DOT/FAA/AR-05/13 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, D.C. 20591

Assessment of Industry Practices 

for Aircraft Bonded Joints and 

Structures 

July 2005 

Final Report 

This document is available to the U.S. public 

through the National Technical Information 

Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This 

document does not constitute FAA certification policy. Consult your local 

FAA aircraft certification office as to its use. 

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center's Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). 
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AR-05/13

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date 

July 2005

 4. Title and Subtitle 

ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRY PRACTICES FOR AIRCRAFT BONDED 

JOINTS AND STRUCTURES 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

John Tomblin, Kristin Strole, Gabrielle Dodosh, and Larry Ilcewicz 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

National Institute for Aviation Research 

Wichita State University 

1845 North Fairmount 

Wichita, KS 67260-0093

11. Contract or Grant No.

 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 Final Report

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, DC 20591

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 ACE-110

15. Supplementary Notes 

The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Monitor was Curtis Davies.

16. Abstract 

Adhesive bonding is used in numerous manufacturing and repair applications for aircraft structures in small airplanes, transport 

aircraft, rotorcraft, and fighter jets. Many of the technical issues for bonding are complex and require cross-functional teams for 

successful applications. This report highlights ongoing efforts by the aircraft industry and government agencies to combine their 

adhesive bonding experiences and technical insights to gain mutual safety benefits. 

A large part of this report consists of documentation supplied as part of a survey to benchmark industry practices and collect 

information on the critical safety issues and certification considerations for bonded aircraft structures and repairs. Representatives 

from 38 companies with experience and history in adhesive bonding manufacturing and repair practices responded to the survey 

questionnaire. The questionnaire addresses the use of adhesive bonding in structural applications such as original part or 

assembly designs and repairs. The results of the questionnaire were also sorted by the functional disciplines of the respondents to 

highlight any potential differences or critical areas which were particularly important to specific technical areas. 

This report also features documentation from an accompanying workshop that was sponsored by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. The workshop provided additional information to benchmark bonded structures as part of ongoing composite 

safety and certification initiatives. The primary objective of the workshop was to document the technical details that need to be 

addressed for bonded structures, including critical safety issues and certification considerations. Examples of proven engineering 

practices used to address specific technical concerns were documented as a secondary objective. The process to benchmark 

existing technology should also provide directions for future research and developments in the field. 

17. Key Words 

Bonding, Adhesives, Structures, Design, Manufacturing 

18. Distribution Statement 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS) Springfield, Virginia 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

 Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

 243 

22. Price

Form DOT F1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii 

1. BACKGROUND 1 

1.1 Safety and Certification Perspectives 1 

1.2 Survey of the Industry 3 

1.3 Bonded Structures Workshop 4 

2. THE FAA BONDED STRUCTURES RESEARCH EFFORTS 6 

2.1 Overview 6 

2.2 Material and Process Qualification and Control 7 

2.3 Design Development and Structural Substantiation 7 

2.4 Manufacturing Implementation and Experience 9 

2.5 Maintenance Implementation and Experience 10 

3. BONDED STRUCTURES SURVEY 10 

3.1 Survey Questions 10 

3.2 Participants 11 

3.3 Synopsis of Results 11 

4. BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP 14 

4.1 Introduction 14 

4.2 Session Summaries 15 

4.2.1 Applications and Service Experiences 15 

4.2.2 Material and Process Qualification and Control 17 

4.2.3 Design Development and Structural Substantiation 19 

4.2.4 Manufacturing Implementation and Experience 20 

4.2.5 Repair Implementation and Experience 22 

4.3 Results From Breakout Sessions 23 

4.3.1 Material and Process Qualification and Control 23 

4.3.2 Design Development and Structural Substantiation 27 

4.3.3 Manufacturing Implementation 35 

4.3.4 Repair Implementation and Experience 38 

iii
5. CONCLUSIONS 43 

5.1 Bonded Structures Workshop 46 

6. REFERENCES 47 

APPENDICES 

A—Adhesive Bonded Structure Survey Questionnaire

B—Background Information

C—Survey Responses

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1 The FAA Approach to CS&CI 1 

2 Technical Thrust Areas for CS&CI 2 

3 Top-Level Agenda for the Bonded Structures Workshop 4 

4 Technical Scope of the Bonded Structures Workshop 5 

5 Building Block Approach to Technology Integration 8 

6 Design Load Levels and Damage Considerations 9 

iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AACE Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence 

AC Advisory Circular 

AGATE Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiments 

AOG Aircraft on ground 

BVID Barely Visible Impact Damage 

CACRC Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee 

CDC Cirrus Design Corporation 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CS&CI Composite safety and certification initiatives 

DCB Double cantilever beam 

DER Designated engineering representative 

DMA Dynamic mechanical analysis 

DSC Differential scanning calorimetry 

DSTO Defense Science and Technology Organization 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FAW Fiber areal weight 

FEA Finite element analysis 

FEM Finite element method 

FOD Foreign object damage 

FPQ First part qualification 

FTIR Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy 

HPLC High performance liquid chromatography 

LEFM Linear elastic fracture mechanics 

M&P Material and process 

MOL Maximum operating limit (temperature) 

MRO Maintenance and repair organization 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NDE Nondestructive evaluation 

NDI Nondestructive inspection 

NDT Nondestructive testing 

NSE National Stress Engineers 

OEM Original equipment manufacturer 

P/A Load over area analysis 

PAA Phosphoric acid anodizing 

PABST Primary Adhesively Bonded Structure Technology 

PANTA Phosphoric acid nontank anodizing 

QA Quality assurance 

R&D Research and development 

RAAF Royal Australian Air Force 

RT Room temperature 

SEM Scanning electron microscope 

SPC Statistical Process Control 

SRM Structural repair manual 

Tg Glass transition temperature 

v 
TTCP The Technical Cooperation Program 

UMIST University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 

USAF United States Air Force 

WSU Wichita State University 

vi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Adhesive bonding is used in numerous manufacturing and repair applications for aircraft 

structures in small airplanes, transport aircraft, rotorcraft, and fighter jets. Many of the technical 

issues for bonding are complex and require cross-functional teams for successful applications. 

This report highlights ongoing efforts by the aircraft industry and government agencies to 

combine their adhesive bonding experiences and technical insights to gain mutual safety 

benefits. 

A large part of this report consists of documentation supplied as part of a survey to benchmark 

industry practices and collect information on the critical safety issues and certification 

considerations for bonded aircraft structures and repairs. Representatives from 38 companies 

with experience and history in adhesive bonding manufacturing and repair practices responded to 

the survey’s questionnaire. The questionnaire addressed the use of adhesive bonding in 

structural applications such as original part or assembly designs and repairs. The specific 

applications that were addressed in the questionnaire were bonded joints with at least one 

substrate that was precured composite or metal (i.e., joints that include secondary bonds). This 

included bonding composite-to-composite, metal-to-metal, and composite-to-metal. The 

questionnaire was divided into three main technical areas, plus two additional areas for 

background and general inputs. The technical areas were (1) materials and processes; (2) 

manufacturing and design integration; and (3) product development, substantiation, and support. 

The results of the survey were also sorted by the functional disciplines of the respondents to 

highlight any potential differences or critical areas that were particularly important to specific 

technical areas. 

This report also features documentation from an accompanying workshop that was sponsored by 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The workshop provided additional information to 

benchmark bonded structures as part of ongoing composite safety and certification initiatives. 

The primary objective of the workshop was to document the technical details that need to be 

addressed for bonded structures, including critical safety issues and certification considerations. 

Examples of proven engineering practices used to address specific technical concerns were 

documented as a secondary objective. The process to benchmark existing technology should 

also provide directions for future research and development in the field. Approximately 142 

international representatives attended this workshop from industry, academia, and governmental 

agencies, representing approximately 70 companies, universities, and governmental agencies. 

The workshop sessions were separated based upon technical issues in (1) material and process 

qualification and control, (2) design development and structural substantiation, (3) 

manufacturing implementation and experience, and (4) repair implementation and experience. 

There was also a session on applications and service experiences. This report summarizes 

insights gathered in all the sessions and provides technical details of areas that need to be 

addressed in the future. 

The described activities that found a strong interface with the industry, other government groups, 

and academia is needed to adequately benchmark bonded structures. Such an approach should 

yield additional documents that provide the industry and governmental agencies with a practical 

engineering guide, with educational value for personnel new to bonding. Future joint efforts by 

the FAA, industry, and academia will pursue recommendations on standardization, engineering 

vii
guidelines, shared databases, and focused research for bonded structures. The FAA will continue 

to work with industry and other government agencies in drafting consistent policy and guidance 

for bonded structures. 

viii
1. BACKGROUND.

Bonding is used in numerous manufacturing and repair applications for aircraft structures, 

including existing commercial and military applications to small airplanes, transport aircraft, 

rotorcraft, and fighter jets. Many of the technical issues for bonding are complex and require 

cross-functional teams for successful applications. Collectively, the aircraft industry and 

government agencies need to combine their adhesive bonding experiences and technical insights 

to gain mutual safety benefits. Other advantages from sharing information are feasible for 

improved efficiency in the development and certification of bonded aircraft structure. 

1.1 SAFETY AND CERTIFICATION PERSPECTIVES. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed composite safety and certification 

initiatives (CS&CI) for regulatory work with industry, government agencies, and academia. One 

objective is to ensure safe and efficient deployment of composite technologies used in existing 

and future aircraft structure. Another objective was to update related policies, advisory circulars, 

training, and detailed background used to support standardized composite engineering practices. 

Figure 1 illustrates the approach used for CS&CI. Moving from left to right in the figure, 

internal policies are evolved into mature certification practices over time. The FAA derives 

initial regulatory policies for composites based on past certification programs and service 

experiences. Focused research and other industry interfaces are used to transition the initial, 

often unwritten policies, into documented procedures and guidance for review by regulatory 

agencies and the aviation industry. Detailed background, which includes engineering standards 

and training, are also developed to complement and facilitate technology transfer of the 

regulatory practices recommended for composites. 

FIGURE 1. THE FAA APPROACH TO CS&CI 

1
Other groups that have supported the approach shown in figure 1 include regulatory agencies 

from foreign countries, other branches of the U.S. government, and international standards 

organizations. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was 

directly involved in a number of CS&CIs, in past years through the program called Advanced 

General Aviation Transport Experiments (AGATE). The Military Handbook 17 (MIL-HDBK17) and other standards organizations, such as ASTM and SAE, have helped develop engineering 

guidelines and standards for the CS&CI. These organizations also provide the necessary forum 

for composite technical issues and expanding applications. 

CS&CI, which are currently active for composite aircraft structures, addresses the technical areas 

listed in figure 2. Initiatives have been established for these technical areas because they often 

require considerable attention in development and certification. Advances in engineering 

practices and future trends in these areas also require the joint efforts of regulatory agencies and 

industry. Since 2000, considerable progress has been achieved in many of the technical areas 

shown in figure 2. With help from the NASA AGATE program, the most progress has been 

gained in material control, standardization, and shared composite databases. 

FIGURE 2. TECHNICAL THRUST AREAS FOR CS&CI 

Research supporting CS&CI for bonded structures has been active since 1999. Studies were 

performed on bonded surface preparation and the use of peel plies, as related to service problems 

from composite applications. Research also led to advancements in adhesive joint shear and peel 

test methods. Environmental effects, fatigue, and creep were studied for a wide range of 

adhesive materials used by the industry. Finally, structural analysis methods, which considered 

realistic bonded joint design detail, were evaluated in problems related to joint stiffness, strength, 

and damage tolerance. 

2
In addition to the longer-term research, which will continue, this effort was initiated to 

benchmark industry practices for structural bonding. This includes a survey and bonded 

structures workshop to engage experts from around the world. The results of these two exercises 

are documented in this report. The technical scope of these efforts included material and process 

control, design development, structural substantiation, manufacturing implementation, 

maintenance practices, and service experiences. 

1.2 SURVEY OF THE INDUSTRY.

The initial step in the process of developing adequate recommendations and criteria on adhesive 

bonded aviation structure was to assess the industry perceptions and practices. To initiate 

assessment efforts, a survey to benchmark adhesive bonding practices was conducted. This took 

the form of an e-mailed multiformat survey. The purpose of the survey was to establish detailed 

background information on the adhesive bonding philosophies that are used by the aircraft 

industry. The research team identified highly experienced individuals in the bonded structure 

industry. These individuals were further encouraged to engage other known experts in the field 

to ensure the broadest industry coverage by the survey. This maximized the breadth of the 

benchmark effort. The survey addressed the use of adhesive bonding in aviation structural 

applications, both original manufacturer designs and maintenance repairs. 

The survey was constructed to assess both current and preferred practices. This approach 

allowed the incorporation of lessons learned by current practitioners. The survey participants 

may have a safe qualified process, but if they were starting a clean sheet of paper, they would 

modify their currently accepted process. The input was in both multiple-choice and open-ended 

question format. Most multiple-choice questions allowed for additional input in a comment 

block. A comment block was also provided at the end of each section and topic area to 

maximize input of lessons learned and alternate philosophies. 

Some questions were asked multiple times with variations in wording. These questions were 

phrased in different manners to accurately determine the input being given. This is part of a 

standard surveying technique that asks the question in different ways to eliminate the 

respondents’ bias in interpreting the questions. If the answer is the same with the rephrased 

question, one knows the respondent was interpreting the question as the surveyor intended. This 

gives added accuracy to the survey to ensure the responses are addressing the intended issue and 

provides more accurate conclusions. All multiple-choice questions are provided with a default, 

No Response, so only the questions an individual respondent answered were included in the 

survey response. 

To identify the type and nature of an individual’s input to the survey, a number of questions were 

asked to classify the organization type, size, perspective of the respondent (individual to 

corporate), experience level, and expertise area of the respondent. The survey contained three 

main technical topic areas: (1) materials and processes; (2) manufacturing and design 

integration; and (3) product development, substantiation, and support. These topic areas follow 

the major areas of interest and need for control of a bonding process. The final section of the 

survey encouraged essay responses to five identified general topics in adhesive bonding practice. 

This allowed the users to voice specific concerns not addressed by specific questions or outside 

of the scope of any section of the technical topic areas. 

3
The survey information is presented as response numbers and percentage of responses to the 

multiple-choice questions, and for the open-ended questions, edited text is provided (removing 

company names and other indicators as to who responded). The survey is discussed in section 3. 

Details of the survey are shown in appendices A through C. 

1.3 BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP.

The primary objective of the Bonded Structures Workshop was to collect and document 

technical details that need to be addressed for bonded structures, including critical safety issues 

and certification considerations. There were also several secondary objectives for the workshop. 

Invited speakers were asked to give examples of proven engineering practices for the technical 

subjects addressed in the workshop. Participants were asked to identify future needs in 

engineering guidelines, standard tests, and shared databases and specifications. Finally, the 

participants were asked to provide directions for bonded structure research and technology 

development, which supports safety and certification. 

Figure 3 shows the top-level agenda for the Bonded Structures Workshop, which was held in 

Seattle, WA, on June 16 to 18, 2004. The FAA opened the workshop with an overview of 

CS&CI progress with an emphasis on bonded structures initiatives. The survey results collected 

before the workshop and were shared with the participants. A majority of the participants filled 

out the survey as a prerequisite for workshop registration. A total of seven sessions were 

conducted during the rest of the workshop. Sessions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 had invited speakers 

addressing the technical areas shown in figure 3. 

FAA Welcome/Overview 

FAA Survey/Continued Data Collection 

Session 3 

Material and Process 

Qualification and Control 

Session 1 

Applications and Service Experiences 

Perspectives on critical safety issues, lesions 

learned and best engineering practice 

Session 4 

Design Development and Structural 

Substantiation 

Session 5 

Manufacturing Implementation and 

Experience 

Session 6 

Repair Implementation and Experience 

Session 2 

Four Technical Breakout Sessions 

Groups in four separate rooms. All participants 

will attend each session which are run by 

technical experts 

(Introduction by leaders, 45 minutes discussion) 

1. Materials and processes qualification and 

control 

2. Design development and substantiation 

3. Manufacturing implementation 

4. Repair implementation 

Session 7 

Summary from day 2 breakout teams, recap, 

actions, closure and adjourn 

FIGURE 3. TOP-LEVEL AGENDA FOR THE BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP 

4
Figure 4 summarizes the technical scope of the Bonded Structures Workshop. The main 

technical subjects are given in boxes appearing in the four corners of the figure. Regulatory 

considerations are listed in the center of the figure. The workshop covered all facets of structural 

bonding from material and process definition through structural design development and 

certification and manufacturing implementation and maintenance practices. Although these 

subjects were covered separately, the experts participating in the workshop understood the 

importance of integrated teamwork for successful bonding applications. 

FIGURE 4. TECHNICAL SCOPE OF THE BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP 

Teams of technical experts were selected to run the session 2 breakouts, which were held on the 

morning of the second day. There were separate breakout teams for: 

• material and process qualification and control 

• design development and substantiation 

• manufacturing implementation 

• repair implementation 

Workshop participants were broken into four groups during the breakout sessions. All groups 

discussed each of the four different subject areas for approximately 55 minutes. The four teams 

of facilitators spent the same amount of time with each of the four groups in parallel sessions. 

Each session started with a brief opening presentation by the responsible facilitators for each 

subject. This presentation outlined critical technical areas in safety and certification for the 

particular subject. An open forum on these areas was held after the presentation and the teams of 

experts collected the information for purposes of future documentation (see section 4.4). 

Participant comments on future needs in engineering standardization and research were also 

5
collected during the breakout sessions. Team leaders at the workshop gave a summary recap of 

these sessions during session 7 (see section 4.4). 

2. THE FAA BONDED STRUCTURES RESEARCH EFFORTS. 

2.1 OVERVIEW.

The Bonded Structures Workshop in June 2004 was held prior to drafting the policy in order to 

gain industry agreement on the critical technical issues for bonding and collect inputs on 

successful engineering practices. The detailed engineering background on bonding will be 

documented in a series of FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center reports with the help of 

industry. The current report represents the first of these documents. 

The FAA efforts in bonded structures will continue beyond 2004. The next major milestone for 

regulatory guidance on bonding is scheduled for 2008. The current plan is to update policy and 

release an advisory circular for bonded aircraft structure at that time. Training will also be 

updated by 2008. Focused research on critical bonding issues will remain active to support the 

FAA efforts in regulatory development and training. The FAA will also continue to support 

industry and working groups, such as MIL-HDBK-17, SAE, and ASTM, in developing 

engineering standards for structural bonding in the coming years. 

The FAA research in structural bonding from 2000 to 2003 followed a plan outlined by Don 

Oplinger, who was a composite research project manager at the FAA William J. Hughes 

Technical Center. This plan included studies to characterize adhesive materials and investigate 

structural joint details important to existing applications. Some work was performed to evaluate 

the effects of bondline thickness and environmental conditions on structural integrity. The 

damage tolerance of bonded structure has been the subject of several studies. This included 

some NASA and FAA cooperative efforts, which were directed by Dr. Jim Starnes from NASA 

Langley Research Center. Composite surface preparation processes used for structural bonding 

have been studied to evaluate qualification and quality control procedures, which ensure suitable 

materials and processes are used for bonding. Considerable efforts were also applied to evaluate 

structural analysis methods for adhesive joint design details characteristic of applications. Much 

of the work completed to date has been published in FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center 

reports. 

Action Group 13 of The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP) completed a draft document for 

Certification of Bonded Structure in 2001 [1], following 3 years of coordinated efforts. Dr. Jack 

Lincoln, of the U.S. Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), 

was the chairman for this action group. This report provided a general guidance for certification, 

but did not get public distribution. The report recommends future industry interface in forums 

such as MIL-HDBK-17 to establish certification guidance, which is appropriate for aircraft 

products, and further research. Individual action group members took this recommendation 

forward in defining the FAA Bonded Structures Workshop. Former TTCP action group 

members who helped define and lead the Bonded Structures Workshop included Maxwell Davis 

(Royal Australian Air Force), James Mazza (WPAFB), and Larry Ilcewicz (FAA). The specific 

areas of concern are discussed in the next four sections. 

6
2.2 MATERIAL AND PROCESS QUALIFICATION AND CONTROL.

The specific combinations of materials and processes used for bonding must be qualified for 

structural applications. Bonding processes yield a complex structural system, which includes the 

adhesive, substrates, and interface regions that are more complex than the individual materials 

that are bonded. The regulations (e.g., Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.603) state 

that the structural suitability and durability of materials used in aircraft products must account for 

environmental effects and be established by experience or tests. In addition, the regulations 

(e.g., 14 CFR 25.605) state “fabrication methods must produce consistently sound structure.” 

The data generated in material and process qualification serves as a basis for subsequent quality 

control. An approved process specification is used for fabrication methods such as bonding. 

The FAA has conducted research in bonding material and process qualification and control with 

the help of industry. An initial key area of focus has been on composite bonding surface 

preparation and the ancillary materials (removable surface layers such as peel plies and release 

fabrics) used by industry. The research showed the importance of qualifying all the materials 

and process steps used to develop a reliable bond [2]. It also identified different test methods 

suitable for making such a judgment. This work showed that release fabrics, which contain 

chemical release agents, should never be used on composite surfaces that will be bonded because 

subsequent surface preparation steps, such as grit blasting and sanding, cannot remove all the 

contamination. Peel plies, which do not contain chemical release agents, should have different 

product designations. The use of peel plies in the bonding process and whether or not 

subsequent surface preparation steps are needed after their removal appears to depend on the 

specific substrate and adhesive combinations. Research continues in this important area, and the 

industry appears to have adopted the practice of distinguishing release fabrics from peel plies. 

2.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURAL SUBSTANTIATION.

The design development and structural substantiation of aircraft products are affected by several 

regulations. General regulations for design and construction (e.g., 14 CFR 25.601) state: “the 

airplane may not have design features or details that experience has shown to be hazardous or 

unreliable.” There are also more specific regulations to control the different areas of structural 

substantiation, including design data and proof of structure for deformation, static strength, 

fatigue, and damage tolerance. In most cases, these regulations do not have special wording for 

bonded structure. One exception is the small airplane regulation for damage tolerance and 

fatigue evaluation of composite airframe structure (14 CFR 23.573). This regulation seeks 

structural redundancy to ensure residual strength requirements are met in the case of a failed 

bond or other reliable methods of detecting bonding problems are applied. 

A building block approach is typically used for design development and structural substantiation 

of composite aircraft structure. Figure 5 shows a schematic diagram of the building block 

approach applied to an airfoil such as a wing or horizontal stabilizer. One of the key components 

of such an approach is the integration of design details with manufacturing process and tooling 

constraints. In this case, the building block approach helps gain confidence that scaling issues 

and manufacturing-induced performance traits can be controlled and are reproducible. A 

balanced combination of detailed strength and stiffness tests to develop design data and 

allowables at lower scales with analysis and validation tests at larger scales provides the required 

7
structural substantiation. Complex internal load paths may develop in highly integrated bonded 

structures. Large-scale tests help evaluate secondary loads that may occur in bonded joints and 

attachments due to the local stability of design details and redistribution of internal loads. 

Validation for 

Real-Time Exposure 

FIGURE 5. BUILDING BLOCK APPROACH TO TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 

Considerations for manufacturing defects, accidental damage, environmental damage, and repair 

within the building block approach also provide a basis for subsequent production and service 

engineering activities. It is not practical to evaluate some of the long-term performance 

characteristics of bonded structure at the larger scales of the building block approach. As a 

result, real-time data collected for bonded structure in service is a good complement to the work 

performed at the time of product certification. Service monitoring programs confirm the 

continued airworthiness of bonded structure and help identify unreliable design details or process 

steps that should be avoided in the future. 

In working with bonded structures, and composite materials in general, it is important to realize 

the different design load and damage considerations for structural substantiation, as shown in 

figure 6. Damage or manufacturing defects that cannot be detected or those deemed acceptable 

must sustain static strength requirements for ultimate load. Such damage should also be 

unaffected by repeated loads and environmental conditions occurring throughout the service life 

of the bonded aircraft structure. Lost ultimate load capability should be rare, with safety covered 

by damage tolerance and practical maintenance procedures. The structures ability to sustain 

repeated loads and carry limit load with detectable damage is proven through damage tolerance 

testing and maintenance procedures (e.g., inspections). Possible sources of detectable damage 

that will be found with a high degree of probability and repaired through maintenance practices 

must sustain limit load after experiencing repeated loads in service for a period of time related to 

the inspection interval. Other damage scenarios such as bird strike, tire tread impact, and rotor 

burst also have a residual strength requirement. 

8
Allowable

Damage Limit

(ADL)

Increasing Damage Severity

Ultimate

Maximum load 

per lifetime

Design 

Load 

Level

Continued 

safe flight 

Limit

Critical Damage Threshold 

(CDT)

1.5 Factor 

of Safety

For nondetectable and acceptable damage 

For detectable damage to be found

and repaired through maintenance 

For damage occurring with

flight crew’s knowledge 

FIGURE 6. DESIGN LOAD LEVELS AND DAMAGE CONSIDERATIONS 

It is important to realize that fatigue and damage tolerance methods cannot cover for 

unacceptable bonding processes and materials. Despite damage tolerance regulations that ensure 

structural redundancy at the limit load, bonding problems could many times lead to potential loss 

of ultimate load capability. Qualification and structural substantiation should provide sufficient 

data to demonstrate reliable bonding processes and materials, including the issues associated 

with manufacturing scaling. Fatigue and damage tolerance practices remain useful for structure 

constructed using a well-qualified bonding process that is under control. They will help cover 

the rare, local disbonding that may occur even for reliable processes. They also provide 

sufficient fail safety and coverage for accidental damage. An ASTM/FAA Workshop in March 

2004 reviewed the state of the art in analysis and test methods used to evaluate the mechanics of 

delamination and debonding [3]. Some FAA and NASA research in this area was covered in that 

workshop. 

2.4 MANUFACTURING IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERIENCE.

To get an FAA production certificate, applicants must establish and maintain a quality control 

system so that each product meets the design provisions of the pertinent type certificate (14 CFR 

21.139). Material and process qualification and manufacturing advances that support design 

development and structural substantiation provide the basis for the quality control system. This 

includes the requirements and procedures that control production, i.e., acceptance test criteria, 

key characteristics to monitor processes, manufacturing process control documents, and 

specifications. 

9
Processes must be scaled to yield reliable adhesive bonds for the structural design detail. Some 

of the key process steps and processing parameters that must be controlled include bond surface 

preparation, time limits for adhesive mixing, adhesive out-time, bondline cure temperature, 

surface contact pressure, and bondline thickness control. Many of these rely on the proper use, 

control, and maintenance of factory tooling and equipment. Sufficient factory environmental and 

cleanliness controls for bonding, in-process quality controls, and nondestructive inspection 

(NDI) are an important part of manufacturing implementation for bonded structures. Finally, the 

production workforce must be trained to ensure the necessary skills exist to properly execute the 

different bonding process steps. 

2.5 MAINTENANCE IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERIENCE.

The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, Structural Repair Manuals and other information 

used to guide service activities must give special consideration to bonded structures. This 

includes accessibility for maintenance operations, such as inspection and repair, because 

disassembly of bonded joints is usually not an option. Inspection procedures are needed to 

determine the full extent of damage that must be repaired for bonded structures. Even when the 

design allows detection to apply visual inspection methods, other NDIs are often needed to 

determine the full extent of damage for repair. A field disposition process must be defined for 

damage and other defects found in bonded structures. The specific maintenance procedures used 

for bonded structures must be substantiated for implementation. As with product manufacturing 

processes, maintenance procedures are usually developed as part of a building block approach to 

design development and structural substantiation. 

The use of bonded repair procedures for composite aircraft structures (e.g., damaged sandwich 

panels) bring forth many of the same issues that are important to manufacturing implementations 

of bonding. This includes qualification of the specific materials and processes that are used for 

bonded repair. The proper use and control of tooling and equipment must be specified. The 

environment and cleanliness must be controlled in areas where bonded repairs are performed. In 

combination with in-process quality controls, NDI is an important confirmation that a bonded 

repair was performed properly. Finally, the maintenance workforce must be trained to ensure the 

necessary skills exist to properly perform a bonded repair. 

The FAA is working with the industry to develop engineering standards and ensure sufficient 

composite maintenance training exists for a workforce, which meets the needs of expanding 

applications. The SAE Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC) is an 

international standards group that is leading this effort. The FAA has been performing research 

to support the CACRC [4]. The results for a bonded repair, indicate that the structural 

performance depends on proper execution of the bonding processes. Future work is planned in 

this area, including a 2005 FAA workshop on composite maintenance training. 

3. BONDED STRUCTURES SURVEY. 

3.1 SURVEY QUESTIONS. 

The purpose of the survey was to establish a detailed background on the adhesive bonding 

philosophies that are used by the aircraft industry. Given this purpose, the multiformat survey 

10
was distributed via e-mail and covered a range of topics. The three technical topic areas 

included (1) materials and processes; (2) manufacturing and design integration; and (3) product 

development, substantiation, and support. These topic areas address the major areas of interest 

and need for control in the bonding process. 

The survey contained multiple-choice and open-ended questions in addition to comment sections 

after each set of questions and at the end of each section to provide information on issues not 

addressed. To accurately determine the input being given, some questions were asked multiple 

times with variations in wording. This solidifies the answers given by the respondents because it 

ensures they are addressing the issue in question. The survey questionnaire is shown in 

appendix A. 

3.2 PARTICIPANTS. 

The survey was distributed via e-mail to highly experienced individuals in the industry. These 

individuals were encouraged to solicit other known experts in the field to ensure a range of input 

from the industry. 

Personal background information was collected in the survey to identify the type and nature of 

the individual’s comments, including the organization type, size, perspective of the respondent 

(individual to corporate), experience level, and the respondent’s area of expertise. The 

background information is shown in appendix B. 

3.3 SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS.

A survey was developed to benchmark industry practices and collect information on the critical 

safety issues and certification considerations for bonded aircraft structures and repairs. Much of 

the survey used multiple-choice questions, which were simply answered by selecting one or 

more responses. Some of the multiple-choice questions also allowed an open-ended response. A 

few questions required open-ended responses. The respondents were encouraged to only answer 

those questions in which they had experience. The survey was sent to experts in industry, 

government agencies, and academia. Fifty-three responses were received from forty-two 

organizations that had extensive experience in commercial and military aircraft bonding 

applications. The average years of bonding experience for people taking the survey were 18. 

The responses were based on bonding applications to small airplanes, transport aircraft, 

rotorcraft, fighter jets, and propellers. 

One of the primary areas in the survey questionnaire related to material and process qualification 

and control. This was broken into a series of questions addressing adhesive qualification, bond 

process qualification, material control, and process control. 

Most respondents agreed that the primary reason for adhesive material qualification is to define 

requirements for material control. The most common response to a question on the number of 

adhesive batches used for qualification was three. The respondents provided a long list of 

different physical, chemical, and mechanical tests for adhesive qualification. The most common 

mechanical test type used for qualification was some form of a lap shear test. Sixty percent of 

the respondents did not attempt to characterize the nonlinear stress versus strain behavior of the 

11
adhesive. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they used the thick adherend test and KGR 

gages, or something similar. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that bonding process 

qualification was part of the same test matrix as adhesive qualification. The average number of 

bonding process runs used for qualification was 6.5. A majority of the respondents agreed that 

qualification of bonding processes should include durability assessments to ensure adequate 

adhesion. All the respondents agreed that moisture and temperature environmental effects were 

included in adhesive and bonded process qualification plans. A majority of the respondents also 

said their qualification tests can be traced back to both ASTM and their company standards. 

The respondents provided information on the types of mechanical, physical, and chemical tests 

included in specifications for adhesive material procurement and control. This included the 

types of tests used for acceptance testing. Most respondents indicated that the adhesive material 

supplier, part manufacturer, or repair facility performed some acceptance testing. There was 

some difference of opinion between the respondents on whether or not qualification data was 

used to directly set the acceptance requirements for adhesive material control, with the majority 

of the respondents in agreement. The majority of the respondents said the adherend and adhesive 

thickness the responders used for acceptance testing is the same as those being used in 

production. There was a greater difference in opinions on whether or not to include 

environmental effects in acceptance testing. Most respondents agreed that adhesive storage and 

handling should be controlled by freezer temperature and out-time monitoring. The respondents 

had mixed views on the controls needed for peel ply materials, which are used for composite 

surface preparation. 

The majority of the respondents used in-process monitoring or witness panel tests for bond 

process control. The different bond surface preparations used by the respondents included 

sanding (hand and automated), media blasting, peel ply, chemical etch, and others, depending on 

the substrate and adhesive combinations. The most common methods of monitoring the surface 

preparation were visual checks, water break tests, witness panels, and surface chemistry tests. 

Fifty percent of the respondents believed that mechanical tests should be performed for bonding 

process control purposes. Most respondents agreed with a need to control the prebond moisture 

of substrate materials. A large majority of the respondents indicated that the components in 

paste bond mixing are controlled by weight. The respondents, depending on the specific 

materials and bonding application, used a wide range of bond assembly processing steps. Most 

respondents had time constraints for the various bond assembly process steps from surface 

preparation to adhesive cure. The majority of the respondents said that time and temperature 

were controlled in the bond process cure cycle, and 37 of the 49 responses agreed that there are 

sensors to demonstrate temperature and pressure at the bondline. The majority of the 

respondents believed that NDI plays a role in bond process control. 

Another primary area in the survey questionnaire related to manufacturing and design 

integration. The first series of questions addressed design and analysis. The respondents used 

bonding for many parts, including skins, doublers, stringers, and frames. The respondents also 

said the glass transition temperature (Tg) is measured primarily by dynamic mechanical analysis, 

followed by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and thermo-mechanical analysis. Most 

people responding to the survey agreed that tooling, manufacturing, and maintenance issues 

should be integrated into the design process. A slight majority of the respondents used analysis 

12
codes. Many believed that cohesive failure in the substrate and adhesive could be predicted. 

Fifty percent said their predictions distinguish cohesive failures in the adherend or adhesive and 

they do not agree that adhesion failures between the substrate and adhesive can be predicted. A 

large majority of the respondents design to minimize peel stresses in a bonded joint. A majority 

of the respondents indicated that their analysis accounts for residual stresses in the bonded joint. 

Rivets were the number one fail-safe design feature used to reduce the risk of weak bonds in 

structures. Most considered damage tolerance, fatigue, and durability in design; however, there 

was a general disagreement on whether or not analysis methods can be applied for such a 

purpose. 

There were several survey questions related to manufacturing. Most respondents agreed that 

data from qualification testing or other repetitive bonded joint tests are used to establish 

statistically based design allowables. The respondents also agreed that a lower minimum bond 

strength design value is set based on experience and test data (e.g., 500 psi). The majority said 

they verify the adequacy of the design by considering the peak shear and average shear stresses. 

In addition, most respondents agreed on a need to control humidity in bond processing. Nearly 

50 percent said they used a vacuum bag for adhesive bonding followed by pressure at 23 percent 

and matched tooling at 20 percent. A majority of the respondents indicated that cured part 

dimensional tolerance and warpage are controlled. The participants taking the survey were split 

on the use of Verifilm to confirm the fit of mating surfaces. Most respondents set time 

constraints during adhesive application. Eight-eight percent agreed that there are handling and 

storage constraints and disposal guidelines for materials used in surface preparation (e.g., 

solvents, etc.). In most cases, scaling for production did not result in significant changes in the 

processes used for surface preparation or adhesive application. The respondents used a number 

of different methods of controlling bondline thickness. The majority of the respondents said 

0.007-0.020 and 0.004-0.007 inch should be used for bonded joint characterization. The 

majority also said their design has tolerances specified for quality control and that they test far 

more than just the maximum thickness for allowables characterization. Most respondents used 

ultrasonic methods and visual inspection to inspect bonded structures following cure. The 

respondents suggested a number of different methods for training the manufacturing workforce. 

The majority of the respondents said their company’s method for dealing with bonded structure 

discrepancies was efficient. All respondents agreed on a need to record cure temperature and 

duration, while most tracked adhesive out time. 

There were also several survey questions on allowables and design data. Most respondents used 

lap shear tests for the former. The results indicated that most companies use the same design 

data to support the design of their bonded structure. The most commonly used was standard 

adhesive thicknesses, followed by lap widths and standard joint configurations. MIL-HDBK-17 

was the preferred method of calculating allowables. A majority of the participants taking the 

survey indicated a need to include the effects of environment in bonded joint tests. The desired 

adhesive layer thickness varied with the application. There were many different thoughts 

expressed on the data needed for fatigue, damage tolerance, manufacturing defects, and service 

damage. 

Another primary area in the survey questionnaire related to product development, substantiation, 

and support. Most participants taking the survey indicated that product development lead times 

13
for bonded structures were longer than those for conventional structures that use mechanical 

fastening. Most companies said the scale of testing that yielded the most meaningful data for 

bonded structure development, substantiation, and support was different in every case. In 

regards to how critical the bonded joint is classified, responses indicated an equal distribution of 

loads. The majority of the respondents recommended using a building block approach for 

product development and substantiation of bonded structure. Most respondents agreed on a need 

to substantiate strength and damage tolerance in large-scale tests, while most companies have 

found that small-scale tests have meaning to service experiences. In regard to whether 

companies have validated accelerated test methods, most neither agreed nor disagreed. Critical 

defect and damage locations were selected based on stress levels, manufacturing experiences, 

and susceptibility to impact. Most respondents had good service records with bonded structure, 

while the rest had mixed success. 

The final area of the survey included general questions, which required an open-ended response. 

Opinions were collected on the major safety concerns and certification hurdles for bonded 

structures. Views were also expressed on desired design, analysis, manufacturing, and 

maintenance improvements. Finally, economic and technical barriers to expanded applications 

were discussed. 

4. BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP. 

4.1 INTRODUCTION. 

As discussed in section 1.1, the FAA approach relies on experience from applications, focused 

research, and an industry interface as a basis for developing policy, guidance, training, and 

engineering standards in selected technical thrust areas. Research on bonded structures has been 

ongoing since 1999. The bonded structure survey and workshop, which are discussed in this 

report, were used to expand the industry interface in 2004. Efforts to benchmark bonded 

structures technology through these activities will be used to develop initial regulatory guidance. 

Future directions for bonding will also be derived from the 2004 studies. 

The Bonded Structures Workshop addressed applications in many different aircraft product 

types, including small airplanes, business jets, transport aircraft, fighter jets, rotorcraft, and 

propellers. Commercial and military applications of composite and metal bonding were 

reviewed. Workshop sessions spent time on the technical issues for material and process control, 

design development, structural substantiation, manufacturing implementation, maintenance 

practices, and service experiences. 

This section of the report provides a summary of the seven technical sessions held at the June 

2004 Bonded Structures Workshop. An overview of the FAA CS&CI for bonded structure, 

including regulatory perspectives shared at the start of the workshop, is provided in section 2. 

The results from the FAA survey on bonded structures were also summarized at the start of the 

workshop (see section 3 for more details). The detailed agenda and a list of participants for the 

workshop are provided in section 4.2. Section 4.3 gives summaries of the invited presentations 

and related discussions at the workshop. A synopsis of information collected during breakout 

sessions appears in section 4.4. Workshop presentation materials can be viewed at the website 

14
that was setup by the National Institute of Aviation Research at Wichita State University (WSU): 

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/faa/

4.2 SESSION SUMMARIES. 

This section provides summaries of the presentations given at the Bonded Structures Workshop. 

It is broken into subheadings for sessions 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Workshop presentations are posted at 

the WSU website address given in section 4.1. All speakers were asked to start their talks by 

summarizing their experiences with bonded structure and the applications they plan to cover. As 

related to the primary objective of the workshop, they were also asked to provide perspectives on 

the critical safety issues and certification considerations. In addition, speakers were asked to 

address secondary objectives for the workshop by giving examples of best engineering practices 

and commenting on future needs in standardization or research. 

Ric Abbott provided a review of the workshop at the end. He felt that there were many excellent 

presentations given for a wide scope of applications. He also felt that it was good to hear from 

the users, such as the airlines and the United States Air Force (USAF) as well as suppliers, 

manufacturers, and regulators. He agreed with the emphasis on bonding surface preparation and 

cleanliness in many of the presentations as one of the most critical technical issues. A need for 

repair technicians to be trained and certified for bonded repair and other maintenance activities 

with bonded structures was also emphasized. He advised the group that scaling issues associated 

with bonding should be substantiated by full-scale tests. Finally, he suggested the need for more 

research into reliable quality inspection procedures, damage tolerance analysis methods, and test 

standards. 

In closure, Larry Ilcewicz summarized the key aspects of safety management for bonded 

structures. The materials and processes used for bonding must meet qualification standards 

crucial to structural integrity and long-term durability. Once qualified, materials and processes 

must be controlled to ensure the qualification standards are continuously met through production 

and maintenance activities. Design development, bonded process scale-up, and substantiation 

must be coordinated such that manufacturing or maintenance can repeatedly produce the proven 

structural concept. To this end, a robust implementation of bonded structure manufacturing or 

maintenance is desired. The Bonded Structures Workshop covered each of these technical areas. 

4.2.1 Applications and Service Experiences. 

The session on applications and services experiences helped introduce issues critical to the safety 

of bonded structures. Presentations in this session highlighted some past problems with bonding 

and the engineering practices needed for successful applications. Examples of bonding 

applications for military fighter jets, small airplanes, propellers, and transport aircraft helped to 

gain a complete review of the various technical issues facing different aircraft products. 

Although there were some differences related to the specific applications, there were also many 

similar technical issues and engineering solutions. 

Max Davis from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) provided some insights on the best 

engineering practices needed for successful adhesive bonding. He provided a number of 

examples of bond failures from service for metallic and composite materials. Most of the 

15
emphasis for best practices came from his bonded repair experiences for fighter aircraft structure. 

Prior to 1992, there were numerous metal bond failures in service. These problems were 

overcome by adopting the principles Davis shared in the workshop. Since 1992, the service 

history for metal bond repairs in his organization has been excellent. Davis emphasized the need 

for appropriate bonding process validation as a primary means of avoiding bond failures in 

service. This included a need to validate the long-term environmental durability of parts using 

the particular bonding process. Davis stated that lap shear tests are not appropriate for judging 

long-term durability. Instead, he recommended using a wedge test, which applies peel stress and 

critical environmental conditions to the bonded joint. Other important areas that were 

highlighted included surface preparation, adhesive selection, design methods, substantiation 

testing, quality assurance, and training. The proper application of heat for cure of a bonded 

repair, while avoiding overheating adjacent structure, was also covered. Finally, Davis 

suggested some changes to existing regulations or the creation of guidance materials to 

emphasize a need to demonstrate that selected bonding processes reliably produce structure that 

is strong and durable. 

Jim Krone and Andrew Kasowski summarized 40 years of bonding experiences at Cessna 

Aircraft, which includes more than 6000 airplanes. Cessna’s applications of bonding started 

with secondary structure before moving to primary structure and a fully bonded airframe as 

confidence was derived over time. Based on their experiences, Cessna came to realize the 

applications where bonding could be reliably used. They identified critical safety issues and 

certification considerations related to joint design, durability, and manufacturing defects. 

Although Cessna has some experience with composite bonded structure, most of their experience 

is with bonding of metals. Current metal bond processes for the Citation Aircraft primarily used 

bare alloys, phosphoric acid anodize surface treatment, chromate bond primer, film adhesives, 

and autoclave cure. Cessna covered manufacturing implementation in another presentation given 

in session 5. 

Jay Turnberg of the FAA covered bonding experiences from composite propeller applications. 

He provided a synopsis of two case studies for bonded propeller structure, one involving a 

service problem and the other related to life evaluation. The former came from a need for field 

replacement of an erosion shield that is bonded to the propeller blade’s edge. Problems in the 

associated bonding process, including contamination, improper paste adhesive mixing, and 

skipped processing steps, resulted in poorly repaired blades that had to be removed from service. 

Improved manuals, extra inspection steps, repair shop audits, and training solved these problems. 

The propeller case study on life evaluation was for a primary bonded attachment of the 

composite blade to metallic retention. This bonded joint has a combination of different materials 

and complex geometry near the root of propeller blades. Damage from repeated application of 

high loads is inherent to the design detail of this joint. The structural substantiation used for the 

joint characterized repeatable damage accumulation, which could be controlled through 

inspection, leading to blade retirement prior to damage reaching a maximum permissible size. 

Full-scale testing was essential for life evaluation due to the complex blade root design detail. 

John Hart-Smith of Boeing covered some critical issues based on his experience with bonded 

composite joints. He also has years of experience with metal bonding. As in previous talks, 

16
Hart-Smith stated that bonding process specifications must be properly validated and strictly 

followed. This is essential because, currently, there are no reliable postbond inspection methods 

that have been used in a production application to prove that an adhesive has adhered properly to 

the bonding substrate. Hart-Smith started his talk with a summary of the physical and chemical 

concepts crucial to successful bonding. He emphasized the need for a polymer adhesive to wet 

the substrate surface, which depends on surface energy. Surface preparation steps to gain 

cleanliness and sufficient activation of the substrate are essential to this. Hart-Smith 

recommended that grit blasting was the most reliable means of surface preparation for composite 

substrate materials. He showed that the use of peel ply ancillary materials, which contained 

release agents (defined as release fabrics in this report), causes problems. Hart-Smith also 

discussed prebond surface moisture in the substrate and why it must be eliminated or controlled 

to levels that are known not to affect the bonding process. He gave evidence of processing 

problems due to poor surface preparation and prebond moisture from applications. Hart-Smith 

also showed service examples of how well-bonded structure is tolerant to large damage. Finally, 

he suggested a need for a composite durability test similar to the metal bond wedge test. 

4.2.2 Material and Process Qualification and Control. 

The session on material and process qualification and control covered bonding issues crucial to 

material selection, process verification, and quality control. Speakers covered these issues for a 

range of product types, including commercial transport aircraft, small airplanes, rotorcraft, and 

military applications. The presentations spanned more than 40 years of service experience for 

metal and composite bonding. This provided a complete assessment of the practices used to 

qualify and control bonding materials and processes. 

Kay Blohowiak and Peter Van Voast, who covered metal and composite issues, respectively, 

presented Boeing perspectives on structural bonding. Boeing used the same systems approach to 

qualify and control bonding materials and processes for both. All new materials and processes 

used by Boeing for structural bonding are verified by extensive compatibility tests. Metal 

bonding experiences dating back to the 1950s has helped Boeing determine materials and 

processes needed for structural integrity and long-term durability. Early bonding failures for 

specific material and process combinations were blamed on inadequate verification testing and 

quality control. Current Boeing efforts focus on how to demonstrate 30 years of service in 

accelerated tests in the laboratory. Both composite and metal testing at Boeing include some 

peel testing to help answer this question. A wedge test has been successfully used for metal 

bonding, whereas composite joints use a double cantilever beam (DCB) test. The presentation 

focused on surface preparations that have worked for metal and composite bonding. Boeing has 

successfully used peel plies that have not been treated with release agent (defined as peel ply in 

this report) for composite surface preparation. They have also explored additional surface 

preparation steps after peel ply removal to further ensure a good bond. Finally, Boeing showed 

the degrading effects of prebond moisture on composite bond performance. 

Jim Mazza of the USAF provided a presentation that covered bonding surface preparation 

qualification considerations for metal and composite applications. He started his presentation by 

highlighting some keys to reliable adhesive bonding that started with validated designs and 

processes. Mazza indicated that once a good bonding process has been qualified, subsequent 

success in production is dependent on proper control of materials, technician training, quality 

17
inspections, and process control tests. As was the case with other speakers, Mazza indicated that 

lap shear testing alone is inadequate for validating the long-term durability of bonding materials 

and processes. He gave some insights on the use of accelerated wedge tests with environmental 

exposure to duplicate in-service performance, including a detailed assessment on what should be 

done in applying the test and interpreting results for metal bonding. Mazza also summarized the 

USAF Primary Adhesively Bonded Structure Technology Program for metal bonding and some 

service problems involving composite bonding. Finally, he shared perspectives on the use of 

composite peel tests such as flatwise tension and DCB. 

Dave Bond, who is with University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) 

in Manchester, U.K., provided his perspectives on the effects of environmental moisture on the 

performance and certification of adhesively bonded joints and repairs. He is currently involved 

in research on the subject at UMIST but also has experience in bonding applications from his 

previous work with Australian and English military groups. Bond covered the various 

mechanisms where moisture can affect the structural integrity of a bonded joint before, during, 

and after cure of the bond. Moisture existing before joint curing can affect bond surface wetting 

and the subsequent development of interfacial bonds. Bond explained that moisture content at 

the substrate surface drops rapidly under drying conditions, and the time needed to eliminate 

surface moisture may not be as long as previously thought. This phenomenon follows Fickian 

diffusion principles and can be accurately modeled. Bond also covered the effects of moisture 

on interfacial bond strength degradation. He showed test data on degradation, which was most 

pronounced when joints were created after poor surface preparation. This was consistent with 

the observations of previous speakers. Bond also showed his research efforts to develop a smart 

patch that senses bonded joint degradation. 

Dieter Koehler from the Lancair Company gave a talk on structural bonding experiences for their 

aircraft, which are constructed primarily of composite materials. Lancair aircraft, such as the 

Columbia 300, make extensive use of bonded joints for critical joints such as skin to rib and spar 

attachment and fuselage longitudinal splices. Koehler explained that the bond gap variations for 

this aircraft ranged from near zero up to 0.150 inch, which covers the tolerance in material 

thickness variations. Rods were used to control the minimum bond gap and the maximum gap 

was controlled by measurements taken prior to applying the adhesive. Paste adhesive that cures 

in an oven is used for Lancair aircraft. A complete matrix of substrate materials and 

environmental conditions were used for qualification of the adhesive and bonding process. 

Bonded strength properties were determined using a thick adherend, lap shear specimen. A 

version of the traveling wedge test was used to evaluate various bond surface treatments and 

surface preparation methods. The results from these tests showed bead blasting to be a reliable 

surface preparation. Koehler recommended more research on the trade offs between adhesive 

glass transition temperature and toughness. 

Mark Chris of Bell Helicopter Textron gave a presentation on his company’s experience with 

bonded structures, starting with a description of the applications that began in the 1950s with 

main and tail rotor blades that bonded metallic skins to wood core. Since that time, applications 

have evolved to include bonded composite airframe structures that use film adhesives. Safety 

and certification issues covered by Chris included surface preparation, mechanical property 

characterization, material and process specifications, and damage tolerance. He covered a Bell 

18
study to understand the tolerance in the percentages of base epoxy and curing agent in mixing 

paste adhesives. Chris showed that the sensitivity to mixing ratio depended on the adhesive 

system. In another study, to determine the effects of variations in bond assembly time, it was 

also found to depend on the particular adhesive. He felt that insights derived from both studies 

should be incorporated in specifications and technician training materials. 

4.2.3 Design Development and Structural Substantiation. 

The session on design development and structural substantiation covered issues crucial to bonded 

product certification, including the necessary verification analysis and testing and the integration 

of considerations from other functional disciplines (e.g., material and process control, 

manufacturing defects, and service damage). Speakers covered these issues for a range of 

product types, including commercial transport aircraft, small airplanes, rotorcraft, and military 

applications. These applications used bonding in structure ranging from high-load-transfer/ 

low-load joints to low-load-transfer attachments with out-of-plane loading considerations. These 

different applications also provided a range of bonding design details (e.g., bondline thicknesses 

included tightly controlled gages of up to 0.007 in. for joints using film adhesives and joints 

using paste adhesives for gap filling, up to 0.20 in.). This provided a complete assessment of the 

engineering practices used to develop and substantiate bonded structural design details. 

D.M. Hoyt (NSE Composites) and Steve Ward (SW Composites) provided perspectives on 

composite bonded joint analysis, design data, and structural substantiation. The application of 

bonding in the structure of different product types was considered in developing their assessment 

of the current state of the art in this area. Many different analysis methods were summarized in 

their presentation ranging from simple uniaxial, in-plane loading assumptions to complex 

multiaxial loading, combined with out-of-plane considerations. Their presentation pointed out 

the need to establish design criteria and analysis methods, which address manufacturing defects 

and service damage and are consistent with the economic realities associated with the inspection 

and disposition of defects in the factory and field. This was the thrust in their discussion of 

analysis methods available to support the design of bonded structure with damage. Without such 

analysis capability, the industry is forced to rely on testing and conservative design practices. 

Several engineering methods currently appear practical for applications, but there is still 

considerable dependence on building block testing at sufficient scale to incorporate real design, 

loading, and damage complexities. Hoyt and Ward provided a number of recommendations on 

analysis development and test standardization needed to answer the difficult questions arising 

with expanded applications of bonded structure (e.g., defect allowances, structural redundancy, 

and repairable damage limits). 

Paul Brey of the Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) presented thoughts related to the certification, 

production, and sustaining of their aircraft products, which make extensive use of composites 

and bonding. Brey started his talk by reviewing the time history of CDC products from 

development through certification to current production. He also reviewed where structural 

bonding was used in different parts of the aircraft ranging from fuselage to horizontal stabilizer 

and wing. Brey identified the structural substantiation issues posing the biggest challenge for 

bonded structure to be damage, defects, environmental effects, and competing failure modes in 

built-up structure. He felt that some of these should be addressed by industry working groups. 

Brey emphasized a need to plan for the transition from certification to production. Service 

19
problems, economic considerations, and increased production rates require that engineering 

groups address many different issues ranging from damage disposition and repair to design and 

process evolution. Brey explained that production rate increases led to changes in processes, 

facilities, and tooling, as well as training of an expanding workforce. Similar issues were passed 

down to suppliers through the CDC quality systems. The examples given in the presentation 

focused on the material and process control and structural substantiation activities that are 

needed in the transition. 

Allen Fawcett of The Boeing Company presented his structural perspectives on processing issues 

and related tests for co-bonded primary structure. In this case, co-bonding is a process where 

precured elements (e.g., stringers and stiffeners) are bonded with uncured elements (e.g., skin 

and spars) to create stiffened structure. Fawcett’s talk started with a synopsis of Boeing 

composite applications to transport empennage structure. He gave opinions on the rigorous 

controls needed for using peel ply in the surface preparation of bonded joints. This included 

control of single-source materials used for the peel ply, adhesive, and bonding substrate because 

different combinations of materials yielded undesirable results in the past. Fawcett also felt that 

intense receiving inspection practices, which include peel tests of bonded coupons and a welltrained workforce, are needed. Another major point of the presentation was a synopsis of what 

would happen if bondline adhesion failures were discovered in service. As a designated 

engineering representative to the FAA, he felt that, depending on the ability to trace a problem to 

a specific manufacturing mistake, immediate directed inspections and the potential for immediate 

permanent repair may be needed to ensure continued airworthiness. Such a scenario justifies 

rigorous material and process controls, as well as complete manufacturing records of bonded 

joint production. Fawcett showed some building block tests needed to develop design data for 

bonded attachments, including the effects of damage, fatigue, and complex loading. 

The final presentation given in this session was by Pierre Harter, representing Adam Aircraft. 

He started his presentation with a synopsis of the company, which was founded in 1998, and a 

description of products currently undergoing certification under 14 CFR Part 23 small airplanes. 

The A500 aircraft is expecting certification to be completed within the year. This airplane makes 

extensive use of composites and bonding for critical airframe structures. Harter reviewed the 

important bonding process steps and qualification testing used for bonding materials and 

processes. He also covered some of the A500 structural design features (e.g., wet lay-up 

doublers used to gain redundancy at bonded splices) and test data generated for structural and 

processing details such as bondline thickness, overlap length, and substrate thickness. As a small 

company, Adam Aircraft was interested in making use of shared composite databases and would 

like to see more related to structural bonding. Harter also indicated a need to standardize wedge 

crack testing or the equivalence for composite bonding. Harter emphasized the importance of 

full-scale tests because it is hard to predict some of the failure modes possible with integrally 

bonded composite structure. 

4.2.4 Manufacturing Implementation and Experience. 

The session on manufacturing implementation and experience covered bonding issues crucial to 

fabrication process scale-up, tooling, equipment, and quality control. Speakers covered these 

issues for a range of product types, including commercial transport aircraft, small airplanes, 

rotorcraft, and military applications. The presentations considered process differences for metal 

20
bonding, composite sandwich, and integrally stiffened structures. This provided a good 

overview on some of the manufacturing implementation practices used for bonded aircraft 

structure. 

Jim Krone summarized current metal bond manufacturing processes used at Cessna Aircraft. He 

also highlighted more than 40 years of fabrication experiences. Some of the key process steps 

covered in his presentation included phosphoric acid anodizing, bond primer application, 

doublers lay-up, bagging and tooling, autoclave cure, and postcure inspection. In addition to 

covering process details, Krone discussed issues affecting rate and process control activities for 

each step. He made a special point of highlighting that expendable materials used in a lay-up 

must be closely controlled. Krone emphasized the Cessna philosophy that an end of process 

inspection alone was insufficient for ensuring structural integrity. This further relates to the 

safety, customer dissatisfaction, and product liability risks they assume in the event disbonding 

or delamination occurs in service due to processing problems. In addition to the process control 

mentality, Krone explained that Cessna has other risk mitigation policies including rigorous 

personnel training, regular maintenance of facilities, and equipment and process requalifications. 

In addition, Cessna regularly adopts product design and process improvements based on lessons 

learned from field experience. 

Hal Loken of the DuPont Company provided his perspectives on composite bonding of 

honeycomb core sandwich panels. Loken began by summarizing applications of sandwich 

aircraft structures. He also noted a need to collect and document the technology of honeycomb 

and other bonded structures, including critical safety issues and certification considerations. 

Loken explained that the failure of bonded honeycomb structures is often due to factors other 

than the bond, including material systems failures (e.g., microcracking, impact damage, erosion, 

and sealing problems). This presentation focused on the bonding issues. The industry is familiar 

with simple honeycomb surface contamination. However, not everyone is aware of the potential 

for surface contamination due to exuded substances that are wicked to the bonding surface by 

evaporating rinse solvents. Loken agreed with other speakers that panels showing adhesion 

failure between the core or substrate and the adhesive must not be accepted. Such failure is 

poorly understood and impossible to characterize. In tests of challenging bonding conditions 

using minimum film adhesive, Loken showed examples of good and unacceptable bonded 

honeycomb failures. An especially noteworthy finding was that film adhesives from different 

suppliers, and qualified to the same specifications, could give different bonding performance in 

critical conditions. He also discussed the use of rolling drum peel and flatwise tension tests. The 

rolling drum peel test, though suitable for process control work, should not be used to compare 

sandwich structures made with different materials because this test is so sensitive to differences 

in modulus and fracture toughness. Loken explained that a robust honeycomb bond requires 

sufficient adhesive fillets on the honeycomb cell wall. Specific adhesive properties during cure 

were shown to affect the ability to form these fillets. 

Steve Forness of The Boeing Company provided some perspectives on the complexities of 

bonding large integrally stiffened structures, which were derived from experiences with the X-37 

program. Forness began his presentation by showing composite design details and the bonded 

assembly sequence for the X-37. Forness highlighted several problems that occurred during 

manufacturing development. The honeycomb core selected for skin panels was found to be 

21
incompatible with the curing process, resulting in core crush. Forness highlighted warpage and 

dimensional tolerance problems for longerons and shear clips. He also showed that bagging was 

a challenge for paste bond assembly of frames to skin panels. In conclusion, Forness pointed out 

the importance of the integrated efforts of specialists from structures, materials, processes, 

tooling, and inspection disciplines to derive a producible design. 

4.2.5 Repair Implementation and Experience. 

The last session, on repair implementation and experience, covered bonding issues important to 

aircraft maintenance. The two presentations gave the perspectives of customers for bonding 

technology. This included a representative from an airline maintenance depot and a technical 

expert from military applications. Both composite and metal bonded repairs were discussed. 

Eric Chesmar from United Airlines gave a presentation based on airline experience. He outlined 

problems and concerns with composites, including bonding issues. Many of his perspectives 

were consistent with those documented by the SAE CACRC. Chesmar began his presentation 

with a summary of maintenance concerns with composite and bonded structure design, which 

was based on CACRC surveys in 1995. Many concerns were with structural design features that 

did not recognize a need for inspection and repair, leading to unnecessary complexities. In 

addition, maintenance experts felt that structural repair manuals (SRM) were inadequate, forcing 

them to lose significant time in coordinating inspection and repair solutions with original 

equipment manufacturers (OEM). Chesmar showed that structural damage occurring in service 

is often unforeseen or more severe than covered in an SRM. Without sufficient knowledge 

available to the airlines for damage disposition and repair, there is a general sense of uncertainty 

and unnecessary conservatism that leads the industry to worry about some of the wrong things, 

while potentially missing critical safety issues. For example, for bonded repairs, there is a 

potential for surface contamination and prebond moisture related to difficulties in removing 

water, oil, and hydraulic fluids. Other examples relate to vacuum bagging and heat application 

difficulties when performing on-airplane repairs in certain structural locations and documenting 

manufacturing-allowable defects and material review board actions. Chesmar highlighted the 

importance of levels of training for technicians involved in bonded repairs ranging from simple 

to most difficult. 

Andrew Rider of the Defense Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) in Australia made a 

presentation on the certification of bonded repairs for environmental durability. Much of Rider’s 

presentation was closely associated with the RAAF experiences shared by Max Davis. Rider 

began his talk with a summary of the history of bonded composite crack patching on aging 

metallic structures for military aircraft. Despite early problems with the technology, improved 

processing has led to very reliable bonded repairs since 1995. This has led the DSTO and RAAF 

to consider moving from the current fail-safe approach in certifying the repair for primary 

structure to an approach where the repair is given full credit for maintaining structural integrity 

for a lifetime [5]. This can only be achieved if there is confidence in the environmental 

durability over that lifetime. Rider’s presentation gave details on what the DSTO is doing to 

establish that confidence by correlating wedge test results that meet more rigorous acceptance 

criteria with the performance of repairs in service. Service performance of repairs will be 

determined by selected teardown inspection, metal crack growth measurements, and NDI for 

early indications of bond failure. Rider also showed that the DSTO is trying to further improve 

22
the process controls used to ensure good composite to metal bonding practices through the 

development of surface analytical tools. Future FAA research in this area will be coordinated 

with the DSTO. 

4.3 RESULTS FROM BREAKOUT SESSIONS. 

4.3.1 Material and Process Qualification and Control. 

There were several goals of the material and process qualification and control breakout sessions. 

The main goal was to gain agreement on critical safety issues and certification considerations 

related to material and processing qualification and control. This included discussion on proven 

engineering practices for addressing these issues and considerations and to establish the needs 

for material and process qualification and control, such as through additional research, ASTM, 

SAE, or MIL-HDBK-17. Finally, there was a need to address any additional concerns related to 

material and process control. The purpose of the sessions was not to solve the critical issues, but 

simply identify those that needed to be addressed and possibly be considered for future in-depth 

discussions. For organizational purposes, the discussions were divided into material selection 

and compatibility, qualification testing, material control, and process control. Each of these will 

be discussed separately in the following sections. 

4.3.1.1 Material Selection and Compatibility. 

The goal of this section was to determine how to select an adhesive in relationship to the 

substrate that is being bonded, and in light of this, how is that going to be used in production. 

Each of the sessions produced results indicating a need to address specific critical issues. Some 

of these issues were related to determining how environmental limits were tested in the 

prequalification stage and whether to use the same criteria for the glass transition temperature 

(wet) for adhesives as is done for laminated composites. 

There was also a discussion and feeling for a need to define the service environment in 

relationship to the aircraft role and operation environment. The ideal material would be the one 

that can fit the entire range of environments and operational envelope. 

In addition, there was also concern about how to determine certain maximum adhesive 

temperatures for composites. Furthermore, it was commented that because everyone is trying to 

reduce costs by cocuring, compatibility should be addressed in the process. 

Comments were also obtained expressing a need to find much lower modulus systems and much 

higher strain to failure systems and enable their use on smaller airplanes. 

One issue addressed was whether or not the 50°F rule (Tg 50oF higher than maximum operating 

temperature) should be used for adhesives and the relevance of this rule to the actual behavior in 

the joints. 

Comments were also received on other ideas such as the carrier of the adhesive, how the 

adhesive design criteria may be restricting design, the windows of applications that should be 

considered during material selection, and safety and handling concerns. 

23
When selecting a material, compatibility issues come into play. To determine compatibility 

issues, one should consider the system, adhesive, adhered, primer, peel ply, carrier, surface, 

process, and establish a clear definition of the service environment. The issue of flammability 

and repairability was addressed in regard to material selection. This was in addition to 

compatibility with repair structures and the scaling factor with respect to the cure cycle. 

Materials selection and compatibility must also include items in the manufacturing process, 

which include potlife, out time, and bond time. 

Comments were also made regarding the chemicals used in service and how these should also be 

taken into consideration during materials selection. Suppliers often make changes based on 

Environmental Protection Agency standards, which forces changes in production. 

Consideration of the impact on adjacent structures and systems should be realized during 

material selection. 

Consideration of desired failure mode should be considered during material selection. 

Comments were also made regarding the need for peel tests used for initial screening for material 

compatibility. 

4.3.1.2 Qualification Testing. 

Some of the critical issues to consider when qualifying the material include the number of 

batches to be used, the out time of the adhesive, and the process variables, such as mix ratios. 

Some concern should also be given to whether the material is new to the industry or just new to 

the company. In other words, how mature is the material and process specification? The general 

consensus was that each company should decide how to screen and qualify based on their 

particular situation. The goal of the sessions was not to dictate how qualification testing should 

be completed, but to gain some consensus on how material qualification has been accomplished 

in the past and to take advantage of lessons learned. 

Companies must distinguish not only between prepreg and parts qualification, but more 

importantly, between material and parts certification. 

The issues some companies see over and over again are determining what the manufacturer or 

researcher needs out of the adhesive and being able to generate data to support the design. What 

needs to be known is what the adhesive can do and how that interacts with the design because, to 

a certain extent, what is done under qualification depends on what the design practices are going 

to be, as discussed below. 

• Interchangeability issues: An agreement on standardization issues appears to be a major 

barrier to interchangeability and wider adoption of a shared database methodology. Each 

company and supplier seems to use a different qualification procedure, test method, joint 

design, etc., when it comes to adhesive. The solution may be an AGATE approach to 

adhesives. 

24
• Substrate differences: There was agreement on the performance differences obtained 

from different adhesives so the qualification tests depend on the substrate material as well 

as the adhesive. There was also agreement on attempting to isolate the performance of 

the adhesive in qualification separate from the joint and substrate. 

• Qualification testing should also emphasize durability testing (what is the design 

philosophy—fail safe versus damage tolerant). Currently, most qualifications do not 

include durability testing. 

• A clear definition of the substrate and adhesive should be documented as part of the 

qualification process. 

• During coupon fabrication, the sensitivity of the coupon should be established as to the 

amount of scaling effect that may be present and the amount of element testing that 

should be accomplished. 

• One of the main points that was emphasized multiple times was the need for a stepped 

qualification process; it should go in order from adhesive to joint to subelement. 

• The qualification process should match the production process, and the key elements 

should be captured within the qualification. 

• Qualification should consider that adhesives have age and process sensitivity. 

• Qualification should also establish whether to test on the last day of out time (i.e., how 

many time intervals in sequence need to be tested at their limits?). 

• Clearing House for adhesives: A shared database methodology for adhesives should be 

pursued. Instead of each company doing things individually, why cannot industry share 

certain information? 

4.3.1.3 Material Control. 

Overall environmental control: There are environmental limits and accessibility that determine 

how the material can be controlled. 

Comments were received regarding the requirements and criteria set for material control and 

change (i.e., has the correct test been identified for material change?). 

Comments were received that emphasized protection from contamination: How can you protect 

the materials from contamination, such as that from the atmosphere and even airborne 

contaminants, all of which can interfere with the adhesive process? 

Consideration of volatile content: One of the variables that effect adhesive performance is the 

volatile content of the original adhesive and this should be part of the up front screening process. 

25
Additional items discussed were: 

• Emphasize control and characterization of ancillary materials 

• Control of supplier documentation 

• Raw material changes (level of control) should be addressed 

• Recertification of material (extended life) should be addressed 

• Comment was received on the need for adhesive flow test 

4.3.1.4 Process Control. 

Environmental controls (clean room, humidity, etc.) should be addressed. 

Expendable materials issues (contamination concerns) should be addressed. 

Vacuum pressure/adhesive compatibility: A lot of adhesives will cure perfectly if the vacuum 

bag had a regulator, but some adhesives will not work at full vacuum pressure. 

Witness panels should not only include mechanical tests but also physical and chemical tests, 

and have a frequency of testing specified. Because they are not easily made, it is important to 

understand up front what information is going to be gained from using witness panels. They are 

often useful for batch processing, but not for hand grit blasting. In general, the criteria need to 

be established up front so that the panel will represent the particular part. 

The Statistical Process Control (SPC) needs to be representative of production. 

At the beginning of process control, coordination between NDI, verifilm, prefit, visual 

inspection, and destructive tests should be determined. 

Comments were received regarding the overuse of NDI and establishing a false sense of security. 

The groups emphasized the use of a correct NDI technique and that this technique should be 

quantitative. 

Reassessment when the material changes: Strong feelings were expressed on what you need to 

do when you change things: requalify. 

Traceability of materials: Ability to trace where materials have been and where they are going. 

Tool qualification and control: When was the last time this was maintained? 

Verification of material handling (link between materials and process control): The material 

handling requirements should be referenced. 

26
Additional items discussed were 

• Surface inspection (water break, etc.) 

• Operator training 

• Emphasize time limits and drying on surface preparation 

• Thermal profile of tooling 

• Repair control versus production control 

• Proof load on actual part 

• Safety in handling 

4.3.2 Design Development and Structural Substantiation. 

4.3.2.1 Bonded Structure Design. 

4.3.2.1.1 Design of Parts and Repairs. 

Regarding the often-stated criterion to design and size structure to fail outside of a bonded joint, 

there was general agreement that, while this is desirable and practical to achieve for joints with 

metal adherends, it is not practical for bonded joints with composite adherends. One participant 

stated that this criterion is an old concept that comes from welding; the certification basis for 

welders was to ensure that the weld joint fails outside of the weld. One person stated that this is 

more of a rule of thumb than a requirement, and that current design and analysis capabilities 

make it possible to design joints to fail in the joint region. 

Several participants agreed that, for composite structure, the criterion should be restated to mean 

precluding an adhesion failure mode rather than requiring a failure away from the joint. 

Interlaminar failures in the composite adherend in the surface plies are common, and it may be 

difficult on some composite designs to achieve failure outside the bondline, especially for pulloff and other out-of-plane loading conditions. 

There was agreement that if the adhesive material is going to fail, it should always be in a 

cohesive failure mode. Adhesion failure modes were agreed to be process failures and thus not 

acceptable. The preclusion of an adhesion failure mode is principally a process-related issue but 

material choices could be significant. 

A comment was made that, for thicker structures, designing to fail outside the joint is difficult. 

Another participant remarked that it is easy by using a step lap joint (however, this design only 

applies to bonded joints transferring loads in the plane of the laminate). For these high-load 

transfer joints, it was suggested that the design should preclude failure outside the joint area, e.g., 

in a step lap joint, an adherend failure in one of the steps would not be acceptable. 

It was stated that a bond (adhesive) failure is easier to fix than an adherend failure. It was also 

stated that failures occurring outside the joint (either bonded or bolted) are more consistent than 

failures occurring within a joint. 

27
There was general agreement that the key issue is predicting the mode and location of the failure. 

It was pointed out that there is a need to distinguish between design procedures and guidelines 

and certification approaches to avoid having regulations that state how to design a structure. 

A participant suggested that you can learn a lot by designing to fail within the joint, then 

redesigning it to fail outside. The problem with initially trying to design for failures outside the 

joint is that you may not be successful. Other participants questioned whether a development 

program has the time or resources to conduct several design and test cycles. 

There was some disagreement over the benefits and drawbacks of cocured composite structure 

(i.e., without adhesive materials) versus secondarily bonded structure. With cocured structure, 

failures occur in the laminates. A participant stated that to facilitate repair, the design should 

have simpler discrete parts that are secondarily bonded; this participant also claimed that this 

also ends up being cheaper to fabricate in practice. Other participants disputed this statement. 

Regarding the often-stated criterion to design to minimize peel stresses, it was pointed out by a 

participant that one cannot say that there is no peel stress in joints. It is always there to some 

level, so one needs to design for its presence and understand its effects on joint performance. 

There was a discussion on providing for redundant design features and load paths for bonded 

structure. 14 CFR Part 23 for small aircraft requires proof testing and redundant load paths for 

limit load. It was stated that separate joints can make up redundant paths (e.g., multispar wing 

design). The question was asked: Can redundant features be separately processed bonds? 

A participant stated that the industry is kidding itself to say redundant features improve safety; if 

there is a bonding process failure, then all the joints will be bad and redundant design features 

will not provide the required load capability. A regulatory agency participant stated that (1) 14 

CFR Part 23 is not meant to deal with global processing problems, but more with having 

arrestment feature, and (2) redundancy can deal with localized scale processing problems like 

contamination at a smaller scale than arrestment features. 

An industry participant stated that they do not use adhesive bonds for primary load paths and 

always use rivets. They gave up on bonded joint designs and now do not have to do NDI of the 

bondlines. 

It was stated that 14 CFR Part 25 does not specifically mention composites or bonded joints and, 

therefore, implies that you can certify a structure using damage tolerance methods. 

Regarding the establishment of defect and damage sizes in bonded joints, it was generally agreed 

that the sizes should be linked to inspection methods and policies (both factory and in service). 

There was some disagreement as to whether establishing a defect size is really useful. A 

participant stated that low stress level structure can accommodate huge defects (e.g., 2- to 5-inch 

defect sizes). It was stated that it is difficult to intentionally introduce realistic defects—planned 

versus real in-service defect is different—because the in-service damage tends to be more severe. 

Defect types and sizes should be linked to manufacturing and in-service threats. It was stated 

that large damage most often comes from vehicles crashing into the aircraft (e.g., fuel truck or 

28
forklift). There was also a concern that it is difficult to inspect for bondline defects, yet industry 

typically establishes and designates to them—this could lead to difficult in-service issues. 

4.3.2.1.2 Design for Repair. 

It was stated that repair weight for some structural components is a critical issue. Allowing for 

repairs in certain areas and accounting for repair weight is necessary in the design process (e.g., 

for control surfaces). Another important factor to be considered in design is the trade between 

structural weight efficiency versus repairability. 

There ensued a discussion regarding whether there should be a maximum allowable bonded 

repair size for primary structure. Some participants stated that primary structure with a 

disbonded repair must sustain limit load. It was also stated that if you have structure that does 

not have limit load capability without repair, that case should not be treated differently from 

what is done when designing the airplane. No consensus on repair size criteria was reached. 

Additional comments regarding bonded repair size limits included: 

• A participant with military aircraft experience stated that sometimes damaged parts need 

to get scrapped. 

• A general aviation participant stated that they cannot afford to do this. 

• Need to distinguish between flight-critical versus nonflight critical parts. 

• There are practical process restrictions on what can be repaired in the field. 

• Different construction types permit different damage limits. 

• A question was asked: Can different repair shops be identified that can be allowed to do 

certain repairs versus scrapping the part? 

• Another question was asked: Should the repair size limit be an economic one? 

It was generally agreed that the specifics of a repair design needed to be considered in specifying 

maximum defects to be used in the repair design and analysis (e.g., a 2- versus 5-inch repair 

overlap length can accommodate different defect sizes). 

It was also agreed that bonded repair of honeycomb sandwich is easier to do than skin and 

stringer structure. One participant stated that bonded repairs to skin and stiffener structure will 

probably need to have fasteners to make it beyond the requirement to sustain limit load with the 

repair completely disbonded. Further discussion focused on how to design these repairs. The 

question was asked: How do you determine how much of the repair is bonded in service? 

A participant stated that airline repair outfits would like to have correction factors to apply to 

manufacturer’s (OEM, material supplier?) data for use in repair design. 

29
4.3.2.1.3 Bonded Structure Data and Analyses. 

It was generally agreed that bonded structure data must be intimately tied to the analysis methods 

used to design the structure. 

In the areas of material properties and statistical allowables, it was generally agreed that the 

following data should be obtained: 

• Stress-strain response as a function of environment, thickness, etc., for adhesive and 

possibly composite adherend materials. 

• Fracture toughness for adherend and adhesive materials. The data to be obtained will 

depend on the analytical techniques that are available. This data could give a good basis 

for comparisons between materials. 

In what appears to be a unique case, one company does a lot of thick adherend stress versus 

strain measurement (at four environments). They do enough tests to get statistical values and 

have the methodology to take shear stress-strain curves and produce B-basis stress-strain curves. 

It was commented that having this extensive data helps during certification to document 

knowledge of properties and failure modes. Another participant commented that having these 

data are very useful in changing adhesives. However, a different participant suggested that this 

extent of data generation tends to make companies stick to using the same adhesives—even 30-

year-old systems. 

A participant asked what tests are available for producing peel stress design data. Another 

participant commented that pure peel is a mode that is not common and using these data would 

be very conservative. A comment was made that peel strength data for adhesive does not 

generally exist; therefore, it is hard to design joints. 

It was commented that a big issue is the fact that when testing a composite-bonded joint, it is not 

a test of the strength of the adhesive, but a test of the joint as a system. Many factors are 

involved; therefore, allowables data must account for the specific type of joint being designed. 

Some people feel that this is a problem with thick adherend data and that it does not account for 

the same amount of peel as the actual joint configuration. 

Further problems with the thick adherend shear test were expressed. Depending on which 

company runs the test, the results can be significantly different. Some participants felt that this 

indicated that the test procedure had a lot of variability. Comments were made that the mix ratio 

of paste adhesives affects stress versus strain curves. 

The requirement for statistical numbers is a big issue: number of specimens, number of batches, 

etc. It was generally agreed that adhesive ultimate strength accounts for statistical variation, but 

adhesive moduli values are average numbers (just like the approach for composite laminates). 

There was also general agreement that material allowables should take account of material 

variability as well as production-related variability and be linked to the design methodology. 

30
A small aircraft company participant commented that statistical data is mainly useful for 

receiving inspection purposes. A small aircraft company cannot afford to perform finite element 

analysis for every joint; rather, rough design rules of thumb are used, which accept a large 

margin. Very conservative allowables and rough crude analysis is used for 90% of structure; 

more aggressive allowables and sophisticated analyses might be used for critical structures. 

In the area of manufacturing process data, the following were suggested as needed data: 

• Effects of manufacturing variations (surface prep, curing, bondline thickness) 

• Effects of manufacturing defects and anomalies 

It was agreed that this data should be tied to the specific process used, e.g., vacuum bag, heat 

blanket, autoclave, etc. 

Participants suggested that flaws in the bonded joint should be evaluated to determine whether 

they are critical. These types of tests are typically done at a full-scale or subcomponent level. A 

comment was made that flaws near a free edge could cause moisture ingression problems. 

In the area of environmental durability data, it was commented that: 

• Test protocols should incorporate compounds for inhibiting corrosion. 

• Temperature is an important condition for durability tests. 

• There is a need to show that you have durability with a combination of realistic operating 

environments, cyclic loading, and manufacturing defects. 

Fatigue (load-cycling) issues should be covered as well as environmental cycling. 

There was agreement that point-design data needs are tied in with the planned analysis methods. 

A comment was made that knockdown factors from element level tests do not necessarily 

transfer to the full-scale level. 

It was agreed that analysis tools for damage tolerance analysis and testing have not been 

completely linked up. There is a pressing need to validate analysis methods. It was stated that 

the lack of validated damage tolerance analyses drives the no-damage-growth design philosophy 

and certification approach. 

4.3.2.2 Bonded Structure Substantiation. 

4.3.2.2.1 Static Strength. 

It was generally agreed that the key to validation of analysis methods is the prediction of failure 

modes at each level of the building block and the validation of the predictions by test results. 

31
There was no consensus on how to validate manufacturing processes, including process failures. 

Mostly questions were expressed: 

• For certification, are we supposed to go through all the processes and play the “what if” 

game? 

• If so, can you do it analytically? 

• How does this affect the need (desire) to make process changes after the structure has 

been certified? 

A participant expressed that the ideal situation would be to design a component that does not 

have a critical failure in the bondline. It was also suggested that it was important that the failure 

mode does not change with environmental exposure. 

A comment was made addressing the fact that there will always be an unexpected failure mode 

in the full-scale test, due to a more elaborate structures and complex joints with multiple load 

paths. 

4.3.2.2.2 Durability. 

It was suggested by one participant that bond interfacial issues must be resolved before any 

environmental durability testing is performed; otherwise, confusing or invalid results will be 

obtained. 

The possible need or requirement for large-scale tests at the most severe service environment 

was seen as a big issue. It was expressed that this is impossible to do for a large airplane, and 

thus when the aircraft is in service is when it is tested at the most severe environment. 

Therefore, it is important that in-service durability data and experience get fed back into the loop 

and adjustments made to account for what is learned. 

Some certification programs have used lamina-scale coupon data to create environmental scaling 

load factors in conducting the full-scale tests. In some cases, intermediate-scale tests have been 

used to validate the approach. It was commented that this is the approach that produces a lot of 

information for the lowest cost, but it runs a big risk of missing effects that only show up at the 

full-scale level. 

Regarding the demonstration of the no-growth of damages, it was commented that in many tests, 

you do not get growth or failure and the test ends, but you still do not know what failure mode is 

critical. This suggests that solely obtaining no-growth data may not be sufficient to ensure 

safety. 

It was also commented that full-scale tests can be simplified by doing smaller-scale tests to 

prove no-growth, provided the small- scale tests are successful. 

32
A participant commented that is it important to differentiate between long-term environmental 

durability and degradation versus short-term loss of structural performance due to an 

environment. Environmental cycling over the aircraft’s lifetime could have a significant effect. 

A participant stated that bond interfacial failures should be considered as a failure in certification 

testing because these joints over time would eventually lose their capability. 

4.3.2.2.3 Damage Tolerance. 

Issues regarding damage tolerance were discussed throughout the breakout sessions under 

several topic headings. As such, many of the related comments are interspersed throughout the 

previous sections. A summary of the key comments from above is given here, along with input 

from the participants during the discussion of this specific topic. 

Regarding design for redundant features and load paths: 

• It was stated that 14 CFR Part 23 for small aircraft requires proof testing and redundant 

load paths for limit load. This generally does not allow for a damage tolerance design 

approach. 

• It was stated that separate joints can make up redundant paths (e.g., multispar wing 

design). However, can redundant features be separately processed bonds? If the bonds 

for the redundant load paths are processed simultaneously, is redundancy achieved? 

• A regulatory agency participant stated that (1) 14 CFR Part 23 is not meant to deal with 

global processing problems, but more with having arrestment features and (2) redundancy 

can deal with localized scale processing problems like contamination at a smaller scale 

than arrestment features. It also addresses accidental damage threats in service. 

• In other applications (non-14 CFR Part 23), crack arrestment features are sometimes 

used, such as chicken fasteners, or z-pins. 

Regarding defect types and sizes: 

• Defect types and sizes should be linked to manufacturing and in-service threats. It was 

stated that large damage most often comes from vehicles crashing into the aircraft (e.g., 

fuel truck or forklift). There was also a concern that it is difficult to inspect for bondline 

defects, yet we are establishing and designing to them—this could lead to difficult inservice issues. 

• How are manufacturing anomaly or variation threats to be determined? If weak bonds 

cannot be found at the time of manufacture, how can we ensure the threat is limited to a 

local area (e.g., one disbonded stringer, etc...)? Again, the issue is how to define a global 

process failure relative to a local bond failure or anomaly. 

It was agreed that the analysis tools for damage tolerance and associated data and testing have 

not been completely linked up. There is a pressing need to validate the analysis methods. It was 

33
stated that the lack of validated damage tolerance analyses drives the no-damage-growth design 

philosophy and certification approach. 

Environmental durability should also be considered with regard to damage tolerance. If a 

significant bondline defect or damage exists, environmental cycling (including moisture ingress) 

may lead to damage growth. Do we have the analysis tools and test data required to characterize 

this? 

It was stated that a significant amount of work has been done at DSTO (Australia) using smart 

patches for health monitoring of bonded repairs. A question was raised: Can health monitoring 

avoid some of the damage tolerance certification issues? 

Several participants stated that there is a need to define the damage tolerance design criteria and 

philosophy at the start of a program. That is, the objectives of the validation and substantiation 

effort should be clearly stated before the development program gets underway. 

A participant also asked the question: For structural repairs, Should/must a fail safety/damage 

tolerance analysis be performed? 

4.3.2.2.4 Industry Standards, Guidance, and Research Needs. 

Only a short amount of time in each of the four breakout sessions was devoted to discussions of 

standards, guidance, and research needs. In the first two areas, the following items were 

suggested: 

• Reliable environmental durability test standards are needed for bonded joints in 

composite structure. Some ideas suggested included a wedge-type test or a DCB test. 

• Need guidance on how to determine equivalency for different or modified adhesive 

materials and bonding processes. Need something similar to AGATE program for 

composite materials. Also need standardization and guidance on evaluating changes to 

certified materials and processes, including some standardization or definition for the 

difference between a new material and a change in application. 

• Need guidance on developing building block test programs for bonded structure, 

including where in the building block tests should Barely Visible Impact Damage be 

incorporated. 

• Need guidance on procedures and requirements for statistical allowables for bonded 

joints. Need to define what an adhesive joint allowable is. Need procedures to be able to 

apply analysis methods at scales from coupons and elements to full-scale structure. 

• Need fracture toughness test standards to support evolving analysis methods. 

• More usable data needs to be included in MIL-HDBK-17. This should include adhesive 

data as well as bonded joint data. Many participants felt that preliminary design data 

would be acceptable. Material suppliers continue to develop new materials—would like 

34
to see a quick turnaround to get new material data into MIL-HDBK-17, as current rate of 

revision of the document is too slow. 

• Some participants expressed a desire for the FAA to publish bonded structures 

certification guidance (Advisory Circular or policy memo). Need big picture guidance 

that is application-dependent. However, many participants are concerned that FAA 

guidance will become requirements, especially by inexperienced FAA personnel. One 

participant commented that guidance applies to what you already know, not what you 

have not done yet. This then drives the design philosophy. But when guidance is 

created, de facto rules are being created, which are generally not desired by industry. 

The following areas were suggested as needing further research: 

• Inspection methods, both for manufacturing and for in-service evaluation. 

• Methods for determining and using effective Gc and R-curve data for bonded joint design. 

• Investigation of long-term durability of composite and bonded structure, particularly 

environmental degradation. Possibly obtain old used airplanes, get history on them, and 

then do teardown studies because these airframes have seen real environmental exposure. 

4.3.3 Manufacturing Implementation. 

4.3.3.1 Overview. 

The primary objective of the manufacturing implementation session was to collect, document, 

and summarize the industry’s consensus of critical issues regarding manufacturing 

implementation and experience of bonded structures (preferably with ranking). A secondary 

objective was to document the discussions of the critical issues, including proven engineering 

practices, provide directions for research and development, and identify the needs for 

engineering guidelines, standard tests, and specifications. 

Prior to the workshop, the manufacturing implementation session panel, in coordination with 

Larry Ilcewicz, identified categories of issues known to affect bond quality. Using these 

categories, the panel planned to have workshop members identify key variables within each 

category and discuss the critical issues. After discussing the category, workshop members were 

asked to vote for the top three categories they believed were critical in their industry in terms of 

structural safety. 

The initial categories presented for discussion were as follows: 

• Handling of the adhesive 

• Surface preparation 

• Dispensing adhesive 

• Dimensional control (adhesive layer thickness) 

• Bonding fixtures 

• Cure control 

35
• NDI and quality control 

• Scaling of processes to larger or smaller structures 

• General (other) 

4.3.3.2 Discussion Categories and Key Category Variables. 

4.3.3.2.1 Surface Preparation. 

The discussion of surface preparation was involved and clearly represented a major concern for 

manufacturers and repair stations. The variables identified as important included adequacy of 

the surface preparation, especially underprepared surfaces; contamination as related to cross 

contamination from reused material (grit media, etc.), environment (temperature, humidity, etc.), 

and time in environment-changing surface conditions; training; standardization of required 

techniques and environments; and quality control. 

The importance of surface preparation seems to be agreed to by all parties. The importance of 

training and quality control relative to the lack of good NDI techniques to directly measure inprocess quality seemed to be the variables that were most discussed. 

4.3.3.2.2 Cure Control. 

The cure control discussion centered on the large variation in manufacturing approaches; from 

autoclave processes to heat blankets. The type of approach affected the level of concern with 

respect to cure control variables. The variables identified as important included local variations 

in process conditions (temperature, pressure, and porosity); process metrics (in situ process 

metric versus post process quality assurance (QA)); scaling (laboratory scale versus full scale); 

and dimensional control of adhesive layer thickness and bonding. 

4.3.3.2.3 Fixtures. 

The variables identified as important included dimensional control of substrates and verification 

of fit; application of preloads relative to bondline thickness control and defects; tooling (design, 

type, flexibility, thermal conductivity, and thermal mass); bondline thickness measuring 

materials; and the appropriate use of Verifilm. 

4.3.3.2.4 NDI and Quality Control. 

The variables identified as important included bondline performance relative to thickness, 

strength, long-term performance, and SPC; the need for visual inspection standards; and NDI—

especially adequacy, standardization, new developments, and utilization. 

4.3.3.2.5 Scaling of Processes to Larger and Smaller Structures. 

The variables identified as important included complexity (including size and number of steps), 

use of building block approach, and organizational scaling. 

36
4.3.3.2.6 General (Human Factors). 

Training was a major variable discussed in all categories. The variables identified as important 

included automation; equipment maintenance and the handling, storage, and disposal of 

materials; performance of trained employees; and documentation of processes. 

4.3.3.2.7 Handling of the Adhesive. 

The variables identified as important included storage and aging—specifically shipping versus 

manufacturing dates; out time; and requalification. 

4.3.3.2.8 Dispensing Adhesive. 

The variables identified as important included sequence and timing of the bonding process steps 

(gap filling and mixing). 

4.3.3.3 Ranking of Categories and Variables. 

• Surface preparation, 90 votes 

− Environmental cleanliness and control, contamination 

• Cure control, 40 votes 

− Local variations in temperature and pressure, porosity 

• Dimensional control (adhesive layer thickness) and bonding fixtures, 39 votes 

− Dimensional control of substrates, verification of fit 

− Application of preloads, bondline thickness control, defects 

• NDI and quality control, 32 votes 

− Cured bondline evaluation, tracking outcome, and bond process variables 

• Scaling of processes to larger and smaller structures, 26 votes 

− Scaling of a developed process to a larger (smaller) structure 

• General (Human Factors), 25 votes 

− Equipment maintenance; training of personnel; documentation of process; and 

handling, storage, and disposal of materials 

• Handling of the adhesive, 13 votes 

− Storage, aging 

• Dispensing adhesive, 4 votes 

− Sequence and timing of the bonding process steps, gap filling 

37
4.3.3.4 Summary. 

In summary, the participants felt that everyone knew what the big issues were, and there was 

even a rough consensus on prioritization. However, many people were uncomfortable with the 

concept of ranking. No one was fully comfortable with the techniques available to cope with the 

current situation. The comfort level was lowest in the areas of training and surface preparation. 

The consensus was that training was not done well enough, consistently enough, or often 

enough. It was also the consensus that surface preparation is the issue most in need of one or 

more good practical solutions. 

4.3.4 Repair Implementation and Experience. 

4.3.4.1 Repair Design Issues. 

The following were the most popular response to the question of what analysis tools were 

needed. 

• Development of software to optimize repair lay-ups: As an example, it was suggested 

that the existing NSE/Boeing-developed bonded repair analysis method could be further 

developed and distributed to operators and maintenance and repair organizations (MRO). 

This would require sharing OEM and repair material databases. 

• Development of a fracture mechanics approach to analyze of bonded original structures 

and repairs: This could be a simple, FAA-approved, PC-based analysis tool to design and 

substantiate repairs. Finite element method analyses were considered far too 

cumbersome for repairers. 

Any analysis development should be verified by testing. 

• CACRC operators’ and MIL-HDBK-17 OEM analysis tools: Many repairers were 

looking forward to these aids. Many attendees commented that development of these 

analyses had been far too slow. 

• Some attendees professed to be disturbed by divergence between analysis tools and 

structural responses. 

• Bondline strength and durability analyses are needed: A4EI, BJAM, or similar type 

analyses need to be modified to allow for nonuniform shear stresses in the bondlines. It 

was thought that development of an analysis method to determine long-term durability 

was remote, but should be pursued as composite parts become larger and more critical for 

flight safety. 

The topic of design values and allowables for repair materials promoted many complaints. 

Many small aircraft repairers were using MIL-HDBK-17 material strengths and stiffness values 

to design their repairs because the MIL-HDBK-17 databases were used to design the aircraft. 

38
This does not help the commercial aircraft repairers because both Boeing and Airbus have not 

provided their material databases to MIL-HDBK-17. 

OEM attendees were asked about the potential for shared databases, both base and repair 

material allowables. They were concerned about the threat of reverse-engineering and poorly 

designed replacement parts. There are ITAR/IP issues for OEMs with providing databases. 

Many participants thought that standardized engineering guidelines would help reduce the 

potential for poor design details and difficult repairs. In original designs for example, tapering 

stiffener flanges can minimize peel stresses. For repairs, the edges of the repair patches should 

be tapered. This was considered the norm by most repairers. 

There was a recommendation that OEMs should provide a sufficient margin of strength to allow 

for degradation of structure due to repairs, which the OEM said would increase structural weight. 

There was a suggestion that a strain limit be established for repairs. 

There were several responses regarding fail-safe features for primary structures, which are as 

follows. 

• Fasteners in bondlines: The fasteners were to be the fail-safe feature in either original 

designs or repairs. Most participants thought that this was not a good idea, even though, 

theoretically, limit load capability could be maintained if the original bondline failed or 

the bonded repair falls off. The OEM participants thought this would drive up the cost 

and add complexity for inspection of parts. Repairers thought that these types of repairs 

would increase costs and repair times, and that these kinds of repairs would need 

precured patches. 

• Damaged limit load capability of components with failed bonded repairs: General 

aviation and commercial transport OEMs and repair attendees did not consider this 

potential requirement helpful, even though bonded repairs on USAF composite aircraft 

require limit load capability of the damaged components without repairs. Currently, 

commercial aircraft SRMs contain bonded repairs for damaged primary structural 

components, which require the unrepaired component to retain higher residual strength 

than the limit load. This is the same for both composite and metal primary structural 

components. It was considered only an issue for aircraft on-ground repairs for these 

types of structures. Most commercial SRMs contain bonded repairs for damaged 

secondary structural parts that require the unrepaired component not retain limit load 

capability, and repairers did not want this changed for these types of structures, nor did 

they consider it necessary. It was thought by some that critical-to-flight-safety flight 

control panels may benefit from this low-risk requirement, until successful service 

experience drives up the confidence factor in adhesive bonded repairs for these 

structures. 

• Instructions for continued service: Periodic inspection of repairs is typically a 

requirement for low temperature and some nonautoclave bonded repairs in OEM SRMs. 

There was some consideration for a similar requirement for bonded repairs to 

39
critical-to-safe-flight components. Again, it was suggested that this requirement, if 

imposed, could be lifted after successful service experience. 

4.3.4.2 Repair Material and Process Controls. 

• Raw material qualification—adhesives and substrates: The end-user typically runs the 

receiving inspection tests. This can use up considerable portions of small lots. 

Shared supplier and user databases could provide for statistically based qualification test 

values. However, material suppliers would need a good business case before providing 

extensive information. 

There was a comment that material suppliers do not understand the repair environment, 

and therefore, do not know how to test for it. 

Standardized test coupons and procedures are needed. 

Material equivalency was considered an issue. One OEM representative suggested that 

the FAA determine an acceptable material equivalency approach. 

It was considered that the AGATE program supplier-owned material database was a good 

approach. 

• Supplier and user relationships: Most small repairers agreed that the material suppliers 

were not interested in helping them. For example, they were not interested in furnishing 

small lots of prepreg; therefore, the availability of small quantities of specific repair 

materials was a problem for small repairers. 

• Standardized repair materials and processes: Standardized repair materials would 

alleviate the availability problem. In order to standardize repair materials and processes, 

it was thought that OEMs would bear 85% of the development costs, and the business 

case would need to be understood to expend that kind of expense. 

It was suggested that repair kits be standardized. 

The U.S. military has attempted to standardize repair materials across a multiple supplier 

fleet of aircraft. 

It was stated that some OEM base materials are not suitable for bonded repairs, 

specifically the toughened variety. As a result of this discussion, it was recommended 

that repairability should be an important objective for the material choice of any new 

airframe. 

• Storage and working lives: Obtaining small lots from second tier suppliers can be 

problematic due to lack of warehouse and shipping controls. 

40
Most general aviation repairers use wet lay-up repair materials and storage was not 

considered a problem, however, wet lay-up materials working lives could be a problem. 

Most large airline repairers and MROs use both wet lay-up and prepreg materials. 

Storage is somewhat of a problem for prepreg materials as well as the need for retesting 

material batches every 6 months. 

It was suggested that there should be a standardized guide for storage, i.e., containers and 

environmental controls. 

• Surface preparation: Good surface preparation was considered paramount, and numerous 

attendees thought that most poor bonding is caused by the presence of moisture in the 

bondline. 

Repair environments need to be controlled to eliminate, as much as possible, moisture 

from the bonded surfaces. This is not an easy task for field repairs. On the whole, it was 

thought that depot repair environments were adequate. 

As for eliminating moisture or fluids from the base structure, it was thought to be mostly 

possible for thin face sheet sandwich, although some fluids, such as hydraulic fluid, were 

more difficult to eliminate. The consensus was that thicker laminates were next to 

impossible to dry out. 

At a minimum, it was a consensus that the surfaces to be bonded should be dry and clean. 

There was much discussion as to the best method of roughing the surface to be bonded. 

It was agreed that some preparation methods can leave a residue on the surface, which 

can be detrimental to good bonds. 

There was suggestion for a prebond nondestructive evaluation (NDE) capability to assess 

the surface preparation. 

• In-process control: OEM SRMs specify their own process controls for repairs, and 

approval for these repairs is only granted if the specifications for materials and process 

control are followed. 

Temperature, vacuum, and pressure monitoring were all considered essential as process 

controls. 

There was a recommendation that OEMs should open up their processing temperature 

tolerances to compensate for variations in heat blanket thermocouple readings. F/A-18 

E/F repairs were being rejected due to variations in the cure temperature readings. The 

temperature tolerance was opened up and proved successful. All agreed that processes 

need to be robust and repeatable. 

One OEM is using Tg via DSC for in-process verification of wet lay-up repairs. 

41
Other suggestions for in-processing control were video monitoring, time sequencing, and 

in-process inspection buy-offs. 

• Postrepair acceptance criteria: All the attendees agreed that there are no NDE methods 

available to assess bondline strength and durability. 

One participant thought that proof loading was a good method for repair acceptance, 

although this is not very appropriate for large components. A possible variation of this 

could be to subject the repair to an energy pulse of the type being investigated at Boeing. 

Companion coupons can be proof of cure but do not guarantee bondline integrity. On the 

whole, companion coupons were considered of little value. 

Some thought that the wedge test had merit for bondline assessment, but there is 

apparently no standard for it, and it can be readily misused. As for all other potential 

bondline tests, it cannot be used to predict life, and it is considered only semiquantitive. 

Most repairers use the tap method for postrepair inspection, although the U.S. Navy has 

disallowed that method due to lack of reference standards. 

There is potential for some combination of the review of material test properties, surface 

preparation, repair environment, and in-process controls could provide credible postrepair 

acceptance criteria. There was a recommendation for the FAA to coordinate a standard 

for postrepair acceptance criteria. 

4.3.4.3 Considerations for Maintenance of Bonded Structures. 

• Current field procedures used to inspect bonded structures and repairs: As stated above, 

most repairers of general aviation and commercial aircraft composites use the tap test for 

both in-service and postrepair inspections. 

All operators and repairers use a visual approach for both in-service and postrepair 

inspection. 

NDE methods, such as pulse echo, are used for in-service inspections in some 

maintenance manuals, but availability of reference standards becomes an issue. 

Due to lack of appropriate standards for repair, NDE performed for postrepair inspection 

often uses the actual structure for comparisons. 

• Robust and repeatable repair processes: It was generally thought that to make sure repair 

processes are robust and repeatable, the workplace environment and in-process controls 

need careful attention. Elimination of moisture and humidity are very important. 

Technicians also need good initial training and periodic retesting. 

42
Max Davis, of the RAAF, indicated that within his repair system, there were good and 

not so good technicians and inspectors. This all fits in with the suggestion for a 

certification system. 

• Need for hand-held NDE equipment to interrogate bondline strength: Most attendees 

thought that this is an absolute necessity. The prospect of developing an effective 

method in the near future seems dim, but it was recommended that the government help 

with direction and perhaps some funding. 

A representative of the RAAF recommended that not only bondline strength prediction 

but also bondline durability prediction should be the goal. 

• Certification of repair technicians, QA staff, engineering, and regulators: An attendee 

from Boeing recommended that what is needed is a completely certified repair system 

that includes materials, workplaces, processing, repair technicians, QA personnel, 

management, and regulators. This should be coordinated by the FAA and contributed to 

by OEMs, material suppliers, and repairers. 

There was a suggestion that the cost burden of qualification to, and regulation of such a 

system, will need to be shared. 

Most agreed that a certified repair system would be appropriate and beneficial. 

• Two or more tiers for SRMs: A representative from Bell Helicopters stated that they 

already employ a multitiered SRM system. They approve repair stations for various 

levels of repair, and limit SRM distribution to those qualified to each level. 

Qualification to each tier is based on the repairers’ experience, workplaces, technical 

capability and expertise. 

Most thought that this was a great system. Lower tier qualified repairers could qualify 

for higher tiers as they build experience and capability. 

5. CONCLUSIONS. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is working on composite safety and certification 

initiatives (CS&CI) with industry, government agencies, and academia. The results of CS&CI, 

which include regulatory policy, guidance, standards, and training, have a basis in certification 

and service experiences. An industry interface in new technology considerations and focused 

research also help evolve the results to best support applications. Technical thrust areas for 

CS&CI include material standards, process control, structural substantiation, damage tolerance, 

maintenance practices, and advanced material forms and processes. In 2004, the emphasis was 

placed on bonded structures for all of these thrust areas. 

Bonding is used in numerous manufacturing and repair applications for aircraft structures in 

small airplanes, transport aircraft, rotorcraft, fighter jets, and propellers. The FAA conducted a 

43
survey and workshops in 2004 to benchmark industry practices for structural bonding. The 

technical scope of these efforts included material and process control, design development, 

structural substantiation, manufacturing implementation, and maintenance practices and service 

experiences. Such complete coverage was needed because the technical issues for bonding are 

complex and require cross-functional teams for successful applications. 

The survey developed a point of reference for industry practices and collected information on the 

critical safety issues and certification considerations for bonded aircraft structures and repairs. 

The average years of bonding experience for people taking the survey was 18. The responses 

were based on bonding applications to small airplanes, transport aircraft, rotorcraft, fighter jets, 

and propellers. 

One of the primary areas of questions in the survey related to material and process qualification 

and control. Most respondents agreed that the primary reason for adhesive material qualification 

is to define requirements for material control. The respondents provided a long list of different 

physical, chemical, and mechanical tests for adhesive qualification. The most common 

mechanical test type used for qualification was some form of a lap shear test. Sixty percent of 

the respondents did not attempt to characterize the nonlinear stress versus strain behavior of the 

adhesive. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that bonding process qualification was part of 

the same test matrix as adhesive qualification. A majority of the respondents agreed that 

qualification of bonding processes should include durability assessments to ensure adequate 

adhesion. All respondents agreed that moisture and temperature environmental effects were 

included in adhesive and bonded process qualification plans. 

The respondents provided information on the types of mechanical, physical, and chemical tests 

included in specifications for adhesive material procurement and control. This included the 

types of tests used for acceptance testing. There was some difference in the opinions of the 

respondents on whether or not qualification data was used to directly set the acceptance 

requirements for adhesive material control, with the majority of the respondents in agreement. 

There was a greater difference in opinions on whether or not to include environmental effects in 

acceptance testing. The respondents had mixed views on the controls needed for peel ply 

materials, which are used for composite surface preparation. 

The majority of the respondents use in-process monitoring or witness panel tests for bond 

process control. The different bond surface preparations used by respondents included sanding 

(hand and automated), media blasting, peel ply, chemical etch, and others, depending on the 

substrate and adhesive combinations. The most common methods of monitoring the surface 

preparation were visual checks, water break tests, witness panels, and surface chemistry tests. 

Fifty percent of the respondents believed that mechanical tests should be performed for bonding 

process control purposes. Most respondents agreed with a need to control the prebond moisture 

of substrate materials. The respondents, depending on the specific materials and bonding 

application, used a wide range of bond assembly processing steps. Most respondents had time 

constraints for the various bond assembly process steps from surface preparation to adhesive 

cure. The majority of respondents said that time and temperature were controlled in the bond 

process cure cycle. The majority of the respondents believed that nondestructive inspection 

(NDI) plays a role in bond process control. 

44
Another primary area of questions in the survey related to manufacturing and design integration. 

The first series of questions addressed design and analysis. The respondents used bonding for 

many parts, including skins, doublers, stringers, and frames. Most people responding to the 

survey agreed that tooling, manufacturing, and maintenance issues should be integrated into the 

design process. A slight majority of the respondents use analysis codes. Many believed that 

cohesive failure in the substrate and adhesive could be predicted. A large majority of the 

respondents design to minimize peel stresses in a bonded joint. Most considered damage 

tolerance, fatigue, and durability in design; however, there was a general disagreement on 

whether or not analysis methods can be applied for such a purpose. 

There were several survey questions related to manufacturing. Most respondents agreed on a 

need to control humidity in bond processing. A majority of the respondents indicated that cured 

part dimensional tolerance and warpage are controlled. People taking the survey were split on 

the use of Verifilm to confirm the fit of mating surfaces. Most respondents applied time 

constraints during adhesive application. In most cases, scaling for production did not result in 

significant changes in the processes used for surface preparation or adhesive application. The 

respondents used a number of different methods of controlling bondline thickness. Most 

respondents use ultrasonic methods and visual inspection to inspect bonded structures following 

cure. The respondents suggested a number of different methods for training the manufacturing 

workforce. All respondents agreed on a need to record cure temperature and duration, while 

most tracked adhesive out time. 

There were also several survey questions on allowables and design data. Most respondents used 

lap shear tests. MIL-HDBK-17 was the preferred method of calculating allowables. A majority 

of people taking the survey indicated a need to include the effects of environment in bonded joint 

tests. The desired adhesive layer thickness varied with the application. There were many 

different thoughts expressed on the data needed for fatigue, damage tolerance, manufacturing 

defects, and service damage. 

Another primary area of questions in the survey related to product development, substantiation, 

and support. Most people taking the survey indicated that product development lead times for 

bonded structures were longer than conventional structure that uses mechanical fastening. The 

majority of the respondents recommended using a building block approach for product 

development and substantiation of bonded structure. Most respondents agreed on a need to 

substantiate strength and damage tolerance in large-scale tests. Critical defect and damage 

locations were selected based on stress levels, manufacturing experiences, and susceptibility to 

impact. Most respondents have had good service records with bonded structure, while the rest 

have had mixed success. 

The final area of the survey included general questions, which required an open-ended response. 

Opinions were collected on the major safety concerns and certification hurdles for bonded 

structures. Views were also expressed on desired design, analysis, manufacturing, and 

maintenance improvements. Finally, economic and technical barriers to expanded applications 

were discussed. 

45
5.1 BONDED STRUCTURES WORKSHOP. 

The Bonded Structures Workshop was held in Seattle, WA on June 16-18, 2004. The primary 

objective of this workshop was to collect and document technical details that need to be 

addressed for bonded structures, including critical safety issues and certification considerations. 

As secondary objectives, future needs in engineering guidelines, shared databases, standards, and 

research for bonded structures were also identified. 

Presentations given by technical experts at the Bonded Structures Workshop covered a wide 

range of aircraft applications and service experiences. Surface preparation for the specific 

substrate and adhesive material combinations was thought to be a critical process step for both 

metal and composite bonded joints. Many experts felt that bonding material and process 

qualification procedures must address any potential for long-term environmental degradation of 

the bond in addition to mechanical strength and fatigue requirements. Accelerated laboratory 

tests, which include peel stresses and a moisture environment, were thought to be the best way of 

judging whether a good bonding process exists. Adhesion failures in qualification testing 

indicated an unsatisfactory combination of materials and bonding process parameters. 

Once qualified, design development and bond process scale-up must be coordinated such that 

manufacturing and maintenance groups can repeatedly apply the proven process to structural 

detail. The building block approach to structural substantiation is typically used to address 

stiffness, static strength, and fatigue and damage tolerance requirements for bonded structures, 

including considerations for manufacturing defects and service damage. Since it is not practical 

to address long-term environmental durability in large-scale certification tests, many workshop 

participants felt that some combination of fail-safe design practices and service monitoring 

programs were also needed. Finally, most workshop participants believed that rigorous material 

and process controls and technician training were essential to manufacturing and maintenance 

implementation of bonding. Workshop presentations can be viewed at the following website, 

which was setup by the National Institute of Aviation Research at Wichita State University. 

http://www.niar.wichita.edu/faa/

Four technical breakout sessions were conducted at the U.S. Bonded Structures Workshop. 

These included sessions for material and process qualification and control, design development 

and structural substantiation, manufacturing implementation, and repair implementation. The 

primary focus of these sessions was to gain agreement on the critical issues and certification 

considerations that need to be addressed in each area. In addition, best engineering practices 

were discussed and future needs in standards, shared databases, and research were identified. 

In summary, the bonded structures survey and workshops provided a large amount of data to 

gauge industry practices. There appears to be a general consensus on the critical issues that need 

to be addressed for safety and certification. Future joint efforts by the FAA, industry, and 

academia will pursue recommendations on standardization, engineering guidelines, shared 

databases, and focused research for bonded structures. 

46
6. REFERENCES.

1. “Certification of Bonded Structures,” prepared by TTCP Action Group 13, John W. 

Lincoln, Chairman, February 2001. 

2. Jason Bardis, et al., “Effects of Surface Preparation on Long-Term Durability of Bonded 

Composite Joints,” FAA report DOT/FAA/AR-03/53, July 2003. 

3. Workshop on Computational Fracture Mechanics for Composites sponsored by FAAASTM D 30, March 22-23, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT. 

4. John Tomblin, et al., “Bonded Repair of Aircraft Composite Sandwich Structures,” FAA 

report DOT/FAA/AR-03/74, February 2004. 

5. Andrew Rider and Roger Vodicka, “Proposed Framework for a Risk-Based Approach for 

the Environmental Certification of Adhesively Bonded Repairs,” DSTO-RR-0282, 

October 2004, AR-013-224, Commonwealth of Australia. 

47/48 
APPENDIX A—SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

A-1
WSU Bonded Structure Survey

The following instructions will assist you in filling out this survey:

Thanks for taking the time to fill out this survey. The survey will lead

you through each section. If you wish to return to any section, you can

hit the appropriate section button at the bottom of any section to return

to that portion of the survey. You may close and reopen this survey as

many times as necessary. All information is saved automatically. The

“Undo” command only will remember the last action and you will not be

able to return to a previously saved version of the survey. For those

familiar with FileMaker Pro, all editing commands and functions are

available. To capture your current input you may select the print

command from the “File” menu and print the current section.

Check boxes (squares) allow for multiple answers on a question, radio

buttons (circles) only allow one answer. When “Other” button is

available, selecting it opens a window where additional specific

answers may be provided for the question.

When complete, close the file and and the survey will be ready to

email to WSU. Email the file “Bonded Structure Survey” in the

downloaded folder “WSU Survey” to Linda.Greenberg@wichita.edu.

Do not email the entire folder as this requires 20 times the memory and

email space.

The survey contains the following sections:

(1) Introduction

(2) Endorsement

(3) Background Information

(4) Material and Process Control

(5) Manufacturing and Design Integration

(6) Product Development, Substantiation and Support

(7) General

 Next Section
In order to initiate data collection efforts to benchmark adhesive bonding, Wichita State University

(WSU), which belongs to the FAA Aircraft Airworthiness Center of Excellence, is conducting this

survey as part of ongoing research. The purpose of the questionnaire is to establish detailed

background information on the adhesive bonding philosophies that are utilized by the aircraft

industry. Information collected in the survey will be summarized and presented at an FAA workshop

being scheduled during June 2004 in Seattle (details on the workshop will be provided at a later date).

Our Bonded Structures Working Group has identified you as highly experienced in bonded structure

and we wish to receive your input for the workshop. The information you provide will guide future

efforts. Space at the workshop will be limited, preference for registration will be given to those who

provide a response to this questionnaire.

Please fill out the questionnaire as completely as possible. If you do not have a response for specific

questions in sections 4, 5, 6 & 7, do not feel obligated to respond. We would like all questionnaires

filled out by March 17, 2004 and e-mailed back to:

Linda.Greenberg@wichita.edu

We will continue to collect survey responses but only those received by March 17th will be included

in the June Workshop. As a noted expert in the field, you may know of other experts that can help in

the benchmarking effort. We encourage you to solicit a response from them. Please CC: Linda

Greenberg at the e-mail address from above if you forward the survey to others, so that we have a

record of who has been included.

There are some background questions at the start of the survey which identify your individual

expertise and whether or not the response provided represents your personal response, functional

team experiences or a company policy. Please note that we will not disclose responses that are

provided outside of this research and will not identify the author(s) in anything presented at the

workshop or in the eventual technical report.

The survey addresses the use of adhesive bonding in structural applications, both original

manufacturer designs and maintenance repairs. The survey contains three main technical areas: (1)

Materials and Processes, (2) Manufacturing & Design Integration and (3) Product Development,

Substantiation and Support and a general questions section. Some questions appear to be asked

multiple times; these similar questions are phrased in different manners to accurately determine your

experiences and perspectives. All questions are provided with a default “No Response “ so only the

questions you answer will be included in your survey response.

We appreciate your efforts in helping making this survey a success.

Thank You,

The Wichita State University Research Team

 Next Section Instructions Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(2) Endorsement

Dear Bonding Survey Participant,

Bonding is used in numerous manufacturing and repair applications to aircraft structures.

This includes existing commercial and military applications: small airplanes, transport

aircraft, rotorcraft and fighter jets. Many of the technical issues for bonding are complex

and require cross-functional teams for successful applications. Collectively, the aircraft

industry and government agencies should be able to combine our adhesive bonding

experiences and technical insights to gain mutual safety benefits. Other advantages from

sharing insights seem feasible for improved efficiency in the development and

certification of bonded aircraft structure.

The FAA has organized an effort to benchmark bonded structures this year, as part of

ongoing composite safety and certification initiatives. The primary objective is to

document the technical details that need to be addressed for bonded structures, including

critical safety issues and certification considerations. Examples of proven engineering

practices, which have been used to address selected technical details, will be

documented as a secondary objective. The process to benchmark existing technology

will also provide directions for future research and development in the field. A strong

interface with the industry, other government groups and academia is needed to

adequately benchmark bonded structures. Such an approach will yield documents that

provide a practical engineering guide, with educational value for an expanding work force.

Over time, the FAA will continue to work with industry and other government agencies in

drafting consistent policy and guidance for bonded structures, which has a basis in

successful industry applications.

Please accept my thanks for responding to this survey. I realize that everyone is very

busy in today's work environment.

Larry Ilcewicz

Federal Aviation Administration

Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor, Composites

 Next Section Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Instructions
(3) BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Your personal insights

Personnel experiences

Functional team experiences

Company/organizational position 

Other...

Materials and Processes

Design

Manufacturing

Analysis(Structural Integrity)

Regulator/Customer 

Other...

Original Equipment Manufacturer

Bonding Outsourcing Shop

Repair Facility

Regulatory Agency 

Customer

Researcher/Academia

Other...

Primary Structure Secondary Structure Tertiary Structure Other...

Yes No

(1) Are perspectives expressed in this survey response based on:

(2) What is your job function as related to adhesive bonding?

(3) How many years has your company/organization been involved in adhesive bonding?

(4) How many years have you been involved in adhesive bonding?

(5) What is your business area?

(6) What aircraft have bonded structures, are manufactured, maintained or controlled by

your company or government group?

(7) Does your company deal with :

Commercial Military Other...

If you deal with aircraft commercial products what FAR categories are covered

Part 23 Part 25 Part 27 Part 29 Part 43 Other...

Please provide your contact information:

Your Name Title

Company Name 

Address Mail Code

City State Zip Code 

Phone

FAX

Email

Do you want to be included in informational mailings?
(3) BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

New Products Product Modifications Repairs Other...

Yes No

Yes No

(8) How many bonded parts does your company process per year?

(9) Approximately how many bonded repairs does your facility perform in a year?

(11) Does your company qualify new materials and/or bonding processes?

(12) Do you use materials and bonding processes qualified by other companies?

(13) Do you recieve special training for the use of other company’s bonding processes?

(14) Do you control the quality of materials or processes used for bonded structures?

(15) Do you certify or approve designs?

If yes, which of the following are the designs intended

(16) Are you involved in maintenance actions that involve bonded repairs or structures?

(17) If questions arise in interpreting your responses to this survey, may we contact you?

Film Paste Liquid/pour coat Spray Primers Other...

(10) Does your company use:

 Next Section Instructions Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(4) MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL

Yes No

Define requirements for material control

Allowables

Certification requirements

Other...

Hot-wet

Hot

Ambient

Cold

Cold-wet

Fliud immersion

Other...

Only nominal mix ratios Explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios

Only nominal mix ratios Explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios

Yes No

Aluminum Steel CRES Composite Hybrid Other...

Yes No

Yes No

(1) How many individual adhesive products is your company actively using?

(3) What is the general purpose for the adhesive qualification testing?

(4) How many "batches" of adhesive were used for the qualification?

How were these "batches" defined?

(5) What tests do you use for adhesive qualification?

What did the typical test matrix consist of?

(6) For multi-part adhesive compounds, did the test matrix consider:

should the test matrix consider:

(7) Does adhesive qualification include mechanical tests of a bonded joint?

If yes, are these accomplished with metal or composite adherends?

(8) Was the adhesive nonlinear shear stress-strain response characterized during testing.

Did you use KGR gages (or similar) and the thick adherend test?

SUBSECTION: MATERIAL AND PROCESS QUALIFICATION

(also see Allowables and Design Data under Manufacturing and Design Integration

(If adhesive qualification was performed by another company or as part of an industry standards group,

whose specifications and procedures you have adopted, please jump to question 9)

(2) Was qualification testing performed at your company for the adhesives you use?
(4) MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL

Yes No

Mechanical Physical Chemical Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Moisture Temperature Other...

Moisture Temperature Other...

ASTM Company specific Other...

(10) How is qualification of the bonding process for specific adhesive and adherend combinations accomplished

at your company?

Is it part of the same test matrix as adhesive qualification?

(11) What tests do you use for bonding process qualification?

(12) How many different process runs are performed for bonding process qualification?

(13) Surface preparation variables were included in the qualification test plan.

If agree or strongly agree, how?

If agree or strongly agree, what tests are used?

(15) What effects of environment were included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan(s)?

What effects of environment should be included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan(s)

(16) Can your qualification tests be traced back to:

(17) Comments for adhesive and bonding process qualification?

(If bonding process qualification was performed by an OEM or as part of an industry standards group, whose

specifications and procedures you have adopted, please jump to the next subsection)

(9) Was qualification testing performed at your company for the bond process you use?

Yes No

(14) Qualification of the bonding process does include durability assessments to ensure adequate adhesion.
(4) MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL

Physical properties

Mechanical properties

Multiple adherends

Multiple overlaps

Resin advancement determination

Other...

Supplier Manufacturer or repair facility Other...

Mechanical Physical Chemical Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

ASTM Company specific Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

(1) Identify which of following are included in the contents of specifications and/or other documents used for

adhesive material procurement and control.

Please identify major areas are covered in your specifications If you are not part of the original organization that

created these documents, please describe any special training received on material procurement and control.

(2) Where are material acceptance tests done?

(3) Which of the following tests do you use for acceptance testing:

List mechanical tests

For mechanical tests, please indicate the type of specimen, size of specimen, type of adherend,

amount of overlap thickness, adhesive thickness, etc. being used

List physical tests

List chemical tests

(4) The limits from adhesive qualification data are used for acceptance requirements defined in the specification.

(5) Can your acceptance tests be traced back to:

(6) The adherend type used for acceptance tests is the same as being used in production.

The adhesive thickness used for acceptance tests is the same as being used in production.

SUBSECTION: MATERIAL CONTROL
(4) MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

(7) Environmental effects are considered in acceptance testing.

(8) What procedures are used to control adhesive storage and handling from purchase until use?

(9) Peel ply materials are used for surface preparation, they are subjected to the same controls as adhesives in items

(1) through (9) from above.

(11) Comments on material control?

SUBSECTION: PROCESS CONTROL

(also see Manufacturing under Manufacturing and Design Integration

(1) What controls do you use in processing?

(2) What type of surface preparation does your company use

(3) Mechanical tests are performed for bonding process control purposes.

(4) Pre-bond moisture of the substrates is controlled in your process.

Freezer temperature monitoring

Out-time monitoring (handling & staging)

Assembly temperature monitoring

First-in, First-Out

Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Witness panel

Statistical process control

In-process monitoring

Other...

Hand sanding

Automated sanding

Media blasting

Chemical etch

Peel ply

Other...

If agree or strongly agree, what tests are used?

How is it monitored and controlled?

Visual Water break-free Chemistry Witness panel Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

What are the critical controls for peel ply?
(4) MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL

(5) In the case of paste adhesives, how are the mixing variables controlled during production?

(6) What is the sequence of processing steps from surface preparation (cleaning and abrasion) through application

of primer (if used) and adhesive to bond assembly for cure?

(7) Do you have time constraints for the following steps leading up to cure?

(8) How is the bonding process cure cycle controlled?

There are indicators to demonstrate temperature and pressure at the bond line.

(9) Nondestructive inspection (NDI) plays a role in bond process control.

(10) Comments on process controls?

Weight Chemical Analysis Test coupon Other...

Surface preparation - Adhesive application

Surface preparation - Primer application

Primer application - Adhesive application

Adhesive application - Adhesive cure

Other...

Time Temperature Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

 Next Section Instructions Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(5) MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

(1) What structural parts, attachments and splices use bonding for manufacture and/or repair?

SUBSECTION : DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

(2) How is the maximum operational temperature of your the adhesive established in relation to the Tg?

(4) Tooling, manufacturing and maintenance issues are integrated into the design process.

You have documented design guidelines in these areas.

These guidelines depend on part criticality.

(6) Briefly describe analysis used for your bonded structures?

You use any analysis codes.

(7) What failure criteria are used?

Your predictions distinguish cohesive failures in the adherend or adhesive.

You believe adhesion failures between the substrate and adhesive can be predicted.

(8) You make a concentrated effort to minimize peel stresses in design of bonded joints.

(9) How is the overlap length sized in design?

(10) Your analysis accounts for residual stresses in the bonded joint.

Skins

Doublers

Stringers

Frames

Spars

Ribs

Machined parts

Other...

(3) How do you measure Tg?

DSC DMA TMA Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

If agree or strongly agree, what analysis code is used?

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Geomertically

Design standard

Stress level

Strain level

Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
(5) MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

(11) What basic material properties and joint data are needed for analysis

procedures?

(12) Are the following factors considered in design? (check if considered)

(13) What determines the manufacturing flaw and accidental damage sizes considered for

fatigue and damage tolerance assessments of bonded structures?

(14) You have had success in applying analysis methods for fatigue and damage tolerance

assessments of bonded structures.

(15) What fail-safe design features are used to reduce the risk of weak bonds in your structure?

(16) Comments on design and analysis?

SUBSECTION : MANUFACTURING

(1) You control humidity.

(2) What type of tooling and equipment used for adhesive bonding?

(3) Cured part dimensional tolerance and warpage is controlled.

(4) You perform verifilm runs to confirm the fit of mating surfaces.

Damage tolerance Fatigue Durability

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

None Rivets Crackstoppers Other...

You control temperature.

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Vacuum bag Press Matched Tooling Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

If agree or strongly agree, how?

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
(5) MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

(5) The materials and processes qualified for your structures impose strict time limits for adhesive

application steps.

(6) You handle large-scale surface preparation and adhesive application differently from laboratory

scale.

(7) There are handling/storage constraints and disposal guidelines for materials (e.g.,

solvents, grit blast media) used in surface preparation.

(8) How is bondline thickness controlled during production?

(9) How are the bonded parts inspected after bonding?

(10) Is the process for dealing with bonded structure discrepancies in your factory:

(11) Equipment and tooling maintenance is essential to structural bonding.

(12) What types of skills or training are necessary for production personnel?

(13) Describe manufacturing documents used for bonding process steps?

(14) What are the significant records taken during bonding process steps?

 If yes, identify how they were derived

What classifications are used to control defects?

Hours of training

Types of training

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Design of Experiment

Emprical

Calculation

Full test program

Estimate

Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Shims

Scrim cloth

Stop blocks

Microballoons

Glass beads

Other...

Visual UT Radiography Tap Other...

Size Number Proximity Other...

Efficient Inefficient Rarely used Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Classroom Demonstration Practical On the Job Other...

Cure duration Out time of adhesive Cure temperature Other...

If agree or strongly agree, how?
(5) MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

(15) Comments on manufacturing?

SUBSECTION: ALLOWABLES AND DESIGN DATA

(1) What allowables do you use?

(2) Effects of environment (moisture, temperature, etc.) were included in the allowables and

design data development?

(3) What bond overlap length (in inches) was used for the testing?

If a number of overlap lengths exist in your design, the test plan should be representative of

all the overlaps used.

(4) What adhesive layer thickness(es) [in inches] should be used for

bonded joint characterization?

Our design has tolerances specified for quality control:

(5) What statistics or statistical code is used to develop the allowables?

(6) Data from qualification testing or other repetitive bonded joint tests is used to establish

statistically based design allowables.

Alternatively, a lower, "minimum bond strength design value" is set based on experience and

test data (e.g., 500 psi).

What design data are used to support the design of your bonded structure?

Effects of environment (moisture, temperature, etc.) should be included in the allowables

and design data development?

We test only the maximum thickness for allowables characterization:

If your adhesive design allowable is based on thick adherend test, do you verify the adequacy

of the design by comparing that value to:

Lap shear Thick Adherend Bulk properties Other...

Standard lap widths

Standard adhesive thicknesses

Standard joint configurations

Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

0.002 - 0.004 0.004 - 0.007 0.007 - 0.020 0.020 - 0.050 0.050 - 0.100 Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

MIL-HDBK-17

AGATE

Average-Standard Deviation

ANOVA

Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Do not verify Peak shear stresses Average shear stresses Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
(5) MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION

(7) What data is collected to support dispositions of manufacturing defects and other

discrepancies for bonded structures?

(8) What data is collected for fatigue & damage tolerance assessment of bonded structure?

(9) What data is collected to support service damage disposition and bonded structural repair?

Is the collected data entered in a database for review over time with service experiences?

(10) Comments on allowables and design data?

Yes No

 Next Section Instructions Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(6) Product Development, Substantiation And Support

(1) Based on your experiences, are the product development (through certification) lead times for bonded

structure shorter or longer than for conventional structure that uses mechanical fastening?

If your answer was shorter, This was always the case.

(2) Does the response to question (1) in this section depend on any one functional discipline more than

others?

(3) How should the building block approach be utilized in adhesively bonded structures?

(4) What scale of testing yields the most meaningful data for bonded structure development,

substantiation and support?

(If the answer is different in each case, please explain).

(5) How is the criticality of bonded joint for your structure classified?

You apply a different approach to product development and substantiation based on criticality.

(6) The strength and damage tolerance of the bonded structure should be characterized during a

full-scale test.

Analysis validation takes place at this level.

(7) Long-term environmental exposure and durability should be substantiated for bonded structures.

You have found that small-scale tests have meaning to service experiences.

(8) Are critical defect locations and types identified based on the following?

Shorter Longer

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Materials and Processes

Design

Manufacturing

Maintenance

Other...

Do not use building block approach

Inverted approach, large scale information first

Traditional approach

Other...

Coupon

Element

Subcomponent

Component

Full-scale

Different in every case

Loads Applications Airworthiness experiences Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

You have validated accelerated tests methods.

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Bond joint stress levels

Manufacturing process experiences

Susceptibility to impact damage

Damage souce defined from service

Other...
(6) Product Development, Substantiation And Support

(9) What special considerations are important to the maintenance of bonded structure?

(10) What procedures are used to inspect bonded structures and repairs in the field?

(11) Our service experiences with bonded structure and/or repairs has been good?

Have these experiences been application dependent?

(12) What is the most common damages or defects found for bonded structure in the field

(13) Comments on product development, substantiation and support for bonded structure or repairs?

Inspection Scheduled maintenance Other...

Visual UT Radiography Tap Other...

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Strongly disagree Disagree Niether agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

Impact Corroision Moisture egress Other...

 Next Section Return to section: Instructions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(7) General Discussion Questions On Bonded Structure

(5) Additional general comments on bonded structures and/or repairs?

(4) Are there any barriers (economic or technical) that need to be overcome to support the expanding

applications of bonded aircraft structure?

(3) What materials, process, design, analysis, manufacturing and/or maintenance improvements can

be made to make bonded structure more economical?

(2) What are your most significant certification hurdles for bonded aircraft structure?

(1) What are your major concerns as to the safety of bonded aircraft structure?

Close Instructions Return to section: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APPENDIX B—BACKGROUND INFORMATION (SECTION 3)

This appendix contains background information relative to the survey respondents. Table B-1 

shows a list of the participating companies in the survey. 

TABLE B-1. COMPANIES REPRESENTED IN SURVEY RESPONSES 

Abaris Training Resources, Inc. McClenahan Engineering 

Adam Aircraft Industries Monarch Aircraft Engineering Limited 

AFRL/MLS-OL USAF National Research Council Canada 

Aurora Flight Sciences Naval Air Depot—Cherry Point 

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Naval Air Systems Command 

The Boeing Company NORDAM Europe Ltd 

Cessna Aircraft Company Raytheon Aircraft 

Cirrus Design Corporation Robinson Helicopter Company 

Composite Structures Consulting Rocky Mountain Composites 

Concurrent Technologies Corporation Royal Australian Air Force Directorate 

General Technical Airworthiness 

Cranfield University Sikorsky Aircraft 

Defense Science and Technology 

Organization, Air Vehicles Division 

SW Composites 

DuPont Advanced Fibers Systems Texas Composite Inc. 

EADS CASA The Lancair Company 

EMBRAER—Empresa Brasileira de 

Aeronáutica S.A. 

Toyota Motor Sales, Aviation Business 

Development Office 

Federal Aviation Administration Transport Canada 

Goodrich Aerospace—Aerostructures 

Division 

United Air Lines 

HEATCON Composite Systems (Europe) 

Limited 

University of Manchester 

Korea Aerospace Research Institute US Air Force Research Laboratory 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. United State Air Force Academy Center for 

Aircraft Structural Life Extension 

Materials Engineering Research Laboratory 

Ltd. 

Westland Helicopters Ltd. 

Perspectives expressed in this survey are based on the following. Of the 53 responses, 22.6 

percent said the results were based on personal insights. Approximately 41 percent of the 

respondents stated personal experience, 18.8 percent said functional team experience, and 15 

percent said organizational position. 

Job functions of the respondents are related to adhesive bonding as follows. Of the 52 responses, 

46 percent said their job function involves materials and processes. 

• 30.7 percent said analysis (structural integrity) 

• 7 percent said design 

B-1
• 2 percent said manufacturing 

• 3 percent said regulator 

• 6 percent said research and development 

• 15 percent chose the category Other 

The following were the direct responses given from those respondents who chose the category 

Other. 

• Currently in marketing assignment, background is materials science R&D. 

• Manufacturer of equipment and provider of training for adhesive bonding. 

• I am a retired Structures Group Manager who still does some consulting on mostly 

composite structures. 

• My job function covers regulation, materials and processes, design, manufacturing, 

analysis, training and quality management in a military repair environment. I have 

responsibility as a subject matter expert for the development of an engineering standard 

on composites and adhesive bonding as well as a handbook on design and a handbook on 

repair fabrication and application. 

• Teaching adhesive bonding of composites research and development of failure modes. 

• Currently in marketing assignment, background is materials science R&D. 

The length of time the respondents have been involved in adhesive bonding was reported as 

follows. Of the 53 respondents, the minimum number of years stated was 2, the maximum was 

47 years, with an average of 17.9 years. The standard deviation was 21.17 years. 

The length of time the respondents’ companies have been involved in adhesive bonding was 

stated as follows. Of the 53 responses, the minimum number of years was 4, the maximum was 

100 years, with an average of 31.1 years. The standard deviation was 9.33 years. 

The respondents represented the following business areas. Of the 50 responses, 46 percent said 

their business area was an original equipment manufacturer, 18 percent said researcher or 

academia, and 10 percent said repair facility. Seven percent said consulting and six percent said 

regulatory agency. Eighteen percent chose the category Other. No responses stated bonding 

outsourcing shop or customer. 

The following were the direct responses given from those respondents who chose the category 

Other. 

• Consultant to Defense Department Research Organizations and Weapon System Program 

Offices. 

• End User, Maintainer, Requirements Developer 

B-2
• Engineering Services - We evaluate technologies for US Government and US industry 

clients. One of our specialties is high-performance materials and processes. 

• FAA designated engineering regulator Consultant. 

• I have done consulting on composites, metal bonding and taught courses in aircraft 

structures both here in the USA and Europe since retiring. My job included managing a 

metal bonding research program and the technology development of composites 

structures. When I answer your question on company experience and usage it will be my 

experience. Your question that must be answer as to current activities I can not answer 

because of my long retirement time (17 years). So many of the following questions I can 

not answer on what they are currently doing. 

• Manufacturer - Commercial and Military Aircrafts” 

• My primary position is nominally research, but in practice I am involved in technology 

insertion for establishment of an adhesive bonded repair capability within the Australian 

Defense Organization. 

• Supply of adhesive bonding equipment, materials and training. 

The respondents stated of the aircraft that are manufactured, maintained, or controlled by their 

company or government group, the following have bonded structures. Of the 50 responses, 82 

percent said primary, 82 percent said secondary, and 60 percent said tertiary. Eight percent 

chose the category Other. 

The following were the direct responses given from those respondents who chose the category 

Other. 

• As an R&D lab, we typically deal only at the coupon level. 

• Composite materials can be found in all classes of aircraft structures. 

• Overseeing certification of Seawind 300C which will have bonded joints at all levels 

(primary, secondary and tertiary). 

• We would only be involved in training technicians to carry out composite repair. We are 

not responsible for any aircraft, or repairs, even though we occasionally help with repairs. 

The respondents reported that their companies deal with the following types of aircraft. Of the 

52 responders, 78 percent said commercial, 70 percent said military, and 5 percent chose the 

category Other. 

B-3
The following were the direct responses given from those respondents who chose the category 

Other. 

• Research and Development 

• Marine 

• Transportation 

• Sporting goods 

• Auto/motor sports 

• General Aviation 

• Other industries (automotive oil and gas) 

If the respondents deal with aircraft commercial products, the Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) categories were covered as follows. Of the 35 responses, 63 percent said 

14 CFR Part 23, 57 percent said 14 CFR Part 25, 26 percent said 14 CFR Part 29, 23 percent said 

14 CFR Part 27, and 14 percent said Part 43. Eight percent chose the category Other. 

The following were the direct responses given from those respondents who chose Other: 

• Academic Awareness of FARs: CAR 8 (ag airplanes) 

• Part 145 

• The ADF operates aircraft certified to FAR 25 as well as the UK DEF STAN 00 970 and 

USAF MIL standards. Though my company contributes data and technical expertise, 

certification is handled by our customers. 

The respondents’ answers varied considerably when asked how many bonded parts their 

companies processed per year. The following were the usable responses given: 10, 20, 50, 100, 

100, 200, 300, 500(2), 1,000(3), 1,500, 2,000, 2,500, 4,500, 5,000(2), 10,000, 15,000, 16,400, 

17,500, 60,000. 

The respondents’ answers varied considerably when asked how many bonded repairs their 

facilities performed per year. The following were the usable responses given: zero (5), 10, 12, 

25, 50, 80, 100(4), 150, 200(2), 400, 500(2), 1000(3), 2000, 10,000(2) 

The respondents’ companies use the following types of adhesives: 95 percent of the 47 

responses said they use film, 91 percent said paste, 78 percent said primer, 40 percent said liquid, 

and 25 percent said spray. 

When asked whether their company qualified new material and or bonding processes, the 

respondents replied as follows. Of the 49 responses, 77 percent said yes and 22 percent said no. 

When asked whether their company used material and bonding processes qualified by other 

companies, the respondents replied as follows. Of the 47 responses, 65 percent said yes and 34 

percent said no. 

B-4
When asked whether their company received special training for the use of other companies’ 

bonding processes, the respondents replied as follows. Of the 44 responses, 70 percent said no 

and 29 percent said yes. 

When asked whether their company controlled the quality of materials or processes used for 

bonded structures, 94 percent of the 49 responses said yes and 6 percent said no. 

When asked whether they certified or approved designs, the respondents answered as follows. 

Of the 51 responses, 70 percent said yes and 29 percent said no. 

Of the yes answers, the designs were intended for the following. Of the 37 responders, 81 

percent said new products, 56 percent said product modifications, and 73 percent said repairs. 

When asked whether they are involved in maintenance actions that involved bonded repairs or 

structures, the respondents answered: Of the 53 responders, 78 percent said yes and 22 percent 

said no. 

When asked if they could be contacted if questions arose in interpreting their responses, the 

respondents stated the following. Of the 53 respondents, 98 percent yes and 20 percent said no. 

B-5/B-6
APPENDIX C—SURVEY RESPONSES

This appendix contains a compilation of the responses to the survey. 

C.1 MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL SUBSECTION: MATERIAL AND PROCESS 

QUALIFICATION. 

Question 1: The average number of individual adhesive products companies used was 19.34. 

The highest quantity listed was above 100 and the lowest was 2. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− The average was 25.5. The highest quantity listed was about 100 and the lowest 

was 2. 

• Design Responses 

− The average was 52.6. The highest quantity listed was over 100 and the lowest 

was 13. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated 10 or more. 

• Analysis Responses 

− The average was 18.25. The highest quantity listed was 100 and the lowest was 2. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied, stating four or more. 

Question 2: Sixty-one percent of the respondents said qualification testing was performed at 

their company for the adhesives they used. Thirty-two respondents said qualification testing was 

not performed at their company. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Nineteen percent said qualification testing was performed at their company for the 

adhesives they used. Eighty percent of the respondents said it was not. 

• Design Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents said qualification testing was not 

performed at their company for the adhesives they used. 

C-1
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said qualification testing was not performed at their company for 

the adhesives they used. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Seventy-eight percent said qualification testing was performed at their company 

for the adhesives they used. Twenty-one percent of the respondents said it was 

not. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only two replied, stating qualification testing was 

performed at their company for the adhesives they used. 

Question 3: Eighty-six percent of the responders agreed that the general purpose for the 

adhesive qualification testing is to define requirements for material control. Eighty-four percent 

said allowables and 81 percent said certification requirements (see figure C-1). 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Ninety-four percent of the responders agreed that the general purpose for the 

adhesive qualification testing is to define requirements for material control. 

Eighty-eight percent said allowables and 70 percent said certification 

requirements. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Ninety-one percent of the responders stated allowables, 83 percent said define 

requirements for material control, and 83 percent said certification requirements. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only two replied. One respondent chose all three 

options: define requirements for material control, allowables, and certification 

requirements. The second respondent chose defines requirements for material 

C-2
control and certification requirements. The category Other response was 

“establish processing capabilities and application limits.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Establish cure cycle envelope.” 

78%

79%

80%

81%

82%

83%

84%

85%

86%

Define

requirements for

material control

Allowables

Certification

requirements

FIGURE C-1. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE ADHESIVE QUALIFCATION TEST 

Question 4: Of the 29 responses, 68 percent said three batches of adhesive were used for 

qualification. Two respondents indicated they used one batch, one respondent stated two 

batches, one respondent indicated five batches, two respondents stated 35 batches, and two 

respondents stated 13 batches. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 80 percent said three batches of adhesive were used for 

qualification. One respondent stated one batch, one respondent stated one to three 

batches, and one respondent said three to five batches. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of eight responses, 87 percent said three batches of adhesive were used for 

qualification. One respondent said two. 

C-3
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one stated five. 

The following were the responses given by the respondents when asked how the batches are 

defined. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Batch as defined by adhesive manufacturer.” 

− “Source, date of manufacture, batch number, form, aerial density.” 

− “Separate runs--at least two batches of ingredients.” 

− “Usually separate mixes spaced at least two weeks apart. Attempt to spread 

available raw material batches of components across batches.” 

− “Per Mil-17, qualification testing is only done in house when the OEM cannot 

perform it.” 

− “Different raw materials produced at different times.” 

− “Generally a quantity of material produced from a single set of raw ingredients 

and processed at one time with only minor interruptions.” 

− “Three different production batches of major chemical constituents.” 

− “Depends on the product form.” 

− “Varies with OEM specifications.” 

− “Resin polymerized in one reaction, in one operation or blended together in one 

homogeneous mix with traceability to individual components.” 

− “Using vendor batch numbers assigned during manufacture of material.” 

− “A set with the same processing.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “For two part adhesives, three separate batches of mix A and 3 separate batches of 

mix B.” 

− “Separate manufacturing campaigns using unique raw materials.” 

− “Resin mix.” 

C-4
− “By three permutations of adhesive manufacturer material batches assembled and 

cured in three separate oven operations.” 

− “By requirement specifications, such as EADS CASA Procedure.” 

− “Simply “three separate batches” with no further qualification.” 

− “A homogeneous unit of finished adhesive film of the same formulation 

manufactured under controlled conditions in a continuous operation.” 

− “Production date.” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “RAAF is a small volume user; research and development of design data usually 

extends over a period that involves several purchases of minimum buy lots. The 

batches are selected on the basis of supply lots.” 

− “Consecutive individual “lots” or “batches” manufactured at one time under the 

same conditions and parameters using the same types and quantities of raw 

materials.” 

Question 5: Eighty-six percent of the respondents used some form of lap shear to test for 

adhesive qualification. 

The responses included the following. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Peel” (6) 

− “CD peel” 

− “Metal T-peel” 

− “Honeycomb climbing drum peel” 

C-5
− “T and FR Peel” 

− “Static metal-to-metal peel” 

− “Sandwich drum peel” 

− “T-Peel” 

− “Double Lap shear ” 

− “Lap shear” (4) 

− “Mechanical testing-lap shear” 

− “Metal adherend single lap shear” 

− “Metal/metal Single Lap shear and floating roller peel” 

− “Honeycomb climbing drum peel and flatwise tensile Tack” 

− “Aerial weight” 

− “Flow” 

− “Volatiles content” 

− “Heat of polymerization thick adherend” 

− “Metal thick adherend” 

− “Thick adherend” 

− “Tg” 

− “DSC” (2) 

− “TMA” 

− “FWT” (2) 

− “SBS” 

− “HPLC” 

− “FTIR” 

− “CDP” 

C-6
− “Single lap tensile test” 

− “Flatwise tension strength test” 

− “Flatwise tension” 

− “Flatwise tensile” 

− “Flatwise tension wedge” 

− “Single lap shear” (2) 

− “Flow testing” 

− “Thick adherend lap shear” 

− “Static and fatigue lap shear” 

− “Shear” 

− “Lap shear (various l/t ratios)” 

− “Wide area lap shear” 

− “Peel of cored and skin components” 

− “Peel and flow results of full size parts” 

− “Climbing drum peel” 

− “Creep” 

− “Creep rupture” 

− “Cyclic creep” 

− “Fatigue” 

− “Fatigue: Thick adherend lap” 

− “Slow cycle fatigue” 

− “Environmental durability testing” 

− “Durability (wedge, sustained stress, etc)” (2) 

− “Fluid exposure” 

C-7
− “Outdoor exposure” 

− “Honeycomb flatwise tension” 

− “Metal-to-metal flatwise tension” 

− “Metal Static: Lap” 

− “Wedge crack” 

− “Cyclic stress” 

− “Composite & Sandwich bond both pre and co-cured: lap” 

− “Aerial weight” 

− “Tack” (3) 

− “Flow” (3) 

− “Rheology” 

− “Out time and shelf life” 

− “Multiple cure cycles and alternate cure temperatures. Cure time/temp. Response 

surfaces for lap, & Tg” 

− “Mostly ASTM methods, some internally described methods (FTIR, TMA, SEM 

etc)” 

− “Physical properties” 

− “Rheology properties” 

− “Kinetic properties” 

− “Fluid resistance” 

− “Durability” 

− “Wedge crack” 

− “Chemical resistance” 

− “Physical and chemical characterization” 

− “Shop floor suitability” 

C-8
− “Shelf life” 

− “Out time” 

− “Reparability” 

− “Inspectability” 

− “Sandwich flatwise tension” 

− “Block compression” 

− “Sag” 

− “Density” 

− “Percent expansion” 

− “Shear Modulus” 

− “Out-time studies” 

− “Fluid resistance” 

− “Workability” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Lap Shear” (5) 

− “Lap Shear for Phos Anodized Aluminum Substrate and Composite Substrate at 

CTD, RTD, ETW, and Fluid Immersion (If Wet Tg Is Not 50F Higher Than 

Maximum Operating Temperature; then A Higher Temperature Wet Test (200F) 

is included), Shore or Barcol Hardness.” 

− “Beam Shear” 

− “D1002 Lap Shear with Metal Substrate” 

− “Modified D3165 Thick Adherend Lap Shear with Composite Substrate” 

C-9
− “Double Shear” 

− “Shear” 

− “Beam Shear” 

− “Tensile Shear Strength” 

− “Thick Adherend Shear Test” 

− “Peel” (3) 

− “Honeycomb Peel” 

− “Honey-Comb Climbing Drum Peel” 

− “Metal To Metal Floating Roller Peel” 

− “Metal To Metal Peel” 

− “D1876 Peel” 

− “FWT” 

− “Flatwise Tension” 

− “Flat Wise Tension” 

− “Flatwise Tensile” 

− “Tensile” 

− “Fatigue” 

− “D3166 Fatigue” 

− “FTIR & HPLC for Resin & Hardener” 

− “Pot Life” 

− “Crack Growth Moisture Uptake” 

− “Wet & Dry Tg Via DMA” 

− “D4065 Tg” 

− “Tg” 

C-10
− “DCB” 

− “Sustained” 

− “Stress” 

− “Pull Off” 

− “D1002 Fluid Immersion” 

− “Creep” 

− “Non-ASTM Creep” 

− “Mechanical Test” 

− “Tension in Plane” 

− “Temperature” 

− “Tack All Types” 

− “Adhesive Weight” 

− “Adhesive Flow” 

− “Volatile” 

− “Heat of Polymerization” 

− “Hazardousness Grade” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Single Lap Shear” (2) 

− “Double Shear” 

− “Tension” 

− “Element/subcomponent” 

C-11
Table C-1 shows the breakdown of the typical test matrix. 

TABLE C-1. TEST MATRIX CONSIDERATIONS 

Response Percent 

Ambient 89 

Hot-wet 73 

Fluid immersion 60 

Cold 65 

Hot 47 

Cold-wet 7.00 

Other 7 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of 17 responses, 100 percent said ambient, 88 percent said hot-wet, 82 percent 

said cold, 70 percent said fluid immersion, 64 percent said hot, and 5 percent said 

cold-wet. 

The responses from the category Other stated the following. 

− “salt spray” 

− “water soaks” 

− “RT” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Ninety-one percent of the respondents said ambient, 83 percent said hot-wet, 66 

percent said hot, 66 percent said cold, 58 percent said fluid immersion, and 16 

percent said cold-wet. 

One respondent chose the category Other and stated: 

− “Test chambers where spring loaded bonded joints could be exposed to a typical 

ground – air - ground environment of a typical commercial aircraft was used to 

expose new bonded joint materials.” 

C-12
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied with the same answers, each chose hot-wet, 

ambient, cold, and fluid immersion. 

Question 6: For multipart adhesive compounds, 72 percent of the responders said the test matrix 

considered nominal mix ratios and 24 percent said it explored the limits of acceptable mix ratios. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− For multipart adhesive compounds, 35 percent of the responders said the test 

matrix considered nominal mix ratios and 64 percent said it explored the limits of 

acceptable mix ratios. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− For multipart adhesive compounds, 37 percent of the responders said the test 

matrix considered nominal mix ratios and 62 percent said it explored the limits of 

acceptable mix ratios. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied; one said only nominal mix ratios and one said 

they explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios. 

The respondents indicated that the test matrix was accurately characterizing the requirements. 

Of the 33 responses, 69 percent said it should explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios, while 

10 percent who said it should consider only nominal mix ratios. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− The responses indicated that the test matrix was accurately characterizing the 

requirements. Of the 17 responses, 72 percent of the responders said the test 

matrix should only consider nominal mix ratios and 24 percent said it should 

explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-13
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the eight responses, 25 percent said the test matrix should only consider 

nominal mix ratios and 70 percent said it should explore the limits of acceptable 

mix ratios. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both indicated that the test matrix should 

explore the limits of acceptable mix ratios. 

Question 7: Of the 38 responses, 100 percent said adhesive qualification does include 

mechanical tests of a bonded joint. 

The respondents indicated that these are accomplished with metal or composite adherends. 

Eighty-six percent of the respondents indicated that it was accomplished with aluminum 

compared to 68 percent who said composites. Table C-2 shows the breakdown of the remaining 

selections. The category Other responses indicated that testing was done using intended 

substrates. 

TABLE C-2. ADHESIVE QUALIFICATION OF MECHANICAL TESTS 

OF A BONDED JOINT 

Response Percent 

Aluminum 86 

Composites 68 

Hybrid 21 

Titanium 18 

CRES 15 

Steel 13 

Brass 2 

Nickel 2 

Tungsten 2 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Seventy-six percent of the respondents indicated that it was accomplished with 

aluminum compared to 70 percent who said composites. Thirty-five percent 

stated titanium, 29 percent stated hybrid, and 23 percent said CRES. One 

respondent indicated brass, nickel, and tungsten. 

C-14
• Analysis Responses 

− Ninety-one percent said aluminum compared to 66 percent who stated 

composites; 16 percent said titanium; and 8 percent stated steel, CRES, and 

hybrid. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Both respondents selected aluminum and composites, with one of the two 

respondents also selecting hybrid. 

Question 8: Sixty-percent of the respondents said the adhesive nonlinear shear stress-strain 

response was not characterized during testing. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 58 percent of the respondents said the adhesive nonlinear 

shear stress-strain response was characterized during testing. Thirty-five percent 

of the respondents said it was not. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 70 percent said the adhesive nonlinear shear stress-strain 

response was characterized during testing. Thirty percent said it was not. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the two responses, both said the adhesive nonlinear shear stress-strain response 

was characterized during testing. 

Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they used the thick adherend test and KGR gages, or 

something similar. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 20 responses, 65 percent said they used the thick adherend test and KGR 

gages, or something similar. Thirty-five percent said they do not use these. 

C-15
• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the eight respondents, 62 percent said they do not use KGR gages and the thick 

adherend test and 37 percent said they do use them. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the two responses, one said they do use KGR gages and the thick adherend test 

and one said they do not. 

Question 9: Of the 52 responses, 65 percent said qualification testing was not performed at their 

company for the bond process they use. Thirty-four percent said it was performed at their 

company. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 20 responses, 85 percent said qualification testing was performed at their 

company and 15 percent said it was not. 

• Design Responses 

− Of three respondents, 66 percent said qualification testing was not performed at 

their company and 33 percent said it was. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said qualification testing was not performed at their company. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Seventy-one percent said qualification testing was performed at their company 

and 28 percent said it was not. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the two responses, one said qualification testing was performed at their 

company and one said it was not. 

C-16
Question 10: The respondents indicated that the qualification of the bonding process for a 

specific adhesive and adherend combination was accomplished as stated in the following 

comments. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “We qualify part specific processes with adhesive manufacturer’s 

recommendations.” 

− “As a next level in the building block up from material characterization.” 

− “Bonding process is carried out with accompanying traveler coupons.” 

− “Bonding representative coupons in production environment using representative 

process parameters.” 

− “By means of particularized tests named “process ability tests.” The applicable 

mechanical tests (e.g. laminate or honeycomb) are performed on all of the 

targeted adherends. We test representative adherend lay-ups, overlap lengths, 

bondline thickness ranges, bond prep methods and environmental conditioning. 

Mechanical and physical tests of joints--In-house test program that meets the 

requirements of a material specification and a process specification.” 

− “Coupon, element, and subcomponent level testing, including all substrate and 

adhesive combinations.” 

− “Individual material specifications define the required test methods and 

procedures.” 

− “It is dependent upon the adhesive system, field of use, and product it will be used 

on. Initial qualification may be specific to a particular program and part 

configuration, and then expand in scope with additional testing.” 

− “Lap shear and Tg tests” 

− “Wedge test” 

− “Process Design, Process Prototype, Destructive Testing” 

− “Repair and remaining qualification is done on a per process basis by developing 

parameters to evaluate reductions in margin based on repairs. This is only done 

when it cannot be done at the OEM.” 

− “Test adherends used in real parts.” 

− “Similar at coupon level but builds up to Verifilm and finally destructive test of 

first part qualification article(s).” 

C-17
• Design Responses 

− “Through our parent facility through process specifications.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “The applicable mechanical tests (e.g. laminate or honeycomb) are performed on 

all of the targeted adherends.” 

− “Mechanical and physical tests of joints.” 

− “Generally perform “point design” testing to validate combination shown on 

engineering drawing. Not a lot of time is spent evaluating multiple combinations 

in pursuit of “optimum” combination.” 

− “Standard Process” 

− “Academic research only - was not interested in absolute bond performance so 

repeatability was/is major factor of process qualification.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Chemical and physical characterization and repetitive testing of shear and peel 

properties.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Thick adherend double cantilever beam (similar to ASTM D3433).” 

− “Part of the material qualification.” 

− “The bonding process follows a dedicated procedure.” 

− “Coupon level.” 

− “Full scale structural testing including manufacturing defects.” 

− “Standard process.” 

− “Varies with weapon system.” 

− “Academic applications only.” 

C-18
− “Wedge test ASTM D3762 with our own acceptance criteria. The ASTM 

standard as it currently is written is inadequate for assurance of bond durability.” 

− “Generally perform “point design” testing to validate combination shown on 

engineering drawing. Not a lot of time is spent evaluating multiple combinations 

in pursuit of “optimum” combination.” 

− “Engineering qualification test plans and reports are used for most processes.” 

− “Run small scale coupons to develop processes.” 

− “Make full size parts.” 

− “Destructive test parts.” 

− “Fatigue test of parts.” 

Of the 36 responses, 66 percent said it was part of the same test matrix as adhesive qualification. 

Thirty-three percent said it was not part of the same test matrix. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 72 percent said it was part of the same test matrix as 

adhesive qualification. Twenty-seven percent said it was not. 

• Design Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied to this question, indicating that it was 

not part of the same test matrix as adhesive qualification. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the nine responses, 66 percent said it was part of the same test matrix as 

adhesive qualification and 33 percent said it was not. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied, stating it was part of the same test 

matrix as adhesive qualification. 

Question 11: Ninety-seven percent of the respondents said they used mechanical tests for 

bonding process qualifications, with physical tests at 66 percent and chemical tests at 42 percent. 

C-19
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 94 percent said they use mechanical tests for bonding 

process qualifications, with physical at 76 percent and chemical at 52 percent. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Non-destructive methods, i.e. ultrasonic, thermography.” 

− “Thermal Analysis (Tg).” 

• Design Responses 

− Of two responses, 100 percent said mechanical with one respondent also chosing 

physical and chemical. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 91 percent stated mechanical, 58 percent said physical, and 

41 percent said chemical. 

Sixteen percent chose the category Other and provided the following responses. 

− “Storage Conditions” 

− “Life” 

− “Cured conditions” 

− “Destructive Test” 

− “Thermal Profiling” 

− “Prefit” 

− “Verifilm” 

− “NDI” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied, stating mechanical, physical, and 

chemical. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Differential Scanning Calorimetry to determine the degree of cure.” 

Question 12: The average number of different process runs performed for bonding process 

qualification was 6.5. The highest number listed was 75 and the lowest number was 1. 

C-20
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, the average number of process runs performed for bonding 

process qualification was 5.75, with the most common listing as 3. The highest 

response stated was between five and ten, while the lowest was one. 

• Design Responses 

− Only one respondent of three replied, indicating the number of different process 

runs performed for bonding process qualification was four. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the four responses, two stated 3, one stated between 4 and 5, and another stated 

12 as the number of different process runs performed for bonding process 

qualification. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied, indicating the number of different 

process runs performed for bonding process qualification was 75. 

Question 13: A majority of the respondents agreed that surface preparation was included in the 

qualification test plan. The responses were broken down as shown in table C-3. 

TABLE C-3. SURFACE PREPARATION INCLUDED IN QUALIFICATION TEST PLAN 

Response Percent 

Agree 37 

Strongly agree 19 

Neither agreed nor disagree 17 

Disagree 17 

Strongly disagree 17 

Nickel 2 

Tungsten 2 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Twenty-seven percent agreed, 33 percent disagreed, 27 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 11 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent strongly disagreed. 

C-21
• Design Responses 

− One of three respondents replied, stating they strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Thirty-three percent agreed, 25 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 8 percent 

disagreed, and 8 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of three respondents replied, stating agreement. 

The respondents who either agreed or strongly agreed gave the following responses. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Research was conducted over a number of years investigating affects such as 

contamination, deviation in specification or leaving of the certain steps on the 

bond durability as assessed by the wedge test.” 

− “The coupons representing a batch of adhesive are also tied to a unique process 

lot for surface prep and at least two batches of bond primer across the multiple 

batches of adhesive.” 

− “Mesh number of sandpaper.” 

− “Typically we use PAAed aluminum for adhesive qualifications. It is possible the 

results may be different on Ti or stainless and may be different with alternate 

surface preparations. However, cost limits the amt of testing we can do.” 

− “If a process works do not change it.” 

− “We evaluated different process methods, i.e. hand sanding versus grit blasting.” 

− “Chemical and physical surface characterization test were run on the surface 

preparation method used including manufacturing tolerances on the surface 

preparation process parameters.” 

− “Used during small scale coupon test.” 

• Design Responses 

− “To confirm against OEM test specs.” 

C-22
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Especially for environmental testing (long term durability).” 

− “Grit blast, sanding, contamination, and application methods were considered.” 

− “Compatibility testing is done with primers and allowed surfaces preparations. 

My company is more rigorous on metal bond primer and primary structure 

composites and less rigorous on secondary structure composites.” 

− “Influence of surface characteristics and surface preparation evaluated separately 

and in combination. Particularly those parameters that represent time consuming 

or cumbersome processes (i.e., sanding versus peel, co-cure versus precure, etc.).” 

− “Introducing all the possible defects taking into account all the possibilities.” 

− “Peel ply and other surface preparations influence the bonding strength.” 

− “Small scale tests of adherend, surface prep, bond thickness, and environment.” 

− “Using different surface preparations and evaluating strength.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Via repetitive testing within a process window.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Surface preparation tests and manufacturing control are the keys to having good 

adhesive bonded joints as well as the capability of the adhesive.” 

− “Generally use different types of preps such as grits or dwell time.” 

− “Wedge tests as stated above. Lap-shear, strain endurance tests and fatigue tests 

are inadequate for this purpose.” 

− “Include the effects of critical environment including temperature and moisture--

including Tee Peel Testing.” 

− “Surface preparation needs to be taken into account as this can have a great 

influence on the quality of the adhesive bond.” 

C-23
Question 14: The majority of the respondents agreed that the bonding process does include 

durability assessments to ensure adequate adhesion. The responses were broken down as shown 

in table C-4. 

TABLE C-4. DURABILITY ASSESSMENTS ENSURE ADEQUATE ADHESION 

Response Percent 

Strongly agree 42 

Agree 33 

Neither agreed nor disagree 9 

Disagree 9 

Strongly disagree 4 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 47 percent strongly agreed, 26 percent agreed, 15 percent 

disagreed, 5 percent strongly disagreed, and 5 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One respondent of three replied, stating he strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 30 percent strongly agreed, 25 percent agreed, 12 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 8 percent disagreed, and 8 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied, stating they strongly agreed. 

The following were the responses given by the respondents who either agreed or strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Coupon level and full scale durability and fatigue testing with known 

manufacturing defects.” 

− “Destructive test of coupons, coupons cut from parts, and full size parts.” 

C-24
− “Environmental exposure (salt, acidic salt) lap shear, static and cyclic stress 

during environmental conditioning.” 

− “Typically, lap shear under exposure conditions, sustained stress lap shears, high 

and slow cycle fatigue (with exposure), beach exposure, DCBs, etc.” 

− “Wedge crack testing and destructive testing.” 

− “Thick adherend wedge test, wedge test, single lap shear, fatigue using 

symmetrical skin doublers, double overlap fatigue samples.” 

− “Wedge tests with heat and humidity exposure.” 

− “Hot-wet wedge crack extension; salt spray; beach exposure and cyclical 

endurance.” 

− “Mesa uses wedge crack for screening and cyclic stress durability for final. Wet 

and cold peel increasingly used for screening and development.” 

− “Sustained stress, cyclic stress, wedge crack, lap shear after wet exposure.” 

− “Hot/wet testing, thermal aging.” 

− “Lap shear fatigue and cyclic creep tests.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Wedge Crack Tests.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Fatigue crack growth testing under the environment investigating transition from 

cohesive to interfacial failure.” 

− “For metal bond, GIC, wedge crack, sustained stress, creep, fatigue (high and 

slow cycle). For secondary structure composites, no durability testing is done. 

For primary structure composites, DCB, fuel soak, sustained stress, fatigue, creep, 

prebond humidity.” 

− “Static and flaw growth tests of adherend.” 

− “Cyclic load applications.” 

− “Long term environmental test with both cycle & steady state load.” 

− “Major focus of research is on the durability of bonded joints. A range of 

mechanical and physical tests are used to characterize the environmental 

degradation of joints when subjected to hot/wet conditions.” 

C-25
− “Peel tests considering mode of failure are included in qualification, as well as in 

process change and process stability testing.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Shear and peel testing.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “As already stated, the wedge test is the most reliable test for bond durability.” 

− “In some cases element testing and fatigue testing are used to evaluate structural 

joints.” 

− “Regular inspection for signs of delamination.” 

− “The environmental testing at both lab and flight environment are truly need for 

full qualification of bonded structure.” 

Question 15: When asked what effects of environment were included in the adhesive and 

bonding process qualification test plan, the respondents indicated the following. Of the 39 

responses, 100 percent of the respondents indicated that moisture and temperature were included 

in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 100 percent of the responses indicated that moisture and 

temperature were included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test 

plan. 

The following are the responses from the category Other. 

− “Salt (Materials and Process Control)” 

− “May include SO2 or Acid Assisted Salt Spray” 

− “Beach Exposure (Materials and Process Control)” 

− “Outdoor Exposure” 

− “Aircraft Fluid Exposure” 

• Design Responses 

− Only one respondent of three replied, stating moisture and temperature. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

C-26
• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 100 percent of the respondents indicated that moisture and 

temperature were included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test 

plan. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Fatigue” 

− “Adhesive Thickness” 

− “Fluid Soaks” 

− “Fuel” 

− “Prebond Humidity” 

− “Storage max time” 

− “Aircraft Fluids” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only one of the three respondents replied, stating said moisture and temperature 

were included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Fuel” 

− “Hydraulic fluid” 

− “Fluids” 

− “Chemical” 

− “Salt spray” 

− “Salt” 

− “Salt fog” 

When asked what effects of environment should be included in the adhesive and bonding process 

qualification test plan, the respondents indicated the following. Of the 35 responses, 100 percent 

of the respondents stated moisture and temperatures should be included in the adhesive and 

bonding process qualification test plan. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Salt Spray” 

− “May include SO2 or Acid Assisted Salt Spray” 

− “Beach Exposure (Materials and Process Control)” 

− “Outdoor Exposure” 

− “Aircraft Fluid Exposure” 

C-27
• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 91 percent stated both moisture and temperature should be 

included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Adhesive thickness” 

− “Overlap length” 

− “Aircraft Fluids” 

− “Airborne contaminant and particulates” 

− “UV radiation” 

− “Fluids Attack (Oil, Fuel, etc...)” 

− “Fuel/hydraulic fluid exposure” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied, indicating moisture and temperature 

should be included in the adhesive and bonding process qualification test plan. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Cycling effects of deleterious fluids (depends upon application)” 

− “Fluids” 

− “Fuel” 

− “Chemical” 

− “Fatigue” 

− “Aircraft fluids” 

− “Age” 

− “Salt fog” 

− “Salt” 

Question 16: When asked whether qualification tests can be traced back to ATSM, companyspecific, or Other, the respondents answered as shown in table C-5. 

C-28
TABLE C-5. TRACABILITY OF QUALIFICATION TESTS 

Response Percent 

Company-specific 42 

Both 40 

ASTM 16 

Other 7 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 84 percent said company-specific, 63 percent stated ASTM, 

and 30 percent stated both. 

• Design Responses 

− One of three the respondents replied, stating company-specific. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Seventy-five percent stated company-specific. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three responses, one indicated both ASTM and company-specific and one 

stated ASTM. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “SACMA” 

− “OEM” 

− “MMM-A-132” 

− “Mil-25463” 

Question 17: The following are the respondents’ comments on adhesive and bonding process 

qualification. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “For internal qualification of new processes, we develop the process and 

associated structural information, and then certify a site to perform the process. 

The certification is typically done with the nominal processing conditions only, 

while the development evaluates all of the variables of interest.” 

C-29
− “When possible, multiple surface preparations and metals should be included to 

understand variability of the bonding system.” 

− “Representative substrate thicknesses should be used to evaluate affect of 

combined peel and shear loads. For some adhesives, the adhesive is stronger than 

the base composite substrate epoxy, therefore, substrate failures are often more 

common then cohesive failures for relatively thin substrates.” 

− “Successful results - long field history - achieved by including all environmental 

affects at the coupon level, but not at the full scale structure level for metal 

bonded structure; however, full environmental exposure for coupon level and full 

scale structure for composites.” 

− “Typically the bonding process is very reliant on operator skills and it is essential 

that adequate training, supervision and quality control processes are in place to 

insure success. DSTO repairs have always been performed by technicians and 

engineering staff with substantial practical experience, which is crucial for 

success.” 

− “Inherently testing a surface preparation, bond primer, adhesive bond system, we 

have had adhesives fail qualification because the vendor chose a poor bond 

primer. Structural (not paste usually) adhesive and bond primer qualification 

scope larger than composite qualification if done thoroughly.” 

− “Bonding process qualification should include surface preparation variables and 

periodic threshold contaminant count on the surface prepared in production.” 

− “Full bonding process qualification may require element and/or full scale test 

articles specific to a given design configuration/loading scenario that go far 

beyond what is required to qualify the adhesive to a material specification. The 

need for tests at multiple levels of the building block approach depends upon the 

classification of the bonded structure (primary, secondary etc.). Adhesives that 

have long been “qualified” to an existing material specification are often tested in 

higher level application specific bonded joint configurations for qualification of 

new designs.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-30
• Analysis Responses 

− “Most companies want to use the data generated from these tests as ‘allowables’ 

for analysis of bonded joints. It should be noted that material/process 

qualification is separate from an allowables program. However, the user cannot 

understand the sensitivity of adhesives to bondline thickness and overlap length 

without additional testing and should be encouraged to do these types of tests.” 

− “We have a very rigorous approach to adhesive and bonding process qualification 

on metal bond partially derived from bad experience. On composites the 

secondary structure bonding is widespread and varies in approach/rigor. On 

primary structure composites the approach is rigorous and becoming more so.” 

− “Many of these questions are difficult to answer because we treat allowables 

testing separate from qualification. The allowables testing looks closer at fatigue, 

defects, environment, and point design testing of the actual structure. This typical 

does not require multiple batches and uses nominal material. Also some 

adhesives are treated differently than others depending on application.” 

− “For bonded composite structure mechanicals for co-cure should be treated 

separately from secondary bonding. (Resin mingling in co-cure process can 

significantly affect adhesive strength/toughness performance.) Core material is 

significant in composite sandwich structure, core material, cell shape, and cell 

size should be considered. It should evaluate effect on bond strength of cure 

contact force variation (vacuum bag versus autoclave may simplify field or OEM 

repair). Allowed cure cycle variation extremes should be evaluated. As well as 

minimum cure temperature for full strength bond, bond-line thickness effects, lap 

length and effects of potential adherend.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Material qualification should address process control at supplier and establish 

certifications to be included with the incoming materials, combined with testing 

upon receiving inspection for mixing and cure characteristics. Process 

qualification should include training requirements for technicians, environmental 

controls, bond prep inspections, and witness panel testing for each processing 

batch.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Adhesive and process qualification is company specific. Test methods identified 

within the specification or qualification test plan are per ASTM or other industry 

standards. Requirements vary depending on materials and processes and how 

they are used.” 

− “Air force research labs do qualification of bonding processes.” 

C-31
− “Control of the surface preparation, the adhesive application, the bonding set up 

tooling, the bonding cure cycle and quality control of these preparation aspects 

along with the post processing quality control inspections procedures are required 

to assure a good bond has been made.” 

− “We seek to understand the technology of bonded structures to ensure that present 

and future products are suitable for their intended use.” 

− “For repair there are two aspects that must be qualified and controlled: surface 

preparation and adhesive cure under field conditions. We have demonstrated that 

where surface preparation has been validated against stringent wedge test criteria, 

bond failures are virtually eliminated. The aspect of adhesive cure is managed by 

validation of the cure cycle temperature’s tolerable limits by differential scanning 

calorimetry and then use of a sophisticated hot bonding unit that is capable of 

providing assurance that the adhesive in the repair has seen a cure cycle that fits 

within the cure envelope, while at the same time the structure is not overheated.” 

C.2 MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL SUBSECTION: MATERIAL CONTROL. 

Question 1: When asked about the contents of specifications used, the respondents replied as 

shown in table C-6. 

TABLE C-6. CONTENTS OF SPECIFICATIONS USED FOR ADHESIVE MATERIAL 

PROCUREMENT AND CONTROL 

Response Percent 

Mechanical 96 

Physical 92 

Resin advancement determination 34 

Multiple adherends 32 

Multiple overlaps 11 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents stated mechanical, 95 percent stated 

physical, 36 percent stated multiple adherends, 31 percent stated resin 

advancement determination, and 21 percent stated multiple overlaps. The 

response from the category Other was “chemical.” 

• Design Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents stated mechanical and physical, 66 

percent stated multiple adherends, and 33 percent said resin advancement 

determination. The response from the category Other was “Packaging.” 

C-32
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 100 percent stated mechanical, 92 percent said physical, 28 

percent said resin advancement determination, and 7 percent said multiple 

adherends. The response from the category Other was “mixing instruction (if 

required).” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only two of the three respondents replied. One hundred percent said physical and 

resin advancement determination. In addition, one of the two respondents chose 

multiple adherends and one stated mechanical properties. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Peel tests at R>T> & -100 degrees F RT with moisture margins.” 

− “Controls of the material starts with the materials specification and the test 

qualification of all the elements of application, manufacturing and quantity 

control. Each element must have its aspects not only defined but its qualification 

process well defined and proven.” 

The respondents identified the major areas covered in their specifications, if they were not part of 

the original organization that created these documents, and described any special training 

received on material procurement and control as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “We handle several MIL-A specifications for adhesives, as well as deal with 

approval of OEM specifications. Typically, material certifications are performed 

with simple mechanical testing and then physical property testing.” 

− “The supplier provides material control. We can control only shelf life.” 

− “Use supplier standard testing for supplier testing requirements on batches. These 

are normally standard requirements per Boeing or Airbus specs that the adhesive 

manufacturer has adopted as ‘standard.’ Control of physical, chemical and 

mechanical properties are included in the specifications. Control of 

manufacturing of material is contained in the specifications. Control of material 

handling, shelf and out life, shipping and storage is included in the 

specifications.” 

C-33
− “Shelf life; work life; surface preparation; primer application; adhesive cure 

application.” 

− “Material scope and classification, applicable documents, requirements, quality 

assurance provisions, qualification, supplier quality conformance inspection, 

purchaser quality conformance inspection, test methods, preparation for delivery, 

callout information, certificate of conformity, physical properties, mechanical 

properties, verification matrix, qualified products list and material update and 

storage requirements.” 

− “No special training usually, just individual experience.” 

− “Mechanical: RT FRP, Lap RT & 220 dry (correlated with 180°F/wet); 

physical/chemical: aerial weight, flow, tack, cure, rheology; packaging/storage, 

shelf life & extension.” 

− “Minimum shear and peel for adhesives and primer system and details of surface 

preparations.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Receiving Inspection - checks for packaging, condition during shipping, 

remaining shelf-life and out-time.” 

− “Per manufacturer’s data sheets.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Material/process requirements (includes strength, physical/chemical, etc. tests); 

quality control requirements (shelf life, out time, receiving inspection, supplier 

testing, qualification testing, and re-qualification testing); shipping requirements 

(packaging, environmental control).” 

− “Adhesive Physicals and Adhesive Mechanicals” 

− “Product qualification, materials, working characteristics, cures requirements, 

material properties, material identification, packaging instructions, storage, 

mixing requirements, test methods, supplier and purchaser quality control 

requirements and recertification requirements.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-34
• Other Category Responses 

− “Composite precursor materials are tested to meet specifications that are set by 

my company in conjunction with our customers. The purpose of these tests is to 

ensure consistent and predictable performance of bonded structures made with 

these materials. We use the term ‘release specification’ because products must 

meet these requirements before they can be released for sale.” 

− “Material procurement and material control is defined within the material 

specifications. Only materials on approved source lists of materials specifications 

may be procured. Strength, Shelf life, shop life and pot life are determined by 

material specification requirements.” 

− “Mechanical testing and flow testing is performed on received adhesives, 

temperature recording of material during transit is examined to insure life of 

material.” 

− “Purchasing should pay attention to shelf-life. People who handled the material 

receive dedicated training on procedures.” 

− “Use adhesives that perform well with the surface preparations that are 

recommended and that can handle the mechanical requirements of the design.” 

− “We purchase specific adhesives that have been demonstrated to meet our repair 

requirements and these may not necessarily be those used by the OEM for 

manufacture. We have a formal procurement standard that defines materials 

identification, purchase, transport, handling, storage and re-qualification if lifeexpired.” 

Question 2: Eighty-two percent of the respondents said material acceptance tests are done 

through the supplier and 67 percent said they were conducted through the manufacturer or repair 

facility. Five percent indicated the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Seventy-six percent said manufacturer and 71 percent said supplier. 

• Design Responses 

− One hundred percent said supplier and 33 percent stated manufacturer or repair 

facility. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

C-35
• Analysis Responses 

− Ninety-two percent said supplier and 61 percent said manufacturer or repair 

facility. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both chose supplier and manufacturer or 

repair facility. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “OEM” (Materials and Process Control) 

− “Chemical” (Materials and Process Control) 

− “Supplier” 

− “If supplier details are inadequate or if transport or storage requirements are 

violated, then we will use a third party to test against acceptance values defined 

by our organization.” 

Question 3: When asked what tests were used for acceptance testing, the respondents replied as 

shown in table C-7. 

TABLE C-7. TESTS USED FOR ACCEPTANCE TESTING 

Test Percent 

Mechanical 93 

Physical 80 

Chemical 34 

Other 4 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents stated mechanical, 88 percent stated 

physical, and 33 stated chemical. 

• Design Responses 

− Sixty-six percent said mechanical, 33 percent said chemical, and 33 said physical. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

C-36
• Analysis Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents said mechanical, 84 percent said 

physical, and 46 percent said chemical. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both chose mechanical, while one 

additionally chose physical and the other chose chemical. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Acceptance of the material is subject to test certificates being provided by the 

original OEM.” 

The respondents identified the following specific mechanical tests. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Lap shear” (13) 

− “WALS” (wide area lap shear) 

− “Flatwise Tensile” (2) 

• Design Responses 

− “Lap Shear” (1) 

− “Metal to metal peel” 

− “Interlaminar Shear” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Compressive” 

− “T-Peel for adhesives (all other tests accomplished by suppliers)” 

− “Impact” 

− “Peel” 

− “Lap shear” 

− “Aluminum Lap shear” 

− “Metal to Metal peel” 

− “Fatigue” 

− “Metal to Metal Climbing” 

− “Metal to Metal Climbing Drum Peel” 

C-37
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Lap shear” (30) 

− “Wedge test” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Flatwise Tensile” (3) 

− “Lap shear” (30) 

− “Required for qualification or acceptance” 

− “Thermal testing (DSC) for some thermoset and two part adhesives” 

− “Aluminum” 

− “By material OEM” 

− “Compressive strength” 

− “Depends on the adhesive: peel” 

− “Double and single” 

− “Tests are typically based on ASTM fiber and paper tests.” 

− “Flexural, tension, compression” 

− “Interlaminar shear” 

− “Shear” 

− “Compression” 

− “RT, sub-ambient & elevated temp on two-part adhesives used for structural 

bond.” 

− “Core peel” 

− “Flatwise tensile at ambient for thermoset film adhesives.” 

− “Climbing drum peel” (2) 

− “Honeycomb climbing drum” (2) 

− “Honeycomb peel” 

C-38
− “Flow” 

− “Flatwise tension” 

− “Typically single and double lap tension” 

− “Thick adherend” 

− “Tack” 

− “Gel time” 

− “HPLC” 

− “Laminate Tests” 

− “Flex” 

− “SBS” 

− “T-peel, considering using wedge tests in future.” (3) 

− “Sandwich drum peel as applicable” 

− “Wide Area Single” 

− “HCDP” (hydrocarbon dew point) 

− “Single over” 

− “Single-lap bonding test” 

− “Wedge test” (1) 

The respondents used the following type of specimen, size of specimen, type of adherend, 

amount of overlap thickness, adhesive thickness, etc. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “2024 T3 FPL etched .5 inch overlap.” 

− “Mostly ASTM D1002, but vendor designed specimens are sometimes used.” 

− “Single-lap, total length 200mm, width 20mm, overlap region 20mm, overlap 

thickness 1.6mm, adhesive thickness 0.15mm, using composite adherend.” 

− “Standard ASTM methods, adherend is 2024-T3 clad or bare aluminum.” 

C-39
− “Modified double lap shear, adherend glass pre-preg (25 + plies), overlap 

thickness 0.75 “adhesive thickness 0.060.” 

− “ASTM D1002 with Al-2024T3 clad, 1.6mm thick, overlap of 12.7mm, single 

layer adhesive controlled through carrier (0.1mm thick).” 

− “Lap: standard 1” wide, 0.5” overlap, 0.063” 2024-T3 Al” 

− “ASTM WALS” 

− “Standard flexural test coupon (ASTM D790). Tension-straight sided 10′′ x 0.5′′

(occasional need for dogbone specimens). Compression-straight sided w/ tabs110mm x 10 mm.” 

− “Wide area lap shear using PAA aluminum and bond primer.” 

− “Composite adherend, .50 inch overlap.” 

− “In accordance with ASTMD1002.” 

− “3.0 x 75 x .025 2024T3 aluminum. Cleaned anodized and primed adhesive film 

004/006.” 

• Design Responses 

− “BMS specs” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “ASTM D 1002, no thickness control, aluminum adherend.” 

− “Lap Shear: 1/2′′ overlap, single, double and wide area. MM Peel: Climbing 

Drum Peel, FWT: 2′′ x 2′′ specimens, HC Peel: Climbing Drum Peel” 

− “ASTM standards” 

− “Lap splice, peel” 

− “Varies depending on research programmer.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-40
• Other Category Responses 

− “1′′ wide 0.5′′ overlap aluminum adherends. Adhesive thickness varies with 

material.” 

− “ASTM D3165 with carbon/epoxy substrate (0.1′′ thick), 1′′ overlap, 0.030′′

adhesive thickness” 

− “ASTM D695” 

− “ASTM T-Peel” 

− “By material OEM” 

− “ASTM D1781” 

− “Lap shear - single shear tension per MMM-A-132 / 6′′ long x 1′′ wide x 0.5′′

overlap/ 2024 Aluminum adherends; Metal-to-Metal Peel - 12′′ long x 1′′

wide/0.025′′ thick and 0.063 inch thick 2024 aluminum adherends; Sandwich 

Drum Peel per MIL-A-25463 - 3′′ wide x 12′′ long x 0.5′′ typical honeycomb core 

thickness.” 

− “Lap shear, T-Peel, aluminum as per ASTM standards, wedge test 0.125 

aluminum” 

− “Tests same as MMM-A-132 and MIL-25463” 

The respondents identified the following physical tests. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Viscosity” (2) 

− “Volatiles” (2) 

− “Arial weight” (3) 

− “Shear and peel of aluminum to aluminum coupons” 

− “Shore hardness appearance” 

− “Resin content Tg max exothermal volatiles” 

− “Sag percent expansion” 

− “Gel time volatiles tack” 

− “DSC, TMA” 

• Design Responses 

− The respondents did not reply to this question. 

C-41
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Adhesives: film, weight, volatiles, viscosity.” 

− “Gel time Tg” 

− “Pot life, hardness” 

− “Fluid resistance” 

− “Appearance color specific gravity viscosity slump gel time Tg” 

− “Void content failure surface analysis” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Gel time density viscosity” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Primers: solids, weight per gallon, inhibitor viscosity.” 

− “Tack rheology” 

− “Tack aerial weight” 

− “By material OEM” 

− “Check tack of adhesive” 

− “Film weight per sq ft is tested and recorded for film adhesives. Pot life is tested 

for 2 part mix adhesives.” 

− “Test involves determining change in area from a 2′′ disk of adhesive after cure 

correlated with chemical testing to determine when is unsatisfactory. DSC will be 

performed to determine a cure envelope to enable lower temperature cure for onaircraft repairs.” 

− “Nonvolatile weight per gallon” 

− “Quantitative inhibitor analysis” 

− “Visual” 

− “Tg By DMA” 

− “Volatile content by weight loss by percentage expansion.” 

C-42
• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

The respondents listed the following chemical tests.

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “DSC for enthalpy” 

− “Gel” 

− “Rheology” 

− “Cure” 

− “Volatiles, HPLC” (high performance liquid chromatography) 

− “Durometer hardness” 

− “FTIR” 

− “Performed at adhesive vendor for adhesives and primers” 

• Design Responses 

− The respondents did not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “DSC” (2) 

− “DMA” 

− “XPS” 

− “Epoxide and amine equivalent weight” 

− “Solids testing for paints” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “DSC” 

− “DMA” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “OEM” 

− “DMA” 

− “FTIR if required to determine degree of cross linking of resin.” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-43
Question 4: The participants responded as follows to the statement “The limits from adhesive 

qualification data are used for acceptance requirements defined in the specification.” 

Of the 46 responses, 34 percent agreed, and 26 percent strongly agreed. Thirteen percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, while 17 percent disagreed, and 8 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 20 responses, 35 percent strongly agreed and 30 percent agreed. Ten 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed, while 20 percent disagreed and 5 percent 

strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the two responses, one strongly agreed and one strongly disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 36 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly agreed, 27 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 9 percent disagreed, and 9 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One disagreed and one agreed. 

Question 5: Eighty-four percent of the respondents said their acceptance tests are companyspecific, while 68 percent said ASTM and 6 percent selected the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Ninety-four percent said their acceptance tests are company-specific, while 61 

percent said ASTM. Fifty percent of the respondents chose both ASTM and 

company-specific. The category Other response was “Suppliers of Advanced 

Composite Materials Association” (SACMA). 

• Design Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents stated ASTM and company-specific. The 

category Other response was “OEM.” 

C-44
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Eighty-three percent said ASTM and 66 percent said company-specific. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both said ASTM. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “MMM-A-132” 

− “MIL-25463” 

Question 6: The participants responded as follows to the statement “The adherend type used for 

acceptance tests is the same being used in production.” 

Of the 43 responses, 27 percent agreed that their acceptance test was the same adherend type that 

was being used in production. Sixteen percent strongly disagreed, 21 percent disagreed, and 21 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed. The remaining 13 percent strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 22 percent agreed, 19 percent disagreed, 22 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, 19 percent strongly agreed, and 14 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the four responses, one strongly agreed, one agreed, and two strongly 

disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 36 percent disagreed, 18 percent strongly disagreed, 

27 percent agreed, and 18 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

C-45
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One neither agreed nor disagreed and one 

agreed. 

Forty-four percent of the 45 respondents agreed that the adhesive thickness was the same as what 

is being used in production. Thirteen percent strongly disagreed and 8 percent disagreed. 

Seventeen percent neither agreed nor disagreed and 20 percent strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 42 percent agreed, 21 percent strongly agreed, 21 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 percent disagreed, and 5 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the two responses, one strongly agreed and one strongly disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 54 percent agreed, 18 percent disagreed, 18 percent strongly 

disagreed, and 9 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One strongly agreed and one agreed. 

Question 7: Of the 48 responses, 31 percent disagreed that environmental effects are considered 

in acceptance testing and 4 percent strongly disagreed. Thirty-three percent of the respondents 

agreed and 14 percent strongly agreed. The remaining 18 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 47 percent disagreed and 15 percent strongly disagreed. 

Fifteen percent agreed, 10 percent strongly agreed, and 10 percent neither agreed 

nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the two responses, both neither agreed nor disagreed. 

C-46
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent agreed, 16 percent disagreed, 16 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, and 8 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One disagreed and one neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

Question 8: The majority of the responses indicated that freezer temperature monitoring and outtime monitoring were the main procedures used in controlling adhesive storage and handling 

from purchase until use, see table C-8. 

TABLE C-8. CONTROLLING ADHESIVE STORAGE AND HANDLING 

Response Percent 

Freezer temperature monitoring 93 

Out-time monitoring 

(handling and storage) 

87 

Assembly temperature monitoring 62 

First-in, first-out 24 

Automated sanding 15 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− One hundred percent said out-time monitoring, 90 percent said freezer 

temperature monitoring, 57 percent said assembly temperature monitoring, and 47 

percent said first-in, first-out. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, 100 percent stated freezer temperature monitoring and outtime monitoring and 66 percent said assembly temperature monitoring and firstin, first-out. The category Other response was “shelf life.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

Of the 11 responses, 81 percent said freezer temperature monitoring, 81 percent said out-time 

monitoring, 54 percent said assembly temperature monitoring, and 45 percent said first-in, 

first-out. 

C-47
The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Shelf life” 

− “Assembly humidity monitoring” 

− “Assembly cleanliness” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One hundred percent said freezer 

temperature monitoring, first-in, first-out and out-time monitoring. In addition, 

one of the respondents also said assembly temperature monitoring. 

Question 9: Of the 46 responses, 28 percent disagreed that peel ply materials are used for 

surface preparation and are subjected to the same controls as adhesives in questions 1 through 8 

of this section of the survey. Twenty-eight percent agreed and 28 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. The remaining 16 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 19 percent agreed, 9 percent strongly agreed, 38 percent 

disagreed, 9 percent strongly disagreed, and 23 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, 66 percent agreed and 33 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 54 percent agreed, 27 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 9 

percent strongly disagreed, and 1 percent disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One disagreed and one agreed. 

The respondents identified the following critical controls for peel ply. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Material weave and surfacing consistency, material storage (esp. WRT (with 

respect to) humidity).” 

C-48
− “Cleanliness and bond ability (for bondable peel ply).” 

− “Silicone content” 

− “Thorough abrasion, cleaning, and water break check of bonding area 

immediately after removal of the peel ply and immediately prior to application of 

adhesive.” 

− “They are kept clean.” 

− “Source of supply and compatibility testing after grit blasting. If not grit blasted, 

limited to core bond.” 

− “Resin content & FAW.” 

− “Surface morphology (SEM analysis), Mechanical testing such as FWT and lap 

shear strength.” 

− “Peel ply does not require critical controls, the cleaning process following 

removal for bonding does.” 

− “Storage temperature and humidity.” 

− “We do not use peel ply materials.” 

− “Fabric type and finish per PCD” (Production Control Document) 

• Design Responses 

− “Contamination control. As a rule, a solvent wipe is performed after peel ply is 

removed.” 

− “Qualified Material, CCA use.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “These are the same as for a pre-preg.” 

− “DCBs on every roll of every batch using design adherends and adhesive; Single 

sources are preferable.” 

− “Limiting the possibility of contamination.” 

− “Depends on peel ply type.” 

C-49
− “For primary structure there is a specification with a QPL. It requires a PCD and 

DCB testing. For secondary structure, peel plies are listed on the process 

specification but not controlled by QPL, QC testing, or PCD.” 

− “The effects of freezer out-time, and sensitivity to moisture, should be understood 

for all lamina cured in a laminate, adhesive, pre-preg, or peel ply.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Wedge or other form of peel testing.” 

− “Composition, texture, cleanliness” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “No change from original qualification.” 

− “Must be free of silicones or other release agents that transfer onto bonding 

surfaces. Must not be the only treatment prior to bonding.” 

− “Stored in a clean environment.” 

Question 10: The respondents gave the following comments on material control. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “As an end user with materials in the fleet, we have a need to supply materials in 

a quick and efficient manner to locations that may not have desirable storage. 

This can present a real problem for the use of the materials.” 

− “Handle it like film adhesive or pre-preg, but cold storage is not required.” 

− “Maintenance of correct storage conditions for adhesive and pre-preg materials is 

crucial as is correct recording of age and usage.” 

− “Test approaches are somewhat different for adhesive bond primer qualification 

and touch-up adhesive bond primer.” 

− “In general, adhesive systems are much more sensitive to material storage life and 

out-time when compared to conventional pre-preg materials. While it is 

important to develop applicable design data for each bonded joint configuration 

using representative adherend materials, bondline thickness ranges and joint 

geometry, I do not believe that it is practical, efficient or necessary to perform 

receiving inspection (incoming material control) tests using the same 

configuration as your actual design. The receiving inspection tests should be 

done using a simple baseline configuration such as aluminum adherends and 

baseline test geometry (ASTM or standardized internal test specimen/procedure). 

To require more than that is neither practical nor economically feasible.” 

C-50
− “Varies with compliance of individuals. Too easy to pencil whip a report - should 

be more automated data collection.” 

− “Most difficult is shipping and handling between manufacturer and end user; stuff 

that is manufactured goes into a black hole and shows up at your doorstep.” 

• Design Responses 

− The respondents did not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “My philosophy is to fully characterize the materials in qualification. In QC 

testing it is important to rely upon tests which are not prone to failure due to 

variables unrelated to the adhesive or primer. In general, the least QC variability 

comes from PAA + bond primed adherends. Ideally, a combination of SPC, PCD, 

good analytical tests (such as rheology, DSC, HPLC), latent chemistry and good 

shipping control can be used to control the material.” 

− “Have found that some film adhesives are quite insensitive to freezer out time 

accumulation. Probably worth characterizing level of criticality.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Should the OEM conduct chemical analysis on an adhesive if it is not done by 

the supplier or if it is no longer done on a regular basis by the supplier?” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “All time and temperature sensitive thermoset film adhesives and pastes including 

core splice & potting compounds should be controlled by material specifications 

for materials acceptance testing, shelf and shop life monitoring and recertification 

when materials are of the specification parameters. All two part mix adhesives 

that are used for structural bonding should also be monitored for acceptance and 

recertification testing and storage life per spec requirements.” 

− “Material control is fundamental to bond integrity. A system must be in place to 

ensure materials are in prime condition and free of contamination. For vacuum 

bagging, moisture control is essential through limiting relative humidity. I 

suggest that we should also have addressed pre-preg materials and dry fiber 

products.” 

C-51
− “The industry generally does a poor job storing and handling adhesives and 

ancillary materials used in bonding. The biggest issues tend to concern moisture 

ingress into adhesives or hardeners or into the substrate surfaces themselves.” 

C.3 MATERIAL AND PROCESS CONTROL SUBSECTION: PROCESS CONTROL. 

Question 1: When asked what controls were used in processing, the respondents identified the 

following: 70 percent of the respondents stated in-process monitoring, 62 percent said witness 

panel, and 25 percent said statistical process control. Four percent chose the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Eighty-five percent said witness panel, 80 percent stated in-process monitoring, 

and 19 percent said statistical process control. 

The only response from the category Other was as follows: 

− “Witness panels have not previously been used but we believe there is clear 

advantage in using them.” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the two responses, 33 percent of the respondents chose both witness panel and 

statistical process control and 33 percent stated in-process monitoring. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 90 percent stated in-process monitoring, 60 percent said 

witness panel, and 30 percent said statistical process control. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Metal bond uses Verifilm” 

− “Sample cure evaluation” 

− “Surface cleanliness” 

− “Witness panel used in bond priming to certify operators” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One hundred percent said witness panel 

and statistical process control. 

C-52
• Other Category Responses 

− “NDI” 

− “Surface preparation is an up and coming area. This is a real key to a good 

bonded joint. The surface cleaning is not just the type of cleaning used it is the 

steps or mechanics of the cleaning process that is the key. Improper cleaning can 

come from such things as dirty glove on the person cleaning the surface.” 

− “The surface preparation spraying needs to be a job for which the applier of the 

surface preparation is well trained, as well as the post preparation inspection 

before including the part in the bonding assembly step.” 

− “From a repair perspective, we manage our processes by quality management, not 

quality assurance. Many QC tests are inappropriate for repair scenarios, so it is 

far better to ensure quality materials, processes and people are used in controlled 

environments. Then bond integrity will occur.” 

Question 2: When asked what type of surface preparation their companies used, the majority of 

responses indicated that 79 percent of the responding companies used hand sanding and 68 

percent use media blasting as part of their surface preparation. Fifty-eight percent stated peel 

ply, 56 percent stated chemical etch, 25 percent chose the category Other, and 16 percent said 

automated sanding, see figure C-2. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80% Hand sanding

Media blasting

Peel ply

Chemical

Other

Automated

sanding

FIGURE C-2. SURFACE PREPARATION 

C-53
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Eighty-five percent said hand sanding, 66 percent said media blasting, 62 percent 

said chemical, 62 percent said peel ply, and 9 percent said automated sanding. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Anodizing Sol-Gel Treatments” (2) 

− “Corona/plasma” 

− “Grit blast plus saline” 

− “Grit blasting with 50 micron alumina followed by application of 1% solution of 

saline coupling agent.” 

• Design Responses 

− One hundred percent of the respondents stated chemical etch, 66 percent said peel 

ply, 66 percent said automated sanding, 33 percent said hand sanding, and 33 

percent said media blasting. 

Thirty-three percent chose the category Other, stating the following. 

− “Phosphoric Acid Non-tank Anodizing (PANTA)” 

− “SOLGEL” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 100 percent stated hand sanding, 80 percent said media 

blasting, 50 percent said peel ply, 50 percent said chemical etch, and 2 percent 

said automated sanding. The category Other response stated “Chemical etch 

(Non-structural bond only).” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent chose hand sanding, media 

blasting, chemical etch, and peel ply. Another chose automated sanding and 

media blasting. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “PAA & BR-127 bond primer” 

C-54
− “PACS (phosphoric acid containment system) for treatment of aluminum in the 

metal bonding process.” 

− “Phosphoric acids anodize and prime for aluminum for structural metal bond is 

required.” 

− “Grit blasting, solvent wipe, and prime for other metals such as steel and 

titanium.” 

− “ScotchBrite abrasives” 

− “Solvent degrease, water wipe, dry, aluminum grit blasting, coupling agent, dry 

then bond.” 

Of the 43 responses, 83 percent said surface preparation was monitored and controlled visually. 

Seventy-two percent said water break-free, 46 percent said witness panel, 25 percent said 

chemistry, and 11 percent chose the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 85 percent stated water break-free, 66 percent said visual, 62 

percent said witness panel, and 38 percent said chemistry. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, 100 percent of the respondents said both visual and water 

break-free. One respondent also stated chemistry and witness panel. One 

respondent chose the category Other, stating “polarizing lens (PANTA).” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 90 percent said visual, 60 percent said water break-free, and 

10 percent said chemistry. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One hundred percent chose visual and 

witness panel, with one respondent also choosing water break-free. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Anodize color” 

C-55
Question 3: Of the 47 responses, 36 percent agreed and 14 percent strongly agreed that 

mechanical tests are performed for bonding process control purposes. Twenty-three percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, while 14 percent disagreed and 10 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 22 responses, 40 percent agreed, 22 strongly agreed, 18 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, 13 percent strongly disagreed, and 4 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, one respondent agreed, one respondent strongly disagreed, 

and one strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 30 percent agreed, 30 percent disagreed, 20 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, 10 percent strongly agreed, and 10 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both agreed. 

The respondents that strongly agreed stated that the following tests were used. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Lap shear” (8) 

− “Flatwise tension” (2) 

− “Peel of witness panels and or panels cut from parts” (2) 

− “Wedge crack for metallic substrates” 

− “Witness panel wedge crack extension” 

− “Crack propagation test” 

− “Tensile shear and peel” 

− “Shear” 

− “T-Peel” 

− “WAL” 

− “Climbing drum peel” 

− “These tests should be done to develop the process and to qualify people” 

C-56
• Design Responses 

− “Wedge crack” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Tg” 

− “Flatwise tension” 

− “Lap shear” (3) 

− “T-peel tests for metal bonding” 

− “Peel” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Wedge crack” 

− “ASTM” 

Question 4: Of the 48 responses, 39 percent of the respondents agreed that prebond moisture of 

the substrates is controlled in their process. Eighteen percent strongly agreed, 16 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, while 18 percent strongly disagreed and 6 percent disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 38 percent agreed, 9 percent strongly agreed, 23 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 23 percent strongly disagreed, and 4 percent 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, one respondent agreed, one respondent disagreed, and one 

strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 60 percent agreed, 20 percent strongly disagreed, 10 percent 

strongly agreed, and 10 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

C-57
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the four responses, one strongly agreed, one agreed, and one neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

Question 5: The respondents said that in the case of paste adhesives, mixing variables were 

controlled during production. Ninety-one percent said weight, 21 percent said test coupon, and 6 

percent chose the category Other. No one stated chemical. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 90 percent stated weight and 14 percent said test coupon. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Test coupon” (2) 

− “Sample tested for Tg after cure with part” 

− “Premixed semkits” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, 100 percent stated weight. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 10 responses, 80 percent said weight and 40 percent said test coupon. The 

response from the category Other stated “Pre-packaged.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Only two of three respondents replied. One hundred percent stated both weight 

and test coupon. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Pre-weighed packaging” 

− “Static mix tip/fresh materials application” 

Question 6: The sequence of processing steps from surface preparation (cleaning and abrasion) 

through application of primer (if used) and adhesive to bond assembly for cure were identified as 

follows. 

C-58
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Varies based on class of bond and substrates.” 

− “Many different processes used Navy wide.” 

− “Solvent degrease, water wipe, water break test, dry, grit blast abrasion to expose 

a chemically active surface, chemical modification (we use a saline coupling 

agent) to develop resistance to hydration, drying and then bond. If required a 

primer is applied after the final drying step.” 

− “Composites: Wipe up with MEK; sand; re-wipe with MEK; Aluminum: 

Chemical strip; chromic acid anodizing, primer within 6 hours.” 

− “Clean, deox, surface prep, primer, primer cure, maybe move to location, apply 

adhesive, bag, cure.” 

− “For aluminum substrates: MEK wipe, AlO2 grit blast using N2 gas, N2 gas 

clean, saline treatment, primer.” 

− “Solvent clean part: Abrade (hand sand or grit blast); Solvent clean (if used, water 

break, dry, clean); Bond within 8 hours.” 

− “Check fit, clean, visual inspect, apply adhesive, apply pressure, cure, visual 

inspect, deflash if required, NDE inspect.” 

− “Hand clean as necessary; PAA processing; bond primer application & cure; 

detail storage.” 

− “The procedure involves the following: 

1) Solvent wiping: single wiping of the aluminum surface used methyl ethyl 

ketone (MEK) soaked lanoline and lint free tissues. A fresh tissue is used 

after each pass. Single wiping is conducted along the grain direction and 

at 900 relative to the grain until no observable debris or staining of the 

tissue can be observed. 

2) ScotchBrite ® abrasion with MEK: following solvent wiping the surface is 

abraded with ScotchBrite pad soaked in MEK along the grain direction 

and at 900 relative to the grain until a uniform surface appearance is 

observed. Single wiping of the aluminum surface then uses MEK soaked 

lanoline and lint free tissues. A fresh tissue is used after each pass. 

Wiping is conducted in the direction of the abrasion until no presence of 

debris or staining of the tissue can be observed. 

3) ScotchBrite ® abrasion with demonized water: following step 2, the 

surface is abraded with ScotchBrite pad soaked in demonized water along 

C-59
the grain direction and at 900 relative to the grain until a uniform surface 

appearance is observed. Single wiping of the aluminum surface then uses 

demonized water soaked lanoline and lint free tissues. A fresh tissue is 

used after each pass. Wiping is conducted in the direction of the abrasion 

until no presence of debris or staining of the tissue can be observed. 

4) Water-break testing: The surface is water-break tested by thoroughly 

wetting the surface prepared in 3) with demonized water and observing 

that no areas are free of water. The surface is then gradually dried using a 

hot air gun and moisture should evaporate in a uniform manner without 

any water-breaks. If water-break areas are present steps 1-3 must be 

repeated. “Surface preparation-apply adhesive- curing.” 

5) Drying: The surface is dried in an oven at 1100C for five minutes prior to 

grit-blasting. Break surface; dry; bond.” 

