Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 2429–2441 | Cite as

The role of alumina nanoparticles in epoxy adhesives

Research Paper


Both untreated and calcined fumed alumina nanoparticles were dispersed into an epoxy-based adhesive at various percentages. The glass transition temperature of the nanofilled adhesives increased up to an optimal filler loading and then decreased, probably due to concurrent and contrasting effects of chain blocking and reduction of the crosslinking degree. Tensile modulus, stress at break, and fracture toughness of bulk adhesive were positively affected by the presence of untreated alumina nanoparticles at an optimal filler content. Mechanical tests on single-lap aluminum bonded joints indicated that untreated alumina nanoparticles markedly improved both the shear strength and fatigue life of the bonded joints. In particular, the shear strength increased by about 60% for an optimal filler content of 1 vol.%, and an adhesive failure mechanism was evidenced for all the tested specimens. Concurrently, a relevant decrease of the equilibrium contact angle with water was observed for nanofilled bulk adhesives. In summary, alumina nanoparticles can effectively improve the mechanical performances of epoxy structural adhesives, both by increasing their mechanical properties and by enhancing the interfacial wettability with an aluminum substrate.


Alumina nanoparticles Epoxy Nanocomposites Adhesives Bonded joints Fatigue Interfacial wettability 



Ms. Fabiola Telch is gratefully acknowledged for her support to the experimental work.


