NetComposites Ltd has transferred the rights and ownership of this website to Gardner Business Media Inc.
On 1st January 2020, NetComposites' media assets including netcomposites.com, newsletters and conferences were transferred to Composites World (Gardner Business Media).
This site is no longer being updated. Please direct all enquiries to firstname.lastname@example.org.
For further details see our joint press release.
Westech Aerosol corporation believe they have the answer for manufacturers who use the vacuum infusion process and have experienced problems with spray adhesive contamination during the curing process.
According to Westech, general-purpose spray adhesives can sometimes interfere with the resin curing process, potentially inhibiting resin flow if applied too thickly or unevenly, and causing osmotic blistering that can ruin the performance of the component. They say their new product, Infuzene, presents a solution by crosslinking with the resin to provide greater interlaminal shear strength.
The vacuum infusion-specific adhesive was developed to hold dry materials onto structural surfaces, including vertical and tight radius work, during the vacuum infusion process. As a high strength, high temperature, solvent-based vacuum infusion enabler for industrial use, it is designed to safely fuse laminating materials to structural core surfaces, forming a continuous matrix without structural weakness.
Westech say that Infuzene will not interfere with the curing process of vinyl esters, polyester or styrene resins.
Westech claim that in recent tests, results indicated the vacuum infusion-enabling adhesive provided a stronger bond in the vacuum infusion process than the leading general-purpose spray adhesive. Based on ASTM 2344 short beam shear strength testing standards, the results indicate that the composite with Infuzene was up to 30% stronger in interlaminar shear strength than the same composite with the leading alternative.
In the tests, seven plates were tested to failure under three point bending. The MPa difference was +4.3 for light coverage at 12.5 g/m2 and +7.0 for double coverage at 25 g/m2. The MPa % difference was +18.53% for light coverage and +30.17% for double coverage.
For more information visit: