-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence
Improving Adhesive Bonding of Improving Adhesive Bonding of Composites Through Surface Composites Through Surface
CharacterizationCharacterization
Brian D. FlinnBrian D. Flinn
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
2
Improving Adhesive Bonding of Composites
• Motivation and Key Issues – Adhesive bonding is being used for primary composite structure
in commercial transport aircraft manufacture and repair- surface preparation is a critical step
– Good bonds are produced but questions remain:What are appropriate techniques to inspect surfaces?What are key factors for making a good/poor bond?How to predict material and surface preparation compatibility?
• Objective– Further understand the requirements for surface preparation to
produce strong primary structural composite bonds with different substrates and adhesives
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
3
Improving Adhesive Bonding of Composites
• Approach– Investigate the effect of various surface preparation
procedures and material systems on the adherend surface chemistry/structure and relate to subsequent bond performance
– Materials & Methods:Carbon Fiber Epoxy 127º C (260º F) &176º C (350º F)Glass Fiber Epoxy 127º C (260º F) Surface Preparation: Sanding and Peel PliesAdhesives: paste & film (127ºC (260ºF) and 176ºC (350ºF))
– CharacterizationSurface Chemistry, SEM, Contact Angle, Mechanical Testing and Fractography
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
4
FAA Sponsored Project Information
• Principal Investigators & Researchers– Brian D. Flinn (PI)– Fumio Ohuchi (Co-PI)– Molly Phariss (Ph.D. Candidate, UW)– Jeff Satterwhite (Masters student, UW)– John “Jack” Aubin (Masters student, UW)– Conor Keenen (BSc 2008, UW)
• FAA Technical Monitor– Curtis Davies
• Other FAA Personnel Involved– Larry Ilcewicz
• Industry Participation– Boeing: Peter Van Voast, William Grace, Paul Shelly– Precision Fabrics Group, Cytec, Toray, 3M, Henkel, Yokahama
• JAMS Participation– Mark Tuttle: Technical Discussions, Wettability Envelopes – Lloyd Smith (WaSU): Parallel study on durability
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Outline
Evaluation of Characterization Techniques• Surface Appearance/Topography• Surface Chemistry• Surface Energy/Wetting• Fracture EvaluationWetting and Fracture are most easily adapted to
factory/repair settings-What information can be obtained?
5
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
6
Surface Appearance
• Visual Inspection– First step in evaluating surface preparation– Proper peel ply used (color, texture, marking) – Proper removal of peel ply
No visible remnants of peel ply fabricNo damage to substrate
– Proper abrasion (if used)Correct abrasiveRoughnessNo peel ply pattern visible
Inexpensive, Fast- should always be performed
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
7
Surface Appearance• Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
– Detailed view of surface (10-100,000x)Microscopic remnants of peel ply present? –BADAmount of “fresh” matrix exposed- Good
– Limited to lab/process development settingsNot portable, trained operator, not cheap
Cytec 970-dry polyester Cytec 970-dry nylon Cytec 970-wet polyester
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
8
Surface Chemistry
• X-Ray Photo Spectroscopy (XPS/ESCA)– Chemical composition & functional groups of surface– Sensitive to small amounts of contamination– Critical tool for research- NOT for manufacture/repair– Expensive, time consuming, small specimen size
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
9
Surface Energy
• Contact Angle Measurement/Wetting– Theory predicts surface energy of substrate
and adhesive related to bond quality– Contact Angle measurement adaptable to
factory and repair environmentsQuickPortable equipment available
– Does it WORK???e.g water break test
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
10
Surface Energy
• Young’s equation: θ
is contact angle
• Complete wetting means θ
approaches zero• Contaminants usually lower the solid’s surface energy (increase θ)• Surface preparations try to increase the solid’s surface energy and
clean off contaminants
Illustration of Young’s equation – drop of liquid on a solid surface
θγγγ coslvslsv +=
Can surface energy guide bonding?
γsl γsv
γlv
solidliquid
vapor
θ
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
11
Surface Wetting
Weak boundary layer due to voids and contaminants
Figure from Pocius, A., Adhesion and Adhesives Technology: An Introduction, 2nd ed., 2002, Hanser Gardner, New York.
Wetting required for good bond- intimate contact
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
12
Surface Wetting
• Surface energy can be used to develop wettability envelops to predict wetting of substrate by adhesive
Highest energy surface…Good wetting-small θ
…lower…
…even lower… …lowest.Poor wetting-large θ
Figure from Pocius, A., Adhesion and Adhesives Technology: An Introduction, 2nd ed., 2002, Hanser Gardner, New York.
