ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh

Joint strength predictions for adhesive joints to be used

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

1. Introduction develop an adhesive which will operate successfully from

Adhesives suitable for high-temperatures are generally
brittle at low-temperatures, giving low joint strengths at
low-temperatures. On the other hand, adhesives suitable
for low-temperature are too weak or degrade at high-
temperatures so that they cannot carry significant loads at
temperatures above their glass transition temperature (Tg).
Adhesive joints used in supersonic aircraft need to with-
stand low and high-temperatures, typically from 55 1C
(depending on altitude) to as much as 200 1C or more. As
an example, if a supersonic aircraft flies at Mach 2.7, the air
friction at this speed would generate a surface temperature
of about 232 1C [1]. It may eventually be possible to
Corresponding author. Fax: +351 22 508 1445.
E-mail address: lucas@fe.up.pt (L.F.M. da Silva).
55 1C to more than 200 1C, but this is unlikely in the near
future.
The solution proposed and investigated in the present
study is to make a mixed adhesive joint for low-and high-
temperatures with a combination of two adhesives. Mixed
modulus joints have been proposed in the past [2–4] to
improve the stress distribution and increase the joint
strength of high modulus adhesives. The stiff, brittle
adhesive should be in the middle of the overlap, while a
low modulus adhesive is applied at the edges prone to stress
concentrations.
Semerdjev [2] reported that the strength of single lap
joints can be increased by approximately 20% by varying
the adhesive rigidity along the overlap length.
Srinivas [3] studied single lap joints, lap strap joints and
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
He assessed the effect of using flexible and stiff adhesives
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
combination with a flexible adhesive. Similarly, the
maximum peel and shear stresses in a flexible adhesive
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
adhesive alone.
Patrick [4] also discusses the idea of having a joint with
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
would be particularly beneficial for bonded adherends with
dissimilar coefficients of thermal expansion. Patrick [4] also
proposed the use of a layer of a material that possesses a
thermal expansion coefficient intermediate between that of
the two adherends. Another possible application is for
designs of bonded adherends with different stiffenesses. In
this case, the adhesive shear strains are higher at the end
from which the less stiff adherend extends. Incorporating
one or more sections of different adhesives in the joint
with the more ductile adhesive at the end where is the less
stiff adherend should reduce the adhesive shear stress
concentration.
The previous authors discussed the mixed adhesive joint
concept only theoretically. Recently, Pires et al. [5] have
tested joints with two adhesives and proved that the mixed
adhesive method gives an improvement in joint perfor-
mance. The experimental results of bi-adhesive aluminium
single lap joints showed that it is possible to increase by
22% the joint strength of either of the adhesives used
alone. The authors also studied the concept theoretically.
The effect of the relative overlaps of a flexible adhesive
(DP490 with E ¼ 1:8 GPa) and a stiff adhesive (ESP110
with E ¼ 5:9 GPa) was studied using the finite element
method. The stress distribution of the linear and non-linear
analysis showed that the stiff adhesive was the load-
carrying adhesive. The length ratio (flexible adhesive
overlap/stiff adhesive overlap) that gave the minimum
peak stresses in the stiff adhesive was 1.4.
Although the experimental results of Pires et al. [5] are
promising, the joints they produced were of poor quality
due to the partial mixing of the two adhesives during the
joint preparation. In effect, the manufacture of such joints
is particularly difficult. As pointed out by Hart-Smith [6],
during bonding there is a tendency for the stiff adhesive,
which is in the middle, to squeeze out the flexible adhesive.
The use of a stiff adhesive in the middle of the joint to
increase the strength of a flexible adhesive alone is doubtful
in the light of the production difficulties involved.
However, it is certainly advantageous when compared to
a stiff adhesive alone.
The technique of using multi-modulus adhesives has
been used for increasing the joint strength of single
adhesive joints, although the published work is scarce
and needs more development. In effect, that concept has
363
EHTA = ELTA
Low temperature
EHTA < ELTA
Fig. 1. Stiffening of the ends of the overlap.
not been extended to solve the problem of adhesive joints
that need to withstand low and high-temperatures. The first
to recognize the use of the mixed adhesive joint for low and
high-temperature applications was Hart-Smith [6]. At high-
temperatures, a high-temperature adhesive (HTA) in the
middle of the joint retains the strength and transfers the
entire load while a low-temperature adhesive (LTA) is the
load bearing component at low-temperatures, making
the HTA relatively lightly stressed. At low-temperatures,
the load must essentially be supported by the LTA. If its
modulus is of the same order as the modulus of the HTA,
most of the load will be carried by the LTA. However, if its
modulus is much lower than the modulus of the HTA, then
