Virginia Tech
    • Log in
    View Item 
    •   VTechWorks Home
    • ETDs: Virginia Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Masters Theses
    • View Item
    •   VTechWorks Home
    • ETDs: Virginia Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Masters Theses
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Comparing In Situ and Bulk Constitutive Properties of a Structural Adhesive

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Grohs_Thesis_ETD_Rev2.pdf (4.454Mb)
    Downloads: 637
    Date
    2007-07-20
    Author
    Grohs, Joshua Walter
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    In the continuing quest for more efficient designs, structural adhesives are being used in place of, or with, traditional fastening methods; however designing with adhesives is refined as traditional methods. To obtain the adhesive design properties, tests are often performed on bulk tensile and bonded shear specimens. Questions remain about the relationship between properties obtained from in situ adhesive joints and bulk adhesive specimens. As a result, an experimental plan was developed which characterized both the linear and nonlinear region of bulk and in situ adhesive performance of a two-part acrylic adhesive from Dow Chemical Company. A standard uniaxial tensile test was used for the bulk normal, while an Iosipescu shear test was used to characterize the bulk shear performance. In situ testing was performed on a napkin-ring specimen loaded in both tension and torsion. Stress-strain relationships in both shear and normal were developed and bulk and in situ adhesive performance was compared. Observations from testing were:
    1. Bulk shear and in situ shear tests showed similar performance in both the linear and nonlinear regions.
    2. Modulus of elasticity in bulk adhesive tests was similar to the effective modulus of elasticity in in situ tests.
    3. Prediction of normal yield strengths of the in situ adhesive through simple failure theory models proved to be inaccurate. Stress singularities, loading imperfections, and potentially a hydrostatic sensitivity were considered possible explanations.
    4. Adhesive showed sensitivity to voiding and surface flaws when loaded in a tensile configuration, refinement of specimen fabrication minimized these effects.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10919/34403
    Collections
    • Masters Theses [19662]

    If you believe that any material in VTechWorks should be removed, please see our policy and procedure for Requesting that Material be Amended or Removed. All takedown requests will be promptly acknowledged and investigated.

    Virginia Tech | University Libraries | Contact Us
     

     

    VTechWorks

    AboutPoliciesHelp

    Browse

    All of VTechWorksCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Log inRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    If you believe that any material in VTechWorks should be removed, please see our policy and procedure for Requesting that Material be Amended or Removed. All takedown requests will be promptly acknowledged and investigated.

    Virginia Tech | University Libraries | Contact Us