A Study on the Bond Strength of Plastic–Metal Direct Bonds Using Friction Press Joining
<p>Process sequence of FPJ (blue, thermoplastic material; gray, aluminum), according to Meyer et al. [<a href="#B8-metals-11-00660" class="html-bibr">8</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Illustration of the pulse pattern for a chaotic nanostructure (<b>a</b>) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) images (acceleration voltage of 1 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">k</mi> </semantics></math><math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> </semantics></math>) of the generated structures on EN AW-2024-T3 (<b>b</b>) and EN AW-6082-T6 (<b>c</b>).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Customized clamping system for joining aluminum and thermoplastic material (in this case polyethylene) by friction press joining [<a href="#B11-metals-11-00660" class="html-bibr">11</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Tensile shear strengths of selected joints (blue, FPJ; orange, adhesive bond) including the standard deviation of five tensile shear specimens.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Typical FPJ tensile shear test specimen made of PE-HD and EN AW-6082-T6 (I-PSd) after a successful lap shear test with distinct strain hardened area.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the surfaces at fracture of PA6-GF30 and EN AW-6082-T6 joined with: FPJ (II-PSa) (<b>a</b>); epoxy-based adhesive (<b>b</b>); and polyurethane-based adhesive (<b>c</b>).</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Comparison of the 25 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics></math><math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics></math> wide samples after the tensile test: (<b>a</b>) joined with parameter set III-PSa; and (<b>b</b>) joined with an epoxy-based adhesive.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Cross-sections of the joining zones for the three considered material combinations and the two joining processes; the captions of the individual images refer to the process parameters used or the applied adhesive. To achieve a better visibility of the layered structure, the contrast of the microscopic images was increased, which causes a side effect: the aluminum appears black (<b>a</b>,<b>d</b>) or white. The adhesive layer is indicated as <span class="html-italic">Ad</span>.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Comparison of the friction tracks ( 25 <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics></math><math display="inline"><semantics> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> </semantics></math> in width) between the aluminum alloy EN AW-2024-T3 (<b>a</b>) processed with parameter set III-PSb and EN AW-6082-T6 (<b>b</b>) produced with parameter set II-PSa.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Level of maturity according to the individual development stages, based on the method of Reinhart and Schindler [<a href="#B20-metals-11-00660" class="html-bibr">20</a>].</p> "> Figure 11
<p>A recommendation for the classification of the friction press joining process according to the DIN 8580 [<a href="#B47-metals-11-00660" class="html-bibr">47</a>] standard for manufacturing processes.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. State of the Art
2.1. Friction Press Joining
- 0.
- Surface modification: In this preliminary process step, the joining zone of the metallic joining partner is pretreated to increase the cohesive forces in the bond.
- 1.
- Touch-down: In the first phase of the joining process, a cylindrical tool rotates (rotational speed n) around its longitudinal axis. By applying an axial force , the tool presses onto the metallic surface in the negative z-direction. This plunging phase ends when the tool has reached a certain z-position, or a specified axial force is applied.
- 2.
- Dwelling: The tool remains at the plunge spot for a defined time . This dwelling causes a heating and subsequent deformation of the material, resulting in the release of dissipative energy and a further heating of the process zone.
- 3.
- Joining: The tool is guided with a constant feed rate v along the metallic joining partner’s surface. The plastic melts in the joining zone, which results in a bonding to the pretreated joining surface (after cooling). (Previous publications referred to Phase 3 as welding. In this paper, we use the term joining and explain the reasons for this rephrasing in Section 6.)
- 4.
- Retreat: The joining process ends with the retraction of the tool in the positive z-direction.
2.2. Adhesive Bonding
2.3. Technology Readiness Level and Technology Potential
- Level 1
- Basic technology research
- Level 2
- Feasibility study
- Level 3
- Technology development
- Level 4
- Technology demonstration
- Level 5
- System development/integration
- Level 6
- Integration in a production environment and validation
- Level 7
- Mass production/serial production
3. Experimental Material and Set-Up
3.1. Experimental Material
3.2. Surface Pretreatment
3.3. Selection of the Adhesives and Bonding
3.4. FPJ System, Clamping and Parameters
3.5. Test Geometry and Tensile Shear Tests
4. Results and Discussion of the Experiments
4.1. Comparison of the Bond Strengths
4.2. Comparison of the Cross-Sections
4.3. Comparison of the Surface Quality
5. Technical Maturity
5.1. Technology Readiness Level of FPJ
5.2. Technology Potential of FPJ
6. Classification of the FPJ Process
7. Summary, Conclusions and Outlook
- C1
- The achieved maximum tensile shear strengths for the studied material combinations joined by FPJ are higher than those of the comparative samples joined by adhesive bonding.
- C2
- The overall technological maturity of friction press joining was rated as 61 ± 6%. Thus, the technology is ready to be embedded in an industrial production environment.
- C3
- The technological potential to replace adhesive bonding in aircraft design can be classified as high.
- C4
- A classification of the process (FPJ) according to DIN 8593-0 into Activation bonding (item 4.8.1.3) is conceivable.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
EN AW | |||
---|---|---|---|
Property | Unit | 6082 | 2024 |
Condition | – | T6 | T3 |
Tensile strength | N mm−2 | 300–350 | 435 |
Yield strength | N mm−2 | 240–320 | 290 |
Elongation at fracture | % | 8–14 | 14 |
Young’s modulus E | 70,000 | 70,000 | |
Density | g cm−3 | 2.70 | 2.77 |
Melting range | °C | 585–650 | 505–640 |
Thermal conductivity | Wm−1 K−1 | 150–185 | 130–150 |
Coefficient of linear thermal expansion | 10−6 K−1 | 23.4 | 22.9 |
Property | Unit | PE-HD | PA6-GF30 | PPS-CF |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tensile strength | N mm−2 | 23 | 98 | 752–785 |
Yield strength | N mm−2 | – | 98 | 608 |
Elongation at fracture A | % | – | 5 | – |
Young’s modulus E | 1100 | 5700 | 56,000–58,000 | |
Density | g cm−3 | 0.96 | 1.36 | 1.55 |
Crystallization temperature (range) | °C | 126–130 | 218 | 280 |
Thermal conductivity | Wm−1 K−1 | 0.38 | 0.41 | – |
Coefficient of linear thermal expansion | 10−4 K−1 | 1.8 | 0.6 | – |
MC | Abbr. | Tensile Strength in N | Standard Deviation in N |
---|---|---|---|
I | I-PSa | 2576.3 | 173.85 |
I-PSb | 2710.0 | 53.88 | |
I-PSc | 2716.8 | 17.77 | |
I-PSd | 2742.2 | 24.67 | |
I-PSe | 2745.8 | 12.92 | |
II | II-PSa | 6844.4 | 67.51 |
II-PSb | 6606.8 | 202.57 | |
II-PSc | 6199.4 | 194.48 | |
II-PSd | 6478.6 | 148.96 | |
III | III-PSa | 8613.6 | 308.01 |
III-PSb | 7289.2 | 530.86 | |
III-PSc | 7046.6 | 564.89 |
MC | Abbr. | Tensile Strength in N | Standard Deviation in N |
---|---|---|---|
I | I-A | 2785.0 | 12.76 |
II | II-Aa | 489.0 | 170.01 |
II-Ab | 924.8 | 51.39 | |
III | III-A | 2082 | 501.20 |
References
- Marsh, G. Airbus A350 XWB update. Reinf. Plast. 2010, 54, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, A. Adhesive bonding of aircraft structures. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2000, 20, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hertle, S.; Kleffel, T.; Wörz, A.; Drummer, D. Production of polymer-metal hybrids using extrusion-based additive manufacturing and electrochemically treated aluminum. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 33, 101135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucchetta, G.; Marinello, F.; Bariani, P.F. Aluminum sheet surface roughness correlation with adhesion in polymer metal hybrid overmolding. CIRP Ann. 2011, 60, 559–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arai, S.; Sugawara, R.; Shimizu, M.; Inoue, J.; Horita, M.; Nagaoka, T.; Itabashi, M. Excellent bonding strength between steel and thermoplastic resin using roughened electrodeposited Ni/CNT composite layer without adhesives. Mater. Lett. 2020, 263, 127241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balle, F.; Wagner, G.; Eifler, D. Ultrasonic Metal Welding of Aluminium Sheets to Carbon Fibre Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2009, 11, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emrich, N.; Meyer, S.P.; Daub, R. Ageing behavior of thermally joined hybrids of laser pre-treated metal and thermoplastic polymers. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference of the Polymer Processing Society (Pps-35), Çeşme-Izmir, Turkey, 26–30 May 2019; AIP Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 020001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, S.P.; Wunderling, C.; Zaeh, M.F. Influence of the laser-based surface modification on the bond strength for friction press joining of aluminum and polyethylene. Prod. Eng. 2019, 13, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wirth, F.X.; Zaeh, M.F.; Krutzlinger, M.; Silvanus, J. Analysis of the Bonding Behavior and Joining Mechanism during Friction Press Joining of Aluminum Alloys with Thermoplastics. Procedia CIRP 2014, 18, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, F.C.; Liao, J.; Nakata, K. Joining of metal to plastic using friction lap welding. Mater. Des. 2014, 54, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, S.P.; Bernauer, C.J.; Grabmann, S.; Zaeh, M.F. Design, evaluation, and implementation of a model-predictive control approach for a force control in friction stir welding processes. Prod. Eng. 2020, 54, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagatsuka, K.; Yoshida, S.; Tsuchiya, A.; Nakata, K. Direct joining of carbon-fiber–reinforced plastic to an aluminum alloy using friction lap joining. Compos. Part B Eng. 2015, 73, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.H.; Nagatsuka, K.; Nakata, K. Direct joining of oxygen-free copper and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic by friction lap joining. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 2018, 34, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Custódio, J.; Broughton, J.; Cruz, H. A review of factors influencing the durability of structural bonded timber joints. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2009, 29, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arenas, J.M.; Alía, C.; Narbón, J.J.; Oca na, R.; González, C. Considerations for the industrial application of structural adhesive joints in the aluminium-composite material bonding. Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 44, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, S.; Specht, U.; Spieß, L.; Romanus, H.; Krischok, S.; Himmerlich, M.; Ihde, J. Improved adhesion at titanium surfaces via laser-induced surface oxidation and roughening. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2012, 558, 755–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mankins, J.C. Technology Readiness Levels; A White Paper; Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA: Greenbelt, MD, USA, 1995.
- Cetindamar, D.; Phaal, R.; Probert, D. Understanding technology management as a dynamic capability: A framework for technology management activities. Technovation 2009, 29, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brousseau, E.; Barton, R.; Dimov, S.; Bigot, S. A Methodology for Evaluating the Technological Maturity of Micro and Nano Fabrication Processes. In Precision Assembly Technologies and Systems; Ratchev, S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 329–336. [Google Scholar]
- Reinhart, G.; Schindler, S. A Strategic Evaluation Approach for Defining the Maturity of Manufacturing Technologies. Int. J. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 2010, 4, 1291–1296. [Google Scholar]
- Ford, D.; Ryan, C. Taking technology to market. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1981, 59, 117–126. [Google Scholar]
- Hofer, A.; Schnell, J.; Beck, B.; Reinhart, G. Potential-based Technology Planning for Production Companies. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 1400–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amancio-Filho, S.T.; dos Santos, J.F. Joining of polymers and polymer-metal hybrid structures: Recent developments and trends. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2009, 49, 1461–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- S-POLYTEC GmbH. Technical Data Sheet: PE-HD; S-POLYTEC GmbH: Goch, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Schäfer, C.; Meyer, S.P.; Osswald, T.A. A novel extrusion process for the production of polymer micropellets. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2018, 44, 1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurth, M.; Eyerer, P.; Ascherl, R.; Dittel, K.; Holz, U. An evaluation of retrieved UHMWPE hip joint cups. J. Biomater. Appl. 1988, 3, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ensinger Ltd. TECAMID 6 GF30 Black—Stock Shapes; Ensinger Ltd.: Nufringen, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, M.; Kleffel, T.; Leisen, C.; Drummer, D. Joining of Incompatible Polymer Combinations by Form Fit Using the Vibration Welding Process. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2017, 2017, 6809469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mathijsen, D. Leading the way in thermoplastic composites. Reinf. Plast. 2016, 60, 405–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- André, N.M.; Goushegir, S.M.; dos Santos, J.F.; Canto, L.B.; Amancio-Filho, S.T. Friction Spot Joining of aluminum alloy 2024-T3 and carbon-fiber-reinforced poly(phenylene sulfide) laminate with additional PPS film interlayer: Microstructure, mechanical strength and failure mechanisms. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 94, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TenCate Advanced Composites BV. Data Sheet: Cetex TC1100 PPS; TenCate Advanced Composites BV: Morgan Hill, CA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.toraytac.com/media/221a4fcf-6a4d-49f3-837f-9d85c3c34f74/smphpw/TAC/Documents/Data_sheets/Thermoplastic/UD%20tapes,%20prepregs%20and%20laminates/Toray-Cetex-TC1100_PPS_PDS.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- Gemmel Metalle & Co. GmbH. Technical Data Sheet: AlMgSi1 F30; Gemmel Metalle & Co. GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, S.P.; Wunderling, C.; Zaeh, M.F. Friction press joining of dissimilar materials: A novel concept to improve the joint strength. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ESAFORM Conference on Material Forming: ESAFORM 2019, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 8–10 May 2019; AIP Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2019; p. 050031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batz + Burgel GmbH & Co. KG. Data Sheet: EN AW-2024; Batz + Burgel GmbH & Co. KG: Friedberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, B.; Widener, C.; Jahn, A.; Tweedy, B.; Cope, D.; Lee, R. Review of the Applicability of FSW Processing to Aircraft Applications. In Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 18–21 April 2005; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2005; p. 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambiase, F.; Paoletti, A.; Grossi, V.; Di Ilio, A. Friction assisted joining of aluminum and PVC sheets. J. Manuf. Process. 2017, 29, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 3M. Technical Data Sheet: Scotch-Weld Structural Plastic Adhesive: DP-8005. 2020. Available online: https://www.bindingsource.com/images/Customer-files/8005dsd.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- Oguma, H.; Naito, K. Effect of stress ratio on the fatigue fracture mechanism of adhesive single-lap joints: In case of GF/PP plates and an acrylic-based structural adhesive. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2019, 19, 224–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DELO. Data Sheet: DELO 02 Rapid. 2020. Available online: https://www.delo.de/fileadmin/datasheet/DELO-DUOPOX_02%20rapid_%28TIDB-de%29.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- DELO. Data Sheet: DELO-PUR AD948. 2020. Available online: https://substratec.com/de/download/1c1b1a18-66af-4eba-a4e6-fb9c5869f0de/DELO-PUR_AD948_%28TIDB-D%29.pdf (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- Henkel, A.G. Data Sheet: LOCTITE EA9466. 2020. Available online: http://tds.henkel.com/tds5/Studio/ShowPDF/EA%209466-EN?pid=EA%209466&format=MTR&subformat=REAC&language=EN&plant=WERCS (accessed on 14 March 2021).
- Spaggiari, A.; Dragoni, E. Effect of Mechanical Surface Treatment on the Static Strength of Adhesive Lap Joints. J. Adhes. 2013, 89, 677–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soykok, I.F. Degradation of single lap adhesively bonded composite joints due to hot water ageing. J. Adhes. 2017, 93, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Don, R.C.; Gillespie, J., Jr.; McKnight, S. Bonding Techniques for High Performance Thermoplastic Compositions. U.S. Patent 5643390A, 1 July 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Soni, N.; Chandrashekhar, S.; Kumar, A.; Chary, V. Defects Formation during Friction Stir Welding: A Review. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 2017, 7, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
- Ruhstorfer, M. Friction Stir Welding of Tubes. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- DIN 8580:2003-09, Manufacturing Processes—Terms and Definitions, Division; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2003. [CrossRef]
- DIN 8593-0:2003-09, Manufacturing Processes Joining—Part 0: General: Classification, Subdivision, Terms and Definitions; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2003. [CrossRef]
- DIN EN ISO 25239-1:2019-06, Friction Stir Welding—Aluminium—Part 1: Vocabulary; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2019. [CrossRef]
- DIN 8593-6:2003-09, Manufacturing Processes Joining—Part 6: Joining by Welding; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2003. [CrossRef]
- DIN 1910-100:2008-02, Welding and Allied Processes—Vocabulary—Part 100: Metal Welding Processes with Additions to DIN EN 14610:2005; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2008. [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.C.; Dong, P.; Lu, W.; Sun, K. On formation of Al O C bonds at aluminum/polyamide joint interface. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 466, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DIN 8593-8:2003-09, Manufacturing Processes Joining—Part 8: Joining by Means of Adhesives; Beuth Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Cermany, 2003. [CrossRef]
- Otto Fuchs KG. Technical Information: Material Data Sheet Aluminium; Otto Fuchs KG: Meinerzhagen, Germany, 2019; Available online: https://www.otto-fuchs.com/en/service/material-information.html (accessed on 14 March 2021).
Material Combination | Abbreviation | |
---|---|---|
EN AW-6082-T6 | PE-HD | I |
EN AW-6082-T6 | PA6-GF30 | II |
EN AW-2024-T3 | PPS-CF | III |
Parameter | Unit | Value |
---|---|---|
Power P | 20 | |
Frequency f | 20 | |
Exposures n | – | 2 |
Pulse spacing | μm | 25 |
Focus diameter | μm | 50 |
Pulse energy | 1 |
MC | Adhesive | Category | Abbreviation |
---|---|---|---|
I | Scotch Weld DP 8005 | Acrylic-based | I-A |
II | DELO 02 rapid | Epoxy resin | II-Aa |
DELO AD 948 | Polyurethane | II-Ab | |
III | Loctite EA 9466 | Epoxy resin | III-A |
MC | Rot. Speed n in min−1 | Feed Rate v in mm min−1 | Ax. Force in N | Abbr. |
---|---|---|---|---|
I | 400 | 150 | 2000 | I-PSa |
600 | 600 | 2000 | I-PSb | |
800 | 450 | 2000 | I-PSc | |
800 | 600 | 2000 | I-PSd | |
1000 | 750 | 2000 | I-PSe | |
II | 600 | 400 | 2000 | II-PSa |
600 | 560 | 2000 | II-PSb | |
800 | 240 | 2000 | II-PSc | |
800 | 600 | 2000 | II-PSd | |
III | 1500 | 450 | 2500 | III-PSa |
2000 | 300 | 2500 | III-PSb | |
2500 | 300 | 2500 | III-PSc |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meyer, S.P.; Herold, M.T.; Habedank, J.B.; Zaeh, M.F. A Study on the Bond Strength of Plastic–Metal Direct Bonds Using Friction Press Joining. Metals 2021, 11, 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/met11040660
Meyer SP, Herold MT, Habedank JB, Zaeh MF. A Study on the Bond Strength of Plastic–Metal Direct Bonds Using Friction Press Joining. Metals. 2021; 11(4):660. https://doi.org/10.3390/met11040660
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeyer, Stefan P., Maren T. Herold, Jan B. Habedank, and Michael F. Zaeh. 2021. "A Study on the Bond Strength of Plastic–Metal Direct Bonds Using Friction Press Joining" Metals 11, no. 4: 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/met11040660