Materials Science and Engineering A 412 (2005) 137–140

A study of the mechanical properties of steel/aluminium/GRP laminates

S.M.R. Khalili a,∗ , R.K. Mittal b , S. Gharibi Kalibar a
a Mechanical Engineering Department, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b Applied Mechanics Department, I.I.T., New Delhi, India

Received in revised form 18 August 2005

Abstract
One of the new and advanced composite materials, known as fiber–metal laminates (FMLs) consisting of bonded thin metal sheets and
fiber/adhesive layers, is rapidly becoming a good substitute for metal structures, especially in aerospace and aircraft applications. This is because
of its good mechanical properties such as excellent fatigue and impact resistance as well as damage tolerance, without sacrificing low weight. In
this article, standard FML samples prepared from various lay ups of glass fiber/epoxy laminates with steel and/or aluminum sheets were tested and
their mechanical characteristics compared with each other and with monolithic metals or fiber composite laminates in order to study the feasibility
of their replacement in aerospace industry.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Steel/aluminium sheets; Glass fiber/epoxy laminates; Fiber–metal laminates

1. Introduction nate consisting of aluminum, steel and glass fiber/epoxy layers

During last few decades, many scientists have been aiming
their efforts to develop new materials, which would retain the
low weight and good mechanical properties of aluminum alloys.
Fiber reinforced metal laminates (FMLs) are a new type of lam-
inated composites, consisting of thin metal layers (0.2–0.5 mm)
and thin polymeric composite layers reinforced with glass, car-
bon or Kevlar fibers (0.2–0.3 mm) as shown in Fig. 1. They
combine both the good characteristics of metals such as duc-
tility, impact and damage tolerances with the benefits of fiber
composite materials such as high specific strength, high specific
stiffness and good corrosion and fatigue resistance. The bond
lines act as barriers against corrosion and the laminate has an
inherent high burn-through resistance as well as good damping
and insulation properties. They can be a good choice for main
aircraft structures, for example in lower and upper wings as well
as in the fuselage and tail sections. Till now different FML struc-
tures have been tested and some have been applied in different
aerospace applications. The important FML lay-ups are catego-
rized in four groups: (1) GLARE, (2) ARALL, (3) CARE, (4)
steel-C/epoxy, (5) HTCL [1–4]. In this paper, a new FML lami-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 77343300; fax: +98 21 77334338.
E-mail address: smrkhalili@mail.com (S.M.R. Khalili).
has been introduced. Its fabrication and testing for mechanical
properties were reported earlier [5].
2. Specimen preparation
The three essential FML components are: fiber, resin and
metal. In the present study, the epoxy resin with the follow-
ing properties was used (specimen code No. 1): ρ = 1.1–1.2
(g/cm3 ), viscosity = 1000–1400 (MPa s), curing time = 15–30
(h) (below 25 ◦ C). Glass-reinforced epoxy, fabricated by hand
lay-up method is a combination of glass fibers of the type T
(90◦ /M 225 – E10) with the above-mentioned epoxy resin. The
glass fiber is unidirectional with an average glass fiber content of
about 20% in all the GRP layers. The properties of GRP layers
were obtained from the tests (specimen code No. 2).
Metals are mainly aluminium AA.1050 with the follow-
ing properties (specimen code No. 3): tensile strength =
75–156 MPa, yield strength = 28–148 MPa, shear strength =
62–83 MPa, Young’s modulus = 69 GPa, specific weight =
2.7 g/cm3 , and stainless steel 316 L with the following prop-
erties (specimen code No. 4): tensile strength = 450 (MPa),
yield strength = 70 MPa, Young’s modulus = 200 GPa, specific
weight = 7.9 g/cm3 .
Four types of FML lay-ups were fabricated by the hand
lay-up method. The metals were surface treated (metalized

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2005.08.016
138 S.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 412 (2005) 137–140

Fig. 1. A sample of FML lay up.

and anodized) for adequate bonding between the layers. The

Fig. 2. Comparison of tensile stress–strain curves for various FMLs.
types and their corresponding specimen codes are as follows:

(a) St/GRP/Al/GRP/St code No. 5 (b) Al/GRP/St/GRP/Al code No. 6

(c) Al/GRP/Al/GRP/Al code No. 7 (d) St/GRP/St/GRP/St code No. 8.

3. Mechanical tests

According to the ASTM standards [6], three mechanical tests;

namely tensile test, three-point bend test and Charpy impact test
were conducted on the standard samples mentioned above and
the results were compared to study the mechanical behavior of
FMLs. The code numbers for each sample consist of double
digits. The first digit indicates the test code number and the
second indicates the sample code number.
3.1. Tensile test
According to the ASTM D 3039-76, flat tensile specimens
were fabricated and the end tabs fixed to the specimens. Ten-
sile tests were conducted using Instron 8502 machine, keep-
ing the crosshead speed as 5 mm/min and the temperature at
25 ◦ C. The tensile test results are given in Table 1 and Fig. 2.
Fig. 3 shows samples 2, 7 and 8 after fracture. The integrity
of samples 7 and 8, which have metal layers, is much better,
even after fracture, as compared to sample 2, which is plain
GRP.
Fig. 3. Samples 2, 7 and 8 after tensile fracture.
From Table 1, it can be concluded that the specific strengths
of FML composites are higher than that of the monolithic
aluminium (by 46–103%) and steel (by 38–91%) layers. The
strength of GRP is comparable with that of the FML compos-
ites, but due to the density, the specific strength of GRP is much
higher than that of the FML composites. Comparison of the val-
ues of stiffness and specific stiffness show the improvement in
the FML composites with respect to the GRP. In elastic region,
the increase in metal content increases the tensile modulus and
hence the stiffness. This feature is summarized as:
E18 > E15 > E16 > E17 > E12

Table 1
Tensile test results
Property/sample Code no. 12 Code no. 15 Code no. 16 Code no. 17 Code no. 18 Code no. 13 Code no. 14

Young’s modulus (GPa) 20.79 90.9 53.33 40.25 102.5 69 200

Ultimate tensile strength (MPa) 416.9 345.5 243.2 214.5 340 145 450
Displacement at break (mm) 3.329 38.68 35.86 5.32 43.74 – –
Energy absorption (J) 17.13 171.4 90.80 11 294.2 – –
Density ρ (g/cm3 ) 1.46 3.748 2.435 1.97 4.10 2.7 7.9
Specific strength (MPa/(g/cm3 )) 285.5 92.18 99.88 108.88 82 53.7 56.96
Specific stiffness (GPa/(g/cm3 )) 14.24 24.25 21.90 20.43 25 25.56 25.31
Energy absorption/GRP energy absorption 1 9.9 5.3 0.64 17 – –
Specific tensile strength increase in 432 72 86 103 46 – 6
comparison to aluminium (%)
Specific tensile strength increase in 402 62 76 91 38 – –
comparison to steel (%)
Specific stiffness increase in comparison to – 70 54 43 75.5 79 78
GRP (%)
Specific toughness 11.73 45.73 37.28 5.6 71.75 – –
 S.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 412 (2005) 137–140 139

Table 2
Three-point bending test results
Property/sample Code no. 21 Code no. 22 Code no. 25 Code no. 26 Code no. 27 Code no. 28

Bending yield stress, σ y (MPa) 19.3 81.1 405.3 205 118.8 447.4
Maximum bending strength, σ b (MPa) 71.2 413.4 905 450 336.8 1020
Maximum strain at breaking point εmax (%) 1.6 2.3 5.9 3.8 2.5 5.8
Bending stiffness, E (MPa) 3558.3 10306.1408 142858.8 45800.5 27990.2 168750.8
Specific bending strength (MPa/(g/cm3 )) 59.8 283 240 185 171 248.8
Specific bending stiffness (GPa/(g/cm3 )) 2.99 7 38 18.8 14.21 41.1

As in the hand lay up technique, the fiber content in polymeric
layers cannot be exactly kept constant in all samples, and hence
the tensile characteristics could not be compared in a fair manner.
But the error was calculated using the rule of mixtures and it was
found to be less than 10%. As can be seen from Table 1, although
the GRP composites have good specific tensile strength and spe-
cific stiffness, yet they are not widely used in primary structures
of airplanes or aerospace vehicles. This is due to the low energy
absorption property of GRP during bending and impact load-
ing, as observed experimentally. In Table 1, the areas under
the stress–strain curves indicating the energy absorption dur-
ing deformation are also shown. This area increases with the
increase in steel content, for example the sample 8 has an area
17 times higher than for the sample 2. It can be concluded from
Table 1 that FML samples which use aluminium in their lay-up
fail at about 3 mm elongation of these layers. After this, the steel
layers take up the applied load. This suggests that the aluminium
layers used are not suitable for FML composites in structural
application. As can be seen from Table 1, the specific toughness
of sample 8 is nearly seven times greater than that of the GRP
laminates. As poor energy absorption is the main weakness of
GRP panels in primary structural applications, sample code No.
8 is the best choice due to its good tensile properties, i.e. high
specific strength and stiffness.
posite layers. Samples 5 and 8 did not show any breakage or
cracking in the layers, thus delaminating was the only cause
of their failure, while samples 6 and 7 failed quickly due to
tensile failure of external layers. The maximum deflection of
sample 8 is lower than that of 5, while the bending strength
comparison is of opposite kind. This is because of the alu-
minum layer at the mid section of sample 5, which takes up
the low tensile load depending on its distance from neutral
axis. This material is more deformable than steel. It is seen that
εmax 25 > εmax 28 > εmax 26 > εmax 27 > εmax 22 > εmax 21 .
It can be concluded that FML samples show more flexible
behavior than the composite structures. Taking weight into con-
sideration, the specific strength and stiffness also show almost
the same trend as above, implying that the sample 8 shows best
results among the FML composites. Only the specific strength

3.2. Bending test

The three-point bending tests, using specifications of ASTM

D 790M-93, were carried out on Zwick 1484 and results tabu-
lated in Table 2. In Fig. 4, the load-displacement curves of all
samples tested are compared with each other and in Fig. 5 the Fig. 4. Bending behavior comparison diagrams.
deformed shapes of FML samples are shown. It can be observed
that in the elastic region, the FML composites show better yield
stress and stiffness in bending as the number of steel layers
increase. The following trend is noted:
E28 > E25 > E26 > E27 > E22 > E21
Since the aluminium alloy used in this work is weak, placement
of these layers at the locations far away from the neutral axis of
the samples would not help in increasing the bending strength
and stiffness of FML composites. The bending strength of the
samples decreasing according to the following sequence: 28, 25,
26, 22, 27, 21.
Since aluminium and steel are more flexible than resin
and GRP, new lightweight flexible structures are obtained for
advanced aerospace applications by stacking metal and com- Fig. 5. Bending deformation of FML samples.
140 S.M.R. Khalili et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 412 (2005) 137–140
Table 3
Charpy impact test results
Property/sample Code no. 31 Code no. 32
Energy per unit area, S (kJ/m2 ) 24 195
Fig. 6. Impact fracture appearance of FML samples.
of sample 8 is lower than that of sample 2, because of the brittle-
ness of GRP. The specific stiffness of sample 8 is nearly seven
times higher than that of sample 2.
3.3. Charpy impact test
The test was conducted using Ivory impact test machine and
the samples were prepared according to the ASTM D 256–78
standards. The results are given in Table 3.
Sample 8 has the highest impact energy and the highest resis-
tance to impact load. The trend of impact energy absorbed by
the samples is as follows: S38 > S35 > S36 > S32 > S37 > S31 .
Sample 7 has lower impact strength than sample 2, because
of the deficiency of aluminum layers in tolerating tensile loads.
As was observed, the FML samples show more flexibility when
compared to GRP. The impact fracture appearance of samples 7
and 8 are shown in Fig. 6.
4. Conclusions
For the first time, a new combination of metal and fiber
composites has been reported for FML composites, namely
the steel/aluminium/GRP laminate. By comparing the results
obtained in evaluating the mechanical properties in Tables 1–3,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
- The main characteristic of the FML composites is their dam-
age tolerance limit, which can be obtained by the comparison
Code no. 35 Code no. 36 Code no. 37 Code no. 38
290 240 185 340
of the area under the stress–strain curves. This characteristic
of FML composites is superior when compared to that of GRP.
- The presence of steel layers in FML sample helps in increasing
the energy absorption, stiffness and displacement with respect
to other FML samples.
- The stiffness of the composite with steel layers (sample 8) in
bending shows an increase of 16 times and the displacement
under the point of loading shows an increase of nearly 4 times
as compared to the corresponding of GRP sample. However,
this has been possible at the expense of increased weight of
steel composite (2.7 times) vis-à-vis GRP sample. The impact
damage tolerance of FML composites is much superior to that
of plain GRP. This facilitates the use of FML composites for
primary structures in aerospace industry.
References
[1] J.F. Laliberto, C. Poon, P.V. Straznicky, J. Polym. Compos. 21 (4)
(2000).
[2] A. Vlot, L.B. Vogelesang, T.J. Vries, International Glare Conference,
Delft University, Netherlands, September 2001.
[3] L.B. Vogelesang, A. Vlot, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 103 (1) (2000).
[4] T.J. Vries, A. Vlot, F. Hashagen, Compos. Struct. 46 (2) (1999).
[5] K.S. Gharibi, Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of Fiber
Metal Laminates with Respect to Their Application in Aerospace Tech-
nology, M.S. thesis, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, February
2003.
[6] L.A. Carlsson, R.B. Pipes, Experimental Characterization of Advanced
Composite Materials, Technomic Publishers, Lancaster, 1997.