The Role of Surface and Bulk Characterization in the Evaluation of Adhesive Joints

  • W. L. Baun

Abstract

Adhesive joints are often evaluated by a mechanical test followed by exposure of a similar joint to elevated temperature, humidity, and/or corrosive atmosphere. After this exposure to a deleterious atmosphere, the bonded joint is usually tested again using the same geometry and conditions. The original load to failure is usually taken as a measure of the quality of the joint and performance during the accelerated test determines how well the joint will hold up in service. In the past only these numerical values were noted and there was little diagnostic work on the failure surfaces. More recently, however, there has been greater emphasis on where and why a failure took place. In order to fully evaluate failure surfaces it is necessary to determine the locus of failure. Often this task requires modern methods of surface characterization, especially when the failure takes place along a weak boundary layer (WBL). These surface characterization probes use beams of ions, electrons or photons and include ISS, SIMS, AES, and XPS. Examples of the use of these techniques along with microscopy are shown for adhesive bonding research on aluminum, titanium and steel.

Keywords

Titanium Hydrolysis Magnesium Welding Chromium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. J. Good, in, “Adhesion Measurement of Thin Films, Thick Films and Bulk Coatings”, pp. 41–54, ASTM STP 640, K. L. Mittal, Ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, (1978).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. J. Bikerman, ibid. pp. 30–40; and many earlier publications including J. J. Bikerman, “The Science of Adhesive Joints”, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, New York, (1968).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. L. Baun, in “Adhesion Measurement of Thin Films, Thick Films and Bulk Coatings”,K. L. Mittal, Editor, pp. 41 – 53, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. L. Mittal, Electrocomponent Sci. Tech., 3, 21 (1976).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Sharpe, in “Recent Advances in Adhesion”, L.-H. Lee, Ed., pp. 437–453, Gordon and Breach, New York, (1973).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. D. Bascom and R. L. Cottington, J. Adhesion 4, 193 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. L. Park, in “Surface Analysis Techniques for Metalurgical Applications”, R. Carbonara and J. Cuthill, Eds. pp. 3–18, ASTM, Phila., PA, (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. W. Dwight, J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 59, 447 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. S. Sun, J. M. Chen, J. D. Venables and R. Hopping, Appl. Surf. Sci. 1, 202 (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. J. Kinloch, H. E. Bishop and N. R. Smart, J. Adhesion 14, 105 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. T. McDevitt and W. L. Baun, these proceedings, pp. 381–394 12.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. A. Gledhill and A. J. Kinloch, J. Adhesion 6, 315 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. L. Baun
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials LaboratoryAFWAL/MLBM Wright-Patterson AFBUSA

Personalised recommendations