Environmental Failure of Structural Adhesive Joints

Gledhill, R. A.; Kinloch, A. J.

doi:10.1080/00218467408075035

Cited by 227 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of the 'GBD'-pretreated joints, the intrinsic stability of the adhesive/substrate interface in the presence of an aqueous environment may be assessed from the thermodynamic arguments advanced by Gledhill and Kinloch [20]. The thermodynamic work of adhesion is defined as the energy required to separate unit area of two phases forming an interface.…”

Section: The 'Gbd'-pretreated Jointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crack growth in structural adhesive joints in aqueous environments

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adhesive fracture energy, G c , of metallic joints, bonded with a rubber-toughened epoxy adhesive, has been measured using monotonically-loaded tests. Such tests have been conducted in various relative humidities and in water, at 21 o C. Two surface pretreatments have been employed for the substrates prior to bonding: a simple grit-blast and degrease ('GBD') pretreatment or a grit-blast, degrease and silane primer ('GBS') pretreatment. The joints were formed using metallic substrates which were either (a) aluminium-alloy substrates, (b) steel substrates, or (c) 'dissimilar' substrates (i.e. one substrate being aluminium-alloy with the other one being steel).For both test environments, when G c was plotted against the crack velocity, three regions of fracture behaviour could be distinguished. At low rates of displacement the crack grew in a stable manner, visually along the interface, and relatively low crack velocities could be readily measured. This was termed 'Region I' and here the value of G c measured in the aqueous environment was relatively low compared to that measured in a relatively dry environment of 55% relative humidity. On the other hand, at relatively high rates of displacement the crack always grew in a stick-slip manner mainly cohesively in the adhesive layer at approximately 20 km/minute. This was termed 'Region III', and here the value of G c was relatively high and independent of the environmental test conditions employed. In this region the crack was considered to grow faster than the water molecules were able to reach the crack tip, which explains the independence of G c upon the test environment. In between 'Region I' and 'Region III', a transition region was observed which was designated as 'Region II'. The major effect of the 'GBS' pretreatment, compared to the 'GBD' pretreatment, was to increase the value of G c both in 'Regions I and III', although the presence of the silane primer had the far greater effect in 'Region I'.

show abstract

Section: The 'Gbd'-pretreated Jointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crack growth in structural adhesive joints in aqueous environments

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The deleterious effect of water on the integrity of adhesive joints has been investigated by Gledhill and Kinloch. [10]. The measured strength of their joints saturated in distilled water decreased considerably and higher immersion temperatures led to more rapid degradation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The strength prediction of adhesive single lap joints exposed to long term loading in a hostile environment

Han

Crocombe

Anwar

et al. 2014

International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, a large facial prosthesis or a facial prosthesis with complicated undercuts is fabricated in different flask materials 16) or flaskless stone mold 2) . Gas and moisture in the flask mold have possibility to affect the silicone elastomer-acrylic bond [17][18][19][20] ; therefore, a fabrication process using a flaskless stone mold, in which gas and moisture are easily discharged, might improve bonding between the silicone elastomer and acrylic, although the effect of such a process has not yet been evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of fabrication process on the bond strength between silicone elastomer and acrylic resin for maxillofacial prosthesis

Hattori¹,

Sumita²,

Muthiah³

et al. 2014

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effects of the fabrication process on tensile bond strength between maxillofacial silicone elastomer and acrylic resin. A common maxillofacial silicone elastomer (VST-50), two primers (Sofreliner primer and R-SI-LINE Plasticbond), and two acrylic resins (Unifast III and Palapress Vario) were selected. Silicone elastomer between primed acrylic resin plates were polymerized using a metal flask mold or a flaskless stone mold. Bond strength of the specimens was measured by a tensile test and analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's honest significant difference test. All fracture surfaces showed interfacial fracture. Both the fabrication process and the primer-acrylic resin combination affected bond strength, and two-way ANOVA indicated a significant interaction. Bond strength was generally greater when silicone elastomer was polymerized using a flaskless stone mold.

show abstract

Environmental Failure of Structural Adhesive Joints

Cited by 227 publications

References 13 publications

Crack growth in structural adhesive joints in aqueous environments

Crack growth in structural adhesive joints in aqueous environments

The strength prediction of adhesive single lap joints exposed to long term loading in a hostile environment

Effect of fabrication process on the bond strength between silicone elastomer and acrylic resin for maxillofacial prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About