+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 123456711 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 214
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

  1. #1
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    I’ve done my homework!

    I have compared 4 types of methacrylates and 2 leading epoxies on nearly 180 test coupons. These coupons were prepared in a scientifically controlled manner with detailed notes taken. The coupons were all subjected to accelerated heat aging at 150 deg F and thermal cycling from 20 deg. F. to 150 deg F. for the purpose of arriving somewhere at the bottom of the reliability bathtub failure rate curve. The testing was divided up into 180 degree peel, shock vibration, and lap shear. This work has consumed perhaps 80 hours of planning and execution over the course of the past 5 months.

    I have come to some definite conclusions.

    Preparation:

    Must wipe original finish with acetone or MEK first to achieve a clean surface, then 100% abrade both mating surfaces using a high speed sanding disk or flapper wheel of approximately 100 grit. Smooth or even smooth etched surfaces consistently failed against the abraded surfaces. I personally wouldn't trust a Scotched Brite surface either.

    Freshly abraded surfaces out performed abraded surfaces that had subsequently been phosphoric acid etched and vigorously rinsed with distilled water and a brush then dryed. The adhesives materials just seem to like sticking to fresh virgin aluminum. The etch and rinse process seems to only have acted as a contaminant.

    Application:

    To achieve an even layer of adhesive, trowel the material on using a 24 tpi hacksaw blade as the trowel. Use a coarser blade to apply more material for gap filling, or a finer blade only for very precise fits. Apply the adhesive to both surfaces before mating.






    To prevent excessive squeeze out resulting in spots where there is no more adhesive, two methods can be used.
    • Trowel adhesive to one surface and let it cure prior to a second application to the other surface, then mate. This only works with adhesives that are viscous enough to hold the plowed field texture until setup. Proseal and some methacrylates perform well in this way. Epoxy just flows out smooth.
    • Use some form of micro spacer such as micro balloons or nylon tule netting fabric, which is about a .009” thick, just right for an adhesive bond joint. I used the tule. Be aware that too much micro balloons will displace the adhesive, thereby reducing the strength. The balloons of course have no strength of their own.


    Adhesives:

    Most epoxies and some methacrylates are brittle and are therefore intolerant and fail in the presence of vibration and parent material deformation under load. The thing to look for here is the material’s elongation percentage. Whereas 7% is brittle, which is bad, and 50% is very tough, which is good. An X-acto knife taken to 7% material will make chips to the surface; 50% material can be sliced with moderate force.

    Methacrylates do tend to bond more readily to aluminum than epoxies. Methacrylates do stick pretty good to smooth aluminum, but it sticks even better to the rough texture better, despite what the salesmen tell you. I know, because I've seen the difference with my own eyes.

    Failure Modes:

    There are two types, Interfacial which is bad, and Cohesive which is good. Interfacial is where the adhesive debonds from the aluminum. Cohesive failures are where the fracture passes through the adhesive itself. Interfacial failures always occur at lower load levels than cohesive failures. Interfacial failures are a result of poor surface preparation, vibration, or deformation of the substrate.

    If everything is done reasonably well, the cohesive strength of epoxies and methacrylates far out perform standard AN –3 and –4 rivet spacing schedules. It's the interfacial strength that is the Achilles heel of the brittle epoxies and some methacrylates.

    My standard test coupons bond joints were .75” x 1.5”. When adhesive joints are made per the best practices and materials of that described here, I have been able to shear groups of three AN –4 rivets consistently when using .065” material; and groups of four –3, and groups of two –4 rivets all of which tear through .023” 2024 T3.

    My most recent bonds remain unbroken, as their strength is coming to the limits of my rather ad hoc pull test set up. Can I break a group of four –4 rivets? I don’t really need to. If I can consistently break two at a time, then I have a quality process. It doesn’t matter how strong the maximum strength of your joints can be. What matters is, is how reliable the minimum strength is.

    Incidentally, I found that on thin sheet metal, the rivets would tear through the sheet, and the thicker sheet would shear the rivets; all the while, the tougher adhesive joints held. When joints of dissimilar material thickness were pulled apart in peel, the interfacial failures always occurred on the thinner material, the side that deformed.

    The top performing adhesive I used was Partite 3750 from Parson Adhesives, followed by Extreme 310 and Extreme 5375HS. The brittler stuff was Partite 5140 (which was surprising because they advertised it as being rubberized), and the two epoxies, PTMW ES6228 and Solar EA-0504

    So there you have it, the fruit of my labor over the past 5 months. I am confident that I will be able to skin by plane using Partite 3750 or something similar to it.

    At this point I consider myself somewhat of a self-made expert on this subject. I am however soliciting further light and knowledge, and any gotchya’s that may be awaiting anyone considering adhesives in lieu of rivets for secondary structural attachment.

    Last edited by GESchwarz; March 19th, 2009 at 11:54 AM. Reason: Changed .65" to .065", and other minor corrections and additions.
    MyloHaba likes this.
    If you see something, say something.

  2. #2
    Registered User rtfm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    2,204

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Hi,
    This is extremely valuable info - thank you for sharing this with us. Where else on the web can one glean this sort of detailed information - for free?!

    This one goes straight into the bookmarks.

    Duncan

  3. #3
    Registered User wsimpso1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Saline Michigan
    Posts
    2,555

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Schwartz,

    In the literature, oxidation of the aluminum at the interface (facilitated by moisture) was cited as the primary failure mode of the joint in long term exposures. What do you know about these joint systems under longterm moisture?

    Billski

  4. #4
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Excellent point Billski.

    I did not do any testing on moisture ingress and corrosion. Because I live in Southern California, I never considered it, and for me I don't 'think' it's a problem. Like you say, for corrosion to occur there must be moisture, at a certain level. I would imagine that there is a direct relationship between relative humidity and the rate of corrosion. I got to believe that the adhesive is a fairly effective moisture barrier under all but the worst conditions, such as continuous moisture or salt fog. After all isn't that what paint is for? Certainly paint is an effective moisture barrier. I would think that methacrylate and epoxy are equal or better than paint as a moisture barrier. If any one can shoot down this reasoning, please fire away.
    If you see something, say something.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    5,945

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Nicely done Gary.

    I'd just like to add a couple of minor points. In the case of structural bonds, in aircraft application it's generally important to use a system that does have toughened properties. What this means is that the epoxy has a rubber additive that allows the material and its bonding mechanism to deflect during conditions of shock, preventing catastrophic delamination. The toughened properties also aid the bond integrity in areas of vibration, as you might have near a firewall or near the landing gear.

    When choosing a resin system, it's important to look at all the properties, not just the materials' base strength or simple ASTM shear strength. Some very high strength systems will tend to deliver very poor long-term service. For instance, we're currently evaluating new candidate epoxy systems since the original formulation I chose for our projects is turning out to be rather pricey. The current baseline product is 3M's DP460NS - this is an excellent product but buying it in 400ml cartridges, the cost is coming out to about $730 per gallon.

    As an alternative, I was hoping to get a better price on 5-gallon buckets, which would be applied through a pumping/dispensing system. But to justify the cost of this system (about $10k) the price of the epoxy would have to go down quite a bit. But alas, no such luck - the 5-gallon buckets still ran about $500 per gallon.

    As a result, I've been reviewing about twenty other systems, finally narrowing it down to two. The interesting aspect of the research showed that although some systems had excellent properties under one condition, other conditions resulted in a dramatic drop in bond strength. For instance, one set of epoxies had excellent adhesion and shear properties but a closer look showed that peel resistance was virtually zero. A good peel strength to look for is at or above about 35 pli (pounds per linear inch); an excellent peel strength is over 45 pli and I've seen some that test out to over 60 pli. But this set of high strength epoxy formulations showed peel resistance of only about 4 pli.

    Another issue is that of temperature. There's actually more to this than I care to write about herein but in general, you want to retain as much strength and bond integrity as possible as the temperature goes up. And this issue becomes very critical if you're on the tarmac in the Southwest, heat soaking all day. Under certain conditions, even a white airplane can achieve surface temperatures in excess of 150 deg. F so one must consider the effect that will have on the critical bonds within. The interesting thing here is that composite structures will fare better under these conditions than aluminum ones will simply because the composites have very poor heat conduction properties so even the outer skin bonds may not see the full extent of the surface temperature.

    But aluminum structures will definitely see the effect so any material selected for aluminum will need to have a high degree of temperature resistance.

    Many of the excellent candidate epoxies I reviewed will see degradations in bond strength of over 25% even at 50 deg. Centigrade (122 deg. F). For our applications this is unacceptable. As such, our criteria was that the resin must be able to retain more than 75% of its bond strength in temperatures over about 80 deg. C (176 deg. F).

    This subject is very critical to bond line design, and especially when applied to aluminum. Given the reduction in strength, the bonds in an aluminum airplane must be designed to the elevated temperature case, not the room temperature application. As such, the basis for said shear strength then becomes the elevated temperature value (about 1,000 psi or less), rather than the really attractive room temperature case, which can exceed 3,500 psi.

    Just food for thought.
    "To live is to learn; to learn is to live" (author unknown)

  6. #6
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    When I get a chance I'll post some photos of test coupons for your viewing pleasure.
    If you see something, say something.

  7. #7
    Registered User K-Rigg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Round Rock TX
    Posts
    453

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    hasn't GM been using an adhesive to attach the door hinges to there cars for years? does anyone know what that adhesive is?

