Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Improving performance of GFRP/aluminum single lap joints

using bolted/co-cured hybrid method
Ryosuke Matsuzaki a,*, Motoko Shibata b,1, Akira Todoroki b,1
a
Department of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-I1-66, O-okayama Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan
b
Department of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-I1-58, O-okayama Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan

Received 28 May 2007; received in revised form 26 October 2007; accepted 18 November 2007

Abstract

The present study proposes a bolted/co-cured hybrid joining method, and experimentally investigates the joint strength. The bolted/
co-cured hybrid joints combine co-cured adhesive joints and bolted joints without damaging reinforcing fibers. The method allows for
low scatter strength in static and fatigue loading for easily manufactured co-cured joints. Testing of the static tensile lap-shear and fatigue
strengths is performed using aluminum alloy A5052-F and knit fabric glass epoxy composites. The results show that the hybrid joints
have 1.84 times higher maximum shear strength and a quarter of the standard deviation compared with conventional co-cured joints.
Furthermore, less stress concentration and undamaged glass fibers in the hybrid joints contribute to a much higher fatigue strength than
that of the bolted joint.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: A. Glass fibers; A. Hybrid; E. Joints/joining; Co-cure

1. Introduction design of large FRP structures are lacking because of the

Fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) composites are superior
to metals in terms of specific strength and stiffness, corro-
sion resistance, and formability. Composite materials,
therefore, are used for primary structures of small or
mid-sized nautical vessels [1], and aerospace structures.
Although FRP is more expensive than major metals, glass
fibers are relatively inexpensive compared with carbon and
aramid fibers, so that glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP)
are widely used for vessel structures. However, since larger
vessels are subjected to larger vertical bending moments in
a seaway, the GFRP hull girder stiffness is not sufficient in
the case of large vessels. Furthermore, design rules, empir-
ical data and simple-to-use models for optimizing the
*
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81 3 5734 3184.
E-mail addresses: rmatsuza@ginza.mes.titech.ac.jp (R. Matsuzaki),
mshibata@ginza.mes.titech.ac.jp (M. Shibata), atodorok@ginza.mes.tite-
ch.ac.jp (A. Todoroki).
1
Tel./fax: +81 3 5734 3178.
complex failure modes, anisotropic properties and relative
newness of the material compared with metals. For these
reasons, metals are still important materials especially for
large structures; large vessels are usually made of hybrid
structures composed of composites and metals [2]. Since
composite/metal hybrid structures are the key technology
in realizing high stiffness, light weight, and high reliability,
they are now seen in many structures: automotive drive
shafts [3–5], headstocks of grinding machines [6], and
robotic structures [7].
There are two major methods for joining different mate-
rials: mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding. Mechan-
ical fastening using bolts or rivets is simple, and it is
possible to obtain high joining strength with small scatter;
thereby it is widely used in metal structures. The disadvan-
tages of mechanical joints are an increase in weight of the
whole structure and low sealing performance. In addition,
presence of the bolt holes of mechanical joints decreases the
cross-sectional area of structures, and increases stress con-
centration. Especially in the case of the FRP structures, a

1359-835X/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.11.009
 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163
drilling process to fabricate bolt holes breaks reinforcing
glass fibers, and causes (1) peeling of the higher plies at
the entry of the hole, (2) fiber wrenching and resin degrada-
tion on the wall of the hole, and (3) delamination of the last
plies in the laminate [8,9]. Since these damages can initiate
fatigue cracks, mechanical fastening in FRP structures
severely decreases fatigue strength.
Using adhesive bonding, the weight of a structure is less
than if mechanical joints are used. The adhesive joint has a
sealing effect, no stress concentration due to bolt holes, and
no damage in the FRP from the bonding process. These
advantages allow the adhesive joints to have high fatigue
strength. In the adhesive joints, however, each adherend
has its own suitable adhesive. The selection of adhesive is
difficult for joints of different materials. In addition, degre-
asing and etching are necessary in order to obtain high
joining strength during the general bonding process of
metal adherends. Although chemical treatment brings high
bonding strength, the adhesive surface would be oxidized
and polluted after a few hours. The degradation of the
adhesive surface highly decreases the bonding strength
[10]. For these reasons, obtaining high joint strength with
low scatter is difficult for adhesive joints.
To overcome the potential weakness of adhesive bond-
ing, bonded/bolted hybrid joints were proposed [11–14].
In the hybrid joint, mechanical fastening is added to the
bonded joints to improve the joining strength. Kelly
[15,16] investigated the strength and fatigue life of the
bonded/bolted hybrid single lap joints with CFRP using
different modulus adhesives; the hybrid joints with lower
modulus adhesives allowed for load sharing between the
adhesive and the bolts, and were shown to have greater
strength and fatigue life in comparison to adhesive bonded
joints. Kweon et al. [17] also investigated failure loads of
the bonded/bolted hybrid joints between composite and
aluminum; the hybrid joining improves joint strength when
the mechanical fastening is stronger than the bonding.
However, fiber damage and delamination due to fabricat-
ing bolt holes are still problematic for the conventional
bonded/bolted hybrid joints between FRP and metals.
Another problem of the adhesive joining of FRP is that
manufacturing requires curing time for the bonding process
in addition to the curing of the FRP itself. This increases
manufacturing time and cost. In addition, since a high tem-
perature for the curing process causes thermal deformation
in the FRP at room temperature, highly accurate fit-up
between adherend components becomes difficult, especially
for complicated shape structures made to a recent weight
saving design. To overcome these problems, co-curing
has been developed as a joining method [18–24]. The co-
cured joint utilizes excessive resin of FRP as the adhesive,
so that adhesive and FRP adherend are united. Thus, both
the curing and joining process for composite structures can
be achieved simultaneously. Although the reduction of
labor for the additional curing process is favorable, we can-
not expect a dramatic increase of joining strength com-
pared with the conventional adhesively bonded joint.
155
Hence, methods to increase the joint strength of co-cured
joints are highly sought after. Melograna and Grenestedt
proposed perforation [25] and tongue-and-groove [26]
methods; Matsuzaki et al. [27] proposed dimple treatment
for GFRP/aluminum co-cured joints. However, these
methods require special skills to fabricate the perforation,
tongue-and-groove, and dimple, and are still affected by
the adherend surface conditions.
The present study proposes a bolted/co-cured hybrid
joining method, and experimentally investigates the joint
strength. The bolted/co-cured hybrid joints combine co-
cured adhesive joints and bolted joints to realize a high
strength with low scatter in static and fatigue loading and
easy-to-use co-cured joints. Testing of the static tensile
lap-shear and fatigue strengths is performed using speci-
mens of bolted/co-cured hybrid joints between aluminum
alloy A5052-F and knit fabric glass epoxy composites.
For comparison, co-cured joints and bolted joints are also
tested.
2. Bolted/co-cured hybrid joints
A schematic illustration of the bolted/co-cured hybrid
joints is shown in Fig. 1. Since the proposed bolted/co-
cured hybrid joints are reinforced with bolt fastening,
unlike conventional co-cured joints, the static joint strength
may improve and the scatter in strength may decrease. Fur-
thermore, the proposed method requires only one curing
process for the GFRP itself and the co-cure bonding. The
method, therefore, has higher manufacturing efficiency
than that of conventional bonded/bolted hybrid joints.
In the manufacturing of bolted/co-cured hybrid joints,
bolts are inserted in the dry (unimpregnated) glass fiber
composite laminate before the co-curing process. This bolt
inserting process utilizes the space between glass fiber bun-
dles; it does not break the glass fibers, and the glass fibers
are continuous even around the bolt holes as shown in
Fig. 1. Since the clearance between the bolts and bolt holes
is filled with excessive resin, stress concentration may
decrease. These benefits prevent a decrease in fatigue
strength of the bolted/co-cured hybrid joints. In addition,
since the bolts are covered with the resins during the co-
curing process, the method has better sealing performance
and corrosion resistance; thus, the method is suitable for
joints in vessel structures.
3. Experimental procedures
3.1. Specimen preparation
The specimens of the bolted/co-cured joints are single
lap joints, designed based on Japanese Industrial Standards
(JIS) K6850: testing methods for shear strength of adhesive
bonds by tensile loading. The GFRP adherend is made
from [(0/90)3]T laminate. The 0° direction of the GFRP is
along the longitudinal direction of the specimen; thus the
90° ply is in contact with the aluminum alloy surface.
156 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the bolted/co-cured hybrid joint between aluminum and GFRP laminate.
The glass fibers used are knit fabric WF-800-127 made by
FRP Service and Company, while the matrix is two-com-
ponent cold setting epoxy resin Z2/H07 by Kokusai Chem-
ical Co. Ltd. Since the knit fabric GFRP has large
clearance between adjacent glass fiber bundles compared
with cloth fabric, adverse flexure of the glass fibers around
the bolt holes is suppressed as shown in Fig. 2. The metal
adherend is aluminum–magnesium alloy A5052-F. A sche-
matic configuration showing the dimensions of the hybrid
joint is illustrated in Fig. 3a: single row and double rows
of bolt specimens. Steel bolts of M2  12 mm (JIS B
1111) are used for the bolt fastening. Two pairs of bolts
are placed at 5 (and 13 mm in double rows) from the alu-
minum adherend edge as shown in Fig. 3a so that the
width-to-diameter and end distance-to-diameter are set at
2.5. The bolt holes are made using a drilling machine with
a diameter of 1.6 mm, then the screw threads (0.4 mm
pitch) are shaved. The surfaces of the aluminum alloy
adherend are polished using P240 waterproof abrasive
paper (JIS R 6253), and are wiped off with acetone. A
chemical treatment was not applied to the aluminum sur-
face, being hardly feasible for large-scale marine structures.
Fig. 2. Photograph showing stacking process of the bolted/co-cured
hybrid joint using knit fabric GFRP. The bolts are inserted between glass
fiber warp and weft bundles without cutting fibers.
Aluminum adherends are pre-cut prior to co-curing. The
four bolts are inserted into the bolt holes of the aluminum
alloy adherend. The dry knit fabric glass fiber lamina is
stacked on the aluminum alloy adherend by hand lay-up;
here, the bolts are inserted between the nets of the fabric
so as not to damage glass fibers. Then, epoxy resin is
impregnated into the glass fabric. After three sheets of glass
fiber fabric are laminated, a silicon sheet that has holes for
the bolt and nut space is placed on the specimen; a nut is
tightened manually just for contact (finger tightened).
The specimens are then placed on an aluminum molding
jig, and cured at 25 °C for 24 h and 80 °C for 2 h at a pres-
sure of 0.7 MPa in an electric oven. After the co-curing
process, the specimens are cut into the proper size using
a diamond cutter as shown in Fig. 3a. Fig. 3b shows a pho-
tograph of a typical fabricated bolted/co-cured hybrid joint
specimen.
To compare with joining strengths of conventional
joints, we also fabricated co-cured GFRP/aluminum joints
without bolt fastening, and bolt fastened joints without
adhesive bonding. The type and size of adherends and
the bolts are the same as for the bolted/co-cured hybrid
joints.
3.2. Static tensile lap-shear tests
Static tensile lap-shear tests are carried out on the basis
of JIS K 6850 using a tensile testing machine AG-1 by Shi-
madzu Co., in order to evaluate the static strength of joints.
In the static tests, five co-cured joints, three bolted joints,
and six hybrid joints are tested. Stroke speed is 1.0 mm/
min. Strength is evaluated using maximum shear strength
Smax, given by
P max
S max ¼ ð1Þ
A
where Pmax is the maximum applied load during the test
and A is the bonded area. In general, the bearing strength
of a bolted joint is defined as the maximum load divided by
the compressed area (the thickness of the joint times the
diameter of the bolted hole). For comparisons between
co-cured, bolted, and bolted/co-cured hybrid joints, the
 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163
a GFRP
5 8
5
t = 2.5 20
unit: mm
Fig. 3. Specimen of the bolted/co-cured hybrid joint between GFRP and aluminum: (a) specimen configuration (dimensions in mm) and (b) photograph
of top view.
joint strength is defined as Eq. (1) regardless of the joining
method, in this study. The reduction in area due to the
presence of the holes is not included in the calculation of
the joint strength.
When the adhesive failure of a bolted/co-cured hybrid
joint occurs before reaching the maximum load, the
strength of adhesive failure is defined as
P af
S af ¼ ð2Þ
A
where Paf is the applied load at the adhesive (co-cure bond-
ing) failure. Note that the adhesive failure may include a
small amount of cohesive failure in composites in actual
tests.
3.3. Tensile lap-shear fatigue tests
Tensile lap-shear fatigue tests are performed based on
JIS K 6864: test methods for fatigue properties of struc-
tural adhesives in tensile shear using MTS servo material
testing machine Model 312.21. The objective of the fatigue
tests is to demonstrate failure trends of the bolted and
bolted/co-cured hybrid joints rather than the generation
of comprehensive S–N curves. The stroke frequency is
from 10 to 20 Hz; it was confirmed that the specimen does
not generate excessive heat even at 20 Hz. The maximum
shear stress smax and minimum stress smin are defined as
maximum and minimum applied loads divided by the
bonded area, respectively; the stress ratio (smin/smax) is con-
stant at 0.1 in all fatigue tests. The mean stress
sm=(smax + smin)/2 is set to be in the range from 0.25 to
0.5 sR where sR is the static tensile shear strength of each
joint obtained in the static tests. Fatigue failure is defined
here as the perfect separation between two adherends.
157
Aluminum alloy
Bolt
25
38
100
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Static tensile lap-shear tests
First, the differences in crack arrest performance
between the bolted/co-cured hybrid joint and the co-cured
joint were observed using two bolts at the edge of the alu-
minum adherend. Since translucence of the GFRP adher-
end surfaces at the bonded area turns white when the
crack occurs between the adherends, the progressive crack
front can be observed by monitoring the GFRP surface
during the tests. Fig. 4a shows the crack propagation of
the co-cured joints; the crack begins from the aluminum
edge. The crack propagates toward to the GFRP edge until
the joint completely breaks. On the contrary, Fig. 4b shows
the case of the bolted/co-cured joint with two bolts; it indi-
cates that when the crack from the aluminum edge pro-
gresses close to the bolts, it is arrested, probably because
a larger portion of the applied load is transferred to the
bolts.
The crack starts again from the GFRP edges; finally
adhesive failure occurs. This would suggest the presence
of the bolts in the bolted/co-cured hybrid joints contribute
to the prevention of crack propagation. In case of the four-
bolts specimen, the crack from the GFRP edges also is also
arrested for a while.
Fig. 5 shows typical stress–displacement diagrams of the
bolted/co-cured hybrid joint (TP2) compared with the co-
cured joint and the bolted joint. The abscissa is crosshead
displacement while the ordinate is applied stress, the force
divided by the bonded area.
In the bolted joint in Fig. 5, the applied stress increases
steadily until a maximum stress Smax of 5.96 MPa at a dis-
placement of 1.50 mm; the joint breaks with some steps.
158 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163

Fig. 4. Crack propagation of GFRP/aluminum single lap joint during tensile shear tests: (a) co-cured joint and (b) bolted/co-cured hybrid joint. The solid
line shows the edges of aluminum and GFRP adherends; the dashed line shows the crack front.

Fig. 6 shows the failure surfaces of the bolted joint; the
bearing failure in the GFRP adherend and the bolt failures
are observed. The bearing failure involves delamination,
fiber breakage, and surface splitting; most of the delamina-
tion spreads toward 90°, which corresponds to the fiber ori-
entation or splitting direction of the ply contacting the
aluminum adherend. Since the four bolts do not break at
the same time, the stress decreases step-by-step after the
maximum stress corresponding to points B1, B2, and B3
in Fig. 5.
From the stress–displacement diagram of the co-cured
joint in Fig. 5, the applied stress increases steadily as the
displacement increases until catastrophic joint failure
occurs at a displacement of 0.365 mm and stress Smax of
2.51 MPa. There are some good adhesives that have similar
joint strength as the bolted joints. However, the strength of
the co-cured bonding is usually low because the matrix is
not specifically developed for bonding between composites
and aluminum.
Fig. 7 shows the failure surfaces of the co-cured joint. A
few glass fibers and epoxy matrix exist on the aluminum
adherend; the failure mode is a mixture of adhesive failure
and a small amount of cohesive failure of the GFRP.
The bolted/co-cured hybrid joint has approximately the
same stiffness as the co-cured joint until adhesive failure at
a displacement of 0.554 mm and stress Saf of 3.94 MPa
(Fig. 5 C2). After the applied stress decreases sharply at
a displacement of 0.554 mm, the stress increases again
though the stiffness decreases; then the joint has a maxi-
mum stress Smax of 5.97 MPa at a displacement of
1.48 mm. From visual observation, the crack occurs at
the edge of aluminum adherend at point C1 in Fig. 5; the
crack stops at the bolt once; then the crack makes progress
again from the GFRP edge. The adhesive failure occurs at
 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163 159

