Tensile_and_fatigue_behaviour_of_self-piercing_riv

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience
Tensile and fatigue behaviour of self-piercing rivets of CFRP to aluminium for automotive
application
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
2016 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 137 012025
(http://iopscience.iop.org/1757-899X/137/1/012025)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 154.127.58.208
This content was downloaded on 05/08/2016 at 13:05
Please note that terms and conditions apply.

2016 Global Conference on Polymer and Composite Materials (PCM 2016) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 137 (2016) 012025 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/137/1/012025
Tensile and fatigue behaviour of self-piercing rivets of CFRP

to aluminium for automotive application
J Kang1,3, H Rao1, R Zhang1, K Avery2, X Su2

1
CanmetMATERIALS, 183 Longwood Road South, Hamilton, L8P 0A5, Canada
2
Ford Research and Innovation Center, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48124,
USA
E-mail: jidong.kang@canada.ca
Abstract. In this study, the tensile and fatigue behaviour of self-piercing rivets (SPRs) in
carbon fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) to aluminium 6111 T82 alloys were evaluated. An
average maximum lap-shear tensile load capacity of 3858 N was achieved, which is
comparable to metal-to-metal SPR lap-shear joints. The CFRP-Al SPRs failed in lap-shear
tension due to pull-out of the rivet head from the CFRP upper sheet. The CFRP-Al SPR lap-
shear specimens exhibited superior fatigue life compared to previously studied aluminium-to-
aluminium SPR lap-shear joints. The SPR lap-shear joints under fatigue loads failed
predominantly due to kinked crack growth along the width of the bottom aluminium sheet. The
fatigue cracks initiated in the plastically deformed region of the aluminium sheet close to the
rivet shank in the rivet-sheet interlock region. Scatter in fatigue life and failure modes was
observed in SPR lap-shear specimens tested close to maximum tensile load.
1. Introduction
The mandatory fuel efficiency requirements established in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards compel every auto manufacturer in the US to build new cars and light trucks that
meet the minimum fuel efficiency targets. One way to achieve improved fuel efficiency is vehicle light
weighting, wherein aluminum and magnesium alloys, high strength steels, and polymer composites are
used extensively in structural members. With the advancement in research, fiber reinforced polymer
composite materials have shown a number of advantages over other lightweight alloys due to their
high strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios[1]. Studies have shown that the introduction of
fiber reinforced plastics in automotive body structures could achieve weight savings up to 50-60%
when compared to other lightweight metals, such as aluminum (which can only obtain weight savings
up to 40-55% over the baseline steel structures) [2,3].
The use of lightweight fiber reinforced composites in automotive structural members yet faces a
new challenge in terms of joining. Resistance spot welding (RSW), as a conventional joining method
which has been widely used in automotive industry, is not feasible if one of the materials in use is a
fiber-reinforced polymer composite. Instead, commonly-used joining process involving polymer and
metallic materials include adhesive bonding and mechanical fastening [4]. Self-piercing riveting (SPR)
is a high speed mechanical fastening technique where a tubular rivet is pierced through the top sheet
and partially through the bottom overlapping sheet which are held against a die of asymmetrical
cavity[5]. SPR is widely used by several automotive manufacturers as an economical and effective
technique to join aluminum vehicle bodies [6–9]. SPR joints of aluminum to aluminum [6,10–14],
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
magnesium to magnesium [15], and aluminum to steel [16–18] alloys have shown superior peel and
fatigue strength compared to RSW joints. Unlike welding, SPR does not involve any heating or
melting of material, nor does it require additional manufacturing processes, like pre-drilling holes,
which could add additional manufacturing time and cost [5]. Therefore, it is feasible to use this
technique when joining polymer-based fiber reinforced composite materials. Studies have shown that
SPR technique can be effectively used in joining fiber reinforced composites to metals like steels [19]
and aluminum alloys [1,20–24]. A majority of the studies on SPR in fiber-reinforced composites to
metals focus on the influence of the process parameters on joint quality, including die geometry [25],
distance between rivets [21], and oil pressure in the riveting system [1,26,27]. Very few studies have
been conducted on the fatigue performance of SPR in composite to metal joints [1,21,23]. During the
SPR process, the piercing of rivets through the composite panel causes localized damage by cutting
the fibers; it also brings about deformation of the bottom aluminum sheet which results in a stress
concentration and causes local changes in the material properties around the rivet shank. These
changes in material properties can influence the mechanical property and the structural integrity of the
SPR joint overall.
In the present study, the effort is focused on determining the mechanical properties, including the
quasi-static and fatigue performance, of SPR joints in dissimilar CFRP-to-aluminum alloys for
potential automotive applications.
2. Materials and experimental procedures

The CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 lap-shear SPR specimens were fabricated on a Henrob servo-
electronic riveting gun using steel rivets. Each sheet measured 2.5 mm in thickness and the rivets
measured 7.8 mm in diameter. The CFRP panels used in this study were carbon fibre reinforced epoxy
comprised of a three-layer braided fabric (0o/±60o)3. The rivets were installed while the aluminium
alloy was in the T4 condition. Then, after the joints were created, the entire specimen was subjected to
a heat treatment similar to that experienced by structural members of the vehicle during the
manufacturing process, resulting in a final heat treatment of T82. The final geometric configuration of
the SPR joined test specimen is shown in Figure 1 and the cross-section of the SPR joint is shown in
Figure 2. The macro image of cross-section (Figure 2(a)) shows the top CFRP sheet, the steel rivet,
and the bottom aluminium sheet which is interlocked with the rivet. Both Figure 2(b) and 2(c) show
the magnified regions closer to rivet shank indicating the presence of a thin sandwich layer of CFRP
between the steel rivet surface and the aluminium sheet.
Quasi-static lap-shear testing of the specimens was performed on a MTS servo-hydraulic test frame
in displacement control at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. The load-controlled fatigue test was
performed on a MTS servo-hydraulic testing machine at a frequency of 20 Hz in a tension-tension
mode at a load ratio of R=0.1. Shims of 2.5 mm thickness were used on both ends of the lap-shear
specimens to ensure alignment during testing.
Figure 1. Geometrical dimensions of the representative SPR lap-shear CFRP-Al 6111 T82 test
specimens.
2
After testing, fractography was performed on the SPR lap-shear specimens using an FEI Nova
Nano 650 scanning electron microscope (SEM). Some of the tested and untested SPR lap-shear
specimens were then cut parallel to the loading direction along the center of the specimen width.
These were cold mounted, ground using standard metallurgical techniques, and finely polished using a
0.5 μm colloidal silica solution. The macrographs of the mounted samples were taken under a Zeiss
digital optical microscope.
Figure 2. Representative cross-section of an untested SPR CFRP-Al test specimen; (a) macrograph
showing the CFRP and aluminium sheet interlocked by a steel rivet; (b) and (c) magnified view of the
rivet and aluminium surface interface under SEM showing the presence of a thin layer of CFRP.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Tensile test

The lap-shear tensile test results of the SPR CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 joints are shown in Figure
3. A maximum load of 3890 N was achieved with an average of 3858 N maximum load between the
two specimens tested. Both of the tested lap-shear specimens failed due to pull-out of the rivet from
the top CFRP facilitated by the damage to the CFRP around the rivet head. The inset in Figure 3
shows the resulting damage of the CFRP after the lap-shear tensile test. Note that the steel rivet is
more rigid than the CFRP panel and thus a compressive force is applied at the interface of the rivet
head and the CFRP panel. This results in penetration of the rivet head into the laminate forming a
relief on the CFRP panel [1,20]. In this study, the rivet head entered the top CFRP laminate and
damaged the top carbon fiber ply leading to the pull-out of the CFRP panel. This type of failure, where
the top fiber reinforced composite panel fails due to the damage induced in the laminate by cutting of
fibers, is generally referred to as the bearing failure [1,23].
3
Figure 3. Lap-shear tensile test plot of the SPR CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 joint. The inset picture
shows the bearing failure of the CFRP in the two test specimens.
3.2. Fatigue test

The fatigue test results of the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 SPR lap-shear specimens are presented in
Figure 4. The plot in Figure 4 also compares the fatigue life of AA6111-AA6111 (2 mm thickness)
SPR lap-shear specimens [10]. From Figure 4, it is seen that the fatigue life of CFRP-Al SPR lap-shear
specimens are higher than that of the Al-Al SPR lap-shear specimens of 2 mm thickness, despite the
lower quasi-static load of the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 joints compared to AA6111-AA6111 SPR
lap-shear specimens. The fatigue test results of the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 SPR lap-shear
specimens also displayed a large scatter in fatigue life as the maximum fatigue load approached the
maximum quasi-static load (3857 N). A similar scatter in fatigue life was also reported elsewhere in
studies performed on SPR in composite to aluminum alloys [1,21,23]. This scatter in fatigue life close
to maximum static load may be due to the scatter in the quasi-static behavior of the joints, which is
suggested in Figure 3. This scatter in maximum load bearing capacity of the SPR joints may be due to
the riveting process, the localized damage of the CFRP during the riveting process or other factors,
which are yet to be fully understood. In general, the scatter in lap-shear tensile test is within the
nominal range; however, the scatter in the fatigue data close to the maximum load level is significantly
larger, as observed in this study.
The dominant mode of failure observed in this study was the fatigue cracks growing in a kinked
manner along the width of the bottom aluminum sheet. The fracture surface of a representative tested
aluminum coupon is shown in Figure 5 (loading direction is out of the plane of the page). Observation
of the aluminum fracture surface in Figure 5(a) reveals the fatigue crack initiated at the periphery of
the cold-worked region close to the aluminum-rivet interlock, as seen in Figure 5(b) and 5(c). The
SEM micrographs indicate that the probable cause of crack initiation was the local stress concentration
in the plastically deformed region. During the SPR process, the bottom aluminum sheet locally
undergoes plastic deformation between the rivet shank and die, which results in cold working of the
aluminum sheet [24]. Generally speaking, cold working not only increases the strength of the
aluminum alloy but also introduces the high stress concentration in the region [1]. Outside the
plastically deformed region, the material property of aluminum is that of the base metal. Hence, this
plastically deformed region is small, and is localized to the area around the rivet and aluminum sheet
interface. From the fatigue striations seen in Figures 5(d) and 5(e), it appears that the fatigue cracks
grow steadily in the cold-worked plastically deformed region of the aluminum sheet. Once the fatigue
crack reaches the base metal, catastrophic failure can occur in the bottom aluminum sheet.
4
Figure 4. Fatigue test plot comparing the fatigue life of CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82, and AA6111
to AA611 [10] SPR lap-shear joint (R=0.1).
Figure 5. Fracture surface analysis of aluminum sheet that failed due to kinked cracks (a) macrograph
of the fractured aluminum sheet (loading direction out of the page); (b) and (c) SEM images of the
crack initiation region on the left and right side of the rivet respectively, the bold black arrows indicate
the crack propagation direction; (d) and (e) magnified SEM images region R1 and R2 showing the
fatigue striation in the crack propagation region.
5
The superior fatigue life performance of the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 SPR lap-shear joints
compared to AA6111-to-AA6111 lap-shear joints may be attributed, in part, to the absence of fretting
damage in the former. In several studies of metal-to-metal SPR lap-shear joints, fretting has been
observed to be one of the dominant causes for crack initiation and significantly accelerated the crack
growth in these SPR lap-shear joints [8,10,28–30]. Even though fretting was also observed in SPR
lap-shear joints of aluminum to glass-fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite [23], no traces of
fretting were observed in any of the SPR lap-shear test specimens tested in this study. Absence of
fretting in this study may be attributed to the presence of a thin layer of CFRP sandwiched between the
interfaces of the rivet and the aluminum sheet, as seen in Figure 2(b) and 2(c). The friction coefficient
between the CFRP and the aluminum sheet is around 0.2, while the friction coefficient between two
faying aluminum sheets is around 1.2 [31]. Hence the low friction coefficient between the CFRP and
aluminum sheet produced no fretting which otherwise could reduce the fatigue life of the CFRP-Al
SPR lap-shear specimens.
Figure 6. Top view of the damaged CFRP panel in (a) fatigue test; (b) tensile test; (c) and (d) are the
magnified view of the region R3 and R4 showing the carbon fibre breakage and matrix damage in
SPR lap-shear specimens tested under fatigue and quasi-static load respectively.
In quasi-static lap-shear tension, significant damage to the CFRP panel close to rivet head was
observed which led to bearing failure. It is interesting to observe a similar failure mode also occurred
in some SPR lap-shear specimens that were fatigue tested close to maximum static tensile load. In the
two SPR lap-shear specimens that were fatigue tested at a maximum load of 3664 N (95% of the
maximum tensile load), bearing failure was observed in one of the SPR lap-shear specimen that failed
at 689 cycles, while the other suffered failure in the bottom aluminum sheet at 159,730 cycles. Figure
6
6 shows the SEM pictures comparing the bearing failure due to the damage in the CFRP panel in
fatigue and tensile tested specimens. Comparison of Figure 6(a) and Figure 6(b) shows that the
damage of the CFRP panel in an SPR lap-shear specimen tested close to the maximum quasi-static
load is very similar to that observed in the quasi-static tensile specimens, respectively. Magnified
views of the regions R3 and R4 show severe damage to polymer matrix and fiber breakage in both the
fatigue and quasi-static tested SPR lap-shear specimens. In addition, once the top ply of carbon fibers
and the polymer matrix are damaged, the compacting or locking mechanism between the rivet and
CFRP panel can be released. The significant disparities in fatigue failure mode and fatigue life at this
load level may be due to manufacturing variation of the joints. Further researches should be done to
understand the impact of possible differences in the manufacturing process on the fatigue performance
of the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 joints at both high and load low levels.
Figure 7. Failure modes observed in SPR joints

tested at a load of 2778 N.
Figure 8. Comparison of the failure modes in

SPR specimens #3 and #20; (a) one-sided crack
on the aluminium sheet; (b) delamination of the
CFRP in SPR specimen #3 and (c) rivet head and
CFRP interface in SPR specimen #20.
In SPR lap-shear specimens that were fatigue tested at a maximum load of 2778 N (72% of the
maximum tensile load), different failure modes were observed as well (Figure 7). Rivet pull-out
resulted in the lowest fatigue life could count for the failure of the SPR lap-shear specimen, while the
two sided fracture of the bottom aluminum sheet resulted in the highest fatigue life. Figure 8 shows the
comparison of two SPR lap-shear specimens, i.e. #3 and #20 that failed due to rivet pull-out (#3) and
one-sided fracture of the aluminum sheet (#20). Delamination of the top CFRP panel close to the rivet
head interface was observed in SPR lap-shear specimen #3 (Figure 8(b)) and no delamination was
observed in SPR lap-shear specimen #20 (Figure 8(c)). The probable reason for delamination and rivet
pull-out failure still needs to find. It is expected that variations in the manufacturing process may lead
to the observed scatter in fatigue life, as well as the failure mode.
4. Conclusions
Tensile and fatigue properties of dissimilar CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 alloy SPR joints were
evaluated in this study. A comprehensive failure analysis was performed to study the failure modes
and factors influencing the mechanical properties. The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study:
7
 The SPR technique can be used to effectively join dissimilar CFRP and AA6111 T82 alloy for
automotive structural applications. The average maximum lap-shear tensile load capacity of
the CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 SPR lap-shear joints in this study is 3858 N, which is
comparable to the metal-to-metal SPR lap-shear joints studied earlier.
 In quasi-static lap-shear tensile tests, damage to the top ply of the CFRP panel around the rivet
head interface could lead to bearing failure. No further damage to CFRP panel was observed
either in static or fatigue tests.
 In fatigue tests, the dominant mode of failure was crack growth along the width of the bottom
aluminium sheet. Fatigue cracks initiated at the high stress concentration region in the
plastically deformed area close to the rivet-aluminium interlock.
 The CFRP to aluminium 6111 T82 SPR lap-shear joints in this study exhibited superior
fatigue life compared to AA6111 to AA6111 SPR lap-shear joints studied earlier. The absence
of fretting may have contributed to the improved fatigue life.
References
[1] Di Franco G, Fratini L, Pasta A and Ruisi V F 2013 On the self-piercing riveting of aluminium
blanks and carbon fibre composite panels Int. J. Mater. Form. 6 137–44
[2] Eusebi E 1995 Composite intensive vehicles: past present and future Struct. Mater. challenges
next Gener. Veh. Washington, DC US Dep. Commer.
[3] Gjostein N A 1995 Technology needs beyond PNGV Basic Needs Veh. Futur. New Orleans,
Louisiana (5 January 1995)
[4] Kah P, Suoranta R, Martikainen J and Magnus C 2014 Techniques for joining dissimilar
materials: Metals and polymers Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci. 36 152–64
[5] Litherland H 1998 Joints in Aluminum: INALCO’ 98 Proceedings Joints in Aluminum:
INALCO’ 98 Proceedings (Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing) pp 135–47
[6] Cai W, Wang P C and Yang W 2005 Assembly dimensional prediction for self-piercing riveted
aluminum panels Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45 695–704
[7] Mortimer J 2001 Jaguar uses X350 car to pioneer use of self-piercing rivets Ind. Robot An Int. J.
28 192–8
[8] Huang L, Bonnen J, Lasecki J, Guo H and Su X 2016 Fatigue and fretting of mixed metal self-
piercing riveted joint Int. J. Fatigue 83 230–9
[9] Barnes T A and Pashby I R 2000 Joining techniques for aluminium spaceframes used in
automobiles Part I - solid and liquid phase welding J. Mater. Process. Technol. 99 62–71
[10] Fu M and Mallick P K 2003 Fatigue of self-piercing riveted joints in aluminum alloy 6111 Int. J.
Fatigue 25 183–9
[11] Lin P and Su Z 2013 Fatigue Behavior of Self-Piercing Rivets and Clinch Joints in Lap-Shear
Specimens of Aluminum Sheets CLINCH JOINTS OF 6111-T4 Int. J. Fatigue 72 293–8
[12] Zhao L, He X, Xing B, Lu Y, Gu F and Ball A 2015 Influence of sheet thickness on fatigue
behavior and fretting of self-piercing riveted joints in aluminum alloy 5052 Mater. Des. 87
1010–7
[13] Chen Y K, Han L, Chrysanthou a. and O’Sullivan J M 2003 Fretting wear in self-piercing
riveted aluminium alloy sheet Wear 255 1463–70
[14] Iyer K, Hu S J, Brittman F L, Wang P C, Hayden D B and Marin S P 2005 Fatigue of single-
And double-rivet self-piercing riveted lap joints Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 28 997–
1007
[15] Miyashita Y, Jack Teow Y C, Karasawa T, Aoyagi N, Otsuka Y and Mutoh Y 2011 Strength of
adhesive aided SPR joint for AM50 magnesium alloy sheets Procedia Eng. 10 2532–7
[16] Abe Y, Kato T and Mori K 2009 Self-piercing riveting of high tensile strength steel and
aluminium alloy sheets using conventional rivet and die J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209
3914–22
[17] Mori K, Kato T, Abe Y and Ravshanbek Y 2006 Plastic joining of ultra high strength steel and
8
aluminium alloy sheets by self piercing rivet CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 55 283–6
[18] Han L and Chrysanthou a. 2008 Evaluation of quality and behaviour of self-piercing riveted
aluminium to high strength low alloy sheets with different surface coatings Mater. Des. 29
458–68
[19] Wagner J, Wilhelm M, Baier H, Füssel U and Richter T 2014 Experimental analysis of damage
propagation in riveted CFRP-steel structures by thermal loads Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
75 1103–13
[20] Di Franco G, Fratini L and Pasta a. 2013 Analysis of the mechanical performance of hybrid
(SPR/bonded) single-lap joints between CFRP panels and aluminum blanks Int. J. Adhes.
Adhes. 41 24–32
[21] Di Franco G, Fratini L and Pasta A 2012 Influence of the distance between rivets in self-
piercing riveting bonded joints made of carbon fiber panels and AA2024 blanks Mater. Des.
35 342–9
[22] Zhang J and Yang S 2014 Self-piercing riveting of aluminum alloy and thermoplastic
composites J. Compos. Mater.
[23] Gay A, Lefebvre F, Bergamo S, Valiorgue F, Chalandon P, Michel P and Bertrand P 2016
Fatigue performance of a self-piercing rivet joint between aluminum and glass fiber
reinforced thermoplastic composite Int. J. Fatigue 83 127–34
[24] Kroll L, Mueller S, Mauermann R, Gruetzner R, Technology F, Structures L and Gmbh E 2011
Strength of Self-Piercing Riveted Joints for Cfrp / Aluminium Sheets 18 Th Int. Conf.
Compos. Mater. 1–6
[25] Pickin C G, Young K and Tuersley I 2007 Joining of lightweight sandwich sheets to aluminium
using self-pierce riveting Mater. Des. 28 2361–5
[26] Fiore V, Bella G Di, Galtieri G, Alagna F, Borsellino C and Valenza A 2012 Mechanical
Behaviour of Spr / Co-Cured Composite To Aluminium Joints ECCM15-15th European
Conference of Composite Materials (Venice, Italy) pp 24–8
[27] Fratini L and Ruisi V F 2009 Self-piercing riveting for aluminium alloys-composites hybrid
joints Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 43 61–6
[28] Han L, Chrysanthou a. and O’Sullivan J M 2006 Fretting behaviour of self-piercing riveted
aluminium alloy joints under different interfacial conditions Mater. Des. 27 200–8
[29] Li D, Han L, Thornton M and Shergold M 2012 Influence of rivet to sheet edge distance on
fatigue strength of self-piercing riveted aluminium joints Mater. Sci. Eng. A 558 242–52
[30] Zhang Z, Yang X, Zhang J, Zhou G, Xu X and Zou B 2011 Effect of welding parameters on
microstructure and mechanical properties of friction stir spot welded 5052 aluminum alloy
Mater. Des. 32 4461–70
[31] Schön J 2004 Coefficient of friction for aluminum in contact with a carbon fiber epoxy
composite Tribol. Int. 37 395–404

Tensile_and_fatigue_behaviour_of_self-piercing_riv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tensile_and_fatigue_behaviour_of_self-piercing_riv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tensile_and_fatigue_behaviour_of_self-piercing_riv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

2016 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 137 012025

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Tensile and fatigue behaviour of self-piercing rivets of CFRP

J Kang1,3, H Rao1, R Zhang1, K Avery2, X Su2

2. Materials and experimental procedures

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Tensile test

3.2. Fatigue test

Figure 7. Failure modes observed in SPR joints

Figure 8. Comparison of the failure modes in

You might also like