International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijadhadh

The analysis of kissing bonds in adhesive joints

,2
MARK
1
C. Jeenjitkaew , F.J. Guild
School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary, University of London Department of Materials, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Kissing bonds pose a serious threat and an obstacle to the application of adhesive bonding in engineering
C: Finite element stress analysis structures. This paper describes an investigation of the formation of kissing bonds using various surface
D: Cohesive zone model contaminants. Double-lap joints have been prepared using several contaminants, and tested in quasi-static
Kissing bonds tension. The values of shear strength obtained from these tests are successfully compared with observations of
Double-lap joint
the interfaces and fracture surfaces. Finite element analysis in combination with cohesive elements was used to
simulate the adhesive joint tests. Fracture properties used in the analysis were obtained from independent
material tests. The results indicate very good agreement between experimental and predicted shear strengths for
both control and contaminated joints. The results of the validated nite element model are explored to nd a
strain signature that could be used to detect kissing bonds. The results indicate that measurement of local
lateral strain may form the basis of a technique for monitoring or detection of kissing bonds.

1. Introduction
Kissing bonds are interfacial weak bonds present when the substrate
surface and adhesive are in intimate contact but only form weak
adhesion. The possible occurrence of kissing bonds poses a serious
threat in the application of adhesive bonding in modern aircraft
construction. The requirement for additional riveting of adhesive joints
in structural joints, for example in aircraft, adds to weight and weakens
the surrounding material. Kissing bonds can arise from three main
categories of fault: lack of full curing of the adhesive, surface
contamination, or physical damage of the surface. Surface contamina-
tion can occur either during joint preparation or via subsequent ingress
by, for example, water. This paper only considers surface contamina-
tion introduced via various contaminants.
Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) of kissing joints remains a subject of
interest in the literature, and various methods have been developed for
their detection. These techniques include neutron radiography [1],
infrared thermography [2] and holographic interferometry [3,4]. The
most promising technique is probably ultrasonic testing, which can be
divided into two groups depending on whether it interrogates the out-
of-plane or in-plane stress-strain characteristics [5]. In-plane techniques
include shear-wave resonance and guided wave methods, which may be
sensitive to kissing bonds since it may detect change of stiness on the
interface [5,6]. High powered out-of-plane non-linear ultrasonic tech-
nique may be able to detect kissing bonds, particularly at low contact
pressures [711]. The laser shockwave technique may be the most
reliable method to detect kissing bonds but this method may cause
damage both around any kissing bond or to composite adherends
[12,13].
Recent advances in Digital Image Correlation (DIC), including three-
dimensional techniques, may be able to detect damage events in joints.
Both 3-dimensional and high magnication 2-dimensional DIC mea-
surements have been validated using strain gauges for both pre-preg
and non-crimp-fabric carbon bre reinforced composite single lap
joints. The authors suggested that measurement of out-of-plane dis-
placements using 3-dimensional DIC could be used to detect kissing
bonds [14]. Kissing bonds, prepared using release lm, in unidirec-
tional glass bre reinforced single lap joints have been examined using
2-dimensional DIC [15]. The contours of axial strain showed localisa-
tion around the kissing bond at around 50% failure load. The values of
strain were reduced to negative values in these areas; the contours for
the healthy joints showed the expected variability for single lap joints.
Finite element analysis (FEA) predicted similar values of negative axial
strain above the kissing bond. The authors suggest that further work
may establish monitoring of axial strain as a means of kissing bond
detection [15].
This paper describes an investigation of the formation of kissing
bonds using various surface contaminants. The overall objective of this
paper is to demonstrate that the strength of joints containing kissing
bonds can be predicted using FEA, and that local measurement of strain
around kissing bonds could form a basis for their monitoring or
detection. The joints have been tested and simulated using FEA. The

Corresponding author.
1
Now at: Element Hitchin, Wilbury Way, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, UK, SG4 0TW.
2
Now at: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2017.02.019
Accepted 12 February 2017
Available online 24 February 2017
0143-7496/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild
Table 1
Elastic properties of adherends and Redux319 adhesive.
Material Young's modulus (GPa) Yield stress (MPa) Poisson's ratio
Hardened Steel
Al2014T6
214
76.1
1039
396
0.29
0.33
Redux319 3.76 21.8 0.33
results of the validated FEA are explored to nd a strain signature that
could be used to detect kissing bonds. The results indicate that
measurement of local lateral strain may form the basis of a technique
for monitoring or detection of kissing bonds. Local strain around a
kissing bond has been previously suggested as a means of their
detection, as discussed above, but no consideration of the monitoring
of local lateral (Poisson's ratio) strain has been found.
2. Materials and kissing bonds
Double-lap joints were prepared using two metal adherends:
hardened steel (HDS) and aluminium alloy (Al 2014-T6). The hardened
steel, as a benchmark, was prepared in the laboratory from gauge steel
(MSC/J & L Industrial Supply) using heating and quenching [16]. The
aluminium alloy (Metalfast, UK), which is widely used in high strength
and high temperature applications, was also used in this study. The
elastic properties of the adherends are shown in Table 1. The same
aluminium alloy joints were tested in a previous study which describes
the surface chemistry of the contaminated joints [17].
The HDS adherends were cleaned with acetone and then treated
with P320 silicon carbide paper and cleaned with acetone. Pressurised
air was blown across the surface to remove any loose particles. Finally,
the surfaces were cleaned with acetone. The Al2014-T6 adherends were
prepared according to Defence Standard 03-2/1 as described in [17].
The same two types of adhesive were used as in the previous study
[17]. The rst adhesive is a high temperature cure epoxy lm adhesive
with and without the carrier, Redux319 A and Redux319 (Hexcel,
UK). It was found (see section 4) that the carrier lm could interfere
with the failure processes, so the analysis was carried out for the
adhesive without the carrier. The mechanical properties of this
adhesive are shown in Table 1. The second adhesive is a room-
temperature cure two-part epoxy paste adhesive, E3348 (Georgia-
Pacic Corp., USA). This was used to investigate whether migration
of contaminants diered between high temperature and room tempera-
ture adhesives, and was used for the Al2014-T6 adherends only.
The same contaminants were used as in the previous study [17]:
PTFE lm (Aerovac Ltd.). The lm thickness was 25 m.
PTFE spray (Screw Fix Direct). This is widely used as a lubricant
spray for rotor cutters and saw blades. It consists of micron-size
PTFE particles dispersed in a volatile organic solvent.
Frekote 700-NC mould release agent (Loctite Corp.). This is a semi-
permanent mould release agent, containing synthetic isoparanic
hydrocarbon, light aliphatic solvent naphtha, dibutyl ether and
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). PDMS is one of the most common
contaminants found in organic samples.
Table 2
Test matrix.
Adherend Adhesive Contaminants
PTFE lm PTFE spray
HDS Redux319 A x x
HDS Redux319
Al2014-T6 Redux319 x x
Al2014-T6 E3348 x x
102
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107
Articial Sweat (Pickering Laboratories). This articial sweat is used
by many industries to test products such as textiles and jewellery. It
contains around 19 naturally occurring amino acids, 10 minerals
and four metabolites.
Cutting Oil lubricant So-Cool 12 S (Solent Oil Ltd.). This contami-
nant has been found to be detectable in ultrasonic studies [7] using
measurement of ultrasonic nonlinearity. It may be suitable for
producing kissing bonds.
The geometry of the double-lap joints is illustrated in [17]. The
adhesive thickness was 0.2 mm. The adherend thickness was 1.6 mm
for the HDS adherends and 2 mm for the Al2014-T6 adherends. The
width was 25.4 mm with an overlap length of 12.7 mm. The
contaminant covered 25% of the bonding area, and was placed on the
outer adherends of the double-lap joints since this is the failure path
observed for the control joints. Observation during the contamination
and examination of the failure surfaces (see section 4.2.5) indicated
that the contaminants did not migrate outside the contaminated region.
Most testing was carried out using the high temperature adhesive
without the carrier (Redux319) since the carrier lm interfered with
the failure processes, as described above. The full range of tests
reported here is shown in Table 2. In addition, control specimens
without contaminant were tested for each case. At least 5 replicates
were tested for all conditions except the release lm.
3. Experimental techniques
The double-lap joints were tested using an Instron 6025 universal
testing machine according to the standard, ASTM D3528 [18]. Tests
were carried out at a displacement rate of 2 mm/min under standard
laboratory conditions (23 2 C and 55 10% relative humidity).
Local strain was measured using 1 mm strain gauges on the outer
adherends centred on the bond. Strain across the whole bond was
measured using a 25 mm extensometer placed symmetrically around
the bonded area.
4. Experimental results
4.1. Interface analysis
The interfaces from the Al2014-T6 adherends using the two
adhesives have been compared and found to be similar for both
adhesives [17]. The Frekote 700NC remains at the interface. Both the
articial sweat and the cutting oil lubricant were found to migrate from
the interface into the adhesive, although there may be some salts from
the articial sweat at the interface. The cutting oil lubricant appears to
cause morphological irregularities at the interface and within the
adhesive. This migration of these contaminants does not depend on
the temperature of the cure of the adhesive. These observations are
conrmed in Section 4.2 below in the comparison of failure loads.
Using the same techniques described previously [17] the interfaces
from the HDS adherends, with the Redux 319 high temperature
adhesive, contaminated with PTFE spray and Frekote 700NC were
examined and are shown in Fig. 1. The PTFE spray has migrated into
the adhesive; the micron sized particles of PTFE can be detected. In
Frekote 700NC Articial sweat Cutting oil lubricant
x x
x x
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107

