See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245389110

Cumulative static strength of tightened joints bonded with anaerobic

adhesives

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part L Journal of Materials Design and Applications · February 2002
DOI: 10.1243/14644200260044724

CITATIONS READS

27 533

2 authors, including:

Eugenio Dragoni
Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
145 PUBLICATIONS   1,702 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural bonded joints View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eugenio Dragoni on 17 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials Design
andhttp://pil.sagepub.com/
Applications

Cumulative static strength of tightened joints bonded with anaerobic adhesives

E Dragoni and P Mauri
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials Design and Applications 2002
216: 9
DOI: 10.1177/146442070221600102

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pil.sagepub.com/content/216/1/9

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials Design
and Applications can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pil.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pil.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://pil.sagepub.com/content/216/1/9.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2002

What is This?

Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012

 9

Cumulative static strength of tightened joints bonded

with anaerobic adhesives

E Dragoni1 * and P Mauri2

1
Dipartimento di Scienze e Metodi dell’Ingegneria, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
2
Divisione Adesivi Loctite, Henkel Loctite Adesivi Srl, Brugherio (MI), Italy

Abstract: This paper deals with the static strength of mechanically tightened joints augmented with
anaerobic adhesives. Tests were performed on a variety of specimens distinguished by fairly homogeneous
(annular butt joint) or realistically inhomogeneous (threaded, cylindrical and double lap joints) working
conditions over the bondline. For each geometry, the strength of the dry (unbonded) joint was compared with
the strength of the joint bonded with an assortment of anaerobics. The results indicate that the strength of all
joints (bonded and unbonded) increases with the contact force. When strong adhesives (retainers) are used,
the overall strength approximately equals the sum of friction and adhesive strengths, taken separately. When
weak adhesives (threadlockers) are adopted, the superimposition of effects grossly overestimates the
measured strength. A micromechanical model is proposed that explains the observed macroscopic behaviour.

Keywords: hybrid joints, mechanical tightening, anaerobics, static strength

1 INTRODUCTION working condition attained for both contact pressure (upon

Anaerobic adhesives [1, 2] are effectively used to improve
the performance of most metal joints, including those that
rely on one means or another of mechanical tightening.
Bolted joints,
anged couplings, taper or interference ts are
typical examples in this category.
Easily applied to the adherends as one-part liquids,
anaerobics harden when conned in the airless pockets
left by the roughness of the mating surfaces upon tightening
of the joint. Advantages of the augmented joint include
added sealing action, improved corrosion resistance,
reduced fretting wear and increased mechanical strength.
The strength enhancement provided by the adhesive is
comparable to (often greater than) the strength of the
purely mechanical (dry) joint. This results in more compact
(and cheaper) constructions with given load capacity (new
design) or in stronger constructions (with small investments)
at given overall size (existing design).
This paper deals with the static strength of these hybrid
joints, for which scanty and contradictory results exist in the
technical literature [3–7]. The work was motivated by an
early study [3] involving thin annular interfaces, bonded
under axial load and tested (statically) in torsion with the
experimental rig shown in Fig. 1. Under the ideally regular
The MS was received on 10 August 2001 and was accepted after revision
for publication 16 November 2001.
*Corresponding author: DISMI, University of Modena e Reggio Emilia,
Via Fogliani 1, 42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
L02801 # IMechE 2002
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
assembly) and torsional shear stresses (at breakaway), the
anaerobic adhesive used (Loctite 638) produced the results
shown in Fig. 2. It is seen that the strength of both bonded
(solid circles) and unbonded (hollow circles) interfaces
steadily builds up with the (mean) contact pressure. The
similar slopes of the two interpolating lines suggests that the
cumulative strength of the hybrid interface may be given by
adding the strength of the purely adhesive interface to the
strength of the purely frictional interface for any given
contact pressure. Physically, this result is consistent with
the explanation that the adhesive is squeezed out from the
small spots where the crests of the mating rough surfaces
clash together and is accumulated in the surrounding voids.
In this way, the intermetallic junctions provide the same
frictional strength (proportional to the contact pressure [8])
as in the dry joint, while the surrounding adhesive bonds
provide a strength contribution (irrespective of the pressure)
similar to that of the purely adhesive interface.
In order to clarify whether the above mechanism holds
true in general, the research has recently been directed to the
following targets:
(a) repetition for an assortment of anaerobics of the ideal
static tests performed in reference [3] on a single adhesive;
(b) extension of the investigation to real joint geometries
derived from the actual eld of application of anaero-
bics.
The experimental procedure and the results disclosed are
presented and discussed in the sections below.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
10
Fig. 1 Section view of the rig producing homogeneous inter-
facial conditions (at x–x)
2 EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 Ideal interface
The tests concerning ideally homogeneous interfacial condi-
tions were performed on the experimental rig of Fig. 1,
using 12 identical samples. The working interface is embo-
died by the thin annulus (130 6 37 mm) where the lower
Fig. 2 Experimental results for Loctite 638 [3] from the
equipment shown in Fig. 1
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
E DRAGONI AND P MAURI
steel bushings (UNI 39NiCrMo3, quenched and drawn to
Su ˆ 1100 N/mm2 and Sy ˆ 850 N/mm2) engage axially (line
x–x in Fig. 1). The contact force is provided by the centre
steel bolt (M14 6 120, grade 12.9) upon rotation of the
upper nut, which rests on the collar supported by the axial
roller bearing. The double purpose of the bearing is to limit
the torque on the interface upon tightening and to reduce the
resisting torque from outside the interface upon breakaway.
The application of the tightening and the breakaway torque
are facilitated by lateral
ats machined on the bushings,
which allow holding in a vice and operating with a wrench.
Full details of the xture (relationship between torque and
preload, frictional torque in the bearing) and of the testing
procedure are provided in reference [3]. Here attention is
simply drawn to the care taken in the preparation of the
contacting surfaces (
atness, roughness, cleaning) and in the
consolidation of the interfaces (curing and acclimatization)
throughout the tests, both with and without adhesive.
The investigation involved the products Loctite 601, 243,
242 and 222. Together with Loctite 638 (already tested in
[3]) these products span the full range of anaerobics in terms
of mechanical strength [2] and eld of application. Loctite
638 is a high-strength retainer, particularly suited for
permanent cylindrical ts. Loctite 601 is a medium-strength
retainer, tailored for cylindrical joints and general-purpose
bonding. Loctite 243, 242 and 222 are medium- and low-
strength threadlockers, used to prevent rotation and conserve
preload between threaded parts.
Along with the bonded interfaces, the tests included a
number of unbonded assemblies. The chief aim of such
specimens was to check the reproducibility of the frictional
coefcient between dry parts with respect to the former
tests [3].
2.2 Real joints
For the tests carried out under realistic working conditions,
three joint geometries were examined:
(a) threaded connection (Fig. 3a);
(b) cylindrical t (Fig. 3b);
(b) overlap joint (Fig. 3c).
A photograph of the real joints and of the rig used to
achieve an ideal interface is shown in Fig. 4.
The real joints were bonded with adhesives Loctite 638
and 243, the most representative products (in commercial
terms) within the categories of high- and medium-strength
anaerobics of the Loctite brand. A number of unbonded
joints were again included in each test run so as to establish
a reference baseline for the strength values.
2.2.2 Threaded connection
The threaded connection of Fig. 3a comprises a commercial
(M12 6 30) steel bolt (grade 8.8) and two commercial
(M12 6 10) steel nuts (grade 8). Bolt and nuts were initially
degreased by repeated soaking in liquid trichloroethane.
L02801 # IMechE 2002
 CUMULATIVE STATIC STRENGTH OF BONDED TIGHTENED JOINTS
Fig. 3 Joint geometries providing realistic interface condi-
tions: (a) threaded connection; (b) cylindrical t; (c)
overlap joint
After degreasing, each sample was assembled by driving the
lower nut against the head of the bolt followed by controlled
tightening of the upper nut, treated with adhesive (if any) on
both thread and bearing face. Permanently engaged with the
incomplete thread turns underneath the bolt head, the rst
nut provides a neat countersurface for the second nut, which
embodies the actual test piece. Details of the conversion of
the tightening torque applied to the upper test nut into
effective preload induced in the bolt are given in Section 3.2.
The strength measurements were performed by recording
with an electronic wrench the peak torque required to
unscrew the top nut after consolidation (see reference [3]
Fig. 4 Close-up of the specimens used: (a) ideal interface; (b) threaded connection; (c) cylindrical t;
(d) overlap joint
L02801 # IMechE 2001
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
11
for details) of the interface. Owing to the difculty in
restoring the working surfaces of the parts in comparison
to their low cost, each specimen was tested only once.
2.2.2 Cylindrical
t
The cylindrical t of Fig. 3b, available in 33 samples,
includes a 1 16 steel pin (head and shank of a commercial
M16 hexagonal bolt of grade 8.8), a square (e 40 6 15)
steel clamp (UNI C40) and a transverse commercial (M8)
steel screw (grade 12.9). The clamp receives the pin in a
centre (1 16) hole and is made
exible by a through radial
slot, perpendicular to the screw axis.
The parts were prepared by manually sanding the cylind-
rical surfaces of pin and clamp with emery paper (grit size
P60), degreasing with liquid trichloroethane and smearing
the threads and the bearing head surface of the transverse
screw with lubricating paste (Molykote G-n plus). Lubrica-
tion aimed at achieving a low (about 0.05 [3]) and repeatable
frictional coefcient throughout the tests.
After application of the adhesive (if any) to the cylindrical
surfaces, the pin was inserted into the hole of the clamp and
the parts were tightened at the desired level by means of the
transverse screw. The clamping force on the pin can be
related to the tightening torque on the screw by means of
textbook formulae [9].
The strength measurements were made by recording
(using an electronic wrench) the torque needed to break
the interface under twist. The hexagonal head of the pin and
the square outline of the clamp helped in tting the parts to
the wrench and to a vice during this operation. To avoid
stressing of the interface under the closing force of the vice,
the test pieces were held at the bottom of the vertical sides
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
12
(Fig. 3b) so that the force line ran within the metal ligament
opposite to the tightening screw.
Although regeneration of the working surfaces would
have been possible after testing, in the present series of
experiments each specimen was used only once.
2.2.3 Overlap joint
The overlap joint of Fig. 3c, manufactured in 11 pieces, is
composed of two hollow steel (UNI C40) discs (1
14 6 50 6 15 mm), three peripheral steel (UNI C40) cylin-
ders (1 20 6 10), a commercial (M14 6 60) centre steel
bolt (grade 12.9), a hardened steel washer (HRC ˆ 60) and a
commercial (M14 6 12) steel nut (grade 10).
The specimens were prepared by manually sanding the

at surfaces of discs and cylinders with emery paper (grit
size P60), degreasing all parts by repeated soaking in liquid
trichloroethane and smearing bolt and nut threads with
lubricating paste (Molykote G-n plus).
Upon assembly, the three cylinders (each of exactly the
same height) were interposed between the (coaxial) discs in
such a way that their centres lay on the rim of the discs with
120¯ angular spacing. The equal thickness and the regular
spacing ensured an equal share among the cylinders of the
axial preload imposed on the bolt by a controlled torque.
The adhesive (if any) was applied to the bases of each
cylinder prior to formation of the specimen.
The strength measurements were made by recording the
maximum load (hydraulic testing machine) required to
displace radially by a small amount (1 mm) each cylinder
with respect to the discs. In this way, each specimen supplied
three readings concerning the same assembly conditions.
The surfaces of discs and cylinders were regenerated once
(and the parts were tested a second time) by chemical
Fig. 5 New results obtained with the equipment of Fig. 1
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
E DRAGONI AND P MAURI
removal of the adhesive (any solvent) and mechanical

attening on a plane grinding machine.
3 RESULTS
3.1 Ideal interface
The results for the new adhesives are superimposed in Fig. 5
on data obtained in [3] (Fig. 2) for the product Loctite 638
under the same experimental conditions. The present values
arise from a total of 84 tests, distributed over seven batches
of 12 samples (all available rigs) each. Each single batch
covered one particular adhesive and included both bonded
and unbonded interfaces, subject to several pressure levels.
Altogether, four batches involved the adhesive Loctite 243
and one batch was reserved to each of the adhesives Loctite
601, 242 and 222. In Fig. 5, the experimental points of the
bonded interfaces are represented individually (symbols
differentiated according to adhesive type) and are supple-
mented by the corresponding linear regressions (solid lines).
For the sake of clarity, the strength values of the unbonded
interfaces (20 points) are summarized by their linear inter-
polation (dashed line) only.
3.2 Real joints
The results obtained for the real joints are collected in Fig. 6
(threaded connection), Fig. 7 (cylindrical t) and Fig. 8
(overlap joint). Unlike in Fig. 5, where the local parameters
(contact pressure and shear strength) of the interface are
plotted, Figs 6 to 8 display the macroscopic properties
(preload or tightening torque on the horizontal axis, break-
away force or torque on the vertical axis) of the joints. This
Fig. 6 Results obtained with the threaded connections of
Fig. 3a
L02801 # IMechE 2002
 CUMULATIVE STATIC STRENGTH OF BONDED TIGHTENED JOINTS 13

choice is due to the uneven working conditions over the

interfaces, particularly irregular where the contact pressure
is concerned, which invalidates the meaning of local vari-
ables (compare, for instance, the pressure between active
and inactive
anks of the engaging threads in the bolted
joint of Fig. 3a). The charts of Figs 6 to 8 provide both the
individual experimental points (different symbols in relation
to the particular interface) and the linear regressions of each
family of interfaces.
The data for the threaded connections (Fig. 6) derive from
a total of 110 tests, divided into two runs each of 55 (new)
samples. Each run comprised 11 assembly conditions (four
and three pressure levels for the bonded and the unbonded
joints, respectively) with ve repetitions. The preloads in
Fig. 6 were calculated from the tightening torques actually
applied to the specimens during the tests. The conversion is
in order because of the different frictional coefcients
affecting the three interfaces (unbonded and bonded with
Loctite 243 or Loctite 638) during tightening, when the
adhesives behave as (dissimilar) lubricants with respect to
Fig. 7 Results obtained with the cylindrical ts of Fig. 3b
the dry contact. The relationship between torque and preload
was measured directly on several specimens modied by
replacing the lower nut (Fig. 3a) with an annular load cell.
With reference to the formula Mt ˆ KDV (Mt ˆ tighten- the adhesives Loctite 243 (examined under four pressure
ing torque, D ˆ nominal thread diameter ˆ 12 mm, levels) and 601 (examined under three pressure levels) the
V ˆ preload), the characterization provided the values increase is also remarkably linear. For the adhesives 222 and
K ˆ 0.2 (Loctite 243), K ˆ 0.3 (Loctite 638) and K ˆ 0.4 242, nothing can be said regarding linearity since the only
(dry joint). available data involve the maximum pressure (260 N/mm2)
No such conversion is required for the cylindrical ts and deliverable by the equipment or no pressure at all. The trend
the overlap joints. Supplied by an independent bolt, in both of adhesive 242 exhibits the same slope characterizing the
cases the contact force is proportional to the tightening strength of the unbonded interface (dashed line), as
torque through a constant (though unknown) coefcient observed in [3] for adhesive 638 (Fig. 2). As a check on
irrespective of the particular working conditions at the the reproducibility of the results, it should be noted that the
active interface.
The strength values for the cylindrical ts (Fig. 7)
embrace a total of 33 tests, performed on a single batch of
all available samples. The batch included 11 assembly
conditions (four pressure levels for both bonded joints and
three for the dry joint) with three repetitions. It should be
noted that the tightening torques in Fig. 7 represent the
difference between the torque actually applied to the closing
screw and the average torque (2.5 N m) required to close the
diametral gap (0.1 mm) between pin and hole.
The results for the overlap joints (Fig. 8) were obtained
from two batches of 11 specimens (all available rigs). Each
batch encompassed 11 different assembly conditions (four
pressure levels for both bonded joints and three for the dry
joint) with three repetitions (the three small cylinders) per
assembly.

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Ideal interface

Figure 5 shows that the cumulative strength of all bonded
interfaces builds up with the applied contact pressure. For Fig. 8 Results obtained with the overlap joints of Fig. 3c
L02801 # IMechE 2001 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
14
frictional coefcient (0.2) revealed here for the dry inter-
faces is the same as measured in [3] on the same apparatus.
Different strength gradients from the dry parts are
displayed by the interfaces formed with adhesive 601
(steeper slope) and adhesives 243 and 222 (
atter slope).
In the case of product 222, the characteristic line of the
bonded interface crosses over that of the unbonded interface
within the range of contact pressures examined. The overall
behaviour supports the superposition criterion for strong
anaerobics (601 and 638) and contradicts it for weak
anaerobics (222, 242 and 243).
4.2 Real joints
In the strength diagram for the threaded connection (Fig. 6),
the different range of preloads covered by the experimental
points originates in the conversion from tightening torque to
preload in the centre bolt. All samples having been tightened
at xed torque levels, the dissimilar frictional coefcients of
the three kinds of assembly (see above) invariably generate
the observed spread.
Despite this marginal difference, the overall picture
agrees with those obtained for the cylindrical t (Fig. 7)
and for the overlap joint (Fig. 8). In keeping with the results
for the ideal interface (Fig. 5), all charts testify to a
similarity between the strength build-up of the dry joints
and the joints bonded with Loctite 638. At the same time,
the characteristic lines of the joints bonded with Loctite 243
show (more markedly than the ideal interface) a lower
gradient than that of the dry joint. Although sensitive to
the mean pressure, the strength of product 243 intersects that
of the dry parts in the range of measurements for all three
real couplings.
Again, the superimposition of effects seems to be applic-
able to the joints bonded with a strong anaerobic (638), but
fails to predict the cumulative strength for hybrid joints
bonded with a weak anaerobic (243). A micromechanical
Fig. 9 (a) Micromechanical model of the hybrid interface and (b) typical predictions for its macroscopic shear
strength
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
E DRAGONI AND P MAURI
model able to describe both behaviours is proposed in the
following section.
5 MICROMECHANICAL MODEL
Consider the simple model depicted in Fig. 9a of a hybrid
joint made by two (massive) adherends, bonded and tight-
ened under the normal force P. The roughness of the
contacting surfaces has been condensed into two protrusions
that face each other over a fraction, Ar , of the nominal
contact area, A. It is also assumed that the adhesive lls the
voids all around the protrusions, where it receives no
pressure, and forms a thin layer between them, subject to
the yield pressure, Y , of the softest adherend.
In order to break the joint, the area, A ¡ Ar , of the
adhesive around the asperities and the area, Ar , of the
adhesive in between must be fractured. For very stiff
adherends (as typical of anaerobics) loaded statically,
those areas are likely to break simultaneously. If ta0 is the
unit shear strength of the adhesive at zero pressure and taY is
the shear strength of the adhesive at pressure Y , the shear
failure load, T , of the joint amounts to
T ˆ ta0 …A ¡ Ar † ‡ taY Ar …1†
Fullment of the equilibrium condition for each adherend,
YAr ˆ P, gives the (true) area of contact, Ar , as
P
Ar ˆ …2†
Y
Final combination of equations (1) and (2) and rearrange-
ment yields
P
T ˆ ta0 A ‡ …taY ¡ ta0 † ˆ T0 ‡ TY …3†
Y
It is seen that the macroscopic strength of the joint is the
sum of a constant term, T0 ˆ ta0 A, and a variable term,
L02801 # IMechE 2002
 CUMULATIVE STATIC STRENGTH OF BONDED TIGHTENED JOINTS
TY ˆ ‰…taY ¡ ta0 †=Y ŠP, proportional (whenever taY > ta0 )
to the contact force. This produces the generic diagram of
Fig. 9b (curve 1). For a dry joint …ta0 ² 0; taY ² tY ˆ shear
strength of the metal junctions), the above formula predicts
T0 ˆ 0 and TY ˆ …tY =Y †P in accordance with Coulomb law
(Fig. 9b, curve 2).
For a bonded joint where the adhesive would be squeezed
out of the junctions upon tightening …taY ² tY ta0 †,
equation (3) would predict the same constant term
T0 ˆ ta0 A as in the purely adhesive joint and a variable
term TY ˆ ‰…tY ¡ ta0 †=Y ŠP º …tY =Y †P with the same slope
as the dry joint. This is the rationale behind the criterion of
superimposition of effects, stated in the Introduction, which
must be dismissed on experimental grounds.
The only explanation of the experimental results is that a
thin lm of anaerobic is actually formed between the crests
of the clashing surfaces. According to a mechanism well
documented for polymers [10, 11], under the high local
pressure …Y † this lm can attain a shear strength …taY †
signicantly greater than the shear strength at zero pressure
(ta0 ). According to this interpretation, it would be expected
that the higher the strength at zero pressure …ta0 †, the higher
the strength …taY † under the yield pressure of the adherends
and the higher the slope, …tY ¡ ta0 †=Y , of the characteristic
curve in response to the tightening load (Fig. 9b, curves 1
and 3). Observation of Figs 5 to 8 shows that this is the case,
with the stronger anaerobic (Loctite 638) outperforming the
weaker one (Loctite 243) in both respects.
The proposed micromechanical model points out the role
of the shear strength of the pressurized adhesive for the
rational characterization of the hybrid joint under steady
stresses. The research is now focused on this goal to gain
new insight into this practical problem. Further work is also
planned to measure and explain the macroscopic strength of
the hybrid joint subjected to
uctuating stresses.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The paper deals with the static strength of hybrid joints
combining mechanical tightening and anaerobic adhesives.
Tests have been performed on a variety of samples showing
fairly uniform (annular butt joint) or realistically irregular
(threaded connection, cylindrical t, overlap joint) working
conditions (pressure and shear stress) over the bondline. For
each geometry, the strength of the dry (unbonded) joint is
measured together with that of the joint bonded with an
assortment of anaerobics. The experimental results can be
summarized as follows:
L02801 # IMechE 2001
Downloaded from pil.sagepub.com by guest on September 28, 2012
View publication stats
15
1. The cumulative strength of the hybrid joint builds up
steadily with the tightening force as it does for the dry
joint.
2. The strength build-up of the joints bonded with strong
anaerobics (retainers) is similar to that of the dry joint.
3. When a weak anaerobic (threadlocker) is used, the
strength build-up is much less.
4. The practical method of predicting the cumulative
strength of the hybrid joint as the sum of adhesive
strength and friction strength, calculated independently
of each other, has no general application.
5. A micromechanical model has been suggested, able to
interpret the experimental results.
6. The model addresses the shear strength envelope under
pressure as the most comprehensive test of anaerobics
meant for hybrid joints.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The nancial support of Italy’s Ministero dell’Università e
della Ricerca Scientica e Tecnologica is gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1 Haviland G. S. Machinery Adhesives for Locking, Retaining
and Sealing, 1986 (Marcel Decker, New York).
2 Loctite Corporation. Loctite Worldwide Design Handbook,
1998 (Erasmusdruck, Mainz, Germany).
3 Dragoni, E. and Mauri P. Intrinsic static strength of friction
interfaces augmented with anaerobic adhesives. Int. J. Adhesion
Adhesives, 2000, 20, 315–321.
4 O’Reilly, C. Designing bonded cylindrical joints for automo-
tive applications. In SAE International Congress and Exposi-
tion, Detroit, Michigan, 1990, paper 900776.
5 Mahon, F. Use of anaerobic adhesives to enhance strength and
capacity of
anged couplings. In SAE International Congress
and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan, 1995, paper 950125.
6 Romanos, G. Strength evaluation of axisymmetric bonded
joints using anaerobic adhesives. Int. J. Mater. Product Tech-
nol., 1999, 14, 430–443.
7 Bartolozzi, G., Croccolo, D. and Chiapparini, M. Research
on shaft-hub adhesive and compression coupling. ÖIAZ, 1999,
144, 198–201.
8 Halling, J. Principles of Tribology, 1975 (Macmillan, London).
9 Niemann, G. Maschinenelemente, 1981 (Springer, Berlin).
10 Raghava, R. S. and Cadell, R. M. The macroscopic yield
behaviour of polymers. J. Mater. Sci., 1973, 8, 255–232.
11 Schlimmer. M. Anstrengungshypothese für Metallklebverbin-
dungen. Z. Werkstofftech., 1982, 13, 215–221.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part L: J Materials: Design and Applications