the HTA might still be critically loaded. One possibility is
to stiffen the ends of the overlap where the LTA is as
shown in Fig. 1.
Hart-Smith’s proposition [6] has never been fully
investigated in the published literature and the main
objective of this paper is to assess if a mixed adhesive
joint has an increased load capacity over a joint with a
HTA alone. A full theoretical analysis needs to be carried
out so as to understand the stress distribution in a mixed
adhesive joint and to find the most suitable design, together
with a series of tests on real joints. These tests will be
reported elsewhere.
2. Finite element analysis considerations
The finite element program ABAQUS was used to study
the stress distribution. The basic geometry, showing the
boundary conditions and the mesh, is presented in Fig. 2.
The overlap length is typical of those found in aircraft
structures. Single lap joints (SLJ) and double lap joints
(DLJ) were studied. For DLJs, only half the model was
analysed because of symmetry.
A two-dimensional model was used. Although the
stresses are not perfectly uniform in the width direction
due to lateral straining [7,8] and anticlastic bending [7,9], a
2D analysis [10] has shown that a plane strain approach is
satisfactory. Quadrilateral, reduced integration, general-
ized plane strain elements were used for both the adherends
and the adhesives. Generalized plane strain elements were
used instead of the more commonly employed plane strain
elements because they allow a certain amount of out-of-
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
2
230
25
DLJ
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
respect to each other, and hence, cause strain in the
direction perpendicular to the plane of the model that
varies linearly with respect to position in the planes. These
elements also allow transverse thermal expansion to take
place.
The mixed adhesive joint must be able to be stressed over
many cycles from low to high-temperatures. It is not
designed to operate just at low or just at high-temperatures;
otherwise, it would be better to use either a HTA or a LTA
alone. This means that, to design a mixed adhesive joint,
the failure criterion is not the failure of the joint but its
initial yielding, whether in the adhesives or in the
adherends. This point is critical because if the yielding
load in the mixed adhesive joint is lower than the failure
load given by the HTA alone, then the merit of using the
mixed adhesive joint is arguable. The failure criterion will
be the initial yielding of any part of the joint. The possible
failure modes considered here are:
(i) Shear yielding of the adhesive (mid line of adhesive
layer).
(ii) Transverse or interlaminar (tensile) failure of the
composite.
(iii) Tensile yielding of the adherends at the overlap.
Since it is known that the joint can be loaded beyond the
initial yield point, this criterion of failure will always
predict lower failure loads than will be achieved in practice,
i.e., it is a safe prediction.
It will be shown in Section 5 of this paper that, for the
present adhesives, it is better to study the mixed adhesive
joint as a DLJ. In the DLJ, the adhesive peel stresses are
reduced and it is commonly accepted that the adhesive fails
in shear [6]. However, peel stresses are also present in the
50 25
2
1
25
50
2
1
DLJ. Like the shear stresses, these peak at the ends of the
overlap. Their impact on inducing composite failure, due to
the low transverse (through the thickness) tension strength,
was recognized by Adams et al. [11]. The inner composite
adherend splits apart locally due to peel stresses, thereby
destroying the load transfer capacity between the inner and
the outer adherends. Because of the absence of overall joint
rotation in a DLJ and the nature of the failure criteria, the
analysis was linear elastic.
The adhesive shear stresses were taken along a line
passing through the middle of the adhesive. A comparison
was made between the finite element analysis (FEA) and
the analytical solution of Hart-Smith [6] for DLJs as shown
in Fig. 3 (the adherend and adhesive properties are those
listed in Tables 1–3). The two solutions compare well,
which validates the mesh density used as well as the shear
stress location in the FEA. For the composite transverse
stresses and the adherend tensile stresses, the failure
criterion was applied at the Gauss points.
3. Adhesive properties
The stiff and brittle HTA modelled in this investigation
was Redux 326 (Hexcel Composites), which is a modified
bismaleimide (BMI), and the ductile and less stiff LTA was
Supreme 10HT (Master Bond), which is a modified epoxy.
The measurement of the mechanical properties has been
presented in a previous paper [12]. The Redux 326 adhesive
has a service temperature of up to 230 1C.
The adhesive properties were determined in uniaxial
tension from bulk specimens and in pure shear from the
thick adherend shear test (TAST) at 55, 22, 100 and
200 1C. The Redux 326 properties were measured in the
film form with a woven glass carrier and also in the paste
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,
supported film adhesives will behave much like the resin. In
peel, the adhesive is loaded in the transverse direction. In
this case, the modulus of the supported film is close to the
modulus of the resin. Therefore, the failure will be mostly
governed by the properties of the resin. The SLJ results
presented in a previous paper [12] prove this, as 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])

