Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e in f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The aim of this work is to study in depth the use of the acoustic emissions, as a non-destructive testing
Accepted 18 March 2008 technique, applied to the adhesively bonded joints. In a previous paper, three defect densities of the
Available online 10 June 2008 adhesive, 0%, 50% and 100%, were investigated, while in the present work two more intermediate values
Keywords: have been considered: 25% and 75%. The first goal of this paper is to confirm the good correlation,
Anaerobic highlighted in the previous one, between the adhesive defect density and the cumulative counts of the
Metals acoustic emissions; the second goal is to improve a methodology which might be capable of estimating,
Non-destructive testing with accuracy, the adhesive bonding defect and the final releasing moment of the assembled joints. In
Shaft–hub couplings this paper, the new results have been integrated with the previous ones and a more detailed map of the
adhesive slope variations is presented.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0143-7496/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2008.06.001
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Croccolo, R. Cuppini / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29 (2009) 234–239 235
The fundamental dimensions of the specimen, as reported in the When the adhesive defect was simulated on the specimen,
drawing of Fig. 1, are summarized in the following list: there was another step (spreading the contact surfaces with a film
of lube oil) between #2 and #3.
mean coupling diameter Dm ¼ 99.13 mm;
coupling axial length L ¼ 25 mm;
2.2. Tests run
taper angle a ¼ 21;
external diameter of the female part DAa ¼ 141.6 mm;
QA ¼ Dm/DAa ¼ 0.7. The new additional tests were performed with two defect
densities (25% and 75%) and the same three interference levels,
already used for the previous tests with adhesive defect density
2.1. Specimen setting-up cycle
equal to 0%, 50% and 100%. The new tests were performed with the
aim to complete the previous design of experiment (DOE) data set
The specimen setting-up cycle is realized by the following
and to obtain a more detailed response surface for the failure load
steps:
(releasing moment) of the adhesive (Mad), which has been
calculated in each test by subtracting the moment due to the
1. disengaging the specimen;
interference (Mint) from the total releasing moment (Mtot)
2. cleaning the contact surfaces using the Loctite 7063 cleaner
measured by the torque machine, following the same methodol-
and a cutter;
ogy presented in [12].
3. spreading the contact surfaces with the Loctite 638 adhesive;
The minimum polymerization time was established at 72 h,
4. generating the contact pressure using a hydraulic press (the
which is the inferior limit needed for a good polymerization of the
pressure is measured using a strain gauge applied on the
adhesive. The load speed variation was set at 15 Nm/s in order to
external diameter of the female part of the specimen);
obtain a quasi-static loading test.
5. tightening the nut in order to maintain the axial load;
Hence, the global factorial plane (three interference levels and
6. waiting for the adhesive polymerization in an oven at the
five adhesive defect density levels) has 15 points and the total
constant temperature of 40 1C for 72 h.
number of tests is equal to 60, since we performed 4 replications
for each point. The number of additional tests is 24. The complete
Table 1 ranges of the factors are the following:
Characteristic of acoustic emission inspection compared with other methods
L=25mm
Dm =99.13mm
DAa =141.6mm
92°
236 D. Croccolo, R. Cuppini / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29 (2009) 234–239
Fig. 5. The PAC transducer applied on the external surface of the female part.
1
The specific PAC model employed for the experimental tests was DISP-4, All the tests, also those with defect density equal to 25% and
with a. NANO 30 transducer, 70 dB as sensitivity and 298 kHz as peak frequency. 75%, confirmed the strong correlation between the failure load
ARTICLE IN PRESS
D. Croccolo, R. Cuppini / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29 (2009) 234–239 237
and the number of cumulative counts and the good relationship 4 kN m, are always higher than 0.75 for all the five adhesive defect
between the AE slopes and the defect density of the adhesive. As densities.
already observed, the correlation coefficients, between the The five areas between each slope average minus and plus its
maximum applied load and the total cumulative counts and standard deviation, corresponding to each defect density, are
between the maximum applied load and the cumulative counts at plotted in Fig. 6. While the area corresponding to 75% of the defect
density has no superposition zones with the two contiguous areas
(50% and 100%), the one corresponding to 25% of the defect
density is partially superimposed on the 50% area. This occurrence
Table 2
Characteristics of the slopes for each group of interpolation lines (0%, 50% and confirms that the AE correlation decreases when the defect
100% of adhesive defect density) density decreases. Nevertheless, it is possible to consider the
overlapping area between 25% and 50% of the defect density as
Slope (cumulative counts/kN m) Defect density
belonging to (a part of) 50% area. It means that a tested joint with
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% a defect density equal to 25% but with an AE slope included in the
overlapping area would be considered as a 50% defected joint and,
Average (x̄) 221 3801 4969 18,070 63,278 therefore, with a lower Mtot than the actual one. Furthermore, the
Standard deviation (s) 206 2633 2962 9229 34,571 maximum error computed in the evaluation of Mtot is lower than
x̄s 15 1168 1984 8841 28,707
x̄+s 427 6434 7908 27,299 97,849
10% and, anyway, in a safety condition. Hence, the actual
cumulative counts slope map is plotted and presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 6. Areas between each slope average minus and plus its standard deviation: the sketched area is the overlapping zone between 25% and 50% of adhesive defect density.
Fig. 7. Areas between each slope average minus and plus its standard deviation: final slope map.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
238 D. Croccolo, R. Cuppini / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29 (2009) 234–239
Table 3
Characteristics and test values of the four additional tests
Test D% I Mtot (kN m) Mint (kN m) Mad (kN m) Mtest (kN m) Cumulative counts at 4 kN m Slope (cumulative counts/kN m)
Fig. 8. Areas between each slope average minus and plus its standard deviation containing the four additional test slopes.
Table 4
Comparison between the test values and the estimated values of the four additional tests
Test Mtot-real (kN m) Mint (kN m) Mad-real (kN m) Mad-estimateda (kN m) Mtot-estimated (kN m) e% (Mtot)
a
According to the mathematical model defined in [13].
D. Croccolo, R. Cuppini / International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 29 (2009) 234–239 239