چكيده به لاتين
Composite materials are preferred in the automotive, aerospace, marine, and construction industries due to their flexibility in design, high strength-to-weight ratio, and excellent resistance to failure. Since most modern structures are hybrid, combining metals and composites, the integration of these materials remains a significant industrial challenge. Various methods for joining composites to metals, such as bonding, mechanical fasteners, and a combination of these methods, have been reported. To improve adhesive bonding between these two materials, the metal surface, composite, and adhesive are modified. This research provides an overview of the various surface preparation methods required for metals, composites, and adhesives, and their impact on adhesive joint strength. It then addresses types of failures in adhesive joints and presents appropriate tests and methods for characterizing the failure of composite-to-metal joints. Additionally, given existing research gaps, the effect of different steel surface preparation methods on the failure properties of glass/epoxy composite-to-steel adhesive joints is examined. For this purpose, ten different steel surface preparation methods were selected and tested, including sanding, sandblasting, wire-cutting with various groove patterns, and combinations of these methods with acid washing. Composite-to-steel joints were fabricated after surface preparation, and failure tests, including load-displacement and resistance (R-curve) curves, were performed using the CBBM method to calculate failure parameters. The results indicated that the wire-cutting method combined with sandblasting and acid washing (Method 10) demonstrated the best performance in increasing failure energy and improving mechanical properties. This method showed a 233% increase in failure energy compared to simple samples and was recognized as the best method for achieving effective adhesion between the adhesive and steel. Other methods, including combinations of wire-cutting and sanding (Method 4), sandblasting alone (Method 8), and a combination of wire-cutting and sandblasting (Method 9), also showed significant improvements in failure energy and mechanical properties, although they were less effective than Method 10. The use of blade scraping (Method 3) and wire-cutting (Method 4) yielded similar results, indicating that blade scraping could be a cost-effective alternative to wire-cutting. Furthermore, an increased distance between grooves was observed to reduce failure energy. Blade scraping and sandblasting alone were also identified as suitable options in various conditions.
