Interpreting test temperature and loading rate effects on the fracture toughness of polymer-metal interfaces via time–temperature superposition
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract In this letter, we present interfacial fracture toughness data for a polymer-metal interface where tests were conducted at various test temperatures T and loading rates An adhesively bonded asymmetric double cantilever beam (ADCB) specimen was utilized to measure toughness. ADCB specimens were created by bonding a thinner, upper adherend to a thicker, lower adherend (both 6061 T6 aluminum) using a thin layer of epoxy adhesive, such that the crack propagated along the interface between the thinner adherend and the epoxy layer. The specimens were tested at T from 25 to 65°C and δ ̇ from 0.002 to 0.2 mm/s. The measured interfacial toughness Γ increased as both T and δ ̇ increased. For an ADCB specimen loaded at a constant δ ̇, the energy release rate Γ increases as the crack length a increases. For this reason, we defined rate effects in terms of the rate of change in the energy release rate Ġ. Although not rigorously correct, a formal application of time-temperature superposition (TTS) analysis to the Γ data provided useful insights on the observed dependencies. In the TTS-shifted data, Γ decreased and then increased for monotonically increasing Ġ. Thus, the TTS analysis suggests that there is a minimum value of Γ. This minimum value could be used to define a lower bound in Γ when designing critical engineering applications that are subjected to T and δ ̇ excursions.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion behaviors in metals
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (19)
Show source-provided references
1. Ast J, Ghidelli M, Durst K, Goken M, Sebastiani M, Korsunsky AM (2019) A review of experimental approaches to fracture toughness evaluation at the micro-scale. Mater Design 173:10776210.1016/j.matdes.2019.107762 ↗
2. Grundmeier G, Stratmann M (2005) Adhesion and de-adhesion mechanisms at polymer/metal interfaces: mechanistic understanding based on in situ studies of buried interfaces. Annu Rev Mater Res 35:571–61510.1146/annurev.matsci.34.012703.105111 ↗
3. Jennings CW (1972) Surface-roughness and bond strength of adhesives. J Adhes 4:25–3810.1080/00218467208072208 ↗
4. Kinloch AJ (1980) The science of adhesion Part 1 Surface and interfacial aspects. J Mater Sci 15:2141–216610.1007/BF00552302 ↗
5. Kinloch AJ (1982) The science of adhesion Part 2 Mechanics and mechanisms of failure. J Mater Sci 17:617–65110.1007/BF00540361 ↗
6. Ohring M, Kasprzak L (2014) Reliability and failure of electronic materials and devices, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Orlando
7. Packham DE (2003) Surface energy, surface topography and adhesion. Intern J Adhes Adhes 23:437–44810.1016/S0143-7496(03)00068-X ↗
8. Reedy ED, Guess TR (1995) Butt joint tensile strength: interface corner stress intensity factor prediction. J Adhes Sci Technol 9:237–25110.1163/156856195X01148 ↗
9. Reedy ED, Stavig ME (2020) Interfacial toughness: dependence on surface roughness and test temperature. Intern J Fract 222:1–1210.1007/s10704-019-00419-0 ↗
10. Rider AN, Arnott DR (2001) The influence of adherend topography on the fracture toughness of aluminum-epoxy adhesive joints in humid environments. J Adhes 75:203–22810.1080/00218460108029601 ↗
11. Suo Z, Hutchinson JW (1989) Sandwich test specimens for measuring interface crack toughness. Mater Sci Eng A 107:135–14310.1016/0921-5093(89)90382-1 ↗
12. Suo Z, Hutchinson JW (1990) Interface crack between two elastic layers. Intern J Fract 43:1–1810.1007/BF00018123 ↗
13. Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW (1993) The influence of plasticity on mixed mode interface toughness. J Mech Phys Sol 41:1119–113510.1016/0022-5096(93)90057-M ↗
14. Volinsky AA, Moody NR, Gerberich WW (2002) Interfacial toughness measurements for thin films on substrates. Acta Mater 50:441–46610.1016/S1359-6454(01)00354-8 ↗
15. Wang W, De Freitas ST, Poulis JA, Zarouchas D (2021) A review of experimental and theoretical fracture characterization of bi-material bonded joints. Compos B 206:10853710.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108537 ↗
16. Williams ML, Landel RF, Ferry JD (1955) The temperature dependence of relaxation mechanisms in amorphous polymers and other glass-forming liquids. J Am Chem Soc 77:3701–370710.1021/ja01619a008 ↗
17. Zhang YL, Spinks GM (1997) An atomic force microscopy study of the effect of surface roughness on the fracture energy of adhesively bonded aluminum. J Adhes Sci Technol 11:207–22310.1163/156856197X00318 ↗
18. Zhang S, Panat R, Hsia KJ (2003) Influence of surface morphology on the adhesion strength of epoxy-aluminum interfaces. J Adhes Sci Technol 17:1685–171110.1163/156856103322396749 ↗
19. Zhu X-K, Joyce JA (2012) Review of fracture toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) testing and standardization. Eng Fract Mech 85:1–4610.1016/j.engfracmech.2012.02.001 ↗