E (GPa) n sy (MPa) CTE (106 1C1)

55 1C 110.3 0.33 1062 8.5

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])

Supreme 10HT Redux 326

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

55 1C 4.89 0.36 45.0 58 5.50 0.35 39.3 50.6

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

The extrapolated values are in a smaller font size.

 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])

Property 55 1C 22 1C 100 1C 200 1C

Young’s modulus (GPa) E11, E33 59.75 59.24 58.91 58.49

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).

70 close. The Young’s modulus measured on bulk specimens

-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)

50 tions. However, when loaded in tension, the adhesive is

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)

100°C 25 and 60 1C. It was assumed that the CTEs remain

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.

as the maximum stress for all temperatures in the case of
Redux 326.
The Young’s modulus (E) was determined with tensile
bulk specimens. It was shown in a previous paper [12] that
the shear modulus predicted from the bulk Young’s
modulus is higher than the experimental shear modulus
measured in a thick adherend test joint but is reasonably
4. Adherend properties
The mixed adhesive joint is required to work when
bonding composites to metal in the fuselage of supersonic
aircraft. The metals commonly used are aluminium or
titanium alloys. The composites usually have a high-
performance epoxy or BMI matrix. The range of tempera-
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

aluminium starts to soften and even high-temperature

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
(design MAJ1-1). All dimensions in mm.
In the DLJ (Fig. 6), the stress distribution is different. At
55, 22 and 100 1C, a considerable part of the load is now
transferred through the HTA (Redux 326). Figs. 5 and 6
show that the shear stress distribution is flatter for the DLJ
than for the SLJ. It should be borne in mind that the SLJ
has a higher shear stress at the ends of the overlap than the
DLJ because the SLJ bends due to the rotation of the joint,
and this loading causes an additional shear stress. This
effect is clearly seen in the finite element results presented in
Figs. 5 and 6 but also in closed-form analyses for SLJs and
DLJs [20].
At 200 1C, the peel stresses in Supreme 10HT are not a
problem anymore, being very close to zero. Compared
to the SLJ, the peel stresses are much lower for the
DLJ, mainly due to the absence of rotation. The LTA
(Supreme 10HT) has a limited tensile strength at
high-temperatures and might fail before the HTA (Redux
326) reaches its shear capacity, if these adhesives are
used in a SLJ. Since the pair of adhesives Redux 326/
Supreme 10HT is not suitable to be used in a SLJ, the study
Fig. 7. Stress distribution of the adhesive in the mixed adhesive joint
MAJ1-1 for an applied load of 10 kN (J Supreme 10HT alone without
gap; Redux 326 alone without gap; W MAJ1-1). All dimensions in mm.
was focussed on DLJs, both theoretically and experimen-
tally.
The stress distribution in a mixed adhesive joint must be
analysed from two points of view. One is the joint
behaviour at a temperature lower than the glass transition
temperature of the LTA (Tg LTA) and the other one is at a
temperature higher than Tg LTA. The Tg of the LTA,
Supreme 10HT, is 135 1C (measured using a Dynamic
Mechanical Analysis (DMA) type apparatus).
Figs. 7–9 show the shear stress distribution in three
mixed adhesive joints, at 100 1C (ToTg LTA) and 200 1C
(T4Tg LTA). The shear stress distributions of the HTA
(Redux 326) and the LTA (Supreme 10HT) alone are also
shown for comparison purposes. Note that for the joints
with Redux 326 alone and Supreme 10HT alone, there is
obviously no gap. The adherends have been given the
characteristics of titanium (see Table 2).
The maximum shear stress in Redux 326 at 200 1C
in design MAJ1-1 (the overlap is the same for both
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
Fig. 8. Stress distribution of the adhesive in the mixed adhesive joint
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.
To improve matters, the proportion of the overlap corres-
ponding to Redux 326 can be increased as in design
MAJ1-2 (see Fig. 8). The maximum shear stress in the
Redux 326 at 200 1C is now closer to that of the joint
with Redux 326 alone. To reduce further the stresses in
Redux 326 at ToTg LTA, the ends can be stiffened as
shown in design MAJ1-2S (see Fig. 9), by reducing the
glue line thickness from 1 to 0.5 mm. Note that for the load
used to illustrate the stress distribution (10 kN), the shear
stress in a joint with Supreme 10HT alone at 200 1C is
above its shear strength. This has no practical meaning but
is given to compare the stress distribution when the
adhesive is used alone and when it is in a mixed adhesive
joint.
Figs. 7–9 show that at ToTg LTA (eg 100 1C), the mixed
adhesive joint concept has no practical merit in comparison
with a LTA alone; the peak shear stresses in the LTA alone
and in the mixed adhesive joint are very close. However, it
does offer advantages over a HTA alone. The peak shear
369
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.
stress is very much reduced in the HTA when in a mixed
adhesive joint. At T4Tg LTA, the HTA transfers the entire
load (the LTA is too compliant) so that the mixed adhesive
joint will carry less load than the HTA alone. Increasing
the overlap corresponding to the HTA increases the
stresses in the HTA at low-temperature, but decreases
them at high-temperature when the adhesive is ductile and
carries the load.
On the basis of a purely elastic assessment, the mixed
adhesive joint enables operation from low to high-
temperatures with the combination of a LTA and a
HTA. The joint will perform better (increased load
capacity) than the HTA or the LTA alone. However, it
will not be better than the LTA alone at low-temperatures,
or better than the HTA alone at high-temperatures. A
compromise must therefore be found so that its behaviour
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

