Material Surface Preparation Techniques

Ebnesajjad, Sina; Landrock, Arthur H.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-35595-7.00003-6

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mechanical treatments consist mainly in abrasive techniques to remove weak surface layers and increase the contact area with the adhesive [4]. The adhesion theory associated the most with these treatments is the mechanical theory where the adhesive and the adherends are mechanically interlocked [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This mechanism depends on the presence of mutually reactive functional groups, such as hydroxyl and carboxyl, in the adhesive and the adherends. The simplest chemical treatment is surface cleaning which removes contaminants such as process oils, dirt, waxes, mold release agents, and plasticizers [4]. Effective cleaning solvents include methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, and methanol.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effective cleaning solvents include methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, and methanol. The chemical resistance of the polymer should be considered to prevent its degradation [4]. The most widely-used chemical treatments are primers and adhesion promoters.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main objective of energetic treatments is to remove organic contaminants, trigger oxidation processes, and increase the polarity and wettability of polymeric surfaces [4]. Although these treatments may change the polymer topography by removing weak cohesive layers [8], they still may have much less effect on the surface features compared to mechanical treatments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Improving the adhesion strength of polymers: effect of surface treatments

Hamdi

Saleh

Poulis

2020

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To improve their adhesion strength, polymeric surfaces are usually modified through different treatments. This study investigates the effect of mechanical, chemical, and energetic treatments on the bonding strength of ethylene propylene diene methylene (EPDM), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) materials. Three adhesives based on different chemical compositions, namely silicone, polyurethane, and modified-silane (MS) polymer, were considered. Results show that the effect of the applied treatments on the adhesion strength of EPDM surfaces is insignificant. Only a slight improvement is obtained in the case of polyurethane-based adhesive, while the failure modes remained adhesive. As for PVC, most treatments were effective in the case of the silicone-based adhesive, especially grit blasting, primer, and UV/ozone treatments. Only UV/ozone treatment improved the adhesion strength and altered the failure mechanisms of this material when polyurethane and MS-based adhesives are used. The adhesion of ABS increased and the failure modes changed from adhesive to cohesive for most treatments. Particularly, a significant improvement is obtained when primer coating and UV/ozone radiation are applied. This comparative study paves the way for the design of polymeric joints with highly enhanced adhesion performance.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving the adhesion strength of polymers: effect of surface treatments

Hamdi

Saleh

Poulis

2020

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is desirable, although not always practical; to have the adherent directly exposed to the adhesive, without an oxide film, paint, primer, chromate coating or silicone release agents. These layers, could act as a weak boundary material blocking the adhesive contact to the adherent surface (Ebnesajjad and Landrock, 2015b). For these reasons, selection of the surface preparation method depends on the adherent type, size of component parts, and the rapid depletion of active chemicals in the immersion bath (or accumulation of foreign materials in the bath) might improve the adhesion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influencia del método de rugosidad, configuración de la junta y espesor del adhesivo sobre la resistencia al corte de superficies de acero inoxidable ferrítico unidas por metacrilato de metilo

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface roughening, joint configuration, and adhesive thickness were selected as factors to analyze, by using a 2 3 design of experiments, the adhesive joint of AISI 430 steel using Methyl Methacrylate. Scanning electron microscopy observations, roughness-contour measurement and wettability analysis were performed on the adherents to analyze the adhesion, roughness, surface contour and shear strength on the adhesion tests. The statistical analysis yields that the most significant variable was the surface finishing for an adjusted R 2 of 90%. The difference of shear stress of 20.69 and 12.67 MPa was obtained for the mechanical and chemical roughening respectively, since the difference in wettability was around 78 and 113° for the same surface finishing. According to analyze the combination of factors for a shear stress of 21.80 MPa are mechanical roughening, single lap joint and glass beads.Citation/Citar como: Cruz-González, C.E.; Mosquera-Artamonov, J.D.; Santillán, S.D.; Gámez-Cuatzin, H. (2018). "Influence of the roughening method, joint configuration and adhesive thickness on the shear strength of ferritic stainless steel surfaces joined by methyl methacrylate". Rev. Metal. 54(2): e120. https://doi.org/10.3989/revmetalm.120 RESUMEN. Influencia del método de rugosidad, configuración de la junta y espesor del adhesivo sobre la resistencia al corte de superficies de acero inoxidable ferrítico unidas por metacrilato de metilo. Las variables rugosidad superficial, configuración de la junta y espesor de adhesivo fueron seleccionadas para analizarlas mediante un diseño de experimentos 2 3 . La unión adhesiva se realizó en una junta de acero ASI 430 utilizando Metil metacrilato como adhesivo. Para analizar la adhesión, rugosidad, contorno superficial y resistencia al corte se realizaron observaciones en el Microscopio Electrónico de Barrido, mediciones de rugosidad-contorno y mediciones de humectabilidad sobre los adherendos. El análisis estadístico arrojó que la variable más significativa fue el acabado superficial generando una R 2 de 90%. Una diferencia de 20,69 y 12,67 MPa se obtuvo para los acabados superficiales mecánico y químico debido a una diferencia en humectabilidad expresada por ángulos de contacto de 78 y 113° respectivamente. Con base al diagrama de Pareto, la combinación para obtener el esfuerzo de 21,80 MPa fue el acabado mecánico, junta de bisel simple y perlas de vidrio. 2 • C. E. Cruz-González et al.

show abstract