Proceedings of the XIth International Congress and Exposition

June 2-5, 2008 Orlando, Florida USA

2008 Society for Experimental Mechanics Inc.

A study on the manufacturing of Glass-Fiber-Reinforced

Aluminum Laminates and the effect of interfacial adhesive bonding
on the impact behavior

Mohammad Alemi Ardakania,*, Akbar Afaghi Khatibib, Seyed Asadollah Ghazavic

a,b,c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
* Corresponding author. E-mail address: mohammad.alemi@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are good candidates for advanced aerospace structural applications due to their
high specific mechanical properties especially fatigue resistance. The most important factor in manufacturing of
these laminates is the adhesive bonding between aluminum and FRP layers. In this study several glass-fiberreinforced aluminum (GLARE) laminates with different bonding adhesion were manufactured. Drop weight impact
tests based on ASTM D7136 standard were then conducted to study the effects of interfacial adhesive bonding on
impact behavior of these laminates. It was observed that the damage size is greater in laminates with poor
interfacial adhesion compared to that of laminates with strong adhesion between aluminum and glass layers. In
addition, FMLs of with good adhesion bonding show better resistance under low velocity impact and their
corresponding contact forces are about 25% higher than that of specimens with a weak bonding. Moreover,
maximum central deflections in laminates with strong bonding are about 30% lower than that of FMLs with poor
adhesion.
Keywords: GLARE, Composite, Adhesion, and Impact.

1. Introduction
Fiber-Metal Laminates (FML) which consists of alternative bonded thin metal sheets and fiber-reinforced-layers
have been originally developed at Delft University of Technology, Netherlands [1]. The typical microstructure of a
o
o
FML, consisting of two aluminum face sheets together with two FRP layers aligned at 0 and 90 is shown in Fig.
1. Aerospace industry is very interested in FMLs because of their good fatigue characteristics as well as their
lower density in comparison to current high level aluminum alloys (e.g. 2024-T3). In order to facilitate the fully
utilization of these materials, several researchers have investigated the properties, behavior as well as the best
techniques of their production. Alderliesten and coworkers [2-4] performed extensive experimental work
investigating the fatigue resistance of GLARE laminates. Vlot et al. conducted thorough study on the impact
resistance of Glare [5-7]. To distinguish the effect of adhesive bonding between Al and FRP layer, two different
Aluminum surface treatments were done by Dr. Lawcock et al. [8], one with a standard sulfo-ferric solution (P2Etch) procedure and another with a sulfochromic solution (FPL-Etch) procedure with the subsequent application
of a silane coupling agent. A reduction of 10% in the relative value for the interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) was
reported for the laminate with poor interfacial adhesion associated with the P2-Etch method, in both three- and
five-point bend tests. Thermoplastic based FMLs also developed and studied by Cantwell et al. [911]. In addition
to having shorter processing times and higher fracture toughness than FMLs with thermosetting matrices, they
were capable of absorbing significant energy through extensive plastic deformation in the aluminum and
composite layers under impact loading.
Based on the observation of Bishop and coworkers [12], among the many factors that affect the durability and
integrity of adhesively bonded aluminum joints, the choice of a surface pretreatment is crucial. The objective of

the pretreatment is to produce a surface which is free from contamination; wettable by the adhesive; highly
macro- or micro-rough; and mechanically and hydrolytically stable [13,14]. The surface preparation, in general,
consists of several steps, among which are: initial cleaning to remove surface contamination which is mostly
accomplished with alkaline solvents; acid or base etching to remove the weak, inhomogeneous oxide formed by
thermal exposure of the metal during the fabrication process; and a chemical or electrochemical treatment to
stabilize the surface and promote adhesion [15,16].
The main aim of this work was to study the effectiveness of a newly modified technique for preparation of
aluminum surface in order to improve the bonding adhesion. After manufacturing several samples with two
different surface treatment methods, the impact behavior of GLARE laminates was studied under drop tests.

Fig. 1: Microstructure cross section of FML

2. Experimental
2.1. Materials and Aluminum Preparation
For the fabrication of GLARE laminates, 0.4 mm thick 1050 Aluminum alloy sheets supplied by Arak Aluminum
Co, Iran, were used. Due to the surface treatments done on Al surfaces, its final thickness reduced to 0.30.02
2
mm. The FRP layers used in this study were 200gr/m E-glass plain woven with Araldite LY 5052 epoxy. The first
method used for aluminum surface treatment was consisted of 7 steps: (1) immersing Al sheets in Methyl Ethyl
Ketone (MEK) for degreasing, (2) water break test for inspection of cleaning procedure, (3) hand abrasion with
400 and 200 grit aluminum-oxide paper on rolling and its cross direction, respectively, to create macro roughness
followed by tissue wiping to remove contaminates, (4) etching in alkaline by immersion in a 5% NaOH solution for
10 min at room temperature, (5) rinsing in hot water and then etching Al sheets in sulfochromic solution (FPLEtch) for 12 min based on ASTM D2674 [16] and D2651 [17] standards, (6) putting aluminum sheets in a boiling
water bath for 60s to produce a porous pseudoboehmite aluminum oxyhydroxide layer (ALOOH) on Al surface
(see Fig. 2), and (7) coating aluminum surfaces with an organosilane adhesion promoter, Glycidoxypropyltrimethoxy silane (-GPS) to improve the strength and durability of adhesion followed by drying
process in an oven at 100C for 60 min. This coating was done by 15 min brushing of a 1% aqueous solution of GPS that had been hydrolyzed for 60 min to reach full hydrolysis in reverse osmosis deionised and carbon filtered
water. In order to be able to have two distinct adhesion bonding, in second group of samples, aluminum surface
treatment did not include steps 6 and 7.

Fig. 2: Schematic of formation of pseudoboehmite oxyhydroxide

whiskers by immersion of Aluminum in boiling water.

For an optimal adhesion, it is important that the epoxy from FRP layers fully penetrates into the pores of the
ALOOH layer [18]. -GPS is widely used as a coupling agent for epoxy bonded aircraft repairs [19-21]. The
enhanced durability that the GPS primer can provide is attributable to the two distinct following reactions. The first
reaction, shown in Fig. 3, is a covalent bond between hydrolyzed GPS and oxidized aluminum surface [22]. The
second extensive reaction is between the silanol group and the epoxy group of the -GPS molecule in the
presence of the aluminum surface [21] which is shown in Fig. 4. In fact -GPS acts as a strong bridge between
aluminum and epoxy.

Fig. 4: Reaction between the silanol

group and the epoxy group.

Fig. 3: (a) Hydrolysis reaction of -GPS (b) Interaction

between hydrolyzed GPS and oxidized aluminum.

2.2. Composite production

Glare 3/2 laminates consisting of three 0.3 mm thick Aluminum sheets and two E-glass/epoxy plies were then
fabricated using a hand-lay up procedure. The nominal weight fraction of fibers in GFRP was kept constant at
60%. The plies were laminated so that the warp and weft directions were parallel to the edges of the laminates.
The plates were then post-cured in an oven at 100C for 4 hours after they had been cured under 15 kPa
pressure for one day at room temperature. These laminates were then cut up to 100150 mm rectangular
specimens.
2.3. Low-velocity impact tests
The sandwich specimens were subjected to low-velocity impact by using a drop-weight impact test facility. All the
impact tests were conducted based on ASTM D7136 standard [23]. The drop-weight impact machine records the
variation of load as a function of time. The test apparatus also incorporates a pneumatic mechanism that lifts the
projectile after its initial impact in order to eliminate the possibility of multiple impacts. The mass and diameter of
the semi-hemispherical tip projectile was 7.5 kg and 0.5in, respectively in all tests conducted in this study.
Whereas, the drop height was variable, allowing for different impact energies. So, the specimens were impacted
at three energy levels of 7.5J, 10J and 20J. Based on ASTM D7136 standard, the specimens were simply
clamped on four points during the low-velocity impact event.
3. Results and Discussion
In order to investigate the extension of front and back face damage zones as well as residual central deflections,
image processing method was used. Figures 5-7 exhibits the damaged area for different impact energy levels
from front, back and side views. By increasing the impact energy, the size of damaged area is increasing
regardless of bonding adhesion. For all energy levels used in this study, however, the extension of damage was
greater in samples prepared without using steps 6 and 7 mentioned in the previous section, i.e. with weak
bonding.

Glare 3/2

Glare 3/2
WB

Back
Lateral
Front
Fig. 5: Damage in Glare 3/2 and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact energy of 20J

Glare 3/2

Glare 3/2
WB

Back
Lateral
Front
Fig. 6: Damage in Glare 3/2 and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact energy of 10J

Glare 3/2

Glare 3/2
WB

Back
Lateral
Front
Fig. 7: Damage in Glare 3/2 and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact energy of 7.5J

Figures 8 and 9 show the front and back face damaged area in GLARE specimens for different impact energy
levels. It is obvious from these figures that surface treatment of aluminum layers has significant effect in impact
behavior of these materials. In addition, the extension of damage at back face of the specimens is larger than that

of front face for all specimens used in this study. From Fig. 8 it can be seen that the ratio of damaged front face
area for Glare WB 3/2 to Glare 3/2 is about 3:1 in 7.5J. The above mentioned ratio is considerable and varies
between 1.5:1 and 3:1 for back face, as illustrated in Fig. 9. Considering both these figures, it can be concluded
that the ratio of back face damaged area to front face damaged area for all specimens and energies is almost
near 1.5:1.
The residual deflection of all specimens, measured at the centre point is exhibited in Fig. 10. As it can be seen
from this figure, the measured values are in good agreement (max 10% divergence) with those evaluated using
image processing technique. The ratio of central residual deflection for surface-treated and untreated samples
for energy levels of 7.5, 10 and 20 J is 1.6:1, 1.15:1 and 1.27:1, respectively. Fig. 11 represents the maximum
force exerted to the projectile via specimens. In average, this maximum force was about 25% higher in specimens
with strong adhesion between aluminum and FRP layers. This is an indication of higher strength to impact loading
with less damage in GLARE 3/4 laminates.
10J (Image Processing)

7.5J (Image Processing)

20J (Image Processing)

20J (Image Processing)

44000

54000

40000

Back Face Damaged Area (mm2)

Front Face Damaged Area (mm2)

7.5J (Image Processing)

36000
32000
28000
24000
20000
16000
12000
8000
4000
0
Glare 3/2

Glare WB 3/2

Central Residual Deflection (mm)

Fig.10: Front Face Damaged area in Glare 3/2

and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact
energies of 7.5J, 10J and 20J

10J (Image Processing)

48000
42000
36000
30000
24000
18000
12000
6000
0
Glare 3/2

Glare WB 3/2

Fig. 11: Back Face Damaged area in Glare 3/2

and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact
energies of 7.5J, 10J and 20J

7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

7.5J (EXP)
7.5J (Image Processing)
10J (EXP)
10J (Image Processing)
20J (EXP)
20J (Image Processing)

Glare 3/2

Glare WB 3/2

Fig. 10: Central Residual Deflection in Glare 3/2 and Glare WB 3/2 subjected to impact
energies of 7.5J, 10J and 20J

2.5

Maximum Force (kN

2
7.5J (EXP)
1.5
10J (EXP)
1
20J (EXP)
0.5
0
Glare 3/2

Glare WB 3/2

Fig. 11: Maximum Force transferred from the plate into the
projectile in 7.5J, 10J and 20J energies of impactor

4. Conclusion
Two important factors in preparation of aluminum surfaces for a strong bonding with FRP layers in fiber metal
reinforced laminates were studied. The creation of ALOOH microstructure as well as using g-Gps as a coupling
agent was examined in this study. After manufacturing two groups of specimens with different adhesion levels,
low velocity impact tests were conducted. Based on the observations it was concluded that the impact behavior of
GLARE can significantly influenced by adhesion level. In specimens without appropriate surface preparation, the
impact damage area in some cases was three times larger that that of specimens with a strong adhesion bonding.
The effects of surface preparation of aluminum layers were also obvious in maximum force and residual deflection
of tested specimens.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions received from Prof. Mahmood
Mehrdad Skokrieh of the Iran University of Science and Technology, and also his help in performing the impact
experimental tests at composite research laboratory of Iran University of Science and Technology. Authors wish
also to acknowledge the financial support of the Intelligent-based Experimental Mechanics center of Tehran
University.
References
[1]

J. W. Gunnink, A. Vlot, T. J. De Vries and W. Vav Der Hoeven, Glare Technology Development 19972000,
journal of Applied Composite Materials, pages 201-219, (2002).

[2]

R.C. Alderliesten, J.J. Homan, Fatigue and damage tolerance issues of Glare in aircraft structures,
International Journal of Fatigue, Volume 28, Issue 10, Pages 1116-1123, (2006).

[3]

R.C. Alderliesten, J. Schijve and S. van der Zwaag, Application of the energy release rate approach for
delamination growth in Glare, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Volume 73, Issue 6, Pages 697-709,
(2006).

[4]

Alderliesten, R.C., Hagenbeek, M., Homan, J.J., Hooijmeijer, P.A., De Vries, T.J., Vermeeren, C.A.J.R.,
Fatigue and Damage Tolerance of Glare Applied Composite Materials, Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 223242, (2003).

[5]

L. B. Vogelesang and A. Vlot, Development of fibre metal laminates for advanced aerospace structures,
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 1-5, (2000).

[6]

A. A. Bezemer, C. B. Guyt and A. Vlot, New impact specimen for adhesives: optimization of high-speedloaded adhesive joints, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 255260, (1998).

[7]

A. Vlot, Impact loading on fibre metal laminates, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 18,
Issue 3, Pages 291-307, (1996).

[8]

Glyn Lawcock, Lin Ye, Yiu-Wing Mai and Chin-Teh Sun, The effect of adhesive bonding between aluminum
and composite prepreg on the mechanical properties of carbon fiber reinforced metal laminates,
Composites Science and Technology, Volume 57, Issue 1, Pages 35-45, (1997).

[9]

Reyes G, Cantwell WJ. The mechanical properties of fibre-metal laminates based on glass fibre-reinforced
polypropylene. Composite Science Technology, Volume 60, Pages 10851094, (2000).

[10]

Guillen F, Cantwell WJ. The influence of cooling rate on the fracture properties of a thermoplastic-based
fibre metal laminate, Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites, Volume 21, Pages 749772, (2002).

[11]

Reyes G, Cantwell WJ. The high velocity impact response of composite and FML-reinforced sandwich
structures, Composite Science Technology, Volume 64, Pages 3554, (2000).

[12]

J. A. Bishopp, D. Jobling and G. E. Thompson, The surface pretreatment of aluminum-lithium alloys for
structural bonding, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, Volume 10, Issue 3, Pages 153-160,
(1990).

[13]

J. D. Venables, D. K. McNamara, J. M. Chen, T. S. Sun and R. L. Hopping, Oxide morphologies on

aluminum prepared for adhesive bonding, Applications of Surface Science, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 8898, (1979).

[14]

Gary Alan Nitowski, Topographic and surface chemical aspects of the adhesion of structural epoxy resins to
phosphorus oxo acid treated aluminum adherents, PhD Thesis in Materials Engineering Science,
Blacksburg, Virginia, August 26, (1998).

[15]

J. D. Minford, Durability of aluminum bonded joints in long-term tropical exposure, International Journal of
Adhesion and Adhesives, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 25-32, (1982).

[16]

ASTM standard, D2674-72(2004)e1, Standard Methods of Analysis of Sulfochromate Etch Solution Used in
Surface Preparation of Aluminum, Book of Standards, Volume: 15.06.

[17]

ASTM standard, D2651-01, Standard Guide for Preparation of Metal Surfaces for Adhesive Bonding, Book
of Standards, Volume: 15.06.

[18]

J. van den Brand, S. Van Gils, P.C.J. Beentjes, H. Terryn, V. Sivel and J.H.W. de Wit, Improving the
adhesion between epoxy coatings and aluminum substrates, Progress in Organic Coatings, Volume 51,
Issue 4, Pages 339-350, (2004).

[19]

K.A. Chabot, J.A. Brescia, Evaluation of primers for aircraft repair, 25th Int. SAMPE Technical Conf. Pages
200211, (1993).

[20]

W.D. Steinmetz, W.J. Trzaskos, Aluminum surface preparation for aircraft field repair, Int. SAMPE Symp.
and Exhibition, Pages 922936, (1990).

[21]

P. R. Underhill, G. Goring and L. DuQuesnay, The drying of 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxy silane , Applied

Surface Science, Volume 134, Issues 1-4, Pages 247-253, (1998).

[22]

Acharawan Rattana, John D. Hermes, Marie-Laure Abel and John F. Watts, The interaction of a commercial
dry film adhesive with aluminum and organosilane treated aluminum surfaces: a study by XPS and ToFSIMS, International Journal of Adhesions and adhesives, Issue 22, pages 205-218, (2002).

[23]

ASTM D7136, Standard test method for Measuring the Damage Resistance of a Fiber-Reinforced-Polymer
matrix Composites to a Drop-Weight Impact event, Book of Standards, Volume 15.03, (2005).