changing the relative overlap and stiffening the overlap

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
purposes. For design MAJ1-1 (no stiffening, see Fig. 10),
when the LTA is 3 GPa, the load is transferred through the
LTA and no stiffening is necessary. When the LTA is 2, 1
or 0.5 GPa, the peak shear stress is no longer in the LTA
but in the HTA. To guarantee that the load is transferred
preferentially through the LTA, the ends of the joint can be
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
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
even further as shown in Fig. 12 for design MAJ1-1SS
(bondline thickness reduced from 1 to 0.2 mm). Now, the
stress is transferred mainly through the ductile adhesive for
E LTA ¼ 1 GPa but, for E LTA ¼ 0:5 GPa, the peak shear
stress is still in the HTA. Depending on the relative
modulus of the HTA and LTA adhesives, stiffening the
ends of the joint might or might not be necessary. In the
present case, stiffening is necessary when the LTA modulus
is 3 times lower than that of the HTA.
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
LTA in MAJ1-1SS). E HTA ¼ 6 GPa, ELTA ¼ (a) 1, (b) 0.5 GPa. All
dimensions in mm.
371
Compared to a joint with a HTA alone, the mixed
adhesive joint decreases the stresses in the HTA at low-
temperatures: the higher the modulus of the LTA, the more
is the decrease. For low modulus LTAs, to decrease further
the stresses in the HTA, the ends of the overlap must be
stiffened by reducing locally the bondline thickness.
6. Thermal loads
Residual thermal stresses arise due to the non-free
thermal expansion or contraction of a body. In a bonded
joint, the thermal stresses are generated by the different
thermal expansion properties of the adhesive and the
adherends and the shrinkage of the adhesive produced by
curing. Several authors found that the stresses caused by
adhesive shrinkage have much less effect on the lap joint
strength than those generated by the adherend thermal
mismatch [21–24]. Adams et al. [23] refer that Coppendale
[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
Tg, thermal stresses are relaxed because the adhesive is very
compliant [15,24]. Upon subsequent cooling, once the
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
is no longer its cure temperature but its Tg.
The case in a mixed adhesive joint is more complicated
because there are two adhesives with different Tgs. To
evaluate the stress-free temperature in a mixed adhesive
joint, sandwich specimens of aluminium–adhesive–CFRP
were manufactured and the residual thermal stresses were
measured with strain gauges [26]. The free expansion of the
CFRP and the aluminium were first determined by
bonding identical strain gauges on a piece of CFRP and
a piece of aluminium. Then, the subtraction of these values
from the values measured in the sandwich beam gave the
elastic strains due to the thermal effects. It was found that
for a joint with one adhesive, if the adhesive is not heated
above its Tg, then the stress-free temperature is its cure
temperature. If the adhesive is heated above its Tg, the
stress-free temperature is its Tg. This is valid for a joint
with one adhesive and also for a joint with two adhesives.
In the last case, the joint is effectively divided into two
parts with two different stress-free temperatures.
Fig. 13 shows the residual adhesive shear stress during
the cure of a mixed adhesive joint with Redux 326 and
Supreme 10HT, between dissimilar adherends (metal/
composite). Redux 326 cures at 175 1C and is post-cured
at 230 1C. After cure, the Tg is approximately 200 1C. When
it is post-cured at 230 1C, it is in the rubbery state and will
eventually harden at 230 1C. After post-cure, the Tg is
approximately 280 1C. Therefore, the stress-free tempera-
ture of Redux 326 after post-cure is 230 1C, unless it is
heated to 280 1C. Supreme 10HT cures at 120 1C and its Tg
is 135 1C. When the adhesive is heated above its Tg, thermal
stresses can be ignored because the adhesive is compliant
and will tend to relax. The cure of a mixed adhesive joint
with Redux 326 and Supreme 10HT will be carried out
following the cure schedule of Redux 326, i.e. cure at
Fig. 13. Residual adhesive shear stresses during the cure of a mixed adhesive joint with Redux 326 and Supreme 10HT, between dissimilar adherends.
175 1C and post-cure at 230 1C. Initially, when the mixed
adhesive joint is put in the oven, both adhesives are
uncured. Then, the temperature is raised to 175 1C, and
Supreme 10HT will be cured at some temperature below
175 1C. Eventually, the oven temperature reaches 175 1C,
but Supreme 10HT will remain soft as it is above its Tg.
The stress-free temperature for Redux 326 is 175 1C, its
cure initiation temperature. Upon subsequent cooling,
once Supreme 10HT becomes hard again, i.e. below its
Tg, thermal stresses start to build up. The stress-free
temperature of Supreme 10HT is its Tg and not its cure
initiation temperature. The joint is next heated to 230 1C
for the post-cure of Redux 326. The two adhesives will
both be in the rubbery state. Redux 326 will start to harden
after a period of time and thermal stresses will build up
upon cooling from 230 1C. For Supreme 10HT, thermal
stresses will build up only from 135 1C, the point where it
enters its glassy state. The thermal load is therefore
TO230 1C for Redux 326 and TO135 1C for Supreme
10HT.
When bonding dissimilar adherends, the problem has to
be treated considering two factors, the stiffness unbalance
and the residual thermal stress unbalance. Fig. 14 shows
schematically the deformations and the shear stresses due
to stiffness and thermal expansion unbalance when the
composite is the inner adherend and has a longitudinal
stiffness lower than that of the outer metal adherend, Elc
tcoEm tm (E is the Young’s modulus, t is the thickness, the
subscript lc stands for longitudinal composite and m for
metal). The shear stress distribution due to an external
tensile load is non-symmetric. The shear stress peaks at the
overlap end where the inner composite adherend has a
lower stiffness. The thermal residual stresses are beneficial
at the end from which the stiff adherend extends, but
detrimental at the other end, creating a case where the
 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
decrease of the load capacity of the joint. When Elc tc4Em
tm, the thermal stresses may actually increase the load
capacity of the joint, as shown in Fig. 15, depending on the
importance of the thermal stresses. If the resultant adhesive
shear stress at the end where the thermal stresses are
detrimental is lower than the resultant ashesive shear stress
at the end where the thermal stresses are beneficial, then the
thermal stresses increase the load capacity of the joint. The
resultant shear stress will be more evenly distributed at
each end. This will happen only if the thermal stresses are
smaller than the difference between the adhesive shear
stress at each end of the joint due to the external tensile
load. If the thermal stresses are higher than the difference
between the adhesive shear stress at each end of the joint
due to the external tensile load, then the joint will be
critically loaded at the end where the thermal stresses are
detrimental. When the joint is critically loaded at one end,
the classic mixed adhesive joint design can be modified so
that the ductile adhesive is located only at the critical side.
Note that, for the case of a compressive load, the critical
area is at the other end of the joint. Therefore, for joints
that need to be loaded in tension and compression, putting
the LTA only on one side of the joint is not a good
solution.
There are two main situations that must be analysed.
The first one is when the joint has similar adherends where
the residual stresses can be neglected, and the joint is
uniformly loaded at both ends. The second is when the
joint is critically loaded at one end, as for example in the
case described in Fig. 14. To examine the first situation,
titanium/titanium DLJs were studied. For the second
situation, titanium/composite joints were considered with
Elc tcoEm tm, the composite being the inner adherend.
7. Prediction of the initial yielding load of the joint
As described in Section 2 of this paper, the failure
criterion used is the initial yielding of the joint, which can
be shear yielding of the adhesive, tensile yielding of the
adherends at the overlap, or transverse tensile failure of the
composite. The predicted yielding load will be the lowest
value given by the three criteria. Note that the last criterion
is actually not a yielding load but a failure load. It should
be borne in mind that this approach always gives a
conservative design since the joint load can continue to
increase after yielding, but not after composite failure.
For the titanium/titanium DLJs, it was found that the
yielding load of the adherends is well above the yielding
load of the adhesive, so that the yielding load of the joint
means the yielding of the adhesive. For the titanium/
composite DLJs, the adherends are again in their elastic
range when the adhesive starts to yield so the yielding load
means the yielding load of the adhesive. However, at 55
and 22 1C for Supreme 10HT alone and the mixed adhesive
joints, the load corresponding to the composite transverse
failure is lower than or very close to the initial yielding of
the adhesive.
7.1. Titanium/titanium DLJs
The yielding load prediction was made with and without
thermal stresses and it was found that the thermal stresses
are so small that they can be neglected. For example, for
Redux 326 at 55 1C, which is the temperature corre-
sponding to the maximum thermal stresses, the yielding
load of Redux 326 without thermal stresses is 37.6 kN and
with thermal stresses it is 35.6 kN, which represents a
difference of only 5%. The yielding load of the various
designs is shown in Fig. 16. The yielding location
was always in the adhesives for all the joints considered.
For the mixed adhesive joints, the low-temperature
adhesive (Supreme 10HT) yielded first at 55, 22 and
100 1C, which is the objective when using a mixed adhesive
joint. Designs MAJ1-1 and MAJ1-2 behave similarly at
ToTg Supreme 10HT (55, 22 and 100 1C). The initial
yielding of the adhesive is close to that when using Supreme
10HT alone. At 200 1C, design MAJ1-2 is closer to the
value of Redux 326 alone because the Redux 326 overlap is
longer than in design MAJ1-1.
The limiting load of the mixed adhesive joint will be the
lowest yielding load from 55 to 200 1C. For the best
design (MAJ1-2) it is 20.4 kN at 200 1C. The limiting value
of Redux 326 alone is 29.6 kN at 200 1C. Therefore, it
appears that the mixed adhesive joint is not worthwhile for
joints with identical adherends, even though it is better
than Redux 326 at low-temperature.
7.2. Titanium/composite DLJs
In Fig. 14, it was shown that the joint is critically loaded
at one end. In this case, the ductile adhesive should be
placed only at the critical end, such as in design MAJ3
shown in Fig. 17. It is clear from the shear stress
distribution presented in Figs. 17–20 at 55, 22, 100 and
200 1C, respectively, that the stiffness unbalance and the
thermal stresses cause the resultant stress, in a joint with
Redux 326 alone, to be biased to the end where the inner
composite adherend is loaded. The use of design MAJ3
reduces drastically the peak stress in Redux 326 at 55, 22
and 100 1C and the load is now mainly supported by
Supreme 10HT.
The predicted yielding loads for Redux 326 alone,
Supreme 10HT alone, design MAJ1-1, design MAJ1-2
and design MAJ3 are presented in Fig. 21. Compared with
the titanium/titanium joints, the yielding load is much
reduced. This is due to the thermal loads and the stiffness
unbalance.
Designs MAJ1-1 and MAJ1-2 are very close to Redux
326 alone. Design MAJ1-2 behaves better than design
MAJ1-1 at 200 1C because the Redux 326 overlap is longer.
The limiting load in design MAJ3 (lowest yielding load
from 55 to 200 1C) is the highest of the three mixed

L.F.M. da Silva, R.D. Adams / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 27 (2007) 362–379
MAJ1-1
2 50
Titanium
10 20
2 2
Titanium
Glue line thickness = 1
Width = 25
40
35
30
Yielding load (kN)
25
20
15
10
0
-100 -50
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 overlap is the same as in design MAJ1-2 and the
Supreme 10HT overlap is longer than in design MAJ1-1.
The limiting load of design MAJ3 (best design) is
15.3 kN at 100 1C. The limiting load of Redux 326 alone is
14.9 kN at 55 1C. However, Redux 326 will break at
14.9 kN whereas the mixed adhesive joint will only start to
yield (Supreme 10HT) at 15.3 kN, and will therefore be
able to sustain further load.
It should be noted that at 55 1C, for designs MAJ1-1,
MAJ1-2, MAJ3 and Supreme 10HT alone, through
thickness composite failure was predicted before yielding
of the adhesive. At 22 1C, the transverse properties of the
composite might also be a problem since the predicted
composite transverse failure load is very close to the
predicted initial yielding load of Supreme 10HT. If the
shear transfer capacity of Supreme 10HT could be fully
attained at 55 and 22 1C, then the mixed adhesive joint is
without doubt a real improvement over Redux 326 alone.
In the present situation, the mixed adhesive joint is still
better than Redux 326 alone, but it will fail at low-
temperatures by tensile failure of the composite in the
through thickness direction before the adhesive starts to
yield.
The higher the difference in CTE between the titanium
and the composite, the higher will be the decrease in the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
375
MAJ1-2
2 50
4 Titanium 4
10 Titanium 5 30 5 Titanium
Titanium
Glue line thickness = 1
Width = 25
Titanium/titanium DLJs
Supreme 10HT
Redux 326
MAJ1-1
MAJ1-2
0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature (°C)
Redux 326 joint strength at low-temperatures, and the
more advantageous will be the use of a mixed adhesive
joint. To prove this point, the yielding load was predicted
for a composite having a longitudinal coefficient of thermal
expansion lower than the one of the composite studied
here. The BMI composite used by Adams and Davies [10]
(high-strength carbon fibres in a 5 harness satin weave
impregnated with bismaleimide resin) was chosen as its
coefficient of thermal expansion is 0.9106 1C1 in the
01 and 901 directions (see Table 4), which is much lower
than the 4.2106 1C1 for the composite studied here. The
CTE of carbon reinforced plastics is generally close to
zero, but there can be variations from negative to positive
values, depending on the fibre used, the fabric geometry,
and the fibre volume fraction [27,28]. The CTE of our
composite was measured experimentally ‘in house’ and
the value obtained was the same as that given by the
manufacturer.
The predicted yielding loads for Supreme 10HT alone,
Redux 326 alone and design MAJ3 are presented in
Fig. 22. The advantage of using a mixed adhesive joint is
more evident in this case as the strength increase, compared
with Redux 326 alone, is very large at low-temperatures,
especially at 55 1C. The thermal stresses are now much
more important, especially for a joint with Redux 326
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

