Peel Behaviour of Aircraft Fuel Tank Sealants: the Effect of Peel Angle, Sealant Layer Thickness and Peel Rate

The peel performance of two aircraft fuel tank sealants was comprehensively investigated by means of a modified peel specimen previously developed. Experiments were carried out at five different peel angles in the range from 90 to 180° using seven sealant layer thicknesses in the range from 0.1 to 5 mm. The effect of the peel rate was also investigated at a fixed peel angle and sealant layer thickness. The results were analysed in terms of the peel energy. Both peel angle and sealant layer thickness were found to affect significantly the measured peel energy of the sealants in a coupled way. In particular, it was found that the peel energy increased linearly with the sealant layer thickness, for the range considered in this study, and the rate of this increase was also found to increase as the peel angle was varied from 90 to 180°. For very small sealant layer thicknesses (0.1 mm) there was no effect of the peel angle on the measured peel energy. The results were explained in terms of the amount of energy these materials dissipated upon deformation up to fracture and a relationship for the prediction of the peel energy was proposed. The peel rate was found to affect only slightly the measured peel energy, in the range studied.

[1]  R. Adams,et al.  The use of a modified peel specimen to assess the peel resistance of aircraft fuel tank sealants , 2008 .

[2]  J. G. Williams,et al.  Cohesive zone models and the plastically deforming peel test , 2003, The Journal of Adhesion.

[3]  J. K. Spelt,et al.  On the Determination of Fracture Energy Using the Peel Test , 1998 .

[4]  G. B. Lowe.  The cure chemistry of polysulfides , 1997 .

[5]  S. Edge,et al.  The adhesion of natural rubber to steel and the use of the peel test to study its nature , 1997 .

[6]  J. Wightman,et al.  An Analysis of the 180° Peel Test for Measuring Sealant Adhesion , 1996 .

[7]  G. J. Lake,et al.  On The Mechanics of Rubber-to-Metal Bond Failure , 1995 .

[8]  J. K. Spelt,et al.  Analysis of the Peel Test: Prediction of Adherend Plastic Dissipation and Extraction of Fracture Energy in Metal-to-Metal Adhesive Joints , 1995 .

[9]  J. Williams,et al.  The peeling of flexible laminates , 1994 .

[10]  Robert D. Adams,et al.  An Elasto-Plastic Investigation of the Peel Test , 1982 .

[11]  Robert D. Adams,et al.  Peel Analysis Using the Finite Element Method , 1981 .

[12]  A. Gent,et al.  Peel Mechanics for an Elastic-Plastic Adherend , 1979 .

[13]  T. Igarashi.  Mechanics of peeling of rubbery materials. II. Initiation and propagation of peeling , 1978 .

[14]  A. Gent,et al.  Peel mechanics of adhesive joints , 1977 .

[15]  T. Igarashi.  Mechanics of peeling of rubbery materials. I. Peel strength and energy dissipation , 1975 .

[16]  D. Kaelble,et al.  Biaxial Bond Stress Analysis in Peeling , 1974 .

[17]  A. Gent,et al.  Adhesion of viscoelastic materials to rigid substrates , 1969, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[18]  D. H. Kaelble,et al.  Theory and Analysis of Peel Adhesion: Bond Stresses and Distributions , 1960 .

[19]  A. Thomas,et al.  Rupture of Rubber. III. Determination of Tear Properties , 1955 .

[20]  S. Giannis.  The mechanical and physical behaviour of aircraft fuel tank sealants , 2005 .

[21]  L. J. Clark,et al.  Use of Permapol® P3.1 polymers and epoxy resins in the formulation of aerospace sealants , 2003 .

[22]  J. K. Varkey,et al.  A fracture mechanics study of natural rubber-to-metal bond failure , 1996 .

[23]  Nikolaos Aravas,et al.  Elastoplastic analysis of the peel test , 1988 .

[24]  A. Usmani.  Chemistry and Technology of Polysulfide Sealants , 1982 .