  8. #8
    Super Moderator orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    5,945

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Quote Originally Posted by GESchwarz View Post
    I would imagine that there is a direct relationship between relative humidity and the rate of corrosion. I got to believe that the adhesive is a fairly effective moisture barrier under all but the worst conditions, such as continuous moisture or salt fog. After all isn't that what paint is for? Certainly paint is an effective moisture barrier. I would think that methacrylate and epoxy are equal or better than paint as a moisture barrier. If any one can shoot down this reasoning, please fire away.
    Actually, corrosion may not be as much an issue as would the degradation of the base material itself. But this is usually easy to evaluate since bonding agents should have, as part of their technical specifications, tables that list material degradation as a function of environmental exposure. This will include everything from simple humidity to fuels so a quick glance at the technical data sheet should tell you whether this could be a long term issue or not.

    And one other thing I'd like to pass along - this came cross my desk about a week ago and I haven't actually researched its true effect but I thought it might be worth mention. The item pointed out that one of the features of Methacrylate materials that makes them work so well for bonding aluminum is their ability to essentially self-etch the area of contact. This ability is a result of the fact that Methacrylates are actually an acid so the etching action is similar to that we see with the more conventional processes that prepare aluminum for adhesive application. The note then asked two questions: The first stems from the longer term exposure of the aluminum to the Methacrylate - in other words, during normal etching operations the acid solution is neutralized and washed off; with the use of Methacrylate it is not so it may be logical to ask whether there are any long term effects of this bonding agent being in contact with the aluminum, or does the acid get somehow neutralized as the adhesive cures.

    The second question then asked whether this condition may become a stress concentration, which may have to be considered in the design of the joint. The etching action that occurs as a function of the bond modifies the surface. This then creates a boundary between the bond affected surface and the surrounding unaffected material. Normally, surface quality changes can be stress concentrations and thus the boundary between the regions can be the initiators of crack formation. As far as I know no-one has as of yet investigated whether this is an issue or not so maybe a bit of conservativeness may be prudent in the design of said structure.
    "To live is to learn; to learn is to live" (author unknown)

  9. #9
    Super Moderator orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    5,945

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Quote Originally Posted by K-Rigg View Post
    hasn't GM been using an adhesive to attach the door hinges to there cars for years? does anyone know what that adhesive is?
    Some time back I was told that that is a Methacrylate, modified for application to steel however, I have not seen any published verification of that.
    "To live is to learn; to learn is to live" (author unknown)

  10. #10
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Excellent point Orion.

    Now that I've narrowed the field to tough adhesives, I need to test those that can break pairs of -4 rivets in lap shear at elevated temp. As far as peel strength goes, I will be doing my best to not design joints that subject the material to peel. Sure, there is some peel component to lap shear designs, but that can be minimized. There is nothing wrong with a "cheater" rivet in key places.
    If you see something, say something.

  11. #11
    Registered User Mac790's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Poznan, Poland
    Posts
    1,569

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Quote Originally Posted by K-Rigg
    hasn't GM been using an adhesive to attach the door hinges to there cars for years?
    The Lotus Elise has bonded aluminium chassis
    The adhesive is a single-part, heat-cured epoxy paste (XB 5315) which is more often used tar bonding oily steel. It has a tensile strength of 35 MPa and an E-modulus of 2,700 MPa. Curing takes about 40 minutes at 200°C. Until cured, it has a paste-like consistency and is very stable. Because adhesive-bonded joints are strong in shear but weaker in peel, each joint is reinforced by thread-forming rivets to prevent the onset of peel during a crash. The ejot rivets selected for the task are self-swaging and selftapping drive screws.
    full site here Lotus: Aluminium Extrusions and Adhesives

    Seb
    Amor Patriae Nostra Lex

    "Time, training, training, training and more training is the key to any success."
    Francis "Gabby" Gabreski

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    118

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Hello, Gary;

    you are to be commended for detailed discussion of your extensive efforts investigating a suitable adhesive for your proposed usage.

    I'm a little surprised at the results, however, I do note that you rinsed with MEK and used phosphoric acid to 'etch' the aluminum as a preparation. In addition, you were disappointed in the strength of epoxies due to failure in peel mode.

    My experience with adhesives (professional - testing adhesives for military aircraft assembly) was somewhat different than the results you reported, as was the surface preparation method (alkaline surfactant wash, followed by hot 'cleaning solution' - sulfuric acid + sodium dichromate). Using an epoxy-novolac (phenolic resin modified epoxy), produced shear strengths in excess of 3,500 psi at 200 deg. C, plus acceptable peel (I cannot remember exact numbers, however, using 0.016 aluminum resulted in metal failure).

    Nevertheless, I do encourage you to use what you have tested and found acceptable because you have established a procedure with which you are comfortable and have first-hand knowledge as to the results.

    It is my opinion that aircraft can be assembled safely with adhesives (epoxy, acrylic and polysulfide) at a slightly lower weight than mechanical fasteners. In addition, they will have greater resistance to metal fatigue due to stress distribution not being concentrated at points in the joint.

    Lastly, I believe that concerns about moisture entering the joint and causing failure are not significant, for most adhesives are well-protected by from excess weathering by using an over-lapping joint design. For greater protection from this issue, consider 'passivating' the aluminum surface with an alodine treatment (this will stabilize the aluminum by creating a metal oxide complex which does not hydrolyze readily).

    Edit note: Aluminum forms stable oxides - aluminum corrodes and forms aluminum hydroxide in the presence of water + active ion. This produces a volume change which breaks the adhesive bond, thus delaminating the joint. Consequently, alkaline cleaners should be avoided on aluminum aircraft, especially those with adhesive assembly.

    Again, congratulations on the fine work that you have done & my best wishes for your every success in the construction of your aircraft. I believe that you are on the right track.

    All the best & fly safe,
    MalcolmW
    Last edited by MalcolmW; March 20th, 2009 at 12:16 PM.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    118

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Gary;

    I forgot to mention, but there are other classes of aluminum adhesives. In particular, the adhesive / caulk that is used in gutter sealing. I believe that this is a butyl rubber material which has superior weather resistance, plus has high peel strength. It is also widely available at most hardware & discount building supply houses at a cost far below most industrial adhesives... plus it comes in a wide range of colors.

    I've never tested it, however, I have tried to tear apart old aluminum gutters and found that to be a difficult task. If it can hold up in a gutter, I suspect that it might have an application or two in holding an aircraft together, especially if you intend to use a 'cheater' rivet or two.

    Just a thought you might enjoy.

    All the best & fly safe,
    MalcolmW

  14. #14
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Here's the pics I promised. Two shows a typical group of sheared AN -4 rivets. If you have any questions about the pics, let me know. The big group shot is of my earlier tests. I had done quite a few hybrid joints of Proseal and epoxy, which do well but of course are not nearlyu as strong as the methacrylates, but do much better than epoxy in peel and vibration tolerance. Joint 53 is noteworthy because it was actually a bad joint, in that it had come apart and re assembled while still fluid and so it had voids, as you can see in the lower right photo. Despite the defect, it held really well, breaking the three rivets shown in the upper right photo.

    The yellowish pic shows some of the peel test coupons. You can see that most of them survived the .023" 2024 T3 that was torn by the two rivets. Each joint that failed was subsequently riveted back together to continue pulling until all but the last had been pulled to failure. They all had been riveted back together with 3 rivets, because 2 would not hold, rather they sheared readily.

    The peel tests were actuated by hand with the aid of two pair of pliers. The lap shear tests were performed with a hydraulic jack and an assembly of chain, clamps, a beam and two pair of grippers, one of which is shown below.

    As Orion had suggested, heat may be a concern as these coupons were not heated during failure test. However the manufactures do certify strength well above the 150 degrees or so that the aluminum may get up to sitting outside at Mojave in the summertime. One answer to this and other concerns is to simply design conservatively by maximizing joint surface areas.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-11-.jpg   Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-17-.jpg   Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-30-.jpg  

    Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-33-.jpg   Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-35-.jpg   Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests-adhesive-pull-test-37-.jpg  

    Last edited by GESchwarz; March 20th, 2009 at 05:49 PM.
    If you see something, say something.

  15. #15
    Registered User GESchwarz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ventura County, California, USofA.
    Posts
    1,009

    Re: Conclusions on Aluminum Adhesive Bonding Tests

    Thanks Malcolm. Regarding alkaline cleaners...For this corrosive action to take place, does it not first have to penetrate or permeate the joint? If water or cleaners are not allowed to stand at these joints, what is the risk of this corrosion actually occuring?
    If you see something, say something.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 123456711 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Homebuilt metal forming tools
    By Othman in forum Workshop Tips and Secrets / Tools
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: May 29th, 2011, 10:35 PM
  2. Billet Aluminum Rotors
    By gofastclint in forum Mazda Rotary
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 14th, 2011, 07:31 AM
  3. [Wanted] Aluminum honeycomb flat stock
    By Holden in forum For Sale / Wanted
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 7th, 2010, 09:11 AM
  4. Question about aluminum
    By badger in forum Sheet Metal
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2008, 10:18 PM
  5. Bending Aluminum Tube. Need Advice
    By Tom Kay in forum Tube and Fabric
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 17th, 2008, 02:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts