Effect of CNT dispersion methods on the strength and fracture mechanism of interface in epoxy adhesive/Al joints
Source abstract
Abstract
The tensile and shear strengths of adhesively bonded aluminum (Al) joints were inspected in the presence of amino functionalized multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Tensile and shear tests were carried out using butt and lap-shear joints. The main goal was to compare the effects of dispersion methods of functionalized-CNT into epoxy on the mechanical performances and failure mechanisms of Al joints. Two different types of dispersion procedures, distributing CNT in the hardener (HH method) and distributing CNT in the resin (RR method), were applied. To identify the failure mechanisms, the morphology of fracture surfaces were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Comparing two dispersion methods against one another ascertained that following the RR method for dispersing CNTs in the adhesive displayed larger shear strength, while applying HH method offered fairly greater tensile strength. Moreover, dispersing CNTs in the resin induced more uniform dispersion of CNTs as compared to distributing nanofillers in the hardener. Following RR method, CNTs good dispersion as well as the presence of effective crack growth dissipating mechanisms, increased the shear strength of CNT reinforced adhesive joint. Incorporating CNTs using HH approach encouraged the plastic void formation of epoxy around the agglomerated CNTs, and as a consequence, promoted the plastic deformation under tension.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Mechanical Behavior of Composites · Metal and Thin Film Mechanics · Epoxy Resin Curing Processes
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Division of Plastics Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran;
Polymer Research Laboratory, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.10.01010.1016/j.engfailanal.2017.10.010 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.02210.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.01.022 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.03.00710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.03.007 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.11310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.113 ↗
5. Tomblin JS · 2001
6. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2009.02.01210.1016/j.ijadhadh.2009.02.012 ↗
7. 10.1243/14644207JMDA21910.1243/14644207JMDA219 ↗
8. 10.1080/0021846060094851110.1080/00218460600948511 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.05.00710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.05.007 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.06710.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.067 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.05510.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.055 ↗
12. Zakaria AZ · Eng Fract Mech · 2017
13. 10.1007/s10853-010-5225-610.1007/s10853-010-5225-6 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.00710.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.10.007 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2014.07.00610.1016/j.compscitech.2014.07.006 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.msea.2007.04.04310.1016/j.msea.2007.04.043 ↗
17. 10.1088/0957-4484/15/11/00510.1088/0957-4484/15/11/005 ↗
18. Freitas TA · BioMed Res Int · 2014 · 2014 · 1
19. 10.1002/app.2264710.1002/app.22647 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.11.00410.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.11.004 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.04.00210.1016/j.compscitech.2004.04.002 ↗
22. 10.1080/00218464.2012.66039810.1080/00218464.2012.660398 ↗
23. 10.3390/polym706102010.3390/polym7061020 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.01.02410.1016/j.compscitech.2004.01.024 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.04610.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.046 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.07.02110.1016/j.compositesb.2017.07.021 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.09.01210.1016/j.compositesa.2012.09.012 ↗
28. ASTM D 1002. Standard test method for apparent shear strength of single-lap-joint adhesively bonded metal specimens by tension loading. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 1999. p. 45–48.
29. 10.1016/j.polymer.2010.08.03810.1016/j.polymer.2010.08.038 ↗