1 / 30

Fire Resistive Materials: Adhesion

Fire Resistive Materials: Adhesion. Performance Assessment and Optimization of Fire Resistive Materials NIST July 14, 2005. Microstructure Experimental 3-D Tomography 2-D optical, SEM Confocal microscopy Modeling 3-D Reconstruction Parameters Porosity Pore Sizes Contact Areas.

neola
Télécharger la présentation

Fire Resistive Materials: Adhesion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fire Resistive Materials: Adhesion Performance Assessment and Optimization of Fire Resistive Materials NIST July 14, 2005

  2. Microstructure Experimental 3-D Tomography 2-D optical, SEM Confocal microscopy Modeling 3-D Reconstruction Parameters Porosity Pore Sizes Contact Areas Properties (all as a function of T) Thermal Heat Capacity Conductivity Density Heats of Reaction Adhesion Pull-off strength Peel strength Adhesion energy Fracture toughness Equipment TGA/DSC/STA Slug calorimeter Dilatometer Blister apparatus Environmental Interior Temperature, RH, load Exterior Temperature, RH, UV, load Performance Prediction Lab scale testing ASTM E119 Test Real structures (WTC) Materials Science-Based Studies of Fire Resistive Materials

  3. Adhesive Performance of FRMs Why should we care? • Opportunity: Recent events have demonstrated the importance of in-service adhesive performance in the ability of FRM to protect steel. • What can we learn about existing adhesive properties of FRM?

  4. What is Gc energy to create a unit of surface area units: J/m2 How do we measure adhesion? • Want a geometry independent property. • Adhesive Fracture energy, Gc How do we measure Gc?

  5. P w 2a Experimental: Schematic and Theory Assumptions: Thin, stretching membrane, loaded elastically and at a point Eh: Film Tensile Rigidity (modulus, E, · thickness, h)

  6. P w 2a Experimental: Schematic and Theory Load-based equation (P) displacement-based equation (w)

  7. Experimental Set-Up: Load suspended from center of specimen N kg

  8. WTC Material

  9. Experimental: Shaft-Loaded Blister Test for WTC Material Mechanically driven shaft attached to Instron Shaft attached To instron P Rigid substrate Film is on the underside Of stand w h coating Mirror to view film Stand to hold sample Kai Tak Wan and Yiu-Wing Mai, International Journal of Fracture, 74, 181-197 (1995) E: Young’s Modulus

  10. WTC Sample P Fire Retardant Material (3/4”) Primer The mechanical properties of the film are estimated from: Steel E (Pa) = 2 * 10^11 h (m) = 0.05 *10^-3 Adhesion Promotor E (Pa) = 3 * 10^9 h (m) = 0.20 *10^-3 and: 2 mil steel For a bending plate: Ecomposite = v2E1 +v2E2

  11. Experimental: Shaft-Loaded Blister Test 54 % of the samples were entirely debonded when received G = 17.3 +/- 12.8 J/m2

  12. Fire Retardant Coatings

  13. Testing of Adhesive Joints:Introduction to Sub-Critical Adhesive Fracture Testingand the Wedge Test (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) Wedge Test: v v v Log Crack Velocity, 10-10 a (t = 0) Crack Driving Energy, G (J/m (J/m (J/m ) 2 v-G curves will tell you: -rank order of adhesive -failure mechanisms -engineering design parameters a (t >0)

  14. v-G Curve Reveals Mechanisms of Adhesive Failure at the Crack-Tip: Regions I, II, III Increasing Aggressiveness of Environment Region III: stress controlled (m/s) III v Crack Velocity, v (m/s) II v* Region II: diffusion to crack tip Log Crack Velocity, Region I: stress-dependent chemical reaction I I I Crack Driving Energy, G (J/m2) GTh Crack Driving Energy, Crack Driving Energy, Crack Driving Energy, G (J/m (J/m (J/m ) ) ) 2 Region II

  15. (m/s) (m/s) (m/s) v v v Log Crack Velocity, GTh Crack Driving Energy, G (J/m (J/m (J/m ) 2 Application of Sub-Critical Adhesion Testing: Residual Stress (σr) in Coatings σr arise due to CTE mismatch or processing Data from wedge test

  16. Constant-Load Subcritical Blister Test Measure debond easily with micrometer!

  17. Fire Resistive Coating Cold Rolled Steel Substrate

  18. Screening Tool for Different Coatings Bonded to Cold Rolled Steel at 100% r.h. & RT A DCB A SLBT B SLBT Epoxy DCB C D

  19. “Soft” vs. “Hard” Coating, low humidity vs. high humidity High (95%) RH Low (1%) RH “Hard” coating performs better than “Soft” coating! Coatings perform better at low humidity

  20. FRC DCB : Tensile Residual Stress is reduced by moisture absorption Reduction in residual stress leads to improved durability Increase humidity and reduced residual stress

  21. FRM’s. • Modern Adhesion testing methods can give LRFD parameters. • These parameters are environmentally sensitive. • (increasing RH can either increase or decrease performance.) What about Temp and UV? Rate effects? • What about the existing test methods? • Can we modify existing test methods?

  22. Adhesion Tests: Ideal • Ideal Adhesion Test: • Simple, cheap, fast, easy to perform • Grounded in fundamental mechanics and material science- LFRD guidance • Includes modes- opening, in-plane shear, torsion, mixed, • Could include environmental and rate dependence. How far are the test from idea?

  23. Current FRM Standards: • ASTM E759 (Effect of Deflection) Deflect 1/120 or 1 inch. • ASTM E736 (Cohesive/Adhesive) 12 Ft • ASTM E760 (Effect of Impact) 60 lb from 4 ft. Concrete 12 Ft

  24. Advantages: Quick, easy, Cheap Practical Pass/Fail guidance Disadvantages: Highly dependent on sample preparation Specific to situation tested (geometry, speed, etc) Little or no design guidance Current Empirical Methods:

  25. w P  a P P Quantitative Adhesive Test Methods: Beam, JKR and Peel Measure G and E JKR Test Beam Test, ex. Wedge Test At equilibriumG =W P Peel Test(s) Blister Test 2a

  26. Fundamental Mechanics • Advantages: • Link to fundamental mechanics and material science properties G • Results are independent of geometry/sample preparation. • Gives LFRD guidance • Disadvantages: • Expensive • Require equipment • Time consuming

  27. Fundamental Mechanics DCLB Peel Tests Blister Tests JKR Empirical, Practical Pull off Lap Shear Impact Deflection w P  a P P Current Methods:

  28. General Approach: • Simple Test, • Fast, easy, inexpensive to perform • Calibrate. • Can be calibrated against fundamental mechanics and material science • Rate, strain and environmental dependence • Round robin

  29. Prototype: Steel • Bending, twisting, stretching will produce known strains at the interface (different modes) • Stress can be calculated from first principles and calibrated with known adhesion geometries. • Visually evaluated, or calibrated. • Can give both rate and environmental performance. • Never have to touch the material FRM

  30. Summary • Current methods for evaluating the adhesion performance are pass/fail. • Modern adhesion testing methods present the ability to give design guidance for FRMs. • It appears possible to build a close to “ideal” adhesion test for FRMs. • Simple, cheap, fast, based in mechanics, calibrated by NIST.

More Related