Bolted/co-cured joint C3
6 B1
Applied stress (MPa)

C2
4
C4
Bolted joint
C1 A2
2 A1 B2 B3

Co-cured joint

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 5. Applied stress and displacement diagram of GFRP/aluminum co-

cured, bolted, bolted/co-cured hybrid joints.

Fig. 7. Failure surfaces of the GFRP/aluminum co-cured joint after static

tensile shear tests: (a) GFRP adherend and (b) aluminum adherend.

Fig. 6. Failure surfaces of the GFRP/aluminum bolted joint after static
tensile shear tests: (a) GFRP adherend and (b) aluminum adherend.
point C2. After that, the bolts bear the applied stress; the
hybrid joint behaves as the bolted joint. As a consequence,
the progressive bolt failures are also observed (Fig. 5 C3
and C4) like the bolted joint. The slight difference between
stress vs displacement of bolted and hybrid joints is caused
because not all the adhesive area of the hybrid joints failed
in C2, and small amount of adhesive bonding still existed
around the bolts and failed gradually between C2 and
C3. This was observed as the stiffness decreasing between
C2 and C3. The maximum tensile shear stress of the
bolted/co-cured hybrid joint is approximately the same as
that of the bolted joint. Despite some fibers may damage
due to adhesive failure in C2, the broken fibers in the
hybrid joint do not adversely affect static strength.
Fig. 8 shows the failure surfaces of the bolted/co-cured
hybrid joint. It indicates that both bolt failure and bearing
failure with delamination and fiber breakage occur as is the
case with the bolted joint; the cohesive failure of GFRP
also occurs as with the co-cured joint. Contrary to the
bolted joint, the delamination of the hybrid joints spreads
not only along the fiber orientation (90°) but along the
loading direction; this is due to the peeling stress induced
by co-cure adhesion.
Fig. 9 shows the average static tensile shear strengths
Smax of co-cured, bolted/co-cured, and bolted joints as well
as the adhesive failure stress Saf of the bolted/co-cured
160 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163

7
Smax
6

Tensile shear strength (MPa)

5

4
Saf

0
Co-cured Bolted joint
joint Bolted/co-cured
hybrid joint
Fig. 9. Average static tensile shear strengths of GFRP/aluminum co-
cured, bolted/co-cured hybrid, and bolted joints. Smax and Saf of the
hybrid joint indicate the maximum (bolt failure) and adhesive failure
strengths, respectively. The error bar indicates the standard deviations.

The reason for the large strength scatter in the co-cured

Fig. 8. Failure surfaces of the GFRP/aluminum bolted/co-cured hybrid
joint after static tensile shear tests: (a) GFRP adherend and (b) aluminum
adherend.
joints is that the strength is easily affected by surface (oxi-
dation, pollution, and roughness), curing (temperature,
time, and pressure) conditions, joint alignment, the overlap
length and the surplus of resin at the overlap ends. On the
other hand, the strength of the bolted joints is not affected
by such conditions, which are difficult to control, but
affected by the tightening torque, which is easily controlled.
Thereby the strength scatter of the bolted joints is smaller.
Although the adhesive failure strength of the hybrid
joints is also affected by surface and curing conditions
and has a large strength scatter, the hybrid joints bear
the applied loads as bolted joints in the final stage, and
therefore the scatter of the maximum tensile shear strength
of the hybrid joints is as small as that of the bolted joints.
Considering the loss of water tightness due to the adhesive

