Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128

11th International Conference on Technology of Plasticity, ICTP 2014, 19-24 October 2014,
Nagoya Congress Center, Nagoya, Japan

Adhesive–embossing hybrid joining process to

fiber-reinforced thermosetting plastic and metallic thin sheets
Zhequn Huanga,*, Sumio Sugiyamab, Jun Yanagimotob
a
Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Komaba 4-6-1, Meguro 153-8505, Tokyo, Japan
b
Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Komaba 4-6-1, Meguro 153-8505, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

Aiming at increasing weight-to-strength structural performance and reducing fabrication cost, fiber-reinforced thermosetting
plastics (FRPs) should be joined to other lightweight metals. However, reducing the thicknesses of components for lightweight
products makes FRP-to-metal joining a greater challenge. In this study, warm embossing process was applied to improve the
single-lap adhesive bonding quality for thermosetting FRP and A2017P-T3 thin sheets. The use of a dummy sheet, the relative
position of the sample and dummy sheet and the embossing parameters were investigated. The effects of the types of fiber and
polymeric matrix as well as the ply laminates on the feasibility of the hybrid joining were also clarified. This study shows that
adhesive–embossing hybrid joining process which exhibits remarkable superiorities in terms of tensile shear load, displacement
and absorption energy is a competitive joining method for ultra lightweight thermosetting FRP-metal hybrid structures.
©
© 2014
2014 Published by Elsevier
The Authors. Ltd.byThis
Published is an open
Elsevier Ltd. access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Nagoya University and Toyohashi University of Technology.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Nagoya University
Keywords: FRP-to-metal; Embossing process; Adhesive bonding; Hybrid process; Ultra lightweight applications

1. Introduction

High specific stiffness and strength combined with excellent corrosion resistance of continuous thermosetting
fiber-reinforced plastics (FRPs) lead to their widespread applications in aerospace, automotive and marine
industries. In a narrow sense, generalized FRPs can be divided into thermosetting FRPs and thermoplastic FRTPs,

* Corresponding author: Zhequn Huang. Tel.: +81-3-5452-6204; Fax: +81-3-5452-6204.

E-mail address: hzhequn@iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp; huangzhequn@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Nagoya University
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.296
2124 Zhequn Huang et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128

according to the categories of the polymeric matrix. Joining FRPs with lightweight metals could increase the
weight-to-strength structural performance, overcome the drawbacks of FRPs and reduce overall fabrication cost.
Mechanical fastening, welding and adhesive bonding are the three conventional joining techniques for FRP-metal
hybrid components. However, bolts and rivets would unavoidably damage the continuous fibers, resulting in stress
concentration on joints and the short lifetime of the drill. Furthermore, FRP and metallic thin sheets (less than 1.0-
mm-thick) are more susceptible to gentle ply drop-off and bolt/rivet countersinking. The newly developed
ultrasonic and laser welding methods were respectively utilized by Balle et al. (2007) and Jung et al. (2011) for
joining a thin thermoplastic FRP sheet to a metallic sheet but not for joining a thermosetting FRP sheet. Adhesive
connections are simple to use, weight-cost-effective and capable of smooth and uniform load transfer. Moreover,
the high feasibility for thin sheets makes adhesive bonding suitable for ultra lightweight hybrid structures.
In response to the need for more effective joining techniques for thermosetting FRP-metallic ultra lightweight
hybrid structures, the adhesive–embossing hybrid joining process has recently been proposed by Huang et al.
(2013). Warm embossing process conducted in air rather than in an autoclave, instead of bolts or rivets, was
employed to improve FRP-metal adhesive bonding performance for the first time. In this study, the effects of a
dummy sheet, the relative position of the bonded specimen and the dummy sheet as well as the embossing
parameters on the hybrid joining quality were investigated. The applicability of the proposed hybrid joining
process to five FRP composites with different ply laminates and different types of fiber and polymeric matrix were
also examined. Optical microscopy, SEM observation, tensile shear test and peel test were utilized to evaluate the
performance of the adhesive–embossing hybrid joints. The mechanisms underlying the improved joining quality
and negative effects of the embossing processes on the mechanical properties of FRP sheets were also discussed.

2. Experimental procedure

2.1. Specimen preparation

The metallic adherend is 0.5-mm-thick A2017P-T3 sheet. The used elastic epoxy adhesive is Konishi Bond
MOS−8 with working temperature ranging from -40 °C to120 °C. Five different kinds of fiber-reinforced
composite thin sheets were used as adherends to study the effects of laminal structure and types of fiber and matrix
on adhesive-embossing hybrid joining. The 0.1-mm-thick prepreg P3252S-10 layers comprising continuous carbon
fibers (T700SC) and epoxy resin (#2592) were supplied by Toray Industries, Inc. The diameter of the carbon fibers
is 5 Pm and the weight fraction of carbon fibers in the CFRP sheet is 67 wt%. Two types of thermosetting CFRP
sheets are composed of six prepreg layers. The A-type CFRP is with cross lay-up: [0ͼ/90ͼ/0ͼ/0ͼ/90ͼ/0ͼ], while the
B-type CFRP is with quasi-isotropic lay-up: [0ͼ/60ͼ/120ͼ/120ͼ/60ͼ/0ͼ]. The 0.6-mm-thick CFRP sheets were
fabricated by hot pressing in a vacuum autoclave. In addition, GFRP (cross) [matrix: epoxy; reinforcement: plain-
weave glass-fabric cloth (3 layers)], GFRTP (cross) [matrix: PC; reinforcement: plain-weave glass-fabric cloth (2
layers)] and GFRTP (mat) [matrix: PC; reinforcement: glass mat] were also fabricated and used as composite
adherends to further test the feasibility of the proposed hybrid joining process, as presented by Huang et al. (2014).
Before the adhesive bonding process, each metallic sheet was polished with 100 grade emery paper. Both the
composite and metallic sheets were cleaned with acetone and dried in air. The bonded FRP-metal strips were cured
for 4 days at room temperature with the pressure of 550 kPa. The thickness of the adhesive layer was controlled by
SUS304 plate spacers. The adhesively bonded A2017P-CFRP strips were cut into 30±0.5 mm × 45±0.5 mm pieces
and the adhesively bonded part was 26 ± 0.5 mm (l) × 30 ± 0.5 mm (d) × 0.5 ± 0.07 mm (t), while the adhesively
bonded A2017P-GFRP strips were cut into 28± 0.5 mm × 60 ± 0.5 mm pieces and the adhesively bonded part was
26 ± 0.5 mm (l) × 28 ± 0.5 mm (d) × 0.6 ± 0.06 mm (t). To improve the stability and credibility of the results, the
joining quality was compared among the specimens cut from the same bonded strip.

2.2. Warm embossing process

Huang et al. (2013) confirmed that an elevated temperature could alleviate the spring-back of FRP sheet and
enhance its formability, but the embossing temperature should be controlled to be lower than the glass transition
temperature (Tg) of the polymeric matrix and within the working temperature of the adhesive. In this study,
 Zhequn Huang et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128 2125

adhesively bonded specimens were heated by an induction coil unit to the target temperature (80 ºC/100 ºC/110 ºC)
and embossed in air under a 5 ton hydraulic servo press (Thermecmaster-Z).The blank holding force was supplied
by a contact spring. The schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1(a). The used punch-die pair is
shown in Fig. 1(b). The detailed experimental conditions are given in Fig. 1(c). Moreover, a 0.5-mm-thick A2017P
sheet was used as a dummy sheet to protect the brittle thermosetting FRP. Two different placements, P1 and P2,
were studied and the hybrid joints obtained with and without a dummy sheet were also compared. The sample
placement without a dummy sheet was named as P3. The schematics of P1, P2 and P3 are illustrated in Fig. 1(d).
The embossing stroke was restricted by the limit drawing ratios of adherends. After a series of trials, the warm
embossing stroke was set at less than 2.0 mm, aiming at eliminating damage to the used adherends. The adhesively
bonded A2017P-CFRP specimens were embossed under six embossing sets with same embossing temperature
(100 °C and same embossing stroke (1.8 mm), i.e., AP1, AP2, AP3, BP1, BP2 and BP3; while the adhesively
bonded A2017P-GFRP (cross) specimens were embossed under another three embossing sets with same
embossing stroke (1.5 mm) and same sample placement (P2), i.e., G-T80, G-T100 and G-T110. ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘G’
respectively denote A-type and B-type CFRP sheets and GFRP (cross) sheet; ‘P1’, ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ are the three
sample placements; ‘T80’, ‘T100’ and ‘T110’ stand for the three embossing temperatures (80, 100 and 110 °C).
22
(a) (b) (c) 100
100 ͼC
20
Spring Punch Blank holder 18

Temperature (°C)
80 16

Stroke (mm)
High temperature
Room temperature 14
60 12
Induction Embossing stroke 10
coil 40 8
6
20 4
2
0 0
Die
  Dummy sheet
0 8 16 24 32 40 48
-2
Thermo couple
Time (second)
Adherend:
(d) P1 Dummy sheet: Adherend: P2 Adhesive CFRP sheet
P3 Adherend:
Adhesive CFRP sheet
metallic sheet metallic sheet
Adherend:
metallic sheet Adherend:
Adherend: metallic sheet
CFRP sheet
Adhesive Dummy sheet:
metallic sheet

Fig. 1. (a) Simplified schematic of experimental setup for warm embossing process; (b) dimensions of the used punch-die pair; (c) embossing
conditions; (d) schematic illustrations of three sample placements (P1, P2 and P3).

3. Results and discussion

The top view images and cross sections of the fabricated A2017P-CFRP hybrid joints are shown in Fig. 2(a).
After the warm embossing process, the surface of A-type CFRP is smooth, while that of B-type CFRP shows some
wrinkles (in the BP1 and BP2 joints). The cross sections indicate that, in the AP1 and BP1 joints, the adhesive
located in the embossing zone is peeled off because of the spring-back difference between the CFRP and A2017P
sheets. In contrast, the CFRP sheets in the AP2 and BP2 joints have much higher deformation degrees; thus, the
formation consistency and bonding quality of the AP2 and BP2 joints are much better than those of AP1 and BP1
joints. To investigate the effect of the dummy sheet, AP3 and BP3 hybrid joints were also fabricated. The cross-
sectional observation of the AP2, AP3, BP2 and BP3 hybrid joints are compared in Fig. 2(b). In the optical
micrographs, the dark round zones between the A2017P and CFRP sheets are micro-voids generated in the
adhesive bonding process. Delamination between different layers can be observed in the T-section of the AP3 joint.
In the case of the BP3 hybrid joint, in addition to the occurrence of delamination, the CFRP laminates were
severely damaged. This cross-sectional observation confirms that using a dummy sheet improves the formability of
CFRP sheet, which is consistent with that reported by Yanagimoto and Ikeuchi (2012).
2126 Zhequn Huang et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128

T
(a) AP1 AP2 Cross Section (b)

AP1
T’ L L’

T-section Observation zone L-section Observation zone

AP2 T-section: AP2 T-section: BP2 A2017P L-section: BP2

A-type CFRP A-type CFRP A2017P A2017P
Adhesive
Adhesive Adhesive
BP1 BP2 CFRP CFRP CFRP

500 Pm 500 Pm 500 Pm

BP1
T-section: AP3 T-section: BP3 L-section: BP3 A2017P
A2017P A2017P
Adhesive
Delamination Adhesive Delamination Delamination
Adhesive CFRP

wrinkles wrinkles BP2 CFRP CFRP

B-type CFRP B-type CFRP 500 Pm 500 Pm 500 Pm

Fig. 2. (a) Top view and cross sections of AP1, AP2, BP1 and BP2; (b) optical micrographs of observation zone of AP2, BP2, AP3 and BP3.

The joining performance of adhesively bonded and hybrid joints was evaluated by tensile shear and peel tests
using an Instron test machine–Shimadzu AG-50kNG tester at room temperature. The crosshead speed of the tensile
shear test was 1 mm/min and the gauge length was 30 mm. The results of tensile shear tests on the adhesively
bonded joints, AP1, AP2, AP3, BP1, BP2 and BP3 hybrid joints are shown in Fig. 3 (a) and (b). It is clear that the
AP2 and BP2 hybrid joints display the largest maximum tensile shear load, displacement and absorption energy
among all the joints. The joint efficiency factors of AP2 and BP2 hybrid joints are 34.4% and 43.4%, respectively.
However, the tensile shear load and displacement of the AP3 and BP3 joints did not show significant increases
from those of the adhesively bonded joints. After reaching the peak load, the tensile shear load of BP3 joint
exhibited a gradual decrease which was a characteristic of fiber de-bonding, fiber fracture and fiber pullout. The
improved joining quality after the optimal warm embossing processes is mainly attributed to the mechanical
anchor effect of the embossed pit, the expansion of the adhesive area, the concentration of adhesive at the edge of
the pit and the heating procedure, which has been experimentally verified by Huang et al. (2013).
The designed device for peel test is shown in Fig. 3(c). The peel test is carried out by applying the peel load on
the vertical part of A2017P sheet. The CFRP sheet is fixed and only capable to move horizontally. Fig. 3(d) shows
that the peel loads of adhesively bonded joints were slightly increased after the optimal embossing processes.

A2017P-CFRP (A-type) A2017P-CFRP (B-type) Tensile load

T
(a) Adhesive bonding (b) Adhesive bonding (c)
AP1 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining BP1 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining
5.0 AP2 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining 5.0 BP2 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining
AP3 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining BP3 Adhesive & Embossing hybrid joining Move
Tensile shear load (kN)

Tensile shear load (kN)

4.0 4.0
(d) Peel test: A2017P-CFRP (A-type)
3.0 3.0 0 3
0.30 Adhesively bonded joint
Peel force (kN)

0.25
Adhesive-embossing
2.0 2.0 0.20 hybrid-bonded joint
0.15
1.0 1.0 0.10
0.05
0.0 0.0 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 10 20 30
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3. (a) Tensile shear load/displacement curves for A2017P-CFRP (A-type); (b) tensile shear load/displacement curves for A2017P-CFRP
(B-type); (c) schematic and setup of peel test; (d) representative peel force/displacement curves of AP2 hybrid and adhesively bonded joints.

Zhao and Zhang (2007) categorized the failure modes of CFRP-metal joints into a: metal and adhesive
interfacial de-bonding, b: cohesive failure in adhesive layer, c: CFRP and adhesive interfacial de-bonding, d: CFRP
delamination, e: metal yielding and f: CFRP tensile rupture. The failure surfaces of the AP1, AP2, AP3, BP1, BP2
and BP3 are shown in Fig. 4. The SEM observation shows that the rupture fractures in BP3 can be divided into
‘bending’ fracture (Fig. 4(a)) and ‘stair’ fracture (Fig. 4(c)). The bending area caused by plastic deformation would
 Zhequn Huang et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128 2127

become the weakest point in the CFRP, as the tensile strength of the carbon fibers is anisotropic. Once the fractures
originate in the bending zone, they could grow and extend quickly, resulting in the subsequent ‘stair’ fractures.

AP1 BP1 SEM observation of BP3 hybrid joint

after tensile shear test

(a) (b)
c mode c mode
AP2 BP2

100 Pm 50 Pm

a, b and c modes a, b and c modes (c) (d)

AP3 BP3

100 Pm 50 Pm

a, b and c modes d and f modes

Fig. 4. Failure surfaces of AP1, AP2, AP3, BP1, BP2 and BP3 hybrid joints as well as SEM observation of rupture failure in BP3 hybrid joint.

The embossing process could avoid direct fiber cut-off but still induce some damage to CFRP sheet, which is
attributed to the poor formability of CFRP sheet caused by the anisotropic effect of fibers and the features of
thermosetting matrix. Micro-voids and fiber de-bonding could be observed in AP2 (Fig. 5(a)), while delamination
occurred in BP2 (Fig. 5(b)). In order to study the negative effects on two types of CFRP sheets, tensile tests of an
intact CFRP sheet, CFRP sheets (Fig. 5(c) and (d)) with 0.5-mm-deep, 1.5-mm-deep and 2.5-mm-deep pits and a
CFRP sheet with a 4.1-mm-diameter hole (for rivet joining) were compared in Fig. 5(e) and (f), respectively. The
tensile strength reduction of A-type CFRP with a 1.5-mm-deep embossed pit is about 25%, but A-type CFRP sheet
with a predrilled hole shows a 65% tensile strength reduction. For B-type CFRP sheet, both embossing and
predrilling processes result in significant deterioration of mechanical properties. Overall, the adhesive–embossing
hybrid joining process displays obvious advantages over rivet joining for the A2017P-CFRP (A-type) thin sheets.

(a) AP2 (b) BP2 (c) (e) A-type CFRP (f) B-type CFRP
CFRP CFRP
CFRP with 0.5mm-deep embossed pit CFRP with 0.5mm-deep embossed pit
800 CFRP with 1.5mm-deep embossed pit 500
Tensile Strength σ (MPa)

0ͼ layer CFRP with 1.5mm-deep embossed pit

Tensile stress σ (MPa)

Delamination between 700 CFRP with 2.5mm-deep embossed pit CFRP with 2.5mm-deep embossed pit
1 2 3 4 5 CFRP with Ø4.1mm drilled hole 400 CFRP with Ø4.1mm drilled hole
60ͼͼ layer and 120ͼ layer 600
Fiber de-bonding
Micro-voids 500
300
400
(d) 300 200
200
100
100
1 2 3 4 5 0 0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
50 Pm 50 Pm
Strain ε Strain ε

Fig. 5. (a) and (b) Cross-sectional observation of AP2 and BP2 hybrid joints; (c) and (d) photographs of CFRP (A-type and B-type) sheets
under different processes; (e) and (f) tensile stress/strain curves of A-type and B-type CFRP sheets under different processes.

In the subsequent study, the feasibilities of this hybrid joining process to another three kinds of glass-reinforced
composites (Fig. 6(a)) were also investigated by Huang et al. (2014). A2017P-GFRP (cross), A2017P-GFRTP
(cross) and A2017P-GFRTP (mat) hybrid joints (Fig. 6(b)) were fabricated at 100ͼC with the same stroke of 1.5
mm. After embossing processes, the GFRTP (cross) and GFRTP (mat) sheets partially softened. Only in A2017P-
GFRP (cross) hybrid joint, the A2017P and composite sheets deformed consistently. In the other two hybrid joints,
the adhesive severely peeled off the surface of the composite sheet, owing to the large spring-back difference
between the two dissimilar adherends. It was experimentally confirmed that this hybrid joining process is not
feasible for A2017P-GFRTP thin sheets. To further investigate the effect of embossing temperature on the joining
performance, the tensile shear test results of adhesively bonded joint, G-T80, G-T100 and G-T110 are compared in
Fig. 7(a)-(c), which shows that the G-T80 hybrid joints possess the best joining properties and the highest stability.
2128 Zhequn Huang et al. / Procedia Engineering 81 (2014) 2123 – 2128

(a) GFRP (cross) A2017P

(b)
A2017P-GFRP (cross) hybrid joint Adhesive

Plane-weave Epoxy 'T1=7.5ͼ GFRP

200 μ
μm
glass-fabric cloth 500 Pm
Adhesive was not peeled off.
A2017P
GFRTP (cross)
Adhesive
A2017P-GFRTP (cross) hybrid joint
Voids
Peeled off zone
'T2=10.3ͼ GFRTP
PC 200 μ
μm
Plane-weave
500 Pm
glass-fabric cloth Adhesive was peeled off. Softened matrix

A2017P

GFRTP (mat)
Adhesive
A2017P-GFRTP (mat) hybrid joint
Peeled off zone

'T3=9.2ͼ GFRTP
PC 200 μm
μ
Glass mat 500 Pm
Adhesive was peeled off. Softened matrix

Fig. 6. Schematics and cross sections of the manufactured GFRP (cross), GFRTP (cross) and GFRTP (mat) sheets as well as cross-sectional
images of A2017P-GFRP (cross), A2017P-GFRTP (cross) and A2017P-GFRTP (mat) hybrid joints.

A2017P-GFRP (cross) (b) A2017P-GFRP (cross) (c) A2017P-GFRP (cross)

(a) Adhesive bonding Adhesive bonding Adhesive bonding
Tensile shear load (kN)
Tensile shear load (kN)

Tensile shear load (kN)

4.0 4.0 Adhesive-embossing 4.0
Adhesive-embossing Adhesive-embossing
3.5 hybrid joining (G-T80) 3.5 hybrid joining (G-T100) 3.5 hybrid joining (G-T110)
3.0 3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Fig. 7. Comparison of tensile shear load/displacement curves for exploring the optimal single-lap A2017P-GFRP (cross) hybrid joint.

4. Conclusions

This study indicates that the proposed adhesive–embossing hybrid joining process has benefits in terms of
weight-cost saving and joining performance. After the optimal embossing process, the maximum tensile shear load,
displacement as well as the absorption energy of adhesively bonded A2017P-CFRP (A-type) joint increase by
69.2%, 48.0%, and 165.3%, respectively, with no degradation of the peel load. The hybrid joining method is also
applicable for A2017P-CFRP (B-type) and A2017P-GFRP (cross) ultra lightweight hybrid structures.

Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (Contract No. 22246093)
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan.
References
Balle, F., Wagner, G., Eifler, D., 2007. Ultrasonic spot welding of aluminum sheet/carbon fiber reinforced polymer-joints. Mat.-wiss. u.
Werksofftech. 38, 934-938.
Huang, Z., Sugiyama, S., Yangimoto, J., 2013. Hybrid joining process for carbon fiber reinforced thermosetting plastic and metallic thin
sheets by chemical bonding and plastic deformation. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 213, 1864-1874.
Huang, Z., Sugiyama, S., Yangimoto, J., 2014. Applicability of Adhesive–Embossing Hybrid Joining Process to Glass-Fiber-Reinforced
Plasticand Metallic Thin Sheets. J. Mater. Process. Technol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.11.020.
Jung, K. W., Kawahito, Y., Katayama, S., 2011. Laser direct joining of carbon fibre reinforced plastic to stainless steel. Sci. Technol. Weld.
Joining.16, 676-680.
Yanagimoto, J., Ikeuchi, K., 2012. Sheet forming process of carbon fiber reinforced plastics for lightweight part. CIRP Ann.-Manuf.
Technol. 61, 247-250.
Zhao, X. L., Zhang, L., 2007. State of the art review on FRP strengthened steel structures. Eng.Struct. 29, 1808-1823.