See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240423255

A study on tensile properties of a novel fiber/metal laminates

Article  in  Materials Science and Engineering A · July 2010

DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2010.04.028

CITATIONS READS

70 717

4 authors:

Seyed Ebrahim Moussavi Torshizi Soheil Dariushi

Shahid Beheshti University Iran Polymer and Petrochemical Institute
13 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mojtaba Sadighi Pedram Safarpour

Amirkabir University of Technology Shahid Beheshti University
190 PUBLICATIONS   2,133 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Composite View project

low velocity impact on composites and nanocomposites View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seyed Ebrahim Moussavi Torshizi on 05 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

A study on tensile properties of a novel fiber/metal laminates

S. Ebrahim Moussavi-Torshizi a,b , Soheil Dariushi c , Mojtaba Sadighi c,∗ , Pedram Safarpour a
a
Energy Department, Power and Water University of Technology, 16765-1719 Tehran, Iran
b
Niroo Research Institute, 14155-1655 Tehran, Iran
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, 15875-4413 Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are layered materials based on stacked arrangements of aluminum alloy lay-
Received 13 August 2009 ers and fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) layers. FMLs have benefits over both aluminum and fiber reinforced
Received in revised form 6 April 2010 composites. In this work, glass fibers and Kevlar fibers are used together and effect of fibers orientation on
Accepted 7 April 2010
tensile behavior of this novel material is investigated. A modified classical laminate theory (CLT), which
considers the elastic–plastic behavior of the aluminum sheets, and a numerical simulation method based
on finite element modeling (FEM) are used to predict the stress–strain response of FMLs. Specimens were
Keywords:
made and mechanical testing was performed to determine in-plane tensile properties of this type of FMLs.
Fiber metal laminates
Tensile test
Good agreement is obtained between the models predictions and experimental results. Test results show
Analytical modeling that fiber sheets with zero orientation in laminate improve modulus of elasticity, yield stress and ulti-
Finite element simulation mate tensile stress considerably. Statistical analysis of data is done and an estimated response surface
Glass/Kevlar fibers of ultimate tensile strength of the specimens as a function of fiber orientation in each layer is obtained.
Also, the effect of the independent variables and interactions with their relative significance on the tensile
behavior is specified. It is shown that Kevlar fiber orientation is the most important parameter between
all variables and their interactions.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The unique combination of ductile aluminum layers with high
strength FRP layers results in a unique FML having light weight, out-
standing fatigue resistance, high specific static properties, excellent
impact resistance, good residual and blunt notch strength, flame
resistance and ease of manufacture and repair [1–5].
The FMLs with glass fibers (trade name GLARE), and Kevlar
fibers (trade name ARALL), and carbon fibers (trade name CARE)
are attracting the interest of a number of aircraft manufacturers.
For example, ARALL was used in the manufacture of the cargo door
of the American C-17 transport aircraft and GLARE laminates were
selected as the upper fuselage materials in the ultra-high capacity
Airbus 380 and lower wing panels of the Fokker 27 [6–8].
Among FMLs, ARALL and GLARE have received widespread
attention. However, since a multiplicity of metal alloy sheets and
basic composite laminates are nowadays accessible, their possible
combinations result in a virtually infinite variety of FMLs. Conse-
quently, the selection of the best FML for a given application is a
challenging task [9]. In Table 1 the advantages and disadvantages
of Kevlar and glass fibers are compared. Suitable combination of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 64543448; fax: +98 21 66419736.
E-mail address: mojtaba@aut.ac.ir (M. Sadighi).
these two fibers results in a layer with superior properties. Placing
glass fibers in outer position, results in better connection between
aluminum layers and fibrous layers. In addition, glass/epoxy layers
protect Kevlar/epoxy layer from moisture.
The mechanical properties of FML have been object of inves-
tigations in many research institutes, universities and aircraft
industries. Fatigue, tension, compression, shear and impact are the
main tests under use for screening properties of FML [10–16].
Hagenbeek et al. [16] presented an effective calculation tool for
uniaxial stress–strain curves and showed that the method is valid
for all GLARE types. The Norris failure model was described in com-
bination with a metal volume fraction approach leading to a useful
tool to predict allowable blunt notch strength. They also showed
that the volume fraction approach is also useful in the case of the
shear yield strength of fiber metal laminates. Krishnakumar [17]
showed that the tensile strength of many FMLs is superior to that
of traditional aerospace-grade aluminum alloys. Vogelesang et al.
[18] investigated the tension–tension fatigue response of GLARE
and showed that crack growth rates in FMLs were between one
tenth and one hundredth of those measured in a monolithic alu-
minum alloy. Xia et al. [19] characterized the quasi-static and high
strain rate tensile behavior of carbon fiber reinforced aluminum
laminate (CARE). They developed a constitutive model to predict
the stress–strain relationship of CARE with different strain rates.
Wu et al. [20] evaluated the tensile, compressive and shear prop-
erties of a range of GLARE materials and found that a simple rule

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2010.04.028
 S.E. Moussavi-Torshizi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925 4921

Table 1
Identified advantages and disadvantages of various fibers for FMLs [6,25].

Fiber Advantage Disadvantage Conventional FML

Kevlar Outstanding Weak in bending, ARALL

toughness buckling,
Excellent fatigue compression
resistance in both loading and
tensile-tensile and transverse tension
flexural fatigue Absorb moisture
loading. Do not form strong
High Young’s bonds with other
modulus materials such as
Low weight composite matrices
Glass High tensile High weight GLARE Fig. 2. Stress–strain curve of aluminum sheet.
strength Low stiffness
Do not absorb
moisture

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the stacking sequence and fiber orientation in layers
of the specimens.

of mixtures approach can successfully be used to predict many key

mechanical properties of these materials. The FMLs examined in
this study were based on an aluminum alloy and a glass fiber rein-
forced thermoplastic. Zhoua et al. [21] characterized the high strain
rate tensile behavior of Kevlar fiber reinforced aluminum laminate
(KRALL) using a high-speed tensile impact machine and showed
that yield strength, tensile strength and failure strain of the FMLs
all increase with increasing strain rate.
In present study, the effect of fiber orientation on properties of
glass-Kevlar fiber/aluminum laminates is investigated under static
in-plane tensile loading conditions. Glass-Kevlar/aluminum lam-
inates consist of two layers of aluminum alloy sheets and two
layers of glass fiber in epoxy resin and one layer of Kevlar fiber
in epoxy resin. An analytical model, which modifies the CLT to
consider the elastic–plastic behavior of the aluminum sheets, is
used. Also, a numerical simulation, based on finite element model-
ing is employed to predict the stress–strain response of FMLs. The
correlations of the numerical simulation, analytical modeling and
experimental results are discussed.
Moreover, statistical analyses are performed to show the effect
of the independent variables and interactions with their relative
significance on the tension behavior. Also, an estimated response
surface of ultimate tensile stress of the specimens as a function of
fiber orientation in each layer is obtained.
Table 2
Notations, layering and fiber orientation of each specimen.
Specimen code Lay up and fiber orientation (◦ )
Fig. 3. Schematic illustration of stress–strain curves.
2. Materials and procedures
The materials used for manufacturing of specimens were alu-
minum AA 5086 sheets with 1 mm thickness (with 95.2% Al, 0.36%
of Fe, 0.02% of Ti, 3.83% of Mg, 0.23% of Mn, 0.17% of Si, 0.01% of
Zn, 0.01% of Cu and 0.15% of Cr), unidirectional glass fiber (E-glass,
400 g/m2 ), unidirectional Kevlar fiber (Kevlar 3160, 280 g/m2 ) and
epoxy resin (Huntsman, CY 219 with hardener HY 5160).
Specimens were fabricated using hand – lay-up method fol-
lowed by pressurizing them during the curing process. Pressurizing
results in reduction of voids and removal of excess resin. Residual
voids were very small and thus, negligible. Average volume fraction
of fibers in glass/epoxy (G/E) layers and Kevlar/epoxy (K/E) layers
was 57% and did not vary with lay-up angle. The weight percent-
age of Kevlar versus glass fibers was almost 25%. Nine groups of
symmetric specimens with different fiber orientations (AL – G/E
( 1 ) – K/E ( 2 ) – G/E ( 1 ) – AL) and 3 mm thickness were fabricated
(Fig. 1). Notations, stacking sequence and fiber orientation of each
specimen are presented in Table 2.
Wu and Wu [22] showed both experimentally and analytically
that it is better to use the straight-sided specimens for tension
testing of fiber/metal hybrid laminates. Therefore, straight-sided

A AL – G/E (0) – K/E (0) – G/E (0) – AL Table 3

B AL – G/E (0) – K/E (45) – G/E (0) – AL Material properties.
C AL – G/E (0) – K/E (90) – G/E (0) – AL
Materials Eel (GPa) Epl (GPa)  y (MPa)  ul (MPa)
D AL – G/E (45) – K/E (0) – G/E (45) – AL
E AL – G/E (45) – K/E (45) – G/E (45) – AL Metallic layera 46.5 0.77 275 335
F AL – G/E (45) – K/E (90) – G/E (45) – AL Kevlar fiber [25] 120 – – 2200
G AL – G/E (90) – K/E (0) – G/E (90) – AL Glass fiber [25] 73 73 – 1000
H AL – G/E (90) – K/E (45) – G/E (90) – AL Epoxya 2 2 – 57
I AL – G/E (90) – K/E (90) – G/E (90) – AL a
Data obtained from test results.
4922 S.E. Moussavi-Torshizi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925

