C

omposite structures are used extensively in aircraft, space vehicles, marine, and automo-
tive structures due to their light weight, high stiffness, and high ultimate strength. These
structures often are joined to metal structures and other composite structures using me-
chanical fasteners, which are expensive and use labor-intensive installation procedures, and the
joints require long-term maintenance. Therefore, new cost-effective processes must be developed
to meet the functional requirements of structures and joint longevity.
Edison Welding Institute (EWI) and several partners (Boeing, Applied Research Lab at Penn
State University, Northrop-Grumman Ship Systems, Bath Iron Works, and the Composites Ma-
terials Technology Center) demonstrated an adhesive bonding method to join composite-to-steel
for large ship structures. Adhesive bonding can provide load continuity and can be used on both
internal and external bulkhead type structures
[1]
.
Logistics International, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, UAE, obtained two large frigate hulls (141M and
135M), originally belonging to the Dutch government, to convert the hulls into giga-yachts at the
Abu Dhabi MAR shipyard by (among other modifications) removing the steel deckhouse entirely
and replace it with a composite structure. EWI was engaged to help design and verify the compos-
ite-to-metal joint and to provide supporting data pertinent to obtaining the manufacturing process
certification of the ships from Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Baerum, Norway.
Experimental testing and finite element analyses (FEA) were conducted to qualify the adhe-
sive bonding process for joining composite to steel. Experimental and FEA data developed at EWI
were submitted to and subsequently approved by DNV. Experimental results for the adhesive were
published in Ref. 2 together with FEA results. This paper reports the finite element model devel-
opment for assisting the design of a bonded joint system for a composite-steel interface. The mod-
eling method including the approach, input, validation, and application are discussed.
Composite-to-steel joint
An effective composite-to-steel adhesive joint normally incorporates a double lap shear joint
design, adhesive layers, composite skins, and cores. Many types of steel section were evaluated
for carrying the structural load. The clevis double-leg design (Fig. 1) is capable of transmitting
structural loads and maintaining the integrity of the
composite-steel joint
[1]
.
Figure 1 represents a manufacturing approach to
make a composite-to-steel joint
[1]
. A paste adhesive can
be applied to the steel shoe, into which the composite
part is fitted. After making the composite-to-steel adhe-
sive joint, the bonded steel receiver can be welded to the
deck. Weld points should match the steel legs to exist-
ing below-deck stiffeners. As an example, Fig. 2 shows
an adhesive bonded composite-to-steel structure.
Modeling method
The modeling method was developed based on
commercial finite element software, ABAQUS. A three-
dimensional (3-D) model was used in which the metal,
adhesive, and core were meshed with solid brick ele-
ments and the composite was meshed with both solid
brick elements and cohesive elements. The number of
layers and material property orientations in the compos-
ite can be considered using this modeling method.
Figure 3 shows the modeling approach used in the
finite element analysis of composite-to-steel adhesive
joint, which includes modeling input, validation, and ap-
plication. The model input includes the joint geometry
Finite Element Analyses of
Composite-to-Steel Adhesive Joints
Yu-Ping Yang
George W. Ritter
David R. Speth
Edision Welding
Institute
Columbus, Ohio
Finite element
modeling can
assist in the
design of an
adhesive-
bonded joint
system for a
composite-
steel interface
to meet the
functional
requirements
of structures
and joint
longevity.
Fig. 1 Adhesive joining of composite to steel
[1]
.
ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES JUNE 2011 24
Composite part
Core
Composite
Paste adhesive
Steel H-section
ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES JUNE 2011 25
and materials properties. Material properties were ob-
tained from public literature and supporting tensile tests
within this program. Double-lap shear tests were used to
validate the finite element model, and the model was used
to predict the strength of complex composite-to-steel
structures.
Material properties
Typically, steel, composite, adhesive, and core are in-
volved in a composite-to-steel joint. Isotropic elastic and
plastic material behavior was assumed for the steel, the ad-
hesive, and the core. Orthotropic elastic material behavior
was assumed for the composite. Steel material properties
were obtained from public literature. Adhesive material
properties were obtained from testing, because they are
determined by the bonding process. The composite and
the core material properties were provided by material
suppliers.
Type 316 stainless steel was selected for hull structures
based on the corrosion requirements. Material properties
can be obtained from material handbooks such as ASM
specialty handbook
[3]
. In the analysis, elastic-plastic mate-
rial properties were input into the finite element model.
The adhesive selected for the exterior joint is 3M 2216
translucent epoxy adhesive (3M Co., St. Paul, Minn.) to
which an accelerant was added to boost its cure rate and
temperature resistance. Tensile tests of adhesive were con-
ducted from cast specimens configured as ASTM D638
Type I dogbones. Tensile properties were measured at
room temperature (23C) and at 60C. The higher temper-
ature was selected based on the possible service conditions
of composite to steel structures at sea. The strain rate was
kept constant at 12.5 mm/min.
Poissons ratio, tensile elastic modulus, and plastic fail-
ure strain at room temperature and elevated temperature
for the epoxy adhesive are shown in the table below.
Figures 4a and 4b show the stress-strain curves for the
adhesive at room temperature and (60C), respectively.
Tensile tests show that the failures at the higher tempera-
ture were caused by stretching the adhesive to the material
limit (most deformation is plastic). Three duplicate tests
were conducted. The average material properties were
input to the models.
The core material was Diab Divinycell H200 (Diab Inc.,
DeSoto, Tex.). Elastic and plastic material properties taken
from the product literature were used for the analyses:
Poissons ratio is 0.32, tensile modulus is 0.23 GPa, yield
stress is 1.6 MPa, and tensile strength is 6.4 MPa.
Composite material properties were provided by the
material supplier. Table 1 shows tensile and shear elastic
Temperature, C
23 60
Poissons ratio 0.38 0.38
Density, kg/mm
3
1.13E-06 1.13E-06
Tensile modulus, GPa 1.3 0.177
Failure plastic strain, % 18.0 56.5
Fig. 2 Adhesive-bonded composite-to-steel structure.
Fig. 3 Modeling approach.
Fig. 4 Tensile material properties of 3M 2216 translucent
epoxy adhesive at room temperature (a) and 60C (b).
Composite
Steel
Geometry
Model input Tensile test
Material
properties
Model
validation
Double-lap shear test
Design
Modeling
application
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
S
t
r
e
s
s
.

M
P
a
S
t
r
e
s
s
.

M
P
a
Average
Rt-5
Rt-4
Rt-6
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Strain
0 0.01 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strain
Average
T4 T2 T1
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
(a)
(b)
moduli and Poisson ratio. The composite is strong in plane
(x-y plane) and weak in the thickness direction (z-direc-
tion). The composite failure was modeled using the pro-
gressive damage and failure method. Failure parameters
were calibrated with experimental testing results and pub-
lished in Ref. 2.
Modeling validation
FE model was validated by analyzing a double lap shear
(DLS) test sample, as shown in Fig. 5. The DLS specimen
configuration is in accordance with ASTM 3528, Type A.
A single large bonded plate about 300 mm wide was pro-
duced and individual 25-mm test specimens were cut from
the plate. The adhesive cured for at least one week at room
temperature prior to testing.
Tensile tests were conducted by fixing the steel end and
applying the load at the composite end (Fig. 5). Load-dis-
placement curves were used to validate the finite element
model.
A finite element model was built based on the DLS
configuration (Fig. 6). The steel and adhesive were meshed
with an 8-node brick element. There were 2040 nodes and
1200 elements for the steel and 640 nodes and 360 ele-
ments for the adhesive. The composite was first modeled
as skin only with cohesive interlayers (no core). The com-
posite skin was meshed with 8-node brick elements, and
the composite cohesive interlayers were meshed with cohe-
sive elements. There were 2550 nodes and 1000 elements
for the skin and 2520 nodes and 976 elements for the cohe-
sive strength.
Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to predict
the strength and failure mode for DLS testing at room tem-
perature and 60C. The load capacity was predicted and
compared with the experimental results as shown in Table
3(2). Three replicates (E3, E4, and E10) were tested at room
ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES JUNE 2011 26
Fig. 5 Dimensions and loading methods of double lap shear test.
Fig. 6 Finite element model of a double-lap shear test sample.
Table 1 COMPOSITE MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Tensile modulus, Shear modulus, Poissons
GPa GPa ratio
17.50 (E
x
) 6.90 (G
xy
) 0.30 (V
xy
)
17.50 (E
y
) 6.90 (G
xz
) 0.30 (V
xz
)
3.0 (E
z
) 6.90 (G
yz
) 0.30 (V
yz
) Fig. 7 Failure initiation during loading at room temperature
(a) and 60C (b).
Fix this end
Adhesive
Steel (2.5 mm)
Composite
(4.25 mm)
Apply load at this end
2
5
.
4

m
m
1
5
2
.
4

m
m

1
5
2
.
4

m
m

Skin
Cohesive
Broken
Failure
initiation
Failure Initiation
(a)
(b)
temperature and three replicates (E13, E14, and E15) at
high temperature, all at strain rate of 1.25 mm/min. The
average load capacity is 23.2 kN with a displacement 3.4
mm at room temperature and 9.8 kN with a displacement
2.5 mm at high temperature. The predicted load capacity is
23.9 kN with a displacement 3.3 mm at room temperature
and 9.6 kN with a displacement 2.6 mm at high tempera-
ture. The model predicted load capacity that correlated
well with the testing results.
In addition to the load capacity, the model can pre-
dict the joint failure modes and failure locations. As
shown in the Table 2, interlaminar-shear fracture was ob-
served at room temperature
[2]
. The fracture location is the
exterior composite skin. Finite element analysis results
(Fig. 7a) shows that the crack started in the cohesive area
between plies and then induced skin failure. This corrob-
orates the observed failure mechanism. The failure mode
at high temperature is cohesive tearing in the adhesive,
rather than failure in the composite skin. Finite element
analysis (Fig. 7b) shows that the crack started and propa-
gated in the adhesive.
The comparison of the peak load, the displacement at
the peak load, the failure mode, and the failure location be-
tween the experiment and prediction indicates that the
model accurately predicts the load response. Therefore, the
model is ready to be used to predict the joint strength of
large composite-to-steel joint.
Modeling application
in optimizing adhesive thickness
The validated FE model was used to assist the compos-
ite-to-steel joint design and optimize the adhesive thick-
ness. To understand the effect of adhesive thickness on the
joint strength, the adhesive thickness shown in Fig. 5 was
changed. The following cases were analyzed at high tem-
perature:
2 mm thick at one side and 2 mm thick at another side
(2 mm-2 mm)
2 mm thick at one side and 4 mm thick at another side
(2 mm-4 mm)
4 mm thick at one side and 4 mm thick at another side
(4 mm-4 mm)
Figure 8 shows the plastic strain distributions and fail-
ure locations for the three analyzed cases after applying 3.5
mm displacement at the com-
posite end. For the 2 mm-2
mm case, a crack started in
both sides of adhesive. For the
2 mm-4 mm case, a crack
started on the 2 mm side and
there was no crack in the 4 mm
side. For the 4 mm-4 mm case,
no crack was observed in the
analysis. This shows that thick
adhesive bondline allows more
displacement.
Figure 9 shows the result-
ing force (load) after applying
a 3.5 mm displacement. The
highest peak load was ob-
tained for the 2 mm-2 mm
case. The lowest peak load
ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES JUNE 2011 27
Table 2 COMPARISON OF PEAK LOAD AND DISPLACEMENT BETWEEN EXPERIMENT
AND PREDICTION
Displacement at peak
Peak load, kN load, mm
Temp., C Sample Test Avg. Test Avg. Failure mode Failure location
23 E3 24.1 23.2 3.0 3.4 Interlaminar shear Exterior composite skin
E4 21.3 3.5
E10 24.1 3.8
Prediction 23.9 3.3
60 E13 8.7 9.8 2.4 2.5 Tearing Adhesive
E14 8.8 2.5
E15 11.8 2.5
Prediction 9.6 2.6
Fig. 8 Effect of adhesive thickness on joint failures at 60C.
2 mm-2 mm 2 mm-4 mm 4 mm-4 mm
Two-side One-side
failure failure No failure
was obtained for the 4 mm-4 mm case, for which no fail-
ure was predicted. This study shows that the thicker the
adhesive layer, the more flexible it becomes. As a result,
for the same load, the elongation goes up as the bondline
thickness increases.
Modeling application in predicting joint strength
The validated model was expanded to predict the joint
strength of a composite-to-steel joint shown in Fig. 10. The
design includes a steel section, adhesive, composite, and
now the core. The adhesive has the same thickness on both
sides. The end of the steel was welded to the hull, which
was simulated by fixing the end numerically during the
analysis. To save computation time, only one half of the de-
sign was analyzed. Symmetric boundary conditions were
applied on the plane of top surface.
Finite element analyses were conducted to predict the
load capacity of the structure by applying load at the com-
posite end and fixing the steel end. Figure 11 shows the
predicted load capacity at room temperature and high tem-
perature; the joint can carry a higher load at room temper-
ature than at high temperature.
Summary
A finite element analysis method was developed to pre-
dict the load carrying capacity of adhesively bonded com-
posite-to-steel joints. In the procedure, the material
properties of steel, adhesive, and core were assumed to be
isotropic and the material properties for composite were
assumed to be orthotropic. Progressive damage and fail-
ure were modeled by defining failure criteria (damage ini-
tiation and evolution) of the adhesive and composite. The
failure parameters were obtained from experimental test-
ing results. The analysis procedure was validated by ana-
lyzing a DLS sample and comparing the calculations with
experimental testing results. The validated model was ap-
plied to assist the composite-to steel-joint design and op-
timizing adhesive thickness.
Reference
1. J. Simler and L. Brown, 21st Century Surface Combatants
Require Improved Composite-to-Steel Adhesive Bonds, AMP-
TIAC Quarterly, Vol 7, No. 3, p 21-25.
2. G.W. Ritter, D.R. Speth, and Y.P. Yang, Qualifications of Ad-
hesive for Marine Composite-to-Steel Bonded Applications,
J. of Ship Production, Vol 25, No. 4, p 198-205, Nov. 2009.
3. J.R. Davis, Stainless Steels, ASM Specialty Handbook, 1994.
Acknowledgement: Johan Valentijn, CEO, Logistics Interna-
tional; Brian Climenhaga, BJC Design; Mark Bishop, MB De-
sign; Frank Crane, J. Frank Crane Inc; and Jim Gardner,
Compmillenia. Visual imagery is available at www.abudhabi-
mar.com.
For more information: Dr. Yu-Ping Yang is a senior engineer
in modeling group (614/688-5253; email: yyang@ewi.org), Dr.
George W. Ritter is technology leader (614/688-5253; email:
gritter@ewi.org), and Dr. David R. Speth is senior engineer in
adhesive bonding (614/688-5253; email: dspeth@ewi.org),
Edison Welding Institute, 1250 Arthur E. Adams Dr., Colum-
bus, OH 43221.
ADVANCED MATERIALS & PROCESSES JUNE 2011 28
Fig. 9 Predicted load-displacement curves at 60C.
Fig. 10 Complex design of composite-to-steel joint.
Fig. 11 Load responses during tension.
L
o
a
d
,

k
N
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Displacement, mm
2 mm-2 mm
2 mm-4 mm
4 mm-4 mm
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
L
o
a
d
,

k
N
Adhesive (3.5 mm)
Fix
156 mm
Symmetric plane
76.2
Metal Core
Composite (5 mm)
Load
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Displacement, mm
RT
60C
300
250
200
150
100
50
0