A liquid epoxy adhesive is on each surface.
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
13
Wettability envelopes showed the difference in the prepared surfaces.
• Fluids inside the envelope will wet spontaneously– Critical condition for
bonding? • Wettability envelopes a
potential method to determine suitability of a surface for bonding
• Epoxy adhesives* on boundary for nylon prepared BMS8-276 surfaces
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Polar Component
Dis
pers
ive C
om
ponent
60001
52006
SRB
Epoxy Adhesives*
* Literature values for aerospace epoxies-
Curves generated using WET program (M. Tuttle)
BMS 8-276
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
• Example to show contamination of adherend by nitrile gloves• Materials & Surface Preparation
– Hexcel T300/F155– Orbital sanded with 100 grit Al2 O3 sand paper – Roughness, 1.194 µm (47µin) to 1.549 µm (61µin)– Cleaned with compressed air – Contact with external glove surface– Adhesive Henkel EA9394
14
Surface Energy-Detecting Contamination
Profilometer
measuring surface roughnessOrbital sanding Contacting surface with glove
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington 15
Video
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
No Glove Kleen
Guard Titan NDEX
Glove surface NA 29.1º 92.2º 104.2º
Composite surface 78.9º 69.8º 109.0º 115.3º
16
Contact Angle and Wettability Envelopes
Average contact angle of DI water on glove surfaces compared to glove contaminated composite surface
Contact angle of DI water on glove surfaces.
TitanKleen
Guard NDEX
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Sample Polar component Dispersive Component
Total surface energy
Kleen
Guard 9.6 (mN/m) 41.0 (mN/m) 50.6 (mN/m)
NDEX .01 (mN/m) 38.8 (mN/m) 38.81 (mN/m)
Titan .6 (mN/m) 35.3 (mN/m) 35.9 (mN/m)
No Glove .2 (mN/m) 73.3 (mN/m) 73.5 (mN/m)
17
Contact Angle and Wettability Envelopes
Surface energies of composite surfaces.
Surface energy decreased after contact with gloves
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington 18
Contact Angle and Wettability Envelopes
Wettability envelopes for composite surfaces with various glove exposures
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington 19
X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy
BINDING ENERGY - EV1107.3 1007.3 907.3 807.3 707.3 607.3 507.3 407.3 307.3 207.3 107.3
CO
UN
TS
3.8K
3.6K3.4K
3.2K3K
2.8K
2.6K2.4K
2.2K2K
1.8K
1.6K1.4K1.2K
1K800
600400200 B
r 3p
Br 3
s
Br 3
d
Sb 4
d
C 1
s
Mg
a
O 1
s
K 2s
N 1
s
Sb 3
d3
Sb 3
p3
Sb 3
p1O a
BINDING ENERGY - EV1107.3 1007.3 907.3 807.3 707.3 607.3 507.3 407.3 307.3 207.3 107.3
CO
UN
TS
6K
5.5K
5K
4.5K
4K
3.5K
3K
2.5K
2K
1.5K
1K
500
Si 2
s
Si 2
p
N 1
s
Ca
2s Ca
2p
O 1
s
O a
C 1
s
XPS spectrum for the as-
abraded (No Glove) composite
surface.
XPS spectrum for composite surface exposed to the NDEX
glove.
C C
N
O
ON
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
• Reduced oxygen* and nitrogen on contaminated surfaces.
20
XPS continued…
Elemental composition (atomic %) as determined by XPS.
* Kleen
Guard has higher O, but also Ca, possibly CaCO3
C O N Ca S ClNo Glove 78.6 15.35 4.7 0.9
Kleen
Guard 60.65 26.9 4.3 4.05 1.45 1.9
Titan 90.2 7.05 0.65 0.95 0.55
NDEX 93.9 4.9 0.9 0.5
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
• NDEX glove contaminated surface shows reduced fracture toughness
21
Fracture Toughness
The average strain energy release rate from five DCB tests/sample.
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Specimen specimen 1 specimen 2 specimen 3 specimen 4 specimen 5Kleen
Guard
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
NDEX Adhesion Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Adhesion Adhesion Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Titan Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
Interlaminar/ Cohesive
No Glove Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive Cohesive Interlaminar/ Cohesive
22
Mode of Failure
• Glove contamination changed failure mode of DCB specimens• NDEX gloves –
3 failures in adhesion
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington 23
Modes of Failure
Example of interlaminar/cohesion failure (left) and adhesion failure (Right).
No Glove NDEX Glove
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Objectives◦
To investigate nitrile gloves as a potential source of contamination on composites surfaces prior to bonding.
◦
To further understand the relationship between surface energy and bond strength.
Results◦
Certain brands of gloves did reduce the surface energy of a composite surfaces after contact
◦
In some cases the lower surface energy was reflected in reduced average GIC and a change in the mode of failure.
◦
This research further supports the concept that spontaneous wetting is necessary but not adequate for a quality bond
24
Summary- Glove Study
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
25
Surface Energy
• Important Considerations– Theory considers a uniform surface– Are composite surfaces uniform?
Peel Ply TextureFiber orientationVariations in surface roughness
– Do these factors influence contact angle?
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
26
Surface Energy
• Peel Ply Texture- effects contact angle
Uniform surfacepeel ply surface
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
27
Surface Energy
• Fiber Orientation effects contact angle, θ– surface energy of fiber is less than matrix– fluid spreads along matrix
easier than fiber– θfiber
>θmatrix
γm
> γf
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
28
Surface Energy
• Our research has shown wetting is a necessary but not always sufficient condition for a strong bond.
• Contact angle has been shown to detect changes in surfaces due to contamination
• Proper choice of fluids critical• May have surface energy anisotropy
– Peel Ply Texture– Fiber orientation– How to account for that?
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
29
Surface Energy
• Need to evaluate other surface energy theories– Lewis Acid Base vs. Polar-Dispersive model
• Need to evaluate surface energy at cure temperature
• Potential Applications– Compare with previously characterized surfaces– Monitoring of surfaces for bonding– Verification of surface preparation
RepairManufacturing
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
30
Fracture Evaluation
• The only sure way to measure bond quality is to break it– Not very good business plan– Use process control to ensure reproducible bond quality– Standard Specimens: Lap Shear and DCB
Time & material consuming, requires test frame
– Need for a “quick” testRapid Adhesion Test (RAT) methodInstrumented RAT (i-RAT)
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Fracture Evaluation
• Failure mode and relation to bond strength: – Adhesion
(weak bond)х
Considered unacceptable in aerospace– Cohesion
(bond as strong as adhesive itself)Acceptable
– Interlaminar
(bond as strong as laminate itself)Acceptable
31
Frac
ture
Ene
rgy
Failure Mode
Adhesion
Cohesive
Interlaminar↑
or↓
Composite
Adhesiveinterfacial/adhesion
cohesive in adhesive
Composite
cohesive in adherend/interlaminar
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
32
Rapid Adhesion Test (RAT) Method
– A quick, low cost test to assess the adhesion– A modification of metal-to-metal peel test– The backing adherend clamped to while the
peeling adherend is removed– Failure mode representative of bond
Adhesion Failure-Poor BondCohesive Failure-Strong Bond
– Failure modes correlate with DCB test with ~90% less cost and flow time
Adhesive filmFEP crack starterBacking adherend (0.063” Al- PAA)
Peeling adherend (0.020” Al PAA+ single ply of composite- peel ply surface)
RAT Specimen Geometry
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
33
RAT Method Assessment
Cohesive failure
(left) vs. Adhesion failure
(right)
Peel ply patternGlass Fabric pattern
FEP starter crack FEP starter crack
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
34
RAT Method Assessment
Cohesive failure here (OK)
Failure in adhesion here (BAD)
Mixed failure mode of RAT specimen (looking at substrate surface after peeling off adhesive); Cytec Cycom MXB 7701/7781 – P 60001 – Cytec FMx209
Failure in adhesion (Peel ply prepared surface still visible)
Resin material
Glass fiber tows
Cohesive failure
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Instrumented RAT (i-RAT)
• Need for quantitative comparison of bond “strength”• Produce a quicker, less expensive method of generating
a quantitative measure of bond “strength” through the development of the i-RAT test method
• Use i-RAT data to evaluate different composite/adhesive/peel ply combinations in an array of composite bonds
• Quickly and easily identify mode of failure and relative strength in bonded samples to screen samples for further testing (DCB, Lap Shear, etc.)
35
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
i-RAT Methodology
• Climbing Drum Peel (CDP) test– Primarily used to measure peel torque values for the removal of material from a surface
Composite facesheet from honeycombPeel ply from composite substrate
– Test drum is “rolled” up compositesurface, removing peel ply that hasbeen clamped to the drum
• i-RAT Test MethodCDP fixtureLoad vs. displacement recordedPeel torque calculatedRelation to bond strength or GIC
36
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
• Mechanical Testing -
Data
Common Plot of load vs. displacement for a CDP test specimen used to calculate peel torque values. [6]
37
Review of CDP
• Data analysis– The P2 value is a measure of the applied load necessary to:
• A: Overcome the drum rolling up the peel material– Equal to P1 and determined from calibration run
• B: Induce failure in the bonded joint• C: Bend the peel material
– Zero if no load required to bend peel material (ex: peel ply)– The value for P = (P2 -P1 ), in units of lbf, can be converted into a
peel torque value, in units of J/m2, by a simple equation relating drum diameter to sample geometry
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
i-RAT Methodology
• Instrumented Rapid Adhesion Test (i-RAT)– Intermediary test between RAT and DCP or Lap Shear testing– Combination of RAT test with Climbing Drum Peel (CDP) test
method and fixture (ASTM D 1781-98)– Attain quantitative values for bond strength– Same quick sample prep and cost benefits as with RAT method
38
1 student evaluated 9 combinations in 1 day (including lay up, & 2 autoclave cure cycles)
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
Fractography
Peel ply patternFabric pattern
Cohesive failure, good (left) vs. Adhesion failure, bad (right)
Hexcel BMS 8-79 with 3M AF163-2 Adhesive
39
Substrate -
cohesion failure Substrate -
adhesion failure
Adhesive-adhesion failure
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
i-RAT Results
40
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
i-RAT Bond Evaluation Method
• Advantages– Inexpensive, quick test method for ranking bond strength– Yields fracture surface for characterization
Adhesion vs. Cohesive– Quick screening process for down-selecting bonded
samples for further testing
• Limitations– Bending/Plastic deformation of Al backing
MeasurableAccountable in determining “toughness” value?
– Failure mode influence by specimen geometry? Differing compliance of adherends
41
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
42
Summary
• No Single method to characterize surfaces to ensure a good bond
• XPS and SEM are valuable tools • Contact angle/wetting can NOT predict bond quality • Contact angle/wetting can detect contamination• Strict process control is required (even type of gloves)• Simple peel tests can be used to quickly (and at much
lower cost) evaluate bond quality• Of course… more research is needed
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
43
A Look Forward
• Benefit to Aviation– Better understanding of peel ply surface prep.– Guide development of QA methods for surface prep.– Greater confidence in adhesive bonds
• Future needs– Surface energy (wetting) vs. bond quality– Surface energy at cure temperature– QA method to ensure proper surface for bonding– Applicability to other composite and adhesive systems– Model to guide bonding based on characterization,
surface prep. and material properties
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington 44
Acknowledgements
• Funding FAA JAMS-AMTAS• Peter Van Voast & Will Grace at The Boeing
Company• Mark Tuttle for his advice and “WET” software
utility• Material donations from Cytec-Cycom, Toray
Composites America, Airtech International, Henkel, Richmond Aerospace and Precision Fabrics
-
The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of ExcellenceUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Washington
QUESTIONS ?
45
Improving Adhesive Bonding of Composites Through Surface CharacterizationImproving Adhesive Bonding of CompositesImproving Adhesive Bonding of CompositesFAA Sponsored Project InformationOutline Surface AppearanceSurface AppearanceSurface ChemistrySurface EnergySurface EnergySurface WettingSurface WettingWettability envelopes showed the difference in the prepared surfaces.Surface Energy-Detecting ContaminationVideoContact Angle and Wettability EnvelopesContact Angle and Wettability Envelopes Contact Angle and Wettability EnvelopesX-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy XPS continued…Fracture Toughness Mode of FailureModes of FailureSummary- Glove StudySurface EnergySurface EnergySurface EnergySurface EnergySurface EnergyFracture EvaluationFracture EvaluationRapid Adhesion Test (RAT) MethodRAT Method AssessmentRAT Method AssessmentInstrumented RAT (i-RAT)i-RAT MethodologySlide Number 37i-RAT MethodologyFractographyi-RAT Resultsi-RAT Bond Evaluation MethodSummaryA Look ForwardAcknowledgementsQUESTIONS ?