Abstract
Inherent susceptibility of adhesive bonds to miniscule quantities of contamination can cause undetectable weakened bonds. For this reason, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) places strict regulations on adhesively bonded joints in primary aircraft structures. To meet certification requirements aircraft manufactures resort to redundant load paths in the form of fasteners which inherently add weight to the structure and increase manufacturing time. In prior work, a secondary bonding technique called AERoBOND was developed, which utilized off-stoichiometric epoxy-matrix resins to facilitate reflow and diffusion of the resin within the joint interface during a secondary bonding/cure process, thus achieving a bond similar to a co-cured joint. However, the AERoBOND process required tight spatial tolerances between the two parts being joined. This study examined the utilization of conventional adhesive with the AERoBOND method to act as a filler in the joint line, effectively reducing the need for tight tolerances on the joining parts and serving as a flexible alternative for existing manufacturing processes. Ultrasonic inspection, optical microscopy, and ASTM International standard tests were performed to analyze the joints for defects and to quantify the mode-I and mode-II interlaminar fracture toughness and short beam strength of the proposed methodology with varying manufacturing parameters. The comprehensive results indicate that the AERoBOND+ method with and without surface preparation performs comparably to co-cured and conventional, adhesively bonded joints when secondary cured in an autoclave with 791 kPa of pressure. As an example, the AERoBOND+ panel without surface preparation bonded with 791 kPa of pressure (referred to as AB+3 throughout paper) had a mode-I fracture toughness (GIc) of 0.643 kJ/m2 and a mode-II fracture toughness (GIIc) of 4.000 kJ/m2 in the non-precracked condition and 4.218 kJ/m2 in the precracked condition at the adhesive-to-prepreg interface. These results were 96 %, 142 %, and 217 %, respectively, of a co-cured baseline panel (referred to as C1 throughout paper).
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
