Effect of Temperature on the Dynamic Response of Adhesively Mounted Accelerometers

Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

This paper focuses on the effect of temperature on the frequency response function (FRF) of three different structural adhesives; namely a two component methylmethacrylate (HBM X60), a modified silane (Terostat 939) and a cyanoacrylate (Loctite 454). The structural adhesives are commonly used in vibration analysis to mount accelerometers on structures or machines. The stiffness of the adhesive can influence the response function on large frequency band, affecting the proportional excitation between the structure and the accelerometer. In the “system structure + adhesive + accelerometer”, the adhesive may acts like a filter between the source and the sink of vibrations. A variation of the dynamic response of the filter could lead to an erroneous analysis. The authors already investigated the relation between the frequency response function and operating conditions of the test. This paper expands the research by considering the temperature effect in order to depict a complete picture of the adhesive behavior on dynamic response of an accelerometer. A design of experiments (DOE) approach was used to test two bonded aluminum bases at different levels of temperature and frequency of the external sinusoidal excitation, supplied by an electromagnetic shaker. The results clearly demonstrate that the adhesive is not able to change the system response, therefore the signal transmission is good in the entire range of temperature regardless the adhesive chosen.

Keywords

Temperature Mechanical properties of adhesives Accelerometers mounting Vibration transmissivity Experimental testing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hellier C (2012) Handbook of nondestructive evaluation, 2nd EdnGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aszkler C (2005) Acceleration, Shock and vibration sensors. In: Sensor Technology Handbook, pp 137–159Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowers S, Piety K, Piety R (1991) Real world mounting of accelerometers for machinery monitoring. Sound Vib 25(2):14–23Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dytran (2015) Dytran Accelerometer Mounting ConsiderationsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    PCB (2015) Introduction to piezoelectric accelerometersGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    MMF (2015) Metra mess und frequenztechnik in radebeulGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris C, Piersol A, Paez T (2002) Harris’ shock and vibration handbookGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cocconcelli M, Spaggiari A (2015) Mounting of accelerometers with structural adhesives: experimental characterization of the dynamic response. J Adhes 8464:1–14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hbm X60 Datasheet (2013) Instructions for use superglue X 60Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henkel (2012) Loctite 454 technical datasheetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henkel (2015) Terostat 737 technical datasheetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adams RD, Peppiatt NA (1974) Stress analysis of adhesive-bonded lap joints. J Strain Anal Eng Des 9 (3):185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koricho E, Verna E, Belingardi G, Martorana B, Brunella V (2016) Parametric study of hot-melt adhesive under accelerated ageing for automotive applications. Int J Adhes Adhes 68:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jia Z, Hui D, Yuan G, Lair J, Lau K-T, Xu F (2016) Mechanical properties of an epoxy-based adhesive under high strain rate loadings at low temperature environment. Compos Part B 105:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kadiyala AK, Bijwe J (2016) Investigations on performance and failure mechanisms of high temperature thermoplastic polymers as adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 70:90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    da Silva LF, Adams R (2007) Adhesive joints at high and low temperatures using similar and dissimilar adherends and dual adhesives. Int J Adhes Adhes 4:216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montgomery DC (2004) Design and analysis of experiments, Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mead R (1990) The design of experiments: Statistical principles for practical applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    PCB (2017) Technical datasheet PCB accelerometer 353B18_NGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Castagnetti D, Spaggiari A, Dragoni E (2010) Robust shape optimization of tubular butt joints for characterizing thin adhesive layers under uniform normal and shear stresses. J Adhes Sci Technol 1:1959–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cognard JJ, Crėac’hcadec R, Sohier L, Davies P, Creac'Hcadec R, Sohier L, Creachcadec R, Davies P, Sohier L, Davies P (2008) Analysis of the nonlinear behavior of adhesives in bonded assemblies—Comparison of TAST and Arcan tests. Int J Adhes Adhes 12:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sohier L, Davies P (2008) Analysis of the nonlinear behavior of adhesives in bonded assemblies — Comparison of TAST and Arcan tests. Int J Adhes Adhes 28:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spaggiari A, Dragoni E, Brinson HF (2016) Measuring the shear strength of structural adhesives with bonded beams under antisymmetric bending. Int J Adhes Adhes 67:112–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kwan KS (1998) The role of penetrant structure on the transport and mechanical properties of a thermoset adhesive. PhD thesis, Blacksburg, VirginaTech, 8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Anderson MJ, Whitcomb PJ (2015) DOE simplified: practical tools for effective experimentation, 3rd edn. Productivity Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Castagnetti D, Spaggiari A, Dragoni E (2009) Efficient finite element modeling of the static collapse of complex bonded structures. In: International Conference on CRACK PATHS (CP 2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Castagnetti D, Dragoni E, Spaggiari A (2010) Failure analysis of bonded T-peel joints: Efficient modelling by standard finite elements with experimental validation. Int J Adhes Adhes 30(5):306–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsai M, Morton J (1994) An evaluation of analytical and numerical solutions to the single-lap joint. Int J Solids Struct 9:2537–2563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ito P (1980) 7 Robustness of ANOVA and MANOVA test procedures. Handbook Stat 1:199–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering Sciences and MethodsUniversity of Modena and Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly

Personalised recommendations