1998
DOI: 10.1163/156856198x00254
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of surface roughness on the adhesion properties of ceramic / hybrid FRP adhesively bonded systems

Abstract: The adhesion properties of ceramic/hybrid fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) adhesively bonded systems were investigated with variations in the FRP surface roughness. The FRP substrate was subjected to mechanical abrasion in order to produce the surface roughness. The contact angles of water, formamide, and ethylene glycol on the FRP substrate were determined, and double lap shear and flexural tests were used to measure the joint strength of the ceramic/FRP adhesively bonded systems. In addition, the fracture surf… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the first attributes detected when comparing polycarbonate to tempered glass and aluminum print beds is that the polycarbonate has a noticeably rougher surface, as can be seen in the optical microscopic images in Figure 5a; this will likely be very helpful in bonding with the deposited materials [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. In order to objectively compare the surfaces, a PosiTector ® surface profile gauge was used to measure the mean surface roughness at 100 random points on the surface of the polycarbonate, as well as on the bare aluminum and tempered glass beds.…”
Section: Surface Profile Comparison Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the first attributes detected when comparing polycarbonate to tempered glass and aluminum print beds is that the polycarbonate has a noticeably rougher surface, as can be seen in the optical microscopic images in Figure 5a; this will likely be very helpful in bonding with the deposited materials [40][41][42][43][44][45][46]. In order to objectively compare the surfaces, a PosiTector ® surface profile gauge was used to measure the mean surface roughness at 100 random points on the surface of the polycarbonate, as well as on the bare aluminum and tempered glass beds.…”
Section: Surface Profile Comparison Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All samples were cleaned with smooth cloth in order to get rid of dust particles. The methods followed for surface preparation were as follows (Park and Jang, 1998;Abdel-Jaber et al, 2007):  Surface thoroughly degreased to remove oils and other contamination;  Grot blasting performed to remove paint and surface corrosion;  Surface preparation using mechanical disk as shown in Figure 3.…”
Section: Surface Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…oils and greases) from the surface, maximise the degree of molecular contact between the surface and the adhesive, and to ensure that the intrinsic adhesion forces across the interface are sufficient to achieve adequate bond strength [8]. Methods to prepare ceramic surfaces for adhesive bonding include grit-blasting [9][10][11], abrasion [12], plasma [13][14][15], laser ablation [9,16], sol-gel [10,11] and silane treatment [17][18][19]. In some of these studies, the main focus was on the evaluation of the effect of the adhesive bondline between ceramic tiles and a metal backing plate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%