Structural behavior of double-lap shear adhesive joints with metal substrates under humid conditions

  • Klára MachalickáEmail author
  • Miroslav Vokáč
  • Michaela Kostelecká
  • Martina Eliášová


Structural adhesive bonding is very often used joining method in aerospace and automotive industry, but in civil engineering, especially in façade applications, semi-flexible or semi-rigid adhesives are still rarely used. The article is focused on experimental analyses of structural adhesive joints intended for façade applications (e.g. bonding of façade cladding elements to the supporting substructure). The experimental study contains a comparison of the structural behavior of two different adhesives in joints with aluminum or zinc-electroplated steel substrates with various surface pre-treatments. The main goal of the study is a comparison of the mechanical properties of joints exposed and unexposed to laboratory ageing conditions; immersion on demineralized water according to ETAG 002 (Guideline for European Technical Approval for Structural Sealant Glazing Kits). Water content in adhesive layer can change significantly its mechanical properties and adhesion of glue to the substrate. Ageing resistance of joint can be improved by durability increasing of the substrate. For this reason, two different substrate materials with various surface treatments (mechanical roughening, smooth surface, anodizing) were tested. Different adhesive resistance against humid conditions was observed depending on the substrate material and pre-treatment. STP polymer joints showed strength reduction by 30% after immersion for almost all substrates, while acrylate adhesive proved 20% strength reduction for roughened aluminum substrate and 60% strength reduction for zinc-electroplated steel substrate with a roughened surface. The zinc-electroplated steel substrate showed problematic adhesion in case of the acrylate adhesive both reference set of specimens and specimens exposed to laboratory ageing. The positive effect of roughening on adhesion and ageing resistance was clearly observed in the specimens bonded by the acrylate adhesive.


Double lap shear Adhesive Metal substrate Ageing Water immersion 



The authors acknowledge the funding by the Czech Science Foundation, under the Grant GAČR 16-17461S. In addition, the authors are grateful to the COST Action 1403-Adaptive Facades Network, for the added value to the international dissemination and outreach of the research.


  1. 3M: Design Guide for Architectural Metal Panels. (2005).
  2. Ashcroft, I., Comym, J.: Durability: effect of water and mechanical stress on durability. In: da Silva, L., Öchsner, A., Adams, R. (eds.) Handbook of Adhesion Technology, pp. 789–822. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  3. Bordes, M., Davies, P., Cognard, J., Sohier, L., Sauvant-Moynot, V., Galy, J.: Prediction of long term strength of adhesively bonded steel/epoxy joints in sea water. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 29, 595–608 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowditch, M.: The durability of adhesive joints in the presence of water. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 16, 73–79 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budhe, S., Ghumatkar, A., Birajdar, N., Banea, M.: Effect of surface roughness using different adherend materials on the adhesive bond strength. Appl. Adhes. Sci. 3, 20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calvez, P., Bistac, S., Brogly, M., Richard, J., Verchère, D.: Mechanisms of interfacial degradation of epoxy adhesive/galvanized steel assemblies: relevance to durability. J. Adhes. 88, 145–170 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Comym, J.: Environmental (durability) effects. In: Adams, R. (ed.) Adhesive Bonding: Science, Technology and Applications. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Critchlow, G.: Surface treatments for moisture resistance. In: Silva, L., Sato, C. (eds.) Design of Adhesive Joints Under Humid Conditions, pp. 53–68. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Damico, D.: Reactive acrylic adhesives. In: Pizzi, A., Mittal, K. (eds.) Handbook of adhesive technology, pp. 747–760. M. Dekker, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J.: Aluminum and aluminum alloys. In: Davis, J. (ed.) Alloying: Understanding the Basics, pp. 351–416. ASM International, Materials Park (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Davis, G.: Surface treatments of selected materials. In: da Silva, L., Andreas, Ö., Adams, R. (eds.) Handbook of Adhesion Technology, pp. 147–177. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Organisation for Technical Approval (EOTA): ETAG002. (2012).
  13. Haldimann, M., Luible, A., Overend, M.: Structural Use of Glass. IABSE-AIPC-IVBH, Zürich (2008)Google Scholar
  14. Hartung, I., Boehm, S.: Civil construction. In: da Silva, L., Öchsner, A., Adams, R. (eds.) Handbook of Adhesion Technology, pp. 1263–1288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heshmati, M., Haghani, R., Al-Emrani, M.: Environmental durability of adhesively bonded FRP/steel joints in civil engineering applications: state of the art. Compos. B Eng. 81, 259–275 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kwakernaak, A., Hofstede, J., Poulis, J., Benedictus, R.: Improvements in bonding metals (steel, aluminium). In: Advances in Structural Adhesive Bonding, pp. 185–236 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. Loh, W., Crocombe, A., Wahab, M., Watts, J., Ashcroft, I.: The effect of moisture on the failure locus and fracture energy of an epoxy–steel interface. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 16, 1407–1429 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meguid, S., Wernik, J., Al Jahwari, F.: Toughening mechanisms in multiphase nanocomposites. Int. J. Mech. Mater. Des. 9, 115–125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mubashar, A., Ashcroft, I., Critchlow, G., Crocombe, A.: Moisture absorption–desorption effects in adhesive joints. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 29, 751–760 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nhamoinesu, S., Overend, M.: The mechanical performance of adhesives for a steel-glass composite façade system. In: Challenging Glass 3—Conference on Architectural and Structural Applications of Glass, pp. 293–306. IOS Press BV, Amsterdam (2012)Google Scholar
  21. Oikonomopoulou, F., Veer, F., Nijsse, R., Baardolf, K.: A completely transparent, adhesively bonded soda-lime glass block masonry system. J. Facade Des. Eng. 2(3–4), 201–221 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petrie, E.: Handbook of Adhesives and Sealants. McGraw-Hill, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  23. Petrie, E.: How moisture affects adhesives, sealants, and coatings. Met. Finish. 109, 36–48 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prefa: Adhesive Bonding Holds Better—The Façade Highlight in the “Ländle”. (2018).
  25. Qualanod. (2013).
  26. Schittich, C.: Glass Construction Manual. Birkhäuser, Basel (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Lancker, B., Dispersyn, J., De Corte, W., Belis, J.: Durability of adhesive glass–metal connections for structural applications. Eng. Struct. 126, 237–251 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vervloed, J., Kwakernaak, A., Poulis, H.: The influence of overlap length, bond line thickness and pretreatment on the mechanical properties of adhesives: focusing on bonding glass. In: Challenging Glass—Conference on Architectural and Structural Applications of Glass, pp. 285–294. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klokner InstituteCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Steel and Timber Structures, Faculty of Civil EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations