Infrared Spectroscopy: A Potential Quality Assurance Method for Composite Bonding 2012 Technical Review Ashley C. Tracey & Brian D. Flinn University of Washington Materials Science and Engineering
Infrared Spectroscopy: A Potential Quality Assurance Method for Composite Bonding
• Motivation and Key Issues – Most important step for bonding is SURFACE
PREPARATION!! – Inspect surface prior to bonding to ensure proper
surface preparation • Objective
– Develop QA technique for surface preparation • Approach
– Use FTIR to characterize different surface preparations and levels of contamination § CFRP prepared with peel ply for secondary bonding § Peel ply contamination § Manual abrasion to remove peel ply texture from CFRP
2
3
Quality Control Methodologies for Surface Preparation Processes for Composite Bonding
• Principal Investigators & Researchers – Brian D. Flinn (PI) – Ashley Tracey (PhD student, UW-MSE) – Elise Santa Maria (undergraduate, UW-MSE)
• FAA Technical Monitor – David Westlund
• Other FAA Personnel Involved – Larry Ilcewicz – Curtis Davies
• Industry Participation – Toray Composites – Precision Fabrics & Richmond Aerospace & Airtech International – The Boeing Company (Kay Blohowiak, Peter Van Voast, William
Grace, Tony Belcher, Paul Vahey, Paul Shelley, Greg Werner and Marc Piehl)
Composite Bonding and Surface Preparation
• Peel ply is a desirable surface preparation because it produces repeatable and consistent surfaces and can prevent surface contamination
• Paste adhesives not compatible with peel ply surface à
further surface treatment required • Composite bonds are materials system specific (prepreg/
surface prep/adhesive) à potential problems that could degrade bond quality: – Incorrect peel ply? – Contamination? – Improper abrasion?
4
Peel ply
Composite
FTIR to Examine Surfaces
• Why might FTIR be used for QA? – Requirement of adhesion:
§ formation of primary chemical bonds between the adherend and adhesive
– FTIR is used to measure surface chemistry § surface prep and contaminants influence surface chemistry
– Portable units available § Suitable for factory and field applications
• Need to assess ability of FTIR as a QA technique
5
Experimental Overview
• Can FTIR detect different peel or release ply materials? – Nylon, polyester, SRB
• What level of siloxane detectable with FTIR? – Various levels of contamination (0.1%-2% and SRB)
• Can FTIR detect proper abrasion? – Different levels of manual abrasion to remove peel ply
texture/residue
6
Assess ability of FTIR to identify improperly prepared surfaces
FTIR Methodology
Bruker Vertex 70 FTIR
• Bench-top instrument • Diamond attenuated total
reflectance (DATR)
Agilent Technologies Exoscan FTIR
• Handheld device • Diffuse reflectance
7
http://www.aoc.kit.edu/english/612.php www.chem.agilent.com
DATR Methodology
• MIR data region: 4000 cm-1 to 400 cm-1
• Data collection: 16 scans with 4 cm-1 resolution for background and specimen
• Pressure clamp used for intimate contact between crystal and sample à max pressure: 30 ksi
8
An infrared beam path for a single bounce DATR
Diffuse Reflectance Methodology
• MIR data region: 4000 cm-1 to 650 cm-1
• Data collection: 90 scans with 16 cm-1 resolution for background and specimen
9
An infrared beam path for diffuse reflectance
Spectra Analysis
• FTIR spectra of CFRP surfaces complex – Multiple constituents à many spectral peaks
• How to analyze spectra with confidence? – Multivariate analysis!
• Multivariate analysis: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) – Identification of peak locations and intensities not
obvious to the observer – Can be used to develop test interfaces to remove
operator interpretation à go/no go output
10
Multivariate Analysis: Unscrambler X
• Principal Component Analysis (PCA) – Exploratory data analysis – identify trends – 2 principal component analysis – Some spectra required preprocessing: Savitsky-
Golay 1st derivative with 5 smoothing points fit to a 2nd order polynomial § Derivative to amplify changes in slope of spectral peaks while
reducing effects of baseline offsets § Smoothing points to reduce influence of noise
11
Materials
• Toray 3900/T800 unidirectional laminates – Autoclave cure (177°C, 0.6MPa)
• Peel ply surface prep – Precision Fabric Group (PFG) 60001 polyester peel ply – PFG 60001 polyester peel ply with controlled siloxane
amounts § 0.1% to 2% siloxane
– PFG Super Release Blue (SRB) siloxane release ply – PFG 52006 nylon peel ply
• Manual abrasion surface prep – Random orbital sander with Diablo 120 grit ceramic
abrasive sanding discs
12
Peel Ply Type
• Peel ply surface preparation for adhesive bonding is materials system specific – Previous research showed CFRP prepared with
different peel ply materials and bonded with MB 1515-3 film adhesive affect bond quality
13
Ø Need to ensure correct peel ply material used
DATR Sensitive to Peel Ply Material
14
ü DATR can differentiate between peel plies Ø Peel ply prep detectable on CFRP surface?
Polyester peaks: C=O
Polyester SRB
Nylon Silicone peak
Silicone peak
Amide II Band: C-N stretch + CO-N-H
bend Amide V
Band: N-H out-of-plane
bend
Amide IV Band: C-CO
stretch
Silicone peaks
Trans configuration of ethylene glycol unit
CH2 wagging mode of trans conformer of glycol moiety
(indicative of crystalline
domains in PET)
Gauche configuration of -OCH2CH2O- group (largley associated with amorphous region of PET)
Benzene ring
DATR of CFRP Prepared with Different Peel Ply
15
ü Small differences between CFRP peel ply prep observed Ø Multivariate analysis?
Silicone band at 1260
cm-1 ?
Polyester prepared SRB prepared Nylon prepared
DATR of CFRP Prepared with Different Peel Ply
• Multivariate Analysis: PCA of two PCs – Preprocessing: Savitsky-Golay 1st derivative with 5
smoothing points fit to a 2nd order polynomial
16
• PCA identifies no significant difference between CFRP peel ply prep Ø Peel ply prep detectable with diffuse reflectance?
1=Nylon prep 2=SRB prep
3=Polyester prep
Diffuse Reflectance Sensitive to CFRP Prepared with Different Peel Plies
• Multivariate Analysis: PCA of two PCs – Preprocessing: Savitsky-Golay 1st derivative with 5
smoothing points fit to a 2nd order polynomial
17
1=Nylon prep 2=SRB prep
3=Polyester prep
ü PCA identifies CFRP peel ply surface prep Ø What level of peel ply contamination is detectable?
Si Contamination of Peel Ply
• Surface contamination detrimental to bonding – contamination cannot
be completely eliminated from all composite fabrication environments – siloxane
Ø Need to inspect CFRP surfaces for contaminates
18
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
EA9657K; 0.08psf AF555M; 0.05psf MB1515-3M 0.05psfP
ee
l S
tre
ng
th (
N-m
/25
.4 m
m w
idth
)
0%
0.0001%
0.001%
0.01%
0.05%
0.10%
0.20%
0.30%
0.40%
0.50%
1%
2%
Solid Green: Cohesive Capability
Dashed Blue: Carbon Delamination
Red Arrow: Contaminated Bond
!"#$%&'!()!*+,-.!&'/%01/)!
3.4.3 DCB Results
234'!5!6&781%&'!'9'&$:;!<5=;!>7/!?'7/%&'!7883&4#[email protected]!ABBC()!!A=*!1'/1/!D74!7!03//!36!
74D'/#39!7/!?7&E'4!F:!67#0%&'/!71!1D'!G''0!G0:!#91'&678'!71!/#03H79'!83917?#971#39!0'I'0/!36!CJ!
63&!700!36! 1D'!74D'/#I'/!'I70%71'4)!-039$!>#1D! 1D'! 67#0%&'!?34'!71! 1D'!G''0!G0:! #91'&678';! 1D'&'!
>'&'!/D7&G!4'80#9'/!#9!<5=!71!1D'!CJ!/#03H79'!8394#1#39)!"3&!39'!74D'/#I';!K2!-"BBB;!1D'&'!>7/!
G7&1#70!03//!36!74D'/#39!71!LJ!/#03H79')!-//38#71'4!>#1D!1D#/!>7/!7!?34'/1!4'80#9'!#9!<5=)!!
!
"3&! 1D'! 83?F#971#39/! 36! /%F/1&71'/! 794! 74D'/#I'/! 'I70%71'4;! 67#0%&'! ?34'/! 1D71! >'&'! G%&'0:!
83D'/#I'!>#1D#9!1D'!74D'/#I'!>'&'!931!'983%91'&'4!63&!79:!36!1D'!1'/1/)!,71D'&!1D'!67#0%&'!?34'!
>7/!7!83?F#971#39!36!83D'/#I'!>#1D#9! 1D'!74D'/#I'!794! #91'&07?#97&!>#1D#9! 1D'! /%F/1&71')!.D#/!
1'94'98:!13>7&4!#91'&07?#97&!67#0%&'!>#1D!1D'!A=*!1'/1!?%1'/!1D'!I70%'!36! 1D'!M%791#171#I'!1'/1!
&'/%01/;!7/!1D'!D#$D'&!13%$D9'//!36!1D'!74D'/#I'!#/!4#0%1'4!F:!1D'!03>'&!13%$D9'//!36!1D'!07?#971')!
*7/'4!39!G&'I#3%/!A=*!&'/%01/! 63&! 1D'!$#I'9!74D'/#I'/!71!*3'#9$!>D'&'! 1D'!67#0%&'!?34'!>7/!
9'7&0:! LNNJ! 83D'/#I'! #9! 1D'! 74D'/#I';! 7! $&''9! 0#9'! >7/! 4&7>9! 39! "#$%&'! O! 1D71! 4'931'/! 1D'!
83D'/#I'! 87G7F#0#1:! 36! 1D'! $#I'9! 74D'/#I')! "#$%&'! O! /D3>/! 1D71! 1D'! 781%70! A=*! I70%'/! 6700!
F'1>''9! 1D'! 83D'/#I'! 87G7F#0#1:! 36! 1D'! 74D'/#I'! P/30#4! 0#9'Q! 794! 1D'! 87&F39! 4'07?#971#39!
1D&'/D304)!!!
!
B-RAT results showing bond quality is degraded of CFRP substrates with peel ply contamination levels at 1% siloxane and
greater1
1VanVoast, P.J., P.H. Shelley, R.L. Blakely, C.B. Smith, M.P. Jones, A.C. Tracey, B.D. Flinn, G. Dillingham, B. Oakley. “Effect of Varying Levels of Peel Ply Contamination on Adhesion Threshold.” SAMPE 2010. Seattle, WA, May 17-20, 2010.
Si contamination on CFRP difficult to quantify with Diffuse Reflectance FTIR
19
• PCA identifies some differences between siloxane contaminated samples • PCA does not show difference between acceptable and unacceptable
levels of contamination Ø Different technique to identify level of contamination?
How to quantify amount of Contamination Transferred to CFRP Substrate
20
• All spectra show characteristic silicone peaks at 1260 cm-1, 1100 cm-1, 1022 cm-1 and 800 cm-1
• Peak at 1260 cm-1 used for analysis of amount of siloxane transferred to surface
Hexane Extraction Results using FTIR with Vertical Integrating Sphere (sensitive to small amounts of material): 2” x 2” samples to quantify how much siloxane transfers to surface
Hexane Extraction 1260 cm-1 Peak Areas as a Function of Peel Ply Contamination
• CFRP surface contamination increases with increased peel ply contamination – maybe use a wipe and analyze residue to determine contamination level?
21
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Pea
k A
rea
(m
g/f
t2)
Sample
Increasing Peel Ply Contamination
• Diffuse reflectance or DATR to analyze residue? Ø Are different levels of abrasion detectable with FTIR?
Manual Abrasion to Remove Peel Ply Texture
• Previous research shows polyester peel ply prep of 177°C cure composites fail in adhesion when bonded with paste adhesives2 – Surface abrasion can be used to remove peel ply texture/residue
from composite à cohesive failure when bonded with paste adhesives2
– Want to detect levels of abrasion to remove peel ply surface layer
22
Peel Ply Texture, No Abrasion
> 75% Peel Ply Texture Evident
< 50% Peel Ply Texture Evident
No Peel Ply Texture
Nylon Prepared
Polyester
Prepared
2Bossi, R., R. Carlsen, F.J. Boerio and G. Dillingham. “Composite Surface Preparation QA for Bonding.” SAMPE 2005. Long
Beach, CA, May 1-5, 2005.
DATR and Diffuse Reflectance Sensitive to Manual Abrasion to Remove Polyester Peel Ply Texture
23
ü PCA of diffuse reflectance spectra shows difference between acceptable and unacceptable abrasion levels to remove polyester peel
ply texture/residue à more sensitive than DATR
PCA of DATR Spectra PCA of Diffuse Reflectance Spectra
0=polyester peel ply surface 1= >75% peel ply surface evident 2= <50% peel ply surface evident
3=no peel ply surface evident
Unacceptable abrasion
Acceptable abrasion
DATR and Diffuse Reflectance Sensitive to Manual Abrasion to Remove Nylon Peel Ply Texture
24
PCA of DATR Spectra PCA of Diffuse Reflectance Spectra
0=nylon peel ply surface 1= >75% peel ply surface evident 2= <50% peel ply surface evident
3=no peel ply surface evident
Unacceptable abrasion
Acceptable abrasion
ü PCA of diffuse reflectance spectra shows difference between acceptable and unacceptable abrasion levels to remove nylon peel ply
texture/residue à more sensitive than DATR
Summary of FTIR Results
25
FTIR Sampling Interface DATR Diffuse
Reflectance Peel Ply Prep ? ✔ Si Contaminants N/A ?
Abraded Surfaces to Remove Peel Ply Residue
✔- ✔
Scarfed Surfaces/Repair TBD TBD
DATR vs. Diffuse Reflectance
• Diffuse reflectance shows greater sensitivity to surface preparation than DATR – Due to sampling volume?
§ DATR spectra from surface in contact with DATR crystal – ideal for smooth surfaces, less contact with rough surfaces
§ Diffuse reflectance spectra better for rough surfaces – can get information from peel ply channels
26
Conclusions
Diffuse reflectance more sensitive to rough surfaces than DATR
• Peel Ply Prep:
– Diffuse reflectance can identify polyester vs. nylon vs. SRB prep • Peel Ply Contamination:
– Diffuse reflectance can identify some differences between siloxane contaminated samples
– Hexane wipe alternative? Diffuse to analyze wipe? • Abrasion to Remove Peel Ply Texture:
– Diffuse reflectance can identify removal of nylon and polyester peel ply texture
27
FTIR has potential as a quality assurance technique for adhesive bonding process
28
Looking Forward
• Benefit to Aviation – Better understanding of peel ply surface prep. – Guide development of QA methods for surface prep. – Greater confidence in adhesive bonds
• Future needs – Surface characterization vs. bond quality model
§ Bond quality vs. amount of peel ply texture on abraded surface – QA methods to ensure proper surface for bonding – Applicability to other composite and adhesive systems – Model to guide bonding based on characterization,
surface prep. and material properties
Acknowledgements
• FAA COE: JAMS, AMTAS
• The Boeing Company
– Kay Blohowiak, Pete Van Voast, Will Grace, Marc Piehl, Paul Shelley, Paul Vahey, Greg Werner
• Precision Fabric Group
• Richmond Aircraft Products
• Airtech International
29
End of Presentation.
Thank you.
30
Top Related