Microtensile bond strength test bias caused by variations in bonded areas
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026

Solvent Bonding for Fabrication of PMMA and COP Microfluidic Devices
Published on: January 17, 2017
Purpose:
While it has been shown that no method produces specimens with exactly the same cross-sectional bonded area (BA), BA variations within and between studies are a well-known covariate in microtensile test results. However, no method has yet been described to accurately account for its influence. A procedure is presented that allows controlling for variations of BA effects on results. Further, a proposal for reporting is presented which enables results of different studies to be compared.
Materials And Methods:
Partially using the results of the report in which the microtensile test was originally described, 144 both general (caused by differences in BA) and specific (due to a material's performance differences and intrinsic biological variability of specimens) variabilities were separated through linear regression of microtensile (MPa) to BA (mm2) pooled results. Comparing the specific variability of specimens - the residuals to the regression line - of groups allowed assessing differences between groups.
Results:
A means comparison of residuals showed that specific differences were significant (t-test, p = 0.0004). The null hypothesis could be rejected: materials' performances were different. This could not be determined in the original report, since BA variability was very high. A proposal for reporting of results to facilitate their clinical interpretation and comparison between studies is presented.
Conclusion:
Controlling for general variability caused by differences in BA size allows precise comparison of microtensile tests results.
Related Concept Videos
Tensile Strength Considerations of Concrete
The dimensions and shape of a concrete specimen...
Bonding and Strength of Aggregate
Relation Between Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength of Concrete
Microcracking in Concrete