Frekote
PTFE spray
Stteel

Redux3
319

Contaminate interface Fig. 3. Eect of adherend metal on shear strength.

Fig. 1. Interface analysis of HDS/Redux 319 adhesive joints.

contrast, the Frekote 700NC remains at the interface.

4.2. Experimentally measured values of shear strength

The experimental results are presented as values of shear strength.

This is calculated from the value of maximum load in tension divided by
the bonded area. All experimental results are plotted with error bars;
the bars show one standard deviation. Thus if error bars overlap, results
from dierent tests are not signicantly dierent.

4.2.1. Eect of carrier

The values of shear strength for the control specimens and the
Fig. 4. Eect of adhesive and contaminant on shear strength for Al2014-T6 adherends.
specimens including PTFE lm are compared for the Redux319 A
adhesive, including the carrier, and the Redux319 adhesive, without
control joint. However, for both adhesives, the values for the articial
the carrier in Fig. 2. The adherends were hardened steel. It is clear that
sweat and cutting oil lubricant contaminants are the same values,
the carrier reduces the shear strength both for the control and the
within experimental error, as the control joints.
weakened bonds. Observation of the failure surface revealed that the
These results conrm the observations of the interface analysis [17].
carrier cloth was interfering with the failure path. All further testing
The Frekote 700NC remains at the interface. The articial sweat and the
was carried out using Redux319 adhesive, without the carrier.
cutting oil lubricant migrate into the adhesive, and do not cause a
reduction in shear strength. The migration of contaminants is not
4.2.2. Eect of adherends aected by the temperature of adhesive cure.
The shear strength for the control specimens and the specimens
contaminated with Frekote 700NC with the steel or aluminium
4.2.4. Eect of Frekote 700NC
adherends are compared in Fig. 3. The values of shear strength are
The results reported in Section 4.2.3 show that Frekote 700NC
reduced for the contaminated joints. The values for both the control and
causes reduction of shear strength for both adhesives. Fig. 5 compares
contaminated joints are the same for the two adherends, within the
the values of shear strength for HDS adherends with PTFE release lm,
experimental error. These results show that this joint geometry is a
PTFE spray and Frekote 700NC. The PTFE spray does cause some
good test for kissing joints.
reduction in shear strength, probably arising from some PTFE micron-
sized particles remaining at the interface or causing a weak failure path,
4.2.3. Eect of adhesives and contaminants
see Fig. 1. The value obtained from the release lm is the same, within
The results from the two adhesives are compared for the Al2014-T6
experimental error, as the value obtained from Frekote 700NC. This
adherends in Fig. 4. All values of shear strength are lower for the low
implies that Frekote 700NC causes zero adhesion between the surfaces,
temperature cure adhesive. For both adhesives, the value for the
and as a consequence this result has been used in the modelling of the
Frekote 700NC contaminated joint is signicantly lower than for the
joints, as described in Section 5 below.

Fig. 2. Eect of carrier cloth on shear strength. Fig. 5. Eect of contaminant on shear strength for HDS adherends.

103
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107

Fig. 6. Failure surfaces from control and contaminated joints.

4.2.5. Failure surfaces
The results deduced in Section 4.2.4 are conrmed by observation
of the failure surfaces, shown in Fig. 6; these results are with HDS
adherends and Redux319 adhesive. The control specimen shows
complete cohesive failure. The joint contaminated with PTFE spray
shows mixed mode adhesive/cohesive failure. The failure surfaces from
the PTFE lm and Frekote 700NC are very similar, with adhesive failure
at or around the contaminant.
5. Finite element model
Finite element models were developed for the control and Frekote
700NC contaminated specimens with HDS or Al2014-T6 adherends.
The models were three-dimensional and were drawn using the through-
thickness symmetry of the double-lap joint. The geometry and global
boundary conditions of the models are shown in Fig. 7. The mesh was
created using ABAQUS CAE. Detail of the mesh around the bonded area
is shown in Fig. 8. Two solid elements were used across the adhesive
thickness for the Al 2014-T6 simulations and three solid elements for
the HDS simulations. In addition to these solid elements, zero thickness
8-noded zero thickness cohesive elements were inserted along the
upper interface. The models contained around 78,000 elements. The
elements used for the adherends and adhesive were 8-noded solid brick
incompatible mode elements. These elements were used since they are
capable of capturing the eect of local bending, which must occur
during failure of these joints, and thus allow convergence of the
analysis. The use of cohesive elements restricted the choice of elements
to 8-noded elements. Identical results using a dense mesh of solid brick

Fig. 7. Geometry of the nite element models.

104
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107

Fig. 8. The nite element mesh around the bonded area (dimensions in mm).

elements were obtained up to the onset of failure processes, so the Table 4

meshes used were deemed to render accurate results. The simulations Parameter values used for the exponent Drucker-Prager model [16].
were performed using ABAQUS version 6.9-2.
Dilation Angle, Parameter, a Parameter, b
The material properties for the adherends were elastic-plastic
although simulations showed that some plasticity occurs before failure 24.0 0.053 2.0
for the Al2014-T6 adherends only. The elastic-plastic properties were
measured using tensile testing [16] and are shown in Table 3. The True tensile stress (MPa) True plastic strain
properties for the adhesive were simulated using an exponent Drucker-
Prager model since this allows both the shear and tensile behaviour of 19.850 0
23.244 0.006
the adhesive to be properly simulated. The parameters used in the
25.333 0.007
analysis are shown in Table 4. These parameters were derived from 28.337 0.008
34.001 0.010
39.326 0.012
Table 3 44.581 0.014
Plastic properties used for the modelling of Al 2014-T6 adherends [16]. 49.492 0.016
54.058 0.018
True tensile stress (MPa) True plastic strain 60.348 0.021
64.041 0.023
380.00 0 67.193 0.025
471.894 0.005980 71.545 0.028
436.4325 0.007041 75.554 0.031
443.6586 0.008024 78.724 0.034
447.4121 0.008997 80.844 0.036
450.1938 0.010109 82.393 0.038
451.8948 0.011005 83.678 0.040
453.7353 0.011975 86.173 0.045
455.2046 0.012926 87.076 0.048
457.0433 0.013996 87.801 0.052
458.5767 0.014963
459.9801 0.015985
461.7202 0.017052 shear and tensile tests as described elsewhere [16].
463.0593 0.017923 Failure was simulated using zero thickness cohesive elements
464.6814 0.018951
inserted along the interface between the outer adherend and the
466.0613 0.019904
467.7266 0.020903 adhesive, as indicated in Fig. 7. The presence of the Frekote 700NC
469.0443 0.021826 was modelled using uncoupled surfaces as indicated by the experi-
470.5677 0.022850 mental investigations. The properties of the cohesive elements were
472.1158 0.023809 obtained from separate material tests; the data from these tests were
473.5115 0.024775
475.0313 0.025778
inserted directly into the model for these properties. The value of
476.6566 0.026890 fracture energy in Mode I was obtained from the xed arm peel test and
477.8425 0.027735 the value in Mode II from the four point bend end notch exure test,
479.2036 0.028725 4ENF. The maximum traction loads were taken as the maximum load
480.5959 0.029779
reached in these tests. The parameters used are shown in Table 5. Full
481.8320 0.030721
483.0735 0.031672 details of the derivation of these parameters are described elsewhere
520.0000 0.071000 [16].
700.0000 0.180000

105
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107

Table 5
Properties of the cohesive elements [16].

1) Elastic traction (penalty stiness), Kp

Normal direction, 1-direction shear, 2-direction shear,
Knn (Pa/m) Kss (Pa/m) Ktt (Pa/m)
1.881019 1.881019 1.881019

2) Maximum stress criterion (Maxs) for damage initiation

Normal mode 1-direction shear 2-direction shear
nominal stress (MPa), nominal stress (MPa), nominal stress (MPa),
1 2
44 53 53

3) Energy mode with BK exponential softening for damage evolution (BK

parameter=3.55)
GIc (kJ/m2) GIIc (kJ/m2) GIIIc (kJ/m2)
0.885 4.457 4.457

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted and experimental values of strain a) measured by the
extensometer b) measured by the strain gauge.

Fig. 9. Comparison of predicted and experimental values of shear strength.

6. Predictive results and comparison with experimental results

The predicted and experimental values of shear strength are

compared in Fig. 9 for the control and Frekote 700NC contaminated
joints, with HDS and Al2014-T6 adherends. Almost all the results are in
agreement within the experimental error. The agreement is not perfect
for the control Al2014-T6 adherends; this probably arises from the
plasticity in the simulation which may not have been as extensive in the
experiments due to the hydrostatic constraint.
The predicted and experimental values of axial strain measured
using the extensometer across the joint are compared for the control
and Frekote 700NC contaminated joint, with HDS adherends in
Fig. 10a. Good agreement is found for both the control and the
contaminated joint in the linear regime, but there is less good
agreement after the onset on non-linearity which arises from the
eccentricity of these double lap joints. Fig. 10b shows the comparison
of the predicted and experimental values of axial strain measured using
the strain gauge for the same joints and good agreement is found; these
results are almost linear until the onset of failure.
The strain proles of axial and lateral strain along the centre prole
as indicated in Fig. 7 were extracted. The results are shown in Fig. 11; Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted values of strain along the top surface (see Fig. 7) at
these proles were extracted at around 23% failure load. The compar- approximately 23% failure load a) axial strain b) lateral (Poisson's Ratio) strain.
ison of axial strain between the control and contaminated joints
(Fig. 11a) shows some dierence. The comparison of 2-direction, bonds since these contaminants migrated into both the high tempera-
lateral (Poisson's ratio) strain (Fig. 11b) shows a more marked ture and low temperature cure adhesives. PTFE spray did cause some
dierence with a peak in the reduced value of negative strain found reduction in shear strength, but it was unclear whether this was caused
for the contaminated joint over the kissing bond. This result may form by the weakness at the interface or a weak layer within the adhesive
the basis of a detection method for kissing joints. arising from the micron-sized PTFE particles. The double-lap joint was
shown to be a valid joint geometry to test kissing joints since the same
7. Discussion results were obtained for dierent adherend metals. The joints con-
taminated with Frekote 700NC had the same values of shear strength as
Kissing bonds in double-lap joints have been successfully prepared the joints including PTFE lm. It was deduced that the Frekote 700NC
using Frekote 700NC mould release. Other contaminants tested, contamination lead to zero adhesion.
articial sweat and cutting oil lubricant, did not give rise to kissing The failure of control and Frekote 700NC contaminated joints was

106
C. Jeenjitkaew, F.J. Guild
modelled using nite element analysis. The Frekote 700NC area was
modelled as uncoupled surfaces. The areas of adhesion were modelled
using cohesive elements. The properties of these cohesive elements
were measured in separate material tests and the values obtained from
these tests were used for the properties of these elements without any
tuning. Good agreement was found for the values of shear strength for
both control and contaminated joints. Values of strain measured either
using an extensometer or from a strain gauge were also found to be in
good agreement over the linear ranges. These comparisons gave
condence in the delity of the nite element models.
With the condence obtained from the comparisons of experimental
and predictive results, the strains along the top surface of the adherend
above the bond were extracted. It was found that the prole of lateral
(Poisson's ratio) strain showed marked features when the kissing bond
was present. This observation leads to speculation whether monitoring
or detection of this strain could lead to a detection method for kissing
bonds. This method would require the joint to be loaded, but not to the
extent expected from the monitoring of axial strain (see section 1).
Loading of the joint is likely to be required for any detection method for
kissing bonds arising from their denition: good contact but little or no
adhesion [19]. If axial strain is imposed, local Poisson's ratio strains will
also arise. The monitoring or detection of strain across the joint at
certain intervals may be more tractable than monitoring or detection of
axial strain. Any signicant reductions in local lateral strain could be
used as an indicator of a kissing bond.
The means of this monitoring or detection can be further speculated.
For small scale applications, DIC measurements might be possible. For
composite materials, monitoring could be established using smart bres
[e.g. 20], perhaps nearer the bond line which might amplify the results;
this point needs further investigation. For carbon bre reinforced
composites, Raman spectroscopy [e.g. 21] is highly eective, but is
only available for surface bres. The application of this technique
would be dependent on the lay-up with respect to the bond line. Further
complications could arise from the presence of residual stress [e.g. 22]
or global constraints which may aect the size and form of the lateral
strain.
8. Conclusions
Kissing bonds have been successfully prepared, tested and simu-
lated. The agreement between experimental and simulated results is
very good. This delity of the simulations leads to deduction of a
possible detection method for kissing bonds, namely by monitoring or
detection of the lateral strain around the kissing bond. Further work is
required to investigate the sensitivity and applicability of this proposed
technique to large scale joints with complications such as constraint
and residual stress.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by EPSRC (EP/D055954). The authors
107
International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives 75 (2017) 101107
would like to thank our project collaborators: University of Bristol,
QinetiQ and Airbus. We gratefully acknowledge valuable discussion
with Professor Robert Smith, University of Bristol.
References
[1] Michaloudaki M, Lehmann E, Kosteas D. Neutron imaging as a tool for the non-
destructive evaluation of adhesive joints in aluminium. Int J Adhes Adhes
2005;25:25767.
[2] Meola C, Carlomagno GM. Recent advances in the use of infrared thermography.
Meas Sci Technol 2004;15:2758.
[3] Heslehurst RB, Baird JP, Williamson HM. The eect on adhesion stiness due to
bonded surface contamination. J Adv Mater 1995;26:115.
[4] Heslehurst RB. Observation in the structural response of adhesive bondline defects.
Int J Adhes Adhes 1999;19:13354.
[5] Smith RA, Weise VL, Dalton RP. Kissing bond and environmental degradation
detection using nonlinear ultrasonics, Qinetiq Ltd. 2002;38.
[6] Vijaya Kumar RL, Bhat MR, Murthy CRL. Some studies on evaluation of degradation
in composite adhesive joints using ultrasonic techniques. Ultrasonics
2013;53:115062.
[7] Brotherhood CJ, Drinkwater BW, Dixon S. The detectability of kissing bonds in
adhesive joints using ultrasonic techniques. Ultrasonics 2003;41:5219.
[8] Van Den Abeele K, Delrue S, Haupert S and Aleshin V. Modeling nonlinear response
from distributed damage and kissing bonds. In: Proceedings of the Meetings on
Acoustics, vol. 16, Acoustical Society of America, 2012. pp. 136.
[9] Rothenfusser M, Mayr M, Baumann J. Acoustic nonlinearities in adhesive joints.
Ultrasonics 2000;38:3226.
[10] Yan D, Drinkwater BW, Neild SA. Measurement of the ultrasonic nonlinearity of
kissing bonds in adhesive joints. NDTE Int 2009;42:45966.
[11] Yan D, Drinkwater BW, Neild SA. Modelling and measurement of the nonlinear
behaviour of kissing bonds in adhesive joints. NDTE Int 2011;47:1825.
[12] Perton M, Blouin A, Monchalin J-P. Adhesive bond testing of carbon-epoxy
composites by laser shockwave. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2011;44:112.
[13] Ehrhart B, Ecault R, Touchard F, Boustie M, Berthe L, Bockenheimer C, Valeske B.
Development of a laser shock adhesion test for the assessment of weak adhesive
bonded CFRP structures. Int J Adhes Adhes 2014;52:5765.
[14] Comer AJ, Katnam KB, Stanley WF, Young TM. Characterising the behaviour of
single lap joints using digital image correlation. Int J Adhes Adhes 2013;40:21523.
[15] Vijaya Kumar RL, Bhat MR, Murthy CRL. Evaluation of kissing bond in composite
adhesive lap joints using digital image correlation. Int J Adhes Adhes 2013;42:608.
[16] Jeenjitkaew C. Kissing bonds in adhesive joints: a holistic approach for surface
chemistry and joint mechanics. [Ph.D. Thesis]. Queen Mary: University of London;
2011.
[17] Jeenjitkaew C, Luklinska Z, Guild FJ. Morphology and surface chemistry of kissing
bonds in adhesive joints produced by surface contamination. Int J Adhes Adhes
2010;30:64353.
[18] ASTM D. 3528-96 Standard test method for strength properties of double lap shear
adhesive joints by tension loading. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. American
Society for Testing Material; 2002.
[19] Marty PN, Desai N, and Andersson J. NDT of kissing bond in aeronautical
structures. In: Proceedings of the 16th World Conference on NDT; 2004.
[20] Read IJ, Foote PD. Sea and ight trials of optical bre Bragg grating strain sensing
systems. Smart Mater Struct 2001;10:1085.
[21] Montes-Moran MA, Young RJ. Raman spectroscopy study of HM carbon bres:
eect of plasma treatment on the interfacial properties of single bre/epoxy
composites. Carbon 2002;40:84555.
[22] Edwards L, Fitzpatrick M, Irving P, Sinclair I, Zhang X, Yapp D. An integrated
approach to the determination and consequences of residual stress on the fatigue
performance of welded aircraft structures. In Residual Stress Eects on Fatigue and
Fracture Testing and Incorporation of Results into Design. ASTM International;
2007.