MECHANICAL FASTENING AND ADHESIVE
BONDING
D. W. Oplinger
28.1 INTRODUCTION
It would be difficult to conceive of a structure
that did not involve some type of joint. Joints
often occur at a transition between a major
composite part, where most of the structural
performance is generated, and a metal feature,
which is introduced to allow for very high
localized bearing contact for which the com-
posite has inadequate strength or durability. In
aircraft such a situation is represented by artic-
ulated fittings on control surfaces as well as on
wing and tail components which require the
ability to pivot the element during various
stages of operation. Tubular elements such as
power shafting often use metal end fittings for
connections to power sources or for articulation
at points where changes in direction are
needed. In addition, assembly of the structure
from its constituent parts will involve either
bonded or mechanically fastened joints or both.
Joints represent one of the greatest chal-
lenges in the design of structures in general
and in composite structures in particular. The
reason for this is that joints entail interruptions
of the geometry of the structure and often
material discontinuities, which almost always
produce local highly stressed areas, except for
certain idealized types of adhesive joint such
as scarf joints between similar materials. Stress
concentrations in mechanically fastened joints
Handbook of Composites. Edited by S.T. Peters. Published
in 1998 by Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN 0 412 54020 7
28
are particularly severe because the load trans-
fer between elements of the joint have to take
place over a fraction of the available area. For
mechanically fastened joints in metal struc-
tures, local yielding, which has the effect of
eliminating stress peaks as the load increases,
can usually be depended on; such joints can be
designed to some extent by the 'P over A'
approach, i.e. by assuming that the load is
evenly distributed over load bearing sections
so that the total load (the 'I") divided by the
available area (the 'A') represents the stress
that controls the strength of the joint. In
organic matrix composites, such a stress
reduction effect is realized only to a minor
extent, and stress peaks predicted to occur by
elastic stress analysis have to be accounted for,
especially for one-time monotonic loading.
28.2 MECHANICALLY FASTENED JOINTS
COMPARED WITH ADHESIVE JOINTS
In principle, adhesive joints are structurally
more efficient than mechanically fastened
joints because they provide better opportuni-
ties for eliminating stress concentrations; for
example, advantage can be taken of ductile
response of the adhesive to reduce stress peaks.
Mechanically fastened joints tend to use the
available material inefficiently and are charac-
terized by sizeable regions where the material
near the fastener is nearly unloaded, which
must be compensated for by regions where
high stresses occur to achieve a particular
 Mechanically fastened joints 611

required average load capacity. As mentioned

composites first came into use. It was found
above, certain types of adhesive joint, namely
early in this period that the behavior of com-
scarf joints between components of similarposites in bolted joints differs considerably
stiffness, can achieve a nearly uniform stress
from that which occurs with metals, primarily
state throughout the region of the joint. because stress concentrations are much more
In many cases, however, mechanically fas-
of a factor in joint behavior of composite struc-
tened joints cannot be avoided because of tures, and stress analysis to quantify the level
requirements for disassembly of the joint, for
of various stress peaks is more important. It
replacement of damaged structure, or to was fortunate that significant computing
achieve access to underlying structure. In addi-
power became available in this period to keep
tion, adhesive joints tend to lack structural
up with the need for the intimate details of
redundancy, and are highly sensitive to manu-
stress conditions around mechanical fasteners.
facturing deficiencies, including poor bonding The current approach to the design of
technique, poor fit of mating parts and sensitiv-
mechanically fastened joints in composite
ity of the adhesive to temperature and structures evolved mainly out of a number of
environmental effects such as moisture. DoD, NASA and associated university pro-
Assurance of bond quality has been a continu-
grams aimed at providing a methodology
ing problem in adhesive joints, primarily which could be applied routinely to aircraft and
because, while ultrasonic and X-ray inspection
other applications. Numerous stress analysis
may reveal gaps in the bond, there is no present
approaches to the mechanics of fastened joints
technique which can guarantee that a bond have been conducted over the years since the
which appears to be intact by ultrasonic or X-
introduction of 'advanced' composites in the
ray inspection does not lack load transfer mid-1960s. These have included: the work of
Waszczak and Cruse' based on the boundary
capability, because of such factors as poor sur-
face preparation. Surface preparation and integral method; the use of two-dimensional
bonding techniques have been well developed,
complex variable elasticity solutions which
treated the problem of variable contact around
but the possibility that lack of attention to detail
the fa~tenel-2-~;
in the bonding operation may lead to such defi- as well as recent work reported
by Madenci and Illeri7; and a number of finite
ciencies needs constant alertness on the part of
those responsible for the bonding. Thus element approaches, especially the work of
Crews and Naik8 which featured an inverse
mechanical fastening tends to be preferred over
bonded construction in highly critical and method for dealing with the contact problem.
Hart-Smith9 developed an analytic approach
safety rated applications such as primary air-
based on the use of available solutions for
craft structural components, especially in large
isotropic plates with bolt-loaded holes as well
commercial transports, since assurance of the
as unloaded holes in plates under tension or
required level of structural integrity is easier to
compression which came out of classical efforts
guarantee in mechanically fastened assemblies.
Bonded construction tends to be more preva-such as those reported in Petersonlo.The latter
lent in smaller aircraft however and for provided simple functional descriptions of the
effect of joint geometry on peak stresses which,
non-aircraft applications as well as in non-flight
critical aircraft components. with various empirically derived correction fac-
tors introduced by Hart-Smith9, provided
valuable insight into a number of trends in joint
28.3 MECHANICALLY FASTENED JOINTS
behavior.
Mechanically fastened joints for composite In addition to the analytic efforts, several
structures have been under study since the fairly extensive programs aimed at the devel-
mid 1960s when high modulus, high strength opment of design approaches for structural
612 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

systems have been supported by DoD and
NASA4r6.Numerous papers have been pre-
~~
sented Over the years in a series Of
DoD/NASA/FAA 'Onferences On Fibrous
Composites in Structural De~ign~,'~-'~. Many of
the design principles which have been devel-
'ped to take into account the
characteristics of bolted composite structures
have been described4,6, 13.
It is not possible within the scope Of this
discussion to describe all the details and
Processes that are necessary for achieving the
design of specific joints. The objective is rather
to give the reader Some insight into the
factors that control the behavior of mechani-
fastened joints in structures'
The behavior of mechanically fastened
joints is governed by types Of information:
(l)the features that the behavior Of the
joint around individual fasteners and; (2) the
behavior of multiple arrays of fasteners. The
behavior of individual fasteners can be consid-
ered in terms of a generic rectangular element
surrounding each fastener (Fig. 28.1), whose
length and width are represented as ratios
wi& respect to the fastener diameter. The
effects of the geometry of this element together
with effects of the reinforcement arrangement
used in the laminate for the element determine
the structural conditions under which the ele-
ment will fail. Once the characteristics of the
rectangular element are selected, its deforma-
tion characteristics can be combined with
those of other rectangular elements making up
the joint to obtain the performance of the joint
28.3.1 KEY FEATURES OF MECHANICALLY
FASTENED JOINTS
Figure 28.1 represents a generic single fastener
joint, while Fig. 28.2 depicts a multiple fas-
tener configuration. Many of the most
important features of joints are illus-
trated in the single fastener case s h o r n in Fig.
28.1. Key dimensions are D, the fastener diam-
eter, t, the thickness of the joint structural
elements, e, the edge distance (distance from
the fastener center to the edge of the
upper plate) and W, the width of the part of
the upper plate to the left of the fastener.
Similar featups apply to the lower plate ele-
ment. Note that the Same load, p, is passed
successively through various sections of the
joint, including the bearing section in front of
the fastener of area Dt which is in compres-
sion, the b o shearout sections of total area 2et
which are loaded in primarily in shear, the net
section,(w - D)t which is in tension, the
gross section wt which is also in tension.
The average stresses associated with these
sections are:
average bearing stress, ab= P / D t ;
average shearout stress, a,, = P/2et;
average net section stress, aN= P/(W - D)t;
average gross section stress, aG= P / Wt.
(28.1)
LOAD PATH
P
t

as a whole. This discussion is organized in

terms of these two aspects of joint design.
In addition to a preliminary discussion of
general features of mechanically fastened I ' \ bearid section
goss net sectiqn
joints, the discussion which follows also con- section section Dt I
siders: (1) single fastener joints, including wt (W-O)t I
I
I I
effects of joint geometry together with those of I
,/-7-. I
composite material behavior; (2) multi-fas- c I ! : I J
tener joints; (3) fastener effects, and (4) a
discussion of test methods which provide
empirically-based data needed for completing
the joint design. Fig. 28.1 Single fastener joint.
 Mechanically fastened joints 613

Axit!
tit h
Lateral
Pitch
w
eff
* Lateral Pitch

Fig. 28.2 Multi-fastener joint.

From the standpoint of the designer, the gross

section strength is of primary interest since the
objective of good design is to stress the gross
section to its highest level. Structural perfor-
mance of the joint can be rated in terms of joint
efficiency, which refers to the ratio of average
-8-1
gross section stress at failure of the joint to the
strength of the laminate in the gross section, G

essentially the strength achieved in coupon

tests for tensile or compressive loading of
unnotched specimens. For organic matrix
composites, single fastener joints achieve joint Fig. 28.3 Peak stresses around fastener.
efficiencies of less than 50%, while for multi-
fastener joints the maximum achievable
efficiency is of the order of 60%. In contrast, gross section:
metallic joints can reach efficiencies of close to
KGt = O,&JO~ (28.2)
80% because of the opportunity for taking
advantage of local yielding around points of or
high stress, though even in metallic joints,
design for avoidance of crack initiation in qt= q J m x / o G
cases where long life under cyclic loading is where , )
a is the maximum axial stress on
required may force the joint efficiency to be the net section. Predictions of the peak stresses
lower than for single cycle loading. in the joint can be made using continuum elas-
ticity analysis1", 7, 12, photoelastic measure-
ments'O or finite element methodsE.
28.3.2 EFFECTS OF JOINT GEOMETRY
The behavior of K$ as a function of D / W
The peak value of axial stress on the net sec- for isotropic joint elements is given in Fig. 28.4
tion on,),,, (Fig. 28.3) is one of the key which was obtained from photoelastic mea-
controlling parameters on joint performance. surements of KNnt against D / W (note that Kgt =
It is convenient to express this as a stress con- KNnt/(l - D / W ) ) given by Petersenlo. Similar
centration factor, i.e. a ratio with respect to curves for orthotropic plates were obtained by
either the mean stress in the net section or the elasticity analysis2,3, 12.
614 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

There is obviously a competition for space
between the bearing section and the net sec-
tion. Increasing the fastener diameter, D, to
lower abhas to decrease (W - D)t, the net sec-
tion, thereby increasing uN, and vice versa.
Furthermore, if D / W is much less than 1, the
case is similar to that of a fastener in an infi-
nitely wide plate; in such a case all the peak
stresses become a constant multiplier of the
bearing stress ab, which becomes large for
D/W<<l. If D is large enough to fill most of
the available width, the net section becomes
small, oNbecomes large, and the peak net sec-
tion and shear stresses become proportional to
uNfor this case. As seen in Fig. 28.4, is large
for small D / W as well as for D / W approach-
ing 1, leading to a minimum around D / W =
0.59J2. The quantity 0.89ub/uG + 1.8 uN/uG
which is plotted in Fig. 28.4 gives a reasonable
approximation to the curve of KGt against
D / W, so that the use of eqn (28.1) to express ob
and uNin terms of D / W, shows:
Kgt 0.89W/D + 1.8/(1 - D/W) (28.3)
The behavior of this approximation empha-
sizes the tradeoff between the effect of the
bearing section and the net section on the peak
net section stress. A similar functional fit to the
curve of KNt (the stress concentration based on
a,) against D / W was given for isotropic plates
by Hart-Smith9, based on photoelasticity
results reported in the literature; when stated
in terms of Kgt, the Hart-Smith approximation
leads to
K;t (bolt loaded hole) = W/D + 2/(1- D/W)
- 1.5/ (1+ D / W ) (28.4)
He also gave an expression for KNt for open,
unloaded holes (i.e. with no load transfer
between the fastener and plate) in isotropic
plates; when the stress concentration is
expressed as a ratio with respect to ac rather
than uN the Hart-Smith open hole expression
reduces to:
Kgt (open hole) = 2/(1- D / W )
+ (1 - D/W)* (28.5)

'T Functional Fit,

0.89%+ 1.8oN

\
Y
4 --

3 -- elastic measurements)

01 I

0.1s 028 0.4 0.53 0.65

DIW ---31.-

Fig. 28.4 Predicted net section stress concentration against D /W.

 Mechanically fastened joints 615

This is of interest in later discussions of com- delamination and fiber-separation around

bined bearing-bypass loads on bolted joints. regions of peak stress. The method is applied
As a means of predicting joint strength, we can by averaging the stresses predicted by two-
equate the peak stress CTJ,,,~~ to F'", the dimensional elasticity analysis over a selected
strength of the orthotropic laminate used in length a,, along a path lying normal to the load
the joint. If the joint material acts purely elasti- direction, in the vicinity of the peak stress. The
cally, then the elasticity prediction of K$ gives failure load is obtained by equating the aver-
F; which denotes the value of C T when~ net sec- aged stress to the laminate strength P, and u,
tion failure occurs, as F," = F'"/K,"'. The is determined by an empirical fit of the mea-
minimum in the KGntagainst D/W curve of sured strength data. In an alternative version of
Fig. 28.4 will result in a maximum in the rela- the Whitney-Nuismer analysis, F'" is equated
tionship between F," and DIW at D / W = 0.5. to the stress at a point spaced an empirically fit-
However, joint strength is usually found to ted distance do from the location of the stress
be considerably greater than that based on peak. The latter approach has frequently been
purely elastic behavior of the composite to fail- used for joint strength predi~tion'~, although
ure, and it is appropriate to use the method the averaging and point stress versions of the
developed by Whitney and NuismerI4 to cor- Whitney-Nuismer analysis are equivalent.
rect strength predictions based on linear elastic Figure 28.5 illustrates the prediction of F;
response to failure. The Whitney-Nuismer for net section tension failure as a function of
approach was developed for strength predic- D / W . The curves here were obtained from
tion of composite plates in the presence of stresses given by elasticity analysis of 0/90°
circular holes, crack-like slits and other types of glass epoxy joint elementsI2,by averaging the
notches, and is meant to take into account the predicted axial stress distribution uxin the net
softening effect of local damage such as section (usingthe definition of x and y indicated

D = 0.63 cm (0.25 ") Laminate Tensile Strength 110 ksi (0.76 GPa)
45 ,-0.31 GPa Compressive Strength 100 ksi ( 0.69 GPa)

0-
40
35
vi
30
c
25
C
50 20

$ 15
v)
g L
10

a 5
0
0.13 0.25 0.33 0.5 0.63
DIW
Fig. 28.5 Maximum gross section stress against D/ W.
616 Mechanical fasfening and adhesive bonding

by the coordinate axes centred at the hole in

Fig. 28.3 from the edge of the hole to a point a
distance u, from the hole, using the a, values
listed in Fig. 28.5. The lowest curve of Fig. 28.5
which corresponds to a, = 0 represents purely
elastic behavior of the joint material. It is clear
that increasing the value of a, causes an
upward shift of the predicted strength curve.
Experimental joint strength datal2 gave an a,
value of about 3.8 * 1.3 mm (0.15 & 0.05 in) for
quasi-isotropic carbon epoxy laminates, for

-
net section failure. Nuismer and W h i t n e ~ ' ~
suggested that a, and the corresponding d, are
relatively constant for composite materials in
general, although this is not always true.
However, for a given material and stacking
sequence, a, is independent of hole size; this
M
has the effect that for large fastener diameters,
the averaging effect is less important, and Fig. 28.6 Experimental results on strength against
D/W2.
strength values tend toward those predicted
by the elasticity analysis.
All the net section failure curves of Fig. 28.5 'bearing failure', corresponding to compressive
have the peak in the vicinity of D/W = 0.5 failure in front of the pin. Except for joints with
which was predicted by the linear elastic short edge distance or multi-fastener joints
response analysis. This suggests that the joint where high bypass loads are present, the peak
strength is a maximum for bolt diameters near compressive stress in front of the fasteneP is
half of the plate width. For multi-fastener found to be about 1.3 times ab,and uGfor bear-
joints such as the one shown in Fig. 28.2, the ing failure can be estimated by setting abequal
length corresponding to W for the single fas- to F" (compressive strength of the laminate)
tener joint is replaced by WeE, the spacing of from which uG)max = F'" D/1.3W, a linear func-
the dashed lines, which are lines of lateral tion of D / W. Although this result implies that
symmetry; note that We* is also equal to the the laminate compressive strength is the same
lateral s cing of the fasteners (the lateral as the bearing strength as is approximately true

\
pitch), so t t the peak strength value occurs in some cases, the actual value of Fb" = ub)mm
at a lateral pi ch of about twice the fastener depends on the stacking sequence of the lami-
diameter. The experimental data of Fig. 28.612 nate as well as a number of details of the joint
confirms the occurrence of a strength maxi- such as the type of fastener and whether the
mum for D / W = 0.5 in single fastener joints. joint is in single or double shear (Section
For multi-row joints (see Section 28.3.4) in 28.3.5); thus Fbu has to be empirically deter-
which bypass load is present, the net section mined for a given fastener, joint configuration
strength peak occurs for smaller values of and joint material selection by appropriate
D / W. High bypass loads give results similar bearing strength tests (Section 28.3.6). Hart-
to those for plates with unloaded holes, in Smith9J3introduced a method of comparing
which case large values of W / D correspond- bearing and net section tension failure similar
ing to large fastener pitch are desirable. to that given in Fig. 28.5 to show the trade off
In addition to the solid curves in Fig. 28.5 for in failure modes for various values of D/W,
net section failure is the dashed line designated and recommended selecting D/ W for the
 Mechanically fastened joints 617

design of the joint as the point at the intersec- strength will not be achieved unless e is at least
tion of the bearing and tension failure as great at W. This is shown schematically in
envelopes. However, it was also pointed out in Fig. 28.8, which indicates that the minimum e
Nelson, Bunin and Hart-Smith13 that in multi- for full joint strength over a wide range of fas-
row joints in which the bearing load is tener diameters remains equal to W. It is true
distributed over several fasteners in a given that there is a tendency for bending failures to
column, the bearing stress is smaller than for occur at the unloaded end of the joint (Fig.
the single fastener case and bearing failure may 28.9) for edge distances as small as 1-2 times
not occur in practical joint designs. D, which were shown in Op1ingerl2, in fact, to
The value of the edge distance, e, is another be a function of e / D; however, this type of fail-
critical parameter for bolted joints. While it ure is eliminated for e / D greater than about 2.
has become customary to present joint
strength as a function of e / D , in fact9,12it is
more a function of e/ W if e / D is much greater
than 1, and plotting data on the effect of edge
distance as a function of e / D is somewhat mis-
leading even though it persists as accepted
practice. Both stress analysis9,l2 and experi-
mental results (Fig. 28.7) indicate that full joint

Fig. 28.8 Minimum edge distance is equal to W

(independent of D).

y / I
high bending
stress 0
Y

I I I
b .W
I
1 4

Fig. 28.7 Effect of edge distance on joint strength Fig. 28.9 Tendency for bending failure with small
W / D = 212. e/ D.
618 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
28.3.3 EFFECTS OF JOINT MATERIAL
Typical failure modes for mechanically fas-
tened joints are shown in Fig. 28.10. Figure
28.11 indicates that shear-related failures may
include what are usually 'shearout' failures
such as the upper figure for 0,&5 reinforce-
ments, which tend to lie along straight lines
tangent to the bolt hole and to run to the end
of the joint, as opposed to those for 0/90° lam-
inates which originate at about 45" points
around the bolt hole and run along curving
lines to the joint end. Hart-Smith9 shows
examples of 'shearout' type failures while the
second type are demonstrated by experimen-
tal results for 0/90" glass epoxies12.Since the
90" points around the bolt hole are traction
free, shear stresses cannot exist there, and
'shearout' failures are probably associated
with fiber separation failures resulting from to
a deficiency of 90" fibers in 0,&5 laminate,
while failures originating at the 45" points in
0/90° laminates appear to be true shear fail-
ures. Chang and Hun@ provided an
analytical approach which modelled progres-
sive damage in 0/90° laminates that predicted
the types of shear failures that are depicted in
Fig. 28.11.
l€NSlON FAIUIIL
Fig. 28.10 Typical failure modes in composite joints13.
Fig. 28.11 Shear failures in bolted joints.
In addition to modelling shear failures, Chang
and Hung16 also reported results related to
bearing failure which show that these failures
result from high out-of-plane shear stresses;
the associated failure surfaces are oriented
along planes at 45" to the x-y plane. In addi-
tion to clarifying the bearing failure modes,
these results verified the importance of clamp-
ing pressure as a factor in achieving maximum
bearing strengths. This is discussed further in
Section 28.3.5.
It should be mentioned that the term 'bear-
ing' strength, which is usually associated with
the maximum achieved value of ab,does not
necessarily imply that the joint fails by bearing
failure, since, depending on the joint geometry
-
BO11 PULLING lHlOUGn U M I W T E

and reinforcement, failure may take the form
of shearout or net tension rather than bearing
failure; bearing strength only identifies the
value of abthat occurs when the joint fails. The
value of abfor the bearing failure mode can be
looked on as a laminate material parameter,
however, and can be obtained from appropri-
ate single fastener strength tests, to be
discussed in Section 28.3.6, in which e/ W (usu-
ally specified in terms of e / D ) and W / D are
large enough to guarantee a bearing failure
mode. The effect of the reinforcement configu-
ration on the maximum achieved ab is an
important factor in joint design. Note that for
design purposes, the normal reinforcement
arrangement includes only plies in the 0", 45"
and 90" directions with respect to the load
axis, implying that other orientations are not
encountered; in addition, the 45" reinforce-
ment is arranged symmetrically as double
plies of k45" reinforcement. The notation com-
monly used to describe the stacking sequence
is condensed to reflect percentages of plies in
the three customary directions, 25/50/25 rep-
resenting 25% 0", 50% 45", and 25% 90", or
quasi-isotropic, reinforcement, for example.
The effects of reinforcement percentages on
maximum achieved bearing stress are shown
in Fig. 28.12, a three-parameter 'carpet plot'
which is used to show the effect of percentage
of reinforcement in the 0", 90" and 4 5 " direc-
tions on maximum achieved bearing stress for
a fixed joint geometry. The contours of con-
stant bearing strength indicate that maximum
joint strength is achieved within a broad
plateau lying between 3040% 0" and 1040%
+45" reinforcement. To avoid low strength
against shearout failure, it is generally agreed
that a minimum number of 90" plies, at least
lo%, should be included in the laminate.
Laminates reinforced in fewer than three
directions, i.e. 0/90° and k45" reinforcement,
should be avoided if possible, since they
respond ductiley with excessively low yield
strengths. These recommendations may be dif-
ficult to follow if considerations other than
maximum joint structural performance govern
Mechanicallyfastened joints 619
PEICfNTAGf W-DEGIEE PLIES
BEARING STRESS CONTOURS 6 5 1 )
WLT DIUETER = 0.25 IN.
(10RQUED WLW
O M Z O 3 D ~ S O ~ M ~ W l W
RKfNlAGE f4S-DEGltE PLIES
Fig. 28.12 'Carpet' plot of maximum bearing stress
vs. percentage of reinforcement in key directions4.
the reinforcement arrangement in the vicinity
of the joint.
28.3.4
Single fastener joints cannot generally achieve
anything close to the strength of the laminate
being loaded and are not usually encountered
in structural joints. Single fastener coupons
do, however, serve as building blocks for
design of multi-fastener joints (Fig. 28.2) since
stress analysis and strength test results on sin-
gle fastener geometries provide data which
translate directly to multi-fastener arrays in
structures. There are two principal features
that affect multi-fastener arrays; that of bear-
ing-bypass load is illustrated in Fig. 28.13. The
bypass load, Pb , can be considered as a load
added at the d o a d e d (right) end of the upper
element in the single fastener joint in Fig. 28.1.
In the case of a multi-fastener array (Figs. 28.2,
28.14), Pbpfor a given fastener is equivalent to
the sum of the loads developed by the fasten-
ers lying to the right of (i.e. those lying in the
direction of the load from) the one under con-
sideration. For each fastener, the load P, in
620 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
pN
Pf +pbp
Fig. 28.13 Definition of bypass load.
Fig. 28.13 (see also Fig. 28.14) is the load
passed through the net section associated with
that fastener and is the sum of P , the fastener
load, and Pb ;P, is also equivalent to the total
load at the feft end of the joint in Fig. 28.13.
The situation in Fig. 28.14(b) shows the
buildup of P, along a joint containing five fas-
teners for the hypothetical case of equal P, for
each fastener, while Fig. 28.14(c) shows the
distribution of Pb /PNfor that case. It is impor-
tant to realize that the net section stresses
build up along with P,. If the joint design is
such as to distribute the fastener loads P,
evenly as in Fig. 28.14, the load on each fas-
tener is then the total load divided by the
number of fasteners, a fraction of 1/5 in Fig.
28.14, so that the bearing stress at each fastener
is much smaller than for a single fastener joint.
Fig. 28.14 Bypass against bearing load.
On the other hand, the net section load on the
last fastener is the sum of all fastener loads and
is therefore the same as in a single fastener joint
carrying the same total load. The benefit of
multi-rowed fastener configurations is primar-
ily because the stress concentration factor
associated with pure bypass load (eqn (28.4))is
smaller than that associated with pure bearing
load (eqns (28.7), (28.3)),and the load ratio for
the most highly loaded net section (the left most
in Fig. 28.14) tends toward the case of pure
bypass loading for large numbers of fasteners.
Stress analyses for combined bearing-bypass
loading have been discussed7,*, 12, 17, la.
Figure 28.1512 gives the elasticity predic-
tions of KEt for various ratios of Pbpto P,,
indicating the KEt is a nonlinear function of
P,/P . (The results in Fig. 28.15 are for a per-
bF
fect fit fastener and for a joint under tension.)
This nonlinearity is caused by the variation of
angle of contact between the fastener and the
plate with the load ratio; Fig. 28.16 illustrates
the difference in the contact region for the
extreme cases of pure bearing and pure bypass
load. In the latter case the plate stretches in
opposite directions along a line parallel to the
load direction and contact splits into two
regions centered about +90" and -90" with
respect to the load direction, while for pure
bearing load, a single contact region occurs
ranging from about -100" to +loo" about the
load axis for perfect-fit fasteners. (For clear-
ance fits in the case of pure bearing load the
Fig. 28.15 Net section SCF against bearing/bypass
load ratio.

contact
[AI
WWS
- -
ce)
-
BEARING
Fig. 28.16 Contact angles for pure bearing load and
pure bypass load.
contact region varies with load and is smaller
than that of exact-fit fasteners. Crews and
Naik8 treated the case of 1.2% clearance, i.e. a
hole diameter 1.2% greater than the fastener
diameter, for which contact between the fas-
tener and hole occurs from about -60" to +60°
for typical loads.)
For intermediate bearing/bypass ratios, the
contact region is a mix of the two situations.
Oplinger12gave the variation of the radial pres-
sure distributions for exact fit fasteners, for
joints in tension, which showed how the con-
tact region is modified as the bearing/bypass
ratio varies, while Naik and Crewss treated
cases of both exact and clearance fits for both
tension and compression loaded joints; in addi-
tion, Madenci7 gave comparable results for
cases of shear loaded joints. A number of
efforts have treated the contact problem for
pure bearing by assuming a radial pressure
distribution which varies around the hole as
the cosine of the angle with respect to the load
axis; in addition, for combined bearing and
bypass loading (following industry practice)
Hart-Smith9 and others have, as a matter of
expediency, superposed the peak stresses pre-
dicted for pure bearing and pure bypass (i.e.
the values of Kt: predicted by eqns (28.4) and
Mechanically fastened joints 621
(28.5)). The results, given in Oplinger12,indi-
cated that this will result in inaccurate
predictions, not only for the general bearing-
bypass situation but also for the case of pure
bearing load with small edge distances (Fig.
28.9). Currently available analytical and finite
element tools are sophisticated enough to treat
the contact problem routinely, and the 'cos 8'
radial pressure distribution should be avoided,
although the superposition method gives some
useful insight into the situation if analytical
tools for dealing with the contact problem are
not available. Crews and Naiks obtained
results which showed that the hoop stresses
around the bolt hole are predicted with reason-
able accuracy by the superposition method, so
that with judicious use of N~ismer-Whitney'~
correction factors, net section failure stresses
can be reasonably well predicted by superposi-
tion; bearing failures cannot.
Naik and CrewsIs described test methods
for joint strength under combined bearing-
bypass loading, with compressive as well as
tensile bypass loads. Typical results are given
in Fig. 28.17 for a 1.2% clearance fit fastener in
a quasi-isotropic carbon epoxy laminate.
Failure modes here are designated 'TRB' ('ten-
sion reacted bearing', i.e. bearing failure with
tension bypass loading), 'TRC' (bearing 'fail-
ure with compression bypass loading), 'NT'
(net section tension), 'NC' (net section com-
pression) and 'OSC' or 'offset compression'
which refers to the failure mode illustrated in
Fig. 28.18 for compression bypass load.
Although the load distribution for the five-
fastener joint shown in Fig. 28.12 is
represented as having the same P, for each fas-
tener, this condition cannot be achieved for
joints in general. As shown in Fig. 28.1913,
there is usually considerable variation of fas-
tener loads along the joint. In a two-fastener
joint such as that shown in Fig. 28.20, the
upper and lower plate elements ('U' and 'L')
have to stretch equally under load if there are
no fastener deflection effects (no fastener tilt-
ing or bending).
622 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

Bearing stress, Sb, Wa

Bypass stress, S Wa
nP'

Fig. 28.17 Laminate strengths under combined bearing/bypass loading17.

and
EGL = gGL/EL,
the elongations are:
6,= kGu and 6 , = ZE,,.
The condition that 6, = 6, requires that:
I(P - P,,)/E,t,W = lPf,/E,f,W.

Since Pp = P - P,, this is equivalent to:

Fig. 28.18 'OSC' failures for combined bearing Pf, = (E,f,/E,t,)Pf,,

bypass loading17. If E,>>E, or tL>>t,, the resulting P,, will be
small compared with P,, so that the second fas-
With the average gross section stresses and tener will be nearly unloaded. In such a case
strains for the two plate elements in Fig. 28.20 the joint will be equivalent to a single fastener
give by: joint containing an unloaded hole at the loca-
tion of the second fastener. On the other hand,
OGU= ( P - P, )/tuW; the last equation showsthat if the stiffnesses of
the upper and lower plates are equal, the two
fasteners will be loaded equally. In general,
fastener loads will be highly variable in a way
that depends on the relative thicknesses and
 Mechanically fastened joints 623

moduli of adjacent plate elements in the

regions around each fastener; fastener deflec-
tions due to beam-bending of the fasteners as
well as clearance effects will add other compli-
cations to the situation. In Fig. 28.19,
configuration A illustrates the behavior of
joints with both elements tapered (i.e. scarf
joints); due to load transfer between the ele-
ments by fastener load, the net section load P,
decreases from the loaded (thick) end of each
plate to its unloaded (thin)end, while the cor-
responding thicknesses decrease keeps the Fig. 28.20 Two fastener joint.
gross section stresses and strains and therefore
the stretching deflections uniform along each listed under each configuration), it is noted
element, providing for nearly equal load trans- that the scarfed configuration gives the lowest
fer at each fastener. For configuration B of Fig. strength of the four, and is about 9% weaker
28.19, the case of uniform element thickness, than the uniform thickness configuration, B. It
the interior fastener loads are smaller than is usually expected that scarfing will lead to a
those at the joint ends, which is typical of this way of keeping the bearing load minimized at
situation. Since the configurations shown at the joint ends where the highest P,s are
the right in Fig. 28.19 are arranged in order of encountered, but other factors having to do
increasing load capability (see the strains with the balance between the effects of local

BOLT LOAD DISTRIBUTIONS

4-ROW BOLTED NINT

E, -
CONFIGURATION D
O11(#lNIIN.

CONFIGURATIONC

-
E- = 0A)OMINIIN.

CONFIQURATION A
O----QCONFIQURATION B
0- 4 CONFIGURATIONC
-1n CONFIGURATION D
-
CONFIGURATION B
0#)46INIIN.

1 2 3
BOLT NUMBER
4
Ob0IN.

1 A 112. 112. 112

1 2
!
3 4 0251N.
i I - .'-
I

I'
-
E
, -
CONFIGURATION A
O m 1 INAN.

Fig. 28.19 Effectof joint configuration on fastener load di~tribution'~.

624 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

element thickness and local bearing load pre-
dominates here. Note that configuration D, the
strongest, uses a combination of variable fas-
tener diameter and element tapering to
achieve a maximum thickness of the outer ele-
ments which is greater than that in
configuration C, to obtain maximum joint
strength. Thus, judicious use of element taper-
ing and variation of fastener diameters as well
as other joint parameters can improve joint
performance. With untapered joints, the maxi-
mum benefit of additional rows of fasteners is
not much more than 20% greater than that for
single row joints. Joint tapering will provide
28.3.5 FASTENER EFFECTS
Joint strengths for local areas (Fig. 28.13)
around individual fasteners are affected by a
number of parameters associated with the fas-
teners. Some of these include: whether the
joint is in single or double shear (Fig. 28.21);
the use of countersunk (flush head) compared
with protruding head fasteners (Fig. 28.22);
effects of fastener diameter; effects of fastener
clamping; fastener clearance effects, and effect
of fastener deflections on fastener load distrib-
ution. Bearing strengths are significantly
affected by the use of single compared with

p7=g=7p2p
some improvement over that figure, although
the benefit is limited; it should be kept in mind
that the net section load at the loaded end of a P
given element will be the same for single fas-
tener and multi-fastener joints, so that the
benefit of adding more than a few rows may (A) Double Shear Configuration
not be great. The interaction of the effects
encountered in multi-fastener joints is fairly
complicated and requires the use of analyses ~

which can take into account the stresses and

P
strains in single fastener configurations with
bypass loading present (Fig. 28.13), represent- I'2
ing 'unit cells' of the joint configuration, (B) Single Shear configuration
together with finite element calculations
which evaluate the interactions among the Fig. 28.21 Single shear and double shear configura-
various unit cells to provide the overall fas- tions.
tener load distribution. Computer codes have
been developed under DoD and NASA spon-
sorship to provide for this type of integrated
joint design. For example, Nelson, Bunin and
Hart-Smith13 discuss the application of the
+f-
well-known 'A4EJ' codeI9in conjunction with P
the code 'BJSFM' (Bolted Joint Stress Field 3
Model15)which were developed by McDonnell (A) Protruding Head Fastener
Douglas under NASA and Air Force sponsor-
ship for this type of joint design analysis.
Northrop similarly developed codes 'SASCJ' P
(Stress Analysis of Single Fastener Composite P
Joints) and 'SAMCJ' (Stress Analysis of
Multifastener Composite Joints) under Air (B) Countersunk Fastener
Force Contract6,20. For information on the the-
ory and application of these codes, the reader Fig. 28.22 Countersunk and protruding head fas-
is directed to the references. teners.

double shear configurations,bearing strengths
for single shear joints tending to run consider-
ably below those for double shear because of
greater through-the-thickness variation of fas-
tener-plate contact pressure. Bearing strength
tests referenced in Section 28.3.6 include sepa-
rate test configurations for the two situations.
In addition, as indicated in Fig. 28.22(a),bend-
ing moments tend to occur in single shear
joints which are not present with double shear
arrangements. Fastener head pull through
(Fig. 28.10) can be a problem in the presence of
such bending effects, and special test methods
for fastener pull-through strength are
described in Section 28.3.6. Countersunk, or
flush head, fasteners (Fig. 28.22(b)) are fre-
quently encountered in exterior surfaces of
aircraft components where avoidance of air
flow disturbance is required. Countersunk fas-
teners for composites include (Fig. 28.23)
'tension head' fasteners having the larger head
depths and therefore wider heads, and 'shear
head' fasteners having smaller head depths,
with head angles ranging from 100" to 130".
Countersunk fasteners tend to bear against the
surrounding element more unevenly through
the thickness than protruding head fasteners
do. Tension head fasteners are generally pre-
ferred over shear head fasteners because of
greater strength against head pull-through;
however, if the joint element is so thin that the
countersunk depth is greater than 70% of the
element thickness, the tendency toward
uneven bearing pressure in tension head fas-
teners is too great and shear head fasteners are
recommended in this case.
Fig. 28.23 Tension head and shear head fasteners.
Mechanicallyfastened joints 625
The fastener diameter should be on the
order of the thickness of the thicker of the
plate elements making up the joint, or greater,
( D / t 2 1) to avoid excessive fastener bending.
As in Fig. 28.10 (lower right-hand sketch)
excessive bending can lead to failure of the fas-
teners, which is intolerable. In addition,
fastener bending causes uneven distribution
of bearing pressure through the plate element
thicknesses, so that the full bearing strength is
not available in such cases. The effect of large
fastener deflections on the clamping pressure
provided by the fastener is another adverse
effect of fastener bending deflections. Figure
28.2413 illustrates the fact that bending defor-
mations reduce the clamping pressure
provided by fastener head, causing a reduc-
tion of bearing strength which is in addition to
that caused by uneven bearing pressure
through the thickness.
The beneficial effect of clamping pressure
on bearing strength, discussed earlier, has
been well established. Required clamping lev-
els are usually described in terms of bolt
torques, 'finger tightened' being the lightest
level, and installation requirements specify
torque levels which supposedly represent par-
ticular bolt tensions (and therefore clamping
-
-
TENSION JOINT
HlQH BEARING LOAD SIDE
LOELAMINATIONS
DUE TO BEARING LOAD AND REDUCED
HlQH BEARINQ LOAD SIDE
-
COMPRESSION JOINT w-
Fig. 28.24 Effects of fastener bending on joint fail-
ureI3.
626 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
pressures) that can be calculated in terms of
the pitch of the fastener threads from machine
design formulas. Bolt tensions for a given
torque level are notoriously variable because
of friction effects in the bolt threads, but spec-
ified torque levels which have been
determined empirically probably represent
minimum clamping levels necessary to insure
maximum bearing strengths that can be
achieved when variations in service condi-
tions are taken into account. Steps should be
taken to avoid loss of clamping pressure due
to through-the-thickness viscoelastic deforma-
tion of the laminatez1”at elevated temperature
and humidity.
Fastener clearances are typically on the
order of 0.075 mm (0.003 in) or less for typical
0.635 mm (0.25 in) aircraft fasteners. Analytical
studies have shown that bearing stresses
increase significantly for such relatively small
clearances since the angle of contract decreases
rapidly as the clearance increases. Clearances
also have a significant effect on the fastener
load distribution since the last in a series of
fasteners cannot take up load until all the
clearances have been taken up.
In addition to the effect of clearances on fas-
tener load distribution, effects of fastener
bending deflections must be taken into
account in load distribution calculations such
as those provided by the A4EJ, SASCJ and
SAMCJ codes described above. In the case of
the two-fastener joint shown in Fig. 28.20,
bending and rotational deflections of the fas-
teners will modify the load distribution
described in the discussion of that figure for
zero fastener deflection. For E,t,>>E,t,, in Fig.
28.20 for example, fastener deflections will
allow some load to be transferred to the sec-
ond fastener, as opposed to the case of no
fastener deflections discussed earlier which
led to Pf2= 0. Fastener deflection effects can be
inferred from bolt bearing tests which provide
for deflection measurements. Alternatively,
analytical approaches based on beam models
for the fastener which include both bending
and shear deformations have been used13.
Complications, such as the way in which the
fastener head and nut/washer combination
bears on the surfaces of the plate element will
influence the outcome of such calculations and
must be taken into account. In addition, the
through-thickness distribution of bearing
pressure between the fastener and the sur-
rounding the plate element should be
included in the calculations. The method of
Harris, qalvo and Hoosonz3which treats the
bore of the fastener hole as an elastic founda-
tion for the beam used to model the fastener
has been applied6for such calculations.
28.3.6 TEST METHODS
Joint strength tests are needed to establish cer-
tain key parameters of the joint as inputs to
design analyses. Such data as failure stresses
for pure bearing load as obtained from single
fastener coupons, and open hole coupon
strengths for both tension and compression
loading, are needed to establish joint perfor-
mance for pure bearing and bypass loads.
Intermediate combinations of bearing and
bypass load must also be considered to pro-
vide empirical curves for dealing with the
general situation. Because of differences in the
way the fastener contacts the surrounding
plate materials, bearing tests have to be con-
ducted to treat both single and double lap
(single and double shear) configurations. In
single lap joints in particular, tests are needed
to establish the effect of fastener rotation and
bending deflection. Fastener deflections must
be determined in tests of the type just
described for providing fastener response data
in connection with predictions of load distrib-
ution in multifastener joints. In addition,
fastener head pull-through strength tests have
to be performed to allow for joint configura-
tions in which overall bending takes place, in
which case out-of-plane forces between the
fastener and joint plates tend to be sigruficant.
The details of test methods for mechanically
fastened joints are described by Shyprykevichz4
and in Mn-HDBK-1725.

28.4 ADHESIVE JOINTS
28.4.1 INTRODUCTION
Adhesive joints are capable of high structural
efficiency and constitute a resource for struc-
tural weight saving because of the potential
for elimination of stress concentrations which
cannot be achieved with mechanically fas-
tened joints. Unfortunately, because of a lack
of reliable inspection methods and a require-
ment for close dimensional tolerances in
fabrication, aircraft designers have generally
avoided bonded construction in primary
structure. Some notable exceptions include:
bonded step lap joints used in attachments for
the F-14 and F-15 horizontal stabilizers as well
as the F-18 wing root fitting, and a majority of
the airframe components of the Lear Fan and
the Beech Starship.
While a number of issues related to adhe-
sive joint design were considered in the earlier
literaturezG3, much of the methodology cur-
rently used in the design and analysis of
adhesive joints in composite structures is
based on the approaches evolved by L.J. Hart-
Smith in a series of NASA/Langley-sponsored
contracts of the early 1 9 7 0 as~ well
~ ~as~from
the Air Force’s Primary Adhesively Bonded
Structures Technology (PABST) programw3 of
the mid-1970s. The most recent such work
developed three computer codes for bonded
and bolted joints, designated ‘A4EG’, ’A4EI’
and ’A4EKW under Air Force Contract . The
results of these efforts have also appeared in a
number of open literature publi~ations~’-~. In
addition, such approaches found application
in some of the efforts taking place under the
NASA Advanced Composite Energy Efficient
Aircraft (ACEE) program of the early to mid-
198Os5O,51.
Some of the key principles on which these
efforts were based include: (1)the use of simple
one-dimensionalstress analyses of generic com-
posite joints wherever possible; ( 2 ) the need to
select the joint design so as to ensure failure in
the adherend rather than the adhesive, so that
Adhesive joints 627
the adhesive is never the weak link;(3) recog-
nition that the ductility of aerospace adhesives
is beneficial in reducing stress peaks in the
adhesive; (4) careful use of such factors as
adherend tapering to reduce or eliminate peel
stresses from the joint; (5) recognition of slow
cyclic loading, corresponding to such phenom-
ena as cabin pressurization in aircraft, as a
major factor controlling durability of adhesive
joints, and the need to avoid the worst effects
of this type of loading by providing sufficient
overlap length to ensure that some of the adhe-
sive is so lightly loaded that creep cannot occur
there, under the most severe extremes of
humidity and temperature for which the com-
ponent is to be used.
Much of the discussion to follow will retain
the analysis philosophy of Hart-Smith, since it
is considered to represent a major contribution
to practical bonded joint design in both com-
posite and metallic structures. On the other
hand, some modifications are introduced here.
For example, the revisions of the
Goland-Reissner single lap joint analysis36
have been re-revised according to the
approach presented in Refs. 53,54.
Certain issues which are specific to compos-
ite adherends but were not dealt with in the
Hart-Smith efforts will be addressed. The most
important of these is the effect of transverse
shear deformations in organic composite
adherends.
28.4.2 SUMMARY OF JOINT DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
28.4.2.1 Effects of adherend thickness:
adherend failures versus bond failures
Figure 28.25 shows a series of typical bonded
joint configurations. Adhesive joints in general
are characterized by high stress concentrations
in the adhesive layer. These originate, in the
case of shear stresses, because of unequal axial
straining of the adherends, and in the case of
peel stresses, because of eccentricity in the
load path. Considerable ductility is associated
 628 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

illustrate this point, shows a progression of

joint types which represent increasing strength
capability from the lowest to the highest in the
figure. In each type of joint, the adherend
thickness may be increased as an approach to
achieving higher load capacity. When the
1
adherends are relatively thin, results of stress
- - (0)
- 4 analyses show that for all of the joint types in
TAPERED SINGLE-UP JOINT
Fig. 28.26, the stresses in the bond will be small
enough to guarantee that the adherends will
DOUBLE-UPJOINT reach their load capacity before failure can
occur in the bond. As the adherend thicknesses
(F) 1 DUJBLE-STRAP JOINT
increase, the bond stresses become relatively
larger until a point is reached at which bond
(0) 4 n f failure occurs at a lower load than that for
&
which the adherends fail. This leads to the gen-
TAPERED STRAP JOINT
eral principle that for a given joint type, the
Fig. 28.25 Adhesive joint types”, 55. adherend thicknesses should be restricted to an
appropriate range relative to the bond layer
with shear response of typical adhesives, thickness. Because of processing considera-
which is beneficial in minimizing the effect of tions and defect sensitivity of the bond
shear stress joint strength. The response of typ- material, bond layer thicknesses are generally
ical adhesives to peel stresses tends to be limited to a range of 0.125-0.39 mm
much more brittle than that to shear stresses, (0.005-0.015 in). As a result, each of the joint
and reduction of peel stresses is desirable for
achieving good joint performance.
From the standpoint of joint reliability, it is
vital to avoid the condition where the adhesive
layer is the weak link in the joint, i.e. that the
joint be designed to ensure that the adherends
fail before the bond layer whenever possible.
T ~ isE because failure in the adherends may be
controlled, while failure in the adhesive is resin
dominated, and thus subject to effects of voids
and other defects, thickness variations, envi-
ronmental effects, processing variations,
deficiencies in surface preparation and other
factors that are not always adequately con-
trolled. This is a significant challenge, since
adhesives are inherently much weaker than the
composite or metallic elements being joined.
However, the objective can be accomplished by
recognizing the limitations of the joint geome-
try being considered and placing appropriate
restrictions on the thicknesses the adherends ADHEREND THICKNESS
for any given geometry. Figure 28.26, which
has frequently been used by Hart-Smith39, 55 to Fig. 28.26 Joint geometry effects39.

types in Figs. 28.25 and 28.26 corresponds to a
specific range of adherend thicknesses and
therefore of load capacity, and as the need for
greater load capacity arises, it is preferable to
change the joint configuration to one of higher
efficiency rather than to increasing the
adherend thickness indefinitely.
28.4.2.2 Joint geometry effects
Single and double lap joints with uniformly
thick adherends (Fig. 28.25(b), (e) and ( f ) ) are
the least efficient joint type and are suitable
primarily for thin structures with low running
loads (load per unit width, i.e. stress times ele-
ment thickness). Of these, single lap joints are
the least capable because the eccentricity of
this type of geometry generates significant
bending of the adherends that magnifies the
peel stresses. Peel stresses are also present in
the case of symmetric double lap and double
strap joints, and become a limiting factor on
joint performance when the adherends are rel-
atively thick.
Tapering of the adherends (Figs. 28.25(d)
and (g)) can be used to eliminate peel stresses
in areas of the joint where the peel stresses are
tensile, which is the case of primary concern.
For joints between adherends of identical stiff-
ness, scarf joints (Fig. 28.25(i))are theoretically
the most efficient, having the potential for
complete elimination of stress concentrations.
(In practice, some minimum thickness corre-
sponding to one or two ply thicknesses must
be incorporated at the thin end of the scarfed
adherend leading to the occurrence of stress
concentrations in these areas.) In theory, any
desirable load capability can be achieved in
the scarf joint by making the joint long enough
and thick enough. However, practical scarf
joints may be less durable because of a ten-
dency toward creep failure associated with a
uniform distribution of shear stress along the
length of the joint unless care is taken to avoid
letting the adhesive be stressed into the non-
linear range. As a result, scarf joints tend to be
used only for repairs of very thin structures.
Adhesive joints 629
Scarfjoints with unbalanced stiffnessesbetween
the adherends do not achieve the uniform shear
stress condition of those with balanced
adherends, and are somewhat less structurally
efficient because of rapid buildup of load near
the thin end of the thicker adherend.
Step lap joints (Fig. 28.25(h)) represent a
practical solution to the challenge of bonding
thick members. This type of joint provides
manufacturing convenience by accommodat-
ing the layered structure of composite
laminates. In addition, high loads can be trans-
ferred if sufficiently many short steps of
sufficiently small ’rise’ (i.e. thickness incre-
ment) in each step are used, while maintaining
sufficient overall length of the joint.
28.4.2.3 Effects of adherend stiffness
unbalance
All types of joint geometry are adversely
affected by unequal adherend stiffnesses,
where stiffness is defined as axial or in-plane
shear modulus times adherend thickness.
Where possible, the stiffnesses should be kept
approximately equal. For example, for step lap
and scarf joints between quasi-isotropic car-
bon epoxy (Young’s modulus = 55 GPa = 8 x
lo6 lb/in2) and titanium (Young’s modulus =
110 GPa = 16 x lo6 lb/in2) ideally, the ratio of
the maximum thickness (the thickness just
beyond the end of the joint) of the composite
adherend to that of the titanium should be
110/55 = 2.0.
28.4.2.4 Effects of ductile adhesive
response
Adhesive ductility is an important factor in
minimizing the adverse effects of shear and
peel stress peaks in the bond layer. If peel
stresses can be eliminated from consideration
by such approaches as adherend tapering,
strain energy to failure of the adhesive in shear
has been shown by Ha~?-Smith~~ to be the key
parameter controlling joint strength; thus the
square root of the adhesive strain energy
630 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

density to failure determines the maximum sta- transverse tension, as a result of which the
tic load that can be applied to the joint. The limiting element in the joint may be the inter-
work of Hart-Smith has also shown that for pre- laminar shear and transverse tensile strengths
dicting mechanical response of the joint, the of the adherend rather than the bond strength.
detailed stress-strain curve of the adhesive can Ductile behavior of the adherend matrix can
be replaced by an equivalent curve consisting be expected to have an effect similar to that of
of a linear rise followed by a constant stress ductility in the adhesive in terms of response
plateau (i.e. elastic-perfectly plastic response) if of the adherends to transverse shear stresses,
the latter is adjusted to provide the same strain although the presence of the fibers probably
energy density to failure as the actual limits this effect to some extent, particularly in
stress-strain curve gives. Test methods for regard to peel stresses.
adhesives should be aimed at providing data The effect of the stacking sequence of the
on this parameter. Once the equivalent elastic- laminates making up the adherends in compos-
perfectly plastic stress-strain curve has been ite joints is sigruficant. For example, 90” layers
identified for the selected adhesive for the most placed adjacent to the bond layer theoretically
severe environmental conditions (temperature act largely as additional thicknesses of bond
and humidity) of interest, the joint design can material, leading to lower peak stresses, while
proceed through the use of relatively simple 0” layers next to the bond layer give stiffer
one-dimensional stress analysis, thus avoiding adherend response with higher stress peaks. In
the need for elaborate finite element calcula- practice it has been observed that 90” layers
tions. Even the most complicated of joints, the next to the bond layer tend to seriously weaken
step lap joints designed for root-end wing and the joint because of transverse cracking which
tail connections for the F-18 and other aircraft, develops in those layers, and advantage cannot
have been successfully d e ~ i g n e d ~ and ~ , ~ ”be
~ taken of the reduced stresses.
experimentally demonstrated using such Large disparity of thermal expansion char-
approaches. Design procedures for such analy- acteristics between metal and composite
ses which were developed on Government adherends can pose severe problems.
contract have been incorporated into public Adhesives with high curing temperatures may
domain in the form of the ’A4EG’, ‘A4EI’ and be unsuitable for some uses below room tem-
‘A4EK computer codes- mentioned previ- perature because of large thermal stresses
ously in Section 28.4.1.Note that the A4EK code which develop as the joint cools below the fab-
permits analysis of bonded joints in which local rication temperature.
disbonds are repaired by mechanical fasteners. Composite adherends are relatively pervi-
ous to moisture, which is not true of metal
adherends. As a result, moisture is more likely
28.4.2.5 Behavior of composite adherends
to be found over wide regions of the adhesive
Organic matrix composite adherends are con- layer, as opposed to confinement near the
siderably more affected by interlaminar shear exposed edges of the joint in the case of metal
and tensile stresses than metals, so that there is adherends, and response of the adhesive to
a significant need to account for such effects in moisture may be an even more significant
stress analyses of joints. Transverse shear and issue for composite joints than for joints
thickness-normal deformations of the between metallic adherends.
adherends have an effect analogous to thick-
ening of the bond layer, corresponding to a
28.4.2.6 Effects of bond defects
lowering of both shear and peel stress peaks.
On the other hand, the adherend matrix is Defects in adhesive joints which are of concern
often weaker than the adhesive in shear and include surface preparation deficiencies, voids
 Adhesive joints 631

and porosity, and thickness variations in the adherends, porosity may grow catastrophi-
bond layer. cally and lead to non-damage tolerant joint
Of the various defects which are of interest, performance.
surface preparation deficiencies are probably Bond thickness variations'jl usually take the
the greatest concern. These are particularly form of thinning due to excess resin bleed at
troublesome because there are no current non- the joint edges, leading to overstressing of the
destructive evaluation techniques which can adhesive in the vicinity of the edges. Inside
detect low interfacial strength between the tapering of the adherends at the joint edges
bond and the adherends. Most joint design will compensate for this condition; other com-
principles are academic if the adhesion pensating techniques are also discussed'jl.
between the adherends and bond layer is poor. Bond thicknesses, per se, should be limited to
The principles for achieving good adhesion of ranges of 0.12-0.24 mm (0.005-0.01 in) to pre-
the bond to the adherends (see Chapter 29) are vent significant porosity from developing
well established for adherend and adhesive although greater thicknesses may be accept-
combinations of interest. Hart-Smith, Brown able if full periphery damming or high
and Won$ give an account of the most crucial minimum viscosity paste adhesives are used.
features of the surface preparation process. Common practice involves the use of film
Results shown in that reference suggest that adhesives containing scrim cloth, some forms
surface preparation which is limited to of which help to maintain bond thicknesses. It
removal of the peel ply from the adherends is also common practice to use mat carriers of
may be suspect, since some peel plies leave a chopped fibers to prevent a direct path for
residue on the bonding surfaces that makes access by moisture to the interior of the bond.
adhesion poor. (However, some manufactur-
ers have reported satisfactory results from
28.4.2.7 Durability of adhesive joints
surface preparation consisting only of peel ply
removal.) Low pressure grit b l a ~ t i n g ~ is ~ ,Hart-Smith45
~~ discusses differences in durabil-
preferable over hand sanding as a means of ity assessment of adhesive joints between
eliminating such residues and mechanically concepts related to creep failure under cyclic
conditioning the bonding surfaces. loading and those related to crack initiation
For joints which are designed to ensure that and propagation which require fracture
the adherends rather than the bond layer are mechanics approaches for their interpretation.
the critical elements, tolerance to the presence In summary, Hart-Smith suggests that if peel
of porosity and other types of defect is consid- stresses are eliminated by adherend tapering
erable45.Porosity'jOis usually associated with or other means, and if the principle discussed
overthickened areas of the bond, which tend in Section 28.4.2.1 of limiting the adherend
to occur away from the edges of the joint thickness to ensure failure of the adherends
where most of the load transfer takes place, rather than the adhesive is followed, crack-
and thus is a relatively benign effect, espe- type failures will not be observed under
cially if peel stresses are minimized by time-varying loading, failures being related
adherend tapering. In such cases6", porosity primarily to creep fatigue at hot wet condi-
can be represented by a modification of the tions, in joints with short overlaps which are
assumed stress-strain properties of the adhe- subject to relatively uniform distributions of
sive as determined from thick-adherend tests, shear stress along the joint length. Additional
allowing a straightforward analysis of the discussion of viscoelastic response of bonded
effect of such porosity on joint strength, as in joints is
the A4EI computer code. If peel stresses are There is an extensive body of literature6571
significant, as in the case of over-thick on fracture mechanics approaches to joint
632 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
durability, based on measurement of energy
release rates for various adhesives together
with analytical efforts aimed at applying them
to joint configurations of interest. In particular,
Johnson and Malln report fatigue crack initia-
tion in bonded specimen configurations with
adherend tapering aimed at reduction of peel
stresses in varying degrees, in some cases prac-
tically eliminating them; data in Ref. 92
indicate that crack initiation will occur even
with the adhesive in pure shear, for cycling to
lo6cycles above loading levels which are prob-
ably considerably below static failure loads.
The results given” suggest that for combina-
tions of peel and shear stressing, total (mode 1
+ mode 2) cyclic energy release rate can be
used to determine whether or not cracking will
occur. However, Hart-Smith reportedfi that in
’thick adherend‘ test specimens that provide a
relatively uniform shear stress distribution in
the adhesive (see MIL-HDBK-17, Vol. 1,
Chapter 7, Section 7.3) which were subjected to
fatigue tests in the PABST programM,cycling to
more than lo7 cycles applied at high cycling
rates (30 Hz) were achieved without failure of
the adhesive, although in certain cases, namely
those involving 6.27 mm (0.25 in) adherend
thicknesses, fatigue failures of the metal
adherends did result. More study is needed to
resolve some of the apparently contradictory
results which have come out of various studies.
28.4.3 STRESSES IN ADHESIVE JOINTS
28.4.3.1 General
Stress analyses of adhesive joints have ranged
from very simplistic ‘P over A’ formulations in
which only average shear stresses in the bond
layer are considered, to extremely elegant elas-
ticity approaches that consider fine details, e.g.
the calculation of stress singularities for appli-
cation of fracture mechanics concepts. A
compromise between these two extremes is
desirable, since the design of structural joints
does not usually depend on the fine details of
the stress distributions. Since practical consid-
erations force bonded joints to incorporate
adherends which are thin relative to their
dimensions in the load direction, stress varia-
tions through the thickness of the adherend and
the adhesive layer tend to be moderate. Such
variations do tend to be more sigruficant for
organic composite adherends because of their
relative softness with respect to transverse
shear and thickness normal stresses. However,
a considerable body of design procedure has
been developed based on ignoring thickness-
wise adherend stress variations. Such
approaches involve using one-dimensional
models in which only variations in the axial
direction are accounted for. Accordingly, the
bulk of the material to be covered here is based
on simplified one-dimensional approaches
characterized by the work of Hart-Smith. The
Hart-Smith approach makes extensive use of
closed form and classical series solutions since
these are ideally suited for making parametric
studies of joint designs. The most prominent of
these have involved modification of Volkersen26
and Goland-ReissnerZ7solutions to deal with
ductile response of adhesives in joints with uni-
form adherend thicknesses along their lengths,
together with classical series expressions to
deal with variable adherend thicknesses
encountered with tapered adherends, and scarf
joints. Simple lap joint solutions described
below calculate shear stresses in the adhesive
for various stiffnesses and applied loadings.
For the more practical step lap joints, the
described expressions can be adapted to treat
the joint as a series of separate joints, each hav-
ing uniform adherend thickness.
28.4.3.2 Adhesive shear stresses
Figure 28.27 shows a joint with ideally rigid
adherends in which neighboring points on the
upper and lower adherends slide horizontally
with respect to each other when the joint is
loaded to cause a displacement difference 6 =
uu - uLrelated to the bond layer shear strain by
yb = 6 / f b .The corresponding shear stress, zb, is
given by zb = Gbyb. The rigid adherend
 Adhesive joints 633

assumption implies that 6, y, and t, are uni- one for which E,tL >> E&), stretching elonga-
form along the joint. Furthermore, the tions in the upper adherend lead to a shear
equilibrium relationship indicated in Fig. strain increase at the right end of the bond
layer. The case in which both adherends are
28.27(c),which requires that the shear stress be
related to the resultant distribution in the equally deformable, shown in Fig. 28.29(b),
upper adherend by indicates a bond shear strain increase at both
ends due to the increased axial strain in
dTU/dx= zb (28.6) whichever adherend is stressed at the end
leads to a linear distribution of Tu and TL under consideration. For both cases, the varia-
(upper and lower adherend resultants) as well tion of shear strain along the bond results in an
as the adherend axial stresses uxuand ax,indi- accompanying increase in shear stress which,
cated in Fig. 28.28. These distributions are when inserted into the equilibrium eqn (28.6)
described by the following expressions: leads to a nonlinear variation of stresses. The
Volkersen shear lag analysisz6provides the
simplest calculation of adhesive shear stresses
for the case of deformable adherends. This
involves the solution of the following differen-
tial equation:

where ax = T/t. In actual joints, adherend

deformations will cause shear strain variations
in the bond layer which are illustrated in Fig.
28.29. For the case of a deformable upper B, = E&; B, = E,t, (28.8)
adherend in combination with a rigid lower
adherend shown in Fig. 28.29(a) (in practice, which applies to the geometry of Fig. 28.30

I I

[a RIGID KkU

f-

Fig. 28.27 Elementary joint analysis (rigid adherend model).

634 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

(A) AXIAL RESULTANT DISTRIBUTION (a) AXIAL STRESS DISTRIBUTXOH

Fig. 28.28 Axial stresses in joint with rigid adherends.

[A) RIGID UIIW

AaEml

--f
T-

Fig. 28.29 Adherend deformations in idealized joints.

-
below. The solution for this equation which TL = T - T U (28.9)
provides zero traction conditions at the left
where
end of the upper adherend and the right end
of the lower adherend, together with the
applied load T at the loaded ends gives the
resultants as:
- tu + tL
t=- 2 ; PB = BL/B"

Using eqn (28.6) to obtain an expression for

+- the shear stress distribution leads to:
1 +PB SinhPZ/t
 Adhesive joints 635

I
0-
I X

+- PB
1 + pB tanhpZ/T
) (28.11)

where
Gx= T/t
Fig. 28.30 Geometry for Volkersen solution.
Also of interest in the discussion which fol-
lows is the minimum shear stress in the joint.
This occurs approximately at x = 1/2, leading
to:

B, 2 B,; to be discussed subskquently. Figure 28.31

I 0 44 &4 a6 Q1 t
IS
1.2 1.4 1s 1 1 2

I 1

.-.
4 U a.4
. .
OS
.
a.0
.
1
:
IS!
:
1.4
.
IJ
.
1.8 2
b . . . . . . . . . .
o) a4 w os 1 IZ 11) i g t i 2
#- I---
I
636 Mechanicalfastening and adhesive bonding
Fig. 28.32 Comparison of average and maximum shear stress vs. l / t .
shows the distribution of axial adherend
stresses and bond layer shear stress for two
cases corresponding to E, = E , and E, = 10Eu
with tu = t,, p = 0.387 and l / t = 20 for both
cases (giving p l / t = 7.74) and a nominal
adherend stress 0, = 10. As in the approximate
analysis given earlier, the shear stresses given
by eqn (28.10) are maximum at both ends for
equally deformable adherends (B, = B,); for
dissimilar adherends with the lower adherend
more rigid (B, > E$,), the maximum shear stress
obtained from eqn (28.10) occurs at the right
end of the joint where x = I , again as it did for
the approximate analysis.
Figure 28.32 compares the behavior of the
maximum shear stress with the average shear
stress as a function of the dimensionless joint
length, l / t , for equal adherend stiffnesses. The
point illustrated here is the fact that although
the average shear stress continuously
decreases as the joint length increases, for the
maximum shear stress which controls the load
that can be applied without failure of the
adhesive, there is a diminishing effect of
increased joint length when q = p l / t is much
greater than about 2.
An additional point of interest is a typical
feature of bonded joints illustrated in
Fig. 28.31(d) which gives the shear stress dis-
tribution for equal adherend stiffness, namely,
the fact that high adhesive shear stresses are
concentrated near the ends of the joint. Much
of the joint length is subjected to relatively low
levels of shear stress, which implies in a sense
that that region of the joint is structurally inef-
ficient since it does not provide much load
transfer. However, the region of low stress
helps to improve damage tolerance of the joint
since defects such as voids and weak bond
strength may be tolerated in regions where the
shear stresses are low, and in joints with long
overlaps this may include most of the joint. In
addition, Hart-Smith has suggested51 that
when ductility and creep are taken into
account, it is a good idea to have a minimum
shear stress level no more than 10% of the
yield strength of the adhesive, which requires
some minimum value of overlap length.
Equation (28.12) can be used to satisfy this
requirement for the case of equal stiffness
adherends. The two special cases of interest
again are for equal adherend stiffness and a
 Adhesive joints 637

rigid lower adherend, since these bound the relatively obvious due to the offset of the two
range of behavior of the shear stresses. As a adherends which leads to bending deflection
practical consideration, we will be interested as in Fig. 28.33@).In the case of double lap
primarily in long joints for which pZ/t >> 1. joints, as exemplified by the configuration
For these cases eqn (28.11) reduces to: shown in Fig. 28.34, the load path eccentricity
is not as obvious, and there may be a tendency
p1/t >> 1;
to assume that peel stresses are not present for
this type of joint because, as a result of the lat-
eral symmetry, there is no overall bending
deflection. However, a little reflection brings
to mind the fact that while the load in the sym-
1
B, = B,; zJrnaX=-pax (28.13) metric lap joint flows axially through the
2
central adherend prior to reaching the overlap
Thus, for long overlaps, the maximum shear region, there it splits in two directions, flowing
stress for the rigid adherend case tends to be laterally through the action of bond shear
twice as great as that for the case of equally stresses to the two outer adherends. Thus
deformable adherends, again illustrating the eccentricity of the load path is also present in
adverse effect of adherend unbalance on shear this type of joint. As seen in Fig. 28.34(c), the
stress peaks. shear force, designated as F,, which repre-
sents the accumulated effect of zb for one end
of the joint, produces a component of the total
28.4.3.3 Peel stresses
moment about the neutral axis of the upper
Peel stresses, i.e. through-the-thickness exten- adherend equal to FsHz/2. (Note that F , is
sional stresses in the bond, are present because equivalent to T/2, since the shear stresses react
the load path in most adhesive joint geome- this amount of load at each end.) The peel
tries is eccentric. It is useful to compare the stresses, which are equivalent to the forces in
effect of peel stresses in single and double lap the restraining springs shown in Fig. 28.34(b)
joints with uniform adherend thickness, since
peel stresses are most severe for joints with
uniform adherend thickness. The load path
eccentricity in the single lap joint (Fig. 28.33) is

, \

Fig. 28.33 Peel stress development in single lap Fig. 28.34 Peel stress development in double lap
ioints. ioints.
J
638 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

and (c) have to be present to react the moment It is important to understand that peel
produced by the offset of FsHabout the neutral stresses are unavoidable in most bonded joint
axis of the outer adhered. Peel stresses are configurations However, they can often be
highly objectionable. Later discussion will reduced to acceptable levels by selecting the
indicate that effects of ductility significantly adherend geometry appropriately.
reduce the tendency for failure associated with
shear stresses in the adhesive. On the other 28.4.3.4 Effects of joint geometry
hand, the adherends tend to prevent lateral
contraction in the in-plane direction when the In this section the behavior of joints is consid-
bond is strained in the thickness direction, ered with linear response of the adhesive in
which minimizes the availability of ductility shear assumed. Effects of ductility will be con-
effects that could provide the same reduction sidered later.
of adverse effects for the peel stresses. This is
illustrated by the butt tensile test shown in Fig. 28.4.3.4.1 Single and double lap joints with
28.35 in which the two adherend surfaces adja-
uniform adherend thickness
cent to the bond are pulled away from each
other uniformly. Here the shear stresses asso- Double lap joints will be considered first since
ciated with yielding are restricted to a small they are somewhat simpler to discuss than sin-
region whose width is about equal to the gle lap joints because of deflection effects in the
thickness of the bond layer, near the outer latter. Shear and peel stresses in double lap
edges of the system; in most of the bond, rela- joints with uniform adherend thickness were
tively little yielding can take place. For organic treated by Hart-Smith%.For the shear stresses,
matrix composite adherends, the adherends the type of analysis discussed in Section 28.4.3.2
may fail at a lower peel stress level than that at can be applied with suitable changes in nota-
which the bond fails, which makes the peel tion, i.e. the expressions for the shear stresses
stresses even more undesirable. given in eqns (28.11)and (28.12)can be applied
with subscripts 'i' and '0' ('inner' and 'outer')

P t P substituted here for 'L' and ' U ('lower' and

'upper') used in eqns (28.6-28.11); in addition,
the outer adherend thickness in the earlier
equations is now equivalent to half the thick-
ness of inner adherend because of vertical
symmetry of the double lap joint. However, we
will also introduce the effects of thermal mis-
match effects in the following expressions for
Bond later reference. The notation used here is:
Bo = toEo; Bi = tiEi;
E@e Region
(Distornal
Strains)

B B.
pB = Bi/Bo; Tth = (ao- a,)AT;
Bo + Bi L
A -

Fig. 28.35 Shear stresses near outer edges of butt ax = T / t ; &* =T,/t (28.14)
tensile test.
 Adhesive joints 639
h

where a,, a, are thermal expansion coefficients
and AT is the temperature change.
Note that is related to the resultants (axial
adherend stress times thickness) at the ends of
the joint as shown in Fig. 28.36. The shear
stresses are then given by:
In the absence of thermal effects ( Tth = 0) and
assuming that Bi 1 Bo, the maximum value of
the shear stresses occurs at the right end of the
joint as noted earlier (Fig. 28.31). With thermal
effects present, the situation is complicated by
the sign of &* which is positive if (a, - a,)and

Zb =/35
[ ~
1 coshp(x - I)/: AT have the same sign and negative otherwise.
The peel stresses in the double lap joint are
+pB sinhBl/t described by a beam-on-elastic foundation

**--
type differential equation of the form:
d40 ?d
b + 4 - 0 =-f- dzb (28.18a)
- coshp(Z - x ) / t ] dP t4 2 O dx

sinh pz /t
(28.15)
yd = (3x)
Ebto 114
(28.18b)

(A) DOUBLE STRAP JOINT The solution to eqn (28.18) depends on

whether a strap joint or a lap joint is consid-
2Tt 2t ered. The exact form of the solution contains
products of hyperbolic and trigonometric
functions but for the practical situation of
joints longer than one-or-two adherend thick-
nesses and B << yd, are given by:
Double lap joint,
1*’
1 (E) WUBLE LAP JOINT

Fig. 28.36 Symmetric double strap/double lap

joints. Double strap joint,
For the usual situation in which the overlap is
long enough so that p l / t is greater than about
3, the peak shear stresses at the ends of the
joint are given by: (28.19)
For the case of identical adherends, the maxi-
x = 0; Zb, = B(& 5,- &&
mum peel stresses, which occur at x = 0, are
given by:
Ob)max = ‘b)max yd (28.20)

and for the special case of equal adherend stiff- ‘b)-x = P ax/2 - p
nesses (Bi = Bo) we have: (identical adherends)
Here z ~is taken
) ~to be~ the peak stress at the
Bi = BJp, = 1);
left end of the joint, corresponding to the
expression for x = 0 in eqn (28.16), since the
1 out-of-plane normal stresses are compressive
‘b)-x = T p ax “* (28*17) at the other end of the joint for a tensile load.
640 Mechanicalfastening and adhesive bonding

For compressive loading, the situation would

reverse for the double lap joint (Fig. 28.36(b)),
Quarter Plane Symmetry
with the positive out-of-plane stresses occur-
ring at the right end of the joint ( x = l), in the
case of the double snap joint (Fig. 28.27(a)),the t /t b t
peak out-of-plane stresses would be compres-
sive at the left end of the joint and would not
occur at x = 1, since the inner adherends butt
against each other there and act as a continu-
ous element. t p-' I 4
Effects of thermally induced stresses will be
discussed in a later section. Figure 28.37 com-
pares the peel and shear stress distributions 2.00 3

i
for 8, = 0, in a typical joint having balanced
adherend stiffnesses (the sum of the outer
adherend stiffnesses equal to the inner
adherend stiffness) whose parameters are
listed in Fig. 28.37(b). The diagram at the top
indicates the origin of x at the left end of the
overlap. The distribution of peel stresses is
~x-,-,,A-
somewhat more concentrated near the ends 0.00. : : : : : :
0.00 0.200.400.60 0.801 .OO 1.20 1.40 1.601.80 2.00
than that of the shear stresses and the peel
(a) X-
stresses at the right end of the joint are nega-
tive. In addition, the compressive peak at the
right end is half as great for the strap joint as
for the lap joint, which is the result of the
restraint of bending rotations in the strap joint m v)

for a gap which is essentially zero. If the load- g o v)

ing were compressive rather than tensile, the
%-0.5 X-
inner adherends would bear directly on each
other and no shear or peel stress peak would Double strap joint
occur at the gap, whereas in the lap joint the
-1.5
right end of the overlap would experience the
same peak stresses for compressive loading as (b)
the left end does for tensile loading. Fig. 28.37 Bond stresses in double lap/strap joints;
The situation for the single lap joint (Fig. (a) bond shear stress distribution; (b) bond peel
28.38) is complicated by the effects of lateral stress distribution.
deflection which are indicated in Fig. 28.39.
Literature for the following discussion on the The effects of lateral deflections on the bond
single lap joint is given53,51,7*78. stresses were first evaluated by
The deflection effect is dependent on the Goland-ReissnerZ7 for the case of equal
joint load, given in terms of the quantity adherend thicknesses, so that tu and t, can be
LIl/2(8)1/2tu,where denoted by t in the following. The lateral

LI = tud( c){( E 12%); D, = EEutA

1
deflections can then be stated in terms of a
(28.21) dimensionless ratio, k, with respect to the
adherend thickness, and are of the following
form:
 Adhesive joints 641

- I --
E

wL"
DI PLACEMENTS

Fig. 28.38 Single lap joint geometry.

effects. The most accurate expression (given in

Ref. 74) is fairly elaborate and will not be
repeated here; an expression of intermediate
accuracygiven in Ref. 74 retains the essential
form of the GR result but gives considerable
improvement over the GR expression for thin
adherends:
tanhLUo
k = (28.23a)
Fig. 28.39 Effects of bending deflections in single tanhLUo+ d8C,tanh(LU/2Cp)
lap joints. where
t" = t, = t;

U/.IS(X - L M ]
l o ~ x < l + l o ;=
w w,sinh[
sinh[Ulfl8t]
+ -tu
---
t
+ tb x ; W, = -(1 - k)
2 2 L 2
The Goland and Reissner (GR) expression for
the parameter k has been re-examined by
Hart-Smith%and more recently by Oplinger",
based on the discussion in Ref. 74, the
Goland-Reissner expression appears to pro-
vide adequate accuracy unless the adherends
are excessively thin,not more that one or two
times the bond layer thickness, in which case
the expressions given in Refs. 73, 74 and pro-
vide corrections for bond layer thickness
The original GR expression for k is recovered if
Cpis set equal to 1corresponding to tu >> t, (i.e.
relatively thick adherends) and tanh LUo is like-
(28.22) wise set to 1 corresponding to very long outer
adherend lengths. A plot of k against the
adherend loading stress is is given in Fig. 28.40
for two different values of adherend thickness
corresponding to bond thickness-to-adherend
thickness ratios (p, in eqn (28.23b)) of 0.5 and
0.1. This plot suggests that k is fairly constant at
a value of about 0.25 for a wide range of
applied stress values once the initial drop has
occurred. The effect of bond-to-adherend thick-
ness ratio is not particularly great and can
perhaps be ignored for the most part.
642 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

a9

ae

a7

I 0.6

* a5
0.4

a3

0.2

ai
0

Fig. 28.40 k parameter vs. adherend loading stress.

The lateral deflections of the joint have a x-lo-l

significant influence on the stresses in the + ucos y,
bond layer, which show this through the pres-
ence of the k parameter in expressions for x - lo
them. The shear stress is given by:

Zb = 0, B(l + 3k) cash [@(x - L ) / t ]

cos y , t - sin y
"-")
, t

I4 sinh @A/) x - lo lo - x

+ mu('
3
k, - 'Osh iu(' - ')/.lst1
sinh ( d / 2 & ) where y, = (6 Ebt/Extb)1/4 (28.26)
where B and U are given in eqns (28.14) and
(28.21). Equation 28.24, which represents a The maximum stresses in the bond layer are
slight modification of the GR expression, given by:
reduces to the latter for small values of LIl/t. In Maximum bond shear stress,
addition, the peel stresses, for joints in which
the overlap length is more than one or two zb)- = 0;
adherend thicknesses (essentiallythe only case
of practical interest) are given by

ab =a,-
- b
-
L
s (28.25)
+ mU(l - k)/tanh ($)I (28.27)

Maximum bond peel stress,

lo+l-x lo+l-x
B ([YS(COS Y, t + sin y, t 1

Figure 28.41 gives a comparison of the maxi-
mum bond stresses as functions of the loading
stress ax for two different adherend thick-
nesses in a joint with a bond layer thickness of
0.01. It is interesting to note that the peel and
shear stresses take on quite similar values.
Since the maximum peel stress varies approx-
imately as y i according to eqn (28.27) (the
contribution of U being relatively minor), the
relationship for ys given in eqn (28.26) sug-
gests that the peel stresses should be expected
to vary as (t/tb)1/2, while the same variation is
seen from eqn (28.27) for the maximum shear
stresses since p also contains (t/t,)'/* as a fac-
tor. Thus both stresses should vary with the
thickness ratio by the same factor. The fact that
they are numerically close together for all
stresses is partly due to the effect of other
parameters that enter into eqns (28.27) and
(28.28) and partly due to the fact that k does
not vary much with load for axgreater than 5.
A slight nonlinearity can be observed in the
curves of Fig. 28.41 for the lower loading
stresses.
Figure 28.42 gives a comparison of maxi-
mum bond stresses in single and double lap
joints for a fixed value of the loading stress ax.
For loading stresses above this value the bond
&=looOO, Gb=150,%=SO0
'4 I M.02; (52,
12
4
E "
si3
lo
0 10 20
Fig. 28.41 Maximum bond stresses in single lap joint, bond thickness = 0.01.
Adhesive joints 643
stresses vary essentially in proportion to the
load even in the single lap joint, as just dis-
cussed. The stresses are plotted in this figure
as a function of adherend thickness with the
adherend axial modulus as a parameter. The
trend toward higher bond stresses and there-
fore a greater tendency toward bond failure
with increasing adherend thickness which was
discussed in Section 28.4.2 is clearly borne out
in these curves. Note also that reduction of the
adherend modulus tends to aggravate the
bond stresses. In addition it is apparent that
there is considerable separation between the
peel and shear stresses in the case of the dou-
ble lap joint, the peel stresses for the latter case
being smaller. This reflects the fact that the
peel stresses vary linearly as yd defined in eqn
(28.18b) and therefore vary as (t/tb)1/4 rather
than as (t/tb)l/*as in the single lap case. Thus,
peel stresses for double lap joints are not as
much of a factor in joint failure as they are in
single lap joints, although they are still large
enough relative to the shear stresses that they
can not be ignored.
Failure characteristics of single and double
lap joints will be discussed below. If the
adherends are thin enough, failure in double
lap joints should be in the form of adherend
g=10
/
-
=* - 30 40
644 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

Single Lap Joint Double Lap Joint

peel strau Shear Stress

4 -
Ex = 10,OOO
3.5 -.
Ex = 5,wO
3-
2.5 -
2-
-------

'
1.5 -
O
-0

1
0.5
Ex I20,oOo

-
0
0'5 0.08 0.1 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
AdherendThickness AdherendThickness +

CTx= 10 Gb= 150 E,= 500

l,,= 50 1 = 10

Fig. 28.42 Maximum bond stresses in single and double lap joints, fixed vx = 10.

axial (tensile or compressive) failure. For sin-
gle lap joints, adherend bending stresses are
significant at the ends of the overlap as indi-
cated in Fig. 28.39; using standard beam
formulas, the maximum axial stress for com-
bined bending and stretching (the latter stress
corresponding to the single lap joint in tension
loading) for the bending deflection given in
eqn (28.22) can be expressed as
- length, but in this case the stresses reach mini-
QJrnax
= OX3(1+ t,/t)k
The maximum adherend axial stress is
largest for adherends which are particularly
thin with respect to the bond thickness; these
will be prone to brittle bending failures for
composite adherends or to yielding associated
with bending for metal adherends. Hart-Smith
discusses difficulties with the use of standard
single lap shear test specimens50.The problem
is that adherent bending failures are likely to
occur with such specimens rather than bond
failures and test results obtained in such cases
tend to be irrelevant and misleading.
One additional characteristic difference
between single and double lap joints should
be discussed. The effect of lateral deflections
on single lap joint performance is quite long
range. Figure 28.43 shows that for a joint with
an adherend thickness of 2.54 mm (0.1 in) the
bond stresses do not reduce to their minimum
values until the overlap length reaches a value
in the range of 10-12.7 cm (4-5 in), for a load-
ing stress of 69 MPa (10 ksi). Double lap joints
also require some minimum length before
stresses settle out as a function of overlap
(28.29) mum values with respect to overlap length for
lengths on the order of 5 to 10 adherend thick-
nesses, in the present case amounting to
1.3-2.5 cm (0.5-1 in).
28.4.3.4.2 Effects of adherend tapering
In this section we will consider joints with
adherend thicknesses which vary along the
joint length. These include the configurations
shown in Figs. 28.44 and 28.45, namely, double
strap joints with tapered outer adherends and
scarf joints as well as step lap joints. As dis-
cussed in Section 28.4.2.2, tapering the outer
adherends of strap joints as in Fig. 28.44(a) is
beneficial mainly for reducing or eliminating
 Adhesive joints 645

m 1.6
t m e w 0.7 -
Signmba--lO
1 .'
Gb--160 Eb--500 Er--S.OOO
0.5 ..
-
tb- 0.01 M call-
~ ht@h -- 20

Fig. 28.43 Effects of overlap length in single lap joints.

(A) PARTIALLY TAPERED STRAP JOINT Qf-

I am i nat e meta 1
I
I
Triangular Elewnt
Fig. 28.45 Generic step lap joint.

I +B * (E) SCARF JOIN1

I I
Bond
Fig. 28.44 Tapered double strap and scarf joints.
peel stresses, while scarf and step lap joints
(Figs. 28.44@), 28.45) can eliminate shear stress
peaks as well as peel stresses.
With both tapered outer adherends and
scarf joints, it can be shown that the bond
stresses can be related to the ratio of taper
length to thickness by
zb= axt/Z ;ab=axt 2 / P
This relationship is quite accurate for scarf
joints having the same maximum stiffness
(axial modulus times maximum thickness) in
each adherend. For tapered portions of strap
joints it is fairly accurate for the peel stresses,
and holds approximately for the shear stresses
if the tapered portion is not too long. Note that
eqn (28.30) implies that the bond stresses are
constant along the length of the joint and can be
reduced to any arbitrary level by making t/Z
small enough, i.e. making the joint long enough
with respect to the adherend thickness.
Moreover, the effect of t/Z on the peel
stresses is quite strong, being governed by the
square of the thickness-to-length ratio. This is
especially important in the case of outer
adherend tapering in strap and lap joints as a
means of reducing peel stresses to a manage-
(28.30)
able level.
Step lap joints (Fig. 28.45) represent a com-
promise version of the scarf joint which can
646 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
take advantage of the layered structure of the
composite adherend. The average slope of the
region represented by the line through the
steps in Fig. 28.45 tends to control the average
shear stresses developed in the bond. Within
each horizontal section, equivalent to the tread
of a staircase, the behavior is analogous to a
joint with constant adherend thickness, and
the differential equation given in eqn (28.10)
(Section 28.4.3.2)applies locally when tu and tL
are adjusted to match the local situation. An
expression similar to eqn (28.12), i.e. for thejth
step,
PB
+-
gives the maximum shear stresses within each
step, and the overall solution is a chain of such
expressions with allowance for continuity of
the shear strain and resultants, Tuj and TLjat
the points where neighboring steps join. In
each step of the joint the shear stresses will
have a distribution similar to that of Fig. 28.36,
the size of the peaks being governed primarily
by the length of the step through the parame-
ter P.Z./t.The aspect ratio for the step, Zj/t,
can
11
in prmciple be kept small enough to almost
completely avoid any peaking by using a large
number of steps and keeping the length of
each one small. In practice, the number of
steps is governed by the number of plies in the
laminate. In addition, if the joint is used to
connect a composite adherend to a metal com-
ponent, machining tolerance requirements
and cost considerations for the metal part
enter into the selection of the number of steps.
The following discussion will address the
specific benefits of adherend tapering in
tapered double strap joints, scarf joints and
step lap joints. The overall approach is to aim
for a highly efficient joint which reduces the
effects of shear and peel stress concentrations
at the ends of the joint. Ideally we would like
to achieve the joint strength provided by the 'P
over A' concept obtained with the case dis-
cussed in Section 28.4.3.2 for perfectly rigid
adherends (Fig. 28.27), in which increasing the
joint length indefinitely brings the shear stress
in the bond down to any required level regard-
less of the magnitude of load being supported
by the joint. While tapering does reduce the
peel stresses markedly in the tapered strap
joint as will be seen below, shear stress peaks
can not be avoided, and the law of diminish-
ing returns continues to prevail with regard to
increasing the joint length to obtain greater
load capacity; however, adhesive ductility will
enhance the strength beyond what elastic
analysis suggests.
Double strap joints with tapered outer
adherends are considered in Figs. 28.46 to
28.48. Figure 28.46 indicates the tapered con-
figurations that are considered. Figure 28.47
gives some shear stress predictions for joints
with uniform adherend thickness for compari-
son with the tapered cases which are
considered in Fig. 28.48.
Figure 28.46 defines the notation used in
Fig. 28.45 in terms of 'fully tapered' outer
adherends (Fig. 28.46(a)), partially tapered
adherends in which the taper extends only
part of the length of the joint (Fig. 28.46@))and
fully tapered adherends with an 'initial rise',
i.e. in which the thin end of the adherend does
not come to zero thickness. (The term '% initial
rise' implies that the rise is expressed as a per-
centage of the maximum adherend thickness.)
The three cases considered in Fig. 28.48 can
be compared with the case for uniform
adherends with equal upper and lower
adherends modulus (E, = EL)in Fig. 28.47. For
the situation of no initial rise, two cases are
considered in Fig 28.48, the case of 50% taper
and that of full taper. There is an appreciable
difference in the shear stress distribution at the
 Adhesive joints 647

(A) F u l l y tapered - - no i n i t i a l r i s e left end of the joint for these two cases, but the
peel stress distribution is essentially unaf-
fected. For both the full taper and 50% taper
cases, a minor tensile secondary peel stress
peak is present at the right end of the region
under consideration (near the midpoint of the
strap joint). The peel stress expression in eqn
(28.30) gives a good estimate of the peel stress
level at the left end of the joint, and the result
of the estimate is so small for both cases that
the difference is not distinguishable in Fig.
28.48. However, in the case of an initial rise of
(@ 5G% tapered j o i n t only 1 / 4 of the maximum outer adherend
thickness (25% initial rise), significant peel
---I 1.0 I.c I
stresses arise at the left end of the joint, in fact,
---- I
about 80% of the level occurring for the case of
no tapering. The initial rise also causes a
greater increase in shear stress at the left end
of the joint than in the case of 50% taper. Thus,
tapering is advantageous mainly as a way of
(C] F u l l taper - - 25% i n i t i a l r i s e
eliminating the effects of peel stresses in dou-
ble strap joints. Once this is accomplished, the
/ 0.05 initial rise
effects of peel stress peaks can be controlled to
a significant extent by taking advantage of
adhesive ductility. Tapered strap joints can not
\'T achieve the ideal behavior which is possible
with scarf or step lap joints, but they provide a
simpler solution to good joint performance if

-==E==- I
the adherends are thin enough.
Shear stress distributions in scarf joints (Fig.
28.49) are given in Fig. 28.50. Practical scarf
Fig. 28.46 Tapered strap joints under consideration.

Shear strws - - Uniform Adhemd l h l c k m u

eT
:I
:I

0 0.2 0.4 b.r 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1d 1.8 2

Fig. 28.47 Shear stresses in unta-
X
pered strap joints.
648 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
5 T
(A) Shear stresb
Fig. 28.48 Stresses in tapered double strap joints.
joints are arranged in a symmetric double lap
configuration which avoids bending effects.
Figure 28.49 represents a balanced stiffness
design for dissimilar materials, by achieving a
continuous thickness change over the length
of the joint. The most important parameter for
- -
/
0.2, 0.4
TI, E.16 ffii QI graphite epoxy
E.8 msi
Fig. 28.49 Stiffness-balanced scarf joint configura-
tion.
- - Double Strap Tapered Adherends
the scarf joint is the effect of adherend stiffness
unbalance ( E , # Ei; ’0’ and ‘i’ refer to the outer
and inner adherends as in Fig. 28.36). The
results given in Fig. 28.50 represent the effect
of varying degrees of stiffness unbalance. The
ratio of peak-to-average shear stresses com-
pare well with the values given by
Hart-Smith37,although the latter did not give
--Es
the distribution of stresses along the length of
the joint. For fairly sizeable unbalances, up to
4:1, the maximum shear stress peak is not as
great as that observed in Fig. 28.47 for the uni-
form adherend case. However, it is clear that a
stiffness unbalance will increase the shear
stress peak and weaken the joint. For the equal
stiffness case the shear stress is constant and
equal to the average stress at all points.

EU = 8,000 tu = n = .2
G b = l 6 0 Eb-600 t b = O . O l
-
Sigma x = 10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Fig. 28.50 Shear stresses in scarf joints.
If there is no reason why the joint cannot be
configured as in Fig. 28.49 for dissimilar mate-
rials so as to take advantage of the benefits of
the balanced stiffness case, then in principle,
the scarf joint provides a near ideal solution to
achieving as much load capacity as is required
in any situation without overstressing the
bond layer. However, the dimensions of the
joint may grow too large to be practical for
high joint load. In addition, an extremely good
fit, for example, to tolerances on the order of
the bond thickness over large lengths, has to
be maintained to ensure that the joint can
maintain uniform load capacity over its
length. Thermal stresses will also be a factor in
various combinations of dissimilar materials
which will prevent the ideal form of behavior
from being achieved. In terms of the Hart-
Smith approach to avoiding creep failure
under slow cyclic loading, the balanced scarf
joint is at a disadvantage in not providing a
shear stress minimum. For this situation the
allowed load would have to be limited to pre-
vent environmental conditions corresponding
to hot wet exposures; thus the advantage of
the scarf joint in eliminating stress peaks
Adhesive joints 649
EL I EU = 4
2
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
X
might be lost if performance in hot wet envi-
ronments is required.
Step lap joints798oare treated in Figs. 28.51
to 28.53. Figure 28.51 shows a generic joint
configuration that is introduced to illustrate
some of the effects of design parameters on
stresses in the joint. The results presented in
Figs. 28.52 and 28.53 were generated for this
discussion using a linear elastic response
model for the adhesive; in practice, consider-
able strength capability of the adhesive is
unused if elastic response of the adhesive is
assumed; Fig. 28.54 taken from the discussion
by Hart-Smithsois an example of joint design
using elastic-plastic response for the adhesive.
The elastic adhesive model used in Figs. 28.52
and 28.53 is adequate for illustrate some of the
controlling parameters on joint design. These
results are based on the classical Volkersen-
type analysis with provision for resultant and
shear strain continuity at the interfaces
between neighboring steps, as discussed pre-
viously. The 5-step design in Fig. 28.52 and the
10-step design in Fig. 28.53 were chosen with
the following characteristics:
650 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

I I / / V I

Quasi-Isotropic Carbon @OXY,

Fig. 28.51 Step lap joint
E =8nsi
X configuration.
Except for the first and last steps, the As discussed above, the joint design shown in
adherend thickness was equal for each step. Fig. 28.5437represents a practical joint design
The first and last thickness increments were which accounts for several considerations that
half those of the generic steps. the simplified elastic analysis approach used
The lengths of each step were chosen with-a for Figs. 28.52 and 28.53 neglects. The neglect
fixed value of the parameter qs, = pirj/fj, of ductility effects has already been men-
where lj is the length of step j . tioned. In addition, the use of as large a
The half-incremented end steps gave a more
uniform shear stress distribution than main-
taining the same increment for all steps. The
symmetric joint configuration shown in Figs.
28.51 and 28.54, the thickness increment for
the outer adherend (composite) was greater
than that for the inner adherend by the inverse
of the modulus ratio, to achieve the desired
stiffness balance for the dissimilar adherends.
The parameter ETA listed in Figs. 28.52 and
28.53 is equivalent to qs, defined above. This
parameter essentially controls the length of the
joint; both Figs. 28.52 and 28.53 show an
increase in joint length with qsl ('ETA' in the
two figures). Note further that the load capac-
ity of the joint in terms of the allowed
resultant, 5, listed as "BAR in Figs. 28.52 and
28.53, which provides for the required bond
shear stress limitation of 5 (ksi for the units
mentioned earlier) shows a general increase
with joint length, but with diminishing
increase when vsl gets much beyond 3. Table
28.1 gives a summary of the results shown in
the two figures. Fig. 28.52 Shear stresses in 5-stepjoint.
 Adhesive joints 651

presented by Corvelli and Saleme79;this was

later enhanced by Hart-%~ith~~, under NASA
funding, to provide for elastic-plastic
response, culminating in the A4EG and A4EI
programs-, to allow for variations in thick-
ness, porosity, flaw content and moisture
content in the bond layer. Hart-SmithsoI8lnotes
that in mathematical treatments of step joints,
all properties have to be constant within each
step; however, in an actual joint such as that
shown in Fig. 28.54, artificial breaks may be
inserted to permit changes in porosity of bond
thickness.

28.4.4 MECHANICAL PERFORMANCE OF

ADHESIVES

28.4.4.1 Ductile response of adhesives

C L : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
0 uyaa1mkL11unuuur
I dependence and strain rate dependence of the
Fig. 28.53 Shear stresses in 10-step joint.
number of steps as 10 in Fig. 28.53 may not be
practical. The joint design shown in Fig. 28.54
represents the evolution of steplap joint design
over many years. Early analytical work was
Table 28.1 Summary of step lap joint results (Figs. 28.52 and 28.53)
Figure 28.55 taken from the 1983 edition of the
DoD/NASA Advanced Composites Design
Guides1 show shear stress-strain response
characteristics of typical aerostructural adhe-
sives. Figure 28.55(a) represents a relatively
ductile film adhesive, FM73, under various
environmental conditions, while Fig. 28.55@)
represents a more brittle adhesive (FM400)
under the same conditions. Similar curves can
be found in other sources62. Temperature
stress-strain characteristics are important
characteristics; these are also addressed in the
results shown in Ref. 62. Even for the less duc-
tile material such as that represented in Fig.
28.55@),ductility has a pronounced influence
on mechanical response of bonded joints, and
design only for elastic response deprives the

No. of steps 10 10 10 5 5
V7sl 1 2 3 3 6
Joint length, cm 4.44 8.89 13.33 6.05 12.5
(in) (1.75) (3.5) (5.25) (2.47) (4.93)
Allowed resultant, kN/cm 12.03 18.78 22.05 12.35 13.43
(103 lb/in) (6.87) (10.72) (12.59) (7.05) (7.67)
652 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

3
2

- 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6I 1 2 3 4 6 6

Fig. 28.54 Practical step lap joint designs0.

( A ) FM78 NON P O R O U S

0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1 .z f.4

S h e s r 8 traln

6o LT = -55 d q C
46 RT = Room Temp
H T M = 60 degC1100%RH
$
-aa
I:2 16 I$ F m o o ~ a m u r b m d
5 10
6
0
o om om 001 om ai a12 0.14
Mr-

Fig. 28.55 Typical stress-strain characteristics of aerospace adhesivess1.

 Adhesive joints 653

application of a significant amount of avail- zp, which can be obtained by solving for zp
able structural capability. from eqn (28.32), leading to
The work of H a r t - S ~ n i t h
emphasized
~~~ the
importance of ductile adhesive response and 'p = Gb$max - d[(GbOYmax)2 - 2GboSEl
introduced the relationship between the strain
energy to failure of the adhesive and the load (28.33)
capacity of the joint. As a means of simplifying Hart-Smith has also used an equivalent
the stress analysis of the joint in the presence bilinear representation in which the horizontal
of ductile adhesive response, Hart-Smith part of the curve is set equal to zmax,the maxi-
showed that any bilinear stress-strain curve mum shear stress of the actual stress-strain
which has the same ultimate shear strain and curve, and the initial modulus Gboadjusted to
maximum strain energy as that of the actual give the strain energy match, using the expres-
stress-strain curve will produce the same total sion:
load in the joint. Figure 28.5681gives an exam-
ple of the method for fitting a bilinear curve to Gbo = 'ma:('maxYmax - /2 (28'34)
the actual stress-strain curve of the adhesive which is also obtained from eqn (28.32) when
in shear. With the strain energy of the adhesive rmax is substituted for zp. In either case the use
given by of a bilinear representation of the stress-strain
SE = rJmax- zp2/2Gb0 (28.32) curve for the response of the adhesive in shear
makes it straightforward to obtain one dimen-
where GbO! yma, and SE are the initial modulus sional stress distributions in various types of
of the stress-strain curve, the maximum strain joint geometry with adhesive ductility
and the strain energy of the adhesive at ymaX accounted for; solutions are given for single
respectively, then the equivalent bilinear curve and double lap joints with uniform and
consists of an initial straight line of slope Gbo tapered adherends, as well as more sophisti-
together with a horizontal part at an abscissa cated joint designs such as scarf and step lap

Fig. 28.56 Elastic-perfectly plastic adhesive response model (Fh473)*'.

654 Mechanicalfastening and adhesive bonding

geometries ( H a r t - S ~ n i t h ~These
~ ~ ) . have sub-
sequently been incorporated in the 'A4Ex'
series of computer programs- mentioned
previously.
Figure 28.57 (see notation of Fig. 28.36)
shows an example of the use of the bilinear
stressstrain curve approximation, in this case
for predicting the stresses in a symmetrical
double lap joint with equal adherend stiff-
nesses (i.e. Eo = Ei; to = fi/2). Figure 28.57(a)
gives the distribution of upper adherend axial
stress resultant while Fig. 28.57@) gives the
shear stress distribution in the bond layer. The
linear portions at the ends of the resultant dis-
tribution in Fig. 28.57(a)correspond to the ends
of the shear stress distribution in Fig. 28.57@)

4.5 (A) Upper adherend resultant distribution

f 4 ( 1 k-lblln = l.762 kNlom)

Axial load 310 MPa (46 ksl)

0
0 0.6 1 1.I 2
K

le

(6)Shear stress distribution

(1 ksi= 6.896 MPa)

Axial k a d 310 MPa (45 ksi)

0.5 --
o i I
0 0.c z 1.Q 2

Fig. 28.57 Stress distributions in double lap joint - ductile adhesive response.

where the shear stress is a constant because of
the plateau in the bilinear representation of the
stress-strain curve, in agreement with the equi-
librium relation given in eqn (28.6). Following
the analysis developed by Hart-Smith, the
lengths of the plastic zones designated in Fig.
28.57(b) as Ip are given by
lp = (aX/2zp- l/pbd)to;p,, = [2Gbflto/EotbI’/*
(28.35)
Here p,, (subscript ’bd’ denoting balanced
double lap) is equivalent to p given in eqn
(28.14) when the latter is specified for the case
of equal-stiffness adherends, while 5, is the
nominal loading stress at either end of the
overlap. The expression for Ip given in eqn
(28.33)is valid only if greater than 0, of course, The Hart-Smith analysis based on the equiva-
negative values of plastic zone length not hav-
ing any meaning. Thus if /33,/2 < zp, no plastic
zone is present and the behavior of the joint
can be considered to be purely elastic. The
maximum value of 5, for this case can be
expressed by inverting the shear stress expres-
sion in eqn (28.17) with oth= 0, for the case of
equal adherend stiffnesses and setting zb)max to is determined, the same types of solution
zp. For the case of pax/2 2 zp which corre-
sponds to ductile response of the adhesive (the
plateau of the bilinear stress-strain curve), the stress distributions, together with linear resul-
Hart-Smith analysis35provides the required
expression for 0, The two cases are summa-
rized as follows:
< zp (elastic response):
pbdSX/2
‘x)max = 2zp/pbd E (28.36a)
PbdCx/22 zp (ductile response):
(28.36b)
If y, = zp/GbO,which is the maximum strain
in the elastic part of the bilinear representation,
Adhesive joints 655
then eqns (28.36a, b) give the same value. The
factor (2GbOymax/zp- 1)1/2in eqn (28.36b)acts as
a load enhancement factor and represents the
increase of joint load capacity due to ductile
adhesive response over the maximum load
allowed by elastic response of the adhesive.
Note that eqn (28.36b) can be rearranged to
express 5x)ma,in terms of the maximum strain
energy of the adhesive:
where ye = zp/Gb, (28.37)
then eqn (28.3613)can be written:
2
-
= p’(2Gb()SE) (28.38)
lent bilinear stress-strain law was shown in
Ref. 35 to give the same joint load capacity as
the solution for the problem using the actual
stress-strain curve of the adhesive. The conve-
nience of the bilinear stress-strain description
is in the simplicity of the solutions it allows;
once the length of the plastic zone at each end
apply for the elastic zone as were given in eqns
(28.9) and (28.10) for the resultant and shear
tant and constant shear stress distributions in
the plastic zones.
The most obvious effect of ductility in the
adhesive behavior is the reduction of peak
shear stresses. In addition, there is a beneficial
effect on reduction of peel stresses. For the
double lap joint considered in Fig. 28.57, the
maximum peel stresses denoted by ob),ax
which occur at the ends of the joint, are given39
by:
Ob)max = Fb)max ; (28.39)
(
y = 3- i’” ;
E, = peel modulus of adhesive
656 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

where z ~ is )the ~maximum~ ~ shear stress, leads to high shear and peel stresses at the
either /?OX/2 for the elastic case or zp for the ends of the joint, and may inhibit desirable
case of ductile response. The maximum peel flow characteristics of the adhesive. On the
stresses are thus reduced by the same ratio as other hand, thick bond lines tend to generate
the maximum shear stresses in the case of duc- porosity which weakens the bond. Data pre-
tile response of the adhesive. sented in Ref. 83 show a fairly persistent
Even though ductile response of the adhe- tendency for lap shear strength to drop off
sive provides additional load capacity of the somewhat as the bond thickness is increased
joint over what is provided by purely elastic above 0.12 mm (0.005 in).
response, it is advisable to keep the load In addition to effects of bond thickness per
capacity of the joint low enough to ensure se, Hart-Smith60 discusses the effect of bond
purely elastic response for most practical situ- thinning at the ends of the joint which is
ations where time-varying loading is caused by resin flow during curing. Figure
encountered. Some damage to the adhesive 28.58 illustrates the tendency toward bond
probably occurs in the ductile regime which thinning at joint edges together with some
would degrade the long-term response. The manufacturing techniques for avoiding the sit-
main benefit of ductile behavior is to provide uation. Loss of bond thickness may cause
increased capacity for peak loads and damage considerable elevation of shear and peel
tolerance with regard to flaws - voids, poros- stresses in the bond. In addition to the
ity and the like - in the adhesive layer. In approaches shown in Fig. 28.58, tapering of
addition, calculations of the plastic zone the adherends near the ends will help to alle-
length play a part in the avoidance of creep viate the situation; tapering from the inside
failures which can constitute a major consider- surface of the adherend will also provide a
ation for slow cyclic loading in hot wet local thickening of the bond line to compen-
environments. sate for thinning due to resin loss.
Effects of porosity in the bond layer are
illustrated in Fig. 28.59(j1which compares the
response of FM73 for porous and non porous
28.4.4.2 Effects of bond layer defects
bond layers for various environmental condi-
Defects in adhesive joints include surface tions. The data6' indicate that porosity is
preparation deficiencies leading to low mainly a characteristic of thickness of the bond
strength interfaces between the adhesive and layer. There is some loss of structural capabil-
adherends, voids and porosity, and lack of ity in the presence of porosity in the bond, but
bond thickness control. Surface preparation there may still be adequate strength for the
effects were discussed in Section 28.4.2.6 and bond to function as required if the joint is
will be treated in considerable detail in designed adequately. Since porosity is associ-
Chapter 29. However, it should be kept in ated with thickened regions of the bond which
mind that adhesive joints will not succeed in tend to occur away from the edges, porosity
providing dependable performance if good tends to be confined to the interior of the joint
surface preparation procedures are not main- where the stresses are relatively small, and
tained. may not be objectionable in many cases. The
Bond layer thicknesses of 0.12-0.25 mm main focus in Ref. 61 is the effect of adherend
(0.005-0.010 in) are typical of structural thickness with regard to damage tolerance in
bonded joints. There appears to be a tradeoff the presence of bond layer defects. The issue
between negative effects which occur when has to do with the design principle discussed
the bond is too thin and those occurring for in Section 28.4.2.1 of keeping adherend thick-
too thick bond layers. Thinness in bond layers nesses within limits which ensure that the
 Adhesive joints 657

4. NIIOIQFfCERVVACVUWMQ

Fig. 28.58 Manufacturing techniques to relieve bond pinch-off 51,

60

2
50 I rLT /Stress VQ. Strain -- FM731
I 40
Y
67
67

E5 30
20
LT -
-
- -55dqC
RT -room temp.
H/w - - 60 degC/lOo% rh
5 10
2.
o $ I

0 0.5 1 1.5 2
S h e a r Strain

Fig. 28.59 Effect of porosity on adhesive stress-strain characteristicss1x : porous; : non porous bond layers.

adherends fail rather than the bond. Ductile tJc,which ensures adherend failure can be
response of the adhesive has an important expressed by restating eqn (8) of Ref. 52 as fol-
influence on the situation. By making use of lows:
eqn (28.36b) above, together with the defini-
tion of p,, given in eqn (28.35), the adherend -
thickness limit for a double lap joint,
658 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

which is equivalent to: damage, while tests conducted at one cycle per
hour produced failures within a few hundred
t, = 4 {Maxadhesive strain energy]/ cycles. On the other hand, specimens repre-
{Maxadherend (elastic) strain energy] (28.41)
sentative of structural joints which have the
Hart-Smith states that for to not greater than characteristic shear stress trough seen in Figs.
to),, given in eqn (28.40),joint performance will 28.37 and 28.57 are able to sustain hot wet con-
be relatively insensitive to bond flaws pro- ditions even at low cycling rates if the length
vided there is adequate ductility in the of the elastic region (Ie in Fig. 28.57) is long
adhesive response. Problems may arise with enough. Based on experience of the PABST
high temperature adhesives such as the FM program, the Hart-Smith criterion for avoid-
400 considered in Fig. 28.55(b), since these ance of creep failure requires that t,),, be no
tend to have limited ductility. As indicated in greater than t p / l O . But the stress analysis for
eqn (28.36b), limited ultimate strain capability the elastic-plastic case using the bilinear adhe-
(y,,,) will reduce margin of ultimate strength sive response model leads to an expression for
over elastic response of the joint. the minimum shear stress equivalent to eqn
(28.12)with 2 replaced by Ze:
28.4.4.3 Durability of bonded joints
,
I
'
-

- P (28.42)
*b)& sinh PbdZe/2fo
Two major considerations in the joint design
philosophy of Hart-Smith are: (1)either limit- do,, - see eqn (28.35)).Since sinh (3) = 10, this
ing the adherend thickness or making use of amounts to a requirement that PbdZe/2tobe at
more sophisticated joint configurations, such least 3, i.e. that the elastic zone length be
as scarf and step lap joints, to ensure that determined by Ze 2 6to/Pbd.Since le is equiva-
adherend failure takes precedence over bond lent to the total overlap length, 1, minus the
failure; (2) designing to minimize peel stresses, sum of the plastic zone lengths, i.e. 21, then
P
either by keeping the adherends excessively making use of the expression for ZP m eqn
thin or, for intermediate adherend thicknesses, (28.33), the criterion for elastic zone length
by tapering the adherend. In addition, it is reduces to a criterion for total overlap length
essential that good surface treatment practices corresponding to a lower bound on 1 which
be maintained to ensure that the bond can be stated as
between the adhesive and adherends does not - 4
fail. When these conditions are met, reliable
performance of the joint can be expected for (
1 2 -+-to
pbd ) (28.43)

the most part, except for environmental
extremes, i.e. hot wet conditions. The Hart-
Smith approach focuses primarily on creep
failure associated with slow cyclic loading (i.e.
one cycle in several minutes to an hour) under
hot wet conditions, this corresponds, for
example, to cyclic pressurization of aircraft
fuselages. In the PABST program4143,18 test
specimens used for characterizing adhesives
(so-called 'thick adherend' specimens) which
are designed to produce essentially uniform
shear stress along the bond were tested at high
cycling rates (30 Hz) and were able to sustain
more than 10 million loading cycles without
Equation 28.43 for the joint overlap length is
the heart of the Hart-Smith approach to dura-
bility of bonded joints for cases where
adherend failure is ensured over bond failure
for static loading and in which peel stresses are
eliminated from the joint design. This type of
requirement has been used in several contexts.
For example60,it becomes part of the require-
ment for acceptable void volume in the bond
layer, since in t h s case the voids, acting essen-
tially as gaps in the bond layer, reduce the
effective length of the overlap. The criterion
has to be modified numerically for joints other
than symmetric double lap joints with equal

stiffness adherends and uniform thickness. For
more sophisticatedjoint configurations such as
step lap joints, the A4EI computer code pro-
vides for a step length requirement equivalent
to that of eqn (28.43) for simple double lap
joints.
In addition to creep failures under hot-wet
conditions, the joint may fail due to cracking
in the bond layer. Johnson and Mall7*pre-
sented the data in Fig. 28.60 which shows the
effect of adherend taper angle on development
of cracks at ends of test specimens consisting
of composite plates with bonded composite
doublers, at lo6 cycles of fatigue loading; here
the open symbols represent the highest load
levels at which cracks fail to appear while the
solid symbols are for slightly higher loads at
which cracks just begin to appear. It is noted
that even for outer adherend taper angles as
low as 10” (left-most experimental points in
Fig. 28.60) for which peel stresses are essen-
tially nonexistent for static loading, crack
initiation was observed when the alternating
load was raised to a sufficient level. A number
of factors need to be clarified before the impli-
cations of these results are clear. In particular it
is of interest to establish the occurrence of
bond cracking at shorter cycling times, say less
than 3 x lo5 cycles corresponding to expected
lifetimes of aircraft. Effects of cycling rate and
environmental exposure are also of interest.
Nevertheless, the data presented in Ref. 65
FM-XII
D NO MBOND
APPLIED
CYCLIC PREDlClED
S I A E S S , IM
~ 5 MPa
,
,,.*
--
0 M
TAPER ANGLE. 0.
60
deg
Po
Fig. 28.60 Crack development in bonds of tapered
composite doublers at lo6loading cycles7*.
Adhesive joints 659
suggest the need for consideration of crack
growth phenomena in bonded composite
joints. Indeed, a major part of the technical
effort that has been conducted on the subject
of durability of adhesive joints6”” has been
based on the application of fracture mechanics
based concepts. The issue of whether or not a
fracture mechanics approach is valid needs
further examination.Apparently, no crack-like
failures occurred in the PABST program,
which was a metal bonding program, even
when brittle adhesives were examined at low
temperatures. The amount of effort which has
been expended by a number of respected
workers on development of energy release
rate calculations for bonded joints certainly
suggests that there is some justification for
that approach, and the results obtained by
Johnson and Mall appear to substantiate their
need for composite joints in particular.
28.4.5 MECHANICAL BEHAVIOR OF
COMPOSITE ADHERENDS
28.4.5.1 Joint failure characteristics
Typical failure modes in structural joints are
illustrated in Fig. 28.61 which are indicative of
adherend rather than bond failures. In the case
of single lap joints (Fig. 28.61(a))bending fail-
ures of the adherends will occur because of
high moments at the ends of the overlap. For
metal adherends, bending failures take the
form of plastic bending and hinge formation,
MBOND while for composite adherends the bending
failures are brittle in nature. In the case of dou-
ble lap joints, peel stresses build up for thicker
adherends causing the types of interlaminar
failures in the adherends illustrated in Fig.
28.61(b).
28.4.5.2 Thermal stress effects
Thermal stresses are a concern in joints with
adherends having dissimilar thermal expan-
sion coefficients. Figure 28.62 illustrates the
660 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

A. c

A 0. AND C INDICATE FAUURh I - E

(B) Double Lap hints

Fig. 28.61 Failure modes in composite adherends49,

50.

E; = E, 68.97GPa (10000 ksi); G,

= 1.04 GPa (150 ksi); f1/2 = f, =
2.54 mm (0.1 in); fb = 0.254 mm
(0.01 in); a, = 23.4 x lo4 "C-'(13 x
1O4 OF-'); a. = 1.8x 1O4"C (1 x
10-6°F-1
).
Cure temperature 121.1"C
(250°F);
Application temperature 23.9%
(75°F)
Loading stress 68.97MPa
(10 ksi).

Fig. 28.62 Thermal shear stresses in double lap joints: outer adherend 0 / 9 0 carbon epoxy; inner adherend
aluminum.
 Adhesive joints 661

effect of thermal stresses in a double lap joint
consisting of an aluminum inner adherend
and a 0/90° carbon epoxy outer adherend. The
stresses due to thermal mismatch between the
aluminum and composite arise if the cure tem-
perature of the bond is substantially different
from the temperature at which the joint is
used. The case considered here represents a
121°C (250°F) cure temperature for the adhe-
sive and a room temperature application, a
temperature difference of -79°C (-175"F),
which (see Tables 28.2 and 28.3) would result in
a strain difference of 0.002 between the alu-
minum and composite if no bond were present.
(The material combination considered here,
aluminum and carbon epoxy, represents the
greatest extreme in terms of thermal mismatch
between materials normally encountered in
joints in composite structures.) Thermal
stresses in bond layers of double lap joints can
be determined from the expressions given in
eqns (28.14-28.20). (These calculations are all
based on an assumed elastic response of the
adhesive.)
Hart-Smith3"39 provides corrections for
ductile response in the presence of thermal
effects. Figure 28.62 illustrates how the ther-
mal stresses combine with the stresses due to
structural load to determine the actual stress
distribution in the adhesive. The thermal
stresses in themselves develop an appreciable
fraction of the ultimate stress in the adhesive,
and although they oppose the stresses due to
structural loading at the left end, they add at
the right end and give a total shear stress that
is somewhat beyond the yield stress of typical
adhesives, even with as small a structural
loading stress as 69 MPa (10 ksi). Similar
effects occur with the peel stresses, although
the peel stresses due to thermal mismatch
alone have the same sign at both ends of the
joint; with a composite outer adherend the
thermally induced peel stresses are negative,
which is beneficial to joint performance.
Peak peel and shear stresses obtained from
these relationships for various combinations
of metal and composite adherends whose
properties are given in Tables 28.2 and 28.3 are
shown in Table 28.4. For joints with an alu-
minum inner adherend, the difference in
thermal expansion between the adherends is
relatively large, giving considerably higher
thermal stresses for the most part. In addition,
carbon epoxy has a particularly low thermal
expansion, which tends to produce higher
thermal stresses with carbon epoxy adherends
in combination with metals than do other
composites. Note that boron epoxy in combi-
nation with titanium gives particularly small
thermal stresses because of similarity of the
thermal expansion coefficients shown in
Tables 28.2 and 28.3 for these materials. As
Table 28.3 Generic metal properties (MIL-HDBK-5
1983)
Ti6-Al4-4V 1025 2014
Steel Aluminum
Young's 110.3 206.9 69.0
modulus,
GPa
Poisson 0.3 0.3 0.3
ratio
a, 10" OC-1 8.82 10.26 23.4

Table 28.2 Generic mechanical properties of composites (C.C. Chamis NASA Lewis Research Center,
NASA TM-86909,1985)

Unidirectional lamina 0/90 Laminate

Composite E,, GPa E , GPa vLT aL,10-6 "C-' aT,1 P OC-l E x GPa ax1 k6O C - I
Boron epoxy 201 20.1 0.17 11.7 30.4 113.8 8.6
S-glass epoxy 60.7 24.8 0.23 3.78 16.7 43.72 7.92
Carbon epoxy 137.9 6.90 0.25 0.72 29.5 72.6 2.34
662 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

Table 28.4 Bond layer thermal stress in double lap joints (0/90 composite outer adhered, metal inner
adherend)

Boron epoxy Glass epoxy Carbon epoxy

-
Titanium
Shear stress, MPa 0.419 2.33 15.64
(ksi) 0.061 0.338 2.27
Peel stress, MPa -0.465 -3.73 -19.43
(ksi) -0.067 -0.541 -2.817
Steel
Shear stress, MPa 5.44 7.99 26.22
(ksi) 0.789 1.16 3.80
Peel stress, MPa -6.30 -15.0 -38.1
(ksi) -0.914 -2.17 -5.52
Aluminium
Shear stress, MPa 27.7 28.2 40.47
(ksi) 4.02 4.08 5.86
Peel stress, MPa -24.4 40.1 -44.6
(ksi) -3.54 -5.82 -6.47
t, = 5.08 mm (0.2 in); to adjusted for equal adherend stiffnesses;t, = 0.253 nun (0.1 in). Adhesive properties: shear mod-
ulus, 1.03 GPa (150 ksi); peel modulus, 3.49 GPa (500 ksi). Give temperature, 121°C (250°F).Application temperature,
24°C (75°F).

discussed earlier, the 'peel' stresses shown in tion for metal adherends which are relatively
Table 28.4 are all negative (i.e. compressive) stiff with respect to transverse shear deforma-
because of the location of the composite on the tion, but for polymer matrix composite
outside of the joint, although the shear stresses adherends which have low transverse shear
are unaffected by this aspect of the joint. moduli, transverse shear deformations are
Composite repair patches on aluminum air- more significant and can have an important
craft structures benefit from this type of influence on bond layer shear stresses. A use-
behavior, in that peel stresses are not a prob- ful correction to the classical Volkersen
lem for temperatures below the cure solution which allows for transverse shear
temperature. Placing the metal rather than the deformations in the adherends can be
composite on the outside of a double lap joint obtained by modifying the shear modulus of
would reverse the signs of the peel stresses the adhesive from its actual value, Gb, to an
making them tensile and aggravating the effective value, Gb)eff,given by
effects of differential thermal expansion of the
adherends. (28.44)

28.4.5.3 Transverse shear and stacking

sequence effects in composite adherends
Classical analyses such as the Volkersen shear
lag model for shear stresses in the bond layer
(Sections 28.4.3.3 and 28.4.3.4.1) are based on
the assumption that the only significant defor-
mations in the adherends are axial, and that
they are uniformly distributed through the
adherend thicknesses. This is a good assump-
where Ksh = 1 +
Here GUo and Gxzi are the transverse shear
moduli of the adherends. For the double lap
joint, the parameter /?appearing in eqn (28.14)
(see the third equation of the top row of eqn
(28.14)) is then modified by replacing Gb by
Gb/K,,, using the value for Ksh given in eqn
(28.44), and all the expressions in eqns

(28.15-20) for stresses in the bond layer are
modified by the resulting alteration of p. The
correction given here amounts to treating 1/ 3
the thickness of each adherend as an extension
of the bond layer, and assigning the shear stiff-
ness of the adherend for that part of the
effective bond layer. The factor 1/3 corre-
sponds to a linear distribution of shear stress
through the adherend thicknesses, which is
consistent with the assumption that the axial
deformations are approximately uniform
through the adherend thickness.
As an example, consider joint with a 0/90
carbon epoxy outer adherend joined to an alu-
minum inner adherend, with adherend
thicknesses of 2.53 mm (0.1 in) and 5.06 mm
(0.2 in), respectively, and a 0.253 mm (0.01 in)
bond thickness. Assume a shear modulus of
the bond layer of 1.06 GPa (150 ksi) and trans-
verse shear moduli of 4.82 GPa (700 ksi) for the
composite adherend and 26.5 GPa (3800 ksi)
for the aluminum. A value of 1.839 is then
obtained for Ksh, and the value of p and the
maximum shear and peel stresses which
depend on it are reduced by a factor of (Ksh)1/2
or 1.36 for this case. The shear and peel
stresses are therefore approximately 30%
lower than the values predicted with the
unmodified bond shear modulus. This type of
correction can be shown to give relatively
good predictions of the adhesive stresses in
comparison with finite element analyses. In 11. Lenoe, E., Oplinger, D.W. and Burke, J,J.,
addition, the departure of Ksh given in eqn
(28.44) from 1 gives a good indication of the
range of joint parameters for which adherend
shear deformations are important.
REFERENCES
1. Waszczak, J.P. and Cruse, T.A., A synthesis proce-
dure of mechanically fastened joints in advanced
materialsJ Air Force
Laboratory Report AFML-TR-73-145 (1973).
2. Oplinger, D.W. and Gandhi, K.R., Stresses in
mechanically fastened orthotropic laminates. In
Proc. Zst Con5 Fibrous Composites in Flight Vehicle
Design, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory
Report AFFDL-TR-74-103 (1974).
References 663
3. Oplinger, D.W. and Gandhi, K.R., Analytical
studies of structural performance in mechani-
cally fastened fiber-reinforced plates. In Proc.
A r m y Solid Mechanics Conf. 1974, Army
Materials and Mechanics Research Center
Manuscript Report AMMRC MS 74-8 (1974).
4. Garbo, S.P., Ogonowski, J.M. and Reiling, H.E.,
Jr, Effect of variances and manufacturing tolerances
on the design strength and life of mechanically fas-
tened composite joints. v2 Air Force Wright
Aeronautical Laboratories Report AFWAL-TR-
81-3041 (1981).
5. Hyer, M.W. and Klang, E.C., Contact stresses in
pin-loaded orthotropic plates, Virginia Tech Center
for Composite Materials and Structures Report
CCMS-84-02 (1984).
6. Ramkumar, R.L., Saether, E.S. and Appa, K.,
Strength analysis of laminated and metallic plates
bolted together by many fasteners, Air Force Flight
Dynamics Laboratory Report AFWAL-TR-86-
3034 (1986).
7. Madenci, E. and Illeri, L., Analytical determina-
tion of contact stresses in mechanically fastened
composite laminates with finite boundaries.
Intern. J. Solids Sfructures 30, pp. 2469-2484
(1993).
8. Crews, J.H. and Naik, R.A., Combined bearing
and bypass loading on a graphite/epoxy lami-
nate. Composite Structures, 6, pp. 2148 (1986).
9. Hart-Smith, L.J., Mechanically-fastened joints
for advanced composites - phenomenological
considerations and simple analyses. In Fibrous
Composites in Structural Design. New York:
Plenum Press (1980)pp. 543-574.
10. Petersen, R.L., Stress Concentration Factors. New
York: John Wiley and Sons (1974)p. 135.
Fibrous Composites in Structural Design. In
Proc. 4 f h Con& Fibrous Composites in Structural
Design, New York: Plenum Press (1980).
12. Oplinger, D.W., On the Structural Behavior of
Mechanically Fastened Joints in Composite
Structures. In Fibrous Composites in Structural
Design, New York Plenum Press (1980) pp.
575-602.
13. Nelson, W.D., Bunin, B.L. and Hart-Smith, L.J.,
Critical Joints in Large Composite Aircraft
Structure. In pyoc. 6th Con$ Fibrous Composites in
Structural Design, Army Materials and
Mechanics Research Center Report
AMMRC MS 83-2 (1983), pp. u-2to II-38.
14. whitney, J.M. and Nuismer, R., stress fracture
criteria for composites containing
664 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding

stress concentrations. J. Composite Materials, 8, (1944).

pp. 253-265d (1974). 28. Kutscha, D. and Hofer, K., Feasibility of joining
15. Garbo, S.P. and Ogonowski, J.M., Efect of vari- advanced composite Fight vehicle structures, Air
ances and manufacturing tolerances on the design Force Materials Laboratory Report AFML-TR-
strength and life of mechanically fastened composite 68-391 (1968).
joints, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory 29. Dickson, J.N., Hsu, T.N. and McSkinney, J.N.,
Report AFFDL-TR-78- 179 (1978). Development of an understanding of the fatigue phe-
16. Chang, EK. and Hung, Chang-Li, Response of nomena of bonded and bolted joints in advanced
double shear-lap bolted composite joints under mul- filamentary composite materials. Vol. 1, Analysis
tiple bypass loads. Standford University Dept. of Methods, Lockheed Georgia Aircraft Company,
Aeronautics and Astronautics Report, Doctoral USAF Contract Report AFFDL-TR 72-64, vol I
dissertation of Chang-Li Hung. (1993). (June 1972).
17. Garbo, S.P., Efjrects of bearingbypass load interac- 30. Grimes, G.C., Wah, T. et al., The development of
tion on laminate strength, Air Force Flight non-linear analysis methods for bonded joints in
Dynamics Laboratory Report AFWAL-TR-81- advanced filamentary composite structures, South-
3114 (1981). West Research Institute, USAF Contract Report
18. Naik, R.A. and Crews, J.H., Jr., Ply-level failure AFML-TR-72-97 (September 1972).
analysis of a graphitelepoxy laminate under bear- 31. Renton, W.J., The analysis and design of composite
ing/bypass loading, NASA Technical materials bonded joints under static and fatigue
Memorandum 100578 (1988). loadings, PhD Thesis, University of Delaware
19. Hart-Smith, L.J., Design methodology for bonded- (1973).
bolted composite joints. v l Air Force Wright 32. Renton, W.J. and Vinson, J.R., The analysis and
Aeronautical Laboratories Report AFWAL-TR- design of composite materials bonded joints under
81-3154 (1982). static and fatigue loadings, Air Force Office of
20. Ramkumar, R.L., Saether, E. and Cheng, D., Scientific Research Report TR-73-1627 (1973).
Design guide for bolted joint in composite struc- 33. Oplinger, D.W,. Stress analysis of composite
tures, Air Force Wright Aeronautical joints. In Proc. 4th Army Materials Technology
Laboratories Report AFWAL-TR-88-3035 (1986). Con$, Newton, MA: Brook Hill Publishing Co.
21. Shivakumar, K.N. and Crews, J.H., Jr., Bolt (1975), pp. 405-451.
clamp-up relaxation in a graphitelepoxy laminate, 34. Hart-Smith, L.J., AFFDL-TR-72-130, pp.
NASA Technical Memorandum 83268 (1982). 813-856.
22. Slepetz, J.M, Oplinger, D.W. and Andrews, B. 35. Hart-Smith, L.J, Adhesive bonded double lap joints,
O., Bolt tension relaxation in composite friction NASA Langley Contractor Report, NASA CR-
joints. In Proc. 7th Con$ Fibrous Composites in 112235 (1973).
Structural Design, Wright Patterson 36. Hart-Smith, L.J., Adhesive bonded single lap joints,
Aeronautical Laboratories Report AFWAL-TR- NASA Langley Contractor Report, NASA CR-
85-3094 (1985). 112236 (1973).
23. Harris, H.G., qalvo, I. and Hooson, R.E., Stress 37. Hart-Smith, L.J., Adhesive bonded scarf and
agd deflection analysis of mechanically fastened stepped-lap joints, NASA Langley Contractor
joints, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Report, NASA CR-112237 (1973).
Report AFFDL-TR-70-49 (1970). 38. Hart-Smith, L.J., Analysis and design of advanced
24. Shyprykevich, P., Characterization of bolted joints composite bonded joints, NASA Langley
behavior, MIL-HDBK-17 Accomplishments at Contractor Report, NASA CR-2218 (1973).
Standardization ASTM J. Composite Technical 39. Hart-Smith, L.J., Advances in the analysis and
Research, 17(3),pp. 260-270 (1995). design of adhesive-bonded joints in composite
25. Military Handbook MIL-HDBK-17: Polymer aerospace structures. In SAMPE Process
Matrix Composites (1992). Engineering Series, 19, pp. 722-737 Asuza:
26. Volkersen, O., Die Nietkraftverteilung in SAMPE, (1974).
Zugbeanspruchten Nietverbindungen mit 40. Primary adhesively bonded structure (PABST) tech-
Konstanten Laschenquerschnitten. nology, Air Force Contract F33615-75-C-3016
Lufffahnforschung, 15, pp. 4-47 (1938). (1975).
27. Goland, M. and Reissner, E., Stresses in 41. Thrall, E.W., Primary adhesively bonded structure
cemented joints. J. Appl. Mech., 11, A17-27 technology (PABST) Phase 7 b: Preliminary Design,

Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory Report
AFFDL-1R-76-141 (1976).
42. Shannon, R. W. et al., Primary adhesively bonded
structure technology (PABST): General Material
Property Data, Air Force Flight Dynamics
Laboratory Report AFFDL-TR-77-101 (1977).
43. Land, K.L., Lennert, F.B. et a/., Prima ry adhesively
bonded structure technology (PABST): Tooling,
Fabrication and Quality Assurance Report, USAF
Technical Report AFFDL-TR-79.3154 (October,
1979).
44. Hart-Smith, L.J., Adhesive bond stresses and
strains at discontinuities and cracks in bonded
structures. Trans. J. Engng Mater. Tech., 100, pp.
128-144 (1978).
45. Hart-Smith, L.J., Differences between adhesive
behavior in test coupons and structural joints,
Douglas Aircraft Company Paper 7066.
Presented to ASTM Adhesives Committee D- 14
Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, 1981.
46. Hart-Smith, L.J., Design methodology for bonded-
bolted composite joints, Douglas Aircraft
Company, USAF Contract Report AfWAL-TR-
81-3154, Vol I and I1 (February 1982).
47. Thrall, E.W., Jr., Failures in adhesively bonded
Structures, AGARD-NATO Lecture Series No.
102, ‘Bonded Joints and Preparation for
Bonding’, Oslo, Norway and The Hague,
Netherlands, April 1979 and Dayton, Ohio,
October 1979.
48. Hart-Smith, L.J., Further developments in the
design and analysis of adhesive-bonded structural
joints, Douglas Aircraft Company Paper 6922.
Presented at the ASTM Symp. Joining of
Composite Materials, Minneapolis, MN, April
1980.
49. Hart-Smith, L.J., Adhesive bonding of aircraft pri-
mary structures, Douglas Aircraft Company
Paper 6979. Presented to SAE Aerospace
Congress and Exposition, Los Angeles,
California, October 1980.
50. Hart-Smith L.J., Stress analysis: a continuum
analysis approach. In Developments in Adhesives
- 2 (ed. A. J. Kinloch), London: Applied Science
Publishers, pp. 1-44(1981).
51. Hart-Smith, L.J. and Bunin, B.L., Selection of
taper angles for doublers, splices and thickness
transition in fibrous composite structures. In
Proc. 6th Conf. Fibrous Composites in Structural
Design, Army Materials and Mechanics
Research Center Manuscript Report AMMRC
MS 83-8 (1983).
52. Nelson, W.D., Bunin, B.L. and Hart-Smith, L.J.,
References 665
Critical joints in large composite aircraft struc-
ture. In Proc. 6th Conf. Fibrous Composites in
Structural Design, Army Materials and
Mechanics Research Center Manuscript Report
AMMRC MS 83-8 (1983).
53. Oplinger, D.W., A layered beam theory for single
lap joints, US Army Materials Technology
Laboratory Report MTL TR 91-23 (1991).
54. Oplinger, D.W., Effects of adherend deflections
on single lap joints. Int. J. Solids Structures, 31
(18), pp. 2565-2587 (1994).
55. Hart-Smith, L.J., Adhesively bonded joints in
fibrous composite structures, Douglas Aircraft
Paper 7740. Presented to the Intern. Symp.
Joining and Repair of Fibre-Reinforced Plastics,
Imperial College, London (1986).
56. Hart-Smith, L.J., Induced peel stresses in adhesive-
bonded joints, Douglas Aircraft Company,
Technical Report MDC-J9422A, August 1982.
(see also USAF Report AFWAL TR-82-4172,
(1982).)
57. Hart-Smith, L.J., Brown, D. and Wong, S.,
Surface preparations for ensuring that the glue will
stick in bonded composite structures, 10th
DoD/NASA/FAA Conf. Fibrous Composites in
Structural Design, Hilton Head Is, SC (1993).
58. Hart-Smith, L.J., Ochsner, W. and Radeckv, R.
L., Surface preparation of fibrous composites
for adhesive bonding or painting. Douglas
Service Magazine, 1, pp. 12-22 (first quarter
1984).
59. Hart-Smith, L.J., Ochsner, W. and Radecky, R.
L., Surface preparation of fibrous composites
for adhesive bonding or painting. Canadair
Service News, 2, pp. 2-8 (1985).
60. Hart-Smith, L.J., Effects of adhesive layer edge
thickness on strength of adhesive-bonded joints,
Quarterly Progress Report No. 3, Air Force
Contract F33615-80-C-5092 (1981).
61. Hart-Smith, L.J., Effects of flaws and porosity on
strength of adhesive-bonded joints, Quarterly
Progress Report No. 5, Air Force Contract
F33615-80-C-SO92 (1981).
62. Frazier, T.B. and Lajoie, A.D., Durability of adhe-
sive joints, Air Force Materials Laboratory
Report AFML TR-74-26, Bell Helicopter
Company (1974).
63. Becker, E.B. et al., Viscoelastic stress analysis
including moisture difision for adhesively bonded
joints, Air Force Materials Laboratory Report
AFWAL-TR-84-4057 (1984).
64. Jurf, R. and Vinson, J., Efects of moisture on the
static and viscoelastic shear properties of adhesive
666 Mechanical fastening and adhesive bonding
joints, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering Report MAE TR 257, University of
Delaware (1984).
65. Mostovoy, S., Ripling, E.J. and Bersch, C.F.,
Fracture toughness of adhesive joints. J.
Adhesion, 3, pp. 125-144. (1971).
66. DeVries, K.L., Williams, M.L. and Chang, M.D.,
Adhesive fracture of a lap shear joint.
Experimental Mechanics, 14, pp. 89-97 (1966).
67. Trantina, G.G., Fracture mechanics approach to
adhesive joints, University of Illinois Dept. of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Report
T&AM 350, Contract N00019-71-0323 (1971).
68. Trantina, G.G., Combined mode crack extension in
adhesive joints, University of Illinois Dept. of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Report
T&AM 350, Contract N00019-71-C-0323 (1971).
69. Keer, L.M., Stress analysis of bond layers. Trans.
ASME J. Appl. Mech. E., 41, pp. 79-83 (1974).
70. Knauss, J.F., Fatigue life prediction of bonded pri-
mary joints, NASA Contractor Report
NASACR-159049 (1979).
71. Wang, S.S. and Yau, J.F., Analysis of interface
cracks in adhesively bonded lap shear joints, NASA
Contractor Report NASA-CR- 165438 (1981).
72. Johnson, W.S. and Mall, S., A fracture mechanics
approach for designing adhesively bonded
joints. In Delaminafion and Debonding of
Materials, ASTM Special Technical Publication
STP 876, American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 189-199 (1985).
73. Tsai, M.Y. and Morton, J., On numerical and
analytical solutions to the single lap joint.
Intern. J. Solids and Structures (1994).
74. Benson, N.K., Influence of stress distribution on
strength of bonded joints. In Adhesion,
Fundamentals and Practice, New York: Gordon
and Breach, (1969), pp. 191-205.
75. Adams, R.D. and Wake, W.C., Structural
Adhesive Joints in Engineering, Amsterdam:
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers (1984).
76. Kuenzi, E. and Stevens, G., Determination of
mechanical properties of adhesives for use in the
design of bonded joints, Forest Products
Laboratory Note FPL-011 (1963).
77. Snedon, I., The distribution of stress in adhesive
joints. In Adhesion, (ed. D.D. Eeley), Ch. 9,
Oxford: Oxford University Press (1962).
78. Carpenter, W., Goland and Reissner were cor-
rect. J. Strain Analysis, 24(3), pp. 185-187 (1989).
79. Hart-Smith, L.J., Further developments in the
design and analysis of adhesive-bonded struc-
tural joints. In Joining of Composite Materials,
American Society for Testing of Materials
Special Technical Publication ASTM STP 749
(1981).
80. Hart-Smith, L.J., In Fiber Composite Analysis and
Design, Federal Aviation Administration
Technical Center Report DOT/FAA/CT-88/18,
Vol. 2, Ch. 3 (1988).
81. DoD/NASA Advanced Composites Design
Guide, 1983.