Fig. 18. Adhesive shear stresses in design MAJ3 for a titanium/composite

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
the Adams and Davies [10] composite (DCTE ¼
9:4  106 1C1 ) is more than two times the difference
in CTE between the titanium and our composite
(DCTE ¼ 4:3  106 1C1 ). At 55 1C and 22 1C, for
Supreme 10HT alone and design MAJ3, the transverse
properties of the composite might again be a problem since
the predicted composite transverse failure load is only
slightly higher than the predicted initial yielding load of
Supreme 10HT.
8. Conclusions
A theoretical analysis of the adhesive shear stress
distribution has shown that the mixed adhesive joint
allows operation from low to high-temperatures with the
combination of a LTA and a HTA. The joint will perform
better (increased load capacity) than the HTA alone at low-
temperatures or the LTA alone at high-temperatures.
However, it will not be better than the LTA alone at
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

Fig. 19. Adhesive shear stresses in design MAJ3 for a titanium/composite

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.

temperatures. A compromise must be found so that its

behaviour is approximately uniform over the temperature
range by changing the relative overlap and stiffening the
overlap ends. Depending on the relative modulus of the
HTA and LTA adhesives, stiffening the ends of the joint
might or might not be necessary. Compared to a joint with
a HTA alone, the mixed adhesive joint decreases the
stresses in the HTA at low-temperatures: the higher the
modulus of the LTA, the more is the decrease. For low
modulus LTAs, to decrease further the stresses in the HTA,
the ends of the overlap can be stiffened, by reducing locally
the glue line thickness.
When bonding dissimilar adherends, the problem has to
be treated considering two factors, the stiffness unbalance
and the residual thermal stress unbalance. The thermal
loads are detrimental at one end of the joint and beneficial
at the other end. Depending on the combination of the
adherends and their relative moduli, the thermal loads can
create a joint critically loaded at one end. For this case, the
classic mixed adhesive joint design, with a LTA at both
ends of the overlap, can be modified so that the LTA is
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