Fig. 6. Estimated response surface for specimens.

layers are linear. For a linear elastic FML behavior [23]:

FML ≤ (y )FML (1)
EFML
(y )FML = (y )AL (2)
EAL
where  FML is total stress in laminate, ( y )FML is yield stress of lami-
nate, EFML is the Young’s modulus of the laminate, EAl is the Young’s
modulus of aluminum layer and ( y )AL is yield stress of aluminum
layer. The equation can be derived as:
Fig. 4. Finite element model: (a) meshing; (b) boundary conditions. E t + E t 
AL AL FRP FRP
FML = · εFML (3)
tFML
tensile test specimens were prepared according to ASTM D 3039- where tAl is the total thickness of aluminum layers, tFRP is the total
00 with dimensions of 175 mm × 25 mm × 3 mm, and tested by thickness of fibrous layers consist of one Kevlar/epoxy layer and
Instron 8502 (30 tons) apparatus. The grip-to-grip separation of the two glass/epoxy layers. The thickness of each Glass/epoxy layer
specimens and the loading rate was 80 mm and 1 mm/min, respec- was about 0.35 mm and thickness of Kevlar/epoxy layer was about
tively. As the acceptable failure mode (out of grip) was observed 0.3 mm. tFML is the total thickness of all layers, and εFML is total
for all specimens, end tabs were not used. Stress–strain curve of strain of laminate. EFRP is the Young’s modulus of the fibrous Layer
aluminum sheet tested in similar condition with FML specimen is which was calculated using classical laminate theory. In the second
shown in Fig. 2. part aluminum becomes plastic. For elastic–plastic laminate:

3. Analytical modeling εFML ≥ (εel )AL (4)

where (εel )AL is elastic strain of aluminum layer. The modulus of
The stresses in the metal and FRP layers due to static in-plane elasticity in this part is calculated in the same way as the first part
tensile loading condition can be determined assuming compatibil- but with (Epl )AL instead of (Eel )AL .
ity at the interfaces between the different layers and neglecting
discontinuities like debonding or delaminations in the laminates. (Epl )AL tAL + EFRP tFRP
ÊFML = (5)
The laminates are cured at room temperature so residual stresses tFML
are negligible. As shown in Fig. 3, the elastic–plastic behavior of  
tAL Epl
aluminum laminates characterized with a bilinear stress–strain FML = (y )AL 1− + ÊεFML (6)
tFML Eel
relation and the FRP layers are assumed to show linear elastic AL
behavior up to fracture point. Based on classical laminate theory, where (Epl )AL is tangent modules of aluminum stress–strain curve
when only in-plane loads are concerned and specimens are sym- in plastic region, and ÊFML is tangent modules of FML stress–strain
metric, the equations can be derived for one-dimensional stress in curve in plastic region. Now the stress–strain relationship of FML
all layers like below. laminates can be calculated using Eqs. (3) and (6). The necessary
It can be observed from Fig. 3 that, stress–strain curve of FML is property parameters of all the constituents for calculations are
separated into two parts. In the first part both aluminum and fiber given in Table 3.
reinforced plastic (FRP) layers like glass/epoxy and Kevlar/epoxy

Fig. 5. One of the layered elements of specimen H. Fig. 7. Pareto chart.

 S.E. Moussavi-Torshizi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925 4923

Table 4
Results of tensile tests.

Specimen code Young’s modulus (GPa) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate tensile stress (MPa) Elongation (%)

A 41.98 ± 2.43 259 ± 13.21 445.4 ± 27.61 9.97 ± 0.92

B 39.27 ± 3.61 232 ± 19.02 345 ± 24.5 11.48 ± 1
C 39.1 ± 2.39 220 ± 15.18 302.5 ± 17.85 12 ± 0.82
D 40.39 ± 3.19 210.5 ± 15.37 341.8 ± 24.61 12.88 ± 1.02
E 35.32 ± 1.87 195.8 ± 11.94 227.5 ± 13.2 12.5 ± 0.73
F 35.21 ± 1.37 195.3 ± 8.2 228.1 ± 10.04 12.26 ± 0.42
G 39.56 ± 2.69 226.9 ± 15.88 334.8 ± 24.11 13.17 ± 1.09
H 35.04 ± 2.94 195.5 ± 15.44 212 ± 14.63 13.85 ± 1.17
I 35.12 ± 1.72 191.1 ± 10.51 211 ± 11.39 12.9 ± 0.67

4. Finite element simulation
In this study the FMLs were modeled by commercially avail-
able FEM software, ANSYS 11 with SHELL 91 element. SHELL 91
is a nonlinear layered structural shell element. The element is
defined by eight nodes, layer thicknesses, layer material direc-
tion angles, and orthotropic material properties. The element
has six degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x-,
y-, and z-axes. The loading was introduced by a uniform ten-

Fig. 8. Specimens after tensile test.

4924 S.E. Moussavi-Torshizi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925
Fig. 9. Comparison stress–strain curves of specimens.
Fig. 10. Stress–strain curves for A specimen.
sile force along two boundaries in the X direction as shown in
Fig. 4, during the solution of the problem, the load is gradu-
ally increased in 100 substeps and every substep was written
to results file. The glass/epoxy and Kevlar/epoxy layers were
modeled with structural → linear → elastic → orthotropic materi-
als, and the elastic–plastic characteristic of aluminum layers were
modeled with structural → nonlinear → inelastic → rate indepen-
dent → isotropic hardening plasticity → Mises plasticity → bilinear
materials. The mapping mesh technique was used for the entire
domain with 100 elements and 351 nodes. Fig. 5 shows one of
the layered elements of specimen H. Material properties used in
modeling, are summarized in Table 3.
5. Results and discussion
Table 4 shows the tensile test results. Failure is assumed as being
the first significant load-drop on the stress–strain curves. By sta-
tistical analyses of data an estimated response surface of ultimate
tensile stress as a function of fiber orientation in each layer, which
is shown in Fig. 6, was obtained. This response surface estimates
the ultimate tensile stress for each combination of layers with dif-
ferent orientation according to least square method. The regression
Fig. 11. Stress–strain curves for B specimen.
Fig. 12. Stress–strain curves for C specimen.
equation which has been fitted to the data are shown below, where
the value of the variables are specified in their original units.
Ultimate tensile stress = 442.846 − 3.64341 × 1 − 3.39786 × 2
+ 0.0255132 × 12 + 0.00235802
× 1 2 + 0.0220317 × 22 (7)
The main effects of  1 and  2 represent the average result of chang-
ing one variable at a time from its low level to its high level. The
interaction terms ( 1  2 , 12 and 22 ) show how the ultimate tensile
stress changes when 2 variables are simultaneously changed. The
standardized effect of the independent variables and their inter-
action on the dependent variable was investigated by preparing a
Pareto chart (Fig. 7). A Pareto chart is a vertical bar graph in which
values are plotted in decreasing order of relative frequency from
left to right. Pareto charts are extremely useful for analyzing the
level of effectiveness of the terms; the tallest bar represents the
most effective term.
The length of each bar in the chart indicates the standardized
effect of that factor on the response [24]. The fact that, the bar
remains inside the reference line in Fig. 7, and the small coefficients
for these terms in regression equation indicate that these terms
contribute the least in prediction the ultimate tensile stress. Thus
 2 and  1 are the most important effective parameters, respectively,
and the effect of  1  2 is not significant.
Fig. 8 shows the specimens after tensile test. Comparing modu-
lus of elasticity and ultimate tensile stress for specimens A, B and C
with two 0◦ glass/epoxy layer show that using Kevlar/epoxy layer
with 0◦ is better than 45◦ layer and 45◦ layer is better than 90◦ layer.
However, Specimen A has the lowest percent of elongation between
all specimens. Comparing specimens D, E and F and specimens G,
H and I with same glass/epoxy layers and different Kevlar/epoxy
layers confirm this result. It is shown in Fig. 9.
Also comparing specimens A, D and G or B, E and H or C, F
and I that each group have same Kevlar/epoxy layers and differ-
ent glass/epoxy layers show that using glass/epoxy layer with 0◦ is
better than 45◦ layer and 45◦ layer is better than 90◦ layer.
Figs. 10–18 show the stress–strain curves that are obtained from
tests in comparison with analytical prediction curves and FEM pre-
diction results; it is clear that analytical calculations and finite
element modeling results are in good agreement with the experi-
mental results, differences between experimental and theoretical
calculations are expected for FRP layers since the interface effect or
void presence are not considered in the theoretical model. In addi-
tion, debonding between metallic layers and FRP layers was not
modeled. Based on selected material model and iteration solving,
FEM model can predict softening prior to yield.
 S.E. Moussavi-Torshizi et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 527 (2010) 4920–4925 4925

Fig. 13. Stress–strain curves for D specimen. Fig. 18. Stress–strain curves for I specimen.

6. Conclusion

The effects of fiber orientation on tensile properties of

Fig. 14. Stress–strain curves for E specimen.
fiber/metal laminates are examined. From the results it can be con-
cluded that fiber sheets with zero orientation in laminate improve
modulus of elasticity, yield stress and ultimate tensile stress con-
siderably.
An analytical model was introduced and it was shown to be
applicable to predict the tensile behavior of laminates. In this
approach, elastic–plastic behavior of the aluminum sheets was
modeled by a bilinear relation and fiber reinforced plastic layers
was assumed to be linear elastic up to fracture. A finite element
simulation was also performed, this simulation showed good agree-
ment with experimental results, too.
Statistical analysis of experimental data was done and the effect
of the fiber orientation in each layer ( 1 and  2 ) and interactions
( 1  2 , 12 and 22 ) on the tensile behavior was specified. It was shown
that Kevlar fiber orientation ( 2 ) is the most important parameter
between all variables and their interactions.

References

[1] G. Wu, J.M. Yang, JOM 57 (2005) 72–79.

[2] S.L. Lemanski, G.N. Nurick, G.S. Langdon, M.S. Simmons, W.J. Cantwell, G.K.
Schleyer, Compos. Struct. 76 (2006) 82–87.
Fig. 15. Stress–strain curves for F specimen. [3] E.C. Botelho, R.A. Silva, L.C. Pardini, M.C. Rezende, Mater. Res. 9 (3) (2006)
247–256.
[4] R. Van Rooijen, J. Sinke, T.J. De Vries, S. Van Der Zwaag, Appl. Compos. Mater.
11 (2004) 63–76.
[5] G. Wu, Y. Tan, J.M. Yang, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 457 (2007) 338–349.
[6] J.F. Laliberte, C. Poon, P.V. Straznicky, A. Fahr, Polym. Compos. 21 (4) (2000)
558–567.
[7] E.M. Castrodeza, F.L. Bastian, J.E. Perez Ipina, Eng. Fract. Mech. 72 (2005)
2268–2279.
[8] G. Cavallini, G. Davi, A. Milazzo, Electron. J. Bound. Elem. 4 (1) (2006) 31–48.
[9] P. Iaccarino, A. Langella, G. Caprino, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (2007) 1748–1793.
[10] E.C. Botelho, R.S. Almeida, L.C. Pardini, M.C. Rezende, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 45 (2007)
163–172.
[11] G. Wu, J.M. Yang, Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 13 (2005) 413–425.
[12] M. Sadighi, S. Dariushi, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G: J. Aerosp. Eng. 222 (7)
(2008) 1015–1024.
[13] G.S. Langdon, G.N. Nurick, S.L. Lemanski, M.C. Simmons, W.J. Cantwell, G.K.
Schleyer, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (2007) 1385–1405.
Fig. 16. Stress–strain curves for G specimen.
[14] J.G. Carrillo, W.J. Cantwell, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (2007) 1684–1693.
[15] S.L. Lemanski, G.N. Nurick, G.S. Langdon, M.C. Simmons, W.J. Cantwell, G.K.
Schleyer, Int. J. Impact Eng. 34 (2007) 1223–1245.
[16] M. Hagenbeek, C. Van Hengel, O.J. Bosker, C. Vermeeren, Appl. Compos. Mater.
10 (2003) 207–222.
[17] S. Krishnakumar, Mater. Manuf. Processes 9 (2) (1994) 295–354.
[18] L.B. Vogelesang, J. Schijve, R. Fredell, Fibre-metal laminates: damage tolerant
aerospace materials, in: A. Demaid, J.H.W. de Wit (Eds.), Case Studies in Man-
ufacturing with Advanced Materials, vol. 2, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995, pp.
253–271.
[19] Y. Xia, Y. Wang, Y. Zhou, S. Jeelani, Mater. Lett. 61 (2007) 213–215.
[20] H.F. Wu, L.L. Wu, W.J. Slagter, J.L. Verolme, J. Mater. Sci. 29 (1994) 4583–4591.
[21] Y. Zhoua, Y. Wang, P.K. Mallick, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 381 (2004) 355–362.
[22] H.F. Wu, L.L. Wu, Composites Part A 27 (1996) 647–654.
[23] T.J. Vries, A. Vlot, F. Hashagen, Compos. Struct. 46 (1999) 131–145.
[24] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, 2000.
[25] S.T. Peters, Handbook of Composite, 2nd ed., Chapman & Hall, California, 1998.
Fig. 17. Stress–strain curves for H specimen.

View publication stats