The purpose of this work is to compare the co-bonding vs. cold-bonding route on the adhesive joint performance of a CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer) laminate–aluminum connection. In particular, the overlap shear, tensile strength and Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness will be evaluated. The adhesives for co-bonding and cold-bonding are, respectively, a thermosetting modified epoxy, unsupported structural film and a two-component epoxy adhesive, chosen as representative of applications in the high-performance/race car field. The emerging trend is that, in tensile e Mode I fracture tests, the failure path is predominantly in the composite. Mode II fracture tests instead resulted in a cohesive fracture, meaning that, under pure shear loading, the weakest link may not be the composite. The lap-shear tests are placed midway (cohesive failure for co-bonding and composite delamination for cold-bonding, respectively), probably due to the different peel stress values related to the different adhesive Young’s modulus. The exploitation of the full capacity of the adhesive joint, hence the possibility of highlighting better, different performances of co-bonding vs. cold-bonding, would require consistent improvement of the out-of-plane strength of the CFRP laminate and/or to someway redistribute the peel stress on the bondline.

Comparison of tensile strength and fracture toughness of co-bonded and cold-bonded carbon fiber laminate-aluminum adhesive joints / Moroni, F.; Pirondi, A.; Pernechele, C.; Vescovi, L.. - In: MATERIALS. - ISSN 1996-1944. - 14:14(2021), p. 3778.3778. [10.3390/ma14143778]

Comparison of tensile strength and fracture toughness of co-bonded and cold-bonded carbon fiber laminate-aluminum adhesive joints

Moroni F.;Pirondi A.;
2021

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to compare the co-bonding vs. cold-bonding route on the adhesive joint performance of a CFRP (Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer) laminate–aluminum connection. In particular, the overlap shear, tensile strength and Mode I and Mode II fracture toughness will be evaluated. The adhesives for co-bonding and cold-bonding are, respectively, a thermosetting modified epoxy, unsupported structural film and a two-component epoxy adhesive, chosen as representative of applications in the high-performance/race car field. The emerging trend is that, in tensile e Mode I fracture tests, the failure path is predominantly in the composite. Mode II fracture tests instead resulted in a cohesive fracture, meaning that, under pure shear loading, the weakest link may not be the composite. The lap-shear tests are placed midway (cohesive failure for co-bonding and composite delamination for cold-bonding, respectively), probably due to the different peel stress values related to the different adhesive Young’s modulus. The exploitation of the full capacity of the adhesive joint, hence the possibility of highlighting better, different performances of co-bonding vs. cold-bonding, would require consistent improvement of the out-of-plane strength of the CFRP laminate and/or to someway redistribute the peel stress on the bondline.
Comparison of tensile strength and fracture toughness of co-bonded and cold-bonded carbon fiber laminate-aluminum adhesive joints / Moroni, F.; Pirondi, A.; Pernechele, C.; Vescovi, L.. - In: MATERIALS. - ISSN 1996-1944. - 14:14(2021), p. 3778.3778. [10.3390/ma14143778]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11381/2899905
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact