Article

Experimental Characterization of the Properties of

Double-Lap Needled and Hybrid Joints of
Carbon/Epoxy Composites
A. Arnautov 1, *, A. Nasibullins 1 , V. Gribniak 1,2 , I. Blumbergs 1 and M. Hauka 1
Received: 14 August 2015 ; Accepted: 21 October 2015 ; Published: 11 November 2015
Academic Editor: Javier Narciso
1 Institute of Polymer Mechanics, University of Latvia, Aizkraukles Str. 23, Riga LV-1006, Latvia;
nasib@inbox.lv (A.N.); Viktor.Gribniak@vgtu.lt (V.G.); ilmars-b@inbox.lv (I.B.);
maris.hauka@gmail.com (M.H.)
2 Research Laboratory of Innovative Building Structures, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU),
Sauletekio Av. 11, Vilnius LT-10223, Lithuania
* Correspondence: alexander.arnautov@pmi.lv; Tel.: +371-2664-8325; Fax: +371-6782-0467

Abstract: The effect of through-thickness reinforcement by thin 1 mm steel needles (z-pins) on the
static tensile strength of double-lap joints of a carbon/epoxy composite was investigated. Two types
of joints—z-pinned and hybrid (including glued ones)—were considered. The joints were reinforced
in the overlap region with 9, 25, or 36 z-pins. Comparing mechanical properties of the double-lap
joints with the corresponding characteristics of their unpinned counterparts, the z-pins were found
to be highly effective: the strength and stiffness of the pinned joints increased up to 300% and 280%,
respectively. These improvements were due to a transition in the failure mechanism from debonding
of the joint in the absence of z-pins to pullout or shear rupture of z-pins or to the tensile failure of
laminate adherends, depending on the volume content of the pins.

Keywords: carbon/epoxy composite; mechanical properties; joints; z-pins; hybrid

1. Introduction
Over the past three decades, the application of composite materials has been increasing
continuously from traditional areas (such as aircraft engineering) to various fields in the automobile
industry and civil engineering. There are two basic types of joints of composite structural elements:
adhesive and mechanical. To realize the potential of advanced composites, especially in lightweight
structures, such as aircrafts, it is important to ensure that the adhesively bonded or mechanically
fastened joints do not reduce the effectiveness (in terms of the strength of materials and stiffness of the
joints) of the structure and be lighter in weight than bolted joints [1]. Mechanical connections remain
the key means for the transfer of loads between structural elements made of composite materials.
Typically, mechanically fastened joints are made by means of rivets or bolts. In designing the joints,
the reduced strength of composite materials to bearing capacity, their low elongation, brittle behavior
(for example, carbon composites), creep and stress relaxation must be taken into account.
Holes in materials create stress or strain concentrations and hence reduce their strength [2].
Lekhnitskii [3] assessed the theoretical magnitude of stress concentration in composite material at
the edge of a hole. For a plate loaded in tension, the stress concentration factor is calculated by
the formula: g ˜d
f ¸
f E1 E
k “ 1` 2
e ´ ν12 ` 1 (1)
E2 G12

Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586; doi:10.3390/ma8115410 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586

where E1 is the Young’s modulus in the direction of load axis; E2 is the Young’s modulus in the normal
direction; G12 is the in-plane shear modulus and ν12 is the principal Poisson’s ratio. It is possible
to increase strength of the connection by optimizing structure of a connected composite laminate.
Experimental [4] and theoretical results [3] revealed that the best tensile performance is achieved
using about 30% to 50% of ˘45º plies in a laminate.
The stress concentration factor (Equation (1)) increases with the size of the hole [3,5]. Whitney
and Nuismer [2,6] developed two criteria for the effect of holes on the tensile strength of composite
laminates. They are commonly referred to as the Average Stress Criterion (ASC) and the Point Stress
Criterion (PSC). Callus [4] reported that needles of a diameter ď1.0 mm distributed at the distance
greater than 3–5 diameters do not produce any weaknesses of material in the jointed composite sheets.
Reduced diameter of the fasteners allows us to achieve a uniform distribution of stresses along the
joints. This also eliminates the “cut-fiber” effect in the joints. To improve the ultimate strength of the
joints, the bonded region is often reinforced with stitches [7–10]. Stitching with high strength-fibrous
yarns in the overlap region increases the tensile strength of the joint up to 40% [11]. The stitching
requires the sewing of a continuous high-strength reinforcing thread through an uncured pre-preg
laminate or pre-form fabric before the consolidation or impregnation phase [10,12]. Numerous
investigations, ranging from analytical studies [13–15] to numerical (finite element) analyses [7,16,17],
have been conducted to identify the mechanics of stitching or z-pinned reinforcement. The bridging
mechanism of stitches and z-pins was extensively discussed in the literature [14,15].
Most of the studies (e.g., [7–20]) were focused on the benefits of z-pinned laminates such as
improved delamination toughness, impact damage tolerance, and joint strength. Although these
studies contributed to the clarification of the interaction between stitches and laminate, up to now,
the effect of various stitching parameters on the fracture performance of lap joints has not been
adequately understood. The adverse effects of z-pinned joints, particularly reductions to the in-plane
mechanical properties [21], have received less attention from researchers.
The main disadvantages of the stitched laminates can be related to the reductions in in-plane
mechanical properties (especially in pre-preg laminates) due to a failure and misalignment of the
fibers and increased concentration of the resin (polymer) around the needles [12]. Furthermore, the
bond-line thickness increases up to 20% with the pin content due to the swelling of the pre-preg stack
to accommodate the pins [11]. The increase in thickness can alter the magnitude of the bond-line
shear stress induced in the joint. Moreover, most of the pins become misaligned during the insertion
and subsequent autoclave consolidation of the lap joints [11].
The current manuscript presents an alternative approach for improving the ultimate strength of
the lapped joints. Unlike in previous works that consider the lap joints reinforced with stitches before
consolidation of the adherends, thin steel needles reinforce the bonded region after the consolidation.
The new pinning technique allows us to avoid concentration of the resin-rich zones around the pins,
securing homogeneous distribution of the polymer within the adherends. Moreover, it eliminates
misalignment of the fibers mentioned in the reference [12]. Damages of the adherends (the “cut-fiber”
effect) are reduced with decreasing diameter of the pins. The corresponding effects (improved
mechanical properties) can be considered as the main advantage of the proposed pinning technique
in respect to the traditional stitching technologies. The tensile behavior of double-lap joints z-pinned
with thin steel needles of diameter 1 mm is the object of the present experimental study. The effect
of the content of the z-pins on the strength of carbon/epoxy composite joints is investigated. The
adhesive joint is chosen as the reference evaluating effectiveness of two alternative types of overlap
connections: purely pinned and hybrid (additionally glued) joints.

2. Materials and Experimental Technique

Double-lap joints (DLJ) of a carbon fiber epoxy laminate with a [0˝ /90˝ /˘45˝ ]s lay-up were
investigated. Test specimens were cut from plates with the (0˝ ) fibers along the joint length, which
was also the direction of tensile loading. The mechanical properties of the carbon fibers reinforced

7579
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586

plastic plate are shown in Table 1. The overlap region was 30 mm long and 30 mm wide. The joints
were pinned through the overlap region by using 16 mm long needles made of carbon steel S185
(Erkrath, Germany). The mechanical properties of the needles are shown Table 2.

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
Table 1. Tensile properties of carbon fiber epoxy laminate plates (of thickness 3.5 mm).
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 
Table 1. Tensile properties of carbon fiber epoxy laminate plates (of thickness 3.5 mm). 
Young’s Modulus, Ultimate Tensile
Poisson’s Ratio ν21 Poisson’s Ratio ν31
Table 1. Tensile properties of carbon fiber epoxy laminate plates (of thickness 3.5 mm). 
E11 , GPa Strength σ11, MPa
Young’s Modulus,   Ultimate Tensile  
76.7 0.8
Young’s Modulus,  
˘ Poisson’s Ratio ν
0.44 ˘ 0.03 21  Poisson’s Ratio ν
0.042 ˘ 0.003 31  520 ˘ 26
Ultimate Tensile  
E11, GPa  Poisson’s Ratio ν21  Poisson’s Ratio ν31  Strength σ11, MPa 
E 11, GPa 
76.7 ± 0.8  0.44 ± 0.03  0.042 ± 0.003  Strength σ 11, MPa 
520 ± 26 
76.7 ± 0.8  0.44 ± 0.03  0.042 ± 0.003  520 ± 26 
Table 2. Mechanical properties of steel needles.
Table 2. Mechanical properties of steel needles. 
Table 2. Mechanical properties of steel needles. 
Tensile Modulus
Tensile Modulus   Tensile Yield
Tensile Yield Ultimate
Ultimate Poisson’s
Poisson’s Shear
Shear  
of Elasticity, GPa
Tensile Modulus   Point, MPa
Tensile Yield Elongation,
Ultimate % Ratio ν
Poisson’s Modulus,
Shear  GPa
of Elasticity, GPa  Point, MPa  Elongation, %  Ratio ν  Modulus, GPa 
of Elasticity, GPa 
200
200  Point, MPa 
420
420  Elongation, % 
18 18  Ratio ν 
0.31
0.31  Modulus, GPa 
80.0
80.0 
200  420  18  0.31  80.0 
The dimensions and the geometry of the samples are shown in Figure 1. Two types of DLJ
The dimensions and the geometry of the samples are shown in Figure 1. Two types of DLJ were 
were The dimensions and the geometry of the samples are shown in Figure 1. Two types of DLJ were 
investigated: only pinned with needles and hybrid (needled and adhesively bonded). For a
investigated: only pinned with needles and hybrid (needled and adhesively bonded). For a reference, 
investigated: only pinned with needles and hybrid (needled and adhesively bonded). For a reference, 
reference,
adhesive  adhesive DLJ (without
DLJ  (without  pins)also 
pins)  were  were also made.
made.  The epoxy
The  epoxy  compound
compound  ®  52 rwas 
Sikadur
Sikadur 52 was used
used  for 
adhesive 
for DLJ  (without 
production pins)  DLJ.
of the adhesive were The
also  made.  The 
mechanical epoxy  compound 
properties Sikadur
of the adhesive are  given
® 52  was  used 3.for 
in Table
production of the adhesive DLJ. The mechanical properties of the adhesive are given in Table 3. 
production of the adhesive DLJ. The mechanical properties of the adhesive are given in Table 3. 

 
 
Figure 1. Geometry of the samples and distribution schemes of the pins (all units in mm). 
Figure 1. Geometry of the samples and distribution schemes of the pins (all units in mm).
Figure 1. Geometry of the samples and distribution schemes of the pins (all units in mm). 
Table 3. Mechanical properties of Sikadur® 52 adhesive [22]. 
Table 3. Mechanical properties of Sikadurr 52 adhesive [22]. 
Table 3. Mechanical properties of Sikadur®
52 adhesive [22].
Tensile   Tensile  Ultimate  Poisson’s  
Tensile   Tensile  Ultimate  Poisson’s  
Tensile Modulus, GPa Tensile Strength, MPa Ultimate Strain, %Ratio ν 
Modulus, GPa  Strength, MPa  Strain, %  Poisson’s Ratio ν
Modulus, GPa 
1.93  Strength, MPa 
42.0  Strain, % 
3  Ratio ν 
0.31 
1.93 42.0
1.93  42.0  3 3 0.31  0.31

The joints were produced using 9, 25, and 36 pins. As shown in Figure 2, the pins were inserted 
The joints were produced using 9, 25, and 36 pins. As shown in Figure 2, the pins were
The joints were produced using 9, 25, and 36 pins. As shown in Figure 2, the pins were inserted 
(pinch‐fitted) into holes of diameter 1.0 mm drilled through an overlap region (Figure 1). The considered 
inserted (pinch-fitted) into holes of diameter 1.0 mm drilled through an overlap region (Figure 1).
(pinch‐fitted) into holes of diameter 1.0 mm drilled through an overlap region (Figure 1). The considered 
configurations of DLJ are shown in Figure 3. 
The considered configurations of DLJ are shown in Figure 3.
configurations of DLJ are shown in Figure 3. 

 
Figure 2. Side‐view on drilled holes in the overlap region. 
 
Figure 2. Side‐view on drilled holes in the overlap region. 
Figure 2. Side-view on drilled holes in the overlap region.
To determine the apparent strength of the joint, shear tests were performed according to ASTM 
To determine the apparent strength of the joint, shear tests were performed according to ASTM 
D 3983. The specimens were tested using MTS 809.40 (MTS Systems Corp., Eden Prairie, MN, USA) 
D 3983. The specimens were tested using MTS 809.40 (MTS Systems Corp., Eden Prairie, MN, USA) 
7580
servo‐hydraulic machine with 250 KN load cell. The test setup is shown in Figure 4. The ultimate 
servo‐hydraulic machine with 250 KN load cell. The test setup is shown in Figure 4. The ultimate 
strength and elongation of the joints were determined in monotonic loading at a crosshead speed of 
strength and elongation of the joints were determined in monotonic loading at a crosshead speed of 
2 mm/min. At least six specimens were tested for each type of DLJ. 
2 mm/min. At least six specimens were tested for each type of DLJ. 
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586

To determine the apparent strength of the joint, shear tests were performed according to ASTM
D 3983. The specimens were tested using MTS 809.40 (MTS Systems Corp., Eden Prairie, MN, USA)
servo-hydraulic machine with 250 KN load cell. The test setup is shown in Figure 4. The ultimate
strength and elongation of the joints were determined in monotonic loading at a crosshead speed of
2 mm/min. At least six specimens were tested for each type of DLJ.
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

 
Figure 3. Double‐lap adhesive joint (1) and hybrid joints with 9 (2), 25 (3) and 36 (4) pins, and the needles (5). 
Figure 3. Double-lap adhesive joint (1) and hybrid joints with 9 (2), 25 (3) and 36 (4) pins, and the
needles (5).  
Figure 3. Double‐lap adhesive joint (1) and hybrid joints with 9 (2), 25 (3) and 36 (4) pins, and the needles (5). 

 
Figure 4. The tensile test setup. 
 
The applied load‐displacement diagrams were recorded during testing. The shear stresses were 
Figure 4. The tensile test setup. 
calculated dividing the applied tensile load by the total bond area. The ultimate shear stress, the strain 
Figure 4. The tensile test setup.
at  the  maximum  shear  stress,  and  the  shear  stiffness  of  DLJ  (in  the  range  from  0%  to  10%  of  the 
The applied load‐displacement diagrams were recorded during testing. The shear stresses were 
ultimate loads) were also calculated using the load‐displacement recordings. 
The applied load-displacement diagrams were recorded during testing. The shear stresses were
calculated dividing the applied tensile load by the total bond area. The ultimate shear stress, the strain 
calculated dividing
at  the  maximum  the stress, 
shear  appliedand 
tensile load by
the  shear  the total
stiffness  of  bond area.
DLJ  (in  the The
range ultimate shear
from  0%  stress,
to  10%  of  the
the 
3. Results and Discussion 
strain at the maximum shear stress, and the shear stiffness of DLJ (in the range from 0% to 10% of the
ultimate loads) were also calculated using the load‐displacement recordings. 
ultimate loads) were also calculated using the load-displacement recordings.
The tests were carried out to assess the effect of content (i.e., number) of the z‐pins on the strength 
and  deformation  properties  of  the  joints.  Figures  5  and  6  show  the  averaged  load‐displacement 
3. Results and Discussion 
3. Results and Discussion
diagrams of pinned‐only and hybrid DLJ with a different content of the z‐pins. As can be observed, 
The tests were carried out to assess the effect of content (i.e., number) of the z‐pins on the strength 
The tests
the  shear  were carried
stiffness  outgradually 
increases  to assess the effect
with  the ofnumber 
content of 
(i.e., number)
the  of the
pins.  The  z-pins
curve  of on theunpinned 
the  strength
and  deformation  properties  of  the  joints.  Figures  5  and  6  show  the  averaged  load‐displacement 
(adhesive) joint rises almost linearly up to the peak stress of 14.2 MPa afterwards failing in a brittle 
and deformation properties of the joints. Figures 5 and 6 show the averaged load-displacement
diagrams of pinned‐only and hybrid DLJ with a different content of the z‐pins. As can be observed, 
manner due to the bond delamination. The failure tends to be catastrophic, which is a characteristic 
diagrams of pinned-only and hybrid DLJ with a different content of the z-pins. As can be observed,
the  shear  stiffness  increases  gradually  with  the  number  of  the  pins.  The  curve  of  the  unpinned 
of the epoxy resin (a rather brittle material). Similar results were observed for stitched joints [11]. 
the shear stiffness increases gradually with the number of the pins. The curve of the unpinned
(adhesive) joint rises almost linearly up to the peak stress of 14.2 MPa afterwards failing in a brittle 
(adhesive) joint rises almost linearly up to the peak stress of 14.2 MPa afterwards failing in a brittle
manner due to the bond delamination. The failure tends to be catastrophic, which is a characteristic 
manner due to the bond 60 Shear stress, MPa
delamination. adhesive  bond
The failure tends to be catastrophic,
9 needle bond
which is a characteristic
of the epoxy resin (a rather brittle material). Similar results were observed for stitched joints [11]. 
of the epoxy resin (a rather brittle material). Similar results were25 needle bond
observed for stitched joints [11].
45 36 needle bond
60 Shear stress, MPa adhesive  bond
9 needle bond
30 25 needle bond
45 36 needle bond

15
30 Displacement, mm
7581
0
15 0 1 2 3 4 5  
Displacement, mm
and  deformation  properties  of  the  joints.  Figures  5  and  6  show  the  averaged  load‐displacement 
diagrams of pinned‐only and hybrid DLJ with a different content of the z‐pins. As can be observed, 
the  shear  stiffness  increases  gradually  with  the  number  of  the  pins.  The  curve  of  the  unpinned 
(adhesive) joint rises almost linearly up to the peak stress of 14.2 MPa afterwards failing in a brittle 
manner due to the bond delamination. The failure tends to be catastrophic, which is a characteristic 
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586
of the epoxy resin (a rather brittle material). Similar results were observed for stitched joints [11]. 

60 Shear stress, MPa adhesive  bond
9 needle bond
25 needle bond
45 36 needle bond

30

15
Displacement, mm

0
0 1 2 3 4 5  
Figure 
Figure 5. 
5. Shear 
Shearstress‐displacement 
stress-displacement diagrams 
diagrams of 
of the 
the double‐lap 
double-lap needled 
needled joints 
joints reinforced 
reinforced with 
with
different numbers of the z‐pins. 
different numbers of the z-pins.
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

60 Shear stress, MPa
4 adhesive  bond
9 hybrid bond
25 hybrid bond
45 36 hybrid bond

30

15

Displacement, mm
0
0 1 2 3 4 5  
Figure  6.  Shear 
Figure 6. Shear stress‐displacement 
stress-displacement diagrams 
diagrams determined 
determined for 
for the 
the adhesive 
adhesive double‐lap 
double-lap joints  with 
joints with
different numbers of the z‐pins (arrows indicate the drop in the shear stress). 
different numbers of the z-pins (arrows indicate the drop in the shear stress).

Diagrams of the pinned (Figure 5) and the hybrid joints (Figure 6) initially increase in the same 
Diagrams of the pinned (Figure 5) and the hybrid joints (Figure 6) initially increase in the same
way as those of the adhesive joint, though possessing higher stiffness and strength. For the hybrid 
way as those of the adhesive joint, though possessing higher stiffness and strength. For the hybrid
joints, a small drop in the diagram occurs (at deformations between 0.4 and 1.5 mm, see Figure 6) before 
joints, a small drop in the diagram occurs (at deformations between 0.4 and 1.5 mm, see Figure 6)
the load increases up to the ultimate value. Such a drop corresponds to the opening of a debonding 
before the load increases up to the ultimate value. Such a drop corresponds to the opening of a
crack (without mechanical destruction of the joint). The pins, bridging the cracks, resist the applied 
debonding crack (without mechanical destruction of the joint). The pins, bridging the cracks, resist
load. For the pinned joint (Figure 5), the drop in the load was not observed; furthermore, the ultimate 
the applied load. For the pinned joint (Figure 5), the drop in the load was not observed; furthermore,
load bearing capacity corresponded to the elongation greater than it was achieved in the hybrid DLJ. 
the ultimate load bearing capacity corresponded to the elongation greater than it was achieved in
The test results are summarized in Table 4 and Figures 7 and 8. The following observations can be 
the hybrid DLJ. The test results are summarized in Table 4 and Figures 7 and 8. The following
made to compare deformation behavior of DLJ: 
observations can be made to compare deformation behavior of DLJ:
 Improvement of the mechanical properties of DLJ is significantly correlated with the number 
‚ Improvement of the mechanical properties of DLJ is significantly correlated with the number of
of pins (the minimum value of the determination coefficient r 2
2 is equal to 0.94). 
pins (the minimum value of the determination coefficient r is equal to 0.94).
 Application of z‐pins improved the mechanical properties of DLJ. As can be observed from 
‚ Application of z-pins improved the mechanical properties of DLJ. As can be observed from Table 4,
Table 4, the strength and the stiffness (calculated in the range from 0% to 10% of the ultimate 
the strength and the stiffness (calculated in the range from 0% to 10% of the ultimate load) of the
load) of the pinned‐only joints was increased by 300% and 120%, respectively. For the hybrid 
pinned-only joints was increased by 300% and 120%, respectively. For the hybrid joints, the increase
joints, the increase in both strength and stiffness was the same (i.e., 280%). 
in both strength and stiffness was the same (i.e., 280%).
 Comparing  the  mechanical  properties  of  the  reference  (adhesive)  and  pinned‐only  joints 
‚ Comparing the7a mechanical
(Figures  properties
and  8a),  the  of the
extrapolated  reference
regression  (adhesive)
predictions  andthe 
clarify  pinned-only
tendency  for  joints
the 
(Figures 7a and 8a), the extrapolated regression predictions clarify the tendency for
number of pins to increase the strength; for the shear stiffness, this effect is less evident.  the number
of pinsIncrement in the shear strength related to the number of pins is less significant in the hybrid 
to increase the strength; for the shear stiffness, this effect is less evident.
‚ Increment in the shear strength related to the number of pins is less significant in the hybrid DLJ
DLJ in comparison with the pinned ones (compare the slope coefficients of the regression 
in comparison withare 
line,  which  theequal 
pinnedto  ones
1.547 (compare the
and  1.158  slope
for  coefficients
the  hybrid  and of the regression
pinned  line, which
joints,  respectively). 
are equal to 1.547 and 1.158 for the hybrid and pinned joints, respectively). Considering
Considering  the  shear  stiffness,  the  opposite  tendency  can  be  evidenced  from  Figure  the shear8.  
stiffness, the opposite tendency can be evidenced from Figure 8. For instance, the shear
For instance, the shear stiffness of the hybrid DLJ with 36 pins is 1.7 times higher than that  stiffness
of the of a similar pinned joint (Table 4). Most probably, this effect is the consequence of the effective 
hybrid DLJ with 36 pins is 1.7 times higher than that of a similar pinned joint (Table 4).
composite action between z‐pins and adhesive achieved in the proposed hybrid DLJ. 
 The hybrid connection reduces deformability of the joint – the elongation corresponding to 
7582
the maximum load of the pinned DLJ was twice the hybrid counterpart one (Table 4). 

60 60
Shear stress τ, MPa Shear stress τ, MPa
  Comparing  the  mechanical  properties  of  the  reference  (adhesive)  and  pinned‐only  joints 
(Figures  7a  and  8a),  the  extrapolated  regression  predictions  clarify  the  tendency  for  the 
number of pins to increase the strength; for the shear stiffness, this effect is less evident. 
 Increment in the shear strength related to the number of pins is less significant in the hybrid 
DLJ in comparison with the pinned ones (compare the slope coefficients of the regression 
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586
line,  which  are  equal  to  1.547  and  1.158  for  the  hybrid  and  pinned  joints,  respectively). 
Considering  the  shear  stiffness,  the  opposite  tendency  can  be  evidenced  from  Figure  8.  
For instance, the shear stiffness of the hybrid DLJ with 36 pins is 1.7 times higher than that 
Most probably, this effect is the consequence of the effective composite action between z-pins and
adhesive of a similar pinned joint (Table 4). Most probably, this effect is the consequence of the effective 
achieved in the proposed hybrid DLJ.
composite action between z‐pins and adhesive achieved in the proposed hybrid DLJ. 
‚ The hybrid connection reduces deformability of the joint – the elongation corresponding to the
 The hybrid connection reduces deformability of the joint – the elongation corresponding to 
maximum load of the pinned DLJ was twice the hybrid counterpart one (Table 4).
the maximum load of the pinned DLJ was twice the hybrid counterpart one (Table 4). 

60 60
Shear stress τ, MPa Shear stress τ, MPa

45 45

30 30
Adhesive
(reference)
15 Pinned 15 τ = 1.158n + 13.363 Hybrid
Regression line r² = 0.977 Regression line
τ = 1.547n - 0.653
r² = 0.996 Number of pins n Number of pins n
0 0
a) 0 10 20 30 40 b) 0 10 20 30 40  
Figure 7. The z‐pins effect on the ultimate shear stress of pinned‐only (a) and hybrid (b) double‐lap joints (DLJ). 
Figure 7. The z-pins effect on the ultimate shear stress of pinned-only (a) and hybrid (b) double-lap
joints (DLJ).
5
Materials 2015, 8, page–page 

25 25
Shear stiffness k, kN/m Shear stiffness k, kN/m

20 20

15 15

k = 0.231n + 4.594
10 10
r² = 0.936

Pinned k = 0.442n + 6.346 Hybrid

5 5 r² = 0.989
Adhesive Regression line Regression line
(reference) Number of pins n Number of pins n
0 0
a) 0 10 20 30 40 b) 0 10 20 30 40  
Figure 8. The z‐pins effect on the shear stiffness of pinned‐only (a) and hybrid (b) DLJ. 
Figure 8. The z-pins effect on the shear stiffness of pinned-only (a) and hybrid (b) DLJ.

Table. 4. Effect of the number of z‐pins on the mechanical properties of double‐lap joints. 
Table 4. Effect of the number of z-pins on the mechanical properties of double-lap joints.
Ultimate Shear 
Number   Elongation at the   Shear  
Joint Type 
of z‐Pins  Strength  ult , MPa  Ultimate Load, mm  Stiffness, kN/m 
Number Ultimate Shear Elongation at the Shear Stiffness,
Joint Type
Adhesive (reference)  0  14.2 ± 2.5  0.95 ± 0.09  5.7 ± 0.6 
of z-Pins Strength τult , MPa Ultimate Load, mm kN/m
Needled bond  9  13.9 ± 3.2   1.42 ± 0.25  6.3 ± 0.7 
Adhesive (reference) 0 14.2 ˘ 2.5 0.95 ˘ 0.09 5.7 ˘ 0.6
Needled bond 
Needled bond 25 
9 36.5 ± 5.1 
13.9 ˘ 3.2 2.31 ± 0.28 
1.42 ˘ 0.25 11.3 ± 0.9 
6.3 ˘ 0.7
Needled bond 
Needled bond 36 
25 55.9 ± 6.2 
36.5 ˘ 5.1 2.03 ± 0.29 
2.31 ˘ 0.28 12.3 ± 0.7 
11.3 ˘ 0.9
Needled bond
Hybrid bond  36
9  55.9 ˘ 6.2
21.2 ± 2.4  2.03 ˘ 0.29
0.67 ± 0.19  12.3 ˘ 0.7
10.8 ± 0.6 
Hybrid bond 9 21.2 ˘ 2.4 0.67 ˘ 0.19 10.8 ˘ 0.6
Hybrid bond  25  46.0 ± 2.9  1.34 ± 0.31  18.2 ± 0.8 
Hybrid bond 25 46.0 ˘ 2.9 1.34 ˘ 0.31 18.2 ˘ 0.8
Hybrid bond 
Hybrid bond 36 
36 53.7 ± 3.3 
53.7 ˘ 3.3 1.56 ± 0.31 
1.56 ˘ 0.31 21.6 ± 1.2 
21.6 ˘ 1.2

Figures 9 and 10 illustrate failure mechanism of the selected hybrid DLJ. It can be observed that 
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate failure mechanism of the selected hybrid DLJ. It can be observed that
the local bending of the pins was the cause of the failure of DLJ with 36 z‐pins (Figure 9a). Reduction 
the local bending of the pins was the cause of the failure of DLJ with 36 z-pins (Figure 9a). Reduction
of the number of pins results in shear failure of some of them (Figures 9b and 10). Independently of 
of the number of pins results in shear failure of some of them (Figures 9b and 10). Independently of
the presence of additional adhesive connection, such a failure mechanism was characteristic of all of 
the presence of additional adhesive connection, such a failure mechanism was characteristic of all of
the pinned joints. Due to the loss of the adhesive connection, the failure of the reference joints was 
the pinned joints. Due to the loss of the adhesive connection, the failure of the reference joints was
brittle. The observed bridging effect of the z‐pins (Figure 9), transferring the shear stresses through the 
brittle. The observed bridging effect of the z-pins (Figure 9), transferring the shear stresses through
crack, is the general benefit of the pinned DLJ compared to the reference ones. 
the crack, is the general benefit of the pinned DLJ compared to the reference ones.

7583
the local bending of the pins was the cause of the failure of DLJ with 36 z‐pins (Figure 9a). Reduction 
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate failure mechanism of the selected hybrid DLJ. It can be observed that 
of the number of pins results in shear failure of some of them (Figures 9b and 10). Independently of 
the local bending of the pins was the cause of the failure of DLJ with 36 z‐pins (Figure 9a). Reduction 
the presence of additional adhesive connection, such a failure mechanism was characteristic of all of 
of the number of pins results in shear failure of some of them (Figures 9b and 10). Independently of 
the pinned joints. Due to the loss of the adhesive connection, the failure of the reference joints was 
the presence of additional adhesive connection, such a failure mechanism was characteristic of all of 
brittle. The observed bridging effect of the z‐pins (Figure 9), transferring the shear stresses through the 
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586
the pinned joints. Due to the loss of the adhesive connection, the failure of the reference joints was 
crack, is the general benefit of the pinned DLJ compared to the reference ones. 
brittle. The observed bridging effect of the z‐pins (Figure 9), transferring the shear stresses through the 
crack, is the general benefit of the pinned DLJ compared to the reference ones. 

(a)  (b) 
(a)  (b)  (b).
Figure 9. Failed hybrid joints: DLJ with 36 z‐pins (a) and DLJ with 9 z‐pins (b). 
Figure 9. Failed hybrid joints: DLJ with 36 z-pins (a) and DLJ with 9 z-pins
Figure 9. Failed hybrid joints: DLJ with 36 z‐pins (a) and DLJ with 9 z‐pins (b). 

 
Figure 10. Different behavior of the pins within the failed hybrid DLJ: transverse shear failure (1) and 
 
bearing failure (2). 
Figure 10. Different behavior of the pins within the failed hybrid DLJ: transverse shear failure (1) and 
Figure 10. Different behavior of the pins within the failed hybrid DLJ: transverse shear failure (1) and
bearing failure (2). 
bearing failure (2).
6
6
4. Conclusions
A new pinning technique of double-lap joints (DLJ) has been proposed. It is based on application
of thin steel needles of 1 mm diameter (z-pins) as through-thickness reinforcement of a double-lap
joint. The tensile behavior of double-lap joints of a carbon fiber epoxy laminate was experimentally
investigated. Two types of DLJ were considered: purely pinned and hybrid (additionally glued)
joints. The joints were produced using 9, 25, and 36 pins. For the reference, adhesive DLJ (without
pins) were also made. The obtained results revealed that:

‚ Improvement of the mechanical properties of DLJ is significantly correlated with the number of
z-pins: the strength and stiffness (calculated in the range from 0% to 10% of the ultimate load) of
DLJ increased up to 300% and 280%, respectively.
‚ Increment in the shear strength related to the number of pins is less significant in the hybrid DLJ
compared to the pinned ones. However, the opposite tendency was evidenced considering the
shear stiffness of the joints. The shear stiffness of the hybrid DLJ with 36 pins was found to be
1.7 times higher than that of a similar pinned joint.
‚ The hybrid connection reduces deformability of the joint—the elongation corresponding to the
maximum load of the pinned DLJ was twice that of the hybrid counterpart.
‚ The observed bridging effect of the z-pins, transferring the shear stresses through the crack, is the
general benefit of the pinned DLJ compared with the reference adhesive joints, the failure of which
was their brittleness.

Acknowledgments: This research was performed with a financial support by the European Social Fund
(Research Project No. 2013/0019/1DP/1.1.1.2.0/13/APIA/VIAA/062).

7584
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586

Author Contributions: A. Arnautov proposed the idea of the work, planned the experiments and was
responsible for obtaining and analyzing the results, and preparing the article; A. Nasibullins performed
mechanical tests and analysis of the results; V. Gribniak analyzed the results, was responsible for finalizing
the article; I. Blumbergs prepared and tested the samples, analyzed the test results; M. Hauka was responsible
for mechanical tests, discussion of the results.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gillespie, J.W.; Bourban, P.E.; Tieerney, J.J. Joining of Composites. In Comprehensive Composite Materials.
Polymer Matrix Composites; Talreja, R., Manson, I.A.E., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
2. Whitney, J.M.; Nuismer, R.J. Stress fracture criteria for laminated composites containing stress
concentrations. J. Compos. Mater. 1974, 8, 253–265. [CrossRef]
3. Lekhnitskii, S.G. Anisotropic Plates, 2nd ed.; Tsai, S.W., Cheron, T., Eds.; Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
4. Callus, P.J. The Effects of Hole-Size and Environment on the Mechanical Behaviour of a Quasi-Isotropic AS4/3501–6
Laminate in Tension, Compression and Bending; Technical Report 6a N DSTO-TR-2077; Defence Science and
Technology Organization: Fishermans Bend, Australia, 2007.
5. Konish, H.J.; Whitney, J.M. Approximate stresses in an orthotropic plate containing a circular hole.
J. Compos. Mater. 1975, 9, 157–166. [CrossRef]
6. Nuismer, R.J.; Whitney, J.M. Uniaxial failure of composite laminates containing stress concentrations. Fract.
Mech. Compos. ASTM STP 1975, 593, 1–117.
7. Lee, C.; Liu, D. Tensile strength of stitching joint in woven glass fabrics. J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 1990, 112,
125–130. [CrossRef]
8. Sawyer, J.W. Effect of stitching on the strength of bonded composite single lap joints. AIAA J. 1985, 23,
1744–1748. [CrossRef]
9. Tong, L.; Cleaves, K.; Kruckenburg, T.; Stevens, G.P. Strength of RTM single lap joints with transverse
stitching. Key Eng. Mater. 1998, 137, 195–202. [CrossRef]
10. Aymerich, F. Effect of stitching on the static and fatigue performance of co-cured composite single-lap joints.
J. Compos. Mater. 2004, 36, 243–257. [CrossRef]
11. Chang, P.; Mouritz, A.P.; Cox, B.N. Properties and failure mechanisms of pinned composite lap joints in
monotonic and cyclic tension. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 2163–2176. [CrossRef]
12. Aymerich, F.; Onnis, R.; Priolo, P. Analysis of the fracture of a stitched single-lap joint. Compos. A Appl. Sci.
Manuf. 2005, 36, 603–614. [CrossRef]
13. Tong, L.; Jain, L.K. Analysis of adhesive bonded composite lap joints with transverse stitching.
Appl. Compos. Mater. 1995, 2, 343–365. [CrossRef]
14. Rugg, K.L.; Cox, B.N.; Massabo, R. Mixed mode delamination of polymer composite laminates reinforced
through the thickness by Z-fibers. Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2002, 33, 177–190. [CrossRef]
15. Massabo, R.; Mumm, D.R.; Cox, B.N. Characterizing mode II delamination cracks in stitched composites.
Int. J. Fract. 1998, 92, 1–38. [CrossRef]
16. Glaessgen, E.H.; Raju, I.S.; Poe, C.C., Jr. Analytical and experimental studies of the debonding of stitched
and unstitched composite joints. J. Compos. Mater. 2002, 36, 2599–2622. [CrossRef]
17. Byun, J.H.; Gillespie, J.W.; Chou, T.W. Mode I delamination of a three-dimensional fabric composite.
J. Compos. Mater. 1990, 24, 497–518. [CrossRef]
18. Tomashevskii, V.T.; Romanov, D.A.; Shalygin, V.N.; Panfilov, N.A. Radial reinforcement effect on the
strength of fiberglas reinforced plastic shells under external pressure. Mekh. Kompoz. Mater. 1980, 2,
205–210.
19. Freitas, G.; Magee, C.; Dardzinski, P.; Fusco, T. Fiber insertion process for improved damage tolerance in
aircraft laminates. J. Adv. Mater. 1994, 25, 36–43.
20. Huang, S.L.; Richey, R.J.; Deska, E.W. Cross Reinforcement in a GR/EP Laminate. In Proceedings of the
ASME, Winter Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, 10–15 December 1978.

7585
Materials 2015, 8, 7578–7586

21. Mouritz, A.P. Review of z-pinned composite laminates. Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2007, 38, 2383–2397.
[CrossRef]
22. Sika Corporation. Sikadurr 52. Product Data Sheet; Sika Corporation: Lyndhurst, NJ, USA, 2014.

© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by
Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

7586