Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198

www.elsevier.com/locate/compstruct

Failure of carbon composite-to-aluminum joints

with combined mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
Jin-Hwe Kweon *, Jae-Woo Jung, Tae-Hwan Kim, Jin-Ho Choi, Dong-Hyun Kim
School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Research Center for Aircraft Parts Technology, Gyeongsang National University,
Jinju, Gyeongnam 660-701, Republic of Korea

Available online 19 May 2006

Abstract

Composite-to-aluminum double lap joints were tested to obtain the failure loads and modes for three types of joints: adhesive bond-
ing, bolt fastening and adhesive-bolt hybrid joining. A film type adhesive FM73 and a paste type adhesive EA9394S were used for alu-
minum and composite bonding. A digital microscope camcorder was used to monitor the failure of the joints. It was found that hybrid
joining improves joint strength when the mechanical fastening is stronger than the bonding, as when the paste type adhesive is used. On
the other hand, when the strength of the bolted joint is lower than that of the bonded joint, as when the film type adhesive is used, bolt
joining contributes little to the strength of the hybrid joint.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Composite joint strength; Hybrid joint; Adhesive bonding; Mechanical fastening

1. Introduction well-proven joining method compared to bonding meth-

Application fields for composite materials are continu-
ously expanding, from traditional application areas such
as military aircraft to various engineering fields including
commercial aircrafts, automobiles, robotic arms and even
architecture. Unless all the parts are co-cured (for compo-
sites) or integrally machined (for metals), it is inevitable that
joints will be used to connect the parts. Accordingly, joint
design technology became a critical and common technol-
ogy for the design of composite parts. The structural integ-
rity of the composite parts actually depends on the joint.
When mechanical joints such as bolting or riveting are
used in composite structures, reinforcing fibers must be
cut to fabricate the fastener hole, around which the stress
concentration occurs. The use of fastener holes inherently
results in micro and local damages to the composite
laminate during their fabrication. Consequently, strength
degradation of the structures is induced. Although
mechanical fastening has many weak points, it is still a
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 55 751 6104; fax: +82 55 757 5622.
E-mail address: jhkweon@gsnu.ac.kr (J.-H. Kweon).
ods. Any number of papers can easily be found about
mechanical joints that use bolts, rivets, or pins. These
papers consider various approaches, including the charac-
teristic length method [1,2] and the 3-dimensional finite ele-
ment method [3,4] and/or test [5,6].
In mechanical fastening, ironically, the fasteners them-
selves are an important source of weight increase. Particu-
larly in weight-sensitive structures like aircraft, reducing
the number of fasteners is a research priority. Adhesive
bonding can be considered as an alternative joining method
[7–12]. In adhesive bonding, the fastener and fastening
holes are unnecessary. The stress distributions in the joint
are relatively uniform compared with those in the mechan-
ical joint. However, it is problematic that the bonded joint
cannot be disassembled without damage. Also, these joints
are very sensitive to environmental factors like humidity
and temperature. The most serious problem for adhesive
bonding, however, is that design engineers are uncertain
regarding long-term structural integrity and, further,
bonded joints tend to fail instantaneously, not progres-
sively. Even if a bonded joint meets strength requirements
in laboratory testing, some designers worry about whether

0263-8223/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.04.013
 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198
the bonding will work with the designed target perfor-
mance throughout the whole life span of the joint.
In the hybrid joint, mechanical fastening is added to the
bonded joint. The hybrid joint uses mechanical fastening in
addition to bonding in an effort to overcome the potential
weaknesses of adhesive bonding. Optimally designed
mechanical fastening might induce more progressive failure
propagation and increase joint strength. Although some
studies [13,14] on hybrid joints have been reported, still
failure and strength data for the hybrid joint are lacking.
In this paper, the effect of bolting on the joint strength is
studied by testing the effect of adding a bolt joint to a
bonded joint, which makes a hybrid joint. Tests were con-
ducted for the three types of joints: simple bonding, simple
bolting and combined bonding and bolting (hybrid joints).
A film type adhesive FM73 and a paste type adhesive
EA9394S were used for bonding. Specimens were made
to be composite-to-aluminum double lap joints. SK Chem-
ical USN125 carbon/epoxy prepreg tapes were used for the
composite laminate. Aluminum alloy 7075-T62 was the
other adherend.
2. Test
2.1. Specimen preparation
A total of 24 carbon-to-aluminum double lap joint spec-
imens were tested using the three types of joining methods.
For the joint with film type adhesive FM73, five specimens
Fig. 1. Configuration and dimensions of the hybrid joint.
Fig. 2. A typical hybrid joint specimen.
193
were tested for the bonded and hybrid joints, respectively.
For the joint with paste type adhesive EA9394S, four and
six specimens were tested for the bonded and hybrid joints,
respectively. Another four bolted joint specimens were
tested to obtain the bearing strength.
A schematic configuration showing the dimensions of
the hybrid joint is illustrated in Fig. 1. The bonded area
is a square measuring 25.4 mm · 25.4 mm. The fastener
hole diameter is 4.763 mm. A NAS6203-05 steel bolt was
used for the mechanical fastening and an aluminum
washer, NAS1149D0463K, was used on both the top and
the bottom sides of the joint. The bolt was tightened man-
ually just for contact.
The stacking sequence of the composite laminate is
[±45/0/90]2S. The material properties of the USN125
carbon/epoxy unidirectional laminate are as follows: E1=
131 GPa, E2 = 8.2 GPa, G12 = 4.5 GPa, m12 = 0.281, XT =
2000 MPa, XC = 1400 MPa, YT = 61 MPa, YC = 130 MPa
and S = 70 MPa. Aluminum 7075-T62 with a thickness of
3.224 mm was used for the joints. The material properties
of the aluminum 7075-T6 are as follows: E = 71.0 GPa,
m = 0.33, X = 551.6 MPa and S = 275.8 MPa.
The material properties of the film type adhesive FM73
are as follows: E = 2.9 GPa, m = 0.40 and 46.1 MPa. Shear
strength S denotes the tensile shear strength for a metal-to-
metal bonded single lap joint. Specimens using the FM73
adhesive were cured in an autoclave. The material proper-
ties of the paste type adhesive EA9394S are as follows:
E = 4.2 GPa, m = 0.45 and S = 29 MPa. EA9394S was
194 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198

Fig. 3. Microscopic view of bonded specimen after water-jet cutting.

Fig. 4. Test set-up.

cured at room temperature. No other material, such as
glass fabric, was added to the paste type adhesive layer.
All specimens were cut by water jet. A typical hybrid
specimen is shown in Fig. 2. Sections of the bonded speci-
men fabricated by water jet are shown in Fig. 3.
2.2. Test
A material testing machine, Instron model 5582, was
used for the joint test as shown in Fig. 4. The load was
applied at 1.27 mm/min, as per ASTM specification
D3528-96. A digital microscope camcorder was installed
to monitor and record the damage propagation in the joints.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Bonded joints
3.1.1. Joints with film type adhesive FM73
To investigate the reinforcing effect of bolting on the
strength of bonded joints, a test for bonded joints with film
type adhesive FM73 was conducted first. The baseline
material properties of the adhesive are generally provided
by the manufacturer. These properties, however, can be
affected by test conditions such as the temperature, humid-
ity and even the surface treatment. Also, double lap joints
might behave differently than single lap joints. Further-
more, adherend materials can also affect the joints. Com-
posite materials are unlike aluminum and steel.
Therefore, it is common to determine the bonding strength
of the adhesive for a joint with a test for given conditions.
Conventionally, the bonding strength of an adhesive is
defined as the maximum carried load divided by the
bonded area. On the other hand, the bearing strength of
a bolted or riveted joint is defined as the maximum load
divided by the compressed area (the thickness of the joint
times the diameter of the fastener hole). The method of
defining the strength of the joint depends on the type of
joint. Certainly, in this type of research, the method of
defining the joint strength should be consistent for compar-
ison purposes. Herein, therefore, for convenience and con-
sistency, the strength of the joint, regardless of the joining
method, is defined as the maximum load divided by the
cross sectional area of the composite laminates. The cross
sectional area of the aluminum, which is the other adher-
end, is not used because all failures occurred in the com-
posite laminates in these tests. This definition of joint
strength is different from the method to define the shear
strength of an adhesive or to define the bearing strength
of the mechanically fastened joints.
Table 1 shows the test results for a bonded joint with the
film type adhesive FM73. In the Table, Pmax denotes the
 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198 195

