Search Results for adhesion strength

A batch of bimetal foil/epoxy laminates was rejected because of poor peel strength. The laminates were manufactured by sintering a nickel/phosphorus powder layer to a copper foil, cleaning, then chromate conversion coating the nickel-phosphorus surface, and laminating the nickel-phosphorus side of the clad bimetal onto an epoxy film, so that the end product contained nickel-phosphorus sandwiched between copper and epoxy, with a chromate conversion layer on the epoxy side of the nickel-phosphorus. Peel testing showed abnormally low adhesion strength for the bad batch of peel test samples. Comparison with normal-strength samples using XPS indicated an 8.8% Na concentration on the surface of the bad sample; the good example contained less than 1% Na on the surface. After 15 min of argon ion etching, depth profiling showed high concentrations of sodium were still evident, indicating that the sodium was present before the chromate conversion treatment was performed. A review of the manufacturing procedures showed that sodium hydroxide was used as a cleaning agent before the chromate conversion coating. Failure cause was that apparently the sodium hydroxide had not been properly removed during water rinsing. Thus, recommendation was to modify that stage in the processing.

Explosive cladding is a viable method for cladding different materials together, but the complicated behavior of materials under ballistic impacts raises the probability of interfacial shear failure. To better understand the relationship between impact energy and interfacial shear, investigators conducted an extensive study on the shear strength of explosively cladded Inconel 625 and plain carbon steel samples. They found that by increasing impact energy, the adhesion strength of the resulting cladding can be improved. Beyond a certain point, however, additional impact energy reduces shear strength significantly, causing the cladding process to fail. The findings reveal the decisive role of plastic strain localization and the associated development of microcracks in cladding failures. An attempt is thus made to determine the optimum cladding parameters for the materials of interest.

Two fuel injection pump gears that were nitrided in a cyanide bath were submitted by the engine manufacturer for examination of hardness distribution and failure analysis. The gears showed signs of wear after only comparatively brief operation. They were made of normalized unalloyed steel C 45 (Material No. 1.0503) according to DIN 17200 and were normalized. Gear 1 with 1905 h of operation showed at one side pittings on both flanks of the teeth as well as incipient fractures. Gear 2 with 1713 h of operation also showed at one side incipient fractures of the nitride layers at the outer part of the teeth. The nitride layer did not stand up to the high and one-sided compressive stress applied in this case and could not prevent pitting. It could even have accelerated the wear by the incipient break down. Gas nitriding at greater depth under application of a suitable special steel or case hardening would have been better under these circumstances.

Reinforced polymers (RPs) are widely used in structural, industrial, automotive, and engineering applications due to their ecofriendly nature and the potential to manipulate their properties. This article addresses the technical synthesis of RPs, referring to their tribological behavior, to provide insights into the contribution and interaction of influential parameters on the wear behavior of polymers. It provides a brief discussion on the effects of significant parameters on RP tribology. The article describes abrasive and adhesive wear and provides a theoretical synthesis of the literature regarding the wear mechanisms of RPs. It also describes the synthesis of abrasive wear failure of different types of RPs and highlights the contribution of these influential parameters. The article addresses the synthesis of adhesive wear failure of different types of RPs.

Plastic product failures are directly attributed to one of the following four reasons: omission of a critical performance requirement, improper materials specification, design error, and processing/manufacturing error. Therefore, product failures can be minimized or eliminated if all of these parameters are comprehensively examined during the design process. This article focuses on all of these factors, except processing-related failures, which are outside the design and engineering domain. It is dedicated to the identification and avoidance of common problems associated with the selection and designing of plastic parts. The article provides information on the material-related design criteria that depend on the applications, environmental conditions of use, and performance requirements. It discusses physical properties of plastics based on their relevance to real-world environmental conditions. The most-common design problems related to design considerations are also covered.

Plastics or polymers are used in a variety of engineering and nonengineering applications where they are subjected to surface damage and wear. This article discusses the classification of polymer wear mechanisms based on the methodologies of defining the types of wear. The first classification is based on the two-term model that divides wear mechanisms into interfacial and bulk or cohesive. The second is based on the perceived wear mechanism. The third classification is specific to polymers and draws the distinction based on mechanical properties of polymers. In this classification, wear study is separated as elastomers, thermosets, glassy thermoplastics, and semicrystalline thermoplastics. The article describes the effects of environment and lubricant on the wear failures of polymers. It presents a case study on nylon as a tribological material. The article explains the wear failure of an antifriction bearing, a nylon driving gear, and a polyoxymethylene gear wheel.

Several surgical tool failures were analyzed to understand why they occur and how to prevent them. The study included drills, catheters, and needles subjected to the rigors of biomedical applications such as corrosive environments, high stresses, sterilization, and improper cleaning procedures. Given the extreme conditions to which surgical tools can be exposed, and the potential for misuse, failures are inevitable and systematic methods for analyzing them are necessary to keep them in check.

Polymer materials are key building blocks of the modern world, commonly used in packaging, automobiles, building materials, electronics, telecommunications, and many other industries. These commercial applications of polymeric materials would not be possible without the use of additives. This article is divided into five sections: mechanical property modifiers, physical property modifiers, biological function modifiers, processing aids, and colorants. It describes three classes of additives that are used to inhibit biological activity, six classes of mechanical property modifiers, three classes of physical property modifiers, and two classes of both colorants and processing aids.

Friction and wear are important when considering the operation and efficiency of components and mechanical systems. Among the different types and mechanisms of wear, adhesive wear is very serious. Adhesion results in a high coefficient of friction as well as in serious damage to the contacting surfaces. In extreme cases, it may lead to complete prevention of sliding; as such, adhesive wear represents one of the fundamental causes of failure for most metal sliding contacts, accounting for approximately 70% of typical component failures. This article discusses the mechanism and failure modes of adhesive wear including scoring, scuffing, seizure, and galling, and describes the processes involved in classic laboratory-type and standardized tests for the evaluation of adhesive wear. It includes information on standardized galling tests, twist compression, slider-on-flat-surface, load-scanning, and scratch tests. After a discussion on gear scuffing, information on the material-dependent adhesive wear and factors preventing adhesive wear is provided.

This article presents the mechanisms of polymer wear and quantifies wear in terms of wear rate (rate of removal of the material). Interfacial and bulk wear are discussed as well as a discussion on the wear study of "elastomers," "thermosets," "glassy thermoplastics," and "semicrystalline thermoplastics." The article also discusses the effects of environment and lubricant on the wear failures of polymers. It presents a case study on considering nylon as a tribological material and failure examples, explaining wear resistance of polyurethane elastomeric coatings and failure of an acetal gear wheel.

This article reviews the abrasive and adhesive wear failure of several types of reinforced polymers, including particulate-reinforced polymers, short-fiber reinforced polymers (SFRP), continuous unidirectional fiber reinforced polymers (FRP), particulate-filled composites, mixed composites (SFRP and particulate-filled), unidirectional FRP composites, and fabric reinforced composites. Friction and wear performance of the composites, correlation of performance with various materials properties, and studies on wear-of failure mechanisms by scanning electron microscopy are discussed for each of these types.

In the course of a general overhaul, the crankpins and main journals (3 in. diam) of the crankshaft of a four-cylinder oil engine were built up by metal spraying. Four weeks later, the shaft broke through the pin remote from the flywheel (driving) end. The fracture was of the fatigue type. A creeping crack originated in the fillet at the inside surface of the pin and extended parallel to the plane of the web across practically the entire section before complete rupture occurred. The sprayed metal on the fractured pin had very poor adhesion. The surfaces of the main journals had not been grooved but appeared to have been roughened by shot or grit-blasting prior to spraying and the deposit was more firmly adherent to these surfaces than in the case of the pins. It is doubtful, however, whether the adhesion of sprayed metal to a surface prepared even in this manner would always be satisfactory under severe loading conditions, such as those to which a crankpin is subjected in service.

The main shaft in a locomotive turbocharger fractured along with an associated bearing sleeve. Visual and fractographic examination revealed that the shaft fractured at a sharp-edged groove between two journals of different cross-sectional area. The dominant failure mechanism was low-cycle rotation-bending fatigue. The bearing sleeve failed as a result of abrasive and adhesive wear. Detailed metallurgical analysis indicated that the sleeve and its respective journal had been subjected to abnormally high temperatures, increasing the amount of friction between the sleeve, bearing bush, and journal surface. The excessive heat also softened the induction-hardened case on the journal surface, decreasing its fatigue strength. Fatigue crack initiation occurred at the root fillet of the groove because of stress concentration.

A portable propane container with a name-plate soldered onto it exploded in service. When the vessel was inspected afterwards, it was found to have developed a crack in the top end plate. A portion of the end plate cut out to include the midlength and one termination of the crack was examined microscopically. This revealed that the crack was associated with intergranular penetration by molten metal. The microstructure in general was indicative of a good-quality mild steel. It was evident from that solder that was responsible for the penetration and that fused brass from the hand wheel had not played any part. Tensile stress was present at the time of the failure sufficiently high to enable solder penetration to take place. The use of soft solder as a medium for attaching name-plates directly on to stressed steel parts is not recommended. It would be preferable to use a welded-on patch plate or to employ one of the high-strength, non-metallic adhesives.

This article considers the main characteristics of wear mechanisms and how they can be identified. Some identification examples are reported, with the warning that this task can be difficult because of the presence of disturbing factors such as contaminants or possible additional damage of the worn products after the tribological process. Then, the article describes some examples of wear processes, considering possible transitions and/or interactions of the mechanism of fretting wear, rolling-sliding wear, abrasive wear, and solid-particle erosion wear. The role of tribological parameters on the material response is presented using the wear map concept, which is very useful and informative in several respects. The article concludes with guidelines for the selection of suitable surface treatments to avoid wear failures.

An aluminum bronze bushing that serves as a guide in a crimping machine began to fail after 50,000 cycles or approximately two weeks of operation. Until then, typical run times had been on the order of months. Although the bushings are replaceable and relatively inexpensive, the cost of downtime adds up quickly while operators troubleshoot and swap out worn components. Initially, the quality of the bushings came into question, but after a detailed analysis of the entire crimping mechanism, several other issues emerged that were not previously considered. As a result, the investigation provides information on not only better materials, but also design changes intended to reduce wear and increase service life.

Wear, a form of surface deterioration, is a factor in a majority of component failures. This article is primarily concerned with abrasive wear mechanisms such as plastic deformation, cutting, and fragmentation which, at their core, stem from a difference in hardness between contacting surfaces. Adhesive wear, the type of wear that occurs between two mutually soluble materials, is also discussed, as is erosive wear, liquid impingement, and cavitation wear. The article also presents a procedure for failure analysis and provides a number of detailed examples, including jaw-type rock crusher wear, electronic circuit board drill wear, grinding plate wear failure analysis, impact wear of disk cutters, and identification of abrasive wear modes in martensitic steels.

Engineered components fail predominantly in four major ways: fracture, corrosion, wear, and undesirable deformation (i.e., distortion). Typical fracture mechanisms feature rapid crack growth by ductile or brittle cracking; more progressive (subcritical) forms involve crack growth by fatigue, creep, or environmentally-assisted cracking. Corrosion and wear are another form of progressive material alteration or removal that can lead to failure or obsolescence. This article primarily covers the topic of abrasive wear failures, covering the general classification of wear. It also discusses methods that may apply to any form of wear mechanism, because it is important to identify all mechanisms or combinations of wear mechanisms during failure analysis. The article concludes by presenting several examples of abrasive wear.

A femoral knee implant was returned to the casting vendor for analysis after exhibiting poor bond strength between the cast substrate and a sintered porous coating. Both the coating and the substrate were manufactured from a cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy. Metallographic analysis indicated that a decarburized layer existed on all surfaces of the casting, which prevented bonding during the sintering thermal cycle. Bead-to-bead bonding within the coating appeared sufficient, and no decarburized layer was present on the bead surfaces. It was concluded that the decarburization did not occur during the sintering thermal cycle. It was recommended that the prosthetic manufacturer investigate atmosphere controls for all thermal cycles prior to coating.