Skip to main content

A Comparison of Different Methods for the Detection of a Weak Adhesive/Adherend Interface in Bonded Joints

  • Chapter
Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation

Abstract

There are three main classes of defect which occur in adhesive joints: complete disbonds, voids or porosity in the adhesive layer, poor cohesion (ie a weak adhesive layer) and poor adhesion (ie a weak interface between the adhesive layer and one or both adherends). The detection of disbonds, voids and porosity generally presents few problems and significant progress has been made towards the development of techniques for monitoring the cohesive properties of the adhesive layer [1]. However, there is no satisfactory method for the detection of a weak interface between the adhesive and the adherend(s) and this remains one of the major challenges in NDE. It is the interlayer which is affected by the common problem of slight contamination due to, for example, grease on the adherend surfaces prior to bonding. The adhesive/adherend interface is particularly important in aluminium-aluminium joints in which an inappropriate interface structure can cause greatly enhanced susceptibility to environmental attack [2]. Inspection of the interlayer is difficult because it is frequently only of the order of 1µm thick, compared with an adhesive layer thickness of the order of 100 µm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. P.N. Dewen and P. Cawley, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 11B, edited by D.O. Thompson and D.E. Chimenti ( Plenum Press, New York, 1992 ), p. 1253.

    Google Scholar 

  2. A J. Kinloch, Durability of Structural Adhesives ( Applied Science, London and New York, 1983 ).

    Google Scholar 

  3. R.B. Thompson and D.O. Thompson, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 5, 583 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. S.I. Rokhlin, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89, 2758 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Y. Bar-Cohen and A.K. Mai, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 9B, op. dt., p. 1271 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Jungman, P. Guy, A. Nayfeh and G. Quentin, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 10B, op. dt., p. 1319 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  7. P.N. Dewen, M.J.S. Lowe and P. Cawley, ‘The determination of the cohesive properties of bonded joints using Lamb wave data: a feasibility study’, in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R.O Claus and R.A. Kline, J. Appl. Phys. 50, 8066 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S.I. Rokhlin, M. Hefets and M. Rosen, J. Appl. Phys. 52, 2847 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. A. Pilarski, Materials Evaluation, 43, 765 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  11. P.B. Nagy and L. Adler, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 10B, op. dt., p. 1295 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  12. D.E. Chimenti and S.I. Rokhlin, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88, 1603 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. A. Pilarski, J.L. Rose and K. Balasubramanian, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87, 532, (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. W. Wang and S.I. Rokhlin, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 5, 647 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. B. Li, M. Hefetz and S.I. Rokhlin, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 11B, op. ck., p. 1221 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  16. S.I. Rokhlin, B. Li and A.I. Lavrentyev, ‘Ultrasonic evaluation of interfacial properties in adhesive joints. Assessment of environmental degradation’, in this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S.I. Rokhlin and D. Marom, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80, 585 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. A. Pilarski and J.L. Rose, NDT International, 21, 241 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. D. Jiao and J.L. Rose, J. Adhesion Sci. Technol. 5, 631 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. T.P. Pialucha and P. Cawley, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 11B, op. dt., p. 1261 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  21. R.J. Davies and A.J. Kinloch, in Adhesion 13, edited by K.W. Allen ( Elsevier, London, 1989 ), p. 8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. T.P. Pialucha and P. Cawley, in Review of Progress in Quantitative NDE, Vol. 10B, op. dt., p. 1303 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  23. A.M. Lindrose, Experimental Mechanics, 227 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cawley, P., Pialucha, T., Lowe, M. (1993). A Comparison of Different Methods for the Detection of a Weak Adhesive/Adherend Interface in Bonded Joints. In: Thompson, D.O., Chimenti, D.E. (eds) Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2848-7_196

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2848-7_196

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-6233-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-2848-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics