Content uploaded by Mohamad Sabri Mohamad Sidik
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamad Sabri Mohamad Sidik on Nov 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 33
Design Analysis of Joining Metal and Glass Fiber Reinforced
Plastics (GFRP)
M. Sabri Sidika, A. Afiriena, Nurulhuda Amrib, K.Shahrila, M. F. M. A. Majida and M. Husaini
A.B.a
a Universiti Kuala Lumpur Malaysian Spanish Institute, Kulim Hi-Tech Park, 09000 Kulim, Kedah, Malaysia
b Universiti Teknologi MARA Pulau Pinang, 13500 Permatang Pauh, Pulau Pinang.
Abstract
In modern application in automotive and aerospace engineering especially in defense vehicle, underwater vehicle and aircraft
used Metal and Polymer Composites as the main materials in their invention parts. The joining strength may increase if the
contacted surface area between two materials is also increase, in this case, the relationship of adhesive joining between
Aluminum and Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy have been investigated by using Finite Element Method (FEM). Four design
specimens with different contacted surface area at Aluminum part. As an interpretation result, the cross-sectional area and the
volume of fascinating profile at the joining Aluminum – GFRP which is resist the loading force is significant effect the
tensile strength of the adhesive joining. The greater cross – sectional area which was attached at the joining Aluminum and
Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy shows the highest result of tensile strength resistance. As the conclusion, the investigation
result shown the Specimen Design 1 is the best design which is having highest value of Ultimate Tensile Strength, highest
maximum loading force and higher shear stress. This is the significance shown the highest resistance volume of joining
profile may increase the Ultimate Tensile Strength, increase the value to absorbing force and more difficult to failure.
Keywords: Metal – Polymer Composites Laminates; Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Plastics; Fiber – Metal Laminates; Tensile Strength
Resistance; Finite Element Method
1. Introduction
1.1. Background Study
At the present time, Metal – Polymer Laminated Composite is commonly used in engineering automotive,
defense, underwater vehicle and aerospace industries technology. Achievement must include the enhancement in
design, weight reduction fixed with improvement of safety performance of the candidate’s materials in order to
reduce fuel consumption with contaminant emissions. [1]
In recent times in Research and Development field, in order to considerably reduce weight of vehicle and
improve the sound – deadening properties of the material, there are more focus on metal – plastics laminates and
sandwich sheets. To date, composite – metal laminated has been on thermo set resins called epoxy and
aluminum. In the early 1980s, Fiber – metal laminates (FML) like GLARE® and ARALL® which are laminates
of aluminum and glass reinforced epoxy respectively have been under development for the aerospace industry.
1.2. Problem Statement
Special materials in designing a product are needed to overcoming the unexpected conditions such as
excessive temperature and pressure in any systems. The main problem in adoption of composite components into
metal body structures is to get a good property performance of joining aluminum and Glass Fiber Reinforced
Plastics. The best joining should have good adhesive bond strength to withstand stresses and strain that might
appear in the forming process of the products [2]. The joining strength may increase if the contacted surface area
between two materials is also increase. In this case, the relationship of adhesive joining between aluminum and
glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) has been investigated by using Finite Element Method (FEM).
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 34
1.3. Project Objective
The objective for this Analysis Investigation of Adhesive Joining Aluminum – Glass Fiber Reinforced
Plastics (GFRP) is:
i. To model the different design of joining configuration between Aluminum and GFRP.
ii. To analyze the characterization and mechanical properties of these joining method by using Finite
Element Method.
iii. To determine the level of reliability of the joining configuration.
1.4. Project Scope and Limitation
This analysis study is focusing on adhesive joining Aluminum – Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastics (GFRP).
The joining Aluminum – GFRP are design for single lap or step lap joining method. The materials selection for
this analysis is Aluminum, Chopped Strands Fiberglass and Epoxy resin. The specimens with different type of
joining are prepared to the Lap Shear Test. The limitation for this project is the experiment only test for Tensile
Strength of the adhesive joining Aluminum – GFRP; which was only been tested few times.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Metal – Polymer Composites
Metal – Polymer Reinforced Polymer (FRP) composites bonded by adhesive layers can be a good choice for
main automotive structures like floor pan and body panels. In aircraft structures like lower and upper wings as
well as in fuselage and tail sections, this is also widely used. The reason is the combination of both the good
characteristics of metals such as high specific strength, high specific stiffness and good corrosion and fatigue
resistance [3].
In order to decrease the production cost and increase the production quality in rapid process, metal – polymer
laminates with thermoplastics – based composites offer the improvement of toughness and potential for short
process cycle times.
The key factors that attract the manufacturers to innovate new products using this material are high
recyclability and low volatiles, which offered by thermoplastics. The low density and low cost of polypropylene
factors interest the manufacturer continue to use this material although is difficult to join [4].
2.2. Adhesive Bonding of Polymer – Matrix Composites Joining.
The good bond strengths and environmental resistance are performs by the Epoxy adhesives. It is usually
poor in peel strengths. In order to overcomes it, elastomeric materials such as rubber are often added for
toughening purpose. For instance, it will include by butadiene, polyurethane, silicone and polysulfide. At the
same time, the peel strength is increase over plain epoxy, shear strength is lower and sensitivity to moisture and
creep is increase [5].
An adhesive bonding technique that has been proven to be very useful in bonding thermosetting – matrix
composite materials to other composites or to metals is to apply the adhesive to the uncured thermosetting
composite. Provided the adhesive is chosen to have a cure cycle that is compatible with that of the composite
matrix. The composite and the adhesive can be cured together or co-cured.
2.3. Mechanical Joining of Polymer – Matrix Composites
The use of mechanically fixed firmly and integrally interlocked joints in polymer – matrix composites is a
carryover or extension from the similar fastening or interlocking of monolithic, isotropic materials such metals
where a wealth of experience and understanding exists.
Plasticity allows yielding to take place in regions of high stress and the effects of stress concentration on final
net failing stress are thus small in most isotropic materials. This is not the case for unidirectional reinforced
composites which are essentially elastics in their behavior all the way to failure. Thus, effect of stress
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 35
concentration is to give a rise to a low net tensile strain. Offset the effect of low inherent plasticity in composites
is one of the technique used to reduce the degree of anisotropy of hole by introducing some softening pseudo –
plastic behavior and thereby increasing efficiency. Incorporate fibers that are oriented in different directions
around the holes while another approach is to employ doublers around holes for reducing the net stress purpose
in the section in these areas in one of the specific approaches [6].
2.4. Test Technique for Evaluating Effectiveness of Adhesive Bonding Joining Method or Mechanical Fastening
Joining Method
The method of comparison for materials and processes that are being evaluated provided the physical testing
of mechanical fastening joints or standard adhesive. A means to control the adequacy of the bonding process is
also provided by the standard test, once it is established and assessing its conformance to specification [7]. For
static properties and fatigue and toughness with cleavage tests, strength is typically evaluating using shear stress
for structural joint [8].
2.4.1. Lap – Shear Tests
The lap – shear test or tensile – shear test measures the strength of the adhesive in shear and also measures
the strength the joining between parts. Low cost, easy fabrication and simple to be tested specimens make the
test becomes common [9]. For determination of shear strength of dissimilar materials, the lap shear specimen can
be used. Other tested materials that are sandwiched between stronger adherents include the thin or relatively
weak material such as plastics, rubber or fabrics.
2.4.2. Peel Test
For examining the brittleness of an adhesive and energy release rate (peel resistance), peel testing is useful.
For many commercial applications, peel resistance is importance and there are many types of tests based on the
substrate stiffness. In many cases, a bonded joint must be designed to reduce or eliminate peel loads. However,
peel cannot be avoided in many practical cases and a fastener should be placed at the edge of the bonded
assembly to reduce peel loading on the adhesive [10].
The mechanical performance of a bond should be accompanied by an inspection of the fracture surface.
Visual inspection assisted with optical microscopy will provide macroscopic information concerning the locus of
fracture and the presence of voids or defects [11].
