International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

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

A study on fiber metal laminates by using a new damage model for

composite layer
M. Kashfi a,∗, G.H. Majzoobi a, N. Bonora b, G. Iannitti b, A. Ruggiero b, E. Khademi c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
b
Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Cassino, Italy
c
Department of Robotics, Hamedan University of Technology, Hamedan, Iran

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

Keywords: Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are new hybrid materials which are widely used in aircraft industry due to their
Fiber metal laminates higher mechanical properties compared to monolithic metal and epoxy based composites. In this work, mechani-
Glare cal behavior of the FML is investigated by experiment and simulation. The FML used in this study is made of two
Nonlinear damage model
layers of aluminum 2024 and a layer of glass-fiber reinforced epoxy (GFRE). The experiments showed nonlinear
Finite element method
elastic behavior for GFRE layer. This behavior is due to damage evolution and material degradation. Therefore,
a simple nonlinear damage is presented to improve the results of the proposed material model. Mechanical prop-
erties of the layers are measured by uniaxial tensile test. Numerical simulations are performed by implementing
the material model into the user subroutine of MSC MARC FE code. The results of the proposed model showed
a reasonable agreement with the experiments. The agreement confirms the nonlinear damage behavior of the
FMLs observed in the experiments.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During the last few decades the composite materials have attracted
the attention of many researchers across the world. During the process
of time, the innovations in the composite area led to significant weight
reduction in structural design. Composites offer many advantages when
compared to metallic alloys, especially when high strength and stiffness
to weight ratio is required. Moreover, they provide excellent fatigue
properties and corrosion resistance in applications [1,2].
Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are hybrid laminates fabricated from
thin aluminum alloy sheets bonded into laminates by intermediate thin
fiber-epoxy layers. The FMLs bring together the best features of the
composing metal and fiber-reinforced composites. They exhibit more
advantages over the conventional monolithic aluminum alloys or fiber-
reinforced composite materials [3,4]. The FMLs with glass fibers (with
trade name GLARE, Glass Laminate Aluminum Reinforced Epoxy) were
used as the upper fuselage materials in Airbus 380 and lower wing pan-
els of the Fokker 27 [5]. The ultimate tensile strength of GLARE has
been found to be 33–140% higher than aluminum in the direction of
the reinforcement [6].
Soltani et al. [7] used a finite element modeling approach to predict
the stress–strain response and deformation behavior of GLARE under
uniaxial loading conditions. They showed that their proposed macro-
based material model can be used to analysis different grades of GLARE
laminates in structural applications. The effect of fiber orientation on
the tensile behavior of glass-Kevlar fiber/aluminum laminates under
static in-plane loading conditions was reported by Moussavi-Torshizi
et al. [5]. They used a numerical simulation method based on finite
element method to predict the stress–strain response of FMLs. Lee et
al. [8] evaluated the tensile behavior of the self-reinforced polypropy-
lene and aluminum alloy laminates under static in-plane tensile load-
ing by simulation and classical lamination theory. They found that for
plastic deformation of the FMLs, the results obtained from the classical
lamination theory were more realistic than those predicted by the vol-
ume fraction approach. Khalili et al. [9] presented a FML composites
based on Steel/aluminum/glass-reinforced plastic laminate. Esfandiar
et al. [10] investigated the nonlinear tensile behavior of GLARE fiber
metal laminates under in-plane loading conditions. They used two ana-
lytical approaches, orthotropic plasticity and modified laminated plate
theories to predict the stress-strain curve and deformation behavior of
GLARE laminates. The results showed that the GLARE behavior was al-
most bilinear under tensile loading condition and the tensile strength
of unidirectional GLARE laminates was considerably higher than alu-
minum alloys in the longitudinal direction.
In addition, due to superior electrical, mechanical and thermo-
mechanical properties of the nanostructures, they are widely used in
nano-electro-mechanical systems (NEMS) and FMLs [11–14]. The size-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.kashfi@basu.ac.ir, mohamad1367@gmail.com (M. Kashfi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.06.045
Received 11 April 2017; Received in revised form 6 June 2017; Accepted 25 June 2017
Available online 27 June 2017
0020-7403/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Kashfi et al.
Table 1
Chemical composition of aluminum 2024 alloy.
Element Si Fe Cu Mn
Quantity (%) 0.1 0.26 3.8 0.5
Fig. 1. Woven form of E-glass fiber.
dependent continuum theories, e.g., classical couple stress theory [15],
modified couple stress theory [16], nonlocal elasticity theory [17],
and strain gradient theory [18] have been employed to analyze the
nanostructures. For example, a nonlocal continuum plate model has
been developed for the transverse vibration of double-piezoelectric-
nanoplate systems (DPNPS), piezoelectric nanofilms (PNFs) and double-
piezoelectric-nanofilm (DPNF) systems were studied by Asemi et al.
[19,20]. Farajpour et al. [21] developed a higher-order nonlocal strain
gradient plate theory for the buckling of orthotropic nanoplates under
biaxial compression in thermal environment. Mohammadi et al. [22] in-
vestigated the vibration behavior of annular and circular graphene sheet
coupled with temperature change and under in-plane pre-stressed. They
reported obtained results could be used for the design of the next gen-
eration of nanodevices.
Although many attempts have been made to explore the FMLs be-
havior, assuming linear elastic behavior for GFRE layer and nonrealistic
plastic model for metallic layers has resulted in insufficient accuracy.
Experimental results indicate that damage evolve gradually in the fiber
layer which cause nonlinearity in its behavior. Therefore, in the present
work a simple nonlinear damage model is introduced to improve the
numerical results.
2. Materials and experiments
The materials used to fabricate the FML specimens were aluminum
2024 sheets with 0.84 mm thickness (chemical composition is given in
Table 1), woven glass fiber (E-glass, 200 g/cm2 ) and epoxy resin (made
by Huntsman Company). The woven form of E-glass fiber is illustrated
in Fig. 1. Araldite LY 5052 and Aradur 5052 were used as the resin
epoxy and the hardener, respectively. This type of epoxy resin is used in
aerospace and industrial composites, tooling and aircraft repair [23]. In
order to obtain a proper bonding between aluminum and GFRE layers,
the specimens were pretreated according to the ASTM D2651 [12,24] in-
structions.
FML specimens were fabricated by hand lay-up method. The glass-
fiber layer was impregnated with epoxy resin. Fabricated specimens
were placed in a mold designed to press the layers together under a
controlled pressure. The specimens were then moved to a curing cham-
ber for heat treatment. The curing temperature and the time were
80 °C and 8 h, respectively as suggested by the epoxy manufacturer.
The pressure level plays important role to decrease the voids and to
remove the redundant resin. It has been shown that plain specimens
are more appropriate for conducting the tensile tests on fiber/metal
hybrid laminates [25]. The tensile tests on FML specimens were con-
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80
Mg Cr Zn Ti Impurities total Aluminum
1.3 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.08 Base
ducted for two different quantities of Metal Volume Fraction (MVF).
Samples with four and six sub-layers of glass fiber are called FML-4 and
FML-6, respectively. Obviously, the MVF of FML-4 is higher than FML-
6. The tensile FML specimens were fabricated with the dimensions of
250 × (25 ± 0.99) × (2.44 ± 0.15) mm as suggested by ASTM D3039. FML
specimen which includes tabs, painted area for Digital Image Correla-
tion (DIC) and gauge length are presented in Fig. 2. As the figure shows,
one layer of GFRE is sandwiched between two layers of aluminum 2024.
2.1. Aluminum 2024
All specimens were tested under uniaxial stress condition. The ten-
sile tests were conducted on an Instron 5582 testing machine at the
cross head velocity of 1.52 mm/min that corresponds to a strain rate of
2.5 × 10−4 s−1 . Four specimens were tested and the mean value of the
measurements was used as the specimen property. Experimental engi-
neering stress-strain curve of aluminum 2024 is shown in Fig. 3.
Voce constitutive equation is considered to describe the relation be-
tween true stress and plastic strain in plastic region as follows [26]:
[ ( )] [ ( )]
−𝜀𝑝 −𝜀𝑝
𝜎 = 𝑎 + 𝑏1 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 + 𝑏2 1 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (1)
𝑐1 𝑐2
Where 𝜎 is the true stress, 𝜀p is plastic strain and a, b1 , b2 , c1 and c2
are the material constants which are determined by optimization. In the
optimization procedure the difference between the load-displacement
curves predicted by simulation and measured by experiment is consid-
ered as the objective function. Genetic algorithm is used as the opti-
mization algorithm and 128 simulations are performed to minimize the
error. The optimized coefficients of aluminum 2024 and its mechanical
properties are listed in Table 2.
2.2. GFRE layer
In order to obtain the orthotropic behavior of GFRE layer, tensile
tests were carried out in three directions. Five 100 mm × 10 mm speci-
mens (as suggested by ASTM D3039) in warp, weft and 45° directions
were cut out of a rectangular GFRE plates as shown in Fig. 4.
The stress-strain curves of GFRE layer were obtained in warp and
weft directions by uniaxial tensile test. The results are illustrated in Fig.
5. Table 2 shows the summery of orthotropic properties of the GFRE
layer calculated by ASTM D3039 suggestion where subscripts 1 and 2
indicate warp and weft directions, respectively. The difference between
the elasticity modulus along the warp and the weft directions is about
26% that is related to the volume of fibers in each direction. This is the
case in most of composites with woven fibers and been reported in the
literature [27–30].
As Fig. 5 suggests, the GFRE layer exhibits a brittle elastic behavior
due to its very small failure strain. Also, behavior of the warp and weft
directions is nonlinear. However, as it is presented in Fig. 6, loading-
unloading in uniaxial tensile test shows a decreasing trend in the mod-
ulus of elasticity with the increase in the strain. Therefore, the GFRE
behavior can be assumed elastic combined with nonlinear damage. Ac-
cording to the thermodynamics of continuum damage mechanics and
definition of a dissipation potential from which the laws of evolution of
the state variables associated with the dissipative mechanisms are de-
rived, the nonlinear behavior of GFRE layer in warp and weft directions
can be explained by damage evolution during a tensile test [31].
During tensile tests some irreversible damages occur in the compos-
ite layer. The damage includes delamination between each layer of com-
76
M. Kashfi et al. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80

Fig. 2. Schematic view of FML specimen.

Table 2
Mechanical properties of aluminum 2024 and GFRE layers.

Aluminum 2024

E (GPa) 𝜈 𝜎 ult (MPa) Elongation (%) a (MPa) b1 (MPa) b2 (MPa) c1 c2

74.08 0.34 194.80 9.88 84.00 93.80 31.80 0.024 0.166
GFRE

E11 (GPa) E22 (GPa) 𝜈 12 G12 (GPa)

13.47 10.69 0.1017 1.83

Fig. 3. Experimental engineering stress-strain curve of aluminum 2024.

Fig. 5. Stress versus longitudinal and transverse strain in warp and weft directions for
GFRE.

2.3. FML tensile test

Uniaxial tensile test was performed on FML samples. The gripped

Fig. 4. Warp, weft and 45° specimens were cut out from GFRE plate.
posite, matrix failure and matrix and fiber debonding. The most dam-
ages in the GFRE layer can be observed in micro-scale; thus, optical mi-
croscope was employed to observe the delamination and other defects
in GFRE layer. Typical delamination of sub layer of GFRE layer during
tensile test is illustrated in Fig. 7.
FML specimen and its geometry are shown in Fig. 8. Steel tabs were
glued to both ends of the specimens using glue to increase the thickness
of specimen in grip section. The cross head velocity and strain rate were
1.52 mm/min and 2.5 × 10−4 s−1 , respectively. Strain was measured us-
ing extensometer and DIC method simultaneously. Tensile tests were
continued until the complete breakage of all three layers of FML. In
all samples, failure initiated from the GFRE layer and extended to alu-
minum layers, as it can be seen in Fig. 8
3. Damage model for GFRE layer
As stated in the previous section, GFRE layer has nonlinear elas-
tic behavior and the loading-unloading test demonstrated that damage

77
M. Kashfi et al.
Fig. 6. The loading-unloading stages for GFRE layer.
Fig. 7. Delamination of each sub layer during tensile test.
Fig. 8. FML specimen instrumented and gripped to the test machine.
evolved as the strain increased. Most of the damage models have been
proposed only for 2D composite laminates. However, the few investi-
gations of the damage evolution behavior in the 3D fiber reinforced
composites, are accompanied by some limitations. Typical limitations
are, (1) most of the adopted classical criteria were unable to accurately
and effectively predict the initial damage; (2) the damage and failure
modes were usually not described adequately [32]. The material stiff-
ness degradation is defined as follows:
𝐸 = (1 − 𝐷 )𝐸 0
Where E0 , D and E are initial elasticity modulus, damage parame-
ter and the current elasticity modulus of the composite, respectively. A
damage evolution is proposed in this work as follows:
( )𝛽
𝜀 − 𝜀𝑡ℎ
𝐷 = 𝐷𝑐𝑟
𝜀𝑓 − 𝜀𝑡ℎ
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80
Table 3
Damage parameters for warp, weft and av-
erage.
Warp Weft Average
𝜀th 0.000 0.002 0.001
𝜀f 0.0265 0.0238 0.02515
Dcr 0.31 0.268 0.289
𝛽 0.78 0.64 0.71
Fig. 9. Damage evolution in warp and weft directions comparing with average curve.
Where Dcr is the critical damage, 𝜀th is the threshold strain, 𝜀f is
the failure strain and 𝛽 is the damage exponent and can be obtained by
simple tensile test.
4. Finite element modeling
4.1. Damage constants determination
The numerical simulations were performed using the commercial fi-
nite element code, MSC MARC. Because of the symmetry condition, only
1/8 of the model was simulated. By assuming the power law model de-
fined by Eq. (3) for damage evolution and using an optimization tech-
nique to find the damage constants, two sets of damage parameters were
obtained for warp and weft directions. For optimization, the average of
five experimental force-displacement curves was used as the target value
and RMS (Root Mean Square) of the difference between the experimen-
tal and finite element model was adopted as the error. Genetic algorithm
was used to minimize the error and the material constants were com-
puted. The presented damage model for GFRE layer was incorporated
in a user subroutine called unlcdm. The subroutine was used to predict
the stiffness variation during loading for simulation [33,34].
In warp direction yarns have wavy shape as they cross the top and
the beneath surfaces of the weft alternatively. Another important point
is that the fiber fractions in the two directions of weft and warp are
different. The optimized damage constants obtained for each direction
and their averages are listed in Table 3.
The damage evolutions in warp and weft directions are compared
with average value in Fig. 9. As the figure indicates, the difference be-
tween damage evolution in warp and weft directions and the average
(2) curve is negligible. Therefore, the average of damage constants can be
used in numerical simulations to reduce number of material constants.
The Fig. 10 illustrates the experimental and numerical engineering
stress-strain curves of GFRE layer in warp and weft directions by con-
sidering the mean of the damage constants. As the figure suggests, the
stress-strain curve predicted by the proposed damage model coincides
(3) exactly with the experimental curve. It can also be observed that the
78
M. Kashfi et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison between FE and experimental results in warp and weft directions.
Fig. 11. The damage evolution in FML-4 manifested by removal of damaged elements (a)
Equivalent Von-Misses stress in MPa and (b) experimental failure pattern.
difference between the numerical predictions with and without consid-
ering damage is significant and cannot be ignored.
4.2. FML simulation
Similar to the previous section, the FML simulations were performed
using MSC MARC and 1/8 of the model was simulated. Glue contact was
used to simulate the contact between aluminum and GFRE layer [35].
The Von-Misses stress contour of FML-4 is illustrated in Fig. 11. The
figure shows the progressive failure of GFRE layer of the FML-4. As the
figure indicates, when the damage parameter attains its critical level
and failure occurs, the Von-Misses equivalent stress in the element is set
to zero and the failed element is removed from the computations.
5. Results and discussions
In this work, a new damage model for GFRE layer in fiber metal lam-
inate is proposed to increase the accuracy of FE model for simulating the
mechanical behavior of FML. The stress-strain curves predicted by nu-
merical simulation considering and ignoring the damage model, defined
by Eq. (3), for the GFRE layer are compared with the experimental stress
strain curves for FML-4 in Fig. 12.
As the figure suggests, the numerical model could accurately predict
the behavior of FML and in particular before the GFRE failure. Also, the
79
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80
Fig. 12. Engineering stress-strain curve for FML-4.
Fig. 13. Engineering stress-strain curve for FML-6.
stress-strain curve consists of two distinct regions. In the first region,
the stress increases in a non-linear fashion to a maximum and drops
sharply due to failure initiation of the GFRE layer while the aluminum
layers still keep being strain hardened. In the second region, the GFRE
layer loses its load carrying capacity altogether due to complete failure
of the composite fibers indicating that the aluminum layers have lonely
carry the load and the stress begins to rise again due to work hardening
until the failure of the aluminum layers. The difference between the
experimental and the FE results after the GFRE failure in the second
region can be due to the influence of damage model in FE result that is
significant after the threshold strain. It is evident that by ignoring the
damage effect, the stress will be overestimated by FE simulation.
FE simulation was also carried out for the FML with lower MVF,
FML-6. The results are shown in Fig. 13 where the stress-strain curve
of FML-6 is compared with experiment. As it can be seen, the numeri-
cal prediction agrees well with the experiment in the first region. After
GFRE failure in the second region, the experimental curve is initially
considerably higher than the FE prediction but converges to the numer-
ical prediction for higher strains. As a matter of fact, some fibers still
resist against tensile loading after the failure of the GFRE layer and after
full tearing of the fibers the numerical prediction converges to the exper-
imental stress-strain curve. The difference between FML-4 and FML-6 in
the second region of Figs. 12 and 13 can be explained by the fact that for
the increased number of sub-layer in the GFRE, some fibers may carry
part of the load while other fibers have completely lost their resistance.
M. Kashfi et al.
In general, the results shown in Figs. 12 and 13 indicate that by con-
sidering the proposed damage model in the FE simulations, the stress-
strain curve of FML can be predicted with reasonable accuracy. If dam-
age effect is ignored and a linear elastic model for the GFRE layer is
assumed, the numerical predictions will be overestimated. In fact, the
proposed model modifies the behavior of FML and in particular before
the GFRE failure. It should be noted that the behavior of FML is impor-
tant only before the failure of GFRE. The reason is that after the GFRE
failure, the material is no longer FML as the fibers are torn apart and
the load is totally carried by the aluminum layers.
6. Conclusion
Based on the observations made in this work, the following conclu-
sions may be derived:
1. Based on the experimental results, woven glass-fibers reinforced
epoxy layer does not exhibit linear elastic behavior. The reason is
that the warp and weft of specimens can be tightened during the
process of tensile test. This behavior can increase the probability of
delamination.
2. A nonlinear damage model was proposed to simulate nonlinear be-
havior of GFRE layer. The constants of the damage model were de-
termined by iterative optimization. The damage model was imple-
mented in the user subroutine which was incorporated in MSC MARC
to predict the stiffness degradation of GFRE during tensile test.
3. Considering the proposed nonlinear damage model, the FE failure
pattern predicted in GFRE layer was in reasonable agreement with
the experiments.
4. In all FML specimens the predicted maximum stress was close to the
experimental value.
References
[1] Sinmazçelik T, Avcu E, Bora MÖ, Çoban O. A review: fibre metal laminates, back-
ground, bonding types and applied test methods. Mater Des 2011;32:3671–85.
[2] Kawai M, Morishita M, Tomura S, Takumida K. Inelastic behavior and strength of
fiber-metal hybrid composite: glare. Int J Mech Sci 1998;40:183–98.
[3] Wu G, Yang J-M. Analytical modelling and numerical simulation of the nonlinear de-
formation of hybrid fibre–metal laminates. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 2005;13:413.
[4] Ghasemi AR, Mohammadi MM. Residual stress measurement of fiber metal laminates
using incremental hole-drilling technique in consideration of the integral method.
Int J Mech Sci 2016;114:246–56.
[5] Moussavi-Torshizi SE, Dariushi S, Sadighi M, Safarpour P. A study on tensile prop-
erties of a novel fiber/metal laminates. Mater Sci Eng 2010;527:4920–5.
[6] Young J, Landry J, Cavoulacos V. Crack growth and residual strength characteristics
of two grades of glass-reinforced aluminium ‘Glare’. Compos Struct 1994;27:457–69.
[7] Soltani P, Keikhosravy M, Oskouei R, Soutis C. Studying the tensile behaviour
of GLARE laminates: a finite element modelling approach. Appl Compos Mater
2011;18:271–82.
[8] Lee B-E, Park E-T, Kim J, Kang B-S, Song W-J. Analytical evaluation on uniaxial
tensile deformation behavior of fiber metal laminate based on SRPP and its experi-
mental confirmation. Compos Part B 2014;67:154–9.
[9] Khalili SMR, Mittal RK, Kalibar SG. A study of the mechanical properties of
steel/aluminium/GRP laminates. Mater Sci Eng 2005;412:137–40.
[10] Esfandiar H, Daneshmand S, Mondali M. Analysis of elastic-plastic behavior of fiber
metal laminates subjected to in-plane tensile loading. Int J Adv Des Manuf Technol
2012;5.
80
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 131–132 (2017) 75–80
[11] Mohammadi M, Safarabadi M, Rastgoo A, Farajpour A. Hygro-mechanical vibra-
tion analysis of a rotating viscoelastic nanobeam embedded in a visco-Pasternak
elastic medium and in a nonlinear thermal environment. Acta Mech 2016;227:
2207–2232.
[12] Zarei H, Brugo T, Belcari J, Bisadi H, Minak G, Zucchelli A. Low velocity impact dam-
age assessment of GLARE fiber-metal laminates interleaved by Nylon 6,6 nanofiber
mats. Compos Struct 2017;167:123–31.
[13] Akangah P, Lingaiah S, Shivakumar K. Effect of Nylon-66 nano-fiber interleaving
on impact damage resistance of epoxy/carbon fiber composite laminates. Compos
Struct 2010;92:1432–9.
[14] Lubineau G, Rahaman A. A review of strategies for improving the degradation prop-
erties of laminated continuous-fiber/epoxy composites with carbon-based nanorein-
forcements. Carbon 2012;50:2377–95.
[15] Mindlin R, Tiersten H. Effects of couple-stresses in linear elasticity. Arch Ration Mech
Anal 1962;11:415–48.
[16] Akgöz B, Civalek Ö. Strain gradient elasticity and modified couple stress mod-
els for buckling analysis of axially loaded micro-scaled beams. Int J Eng Sci
2011;49:1268–80.
[17] Reddy J. Nonlocal theories for bending, buckling and vibration of beams. Int J Eng
Sci 2007;45:288–307.
[18] Akgöz B, Civalek Ö. A size-dependent shear deformation beam model based on the
strain gradient elasticity theory. Int J Eng Sci 2013;70:1–14.
[19] Asemi HR, Asemi SR, Farajpour A, Mohammadi M. Nanoscale mass detection based
on vibrating piezoelectric ultrathin films under thermo-electro-mechanical loads.
Physica E 2015;68:112–22.
[20] Asemi SR, Farajpour A, Asemi HR, Mohammadi M. Influence of initial stress on the
vibration of double-piezoelectric-nanoplate systems with various boundary condi-
tions using DQM. Physica E 2014;63:169–79.
[21] Farajpour A, Yazdi MRH, Rastgoo A, Mohammadi M. A higher-order nonlocal strain
gradient plate model for buckling of orthotropic nanoplates in thermal environment.
Acta Mech 2016;227:1849–67.
[22] Mohammadi M, Farajpour A, Goodarzi M, Dinari F. Thermo-mechanical vibration
analysis of annular and circular graphene sheet embedded in an elastic medium.
Latin Am J Solids Struct 2014;11:659–82.
[23] Araldite LY 5052 + Aradur 5052. http://www.nedform.com/magento/en/araldite-
ly-5052-aradur-5052.html.
[24] International A. Standard Guide for Preparation of Metal Surfaces for Adhesive Bond-
ing. West Conshohocken 2016.
[25] Wu HF, Wu LL. A study of tension test specimens of laminated hybrid composites.
1: methods of approach. Compos Part A 1996;27:647–54.
[26] Zhang C, Chu X, Guines D, Leotoing L, Ding J, Zhao G. Dedicated linear – Voce
model and its application in investigating temperature and strain rate effects on
sheet formability of aluminum alloys. Mater Des 2015;67:522–30.
[27] Xiong J, Shenoi R, Cheng X. A modified micromechanical curved beam analytical
model to predict the tension modulus of 2D plain weave fabric composites. Compos
Part B 2009;40:776–83.
[28] Bilisik K, Yolacan G. Warp and weft directional tensile properties of multistitched
biaxial woven E-glass/polyester composites. J Textile Inst 2014;105:1014–28.
[29] Callus P, Mouritz A, Bannister MK, Leong K. Tensile properties and failure mecha-
nisms of 3D woven GRP composites. Compos Part A 1999;30:1277–87.
[30] Buet-Gautier K, Boisse P. Experimental analysis and modeling of biaxial mechanical
behavior of woven composite reinforcements. Exp Mech 2001;41:260–9.
[31] Lemaitre J, Desmorat R. Engineering damage mechanics: ductile, creep, fatigue and
brittle failures. Springer Science & Business Media; 2005.
[32] Zhong S, Guo L, liu G, Lu H, Zeng T. A continuum damage model for three-di-
mensional woven composites and finite element implementation. Compos Struct
2015;128:1–9.
[33] MARC M. User subroutines and special routines. In: Corporation MS, (ed.). 2014, p.
606.
[34] Bonora N. A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng Fract Mech
1997;58:11–28.
[35] Chen J-F, Morozov EV, Shankar K. Progressive failure analysis of perforated alu-
minium/CFRP fibre metal laminates using a combined elastoplastic damage model
and including delamination effects. Compos Struct 2014;114:64–79.