Adhesion and Adsorption of Polymers Compress
Adhesion and Adsorption of Polymers Compress
Adhesion and Adsorption of Polymers Compress
Volume 12A
ADHESION AND
ADSORPTION
OF POLYMERS
POLYMER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Editorial Board:
Yoichi Ishida
J. P. Berry Osaka University
Rubber and Plastics Research Association Toyonaka, Osaka, Japan
of Great Britain
Shawbury Frank E. Karasz
University of Massachusetts
Shrewsbury, England
Amherst, Massachusetts
A. T. DiBenedetto Osias Solomon
The University of Connecticut Poly technical Institute of Bucharest
Storrs, Connecticut Bucharest, Romania
Volume 11 • POLYMER ALLOYS II: Blends, Blocks, Grafts, and Interpenetrating Networks
Edited by Daniel Klempner and Kurt C. Frisch
A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring
delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon
actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher.
POLYMER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 12A
ADHESION AND
ADSORPTION
OF POLYMERS
Edited by
Lieng - Huang Lee
Xerox Corporation
Rochester, New York
v
vi PREFACE
Last but not least, I would like to thank Ms. Nancy Rickey for
her patience in typing the entire Proceedings in camera-ready
format.
Lieng-Huang Lee
November, 1979
Contents of Volume 12A
Introductory Remarks 3
LlENG-HU ANG LEE
Discussion 77
Introductory Remarks 85
LlENG-HU ANG LEE
ix
x CONTENTS OF VOLUME 12A
Discussion 195
Discussion 363
Discussion 455
Discussion 577
xiii
xiv CONTENTS OF VOLUME 128
Discussion 683
Discussion 791
Discussion 855
POLYMER SURFACE
INTERACTIONS
Introductory Remarks
Lieng-Huang Lee
Wilson Center for Technology
Xerox Corporation
3
LIENG·HUANG LEE
REFERENCES
1. L.H. Lee, Ed., Recent Advances in Adhesion, Gordon and Breach,
New York, London and Paris (1973).
2. L.H. Lee, Ed., Adhesion Science and Technology, Plenum Press,
New York (1975).
3. J. Mahanty and B.W. Ninham, Dispersion Forces, Academic Press,
London, New York (1976).
Statistical Mechanics of Surface Tension
and Adsorption
Faculty of Sciences
Universite Libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium
ABSTRACT
This introductory lecture is broadly divided into three parts.
In the first one we review some fundamentals of surface phenomena;
1. e., the conditions of mechanical equilibrium of an interface,
Gibbs thermodynamics of surfaces and the statistical formulation of
surface properties. The second part is devoted to a critical
discussion of current statistical models of the surface tension of
pure liquids and liquid mixtures (cell model, perfect and regular
solutions, corresponding state theories, r-mer mixtures, etc ... ).
The last part deals with the adsorption of a chain molecule at an
interface, in relation with different physical parameters: inter-
actions, length and concentration.
INTRODUCTION
5
6 I. PRIGOGINE AND A. BELLEMANS
(1)
Ya~b
a Ybc
c
Yca
(assuming zero edge tension).
F = Fa + Fb + Fs
The variables {N~} specify the material content and the compo-
1
sition of the surface phase. In the same way as one defines bulk
concentrations (C~1 = N~1 / Va
, C?l=lN? / Vb)' it is convenient to
introduce the adsorption
= - s S dT - E r. d II .
1 1
(6)
where Ss is the surface entropy per unit area. Actually the value
of r i depends on the precise location of the dividing surface
(which for a flat interface is somewhat arbitrary). The relative
8 I. PRIGOGINE AND A. BELLEMANS
F =- kT In Z (7 )
y @
=aiF) T,V,{N.} (8)
l.
In particular, for a fluid of spherical molecules, the final
expression of y is
Y = (112) ff• du X2 - Z2
dR dR R
...
n2 ( z , R) dz (9)
(10)
- y a/kT
e = xLAe - Y A a/kT +xBe
L - YBa/kT (12)
Note that the monolayer model has been shown to present a slight
thermodynamic inconsistency to which one can easily remedy by
considering a multilayer approach (10).
=1 + Z {Vc
n
+ A [-1 n 12 + E
V
where z is the activity of the n-mers and
f = exp(c:/kT), (14 )
<v> = (17)
Eg (v) fV
n
One may also define such quantities as the mean thickness of the
adsorbed n-mer, perpendicularly to the surface, and its mean exten-
sion, parallel to the surface.
Exact enumerations of c ,1 , g (V) and similar quantities have
n n n
been made or are presently studied (21,22). Obviously one cannot
STATISTICAL MECHANICS 13
hope to obtain them for very long chains, a reasonable limit being
n = 15 or 16 for a simple cubic lattice. This may appear far too
short to match the actual problem but one should realize that one
deals here with exact numbers and that powerful extrapolation
methods exist wherefrom reliable information can be drawn about the
asymptotic limit n + 00.
FINAL REMARKS
In spite of an enormous theoretical effort made along differ-
ent lines of approach and which has, without any doubt, led to a
general understanding of the problem, much remains to be done. The
lattice model is indeed very crude, but just dropping the lattice
and replacing it by a continuum would not do much good as this would
negate the solvent structure completely. Future efforts should
take care both of the specific nature of the chains and also of the
molecular structure of the interface in relation to solvent proper-
ties.
REFERENCES
1• T. Young, Phil. Trans. ROY; Soc. (London) 95, 65 (1805).
2. P.S. Laplace, "Mecanique celeste", suppl. 10th Vol. (1806).
3. G. Bakker, "Theorie de la couche capillaire plane des corps
purs", Scientia (Paris) 11, 14 (1911).
4. J.W. Gibbs, Collected works, 2 Vols., New York (1928).
5. R. De fay , 1. Prigogine, A. Bellemans and D.H. Everett, "Sur-
face Tension and Adsorption", Longmans Green and Co.
Ltd., London (1966).
6. J.G. Kirkwood and F.P. Buff, ~ Chem. Phys. 11, 338 (1949).
1. H.T. Davis, ~ Chem. Phys. 61, 3636 (1911).
8. I. Prigogine and L. Saraga, ~ Chim. Phys. 49, 399 (1952).
9. E.A. Guggenheim, Trans. Faraday ~ ii, 150 (1945).
10. R. Defay and I. Prigogine, Trans. Faraday Soc. 46, 199 (1950).
11 . A. Englert-Chowols and 1. Prigogine, ~ Chim. Phys. 55, 16
( 1958).
12. L. Onsager and N.N.T. Samaras, l..:. Chem. Phys. ,g, 528 (1934).
13. M.E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. 124, 1664 (1961).
14. P.W. Kasteleyn, Physica 21, 1209 (1961);.!!..: Math. Phys. !, 281
(1963). --
15. J. Van Craen, J. Chem. Phys. 63, 2591 (1915).
16. A. Bellemans and S. Fuk~sICa 50, 348 (1910); A. Bellemans,
Physica 65, 89 (1913); A. Bellemans, J. ColI. Interf.
Sci. 58, 521 (1911). - --
11. 1. Prigogine,- l..:. Chim. Phys. 41, 3 (1950); 1. Prigogine and L.
Saroltla, .!!..: Chim. Phys. 41, 801 (1950).
18. A. Silberberg, Faraday Discussion, Chem. Soc. 59, 203 (1915).
14 I. PRIGOGINE AND A. BELLEMANS
19. M. Lal and R.F.T. Steppo, ~ Pol. Sci.: Polymer Symposium £2,
401 (1971).
20. A. T. Clark and M. Lal,.1.:.. Chem. Soc. , Faraday Trans. II, 74,
1857 (1978).
21. A. Bellemans, ~ Pol. Soc.: Part C 39, 305 (1972).
22. M.N. Barber, A.J. Guttmann, K.M. Middlemiss, G.M. Torrie and
S.G. Whittington, ~ Phys. A 11, 1833 (1978).
Surface and Interfacial Tensions of
Polymer Melts and Solutions
Toshio Hata
Gunma University
Japan, 371
and
Tomoyuki Kasemura
Japan, 504
ABSTRACT
Work done in the last ten years at our laboratories is reviewed
on the following topics: (1) Methods (sessile bubble and drop
methods) for the determination of surface and interfacial tensions;
(2) Molecular dependence of surface tension (y); (3) Molecular
structure and y; (4) Composition dependence ofy in copolymers; (5)
Interfacial tension (Y12)' s between polymer melts; (6) y's of
polymer solutions and their Y12' s against water; and (7) y's and
Y12 's of polypeptide solutions. Molecular weight dependence of yis
explained on the basis of Sugden's equation and the effects of
molecular structure such as methylene sequence in the main chain and
the alkyl side chain are pointed out. The sequence effect plays an
important role especially in copolymers. Different behaviors of
copolymers with different combinations of monomeric units were
introduced. The importance of interfacial tension measurements is
emphasized for polymer melts and solutions, including polypeptide
15
16 TOSHIO HATA AND TOMOYUKI KASEMURA
INTRODUCTION
1• METHOD (3)
E
~
c30
>.
~
Z
o
:nz 28
w Fig. 2. Surface tension vs.
t- degree of polymeriza-
tion (n) for poly
(a-methyl styrene).
10 20 30 40 144
n
45
PEG
-t/' Zi..... /C.>--- -
(3)
~
y= ( -1: + ..L ...L....!:. tJ
V m+2 P m+2 V
r r r
• Yr [1 ;!I(~:r- 11]
+
(4 )
where y =(P IV )
r rr
a,
y =(P IV )
e ee
a,
k= V IV , and m+2 can be pu t n
er
(degree of polymerization) in many cases. Equation (4) shows that,
if a would be invariable, y increases or decreases linearly with
1 I (m+2) or lin (11M) according to y > y or y <y respectively, and y
r ere
keeps constant when y =y. A similar treatment has been applied to
r e
glass transition temperature (T ) by Ueberreiter and Kanig (9),
obtaining the linear relationshi~of liT and 11M, or approximately
T and 11M. In the same way for speCific volume (v), we have the
r~lation,
2M
v = vr + ~ (v
Mer
- v ) (5)
where vr =Vr1M,
r ve =Ve1M
e and M, r Me are molecular weights of
repeating unit and end group respectively. Figure 4 shows that
these relations (r, T , v~l/n) hold for poly (a-methyl styrene), and
Fig. 5 does for r & polyethers in Fig. 3. Curves in Fig. 5
converge to definite values (y~ of respective polyethers at
infinite M, passing through different lines depending on the
presence or absence of methyl end group. Strictly speaking,
however, a
in Eq. (4) varies with M roughly from 5 to 3 in the range
of low molecular weight. a in the exponent of (relY r> acts as
compensating the change of a in the numerator of the coefficient.
This might be a reason why linearity is established in many cases.
The effect of a,
however, must be taken into consideration
especially in low molecular weight region, together with the effect
tha t the higher order terms are omit ted in Eq. (4) . An exact
relation of y to n (M) is given in the following discussion.
A
Y = YCD - 2/3 (6)
M
where YCD is the surface tension at infinite molecular weight.
Though the authors' discussion on the coefficient A is question-
able, (e.g. according to their discussion, A must be a positive
constant, then Eq. (6) can't explain the decrease of Y with
molecular weight), Eq. (6) seems to represent very well the observed
values of each homologous series. It must be noticed, however, that
the plots of y vs. M-2/3 for poly(ethylene glycol)s and poly-
(propylene glycol)s with and without methyl end group do not
converge to the respective values ofyCD at infinite M, where the end
group effect should disappear.
E45
~
c
~ ____-.--.I--- PEG
>.
.B40
Z
o Fig. 5. Surface tension vs.
Vi35 11M at 25 0 C for polyethers
z in Fig. 3.
UJ
.....
30
UJ
u
<t
~25
:::>
Vl
•
o 5
11M
SURFACE AND INTERFACIAL TENSIONS 21
(9)
-1/8 ( 10)
y
where Yr ' Ye and k are the same as those in Eq. (4) and k'=Pe/P r •
(Hata (8) had expressed Eq. (9) as Y =y r {1+2/(m+2Ve/vJ.(P e /P r-
V IV )}4, putting 8=4.) As y is equal to Yoo, i f we can put 8=4,
e r r
k=1, k'=1 and m+2=n, Eqs. (9) and (10) reduce to Eqs. (8) and (1)
respectively. The derivation of Eqs. (9) and (10) doesn't involve
any operation such as expansion and omission of higher order termsj
therefore they are more accurate than Eq. (4), at least mathe-
matically. In fact too, the results shown in Figs. 2 and 3 give the
respective straight lines by the plots of y1/8 vs. 1/(m+2k) if we
take the experimental mean values for e.
The line holds also for
smaller m, which the approximate Eq. (4) failed to reproduce.
E
~40
c l>. : al-PP
>-
-0 c : iso-PP
;30
o....
III
Z 20
w
I-
~1 0
~
a: OL-______-L______
~ ______~L-____ ~ ~
~4Sr--------------------------~
E
u
C
>.
~
'0
;- 40
o
<f)
z:
W
I- 35
w PA G --------
u
<{
lI..
~ 30
<f)
o 2 4 6 8 m 10
E '5
~
c
>.
z ~ '0
o
~ 40
z
o
IJJ
I- Vi 35
Z
W
w I-
u
~ 35
cr w JO
~ u
~
<f)
30 ~ 25
Ym:2 I/(m.')
Y 12 = Y1 + Y2 - 2~ ( 11 )
30r--------------------,
40
"E 25
~
c r
>.
~
~20
z
o....
a
......
30
\
III
Z ,,
~10
w
W
~ ,,
~ UJ " n-Alkane
U
<
~ 5
::l
III
OL---~----~----~----~
o 5 10 15 20 5 9 13
NUMBER OF CARBON ATOMS NUMBER OF CARBON ATOM S
IN SIDE CHAIN 1 N ALKYl GROOP
Fig. 10. The effect of side Fig. 11. The effect of alkyl
chain length of poly(vinyl chain length of dialkyl
alkylate)s on surface tension phthalates on surfaced tension
and its components due to and its components, y and
dispersion force (yd) and f, at 20 0 C.
polar force (yp) at 90 0 C.
In Figs. 12 and 13, results are shown for E-P and THF-PO series
respectively (17). Here x2 is taken as the mole fraction of low
energy component, i.e. propylene in E-P series and propylene oxide
in THF-PO series. As seen in the figures, observed values deviate
from the straight line expected from the simple additivity proposed
by Rastogi and St. Pierre (18).
E J O r - - - - - - - -- ----. 40r-------------~
~ E
c
>. ~
;g c
§35
z
o.... z
VI
o
Vi
~ 25
I- ....~ 30
UJ w
U u
~ if.
a: ~ 25
::> VI
VI
20L--~-~ _ _ _ _L_-J
~
_40~--------------------~
E
u
...... \ ,
~ II\ '~
- la' '\.
" \
~351 \
..... I
I
VI ,\
,
Z
W
~
, \
-10~-----------------------'
E
~
c:
>-
:g
5.....
III
Z
UJ 5
.....
\E", PMA
---
.....0
.-0
Fig. 16. Interfacial ten-
sion of polyacrylates to
each other as a function
of Side chain length at
-'
oct
.....
u
{f
a:
\0 ,...L>
.....0
150 C.
UJ c
.....
....Z 0
7 9 PE
3 5
NUMBER OF CARBON ATOMS IN
ALKYL SIDE CHAIN
SURFACE AND INTERFACIAL TENSIONS 31
E1 O~-------------------------,
~
c
>-
~
z
:5. ~
8 0
Fig. 17 . Interfacial
tension of polyacrylates
against polyethylene and
~ \ PS o~~.--. polystyrene at 150 oC.
a::
UJ
~v~---.
I-
~ 0 '--.L...-....L..-~-'----'---I.--''--..L...--'-..... ,.,,'''''-.L.-'
J 5 7 9 PE
NUMBER OF CARBON ATOMS IN
ALK'Wl. SIDE CHAIN
E
~
c
>-
.:!;I
5 10
in
z
W
I-
..J
~
Fig. 18. Interfacial tension
..... of ethylene-vinyl acetate
u 5 5
copolymers against poly-
~ ethylene, poly(vinyl acetate)
a::
w and one of the copolymers
t-
Z (VAc 25 wt%) at 150oC.
50 100
VAc CONTENT (..... t%l
D.K. Owens and R.C. Wendt (23), D.H. Kaelble and K.C. Uy
(24) and R.K.S. Chan (25)
S. Wu (27)
(15)
PnBA 22.8 19.7 3.1 2.6 0.5 13.6 119.9 2.9 12.7
P2EHA 21.1 19.4 1.7 1.1 0.6 8.1 19.5 1.6 7.6
PEA-PMA
I 0.2 0.8 0.4 1.3
E
2 35~l
.;; 30 .#0.
'? 25-
-<
(5 20
o ~
"20
~ (; 15
"tI
(5
~15 .,,: solvent 9 7 5 3 1
CARBON A TOM S
N lJ>1BER OF
IN SIDE CHAIN
o : )"sol at 25°C,.:(sOIl"30 at 25°C,
e : a t 45°C. 0: elt 65°C. e : tT/H.O
VAc CONTENT (wt%1 at 25°C. e:oI45·C. e : oI65°C.
O~~--~~--~~~~
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PH
1//
-o~ 0 0- ~
0
0
30 100 Z~
E
u
IJJ
~
Fig. 22. Surface tension of
,. J
"- z poly-y-benzyl-D-glutamate in
c 0
>.
"0
U ethylene dichloride and the
25 50 :;i content of helical conforma-
0
....u tion at 25 0 C plotted against
....J
log C.
~ IJJ
:x:
/
,.
20 0
-1 0 1
Log C (c:g/dl)
55~------------------------------'
E SO
~
c
>-
"0
45
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
PH
20r-------------------------~
E
~
c::
~15
t-
.....
(510
~
2 4 6 8 10 12
PH
Fig. 24. Interfacial tension between toluene and
aqueous solutions of poly-DL-alanine as
a function of pH at 25 0 C, C=0.01g/100ml.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
F.M. Fowkes
Department of Chemistry
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Intermolecular forces between unlike molecules in solutions or
at interfaces determine solution and interfacial properties. There
are so many different kinds of intermolecular interactions that for
"practical" studies most investigators of interfacial phenomena
have tried to lump all interactions into two terms: dispersion
force interactions and "polar" interactions. The most widely used
equations for "polar" interactions are geometric mean equations
suitable for dipole-dipole interactions, but completely unsuitable
for acid-base interactions, as will be explained. This unfortunate
approach has also been used in solution studies.
43
44 F. M. FOWKES
Wp - - rp,-;y
P (4)
A - ¥lY2
The interaction energy between two dipoles is -~~~/3kTr~2' (where
~ is the dipole moment, k Boltzmann's constant, and T absolute
temperature) so if the distance between dipoles r 12 is the geometric
mean of r 11 and r 22 of the pure materials, then equation (4) is
correct.
(5)
and
(6)
(8)
but for reasons given in the previo~ Pftragraph there is no way that
6ijh can be predicted with a term (~ -~2)2 and consequently any two
m 1
sets of correlations are in serious disagreement (16).
_AH~b CC EE
Ll_~ = A B + A B
Drago assumed that ~~ and ~HP were negligibly smal~ for the acids
and bases, and in his correla~ion all predicted 6H~ values (up to
80 kJoules/mole) checked measured values within about 5% or less.
(13)
0.1 N NaOH 0
N
:;:
.....
'-'
C/O
3
""~
ex;
,,",'"
,
coc:::
~
<C
""
6
~
N
2
Q)
C/O
0
'-'
~,
;:---'
1
7 ~ Phenol in
6 48
Pyridine
O~----------~------~--~'---------~-----
!l lOX VINYL ACETATE 20% 30~ 0
Fig. 2. Effect of solvent-v~nYlacetate copolymer
interaction on WA-WA-W E.
THF
~-----L----~~----7-----~----~~--~~
15 kJ/mole 5 0 5 10 15
I1H ab vs. BuOH aH ab vs. EtAc
o 5 10
6H ab VS. EtAc
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is deeply indebted to several co-workers; without
their work this concept would be only a hazy notion. Special thanks
go to S. Maruchi (of Sanyo-Kokusaku Pulp Co., Tokyo), Prof. J.A.
Manson, M. Marmo (now at Eastman Kodak), M.A. Mostafa, and G. Sie.
Support has come from Ford Motor Company, Sanyo-Kokusaku Pulp Co.,
and Lehigh University.
52 F. M. FOWKES
REFERENCES
1. R.S. Drago, G.C. Vogel and T.E. Needham, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 93,
6014 (1971); R.S. Drago, L.B. Parr and~S. Chamberlain,
~ Am. Chem. Soc. 99, 3203 (1977).
2. F.M. Fowkes, ~ Phys. Chem. 66, 382 (1962).
3. F.M. Fowkes, Ind. ~ Chem. g, 40 (1964).
4. F.M. Fowkes, J. Adhesion 4, 155 (1972).
5. W.A. Zisman, Advances in- Chemistry "Contact Angles, Wetta-
bility, and Adhesion", ed. F.M. Fowkes (ACS Special Pub-
lication) 43, 1 (1964).
6. D.K. Owens and R.C. Wendt, ~ ~ Polymer Sci. .11, 1741
(1969) .
7. D.H. Kaelble, J. Adhesion 2, 66 (1970).
8. S. Wu, J. AdheSion 5, 39 (1973).
9. J. Kloubek, J. Adhesion 6, 293 (1974).
10. R.F. Blanks and J.M. Prausnitz, Ind. Eng. Chem. 1, 1 (1964).
11. J.L. Gardon, J. Paint Technol. 38, 43 (1966).
12. E.F. Meyer andR~agner, ~ Phys. Chem. 70, 3162; 75, 642
(1971) .
13. W. Goody, ~ Chem. Phys. 1, 93 (1939); ~, 170 (1949); ,2., 204
(1941).
14. P.A. Small, ~ ~ Chem. 1, 71 (1953).
15. C.M. Hansen, J. Paint Technol. 39, 104 and 505 (1967).
16. E.B. Bagley and-:r:M. Sciglian~ Chapter XVI "Solutions and
Solubilities", ed. M.R.J. Dack, Vol. VIII of "Techniques
of Chemistry", A. Weissberger, ed. Wiley, New York
( 1975) .
17. K.L. Hoy, ~ Paint Technol. 42, 118 (1970).
18. C.M. Hansen and A. Beerbower, "Solubility Parameters in "Ency-
clopedia of Chemical Technology", Supplement Volume, 2nd
Edition, Wiley, New York (1971).
19. G.C. Pimental and A.L. McClellan, "The Hydrogen Bond", Free-
man, San Francisco (1960).
20. J.R. Dann, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 32, 302 and 321 (1970).
21. F.M. Fowkes--and S. Maruchi, CoatingS-and Plastics Preprints
37, 605 (1977).
22. F.M. Fowkes and D.C. McCarthy, to be published.
23. F.M. Fowkes and M.A. Mostafa, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. R&D 11, 3
(1978).
24. B.J. Fontanta and J.R. Thomas, ~ Phys. Chem. 65, 480 (1961).
25. J. Koral, R. Ullman and F.R. Eirich, ~ Phys. Chem. 62, 541
( 1958).
26. G.J. Howard and M.J. McGrath, ~ Poly Sci. (Poly. Chem. Ed.)
.l2., 1721 (1977).
Surface Tension of Solids:
Generalization and Reinterpretation of
Critical Surface Tension
Souheng Wu
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
ABSTRACT
The concept of critical surface tension is generalized and
reinterpreted in terms of a proposed equation of state. The
equation defines a spectrum of critical surface tensions for a
given surface, and provides a method by which the surface tension
can be accurately determined from the contact angles of a series of
testing liquids. The surface tensions obtained for solid poly-
mers, organic solids and monolayers by this method agree remark-
ably well with those obtained from melt data (temperature depen-
dence), liquid homologs (molecular-weight dependence) and the
harmonic-mean equation. In contrast, those obtained by the geo-
metric-mean equation and Zisman' s critical surface tensions are
often too low. These results also support the validity of the
harmonic-mean equation.
53
54 SOUHENG WU
able (13-20).
This, first proposed by Fox and Zisman (1), has been widely
used. However, its value is quite variable, depending on the
nature of the testing liquids used. For instance, the critical
surface tension for poly(ethylene terephthalate) varies from 27 to
46 dyne/cm at 20°C (21) j the value for perfluorodecanoic acid
monolayer varies from 11 to 27.5 at 20°C (22). Moreover, the
critical surface tensions of liquids have been found to be signifi-
cantly lower than their surface tensions which can be measured
directly and accurately. For instance, the critical surface
tension of water is about 20 dyne/cm, compared with its surface
tension of 72.8 dyne/cm at 20°C (23,24). Zisman (22) has cau-
tioned against equating the critical surface tension to the sur-
face tension.
cos e (1)
Yc = Lim YLV (2 )
e-+-O
Thus, combining eqs. (1) and (2) gives
56 SOUHENG WU
2 2 2
~ = cp YS - 1Te + ( 1Te 14 cp YS ) + •••
(4)
which can be used to calculate Y '" from the contact angle of any
c,'"
one testing liquid. When a series of testing liquids are used, a
spectrum of Y '" values will be obtained. The maximum Y. '" value is
equal to YS . cThis
'''' is because <I> = 1 occurring when thec,polarities
'"
ma~
of the two phases are identical t6-8,21), and if 1T is small, then
from eq. ( 4 ) , e
Yc,<I>,max = YS - lTe = YS (1 )
50
O~--~--~----~--~-- __ ~ __- L_ _ _ _L -_ _ ~
m ro ~ ~ ~ w ro 00 ~
SURFACE TENSION OF TESTING LIQUIDS, YLv, dyne/em ot 20·C
50 Ye,.", max
Poly (vinylidene chlor ide)
40
10
O~--~----~--~~--~----~--~----~--~
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 ~
SURFACE TENSION OF TESTING LIQUIDS, YLv, dyne/cm
50
lYe .•.mal
Poly (methyl methacrylate)
40
I
g
..... 30
t
-0 o
o
o
10
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SURFACE TENSION OF TESTING LIQUID, YLV' dyne /cm
50
40
.li
..... 30
~
-
-0
-e-
~ 20
10
OL---~----~----~--~----~----~----~--~
10 w ~ ~ ~ w ro 00 90
SURFACE TENSION OF TESTING LIQUID. YLV' dyne/em
~
e;
Table 2. COMPARISON AMONG SURFACE TENSION VALUES OBTAINED BY VARIOUS METHODS FOR
SOLID POLYMERS, ORGANIC SOLIDS AND MONOLAYERS
Zisman's
Critical
Surface Surface Tension, YS' dyne/cm at 20° C
Tension By Eq. of From From By Geometric
State Plot, Melt Liquid By Harmonic Mean Equa-
dyn~
Material Yc ~ cm Data Homo logs Mean Equation tion
YC z zmax
Polymers
Polyethylene 31 35.9 35.7 34.7 36.1 33.2
Polytetrafluoro- 18 22.6 23.9 22.5 19.1
ethylene
Polytrifluoro- 22 29.5 27.3 23.9
ethylene
Poly(vinylidene 25 36.5 33.2 30.3
fluoride)
Poly(vinyl 28 37.5 38.4 36.7
fluoride)
Poly(vinylidene 40 45.2 45.4 45.0
chloride)
Poly (vinyl 39 43.8 41.9 41.5
chloride) ~
Polystyrene 33 43.0 40.7 42.6 42.0 c
J:
Poly(methyl 39 42.5 41.4 41.2 40.2 m
zG)
methacrylate)
Polychlorotri- 31 32.1 30.9 30.1 27.5 =E
c
fluoroethylene
(I)
f)
64 SOUHENGWU
III. CONCLUSION
The present analysis clearly shows that the proposed equation
of state method gives accurate results. The surface tensions
obtained by the equation of state method, the harmonic-mean method,
the melt data and the liquid homo logs agree remarkably well with one
another. In contrast, those obtained by the geometric-mean method
and Zisman's critical surface tensions are often too low.
REFERENCES
1. H.W. Fox and W.A. Zisman, J. Colloid Sci. 5, 514 (1950).
2. H.W. Fox and W.A. Zisman, J. Colloid Sci. 1, 109 (1952).
3. H.W. Fox and W.A. Zisman, J. Colloid Sci. 7, 428 (1952).
4. W.A. Zisman, Advan. Chem. Ser. 43, 1 (1964).
5. S. Wu, !!..:. Polym. Sci. C34,--:r9(1971).
6. S. Wu, J. Adhesion 5, 39 (1973); also in "Recent Advances in
Adhesion", L. If. Lee, ed., pp. 45-61, Gordon and Breach,
New York, 1973.
7. S. Wu, J. Macromol. Sci. C10, 1 (1974).
8. S. Wu,in"Polymer Blends"~Vol. 1, D.R. Paul and S. Newman,
eds., pp. 243-293, Academic Press, New York, 1978.
9. S. Wu and K.J. Brzozowski, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 37, 686
(1971). - -- -
10. S. Wu, !!..:. Phys. Chem. 74, 632 (1970).
11. D.K. Owens and R.C. Wendt, !!..:. !EEl:. Polym. Sci. ..u, 1741
( 1969) •
12. D. H. Kaelble, "Physical Chemistry of Adhesion", Wiley-Inter-
science, New York, 1971.
13. D. Patterson and A.K. Rastogi, !!..:. Phys. Chem. 74, 1067 (1970).
14. K.S. Siow and D. Patterson, Macromol. ~, 26 (1971).
SURFACE TENSION OF SOLIDS 65
15. R.J. Roe, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S. 56, 819 (1966).
16. E. Helfand and A~Sapse, J. Chem. Phys. 62, 1327 (1975).
17. H.W. Kammer, .!:. Phys. Chem. Leipzig 258, 1149 (1977).
18. C.W. Stewart and C.A. von Frankenburg, ~ Polym. Sci. A-2, ~,
1686 (1968).
19. H.W. Kammer, .!:. Phys. Chem. Leipzig 255, 607 (1974).
20. R.J. Good and E. Elbing, Ind. Eng. Chem. 62, 54 (1970).
21. J.R. Dann, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 32, 302 (1970).
22. F. Schulmanand W.A. Zisman, ~ Co"iIoId Sci. 1, 465 (1952).
23. R.E. Johnson, Jr. and R.H. Dettre, J. Colloid Interface Sci.
21,610 (1966). - --
24. E.G. Shafrin and W.A. Zisman, ~ Phys. Chem. 11, 1309 (1967).
25. F.M. Fowkes, in "Chemistry and Physics of Interfaces", pp. 1-
12, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1965.
26. P.C. Heimenz, "Principles of Colloid and Surface Chemistry",
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1977.
27. R.J. Good, in "Treatise on Adhesion and Adhesives", Vol. 1,
R.L. Patrick, ed., pp. 9-68, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1967.
28. D.G. LeGrand and G.L. Gaines, Jr., ~ Colloid Interface Sci.
31, 162 (1969).
29. S. Wu:-~ Colloid Interface Sci. 11, 153 (1969).
30. R.H. Dettre and R.E. Johnson, Jr., ~ Phys. Chem. 11, 1529
(1967); ~ Colloid Interface Sci. 11, 568 (1969).
31. J.F. Padday, Proc. 2nd International Congo Surface Activity 1,
136 (1957),
A Role of Molecular Forces in Adhesive
Interactions of Polymers
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
-·T ~(:n~~J
% %
~[+~(~~j dw :n:~2~)
the absorption regions:
.tit) = +
w1 w2 wn
W, 6w,
w,2 + ~
2
e:(i~) =1 + iT
2 ~
L.J e:
n
II (Wn) ~6wn2
wn
Wn 2
+ ~
J (2)
,
£"(w~
€.(~)
t
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
To check these suppositions, the following polymeric materials
were selected: polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene (PE),
polypropylene (PP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) , polycaproamide
(PCA) , polyethyleneterephthalate (PETP), for which molecular and
supermolecular structures, properties, and the shape of absorption
spectra, accordingly, differ considerably. Absorption spectra of
films of different thicknesses prepared from the above polymers
were obtained with a spectrophotometer UR-20. The values of
absorption indices X were calculated according to known techniques
for each absorption band, and widths 6w of those bands determined.
Values of e: " were calculated from expression e:" = 2n X (18), where n,
refractive index of a material in the optical region; its anomaly
within the absorption band has been neglected.
F::! 8; R,3
J 1T +
n
E"
2
wn+.,t"2
~Oh
(4)
o n E1 ( w ) --'---"--
n
~+f
z
'"o
-i
I
><
11/
2~--------~~~~~--_1----------~80 ~
~ .~. .. c::
o
.....
o
~----------r_--~~~~~--------~40 . Q.
o
1/1
..Q
«
~ ________ ~ __________ ~ ________ ~O
o 8 16 24
Irradiation dose, Mrad
2
cal deformation and tribochemical reactions at P = 10 N/m,
V = 0.075 mis, showed (11) that the presence of an additional
component in the spectrum of fluctuating fields caused an increase
in the friction force; herein, it grows with increasing intensity of
the absorption bands (Figure 2). These observations are in good
agreement with those available in the literature when the normal
adhesion (9) and friction force (20) increased with the oxidation of
the polymer.
CONCLUSIONS
A satisfactory qualitative conformation between calculated and
experimental data obtained by the present authors provides future
applications of the trend chosen for the study of the role of
molecular forces in the adhesion interactions of polymers.
REFERENCES
However, I did not present here these data and did not analyze the
change of y by these factors, because of the limited time for the
presentation. Generally speaking, when I said "selective adsorp-
tion" in the paper, it was always accompanied by the decrease of
surface entropy as well as surface energy. The change of them was
quite drastic especially for block copolymers similarly as shown in
y. It was noteworthy, however, that, for homologous series of the
similar type X-Rn-X' the molecular weight dependence of y is well
represented by the relation derived from the Sugden I s equation
n
78 DISCUSSION
F.M. Fowkes: The ketones and esters are all bases; the esters
a bit stronger than the ketones. I suppose that these solvents
could bond to isocyanate or urethane groups or to any free acid
groups. These solvents should not be so basic as to interfere with
bonding of the basic polymer to acidic surfaces such as silica,
iron, etc.
F. Leo: Also what effect does structural changes in polyester
or poly isocyanate have on acid-base interaction with surfaces (i.e.
for use as adhesives)?
DISCUSSION 79
F.M. Fowkes: The modern theory of Hard and Soft Lewis Acids
and Bases (HSAB) shows that two properties are important for bases
(electron-donor "strength" and polarizability of donor site) and
two for acids (electron acceptor strength and polarizability of
acceptor site). The "C" constants vary mostly with polarizability
and the "E" constants vary mostly with inner shell electron binding
energies.
CHARACTERIZATION OF
ADHESIVE INTERFACES
Introductory Remarks
Lieng-Huang Lee
Xerox Corporation
The most important advance during the last several years is the
characterization of surface by various new techniques (1), e. g. ,
ESCA, AES, SIM, etc. With new techniques, we do not have to
speculate on what is at the interface; instead, we can actually see
what is there before and after adhesive bonding. In fact, because
of the new characterization techniques, we may have to modify some
adhesion theories formulated in the past.
85
86 LlENG-HUANG LEE
REFERENCES
1. L.H. Lee, Ed., Characterization of Metal and Polymer Surfaces,
Academic Press, New York (1977).
2. A. Rosencwaig, Phys. Today 28, No.1, 23 (1975).
3. L.H. Lee, Photo. Sci. and Eng. 22, 228, July/August, 1978.
Photoacoustic Spectroscopy for the
Study of Adhesion and Adsorption of
Dyes and Polymers
Lieng-Huang Lee
ABSTRACT
Photoacoustic spectroscopy (PAS) has recently been applied for
the determination of the surface and bulk structure of solids. PAS
enables one to obtain spectra, similar to absorption spectra, on any
type of solid materials or composites. One of our studies involves
the examination of adhesion and adsorption of dyes and polymers.
This paper briefly describes basic principles, the instrument and
some of the new techniques developed in our laboratory for the study
of solid structure. The advantages and limitations of this analyti-
cal method will be discussed. Future applications of this technique
for coating, dyeing, printing, and related technologies will be
mentioned.
INTRODUCTION
87
88 LIENG-HUANG LEE
Reflectivity R 4-90~
EXPERIMENTAL
Instrument
,,- - ,
- - - - OPTIO NA l- - - - - - - - - -,
, JPLANE MIRROR I
I ,
, EXTERNAL '
, • - - lASER ,
L_ ~ ___ ________ __ ~~A~ ___ :
<:::-,,:~-- PYROEL EC TRIC
REFERENCE
DETECTOR
OFF - AX IS
Elli PSOI OA L
REFLEC TO R
LJ--
TURRET OF FUSED SI UCA
THREE BEAM SPLITTER
GRATINGS
SAMPLE CELL
r==J
PA Spectra of Polymers
PA Spectra of Dyes
SENSITIVITY 20
FREQUENCY 40 Hz
SCAN RtrrE loonm/mln
SENSITIVITY 100
FREQUENCY 40 Hz
SCAN RATE 100
nmlmin
...J
<l
Z
(!)
in
SENSITIVITY 20
FREQUENCY 40 Hz
SCAN RATE 100 nm Imln
...J
<l
Z
~
VJ
SENSITIVITY 50
FREQUENCY 40 Hz
SCAN RATE IOOnm/mln
200 400
WAVELENGTH, nm
SENSITIVITY 50
FREQUENCY 40 Hz
SCAN RATE 100 nm/mln
I. POLYCARBONATE
FINE POWDER
2. POLYESTER FILM
(MYLAR)
I ,
3. CELLULOSE PAPER
i ,
! (3)!
j!v-...../ 1
I "", ,
. ".
I! "'l. ,
I. \\. " ..... __
., - ...............
........................... ........ _._._. .........
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
WAVELENGTH, nm
I. ON FILTER PAPER
2. IN METHANOL SOLUTION
SEN.: 10
SCAN RATE: IOOrmlmln
FREQUENCY :40Hz
1~3)
\ ,
~--
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
WAVELENGTH, nm
ALL AT FREQUENCY OF
40 Hz AND SCAN RATE
OF 100nm/min
...
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
WAVELENGTH, nm
(2)_/\
..
I)
! ,
.I . ,
I .
I. MYLAR POlYESTER
(0.5 mil), SEN.: 200
2.MYLAR IN RHODAMINE B
. .!~' SOLUTION (I x 10-3 MIL)
(3)
'H
.,' \.I,
,
...J FOR I HOUR. SEN.: 100
c{
z 3. MYLAR IN RHODAMINE B
£! I I.
SOLUTION (I It 10-4 MIL),
'1
C/) I I
I \
• ,I I SEN.: 100
I' I.
~H~T FREQUENCY OF
i ~\'
1 ~
'~ ...\
.--~,
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
and
N.T. McDevitt
ABSTRACT
103
104 J. S. SOLOMON ET AL.
INTRODUCTION
SPECIMEN PREPARATION
EXPERIMENTAL
BOND JOINT
- 5)(1 0 -7 m } INTERPHASE
i
"SECONDARY"ADHEREND
2 KeV
+
Ar
-7
~5x10 m
Elemental Distribution
Two thin film adhesively bonded structures were prepared using
aluminum films anodized in phosphoric acid and phthalic acid,
resulting in a porous anodic film in the case of phosphoric acid and
a dense nonporous oxide film with the phthalic acid. After bonding
with AF143, the supporting substrates were separated from the
aluminum thin films. AES spectra from the delaminated surfaces in
Fig. 5 show a clean and complete separation. Auger in-depth
elemental profiles through the respective interphases are shown in
Fig. 6. The method to construct Auger in-depth profiles was
previously reported (24).
110 J. S. SOLOMON ET AL.
"S[CONDAPN"AOHERENO
"PRIMARY· AOHERENO
0..
I: 0..
II:
eLl
......
0 (1<' )
I:
II: 0 " )
/:........
D..
fl
.... D..
.... . A '(":'), fl
.... *,.: ••••••
/"
0.. eL. ; " ' . " ' / ' ' " . , , '
0..
..
bO 10
surface or pore openings (17). The AES spectrum from the surface of
a phosphoric acid anodized aluminum sheet in Fig. 8 does show the
presence of phosphorous, and the profile of phosphorous in Fig. 9
agrees with the model proposed by Thompson et ale Figure 10
contains the Auger in-depth profiles of AI, 0, C, and P from a 20
volt, 5 minute, 1.0m H3P0 4 anodized aluminum film bonded with FM400.
The phosphorous profile in Fig. 10 no longer shows a higher concen-
tration of that element at the oxide surface, but rather a Gaussian
like distribution throughout the oxide with a slightly higher
concentration towards the oxide-adhesive interface. Therefore, the
difference between the phosphorous profiles in Figs. 9 and 10 imply
that, during the cure cycle, the phosphate at the surface moved
ahead of the adhesive into the pore vacancies.
Comparison of the profiles in Fig. 10 with those from the
phosphoric acid anodized specimen in Fig. 6 shows less adhesive
penetration into the oxide in Fig. 10. Profiles from other speci-
mens with thinner oxide layers, bonded with FM400, indicate a limit
of penetration, probably related to the presence of inorganic
filler material in the adhesive.
rr
/ ____ _ ~_. _ . ___ I
-".J ~~ ,~
...J
<{
Z
C>
en
a::
w
C>
:::>
<{
o
W
N
...J
<{
:::!:
a::
o
z L-__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
ION SPUTTER TIME {min}
AI
P
...J
«
z(.!)
Vi
a::
w
C>
::>
«
0
w
N
...J
«
:!:
a::
0
z
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ION SPUTTER TIME (min)
~1 750A ~
....J o
«
z
(!)
U'i
a::
w
(!)
=>
«
o
w
N
....J
«
~
a::
o
z
50 60 80
o 10 20 30 40
TIME (min)
ION SPUTTER
---.I
<{
AI
r 3350
o
A----1
z
(!)
(J)
cr
w
(!)
::>
<{
Cl
W
N
...J
<{
::;!
cr
0
z
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ION SPUTTER TIME (min)
---.I 0
<{ Si
Z
(!)
(J)
c
cr
w
(!)
::>
<{
Cl
W
N
---.I
<{
~
cr
0
z
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ION SPUTTE R TIME (min)
/\ Ie
r-720oA-i AJ+
..J
C(
Z I
0
,
~
~75m"
=c'6Om"
(l)
en
ct:
LIJ
(l)
:;)
C(
150min
0
LIJ
N
140min
::i
C(
2
ct: 125min
0
z
75min
, ,
40 160 80 90
ION SPUTTER TIME (min) A.M.U.
Chemical Bonding
-Si LMM
ADHESIVE
A
INTERPHASE
1 1 1
"
,
40 80 120 250
eV eV
Fig. 14. SiLMM Auger electron Fig. 15. CKLL Auger electron
spectra from (A) a silane spectra from the interphase
primed surface and (B) inter- and bulk adhesive regions of
phase region of the silane the phosphoric acid anodized
primed specimen profiled in specimen profiled in Fig. 8.
Fig. 12.
c-c
or
C-H
~
ADHESIVE
INTERPHASE
o
c-o
" I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Research was sponsored in part by the Air Force Materials
Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, United States Air Force,
Contract F33615-76-C-5185.
The authors wish to thank G. Hammer and J. Peters for the XPS
data and W. Moddeman and J.T. Grant for helpful discussions and data
interpretation.
ADHESIVE-ADHEREND BOND JOINT 121
REFERENCES
1. D.W. Dwight, ~ Colloid Interface Sci. 59, 441 (1911).
2. W.L. Baun, J. Adhesion 1, 261 (1916).
3. W.L. Baun, Experimental-Methods to Determine Locus of Failure
and Bond Failure Mechanism in Adhesive Joints and
Coating-Substrate Combination, in "Characterization of
Metal and Polymer Surfaces", Vol. 1, K.L. Mettal, ed.,
Academic Press, New York (1911). -
4. C.F. Garrett and E.F. Good, "Characterization of Bonding Sur-
faces Using Surface Analytical Equipment", 4th Inter-
national Symposium on Contamination Control, Washington,
D. C., September 1918; proceedings to be published by
Plenum Publishing Company, April 1919.
5. L.T. Drzal, "Summary of the Workshop Held on the Role of the
Polymer Substrate Interphase in Structural Adhesion", Air
Force Materials Laboratory Technical Report AFML-TR-11-
129, 1911.
6. P .W. Palmberg, Journal of Vacuum Sci. and Technol. .2" 160
(1912).
1. N.T. McDevitt, W.L. Baun, and J.S. Solomon, J. Electrochem.
Soc. 123, 1058 (1916). -
8. J.S. Solomon and W.L. Baun, "Surface Characterization of Con-
tamination of Adhesive Bonding Materials", 4th Inter-
national Symposium on Contamination Control, Washington,
D. C., Spetember 1918; proceedings to be published by
Plenum Publishing Company, April 1919.
9. W.L. Baun, N.T. McDevitt, and J.S. Solomon, Chemistry of Metal
and Alloy Adherends by Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy,
Ion Scattering Spectroscopy, and Auger Electron Spectro-
scopy, in "Surface Analysis Techniques for Metallurgical
Applications", ASTM STP 596, American Society for Testing
and Materials, 86 (1916).
10. J.W. Coburn and C. Kay, Critical Review of Solid State Science
4, 561 (1974).
11. H.J. Mathiew and D. Landolt, Depth Profile Analysis of Thin
Oxide Films by Auger Electron Sepectroscopy, in "Proceed-
ings of the 1th International Vacuum Congress and 3rd
International Conference on Solid Surfaces" (Vienna
1911), R. Debrozemsky, F. ~udenauer, F. Viehbock, and A.
Breth, ed., Dobrozemsky, Vienna (1911).
12. Y.H. Choo and O.F. Devereux, J. Electrochem. Soc. 123, 1868
(1916). - - - --
13. R.E. Pawel, J.P. Penler, and C.A. Evans, ~ Electrochem. Soc.
119, 24 (1912).
14. W.L. Baun, "Surface Analysis of 2024 and 1015 Aluminum Alloys
After Conditioning by Chemical Treatments", Air Force
Materials Laboratory Technical Report AFML-TR-15-122,
1915.
122 J. S. SOLOMON ET AL.
ABSTRACT
Techniques have been developed for measuring the fractional
area of an adhesive joint that has failed adhesively (near or at the
substra te-adhesi ve interface) and cohesi vely (in the adhesi ve) •
a
These techniques involve ray backscattering, light reflection and
microscopy from an array of positions on the fracture surfaces of
the failed joint.
The a ray count rate depends upon the elemental composition and
is, therefore, different for the substrate and adhesive. The count
rate correlates with the fractional area that failed adhesively and
cohesively, for the localized spot that is monitored. A map of the
count rate values correlates with microscopic photographs which
also reveal adhesive vs. cohesive failure. The S ray and reflection
techniques are conducive to automatic computerized mapping and
averaging whereas the photographic technique is not.
INTRODUCTION
One of the common ways of characterizing an adhesive joint is
to measure the force required to fracture a lap shear bonded couple.
The lap shear bond strength is very useful for comparing adhesives
and surface preparations. Perhaps of equal or more importance is
the loci of fracture within the adhesive joint. Figure 1 outlines
the various loci that are possible. In the case of metal adherends
failure can occur in the adherend, in the metal oxide, in a weak
-.::--
Summer employee from Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
123
124 TENNYSON SMIT H AND PIERRE SMITH
Adhesive
Interface
EXPERIMENTAL
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Locus of Failure
w
o
AES
-I
m
Z
Z
-<
en
o
Z
en
:5:
=i
J:
»
z
o
"C
X40 m
X250 X1000 :0
:0
m
Fig. 4. SEM micrographs of interfacial failure area of 1F (Table 1). en
:5:
=i
J:
ADHESIVE vs. COHESIVE FAILURE 131
PR lOR TO Ar + SPUTIER
Computer Mapping
The equipment has not as yet been modified to map with respect
to B backscattering, but Fig. 6 is a reflection map of a fracture
surface. The dotted regions faithfully correspond to the visual
observed interfacial failure regions.
1. 21
, Ii IJIlIl ;,),~ f.!~M:;:H :~:{J'li'&fi(I)P' ~ : :;?~?'i";'f'" " : ;, , l'"
llJ_,'"1\ ':1111 : '1111 ~\j ... /!\I
: : '"J II II II}' ' un
'till':1111",";:,,',d:~""
II , '11111111"',:
!'lIi ' N,l: : 1111 ""',, ,:c ,,~:<
1111 ','" ; 1," " ~'<" •
': ':'
1111""
~>"," ~ li.1I1:~',II:~;~ Y!~, , "c, • ':C
(,,','i lill , , , , • • •••
IIll
"','11'11 :,'1111 1111
"'I'
"'"
':"' ,
II!,IIIII, , ::
(j,,1 :, '
;; : 11111.'1'
,.',.
111.1 "',, ':';,
1111 "
II
e .48
Fig. 6. Computer map of reflectivity of a fracture
surface. The dotted regions failed inter-
facially.
O=Lao (1)
j"
j
For a given strain, o. will depend upon the compliance of each
column and 'lill therefore depend upon the materials within the
column. It should be noted, that although Eq. 1 relates the
measured stress and the stress distribution, it tells nothing about
ADHESIVE vs. COHESIVE FAILURE 133
STRESS DISTRIBUTION
(a)
,,- ,\ -
'
(l~ / v..... -"\\
1/ ,I /
/ - ......."
~ -
(l -
\
\ I~ ''t I
\ l
t2
\-:.J , ..... 1
--
'\"'- -;,,"7
"- '\..J
(l
(l - r-- __ _/
,/
......
..... _ / ' .....- .... " ..... _/"
tl
2 3 4 6
k
(e)
(bl
graphical yield stress surface. Curves O't ' O't and 0'0. indicate the
hypothetical stress distribution long bef3re, ~ust prior to and at
failure. The compliance values of each column influence the
distribution curve O't' As 0' increases such that the distribution
curve O't reaches the 1critical stress values for interfacial fail-
ure, som€ adhesive failure occurs which changes the compliance and
thus modifies the stress distribution curve to show some relaxation
in the failed region. As the failed regions grow the stress
distribution curve is pinned in these regions, but continues to
increase in the other regions. When the stress distribution curve
contacts the upper cohesive levels, they fail and a flaw of critical
size is created. The crack propagates causing failure in the whole
joint.
(2)
o ~ l3 O'k
where l3 is a proportionality constant. It follows that
(4)
and
(7 )
Contaminated
with Silicone
Sample Control grease Total
15 27 42 6.1
2 21 22 43 5.7
3 22 45 67 4.9
4 14 69 83 3.2
5 10 87 97 2.6
.-
Co)
~
136 TENNYSON SMITH AND PIERRE SMITH
"'- .
,~ .
:::c 6 o.'o'Q.... ¢
o ) ..
a:i i ...... 0
"
0:
l-
V!
c 4 I " ..
~
cc
/
P d'"O
f "0
2 / 0 CONTROL ""-..
o CON - SILICONE GREASE
o TOTAL
00 100
....
'iii
o 20 40 60 80 100
% INTERFACIAL FAILURE
Fig. 9. Plot of bond strength vs. %interfacial
failure.
4
~/
/
-......... ... /
/ 500
3 ~ ... /
0 /~ ... 400
<XC
VI / ~ V1
V1
,4"
~ w
Z
:I: :..:
~
<.!) / u
t5 2 / 300 :I:
0::
r- /A ~
~
VI
<I ......
0
z g..,/o w
0 0
w / 200
x
/
/0- 0
/ 100
0 0
0 100
I.F. and thus bond strength. It was demonstrated in this case that
interfacial . failure was in the oxide film. The probability of
failure increases in direct proportion to the number of flaws in the
oxide and this increases with film thickness. Although the film
thickness at about 90% I.F. indicates that the bond strength should
fallon the theoretical curve 1 in Fig. 10, the index of refraction
of this film proved to be about 2.5 vs. about 2.0 for the other
films. The larger index corresponds to a more dense oxide (fewer
voids or flaws) and the observed larger value of a is therefore
predicted, i.e., curve 3 is appropriate for this oxi~e.
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
Strength vs. rate-of-strain data show accurate, viscoelastic
time-dependence for a bulk epoxy adhesive (Metlbond 1113) in ten-
sion and shear, but not in the adhesively lap-bonded state. A
detailed analysis of the lap shear joints, combining results from
neutron radiography, scanning electron microscopy and roughness
measurements, indicated the dominance of internal voids and stress
concentrations not present in the bulk state. A qualitative
fracture mechanics approach was used to reconcile the results. A
general methodology to elucidate practical adhesive bonding prob-
lems is suggested that combines elastic, plastic and surface char-
acterization.
INTRODUCTION
Bulk Properties of Adhesives
141
142 DAVID W. DWIGHT ET AL.
the WLF equation. 60 is the work of bond fracture: the sum of the
interfacial, adhesive and adherend failure energies. Experimental
data required to test this theory are quantitative surface analysis
to determine the fractions of interfacial and bulk failure, the
intrinsic failure energies, and the overall joint failure energy
measured as a function of temperature and rate of crack propagation.
Andrews and Kinloch prepared joints with different surface-
energy substrates bonded to a single SBR rubber, cross-linked in
situ with one initial crack located at the interface at the edge of
the test specimen. Their theoretical development was corroborated
by the results in these idealized specimens. However, in recent
work they have employed qualitative surface analysis to elucidate
the case of mild steel bonded with an epoxy adhesive (12). The
nature and topography of fracture surfaces were examined visually
and by scanning electron microscopy as well as electron probe
microanalysis, using 5~ titanium dioxide tracer in the adhesive.
The initial locus-of-failure was cohesive through the adhesive, but
after water immersion, a complex locus-of-failure was found: the
path of fracture occurred between the oxide surface layer and the
epoxy adhesive, alternating into the adhesive layer.
(2)
where
E = Adherend Young's Modulus
~(iy + y ) = Areaunder the stress-strain curve per unit
e p volume of adhesive
EXPERIMENTAL
Materials and Preparations
Surface preparation of the aluminum adherend was done accord-
ing to the following specifications (14):
1) Solvent wipe with methyl ethyl ketone.
2) Vapor degrease in trichloroethylene by suspending in the
vapor until condensation on the surface no longer occurs.
3) Immerse for 20 minutes at 1500 F (66 0 c) in a solution of
68% distilled or de-ionized water, 23% sulfuric acid
(specific gravity 1.84), 9% sodium dichromate.
4) Rinse thoroughly.
5) Air dry so as to prevent retention of water. Thorough
draining is required.
6) Apply the primer at ambient temperature, agitating con-
tinuously during brushing, and air dry to a thickness of
0.00007 in. (1.78 x 10- 3mm) to 0.000025 in. (6.35 x 10-3
mm) •
Single lap shear specimens were prepared with an overlap
length of - 0.30 in. (7. 6mm) , adhesive thickness of -0.006 in.
(0.15mm). Aluminum adherends were 0.125 in. (3.17mm) thick for the
ASTM (D 1002-72) recommended single lap geometry. Symetrical
single lap specimens were also prepared, for they were recommended
by several authors (5,6) as a superior geometry which has lower
stress concentrations and more uniform shear stresses across the
glue line. These specimens differed from the single lap specimens
in that the adherends were machined to half thickness across the
146 DAVID W. DWIGHT ET AL.
Neutron Radiography
A symmetric rail shear test (Fig. 1) was used for bulk shear
studies. Specimens for this ~est were prepared with a ratio of 10:1
for the distance between tabs (d) to length (1) in accordance with
the analysis of Whitney, et al. (18). These specimens were sensitive
to tab application: Metlbond 1113 specimens had tabs attached with
Epoxy 901 adhesive and yielded at lower loads due to premature
tab/specimen failure, relative to the Metlbond 1113-2 specimens
that were glued with Eastman 910 adhesive. Loads were applied in
opposite directions on the center vs. the outside tabs and most of
the latter specimens produced 45 0 shear failures (Fig. 1).
i
Tabs are -0.15 in. x 5.2 in. (1.9 x 13.2cm) 0.014 in. (1.6mm)
thick aluminum pieces glued onto symmetric rail shear test speci-
mens to insure deformations in excess of elastic limits.
FAILURE CHARACTERIZATION 147
Surface Analysis
Strength in Bulk
4.5 31
r-------.--------r-------,--------r-------~------_,
Sulk Tensile Prediction
Y = 29.06 + 1.90 Log(';'I';'? Mpa
y' = l%lsec
() Experimental Points from the Bulk
4.2 Shear Data
25
VI
.>< 3.9 27 ~
'"
Cl.
V) V)
V)
W
a:: ....
Vl
a::
l- I-
V) V)
- -
Cl Cl
....
-'
3.6 25 ....
-'
>- >-
3.3
1~0--4.-----~,------L~------'-r------~------~------~
Joint Strength
800
METLBOND
1113-2
400
220
METLBOND 200
1113
1054
2200
954
o o
o o o
1800
8 o 854 ~
o
.....:I
~ o o o ~
i o 754 ffi
o g
~
~~ o § o o 654 H
S
S
1400
o
o o o 554
10001~0-~3~---------10~-~2~----------1~0--~----------lJOO
FractographY
10
z
...... 8
M
<:)
6
>< 4
w
u
z 2
c::(
l-
V)
0
......
Cl -2
--l
c::(
u
-4
......
I-
0::
-6
w
> -8
-10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE x 10 2 IN.
Fig. 5. Optical pnotomicrograph and corresponding
Talysurf profile of lap shear specimen 111.
z
10
.....
8
M
0
6
x
w
4
u
z 2
c:t:
r-
.....
(/) 0
0
.....J
-2
c:t:
u
..... -4
I-
0:: -6
W
:>
-8
-10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE x 10 2IN.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
1. D.W. Dwight, J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 59 (3), 447 (1977).
2. D.W. Dwight, MoE. Counts and J.P. Wightman,in "Colloid Inter-
face Science, V. III. Adsorption, Catalysis, Solid Sur-
faces, Wetting, Surface Tension and Water", M. Kerker,
ed., Academic Press, New York, p. 143 (1976).
3. H.F. Brinson, M.P. Renieri and C.T. Herakovich, in "Fracture
Mechanics of Composites", ASTM, STP 593, p. 177 (1975).
4. M.J. Crochet, ~ ~ Mech. 33, 326 (1966).
5. P.M. Naghdi and S.A. Murch, ~ ~ Mech. 30, 321 (1963).
6. P.G. Ludwik, Elemente der Technologischen Mechanic, J.
Springer, Berlin, p. 9, 1909.
7. C.J. Lin and J.P. Bell, ~ ~ Polym. Sci. ~, 1721 (1972).
8. R.J. Good, ~ Adhesion~, 133 (1972).
9. L.W. Jennings, in "Recent Advances in Adhesion", L.H. Lee,
ed., Gordon and Breach, New York, p. 469 (1971).
10. W.D. Bascom and S. Mostovoy, in "Organic Coatings and Plastics
Chemistry", S.S. Labana, ed., Vol. 38 (1), American Chem-
ical Society, p. 152.
FAILURE CHARACTERIZATION 163
ABSTRACT
The dielectric relaxation of a filled epoxy adhesive bond has
been measured as a function of the distance from one aluminum
adherend by means of dielectric depolarization spectroscopy. Four
thermally stimulated current peaks have been identified and charac-
terized using for each a single activation energy and relaxation
time approximation. A gradient in the magnitude of the peaks is
observed as one approaches the adhesive-adherend interface. The
difference in shape and magnitude of the curves can be explained in
two ways: (1) differences in the chemical composition of the
adhesive at the center of the bond and at the interface arise during
the curing process; or (2) dipoles used in the bonding process near
the interface are not free to respond to th~4electric field. The
gradients occur over distances up to 2.5 x 10 m. This is contrast-
ed with the typical range of tens of Angstroms for interfacial bond
forces involving dipole or van der Waals interactions.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum to aluminum epoxy bonds are in widespread use in many
industries. The bond strength depends nqt only upon the mechanical
properties of the resin but also upon the surface preparation of the
adherend, the curing cycle of the resin, the ambient atmosphere and
several poorly understood aging characteristics. In addition, it
has been shown (1) that the locus of failure in an aluminum epoxy
bond depends upon the state of stress within the bond. For failure
in Mode I (opening) the fracture surface is most often observed to
occur at the center of the bondline, while the fracture surface in
165
166 JOHN L. CROWLEY AND ARTHUR D. JONATH
NdFp -1 -1
i(T) = ~2 [T 0 exp(E/kT)] exp
T
-[ [bToexp(E/kTI)]
EXPERIMENTAL
The epoxy used in this experiment was Epoxylite 810 (Epoxylite
Corporation, Anaheim, California), a silicate loaded, dianhydride-
cured glycidyl ether of a phenolformaldehyde Novolac resin. TSDR
and mixed-mode fracture samples were prepared with resin for bond-
ing to aluminum surfaces which were first polished with 111m diamond
polish and subjected to a common acid-dichromate etchant. After
bonding, the resin was cured at 120°C for two hours. Fracture
characteristically left a thin film of material or interfacial
accommodation zone (IAZ) on one aluminum adherend and a bond
thickness (bulk) of adhesive on the other. After fracture, addi-
tional TSDR samples were cut from the adherends. An aluminum
electrical contact, 0.635 cm in diameter, was evaporated onto the
adhesi ve surface of each specimen, while the aluminum substrate
served as the second electrical contact. All samples discussed here
were polarized at 25°C for 20 minutes.
Sample heating rates were varied from 0.12 deg K/s to 0.50 deg
K/s. These rates, although higher than usual for tests on polymers,
were still sufficiently slow to maintain thermal equilibrium be-
cause the thin film under measurement was bonded to a very good
thermal conductor.
BUl K MATERIAL
I .... - ,
,I
/ ' B
"
---"
\
\
\ "
\
\ '\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ '\
\
\
R. T. IAZ MATERIAL
10- 15
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
103/T (K- l )
o 0 o
______ 4-
1.0 ,..----
,,0 o
/
0.9 I II
I-
o
Z O.B
~
Of!
::::> I
u 0.7
~,ll
,,
~
~
~
0 0.6
w
!:::! I
-'
« 0.5 I
~ I
0 I
Z 004 I
0.3 II SAMPLE 1
o SAMPLE 2
0.2 • IAZ POST-FRACTURE SAMPLE
0.1
A
o
1.0
,/
,0-----------
0
-li-
0.9 ~ 0 0
I-
Z 0.8
w
'"
'"::> 0/
,
I
0
u
looi: 0.7 A
/
~
Q"
I
0
w 0.6 I
!::!
..... I
0.5
~0
Z 0.4
0.1
o
o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.C17 0.00
ADHESIVE THICKNESS {em}
Fig. 3. Magnitude of Peak C as a Function of Thickness
of Material Remaining on Adherend (Normalized to
a Peak Current of 2.0 x 10- 13 A at a Field of
1.59 x 103 V/cm).
DIELECTRIC RELAXATION GRADIENTS 171
A
D D
1.0 /'
----- -
D
D/
0.9 D
/
l- I
Z 0.8 D
~ A
or:
:::>
/
u 0.7 /
~
DA
~
a.. /l:l.
0 0.6
w
!:::!
.....
0.5
~
0
Z 0.4
0.3 A SAMPLE 1
0 SAMPLE 2
0.1
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.(17 O.IJI 0.09
ADHESIVE THICKNESS (em)
Fig. 4. Magnitude of Peak D as a Function of Thickness
or Material Remaining on Adherend (Normalized to
a Peak Current of 2.7 x 10-13 A at a Field of
1.59 x 103 V/cm).
modate itself to molecular (atomic) bond discontinuities caused by
surfaces. Rather, it is the measure of the spatial range of the
accommodation zone, approximately 20~m, that is of interest. This
is contrasted with the tens of Angstroms typical range for inter-
facial bond forces involving dipole or van der Waals interactions.
A long-range mechanism, perhaps in conjunction with the short-range
phenomena, is needed to explain the result. For example, if the
polymer contains interacting dipoles, ordering due to interfacial
electric fields might propagate a significant distance from the
interface. Also, electrokinetic phenomena associated with col-
loids (6), postulated to explain the ordering of floccules seen in
two-phase epoxy polymers (7), might describe long-range effects
taking place in the epoxy cure process.
172 JOHN L. CROWLEY AND ARTHUR D. JONATH
Cs =fGIP
where G is the shear modulus, and p is the adhesive density. By
differentiating the above expression, the change in shear speed can
be expressed as
l1Cs _ 1 (l1G _ ~)
C - 2 G P
s
The results of the shear wave speed measurements are shown in
Fig. 5. The data show a variation in shear speed over the same
magnitude of bond thickness as the variation in normalized peak
current amplitudes shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. However, the
variation in the shear speed is 10 percent of the original speed
measured in the bulk, while the variation in the magnitude of peak B
at comparable bond thickness is approximately 50 percent. If it is
assumed that the variation in the magnitude of peak B is due
entirely to a change in the density of the adhesive in the IAZ, then
the change in shear speed represents a 70-percent decrease in the
shear modulus. Although this reduction in shear modulus is consis-
tent with the observed locus of failure for Mode II fracture,
density gradients alone do not account for the change in ratio of
peak magnitudes (see Fig. 1).
The normalized peak currents from the bulk materials shown in
Fig. 1 are a factor of three greater than the asymptotic values
shown in l"igs. 2, 3, and 4. This anomaly remains unexplained.
However, it is noted that the bulk fracture material underwent
severe deformation and microcracking.
SUMMARY
The dielectric relaxation of a filled epoxy adhesive has been
measured as a function of the distance from an aluminum adherend by
means of thermally stimulated dielectric relaxation. Four ther-
mally stimulated current peaks have been identified and character-
ized. A gradient in the magnitude of the peaks is observed as the
adhesive-adherend interface is approached. The difference in shape
and magnitude of the curves can be explained in two ways: (1) dif-
ferences in chemical composition of the adhesive at the center of
the bond and at the interface may arise during the curing process;
or (2) dipoles used in the bonding process near the interface are
not free to respond to the electric field. The gradients in the
DIELECTRIC RELAXATION GRADIENTS 173
1.6
e_e 0
~
~
1.5
V>
v
Cl
w
w
CL
V>
§
0::
<t:
w
:I:
1.4
V>
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by Lockheed Missiles & Space Company,
Inc . Independent Research funds. The authors wish to acknowledge
the support of R. Holsinger and T. J. Stultz in preparing the samples
for test.
REFERENCES
1. W.D. Bascom, C.O. Timmons, and R. L. Jones, Apparent Inter-
facial Failure in Mixed-Mode Adhesive Fracture, J. Mate-
rials Sci. jQ, 1037 (1975). ---
2. C. Bucci, R. Fieschi, and G. GUidi, Ionic Thermocurrents in
Dielectrics, Phys. Rev . 148, 816 (1966).
3. P. Hedvig, "Dielectric Spectroscopy of Polymers", John Wiley
and Sons, New York, pp . 148-155 (1977) .
4. C. Bucci, Ionic Thermocurrents in Alkali Halide Crystals Con-
taining Substitutional Beryllium Ions, Phys . Rev . 164,
1200 (1967).
174 JOHN L. CROWLEY AND ARTHUR D. JONATH
Arthur D. Jonath
ABSTRACT
Microscopic and macroscopic aspects of adhesion science are
currently under investigations in order to better understand the
fundamentals of adhesive behavior from bond formation to bond
deterioration/failure. Results of three novel experimental methods
are described: a) Measurements using an improved shear specimen
design indicate the absence of Mode II failure in a brittle epoxy
system. b) Results of ultrasonic Rayleigh wave measurements
indicate a possible mechanical properties gradient in the cured
resin within the interfacial region of an epoxy-aluminum bond. c)
Thermally stimulated dipole relaxation measurements indicate struc-
tural gradients within this region.
INTRODUCTION
Adhesive bond failure has been associated with missile mal-
functions in various aerospace systems. In most instances, the
contributing factors are not quantitatively identified. The prob-
lem is to determine the extent of failures resulting from improper
FRACTURE MECHANICS
Fracture toughness measurement is one of the materials con-
cepts presently used to determine design data for adhesive bonded
structures. This is considered to be a measure of the ultimate
strength of a material in which the failure mode is by crack
propagation, causing failure at engineering stresses less than the
tensile or shear strengths. While fracture toughness is the
appropriate failure criterion for linear elastic brittle failure,
recent work at the Naval Research Laboratory and elsewhere has
highlighted several pitfalls in applying these methods to the
testing of adhesive joints (1). For example, joint geometry and
bond thickness effects dominate the fracture toughness measurements
in structural adhesive joints. Thus the approach for this aspect of
the study was to explore, in selected adhesives, the limitations of
fracture mechanics and to attempt to relate fracture energy
measurements to the adhesive polymer structure.
UNDERSTANDING OF ADHESIVE INTERFACE 177
CONTOURED TO
p 30 2 ADHESIVE
• -;:-r
B
•p
o.
1
t---+-- I IN .
(2.54 em)
12 IN.
(30.5 em)
1.5 IN . + I
~2IN.--l
(5.08 em)
b.
Fig . 1. Adhesive Fracture Test Specimens:
(a) Tapered Double Cantilever Beam for Mode I
and (b) 45 0 Scarf-Joint for Combined Modes I
and II.
UNDERSTANDING OF ADHESIVE INTERFACE 179
Table
RESULTS OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MEASUREMENTS
Relative G KI KII
Crack Total
Length Nm/m2 in-lb/in2 N/m312 N/m3/2
FILLED SYSTEM
I G II
--=.c::::.
SCARF •1 93 0.53 2.08 x 10 6 1.54 x 10 6
.2 100 0.57 2.32 x 10 6 1.35 x 10 6
.4 110 0.63 2.47 x 10 6 1.28 x 10 6
Glc
G II
I
--=.c::::.
SCARF .2 51 0.29 1.66 x 10 6 9.63 x 10 5
.3 49 0.28 1.66 x 10 6 8.96 x 10 5
.4 39 0.22 1.49 x 10 6 7.75 x 10 5
Grc
~
LOADTRANSFER~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3
ROD (TYP. )
~----------b----------~
P (b - a )/( b + a)
~ Pa (b - a}/12 (b + all
MOMENT DIAGRAM
0.5 A
0.4
iii
.....,
a..
V!
0.3
V!
....~
V!
Ill::
< 0.2
w
:I:
V!
0.1
o~--~~ __~__~~__~____~
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
JOINT LENGTH (IN.)
*10- 3 6.0
B
4.0
iii
a..
2.0
V!
V!
w
....
Ill::
V! 0
...... 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5
w
w
a.. JOINT LENGTH (IN.)
-2.0
-4.0
6r-------------------------------------,
6 8 10
DISTANCE ALONG OVERLAP
mm
Q
g 6r----------------------------------------"
....
.
5
!:: B
Z
;:) 3
~
IU
2
... E 1
IIIIi: N
lit E
~?" 0 4 6 ~~8----~
~ 2-1 10
oZ DISTANCE ALONG OVERLAP
IU
mm
~
-3
IU
-4
~
Z -5
...~ -6~---------------------- ________________ ~
CENTER OF BOND
MOMENT:
4
6 0
• = 0
1-
CR Ci
= (1)
sin 90 0 sin aiR
where Ci is the incident sound speed in the liquid, CR is the
surface wave speed in the solid, and aiR is the angle of incidence
at which the surface mode conversion occurs. The shear wave speed,
CS ' is related to CR by
G = pCs2 (3)
Most of the energy in the Rayleigh wave is concentrated within a
distance less than a wavelength from the solid surface and thus the
shear wave speed in thin adhesive layers (such as that adjacent the
cohesive fracture surface in the IAZ) can be determined.
PANAMETRIC
PULSER
MODEL
o
TECTRONIX
SCOPE
5052 PR MOD EL 545
SAMPLE
1.6
e_e 0
"
~
E
...Yo
1.5
VI
u
0
w
w
Q..
VI
§
or::
4:
w
I
1.4 0 0
VI
"- "
'--
"-
IAZ MATERIAL
(SILICATE LOADED)
10-15~--~----~----~----~----~--~~--~
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
103 IT (K- 1)
10-11r----------------------------------------,
,...
~
I-
Z
W
~
~
::>
u
~
10- 12
«
w
0..
~
::>
~
~
~
10-13~______~~~--~~--------L-------~--~
103
ELECTRIC FIELD {V/cm}
c c c
1.0 "..----
------~
,,0
/
C
0.9 / A A
...Z A c
0.8
~ I
:::J
u 0.7
:w:
~o
9iA I
0.6 I
I
i
Yo!
t::!
0.5
I
I
oZ 0.4
I
0.3 A SAMPLE 1
o SAMPLE 2
0.2 • IAZ POST-FRACTURE SAMPLE
0.1
o ~--~----~--~----~ __ ____
~ L __ _~_ _ _ _L __ __J
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Throughout the various phases of this work, the author has
received help and encouragement from discussions with John Crowley,
John Bjeletich and Gil Knollman. This work was supported by the
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. Independent Research Fund.
REFERENCES
1. W. D. Bascom, private communication.
2. J. G. Williams and P. D. Ewing, Int. J. Fracture Mech., 8, 441
(1972). -- -- -
3. W. D. Bascom, C. O. Timmons, and R. L. Jones, J. Mat. Sci., 10,
1037 (1975). --- -
4. G. G. Trantina, ~ Composite Materials, ~, 371 (1972).
5. N. Iosipescu, J. of Materials, 2, 13, 537 (1967).
6. J. G. Bjeletic~and A. D. Jonath, to be published.
7. D. L. Flaggs, private communication.
8. R. D. Adams and N. A. Peppiatt, ~ of Strain Analysis, 2, 13,
185 (1974).
9. G. C. Knollman, J. J. Hartog and A. D. Jonath, to be published.
10. C. Bucci, R. Fieschi, and G. Guidi, Phys. Rev., 148, 816
(1966). - -
11. J. L. Crowley and A. D. Jonath, Adhesion and Absorption of
Polymers, ed. by L. H. Lee, Plenum Press, New York, New
York (1979).
12. W. J. Renton, Experimental Mechanics, Nov. 1976, p 409.
Discussion
--
• R.K. Burnham, M.M. Farrow and E.M. Eyring, paper presented to
the Symposium on Photoacoustic Spectroscopy, FACSS-V, Boston,
October 1978.
DISCUSSION 197
predicting locus-of-failure.
REFERENCES
A1. R.S. Sharp, Research Techniques in Nondestructive Testing,
Academic Press, New York, 1970.
A2. D. Ensminger, Ultrasonics, The Low- and High-Intensity AEEli-
cations, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1973.
A3. W.P. Mason, Physical Acoustics and The ProEerties of Solids,
D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, 1958, p. 20.
POLYMERIC STRUCTURAL
ADHESIVES
Introductory Remarks
D.H. Kaelble
Rockwell International
201
Fracture Mechanics and Adherence of
Viscoelastic Solids
ABSTRACT
203
204 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GENERAL THEORY
2.1 The Thermodynamic Point of View
p
[aj
[bj
u = U (S,V,X 1.... )
is called the fundamental equation and its first differential
au au au
dU = (as)v,x. dS + (av)s,x. dV + (ax.)s,v dX i + •••
1 1 1
can be written
au _
-(a-v)s,x. = p the pressure
1
au
( aX. ) s , V :: Pi
1
T =T (S,V,x i ... )
p =p (S,V,X i ···)
Pi = Pi (S,V,X i ···)
is equivalent to the knowledge of the fundamental equation.
F = U - TS
dF = -SdT -pdV + P.dX
1
.•.•
1
H = U + pV
dH = TdS + Vdp + P.dX.
1 1
and the Gibbs free energy ~ replaces the entropy by the temperature,
and the volume by the pressure
tt = U - TS + pV
d~ = -SdT + Vdp + PidX i
Thus, any partial derivative P. can be defined as
1
P.1 = (au )
aXi S'V'X j = (aF ) (aH ) (~)
aXi T,V,X j = aXi S'P'X j = aXi T,P,X j (1)
=- wA
208 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
where y 1 and Y2 are the surface energies of the two bodies, Y12
their interfacial energy, and w the Dupre's energy of adhesion, or
thermodynamic work of adhesion. The first differential of energy
au au au
dU = (as)6,AdS + (~)S,Ad6 + (aA)s,6dA
can be written
dU = TdS + Pd6 + (G-w)dA (2)
au aUE aus
(aA)s,6 = (aA )S,6 + (aA )S,6 = G-w
F = U-TS
dF = -SciT + Pd6 + (G-w)dA (4)
H = U-P 0
<t = U - TS - Po
~ = - S:1T - odP + (G- w) dA (6)
(8)
(10)
( 11)
G = w (12)
(13)
(14)
6=6 +6 m =6 +L
km
(15)
Let us study the stability of the system involving the two elastic
bodies and the spring at fixed crosshead displacement 6. The energy
of the system includes now the elastic energy Um of the springs
= Pd~ + (G-w) dA
(16 )
hence
(18 )
Taking into account eqs. (18) and (10), eq. (17) becomes
ap 2 1
(a A) 0 ---'--a-p- (19)
k m + (ao) A
ap
The quantity (ae)A = k is the stiffness of the two elastic solidS,
and is posi ti ve. aJ ~ can be zero, whereas (aaGA) 0 is still
So, (aA)
positive. Eq. (19) given by Courtel et al. (18) shows that the
stabili ty range monotonically increases with the stiffness, from
the fixed load case (k =0) to the fixed grips case (k ex». When
m m
km+o one approaches the fixed load condition and eq. (19) becomes
212 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
G =w
aG
(aA)~ > 0
(20)
G =w
=0
will be called the guasistatic adherence force of the two bodies.
As the limit of stability is a function of the stiffness km' the
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 213
....
au c
G = -(aA )p
auC
15 = (aP)A
This last expression is known in classical elasticity as the
generalized Castigliano theorem, that gives the displacements in
au
nonlinear elasticity, when Castigliano' s theorem 15 = ~ PE) A is
irrelevant. The complementary energy is thus the thermodynamic
potential used in classical elasticity for transformation at fixed
load. In classical elasticity (Us=o)
(24 )
(25 )
dUS .
The force FS = - d 15 1S associated with displacements along the
equilibrium curve; the forcel1, also given from eq. (22) by
auc
11 = -(ar-)p
2
G = K 2 1-v for plane strain (28)
I E
8.86 (T-TS )
(31)
log aT = - 101.6 + T-TS
- This means that viscoelastic losses can only arise if the inter-
face is itself capable of withstanding stress (Andrews and Kin-
loch, 21).
218 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
3. EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
3.1 Apparatus
The apparatus used (Fig. 3) to study the adherence of glass
spheres and punches is a modified form of the apparatus described
elsewhere (Barquins and Courtel, 28) for the study of rubber
friction. The area of contact, illuminated by reflection of
monochromatic light, is observed through the punch or the spherical
cap with a microscope. Figure 4 is a diagrammatic view of the
mechanical system. The hemisphere or the punch is supported by a
balance. This balance has an axis of rotation given by two micro-
ball bearings; its sensitivity is about 10 dyn. The vertical
displacement of the arm can be recorded by a displacement transducer
with a precision of about 0.1 ~m. The whole mechanical system can
be laterally shifted to adjust the centre of the contact with the
microscope axis.
A 16 mm camera (25 or 50 frames per second) is located at the
top of the microscope, and the contact areas are recorded at a
magnification of about x10. Any sequence begins with the photograph
of a micrometer scale; the areas of contact are such that the view
through the glass ball does not introduce optical distortion. The
contact radii are thus obtained with a precision of about 1 ~m.
Experimental results of sections 4.4 and 5.5 correspond to about
160,000 frames, of which about 60,000 have been measured.
3.2 Material
The viscoelastic material chosen was an optically smooth poly-
urethane, recommended for dynamic studies in photoelasticity (PSM 4
Vishay) and delivered as plates of thickness h=3.175 mm (1/8 inch).
"T1
:0
»
~
c
:0
m
s::m
(")
:I:
»z
~
»z
o
»
o
:I:
m
:0
m
Z
(")
m
Fig. 3. General view of the apparatus used to study the adherence of glass
t.J
spheres and punches to viscoelastic materials. ~
-0
to..)
to..)
o
P+P'
,Ioac,D
"
"- elastomer
\
\
\ ~
COUnteMeight ~
x l>
C
G')
The surfaces were cleaned with alcohol, dried wi th warm air, and
left during 30 min for the equilibrium with room atmosphere to be
reached. Microscopic examination fails to reveal any surface
feature such as the bloom crystals observed by Roberts and Othman
(28 bis) on rubber surfaces. The Young's modulus E and the thermo-
dynamic work of adhesion w to glass were measured by the method
proposed elsewhere (Barquins and Courtel (28), i.e. the verifica-
tion of eq. (72) for the contact of a small glass ball. This method
was previously used to study the variation with temperature of E and
w for rubbers (Barquins et al., 29). The Young's modulus of this
polyurethane, so measured, is E=5x10 7 dyn cm- 2 , the Poisson's ratio
is taken as v=i, and w can vary from day to day, most proE~bly with
the relative humidity of the atmosphere from w=50 erg cm to w=85
erg cm-2 (high values corresponding to fine weather). So w was
always measured before any set of experiments, and the contact
during any set of experiment was always made at the same point. In
these conditions, the reproducibility is excellent.
P
(35)
2na2~_ 1':
a
The vertical displacement of the surface- for r>a is
1 2
u = ~ ~ Arc sin ~ (36)
z 1TE a I'
u (37)
Z
u = <5 - b1 - ~ (38)
Z n ~~
du
thus, dr Z = 00 at the edge of the contact. The same equations hold
for an adhesive contact, when P is a tensile load (Fig. 5b).
with 2 2
1 1-\11
3 1-'-2
K = '4 (~+ E;- ) (40)
!
\U;!
'P i
i
t
\·,.....L..../
r
[a]
[c]
,
I
[d]
Fig. 5. Analogy between the adherence of a rigid
circular flat punch on elastic half-space
and a fracture experiment on a deeply
notched cylindrical bar.
With the potential energy, Up = -Po, one can compute G from eq.
(9):
p2
G 3Ko2
= 6na 3K = ana (41)
(42)
(43)
(44)
cG cp P
(-a&)A = (cA)o = 2 (45)
2na
cG co P
(cp) A = -( cA)P = (46)
3na 3K
(47)
so that
(49)
aUT
and the curve UT(A) is a straight line with (aA )p = o everywhere
dUT
and dA = 0 nowhere.
Berry (32) has shown that plotting the locus of the Griffith
criterion, and the loading curve on a stress-strain plot enables the
various energies involved to have a geometric interpretation.
Especially the surface energy of the system is the area between the
loading curve and the locus of the Griffith criterion. This locus
is the cubic
2
P = 9lC... 03 (50)
16nw
and is drawn on Fig. S. Points such as B or B1 on this locus have
the area A as parameter. For a punch of area A , the loading curve
o
is the straight line OB (constant A).o
At the equilibrium point B,
the elastic energy UE = iP 0 is given by the triangle OBI, and the
c c
surface energy I usl = iluEI by the double hatched zone (for a cubic
y=kx 3 , the area under the curve is ky x) • During crack propagation
at fixed load (Fig. Sb) or at fixed displacement (Fig. Sc) the area
of contact and the surface energy Us decrease, and the elastic
energy given by the triangle* OB 1 I mcreases toward infinity or
decreases to zero.
fPdo = iP c0 c + Pc (0-0 c )
(footnote continued on next page)
226 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
A
0.5
r~~::~:::::G:~~O~~~~~~~~,~ P",OI
-1
-6
-7
JL
Aow
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
- 0.5
-1
Y.~
(pJ B
H ------ - ------
[aJ
o x.IDS.
w
[b]
[c] fZZJ u(
~UII
[:·. :.l~UT
f!
In Fig. 8c the thermodynamic potential U = UE+US is the posi-
tive area 0a2B1I and the work (G-w)dA done by the system is
still BB 1B2 • At rupture this wor~is ~UE = -US = Aow.
known, the differential equation (32), together with the eqs. (39)
and (41) allows for the prediction of any evolution of the system.
The kinetic is independent of a and only function of the instantan-
o
eous radius of contact a. It is the kinetic of the rupture of
plane/plane contact, under the action of a traction perpendicular to
the interface. In the particular case where the initial crack speed
is such that G>>W, it comes
1 6
t = -61 (61TKwa)0.6 ~
P10/3
t-)
t.>
o
o
3:
»C
C)
en
»
z
o
3:
!Xl
Fig. 9. View of the area of contact during the unloading of a glass »::c
flat punch from a polyurethane surface. The corresponding oC
profile of contact is shown in Fig. 5c. Z
en
"Tl
:0
»
~
300 c
:0
...... m
""'--'- ........... .....:-0" \. s:
.-.-... .'. E m
....."',~
......... ~.\,.'- ,\\ \ :::L.. (")
J:
(/)
.-.-~----.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. -~" ..... "~ »z
-._'-. ...... '\ :J
. . ""'a"a'D.o .... ,\,_. k - _ (")
'\. 2000 CJ)
----_.__ __ -.-.-.-.-
.-.-......--.
....'-.....
......
• \h
\ .I. ct
.... »
z
............... '"cr.,\., ~ o
..... \l< () »
........... DII '! ...., o
....
. ';'
• ir.
Z
"
............. \~ 0
~ J:
-~-'-'-'_0_._._._-.-.-.-._---
_0_0_ 0_ 0_ . _0_ . _ _0--'_0_ '........ \u• m
:0
._--._- .'--....
..............."\r;
' \. '"0 0 m
Z
(")
0 .... 0..0 ". m
P dynes '09'
. \~-
o -3000
• -4000
.~
+ -6000
• -8000
• -10000 8=21°C
• -12000 w= 75ergs.cm-2
6 -14000
• -15000 E=5.10 7 dynes.cm-2 , 10'=0.5
10
.."SA
.....'Y""
.~ . ~
:.•..J.
.,,,,+,#,,'
.~T
.,9+'1
...'
a
+ ...
P,dynes
• +
• -3000
10 .Jt'.~'
•• • -4000
,;r-: ~.
0.6
• -6000
• -8000
• ·\0000
.-12000
o 1 ··14000
.·15000
11~~~------~------~1~0--------1~0~2--------~~-------~~------~105
CRACK SPEED. pm.s·\
10·~~
w
10
-0.5
-1
-1.5
a,pm
O~ ________~I,OO~________~200~________~3~OO
- - ------------.£..-
6
6,pm
-20
-40
-60
P,dynes
0-3000
• -6000
• - 9000
, - 12000
• -15000
'·Ieooo
- 80
dt
(3 i
da = K
8'ITawa.
_1\0\
/
2
da, d a,
from which the correct values dt and dt 2 are calculated, hence
Pi = ~ aiK~i·
Figure '5 displays such computed curves for various.~. The
force goes through a maximum Pmax that is often taken as a defini-
tion of the tackiness of the viscoelastic solid. It must be pointed
out that P has no physical signification: for a given punch of
max
radius a o it increases with the cross-head velocity ~ • From eq.
(4') Pmax corresponds to
(52)
The increase of G with time is due to simultaneous increasing ~ and
decreasing a:
dG aG • aG·
dt = (at)~ a + (at) a~
and eq. (52) leads to
2(~~)~ = (~~)a
for Pmax. The left hand side is a material (and geometric)
characteristic but the right hand side depends upon ~.
Experimental verifications are in progress.
p \
\
TIME
(53)
with
1 1 +1-
- - -
R - R1 R2
and K given by eq. (40). The elastic displacement and the pressure
are
a H2
ISH = If" (54)
Oz
3 P
="2-2
1Ta
P;
H 1--;
.;;.
(55)
a
Note that the relation between P and IS is not linear (Fig.
16), so that the elastic energy is not iPISH but
UE = ~ PIS H (56)
and that elastic displacement is not given by the Castigliano' s
theorem, but by the generalized Castigliano's theorem (eq. (21»:
238 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
4
_~L __________________________________________________ _
-1
UT =- .2.U
2 E
(57)
(as for punches, eq. (49». Note also that the relation
dUE
do = P
is still valid.
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 239
p2 a5K
U =-+-- (61a)
E 3aK 15R2
2 2 5
= 3aK (0 _ ~) + L!L (61b)
4 3R 15R2
From eq. (9) it comes, with Up = -Po
G _ (P 1-p)2
- 6 nRP 1 (62a)
3
= 3a K (1 _ R 0) 2
(62b)
8nR 2 a2
Equations (60) and (62) are the equations of state of the system.
Note that eq. (62) gives eq. (41) when R+c:q The derivatives of G
are
P 2_p2
00 1 (63)
( ClA)P =
4,fa 2RP 1
dG 3K 2 2 (64)
(ClA) 0 = 2 2 3 (a -QR)(3a +OR)
16n R a
Note that eq. (47) is still valid, and that UE can be written
3 4
(68)
3 P,H 3 PH
This figure thus shows the relation between a =~ and a H = i:.
Figure ,8 gives the same information for pea) together with
variations at constant o. These last curves have their slope given
by eq. (66) and have their maximum on the Hertz curve (P,=P).
Figure '9 shows the relation between 0 and a from eq. (62b) in
reduced coordinates together with variations at constant load. The
242 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
10
-5
-10
6 \ \
r~R]! \ \
\
\ \
15 \ "- "-
\ "- ........
\
\
\
\
\
""
10
"-
, ,,
-5
,,
,
,,,
,,
,,
I I~I
x= 3"wR
'\
I
I
I
I
-10 \
The (6)p curves have their slope given by eq. (67) and have their
minimum on the Hertz curve (P 1=P).
Note that in Figs. 18 and 19 the curves (P) 6 and (6)p are
independent of w.
The equilibrium curve P( 6), first given by Johnson (34) is
displayed on Fig. 16. Its slope is
3 2
a min = 31fWR 7 2K
15 = a 213R.
At this point (point C) one has dP/da=O, dc/dP=oo, and the curves
15 (a) and (c)p are tangents as expected above.
The equilibrium is stable at fixed grips conditions if
(~~) 15 >0. The two terms between brackets in eq. (64) vanish
respectively for P=P, and P+5P,=0. The hatched zone of Fig. '7 are
for instability. It can be observed that, at fixed 15, P, can de-
crease down to the top of the parabola. At this point, corres-
ponding to the spontaneous rupture, one has
5
P = -5P, = - ~wR
a 3 = 1TwR 2 /6K
15 = -3a2 IR.
At this point d c/dP=O, and dOldA=O as expected. The equilibrium
curves are thus more extended at fixed grips (up to the point D) as
expected in sec. 2.3. Beyond the point C eqs.(7') and (72) are not
valid, for the sign must be changed before the square root. How-
ever, the relation
P, - P = (6n wRP , ) i
The load P1 is the apparent Hertz load (for w=o) that would
give the same area of contact, but the displacement would be
different. To have the same displacement 0 as the one calculated
for w~o, the apparent Hertz load P' given by
P ,2 = P 2 P1+2P 3 (74)
1 (3P"")
1
should be applied, but the area of contact would be different.
When eqs. (67) and (69) are taken into account, the forces due
to molecular interactions, eqs. (24) and (25) become
61TRP 1
FS = w 5P,+P (75)
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 247
I~=tl
+---------~~~~------~
6=h
P1- P
II= -2- (76)
UT
A
",(3<nfR2)~
... .... 0.5 2.5
.... ,,
\
\
\
,
\
\
-1.5
,
\
\ UTeA) "UT(A)
(P,< P)
,,
\(p,zP)
\ I
I
-2
-1 B
M = 2{P-P I )/ 3aK.
Figure 19 shows that evolution along the curve (6)p' can lead to a
new equilibrium if pI >- ~1lWR or to rupture i f pI <- ~WR. In the two
cases the k1netics of the crack propagation can be studied by eq.
(32).
During crack propagation, following the curve (6)p' the strain
energy release rate is given by
(P _pI)2
1
G = 611RP 1
(77)
where pI is the new fixed load, and where P1 varies with the radius
of contact a according to the eq. (59) • The only underlying
assumption is that the displacement 6 is purely elastic, and that
viscoelastic losses are only at the crack tip.
i.e.
= _pl. (78)
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 251
60 X:--
P'
3<nwR
G
--1
W
50
40 x=-20
/
/
30 x=-IS
",....10
20
/
/
10
I- 200
~
J-______ .'5000":"."_0_
l-
R=O.219cm
o
I 5 10
TIME,mn
15 20
o
~ I!>o
Z
o
u
100
!>O
TIME . s
unloading (P'=- ~1TWR); it was computed from data of Fig. 28. Note
that the time to rupture for an unloading from P to P' = -P is the
time of detachment of a ball of weight P under gravity.
105 , - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - ,
G
e rgs.cni 2
10'
P . IOOOO dynes
PO. -4 000 dynes
R. O.219 cm
9-23 ' C
103 1--_ _ _ _ _ _....1...::_ _ _ _ _ _--',
10 102 103
CRACK SPEED . pm.5-1
curve .
E
::1..
(J)
~200
o
<
a::
U
~
z
o
u
100
P = 5000dynes
P'=-3000dynH
R= 0.219cm
0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME,s
2t£·
flO = 3a NK
I
10-' 10 10' 103 10' 10'
CRACK SPEED ,,..m.s·'
Fig . 28. "Normalized motive" versus crack speed for adherence of glass hemisphere
on polyurethane, for various unloadings, and two radii and two temperatures.
The same master curve as for peeling (heavy line) and of course for unloading
of flat punch is observed.
!»
~
258 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
30
6,pm
20 \
\
'\
"'- '-
10
a,pm
P·.dynes
• 4000
" 2000
..• -20000
-10 II _ 4000
• 0.-2000
o -2000.-4000
P . SOOOdynK
R.O.219cm
K.8.9 107ctynn.coii
W.83 e'll"cnf'
-20
t.p* - P'
30
5,pm
25
...
"... ... "-
.....
20
15
,,
\
\
10 "-
"
5
R= 0.219 em
K = 9,5 .10' dyne<.cm-'
W= 10efos.cm·t
second step, the sheet of air is extruded and the radius of contact
progressively takes its equilibrium value.
Experiments were performed with a glass ball (R=0.219 cm) on
the polyurethane. Area of contact was recorded at 50 frames per
second, and the elastic displacement was recorded on a memory
oscilloscope. To avoid percussion, the loads were applied with a
damping system. The experimental points on the Fig. 30 are for
loading to P=5000 dyn from P'=O and p'=4000 dyn. (The numbers are
frame numbers.) Experimental results are in perfect agreement with
theoretical predictions.
The Hertzian evolution of the contact during loading (branch
as ST) is confirmed by the study of the surface profile by Newton
rings. For the same radius of contact, Fig. 31a,b,c show the Newton
rings and the profile for loading equilibrium at P=O, and unload-
ing. At equilibrium the contact angle is 91110 0 ; during unloading
the profile is as shown in Fig. 5c (compare Figs. 31b and 9); but
during loading the tangential joining is characteristic of a Hertz-
ian profile.
[a]
[b] a I
[c]
From the same calculation method as for punch (see sec. 4-5) one can
compute the radius ai' corresponding to 0i = 0i_1+6~t, by
262 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
z- 6
-[~'3ItP
2
da. d a. 2
A£.
a i = a i _1 - I dt ~I&_I-~I
dt2 2
LJI,
a. 3K 3Ro.
Pi = ~R (--~ - 1)
ai
2
6. PEELING
6.1 Theory
Up = -Po =~-cos
~ b
a + P-F ) P(A-A )
b2Eh 0
p2_F2 F2
U - - - - (A-A) + - - A
E - 2b 2Eh 0 2b2Eh 0
(P_F)2 P
G= 2 + b (1-cos a) (80)
2b Eh
and the equilibrium relationship
~
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
p.-(~)
, ("
I I
I
I I
~ 'p
Fig. 34. Thin elastic strip peeling at an angle
~ from a rigid substrate .
(P_F)2 P
-=-:~- + -b (1-cos ~) = w. (81)
2b 2Eh
As dG/dA = 0 (G independent of A), the corresponding equilibrium
load P is the quasistatic force of adherence. Under this load the
c
peeled film is in indifferent equilibrium. For P>P , the crack
speed is constant during peeling because G is indepen~ent of A.
Equation (81), with F=O, was given and experimentally verified
(at constant crack speed, 1. e. constant w~ by Kendall (4). The
approximation (Rivlin (50), Deryagin and Krotova (49), Kendall (1»
P = bw/( 1-cos ~)
A
0.5 Ao
....
\V .. o\ •..•• ······
-2 G,,~ •• ••·••••
........
-.!:! •••••••
w
-5
00
= (op) A
6.2 Experiments
Figure 36 shows the relation between the crack speed v and the
"normalized motive" (G-w)/w with G computed by eq. (80) and w=65 erg
cm- 2 From eq. (32) this curve thus displays the dissipation
function ~(aTv) to which the punch and sphere results were compared.
There is a marked dispersion in the results that can be assigned to
temperature variations during experiments, local variation of the
interfacial energy due to dirty areas, local prestresses in the laid
strips, or variation in room humidity. The dissipative function
~(aTv) varies as (aTv)O.6, a result often found in peeling.
Birch et al.(54) have shown that humidity increases the peel
rate of rubber on glass, and this result together with peeling
experiments in various liquids by Gent and Schultz (26) or on
various substrate by Andrews and Kinloch (27) can be analyzed by a
reduction of w in eq. (32). (As said in sec. 3.2 the Dupre energy of
adhesion was observed to vary from day to day most probably with the
G
--1
w
o 90.
o 60.
o 30·
a 10'
lL----~----~------~-----_7.~----~._-----~~
10" 10 10 2 10 3 10" h,-
CRACK SPEED pm.s-'
t-
Roberts and Thomas, 42), Fig. 35 and Fig. 31 can be compared with
G= As G >::w in Fig. 31, one has G"'w(j> (aTv) and this figure
clearly supports the multiplication effect of w on viscoelastic
losses, as proposed by Andrews and Kinloch (21).
7. CONCLUSION
~/ Y ..V
/
A
d"'~- A/-~
~y·/~e. ·
10'~· /'> /e
,,0 . ~O'6
o 6 y' RH.
• J6
4 85
elOO
~ > ~ ________- L__________ ~ ________ ~ ___
1 ~ ~ ~
velocity . pm.S-'
G-w=~ (aTv).
The second member is the drag due to viscoelastic losses at the
crack tip, and is proportional to w as proposed by Gent and Schultz
(26) and Andrews and Kinloch (27). For a viscoelastic adhering to a
rigid body, the dimensionless function ~ is a characteristic of the
viscoelastic material, i.e. independent (i) of the nature of the
rigid body, (ii) of the geometry of the contact and (iii) of the
loading system. When ~ is known, this equation enables us to
predict the kinetics of detachment, provided that the failure is an
adhesive failure, and the viscoelastic losses are limited to the
crack tip. This last condition means that gross displacements must
be elastic for G to be valid in kinetic phenomena. The interest of
the proposed formula is that surface properties and viscoelastic
losses are clearly decoupled from elastic properties and loading
conditions that appear in G.
270 D. MAUGIS AND M. BARQUINS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APPENDIX
where indices 1 and 2 are for solids 1 and 2, and P = r-a. Eq.
(86) can be written
16 K1 Ji>
[u z l = ~ "2; (87)
that reduces to eq. (29) for plane strain in the case of two
identical solids.
This means that GdA is the work done by punch stresses during crack
propagation. Let us verify this point in the general case of
contact of two different elastic solids. Let us compute the work
dUE needed to close, at fixed grips, a crack such as in Fig. 5d,
from radius a to radius a+da, by progressively applying stresses on
the two sides so that the final stresses are given by eq. (84) when
the crack is completely closed.
=1
a+da
dUE ~
a z [U z] 21Trdr
a 1
where the factor 2" arises because of the proportionality between
traction and displacements. The relevant stresses are those across
the annulus, prior to extension, i.e., those corresponding to
p = a+da-r, and the displacements are those across the annulus
prior to closure, i.e. those corresponding to p = r-a:
8K 1
dUE = ~
2
f a +da r-a ~
(a+da-r) rdr
a
that gives after a lengthy but simple calculation, and for da~
2K 2
1
dUE = 3K
21Tada
P2dA
= GdA
The equatio~
2K1
G=~ (88)
is the Irwin relation for plane strain, eq. (28), in the case of two
different solids.
3P1 2 ~ P -P 2 -~
a
z = - --2 (1 - -r 2) +- 1 - (1 - -r 2) (89)
21Ta a 21Ta 2 a
The asymptotic value near the crack tip is only due to the punch
stresses, and is given by
272 D. MAUGIS AND M. BAROUINS
P 1-P ~@'
Oz = -2
1Ta
2 12P (90)
Le.
(P 1-P)2
G = =w
6JT a 3K
APPENDIX 2
y =(~)
1TwR '/3 and x = 3~R in which:
3K2
YB
2X
= --v3
x,
+ x, 2/3
So, the area can be written:
x,
=I
o
= 59 x,
5/3
-
3 «-
y~ x,
7/6 3 2/3
+ x,
and x, 2X 2/3
IBJ yBdX = I (~ + x, )dX = 3 h" x, 116 -2 x, 2/3
x x,
0
and I yHdx = I 3l/3dx = - -9 x 5/3
JO 5 1
x,
REFERENCES
1. K. Kendall, !!.:.. Phys. 12.: !P.Eh Phys. !!" 1186-95 (1971).
2. K.L. Johnson, K. Kendall and A.D. Roberts, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
! 324, 301-13 (1971). -----
3. K. Kendall, !!.:.. Phys. Q.:!P.Eh Phys. 2" 1782-7 (1973b).
4. K. Kendall, !!.:.. Phys. 12.: !P.Eh Phys. !!, 1449-52 (1975g).
5. K. Kendall, !!.:.. Phys. 12.: !P.Eh Phys. !!, 1722-32 (1975h).
6. K. Kendall, !!.:.. Phys. 12.: !P.Eh Phys. !!, 512-22 (1975c).
7. K. Kendall, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 344, 287-302 (1975e).
8. K. Kendall, J. Adhesi0ri"7, 137-40' (1975f).
9. K. Kendall, Proc. R. Soc: Lond. A 341, 409-28 (1975a).
10. K. Kendall, J. Mat:-Sc:-11, 638-44-c1976a).
11. K. Kendall, ~ Mat. Sc. 11, 1263-6 (1976b).
12. K. Kendall, ~ Mat. Sc. 11, 1267-9 (1976c).
13. K. Kendall, J. Mat. Sc. 10, 1011-4 (1975d).
14. J.R. Rice, "Fracture: An Advanced Treatise", ed. H. Liebowitz
(New York: Academic Press), Vol. 2, p. 191~311 (1968).
15. C. Huet, Ind. Minerale 1, 128-41 (1973).
16. D. Maugis and M. Barquins, !!.:.. Phys. 12.: !P.Eh Phys . .l!., 1989-
2023 (1978b).
17. H.B. Callen, Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons)
(1960) •
18. R. Courtel, D. Maugis and M. Barquins, Industrie Minerale !!"
137-43 (1977).
19. H.D. Bui, Mecanigue de la rupture fragile (Paris: Masson)
(1978 ).
20. J.D. Ferry, "Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers", 2nd edition
(New York: John Wiley & Sons) (1970).
21. D.H. Kaelble, J. Colloid Sc. 19, 413-24 (1964).
22. D.H. Kaelble, ~Adhesion-'; 102-23 (1969).
23. A.N. Gent and Ft.P. Petrich~ Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A310, 433-48
(1969). -- - -- ----
24. A.N. Gent, !!.:.. Polym. Sc. A-2 ~, 283-94 (1971).
25. A.N. Gent and A.J. Kinloch, !!.:.. Polym. Sc. A-2~, 659-68 (1971).
26. A.N. Gent and J. Schultz, J. Adhesion 3, 281-94 (1972).
27. E. H. Andrews and A. J. Kinloch, Proc. R:- Soc. Lond. A 332, 385-
99 (1973). --------
28. M. Barquins and R. Courtel, Wear 32, 133-50 (1975).
28 bis. A.D. Roberts and A.B. Othman~Wear 42, 119-33 (1977).
29. M. Barquins, R. Courtel and D. Maugis, Eighth World Conference
on Non-Destructive Testing, Cannes (France), Paper 4 B 11
(1976).
30. J. Boussinesq, "Application des Potentiels" (nouveau tirage),
(Paris: Blanchard, 1885 (1969).
31. S. Way, !!.:.. !PPl:. Mech. ASME I, 147-57 (1940).
31 bis. K. Kendall, J. Adhesion 5, 77-9 (1973a).
32. J.P. Berry, !!.:.. Mech. Phys. Solids!!, 194-206 (1960).
33. D. Maugis and M. Barquins, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris B, 286, 1-4
(1978a). -- -- - -- - -
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 275
u
z
= 3P
4a
1-1
nE
~r22 _ 1) 1/2 _ (r2 _ 2) Arc tg (i
2 2
_ 1)-1/2.]
a a a
that is equivalent to the eq. (15) given in the paper by Derjaguin
et ale (ref. a). For an adhesive contact (w ;i 0) punch displacement
(eq. 36) under tensile load P1 - P must be added to Hertzian
displacement under load P1 ; hence the vertical displacement
a2 [ 2
r
Uz = nR (~-
a
1)
1/2 2 2
- (r2 - 2) Arc tg (r2 -
a a
1)
-1/2
4
- 3" Arc sin ~
2
+ 1 - v -P Arc Sl.n
. -a
n Ear
REFERENCES
a) B.V. Derjaguin, V.M. Muller, Yu. P. Toporov, ~ Colloid Inter-
FRACTURE MECHANICS AND ADHERENCE 277
ABSTRACT
The increased use of adhesives in the automobile, aerospace
and other industries is noted. The need to understand the visco-
elastic nature of polymeric adhesives is assessed. Previous bulk
tensile constant strain-rate, creep, relaxation, and delayed fail-
ures studies on an epoxy adhesive are summarized. New constant
strain-rate and creep data for symmetric rail shear and symmetric
lap shear geometries of the same epoxy adhesive are reported. It is
shown that significant viscoelastic shear behavior, including de-
layed failures, do occur. The linear viscoelastic methods and
results from previous tensile studies are extended to the condition
of shear. Predictions are shown to be at variance with experimental
results. The reasons for deviations are discussed; Le., the
possibility that linear viscoelastic analytical procedures are
inappropriate and the likelihood that viscoelastic phenomena are
different in bulk tensile, bulk shear and lap shear geometries.
INTRODUCTION
279
280 EROL SANCAKTAR AND H. F. BRINSON
Y(e --)
STRAIN
In (2) the terms e:. .'J and €i' E represent the viscoelastic and
elastic strains resp~~tively. J
e = alE (J < e
e<a < Y
BINGHAM MODEL[8] a
SCHWEDOFF MODEL[8]
a r
Y
a a
MODEL USED BY MODEL USED BY
CHASE &GOLDSMITH[9] BRINSON[3]
where e', e", I', I" and e:' are material constants.
As mentioned earlier, constant strain-rate, creep and relaxa-
tion stUdies were performed on bulk tensile coupons of Metlbond 1113
and 1113-2. Figure 3a shows the constant strain-rate response of
1113. It may be observed that the material displays the same
elastic, viscoelastic and plastic response regimes as the idealized
material shown in Fig. 1 and the modified Bingham model shown in
Fig. 2. Further, it is demonstrated that the modified Bingham model
can be used to closely approximate the measured behavior. It
should, of course, be mentioned that a different relaxation time
must be used for each strain-rate in order to achieve a close fit of
the data. The relaxation times needed are shown to vary nearly
linearly with strain-rate in Fig. 3b. While the need for a variable
relaxation time renders the modified Bingham model to be empirical,
it does not negate the utility of the constant strain-rate stress-
strain response curve fitting procedure. Obviously, the procedure
can be used quite accurately for interpolation and extrapolation
purposes (4). That is, gi ven the stress-strain response for a
single strain rate, the response for other strain rates can be
closely predicted.
Figure 3c shows the variation of yield (maximum) stress with
strain-rate compared to equation (7). Apparently, Ludwik's equa-
284 EROL SANCAKTAR AND H. F. BRINSON
70.---,----.--~r---~--=la
60 • EO· (7) 4
8
50 3
...
'"
~40
<.!:
0 2
...J
V') V')
V') V')
~ 30 E e V w
ex 0 1113
t-
V') o.~_ (1 4t-
V') 0 1113-2
II
0
20
Q O.68m ~ /5EC -4 -3 -2 -1 0
06. 80m ~ /5EC 2 LOr, €
c 65.0m ~ /SEC
10 o 670m %/5EC Fig. 3b. Relaxation Time
• RUPTURE Versus Strain Rate for the
Modified Bingham Model.
4 5
Fig.3a. Stress-Strain/Strain-
Rate Behavior of Metlbond
1113 and Comparison with the
Modified Bingham Model.
~ 60'"
V')
III
~
VI
~ 50 .. 7.5~
t- V=V' + o'LOG €/€' ~
V')
10- 1 10 0 10 1
STRAIN RATE (X/SEC)
70 .--.------.----,,--,...----::l10
60
8
50
o
§:'" 40 ~------------------------
t F, TIME TO FAILURE ·
V')
V')
410 MIN
~ 30 o = 40.64 MPa
l-
V')
- EQ. (6)
--0-- } EXPERIMENTAL
20
2
10
o ~__~__~____~__~__~
o 10 20 30 40 50
TIME (tHN)
SPEC mEN
o o o
o o o
o o o AOHES I VE -+-.....A
AOHERENO
o o o
o o o
P
Fig. 4a. Symmetric Rail Shear Fig. 4b. Symmetric Lap Shear
Test Specimen. Specimen.
STRUCTURAL ADHESIVE 287
between shear and tensile elastic limit and yield variables. Equa-
tions are needed at the termination of two response regimes--linear
elastic and linear viscoelastic.
First consider the linear elastic region in which the follow-
ing relations are valid for uniaxial tension:
(8)
G = E/2( 1 + v) (9)
The use of the Tresca failure criterion and equations (8) - (10)
allows the calculation of elastic limit stresses and strains from
their tensile counterpart.
By using Laplace transforms, it is easy to show for linear
viscoelasticity that equations (8) - (10) are valid where the
stresses and/or strains are a function of time providing Poisson's
ratio is a time independent constant. Conversion of equations (4) -
(6) from tension to shear requires additional information on relax-
ation times or viscosity coefficients. If Tobolsky's assumption of
equivalent relaxation times in shear and tension is invoked, it
readily follows that (15),
llt
( 11)
'(s = Gys
'(s(Ys) = as + llsYs (12)
288 EROL SANCAKTAR AND H. F. BRINSON
(13)
y
s
= y , + Y " log
s s
(ys )
• ,
Y·s
where shear variables Ls' Ys' and shear material properties G, as'
~s' etc., are related to tensile quantities as previously
desoribed.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Glued tabs were employed under the steel rails for the rail
shear tests. Average shear stresses for both rail shear and lap
geometries were calculated by dividing the applied load by the area
in shear. Additional test procedures and data reduotion details are
given in reference (14).
6.-----------------------------------~
40
5
,
( 3)
30
4
ELASTIC STRAIN RATES:
III
(1) y = 3.71 %/SEC '"
"-
(2) Y= 4.3 x 10- 1
.;,£ ::E:
%/SEC
(3) Y= 1.43 x 10- 3
In In
In
I.LI 3 %/SEC In
I.LI
c:::
I- 20~
In GAV 121,000 psi In
c:::
c:(
(838 MPa) c:::
c:(
I.LI I.LI
:J: :J:
In In
,
2
o 2 4 6 8 10
SHEAR STRAIN (%)
Fig. 5. Symmetric Rail Shear Stress-Strain/Strain-
Rate Response of Metlbond 1113.
50
6
40
~(3)
~ (4)
VI
.:.t.
'"
"'-
::IE:
2
~ SPECIMEN FAILURE
(MAJOR DROP IN STRESS) 10
8
SHEAR STRAIN
o
-
EXPERIMENTAL POINTS 20 -;;;
Q.
:E
--- TENSILE PREDICTION
VI
VI
Lo.I
a::
In
.....
~
(t-)
as = as ' + as" log y'
lOu
.....
::E
-'
as' = 2160 psi (14.9 MPa .....
~
as" 319 psi (2.2 MPa) VI
c:c
-'
l' 1 %/S C Lo.I
15
(l)
~ 10
c:(
c::
l-
V)
c::
c:(
LLI
:I:
V)
SPECH1EN REACHED 20% STRAIN (3)
AFTER 38 HRS.
5 (4)
SPECIMEN REACHED 17% STRAIN AFTER
48 HRS.
(1) TO = 5.1 ksi (35.0 MPa)
(2) TO = 4.7 ksi (32.2 MPa)
(3) '0 = 4.4 ksi (30.3 MPa)
(4) TO = 4.2 ksi (28.8 MPa)
o ____
~ ~~ ____ ~~ __ ~~ ______ __
~ ~
o
50
7
6
40
[J EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
-- EQUATION (13)
V)
V)
LLI
ex:
l-
V)
ex:
[J 30 ~
::t:
V)
3
20
process.
Creep to failure stresses are shown plotted in Fig. 13 where
failure was defined as either rupture, a sudden strain discontinu-
ity or reaching a 10% strain level for creep at the lowest stress
level. Obviously, the latter definition has no influence on the
character of the delayed failure curve. Again, equation (13) due to
Crochet is a reasonable representation of the delayed failure
process for the adhesive in the bonded state, but the constants A ,
Bs and Cs are not predictable from tensile results. s
4
_ _-----;2
, 30
V'>
(2) Y = 8.B x 10- 3 %/SEC V'>
.....
V'>
c:<:
(3) Y = 8.1 x 10- 3 %/SEC V'>
W
c:<:
f-
V'> (4) y = 8.8 x 10- 3 %/SEC f-
15 c:<:
Vl
(5) y = 9.6 x 10- 3 %/SEC
,
c:<:
ct:
~2
:z::
w
:z::
V'> EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Vl
SPECIMEN FAILURE
PREDICTED INITIAL SLOPE FRON 10
BULK TENSILE DATA FOR
Y = 8.6 x 10- 3 %/SEC
o 61\
ADHESIVE
STRAIN 30
24
///
3.4 ,/
23
/'
/ 26
/
/
3.2
22 /
/_--
'" ~
/
0..
=
:£ 22~
V>
V>
UJ
21 V>
V>
/ --/ «
0::
~3.0 l-
0::
..... .....
//
V>
V> V> 0::
0:: 0::
«
« «UJ
//
UJ
w 20 18~
1/
::I: ::I:
V> V>
2.8
19
2
18 6
L-______- L______~~------~~-L~~ 10
o 300 600 900 1200
TIME (MIN)
-
z
~
t-
en
10
(4)
4.5r----------------------------------,
3'0
4.
o EXPERIMENTAL POINTS
25~
~ 3.5 • RUPTURE "'
"-
::E
EQUATION (13)
V') V')
V') V')
UJ .....
0:: 0::
l- l-
V') V')
0:: 0::
c:(
~ 3.0 UJ
~P
::I:
V') 20~
TO 10%
STRAIN
2.5
15
2.0 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
12. Y.T. Yeow and H.F. Brinson, "A Comparison of Simpl.e Shear
Characterization Methods for Composite Laminates", Com-
posites, Jan. 1978.
13. W.J. Renton and J.R. Vinson, "Shear Property Measurements of
Adhesives in Composite Material Bonded Joints", ASTM-STP
580, 1974.
14. E. Sancaktar, "The Viscoelastic Shear Behavior of Adhesives",
Ph.D. Thesis, VPI & SU, June 1979.
15. A.V. Tobolsky, Properties and Structure of Polymers, J. Wiley
& Sons, Inc., NY, 1960.
16. J. S. Cartner, Jr., "The Nonlinear Viscoelastic Behavior of
Adhesives and Chopped Fiber Composites", M.S. Thesis, VPI
& SU August 1978.
Surface Energetics and Structural
Reliability of Adhesive Bonded Metal
Structures
D.H. Kaelble
Science Center, Rockwell International
ABSTRACT
All metals ,except gold, are chemically reactive with oxygen
and moisture at ambient temperature and tend to form oxide or
hydrated oxide layers. In addition to oxidative chemical reaction,
these high energy surfaces are subject to physical adsorption by
water vapor and volatile organic contaminants. Earlier studies
have shown for structural aluminum alloy AL-2024-T3 that the kine-
tics of surface aging, subsequent to acid etching, can be followed
by wettability measurements and expressed on surface energy maps of
dispersion and polar components of solid-vapor surface tension.
Weibull statistics have recently been applied by Wegman and co-
workers to investigate the effects of both surface exposure time
(SET) and bond exposure time (BET) to high moisture upon the shear
bond strengths of metal joints. In this study the surface chemistry
and related surface energy of both metal adherends and adhesives are
analyzed prior to bonding. The theory of interfacial adhesion and
thermodynamics of fracture are combined to predict the effects of
both SET and BET on long term bond strength and reliability.
Structural adhesive joints of both aluminum and titanium structural
alloys bonded with epoxy-phenolic adhesive are shown to degrade
according to surface energetics predictions. Aging is shown to
lower average strengths without broadening the Weibull strength
distributions. Results are discussed in terms of structural reli-
ability of adhesive bonded metal structures.
301
302 D. H. KAELBLE
INTRODUCTION
8~------TI------~I------~I--------'-I------'
Al 2024-T3 []
Aged Surface
~O
~, "- -
-
......
E
u
6-
""
""
SVr
'"
1"ac~
. -. a
"-
c: 9 (> 0. !lif}g
~
HT424-' "
c:
4- ....... -10~ -
o
A1 2024- T3
(Fresh Surface)
2- -
O~----~I~----~I------_~I------~I----~
o 2 4 6 8 10
Polar - ~ (dyn/cm)t
Fig . 1. Dispersion (a) and polar (8) components of 2
the solid-vapor surface tension YSV = a~ = 8S
for HT 424 primer (phase 1) and Al 2024-T3
adherend (phase 3).
DISCUSSION
In this study the surface chemistry and related wettability of
both adherends and adhesive were analyzed prior to bonding. The
results of this surface energy analysis can be plotted on a surface
energy map where the ordinant a and abscissa 8 as shown in Fig. 1
respectively, refer to dispersion (non-polar) and polar components
of surface energy and interfacial bonding mechanisms. The theory of
interfacial adhesion experimentally verified in this analysis de-
fines the thermodynamic work of adhesion W by the following
relation (4,5): a
(1)
2
R2
= (<12 - H) + (B2 _ K)2 (4 )
H = 0.5 (<11 + 3)
(1 (5)
K = 0.5 ( B1 + B3 )· (6)
In Eq. (4) two new surface energy parameters <12 and B2 define the
environment (phase 2) at the crack tip. The model for critical
stress defined by Eq. (2) can be presented on surface energy
coordinates as shown in Fig. 3.
0c (H 20)
a (air) = 0.644.
c
ADHESIVE BONDED METALSTRUCTURES 305
100~------~-------r-------'--------r-------'--------'
..,
70~------~------~------~--------~------~------~
o 120
Reduced SET (hr) at 54°C and 95% R.H.
3100
8i~--------~--------r-------~------~ 8~i--~~--~---r----~--~--~--~
-
.....E
u
-
......E
u
"?- .......
>, c: 5
"C
>,
"C
...... <.!J
" 4 >- 4
c:
0 ......
'"L I=N
up- 3
QI ~
Q.
u
'" Q;- 0
i5 2
8 00 2 3 4 5 6 7
Polar - 1\ (dyn/cm)! R (dyn/cm)+
o
Fig. 3. Modified Griffith analysis of the effect of H20 immersion in reducing ::I:
critical failure stress 01 for interfacial fa1lure between HT 424 and A
l>
etched Al 2024-T3. m
r
OJ
r
m
»
o
:I:
",<S- m
."> (J)
...,# <
m
OJ
0
_..# Z
! 0
;= m
0
'"i3 s:
0-
"" m
'"co< -I
7 <
... »
r
:z:
'" '"... ~
",'" '" ",' '" / " :5 :0
... C
____ ____ _","
____ J _____ J_ '" ,," 0
......... '" '" '" '" '" '" " /",
-I
'" " " C
,,'" '" """ " :0
m
'" '" '"
" '" ' "'" " " "''' (J)
"'" '" '" ",'" '" '" "
.... / '" " " '"
_--r----~----~-----~-----L / / / ,,,
/' "/, /
~<....
..,¢
o 200 400
" 600 800 1000
BET ( hr)
Fig . 4. SET and BET response surface for lap shear bond strength
for Al 2024-T3-HT 424 . w
o
......
308 D.H.KAELBLE
Ti-6Al-4V-HT424 Epoxy
SET(hr) BET(hr) ° (Kg/cm2 )
0
mea)
<:m
OJ
8. 8. 0
Z
0
m
0
s:
m
-I
E 6 »
u r
-- ........
c::
>..
CJ)
-I
~ :D
c
--0 N n
-I
~
~HT424 ........ <!)
~
c
4 :D
m
CJ)
"
...........
N
........
-!+ I
/'<:
1- u
1=
2~ ~ u 2
'0
D_ 0' •
O 2 4 6 8 o 2 4 6
II (dyn/cm)i R (dyn/cm)i
~
310 D.H.KAELBLE
i:)\)
.,,(S
~r-------------------------------~/
.. _
-D--_.9
// ,,1-'- ___;- ____ --,.-____
~
~
--7--/
/'
- - _ .... _ _ _ _ , /
/ 0,; ,,/ ,/"./
/,; ~~
~ ~
V)
'"
. . . . . --7:.-_ ,,'/
,; ,;
----/-;r;"
7~ - - - -
I'l'l' ;//
-L ,; / /
~~t:l ~
'"
- - - "
/
./
,; -----,.-----..J----- ,
---,/
/ ,,/
/
/
./
"
7 '- /
"
./
/
"\
r§l
~
.....
\0 ,; ,.. - - _"
--,;"-----j ;
r-----r------.4 ,/ / ,; " ,; / / ,'5
0 '- --- ,;,;
---0-- ' " , ;
",
"0
",;,; ,; / ,;
/.~-----/7-----~/f-----~/L------/~----~/~
o 200 400 600 800 1000
8ET (hr)
~ (aged, wet)
2873 psi = 0.75
a b ( unaged, dry) = 3840 psi
( 11)
Structural Reliability
llt! (psi)
1636 1998 2441 zqs1 3641 4447
2
.066
0= 0 .37
oS,
0:
oS
-2 .87
-4
i I
0.98
7.4 7.6 7.8 ao a2 a4
In%
llt! (psi)
1636 1998 2441 2981 3641 4447
2
Adherend • Ti-6A I-4V 0.066
0 .37
0:
oS,
0:
c
-2 <:> .87
~'I,\
~'
"!P> "
-4 "7.4 7.6 7.8 ao a2 a4
0.98
In llt!
Fig . 7. Comparison of Weibull Shear strength
distributions for aluminum (upper view)
and titanium (lower view) adherends.
312 D. H. KAELBLE
REFERENCES
1. J .C. Bolger and A.S. Michaels, in Interface Conversion for
Polymer Coatings, ed. P. Weiss and G.D. Cheever, American
Elsevier Publishing Co., NY, Chapter 1 (1969).
2. D.W. Levi, W.C. Tanner, R.C. Ross, R.F. Wegman and M.J.
Bodnar, !!..:..!E£h Poly. Sci. 20, 1475 (1976).
3. T. Smith and D.H. Kaelble, "Mechanisms of Adhesion Failure
Between Polymers and Metal Substrates", Technical Report
AFML-TR-74-73, Air Force Materials Laboratory, WPAFB,
June 1974.
4. D.H. Kaelble and P.J. Dynes, J. ColI. and Interface Sci. 52,
562 (1975). - -- - --
5. D.H. Kaelble, !!..:.. !E£h Poly. Sci. ~, 1869 (1974).
6. D.H. Kaelble, Polymer Eng. and Sci. 11 (7), 474 (1977).
Composition and Ageing of a Structural,
Epoxy Based Film Adhesive
Department of Defence
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The use of structural, film-form adhesives in aircraft con-
struction is now widely adopted. While the one-part nature of these
materials has many advantages in terms of ease of use, the accom-
panying limited shelf life presents significant problems. This
paper examines the composition and ageing of one such adhesive.
l\
CH-CH-CH
/\
CH-CH-CH
122 I 2 2
o, 9 (II)
r r
oG E BA
Ageing
Batch 1 ------
Batch 2 -- •,
,I
Initial
42 Days
84 Days
111 Days
~2' 0
z
o
~
w
cr:
0::
Init ial
49 Days
78 Days
~
105 Days
""
'\
,r,
----::::=:-:::.' '\
-,-,-,-,-.-.-,-,-..::~::,--:..:-:.:::..-:::-.:.:::~=.:=~.;;:::::~~/ \.
"-
' .....,,~
~~~~--------~--------~
,,~
O ------ -----~1~
30~-------------- 1~
ELUTION VOLUME , ml
Solubility
~
u 80
.!O
w
...I
~
...I
60
0
CJ)
~
40
w 100
::>
...I Value
~
> 80
~
0-
w
...I
z 60
CI:
~
0::
0
40
'0
~
20
80
Flow
•
60
~
0
....
...I
40
~
20
0
I
0 40 80 120 160 200
TIME . days
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
321
322 D. L. HUNSTON ET AL.
THEORY
{~W)2j {_p)j
(2j + 1)!
where
(2)
and P is the sample density. The relative motion at the two ends of
the sample et/eo = mei~ where m is the ratio of the amplitude at the
top to that at the bottom and ~ is the phase angle by which the top
leads the bottom.
The solution of this problem gives rise to an infinite series
because the stress and strain are measured at different ends of the
sample. As a result, the only way to increase the rate of
convergence for the series is to decrease the sample length. There
324 D. L. HUNSTON ET AL.
For many materials, however, only the first term is needed and
thus
G' =
m[{(~) +U' } (m-cos ~) + tB" sin ~] (3)
m2 - 2m cos 4> + 1
G" =
m[ -K~} + tB' sin l
m2 - 2m cos 4>
4> + tB·
+
(m-cos"J (4)
where
2 $I, k
G' = m - - 4 cos ~ (6)
'If R
2 $I, k
Gil = m - - 4 sin ~ (7)
'If R
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
Apparatus
The modified Rheogoniometer is illustrated in Fig. 1. The
sample (S) is held between two specially deSigned grips. The top
and bottom sections of each grip are made from aluminum while the
center portion is constructed from glass-reinforced nylon to mini-
mize heat flow along the shaft. The lower grip can be driven in
constant-speed rotation, in torsional OSCillation, or in any com-
bination of the two; separate synchronous motors and 60-speed gear
boxes (A) are used for the oscillatory and rotational drives. The
326 D. L. HUNSTON ET AL.
AB
I
ITC
I
I
I
I _ _ _ _ _1
B
C
DATA
EOC
DATA
EOC C
RESET
+
6 +
*+
+
+ Filter
- ++ + 20Hz
+ It 50Hz
~ + o 150Hz
r.n :5
..
+
en
o 2
~
Q..
- 10 0(1/60)
-I
Materials
To illustrate the use of this apparatus, it was employed to
determine the dynamic mechanical properties of an epoxy that has
been extensively tested for fatigue (17) and fracture (18) behav-
ior. This epoxy is a diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (Dow Chemical
Co. DER-332) cured for 16 hours at 120 0 C with 5 phr piperidine.
After the heat treatment the samples were allowed to cool in the
oven in an effort to keep the thermal histories relatively constant.
After each specimen was machined to the proper dimensions, it was
annealed at 75 0 C for 6 hours. It was felt that even a short
annealing period could affect the sample since significant"thermal
heating was induced during the machining of the specimens.
G'
10
·to -50 0
Temperature
1010 10
G'
_ ~l t-
t2 Q,.
~\....
10 9
~~"
(!)
0 00
c:
~
_JIQ,.
t-
(!) ~~x~-*""X
108 10- 1
a:: 4
o
.....
U
4
IJ.. 2
.....
IJ..
I
(/) 0
(!)
o
....J
-2
-4
40 60 80 100 120
TEMPERATURE (0 C)
agent added. For this system the cure temperature is still 1200 C
but the Tg is lower and so more data above Tg can be obtained. For
the toughened epoxy the preliminary results show that the shift
factors follow the WLF equation. Regardless of the exact nature of
the behavior above Tg , however, the shift factors might be expected
to increase dramatically as the temperature is lowered and approach
infinity at a temperature somewh~t below Tg • Experimentally,
however, a much different behavior is observed. The shift factors
were not found to increase indefinitely but rather to gradually
level-off. Moreover, the shape of the curve was found to be a
function of thermal history of the sample; for the specimen annealed
for 24 hours the shift factors were much closer to the expected
behavior.
'.---_____________ __________--;-__,°.1°
2.'
..
G'
'0
0
.. I.' ..
......
"\
-t;""" ..
Q
0.05 !
.
0. 2.0
'"
'0
1.0
..
~:+..1. . . . .tL"~~.
_~2~----~1---~0---~----~2~--~3~--~4~--~50
1.8
1.2
0 .6
.....I-
l1:li 0
3. 8 4 .0 4 .2 4.8 &.0
CI' x 10'
0
-0.6
-1 .2
-1.8
-2 .4
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Dr. I.M. Krieger, Dr. H. Markovitz,
and Dr. J. Hassell for their helpful comments during the develop-
ment of this equipment. The assistance of Mr. C.M. Henderson and
Mr. T .R. O'Neal in the construction of the apparatus is also
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Richard P. Wool
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
341
342 RICHARD P. WOOL
iii
-...
.~
c
en Healing
Time Time
Fig. l{a). Shows the 2-cycle strain and thermal
history used to evaluate mechanical
recovery and crack healing in polymers.
III
-
III
...
Q)
en
Strain
Fig. l(b). The generic stress-strain behavior
resulting from crack healing in multi-
component polymers is shown schematically.
MECHANICAL RECOVERY
We can define an adiabatic energy balance for polymer mechani-
cal deformation in terms of three mechanistic quantities as (1)
000
W= U + D + § (1)
0
where W = rate of working (mechanical)
0
U = rate of change of strain energy
0
D = rate of dissipation due to viscous and plastic processes
0
and S = rate of change of damage or surface energy due to frac-
ture mechanisms at the molecular or microstructural level.
The use of Eq. (2) requires few assumptions but it does not provide
information regarding specific contributions of the deformation
mechanisms during recovery. More detailed information can be
obtained by analyzing the stress-strain data in terms of the
energetic parameters, U, D and 3. In the elastic-fracture case, = B
o and we can define recovery as
32
R =S
1
where 3 1 and 32 are the total fracture work to create voids, break
bonds, etc., in the first and second deformation cycles, respec-
tively, and can be obtained from Eq. (1) as
3=W-U (4 )
12.0
800
If)
I 9.0 t\I
Q 600 E
u
)(
......
.~ ~
01
-
1/1
-
1/1
1/1
1/1 6.0 Q)
Q)
~ 400 ~
( J) ( J)
3.0 200
°OLL-L~4--===~~---L----~------L--JO
ro ~ 00 ~ 100
Stra in, '¥o
Fig. 2. The effect of healing time on the stress-
strain behavior of hard elastic polypropylene
fibers is shown at room temperature.
100
75
50
25 tOm = 75~o
Em:O 50 ~o
t'!
>-
~
CD
::- 0
0
c.I
CD
II::
~O~O~--~----~---l'---~--~IO~O----~--~~--~~--~'-~105
Log Time (min)
BLOCK COPOLYMERS
1.0 6 __------------~_;
0.8
.
>-
6)
0.6
...... - - - ..
:>
0
u
-- - - -
CI>
a:
0.4 - --
-70°C
To = ISoC
0.2 f:mQa =300 "1o
-I
f: =5.0 min
00 4
Log Time (min)
FILLED ELASTOMERS
70
~
~
u
>
o
u
u
a:
...
:>.
Q)
o>
u
Q)
a::
KINETICS OF HEALING
The generic character of crack healing and its influence on
mechanical recovery has been demonstrated in a number of multi-
component polymers in the past few sections. In this section, a
general kinetic theory of crack healing is presented to describe
mechanical recovery as a function of time, temperature and strain
level.
D = S1 tH 1 - R) (6)
D
o = S1 8(1 - R )
0
(1)
(1-R )
_1_
R= _ 0 (8)
n-1 -E/kT } n-1
{1 + Do (n-1)k oe t
R = (1
( 1- o) + Kt)a. (10)
1 - R
where K = D~-1 (n-1 )koexp -E/kT
1
and a. = n-1
For Kt »1, we obtain from Eq. (10),
t 1- R 1\ = a.
log \1_R Oj log K + a. log t ( 11)
Thus, a plot of the left hand side of Eq. (11) versus log t, if
linear, provides a. from the slope, and K from the intercept a. log K.
356 RICHARD P. WOOL
1n (~~:o) = kt (13)
D
P
= - Reo (15)
100.-----r-----r-----r-----r-----r-~~==--~
80
~
60 a = 0.2
...
>-
II)
K = 1.0
Ro = 0.2
>
0
u
II)
a::: 40
20~----
-2 o 2 10
Log Time
APPLICATIONS
-
r2IQ:
- -
-
I I
CI
o
...J
Using the kinetic constants and the value for Ro at each strain
level, the recovery R was determined as a function of time and
temperature using Eq. (12). Figure 10 shows a comparison of theory
with experiment for the room temperature recovery at several strain
maxima. The theoretical plots are slightly curved but fit the data
better than the linear log time plots used in Fig. 3. Figure 11
shows the comparison of theory with the experimental data for the
125 and 150% strain series at different temperatures. A reasonably
CRACK HEALING 359
IOO~------~--.--------.--~--------r---r-------'-~
- O+6xDV Theory
- - - - - - Experiment
80
.....,>-
>
o
u
a:•
~0~O~------~--~--------~--~------~----~------~--~104
Time (min)
SUMMARY
g
100ir----r----r----r----r----r----~--~----~--~--~
75
25
~
>-
~
Q) 0
>
0
u
Q)
a:
75
-17°C -17°C
E'm = 150 ,,"0 E xpt. E'm =150 ,,"0 Theory
90 0 100 10 5 :0
("')
Log Time (min) J:
»
:0
Fig. 11. The temperature dependent experimental recovery data for c
HPP fibers is compared with the theoretical prediction ~
for strain maxima of 125 and 150%. :E
o
o
r
CRACK HEALING 361
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to the National Science Foundation for
financial support of this work with Grants ENG-76-09627 and DMR-78-
13942 and expresses thanks to Dr. T.J. Rowland and Dr. R.J. Gaylord
for helpful suggestions and comments.
REFERENCES
1. R.P. Wool, Poly. Eng.! ScL,.1!!., 1057 (1978).
2. R.P. Wool and K.M. O'Connor, papers in press; K.M. O'Connor and
R.P. Wool, BUll. A.P.S., 24, 289 (1979).
3. M. Miles, J. Petermann and H. Gleiter, Progr. Colloid! Poly.
ScL, 62, 478 (1977).
4. R.P. Wool, M.I. Lohse and T.J. Rowland, ~ Poly. Sci., Poly.
Letters Ed., 11, 385 (1979); M.I. Lohse, T.J. Rowland and
R.P. Wool, BUll. A.P.S., 24, 348 (1979).
5. R.P. Wool and w.o:-Statton, Chapter 12 in Applications of
POlymer Spectroscopy, Ed. E.G. Brame, Jr., Academic
Press, New York, 1978.
362 RICHARD P. WOOL
363
364 DISCUSSION
H.F. Brinson: The shear strain rates are given in each figure.
Tests were performed under controlled environmental conditions of
about 25 0 C (10 0 F) and 50% R.H. as identified in the text. Thus
temperature and humidity were not believed to be an influence.
for Batch 2.
FRACTURE STRENGTHS OF
POLYMERIC SYSTEMS
Introductory Remarks
K. Nakao
3-12-1, Makayama-Sakuradai
Takarazuka-shi
369
370 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
371
372 MINEO MASUOKA AND KAZUMUNE NAKAO
hb = ho (1 + e: xb )
where a b and at are the tensile bond strength and the yield strength
of the adhesive material, which was obtained from uniaxial tension
of dumbbell, e: b and e:z~ show the longitudinal tensile and the
lateral contra~ive stral.ns at breaking the joint, a /h is the
aspect ratio of the adhesive layer, and h means tHe °adhesive
thickness. In the case of aluminum-ethyl~ne vinylacetate co-
polymers(EVAs)-aluminum butt joint, the following empirical rela-
tion was obtained (Fig. 1).
2
(ab/a t ) = 0.35 + 1.8 (a/h b ) e: zb (2)
It is found from the agreement between both Eqs.(1) and (2) that the
hypothesis of Mises or Tresca is applicable to the criterion of the
internal fracture of the butt joint. The Mises and Tresca condi-
tions describe quite well the mechanical behavior of a ductile
material and are adopted frequently as the criterion of a ductile
fracture.
The present investigation has been undertaken to verify the
criterion of the interfacial fracture and the relationship between
the tensile bond strength and the mechanical properties of the
adhesive polymer by the use of steel-nylon 12-steel cross lap Joint
of the interfacial bond failure. It is our opinion for metal -
polymer adhering system that the bond strength is determined by the
mechanical and viscoelastic properties of the adhesive polymer, by
the stress state developed in the adhesive layer and by the local
stress which depends on the geometry of the adhesive layer. In
connection with them, one of the essential features on the mechani-
cal behaviors of the adhesive joint is the location of the site
where the bond failure is most likely to be initiated. Since
Bikerman (4) has pointed out that a true adhesional (or interfacial)
failure is improbable, the problems on the locus of failure and on
the weak boundary layer of the adhesive joint have been argued from
various viewpoints by many investigators (2,5,6,7). In the case of
the tensile adhesive joint such as butt or cross lap joint, a stress
concentration will be developed in the adhesive because the defor-
TENSILE ADHESIVE JOINT 373
.r::.
~ 5.0r-- - -----;-,-------;-I- - - - - - ,
~ a i~
"iii a_a ............
~ 4.0 ~cfJ• .,. . . .Adhesives :
.8 ,ce-. o'~.~
VAc·l. MI
~ ~ 3.0+-----:.,,""""_ •• --=----.., 0 19.0 20
~..n~ 0-;' .'~ • 18.5
a 31.1
300
24
~ 2.0 () 29.0 300
-5
& 1.0 +-....L...-....L...........---L.--+---'----JL--.L.-..L...--t--'---L..---L---J.---l
1.0 1.5 2 2.0 2.5
( Qo/hb )'£zb
EXPERIMENTAL
The cross lap jOint was formed at 200 0 C for 10 min. in hot
press and allowed to cool or quenched by immersing it into dry ice -
acetone mixture. The average cooling rates were about 20 0 C/min and
730 0 C/min, respectively. In order to change the degree of crystal-
linity of nylon 12 adhesive, the bonded specimen was annealed at
150 0 C in nitrogen atmosphere. The annealed specimen was aged at
room temperature for a week in vacuum desiccator to relax the
residual stress developed in the adhesive layer during cooling
process (8). The tensile bond strength decreased to about one-half
during 4 days and then held constant for over two weeks.
o 1 .2 -1 3 4
Log E (min)
The master relation and the failure envelope obtained for the
interfacial fracture of the cross lap joint are quite similar to
those obtained for a viscoelastic material. This similarity in the
ultimate tensile properties indicates that these tensile properties
of the adhesive joint are associated with the dynamic effect of a
viscoelastic nature of the adhesive polymer rather than with a
thermodynamic surface criterion, such as the work of adhesion,
wettability and so on. A similar conclusion has been obtained for
the internal bond failure, that is, Gent (15) has applied the WLF -
superposition and a fracture mechanism in terms of Griffith's
energy criterion to the cohesive strength. In accordance with
Gent's findings, the observed bond strength reflects the visco-
elastic responses of an adhesive polymer and the bond failure will
occur when the energy stored elastically in the adhesive in the
vicinity of the initial flaw and released by growth of the initial
380 MINEO MASUOKA AND KAZUMUNE NAKAO
20 I
- Nylon 12 (To=363K)
ee~
I 0 +-
ee
12
110
8
Temp. °C
0
100 CD
00 e
.~\ -
'. 90.
80 •
e Ie. 70 e
8(}
•• •
i 60 ~
·0··;-
50 e
<D • • - 25 e
60
o I
'0
0 0 00
I
I
e: . . ;
0
40
···.:.r·l
/.' H.D.-PE I
..
~~ e (To=20dK)
~CJ/i
~ I . . ..'.
20
<D.
~CD -. ..........
....
~
0
o 20 40 60 80 100
Apparent breaking strain(E b 0/0)
1 . 2 3-2 -1 o 2 . 3 5
Log C (minI ) Log CaT
Degree of crystallinity(ofo)
25 30 35 40
25 0
.-..
N bonded I
~ J area 0
.:/+ ~
~20 0 e-cm 2
-
'-"
Ol
o-i n 2
-
C
~ 150
1/1
/,e 0
~ 8J 0'9/0
-0
C
.8 10() ,e 8 ,/ 0
~ ,60
'ijl ,0
c 0,,801
~ 50
1.015 1.020 1.025 1.030
Density of nylon 12 adhesive
(g Icm 3 )
L
20 25 30 35 40
18000-rf---1----;+------:-+--~
-
N
I
TensilE"
I
~.;:••
.!
(() .
E 16
~ - -modulus dl» ° .tOo~ to
~Et~r~'cPo
0'1
~
"3
"8
.. •
•
~
~ •• --~~----+
E -
•
/ ----t----+---+---- ./
~ ~. 0"
-
III
C
~./
"oo()T· •
Qj to
to
~o
cit
III
"0'1
C
-+/°1 Young's
:::::J ~ •• modulus (E)
§?
;.~--~----~-----+----~
The Young's modulus was measured wi thin elastic limit (e: <
0.05%). The tensile modulus adopted is identical with that of ASTM
D-638-61T. The similar relations for nylons have been reported by
Starkweather (19).
Degree of crystallinity(OJo)
_ 20 25 30 35 40
~ 15~------~------~------'1~-----.i
~ 10 £t I _~O~!'1d6~1·'a#~-
~
;
~
; E;: ---I - -
I- ID
~______- L______~______~______~
-a 1: 800.....----------;------;--1
CiI_
~l700 ~
:g ~ 60
.~ CiI
> ~ 5uu+-------r-----~r_----_;------~~
(f) 1.010 1.015 l020 1.025 1.030
Density of nylon 12(g/cm3 )
ID -crystallized at 150°C for 30min.
0- allowed to cool from the mell
_ - quencht'd from tht' mt'll
80
-~
N
60
t
6t
-
yield
~ strength
\ I)
\I)
~ 40
.....
c./)
tensile modulus
5 10 15 20
Strai n (0/0)
Degree of crystallinity("Io)
,..... 20 25 30 35 40
N
E 50
~
C'I
0-
4 (} I I
~%, o
0 8 ~6\l>=
w 3:0
0_ 0 - 0 - <0()
~ 2:0
_ IN
0
I I I
........
2 -----+-----;------~--aP
N
OJ'
E
Jr! _--+-_-+-_-1- 8~
g o
w - -----r---o ~--~----+
90 9063
w -
><
800
~oOo
0 ___ °
I
I
l010 1.015 1.020 1.025 1.030
Density of nylon 12 (gJcm 3 )
When the thin layer is bonded between rigid metal platens and
tested under a uniaxial tension. Such specimen can not contract
laterally and the triaxial stress state develops in the specimen.
In accordance with our analysis (3,21), under triaxial stress
state, the stress required to rupture the thin layer is always
higher than the yield stress of the bulk polymer obtained from a
uniaxial tension. When the interfacial bond failure occurs, the
interfacial region of the adhesive would be subjected to the stress
field equivalent to the yielding stress state under uniaxial ten-
sion of bulk polymer. However, the observed bond strength will be
lower than the yield strength resulting from a stress concentra-
tion.
3
H
-i 101
b
go
-
I
0'
00' - ,
g~"-
I
I
~ _o
0 0
I cross-sectional
I
-
shope of a:lhe-s ive .
I I
o I I I
I !
I
123 5 10 15 20
Adhesive thic:kness(mm) Aspect ratio (a. fh.)
ax - a y = at (6)
Eq. (6) shows the same form of the Tresca criterion. Eq. (7) is
given by neglecting the lateral contract strain on the major axis.
(Ob/Ot)REC and (Ob/Ot)SQ is the tensile bond strength of the
rectangular and the square joint, respectively. The following
relation is finally given by the use of the same manner derived from
Eq. (1).
That is, the tensile bond strength of the rectangular cross section
lowers to about /3/2 that of the square one when both joints have
the same bonded area. Eq. (8) agrees well with the result shown in
Fig. 14. This anisotropic shape effect indicates that the Mises
hypothesis is significant as the fracture criterion of the tensile
adhesive joint. The analytical formulation of the anisotropic
shape effect which has not been achieved in detail will be reported
in a forthcoming paper.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
393
394 HIROO MIYAIRI ET AL
SPECIMEN
Adhesives Treatment
Dimension
;;=::.0= 40 f=30~;~
~:L=lII
l = 12.5 25.0 50.0 200.0 mm
100.0
un it : mm
Strain gage position ( Gage length L=280 mm)
The mean shear strength for each adhesive was different, and
also the fractural elongation AB for each adhesive was different.
Therefore, the value of ~ of A-adhesive was relatively small with
increasing lap length, while those of Band C-adhesives were
relatively large. The apparent rigidity of joint is not explained
from the value of l:J:r/ t:.A because T decreases as lap length increases
as shown in Fig. 2. But considering that the gage length L is a
constant value of 280 mm the large value of t:.T/t:.A, within the limits
of small lap length, shows the elongation of R. to occupy a large
percentage in comparison with the elongation of adherend, of total
elongation of adhesive joints. And without regard to R., the
elongation at fracture of adhesive joints, As, decreased from
epoxy-polyamide, to soft and hard polyester adhesives in good
order. Especially in the hard polyester the elongation at fracture
AB was small in spite of the increase of lap length, and its mode of
fracture was brittle differing from the modes of others.
0.9
0.8
" Hard Iype poIyesler adhesive
o 5011 Iypo polyesl., adhesive
0.7 " Epoxy- polyomid adhesive
9890 I.ngth L . 280mm
0.6
-E O.S
E
......
at
0 ..4
...
......
:II:
0.3
t -1010MM
0.2
0.1
-'
-'
-' .-r- 30
-'
-'
-' E
"" E
.......
an
20 -'"
Soft type
[0
0.2
Hard type polyester
() LO-'-......I....-......I.---- . . . l - . . - - -- -----'....J 0
25 50 100 200
l ( mm )
Glass .at
Glass roving cloth
(a ) ( b ) (e) (d) (e)
2E't (1)
'( = (2L-~)
Figure 5 shows E' versus lap length for some adhesives. In the
case of A-adhesive, E' increases with increasing lap length, but in
the case of Band C-adhesives it decreases.
&/b 6P
n = t;S: = MA
where !PI/).A is the initial slope in P/b - A diagram as shown in Fig.
6. Comparing the initial slope in PIb - A diagram with that in
T - A diagram, the value of /). PIb /).A is a small change with the
variation in lap length t. And the value of /).P/b/).A increases as the
value of t increases.
---- .
o _·-Epoxy·polyamld adhesive
()
'---
700 -.~--::-----I---------~
--~-I
() () • ()0 ...:.-~
__...- ..............
. -........ .......
.~
50 100 200
l lmm !
25
E
E
~20
~
.0
~ 15
_ 21S.7mm
10
1.0 o 5.0
A(mm)
12
1
10 .~---__vI
~
.
;,- ......
,-
.,_..... ...---- .--.--'
11'- ~
.~--/-o
8
6
I~
~o I I· 0 Hard type pOlyester adhesive
S,h ' ' ' '
~ Epoxy polyamid
pol,."..adhesive
odh"iw ~
4 I
12.525 50
I
100 ~oo
(mm)
(4)
And dividing the axial load acting on the adherend into tensile
and flexural loads, F and M, these equations are given by using €t'
€ and the elastic modulus of adherend E .
m
F = E €t b t
1/2 2E € b 2 E € b t2
M=2 fo { t m } y dy ={ m
6
} (5)
F _ E b t
- 2
(6)
E b t
M = -'-2- (€, - €2)
FRP ADHESIVE JOINTS 403
Fig. 8 shows the normal and flexural forces, F and M, which were
obtained from Eq. (6), when treating the case of a soft type
polyester adhesive.
50
i,40 140 i 40 I
8 9
9
10 "
~
- 10
- 20
Figure 9 shows the bending moment and normal force along the
longitudinal direction of joint. The normal force of the adherend
increased with increasing lap length, but in the case of short lap
length the curve tends to differ from others. And the normal force
F occurred at adherend is smaller than the bending moment Pt (where
t is thickness of adherend) as happened from the gap of both
supports, and these values did not change with the location of
adherend except on 1=12.5 Mm.
Figure 10 shows the bending moment of adherend which changed
with increasing load. Horizontal axis X, which started from the
center of lap length, denotes the distance along the longitudinal
direction of specimen. In the case of 1=12.5 mm, the bending moment
reversed the sign in the region of X=40-80 mm and approached to zero
near the supports. In the case of 1=50 mm, the bending moment
reversed the sign in the region of X=80 -120 mm; therefore in the
case of single lap jOints, the bending moment at adherend near
adhesion with constant gage length increased as lap length in-
creased and the sigrt of bending moment was reversed near the
supports, and then the single lap joint was deformed to the shape of
the capital letters. But in the case of 1:12.5 mm according to JIS
and ASTM standards, the bending moment was reversed in the region of
X=4cr 80 mm and X=120 mm, and the deformation pattern became very
complicated in this case.
1.2 ~~-----.-----~--1
..
7()-·_·_ · _· ~· -· - · -·~69
11. 5 -----
~10 4~""'::;p-_""~~I'-- "'----0,
0.8
r
02
___
4 - ____
~. -. ~~--~
i :t. _
7\1 M/ Pt 69
- 0.2 40 80 120
x (mml
40
_L-__
---- 1 = 12.5mm
=
- - - I 25.0 mm
- 1= 50.0mm
30
20
..
E
E
~
~ 10
0
,
o P = 50 kg
• P =HlOkg
CIP=I50kg __
- \0
o P=200kg
6 P =250kg
X P = 300 k~
-20 -+'- -
o 40
x ( mm )
0.9
Epoxy-polyamid adhesive
0.8 o
0.7
.----
... 1= ,5. 2mm
/'
0.6 //
f ::: 25.1mm
'E
E O.S
....
CI
.:tI.
...
~0..4
------
1= ' 009~1 ='O' 8mm
0.3
------ 1=20J2mm
0.2
I = ZQ l omm
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
.\ (mml
E
....E." ~E
.JI.
....E." Epoxy-polyamid adhesive
.. .= Ta{:~: } PYb
.D .JI.
........
~
40 1.0 ~
0.8
a -====-~
0"-------e
30
0.6
20
0.4
10
0.2
o o~~~----~--------~
12.5 25 50 100 200
L (mm)
---- ! = 125
- -- 1=25
40 1--1--- - - 1 =50
o 50 kg
. ,00kg
C 150 kg
30 0200 kg
l> 250 kg
~ 300 kg
20
:I 0 I-t---+-
-10 r---'-- -
- 20
o
x (mm)
Fig. 13. M - X diagram of epoxy polyamide adhe-
sive joint.
408 HIROO MIYAIRI ET AL.
50
40
30
20
E
E
Cl
.:>!
~
0
- 10
- 20
lap length ends as the debonding and then progressed to the center
of adhesive layer as load increased.
These states of fracture can be prevented with the decrease of
stress concentration and bending moment of the adherend, but in this
experiment these effectiveness were not revealed. So the scaM'
angle a takes to be small and then the mechanical effects of
adhesive joint will be improved. And if the good epoxy-polyamide
adhesive was used for GRP adherend, we could not expect more than
the adhesive properties because of the debonding fracture of adher-
end. And so it is important to examine the decrease of the stress
concentration of the adhesive layer and the prevention of interface
fracture of GRP adherend.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1. T. Hayashi, Fukugo Zairyo Kogaku (in Japanese), 840 (1971).
2. L.J. Hart-Smith, NASA Contractor Report, NASA CR-2218 (1974).
3. W.J. Renton and J.R. Vinson, J. Adhesion 7, 175 (1975).
4. C. Raphael, ~ Polym. Sym. l, 99 (1966).
5. H. Miyairi, Nippon Setchaku Kyokai-Shi (in Japanese) I, 4, 217
( 1971).
6. Fukugo Zairyo Gijutsu Shusei Henshu Iinkai, Fukugo Zairyo
Gijutsu Shusei (in Japanese), 690 (1976).
7. FRP Adhesion Committee, Reinforced Plastics (in Japanese) 14,
6, 313 (1968). -
8. L.M. Keer, ~ ~ Mech. ,2, 697 (1974).
9. R.D. Adams and N.A. Peppiatt, J. Strain Anal. 9, 3, 185 (1974).
10. F. Erdogan and M. Ratwant, ~ Compo Mat~~ 378 (1971).
FRP ADHESIVE JOINTS 411
ABSTRACT
The stress distribution and the maximum stress in shear at the
circular area of adhesive lap joint were discussed theoretically
and experimentally in this article. The joint carries the bending
moment due to external force P which is parallel to lap surface and
at a distance R. from the center of adhesive area. The following
equation with respect to the maximum shear stress T' was derived
and verified experimentally. max
P 2R.
T'max = -2
1TR
(- a
R
+ En
INTRODUCTION
There are two cases in which the bending moment acts on the
adhesive lap joint; in one case, tensile and compressive stresses
arise mainly from carrying the bending force perpendicular to the
adhesi ve surface (1,2,3) , and in the other, shear stress arises
mainly from carrying the bending force parallel to the adhesive
surface (4). The stress distribution and the maximum shear stress
or the shear strength of adhesive lap joint in the latter case (Fig.
1) are treated theoretically and experimentally in this article.
413
414 YUKISABURO YAMAGUCHI AND SUSUMU AMANO
f----.l-----l
d Y p
x
ar-~-;._-----~
Preliminary Experiment
Theoretical Formula
We assume that the adhesive area of lap jOint is circular with
radius R and similar to that of quadrangular abcd to make analysis
simple as shown in Fig. 3, though the adhesive surface area is
generally quadrangular. We may obtain the following relation from
the above assumptions and the preliminary experiment:
r
T = R To (1)
y
1--- - l -------
dM = 'r-dA'r
= T·21fr·dr·r
2
= 21fr ·T·dr (2 )
r=R T
=f 21fr 3 ~ dr
r=O
(4)
or
2 p1
'to = 1f R
3 (5)
_~-1-LQ (1)
- 3 "'T"'" 2 j.J
'If R 'lfR
EXPERIMENTAL DISCUSSIONS
Total Maximum Shear Stress and the Shear Strength of the Joint
0.1
'1'0
0
x
x
~·o.l
-0.2
- 03
•,
D
l>.
-0.4 0
-0.5
[21 Sl (8)
max =
'['" (l +
R
1----- - - - /"
clhesive ClI'('d
5~------------------~
SA
2 ,.., 1
1 183
~ 225
n~ 12 183
110
~
1
225 1. 2 110
4cne ve S
REFERENCES
Takashi Igarashi
Kiryu, Japan
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
When two canvas bonded with a rubbery adhesive are peeled off,
trousers type peeling as shown in Fig. 1 occurs. This peeling has
such an interesting character that there exists steady fracture:
that is, the ultimate state of break is being realized continuously
in this peeling. An external force required for its continuation
remains constant in this steady peeling process. Since the fracture
takes place continuously, measurement of the peeling force implies
carrying out continuous and infinite measurement.
f
f
Adherend (canvas)
Adhesive layer
~
f
of
e
=-(21TcfLoL)/E (2)
of =4y&.
s
where y is the surface free energy. Then, from Eqs. (1), (2) and
(3), one obtains a well known result for fracture stress 0b
°b = (2EY/1TL)i (4)
(f
i i t
er·
y
f = W/(1-cos e) (5 )
where f is the peeling force per unit width of the tape; W is the
work of adhesion, and e is the peeling angle (Fig. 3). Though he
did not refer to the Griffith theory or thermodynamics, his study
included an idea of energy balance thought to be equivalent to
Griffi th theory. Here, the work of adhesion W had the same
dimension (force/length = energy/area) as that of the surface
energy and evalulated to the order of 10 3 erg/cm2 for vinylite(PE-
PVAc copolymer)-glass interface (6).
;--r--r---,r----y- ~
Yo
o
Fig. 4. Mechanical model of peeling.
FRACTURE CRITERIA ON PEELING 427
£....
dS
(#.!)
ds
=0 (6)
~S (~) - £E = 0 (7 )
C<~
~ - cons t .:: S 0
- (8)
It follows from Eq. (8) that the x component of the tensile force is
constant and is equal to S everywhere along the adherend. Eqs. (6)
and (7) can be rewritten is
2
S d x + dSdx = 0 (6')
ds2 dsds
2
S I I + dSdy - £ E = 0 (7 ' )
ds2 dsds
dS_£E.Q!=O (9)
ds ds
dx dy/dx
ds = ll+(dx/dy)2] 1/2
dx 2S
- 0
d€ = + -
E
(12)
in which the minus sign is adopted so that for x .... 0, € goes toward
+co,and thus the origin of the x axis corresponds to infinite
values. Integration of Eq. (12) gives
Since € = (y/y )-1, the shape of the adherend under the action of
peeling force ~s given by
112
YoSo 112 { exp [-(Ely oSo) xl }
y = 4 (-E- ) 112 + Yo (13')
1 - exp[-2(E/y S) xl
o 0
It should be noted that the relation can be derived without intro-
ducing any criterion for fracture.
(14)
of s = ro x (15)
of :: of e + of s =0 (16 )
and this leads to the results with Eqs. (13) and (15):
(17)
or
(18)
FRACTURE CRITERIA ON PEELING 429
-
(dE)
dx xb
= 1Y tan e (19)
in Eq. (12):
~ (20)
tan e
Then
= EE2 {1 + sec e } (21)
So Yo b 2tan e
From Eqs. (10) and (11), the steady peeling strength f , which
s
corresponds to the stress S at the point of peeling, is derived as
2f s =r + 2S 0 (22)
f
s = r (24)
-F e (26)
o
430 TAKAHASHI IGARASHI
6 Fe + r dX b = 0 (27)
From Eqs. (26) and (27),
f __
af
(~)
s ds = r (28)
aX b
Then, from Eqs. (28) and (29), integrating df to the peeling force
f s , one obtains the same result as Eq. (23),
(f )
J s df = f
s
= r/(1-cos e) (30)
(31)
From Eqs. (29) and (31) the force required to ini tia te peeling
according to the maximum stress criterion is derived as
(32)
(33)
(34)
j
'J
i-: ----
20
;:;; 10
° 2 4
time (min)
6 8
OF = OF e + r dx + oU' =0 (35)
where U' is the energy dissipation during the deformation of the
adhesive in peeling. Therefore, in this expression the dissipative
energy is also to be formalistically regarded as a sort of free
energy equivalent to surface free energy.
Provided that u' is the dissipation of energy per unit volume
of the adhesive during the deformation to fracture and subsequent
recovery (Fig . 7), oU' becomes as:
f
s =r + hu'
Comparing Eq. (37) with Eq. (24), one can find that the peeling
strength is to be increased by the second term. In the peeling,
this additive term due to the energy dissipation represents the
dependeooe of the peel strength on the thickness of the deformed
layer.
100
No.1
/
........
E
~
en /
- I/°
~50
N
/
___.-_===-=_1 =I_- No .2
L:_!'.I'_~~I~==~.=.~..:.N:.::o::.3
c 234
h(mm)
. . -1
€,m1n I0b,kg/cm2 I ~ I u',kg/cm2 r ,kg/cm I u',kg/cm2 »~
Specimen No. ~
m
Tensile Peel ;;
G)
2 5 21 . 2 6.2 29 1.5 31
50 20 1.0 0 4.0 0
....
W
01
436 TAKAHASHI IGARASHI
DISCUSSION
As shown in Fig. 6, the initial peeling force increases with
the thickness of the adhesive layer. On the other hand, the force
during the subsequent steady peeling process is practically inde-
pendent of the adhesive thickness. These results correspond to
those given by Eqs. (32) and (24), respectively. This is the
experimental verification for the fracture criteria on peeling of
elastic materials as mentioned above.
REFERENCES
1. T. Igarashi, ~ Polym. Sci. Phys. Ed. ~, 407 (1978).
FRACTURE CRITERIA ON PEELING 437
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
439
440 TOSHIYA TSUJI ET AL.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
a) b) c)
LMMH
d)
M M /M Mw Mn Mw/Mn
[n] v w n
fra.No.
dl/g (x10- 4 ) (x10- 4 ) (x10- 4 )
MML-80
fra.No.
2 0.560 21.8 1.41
3 0.130 36.0 1.34
4 0.838 46.6 1. 33
5 0.950 59.0 1. 33
6 1. 111 19.4 1. 31
1 1.190 90.2 1.31
a) GPe
b) light scattering
c) osmotic pressure
d) benzene, 25 0 e
with a spacer of 100~ thickness between them and then they were
pressed at 60 0 e for 10 min. Prior to testing, the bonded ~ecimens
were cut by 25 mm in width and conditioned overnight at 23 e and at
RH 60%.
OL-~~~~~--~~~~~
4 5 6
log Mv
t ime(distance peeled)
t
rsubstrate
The dependences of the peel strength on both the peel rate and
the temperature, and the peel rate-temperature superposition of the
peel strength ar~ given in Fi!s. 5 and 6 in the case of molecular
weight of 3.7x10 and 90.2x10 ,respectively. In these and later
fi§ures, the peel strength was reduced by the ratio of 293fT, where
T( K) is the test temperature.
The solid line and the dashed line in Fig. 5 indicate the
cohesive and the slip-stick failure, respectively. On the left
side, the peel strength is related to the peel rate, R, for five
test temperatures. In the region of the cohesive failure, the peel
strength increases with the peel rate, but in the range of the slip-
stick failure, the peel strength decreases with the peel rate. A
single master curve obtained is shown on the right side, where the
T PEEL STRENGTH OF POLYISOBUTYLENE
~
-30\,
,
I
s\,
I
~ 2~
--
N
E!~
..c. 1
g;
...CIJ
tii
a;
Q.o
a.
The solid line and the dashed line in Fig. 6 refer to the
interfacial and the slip-stick failure, respectively. As shown on
the left side, in the region of the interfacial failure the peel
strength increases with the peel rate, but in the region of the
slip-stick failure the peel strength decreases with the peel rate.
A single master curve obtained is shown on the right side, where the
peel strength falls abruptly at the transition region from inter-
facial to slip-stick failure. Though not shown here, similar master
curves l(ere obtained for the adhesives having Mv of 36.0x10 4 and
46.6x10 .
My: IO.6xl()4
IIII
0.
2
c .1\· \
;.
I \.
\
~
-;
EI~ s \
.bot
.,
\
A \
\
i;
'"1':
\
f...
\
:" I I
. . 'I
.7
A I·
1(
vi
10 ..... 0
·.. ·.,.. ····· /a
-I 0 I 2 -I 0 I 2 3 4 5
10~cmJmin)\ log IR a,.<c ml mi nll
Mv
o 2.0xl04
4 x 3.7
<:>6.7
10.6
3 ~ C
4360
El·, .90.2
a ---, _,8
2 A_ ,
,
... 0
,,
'- *-,,
IV
CI
0
0 ·' e. o
. . ... -..... . . ~
-1 •
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
temperature :C
Fig. 8. Dependence of aT on temperature, reduced
to 20 oC.
(2)
448 TOSHIYA TSUJI ET AL.
for the temperature TO' where K.r and KT are constants for each
temperature and a is equal to 3.4 abov.9 the critical molecular
weight, M (M of PIB:1.7x10 4 (10».
c c
Substituting Eqs. (2) and (3) into Eq. (1), we obtain
(4)
-8.86(T-T )
log aT 101.6 + T-T -
= -=-=-~_-=-=s (5)
s
Ts is the temperature at which aT is unity. It can be seen that the
W-L-F equation is superposed on our data.
We attempted to superpose all the above master curves with
respect to mol~cular weight of adhesive. As the reference molecular
weight, 2.0x10 was adopted, Fig. 10 shows the results obtained. It
is found that a high portion of the data are superposed well on a
master curve.
The symbol ~ means the shift factor for the molecular weight,
by which the curves are shifted along the log RaT axis to superpose
the reference curve.
f;lv
o 2.0x104
x 3.7
e 6.7
o 10.6
II 36.0
• 90.2
o _ , log aT: -&86(T - T~)
101.6+-T - T.
( Ts= 243·k)
,; -1
Ol
o
- -2
-3
Mv
o . 2.0X 10'
X. 3.7
3
0.10.6
11. 36.0 0
,,
• • 90.2 ,
E 0
,
E
'"
N ""
0. 0
,
x:: :0
lb' ,
EI~ 2 "
L:
.....
C
......
41
III
~
41
a.
-1 o 2 3 4 5 6
I oglRaT"M(cm/min)\
and
(8)
or
log ~ =
(l 10g(M/MO) (9)
That is, the plot of log aM against 10g(M/MO) must show a straight
line having a slope of (l. In general, (l is equal to 3.4. The
...,.
~
t
1.5
1S',
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
~ 1.0 I
tU I
~
01 I
0 I
I
- 0.5 I
I
I
I.
0
4 5 6
log Mv
Fig. 11. Dependence of aM on molecular weight
(Reference molecular weight: 2.0x10 4 ).
T PEEL STRENGTH OF POLYISOBUTYLENE 451
CONCLUSIONS
The peel strength was found to yield a single master curve with
respect to the peel rate and the temperature for both the cohesive
and the interfacial failures. The shift factor aT agrees entirely
with that of W-L-F equation and is almost independent of the
452 TOSHIYA TSUJI ET AL.
REFERENCES
1. T. Hata, M. Gamo, K. Kojima and T. Nakamura, "Mechanics of
Peeling. II. Time-Temperature Superposition Principle in
Adhesive Failure". Chemistry of High Polymers (Japan),
22, 160 (1965).
2. D.H. Kaelble, "Theory and Analysis of Peel Adhesion: Rate-
Temperature Dependence of Viscoelastic Interlayers". J.
Colloid Sci., 12, 413 (1964).
3. A. N. Gent and R. P. Petrich, "Adhesion of Viscoelastic Mate-
rials to Rigid Substrates", Proc. ~ Soc. (London),
A310, 433 (1969).
4. Y. Nonaka, "Mechanics of Peeling. 5. Temperature Dependence
of Peeling Strength of Polyisobutylene", J. Adhesion Soc.
Japan, !, 207 (1968). ---
5. D.H. Kaelble, "Peel Adhesion: Influence of Surface Energies
and Adhesive Rheology", J. Adhesion, 1, 102 (1969).
6. K. Nakao, M. Matsunaga and H~Shakutsui, "Studies on Acrylic
Adhesives. Part 1. Bond Strength and Molecular Weight of
Polyethylacrylate", !h Adhesion Soc. Japan, 1, 15 (1965).
7. S.W. Lasoski and Jr.G. Kraus, "Polymer to Metal. The System
Polyvinyl Acetate-Steel", !h Polymer SCi., .!!!, 359
(1955) •
8. S.S. Voyutskii, "Adhesion and Autohesion of Polymers", Adhe-
sives ~, ,2, (4), 30 (1962).
9. A. D. McLaren and C. J. Seiler, "Adhesion. (III) Adhesion of
Polymers to Cellulose and Alumina", !h Polymer Sci., !,
63 (1949).
10. T.G Fox and S. Loshaek, "Isothermal Viscosity-Molecular Weight
Dependence for Long Polymer Chains", !h!P2.!.:.. Phys., 26,
1080 (1955).
11. M.L. Williams, R.F. Landel and J.D. Ferry, "The Temperature
Dependence of Relaxation Mechanisms in Amorphous Polymers
and Other Glass-forming Liquids", J. Am. Chem. Soc., 77,
3701 (1955). - - -- -- -
T PEEL STRENGTH OF POLYISOBUTYLENE 453
455
456 DISCUSSION
xvii
xviii AUTHOR INDEX
Wagner, R.E., 52
U Wakamatsu, T., 728
Wake, W.C., 501
Ueberreiter, K., 39, 41 Wakefield, T.D., 101
Uhlmann, D.R., 362 Walton, A.G., 824, 825, (856),
Ullman, R., 52, 640 (857)
Uniyal, S., 823 Ward, C.A., 706
Upadyayula, S.K., 362 Ward, E., 673
Uraki, H., 40 Warner, C., 854
Usmanova, D.O., 641 Wasserman, J., 824
Uvarov, A.V., 627, 641 Watatani, K., 728
Uy, K.C., 40 Watson, W.A., 682
Uzgiris, E.E., 825 Way, S., 274
Uzi, F., 39, 40 Weathersby, P.K., 681, 682, 706
Weber, R.E., 538
Weber, T.A., 600
v
Vail, W.J., 664
xxx AUTHOR INDEX
Wecker, S.M., 790 Yamamoto, F., 495
Wegman, R.F., 312 Yamashita, N., 39, 40
Wehner, G.K., 122 Yamashita, S., 728
Wehs, E.E., 321 Yamori, S., 749
Weinberg, Z., 575 Yanazawa, H., 520
Weisman, Z., 844 Yavorsky, P.M., 338
WeIgand, H., 728 Yeow, Y.T., 299
Wells, E.E., 339 Yoshida, T., 640
Wen, W. Y., 825 Young, T., 13
Wendt, R.C., 40, 52, 64
Werme, L.O., 122
Westerdahl, C.A.L., 495 Z
Wetzel, F.M., 501 Zapas, L.J., 338
White, J.L., 641 Zbinden, R., 790
White, J.R., 275 Zettlemoyer, A.C., 728
White, L.R., 600 Zheludev, I., 575
White, M., 537 Zisman, W.A., 52, 64, 65, 501
Whitehouse, R.S., 501
Whitney, J.M., 163
Whitney, W., 362
Whittington, S.G., 14
Wielogorski, J.W., 706
Wightman, J.P., 162
Wilcox, D.L., 538
Williams, J.G., 193
Williams, M.L., 452, 453, 501
Winn, M.L., 854
Winters, H.F., 538
Wisniewski, S., 854
Wittberg, T.N., 122
Woermann, D., 627
Wolman, M., 822
Wood, G.C., 122
Wood, S.J., 641
Wool, R.P., 341, 361, 362
Wronski, C.R., 537
Wu, S., 39, 40, 52, 53, 64,
65, (80), (81), (82)
Wurstein, F., 575
Wyckoff, H.W., 824
Wydeven, T., 537
bonding, 473
bulk properties, 141
Abrasion characteristics, 551
of specimen, 625 debonding, 500
Absorption spectra, 68 failure, 123, 124
Acid-base interaction, 43, 78 failure energy, 143
Acrylate interaction in polymer, 67
oligomer, 558 interface, 175
resins, 582 metal structure, 301
Activation energy, 321 penetration, 113
Adaptation structural reliability, 301
conformational-, 591 tack, 497
Additivity law, 21 Adhesive-adherend
Adherence by Auger spectroscopy, 103
of polyurethane, 204 by ESCA, 103
of punch, 204 interface, 103, 124, 165
of spheres, 204, 236 Adhesive bond
Adherend by dielectric relaxation
aluminum, 165 gradient, 165
bondline thickness, 144 Adhesive joint
shear stress, 144 FRP, 393
surface, 758 tensile, 371
surface preparation, 142 Adsorbance
thickness, 144 of NaBr, 738
Adhesion of train, 7.44
cell, 667, 681 ratio, 639
measurements, 503 Adsorbed
mechanism, 491 monolayer, 751
of filled PE, 539 trains, 592
of polymer, 97 Adsorbent
of thin film, 521 ammonium chloride, 618
photoacoustic spectro- solution ratio, 602
scopy, 87 Adsorption
Adhesive affinity, 639
xxxi
xxxii SUBJECT INDEX
of irradiated film, 73 H
stress, 469
Hamaker constant, 44
Hard and soft acids and
G bases, 79
Harmonic mean equation, 53
Gadolinium, 146 Healing
Gamma-counter, 829 line mode, 354
Gamma-globulin, 807, 857 Heat
Gauss theorem, 811 of mixing, 46
Geiger Mueller Helical content, 36
counter, 126 Helium
Gelatin, 91 neon laser, 829
Geometric plasma, 473
mean equation, 53 Helmholz
mean expression, 45 free energy, 207
parameter, 217 plane, 805, 818
Gibbs Hemostasis, 837
adsorption formula, 7 Hertz
-Duhem equation, 7 load, 246
energy, 814 problem, 236
free energy, 209 Hertzian contact, 245
surface, 5 Hooke's Law, 149, 287
Glass, 758 Huggin's
mat, 394 coefficient, 840
-polymer joint, 544 constant, 843
roving, 394 Human
-rubber contact, 245 plasma albumin, 802
support, 314 serum albumin, 827
Glass temperature, 19, 217, 335 Humidity
of adsorbed layer, 610 absorption, 579
of UV resins, 555 Hydrodynamic
Globular protein, 801 boundary condition, 650
Glueline inhomogeneities, 146 equation, 683
Gold-palladium alloy technique, 730
film, 148 velocity, 644
Grafted Hydrogen
polyethylene, 791 abstraction, 553
silicone, 791 bonding, 25, 45, 565, 710,794
Grafting ion transfer, 817
radiation induced, 474 Hydrolysis
Graphite epoxy of silane monomer, 716
composite, 464, 577, 579 polymerization, 767, 795
Grating spectrometer, 778 Hydrophile
Griffith -lyophile balance, 26
criterion, 207, 209, 247 Hydrophilic
-Irwin theory, 145 -hydrophobic interaction, 668
theory, 423 surface, 667, 851
Hydrophilicity, 857
xxxviii SUBJECT INDEX
Hydrophobic Interlaminar
bond, 804 shear strength, 470
dehydration, 815 Intermoleculal'
interaction, 817 interaction, 16, 70
surface, 827 Internal
Hydrophobicity energy, 225
of protein, 804 slip, 788
of sorbent surface, 803 stress, 561
Hydroxyproline, 838 Interphase, 104
2-Hydroxyethyl Intrinsic viscosity, 714, 840,
methacrylate, 668, 677, 691 843
Iodine, 677, 827
Ion
I beam etch, 105
co-adsorption, 856
Immobilization of migration, 509
protein, 801 pair, 817
Immunoglobulin, 681, 847 Ionic strength, 722, 729, 847,
Incident 851
sound speed, 185 Iosipescu specimen, 180
Inconel, 528 Iron oxide, 758
Inelastic electron tunneling, 752 localization of, 707
Infrared Irwin relation, 271
dichroism, 775 Isoelectric point, 37, 805, 853,
spectroscopy, 521, 525, 541, 856
567, 617 Isotropic material, 177
Inorganic filler, 539
Instron test machine, 147, 522
Intensity J
of molecular interaction,
ratio, 72, 766 Joint strength, 150
Interaction parameter, 55, 132
Intercellular
communication, 668 K
Interface
energy, 207 Kaolin
roll of, 467 as filler, 539
Interfacial Kelvin-Zisman probe, 574
accomodation zone, 167 Kinetics
bond failure, 371 of adsorption, 677
failure, 126, 446 of cell adhesion, 667
fracture of joint, 371 of detachment, 204
free energy, 704, 855 of healing of polymer, 353
strength, 466 Kramers-Kronig
Interfacial tension, 6, 16 relation, 68
of polymer melt, 15
of polymer solution, 15
time-dependence, 792
water-oil, 707
SUBJECT INDEX xxxix
L Loop, 593
partition function, 743
Labeled protein, 677 -train-conformation, 744
Lag-phase, 673 -train-structure, 742
Lagrangian -train-tail conformation,
multiplier, 595, 633 729
Lamellar crystal, 780 Lorenz-Lorentz
Laminate, 577 equa tion, 732
Langmuir Loss factor, 218
adsorption, 829 Ludwik's equation, 149, 283
equation, 804 Lyophilicity, 34
isotherm, 638
Lap
joint, 414 M
joint deformation, 148
length, 395 Macleod's exponent, 18
shear joint, 141, 302 Macromolecule
shear strength, 124 nonadsorbed, 593
·shear test, 475 Macrophage, 643
Laplace Magnesium
equation, 6 X-ray source, 107
operator, 649 Magnetic
transform, 287 recording tape, 724
Lateral stress, 645 Matrix
Lauryl methacrylate, 555 -primer interfacial
Legendre failure, 152
theorem, 244 Maximum
transformation, 207 strain, 346
Length stress, 421
of train, 593 Maxwell
Limit model, 282
of stability, 212 relations, 209
Linear Mechanical
elasticity, 205 adhesion, 580
electron accelerator, 475 loss, 624
viscoelasticity, 281 properties gradient, 621
Lipid recovery, 345, 354
of membrane, 644 Melt index, 540
Liquid Mercaptoethanol, 851
crystal, 36 Mercury lamp, 552
state, 8 Metal
Locus carboxylate, 754
of failure, 127, 143, oxide interface, 112, 196
165, 482 Methacrylate
London dispersion resins, 582
force, 43 Methyl acrylate, 473
Longitudinal graft, 474
shear, 464 2-Methylanthraquinone,
strength, 464 553, 561
xl SUBJECT INDEX
Methyl group N
effect, 22
Methyl violet 2B, 91 Navier-Stokes
Methylol acrylamide equation, 644
graft, 474 Necking, 422
Michaelis-Menten Neumann equation, 6
desorption, 652 Neutron
Microvoid flux, 146
formation, 341 radiography, 141, 146
Migration Newtonian
site of, 514 fluid, 644
Minimum entropy liquid, 498
principle of, 434, 456 Nitrogen
Mises hypothesis, 371 reaction on surface, 521
Mixing condensation Non-crystalline phase
critical-, 609 PTFE, 775
Model biomembranes, 643 Non-linear
Modified epoxy, 126 viscoelastic deformation,
Moffitt's equation, 35 292
Moisture degradation, 310 Normal stress, 216
Molar Notched
enthalpy, 816 strength, 468
refraction, 732 Novolac resin, 167, 177
Molecular Nuclear magnetic resonance,
forces in adhesive, 67 high resolution, 603
mobility of adsorbed Nylon-12, 374
layer, 607
rearrangement, 855
Molecular weight o
critical-, 448
distribution, 440, 630 Optical
number average, 21, 440 absorption, 88
of polymer, 683 coating, 521
viscosity average, 440, density, 541, 766, 848
455 rotary dispersion, 35
weight average, 440 Organic-metal
Monochromator, 778 interface, 751
Monolayer Orientation function, 778
adsorption isotherm, 852 Oscillation regime, 658
Monosulphide Oxidation, 565
as antioxidant, 541 induction period, 546
Monte Carlo method, 11 Oxide
Multicomponent system, 601 etch rate, 509
Multilayer film, 97 thickness, 137
Multiple internal reflection, Ozonisation, 565
759
Muscle-like
contraction, 644 P
Water
absorption, 482, 557
polymer solution, 716
Weak boundary layer, 372, 565
Weissenberg
Rheogoniometer, 321, 499
Wenzel's relation, 246
Wettability, 474
Welhelmy method, 793, 848
WLF
equation, 144, 439, 448,
455, 499
relationship, 333, 334
shift factor, 217
Work
of adhesion, 32, 46, 203,
204, 217, 252, 303,
425, 500, 510
of adsorption, 500
of fracture, 144, 468
x
X-ray
beam (monochromatized),
693
diffraction (wide angle),
775
microanalyzer, 373
photoelectron spectro-
meter, 107
Yield
strength, 372
stress, 149, 280
Young's modulus, 203, 282,
374, 424, 429, 557, 577
Zisman's
critical surface tension, 53