China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Statistical comparison of three different measurement technologies
Published in Stein Haugen, Anne Barros, Coen van Gulijk, Trond Kongsvik, Jan Erik Vinnem, Safety and Reliability – Safe Societies in a Changing World, 2018
M. Hinz, A. Luecker, B. Bracke, C. Klostermann
The abscissa of Figure 2 shows the energy in [keV], and the ordinate sows the intensity in counts per minute [cpm] of a certain element in the composition. The main peak of the diagram indicates an aluminium alloy. Though, the proper estimation of the material composition cannot be performed without a material expert. Therefore, the overall estimation of the compound was discussed with a material scientist and provided the result (with a high probability) of an AlMgSi—wrought alloy.
Mean stress correction and fatigue failure criteria for hyperelastic adhesive joints
Published in The Journal of Adhesion, 2023
Pedro Henrique Evangelista Fernandes, Christof Nagel, Andreas Wulf, Vinicius Carrillo Beber
The first system is a polyurethane adhesive, which is described in its data sheet as a solvent-free one-component adhesive. To simplify the designation, this adhesive will be referred to as PU-adhesive. The second adhesive is a one-component SMP adhesive. A representative stress-strain curve of each adhesive is given in Figure 1. For the adhesive joints, substrates were made of the aluminium alloy EN AW 6082 (AlMgSi). An epoxy primer coating for metals was applied to the substrates to improve adhesion. For both adhesive systems, prior to bonding, the substrates were cleaned with solvent, and then a liquid primer was applied. For each type of adhesive joint geometry, a corresponding bonding device was used to ensure the correct geometry parameters (e.g. adhesive layer thickness, overlap length) until the joints were fully cured. After adhesive application, the joints were cured at RT (two weeks for the PU and four weeks for the SMP).