SURFACE PREPARATIONS FOR ENSURING
THAT THE GLUE WILL STICK IN BONDED
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
L.J. Hart-Smith, D. Brown and S. Wong
29.1 INTRODUCTION
Adhesively bonded joints can be no stronger
than the interface between the adhesive and
the members being bonded together. In-ser-
vice bond failures have always been
associated with weak interfaces, for both metal
and composite adherends. While most people
acknowledge that adhesive bonding of metal-
lic structures requires strict adherence to
proper processes, many people unthinkingly
accept the notion that it is easy to make epoxy
stick to epoxy, for example, and pay no atten-
tion to the need for proper processing for the
adhesive bonding of composite structures.
This chapter begins with a historical review
of the need for appropriate surface treatment to
ensure that the glue will stick to composite sur-
faces. It then focuses on photomicrographs of
different surfaces, to which the adhesive will or
will not stick, as a basis for inspections prior to
bonding. Such prebond inspections are vital
because of the inability to detect weak bonds
after manufacture, until they have fallen apart.
The characterization of the surfaces prepared
by different techniques can assist in formulat-
ing process specifications that will ensure
reliable adhesive bonding and in identifying
past practices that should be discontinued.
Handbook of Composites.Edited by S.T. Peters. Published
in 1998 by Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN 0 412 54020 7
29
29.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the
Douglas Aircraft Company at Long Beach,
California, was the site of one of the techni-
cally most successful research contracts ever
funded by the Wright-Patterson Air Force
Laboratories - the Primary Adhesively
Bonded Structure Technology (PABST) pro-
gram. This research was directed at
well-known problems concerning the adhe-
sive bonding of metallic aircraft structures.
These problems were the need to change con-
temporary processing from etching to
anodizing, and the need to select adhesives
and primers on the basis of long-term dura-
bility rather than short-term strength. These
failings had been made very clear by wide-
spread in-service problems experienced for
many years by both commercial and military
operators. A successful outcome to the
research was assured because of the success
of the Redux bonding developed in England
during WWII and since employed exten-
sively by Fokker. The PABST program
succeeded in all of its objectives, bar one. It
omitted a large-scale flight demonstration
program, because it would have solved no
problem that had not already been solved by
the successful ground testing of panels and a
complete wide-body fuselage barrel with
simulated wing center section. However, in
668 Suface preparationsfor ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures
retrospect, such a demonstration was neces-
sary as a public relations exercise to convince
the decision makers to apply the technology,
where appropriate, on the primary structure
of large aircraft. Nevertheless, the technology
did not die. The combination of phosphoric
acid anodizing for aluminum alloys, a pheno-
lic-based corrosion-inhibiting primer and
adhesives formulated to resist the absorption
of water has since been applied very exten-
sively on the primary structures (wings,
fuselages, and tails) of Cessna and SAAB air-
craft with excellent results.
The composites bonding industry could be
described today as being in the same state that
metal bonding was in 25 years ago, but with
one big difference. The need to properly pre-
pare the surfaces of composite laminates prior
to bonding is acknowledged only by those
who have suffered a major problem from hav-
ing failed to do so on some previous occasion.
Ironically, there are many researchers and pro-
duction engineers worldwide who are aware
of the problems and their causes. However,
there is no highly visible activity like the
PABST program to draw attention to the
issues. This chapter cannot be expected to
solve these problems, but it is hoped that it
will raise the level of awareness of the subject
and that its content will help achieve better
bonded composite structures by providing
standards for inspecting the surfaces before
bonding, rather than creating the impossible
situation of trying to detect weak bonds after
bonding. What is needed is a method that will
ensure a reliable bond every time, using pro-
cedures to which all manufacturers of
composite structures will be willing to adhere.
The first part of this challenge has already
been accomplished: light grit-blasting or thor-
ough mechanical abrasion has been shown to
work. Unfortunately, more often than not,
films of adhesive are applied to the surfaces
left by the removal of a peel ply without any
surface treatment. Most, and possibly all, peel
plies are known not to create a suitable surface
for bonding, at least when used with laminat-
ing resins or adhesives. They create a weak
interface, with failure occurring at only a frac-
tion of the strength that would have been
developed by grit-blasting. However, the
resulting weak bonds cannot be detected by
conventional ultrasonic nondestructive
inspection. Also, most bonded composite
structures are so thin that they will not fall
apart even if the bond has as little as one-tenth
of the strength of a properly processed bond.
Consequently, little has been done about the
problem, in the mistaken belief that doing so
would incur an unnecessary expense.
On the contrary, even if local bond failures
can be tolerated structurally, once they become
detectable in service they cause expensive
inspection programs and possibly rework, not
necessarily to add to the strength of the parts,
but to prevent the flaws from being detected
and repaired again on subsequent inspections.
Failing to ensure that the glue sticks properly
in the first place is definitely a false economy.
The delay in solving the corresponding prob-
lems on bonded metal structure gave the
technology such a bad name in the USA that it
was the direct cause of the extensive use of riv-
eted structure when bonding would have been
lighter, less expensive, and more durable, with
better than a twentyfold reduction in the inci-
dence of fatigue cracks and a dramatic
improvement in damage tolerance. Lest the
same preference for mechanical fastening
rather than bonding continue to be followed
for thin composite structures, it should be
noted that the typical fasteners cost about a
hundred times as much as the simple rivets
used with aluminum structures. Worse, the
minimum diameter of the specialty fasteners
for composites is 50% larger than the diameter
of comparable rivets. Conventional aluminum
rivets are not used for carbon composite struc-
tures because of concern about galvanic
corrosion, between the rivets and the carbon
fibers, so composite structures that could have
been bonded must be locally reinforced to be
mechanically fastened instead, adding to both
the cost and weight.

There are, then, very great incentives for
reliable processing of adhesive bonds in com-
posite structures. There is also no hstory of
properly processed composite bonds failing in
service. (This is also true of metal bonding. All
in-service failures are the result of environ-
mental attack, at load levels far too low to
have initiated mechanical failure of the bonds.
Testing during the PABST program of coupons
cut from retired aircraft stored at Davis-
Monthan, Arizona, showed that there was no
structural deterioration after 20 years.)
There are others that call for improvements
in surface preparation for bonding of compos-
ites. Robert Schliekelmann, the famous pioneer
of Redux bonding at Fokker, was sufficiently
concerned about the failure to recognize the
need for proper surface treatment of compos-
ites as well as metals to make a plea’ for more
attention to this issue. Almost a decade ago,
Douglas engineers prepared an article on the
subject2to help the airlines until the repair man-
uals could be updated. The article was judged
to be of sufficient importance to be reprinted in
the Canadair house journal3.Every experiment
had to be repeated to create new photographs
and every phenomenon was duplicated,
thereby verifying that the problems discussed
in the original article really existed. A similar
concern was expressed in England, where
Parker and Waghom4 reported on a far more
comprehensive test program on the effects of
surface preparation on adhesive bond strength
for carbon-epoxy laminates. They also con-
cluded that ‘composite surfaces must be
abraded to achieve strong adhesive-bonded
joints.’ Pocius and Wentz advocated the use of
Scotchbrite pads with embedded abrasive par-
ticles as an effective and reliable technique for
achieving good composite bonds5. A recent
research program6 addressed both thermoset
and thermoplastic composites. Reference 6 also
cites other English research. The problems still
exist, on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.
A more recent article on this subject7,voiced
concerns because of the reintroduction of infe-
rior techniques throughout much of the
Historical background 669
aerospace industry. It seems significant that,
today, some factories prohibit the use of bond-
ing directly to a composite surface created by
the mere removal of a peel ply and that the
automotive racing industry has experienced
the same kind of premature failures with peel-
ply treatments that the aerospace industry has
suffered. If what may be called the peel-ply
bonded joints were twice as strong as they
actually are, there would be little concern.
Conversely, if they were only half as strong,
the problem would have been more widely
recognized long ago and far more done about
it. The real problem with peel-ply bonded
joints is that, while quite unreliable in the eyes
of those closest to the subject, they usually
have sufficient strength to pass ultrasonic
inspections (because there are no gaps) and are
sufficiently strong some of the time that the
joints do not fail prior to delivery of the com-
ponent. This makes it difficult to present a
convincing case to non-technically minded
participants in the industry that there is a real
problem. One non-failure tends to be inter-
preted as complete success.
This chapter cannot possibly provide all the
answers on the subject of surface preparations
for composite bonding. It took a $20 million
5 year program to solve the corresponding
problems for metal bonding. It should also be
acknowledged that the concerns expressed
here are based exclusively on consistently bad
experiences with 180°C (350°F) cured epoxy
composites. (The problem may be associated
with the curing of the laminate and the peel
ply as much as with the adhesive.) It may also
be significant that most, if not all, of these
problems were associated with nylon peel
plies, whose use with a 180°C (350°F) cured-
laminate is believed by some polymer
chemists to be undesirable, because the nylon
may break down and transfer a thin film of
low-molecular weight material to the compos-
ite surface. Photographic evidence of this
phenomenon is included here. Such a surface
would be very difficult for an epoxy adhesive
to wet, because of too low a surface energy.
670 Surface preparationsfor ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures
The polymer chemists express less concern
about the use of nylon at 120°C (250"F), but
some adhesion failures of glued joints have
occurred with those materials also. The domi-
nant factor may be the low surface energy
level of the composite cured against a slick
peel ply, or one contaminated by a release
agent to ensure that it can be removed easily
without fracturing (damaging) the composite
laminate.
It is certain that the criteria by which manu-
facturers evaluate their peel plies are precisely
the opposite of those that someone else trying
to promote adhesion in a bonded joint would
follow. Some peel plies are even coated with
release agents to ensure that they can be
removed easily without damaging the basic
laminate. Silicone transfer has been observed
with some peel plies supposedly totally free of
contamination. What is needed to create a
bondable surface is a tear ply that will remove
a small amount of surface resin over the entire
area to be bonded. However, peel plies known
to be capable of achieving this are almost
invariably shunned because they are so hard
to peel off, because they break and inevitably
lead to local contamination as the process is
restarted, or because there is concern that the
interior of the laminate will be damaged.
It cannot be asserted on purely technical
grounds that there are no circumstances under
which some peel plies will produce an ade-
quate surface for adhesive bonding. It stands
to reason that some users of this approach
have been spared the problems Douglas and
others have encountered, or the products
would have all been removed from the mar-
ketplace. However, it is likely that still others
have also suffered, but are unaware of the
cause of their problems. Nevertheless, the
argument against peel plies is irrefutable on
economic grounds. The cost of investigating
weak bonds has been far, far greater than
would have been incurred if Douglas had
insisted that all suppliers and subcontractors
lightly grit-blast or thoroughly hand-sand
composite surfaces following removal of the
peel plies. Not one in-service delamination has
occurred in those composite structures pre-
pared for bonding by the grit-blast technique.
It is hoped that this chapter will inspire
those who believe that their structural adhe-
sive bonds are both strong and reliable to
assess composite surfaces prior to bonding. (A
request for information from a major US aero-
space manufacturer about a peel ply different
from those used at Douglas resulted in their
switching to another peel ply. Microscopic
examination of the surface to be bonded made
it clear to them that one of their problems
could be tied directly to the choice of a new
peel ply. Once alerted, they checked all related
procedures and even changed one of their old
and trusted peel plies once its true capabilities
had been exposed.)
This chapter concentrates exclusively on the
issue of surface preparation. Obviously, one
must also follow correct thermal and pressure
profiles during cure to achieve a properly
cross-linked adhesive that has a chance to flow
and wet the surface to which it is to be
bonded. Prebond moisture, in both laminates
and adhesives, is also known to be a major
cause of weak bonds. These and other impor-
tant issues are discussed in References 7 and 8.
This does not imply that they are any less
important.
We now present electron-micrographs of
glue that failed to stick to the composite, com-
posite surfaces to which the adhesive did not
stick, similar surfaces to which the glue will
not stick, surfaces to which adhesive is known
to have stuck in the past, and surfaces to
which it is hoped it will stick. The effectiveness
of light grit-blasting as a reliable surface treat-
ment has already been established. It was used
on all bonded joints of the Lear Fan all-com-
posite aircraft9, creating bonds stronger than
the surrounding structure even when half the
overlapping area was disbanded because of
inappropriate solid-rubber tooling used for
the fuselage skin splices. The bond to the grit-
blasted surface was so strong, where the
mating surfaces were brought properly into
 The problem - weak bonds 671

contact, that 100%bonding was not necessary. area with a different texture is part of the sur-
Grit-blasting is used today on some of the face ply of unidirectional carbon-epoxy left
most trouble-free composite components on when the remainder separated. The reason
the MD-11 aircraft; specifically, the compo- why this very small segment adhered is
nents made in Japan. However, some unknown. It is almost as if there were one
manufacturers of bonded composite structures small drop of chemical acting like a wetting
will prefer to continue to use peel-ply-only agent on the composite when it was bonded.
surface preparations, no matter how weak or If this should prove to be the case, and
unreliable the resulting bonds are. One must research can identify an agent capable of pro-
find different peel plies that do not release moting the wettability of cured epoxy in a
cleanly, but which take some of the surface laminate by uncured epoxy in an adhesive
resin with them, without damaging the layer, it would be a giant contribution to com-
remainder of the matrix, or find a coupling posites technology. The idea of a coupling
agent to improve the behavior of what are agent, equivalent to the silanes used for
known today to be unsatisfactory peel plies no epoxy-bonding of aluminum alloys during
matter how widely they may be used, or trans- repairs, is apparently feasible for composites
fer the production to factories in which reliable also - at least when the peel ply has not been
surface-treatment practices are followed. coated with a release agent. Coupling agents
would be more likely to work if the basic lam-
inate were not fully cured prior to bonding.
29.3 THE PROBLEM - WEAK BONDS
One would prefer an incomplete initial cure in
No more convincing proof of the existence of order to leave some active chains in the mole-
weak bonds created on peel-ply composite cular structure of the composite to which the
surfaces can be found than in Fig. 29.1. This is glue could bond. The bond cycle would then
a scanning electron microscope (SEM) pho- be relied upon to complete the cure of the
tomicrograph not of a composite surface after laminate and this process might affect the
the peel ply was lifted off, but of the cured choice of adhesive. However, such an out-
adhesive, showing the imprint left by the com- come must be preceded by an
posite laminate after it peeled off! The small acknowledgment that the remainder of
Fig. 29.1 and the large similar surrounding
area imply the existence of a problem.
Figure 29.2 shows the same lack of adhesion
evident in Fig. 29.1 at a small magnification
over a very much larger area, to show how
widespread this phenomenon can be. The tex-
ture of the peel ply is clearly imprinted in the
glue over almost the entire area. The different
texture visible on the left side of the figure is
the peel-ply imprint on the underlying com-
posite laminate. In this area, the adhesive
failed to bond to the lower surface.
Throughout everywhere else shown in Fig.
29.2, the adhesive failed to bond to the other
composite part, the peel-ply imprint of which
is embossed on the adhesive. Figure 29.3
Fig. 29.1 Imprint of peel ply, in background, on shows an adjacent area on the same-part. The
cured adhesive film that failed to adhere (mag x30). thick glue layer (shiny area) at the bottom left
672 Surface preparations for ensuring that the g2ue will stick in bonded composite structures
Fig. 29.2 Large area of adhesive that failed to bond,
showing imprint of peel-ply surface (mag X5).
of Fig. 29.3 shows the unmistakable imprint of
the fine-weave peel ply left by the other com-
posite part where it did not stick. Immediately
above it, there is a small area of cohesive frac-
ture of the bond. (The reason for bonding in
just that small area is not known.) The dark
area in the lower right of Fig. 29.3 shows the
imprint of the peel ply in the composite under-
neath the adhesive layer. The small vertical
white lines define the fine weave of the peel
ply. The more widely spaced larger white
blotches, with some sharply defined edges,
reveal the very small extent of the sanding car-
ried out on this sample. The white blotches are
the high points in the coarser weave of the
plain-weave cloth in the basic laminate. These
are evident on the surface opposite from that
cured against the lay-up tool.
These large white blotches in Fig. 29.3 illus-
trate one unavoidable problem with sanding
as a surface preparation. How can one sand
down to the bottom of every depression in the
fine-weave texture left by the peel ply without
sanding into the fibers at the top of every
raised bump in the texture of the composite
material itself? This problem is aggravated by
the use of woven fabrics rather than unidirec-
tional tape and is unavoidable on the bag side
of the laminate, unless a caul plate is used on
both sides. The customary use of dry (nonim-
pregnated) peel plies, which absorb resin from
the surface plies of the laminate, results in
such an ultrathin layer of surface resin that it is
Fig. 29.3 Adhesive that failed to bond, also show-
ing sanding confined to high spots of the composite
weave (mag ~ 5 ) .
virtually impossible to sand the surface with-
out breaking the fibers. One needs to use
preimpregnated peel plies or to include a layer
of resin (or adhesive) film between the basic
lay-up and any dry peel ply to create what
amounts to a gel coat sufficiently thick to sand
as the surface for bonding or painting. It is also
impossible to completely sand a surface con-
taining ply drop-offs or local buildups. Only
light grit-blasting would work in such a case.
It should be noted that, at the time when the
bond shown in Figs. 29.1 to 29.3 was manufac-
tured, conventional ultrasonic inspection
failed to find any evidence of a defect. The gap
had not yet opened up even though an after-
the-fact inspection revealed almost no
adhesion throughout most of the area meant to
have been bonded. This is very significant.
Weak bonds cannot be detected by inspection
before they have failed. They can be prevented
only by adhering to process specifications that
ensure they will not occur.
Figure 29.4 shows the typical composite
surface left by removal of the same type of
peel ply (in this case, a corona-treated nylon
peel ply). A comparison with Fig. 29.1 will
leave no doubt about the origin of the surface
embossed into the cured adhesive layer.
(Scientific testing of this particular piece of
adhesive revealed nothing untoward about
the way it was cured, although there are

Fig. 29.4 Imprint of nylon peel ply in epoxy surface
of composite laminate (mag x65).
unconfirmable suspicions that prebond mois-
ture may have exacerbated the problem.)
An examination of the surface of the nylon
peel ply itself after removal from the laminate
revealed no resin adhering to the peel ply (Fig.
29.5). [Regrettably, this is not from the same
sample, even though it is nominally the same
peel ply cured in the same laminating resin, at
180°C (350"F).]Significantly, the other side on
the peel ply was covered by a considerable
amount of resin bled from the surface plies of
the laminate. This is most undesirable,
because most composite specifications call for
unreasonable resin starvation as the norm.
(The purpose of minimizing the resin content
is to boost the easily measured in-plane ten-
sion strength. Resin-dominated strengths are
both more difficult to measure and more diffi-
cult to analyze, so few such considerations are
included in the design process.) There is usu-
ally barely enough resin to hold the fibers
together. Removing surface resin makes it
more difficult to transfer loads through
bonded joints. It also makes the surface more
prone to impact damage and more difficult to
prepare for repainting in service. This is
acknowledged by the way in which some
Boeing components are now made with
preimpregnated peel plies despite the added
cost and storage and handling problems with
respect to dry ones.
The problem - weak bonds 673
Fig. 29.5 Enlargement of nylon peel ply after strip-
ping off composite laminate cured at 180°C (350°F)
(mag X41).
Higher resin contents in aerospace composite
structures do not necessitate no-bleed cure
cycles. They retain a higher resin content, but
they also prevent the removal of any volatiles
absorbed and trapped before cure or gener-
ated during the cure. The lack of volatile
removal introduces a whole new family of
processing problems and structurally inferior
laminates.
Figure 29.6 shows a greatly magnified view
of the same peel ply shown in Fig. 29.5. The
peeling motion was from right to left. (The cor-
responding picture to the left of the vertical
bundle of peel-ply fibers shows far less fractur-
ing of the matrix.) Noteworthy features shown
in Fig. 29.6 include (1) the tendrils of resin
around the vertical filament on the extreme
left, (2) the way the resin has pulled away
cleanly from the horizontal filaments on the
right of the adjacent vertical fiber, (3) striations
in the fracture surface of the resin between the
second and third horizontal filaments from the
top, (4)the loose piece of resin between the first
674 Surface preparationsfor ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures

in thick test coupons with impractically short

bonded overlaps, provided that the surface
treatment and cure are carried out properly.
The resulting fracture surface is shown greatly
magnified in Fig. 29.7. The randomly oriented
fibers are the carrier in the adhesive layer and
quite distinct from the regular patterns of
woven composite laminate and peel plies.
There is no possibility of mistaking this cohe-
sive fracture surface for either the interfacial or
interlaminar failures shown in Fig. 29.1.
I Apart from the grossly dissimilar surface
textures, most adhesives are distinctively col-
!
ored. Carbon-epoxy is invariably black. It is
very easy to distinguish between:
1. Cohesive failure of the adhesive with com-
plete coverage of both surfaces by the
adhesive layer.
2. Adhesion failure with all of the adhesive on
Fig. 29.6 Highly magnified view of peel ply one surface, although the adhesive may
removed from carbon-epoxy laminate cured at fracture and end up as small segments
180°C (350°F) (mag x41).
adhering to both surfaces, but only to one in
any given area (Fig. 29.8). The figure shows
and second horizontal filaments from the bot-
predominantly the surface of the adhesive
tom, and (5) the white markings on the nylon
to which the overlaying piece of composite
filaments themselves. At still higher magnifica-
tion, these markings appear to be crazing that
occurs within the nylon filaments as they were
bent while the peel ply was being stripped off.
The marks do not appear to be resin extracted
from the surface of the laminate. There was no
indication of any matching roughness in the
grooves left in the laminate for the samples that
did match this particular piece of peel ply,
although, as discussed later, there is some indi-
cation at very high magnification that ultrathin
layers of nylon transferred to some areas (but
not all) of the composite laminate as it cured.
(There was also no evidence of nylon transfer
when nominally the same peel ply was used
with a different resin matrix and cured at
120°C (250°F).
Had the adhesive in Fig. 29.1 stuck properly,
failure would have occurred interlaminarly
within the thin carbon-epoxy composite lami-
nate, with no adhesive visible anywhere. One Fig. 29.7 Cohesive fracture within adhesive bond
can enforce a cohesive failure of adhesive layers (mag x83).
 Samples of diferently prepared surfaces for bonding 675
Fig. 29.8 Predominantly adhesion failures in peel-
ply bonded joint (mag ~ 5 ) .
failed to adhere and local dark exposed
areas of the underlaying composite with the
peel-ply imprint made clearly visible as
those portions of the adhesive lifted off
with the upper piece of composite.
3. Interlaminar failure of the composite lami-
nate, with fibers on both surfaces. (Failure
close to the surface of the composite may
leave a transparent layer of resin matrix
covering the adhesive, but microscopic
examination will reveal a very different
fracture surface from that associated with
the adhesion failure shown in Fig. 29.1.)
Naturally, there can be no photograph equiva-
lent to Fig. 29.1 for a grit-blasted surface
because the interface will not fail unless it was
deliberately contaminated prior to bonding.
29.4 SAMPLES OF DIFFERENTLY PREPARED
SURFACES FOR BONDING
The remainder of this chapter will provide a
comparison between photomicrographs of dif-
ferent surface preparations, good and bad.
Figure 29.9 shows the surface left by light
grit-blasting with alumina grit at 140 kPa
(20 psi). Although resin has been removed
from the entire surface, so little has been
removed that the texture of the peel ply is still
evident. The uniformity of the surface treat-
ment, prepared under less than ideal
conditions with no handling aids, is impres-
sive and suggests that the procedure is not
unreasonably demanding, particularly when
done with suitable equipment. A very highly
magnified photo (Fig. 29.10) confirms that no
damage was done to the fibers in the car-
bon-epoxy laminate. The grooves in this
figure are not carbon fibers; they are the fur-
rows left by removing the peel ply.
The same grit-blast machine used to pro-
duce the sample illustrated in Figs. 29.9 and
29.10 had many years earlier burnt holes in
6.3mm (0.25 in)-thick laminates in only 20 s
when operated at 698 kPa (100 psi). Restricting
the blast pressure is critical when using this
technique. Because the negatives of the photos
used in the earlier article2 had been lost, the
blast pressure was turned up to provide a
comparative illustration of what happens
when the blasting is overdone. Despite these
676 Surface preparations for ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures

Fig. 29.9 Lightly grit blasted composite surface, Fig. 29.10 Highly magnified grit-blasted epoxy sur-
retaining imprint of peel ply (mag X50). face, showing no damage to underlying fibers (mag
x1000).

explicit instructions, the process did not seri-

ously damage the laminate. The new
overblasted surface is shown in Figs. 29.11 and
29.12 at low and high magnifications. The
greatest difference with respect to Figs. 29.9
and 29.11 is that the texture visible in Fig. 29.11
is that of the weave of the carbon fabric. The
imprint of the peel ply has been totally
removed. (Figure 29.11 is at a far lower magni-
fication than Fig. 29.9.) The vertical bands in
Fig. 29.12 are the fibers. Only a tiny fraction of
the surface fibers is damaged and the surface
is rough enough for the adhesive to stick.
The difference in size between the weaves
of peel plies and typical composite fabrics is
made very clear in the peculiar failure surfaces
shown in Fig. 29.13. The uppermost areas are
of the imprint of the fine-weave peel ply, to
which the adhesive refused to bond. The lower
coarser weave shows exposed carbon fibers Fig. 29.11 Deliberately over-blasted epoxy compos-
ite surface, showing weave of carbon fibers with no
left after very local interlaminar failures in the
trace of the fine-weave peel-ply surface (mag x9).
uppermost ply. The reason for such rapidly
alternating failure modes is unknown,
although it is probably significantly related to since the exposed carbon fibers are all oriented
the direction of propagation of the disbond in the same direction.
 Samples of diflerently prepared surfaces for bonding 677

The lightly done and deliberately overdone

grit-blasted surfaces in Figs. 29.9 to 29.12 are
consistent with the ease and reliability with
which the grit-blasting was carried out on the
Lear Fan all-composite aircraft. A portable
low-pressure machine (Fig. 29.14) was used
then. It had a vacuum collector to minimize
the spread of debris, and the central nozzle
was surrounded by a bristle comb, which
ensured that the nozzle was always held at the
same distance from the surfaces. The samples
shown in Figs. 29.9 to 29.12 were made under
far more difficult circumstances - with cum-
bersome gloves to hold the part and the nozzle
inside a chamber. Production parts as good as
those in Figs. 29.9 and 29.10 should be far eas-
ier to produce.
Figures 29.15 to 29.17 show low, intermedi-
ate, and high magnifications of the surface left
Fig. 29.12 Highly magnified over-blasted compos- by removal of a nylon peel ply from a car-
ite surface still showing minimal damage to fibers bon-epoxy laminate cured at 180°C (350°F)
(mag X500). The imprint is consistent with the intermedi-
ate magnification shown in Fig. 29.4. The
imprint left by each fiber in the peel ply is so
smooth and slick that the adhesive will not

Fig. 29.13 Disbonded surface, showing peel-ply

imprint where adhesive failed to bond and local
interlaminar failures in underlying composite (mag Fig. 29.14 Portable low-pressure grit-blasting
X15). machine.
678 Surface preparationsfor ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures
Fig. 29.15 Peel-ply imprint on epoxy surface to
which the glue will not adhere (mag X38).
Fig. 29.16 Magmfied peel-ply imprints showing
transfer of ultra-thin layer of nylon to otherwise sanding. Unfortunately, many specifications
smooth furrows in composite surface (mag x225).
I
Fig. 29.17 Same sample at higher magnification
(mag x750).
adhere there. It can adhere only to the exceed-
ingly narrow strips of fractured resin between
each fiber depression. The adhesive can
adhere to the entire composite surface shown
in Fig. 29.9, a bondable area that is an order of
magnitude greater, at least.
Figure 29.17 shows something not evident
in the companion photo of the peel ply surface
itself (Fig. 29.6). At a magnification of ~750,
some of the furrows appear to be coated in
places by ultrathin coatings of nylon from the
peel ply. The lesser magnification of x215 (Fig.
29.16) of the same area on the surface indicates
that some but not all other areas are similarly
coated.
Figure 29.18 shows what some regard as
adequate sanding. Yet, on close examination, it
is evident that the peel-ply imprint is clearly
visible except for a miniscule fraction of the
total area. The sanded area lies outside the
area meant to be bonded, on the left, but there
is no reason to suspect any different degree of
call for light (or scuff) sanding because of
 Samples of diflerently prepared surfaces for bonding 679
Fig. 29.18 Inadequate abrasion achieved by scuff
sanding (mag ~ 1 2 ) .
greater concern that the fibers in the compos-
ite laminate not be damaged than for the need
for sufficient mechanical abrasion to ensure
that the adhesive will stick properly. As long
as fifteen years ago, the McDonnell (St. Louis)
specifications explicitly called for sufficient
sanding to eliminate the imprint of the peel
ply. In other words, the entire surface of the
composite laminate was to be stripped back,
just as in Fig. 29.9. (One wonders what moti-
vated such a precise specification. Something
taught them a lesson they planned not to for-
get.) The results of the inadequate level of
sanding are evident in Fig. 29.18. The imprint Fig. 29.19 Slight fiber damage caused by thorough
of the peel ply is just as clear to the left of the sanding of unidirectional carbon-epoxy laminate
broken glue fillet at the edge of the disbonded (mag X460).
stiffener as in the unbonded area to the right.
Figure 29.19 shows slight damage to the
uppermost fibers as the result of thorough
sanding of another sample, this time a unidi-
rectional carbon-poxy laminate, prepared at
a different facility. In this case, sanding paral-
lel to the surface fibers would minimize any
damage. However, that option would not be
available for woven fabrics because the sur-
face fibers do not all run in the same direction.
The number of fibers damaged in Fig. 29.19 is
an extremely small fraction of even the surface
ply. Carbon fibers are so small that each tow
contains 3000-12 000 individual fibers in a
layer 0.13 mm-0.33 mm (0.005-0.013 in) thick.
The loss of strength from damaging a few sur-
face fibers through too energetic sanding is far
less than from a bonded structure coming
apart in service because of inadequate sand-
ing.
Figures 29.20 and 29.21 show sanded Sam-
ples. The woven texture is that of the peel ply,
not the carbon fabric. The matt sanded areas in
the figure are the high spots in the laminate
surface. The peel-ply imprints still visible are
in depressions. Clearly, the operator never
came close to damaging the carbon fibers.
Sanding should have continued for far longer
or a more abrasive grade of emery paper
should have been used. It is clear that some
30% of the bond area was sanded, a huge
680 Surface preparations for ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures

Fig. 29.20 Moderately sanded peel-ply imprint on Fig. 29.21 Highly magnified surface, showing how
surface of woven composite laminate, showing how most of the peel-ply imprint remains after hand
sanding does not abrade the entire surface (mag sanding (mag ~1000).
x100).
improvement over the few percent removed in
the sample shown in Fig. 29.18.
While it must be acknowledged that both
grit-blasting and hand-sanding can be over-
done, doing so takes time and effort if one is
using the right abrasives and equipment. A
significant loss of strength from such actions is
far less likely than from either simply remov-
ing a peel ply or sanding the composite
surfaces far too lightly.
To cover the possibility that the bad experi-
ences with peel plies at Douglas might have
been associated exclusively with the break-
down of nylon at too high a curing
temperature, samples were obtained from
Oxford Brookes University, which used a dif-
ferent laminating resin and both a polyester
peel ply and what is probably the same nylon
peel ply. The polyester peel ply was noticeably
more difficult to remove than the nylon peel
ply, but far easier than what were referred to
as tear plies in Reference 2. The surface created Fig. 29.22 Imprint of polyester peel-ply, showing
by removing the polyester peel ply from a more fractured resin than with nylon peel-plies
120°C (250°F) cured carbon-poxy laminate (mag ~ 5 0 ) .
 Samples of diferently prepared surfaces for bonding 681

(Fig. 29.22 mag x37.5) is generally very similar

to the surface shown in Fig. 29.4 after a nylon
peel ply had been removed, except for the ran-
domly oriented tendrils, which appear to be
lengths of attached polyester filaments. The
university’s nylon peel ply left slick imprints
almost exactly like the one used at Douglas. A
comparison of the SEM photographs suggests
that the polyester peel ply performed better
because the filaments were smaller and there
was proportionately a greater length of the
very fine strips of fractured resin between the
filaments. The improvement in strength from
this source alone should be about 25%.
However, there was another possible differ-
ence: the higher magnification of the polyester
peel-ply imprint (Fig. 29.23) shows faint
streaks in the grooves left by removal of the
peel ply. If these could be traced to surface
roughness in the resin, rather than to smooth Fig. 29.24 Highly magnified image of polyester
irregularities in the polyester filaments, it peel-ply after removal from 120°C (250°F) cured
would be an indication that the peel ply carbon-epoxy laminate (mag X830).
stripped off some surface resin and promoted
adhesion of the glue. Unfortunately, a microscopic examination of
the removed peel ply itself suggests that the
imprint remains smooth at the molecular level.
The polyester peel ply seems to be better than
the nylon one but not in the same class as the
surface created by light grit-blasting. Figure
29.24 shows a x830 enlargement of the surface
of the removed polyester peel ply. The fibers
are generally smooth and, where they are not,
the visible strands represent tearing of the
fibers rather than a buildup on the surface as
the result of tearing the matrix resin.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the tear-
ing shown could not have occurred if there
were no adhesion at all between the peel ply
and the resin matrix. The interface definitely
seems more bondable than the much smoother
one associated with nylon peel plies.
What may be a far more sigruficant differ-
ence is that the surface created from peeling off
a nylon peel ply from the carbon-poxy lami-
nate cured at 120°C (250°F) shows no sign of
Fig. 29.23 Highly magnified imprint of polyester nylon on the surface at either low or high mag-
peel-ply in epoxy composite (mag X500). nification (Figs. 29.25 and 29.26). Nevertheless,
682 Surface preparationsfor ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures

the surfaces are so slick that one would have no

confidence that a reliable bond could be made
other than to the thin strips of fractured resin
between the grooves left by the peel ply.
However, it might well be far less weak than
would result from trying to bond to a nylon
interface and, indeed, lap-shear testing of such
bonded joints has been reported in Reference 6
as resulting in cohesive failures at the expected
bond strength. The fractured surfaces look
excessively porous, but so do the companion
coupons made with grit-blasted surfaces,
which developed essentially the same strength.
These bonds definitely do not look as strong as
that shown in Fig. 29.7, but they are ever so
much stronger than that shown in Fig. 29.1.
Figure 29.27 shows the fractured surface of
an interlaminar failure within the
carbon-epoxy composite. The fibers shown
Fig. 29.25 Slick surface left by removal of nylon are carbon and are noteworthy for the failure
peel-ply from 120°C (250°F) cured carbon-epoxy of the resin to adhere to them over most of
laminate (mag X46). their surface. The fractured surface is that of
the resin matrix. One would expect that the
same kind of surface would be created by the
1

I 1

--- -1

Fig. 29.26 Highly magnified image of nylon

peel-ply imprint taken from 120°C (250°F) cured Fig. 29.27 Extreme enlargement of interlaminar
laminate, showing slick surface with no transfer of fracture in top layer of carbon-epoxy laminate (mag
nylon (mag X450). x1100).

removal of a tear ply that adhered to the
matrix as tenaciously as conventional peel
plies refuse to adhere. This, in turn, raises
questions about the feasibility of tear plies as a
surface-preparation technique since the lami-
nate is damaged far more than by light
grit-blasting, as a comparison between Figs.
29.10 and 29.27 will attest.
29.5 COMMENTARY
In the mid-l980s, a major effort was aimed at
the resolution of a problem associated with
adhesive bonding of aluminum alloy struc-
tures. In that case, as in the problem discussed
here, the glue failed to stick and interfacial fail-
ures resulted. However, there remains a very
great difference between the two cases. In the
earlier case, every factor associated with the
weak bonds that passed all ultrasonic inspec-
tions was identified in a matter of weeks. The
conditions had been replicated in a laboratory
and the investigation closed within a few
months. Significantly, there were no loose
ends and the problem has not recurred. The
primary cause of the problem was condensate
on adhesive film that had been removed from
storage before it had thawed out.
However, there was a second factor
involved as well. The first violation of proper
processing procedures would not cause a
defective bond unless the moisture was
trapped at the interface between the details.
This condition happened consistently with
one kind of bonding tool, while similar parts
made concurrently on a different kind of tool
showed no such problems. The second kind of
tool permitted complete ventilation of any
trapped volatiles as well as of any generated
during the cure. There were no large area
defective bonds. Both tools produced local
bond defects where a tool or the parts were out
of contour. These problems were eliminated
by correcting the tools and by better straight-
ening of the stiffeners. This problem was
resolved very quickly, whereas the present
problem with peel plies has not been solved at
Commentary 683
the production level in over 20 years. Because
the metal-bond problem was resolved so
quickly, very few panels were involved. There
were no in-service failures because every
affected panel was identified before delivery
and reinforced by rivets.
Peel-ply ’surface preparation’ for bonding
of composites has not been as thoroughly
explained. There have been many instances of
such weak bonds not being detected until they
had split apart in service, even though there is
no reason to believe that the bonds wore out
under mechanical loads. The observed modes
of failure are consistent with a manufacturing
problem. There is little doubt that gentle grit-
blasting is the most reliable method of
preparing thermoset composite surfaces for
bonding. Sanding can work only on fairly fine-
weave cloths in composite laminates.
Otherwise, it is not possible to sand to the bot-
tom of all depressions left by the peel ply
without also sanding significantly into the
structural fibers. A few other manufacturers
have used tear plies, which leave a completely
fractured resin surface, rather than the more
commonly used easily removed peel plies dis-
cussed here. More use should be made of tear
plies. However, if a tear ply were used on a
lightweight honeycomb or foam sandwich
panel, there is a good chance that the core
would fail instead.
There can also be no doubt that when prob-
lems have occurred as a result of bonding
directly to the surface left by removal of a peel
ply, or one with totally inadequate sanding,
they are widespread and serious. These prob-
lems have been experienced at many places.
Yet, if they happened as repeatedly as the
defects caused by the combination of the two
factors cited above, one would have expected
such a backlash against the procedure that
every unreliable peel ply would have been
withdrawn from the marketplace, preventing
any recurrence of the problems. That has not
happened so, presumably some organizations
are able to bond successfully to composite
structures by simply removing a peel ply.
684 Surface prqarations for ensuring that the glue will stick in bonded composite structures
Regrettably it seems as if anyone doing this
process successfully has no reason to investi-
gate why he is successful, so the differences
between his techniques and those that lead to
trouble have remained unidentified.
It seems that there is something else
involved as well possibly prebond moisture or
something associated with venting during the
cure or possibly the breakdown and transfer of
nylon peel plies cured at too high a tempera-
ture or the transfer of a release agent on some
peel plies. Weak interfacial bonds between the
adhesive layer and both composite adherends
should never have been strong enough to rip a
properly cured adhesive back and forth from
one interface to the other in the manner that is
so evident in Fig. 29.8. And, more significantly,
attempts to replicate the weak bonds in the
laboratory have been inconclusive and, at
times, inconsistent. This merely reinforces the
assumption that the problem is not yet fully
understood without, in any degree, diminish-
ing the conviction that the problem is serious
and needs to be resolved.
It would be helpful if there were a reliable
a peel-dominated quality-control test for com-
posite surface preparation that was
equivalent to the wedge-crack test used for
metal bonding. Unfortunately, the experi-
ments performed to date have been
bedevilled with extraneous influences that are
not yet understood but have a much greater
effect on the strength of the coupon than the
variations in surface treatment. Neverless the
goal remains.
29.6 CONCLUSIONS
As acknowledged above, more technical infor-
mation needs to be uncovered about adhesive
bonding to fiber-polymer composite surfaces
created by simply removing a peel ply. The
weak bonds associated with this technique are
a financial burden that is both serious and easy
to avoid.
The use of low-pressure grit-blasting as the
final step in the preparation of these surfaces
for bonding has been found to be extremely
reliable in service. While one needs to buy
appropriate equipment, the cost of doing so is
a small fraction of the typical cost of even one
composite detail. With the right equipment,
training of technicians is straightforward.
There can be no valid argument in favor of
not mastering the art of grit-blasting. While
there may be choices for the surface prepara-
tion during initial fabrication, peel plies
cannot possibly be stripped off a second time
to create a new 'clean' surface during repairs.
It may be that some manufacturers make
successful bonds to peel-ply composite sur-
faces already. It may also be possible that
coupling agents may be found to enable others
to do the same. However, it is undeniably true
that, for at least two decades, some manufac-
turers of composite components who have
relied on peel plies alone as surface prepara-
tion for bonding have created weak bonds that
have fallen apart in service. The cost of unan-
ticipated repairs and investigations has greatly
exceeded any expected initial cost savings.
Given the widespread nature of these prob-
lems, it is appropriate to recommend that the
use of peel-ply surface preparation alone be
discontinued unless it can be shown that its
use never results in interfacial failures
between the composite and adhesive layers. It
is quite clear, from experience, that the cost of
even one in-service bond separation exceeds
by far the savings derived during an entire
production run by not thoroughly abrading
the surface.
Scanning electron microscope images,
such as those presented here, show easily dis-
tinguishable differences between the matt
rough surface created by mechanical abrasion
and the microscopically smooth furrows
associated with peel-ply removal alone. It is
not difficult to ensure that the surface prepa-
ration is adequate for bonding or painting
before the bond has been made. Conversely, it
is extremely difficult to detect a weak bond
nondestructively once the error has been
made.

REFERENCES
1. Schliekelmann, R.J., Adhesive bonding and
composites, Progress in Science and Engineering of
Composites. In Vol. 1, Proc. 4th Intl Conf.
Composite Materials (Tokyo), 22-28 Oct., 1982.
Japan Society for Composite Materials and The
Metallurgical Society (TMS) of AIME; (T.
Hayashi, K. Kawata and S. Umekawa, eds)
Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1982, pp. 53-78.
2. Hart-Smith, L.J., Ochsner, R.W. and Radecky,
R.L., Surface preparation of fibrous composites
for adhesive bonding or painting, Douglas
Service Magazine, 1984, First Quarter, pp. 12-22.
3. Hart-Smith, L.J., Ochsner, R.W. and Radecky,
R.L., Surface preparation of fibrous composites
for adhesive bonding or painting, Canadair
Service News, 1958,14(2), 2-8.
4. Parker, B.M. and Waghom, R.M., Surface pre-
treatment of carbon fibre-reinforced composites
for adhesive bonding, Composites, 1982, 13,
280-288.
References 685
5 . Pocius, A.V. and Wenz, R.P., Mechanical surface
preparation of graphitepoxy composite for
adhesive bonding, SAMPE J., 1985, Sept/Oct,
50-58.
6. Wingfield, J.R.J., Treatment of composite sur-
faces for adhesive bonding, Int. J. Adhesion and
Adhesives, 1993,13(3),151-156.
7. Hart-Smith, L.J., Joining of organic-matrix com-
posites. In A S M Handbook, Vol. 6: Welding,
Brazing, and Soldering, Ohio: ASM Intl, Dec.
1993, pp. 1026-1036.
8. Mahoney, C.L., Fundamental factors influenc-
ing the performance of structural adhesives,
Internal Report, Dexter Adhesives & Structural
Materials Division, The Dexter Corporation.
9. Hart-Smith, L.J., Design and development of
the first Lear Fan all-composite aircraft,
Douglas Paper 8184, presented to Institution of
Mechanical Engineers Conference on Advanced
Composites, London, England, March 7-8,
1989.