Abstract

Use of adhesives in automotive require in-depth material,

design, manufacturing & engineering knowledge. It is also
necessary to understand functional requirements. For perfect
and fawless adhesive joinery, the exact quantity of adhesive,
its material composition, thickness of adhesive layer, substrate
preparation methods for adhesive bonding, handling and curing
time of the adhesive have to be studied & optimized.
This paper attempts to describe different aspects of adhesive
bonding in automotive industry to include: Selection of
adhesives based on application and design of the components,
surface preparation of adherend, designing of adhesive joint,
curing conditions of adhesives, testing and validation of
adhesive joints. Emphasis was given to study & verify the
performance of different adhesive joints to meet end product
requirements.
Samples were prepared with a variety of adhesive and
adherend combinations. These combinations were tested for
tensile, single lap shear, T-peel, fexural & fatigue tests
according to standard testing methods. Since the performance
of the adhesive depends upon weathering parameters, the test
samples were also subjected to mechanical testing after
conditioning them under extreme temperatures, exposing
samples to fuels (diesel, petrol) & oils (gear oil, axle oil) to
develop the confdence on performance of the part and to
simulate actual feld conditions. This material level data
generated in lab is used for 1) Selection of adhesive 2)
Optimize the adhesive curing parameters, based on
manufacturing practice 3) Carrying out design modifcation to
get desired level of adhesive strength 4) Inputs for carrying out
crash / NVH CAE on vehicle level.
Introduction
Light weighting in design is the current trend in automotive
industry. This initiative is to improve fuel effciency of the
vehicle and also to address issue of depleting energy
resources. Besides enabling fuel economy, it is diffcult task for
automotive industry to ensure optimum mechanical, NVH &
crash safety performance while designing component [1].
For light weighting components / assemblies, it is necessary to
design parts for hybrid structures which have multi materials.
Use of structural adhesive for joining different parts is felt for
following reasons:
a. For sheet metal parts / assemblies, mechanical joinery by
spot welding, riveting, brazing etc. are conventional methods
and these methods can't be used if joinery is between dis-
similar materials such as metal, plastic etc.
b. The conventional joinery has certain limitations of lower
endurance life and lower impact strength, which results in
having lower life of the component
c. Adhesive bonding is an effective method of joining
structures made up of different material having complex
design.
Comparative Studies of Adhesive Joints in Automotive
2014-01-0788
Published 04/01/2014
Debabrata Ghosh, Lokesh Pancholi, and Asmita Sathaye
Tata Motors Ltd.
CITATION: Ghosh, D., Pancholi, L., and Sathaye, A., "Comparative Studies of Adhesive Joints in Automotive," SAE
Technical Paper 2014-01-0788, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-0788.
Copyright 2014 SAE International
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
d. While addressing the drawbacks of conventional joining
techniques, adhesive bonding enables applications ranging
from fexible sealings to high-performance structural
bonding. Hence this offers design freedom while designing
the part.
e. Adhesive bonding can be more effective for non-
conventional vehicle manufacturing methods, where parts
are made at main plant & joined / assembled at different
multiple locations i.e., satellite plant.
f. Use of adhesives also improves crash, BSR & NVH
performance of the vehicle.
Light weighting concept has been adopted in 1980s when
formula 1 racing cars were manufactured with structural fber
reinforced composites [2]. Since that time the cars have
become increasingly dependent on adhesives to facilitate
fabrication.
The major factors that determine the integrity of an adhesive
bond are selection of the most appropriate adhesive, joint
design, preparation of the bonding surfaces and quality control
in production and condition monitoring in service.
Selection of adhesive for a particular application is based on
substrate type, surface condition of substrate, curing condition
(corrosion protection coating, painting) open time, strength
requirement, end temperature conditions, gaps flling, vibration
damping etc. [3]. The smooth appearance of the joints produced
using adhesives results in lower stress concentrations at the
joint edges. Thus, the load is more evenly distributed and stress
concentrations are minimized. As a result, a more effective
dynamic-fatigue resistance of the component or structure can be
obtained. A good joint design will be energy-absorbing, and tend
to have good noise and vibration damping properties.
1. Types of Adhesives
Adhesive: A polymeric material which, when applied to the
surfaces of materials, can join them together and resist
separation.
In a conventional car body there is extensive use of adhesives.
Depending on the application, the adhesive should satisfy a
wide range of requirements like, compatibility with the
substrate, open time, curing time, strength, chemical
resistance, temperature resistance, fatigue, weldability (for spot
weld adhesive), emissions during baking. Adhesives can be
categorized based on the following parameters.
1.1. Based on Base Materials
Table 1. Types of adhesives based on base materials and associated
properties.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
1.2. Based on Curing Conditions
Table 2. Types of adhesives based on curing conditions and associated
properties.
1.3. Based on Number of Components
Table 3. Types of adhesives based on number of components and
associated properties.
1.4. Based on Strength Requirement
Table 4. Types of adhesives based on strength and associated
properties.
2. Experimental
In order to have robust design guideline on selection of
adhesive for various substrates, laboratory level experiments
covering different adhesive materials (epoxy based, PU based,
acrylic based, cyanoacrylate based, silicone based) in
combination with following substrates were carried out.
i. Steel : EDD-513, non-coated, thickness: 1, 1.2 mm
ii. Polypropylene (PP): PP with 20% talc flled, MFI: 20gms/10
minutes at 230C with 2.16kg load, thickness: 3mm)
2.1. Adhesive Nomenclature
The nomenclature for various adhesives is as follows:
Table 5. Nomenclature for different adhesives used in the experiment.
3. Testing and Validation
3.1. Mechanical Testing
Tensile strength, lap Shear strength, Peel strength, fatigue and
Flexural strength tests are designed to evaluate various
mechanical properties of adhesive joint.
3.1.1. Sample Preparation
All the samples were prepared as follows:
A) Sample Cutting: For steel substrates, samples were cut
using laser cutting machine to have the exact size
For polypropylene substrates, samples were cut by mechanical
cutter and grinding was carried out to make samples of exact
size. All the samples were cut as per Table 6 to perform
mechanical tests.
Table 6. Sample sizes for carrying out various mechanical tests.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
B) Surface Treatment: All the cut samples mentioned above
were given surface treatment depending on the substrate type.
For steel substrates: The surface of the substrates were
abraded and then cleaned with acetone properly so that no
traces of abraded particles remains on the surface and then
dried in the oven at 60C for 1 hour.
For polypropylene substrates: The surface of the substrates
were cleaned with iso-propanol and dried at room temperature.
3.1.2. Adhesive Application and Joint Design
All selected adhesive were applied on the samples for which
surface treatment was given. Except for epoxy & acrylic based
adhesives which have two component systems. For two
component system adhesive, resin and hardener were mixed
in 1:1 ratio by weight (as per technical data sheet). These were
mixed thoroughly through nozzles using dispensing gun until a
homogeneous mixture was formed. Glass beads having 0.5mm
diameter were used to control the thickness of adhesive. In all
the cases thickness of the adhesives were maintained at
0.5mm. A thin layer of adhesive (mixed with glass beads) was
applied on both the surfaces of the substrates and then gentle
pressure has been applied so that excessive adhesive comes
out and thickness maintained by glass beads. Care has been
taken to prevent the substrates displacement during application
of pressure. Once the joint was prepared it was cured
according to the conditions mentioned in technical data sheet.
Table 7. Adhesive and substrate combinations for different mechanical
testing
All the fve tests are possible for steel + steel combinations but
for other two combinations i.e. PP + PP and PP + steel, only
lap shear test can be done. For every combination of
substrates and adhesives for the tests mentioned in table 7,
fve samples were prepared and tested.
3.1.3. Tests
A) Tensile Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for
Tensile strength as per ASTM D897 [4]. The samples for tensile
test were prepared as per fgure 1.
Figure 1. Specimen sample for tensile test
B) T-peel Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for
T-peel strength as per ASTM D1876 [5]. The samples for
T-peel test were prepared as per fgure 2.
Figure 2. Specimen sample for T-peel test [5]
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
C) Lap Shear Test: After preparing samples, they were tested
for lap shear strength as per ASTM D1002 [6]. The samples for
lap shear test were prepared as per fgure 3.
Figure 3. Specimen sample for lap shear test [6]
D) Flexural Test: Two steel plates according to the size
mentioned in table-7 were joined by adhesive forming a
sandwich structure. After curing the samples, they were tested
for fexural strength as per ASTM D790 [7]. Flexural strength
was measured with displacement control mode. 20 mm
displacement was allowed for this test. The test result does not
necessarily refect the actual fexural strength of adhesive as
test sample involves adhesive sandwiched between steel
plates. However the results can be used for comparative study.
The test was mainly intended to fnd out the delamination of
adhesive layer from the substrate.
The samples were prepared and tested as per fgure 4.
Figure 4. Specimen sample for flexural test [7]
E) Fatigue Test: After preparing samples, they were tested for
fatigue life as per ASTM D3166 [8]. The samples for fatigue
test were prepared as per fgure 5.
Figure 5. Specimen sample for fatigue test [6]
3.2. Environmental Testing
In order to determine the effectiveness of different adhesive
systems, processing variables and surface pretreatments, it is
necessary to expose adhesively bonded joints to various
environmental and loading conditions that can simulate actual
service conditions. The predominant factors in climatic
exposure are solvent, moisture and temperature.
3.2.1. Sample Preparation
Only single lap shear test was carried out to evaluate the effect
of different environmental conditions on adhesive joints. All the
samples were cut as per the dimension of single lap shear test
specimen mentioned in table 6.
All the cut samples mentioned above were given surface
treatment depending on the substrate type.
For steel substrates: The surface of the substrates were
abraded and then cleaned with Acetone properly so that no
traces of abraded particles remains in the surface and then
dried in the oven at 60C for 1 hour.
For polypropylene substrate: The surface of the substrates
were cleaned with Iso-propanol and dried at room temperature.
3.2.2. Adhesive Application and Joint Design
Adhesive application and joint design were done as per
clause-3.1.2. Only single lap shear test specimens were made
for environmental testing.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
Table 8. Adhesive and substrate combinations for different
environmental testing
For every combination of substrates and adhesives for the
tests mentioned in table 8, fve samples were prepared and
tested.
3.1.3. Tests
Test samples were exposed to different environment and
immersion conditions to which the adhesive bonded joint may
get exposed during the service. The samples were exposed to
the test condition for specifc period at specifc temperature as
mentioned in table 9 and then lap shear strength was
measured.
Table 9. Environmental and immersion conditions considered for
testing adhesive joints.
4. Results and Discussions
Along with the testing to validate the mechanical performances,
environmental tests were also carried out to validate the road
load conditions. It is clear from the test results that adhesive
performances are substrate specifc i.e. all the type of
adhesives are not suitable for every type of substrates. Each
type of adhesives has some advantages and disadvantages,
i.e. even if an adhesive is compatible to a particular substrate,
it may not perform well in all the environmental conditions.
Figure 6, shows the tensile strength of fve different types of
adhesives with steel substrate.
All the three structural adhesives show very good tensile
strength. Epoxy based adhesive provides highest tensile
strength (30.8 MPa) among all the adhesives tested. PU and
silicone based adhesives because of their rubbery state shows
higher elongation but very low tensile strength.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
Figure 6. Tensile strength of adhesive with steel substrate.
Figure 7, shows the T-peel strength of fve different types of
adhesives with steel substrate.
Generally adhesives are weak in peel strength and it is very
important to design adhesives joints in such a way that the load
experienced by the bond is not a peeling or cleavage type load.
From the fgure 7 it is clear that epoxy and acrylic based
adhesives are relatively resistant to peel loading as compared
to other three. Cyanoacrylate based adhesives are very poor in
this regard and shows the lowest T-peel strength. PU and
silicone based adhesives shows moderate peel strength with
high elongation.
Figure 7. T-peel strength of adhesive with steel substrate.
Figure 8, shows the fexural strength of fve different types of
adhesives with Steel substrate.
Flexural strength has been measured with displacement
control mode. 20 mm displacement was allowed for this test.
The test was mainly intended to fnd out the delamination of
adhesive layer from the substrate.
In the structural adhesive category, epoxy has got the higher
fexural strength i.e. higher resistance to bending followed by
acrylic and cyanoacrylate. Though in case of both epoxy and
acrylic based adhesives no delamination was found after 20
mm defection but, in case of cyanoacrylate, the adhesive layer
got delaminated from one side. Because of highly fexible
nature of both PU and silicone based adhesives, they have
very low fexural strength as compared to the structural
adhesives. But also in case of PU and silicone, the adhesive
layer did not delaminate from the steel substrate after 20 mm
of defection.
