Laminating epoxy vs. Structural epoxy?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Spurkey

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
150
Reaction score
6
What is the difference between laminating epoxy & structural epoxy? I get that laminating epoxy is supposed to be used for fiberglass/carbon fiber layups while the structural stuff is meant for attaching things together, but why is that? For example this stuff, what would the 'Finish Cure' stuff do that the others wouldn't?

https://www.giantleaprocketry.com/products/components_composites.aspx#Shop_Grade_Epoxies

Inquiring minds and all that... :confused::cyclops:
 
DON'T TOUCH THE "SHOP GRADE EPOXIES"

They are nasty smelling and hard to work with, and more expensive per volume.

Go right to the top where there's Aeropoxy.

Laminating epoxy (technically PR2032 + PH3660) is thin and lets you wet out cloth (fiberglass, carbon fiber, or Kevlar) really well. That's what it's for, naturally.

Aeropoxy structural epoxy (ES6209) is thick and extremely strong. It's thixotropic so you can spread it thin, but it'll stay put in fillets pretty well. It soaks into wood voraciously, making joints with plywood stronger than the base material. (paper too)
 
Epoxy experts (like CarVac), please feel free to correct me... but, according to my (current) understanding, structural epoxy contains additives to give it additional strength across a gap, laminating epoxy does not (and consequently, you don't want to use laminating epoxy to fill a gap). Laminating epoxy presumes that you'll supply the "additive" in the form of fiberglass, carbon fiber, whatever. In other words, epoxy obtains its final characteristics when combined with something else to form a composite.
 
Epoxy experts (like CarVac), please feel free to correct me... but, according to my (current) understanding, structural epoxy contains additives to give it additional strength across a gap, laminating epoxy does not (and consequently, you don't want to use laminating epoxy to fill a gap). Laminating epoxy presumes that you'll supply the "additive" in the form of fiberglass, carbon fiber, whatever. In other words, epoxy obtains its final characteristics when combined with something else to form a composite.

First of all: I'm not an epoxy expert. There are, however, some on the forum (like the person who formulated Rocketpoxy).

It depends on the formula. I think they all might have miniscule amounts of fillers to nudge them closer to a given ratio, but the 3:1 and 5:1 laminating epoxies can be considered to have no significant amount of filler. Many 1:1 epoxies do have filler; all Bob Smith epoxies have filler. I'm not sure about ES6209, but it's very strong even without fillers.
 
DON'T TOUCH THE "SHOP GRADE EPOXIES"
Do you mean just on that page, or do you mean the 2-bottle-hobby-store stuff in general? I've used West 105/206 in the past for fiberglassing, I've also used West mixed with something called "Cab-o-sil" for fillets. I've had no problems with it, it's just difficult to mix in small quantities for repairs or hardening wood parts (ie:Cosmodrome Aerobee nosecone). How does Aeropoxy compare to West?

Further compounding things is that I live in Canada and have received have received wildly varying answers & quotes for shipping stuff like this across the border.
 
Do you mean just on that page, or do you mean the 2-bottle-hobby-store stuff in general? I've used West 105/206 in the past for fiberglassing, I've also used West mixed with something called "Cab-o-sil" for fillets. I've had no problems with it, it's just difficult to mix in small quantities for repairs or hardening wood parts (ie:Cosmodrome Aerobee nosecone). How does Aeropoxy compare to West?

Further compounding things is that I live in Canada and have received have received wildly varying answers & quotes for shipping stuff like this across the border.

What I mean is the "shop-grade epoxy" on that page, which is the standard two-bottle 1:1 "hobby-shop epoxy" made by Bob Smith Industries.

BSi epoxy is 1 part Bisphenol-A and 1 part other nasties; Aeropoxy is significantly less evil (and smells better). I've never used West, personally, but it apparently smells better too.

The biggest difference for rocketry purposes is that West has an extremely low glass transition temperature: it'll be soft and weak just by sitting in the sun on a hot day. Maybe in Canada that'll be less of an issue than at Black Rock, but it's something to consider.
 
The West System lineup allows you to do structural type work by using fillers with the epoxy. Below is a few examples of what I use. Everybody has their own "system", play around different things and find out what works best for YOU.

1. West 105 epoxy with 206 slow hardener is great for applying fiberglass to body tubes/fins.
2. For applying fillets, I mix one squirt of both 105 epoxy and 206 hardener with a heaping spoon of 404 High-Density Filler and 406 Colloidal Silica. Goes on thick, easy to shape, and won't run.
3. For internal bonding, fin tacking, etc. I use Aeropoxy 6209 structural.

I pretty much ditched all my 5/15/30 minute epoxies once I got the good stuff.
 
I get that laminating epoxy is supposed to be used for fiberglass/carbon fiber layups while the structural stuff is meant for attaching things together, but why is that?
The most obvious difference is in viscosity. Laminating epoxy needs to be a liquid so that it can saturate cloth (fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc), while structural epoxy needs to be thick enough to fill gaps and make fillets. As neond7 points out, sometimes this is the only difference such as with West System where there is one major epoxy/hardener which you thicken for bonding purposes.

Other epoxy systems have different formulations for different bonding tasks. For example, Aeropoxy has four thick epoxy formulations. I'm not enough of a chemist to say how different they are, though.

Another important difference is cure time. Longer cure times give you more working time (pot life), but take longer to fully cure. Usually, you want extra time when doing laminations (wrapping tubes, making molded parts), but often for structural bonding you want the epoxy to cure as quickly as possible so you can move to the next step.

Of the Bob Smith epoxies on the Giant Leap page, all are structural (with varying cure times), except for the "Finish Cure", which is a laminating epoxy.

You may also be interested in my article on relative bond strengths.
 
So, hypothetically, if one were to fill a gap (i.e., a fin fillet) in two ways:

1- "Neat" structural epoxy such as Aeropoxy ES6209
2 - Aeropoxy laminating resin with 20% milled glass with sufficient fumed silica to hold the desired shape

Of the two, which gives the superior result?

As a disclaimer, I'll admit that I've never laid eyes on the structural epoxy, partly because I think I know the answer to the question. If (1) is better or the equivalent, why is that?

Jim
 
2 - Aeropoxy laminating resin with 20% milled glass with sufficient fumed silica to hold the desired shape
Well, they claim their bonding epoxies are better for that purpose, which is why I use them. (They're also easier to mix in small quantities and don't smell as strong.)
 
So, hypothetically, if one were to fill a gap (i.e., a fin fillet) in two ways:

1- "Neat" structural epoxy such as Aeropoxy ES6209
2 - Aeropoxy laminating resin with 20% milled glass with sufficient fumed silica to hold the desired shape

Of the two, which gives the superior result?

As a disclaimer, I'll admit that I've never laid eyes on the structural epoxy, partly because I think I know the answer to the question. If (1) is better or the equivalent, why is that?

Jim

CarVac and I aren't epoxy experts, but we have tried a bunch of things together in the last few years and came away with pretty strong opinions on which ones worked well, which ones didn't, and which ones scared us away. So take our opinions for nothing more than opinions based on lots of circumstantial evidence and inexact experimentation.

That said, every aerospace engineer (especially the ones responsible for structures and composites) has strongly advised against mixing fillers into laminating resins. This probably stems from the cautious, conservative approach engineers take: something like "adding fillers like fumed silica or milled fibers changes the properties of the epoxy in a way that I acknowledge is really quite complicated microscopically and I don't want to have to understand the details, so I'll buy epoxy formulated and tested for my specific structural need rather than risk experimenting with cheaper alternatives".

Several of them have said that there are chemical differences in structural and laminating epoxies, but none have said specifically what. All were under the impression that it was better to let epoxy formulation engineers and chemists make the decisions and use what they recommend. That leads them to source specific-purpose bonding agents for specific types of materials and joint geometries. They also use things like bondline wires to space parts properly (ideal bond thickness), rather than just pressing parts together; no amateurs care that much.

So the professional position is that the structural epoxies are much better, primarily because they are known tested solutions to specific problems. Is the filled-laminating-epoxy version as good? maybe? But I don't know. Costs aside, though, I'm liable to choose the specifically-for-<material>-to-<material>-bonding epoxy and feel confident in the predicted bond properties.
 
So the professional position is that:
the structural epoxies are for STRUCTURES
and the laminating epoxies are for LAMINATING.
Who da thunk it?

Loctite E-20HP is what I prefer to use for builds - slow to mach, fast to mach, never lost a fin to mach (or mach 2)..........YMMV
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with Bob Smith epoxies... I have used them for the last 20 years.. all varieties including the finishing epoxy. BSI has the best price point of any hobby brand.. I've used them all... I don't find the smell that bothersome, though I usually use it in my garage with the door open.

If you are just starting out glassing smaller tubes or fins, get some BSI finishing epoxy and see if this is something you want to do. Glassing isn't for everybody. I find glassing even LPR is easier than trying to fill BT spirals with CWF. A lot less sanding if done right! Even glassing balsa fins with light weight cloth (3/4oz.) seals the grain and is stronger/lighter than basswood or ply!

If you start getting into 6oz. cloth, larger tubes or making your own composite materials, then by all means, buy the more industrial grade epoxies. It makes more sense economically. Mixing gets a bit more complicated but manageable.


Jerome :)
 
Aeropoxy Laminating epoxy from Aircraft Spruce (no shipping): $50/2 qt = $26.41/L
BSI 20min Finish Cure epoxy from Amazon (no shipping): $10/9oz = $37.57/L

I agree, if you're just starting out and don't know if composites are something you want to get into, buying a quart set of epoxy is a big commitment. But hobby-grade is often more expensive.
 
Last edited:
2 - Aeropoxy laminating resin with 20% milled glass with sufficient fumed silica to hold the desired shape

For what it's worth and if memory serves, the lead designer of an aircraft company building composite planes recommended a similar mixture to us (I forgot the percentages). So I'm quite confident that it is good enough for us. I think the most important things, we as hobbyists should do, is paying attention to our process. E.g. this:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...what-your-government-doesn-t-want-you-to-know

Disclaimer: Our conversation was not about "man rated" structures and explicitely included some hobby projects made by him. I don't know if this mixture is used for critical joints.

Reinhard
 
It seems to me that the distinction between structural epoxy and laminating epoxy may be more an aerospace thing. The epoxy-consuming boat builder's crowd just doesn't seem to use this terminology (at least I haven't seen it when I lurk the boat-builder's forums, or the epoxy vendor web sites that cater to boat builders).

US Composites sells both a "thin" and a "thick" resin. They bill their "thin" epoxy as useful for finishing, lamination, and as a good adhesive (with appropriate additives), and they include a link to their fillers page (which includes fillers made by West Systems). Regarding their "thick" resin, they say it is not appropriate for lamination, but is intended for certain adhesive applications; however, they then warn that the cured "thick" resin is less flexible than the cured "thin" resin (a guidance that probably causes many folks to buy the thin epoxy for use as an adhesive).

I've never used West Systems, but I think they primarily sell a low-viscosity resin (105) to use in combination with various hardeners, and assorted additives (to adapt the epoxy to differing applications).

I think for those of us building rockets with wound paper tubing and wood, all the various formulations of epoxy are adequate enough in the strength department. I don't think that anyone who takes laminate (or thin) epoxy and thickens it with filler should feel ashamed (especially if you to took your filler recommendation straight from the manufacturer's applications guide). Plus, purchasing low-viscosity epoxy to do both lay ups and glue ups, just makes a good deal of economic sense.

On the other hand, if you're working with composites, and really need the high performance, then that's a whole different matter.

The kinds of rockets produced by TRF members, and consequently, the demands we place on epoxy strength, differ greatly.
 
Last edited:
After I made my previous post (an attempt to put things in perspective), it seemed to me that I might have minimized the importance of earlier posts (especially by CCotner).

I think the OP's question has been answered, and the answer is:

Yes, there is a difference, and the difference between laminating and structural epoxy can be significant (I learned something from this thread).
 
So the professional position is that:
the structural epoxies are for STRUCTURES
and the laminating epoxies are for LAMINATING.
Who da thunk it?

Well, if structural epoxy is just a thicker version of laminating epoxy, then structural epoxy might be marketed to those who don't want to bother with having to add fillers. Adding milled glass to epoxy is never fun.

On the other hand, if structural epoxy provides a better bond as Chris suggests, then this property should trump what might be the better physical properties of the filled epoxy. I doubt that adding milled glass does much for the bond. Sounds like I need to give the structural epoxies a try.

I typically use the Cotronics epoxy with a little glass for fillets. It would be interesting to set up a test to compare these options.

Jim
 
I typically use the Cotronics epoxy with a little glass for fillets.
Even Cotronics makes different viscosity high-temperature epoxies. I've used their Duralco 4700 (thick) for minimum-diameter fin attachment, but have yet to use their 4460 (thin).

It would be interesting to set up a test to compare these options.
I have done tests that suggest structural epoxy is about 2x as strong as laminating epoxy for plywood about about 25% stronger for G-10. (These tests are what made me switch to Aeropoxy some years ago.)
 
Last edited:
Spurkey and everyone,


Be very careful if you are using fumed silica, aka Cab-o-sil. It is so light that it easily becomes airborne and immediately presents an inhalation hazard. Similar compounds have been suspected in various respiratory illnesses.


Just because its cheap and available, do not assume it is also safe.

Do you mean just on that page, or do you mean the 2-bottle-hobby-store stuff in general? I've used West 105/206 in the past for fiberglassing, I've also used West mixed with something called "Cab-o-sil" for fillets. I've had no problems with it, it's just difficult to mix in small quantities for repairs or hardening wood parts (ie:Cosmodrome Aerobee nosecone). How does Aeropoxy compare to West?

Further compounding things is that I live in Canada and have received have received wildly varying answers & quotes for shipping stuff like this across the border.
 
Be very careful if you are using fumed silica, aka Cab-o-sil. It is so light that it easily becomes airborne and immediately presents an inhalation hazard.
I absolutely concur. Cab-o-sil is ridiculously light, heavens help you if you ever sneeze near an open container of that stuff. I've got a 3M mask with VOC filters that I use whenever I'm epoxying, I strongly recommend the same for anyone else.
 
Breathing the various fumed silica materials should be avoided. No fine particulate is good for you. However, just for the record, fumed silica is an amorphous silica, which is not the crystalline silica associated with silicosis. Since it is synthetic, it does not contain trace levels of crystalline silica either.

An abstract of a paper on the health affects of amorphous silica is reproduced below.

Jim

Occupational exposure to crystalline silica dust is associated with an increased risk for pulmonary diseases such as silicosis, tuberculosis, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer. This review summarizes the current knowledge about the health effects of amorphous (non-crystalline) forms of silica. The major problem in the assessment of health effects of amorphous silica is its contamination with crystalline silica. This applies particularly to well-documented pneumoconiosis among diatomaceous earth workers. Intentionally manufactured synthetic amorphous silicas are without contamination of crystalline silica. These synthetic forms may be classified as (1) wet process silica, (2) pyrogenic ("thermal" or "fumed") silica, and (3) chemically or physically modified silica. According to the different physicochemical properties, the major classes of synthetic amorphous silica are used in a variety of products, e.g. as fillers in the rubber industry, in tyre compounds, as free-flow and anti-caking agents in powder materials, and as liquid carriers, particularly in the manufacture of animal feed and agrochemicals; other uses are found in toothpaste additives, paints, silicon rubber, insulation material, liquid systems in coatings, adhesives, printing inks, plastisol car undercoats, and cosmetics. Animal inhalation studies with intentionally manufactured synthetic amorphous silica showed at least partially reversible inflammation, granuloma formation and emphysema, but no progressive fibrosis of the lungs. Epidemiological studies do not support the hypothesis that amorphous silicas have any relevant potential to induce fibrosis in workers with high occupational exposure to these substances, although one study disclosed four cases with silicosis among subjects exposed to apparently non-contaminated amorphous silica. Since the data have been limited, a risk of chronic bronchitis, COPD or emphysema cannot be excluded. There is no study that allows the classification of amorphous silica with regard to its carcinogenicity in humans. Further work is necessary in order to define the effects of amorphous silica on morbidity and mortality of workers with exposure to these substances.
 
Breathing the various fumed silica materials should be avoided. No fine particulate is good for you. However, just for the record, fumed silica is an amorphous silica, which is not the crystalline silica associated with silicosis. Since it is synthetic, it does not contain trace levels of crystalline silica either.

Interesting, I didn't realize there was a structural difference. Thank you! I concur that breathing protection is still probably desirable.
 
If anyone remembers Hobbypoxy Thixotropic epoxy (I think it was Formula 3. Pettit Paint apparently doesn't make anything like it anymore.), what current product is most like it? I still have a pair of cans of the stuff, enough for the foreseeable future, but I'd like to know what to recommend for others?
 
Back
Top