3. Methodology / Analysis Set Up
3.1. Brain Storming and Collecting Information
This brain storming is the process of discussion to decide the variable parameters; constant parameters,
limitation and the valuable process for this analysis.
For this analysis, the width and length of gripping profile is suggested to simulate and improves the bonding
of adhesive joining between Aluminum and Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastics.
In this stage, the information from the past experimental thesis, journals and books is referred to validate the
next experimental data. This stage is important to guide the analysis and prefer a limitation of the experiment.
3.2. Modeling Part using CAD software
Before the Finite Element Analysis is conducted, the specimens were drawn into 3 dimensional models. This
process is useful to the next process for meshing the specimen. In addition, the specimen was drawn by using
CATIA V5 R20 software.
In this project, 4 drawing design is available to be modeled and analyzed. This is due to the limitation of the
previous production times at the machining process which is needed to be fabricated in a good precision and
tolerances.
Apar
t
metal sp
e
Whe
n
two as a
s
assembl
y
Below is
t
from that, th
e
cimens was
m
n
the both de
s
s
pecimen be
fo
y
design was
u
the Figure 3.
2
Figu
r
e Glass Fiber
m
atched with
r
Figure 3.2
s
ign of Alumi
o
re comes to
a
u
sed to config
u
2
is shown an
r
e 3.1:
the de
s
Reinforced
P
r
espective po
l
:
the models
f
num and GF
R
a
nalysis stag
e
u
ring the met
a
assembly de
s
s
igns for the
A
P
lastics were
a
l
ymer joining
f
or the Glass
F
R
P were don
e
e
s. By using t
h
a
l and polym
e
s
ign of Alumi
n
UniKLMSI,
A
luminum 60
6
a
lso modeled
design.
F
iber Reinfor
c
e
, the assemb
l
h
e CAD soft
w
e
r joining.
n
um – GFRP
KulimHi‐Tec
h
6
1 T6.
for the analy
s
c
ed Plastics.
l
y design wa
s
w
are, which
w
as to become
COL
E
h
Park,10Oct
s
is purpose.
E
s
used to com
b
w
as CATIA V
5
a specimen.
E
ET 2014
ober2014
3
E
ach of the
b
ine these
5
R20, the
3
6
Figu
r
3.3. Fini
t
The F
value pr
o
some ap
p
forces is
a
The
A
software
applicati
o
experim
e
4. Resul
t
4.1. Spec
Thickne
s
1
0
From
deformat
i
The
d
the Equi
v
r
e 3.3:
the as
s
t
e Element An
inite Elemen
t
o
blems for di
f
p
lications wit
h
a
pplied.
A
nsys 14.0 w
a
before it co
m
o
n is accorda
n
e
ntal stages.
t
s & Discussi
o
imen Analysi
s
s
s (mm)
W
0
the figure i
s
i
on occurs at
t
d
eformation o
f
v
alent Stress
v
s
embly desig
n
alysis (FEA)
t
Method (FE
f
ferential equ
a
h
a quality co
n
a
s used with t
h
m
es to applyi
n
n
ce to the te
n
o
n
s
Results for
D
W
idth (mm)
20
s
shown the
T
t
he specimen.
f
this Specim
e
v
alue of 3401.
F
n
in the CAD
s
M) is a num
e
a
tions. The re
n
trol. This an
a
h
e purpose o
f
n
g the force.
n
sile test and
D
esign 1.
Table
4
Section
Joining (
m
200
T
otal Defor
m
The reading
e
n Design 1 i
s
7MPa.
F
igure 4.1:
S
p
s
oftware for t
h
e
rical techniq
u
sult from the
a
lysis is valua
b
f
analysis for
a
At the same
the fixed su
p
4
.1
Design 1
R
of
m
m
2
) De
m
ation of De
s
of the maxim
u
s
occurring at
p
ecimen 1 Tot
UniKLMSI,
h
e formation
o
u
e for findin
g
simulation u
s
b
le method t
o
a
ll specimens
time, fixed s
u
p
port is used
R
esult Data
Total
formation
(mm)
2.6966
s
ign 1. The
c
u
m Total De
fo
0.024549m
m
al Deformati
o
KulimHi‐Tec
h
o
f the Metal
–
g
approximat
e
s
ually used f
o
o
predict the
m
. All models
h
u
pport was a
l
for holding
t
Equivale
n
Elastic Str
a
(mm/m
m
0.02454
9
c
olors indicat
e
fo
rmation val
u
m
/mm if Equi
v
o
n.
COL
E
h
Park,10Oct
–
Polymer spe
c
e
solutions to
o
r material se
l
m
aterial reacti
o
h
ad been mes
l
so included.
t
he specimen
s
n
t
a
in
m
)
Eq
u
Stre
s
9
3
4
e
where the
u
e is 2.6966m
m
v
alent Elastic
E
ET 2014
ober2014
3
c
imen.
boundary
l
ection for
o
n if some
hed in the
The force
s
as at the
u
ivalent
s
s (MPa)
4
01.7
maximum
m
.
Strain and
3
7
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 38
4.2. Specimen Analysis Results for Design 2.
Table 4.2 Design 2 Result Data
Thickness (mm) Width (mm) Section (mm2) Total
Deformation
(mm)
Equivalent
Elastic Strain
(mm/mm)
Equivalent
Stress (MPa)
10 20 200 2.8673 0.063966 8949.5
From the figure is shown the Total Deformation of Design 2. The colors indicate where the maximum
deformation occurs at the specimen. The reading of the maximum Total Deformation value is 2.8673mm.
The deformation of this Specimen Design 2 is occurring at 0.063966mm/mm if Equivalent Elastic Strain and
the Equivalent Stress value of 8949.5MPa.
Figure 4.2: Specimen 2 Total Deformation.
4.3. Specimen Analysis Results for Design 3.
Table 4.3 Design 3 Result Data
Thickness (mm) Width (mm) Section (mm2) Total
Deformation
(mm)
Equivalent
Elastic Strain
(mm/mm)
Equivalent
Stress (MPa)
10 20 200 2.5713 0.023228 3511
From the figure is shown the Total Deformation of Design 3. The colors indicate where the maximum
deformation occurs at the specimen. The reading of the maximum Total Deformation value is 2.5713mm.
The deformation of this Specimen Design 3 is occurring at 0.023228mm/mm if Equivalent Elastic Strain and
the Equivalent Stress value of 3511MPa.
Figure 4.3: Specimen 3 Total Deformation.
4.4. Specimen Analysis Results for Design 4.
Table 4.4 Design 4 Result Data
Thickness (mm) Width (mm) Section (mm2) Total
Deformation
(mm)
Equivalent
Elastic Strain
(mm/mm)
Equivalent
Stress (MPa)
10 20 200 2.531 0.023807 3445
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 39
From the figure is shown the Total Deformation of Design 4. The colors indicate where the maximum
deformation occurs at the specimen. The reading of the maximum Total Deformation value is 2.531mm.
The deformation of this Specimen Design 4 is occurring at 0.023807mm/mm if Equivalent Elastic Strain and
the Equivalent Stress value of 3445 MPa.
Figure 4.4: Specimen 4 Total Deformation.
4.5. Graph of Total Deformation.
Figure 4.5: Total deformation (mm) vs Force Applied (kN) for Design 1, 2, 3 and 4
Histogram graph above shows the Total Deformation for Specimen Design 1, Specimen Design 2, Specimen
Design 3, and Specimen Design 4. The graph is significance shows that the Specimen Design 2 has the highest
value of Total Deformation with average 14.336mm at force applied of 1000kN. Hence, the second highest value
is Specimen Design 1 with average of 13.483mm. Then for the specimens which is in little Total Deformation
are Specimen Design 3 with average value of 12.856mm and Specimen Design 4 with average value of
12.655mm at the 1000kN of Force Applied.
The highest value at Specimen Design 2 happen is because it is offer the most ductility as the ductile material
provides greater deformation. The larger deformation offers the greater time to become ruptures. The cross –
sectional resistance may create a strong adhesive bonding at the joint.
This is approved the statement from previous study that the joining strength may increase if the contacted surface
area between two materials is also increase.