Figure 8. Flexural strength of adhesive with steel substrate.
Figure 9, shows the fatigue life of fve different types of
adhesives with Steel substrate.
65% of the lap shear load was considered as the maximum
load for fatigue test for all the adhesives with steel substrate.
Load was applied in the sine wave form. Test was carried out
at a frequency of 6 Hz and the cycle to failure was recorded.
Among the structural adhesives acrylic based adhesive shows
highest fatigue life of 250351 cycles, followed by epoxy
(213762 cycles) and cyanoacrylate (32566 cycles). Among the
non-structural adhesives, silicone based adhesive showed
superior fatigue life as compared to that of PU based one but
in both the cases the fatigue life was lower as compared to
epoxy and acrylic based structural adhesives. Because of the
brittle nature of cyanoacrylate, it showed poor fatigue life.
Figure 9. Fatigue life of adhesives with steel substrate.
Figure 10, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
It is clear from the chart that with steel substrates, epoxy based
adhesives provides the highest strength followed by
cyanoacrylate, acrylic based adhesives. One of the problems
associated with cyanoacrylate is that after curing it becomes
very hard and brittle. Polyurethane and silicone based
adhesives though compatible with steel substrates but can't be
used as a structural adhesive because of their low strength but
can be used for applications where high elongation and gap
flling is required.
It is very diffcult to fnd out a suitable adhesive for bonding PP
because of its very low surface energy [9, 10]. However
cyanoacrylate can provide good bond strength for PP to PP
joint. Most of the time it was observed that adhesive doesn't fail
but the substrate itself fails. Epoxy based adhesives can also
provide good strength but the failure mechanism is adhesive
type and not the cohesive type i.e. the joint does not fails
through the adhesive but separated out from PP surface which
is not acceptable. From the fgure it is also clear that the other
three adhesives i.e. acrylic, polyurethane and silicone based
are not compatible with PP and therefore PP to PP
combination for these three adhesives were not considered for
the future tests.
For steel and PP combination again cyanoacrylate is the best
possible solution available. Though epoxy provides moderate
strength but is not acceptable for adhesive failure. Other three
adhesives i.e. acrylic, polyurethane and silicone based were
not compatible with PP and it has been found that the failure
was at the PP-adhesive interface and not at the adhesive-steel
interface. The loads carried by the joints were very low and
therefore PP to steel combination for these three adhesives
was not considered for the future tests.
Figure 10. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates in dry condition.
Figure 11, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination after diesel immersion.
It is very clear from the chart that the lap shear strength of all
the three structural adhesives i.e. epoxy, acrylate and
cyanoacrylate didn't change much after diesel immersion as
compared to the lap shear strength in dry condition. So it can
be concluded that diesel immersion doesn't have any adverse
effect on the performance of these three adhesives. For PU
based and silicone adhesives, diesel immersion had an
adverse effect and the lap shear strength decreased by 20.5%
and 23.2% respectively. The effect of diesel on epoxy and
cyanoacrylate based adhesives with PP as substrate was also
very marginal. The decreases in lap shear strength were 11%
and 7.5% respectively as compared to the lap shear strength in
dry condition. However as the overall lap shear strength is very
small for epoxy based adhesive with PP substrate, these
adhesives can not be considered for bonding PP to PP.
For steel and PP combination with epoxy and cyanoacrylate
again there is no adverse effect of diesel on the lap shear
strength.
Figure 11. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after diesel immersion.
Figure 12, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination after petrol immersion.
Petrol being more aggressive fuel than diesel, it shows adverse
effect on adhesive performance. After 24 hours in petrol,
epoxy, PU and Silicone based adhesives showed 19%, 32%
and 26% decrease in lap shear strength respectively.
The lap shear strength for cyanoacrylate based adhesive
showed signifcant reduction after petrol immersion which is
around 70%.
For acrylic based adhesive there is marginal reduction in lap
shear strength.
Both the PP to PP joint and PP to steel joint with epoxy based
adhesive were signifcantly affected by petrol and complete
delamination was observed under immersed condition. In view
of this failure, PP to PP and PP to steel samples were
discarded.
The lap shear strength of similar joints prepared through
cyanoacrylate based adhesives was also affected by petrol but
not as much as with the epoxy based ones. For PP to PP joint
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
and PP to steel joint through cyanoacrylate based adhesives,
the lap shear strength decreased by 14.8% and 11.2%
respectively as compared to lap shear strength in dry condition.
Figure 12. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after petrol immersion.
Figure 13, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination after axle oil immersion.
For epoxy based adhesive with steel substrate, the lap shear
strength decreased by 22.6% as compared to lap shear
strength in dry condition. However, acrylic, cyanoacrylate, PU
and silicone based adhesive with steel substrates showed
resistance to axle oil.
PP and steel combination with epoxy based adhesive showed
a decrease in lap shear strength by 19.6% whereas the same
combination with cyanoacrylate showed a decrease in lap
shear strength by 29.2%. Epoxy based adhesive with PP
substrate didn't show any changes in lap shear strength but in
case of cyanoacrylate the lap shear strength decreased by
42.6%. The results show that the effect of immersion condition
on adhesive performance varies with the variation in substrate.
Figure 13. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after axle oil immersion.
Figure 14, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination after gear oil immersion.
The fgure shows that gear oil is more aggressive to adhesive
as compared to axle oil. The lap shear strength of each and
every adhesive joint except silicone based one decreased as
compared to that in dry condition. For epoxy based adhesive
with steel, PP and PP + steel substrate, the lap shear strength
decreased by 26.1%, 29.54% and 25% respectively as
compared to lap shear strength in dry condition. For
cyanoacrylate based adhesive with steel, PP and PP + steel
substrate, the lap shear strength decreased by 38.7%, 22%
and 38.1% respectively as compared to lap shear strength in
dry condition. For acrylate and PU only steel substrates were
used and the decreases in lap shear strength were 22.7% and
58.1%. The performance of silicone based adhesive remains
unaffected after gear oil immersion.
Figure 14. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after gear oil immersion.
Figure 15, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesive with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel +
PP substrate combination after water immersion.
From the fgure it is clear that the water does not have any
effect on the lap shear performance of adhesives with all the
surface combinations except for cyanoacrylate based
adhesives with PP substrate. After water immersion for 7 days
at RT, the lap shear strength of cyanoacrylate based adhesive
with PP substrate decreased by 16.8% with respect to that in
dry condition.
The polymeric adhesives used in this study are hydrophobic in
nature and as we know that there is no interaction between
hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water in this case) materials,
these adhesives are resistant to water considering the
polymeric base materials. Same has been refected in the test
results except for cyanoacrylate based adhesives with PP
substrates.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
Figure 15. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after water immersion.
Figure 16, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with (i) steel, (ii) polypropylene (PP) and (iii) steel
+ PP substrate combination after temperature and humidity
cycle.
After temperature and humidity cycle the lap shear strength of
epoxy based adhesive joint with steel substrate decreased by
12% which is in the acceptable range considering the extreme
temperature range. Cyanoacrylate based adhesive after curing
become brittle and this property was refected in the
temperature humidity cycle. The adhesive joint failed in a brittle
manner and with very low elongation. The decrease in lap
shear strength is 24.7% with respect to the lap shear strength
in dry condition.
The lap shear strength of acrylic based adhesive was not
affected by this cycle and was the same as in dry condition.
The adhesive joints which were affected the most were the
steel to steel joint with polyurethane and silicon based
adhesives and the decrease in the lap shear performance was
found to be 26.8% and 30.3% respectively as compared to the
original strength.
The effect of the temperature and humidity cycle was refected
in PP to PP and PP to steel joint with epoxy as well as
cyanoacrylate based adhesives. For epoxy based adhesive the
lap shear strength for these two combinations of substrates
decreased by 21.6% and 24.5% respectively. The brittleness of
cyanoacrylate is the major drawback of this adhesive and as a
consequence after the temperature and humidity cycle the lap
shear strength of the above two combination decreased by
31.8% and 31.68% respectively as compared to that in dry
condition.
Figure 16. Lap shear strength of adhesives with steel, PP and steel +
PP substrates after temperature and humidity cycle.
Figure 17, shows the lap shear strength of fve different types
of adhesives with Steel substrate after heat ageing at 120C.
From the fgure it is clear that heat ageing at 120C for three
days doesn't have any effect on the lap shear strength of epoxy
and acrylic based adhesives. Sometimes it has been found that
the lap shear strength increases after heat ageing. This may be
due to the reason that during heat ageing crosslinking density
of the adhesive increases and as a consequence the strength
increases.
It was found that the cyanoacrylate which was rigid at room
temperature becomes little soft after heat ageing and therefore
the lap shear strength decreases. One of the problems
associated with PU based adhesive is that they can't withstand
high temperature and this is because of the chemical nature of
polyurethane and it is also refected in the heat ageing. The lap
shear strength of PU based adhesive decreased by 61% after
heat ageing as compared to that in dry condition. Silicones are
well known for their high temperature stability and therefore no
decrease in lap shear strength was found after heat ageing.
Figure 17. Lap shear strength of different adhesives with Steel
substrate after heat ageing.
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014
5. Conclusions
Adhesive bonding in automotive has led to a new direction of
producing lightweight and energy effcient cars. Adhesive
bonding is a proven substitute of conventional mechanical
joining. The most important aspect in designing an adhesive
joint is the appropriate choice of adhesive. Surface preparation
plays a vital role in achieving the optimum performance of the
joint. Following conclusions can be made based on the study:
a. Epoxy based adhesives are superior in structural bonding
of steels in all conditions; however, they showed very low
adhesive strength for polypropylene substrates.
b. Cyanoacrylate based adhesives were found suitable for
PP substrate with very good bond strength. However
cyanoacrylate based adhesives has low resistance for high
and low temperatures and hence is not suitable for extreme
temperature conditions. It also has very poor resistance to
petrol and exhibit very low fatigue life.
c. Acrylic based adhesives has lower lap shear strength as
compared with epoxy based adhesives, however these
adhesives exhibit best fatigue life. Acrylic adhesive is
recommended when components is experiencing fatigue
cycles and moderate shear strength.
d. PU based adhesives though provides very low strength
but their performance remains unchanged in most of the
environmental conditions, except high temperature ageing
and gear oil resistance.
e. Silicone based adhesives are suitable for high temperature
applications. They are resistant to oil and hence are suitable
for power train applications.6.
6. References
1. Pizzi A. and Mittal K.L.., Handbook of Adhesive
Technology, Second Edition, Taylor & Francis group, ISBN:
978-0824709860, 2003
2. Savage Gray, Practical Aspects of Failure Prevention in
Bonded Joints on Primary Load Bearing Structures, Anales
De Mechanica De La Fractura, Vol. 22, 2005, P-273-282.
3. Durability of Adhesive joint, A Best Practice Guide, AE
Bond, September 1998.
4. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Tensile
Properties of Adhesive Bonds, ASTM D897-08.
5. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Peel
Resistance of Adhesives (T-Peel Test), ASTM D1876-08.
6. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Apparent
Shear Strength of Single-Lap-Joint Adhesively Bonded
Metal Specimens by Tension Loading (Metal-to-Metal),
ASTM D1002-10.
7. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Flexural
Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and
Electrical Insulation Materials, ASTM D790-10.
8. ASTM International, Standard Test Method for Fatigue
Properties of Adhesives in Shear by Tension Loading
(Metal/Metal), ASTM D3166-99 (Reapproved 2012).
9. Pinto A.M.G et al., Strength Prediction and Experimental
Validation of Adhesive Joints Including Polypropylene,
Carbon-Epoxy and Aluminium Adherends, Materials
Science Forum, vol. 636-637, 2010, P- 1157-1164.
10. Novak I., Florian S., Study of the Change in Polarity of
Polypropylene Modified in Bulk by Polar Copolymers,
Journal of Materials Science, vol. 36, 2001, P- 4863-
4867.7.
7. Definitions/Abbreviations
RT - room temperature
PP - polypropylene
EPDM - ethylene propylene diene monomer
CAE - computer-aided engineering
BSR - buzz, squeak & rattle
NVH - noise, vibration & harshness
MFI - melt fow index
- applicable
- not applicable
RH - relative humidity
BS-IV - Bharat stage-IV
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAEs peer review process under the supervision of the session
organizer. The process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the
paper.
ISSN 0148-7191
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0788
Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Monday, September 15, 2014