hybrid joints. Saf is in correspondence of the point of load 6

drop (C2) in Fig. 5. The error bars indicate the standard Bolted joint
Maximum shear stress, τmax (MPa)

deviations. As can be seen from Fig. 9, the hybrid joints Bolted/co-cured joint
have a maximum tensile shear strength Smax of 6.09 MPa 5
with a standard deviation of 0.25 MPa, similar to the
bolted joints, for which Smax is 6.21 MPa with a standard
deviation of 0.36 MPa. Compared with co-cured joints 4
(Smax is 3.37 MPa with a standard deviation of 0.86
MPa), the hybrid joints have 1.84 times higher tensile
strength and a quarter of the standard deviation. However, 3 Bolted Bolted/co-cured
the adhesive failure stress Saf (3.61 MPa with a standard
deviation of 0.89 MPa) of the hybrid joints is as small as
that of the co-cured joints. From Kelly [15], the lower mod- 2
ulus matrix of the hybrid joints may allow for more load
103 104 105 106
sharing between the adhesive and the bolts, and improve
the adhesive strength in comparison to co-cured joints. Number of cycles to failure, N (cycles)
Note that the bolt diameter was lower than the ones gener- Fig. 10. Maximum shear stress and number of cycles to failure of the
ally used in marine application, so that the joint strength GFRP/aluminum bolted and bolted/co-cured hybrid joints. The stress
may decrease in a real case. ratio R is 0.1.
 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163 161

Fig. 11. Failure surfaces of the GFRP/aluminum bolted joint after fatigue failure: (a) GFRP adherend and (b) aluminum adherend. The maximum shear
stress smax = 3.5 MPa; N = 7777 cycles.

Fig. 12. Failure surfaces of the GFRP/aluminum bolted/co-cured hybrid joint after fatigue failure: (a) GFRP adherend; (b) aluminum adherend; and (c)
side view of the aluminum adherend. The maximum shear stress smax = 4.4 MPa; N = 13547 cycles.
162 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163
failure, the hybrid joints should be used in the stress level of
less than Saf. However, if the higher load is applied to the
joint, the joint does not break as catastrophic failure until
Smax, thus the method highly improves the reliability of the
structure.
4.2. Tensile lap-shear fatigue tests
Fig. 10 shows the S–N curves of the fatigue tests using
bolted and bolted/co-cured hybrid joints. The abscissa is
the logarithmic of the number of cycles, while the ordinate
is the maximum stress smax. Compared at the same maxi-
mum stress level around 3.5 MPa, the bolted joints break
within 104 cycles (7777 cycles at 3.5 MPa), whereas the
bolted/co-cured hybrid joints survive more than 105 cycles
(113,648 cycles at 3.66 MPa). Although comprehensive S–
N curves are not obtained in Fig. 13, it can be said that
the bolted/co-cured hybrid joints have a higher fatigue
strength than that of the bolted joints.
Fig. 11 shows the failure surfaces of the bolted joints;
the number of cycles to failure N is 7777, and smax is
3.5 MPa. The failure mode of the bolted joints is a mixture
of bolt failure and bearing failure involving delamination
and fiber breakage. On the other hand, Fig. 12 shows the
failure surfaces of the bolted/co-cored hybrid joints; N is
13547 cycles, and smax is 4.4 MPa. As can be seen from
Fig. 12, one ply of GFRP laminate delaminates and sticks
to the aluminum alloy surface (cohesive failure of GFRP).
This indicates that a part of interface bonding between
GFRP and aluminum adherends still existed in the hybrid
a
Applied load is concentrated
at the bolt contact point.
Delamination and resin
degradation due to drilling
Bearing failure & Bolt failure
Load
b Bolt hole
Applied load is distributed around
the bolt hole owing to adhesion.
Bolt/hole clearance is
filled with epoxy resin.
GFRP cohesive failure
Load
Fig. 13. Schematic illustrations of fatigue failure mechanisms: (a) bolted joints and (b) bolted/co-cured hybrid joints.
joint when the final joint failure occurred. Adhesive failure
and shear-out failure of the GFRP are also observed.
Therefore, the failure mode of the bolted/co-cured hybrid
joints is a mixture of adhesive failure, shear-out failure
and delamination between GFRP plies. Plastic deforma-
tion of the bolts is also observed for the hybrid joints,
but bolt breakage does not occur, unlike for the bolted
joints. Compared with the bolted joints, the failure mode
of the hybrid joints involves a large amount of damages
of GFRP itself. In other words, the hybrid joints survived
until the GFRP adherend failure.
Fig. 13 illustrates the failure mechanisms of the (a)
bolted and (b) bolted/co-cured hybrid joints. Since the
maximum stress level was higher than Saf, the debonding
between the GFRP and aluminum surfaces occurred early
stage in case of the hybrid joints. However, not whole area
of interface was debonded and GFRP still adhered to the
aluminum by co-cure bonding at the fringe of the bolts.
In addition to that, since the stress level was less than the
bolt failure Smax, the fatigue loads gradually damaged the
fiber and matrix around the bolts in the hybrid joints.
The bolted joint bears the applied load at the small contact
point of the bolt whereas the bolted/co-cured hybrid joint
bears the load by the surrounding area of the bolt owing
to co-cure adhesion. Therefore, the adhesion reduces stress
concentration factors at the bolts in the hybrid joints com-
pared with the bolted joints; less stress concentration pre-
vents bolt failure in the hybrid joint during the fatigue
tests. Furthermore, delamination, resin degradation, and
glass fiber damage occurred in the bolted joints due to
Bolt hole
GFRP
Load
Aluminum
GFRP
Load
Aluminum
 R. Matsuzaki et al. / Composites: Part A 39 (2008) 154–163
the drilling process; these damages can initiate cracks and
lead to bearing failure and reduce in-service life under fati-
gue loads [28], while there is very little damage to the glass
fibers of the hybrid joints. For these reasons, the bolt or
bearing failures do not occur in the hybrid joints, and the
hybrid joints survive until the cohesive failure of the
GFRP. As a consequence, the hybrid joints have much
higher fatigue strength than that of the bolted joints.
5. Conclusions
To improve the strength of GFRP/aluminum co-cured
lap joints, bolted/co-cured hybrid joints were presented.
The static tests were performed using three types of speci-
mens: co-cured, bolted, and bolted/co-cured hybrid joints.
It was found that the hybrid joints have adhesive failure
before the joint failure; after the adhesive failure, the
hybrid joint behaves as a bolted joint until reaching maxi-
mum stress at joint failure. The adhesive failure strength