Young’s modulus (GPa) E11, E33 86.72

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

If the limiting load of a mixed adhesive joint at all

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
beneficial. Otherwise, the mixed adhesive joint is not
worthwhile. When the composite is the inner adherend,
the mixed adhesive joint might fail prematurely at low-
temperatures in the composite transverse (through the
thickness) direction. This problem needs to be addressed
and will be the subject of a future work [30].
Acknowledgements
Lucas F M da Silva would like to thank the Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation for support while conducting this
research as well as the Fundac- ão para a Ciência e
Tecnologia (project POCTI/43525/EME/2000).
References
[1] Hergenrother PM. SAMPE J 2000;36:30–41.
[2] Semerdjiev S. Metal to metal adhesive bonding. UK: Business Books
Limited; 1970.
[3] Srinivas S. Analysis of bonded joints, NASA TN D-7855 1975.
[4] Patrick RL. Treatise on adhesion and adhesives—Structural adhe-
sives with emphasis on aerospace applications, vol. 4. New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1976.
[5] Pires I, Quintino L, Durodola JF, Beevers A. Int J Adhes Adhes
2003;23:215–23.
[6] Hart-Smith LJ. Adhesive-bonded double-lap joints, NASA CR-
112235 1973.
[7] Adams RD, Comyn J, Wake WC. Structural adhesive joints in
engineering. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997.
[8] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. J Strain Anal 1973;8:134–9.
[9] Adams RD, Davies R. J Adhes 1996;59:171–82.
[10] Adams RD, Davies R. In: Dillard DA, Pocius AV, editors. The
mechanics of adhes. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002. p. 111–44.
[11] Adams RD, Atkins RW, Harris JA, Kinloch AJ. J Adhes
1986;20:29–53.
[12] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. J Adhes Sci Technol 2005;29:109–42.
379
[13] Young RJ, Lovell PA. Introduction to polymers. 2nd ed. London:
Chapman & Hall; 1991.
[14] Lord JD. Strain gauge techniques for measuring thermal expansion.
NPL Report CMMT(MN)012, 1997. See NPL web site /http://
midas.npl.co.uk/midas/content/mn012.htmlS.
[15] Comyn J, In: Brinson HF, technical chairman, Dostal CA, senior,
editor. Engineered materials handbook, vol 3: Adhesives and
Sealants, Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International, 1990. p. 616–21.
0871702819.
[16] ASTM D 790—71. Standard test methods for flexural properties of
plastics and electrical insulating materials 1971.
[17] Rojstaczer S, Cohn D, Marom G. J Mater Sci 1985;4:1223–36.
[18] Adams RD, Gaitonde JM. Compos Sci Technol 1993;47:271–87.
[19] Curtis PT. CRAG test methods for the measurement of the
engineering properties of fibre reinforced plastics. Royal Aerospace
Establishment TR 88012 1988.
[20] Jeandrau JP. Int J Adhes Adhes 1991;11:71–9.
[21] Coppendale J. The stress and failure analysis of structural adhesive
joints. Ph.D dissertation, University of Bristol, 1977.
[22] Mallick V. Stress analysis of metal/CFRP adhesive joints subjected to
the effects of thermal stresses. Ph.D dissertation, University of
Bristol, 1989.
[23] Adams RD, Coppendale J, Mallick V, Al-Hamdam H. Int J Adhes
Adhes 1992;12:185–90.
[24] Yu H. Experimental determination of shrinkage, modulus and
residual stresses in adhesives during the cure process. Ph.D
dissertation, University of Bristol, 1999.
[25] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. J Strain Anal 1974;9:185–96.
[26] da Silva LFM, Adams RD, Stress-free temperature in a mixed
adhesive joint, J Adhes Sci Technol, 2006, accepted for publication.
[27] Ganesh VK, Naik NK. Compos Sci Technol 1994;51:387–408.
[28] Kim RY, Crasto AS, Shoeppner GA. Compos Sci Technol
2000;60:2601–8.
[29] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. Adhesive joints at high and low tempera-
tures using similar and dissimilar adherends and dual adhesives. Int J
Adhes Adhes, 2006, in press, doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.04.002.
[30] da Silva LFM, Adams RD. Techniques to reduce the peel stresses in
adhesive joints with composites. Int J Adhes Adhes, 2006, in press,
doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2006.04.001.