See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288658769

Effect of surface treatment on the shear strength of aluminum adhesive

single-lap joints for automotive applications

Article in International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.12.023

CITATIONS READS

93 2,188

4 authors:

Yasmina Boutar Sami Naimi

National Engineering School of Monastir National Engineering School of Monastir
11 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 250 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Salah Mezlini Moez Ben Sik Ali

University of Monastir ICAR-SA
76 PUBLICATIONS 927 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 179 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solar Energy View project

Parameter identification and mechanical characterization of materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasmina Boutar on 05 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh

Effect of surface treatment on the shear strength of aluminium

adhesive single-lap joints for automotive applications
Yasmina Boutar a,n, Sami Naïmi a, Salah Mezlini a, Moez Ben Sik Ali b
a
Mechanical Laboratory, National Engineering School of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia
b
Automotive Industry, ICAR, Sousse, Tunisia

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Available online 28 December 2015 Adhesive joints exhibit very high toughness and good fatigue resistance. This technique is a serious
Keywords: candidate to replace rivets or welding in primary structural components. Nevertheless, there is hesitation
Aluminium and alloys on the part of the industry to replace traditional fasteners in primary structural applications, mainly due
Polyurethane to the limited understanding of joint performance over the life of structures. In the present research, we
Surface roughness focus on the static strength of adhesive bonded aluminium alloys for the automotive industry. So, the aim
Lap-shear of this work is to carry out and quantify the various variables affecting the strength of single lap joints,
Wettability especially the effect of the surface preparation. Aluminium single lap joints (SLJs) were fabricated and
tested to assess the adhesive (structural one-component polyurethane adhesive) performance in a joint.
We found that the decrease in surface roughness was found to increase the shear strength of single lap
joints. Furthermore, it has been possible, qualitatively, to identify the relative sensitivity of the effects of
various surface roughnesses on the behaviour of spreading kinetics. Experimental results show that
rougher surfaces have less wettability which is in coherent with shear strength tests.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For this purpose, it is necessary to delve further into the

knowledge and characterisation of the mechanical properties of
Structural adhesives are more frequently used in manufactur- this type of joint depending on the technical and geometrical
ing processes as they provide numerous advantages when com- parameters. One of the most relevant geometrical parameters is
pared with the traditional joint systems, such as corrosion resis- the surface finish of the substrates, as this has a decisive influence
tance, weight reduction, and elimination of stress concentration on the mechanical properties of the joint and has a clear economic
due to the fastener mounting hole. Other benefits include impact on the mass production manufacturing processes. Fur-
thermore, the relationship between roughness and adhesion is not
improved stiffness, rigidity, impact behaviour and energy absorp-
very simple. Optimum surface profile varies from one adhesive to
tion, less vibration and sound deadening [1]. However, obtaining
another and depends upon the type of stress applied [7]. As well,
these advantages requires a specific adhesive joint design that
the roughness of adherend surfaces has frequently been used as a
improves its performance and restricts its limitations [2]. The
design parameter for adhesive joints. A number of researchers
analysis of the main contributions on design rules of structural have examined its effect on the strength and durability of adhesive
adhesive joints [3,4] together with results of studies on the joints using various adherends and adhesives [8,9]. In addition, the
selection of adhesives and joint analysis allows structured plan- pre-treatment of aluminium to enhance adhesion has been the
ning for adhesive joints design [5]. Furthermore, durable bonds subject of a very large amount of research [3].
which are capable of taking structural loads can be created due to Few wettability data are available although indirect wettability
a careful consideration that must be given the way in which the information is given from the different degrees of pore penetration
joint is formed, the appropriate treatment of the adherend sur- observed by electron microscopy with different treatment/primer/
faces prior to bonding, the thickness of the adhesive layer and the adhesive combinations. Harris et al. [10] show that surface energy
type of environment in which it is to be used [6]. decrease with the increasing of surface roughness as the peaks,
ridges and asperities form barriers which restrict the spreading of
the droplet. Huh and Mason [11] and Yost et al. [12] have noted
n
Corresponding author. that with a cute contact angles the three-phase line is reluctant to
E-mail address: jasmina.boutar@gmail.com (Y. Boutar). flow over ridges and peaks. However, they also reported that the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2015.12.023
0143-7496/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Y. Boutar et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43 39

droplet “seeks out” areas of the surface where it can spread more Fig. 2 illustrates the specimens surfaces images obtained using a
easily, particularly through troughs and valleys, perhaps as a result digital microscope for the four types of surface preparation used.
of capillary channelling. Fig. 3 shows a typical roughness profile (R profile) for the two
This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the types of surface preparation used.
effect of surface roughness and wettability on the strength of Surfaces substrates was cleaned and degreased with acetone. In
single lap joints with an experimental study that characterises the order to ensure maximum shear strength, a treatment by addition
surface using three statistical parameters (Ra, Rq and Rz) and of a primer layer adhesion is applied on the surfaces and smoothed
contact angle measurements.
dried for about 15 min before the application of the adhesive
(Processes used in industrial applications).

2. Experimental procedure
2.3. Test methods
2.1. Materials
A specially tool was designed and manufactured (Fig. 4), to
The materials used in this study were Aluminium–copper ensure that the specimens overlapping was 12.5 mm. The tool was
alloys (Material properties are shown in Table 1) and structural
adjustable with shims that allow obtaining the desired thickness
one-component polyurethane adhesive. The mechanical tensile
of the adhesive with great precision. In our case, an adhesive
and other properties of the adhesive used are shown in Table 2.
thickness of 0.5 mm was applied to all specimens.
Standard Single Lap Joint specimens were conform to Standard
Once assembled, the excess adhesive was removed (to avoid
ASTM D1002 [13] with bonded dimensions of 25 mm
12.5 mm.
possible origins of fractures) and a 0.250 kg weight was placed on
Configuration of the specimen are shown in Fig. 1.
the joint for 12 h. Tabs were bonded at the ends of single-lap joints
to improve alignment, as shown in Fig. 1. The specimens were
2.2. Surface preparation
cured in a drying oven for a duration of t ¼48 h at a temperature
Two kinds of surface were used for the specimen: the not T¼ 30 °C and a moisture H ¼48%. Following the cure, the speci-
abraded surface and abraded surface. The surface quality of each mens were allowed to cool slowly. A dimensional verification was
overlap, the not abraded and those obtained by polishing with carried out with a calliper.
three grades, 1000, 180 and 50 was defined by three statistical The specimens were tested destructively on an LLOYD 20 kN
parameters provided by a roughness detector with a differential tensile testing machine using standard testing fixtures. All tests
inductance feeler (Mitutoyo SJ-210; Mitutoyo Corporation, Tokyo, were carried out under monotonic loading at room temperature
Japan). Measured values of Ra ; Rq and Rz are given in Table 3. with a cross-head speed of 1.3 mm/min. A minimum of three
Where Ra is the arithmetic average height (mm), Rq is the root specimens for each surface condition was tested to achieve an
mean square roughness (mm) and Rz is the ten-point height (mm). average result. After each test, the failure load was recorded and
fractured surfaces were examined visually to determine whether
the failure was adhesion or cohesion.
Table 1 The wetting characteristics of all the specimens, after the
Substrate mechanical properties (manufacturer data).
addition of a primer layer adhesion applied on the surfaces, were
Aluminium–copper alloys determined using a contact angle goniometer (Digidrop gbx) via
static de-ionised water contact angle measurements on water
Yield strength (MPa) Z 190
drops of size 35 ml using the Laplace–Young method. A mini-
Elongation at yield stress (%) 17
Poisson's ration 0.33 mum of three tests (longitudinal and transversal) was recorded to
Stiffness modulus (MPa) 26,500 achieve an average result. Fig. 5 illustrates the contact angle
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 70,500
goniometer “Digidrop gbx”.

Table 2
Adhesive properties (manufacturer data). Table 3
Surface roughnesses.
Polyurethane adhesive
Profilometry parameter Treatment
Chemical type Polyurethane prepolymers
components One-component Not abraded p1000 p180 p50
Viscosity 40–50 g/min
Elongation at yield stress (%) 600 Ra (mm) 0.3 7 0.1 0.6 7 0.19 1.5 7 0.14 37 0.16
Tensile strength (MPa) 10 according to DIN (53504) Rq (mm) 0.4 7 0.14 0.7 7 0.15 1.8 7 0.12 27 0.14
Skin formation time (min) 25–35 min at 23 °C/50%HR Rz (mm) 2.8 7 0.3 4.5 7 0.41 9.8 7 0.22 9.8 7 0.7

Alignment tab Alignment tab

3
F 3 F
0.5
25 87.5 12.5 62.5 25

Fig. 1. Geometrical parameters of the single lap joint (dimensions in mm).

40 Y. Boutar et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43

200µm 200µm

200µm 200µm

Fig. 2. Microscopic images of (a) not abraded aluminium alloy surfaces and those treated with grit papers (b) p1000, (c) p180 and (d) p50.

Fig. 3. Surface roughness profiles (R profiles) of aluminium surfaces: (a) not abraded and (b) abraded with 1000 abrasive paper.

3. Results and discussion shear strength/displacement curves were linear until failure
and, in all the cases, failure was adhesive/cohesive. Fig. 6 shows
3.1. Effect of surface treatment: surface roughness and wetting a typical shear strength/displacement curve for the polishing
p 50 case with a thickness of 0.5 mm. The nonlinear evolu-
The surface treatment is a parameter that can significantly tion observed in this particular case is due to the adhesive
affect the joint strength. In the tests carried out, the apparent behaviour.
 Y. Boutar et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43 41

Substrates

Adhesive

Fig. 4. Lap-shear specimen preparation.

Fig. 5. Contact angle measurements on water drops via a Contact angle goniometer “Digidrop gbx”.

3
Shear strength τ (MPa)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 6. Representative shear strength/displacement curve for the polishing p50.

90
85
79.45
80
80.3
75 74.6
Contact Angles (°)

70
65
60 62.01
55
50
45
40
0.3 0.6 1.5 3
Fig. 7. Variation of the shear strength as a function of roughnesses for one adhesive Roughness (µm)
thickness (0.5 mm).
Fig. 8. Contact angles as function of surfaces roughness.

Fig. 7 shows a graph with the variation of the shear strength (in range, the contact angle decreases from 74.6° to 62°. These
MPa) as a function of roughnesses (Ra) used. Fig. 8 shows the contact results prove that there is an improvement in wettability. The
angles measurements for the different surfaces used in this study. increase in shear strength is attributed to an increase in sur-
The average shear strength was inversely proportional to the face area by forming of mini scarf joints on adherend surfaces
contact angles of the water drops as shown in Fig. 9. at a microlevel.
The following conclusions can be drawn from these figures: b) An optimum shear strength value of 3.97 MPa (average lap
shear strength) was obtained with the surfaces abraded with
a) It can be seen that shear strength appears to increase from the 1000 abrasive paper (which is in accordance with the shear
not abraded (0.3 mm) specimens to those polished with 1000 strength value given by supplier at 23 °C and 50%H.R), but, after
abrasive paper which gives a roughness 0.6 mm. In the same reaching a maximum, it starts to decrease. These results are in
42 Y. Boutar et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43

agreement with previous research [14,15]. The surface rough- those treated with grit papers p50 and p180 can be seen in the
ening degrades the bond strength and decreases the level of Fig. 10(a), (b) and (c) respectively. The failure mode was mainly in
wettability. The contact angle increases from 62° with p1000 to a mixed adhesive/cohesive mode, but the interfacial failure area is
80.3° with p50. The increase of the contact angle by micro- smaller with p180 than that of other specimens. Fig. 10(d) presents
geometric barrier effect caused by the surface morphology typical failure surfaces of joints that failed cohesively in the
which prevents the free spreading of the drop on the surface.
adhesive but close to the interface for substrates which were
In this case, the liquid does not penetrate well the rough surface
abraded with p1000.
asperities, and gas molecules can be trapped in the asperity
Upon visual examination, it appeared that the specimens pre-
valleys. As a result, the interface between liquid and solid is not
pared by polishing aluminium adherends with coarser grit have
continuous and there is an alternation of solid–liquid and gas–
liquid interfaces. The grooves and valleys that it creates on the shown significantly higher crazing. This is in line with the findings
substrate surface will not be filled with adhesive before cure of Hitchcock et al. [16]. They report that increasing roughness
due to lack of wetting and air remains entrapped between the usually reduces the wettability of the surfaces. This phenomenon
substrate and the adhesive. This reduces the effective bond area is the main cause of interfacial failure.
and creates stress risers at the interface.

3.2. Examination of fracture surfaces 4. Conclusions

Fig. 10 shows the failure surfaces of specimens with different The main objective of this paper is to improve comprehension
roughnesses used. Failure surface for not abraded specimens and of the effect of roughness on the durability of single-lap joint. The
results indicate that the changes in joint properties associated
with roughened surfaces cannot be explained simply by the
increased roughness characteristics, such as mechanical keying
and increased effective bond area. It is evident that changes in
physical and chemical properties of the surface, arising from the
polishing process contributed significantly to the joint behaviour.
Therefore, the characterisation of the interphase and its formation
mechanisms are important in order to get a better understanding
of the fundamental mechanisms of adhesion and to explain the
joint durability.
To summarise, the spreading kinetics results provide a sup-
plementary view of the surface morphology of the substrates after
various pre-treatments. As a result, there is an optimum roughness
to search for it, which gives a good wettability defined by the
minimum contact angle and the maximum shear strength coupled
Fig. 9. Average shear strength and contact angles for different surfaces roughness. with cohesive failure mode.

Bare region Adhesive

Bare region

Adhesive
Adhesive
Adhesive Bare region

Fig. 10. Fractured surfaces of aluminium shear strength specimens: (a) not abraded aluminium and those treated with grit papers, (b) p50, (c) p180 and (d) p1000.
 Y. Boutar et al. / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 67 (2016) 38–43 43

Acknowledgements [7] Sykes JM. Surface treatments for steel. In: Brewis DM, editor. Surface analysis
and pretreatment of plastics and metals. London: Applied Science Publishers;
1982. p. 153–74.
These research and innovation are made in the context of a [8] Critchlow GW, Brewis DM. Influence of surface macro roughness on the dur-
MOBIDOC thesis financed by the EU within the framework of the ability of epoxide–aluminium joints. Int J Adhes Adhes 1995;15(3):173–6.
[9] Harris AF, Beevers A. Grit blasting of surfaces for adhesive bonding. In: Pro-
PASRI program. ceedings of conference on structural adhesives in engineering V. Institute of
Materials Bristol; 1998.
[10] Harris AF, Beevers A. The effects of grit-blasting on surface properties for
adhesion. Int J Adhes Adhes 1999;19:445–52.
References [11] Huh C, Mason SG. Effects of surface roughness on wetting (Theoretical).
J Colloid Interfacial Sci 1977;60(1):11–38.
[12] Yost FG, Micheal JR, Eisenmann ET. Extensive wetting due to roughness. Acta
[1] Barnes TA, Pashby IR. Joining techniques for aluminium space frames used in Metall Mater 1995;43(1):299–305.
automobiles Part II Ð adhesive bonding and mechanical fasteners. J Mater [13] American Society for testing and Materials. ASTM D 1002-01. Standard test
Process Technol 2000;99:72–9. method for apparent shear strength of single-lap-joint adhesively bonded
[2] Adams RD, Comyn J, Wake WC. Structural adhesive joints in engineering. 2nd metal specimens by tension loading (metal-to-metal). Annual book of ASTM
ed.. London: Chapman & Hall; 1997. standards, vol.15.06; 2004. p.51–4.
[3] Critchlow G, Brewis D. Review of surface pretreatments for aluminium alloys. [14] Pereira AM, Ferreira JM, Antunes FV, Bártolo PJ. Analysis of manufacturing
Int J Adhes Adhes 1996;16(4):255–75. parameters on the shear strength of aluminium adhesive single-lap joints.
[4] Adams RD, Peppiatt NA. Stress analysis of adhesive-bonded lap joints. J Strain J Mater Process Technol 2010;210:610–7.
Anal 1974;9(3):185–96. [15] Saleema N, Sarkar DK, Paynter RW, Gallant D, Eskandarian M. A simple surface
[5] Arenas Reina JM, Narbón Prìeto JJ, Alía García C. Influence of the surface finish treatment and characterization of AA 6061 aluminum alloy surface for adhe-
on the shear strength of structural adhesive joints and application criteria in sive bonding applications. J Appl Surf Sci 2012;261:742–8.
manufacturing processes. J Adhes 2009;85(6):324–40. [16] Hitchcock SJ, Caroll NT, Nicholas MG. Some effects of substrate roughness on
[6] Pethrick Richard A. Design and ageing of adhesives for structural adhesive wettability. J Mater Sci 1981;16:714–32.
bonding – a review. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L: J Mater Des Appl 2014;0(0):1–31.

View publication stats