The effects of surface pretreatment on the cyclic-fatigue characteristics of bonded aluminium-alloy joints

Effect of Humidity on The Fatigue Behaviour of Adhesively Bonded Aluminium Joints

“…Under static conditions the effect of the surface treatment is not extremely felt, for example in the case of a lap shear strength test performed by Briskham and Smith (2000) were the PAA treated joint exhibited a 25 MPa strength compared to 21 MPa by the simply abraded joint. The true benefit has been shown in various works (Briskham and Smith 2000, Lefebvre et al 2002, Fernando et al 1996, Kinloch et al 2000, Abel et al 2006 to happen under fatigue conditions where PAA joints have proved to be the superior surface treatment for the various conditions studied by the authors. As a result, PAA is the optimal treatment to apply in adhesive bonds subjected to environment, especially those that are subjected to fatigue (Costa et al 2016.…”

The static and fatigue responses of aged metal laminate doublers joints under tension loading

“…[17] Water then decreases the mechanical properties of adhesive (tensile strength and Young's modulus) [4][5][6][7][8][9], may (depending on surface treatment) cause corrosion in the substrate at the interface [18][19][20], and hydration of strong metal oxides [21,22]. The consequences of the diffused water in the adhesive joint are reductions in the joint strength, both static [23][24][25][26][27][28] and fatigue [29][30][31][32].…”

The fatigue response of environmentally degraded adhesively bonded aluminium structures

“…Many studies of the effect of surface treatment on aluminium-adhesive joint fatigue performance have been reported in the literature including chromic acid etching (CAE), phosphoric acid anodising (PAA), phosphoric acid anodising and priming (PAAP), grit blasted and degreasing (GBD) and silane treatments [2][3][4][5][6]. In a dry condition, the fatigue failure surfaces of these treatments are generally cohesive in the adhesive, however in wet conditions, the PAA and PAAP surface treatments generally continue to fail cohesively, while failure with other surface treatments are often more interfacial.…”

“…In a dry condition, the fatigue failure surfaces of these treatments are generally cohesive in the adhesive, however in wet conditions, the PAA and PAAP surface treatments generally continue to fail cohesively, while failure with other surface treatments are often more interfacial. Some environmental fatigue crack growth studies have been performed by conditioning the specimen during the test [2][3][4][5]. Based on a fracture mechanics approach (Paris law), Liechti et al [7] found that in air and in salt water, raising the temperature reduced the threshold energy release rate and this decrease was more in salt water than in air.…”