and its scatter of the hybrid joints correspond to those of
the co-cured joint, while the maximum shear strength and
its scatter correspond to those of the bolted joint; in conse-
quence, the hybrid joints have 1.84 times higher maximum
shear strength and a quarter of the standard deviation
compared with the adhesive failure strength of the co-cured
joints. Fatigue tests were also performed using bolted and
bolted/co-cured hybrid joints. It was found that the hybrid
joint has a much higher fatigue strength than that of the
bolted joint. Less stress concentration and undamaged
glass fibers in the hybrid joints may contribute to the high
fatigue strength.
References
[1] Mouritz AP, Gellert E, Burchill P, Challis K. Review of advanced
composite structures for naval ships and submarines. Compos Struct
2001;53:21–41.
[2] Cao J, Grenestedt JL. Design and testing of joints for composite
sandwich/steel hybrid ship hulls. Compos: Part A 2004;35:1091–105.
[3] Kim HS, Lee DG. Optimal design of the press fit joint for a hybrid
aluminum/composite drive shaft. Compos Struct 2005;70:33–47.
[4] Lee DG, Kim HS, Kim JW, Kim JK. Design and manufacture of an
automotive hybrid aluminum/composite drive shaft. Compos Struct
2004;63:87–99.
[5] Cho DH, Lee DG. Manufacture of one-piece automotive drive shafts
with aluminum and composite materials. Compos Struct
1997;38:309–319.
[6] Chang SH, Kim PJ, Lee DG, Choi JK. Steel-composite hybrid
headstock for high-precision grinding machines. Compos Struct
2001;53:1–8.
[7] Lee CS, Lee DG. Manufacturing of composite sandwich robot
structures using the co-cure bonding method. Compos Struct
2004;65:307–18.
163
[8] Zitoune R, Collombet F. Numerical prediction of the thrust force
responsible of delamination during the drilling of the long-fibre
composite structrues. Compos: Part A 2007;38:858–66.
[9] Davim JP, Reis P, Antonio CC. Experimental study of drilling glass
fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP) manufactured by hand lay-up.
Compos Sci Technol 2004;64:289–97.
[10] Allen KW. At forty cometh understanding A review of some basics of
adhesion over the past four decades. Int J Adhes Adhes 2003;23:
87–93.
[11] Camanho PP, Tavares CML, Oliveira Rd, Marques AT, Ferreira
AJM. Increasing the efficiency of composite single-shear lap joints
using bonded inserts. Compos: Part B 2005;36:372–83.
[12] Fu M, Mallick PK. Fatigue of hybrid (adhesive/bolted) joints in
SRIM composites. Int J Adhes Adhes 2001;21:145–59.
[13] Gomez S, Onoro J, Pecharroman J. A simple mechanical model of a
structural hybrid adhesive/riveted single lap joint. Int J Adhes Adhes
2007;27:263–7.
[14] Hart-Smith LJ. Bonded-bolted composite joints. J Aircraft
1985;22(11):993–1000.
[15] Kelly G. Quasi-static strength and fatigue life of hybrid (bonded/
bolted) composite single-lap joints. Compos Struct 2006;72:
119–29.
[16] Kelly G. Load transfer in hybrid (bonded/bolted) composite single-
lap joints. Compos Struct 2005;69:35–43.
[17] Kweon J-H, Jung J-W, Kim T-H, Choi J-H, Kim D-H. Failure of
carbon composite-to-aluminum joints with combined mechanical
fastening and adhesive bonding. Compos Struct 2006;75:192–8.
[18] Kim HS, Lee SJ, Lee DG. Development of a strength model for the
cocured stepped lap joints under tensile loading. Compos Struct
1995;32:593–600.
[19] Huang CK. Study on co-cured composite panels with blade-shaped
stiffeners. Compos: Part A 2003;34:403–10.
[20] Shin KC, Lim JO, Lee JJ. The manufacturing process of co-cured
single and double lap joints and evaluation of the load-bearing
capacities of co-cured joints. J Mat Process Technol 2003;138:
89–96.
[21] Kim HS, Park SW, Lee DG. Smart cure cycle with cooling and
reheating for co-cure bonded steel/carbon epoxy composite hybrid
structures for reducing thermal residual stress. Compos: Part A
2006;37:1708–21.
[22] Olivier P, Cottu JP. Optimization of the co-curing of two different
composites with the aim of minimising residual curing stress levels.
Compos Sci Technol 1998;58:645–51.
[23] Park SW, Kim HS, Lee DG. Optimum design of the co-cured double
lap joint composed of aluminum and carbon epoxy composite.
Compos Struct 2006;75:289–97.
[24] Shin KC, Lee JJ. Effects of thermal residual stresses on failure of co-
cured lap joints with steel and carbon fiber-epoxy composite
adherends under static and fatigue tensile loads. Compos: Part A
2006;37:476–87.
[25] Melograna JD, Grenestedt JL. Improving joints between composites
and steel using perforations. Compos: Part A 2002;33:1253–61.
[26] Melograna JD, Grenestedt JL, Maroun WJ. Adhesive tongue-and-
groove joints between thin carbon fiber laminates and steel. Compos:
Part A 2003;34:119–24.
[27] Matsuzaki R, Shibata M, Todoroki A. Evaluation of dimple
treatment for GFRP/metal co-cured joint. Key Eng Mater
2006;324–325:1729–32.
[28] Caprino G, Tagliaferri V. Damage development in drilling glass fibre
reinforced plastics. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 1995;35(6):817–26.