Determining minimum curing time and temperature for a phenolic formaldehyde/epoxy adhesive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alfa Laval has been using its unique adhesive mixture for over 50 years for bonding of rubber gaskets to the corrugated plates used in their heat exchangers. The adhesive mix is designated GC6 and is composed out of an epoxy component and a phenolic component. GC6 has throughout the years shown exceptionally good performance in both adhesion to the rubber gasket and to the plate with minimal pre-treatments of the surfaces required. The manufacturer of the phenolic component recently announced that they would discontinue this product. Thus, a replacement with a similar composition was identified. This new component showed to have a faster cure rate which as a result meant that the same curing temperature and time could be used as for the old component. However, data on the minimum curing conditions with respect to time and temperature to obtain a well performing adhesive bond had not yet been established. Thus, the aim of this project was to investigate this. The adhesive showed sufficiently good performance when samples were cured to a residual enthalpy of <2.3J/g, both in initial bond strength and chemical resistance. This required a curing of at least 1h at 120°C and showed no decrease in bond strength after ageing for one week in a humidity chamber. For curing temperatures under 110 °C, in addition to reduced performance also a separation of the individual components. These findings suggest that the current minimum curing recommendations of 120°C for 3h are well above the findings in this report. This also opens the possibility for Alfa Laval to optimize their curing conditions to lower the energy consumption and environmental impact of each cycle. (Less)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".