  1. Adams RD, Comyn J (2000) Joining using adhesives. Assem Autom 20:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbari B, Bagheri R (2007) Deformation mechanism of epoxy/clay nanocomposite. Eur Polym J 43:782–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basara C, Yilmazer U, Bayram G (2005) Synthesis and characterization of epoxy based nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 98:1081–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bondioli F, Cannillo V, Fabbri E, Messori M (2006) Preparation and characterization of epoxy resins filled with submicron spherical zirconia particles. Polymer 51:794–798Google Scholar
  5. Bondioli F, Dorigato A, Fabbri P, Messori M, Pegoretti A (2008) High-density polyethylene reinforced with submicron titania particles. Polym Eng Sci 48:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bondioli F, Dorigato A, Fabbri P, Messori M, Pegoretti A (2009) Improving the creep stability of high-density polyethylene with acicular titania nanoparticles. J Appl Polym Sci 112:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dean D, Walker R, Theodore M, Hampton E, Nyairo E (2005) Chemorheology and properties of epoxy/layered silicate nanocomposites. Polymer 46:3014–3021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Della Volpe C, Maniglio D, Morra M, Siboni S (2002) The determination of a ‘stable-equilibrium’ contact angle on heterogeneous and rough surface. Colloids Surf A 206:47–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Della Volpe C, Brugnara M, Maniglio D, Siboni S, Wangdu T (2006) About the possibility of experimentally measuring an equilibrium contact angle and its theoretical and practical consequences. In: Mittal KL (ed) Contact angle wettability and adhesion. VSP, Utrecht, pp 79–100Google Scholar
  10. Doering R, Nishi Y (2007) Handbook of semiconductor manufacturing technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dorigato A, Pegoretti A (2010) Tensile creep behaviour of poly(methylpentene)-silica nanocomposites. Polym Int 59:719–724Google Scholar
  12. Dorigato A, Pegoretti A, Fambri L, Slouf M, Kolarik J (2010a) Cycloolefin copolymer/fumed silica nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci. doi: 10.1002/app.32988
  13. Dorigato A, Morandi S, Pegoretti A (2010b) Morphological and thermo-mechanical characterization of epoxy-clay nanocomposites. In: ETDCM9 - 9th seminar on experimental techniques and design in composite materials 2009. Vicenza, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorigato A, Pegoretti A, Kolarik J (2010c) Nonlinear tensile creep of linear low density polyethylene/fumed silica nanocomposites: time-strain superposition and creep prediction. Polym Compos 31:1947–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorigato A, Pegoretti A, Bondioli F, Messori M (2010d) Improving epoxy adhesives with zirconia nanoparticles. Compos Interfaces (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Dorigato A, Pegoretti A, Penati A (2010e) Linear low-density polyethylene/silica micro- and nanocomposites: dynamic rheological measurements and modelling. Express Polym Lett 4(2):115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goglio L, Rossetto M (2010) Stress intensity factor in bonded joints: influence of the geometry. Int J Adhes Adhes 30:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Groth HL (1988) Stress singularity and fracture at interface corners in bonded joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 8:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Isik I, Yilmazer U, Bayram G (2003) Impact modified epoxy/montmorillonite nanocomposites: synthesis and characterization. Polymer 44:6371–6377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jia QM, Zheng M, Xu CZ, Chen HX (2006) The mechanical properties and tribological behavior of epoxy resin composites modified by different shape nanofillers. Polym Adv Technol 17:168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnsen BB, Kinloch AJ, Mohammed RD, Taylor AC, Sprenger S (2007) Toughening mechanisms of nanoparticle modified epoxy polymers. Polymer 48:530–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim JK, Hu C, Woo RSC, Sham ML (2005) Moisture barrier characteristics of organoclay–epoxy nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 65:805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lazzarin P, Quaresimin M, Ferro P (2002) A two-term stress function approach to evaluate stress distributions in bonded joints of different geometries. J Strain Anal Eng Des 37:385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin JC, Chang L, Nien MH, Ho HL (2006) Mechanical behaviour of various nanoparticle filled composites at low velocity impact. Compos Struct 74:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu W, Hoa SV, Pugh M (2005) Fracture toughness and water uptake of high-performance epoxy/nanoclay nanocomposites. Compos Sci Technol 65:2364–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Medina R, Haupert F, Schlarb AK (2008) Improvement of tensile properties and toughness of an epoxy resin by nanozirconium dioxide reinforcement. J Mater Sci 43:3245–3252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohan TP, Kumar MR, Velmurugan R (2006) Mechanical and barrier properties of epoxy polymer filled with nanolayered silicate clay particles. J Mater Sci 41:2929–2937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park SW, Lee DG (2009) Strength of double lap joints bonded with carbon black reinforced adhesive under cryogenic environment. J Adhes Sci Technol 23:619–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patel S, Bandyopadhyay A, Ganguly A, Bhowmick AK (2006) Synthesis and properties of nanocomposite adhesives. J Adhes Sci Technol 20:371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul DR, Robeson LM (2008) Polymer nanotechnology: nanocomposites. Polymer 49(15):3187–3204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pavlidou S, Papaspyrides CD (2008) A review on polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites. Prog Polym Sci 33(12):1119–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pegoretti A, Dorigato A, Brugnara M, Penati A (2008) Contact angle measurements as a tool to investigate the filler–matrix interactions in polyurethane–clay nanocomposites from blocked prepolymer. Eur Polym J 44:1662–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pirondi A, Moroni F (2009) An investigation of fatigue failure prediction of adhesively bonded metal/metal joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 29:796–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prolongo SG, Gude MR, Sanchez J, Urena A (2009) Nanoreinforced epoxy adhesives for aerospace industry. J Adhes 85:180–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quaresimin M, Ricotta M (2006) Fatigue behaviour and damage evolution of single lap bonded joints in composite material. Compos Sci Technol 66:176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ragosta G, Abbate M, Musto P, Scarinzi G, Mascia L (2005) Epoxy-silica particulate nanocomposites: chemical interactions, reinforcement and fracture toughness. Polymer 46:10506–10516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sawa T, Liu J, Nakano K, Tanaka J (2000) A two-dimensional stress analysis of single-lap adhesive joints of dissimilar adherends subjected to tensile loads. J Adhes Sci Technol 14:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varghese S, Gatos KG, Apostolov AA, Karger-Kocsis J (2004) Morphology and mechanical properties of layered silicate reinforced natural and polyurethane rubber blends produced by latex compounding. J Appl Polym Sci 92:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Volkersen O (1938) Die nietkraftverteilung in zugbeanspruchten nietverbindungen mit konstanten laschenquerschnitten. Luftfahrtforschung 15:41–47Google Scholar
  40. Xi X, Yu C, Lin W (2009) Investigation of nanographite/polyurethane electroconductive adhesives: preparation and characterization. J Adhes Sci Technol 23:1939–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yasmin A, Abot JL, Daniel IM (2003) Processing of clay/epoxy nanocomposites by shear mixing. Scr Mater 49:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yu S, Tong MN, Critchlow G (2009) Wedge test of carbon nanotube reinforced epoxy adhesive joints. J Appl Polym Sci 111:2957–2962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang J, Jiang DD, Wilkie CA (2005) Fire properties of styrenic polymer–clay nanocomposites based on oligomerically-modified clay. Polym Degrad Stab 91:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zunjarrao SC, Sriraman R, Singh RP (2006) Effect of processing parameters and clay volume fraction on the mechanical properties of epoxy–clay nanocomposites. J Mater Sci 41:2219–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials Engineering and Industrial TechnologiesUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations