Adhesive joining of fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite components is demanded in various industrial applications. However, the joining locations frequently suffer from adhesive bond failure between adhesive and adherent. The aim of the present study is improving bonding behavior of adhesive joints by electrospun nanofiber coatings on the prepreg surfaces that have been used for composite manufacturing. Secondary bonding of woven and unidirectional CFRP parts was selected since this configuration is preferred commonly in aerospace practices. The optimum nanofiber coating with a low average fiber diameter and areal weight density is succeed by studying various solution concentrations and spinning durations of the polyamide-6.6 (PA 66) electrospinning. We obtained homogeneous and beadles nanofiber productions. As a result, an average diameter of 36.50 ± 12 nm electrospun nanofibers were obtained and coated onto the prepreg surfaces. Prepreg systems with/without PA 66 nanofibers were hot pressed to fabricate the CFRP composite laminates. The single-lap shear test coupons were prepared from the fabricated laminates to examine the effects of PA 66 nanofibers on the mechanical properties of the joint region of the composites. The single-lap shear test results showed that the bonding strength is improved by about 40% with minimal adhesive use due to the presence of the electrospun nanofibers within the joint region. The optical and SEM images of fractured surfaces showed that nanofiber-coated joints exhibited a coherent failure while the bare surfaces underwent adhesive failure. The PA66 nanofibers created better coupling between the adhesive and the composite surface by increasing the surface area and roughness. As a result, electrospun nanofibers turned adhesive failure into cohesive and enhanced the adhesion performance composite joints substantially.
BritoCBGDe Cássia Mendonça Sales ContiniRGouvêaRFDe OliveiraASArbeloMADonadonMV. Mode I interlaminar fracture toughness analysis of Co-bonded and secondary bonded carbon fiber reinforced composites joints. Mater Res2017; 20: 873–882, DOI: 10.1590/1980-5373-mr-2016-0805.
2.
EncinasNOakleyBRBelcherMABlohowiakKYDillinghamRGAbenojarJMartínezMA. Surface modification of aircraft used composites for adhesive bonding. Int J Adhes Adhesives2014; 50: 157–163, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.01.004.
UzYC. Development and characterızatıon of innovatıve fıber reınforced prepregs and theır composıtes contaınıng functıonal fıllers (issue july), 2021.
5.
SongMGKweonJHChoiJHByunJHSongMHShinSJLeeTJ. Effect of manufacturing methods on the shear strength of composite single-lap bonded joints. Compos Structures2010; 92(9): 2194–2202, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2009.08.041.
6.
MorettiLOlivierPCastaniéBBernhartG. Experimental study and in-situ FBG monitoring of process-induced strains during autoclave co-curing, co-bonding and secondary bonding of composite laminates. Composites A: Appl Sci Manufacturing2021; 142: 106224, DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106224.
7.
FleuretCAndreaniASLainéÉGrandidierJCL’HéritierSGorgeAL. Complex wing spar design in carbon fiber reinforced composite for a light aerobatic aircraft. Mech Industry2016; 17(6): 614, DOI: 10.1051/meca/2016032.
8.
HélénonFWisnomMRHallettSRTraskRS. Numerical investigation into failure of laminated composite T-piece specimens under tensile loading. Composites Part A: Appl Sci Manufacturing2012; 43(7): 1017–1027, DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2012.02.010.
9.
BudheSBaneaMDde BarrosSda SilvaLFM. An updated review of adhesively bonded joints in composite materials. Int J Adhes Adhesives2017; 72(October): 30–42, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.10.010.
10.
LiXTaoRYudhantoALubineauG. How the spatial correlation in adhesion properties influences the performance of secondary bonding of laminated composites. Int J Sol Structures2020; 196–197: 41–52, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2020.04.012.
11.
MohanJIvankovićAMurphyN. Mode i fracture toughness of co-cured and secondary bonded composite joints. Int J Adhes Adhesives2014; 51: 13–22, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2014.02.008.
12.
MohanJIvankovićAMurphyN. Mixed-mode fracture toughness of co-cured and secondary bonded composite joints. Eng Fracture Mech2015; 134: 148–167, DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.12.005.
13.
MazumdarSKMallickPK. Static and fatigue behavior of adhesive joints in SMC-SMC composites. Polym Composites1998; 19(2): 139–146, DOI: 10.1002/pc.10084.
14.
BeylergilBTanoğluMAktaşE. Enhancement of interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon fiber–epoxy composites using polyamide-6, 6 electrospun nanofibers. J Appl Polym Sci2017; 134(35): 1–12, DOI: 10.1002/app.45244.
15.
KimCParkSHLeeWJYangKS. Characteristics of supercapaitor electrodes of PBI-based carbon nanofiber web prepared by electrospinning. Electrochimica Acta2004; 50(2–3): 877–881, DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2004.02.071.
JentzschEGülÖÖznergizE. A comprehensive electric field analysis of a multifunctional electrospinning platform. J Electrostatics2013; 71(3): 294–298, DOI: 10.1016/j.elstat.2012.12.007.
AljarrahMTAbdelalNR. Improvement of the mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of carbon fiber composite reinforced with electrospun nylon nanofiber. Composites B: Eng2019; 165: 379–385, DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.065.
22.
BeckermannGWPickeringKL. Mode i and Mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of composite laminates interleaved with electrospun nanofibre veils. Composites Part A: Appl Sci Manufacturing2015; 72: 11–21, DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.01.028.
23.
DaelemansLvan der HeijdenSDe BaereIRahierHVan PaepegemWDe ClerckK. Nanofibre bridging as a toughening mechanism in carbon/epoxy composite laminates interleaved with electrospun polyamide nanofibrous veils. Composites Sci Technology2015; 117: 244–256, DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2015.06.021.
24.
MatuleviciusJKliucininkasLMartuzeviciusDKruglyETichonovasMBaltrusaitisJ. Design and characterization of electrospun polyamide nanofiber media for air filtration applications. J Nanomater2014; 2014: 1–13, DOI: 10.1155/2014/859656.
25.
Saz-orozcoDRayDStanleyWF. Effect of thermoplastic veils on interlaminar fracture toughness of a glass fiber/vinyl ester composite, 2015, DOI: 10.1002/pc.23840.
26.
Arboleda-ClementeLAres-PernasAGarcíaXDopicoSAbadMJ. Influence of polyamide ratio on the CNT dispersion in polyamide 66/6 blends by dilution of PA66 or PA6-MWCNT masterbatches. Synth Met2016; 221: 134–141, DOI: 10.1016/j.synthmet.2016.07.030.
27.
LeeCJSalehiyanRHamDSChoSKLeeSJKimKJYooYHyunKLeeJHChoiWJ. Influence of carbon nanotubes localization and transfer on electrical conductivity in PA66/(PS/PPE)/CNTs nanocomposites. Polymer2016; 84: 198–208, DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2015.12.055.
28.
LeeMSonKKimJKimDMinBHKimJH. Effect of PA6T on morphology and electrical conductivity in PA66/PA6T/PPE/multiwalled carbon nanotube nanocomposites. Composites Sci Technology2018; 164(February): 260–266, DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2018.05.049.
29.
UmeshGLKrishna PrasadNJRudreshBMDevegowdaM. Influence of nano graphene on mechanical behavior of PA66/PA6 blend based hybrid nano composites: Effect of micro fillers. Mater Today Proc2020; 20(xxxx): 228–235, DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.12.222.
30.
KangDHKangHW. Surface energy characteristics of zeolite embedded PVDF nanofiber films with electrospinning process. Appl Surf Sci2016; 387: 82–88, DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.06.096.
31.
BeigmoradiRSamimiAMohebbi-KalhoriD. Fabrication of polymeric nanofibrous mats with controllable structure and enhanced wetting behavior using one-step electrospinning. Polymer2018; 143: 271–280, DOI: 10.1016/j.polymer.2018.04.025.
SanatgarRHBorhaniSRavandiSAHGharehaghajiAA. The influence of solvent type and polymer concentration on the physical properties of solid state polymerized PA66 nanofiber yarn. J Appl Polym Sci2012; 126(3): 1112–1120, DOI: 10.1002/app.36871.
34.
MohanALyonsJLiCKoFLikerJKHuangZMZhangYZKotakiMRamakrishnaS. A review on polymer nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites. Composites Sci Technology2004; 63(15): 2223–2253, DOI: 10.1016/S0266-3538(03)00178-7.
35.
GuoLLiuJXiaHLiXZhangXYangH. Effects of surface treatment and adhesive thickness on the shear strength of precision bonded joints. Polym Test2021; 94: 107063, DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2021.107063.
36.
JiGOuyangZLiGIbekweSPangSS. Effects of adhesive thickness on global and local mode-I interfacial fracture of bonded joints. Int J Sol Structures2010; 47(18–19): 2445–2458, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2010.05.006.
37.
LiaoLHuangCSawaT. Effect of adhesive thickness, adhesive type and scarf angle on the mechanical properties of scarf adhesive joints. Int J Sol Structures2013; 50(25–26): 4333–4340, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2013.09.005.
38.
NaitoKOntaMKogoY. The effect of adhesive thickness on tensile and shear strength of polyimide adhesive. Int J Adhes Adhesives2012; 36: 77–85, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2012.03.007.
39.
CastagnettiDSpaggiariADragoniE. Robust shape optimization of tubular butt joints for characterizing thin adhesive layers under uniform normal and shear stresses. J Adhes Sci Technology2010; 24(11–12): 1959–1976, DOI: 10.1163/016942410X507687.
40.
KeLLiCLuoNHeJJiaoYLiuY. Enhanced comprehensive performance of bonding interface between CFRP and steel by a novel film adhesive Composite Structures. Compos Structures2019; 229(June): 111393, DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2019.111393.
41.
MatthewsFLTesterTT. The influence of stacking sequence on the strength of bonded CFRP single lap joints. Int J Adhes Adhesives1985; 5(1): 13–18, DOI: 10.1016/0143-7496(85)90040-5.
42.
PengXLiuSHuangYSangL. Investigation of joining of continuous glass fibre reinforced polypropylene laminates via fusion bonding and hotmelt adhesive film. Int J Adhes Adhesives2020; 100: 102615, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2020.102615.
43.
WangCHChalkleyP. Plastic yielding of a film adhesive under multiaxial stresses. Int J Adhes Adhesives2000; 20(2): 155–164, DOI: 10.1016/S0143-7496(99)00033-0.