6) Grit-blasting: uniform grit-blasting of the surface employs 50 mm 

aluminum grit and dry nitrogen propellant with a pressure of 450kPa and a 

working distance of 15 to 20cm. 

7) Saline treatment: a 1 percent aqueous solution of gglycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane is stirred for 1 hour prior to commencing 

the surface pre-treatment steps listed above. Distilled water is used to 

prepare the saline solution. The grit-blasted aluminum surface is 

“immersed” in the saline solution for 15 minutes by applying the solution 

regularly to the aluminum surface from clean lanoline and lint free tissues. 

The surface is then allowed to drain free of excess solution, followed by 

drying in an 1100C oven for 60 minutes.” 

− “Degrease surface; Etch or blast surface; Degrease surface; Dry Apply primer; 

Cure primer; Apply adhesive; Cure adhesive” 

− “After all possible forming, machining, and/or drilling options, clean/degrease so 

have clean panels/details, blast and/or etch, apply/cure adhesion promoters, apply 

bond primer and cure within hours of prep maintaining cleanliness, wrap in 

neutral Kraft paper and seal in no-residue bags, unpackaged details in clean room 

within shelf life, solvent wipe and flash dry, apply touch up bond primer to 

otherwise acceptable parts w/ nicks/scratches, apply adhesive within time limits, 

complete/bag assy, begin cure within limits (shelf life), perform approved cure 

cycle time/temp/pressure/rates, debag, deflash, touch up substrates for 

corrosion/paint, seal, prime, paint.” 

− “Surface prep by masking and bead blasting; visual inspection by Q personnel; 

mixing of paste with fillers by weight; application of primer to wet out surface; 

application of mixed adhesive paste by hand; assembly of part(s) and procure; 

handling cure and wait for scheduled post cures; post cure; sample cups routed to 

lab for process tests ( Tg ).” 

C-60
− “Metals: clean, abrade, clean, blast, conversion coating, primer, adhesive 

Composite: peel ply, or clean and blast, or peel ply and blast.” 

− “We don’t use primer on composites.” 

− “Typical aluminum to aluminum; typical stainless steel to stainless steel; 

fabricated details parts.” 

− “Degreasing (if required), PAA. Application of bond primer, adhesive bond 

(most common). Degreasing (if required), mechanical abrasion, degreasing, 

silicone primer application, silicone adhesive.” 

− “Abrasion, solvent wipes, water break, primer, cure if needed, adhesive 

application.” 

• Design Responses 

− “ALUM SUBSTRATE: Alkaline cleaning, etch, PAA, water-break, primer 

application, primer bake, (storage possibly), solvent clean, adhesive application, 

cure. COMPOSITE SUBSTRATES: clean, sand, degrease, water-break test, 

adhesive application, cure.” 

− “Final clean using lint free bleached wipes moistened with acetone/MEK, visually 

inspect wipe to ensure cleanliness, water-break test, dry, primer/adhesive 

application.” 

− “Degrease PAA prime, adhesive application, bag and cure.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Degrease; Water-break test; Abrade; Couplant (if used); Dry; Primer (if used), 

Adhesive.” 

− “The critical parameter is to bond within 4 hrs after surface prep, if no primer is 

used. If primer is used, the parts may be bagged a stored prior to bonding.” 

− “For Aluminum: PAA per BAC5555; bond primer within 3 days; MEK wipe 

after detail storage. For composite: cocure dry peel ply, remove peel ply, bond 

within 8 hours.” 

− “For bonding composite parts: General cleaning, grit blast, vacuum, water 

cleaning, solvent cleaning, final sand, bond; For aluminum parts: Anodize, prime, 

solvent wipe.” 

C-61
− “Solvent wipe, light sand.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Keep surface clean and dry prior to surface preparation (in new-part 

manufacturing), remove peel ply or protective layer from surface, energize 

surface by abrading, Dry wipe to remove dust and debris, mix & apply adhesive 

or apply film adhesive, close joint and clamp (mechanical, vacuum bag/autoclave) 

ASAP, Heat to appropriate cure temperature and monitor /record process. (Precleaning parts with solvents is only required for repairs. No solvents are ever 

used on freshly energized composite surfaces.)” 

− “Clean bond surfaces (for gross contamination), final surface prep (chemical 

treatment for most metals, abrasion for most composites), spray or brush 

application of primer (where required), cure of primer and protection of prepared 

surface prior to application of adhesive.” 

− “Varies depending upon variable(s) to be studied.” 

− “Composites: abrade or bead blast; vacuum and solvent wipe; verify no-water.” 

Question 7: When asked whether they had time constraints for the steps leading up to cure, the 

respondents’ answers were split. Fifty-four percent said surface preparation—adhesive 

application, 67 percent said surface preparation—primer application, 68 percent said primer 

application—adhesive application, and 73 percent said adhesive application—adhesive cure. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Sixty-three percent said surface preparation—adhesive application, 72 percent 

said surface preparation—primer application, 60 percent said primer 

application—adhesive application, and 68 percent said adhesive application—

adhesive cure. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, 100 percent stated surface preparation—primer application 

and 100 percent said adhesive application—adhesive cure. Sixty-six percent said 

primer application—adhesive application and 33 percent said surface 

preparation—adhesive application. The response for the category Other stated 

“PAA to primer application.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

C-62
• Analysis Responses 

− Of the nine responses, 88 percent said adhesive application—adhesive cure, 66 

percent said primer application—adhesive application, 66 percent said surface 

preparation—primer application, and 55 percent said surface preparation—

adhesive application. The response from the category Other was “Storage time 

out of bonding humidity limits.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the four respondents, one said surface preparation—adhesive application and 

adhesive application—adhesive cure. Another said adhesive application—

adhesive cure and primer application—adhesive application. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Time constraints should be well defined and the application process and 

structural assembly designed to meet these time constraints. The characteristics 

of the bonding material and procedure should be well defined so that if a time 

constraint is needed it can be well established for each assemble and curing 

process.” 

− “Open time limits on all amine cured epoxies.” 

− “Our process must be continuous and rapid from start to application of vacuum to 

bagged part.” 

Question 8: The respondents stated that the bonding process cure cycle is controlled. Of the 49 

responses, 96 percent said time controlled the bonding process cure cycle. Eighty-seven percent 

stated temperature and 36 percent chose the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 95 percent said time and 95 percent said temperature. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Pressure/vacuum” (7) 

− “Adhesive reaches cure after 7 days at 70°, or adhesive cure may be accelerated.” 

− “Internal bladder pressure” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three responses, 100 percent said both time and temperature. The response 

from the category Other was “Work Thermocouples.” 

C-63
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the ten responses, 100 percent said time and 90 percent said temperature. The 

response from the category Other was “Tooling pressure.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the four respondents, one replied, choosing time and temperature. The 

response from the category Other was “Pressure-mechanical clamping.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Bond process must not only control the time of cure and the cure temperature but 

the coordination of the time, temperature and the pressure applied to the 

assembly. The interrelationships between these three are very important to a good 

bonded assembly. The pressure is just as key as the time and temperature not 

only in how the pressure is applied but how it sequence matches the other two 

(time and temperature).” 

− “Parallel Material-state monitoring (Rheology/viscosity)” 

− “Work Thermocouples” 

− “Control is managed by the hottest point on the structure to prevent overheating. 

A combination of time and temperature as determined by differential scanning 

calorimetric, is used for acceptance of the bond, based on lowest temperature in 

the bondline.” 

− “Vent Parameters” 

− “Heat Rise Rate” 

− “Cool Down Rate” 

The participants responded as follows to the statement “There are indicators to demonstrate 

temperature and pressure at the bond line.” 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 57 percent agreed, 14 percent strongly agreed, 19 percent 

strongly disagreed, 4 percent disagreed, and 4 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

C-64
• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly disagreed, one strongly agreed, and one 

agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 33 percent agreed, 33 percent strongly disagreed, 25 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 8 percent strongly disagreed, and 8 percent 

disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the four respondents, one respondent strongly disagreed and one agreed. 

Question 9: Of the 51 responses, 50 percent agreed that NDI plays a role in bond process 

control. Thirty-five percent strongly agreed, while 9 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. Two 

percent of the respondents disagreed and 2 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 23 percent agreed, 42 percent strongly agreed, while 9 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed. Four percent of the respondents disagreed 

and 4 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two strongly disagreed and one agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent agreed, 33 percent strongly agreed, and 8 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents agreed. 

C-65
Question 10: The following were the respondents’ comments on process controls. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “We inspect for voids in critical bonds using ultrasonic inspection.” 

− “We use different processes for different platforms based on developments at both 

the OEM and internally.” 

− “Period thickness checks required in addition to the above listed process 

controls.” 

− “Pressure is monitored for autoclave cures, but it is not monitored for paste 

adhesive cure cycles.” 

− “Per four, pre-bond (or pre or during cure) moisture effects on your adhesive 

should be eliminated during qualification or acceptable control limits established. 

Per 8, there are indicators to demonstrate temp at a bond line if you have 

performed a thorough heat survey with representative cure details/cure vessel/cure 

cycle. Pressure is usually indirectly measured by remaining bondline thickness, 

although pressure sensors can be installed in developmental or FPQ parts for 

analysis. Per 9, anything you can’t find w/ NDI (kissing unbond), you had better 

figure out how to process control or live with.” 

− “Destructive testing of samples which are built into the parts and cut off for 

testing after bonding is used for critical parts at RHC along with destructive test 

of parts.” 

− Effective process controls in the surface preparation and bonding steps are always 

difficult to define and maintain. Careful documentation and well defined 

processes are essential.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “NDI is ineffective for kissing bond as a caused by many contaminants. 

Immersion testing in 160 gallon water tank is useful for detecting “worm hole 

leaks” in sandwich structure. My company moved away from process control 

panels due to non-correlation of results and expense.” 

− “Mechanical testing of witness coupons is ineffective in a manufacturing setting 

unless there is a fool-proof way to correlate the coupon and bonded structure 

manufacturing history and structural performance.” 

C-66
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “NDI is a necessary but not a sufficient check of whether the bonding process was 

successfully achieved.” 

− “NDT will only establish presence or absence of adhesive in bond line and degree 

of porosity. Mix ratio and degree of cure require mechanical/physical/chemical 

testing.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Mainly use tap-testing.” 

− “NDI can only tell if there is a bondline defect. It can not give assurance of bond 

integrity, especially the condition of the interface. Processes must be managed to 

produce a reliable product. You can never make a bad bond better by any quality 

control testing; you can only tell that it is bad. In contrast, if quality is managed 

into the product it will pass every test possible.” 

− “Process controls are extremely important and the level of control depends on the 

structural importance of the part being bonded.” 

− “Some manufacturers use the water-break test as an in-process quality check of 

the actual substrate’s surface preparation/robustness. This practice is self 

defeating and is ill-advised. The additional time required to then dry the surface 

reduces the surface free energy to the point that re-abrading would then be 

required. Solvent wiping can contribute to moisture at the substrate surface prior 

to bonding. Solvent wiping can also ingress other contaminants into the freshly 

energized substrate surface. Further investigation into the effects of solvent 

wiping on composite substrates is necessary. NDI cannot fix an in-process error. 

It is useful for post-process QA and process assessment only.” 

C.4 MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION SUBSECTION: DESIGN AND 

ANALYSIS. 

Question 1: When asked what structural parts, attachments, and splices used bonding, the 

respondents replied as shown in table C-9. 

C-67
TABLE C-9. STRUCTURAL PARTS, ATTACHMENTS, AND SPLICES USED FOR 

MANUFACTURE OR REPAIR 

Response Percent 

Skins 85 

Doubler 66 

Stringers 58 

Spars 54 

Ribs 54 

Frames 54 

Machined parts 35 

Other 16 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 94 percent said skins; 66 percent said doublers; 55 percent 

said stringers, spars, and ribs; 61 percent said frames; 44 percent said machined 

parts; and 22 percent chose the category Other. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Control surfaces and doors” 

− “Honeycombs and minor parts, mainly composites” 

− “Skin to spar bond” 

− “Pressure vessel” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, all three indicated skins, doubles, stringers, spars, and 

ribs. Two of the three also indicated machined parts. 

One of the two respondents also chose the category Other, stating the following. 

− “Back to back fittings in design” 

− “Transparencies” 

− “Tertiary Brackets” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent chose skins, stringers, frames, spars, and ribs. 

C-68
• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 100 percent said skins, 77 percent said doublers, 61 percent 

said stringers, 54 percent said frames, 54 percent said spars, 54 percent said ribs, 

and 38 percent said machined parts. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both indicated doublers and stringers. The 

second respondent also indicated skins, frames, spars, and ribs. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Bonded structures can be made for almost all types of structural elements. The 

tooling and curing process for the structure elements as well as the structure 

application parameters play a role in selection of the structures that can be 

manufactured and repaired. The repair aspect need careful review to assure that 

the design does not make the repair process difficult or not safe. Unsafe repairs 

are in my mind a real key issue in selecting structures to be bonded.” 

Question 2: The respondents indicated that the maximum operational temperature of their 

adhesive was established in relation to the Tg as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “25°C below the measured Tg” 

− “50°C below Tg” 

− “It’s not. Only strength/stiffness at temperature is a determinant.” 

− “50°F - maximum service temperature to original Tg.” 

− “50°F” 

− “Approximately 100°F less than the dry Tg.” 

− “Component testing at operational temperature.” 

− “Knock-down below hot-wet Tg based on shape of the curve.” 

− “Sometimes we wish we had a little higher Tg.” 

− “Not related” 

− “It is not established in relation to Tg.” 

C-69
− “It is even more important to establish MOL functionally than with just a Tg

knockdown for adhesives compared to composites. There are many bonded 

structures that have a wet Tg at or sometimes below a maximum environmental 

temperature. This still may not be a deal breaker if you have enough lightly 

loaded adhesive away from the edges to prevent creep.” 

− “Operation temperature not solely defined by Tg. Durability testing at maximum 

service temperature is used. Tg via DMA is only a relative indicator.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Set by OEM as maximum operating temperature.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not answer this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “30F beyond conservative wet Tg.” 

− “180 oC” 

− “-50F is a simple guideline, data provides the real number.” 

− “Allowables are temperature dependent.” 

− “It’s not. Only strength/stiffness at temperature is a determinant.” 

− “A safe margin is applied.” 

− “The goal is to have a wet Tg 50F above the maximum operating temperature, but 

if this is not practical, then an additional high-temperature-wet test (20F above 

operating) is added to the qualification tests.” 

− “This Tg to use temperature is variable and not clearly defined at our company. 

However, maximum operational temperature is based on mechanicals.” 

− “Thru structural test data. Tg is relatively meaningless.” 

− “Varies some. Generally = MOL - 50F (wet).” 

− “Well below Tg-20” 

C-70
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied. The respondent answered adhesive 

mechanical characterization and application-specific. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Tg minus 50°F” 

− “Adhesive mechanical characterization and application-specific determinations.” 

− “Typically they use temperature should be established at a conservative point 

below the Tg. Preferably 20 degrees below the onset, depending on the test and 

the data.” 

− “From manufacturer’s data and/or independent testing.” 

− “Subject of ongoing studies.” 

− “From the adhesive data sheets.” 

− “Temperature requirements are dictated by the service temperature.” 

Question 3: When asked how they measured Tg, the respondents replied as shown in table C-10. 

TABLE C-10. MEASURING Tg

Response Percent 

DMA 71 

DSC 66 

TMA 33 

Other 17 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 70 percent said DSC, 58 percent said DMA, and 23 percent 

said TMA. The response from the category Other was “Varies with material.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated DSC and DMA. 

C-71
• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 90 percent said DMA, 54 percent said DSC, and 27 percent 

said TMA. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied, indicating DMA. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “AFRL” 

− “Dynamic Spectrometer (similar to DMA)” 

Question 4: Fifty-six percent of the respondents agreed that tooling, manufacturing, and 

maintenance issues are integrated into the design process. Twenty-four percent strongly agreed, 

14 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 6 percent disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 52 percent agreed, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

15 percent strongly agreed, and 10 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly agreed. Two of the three respondents did 

not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent strongly agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 71 percent agreed, 14 percent strongly agreed, 7 percent 

disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents strongly agreed. 

The respondents replied as follows to the statement “You have documented design guidelines in 

these areas.” Forty-two percent of the respondents agreed with this statement and 15 percent 

strongly agreed. Twenty-six percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 13 percent disagreed, and 4 

percent strongly disagreed. 

C-72
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 35 percent agreed, 23 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

17 percent disagreed, 17 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly disagreed. Two of the three respondents 

did not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 57 percent agreed, 28 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 7 

percent strongly agreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents agreed. 

The respondents replied as follows to the statement “These guidelines depend on part criticality.” 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 47 percent agreed, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

21 percent strongly agreed, and 10 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Three respondents replied. One strongly agreed, one strongly disagreed, and one 

agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− Three respondents replied. Two agreed and one strongly disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 66 percent agreed, 16 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

8 percent strongly agreed, and 8 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed and one strongly agreed. 

C-73
Question 6: The respondents used the following analysis for bonded structures. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “AE4I” (bonded joint analysis program) 

− “Basic P/A (load over area analysis) to FEA, depending upon the application.” 

− “For critical joints tensile shear in bond joint equal tensile strength of material 

being bonded.” 

− “Full scale static and fatigue tests on bonded assemblies.” 

− “Hand analysis, AYEI, in-house code.” 

− “Hand calculations using running shear loads.” 

− “In-house analytical tools that have been incorporated into CalcyRep and CRAS 

software. Designs will always be compared against RAAF Engineering Standard 

DEF (AUST) 9005-A.” 

− “Minimal amount of finite element analysis.” 

− “OEM specific” 

− “Shear and Peel stress through FEA.” 

− “Using virtual crack closure technique, calculate strain energy release rate.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Laminate analysis software and physical calculations.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− “Customer requirements and published data.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Combination of stress and fracture based analysis.” 

− “Detailed FEM and in-house software.” 

− “FEA of crack growth (R&D tool only?)” 

− “FEA for overall structure using mechanical properties from notched allowable 

tests. Localized analysis may be done using CLPT.” 

C-74
− “FEM (particularly for secondarily induced tensile forces), Classical V/A (shear 

load over area analysis) smeared analysis for simple structures.” 

− “Hart smith program. A4EI; assuming elastic - perfectly plastic adhesive 

properties.” 

− “I have no experience with any analysis technique that accurately predicts 

adhesive performance. Analysis is done with the aid of empirical data and 

conservative assumptions for adhesive thickness and overlaps. For preliminary 

design, 500 psi is used with some limitations. Certification is usually 

accomplished by test, unless the margins of safety are shown to be large.” 

− “Lap shear strength or detailed joint test results.” 

− “Mostly empirical in the past. VCCT (virtual crack closure technique) approach 

is currently being adopted for new airplane - still supported by much testing.” 

− “Average bond shear stress, with allowable based on adhered stiffness mismatch, 

overlap length and allowed local bond thickness.” 

− “P/A and FEA” 

− “Only static analysis” 

− “Service experience” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Detailed stress analysis with tools that account for bonded joint design parameters 

and semiempirical failure criteria. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “AE4I evolving to “SIFT methods “(joint analysis program). 

− “The load capacity is calculated using an elastic-plastic analysis. That load 

capacity is compared against the structural loads. The overlap length is designed 

such that all loads can be carried by plastic behavior and an additional overlap 

length is added as precaution against joint creep. This procedure is performed at 

maximum and minimum service temperatures.” 

− “B-Spline Analysis Method (3D stress analysis tool)” 

− “All bonding would be performed in accordance with the SRM and the adhesive 

manufacturer’s data sheets.” 

− “The analysis is structural finite element modeling supported by test.” 

C-75
Forty-two percent of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement “You use analysis 

codes.” Twenty-eight percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 14 percent disagreed, 12 percent 

strongly agreed, and 4 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 33 percent agreed, 33 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

13 percent strongly agreed, 13 percent disagreed, and 6 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents replied that they neither agreed nor disagreed. Two 

of the three respondents did not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 54 percent agreed, 15 percent strongly agreed, 15 percent 

disagreed, 7 percent strongly disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents agreed. 

The respondents that agreed or strongly agreed stated that they use the following analysis codes. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Running-shear model” 

− “Platform specific for repair” 

− “MARC for nonlinear FEM” 

− “NASTRAN” (2) 

− “Patran for fet and various hand calc.” 

− “AYEI” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Abaqus” (2) 

− “Various FE and in-house codes” 

− “Non-linear MSC/NASTRAN SOL 600” 

− “NASTRAN/PATRAN” 

− “FEA” 

C-76
− “P over A” 

− “ANSYS” 

− “A4EI” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “NASTRAN” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “BSAM” 

Question 7: The respondents use the following failure criteria: 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Platform specific for static (strain based), unlimited life” 

− “Adhesive failure” 

− “Mechanical” 

− “Do they work better than those for composites?” 

− “Mechanical performance, durability, failure mode” 

− “Elastic analysis only” 

− “Limit Load(and fatigue) - Adhesive Yield; Ultimate Load- Ultimate Strength” 

− “Minimum adhesive failure in shear” 

− “Max stress” 

− “Limit load and ultimate load conditions applied to Full-scale test article. 

Sustainability of the article to withstand ultimate load is evaluated.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Stiffness and overlap.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− “Shear, peel” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Average stress” 

C-77
− “LEFM, total strain energy” 

− “Fracture toughness criteria” 

− “EADS CASA criterion” 

− “Maximum strain” 

− “Max principal stress/strain and fracture mechanics” 

− “Generally smeared V/A ultimate” 

− “Ultimate strength” 

− “Various research” 

− “Failure occurs at an average stress (p/a) and is used in conjunction with 

empirical data generated, considering geometry, overlap, and adhesive thickness.” 

− “Limit Load(and fatigue) - Adhesive Yield; Ultimate Load- Ultimate Strength” 

− “Ultimate shear stress, S-N curves in fatigue” 

− “First part” 

− “Lap shear, Flatwise tension, Peel strength” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Those conservatively validated by tests.” 

− “Ultimate strain generally used.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Strain based or fracture mechanics based (energy release rate)” 

− “Strain and stress limits” 

− “Max von mises” 

− “Hear strength” 

− “Structural criteria must include the effects of time and environment.” 

− “Depends on joint design” 

− “Load capacity calculated as per Hart-Smith is used to compare against loads, 

with specified margins of safety required.” 

C-78
− “Subject of ongoing study” 

− “Result of tap-testing” 

Forty-four percent of the responders agreed with the statement “Your predictions distinguish 

cohesive failures in the adhered or adhesive.” Twenty-seven percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 15 percent strongly agreed, 12 percent disagreed, and 2 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 43 percent disagreed, 31 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed; 12 percent strongly disagreed, 6 percent strongly agreed, and 6 percent 

agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly agreed. Two of the three respondents did 

not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 57 percent agreed, 14 percent disagreed, 7 percent strongly 

agreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent agreed and one neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

Thirty percent of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that adhesion failures between the 

substrate and adhesive can be predicted and 30 percent disagreed. Twenty-five percent strongly 

disagreed, 8 percent agreed, and 7 percent strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 35 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 28 percent agreed, 

21 percent disagreed, and 14 percent strongly agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly agreed. Two of the three respondents did 

not reply to this question. 

C-79
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 36 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 14 percent strongly 

disagreed, 14 percent disagreed, and 14 percent agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent strongly disagreed and one neither 

agreed nor disagreed. 

Question 8: The responders overwhelming said they make a concentrated effort to minimize 

peel stresses in the design of bonded joints. Forty-five percent agreed, 47 percent strongly 

agreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 47 percent agreed, 41 percent strongly agreed, and 12 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 60 percent strongly agreed and 40 percent agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent agreed and one strongly agreed. 

Question 9: Fifty-three percent of the respondents stated that the overlap length is primarily 

sized in design by stress level. Forty-four percent primarily used a design standard, 33 percent 

sized geometrically, and 11 percent used strain level. Eleven percent also indicated other 

methods. 

C-80
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 53 percent said stress level, 46 percent said design standard, 

and 26 percent said geometrically. The response for the category Other was “All 

for repair, sized by OEM in new design.” 

• Design Responses 

− Strain level. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent uses design standard. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 64 percent said stress level, 57 percent said geometrically, 43 

percent said destructive testing, and 21 percent said strain level. The response for 

the category Other was “Allowance for voids.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two chose design standard and one of the two also chose 

stress level. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Overlap length is affected by the structural stiffness, shape, stress and strain 

level. Again the overlap length will be effect by the bonding tooling and bonding 

process. Since in any bonded design the manufacturing process can set how the 

joint is design and that will of course include the overlap length.” 

− “The overlap length has an allowance such that all loads can be carried by plastic 

behavior in the bond and then an allowance is made for elastic behavior to prevent 

creep. The overlap length is determined by the hottest service temperature.” 

− “As defined by the SRM” 

Question 10: Thirty-seven percent of the respondents agreed that their analysis accounts for 

residual stresses in the bonded joint and 28 percent disagreed. Twenty-one percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, 7 percent strongly agreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 42 percent agreed, 21 percent disagreed, 21 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, and 14 percent strongly agreed. 

C-81
• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly agreed. Two of the three respondents did 

not reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 36 percent agreed, 36 percent disagreed, 21 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent agreed and one neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

Question 11: The respondents identified the following basic material properties and joint data 

needed for analysis procedures. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Adhesive: Tensile modulus, strength, shear modulus, strength, compressive 

modulus, strength” 

− “Composite: longitudinal & transverse modulus, shear modulus, G12,G31,G23, 

poissions ratio v12, v31,v23” 

− “Lap Shear Strength Values” 

− “Amount of Overlap” 

− “Adhesive Shear Strength” 

− “Apparent Shear Strength Of Joints With Similar Adherend And overlap Length” 

− “Adhesive: Shear Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, Ultimate Shear Failure Strain, 

Fatigue Strain Limit, Cure Temp, Operating Temperature Skin: Thickness, Yield 

Strength, Ultimate Strength, Fracture Toughness, Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, 

Thermal Expansion Coefficients, Composite Repair Patch: Ultimate Longitudinal 

Strain, Moduli, Thermal Expansion Coefficients, Thickness” 

− “Adhesive: Tensile Modulus, Strength, Shear Modulus, Strength, Compressive 

Modulus, Strength, Composite: Longitudinal & Transverse Modulus, Shear 

Modulus, G12, G31, G23, Poissions Ratio V12, V31, V23” 

C-82
− “Elastic Modulus, Shear Modulus, Elastic Strain, Plastic Strain” 

− “KGR EV. 8” 

− “Lap Shear And Bulk Tensile Strength” 

− “Minimum Shear Strength And Area” 

− “Moduli, Ctes, Failure Loads. Analysis For Composite Joints Requires more 

information.” 

− “Modulus, Elongation, Ultimate Strength” 

− “Shear Modulus and Ultimate Stress.” 

− “Shear Modulus For Critical Conditions, Representative Elements” 

− “Shear Strength And Modulus” 

− “Shear Stress-Strain Curve, Flatwise Tensile Strength” 

• Design Responses 

− “Ply” 

− “Thickness” 

− “Poissions Ratio” 

− “Young’s Modulus” 

− “Shear modulus” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “A matrix of test results that consider geometry, overlap, and adhesive thickness.” 

− “Adhesive: shear stress, strain, & modulus over temperature range with moisture 

effects. Adherend: stress, strain, & modulus over temperature range with 

moisture effects.” 

− “Elastic plastic modulus, Poisson’s tensile and shear fatigue and static strength, 

fatigue crack growth rate, fatigue threshold” 

− “G1c, G2c, G3 mixed mode.” 

− “Adhesive, and Mechanical allowables (i.e. peeling stress)” 

C-83
− “Material and adhesive properties” 

− “Modulus, Poissions, strength (tensile, shear), adhesive shear strain” 

− “Smeared V/A section shear strength and smeared P/A tensile strength” 

− “Stiffness of adhesive (linear elastic) and adherends; Strength of adherends and 

elongation to failure of the adhesive.” 

− “Stiffness, geometry, strength, impact resistance” 

− “Substrate stiffness, adhesive stiffness, empirical adhesive strength, overlap 

length, bond width, taper/scarf consideration, criticality of joint, presence or 

absence of failsafe fasteners.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Nonlinear stiffness and detailed tests/analysis to calibrate “design values.”” 

− “Adhesive allowable strain or stress; moduli (shear and extensional); adherend 

geometry and moduli; and bondline thickness” 

Question 12: When considering damage tolerance, fatigue, and durability, the majority of the 

respondents indicated that two or all three factors were considered in design. Damage tolerance 

received 35 percent of the responses, fatigue was specified in 34 percent, and durability was 

indicated in 32 percent of the responses. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent said damage tolerance, 58 percent fatigue, and 58 

percent said durability. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one indicated damage tolerance, fatigue, and durability. 

The other two respondents did not reply to the question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated damage tolerance and fatigue. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 93 percent said damage, 86 percent said durability, and 66 

percent said fatigue. 

C-84
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents answered. Both respondents indicated damage 

tolerance and fatigue; one respondent also indicated durability. 

Question 13: The respondents said that the following determined the manufacturing flaw and 

accidental damage sizes considered for fatigue and damage tolerance assessments of bonded 

surfaces. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “A long and painful coordination between design and stress on one side and 

manufacturing and m & p (material and process) on the other. They show us their 

models and we show them our manufacturing history and field failures.” 

− “Manufacturing flaw - NDE resolution DT-MIL-STO-1530” 

− “Full scale test article with intentional defects upon sustaining the loads drives the 

flaw size, durability and the fatigue assessments of the bonded structure.” 

− “NDI limits for manufacturing. NDI limits and visual inspection limits for in 

service structure.” 

− “NDT capability and effects of defects testing.” 

− “Full scale test and field experience.” 

− “Testing” 

− “Loss of area, location of flow and past experience.” 

• Design Responses 

− “OEM returns back to the original.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “The flaw sizes are determined by the inspection technique and accessibility and 

can be different for different parts of the structure.” 

− “Flaw size leading to unstable growth and/or inspection accuracy.” 

− “General design criteria, NDI/NDE capability, process robustness, customer 

requirements.” 

C-85
− “AC20-107A” 

− “Residual strength test data (load capability versus damage size severity).” 

− “Experience” 

− “Detection sizes for the preferred inspection method.” 

− “Secondary structures are determined by visual inspection.” 

− “Inspection standards” 

− “Currently specification dictates reject flaw size. Also currently investigating 

flaw size/shape effects.” 

− “What can be found by a reliable inspection.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Production and service threat assessment (based on previous experience and 

engineering judgment), combined with analysis and tests on structural 

performance. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “For inspection and damage tolerance issues the effect of the repair is ignored. 

Pre-repair inspection intervals are maintained.” 

− “For manufacturing, eads casa procedure (fix the maximum flaw size and others) 

for accidental damages is the minimum detectable damage size (depending on 

damage source).” 

− “Twice the NDI detectable flaw size, but moving to the largest flaw size that can 

be tolerated (acceptable strength reduction) based on empirical “effects of 

defects” testing.” 

− “Type of material used, structural arrangement, stress/strain level the structure see 

in service, types of damage considered, aircraft usage and type.” 

− “Critical structure/aerodynamic considerations.” 

− “A critical defect is one that reduces the bond overlap length below that which 

would permit all loads to be carried by plastic behavior in the adhesive, with a 

50% margin of safety on that overlap length.” 

− “Tested damage size established by subjective estimation, criteria is damage or 

defect that can be determined by visual inspection.” 

C-86
− “As defined by the SRM.” 

− “NDI detection levels.” 

Question 14: To the statement “You have had success in applying analysis methods for fatigue 

and damage tolerance assessments of bonded structures,” 21 percent of the 41 respondents 

agreed, 27 percent disagreed, 24 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 12 percent strongly 

agreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 43 percent disagreed, 31 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 12 percent strongly disagreed, 6 percent agreed, and 6 percent strongly 

agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− One of the three respondents strongly agreed. Two of three respondents did not 

reply to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 46 percent agreed, 20 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

20 percent disagreed, and 13 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent agreed, and one neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

Question 15: The respondents used the following fail-safe design features to reduce the risk of 

weak bonds in their structure. Of the 38 responses, 45 percent said rivets, 18 percent said 

crackstoppers, and 60 percent chose the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Of the 14 responses, 35 percent said rivets and 21 percent said crackstoppers. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Bolts” 

− “Bolts in some areas of criticality. Wet lay-up to provide an additional load path 

for redundancy” 

C-87
− “Multiple redundant load paths” 

− “Fasteners” 

− “Redundant load paths” 

− “Z-pins” 

− “None” (3) 

• Design Responses 

− “None” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 43 percent said rivets and 14 percent said crackstoppers. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “No bonds in single load path elements” 

− “Multiple load paths” 

− “Blind bolts or Hi-loks” 

− “Fasteners” 

− “Keep low stresses” 

− “Lower allowables/larger bond areas” 

− “Self-health monitoring” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents used rivets and crackstoppers. 

Question 16: The respondents had the following comments on design and analysis. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “The design procedures for single sided unsupported repairs require some further 

review before they can be generally applied.” 

− “Wide range of techniques, based on criticality of part.” 

C-88
− “Of the plane (peel) effects, initiation and growth still seem difficult to model. 

When asked for small bolts to arrest potential debonds, and got big bolts capable 

of replacing the entire bond for several hundred hours.” 

− “Could use help in this area regarding acceptable and accurate analysis methods 

for joints, especially in predicting substrate (adherend) failures.” 

− “Analysis makes sure we are in the ball park. All bonded primary structures are 

qualified by fatigue test or operational test.” 

− “I am not a designer or analyst, so I could not answer many of the above 

questions.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents provided comments. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not provide comments. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “This is the least understood aspect of adhesively bonded structures. The industry 

needs a reliable analytical tool for bonded joints.” 

− “Part of the fail-safe approach used is to provide joint overlaps in which there is 

enough residual strength to accommodate creep and bond flaws. Fasteners are 

sometimes used but, with the exception of some peel-stop fasteners, I believe they 

do more harm than good.” 

− “Adhesive properties need more information.” 

− “There is a general inconsistency in the design and analysis approach from analyst 

to analyst.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Design and detailed stress methods exist to develop bonded joint designs, which 

conservatively avoid undesirable failure modes. Most analysis applied for bonded 

joints with damage is dependent on associated databases.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Adhesives are very difficult to model. A standardized technique would at least 

result in similar errors between different design parties.” 

− “Tests and analysis are needed.” 

C-89
− “The issues covered in this section are handled by our customers with minimal 

input from my company.” 

− “Static strength of most bonded joints can be predicted if you assume that the as 

manufactured joint has full strength (not a “weak bond”). Effects of flaws, 

fatigue life and dadt are still determined using testing.” 

− “Design can not be based on average shear stress values. Design can not be based 

on purely elastic analysis. Durability is never a design issue; it is driven purely by 

processes. The use of “chicken” rivets is a sign that the designer or manufacturer 

does not know how to design or manufacture an adhesive bond.” 

− “We have completed more analysis of bonded joint specimen to help determine 

validity of KGR test etc.” 

C.5 MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION SUBSECTION: 

MANUFACTURING. 

Question 1: When asked if they control humidity, the majority of the respondents do control 

humidity with 39 percent saying that they strongly agreed, and 33 percent agreed, 20 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 7 percent disagreed, and 1 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 31 percent agreed, 37 percent strongly agreed, 16 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 10 percent disagreed, 5 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly agreed and one agreed. One respondent 

did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 54 percent agreed, 23 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

and 23 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two agreed. 

C-90
The majority of the respondents do control temperature with 40 percent saying they agreed, and 

33 percent who strongly agreed, 20 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent 

disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 47 percent agreed, 47 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly agreed, and one agreed. One respondent 

did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent strongly agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 61 percent agreed, 31 percent strongly agreed, and 7 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two agreed. 

Question 2: Regarding the type of tooling and equipment used for adhesive bonding, 49 percent 

of the respondents used a vacuum bag, followed by press at 23 percent and matched tooling at 20 

percent. Eight percent of the responses indicated other types of tooling and equipment. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 78 percent said vacuum bag, 63 percent said matched 

tooling, and 42 percent said press. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Bonding jigs with clamps” 

− “Bonding jigs with weight” 

− “Air bladders” 

− “Lofted tools with detail locators” 

− “Positive pressure” 

− “Inflatable mandrel” 

− “Autoclave” 

C-91
• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one indicated vacuum bag and matched tooling. One 

respondent indicated vacuum bag and autoclave. The third respondent did not 

reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated vacuum bag and press. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 84 percent said vacuum bag, 46 percent said press, 31 

percent said matched tooling, and 7 percent said tool pressure. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two indicated vacuum bag and press. The response 

from the category Other was “Matched Tooling with clamps.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Autoclave (five responses)” 

− “Vacuum table” 

− “The process selected is one that is base on the bonded design and can include 

many approaches.” 

− “Tool pressure” 

Question 3: Most respondents agreed that cured part dimensional tolerance and warpage is 

controlled. Forty-six percent of the respondents agreed, 15 percent strongly agreed, 33 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 4 percent of the respondents disagreed, and 2 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 31 percent agreed, 47 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly agreed, one strongly disagreed, and one 

respondent did not reply. 

C-92
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent agreed, 25 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 8 

percent disagreed, and 8 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two agreed. 

Those who agreed or strongly agreed used the following controls. 

− “Fasteners” (4) 

− “Wet lay-up to provide an additional load path for redundancy” 

− “Lower allowables/larger bond areas” 

− “Bolts” (4) 

− “Self-health monitoring” 

− “Multiple load paths” (4) 

− “Z-pins” 

− “Hi-loks” 

− “Keep low stresses” 

− “Load path and expected load level over time are the first keys to selection of the 

fail safe design features. The ideas of such things as noted as mechanical 

fasteners backup are only part of the process. The structural arrangement which 

defines the load paths after the structure is damaged is of significant importance. 

The inspection procedure to be used to identify damage is part of the elements 

that determine the type of fail-safe design to be applied to the structure. This is 

control by the damage being either easy to identify or hard to find. Again all 

these things must good in to any good safe design as well as in to the 

manufacturing process selected and the in-service inspection proceeds.” 

− “Molded laminate features.” 

− “No bonds in single load path elements.” 

C-93
• Analysis Responses 

− “1) Tooling concept including material selection and size. 2) By understanding 

composites and their response to the curing process. Sometimes a simulation is 

performed to determine if there is an issue.” 

− “Allowable bond thickness.” 

− “Components such as wings cannot be allowed to twist or otherwise deviate from 

the design shape. Jig fixtures are required to prevent slippage or warping during 

assembly and cure. Tack rivets are sometimes used.” 

− “Electronic measurement.” 

− “First article inspections require contour check against 3D model and contour data 

from Laser Tracker or Faro Arm measurements. Such tolerances are also on the 

2D drawings and must conform or part is rejected.” 

− “Minimal fit up forces may be used to bring the part to the required contour.” 

− “Tooling and process control.” 

Question 4: Fifty percent of the respondents perform Verifilm runs to confirm the fit of mating 

surfaces and 50 percent do not. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 42 percent agreed, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

15 percent strongly disagreed, 15 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one disagreed, and one strongly disagreed. One 

respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 41 percent agreed, 25 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

16 percent disagreed, and 16 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two agreed. 

C-94
Question 5: Twenty-seven percent of the respondents strongly agreed that the materials and 

processes qualified for their structures impose strict time limits for adhesive application steps 

with 52 percent agreeing. Thirteen percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 4 percent disagreed, 

and 4 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 19 responses, 42 percent agreed, 31 percent strongly agreed, 10 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, 10 percent disagreed, and 5 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed and one strongly agreed. One respondent 

did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 69 percent agreed, 23 percent strongly agreed, and 8 percent 

strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two agreed. 

The respondents that answered yes identified how they were derived. 

• Empirical and full test program were the most popular responses at 26 percent each. 

Design of the experiment accounted for 20 percent of the responses, and the category 

Other identifiers were cited in 16 percent of the responses. Thirteen percent of the 

responses were for the estimate identifier, and calculation received 3 percent. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

• Of the 13 responses, 53 percent stated empirical, 38 percent stated design of experiment, 

23 percent stated full test program, 15 percent said supplier, and 15 percent said estimate. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Supplier recommendation” (2) 

− “Pot life of the paste adhesive” 

C-95
• Design Responses 

− “OEM of the limits.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent answered “determination was made by estimate.” 

• Analysis Responses 

Of the 12 responses, 41 percent said empirical, 41 percent said full test program, 25 

percent said estimate, 25 percent said design of experiment, and 20 percent said 

calculation. The response from the category Other was “In process tests.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− One respondent said empirical and full test program and one said design of 

experiment, empirical, and full test program. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Legacy experience” 

− “The control of the process starts with the selection of the application of the 

bonded design and selection of the bonding material. If the best material for your 

design requires a control process time wise then the design, and manufacturing 

proceeds must be so established. We can not forget that everything starts with the 

design requirement and the design selection. Also in selection of the design there 

must of course be the understanding of the manufacture process that will be 

applied if the design is to be a good one.” 

− “Common sense” 

− “These are controlled according to the perceived risk of contamination and 

exposure to humidity. The requirements for a repair on-aircraft are far more 

severe that for a repair performed in a controlled environment.” 

Question 6: The respondents stated that they handle large-scale surface preparation and adhesive 

application differently from laboratory-scale preparation, with 33 percent of the responses 

showing that the respondents disagreed and 19 percent strongly disagreed. There were 27 

percent who neither agreed nor disagreed. Seventeen percent agreed and 4 percent strongly 

agreed. 

C-96
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 27 percent disagreed, 27 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 22 percent strongly disagreed, 16 percent agreed, and 5 percent 

strongly agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of three respondents, one neither agreed nor disagreed and one strongly 

disagreed. One respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 46 percent disagreed, 31 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 15 percent strongly disagreed, and 7 percent agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two neither agreed nor disagreed. 

The respondents that agreed or strongly agreed handled the difference as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “The grit-blast and saline treatment is a process suited to field applications and 

large area repairs all repairs are relatively small operator periodic certifications, 

specialized equipment for waste storage and disposal on large scale.” 

− “All lab work is FPL. Production is PAA, CAA, etc.” 

− “Lab is very carefully controlled, shop is variable.” 

− “Operator periodic certifications, specialized equipment for waste storage and 

disposal on large scale.” 

− “For example, anodizing will have careful additional placement of cathodes, 

work-life for paste adhesives will be controlled, and non-tank processing may be 

used.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

C-97
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Simply this must be an understood element of the total. For example, anodizing 

will have careful additional placement of cathodes, work-life for paste adhesives 

will be controlled, and non-tank processing may be used.” 

− “All bonding processes/timing will differ on a large scale compared to the lab 

scale evaluation. When performing lab sized experiments it is helpful to follow 

an estimated time-line that may parallel the actual assembly time.” 

− “Needed a box for a strong disagreement as well. The process used for any 

surface preparation must follow the validated processes exactly. If that is not 

possible, then the modified process must be validated by replication in the 

laboratory.” 

− “We are lab scale only.” 

− “Surface preparation and adhesive application on alum or composites is same 

whether as a lab test or on a large scale production.” 

Question 7: Eighty-eight percent of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed that there are 

handling and storage constraints and disposal guidelines for materials (e.g., solvents, grit blast 

media) used in surface preparation. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 64 percent strongly agreed and 35 percent agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed and one strongly agreed. One respondent 

did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 66 percent agreed, 25 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

and 8 percent strongly disagreed. 

C-98
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent agreed and one strongly agreed. 

Question 8: Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said bondline thickness is controlled during 

production by scrim cloth, followed by glass beads at 36 percent, microballoons at 34 percent, 

shims at 18 percent, and stop blocks at 10 percent. The other 16 percent were responses from the 

category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 80 percent said scrim cloth, 73 percent said glass beads, 33 

percent said shims, 33 percent said microballoons, and 20 percent said stop 

blocks. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Fishing line” 

− “Bond Rods made of glass epoxy” 

− “Pressure” (2) 

− “Tooling” 

− “Adhesive flow characteristics” 

− “Tool design” 

− “Application technique” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one indicated scrim cloth and one indicated both scrim 

cloth and microballoons. The third respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated scrim cloth and glass beads. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 69 percent said scrim cloth, 31 percent said glass beads, 31 

percent said microballoons, 23 percent said stop blocks, and 15 percent said 

shims. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Temperature and pressure” 

− “Film” 

− “Tooling position” 

− “Verifilm” 

− “Thickness not controlled at facing to core bondline in sandwich laminates.” 

C-99
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent indicated stop blocks and 

microballoons and the second respondent indicated shims, scrim cloth, 

microballoons, and glass beads. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Pressure” 

− “Since I have seen and read about all these process, I can only say again there 

identification for use with your design must review all of them in selection of the 

one appropriate for your use.” 

− “Wire strand” 

− “Non-woven carriers (mat)” 

− “Film thickness” 

Question 9: The responses indicated that 80 percent of companies inspect bonded parts after 

bonding with ultrasonic testing (UT), 79 percent chose visually, 57 percent chose tap, and 

radiography accounted for 19 percent. Four percent of the responses indicated other methods. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 77 percent said UT, 72 percent said visual, 72 percent said 

tap, and 27 percent said radiography. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Shearography” 

− “Measure” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two chose visual, UT, and tap. The third respondent did 

not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent chose visual and UT. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 77 percent said UT, 69 percent said visual, 38 percent said 

tap, and 7 percent said radiography. 

C-100
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents, only two replied. One chose visual and UT and the 

other indicated visual, UT, radiography, and tap. 

One-hundred percent of the respondents classify by size to control defects. Seventy-six percent 

classify by number and 71 percent use proximity. Seventeen percent of the responses cited other 

methods. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 100 percent said size, 68 percent said number, and 68 

percent said proximity. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Type” 

− “Part criticality: primary structure, secondary structure” 

− “Percent of bonded area” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only two responded. One respondent indicated size, 

number, and proximity. The second respondent chose the category Other, stating 

“No defects permitted.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent indicated size and number. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 100 percent said size, 91 percent said number, and 83 

percent said proximity. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Type” 

− “5 MHz TTU (through transmission ultrasonics) correlated to standards is used on 

primary structure composites.” 

− “Percent area and bondline width” 

C-101
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One chose size and proximity and the other 

indicated size, number, and proximity. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Part criticality: primary structure, secondary structure.” 

− “The amount of total bond length reduced in major load direction.” 

Question 10: When asked if the process for dealing with bonded structure discrepancies in their 

factory was efficient, inefficient, or rarely used, 57 percent of the respondents found their 

process efficient. Twenty-five percent rarely used their process and 17 percent found their 

process inefficient. One percent of the respondents indicated the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 54 percent said efficient, 23 percent said inefficient, and 23 

percent said rarely used. 

• Design Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied that the process was efficient. The third 

respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent replied that the process was efficient. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent said it was efficient, 33 percent said it was 

inefficient, and 8 percent said it was rarely used. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent said the process was efficient and 

another said the process was rarely used. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Defects outside limits require repeating the process.” 

− “Only involved in assisting with repairs.” 

Question 11: The participants responded to the statement “Equipment and tooling maintenance 

is essential to structural bonding” as follows. 

C-102
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 23 responses, 39 percent strongly agreed, 34 percent agreed, and 8 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. No respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the four responses, 50 percent agreed and 50 percent strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 54 percent strongly agreed, 38 percent agreed, and 7 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One strongly agreed and one agreed. 

Question 12: The respondents indicated the following necessary hours of training for production 

personnel. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “80” (3) 

− “40” (2) 

− “200” 

− “10” 

− “40 to 80” 

− “Varies” 

− “5 to 10” 

• Design Responses 

− “Course dependent” 

− “Continual” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− “20” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “8” (2) 

C-103
− “40” 

− “ND” 

− “80” 

− “Years” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “120” 

• Other Category Response 

− “Minimum 20” 

The respondents indicated the following types of training for production personnel. On the job 

training was chose in 38 percent of the responses, demonstration was chosen in 33 percent, 

practical at 30 percent, and classroom at 26 percent. Five percent of the responses cited other 

types of training. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 100 percent said on the job training, 75 percent said 

demonstration, 66 percent said practical, and 50 percent said classroom. The 

response from the category Other was “apprentice under supervision.” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two replied classroom, demonstration, practical, and on 

the job training. The third respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent replied demonstration, practical, and on the job training. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 83 percent said on the job, 75 percent said demonstration, 75 

percent said practical, and 66 percent said classroom. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Certification of Spray Coat Operators for Priming” 

− “Certification Method for PAA operators” 

C-104
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent indicated classroom and on 

the job training. The second respondent chose classroom, demonstration, and on 

the job. 

• Other Category Responses 

− Seminars and symposiums. 

Question 13: The respondents specified the manufacturing documents used for bonding process 

steps as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Specs for cleaning” 

− “Surface prep of each material” 

− “Adhesive bond primer application” 

− “Bonding lay-up operations” 

− “Cure” 

− “Deflash” 

− “Part specific work descriptions are provided to shop floor personnel for one-off 

repairs. Heavy interaction with engineering staff is necessary to ensure high 

quality.” 

− “We have standard WCD’s (work control documents).” 

− “Planning with sign-offs” 

− “Formal visual aids” 

− “Manufacturing work instructions” 

− “Process specification” (5) 

− “Step by step fabrication orders that travel with the parts.” 

− “Controlled and FAA approved process specification for bond prep, adhesive 

mixing, adhesive application and curing.” 

C-105
• Design Responses 

− “Approved maintenance data” 

− “Repair schemes” 

− “Manuals” 

− “OEM documentation (i.e. SRM, CMM, AMM, engineering drawings)” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− “Work order” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Process Specifications define the requirements of min/max limits, allowable 

materials, QC, and qualification. Process specifications do not provide how to 

information.” 

− “Each research program develops a bonding process that is maintained throughout 

the programmed to ensure repeatability of tests.” 

− “Process manuals” 

− “Manufacturing order” 

− “We prepare computer based video guidance” 

− “Planning documents” (3) 

− “Drawing” 

− “Process Specification (or other document)” 

− “Work orders that list steps in order” 

− “Process controls” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Work order” 

− “Job card” 

− “Step by step manufacturing plans” 

− “Specifications” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Planning with sign-offs” 

C-106
− “Adhesive manufacturers’ data sheets.” 

− “Details of personnel, temp, humidity, supervisor, batch numbers, lifting, pass/fail 

steps in process documented, data basing of all work details for ready reference in 

fault finding or identifying deviations in trends.” 

− “Reference standard practice manuals containing this information.” 

− “Technique sheets” 

− “Detailed processing specifications” 

− “Bill of Material” 

− “Lay-up charts” 

− “Inspections” 

− “Typical planning/traveler format with operator, Verification authority, and 

inspection authority sign-offs (depending on requirements).” 

− “A standard generic collection of process specifications is used. These are 

contained an RAAF publication AAP 7021.016-2 Composite Materials and 

Adhesive Bonded Repairs: Repair Fabrication and Application Procedures.” 

− “Manufacturing policy documents” 

− “Quality work instructions” 

− “PDS (cure sheets)” 

− “Only involved with repairs” 

− “Shop order/inspection record for each part with operational steps that includes 

documentation and verification of each operation.” 

Question 14: One hundred percent of the respondents said that cure duration and temperature 

were the significant records taken during the bonding process steps. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 100 percent said cure duration, 100 percent said cure 

temperature, and 94 percent said out of time of adhesive. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “FOD control records” 

C-107
− “Lay-up personnel” 

− “Lay-up temperature/humidity” 

− “Times between solvent wipes and end of flash/application of adhesive” 

− “Shelf life of each primed detail” 

− “Pressure” 

− “Vacuum bag integrity” 

− “Time” 

− “Process controls for surface treatment” 

− “Pot life of mixed adhesive” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only two replied. Both respondents chose cure duration, 

out time of adhesive, and cure temperature. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Primer thickness” 

− “Pretreatment records out life etc.” 

− “Vacuum” 

− “Pressure” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent chose cure duration, out time of adhesive, and cures temperature. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 100 percent said cure duration and cure temperature and 66 

percent said out time of adhesive. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Cleaning warranty” 

− “Thermal/Time History (ramp rates, hold times, hold temps)” 

− “Cure pressure” 

− “Adhesive mix” 

− “Second inspection of prep” 

− “Retained adhesive” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One replied cure duration, out time of 

adhesive, and cure temperature. The other respondent chose cure duration, out 

time of adhesive, and cure temperature and also chose the category Other, stating 

“Operator.” 

C-108
• Other Category Responses 

− “Rates” 

− “FOD control records” 

− “Humidity” 

− “Ambient room-temperature” 

− “Time from application to close” 

− “Times at which surface preparation steps were performed, including surface 

exposure times.” 

− “Temperature charts including maximum cure temperature in heated zone and 

minimum cure temperature near bondline.” 

− “Technician’s identification to ensure qualified and competent.” 

− “Materials batch numbers.” 

− “Independent assessment of water break test.” 

− “Pot life of mixed adhesive” 

− “Heat rise” 

− “Leak rate” 

− “Vacuum & vent” 

− “Cool down” 

Question 15: The respondents had the following comments on manufacturing: 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “This complexity, or rather the amazing number of ways to produce scraps or 

worse, is why many people don’t trust bonding. Only for the detail oriented, 

persistent, and consistent. Even tougher than composites to wade in to.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied. 

C-109
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Adhesive temperature should be measured not oven or press temperature.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Process control and training are essential.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Manufacturing issues are handled by our customers with minimal input from our 

company.” 

− “Record keeping on the manufacturing steps is a real part of long term quality 

control. Since this manufacturing history can form a bases for potential solutions 

to in-service structural bonding problems.” 

− “Humidity / moisture must be controlled up to and during bonding. Open time 

and carbonate formation on the adhesive can greatly affect the adhesive and 

ultimate bond strength.” 

− “A method for ensuring competency of technicians is essential.” 

− “Under no circumstances must the bonding process be varied from that used for 

laboratory tests to qualify a process.” 

− “After bond inspection will not guarantee a durable bond. It only verifies the 

absence of defects.” 

− “We are a lab environment processing small panels only.” 

− “Only involved with repairs.” 

C.6 MANUFACTURING AND DESIGN INTEGRATION SUBSECTION: ALLOWABLES 

AND DESIGN DATA. 

Question 1: When asked what allowable they used, the respondents replied: 77 percent used lap 

shear, 50 percent used thick adherend, and 31 percent used bulk adherend. Thirteen percent 

chose the category Other. 

C-110
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 73 percent said lap shear, 53 percent said thick adherend, and 

40 percent said bulk adherend. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Durability - cycles to failure” 

− “Tensile Strength” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied, stating lap shear. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 93 percent said lap shear, 60 percent said thick adherend, and 

33 percent said bulk adherend. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Tension (pull off)” 

− “In plane shear” 

− “Hardpt, chordwise loading” 

− “Moment (pull off)” 

− “Strain energy parameters” 

− “Sandwich beam shear” 

− “Fracture toughness (GI1, giic, mixed gic/giic)” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two listed both lap shear and thick adherend. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Shear strain determined from thick adherend lap shear test.” 

− “Basic properties of bonded joints must be defined by testing so that the basic 

design tools available to the designer and the stress man. However, just like 

mechanical fastened joints there needs to be tests to cover all aspects of the usage 

of bonded joints. Example, peel testing of joints, tapered joint testing of lap joints 

and tension test perpendicular to the bond line. Some of these can be the so called 

standard testing other will be directed to a specific design.” 

C-111
− “Double lap-shear” (2) 

− “Flat wise tension” 

The most common design data used to support the design of bonded structure was standard 

adhesive thickness at 33 percent, followed by lap widths at 32 percent, and standard joint 

configurations at 27 percent. The category Other responses comprised 6 percent. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 78 percent said standard adhesive thickness, 71 percent said 

standard lap widths, and 64 percent said standard joint configurations. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Point design for specific areas” 

− “Nonstandard thicknesses and joint configurations” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied. The respondent chose standard lap 

widths, standard adhesive thickness, and standard joint configurations. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 83 percent said standard lap widths, 83 percent said 

thicknesses, and 75 percent said standard joint configurations. The category 

Other response was “specific joint test results.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two chose standard lap widths, standard adhesive 

thicknesses, and standard joint configurations. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Verification testing” 

− “Thick adherend test data is essential” 

Question 2: Forty-four percent of the respondents strongly agreed and 42 percent agreed that 

effects of environment (moisture, temperature) were included in the allowables and design data 

development. One percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 2 percent strongly disagreed. 

C-112
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 56 percent strongly agreed, 31 percent agreed, and 12 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied. The respondent strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 46 percent agreed, 33 percent strongly agreed, 13 percent 

strongly disagreed, and 6 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent agreed and the other 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

Fifty-one percent of the respondents strongly agreed, and 40 percent agreed that effects of 

environment (moisture, temperature, etc.) should be included in the allowables and design data 

development. Four percent neither agreed nor disagreed and an additional 4 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 75 percent strongly agreed, and 25 percent agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, only one replied. The respondent strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 46 percent agreed, 40 percent strongly agreed, and 14 

percent strongly disagreed. 

C-113
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent agreed and the other 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

Question 3: The respondents said the following bond overlap length (in inches) was used for 

testing. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “.75” (2) 

− “.25-4.0” 

− “.5” (4) 

− “.75 to 5 inches” 

− “1/2” 

− “.78” 

• Design Responses 

− “0.5” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “0.5” 

− “1 inch” (2) 

− “Specific joints” 

− “0.5 and others” 

− “0.354-0.5” 

− “Usually 1/2 in. ” 

− “0.75” 

− “Various” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Dependent on mating part thicknesses” 

− “1.0′′” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “0.78” 

− “2” (3) 

− “3” 

C-114
− “More than 2” 

− “1-2” 

Forty-five percent of the respondents agreed and 9 percent strongly agreed that if a number of 

overlap lengths exist in design, the test plan should be representative of all the overlaps used. 

Twenty-two percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 12 percent disagreed, and an additional 12 

percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 35 percent agreed, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

21 percent strongly disagreed, and 14 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly agreed. The other two did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 53 percent agreed, 20 percent strongly agreed, 20 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One respondent agreed and the other 

disagreed. 

Question 4: The respondents selected the following adhesive layer thickness(es)—in inches—

that should be used for bonded joint characterization: 25 percent of the responders said that 

0.007-0.020 inch should be used and an additional 25 percent specified 0.004-0.007 inch. Both 

0.002-0.004 and 0.020-0.050 inch were cited in 11 percent of the responses. Fifteen percent 

chose the category Other, with 7 percent of the responses stating 0.050-0.100 inch. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 71 percent said 0.004-0.007, 50 percent said 0.007-0.020, 28 

percent said 0.002-0.004, 21 percent said 0.050-0.100, 14 percent said 0.20-0.050, 

and 7 percent said 0.150-0.250. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Depends on Joint configuration.” 

− “Overlap length is a function of adherend thickness.” 

C-115
− “Depends upon production adhesive thickness.” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two replied. One chose a thickness of 0.002-0.004 and 

the other chose 0.007-0.020. The third respondent did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 21 percent said 0.004-0.007, 50 percent said 0.007-0.020, 

7 percent said 0.002-0.004, and 14 percent said 0.050-0.100. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Application dependent and tolerance dependent.” 

− “Depends on the adhesive, we typically use .008 which is controlled by a scrim. 

It can vary between .003 and .012 or so.” 

− “Whatever is representative of as-fabricated parts.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two replied. One chose 0.007-0.020, 0.020-0.050, and 

0.050-0.100. The second respondent chose Other, stating “Depends on the 

adhesive type and application (joint shear stress levels).” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Depends upon the aerial weight of the adhesive film and the pressurization 

method used.” 

− “0.002 to 0.020” 

− “0.150 - 0.250” 

− “Whatever represents your anticipated manufacturing process capability.” 

− “The thickness expected in the product although most structural bonds will be in 

the 0.1mm to 0.2mm range.” 

Forty-seven percent of the respondents agreed that their design has tolerances specified for 

quality control and 18 percent strongly agreed. Twenty-five percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 7 percent disagreed, and 2 percent strongly disagreed. 

C-116
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 57 percent agreed, 28 percent strongly agreed, and 14 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one strongly agreed. The other two did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 46 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 33 percent agreed, 

13 percent strongly agreed, and 6 percent disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed and one neither agreed nor disagreed. 

When asked if they test only the maximum thickness for allowables characterization, the 

respondents answered as follows: 49 percent disagreed, 16 percent strongly disagreed, 30 

percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 4 percent agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 53 percent disagreed, 33 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, and 13 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, none replied. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 53 percent disagreed, 20 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 20 percent strongly disagreed, and 6 percent agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two neither agreed nor disagreed. 

C-117
Question 5: When identifying statistics or statistical code that is used to develop the allowables, 

the majority of the responses (76 percent) indicated that Mil-Handbook-17 was used. Thirtyeight percent used average-standard deviation, 29 percent cited AGATE, and 5 percent chose 

ANOVA, seep figure C-3. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

MIL-HDBK-17

AverageStandard

Deviation

AGATE

ANOVA

FIGURE C-3. STATISTICAL CODES USED TO DEVELOP ALLOWABLES 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 75 percent said Mil-Handbook -17, 41 percent said AGATE, 

and 25 percent said average-standard deviation. 

The following were the category Other responses. 

− “OEM development (Mil-17 variants typically)” 

− “In-house method for thick adherend data to get B-basis stress-strain curve.” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one respondent indicated Mil-Handbook-17. The other 

two respondents did not reply. The category Other response was “Software.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 69 percent said Mil-Handbook-17, 38 percent said averagestandard deviation, 30 percent said AGATE, and 15 percent said ANOVA. 

C-118
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, two indicated Mil-Handbook-17. 

Question 6: Fifty-two percent of the respondents agreed and 14 percent strongly agreed that data 

from qualification testing or other repetitive bonded joint tests were used to establish statistically 

based design allowables. Sixteen percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 14 percent disagreed, and 

2 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 35 percent agreed, 35 percent strongly agreed, 21 percent 

disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed. The other two did not reply. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 71 percent agreed, 14 percent disagreed, 7 percent neither 

agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one agreed and one neither agreed nor disagreed. 

When asked if alternatively, a lower “minimum bond strength design value” is set based on 

experience and test data (e.g., 500 psi), 38 percent of the respondents agreed, 7 percent strongly 

agreed, 30 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 15 percent disagreed, and 7 percent strongly 

disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 20 responses, 95 percent strongly disagreed and 5 percent strongly agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, all three strongly disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

C-119
• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 78 percent strongly disagreed, 14 percent disagreed, and 8 

percent agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Of the three respondents, all three strongly disagreed. 

The participants responded to the statement “If your adhesive design allowable is based on the 

thick adherend test, you verify the adequacy of the design by comparing the value to...” The 

majority at 41 percent chose peak shear stresses, 26 percent chose average shear stresses, and 8 

percent said that they do not verify. Twenty-three percent cited the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 45 percent said peak shear stresses, 18 percent said average 

shear stresses, and 9 percent said they do not verify. 

Thirty-six percent chose the category Other, stating: 

− “Elastic-plastic joint analysis in some cases.” 

− “Don’t do thick adherend testing.” 

− “Don’t use this in joint design. Not applicable for thin composite substrates in 

most cases.” 

− “Verified by component and full-scale fatigue tests.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent strongly disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 45 percent said average shear stresses, 45 percent said peak 

shear stresses, and 18 percent said do not verify. The response from the category 

Other was “Do not use data from the thick adherend test.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Combination of analysis and tests for the coupon and structural details.” 

C-120
• Other Category Responses 

− “Local peak stresses do not necessarily mean that the design is bad. A 

combination of the global stresses and the local peak stresses will determine if the 

design is good.” 

− “Calculated load capacity for he bond, together with provision of adequate 

overlap length.” 

Question 7: The respondents gave the following comments identifying data collected to support 

dispositions of manufacturing defects and other discrepancies for bonded structures. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Minimum of process verification coupons up to the maximum of repeating the 

specification test replicate for a specific process.” 

− “Developmental parts include designed in defects for NDI and structural test. 

Developmental parts with representative defects are collected for archive.” 

− “Discrepancy size, location, proximity all related to assembly geometry.” 

− “Additional coupon testing with thick adhesive thicknesses.” 

− “The defect size, location and proximity are derived from the full scale test article 

with intentional defects sustaining the ultimate Loads.” 

− “Ultrasonic bond tests.” 

− “Size of disbonded area.” 

− “Full scale tests incorporating manufacturing defects.” 

− “Copies of prior dispositions.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Size of the defect; Thickness and location.” 

− “Empirical test data.” 

C-121
− “Tests of actual joint configurations with intentional flaws.” 

− “HNC (Non-Conformity Sheet) database” 

− “If not covered by company standard repair methods, usually perform point 

design mini program specific to anomalous area.” 

− “NDI reports of bond flaws and evaluation data.” 

− “Fracture mechanics analysis” 

− “NDI, Tg, Lap shear, flatwise tension” 

− “Size, location, type, adherend thickness, adherend stiffness” 

− “Much testing” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Design detail tests for a range of specific defects.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Adhesive thickness, out time effects.” 

− “Strength reduction factors for typical/anticipated inclusions/voids.” 

− “Test articles with simulate types of manufacturing defects needs to be part of the 

total test program. This information is not only needed for design but for 

establishing manufacturing inspection and acceptance procedures.” 

− “Verify that processes were correct, then accept/reject on the basis that a 50 

percent MOS exists above the overlap length necessary to carry the design load 

solely by plastic behavior, provided that the width of the defect does not exceed 

10 percent of the bond width.” 

− “Intentional defects placed in test articles.” 

Question 8: The respondents gave the following comments, indicating data was collected for 

fatigue and damage tolerance assessment of bonded structure. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “On the front end, lifetime (10^7) run out at nominal stress.” 

− “Double overlap shear and symmetrical skin doublers fatigue specimens.” 

− “Coupon to element/subcomponent to full scale.” 

C-122
− “Double overlap shear tests.” 

− “Full scale fatigue test article.” 

− “The tolerance assessment is derived by full scale test article with intentional 

defects sustaining the ultimate loads.” 

− “Fatigue test reports.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Building block testing.” 

− “Full-scale fatigue tests for critical structures.” 

− “Empirical test data.” 

− “Full scale test data.” 

− “For fatigue, cyclic load tests of basic coupons and actual joint configurations.” 

− “HNC (non-conformity sheet) database.” 

− “Continuously growing pool of data (continuous ongoing research).” 

− “Da/DN and growth data” 

− “Flaw size, Cyclic tests” 

− “Size, Location, Type, Adherend thickness, Adherend stiffness” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Elements” 

− “Components” 

− “Large-scale structure” 

C-123
• Other Category Responses 

− “Most of our testing is fatigue testing using bonded repairs, crack-growth before 

and after patching is a critical variable.” 

− “In service life analyses are performed on various pieces of hardware.” 

− “S-N curves, crack” 

− “Growth rates” 

− “Data from representative test coupons and elements.” 

− “Full scale structural tests” 

− “Test data, fleet experience” 

− “Testing of structural segments and total section to validate the design meeting 

these requirements is a must do. In addition some early test to establish these 

structural capabilities is required for the development of the design.” 

− “Verify that the adhesive shear strain at 60% of limit load is less than twice the 

elastic limit for ductile adhesives or less than 80% of the elastic limit at dll for 

brittle adhesive systems.” 

− “None” 

− “Environments” 

− “For DT (damage tolerance), tests of actual joint configurations with intentional 

flaws.” 

− “For critical joints, minimum defect detectable by NDI is tested at the element or 

sub-component level as part of damage tolerance assessment. Damage may also 

be inflicted during full scale testing.” 

Question 9: Fifty percent of the respondents do enter collected data into a database for review 

over time and 50 percent do not. When asked what data is collected to support service damage 

disposition and bonded structural repair, the respondents replied as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Depends on repair allowable and repair manuals.” 

− “Currently we are tearing down old repairs recovered from service including 

C-130E repairs to wing risers and Mirage repairs to lower wing skins. Repairs to 

C-124
F-111 honeycomb panels will also be examined and it is hoped a correlation 

between service life and accelerated laboratory testing will be established.” 

− “Same as 7 above plus any additional materials/process required due to 

field/fielded repair constraints (can’t etch bonded hardware easily, moisture abs. 

for core, etc.).” 

− “All production and process records on individual assemblies.” 

− “Full scale fatigue test article with inflicted damage.” 

− “Size of disbonded area.” 

− “Field repairs are individually substantiated, case by case.” 

− “Copies of prior repairs and dispositions.” 

• Design Responses 

− None of the three respondents replied. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Design lessons learned.” 

− “Size of the defect; Thickness and location.” 

− “Repair Manual.” 

− “Empirical test data.” 

− “Residual strength curves for laminates.” 

− “Continuously growing pool of data (continuous ongoing research).” 

− “Flaw size, Surface conditions, Service history.” 

− “Frequency, Size, Location, Type, Adherend thickness, Adherend stiffness.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Design detail tests for known service threats.” 

C-125
• Other Category Responses 

− “The tolerance assessment is derived by full scale test article with intentional 

defects sustaining the ultimate Loads.” 

− “Data from representative test coupons and elements.” 

− “Here, various damages are selected as the most likely to occur and be critical to 

establish the aircrafts inspection requirement as well as develop the repairs for the 

damage types selected for repair development. It of course must be understood 

that all type of in-service damage repairs cannot be addressed during the aircrafts 

design and development. Those that are not covered will have to be reviewed by 

the aircrafts maintenance organizations and if necessary by the planes 

manufacture to develop the repair process need for those specific damage.” 

− “Service time” 

− “Time since repair” 

− “Type of bond failure (adhesion or cohesion)” 

− “Location and size of defect.” 

− “Consequences of failure” 

− “Not sure” 

− “Service history” 

− “Not asked to do this.” 

− “Tests of bonded joint configurations: 2D coupons/elements and 3D panel.” 

Question 10: The respondents made the following comments on allowables and design data. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Mostly handled by OEMs and approved by NAVAIR.” 

− “I did not know the answers to many of the questions in this section.” 

− “It is very difficult to get statistically meaningful data that can be used reliably for 

design.” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied. 

C-126
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not comment. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Bond joint thickness depends upon being a paste or a film adhesive. Paste 

should use 0.005-0.12; film should use 0.002-0.020.” 

− “Too often average stress is used in a new design; this could cause problems 

because it does not reflect reality.” 

− “There are questions above about lap length and bondline thickness. The trouble 

with lap joint coupons is that they are not representative of the loads or boundary 

conditions within the structure. They are a step for comparing adhesive systems 

alone.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “I believe that a double lap-shear joint test should be developed to eliminate 

secondary bending from the single lap shear joint.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Development of mechanical tests that correctly represent the stresses in the 

adhesive joint are very difficult to design.” 

− “Often the failure modes present in composite repairs are quite complex and 

design to allow for these failure modes is difficult.” 

− “Design allowables are set with minimal input from DuPont.” 

− “Most “allowables” are not statistically based.” 

− “Allowables and design data need to be funded by the design company to make 

sure that the design will meet all requirements for safe performance.” 

− “This coverage is often minimized by the companies but it never even reaches 1% 

of the aircrafts development cost therefore good management funds the 

development of this structural data as it should be funded.” 

− “In-service defects are an indication of process failures or very bad designs, not 

fatigue or overload. In-service defects cannot be repaired or bought-off.” 

− “Our long-range research project is to develop methods to accurately predict 

performance under realistic service conditions - helping to reduce allowables 

testing required and allow for materials substitution.” 

C-127
− “Not involved with calculating allowables or design data.” 

C.7 PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, SUBSTANTIATION, AND SUPPORT. 

Question 1: Of 47 respondents, 91 percent indicated that, in their experience, product 

development (through certification) lead times are longer for bonded structure than for 

conventional structure using mechanical fastening. Nine percent responded that they are shorter. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 21 responses, 90 percent said lead times are longer and 10 percent said 

they are shorter. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied, stating lead times are longer. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said lead times are longer. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 92 percent said lead times are longer and 7 percent said they 

were shorter. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondent replied. Both said lead times are longer. 

For the respondents that answered shorter, 42 percent of seven responses neither agreed nor 

disagreed that this is always the case, while 28 percent agreed, 14 percent disagreed, and 14 

percent strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− The respondent who stated shorter neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− The respondent who stated shorter neither agreed nor disagreed. 

C-128
Question 2: When asked if the response to question 1 in this section was dependent on any one 

function or discipline more than others, the respondents answered as follows: 50 percent found 

the lead times were dependent on materials and processes. Twenty-five percent cited design, 19 

percent manufacturing, and 5 percent listed maintenance. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 50 percent said materials and processes, 25 percent said 

manufacturing, and 25 percent said design. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied maintenance. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said materials and processes. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 61 percent said materials and processes, 23 percent said 

design, 7 percent said manufacturing, and 7 percent said certification and testing. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One said manufacturing and one said 

design. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “It depends on the combination of all. M & P because adhesive bonding is 

different and needs different attitudes. Design because there are still many 

unknowns. Manufacturing because of all the things that can go wrong using 

bonding. Inspection and long term durability can only be guaranteed through 

process control.” 

− “NDI methods available.” 

− “Certification and testing.” 

− “Structural Certification. M and P must be established beforehand. Design is 

easy. How you certify that design is more difficult. Because there is no method 

for assurance of bond integrity, current certification approaches (at least for 

repair) assume bond failure. Hence it is necessary to demonstrate that the repair 

was not necessary before one can use the repair.” 

C-129
Question 3: Seventy-four percent of the responders advocate using the traditional building block 

approach in adhesively bonded structures, 19 percent preferred the inverted approach, and 6 

percent said that they do not use the building block approach. One percent cited the category 

Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 11 responses, 63 percent said traditional approach, 18 percent said they do 

not use the building block approach, and 9 percent said inverted approach. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Traditional approach, realizing that any significant change to the surface prep for 

any critical substrate, adhesive bond primer, and/or adhesive and you get the 

opportunity to start over.” 

− “Mixture of coupon and subscale articles.” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent said inverted approach, 

large scale information first. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said inverted approach, large scale information first. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 61 percent said traditional approach, 23 percent said inverted 

approach, large scale information first. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “To better investigate the onset of debonding/delamination as the precursor to 

failure innovative element testing should become part of the building block 

approach such that the attention is focused on the initiation of debonding not the 

final failure. Design should then attempt to be optimized to delay the initiation 

(not total failure) giving improved overall failure loads.” 

− “Depends on the particular application and structure.” (2) 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One said traditional approach and one stated 

“Answer to this question would be design-specific.” 

C-130
• Other Category Responses 

− “Traditional approach is good although there is already a lot of information (both 

good and bad) for bonded (large) structures.” 

− “Manufacturing processes should be part of the certification basis, such that repair 

durability is demonstrated. Then existing certification methodology is 

appropriate.” 

Question 4: The majority (38 percent) of the respondents said that the scale of testing that yields 

the most meaningful data for bonded structure development, substantiation, and support was 

different in every case. Twenty-two percent said element, 14 percent said full-scale, 12 percent 

said subcomponent, 10 percent said coupon, and 2 percent said component. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 18 responses, 61 percent said the scale is different in every case, 16 percent 

said full-scale, 11 percent said element, 5 percent said coupon, and 5 percent said 

subcomponent. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied, stating element. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said coupon. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 28 percent said it was different in every case, 21 percent said 

element, 21 percent said subcomponent, 14 percent said full scale, 7 percent said 

component, and 7 percent said coupon. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One said element and one said 

subcomponent. 

The respondents that replied said it was different in every case, as explained below. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “It depends on the part and the way the bonded joint is loaded.” 

− “Coupon: Is this a good adhesive/bond primer/surface prep combo? 

Element/subcomponent: Can the combo support the loadings I’m aware of? 

C-131
Component: Can I manufacture good quality bondlines over the entire faying 

surface? Full scale: Are there any complex loadings I’m unaware of?” 

− “Joint / adhesive strength is dependant on design. Joint allowables should reflect 

joint design plus basic adhesive properties.” 

− “Depends on joint complexity and integration into load path. As an end user, a 

joint that gives 200 percent of DUL doesn’t buy us anything if it is next to a joint 

that only gives 150 percent of DUL, so it is often not until the full-scale article 

that we learn how the joints interact when loaded.” 

− “University perspective! Lot of diversity in what we do.” 

− “Depends on criticality of part and cost restraints.” 

− “Each type of test gives different information. Coupon test - material properties 

for design - subcompound and element - tooling and manufacturing issues. 

Component/ full scale used for substantiation.” 

− “For example, it would be different if you are qualifying a paste adhesive for click 

bonding or a film adhesive for a primary structural bond. I don’t know how to 

answer this except on a case by case basis.” 

− “Coupon testing is applicable for characterizing adhesive. Subcomponent is more 

applicable for composite assembly applications. Full-scale is important to 

identify critical design constraints and focus detailed subcomponent testing in 

areas.” 

− “A combination is required.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Joints with high peeling stresses or complex geometry must be tested by 

subcomponent, component, or full scale. Coupon or element tests may be used 

for joints without high out-of-plane loads.” 

− “An element test will allow local design features to be investigated to delay 

debond initiation see 3 above, but component testing will be required for final 

substantiation.” 

− “Data at most levels it typically required; can’t say one is more meaningful than 

the others.” 

− “For identification of secondary or non-linear effects full scale or component is 

best, for characterizing local stress state effects of changing joint parameters 

element is best.” 

C-132
− “For some aspects coupon, for others subcomponent (i.e., Skin plus stringers 

concept).” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Full scale testing with known loads might be best, but is impractical and 

expensive!” 

− “Coupon to find a good material and process (esp. surface prep) and durability. 

Elements to verify if the bonding works in a mechanical way. Depending on the 

impact of possible failure of the bond component and full-scale may be justified 

although traditional fatigue testing does not mean that a bond is durable (the 

coupon testing should provide that (wedge test)).” 

− “Element and subcomponent testing yields the most useful substantiation as the 

test geometry achieved whilst simplified typically determines the most crucial 

aspects of the repair design.” 

− “The most effective answer is in designing such that wherever possible the 

adhesive is not the locus of failure. It is possible to design bonded joints such that 

the load capacity is greater than the unmatched strength of aluminum, up to about 

0.14 inches. That means that the adhesive will never fail by shear, no matter what 

load case is used. For such designs, testing is meaningless because every test will 

fail away from the bond or composite structures, that condition can not be readily 

achieved for laminates over about ten plies, so a coupon, subcomponent, 

component test may be necessary.” 

Question 5: The respondents indicated the criticality of bonded joint for structure is classified 

equally by loads and applications. Fifty-eight percent said loads and 56 percent said 

applications. Thirty percent said airworthiness experience and 15 percent chose the category 

Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 64 percent said applications, 64 percent said loads, and 64 

percent said airworthiness experiences. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Exposure Environment” 

− “Customer specification. Not sure if this is a clear question?” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent said applications. 

C-133
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said loads. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 58 percent said loads, 50 percent said applications, and 33 

percent said airworthiness experiences. The response from the category Other 

was “Define failures criteria.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One said both loads and airworthiness 

experience and one said loads and applications. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “The reason for selecting other here is the item of usage history. In the time that 

bonding has been used the success of bonded structure has varied a lot. You must 

include current information as well as experience to select your design and 

analysis approach.” 

− “The consequences of failure at maximum load. Consequences of potential 

failure.” 

An overview was not done for the responses to the question “Do you apply a different approach 

to product development and substantiation based on criticality?” 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 47 percent agreed, 23 percent strongly agreed, 23 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 5 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 54 percent agreed, 23 percent strongly agreed, 15 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent disagreed. 

C-134
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One neither agreed nor disagreed and one 

agreed. 

Question 6: Fifty-eight percent of the respondents agreed that the strength and damage tolerance 

of the bonded structure should be characterized during a full-scale test and 16 percent strongly 

agreed. Only 8 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed and 18 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 47 percent agreed, 29 percent strongly agreed, 17 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 5 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 57 percent agreed, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

14 percent disagreed, and 7 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Three respondents replied, two agreed and one disagreed. 

Of the 47 responses, 55 percent agreed and 17 percent strongly agreed that analysis validation 

took place at this level. Twenty-five percent neither agreed nor disagreed and 6 percent 

disagreed or strongly disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 percent, 53 percent agreed, 23 percent strongly agreed, and 23 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

C-135
• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 61 percent agreed, 15 percent strongly agreed, 15 percent 

disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Three respondents replied. Two neither agreed nor disagreed and one agreed. 

Question 7: When asked whether long-term environmental exposure and durability should be 

substantiated for bonded structures, 50 percent of the 50 responses indicated that participants 

strongly agreed, 44 percent agreed, 4 percent strongly disagreed, and 2 percent neither agreed 

nor disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 65 percent strongly agreed and 35 percent agreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent strongly agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent agreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 50 percent agreed, 36 percent strongly agreed, 7 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 7 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Three respondents replied. One agreed, one strongly disagreed, and one agreed. 

Of the 49 respondents, 61 percent agreed that small-scale tests have meaning to service 

experiences and 4 percent strongly agreed. Twenty-nine percent neither agreed nor disagreed 

and 6 percent disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 53 percent agreed, 35 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

5 percent strongly agreed, and 5 percent disagreed. 

C-136
• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 78 percent agreed, 7 percent strongly agreed, 7 percent 

disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Three respondents replied. Two neither agreed nor disagreed and one agreed. 

When asked if they have validated accelerated test methods, 30 percent of the respondents 

disagreed, 4 percent strongly disagreed, 51 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 11 percent 

agreed, and 4 percent strongly agreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 35 percent disagreed, 35 percent neither agreed nor 

disagreed, 23 percent agreed, and 5 percent strongly disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent neither agreed nor 

disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 71 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 14 percent 

disagreed, 7 percent agreed, and 7 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One respondent disagreed and one neither 

agreed nor disagreed. 

Question 8: Twenty-eight percent of the responses indicated that critical defect locations and 

types are identified based on bond joint stress levels, 26 percent by manufacturing process 

experiences, and 24 percent by susceptibility to impact damage. Damage source defined from 

C-137
service had 17 percent of the responses. One percent of the responses listed identifiers in the 

category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 73 percent said manufacturing process experiences, 66 

percent said bond joint stress levels, 40 percent said susceptibility to impact 

damage, and 40 percent said damage source defined from service. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied, stating susceptibility to impact damage and 

damage source defined from service. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said bond joint stress levels. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 12 responses, 83 percent said bond joint stress levels, 83 percent said 

susceptibility to impact damage, 50 percent said manufacturing process 

experiences, and 50 percent said damage source defined from service. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied, both stated bond joint stress levels, 

manufacturing process experiences, and susceptibility to impact damage. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Local cleanliness environment.” 

− “Accessibility.” 

− “Corrosion protection for metal structure.” 

− “Low-load comparative NDI.” 

− “Robust quality control that can be validated for the design and application.” 

− “Prevention of moisture ingress into sandwich structure. Defect type 

identification. An interfacial failure (adhesion) has different causes from a 

cohesion failure, so the repair must be managed differently. Causes of bond 

failure must always be identified and corrective action taken.” 

Question 9: The respondents identified special considerations that were important to the 

maintenance of bonded structure. Inspection was indicated in 62 percent of the responses and 

C-138
scheduled maintenance was indicated in 26 percent. Twelve percent of the responses were from 

the category Other. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 17 responses, 94 percent said inspection and 35 percent said scheduled 

maintenance. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Robust quality control that can be validated for the design and application.” 

− “Corrosion protection for metal structure.” 

− “Accessibility” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent said inspection and 

scheduled maintenance. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said inspection. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 78 percent said inspection and 35 percent said scheduled 

maintenance. The response from the category Other was “local cleanliness 

environment.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One said inspection and scheduled 

maintenance and one said inspection. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Low-load comparative NDI.” 

− “Prevention of moisture ingress into sandwich structure.” 

− “Defect type identification.” 

− “An interfacial failure (adhesion) has different causes from a cohesion failure, so 

the repair must be managed differently. Causes of bond failure must always be 

identified and corrective action taken.” 

C-139
Question 10: When asked what procedures are used to inspect bonded structures and repairs in 

the field, the respondents indicated visual—85 percent, UT—76 percent, tap—68 percent, and 

radiography—19 percent, as illustrated in figure C-4.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Visual

UT

Tap

Radiography

FIGURE C-4. PROCEDURES USED TO INSPECT BONDED STRUCTURES 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 87 percent said visual, 85 percent said UT, 68 percent said 

tap, 12 percent said radiography, and 6 percent said thermography. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent said visual, UT, 

radiography, and tap. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said visual and UT. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 78 percent said visual, 71 percent said tap, 71 percent said 

UT, and 21 percent said radiography. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Laser shearography is good for large sandwich structures to indicate larger 

debonds.” 

− “Ultrasonic Inspection” 

C-140
• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. Both said visual and UT, with one of the 

two additionally choosing tap. 

• Other Category Responses 

− “The process list can all be used based on the types of flaws being looked for in 

maintaining the aircraft. Also the type of aircraft will add to defining the 

approach used.” 

− “Thermograph” (4) 

− “Shearography” 

− “Holographic Laser Interferometry” 

Question 11: Forty-three percent of the responses indicated that the participants agreed that 

service experiences with bonded structure and/or repairs have been good and 17 percent strongly 

agreed. Thirty-three percent neither agreed nor disagreed and 7 percent disagreed. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 31 percent agreed, 31 percent strongly agreed, 31 percent 

neither agreed nor disagreed, and 6 percent disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent agreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 50 percent agreed, 43 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

and 7 percent disagreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One neither agreed nor disagreed and one 

agreed. 

Of the 47 responses, 52 percent agreed that these experiences have been application-dependent 

and 12 percent strongly agreed. Twenty-three percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 4 percent 

disagreed, and 9 percent strongly disagreed. 

C-141
• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 16 responses, 50 percent agreed, 18 percent strongly agreed, 12 percent 

strongly disagreed, 12 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 6 percent 

disagreed. 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent disagreed. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent neither agreed nor disagreed. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 14 responses, 50 percent agreed, 43 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, 

and 7 percent strongly agreed. 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of three respondents replied. One neither agreed nor disagreed and one 

agreed. 

Question 12: When asked to identify the most common damages or defects found for bonded 

structure in the field, the respondents answered as follows: 28 percent said moisture egress and 

corrosion, 25 percent chose the category Other, and 14 percent indicated impact. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− Of the 15 responses, 53 percent said corrosion, 40 percent said moisture egress, 

and 20 percent said impact. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

− “Maintenance/Use induced damage” 

− “Erosion” 

− “Poor design/manufacturing” 

− “Not much experience in the field” 

− “Delaminations” 

• Design Responses 

− Of the three respondents, one replied. The respondent said impact, moisture 

egress, and corrosion. 

The following were the responses from the category Other. 

C-142
− “Fatigue” 

− “Lightning strike” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent said impact. 

• Analysis Responses 

− Of the 13 responses, 69 percent said moisture egress, 53 percent said impact, and 

38 percent said corrosion. 

The following responses were from the category Other. 

− “Disbonding” (2) 

− “Moisture ingress” 

− “Chemical contamination” 

− “Delamination in composite substrates” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− Two of the three respondents replied. One said corrosion and moisture egress and 

one chose the category Other, stating “Local Disbonding (uncertain of specific 

cause).” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Do not have too much experience with this although a tear down inspection 

program is being planned. If bonds fail it is typically because the surface 

preparation was done incorrect. If that is the case they will fail quickly. If done 

correct proper bonds last very long. Sometimes impact damage or attempts to 

remove bonded repairs can cause failures.” 

− “Moisture ingress” (4) 

− “Chemical contamination” 

− “Unanticipated load - usually an of the plane event that was not accounted for in 

the initial design - the joint was loaded in a manner that it was not designed for.” 

− “Almost all bond failures are interfacial, indicating either poor selection and if 

validation of processes, or poor performance of those processes.” 

− “Impact is not a cause of bond failure unless at sufficient energy levels that other 

damage has also been caused (dents, delaminations). Corrosion occurs AFTER 

the bond has failed, it is not the cause.” 

C-143
Question 13: When asked for comments on product development, substantiation, and support for 

bonded structure or repairs, the respondents replied as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Need robust processes that repair personnel will likely do correctly.” 

− “People are fooled by a run of good cohesive failures because they don’t realize 

that the data that they are getting for the links in the chain that didn’t fail (surface 

prep, adhesive bond primer, and all of the interfaces) may be varying widely just 

above the strength of their adhesive. It’s like run out data for these links that 

didn’t fail. You may have a festering contamination issue building for some time, 

but it seems like it came of the nowhere because one day all your parts fail 

cohesively, and then none do.” 

− “Criteria for periodic in-service inspection of bonded structures in field should be 

stringent and all encompassing till a substantial amount of data is obtained.” 

• Design Responses 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Manufacturing Response 

− The respondent did not reply to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “The current coupon methods for bonded joint durability require an overhaul - at 

present they are just comparison tests not useful for design eg. lap joint and 

wedge test.” 

− “Designers must consider in-service repair, both interim and permanent, during 

design because the capability of manufacture exceeds that for repair. If a 

structure is not repairable it should be designed to be easily and cheaply 

replaced.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “How are repairs certified? Is it only done at the component or full scale test 

level? My feeling is that the substantiation process for repairs is not necessarily 

as rigorous as it is for pristine structure.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Since the industry has build and is build aircraft from private to the space shuttle 

all of which have highly different design requirements. The first step in all 

C-144
designs must be to start with a list of design requirements and continue to edit the 

requirements as we learn more about the specific design and performance 

requirements. This learning need to be kept open up through flight test. Service 

experience will be added with time to future version of the aircraft. All design 

need to be view as a continued learning experience.” 

− “DOD has funded a large program in bonding composites (Composites 

Affordability Initiative) -- keep lessons learned from that program.” 

− “The long term effects of large bond gap, moisture cycling, and thermal cycling 

of the bond can be studied with stringent periodic in-service inspections.” 

− “On acquisition of data, simulation of the above mentioned effects on a laboratory 

scale can be performed from a durability of bonded structure policy standpoint.” 

− “Still some fear of the “kissing” bond - no validated way to detect this 

phenomenon using NDI methods.” 

− “It is important that the process issue is settled before component development 

occurs, to enable current certification methodologies to be effective. I also stress 

that adhesive bonds can be designed such that the bond is always stronger than the 

structure being bonded. That renders any test program (coupon, sub-element, 

component and full scale) as meaningless because then failure will always occur 

away from the bond. Thus, for such designs it will be possible to REDUCE the 

number of tests necessary to verify a bond design, provided that the processing is 

valid in the first place.” 

C.8 GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ON BONDED STRUCTURE. 

Question 1: When asked about their concerns as to the safety of bonded aircraft structure, the 

respondents stated the following: 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Surface prep and bond durability.” 

− “It is difficult to apply test results of bonding coupons to structural analysis.” 

− “Surface preparation and process control for aluminum substrates.” 

− “Durability and how to assess for long-term durability.” 

− “Has enough testing been performed to eliminate the need for additional fasteners 

in bonded joints?” 

− “Identifying cracks in bonds in-service; training of A & P’s regarding identifying 

and repairing bond defects in service.” 

C-145
− “Process control during manufacturing to assure proper bond preparation.” 

− “Inspection methods.” 

− “Procedures for Design allowables determination; durability; reparability; surface 

preparation guarantee.” 

− “Long term durability.” 

− “Long term environmental effects.” 

− “Long term service and environmental effects on the bond joints.” 

− “Production personnel training and experience.” 

− “Quality control of processes applied during manufacture or repair.” 

− “The ability to ascertain joint integrity and strength many years after initial 

fabrication.” 

− “The population of people that know what good bonding practice is has been 

shrinking for some time. The number of people who know why a practice is a 

good bonding practice has been shrinking since PABST.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Corrosion of honeycomb, which is not very detectable until delamination, at 

which point the corrosion is widespread. This has been the root cause of many of 

our in-flight failures for parts such as 757 Slats, 767 Slats, etc.” 

− “Inspectability and fatigue of critical composite components such as lugs at 

primary structure attachments.” 

− “Moisture Ingress.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Long term durability cannot today be adequately predicted, and it leaves to 

guesswork or assumption what the quality of bonded joints will be as they age.” 

− “Inability to verify surface preparation and bond integrity. No good method 

exists to check for “weak” bonds, either as-fabricated or in-service. Methods are 

needed to validate the fabrication process to ensure adequate bond strength and 

durability.” 

− “Inability to predict/monitor adhesive bondline degradation due to environmental 

exposure.” 

C-146
− “Inadequate surface preparation due to the wrong or incorrect peel ply.” 

− “Inspection; fail safety; impact resistance” 

− “Quality and reliability of the joint.” 

− “Reliability of the bond and pre-bond humidity.” 

− “Strength integrity of bonded structure is difficult to ascertain using most current 

popular NDI methods. Kissing bonds, or bonds of low strength, can exist without 

being detected using ultrasonic, tap, or thermo NDI methods. Laser and optical 

inspection methods currently exist in which a subtle stress is applied to the bondline (such as low vacuum), but these methods have not bee adopted for widespread use. In order to improve reliability of detecting existence of a poor bond 

these methods should be substantiated for wide-spread use and inspection 

“standards” methodology developed for them.” 

− “The difficulty of proving the quality of a bond by NDT.” 

− “The long term durability test methods for bonded structures are inadequate for 

long term life assessment and design.” 

− “The major concern is the durability due to different environment conditions.” 

− “Understanding criticality and ensuring redundancy if required.” 

− “Unknown or unpredicted out-of-plane loads.” 

− “Long term effects of stress concentrations in the bonds.” 

− “Insufficient testing that accounts for all service loads.” 

− “Process creep in production environment that introduces contaminants or 

degrades surface preparation.” 

− “Undetected bond damage during a field incident and subsequent repair.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Ensuring consistency / repeatability of the bonding process.” 

− “Effective training of personnel doing the bonding.” 

− “Existence of bonded joint(s) which are not addressed properly by QA.” 

− “Rigorous process controls and technician training.” 

C-147
− “Inspection methods and maintenance procedures have not been adequately 

established.” 

− “Sufficient understanding of the technology by all those involved in 

manufacturing, design and maintenance (teamwork).” 

− “Conservative design practices that include fail-safe features.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Process failures.” 

− “Long term effects of environmental cycling.” 

− “Absence of effective NDI procedures.” 

− “Reliance on operator competence.” 

− “Quality of materials allowables used for design.” 

− “Lack of predictive models for assessing bond durability.” 

− “Absence of well defined procedures acceptable to AEO to enable certification of 

bonded repairs on primary aircraft structure.” 

− “Difficulty in assessing reliability of adhesive bonds on primary structure.” 

− “Correlation between standard laboratory testing (including accelerated durability 

testing) and service performance.” 

− “Long-term environmental durability; accidental application of adhesives with 

wrong characteristics (brittle, ductile, etc.) In critical joints.” 

− “Unknowns in some of the analysis.” 

− “Misunderstanding of the analysis.” 

− “Improper training for bonding (quality control).” 

− “Lack of suitable NDI to detect weak interfacial bonds.” 

− “Complex joints and integral structure move usability away from the regime of 

simple (e.g. Bolted) repairs that can be performed easily.” 

− “Industrial practices do not control every variable in processing, and we do not 

have adequate guidelines for acceptability of process variation with respect to 

risk.” 

C-148
− “Undetected impact damage is a major concern.” 

− “Bonded metal structures are subject to corrosion and bonding failure.” 

− “Lack of understanding by the designers.” 

− “Inability to detect using NDI a “weak bond”. What may look good could have 

significant strength reduction. Strength of the bond leaving the factory/depot 

strongly dependent on the care taken in processing particularly surface 

preparation which can be inconsistent and difficult to verify.” 

− “Manufacturing process that is not right or not properly controlled.” 

− “Robustness” 

− “Inspectability for whether the bonded system was prepared correctly.” 

− “Process qualification that includes durability assessments.” 

− “Inadequate and/or inappropriate process controls that may compromise long -

term durability. (Moisture/humidity. Poor surface prep out-time, open time, 

etc.).” 

− “Peel ply -only surface prep and flock-filled adhesives in small sport-aviation and 

kit planes.” 

− “Lack of basic composite materials knowledge in workforce. (OJT instead of 

formal training.)” 

− “Inappropriate or inadequate process validation testing due to the absence of a 

requirement to demonstrate bond durability as part of the certification process. 

Strength and fatigue resistance tests will not prevent interfacial failure.” 

− “Inappropriate design methods.” 

− “Inadequate failure investigation to identify the true causes of bond failures, 

coupled with reliance on perceptions that bond failures are fatigue or impact 

related.” 

− “Inadequate and unreliable adhesive design data.” 

− “In some cases, it is difficult or impossible to satisfactorily inspect a bond-line 

using any NDI technique. In these bonded structure applications the best 

approach is to inspect “in” bond integrity instead of inspecting “for” bond 

integrity after the fact. This can be accomplished by characterizing the receiving 

and process parameters in great detail in order to establish critical process 

inspection points. Historically, industry has processed adhesives per 

C-149
manufacturer’s recommendation without taking the time to understand the relative 

significance of each process step or receiving parameter.” 

− “Inadequate control of prebond humidity.” 

− “Consistent bond preparation methods.” 

− “Improved use and buy-in by the FAA regarding peel-plies for bond preparation.” 

− “You’d have to review current maintenance experience. The big question has 

always been meaningful inspections of bonds with inferior strength. 

Delaminations are relatively easy. Also, environmental durability.” 

− “Proper surface preparation and bond line thickness.” 

− “Adhesive bonding is a system: adherends, adhesive, surface preparation, 

bonding process. A change to any of these items can adversely affect the bond. 

Post-certification changes to materials and processes must be very carefully 

monitored and validated. The traditional approach to material control has 

involved separate adhesive, composite material, process specifications. It is very 

easy to overlook the bond “system” when a change is made to an individual 

specification or material, with the result being a significant degradation in the 

bond capability (rarely does an unintended change make things significantly 

better). Multiple sources of nominally “equivalent” material must be validated for 

the bond “system”, not just the individual material specification.” 

− “Need to consider whether there are any services life limits (time, flight hours, 

flight cycles, #peak loads) for bonded structure. Are there any degradation 

mechanisms that could limit service life?” 

− “Unzipping - we must design with increasing energy release rates.” 

− “Incorrect surface preparation at time of manufacture/repair.” 

− “Not using the correct curing parameters, such as temperature, time and vacuum.” 

− “The repairs are often carried out by technicians who have no formal qualification 

in composite repair, or who have had very little, or no training.” 

Question 2: When asked about the most significant certification hurdles for bonded aircraft, the 

respondents identified the following. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Generation of confidence that we have captured all of the possible processing 

variants in our allowables calculation. This is critical if we are to have confidence 

C-150
that we can manufacture the structure effectively and be certain that it conforms 

to the strengths that it was designed to.” 

− “We know that metallic structures, no matter how well they are surface prepped, 

will often fail in service because of hydrolytic degradation. We have no way to 

predict this, nor do we have effective means to inspect for it. Furthermore, we do 

not have laboratory testing that can be directly linked (phenomenalogically) to the 

effects of moisture/corrosives in the field.” 

− “Expense of full scale testing.” 

− “The certification test would be at the full scale test.” 

− “Establishing inspection criteria.” 

− “Effective NDT methods in the field.” 

− “Cost of allowables.” 

− “No NDI techniques to detect weak interfacial bonds at time of manufacture.” 

− “No analytical processes for interfacial failures.” 

− “Getting FAA buy-in on what is required for certification and design.” 

− “All this complexity makes bonding a difficult, potentially expensive choice, 

although the rewards can be substantial.” 

− “Time and dollar amount spent on testing for the lack of standard practice in 

analysis software.” 

− “Certification of adhesive bond long term durability in a humid environment.” 

− “Military was no single certification authority. Each weapon system used a 

different approach.” 

− “Documentation and definition of all manufacturing process and traceability of 

materials used in test articles.” 

• Design Responses 

− “As a repair station we are commonly limited as a result of damage size and/or 

damage proximity in relation to edges, cutouts and fastener holes. In these cases 

we are forced to refer each issue back to the OEM, whereas we feel there should 

be scope for repair development IAW baseline documentation.” 

C-151
• Manufacturing Response 

− “Manufactures short cutting known requirements for economic reasons.” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Post bond and field inspections of the bond integrity.” 

− “Inspections and accelerated methodologies for adhesive and interfacial 

degradation.” 

− “Reliable surface preparation.” 

− “Demonstrating compliance on full scale test article.” 

− “Proliferation of testing all qualified adhesive and substrate permutations, 

comparing damage tolerance behavior of new materials to meet baseline 

requirements, consideration of and testing for critical environments when 

competing failure modes are present, complexity of bonded structure usually 

results in a very conservative approach and subsequent weight penalty being 

enforced by regulatory authority.” 

− “Additional tests are required for reliability.” 

− “In the past, the biggest hurdle has probably been the time required to perform 

structural substantiation testing and to have the results approved by the FAA. It is 

seldom clear exactly what testing is required substantiate bonded structure, so the 

tendency is to err on the conservative side and an excessive amount of testing is 

performed. Frequently, the results data spends along time in the hands of the 

FAA for approval. Presumably, this is due to the limited amount of reference data 

currently available to them for adhesively bonded structure.” 

− “Certification test and approach in the analysis to prove the safety of bonded 

structures.” 

− “Qualification tests - coupons and components.” 

− “Inability to predict/monitor adhesive bondline degradation due to environmental 

exposure.” 

− “Proof of long term reliability--25.571 Durability and Damage Tolerance.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “Bond process qualification, substantiation and documentation in specifications.” 

− “Building block test substantiation, culminating in large-scale tests.” 

C-152
− “Implementation of efficient bond process control in manufacturing.” 

− “Determining the right tests, i.e., chemical, physical and mechanical, that needs to 

be conducted.” 

− “Establishing reliable and robust adhesive and bonding processes.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Bond preparation and processing.” 

− “Large amounts of testing and validation.” 

− Validation of loads models in fatigue susceptible structure to enable certification 

of repair design.” 

− “For repairs the USAF has an excellent and conservative guideline. If the 

structure is treated as if the repair was not applied (inspection intervals and 

damage tolerance) operation will be safe and inspection intervals will not 

decrease if the repair works.” 

− “Inspectability.” 

− “Fear of the ‘weak bond.’” 

− “Lack of confidence in consistent processing operations.” 

− “Make sure again that the test program has covered all the safety requirements 

and that the manufacturing process is receiving the quality control that is needed 

to insure safety.” 

− “Failure to recognize that demonstration of bond durability must be part of 

certification.” 

− “The absence of a reliable NDT method to assure of bond integrity. Current 

methods only indicate the absence of significant defects; they do not interrogate 

the bond interface and hence can not assure bond durability.” 

− “The absence of reliable statistically sound design data for adhesives.” 

− “Quite obviously, first and foremost, in certification one must prove an 

understanding of the most taxing load/damage/environment scenarios that can 

occur at the subject bond, prove an understanding of the effect of the scenario on 

strength, and show that at the degraded strength the structure is still capable. This 

is site specific and joint specific. Many variables need to be understood. For 

example, if a skin develops a crack can it be arrested at features bonded to it, or 

will the bonded joints fail? Do bonded on stiffeners reliably arrest crack 

C-153
propagation? Can the bond to honeycomb be designed to arrest cracks emanating 

from punctures or to arrest disbonds? How do the thickness parameters of bonded 

joints affect their resilience to impact events? How does facing lay-up and 

thickness affect joint damage response to impact? In sandwich structure 

disbonded due to impact, what is strain to induce static damage propagation? 

Fatigue damage propagation?” 

− “Definition of approved, affordable, efficient, in-service bonded repair methods 

for composites has also been somewhat of a hurdle. Repair types, overlap 

requirements, cure scenario requirements, etc... All need to be standardized. In 

addition, in the past, repair research has been centered on wet lay-up. There are 

other techniques available that should also be standardized.” 

− “In a major primary load path bond, proving that the bonds formed day-to-day 

will have indisputably repeatable bond quality and integrity is also a hurdle. 

Historically, manufacturers process adhesive per manufacturer’s specification, 

without taking the time to characterize the effect of each receiving or process 

parameter. Proving a reliable process is in place can also be difficult.” 

− “Getting good design analysis for bonded joints.” 

− “Substantiating strength of joints, materials and processes.” 

− “Advanced NDI. Prove that the bond is still holding load (not just that it’s not 

cracked/delamed).” 

Question 3: When asked to identify the materials, process, design, analysis, manufacturing, and 

maintenance improvements that can be made to make bonded structure more economical, the 

respondents replied as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Room temp storable, long out time, low temp curing film adhesives.” 

− “Eliminate honeycomb core, particularly core varieties that are susceptible to 

water.” 

− “More data and publications concerning to success examples should be available 

and a test and process recommendation specific for adhesives and bonding should 

be developed.” 

− “Define the best combination of mechanical testing and chemical analysis for 

certification purpose.” 

− “Enable the use of more modern improved adhesive systems and take out the old 

junk of the specifications.” 

C-154
− “Better technical training for the actual bonding process.” 

− “Better design and analysis tools that predict joint behavior in real-life 

applications, i.e. combined peel and shear at the ends of the joints.” 

− “Additional stress analysis and bonded joint failure analysis.” 

− “Well defined processes with rigid quality control.” 

− “The industry can’t standardize on adhesive specs, because we all use different 

bond primers and surface preparations.” 

− “Emphasis on Tooling requirements and max bond thickness restrictions.” 

− “Cure monitoring, on-line. Most thermosets are cured for longer than they need 

to be, that applies to adhesives, too.” 

− “Standardization of everything.” 

− “There are no test methods or analysis that will give any information on long term 

service and environmental problems. At best, you can only make comparisons 

using accelerated test which do a poor job of prediction.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Wider scope of wet lay-up repairs.” 

− “There are no standard materials in use.” 

− “Reparability of ALL structures - for example, there are no vacuum-bag cured 

repairs approved for 350F cured material, or for acoustic panels. These currently 

require autoclave repairs, which drive more spares and are more expensive for 

labor and materials.” 

− “Approve SolGel surface preparations as equivalent and permanent, or plan for 

these type repairs form the beginning.” 

− “On parts on upper surfaces, make the minimum gage .020 or .025 to eliminate 

the hail damage.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− “A guideline that would give recommendations of what is considered approved 

practices. If the guideline is adopted by the manufacture facility, then reduce 

testing.” 

C-155
• Analysis Responses 

− “There are currently no qualified adhesive vendors, similar to the prepreg vendors 

such as Toray. The qualification program cost would be lowered if adhesive 

vendors had qualification products. It is difficult for small businesses to choose 

an adhesive system. The economical choice tends to be a two part paste adhesive 

with a low temperature cure. Vendors typically do not supply “hot-wet” data so 

these companies make their best guess and qualify a material. This may not be 

the best material but the company must stay with this material because the cost of 

qualifying another material (that may not be better) is prohibitive. The adhesive 

vendors could formulate an adhesive that would meet the requirements of the 

company, if they had an incentive (potential orders).” 

− “Selective use of fasteners in conjunction with bonded joints - e.g. only at 

stiffener termination not along whole length of a bonded joint.” 

− “Use of SPC in adhesive manufacture to reduce end item inspection.” 

− “Less sensitive processing/more robust processing. The cheapest bondline is one 

that does not ever fail!” 

− “Process to validate proper surface preparation.” 

− “Procedure to determine in service strength.” 

− “Reliable analytical methods to predict fracture growth and bond fracture 

associated with instability.” 

− “Improvement in mechanical properties.” 

− “Inspection methods need to be improved so that thorough inspections can be 

performed in a reasonable amount of time.” 

− “Material - standardization adhesive material.” 

− “Process - standard process.” 

− “Design - Training of the personnel.” 

− “Analysis - Supplier adhesive data needs to be in accordance with what the 

analysis need. For example, curve shear stress versus strain as request by 

analysis. To choose the easy and friendly software.” 

− “Manufacturing - standard manufacturing.” 

− “Maintenance - facility adequate to structure bonded and training of the 

personnel.” 

C-156
− “By far, the best way is to standardize materials, processes, test methods, etc.” 

− “Invention of a rapid and reliable NDT method, which demonstrates/measures the 

shear strength of a bond.” 

− “Reliable, low-cost inspection techniques.” 

− “Self-health monitoring bonded structures (smart repairs).” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “NDI procedures for chemical confirmation of surfaces that have been prepared 

for bonding before adhesive application.” 

− “Advances in analysis for bonded joint design.” 

− “Advances in residual strength & fatigue analyses for debond and delamination.” 

− “Advances in test standardization.” 

− “Improved inspection or sensing (in-situ sensors) in critical areas with real-time 

health monitoring.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Reduce the vast array of materials implemented in structural repair.” 

− “Introduction of universal material standards.” 

− “Validation of experimental data with available bond analysis techniques is key to 

reduction in testing costs.” 

− “Testing regimes and validation of processes to enable implementation of a risk 

based approach to assessing intangibles such as long term adhesive bond 

durability.” 

− “Techniques to predict/verify durability.” 

− “Easier surface preparation.” 

− “Standardized design techniques/tools.” 

− “A program, similar to the AGATE prepreg program, would be beneficial.” 

− “Improve inspection capability.” 

C-157
− “Design materials for repair that meet both the requirements of processing in the 

field (sometimes under austere conditions) and meet the strength requirements for 

the design.” 

− “Results of test are very much scattered.” 

− “Improvement in manufacturing process and tooling.” 

− “Improve the prediction of failure modes.” 

− “We need more automated manufacturing methods where the manufacturing 

records and controls reduce the need for subsequent inspection and verification 

steps.” 

− “Surface preparation verification tools.” 

− “Any NDI method that could verify the joint strength (find the “weak bond”).” 

− “Analysis methods that can evaluate the effects of defects on a joint 

configuration.” 

− “If one looks at the introduction of any type of structure you must work the design 

of the structure with a complete understanding of the manufacturing options.” 

− “If the design is to be economical the designer must have as part of his design 

tools cost information in a form that as the designer goes through the development 

of the design he can quickly assess the relative cost of various design parameters. 

To often the design only gets this information though talking to manufacturing 

people, which means he does not get the information in a true design tradable 

format. This manufacturing cost parameters information helps him visualize his 

design as he develops it just like the structural design information.” 

− “Find ways to make industry specifications and common best practices more 

accessible to enable the sharing of costs/data.” 

− “Design for manufacturing. Composite structures should be molded with integral 

features that make them lightweight and enhance stiffness/strength while 

minimizing multi-piece assembly. (Co-cure and co-bond instead of secondary 

bonded structures).” 

− “Eliminate processes that are capable of producing short term bond strength but 

not bond durability.” 

− “Eliminate the use of average shear stress design methods and use the load 

capacity approach.” 

C-158
− “Design adhesive bonds that are stronger than the parent material, hence reducing 

significantly the number of tests required for certification.” 

− “Bonded repair techniques need to be standardized in order to streamline the 

process. (not just wet lay-up repair but also surface ply repair, injection, non-load 

carrying, etc...)” 

− “A fool-proof prep method for surface prep that can be objectively inspected.” 

− “Introduction of much lower modulus (higher strain to failure) adhesive systems 

in primary structural applications.” 

− “Increased reliability of surface preparation using less environmentally harsh prep 

for aluminum and new materials prep for composite structure.” 

− “Should already be very economical compared to bolts.” 

− “Industry standardized adhesive material procurement specifications could help 

make the process more economical.” 

− “Improved design/analysis methods that would enable the elimination of “chicken 

rivets” would save weight in some applications.” 

Question 4: When asked what barriers (economic or technical) need to be overcome to support 

the expanding applications of bonded aircraft structure, the respondents replied as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “The technical barriers tend to scale with the complexity and amount of bonded 

structure. The introduction of reproducibly believable analysis and prediction 

tools has the potential to greatly reduce these barriers.” 

− “Mainly technical, concerning to damage tolerance, endurance and reparability.” 

− “How to ensure the reliability of bonded structures.” 

− “Analysis” 

− “The mindset of using rivets to backup a bonded joint.” 

− “A major deficiency in current testing and qualification procedures is the absence 

of any relationship to field data. It is essential that the bonding community 

cooperate to develop a coordinated approach to collecting retired bonded repairs 

or structure and performing teardown inspection. In conjunction with well 

defined processes used in the original construction, a relationship between 

accelerated testing a validation procedures used in the laboratory and service 

C-159
performance can be established and a reliable risk model developed for certifying 

bonded structure.” 

− “NDI of currently undetectable defects like weak bonds or kissing unbonds.” 

− “Long term effects of Large bond gaps to be studied extensively.” 

− “Have an NDI that can verify large bonded strengths.” 

− “Ways to predict long term effects of service and environment. Currently, you 

have to fly a fleet all over the world for 20 years to find out what works.” 

− “In situations non-destructive bond strength determination (still!).” 

• Design Responses 

− “It is common practice that OEMs call up production materials in structural 

repairs with long lead times, short shelf lives and large minimum order quantities. 

More consideration should be given to the practicalities of repair embodiment 

where a repair station may only perform a particular repair rarely.” 

− “No standard materials.” 

• Manufacturing Responses 

− “Standardization of surface preparation procedures (sanding, grit blast, peel ply, 

waterbreak requirements).” 

− “The absence of a predictive capability to determine the life of an adhesive bond 

(in the same manner as fracture mechanics is used to determine the damage 

tolerance of metallic structure).” 

• Analysis Responses 

− “The economic barrier is qualification for reasons stated in item 3. The biggest 

technical barrier is reliable inspection methods and accurate analytical methods.” 

− “Inspection and long term life prediction methods (durability) to detect early 

onset of interfacial crack growth or delamination.” 

− “Understanding of the requirements for prebond moisture.” 

− “NDI that can detect weak bonds.” 

− “Significantly different approaches by all OEMs, new entrants, and oversight 

authorities results in varying and uncertain levels of safety amongst similar 

products.” 

C-160
− “Ability of bonded joint to arrest crack propagation in adjacent components needs 

to be characterized.” 

− “The feeling that the structure bonded is safety.” 

− “Training and technician understanding must reach new levels to take full 

advantage of composites. Most of the world is still treating a carbon laminate like 

black aluminum. This is getting better but too slowly.” 

− “The uncertainty of bond quality assurance.” 

− “Means to design that will eliminate of the plane loads.” 

− “Reliable method to identify bondline deterioration needs to be established.” 

− “Understanding of the requirements for prebond moisture.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “The inability of detecting “poor” bonded joint using reliable and inexpensive 

NDI techniques is the biggest barrier.” 

− “Training of resources (engineering and technicians).” 

− “Advances in more efficient process control procedures.” 

− “Advances in maintenance repair procedures.” 

− “Training at OEMs and end users is inadequate.” 

− “Inspection and sensing methods are under development but not common.” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Guidelines needed in design to predict and minimize peel stresses.” 

− “Do it correct or don’t use bonding at all. One failure will lead to a multitude of 

decisions not to use bonding anymore.” 

− “In addition, there should be an effort to reduce the qualification requirements and 

therefore enhance the economic viability of adhesive bonding. The basic question 

is, can we reduce the qualification effort and maintain control?” 

− “Development of a design methodology and a sufficiently large supporting 

database to incorporate the distribution/variation in performance of bonded 

structures into the design process.” 

C-161
− “Methods to secondarily bond very large pieces of structure need to be established 

and proven. Because of the low bearing stress of composites we need to eliminate 

mechanical fasteners in composite structures.” 

− “In the application of any design the need to feel comfortable with the design both 

structurally and profitably the information data base available is the key to the 

specific design process selected for structural and cost performance. The more 

information available the more likely the procedure will be the one selected. Also 

most engineer and company management must be sure there is not “NIH” (not 

invented here”) in there organizational structure.” 

− “Development of new generation adhesives that will wet better and adhere to low 

energy plastic surfaces must be pioneered to advance adhesive bonding for 

composites. Low temp and alternative energy/quick-curing systems need to be 

investigated to reduce processing time of thermoset adhesives. (Few product 

manufacturers currently seem to be willing to invest in R&D in this area.)” 

− “Bonded repair technology must advance to the level where design and 

certification can give credit for the contribution of the bond to structural integrity. 

That can only be achieved if the durability of the bond can be assured.” 

− “From an affordability point of view sandwich construction is superior to 

discreetly stiffened structure. Crack arrestment via bonds to embedded features 

need to be demonstrated.” 

− “A huge amount of damage tolerance data for a multitude of structural 

configurations is needed.” 

− “Adhesive/Substrate compatibilities need to be standardized, particularly for cocured structure. We have seen cases where an adhesive sticks well to “this” cured 

graphite laminate but not “that one.” 

− “Lack of load data from OEM’s.” 

− “OEM’s will not approve repairs purely for commercial reasons - this does not 

help the end user, the customer.” 

− “Improved depth of understanding of the science of the bonded structures by 

design and regulatory authorities is needed to avoid “practical” mistakes.” 

− “Lower modulus and lower cure temperature adhesive systems are difficult 

(impossible?) to certify due to traditional temperature margin requirements.” 

− “A simple, reliable and cost effective “bond strength” NDT method would resolve 

most issues and questions.” 

C-162
− “Difficulty in establishing and maintaining a competitive supplier base for 

“qualified” materials.” 

− “There is cultural barrier too.” 

− “Development of a more reliable surface preparation than peel ply.” 

− “Move away from hostile surface preps for aluminum yet achieves the same high 

performance.” 

− “A rigorous method for composite surface preparations—be it reliable Peel Plies 

(Hart Smiths experience) reliable training and procedures (human reliability).” 

− “Overcoming the philosophy of the use chicken fasteners.” 

− “Lack of knowledge on biomaterial joint behavior e.g. composite to Al.” 

− “Need methods for rapid, wide-area NDI of aircraft structure (composite and 

bonded). Tap testing an entire aircraft is not practical.” 

− “Need approaches for repairs to aircraft with large areas of “weak” or degraded 

bonds.” 

− “NDI is still a big issue.” 

− “Repair limits need to be increased.” 

Question 5: When asked for additional general comments on bonded structures and repairs, the 

respondents replied as follows. 

• Material and Process Control Responses 

− “Need a room temp cure primer system for bonded repairs.” 

− “Sorry the information is patchy, but most of the sections are not applicable to 

university activity.” 

− “We are primarily a Research and Development organization who have pioneered 

the use of composite bonded repairs to metallic aircraft structure for more than 25 

years. Much of this research has been documented in a book entitled: “Advances 

in Bonded Composite Repair of Metallic Aircraft Structure,” Ed. Baker, A.A., 

Rose, L.R.F., Jones, R., Vol 1-2, Elsevier, United Kingdom, 2002. Examples of 

successful repair applications are included in the book. Typically, we will 

undertake research to develop a repair and then implement the initial repair but 

subsequently handover to RAAF who will undertake fleet repairs. As the 

technology has matured, development of RAAF Engineering Standards has enable 

RAAF to become more self sufficient in the technology, however, our company 

C-163
will provide independent assessment of RAAF standards and provide R+D 

support for more complex repairs such as to primary structure.” 

− “I still have a lot to learn about bonded structures.” 

• Design Responses 

− “Please note that I have answered this survey from a repair station perspective and 

have not answered most questions applicable to manufacture, testing and 

development.” 

• Manufacturing Response 

− No respondents replied to this question. 

• Analysis Responses 

− “Adhesive bonding is a very important subject and I believe it is the least 

understood component of composite construction. Research in this area will be 

very beneficial to the aviation community.” 

− “Show good examples.” 

− “Adhesive Manufacturer’s provides non reliable data in general.” 

− “A general concern that not all new entrants understand the need for good bonded 

structure design, complete and appropriate testing, and sufficient quality 

oversight. A significant mistake by any OEM will affect product reputation of all 

similar manufacturers and likely result in over-reaction by regulatory authorities.” 

• Regulator/Customer Responses 

− “The technology continues to evolve and depend on rigorous process controls for 

reliable applications. To date, conservative design practices have helped achieve 

safety goals despite several examples of problems from production and service 

experiences.” 

− “Bonded structures include ALL sandwich structures, not just bonded joints. This 

just scratches the surface...” 

• Other Category Responses 

− “Open discussion regarding lesson learned.” 

− “We need more approved wet lay-up repair methods.” 

C-164
− “Bonded structure can add structural capability and cost reduction but again only 

if the people doing the design and manufacturing have the data and experience to 

do the design job.” 

− “Fewer separate parts/larger co-cured structures will reduce dependence on 

secondary assembly (bonding and fastening) for composites. The industry needs 

to move away from “black aluminum” design concepts and better utilize the 

ability to mold composite materials. There is evidence that this is happening 

albeit slowly.” 

− “Fracture mechanics can never address the prediction of interfacial failure.” 

− “Application of a failure criterion to adhesive bond design will lead to optimized 

bonds that will then loose any damage tolerance that is inherent in “inefficient” 

designs.” 

− “Finite element or other analyses that do not represent the elastic-plastic behavior 

of adhesives will not provide reliable designs.” 

− “It would be beneficial to tap into CAI efforts. Not all have access due to ITAR 

and proprietary information.” 

− “Am concerned that there are no formal standards used for heater blankets in the 

repair process.” 

C-165/C-166