Table 1 500
Test results for bonded joints with film type adhesive FA-1
FA-1
FA-2

Applied stress (MPa)

Resultnspecimen FA-1 FA-2 FA-3 FA-4 Average 400 FA-2
FA-3
FA-3
Joint strength, 464 441 477 428 453
Pmax/2A (MPa) FA-4
FA-4
300
Adhesive strength, 32.7 31.1 33.7 30.2 31.9
Pmax/2AB (MPa)
200

maximum load carried by the joint. 2A and 2AB represent 100 P P

the cross sectional area and the bonded area of the lami-
nates of the double-lap joint, respectively. The average
shear strength of the adhesive itself is 31.9 MPa. The
strength is the maximum load divided by the bonded area
2AB. It is 31% lower than the shear strength 46.1 MPa
based on an aluminum-to-aluminum single-lap joint [15].
It is, however, higher than the shear strength 23.6 MPa
for the composite-to-composite single lap bonded joint
[7]. In the reference, all the specimens failed in the delami-
nation of the laminate while the adhesive sustained the
bonding. The strength of the joint in this case was lower
than the shear strength of the adhesive itself. Present results
for the joints with composite-to-aluminum double joints
are placed between the strengths of the aluminum-to-alu-
minum and composite-to-composite joints.
The joint strength, which is the maximum load divided
by the cross sectional area of the composite laminate, is
453 MPa, on average. This will be compared with the other
two types of joints.
Fig. 5 shows the load–displacement curves for the joints
that were used to define the maximum carried load. In the
figure a large difference is not found in the maximum car-
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Load–displacement curves for bonded joints with film type
adhesive.
ried loads. However, the displacements corresponding to
the loads differ greatly depending on the specimens. The
joints also have various failure patterns, as shown in
Fig. 6. The failure patterns can be categorized in terms of
the definition given in Fig. 7. The specimen FA-1 shows
delamination, which is a kind of adherend failure, in the
composite laminate over about half the bonded area. The
FA-1 specimen failed at a relatively short elongation.
FA-2, -3 and -4 show a typical mixed mode failure. Adhe-
sives are found in both the composite and aluminum sur-
faces, which indicates a failure of the bonded surface.
The results show that the failure modes and maximum
elongations are greatly influenced by the characteristics of
the specimens, while the maximum carried loads are less
sensitive to the specimen conditions.

Fig. 6. Failure modes of bonded joints with film type adhesive: (a) FA-1, (b) FA-2, (c) FA-3 and (d) FA-4.
196 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198

Adherend

Adhesive

Failure
Location

Adherend

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Fig. 7. Schematic diagram for the failure mode definition of an adhesive bonded joint: (a) cohesive failure, (b) adhesive failure, (c) mixed failure and
(d) adherend failure.

Table 2 joint strength with the film type adhesive FM73 and is
Test results of bonded joints with paste type adhesive 2.4 times the average joint strength with the paste type
Resultnspecimen PA-1 PA-2 PA-3 PA-4 PA-5 Average adhesive EA9394S. All specimens failed in bearing mode.
Joint strength, 69.1 59.8 81.7 59.6 65.5 67.1 In the table, d and t represent the hole diameter and lami-
Pmax/2A (MPa) nate thickness, respectively.
Adhesive strength, 4.87 4.22 5.76 4.21 4.62 4.74 The load–displacement curves are shown in Fig. 8. The
Pmax/2AB (MPa)
stiffness degradation by local failure is observed from the
curves. The curves show the typical pattern of the load–dis-
3.1.2. Joints with paste type adhesive placement curve for the bolted joint. Typical deformed
The test results for composite-to-aluminum bonded shapes that form around the fastener hole after the bearing
joints with paste type adhesive EA9394S are given in Table of the laminate are shown in Fig. 9.
2. The meanings of Pmax, 2A and 2AB are the same as in
Table 1. EA9394S is an adhesive that can be cured at room 200
temperature. The average shear strength of the adhesive
itself is found to be 4.74 MPa, but the manufacturer states BT- 1
BT- 2
Applied stress (MPa)

a shear strength value of 29 MPa; the present test result is 150 BT- 3
BT- 4
just 16% of the value given by the manufacturer. There are
many factors that may have contributed to the degraded 100
shear strength of the adhesive. One possible factor is the
fabric layer. This layer is usually added to an adhesive
before curing to enhance the bonding force and to control 50
the thickness of the bonding layer. In the present test, how- P P
ever, the fabric layer was not used because the purpose of
the present study is not to evaluate the shear strength of 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
the adhesive EA9394S, but to investigate the effect of the Displacement (mm)
relative difference of the strengths of the bonded and bolted
Fig. 8. Load–displacement curves for bolted joints.
joints on the hybrid joint. This means that two types of
adhesives – relatively strong and relatively weak – are
needed and there should be a distinct difference between
the shear strength of each.

3.2. Bolted joints

Table 3 shows the test results for simple bolted joints

without adhesive bonding. The average joint strength of
the simple bolted joints is 162 MPa, which is 36% of the

Table 3
Test results of bolted joints
Resultnspecimen BT-1 BT-2 BT-3 BT-4 Average
Joint strength, Pmax/2A (MPa) 167 172 156 154 162
Bearing strength, Pmax/2dt (MPa) 891 917 832 821 865
Fig. 9. Laminates after bearing failure.
 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198 197

3.3. Hybrid joints
Summaries of the test results and of the load–displace-
ment curves of hybrid joints with the film type adhesive
are given in Table 4 and Fig. 10, respectively. The average
joint strength, defined as the maximum carried load Pmax
divided by the cross sectional area 2A, is 440 MPa, which
is 3% lower than the strength of the simple bonded joint
(453 MPa). It is important to remember, however, that
hybrid joints have a fastening hole with an area that is
about 3% of the bonded area. Accordingly, the actual
strength of the hybrid joint is the same as that of the simple
bonded joint when the film adhesive FM73 was used. The
load–displacement curves shown in Fig. 10 also show pat-
terns similar to those of the curves for the simple bonded
joints (Fig. 5).
Test results for the hybrid joints can be interpreted in
terms of the load–displacement curves shown in Figs. 5, 8
and 10. As shown in Fig. 8, local failures in the simple
bolted joint are observed even before the displacement u
reaches 1.0 mm. If this situation is assumed to be the same
Table 4
Test results of hybrid joints with film type adhesive
Resultnspecimen FH-1 FH-2 FH-3 FH-4 FH-5 FH-6 Average
Joint strength, 449 451 453 446 414
Pmax/2A (MPa)
500
FH-1
400 FH-2
Applied stress (MPa)
in the hybrid joint, then the bearing failure of the laminate
by bolting would start when the displacement u reached
about 1.0 mm and would result in final failure when u
equaled about 2.0 mm. Fig. 8 shows, however, that the
bonded joint using FM73 sustains its structural integrity
even when the displacement is about 2.0 mm. This means
that the composite laminate fails first in bearing mode
before the adhesive failure occurs. Once the bearing failure
occurs, the joint load should be sustained by the adhesive
alone. It becomes the same as the simple bonded joint,
which has a bonded area that is 3% smaller than in the sim-
ple joint, which explains why the hybrid joints have 3% less
strength than the simple bonded joint with FM73.
Typical failure modes are shown in Fig. 11. The figure
shows that the composite laminates partially fail by delam-
ination and that the delaminated parts remain bonded to
the aluminum surface over about 30% of the original
bonded area after the final failure. More than half the
bonded area fails in mixed modes. In the mixed mode fail-
ure, adhesives are observed in both the aluminum and com-
posite sides. Bearing failures of laminates are easily
observed in Fig. 11(c) and (d). The white rings are due to
the washers.
The results for the hybrid joints with a paste type adhe-
sive are given in Table 5. The average strength of the
428 440 hybrid joints is 192 MPa, which is higher than the strength
of the simple bonded or bolted joints and is almost 84% of
the sum of each of the strengths (219 MPa). This is very
different from the results for the joints with film type adhe-
sive. In the joints with film type adhesive, the bolting did
not affect the strength of the bonded joints. On the con-

FH-3
FH-4 trary, in hybrid joints with paste type adhesive that was
FH-5
300 FH-6 cured at room temperature with low bonded shear
strength, the bolt joint greatly increased the strength of
200 the hybrid joints. It should also be noted that the strength
of the hybrid joints is even greater than the strength of the
simple bolted joint, which means that the adhesive works
100
P P
Table 5
0 Test results of hybrid joints with paste type adhesive
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement (mm) Resultnspecimen FH-1 FH-2 FH-3 FH-4 FH-5 Average
Joint strength, 202 164 206 187 200 192
Fig. 10. Load–displacement curves for hybrid joints with film type
Pmax/2A (MPa)
adhesive.

Fig. 11. Typical failure modes of hybrid joints with film type adhesive: (a) Al (top), (b) Al (bottom), (c) Laminate (top) and (d) Laminate (bottom).
198 J.-H. Kweon et al. / Composite Structures 75 (2006) 192–198
to strengthen the bolted joint and delay the final failure of
the joint.
4. Conclusions
Tests were conducted to evaluate the strength of carbon
composite-to-aluminum double lap joints with two differ-
ent adhesive materials: film and paste types. Three types
of joints were considered: adhesive bonding, bolt fastening
and an adhesive-bolt hybrid. It was found that the strength
of hybrid joints with film type adhesive FM73 are domi-
nated by the strength of the adhesive itself. On the con-
trary, the strength of hybrid joints with paste type
adhesive EA9394S were mainly affected by the bolt joint.
In general, it should be noted that hybrid joining is effective
when the mechanical fastening is stronger than the bond-
ing. On the contrary, when the strength of the bolted joint
is lower than the strength of the bonded joint, the bolt join-
ing contributes little to the hybrid joint strength.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant No. RTI04-01-03
from the Regional Technology Innovation Program of
the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE)
and NURI project at Gyeongsang National University.
References
[1] Chang FK, Scott RA, Springer GS. The effect of laminate configu-
ration on characteristic lengths and rail shear strength. J Compos
Mater 1984;18:290–6.
[2] Kweon JH, Ahn HS, Choi JH. A new method to determine the
characteristic lengths of composite joints without testing. Compos
Struct 2004;66:305–15.
[3] Camanho PP, Matthews FL. A progressive damage model for
mechanically fastened joints in composite laminates. J Compos Mater
1999;33:2248–80.
[4] Hashin Z. Failure criteria for unidirectional fiber composites. J Appl
Mech 1980;47:328–34.
[5] Quinn WJ, Matthews FL. The effect of stacking sequence on the pin-
bearing strength in glass fiber reinforced plastic. J Compos Mater
1977;11:139–45.
[6] Wang HS, Hung CL, Chang FC. Bearing failure of bolted composite
joints. Part I: Experimental characterization. J Compos Mater
1996;30:1284–313.
[7] Kim KS, Yoo JS, An JM, Jang YS. Failure mode and strength of
unidirectional composite single lap bonded joints. I. Experiments.
J Korean Soc Compos Mater 2004;17:14–21.
[8] Kim KS, Lee YM, Kim CG. Failure mode and strength of
unidirectional composite single lap bonded joints. II. Failure predic-
tion. J Korean Soc Compos Mater 2005;18:1–9.
[9] Owens JFP, Lee-Sullivan P. Stiffness behaviour due to fracture in
adhesively bonded composite-to-aluminum joints. I. Theoretical
model. Int J Adhes Adhes 2000;20:39–45.
[10] Owens JFP, Lee-Sullivan P. Stiffness behaviour due to fracture in
adhesively bonded composite-to-aluminum joints. II. Experimental.
Int J Adhes Adhes 2000;20:47–58.
[11] Hart-Smith LJ. Adhesive-bonding double-lap joints. NASA CR-
112235, 1973.
[12] Choi JH, Lee DG. The torque transmission capabilities of the
adhesively bonded tubular single lap joint and the double lap joint.
J Adhes 1994;44:197–212.
[13] Kelly G. Load transfer in hybrid (bonded/bolted) composite single-
lap joint. Compos Struct 2004:1–9.
[14] Hart-Smith LJ. Bonded-bolted composite joints. J Aircraft 1985;22:
993–1000.
[15] Cytec engineering materials Ltd. FM73 toughened epoxy film.