0
5
10
15
20
200 400 600 800 1000
DeformationRate(mm)
Tot al Deformation
Specimen1
Specimen2
Specimen3
Specimen4
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 40
4.6. Histogram Chart of Equivalent (von Mises) Stress for Specimen Analysis.
Figure 4.6: Histogram Chart for Equivalent (von Mises) Stress for Specimen 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Histogram above shows the Equivalent (von Mises) Stress for Specimen Design 1, Specimen Design 2,
Specimen Design 3, and Specimen Design 4. The histogram chart is significance shows that the Specimen
Design 1 has the lowest Equivalent (von Mises) Stress value with average 3401.7 MPa. Thus, the second lowest
value is Specimen Design 4 with average value 3445 MPa. Then for the specimens which in high Equivalent
(von Mises) Stress are Specimen Design 1 with average value of 8949.5 MPa and Specimen Design 3with
average value of 3511MPa.
The lowest value at Specimen Design 1 happens because it offers the highest resistance of joining resistance.
The greater surface of cross – sectional profile resistance and length of cross – sectional resistance may create a
strong adhesive bonding at the point.
This is approved the statement from previous study that smaller von Misses value provides the greater time for
the material get closer to the yield point as a larger von Mises value implies that the material is closer to the yield
point.
5. Conclusion
As a conclusion, this analysis investigation of adhesive joining Aluminum 6061 – Glass Fiber reinforced
Plastics (GFRP) is achieved the objective which is need to develop aluminum – GFRP laminated which are
exposed to different adhesive joining method. Four specimens from seventeen designs are modeled and analyzed
in the Ansys to study their strength.
The investigation result shows the Specimen Design 1 is the best design configuration which is having the
highest value of Total Deformation and lowest Equivalent (Von Mises) Stress value. These are the significance
shown the highest deformation indicates the higher ductility and the lowest Equivalent Stress indicates the
material requires more time to get closer to its yield point. Hence, it is increasing the value to absorbing force
and more difficult to failure.
However, the findings from this analysis are shown that all type of adhesive joining Aluminum – GFRP
laminated always have the same failure characteristics. The cohesive failure mode is occurring in this analysis.
This characteristic usually can look at brittle material which is failure without warning. This is because the
adhesive bonding which attach at the joining is not to strong enough like the mechanical fastening such as bolt
and nut.
Specimen1Specimen2Specimen3Specimen4
Stress(Mpa) 3401.7 8949.5 3511 3445
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Equivalent(VonMises)Stress(MPa)
COLEET 2014
UniKLMSI,KulimHi‐TechPark,10October2014 41
Acknowledgements
Bismillahirahmanirahim. I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all those who gave
me support and help to complete this report. Special thanks to my supervisor Mr. Mohd Sabri Bin Mohamad
Sidik for his patience and constructive comments that encourages me to complete this project. His time and
effort have been a great contribution unforgettable. Finally, I also would like to thank and gratitude for my
family, other lecturers and schoolmates for their continuous support and confidence in my efforts.
References
[1] Reyes G., Kang H. 2007. Mechanical behavior of lightweight thermoplastics fiber – metal laminates. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 186:248-290.
[2] Green M. D., Guild F. J., Adam R. D. 2002. Characterization and comparison of industrially pre-treated homopolymer
polypropylene, HF 135M. International Journal of Adhesion & Adhesives 22:81 – 90.
[3] Robert W. Messler jr. 2004. Joining of Materials & Structures from Pragmatic Process to Enabling Technology. 665
[4] Rosseli F. 2006. Making The Move From Conventional Joining to Structural Adhesives Reinforced Plastics 50:42-46.
[5] Asl1 GURUŞĆU. 2009. Joining and Interfacial Properties of Aluminum/Glass Fiber Reinforced Propylene Sandwich
Composites. 25
[6] Peter Ghali., Jay Huntington. 2012. Universal Underwater Enclosure for Cameras and Camcorders. US 2012/0008928
A1.
[7] Weager B. M., Rudd C. D. 1999. Evaluation of the interface durability of hybrid composite/metal laminates for
lightweight automotive body structures. 1-8.
