33.0 58 4.44 0.35 36.6 50.6

100 1C 2.18 0.36 21.1 58 3.56 0.35 29.3 50.6

200 1C 0.04 0.5 2.7 58 1.24 0.35 19.7 50.6

ARTICLE IN PRESS

366 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

Table 3

BMI 22 twill weave composite properties (E11 and E33 measured dynamically in ﬂexure; s11 and s33 measured in four point bending; s22 measured by

bonding a piece of composite to steel blocks and loading normal to the ﬁbre direction; CTE11 and CTE33 measured according to Lord [14])

E22 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

Shear modulus (GPa) G12, G23, G13 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

Tensile strength (MPa) s11, s33 624 674 755 768

s22 34 35 30 28

Poisson’s ratio n12 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

n23, n13 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Thermal coefﬁcient of expansion (106 1C1) CTE11, CTE33 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2

CTE22 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.4

The measured values are represented regularly, and the other values are in a smaller font size (the extrapolated values are in italics, the estimated values are

in bold and, the values taken from the literature [10] are in bold and italic).

-55°C

is more reliable due to the difﬁculties in the measuring

60

system for the TAST [12], especially, for small deforma-

Shear stress (MPa)

extremely sensitive to any defects and does not give its full

40 22°C potential. Therefore, to determine the modulus, it is better

30 to use the tensile curve, but for the strength and ductility it

100°C is better to use the TAST curve.

20 Poisson’s ratio (n) was measured at room temperature

10 only, on bulk specimens. Poisson’s ratio will not vary

200°C greatly in the glassy state, but it will certainly be different in

0 the rubbery state. Therefore, it was assumed to be constant

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

for Redux 326 but for Supreme 10HT, a value of 0.5 was

(a) Shear strain

used at 200 1C since it is in its rubbery state. The

40 coefﬁcients of thermal expansion (CTE) were measured

-55°C

35 using strain gauges according to a method proposed

22°C

by Lord [14]. The experiments were carried out between

30

Shear stress (MPa)

25 constant between 55 and 200 1C. Again, the CTE will

20 200°C not change substantially in the glassy state but it will be

higher in the rubbery state [15]. It is therefore a good

15

approximation for Redux 326, but not for Supreme 10HT

10 at 200 1C. However, it will be shown at a later stage of this

5 paper that when the adhesive is above its glass transition

temperature, the thermal stresses in the adhesive can be

0

neglected.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

(b)

Table 1 shows the elastic properties (E and n) of each

Shear strain

adhesive at the different temperatures, together with the

Fig. 4. Adhesive shear curves obtained with the TAST; (a) Supreme shear yielding stress (ty) and the CTE values that were used

10HT, (b) Redux 326 paste. in the ﬁnite element analysis.

4. Adherend properties

as the maximum stress for all temperatures in the case of

Redux 326. The mixed adhesive joint is required to work when

The Young’s modulus (E) was determined with tensile bonding composites to metal in the fuselage of supersonic

bulk specimens. It was shown in a previous paper [12] that aircraft. The metals commonly used are aluminium or

the shear modulus predicted from the bulk Young’s titanium alloys. The composites usually have a high-

modulus is higher than the experimental shear modulus performance epoxy or BMI matrix. The range of tempera-

measured in a thick adherend test joint but is reasonably tures being studied is 55 to 200 1C. At 200 1C, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 367

epoxy resins do not resist well that temperature. Therefore,

titanium was chosen for the metal and carbon ﬁbre

reinforced BMI for the composite.

The titanium chosen was the grade Ti–6Al–4V that is

commonly used in the aerospace industry. Young’s

modulus was obtained dynamically by vibrating a free-free

beam in ﬂexure from 55 to 200 1C. Tensile tests were

performed to determine the yield stress, the ultimate

strength, the ductility, and Poisson’s ratio.

The composite selected was Advanced Composites

Group HTM552. It is a carbon fabric 0/901 laminate of

high-strength carbon ﬁbres in a 22 twill weave impreg-

nated with a BMI resin. The composite was purchased in

the prepreg form and was manufactured in-house in an

autoclave. The autoclave cure was at 190 1C for 6 h.

Postcure was done in a freestanding condition in an oven at

240 1C for 6 h, as per the manufacturer’s instructions.

Eighteen plies were arranged to give a 4 mm thick

adherend. According to the manufacturer, Tg after the

initial cure is approximately 195 1C and after postcure it is

282 1C. This composite was developed for use in structures

where critical load-bearing performance is required at

temperatures greater than 200 1C. The Young’s modulus in

the 01 and 901 directions (E11 and E33) was obtained

dynamically by vibrating a free–free beam in ﬂexure from

55 to 200 1C. The ultimate strength in the 01 and 901

directions (s11 and s33) was determined using the 4-point

ﬂexure test (ASTM D 790-71 [16]). The through thickness

strength (s22) was determined by bonding a piece of the

composite to steel blocks and loading in tension normal to

the plane of the fabric.

The CTE of the titanium and the CTE of the BMI

composite in the 01 and 901 directions (CTE11 and CTE33)

were measured using strain gauges according to a method

proposed by Lord [14]. The transverse (through the Fig. 5. SLJ adhesive shear and peel stress distributions for a 5 kN load

thickness) direction CTE (CTE22) of the composite was (design MAJ1-1). All dimensions in mm.

estimated using Eq. (1), proposed by Rojstaczer et al. [17]

and used by Adams and Gaitonde [18].

5. Stress distributions

CTE22 ¼ CTEma V ma ð1 þ nma Þ þ CTErf V f , (1)

In Fig. 5, the shear and peel stress distribution is shown

where V is the volume fraction and n the Poisson’s ratio. for a SLJ under a 5 kN load and, in Fig. 6 for a DLJ under

The subscript ma stands for matrix, r for radial, and f for a 10 kN load, with titanium adherends (see Table 2). The

ﬁbre. The manufacturer gave the CTE of the matrix as loads were chosen so that the adhesives were in the elastic

45106 1C1, the Poisson’s ratio as 0.35 and the radial region. The overlap was the same for both adhesives and

CTE of the ﬁbre as 10106 1C1. The volume fraction there was a 5 mm gap between them to avoid mixing of the

was estimated using the density measurement method [19]. adhesives. This conﬁguration was designated design

The density of the matrix is 1210 kg/m3 (manufacturer), the MAJ1-1.

density of the carbon ﬁbre is 1780 kg/m3 (manufacturer), In the SLJ (Fig. 5), the major part of the load is

and the density of the composite was measured and found transferred through the LTA (Supreme 10HT). It appears,

to be 1510 kg/m3. This gave a volume fraction of ﬁbre of therefore, that stiffening the end of the overlap would be of

53%. Eq. (1) gives a CTE22 of the composite of little beneﬁt. The maximum shear and peel stresses are well

34.4106 1C1. This value was assumed to remain below the adhesive strength for all the cases, except for the

constant with temperature. peel stresses in Supreme 10HT at 200 1C. The joint rotation

Tables 2 and 3 give the adherend properties used in the typical of a SLJ introduces high peel stresses at the ends of

ﬁnite element analysis. the overlap.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

368 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

Fig. 6. DLJ adhesive shear and peel stress distributions for a 10 kN load MAJ1-1 for an applied load of 10 kN (J Supreme 10HT alone without

(design MAJ1-1). All dimensions in mm. gap; Redux 326 alone without gap; W MAJ1-1). All dimensions in mm.

In the DLJ (Fig. 6), the stress distribution is different. At was focussed on DLJs, both theoretically and experimen-

55, 22 and 100 1C, a considerable part of the load is now tally.

transferred through the HTA (Redux 326). Figs. 5 and 6 The stress distribution in a mixed adhesive joint must be

show that the shear stress distribution is ﬂatter for the DLJ analysed from two points of view. One is the joint

than for the SLJ. It should be borne in mind that the SLJ behaviour at a temperature lower than the glass transition

has a higher shear stress at the ends of the overlap than the temperature of the LTA (Tg LTA) and the other one is at a

DLJ because the SLJ bends due to the rotation of the joint, temperature higher than Tg LTA. The Tg of the LTA,

and this loading causes an additional shear stress. This Supreme 10HT, is 135 1C (measured using a Dynamic

effect is clearly seen in the ﬁnite element results presented in Mechanical Analysis (DMA) type apparatus).

Figs. 5 and 6 but also in closed-form analyses for SLJs and Figs. 7–9 show the shear stress distribution in three

DLJs [20]. mixed adhesive joints, at 100 1C (ToTg LTA) and 200 1C

At 200 1C, the peel stresses in Supreme 10HT are not a (T4Tg LTA). The shear stress distributions of the HTA

problem anymore, being very close to zero. Compared (Redux 326) and the LTA (Supreme 10HT) alone are also

to the SLJ, the peel stresses are much lower for the shown for comparison purposes. Note that for the joints

DLJ, mainly due to the absence of rotation. The LTA with Redux 326 alone and Supreme 10HT alone, there is

(Supreme 10HT) has a limited tensile strength at obviously no gap. The adherends have been given the

high-temperatures and might fail before the HTA (Redux characteristics of titanium (see Table 2).

326) reaches its shear capacity, if these adhesives are The maximum shear stress in Redux 326 at 200 1C

used in a SLJ. Since the pair of adhesives Redux 326/ in design MAJ1-1 (the overlap is the same for both

Supreme 10HT is not suitable to be used in a SLJ, the study adhesives) is higher than with Redux 326 alone (see Fig. 7).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 369

MAJ1-2 for an applied load of 10 kN (J Supreme 10HT alone without

gap; Redux 326 alone without gap; W MAJ1-2). All dimensions in mm. Fig. 9. Stress distribution of the adhesive in the mixed adhesive joint

MAJ1-2S for an applied load of 10 kN (J Supreme 10HT alone without

gap; Redux 326 alone without gap; W MAJ1-2S). All dimensions in

mm.

ponding to Redux 326 can be increased as in design

MAJ1-2 (see Fig. 8). The maximum shear stress in the stress is very much reduced in the HTA when in a mixed

Redux 326 at 200 1C is now closer to that of the joint adhesive joint. At T4Tg LTA, the HTA transfers the entire

with Redux 326 alone. To reduce further the stresses in load (the LTA is too compliant) so that the mixed adhesive

Redux 326 at ToTg LTA, the ends can be stiffened as joint will carry less load than the HTA alone. Increasing

shown in design MAJ1-2S (see Fig. 9), by reducing the the overlap corresponding to the HTA increases the

glue line thickness from 1 to 0.5 mm. Note that for the load stresses in the HTA at low-temperature, but decreases

used to illustrate the stress distribution (10 kN), the shear them at high-temperature when the adhesive is ductile and

stress in a joint with Supreme 10HT alone at 200 1C is carries the load.

above its shear strength. This has no practical meaning but On the basis of a purely elastic assessment, the mixed

is given to compare the stress distribution when the adhesive joint enables operation from low to high-

adhesive is used alone and when it is in a mixed adhesive temperatures with the combination of a LTA and a

joint. HTA. The joint will perform better (increased load

Figs. 7–9 show that at ToTg LTA (eg 100 1C), the mixed capacity) than the HTA or the LTA alone. However, it

adhesive joint concept has no practical merit in comparison will not be better than the LTA alone at low-temperatures,

with a LTA alone; the peak shear stresses in the LTA alone or better than the HTA alone at high-temperatures. A

and in the mixed adhesive joint are very close. However, it compromise must therefore be found so that its behaviour

does offer advantages over a HTA alone. The peak shear is approximately uniform over the temperature range by

ARTICLE IN PRESS

370 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

ends.

In order to understand the role of stiffening the ends of

the overlap, a theoretical study was carried out with a HTA

having a Young’s modulus of 6 GPa and LTAs having

Young’s moduli of 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 GPa. The adherends were

given the characteristics of titanium (see Table 2). The

results are presented in Figs. 10–12. The shear stress distri-

bution of the HTA alone is also shown for comparison

Fig. 10. Shear stress distribution of the adhesive in design MAJ1-1 under Fig. 11. Shear stress distribution of the adhesive in design MAJ1-1S under

an applied load of 10 kN (HTA alone; W HTA in MAJ1-1; J LTA in an applied load of 10 kN (HTA alone; W HTA in MAJ1-1S; J LTA in

MAJ1-1). E HTA ¼ 6 GPa, ELTA ¼ (a) 3, (b) 2, (c) 1, (d) 0.5 GPa. All MAJ1-1S). E HTA ¼ 6 GPa, ELTA ¼ (a) 2, (b) 1, (c) 0.5 GPa. All dimen-

dimensions in mm. sions in mm.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 371

purposes. For design MAJ1-1 (no stiffening, see Fig. 10), Compared to a joint with a HTA alone, the mixed

when the LTA is 3 GPa, the load is transferred through the adhesive joint decreases the stresses in the HTA at low-

LTA and no stiffening is necessary. When the LTA is 2, 1 temperatures: the higher the modulus of the LTA, the more

or 0.5 GPa, the peak shear stress is no longer in the LTA is the decrease. For low modulus LTAs, to decrease further

but in the HTA. To guarantee that the load is transferred the stresses in the HTA, the ends of the overlap must be

preferentially through the LTA, the ends of the joint can be stiffened by reducing locally the bondline thickness.

stiffened, as shown in Fig. 11 for design MAJ1-1S

(bondline thickness reduced from 1 to 0.5 mm). For

E LTA ¼ 2 GPa, the peak shear stresses are now in the 6. Thermal loads

LTA, but for E LTA ¼ 1 and 0.5 GPa, the peak shear stress

is still in the HTA. The ends of the joint can be stiffened Residual thermal stresses arise due to the non-free

even further as shown in Fig. 12 for design MAJ1-1SS thermal expansion or contraction of a body. In a bonded

(bondline thickness reduced from 1 to 0.2 mm). Now, the joint, the thermal stresses are generated by the different

stress is transferred mainly through the ductile adhesive for thermal expansion properties of the adhesive and the

E LTA ¼ 1 GPa but, for E LTA ¼ 0:5 GPa, the peak shear adherends and the shrinkage of the adhesive produced by

stress is still in the HTA. Depending on the relative curing. Several authors found that the stresses caused by

modulus of the HTA and LTA adhesives, stiffening the adhesive shrinkage have much less effect on the lap joint

ends of the joint might or might not be necessary. In the strength than those generated by the adherend thermal

present case, stiffening is necessary when the LTA modulus mismatch [21–24]. Adams et al. [23] refer that Coppendale

is 3 times lower than that of the HTA. [21] studied the problem of adhesive cure shrinkage with

FEA. In the overlap region, the predominant adhesive

stress is longitudinal tensile. It is uniform in the central

region and decreases towards each end. Around the

adherend corner with a ﬁllet (the critical load region as

shown by Adams and Peppiatt [25]), the maximum tensile

stress caused by shrinkage is at an angle of approximately

451 to the maximum tensile stress caused by an external

applied load. For relatively high loads, Coppendale [21]

concluded that, for 0.5% cure shrinkage, the induced

stresses are small (for 10 kN the effect is less than 10%).

Adams et al. [23] refer also Mallick’s study [22] about single

lap CFRP/aluminium joints. He studied the thermal

stresses due to adhesive contraction, the thermal stresses

due to differential thermal expansion of the two adherends

and a temperature reduction of 150 1C and, the stresses due

to a 5 kN applied load. After superimposing all the stresses,

it was found that the adhesive shrinkage stresses have much

less effect than adherend mismatch. Yu [24] also found that

the shrinkage stresses are not as important as the stresses

due to differential thermal expansion between the adher-

ends. Thermal loads are especially important when

bonding adherends with different CTEs. When bonding

similar adherends, the thermal stresses can be neglected [6].

The thermal load DT is given by

DT ¼ T O T SF , (2)

where TO is the operating temperature and TSF is the

stress-free temperature. According to Hart-Smith [6], the

stress-free temperature is the cure initiation temperature of

the adhesive, which is usually slightly lower than its normal

cure temperature. It is reasonable to consider the stress-free

temperature as the normal cure temperature of the

adhesive. However, this is valid only if the adhesive works

always below its Tg. When the adhesive is heated above its

Fig. 12. Shear stress distribution of the adhesive in design MAJ1-1SS

under an applied load of 10 kN (HTA alone; W HTA in MAJ1-1SS; J

Tg, thermal stresses are relaxed because the adhesive is very

LTA in MAJ1-1SS). E HTA ¼ 6 GPa, ELTA ¼ (a) 1, (b) 0.5 GPa. All compliant [15,24]. Upon subsequent cooling, once the

dimensions in mm. adhesive becomes hard again, i.e. below its Tg, thermal

ARTICLE IN PRESS

372 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

stresses start to build up, so that the stress-free temperature 175 1C and post-cure at 230 1C. Initially, when the mixed

is no longer its cure temperature but its Tg. adhesive joint is put in the oven, both adhesives are

The case in a mixed adhesive joint is more complicated uncured. Then, the temperature is raised to 175 1C, and

because there are two adhesives with different Tgs. To Supreme 10HT will be cured at some temperature below

evaluate the stress-free temperature in a mixed adhesive 175 1C. Eventually, the oven temperature reaches 175 1C,

joint, sandwich specimens of aluminium–adhesive–CFRP but Supreme 10HT will remain soft as it is above its Tg.

were manufactured and the residual thermal stresses were The stress-free temperature for Redux 326 is 175 1C, its

measured with strain gauges [26]. The free expansion of the cure initiation temperature. Upon subsequent cooling,

CFRP and the aluminium were ﬁrst determined by once Supreme 10HT becomes hard again, i.e. below its

bonding identical strain gauges on a piece of CFRP and Tg, thermal stresses start to build up. The stress-free

a piece of aluminium. Then, the subtraction of these values temperature of Supreme 10HT is its Tg and not its cure

from the values measured in the sandwich beam gave the initiation temperature. The joint is next heated to 230 1C

elastic strains due to the thermal effects. It was found that for the post-cure of Redux 326. The two adhesives will

for a joint with one adhesive, if the adhesive is not heated both be in the rubbery state. Redux 326 will start to harden

above its Tg, then the stress-free temperature is its cure after a period of time and thermal stresses will build up

temperature. If the adhesive is heated above its Tg, the upon cooling from 230 1C. For Supreme 10HT, thermal

stress-free temperature is its Tg. This is valid for a joint stresses will build up only from 135 1C, the point where it

with one adhesive and also for a joint with two adhesives. enters its glassy state. The thermal load is therefore

In the last case, the joint is effectively divided into two TO230 1C for Redux 326 and TO135 1C for Supreme

parts with two different stress-free temperatures. 10HT.

Fig. 13 shows the residual adhesive shear stress during When bonding dissimilar adherends, the problem has to

the cure of a mixed adhesive joint with Redux 326 and be treated considering two factors, the stiffness unbalance

Supreme 10HT, between dissimilar adherends (metal/ and the residual thermal stress unbalance. Fig. 14 shows

composite). Redux 326 cures at 175 1C and is post-cured schematically the deformations and the shear stresses due

at 230 1C. After cure, the Tg is approximately 200 1C. When to stiffness and thermal expansion unbalance when the

it is post-cured at 230 1C, it is in the rubbery state and will composite is the inner adherend and has a longitudinal

eventually harden at 230 1C. After post-cure, the Tg is stiffness lower than that of the outer metal adherend, Elc

approximately 280 1C. Therefore, the stress-free tempera- tcoEm tm (E is the Young’s modulus, t is the thickness, the

ture of Redux 326 after post-cure is 230 1C, unless it is subscript lc stands for longitudinal composite and m for

heated to 280 1C. Supreme 10HT cures at 120 1C and its Tg metal). The shear stress distribution due to an external

is 135 1C. When the adhesive is heated above its Tg, thermal tensile load is non-symmetric. The shear stress peaks at the

stresses can be ignored because the adhesive is compliant overlap end where the inner composite adherend has a

and will tend to relax. The cure of a mixed adhesive joint lower stiffness. The thermal residual stresses are beneﬁcial

with Redux 326 and Supreme 10HT will be carried out at the end from which the stiff adherend extends, but

following the cure schedule of Redux 326, i.e. cure at detrimental at the other end, creating a case where the

Fig. 13. Residual adhesive shear stresses during the cure of a mixed adhesive joint with Redux 326 and Supreme 10HT, between dissimilar adherends.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 373

Fig. 14. Adhesive shear stresses in a metal/composite DLJ for Elc tcoEm tm under a tensile load and a thermal load, at adhesive yielding.

Fig. 15. Adhesive shear stresses in a metal/composite DLJ for Elc tc4Em tm under a tensile load and a thermal load, at adhesive yielding.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

374 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

resultant stress is biased to one end. This will result in a failure is lower than or very close to the initial yielding of

decrease of the load capacity of the joint. When Elc tc4Em the adhesive.

tm, the thermal stresses may actually increase the load

capacity of the joint, as shown in Fig. 15, depending on the 7.1. Titanium/titanium DLJs

importance of the thermal stresses. If the resultant adhesive

shear stress at the end where the thermal stresses are The yielding load prediction was made with and without

detrimental is lower than the resultant ashesive shear stress thermal stresses and it was found that the thermal stresses

at the end where the thermal stresses are beneﬁcial, then the are so small that they can be neglected. For example, for

thermal stresses increase the load capacity of the joint. The Redux 326 at 55 1C, which is the temperature corre-

resultant shear stress will be more evenly distributed at sponding to the maximum thermal stresses, the yielding

each end. This will happen only if the thermal stresses are load of Redux 326 without thermal stresses is 37.6 kN and

smaller than the difference between the adhesive shear with thermal stresses it is 35.6 kN, which represents a

stress at each end of the joint due to the external tensile difference of only 5%. The yielding load of the various

load. If the thermal stresses are higher than the difference designs is shown in Fig. 16. The yielding location

between the adhesive shear stress at each end of the joint was always in the adhesives for all the joints considered.

due to the external tensile load, then the joint will be For the mixed adhesive joints, the low-temperature

critically loaded at the end where the thermal stresses are adhesive (Supreme 10HT) yielded ﬁrst at 55, 22 and

detrimental. When the joint is critically loaded at one end, 100 1C, which is the objective when using a mixed adhesive

the classic mixed adhesive joint design can be modiﬁed so joint. Designs MAJ1-1 and MAJ1-2 behave similarly at

that the ductile adhesive is located only at the critical side. ToTg Supreme 10HT (55, 22 and 100 1C). The initial

Note that, for the case of a compressive load, the critical yielding of the adhesive is close to that when using Supreme

area is at the other end of the joint. Therefore, for joints 10HT alone. At 200 1C, design MAJ1-2 is closer to the

that need to be loaded in tension and compression, putting value of Redux 326 alone because the Redux 326 overlap is

the LTA only on one side of the joint is not a good longer than in design MAJ1-1.

solution. The limiting load of the mixed adhesive joint will be the

There are two main situations that must be analysed. lowest yielding load from 55 to 200 1C. For the best

The ﬁrst one is when the joint has similar adherends where design (MAJ1-2) it is 20.4 kN at 200 1C. The limiting value

the residual stresses can be neglected, and the joint is of Redux 326 alone is 29.6 kN at 200 1C. Therefore, it

uniformly loaded at both ends. The second is when the appears that the mixed adhesive joint is not worthwhile for

joint is critically loaded at one end, as for example in the joints with identical adherends, even though it is better

case described in Fig. 14. To examine the ﬁrst situation, than Redux 326 at low-temperature.

titanium/titanium DLJs were studied. For the second

situation, titanium/composite joints were considered with 7.2. Titanium/composite DLJs

Elc tcoEm tm, the composite being the inner adherend.

In Fig. 14, it was shown that the joint is critically loaded

at one end. In this case, the ductile adhesive should be

7. Prediction of the initial yielding load of the joint placed only at the critical end, such as in design MAJ3

shown in Fig. 17. It is clear from the shear stress

As described in Section 2 of this paper, the failure distribution presented in Figs. 17–20 at 55, 22, 100 and

criterion used is the initial yielding of the joint, which can 200 1C, respectively, that the stiffness unbalance and the

be shear yielding of the adhesive, tensile yielding of the thermal stresses cause the resultant stress, in a joint with

adherends at the overlap, or transverse tensile failure of the Redux 326 alone, to be biased to the end where the inner

composite. The predicted yielding load will be the lowest composite adherend is loaded. The use of design MAJ3

value given by the three criteria. Note that the last criterion reduces drastically the peak stress in Redux 326 at 55, 22

is actually not a yielding load but a failure load. It should and 100 1C and the load is now mainly supported by

be borne in mind that this approach always gives a Supreme 10HT.

conservative design since the joint load can continue to The predicted yielding loads for Redux 326 alone,

increase after yielding, but not after composite failure. Supreme 10HT alone, design MAJ1-1, design MAJ1-2

For the titanium/titanium DLJs, it was found that the and design MAJ3 are presented in Fig. 21. Compared with

yielding load of the adherends is well above the yielding the titanium/titanium joints, the yielding load is much

load of the adhesive, so that the yielding load of the joint reduced. This is due to the thermal loads and the stiffness

means the yielding of the adhesive. For the titanium/ unbalance.

composite DLJs, the adherends are again in their elastic Designs MAJ1-1 and MAJ1-2 are very close to Redux

range when the adhesive starts to yield so the yielding load 326 alone. Design MAJ1-2 behaves better than design

means the yielding load of the adhesive. However, at 55 MAJ1-1 at 200 1C because the Redux 326 overlap is longer.

and 22 1C for Supreme 10HT alone and the mixed adhesive The limiting load in design MAJ3 (lowest yielding load

joints, the load corresponding to the composite transverse from 55 to 200 1C) is the highest of the three mixed

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 375

MAJ1-1 MAJ1-2

2 50 2 50

Titanium 4 Titanium 4

10 20 10 Titanium 5 30 5 Titanium

2 2

Titanium Titanium

Width = 25 Width = 25

Titanium/titanium DLJs

40

35

30

Yielding load (kN)

25 Supreme 10HT

Redux 326

20

MAJ1-1

15

MAJ1-2

10

0

-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Temperature (°C)

Fig. 16. Yielding load prediction for titanium/titanium DLJs. All dimensions in mm.

adhesive joints (MAJ1-1, MAJ1-2 and MAJ3) because the Redux 326 joint strength at low-temperatures, and the

Redux 326 overlap is the same as in design MAJ1-2 and the more advantageous will be the use of a mixed adhesive

Supreme 10HT overlap is longer than in design MAJ1-1. joint. To prove this point, the yielding load was predicted

The limiting load of design MAJ3 (best design) is for a composite having a longitudinal coefﬁcient of thermal

15.3 kN at 100 1C. The limiting load of Redux 326 alone is expansion lower than the one of the composite studied

14.9 kN at 55 1C. However, Redux 326 will break at here. The BMI composite used by Adams and Davies [10]

14.9 kN whereas the mixed adhesive joint will only start to (high-strength carbon ﬁbres in a 5 harness satin weave

yield (Supreme 10HT) at 15.3 kN, and will therefore be impregnated with bismaleimide resin) was chosen as its

able to sustain further load. coefﬁcient of thermal expansion is 0.9106 1C1 in the

It should be noted that at 55 1C, for designs MAJ1-1, 01 and 901 directions (see Table 4), which is much lower

MAJ1-2, MAJ3 and Supreme 10HT alone, through than the 4.2106 1C1 for the composite studied here. The

thickness composite failure was predicted before yielding CTE of carbon reinforced plastics is generally close to

of the adhesive. At 22 1C, the transverse properties of the zero, but there can be variations from negative to positive

composite might also be a problem since the predicted values, depending on the ﬁbre used, the fabric geometry,

composite transverse failure load is very close to the and the ﬁbre volume fraction [27,28]. The CTE of our

predicted initial yielding load of Supreme 10HT. If the composite was measured experimentally ‘in house’ and

shear transfer capacity of Supreme 10HT could be fully the value obtained was the same as that given by the

attained at 55 and 22 1C, then the mixed adhesive joint is manufacturer.

without doubt a real improvement over Redux 326 alone. The predicted yielding loads for Supreme 10HT alone,

In the present situation, the mixed adhesive joint is still Redux 326 alone and design MAJ3 are presented in

better than Redux 326 alone, but it will fail at low- Fig. 22. The advantage of using a mixed adhesive joint is

temperatures by tensile failure of the composite in the more evident in this case as the strength increase, compared

through thickness direction before the adhesive starts to with Redux 326 alone, is very large at low-temperatures,

yield. especially at 55 1C. The thermal stresses are now much

The higher the difference in CTE between the titanium more important, especially for a joint with Redux 326

and the composite, the higher will be the decrease in the alone which has a very high stress-free temperature

ARTICLE IN PRESS

376 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

DLJ at 22 1C, at adhesive yielding (Redux 326 alone; W Redux 326 in

MAJ3; J Supreme 10HT in MAJ3). All dimensions in mm.

Fig. 17. Adhesive shear stresses in design MAJ3 for a titanium/composite

DLJ at 55 1C, at adhesive yielding (Redux 326 alone; W Redux 326 in

MAJ3; J Supreme 10HT in MAJ3). All dimensions in mm.

(230 1C). The difference in CTE between the titanium and 8. Conclusions

the Adams and Davies [10] composite (DCTE ¼

9:4 106 1C1 ) is more than two times the difference A theoretical analysis of the adhesive shear stress

in CTE between the titanium and our composite distribution has shown that the mixed adhesive joint

(DCTE ¼ 4:3 106 1C1 ). At 55 1C and 22 1C, for allows operation from low to high-temperatures with the

Supreme 10HT alone and design MAJ3, the transverse combination of a LTA and a HTA. The joint will perform

properties of the composite might again be a problem since better (increased load capacity) than the HTA alone at low-

the predicted composite transverse failure load is only temperatures or the LTA alone at high-temperatures.

slightly higher than the predicted initial yielding load of However, it will not be better than the LTA alone at

Supreme 10HT. low-temperatures, or better than the HTA alone at high-

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 377

DLJ at 100 1C, at adhesive yielding (Redux 326 alone; W Redux 326 in Fig. 20. Adhesive shear stresses in design MAJ3 for a titanium/composite

MAJ3; J Supreme 10HT in MAJ3). All dimensions in mm. DLJ at 200 1C, at adhesive yielding (Redux 326 alone; W Redux 326 in

MAJ3; J Supreme 10HT in MAJ3). All dimensions in mm.

behaviour is approximately uniform over the temperature

range by changing the relative overlap and stiffening the When bonding dissimilar adherends, the problem has to

overlap ends. Depending on the relative modulus of the be treated considering two factors, the stiffness unbalance

HTA and LTA adhesives, stiffening the ends of the joint and the residual thermal stress unbalance. The thermal

might or might not be necessary. Compared to a joint with loads are detrimental at one end of the joint and beneﬁcial

a HTA alone, the mixed adhesive joint decreases the at the other end. Depending on the combination of the

stresses in the HTA at low-temperatures: the higher the adherends and their relative moduli, the thermal loads can

modulus of the LTA, the more is the decrease. For low create a joint critically loaded at one end. For this case, the

modulus LTAs, to decrease further the stresses in the HTA, classic mixed adhesive joint design, with a LTA at both

the ends of the overlap can be stiffened, by reducing locally ends of the overlap, can be modiﬁed so that the LTA is

the glue line thickness. located only on the critical side.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

378 L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

Fig. 21. Yielding load prediction for titanium/composite DLJs. All dimensions in mm.

Table 4

BMI composite properties taken from Adams and Davies [10]

Property Value

E22 10.00

Shear modulus (GPa) G12, G23, G13 7.00

Tensile strength (MPa) s11, s33 800

s22 66

Poisson’s ratio n12 0.297

n23, n13 0.031

Thermal coefﬁcient of expansion CTE11, CTE33 0.9

(106 1C1)

CTE22 27.0

temperatures is lower than that of a HTA alone, then the

merits of a mixed adhesive joint are questionable. The joint

strength predictions have shown that for identical adher-

ends, the mixed modulus technique is of little beneﬁt.

However, for metal/composite joints, there is a real

improvement, especially if the difference of CTEs is high.

For Elc tcoEm tm (case studied here), the thermal loads

severely reduce the load capacity of a joint with a HTA

alone at low-temperatures, and a mixed adhesive joint can

give signiﬁcant improvements. This was investigated

experimentally and will be reported elsewhere [29]. For

Elc tc4Em tm, if the CTEs are such that the thermal loads Fig. 22. Yielding load prediction for titanium/composite DLJs (composite

decrease the load capacity, then the mixed adhesive joint is used by Adams and Davies [10]). All dimensions in mm.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379 379

beneﬁcial. Otherwise, the mixed adhesive joint is not [13] Young RJ, Lovell PA. Introduction to polymers. 2nd ed. London:

worthwhile. When the composite is the inner adherend, Chapman & Hall; 1991.

[14] Lord JD. Strain gauge techniques for measuring thermal expansion.

the mixed adhesive joint might fail prematurely at low-

NPL Report CMMT(MN)012, 1997. See NPL web site /http://

temperatures in the composite transverse (through the midas.npl.co.uk/midas/content/mn012.htmlS.

thickness) direction. This problem needs to be addressed [15] Comyn J, In: Brinson HF, technical chairman, Dostal CA, senior,

and will be the subject of a future work [30]. editor. Engineered materials handbook, vol 3: Adhesives and

Sealants, Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International, 1990. p. 616–21.

Acknowledgements 0871702819.

[16] ASTM D 790—71. Standard test methods for ﬂexural properties of

plastics and electrical insulating materials 1971.

Lucas F M da Silva would like to thank the Calouste [17] Rojstaczer S, Cohn D, Marom G. J Mater Sci 1985;4:1223–36.

Gulbenkian Foundation for support while conducting this [18] Adams RD, Gaitonde JM. Compos Sci Technol 1993;47:271–87.

research as well as the Fundac- ão para a Ciência e [19] Curtis PT. CRAG test methods for the measurement of the

Tecnologia (project POCTI/43525/EME/2000). engineering properties of ﬁbre reinforced plastics. Royal Aerospace

Establishment TR 88012 1988.

[20] Jeandrau JP. Int J Adhes Adhes 1991;11:71–9.

References [21] Coppendale J. The stress and failure analysis of structural adhesive

joints. Ph.D dissertation, University of Bristol, 1977.

[1] Hergenrother PM. SAMPE J 2000;36:30–41. [22] Mallick V. Stress analysis of metal/CFRP adhesive joints subjected to

[2] Semerdjiev S. Metal to metal adhesive bonding. UK: Business Books the effects of thermal stresses. Ph.D dissertation, University of

Limited; 1970. Bristol, 1989.

[3] Srinivas S. Analysis of bonded joints, NASA TN D-7855 1975. [23] Adams RD, Coppendale J, Mallick V, Al-Hamdam H. Int J Adhes

[4] Patrick RL. Treatise on adhesion and adhesives—Structural adhe- Adhes 1992;12:185–90.

sives with emphasis on aerospace applications, vol. 4. New York: [24] Yu H. Experimental determination of shrinkage, modulus and

Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1976. residual stresses in adhesives during the cure process. Ph.D

[5] Pires I, Quintino L, Durodola JF, Beevers A. Int J Adhes Adhes dissertation, University of Bristol, 1999.

2003;23:215–23. [25] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. J Strain Anal 1974;9:185–96.

[6] Hart-Smith LJ. Adhesive-bonded double-lap joints, NASA CR- [26] da Silva LFM, Adams RD, Stress-free temperature in a mixed

112235 1973. adhesive joint, J Adhes Sci Technol, 2006, accepted for publication.

[7] Adams RD, Comyn J, Wake WC. Structural adhesive joints in [27] Ganesh VK, Naik NK. Compos Sci Technol 1994;51:387–408.

engineering. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. [28] Kim RY, Crasto AS, Shoeppner GA. Compos Sci Technol

[8] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. J Strain Anal 1973;8:134–9. 2000;60:2601–8.

[9] Adams RD, Davies R. J Adhes 1996;59:171–82. [29] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. Adhesive joints at high and low tempera-

[10] Adams RD, Davies R. In: Dillard DA, Pocius AV, editors. The tures using similar and dissimilar adherends and dual adhesives. Int J

mechanics of adhes. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002. p. 111–44. Adhes Adhes, 2006, in press, doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.04.002.

[11] Adams RD, Atkins RW, Harris JA, Kinloch AJ. J Adhes [30] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. Techniques to reduce the peel stresses in

1986;20:29–53. adhesive joints with composites. Int J Adhes Adhes, 2006, in press,

[12] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. J Adhes Sci Technol 2005;29:109–42. doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.04.001.

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.