Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T05:42:45.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Design optimization of a CFRP–aluminum joint for a bioengineering application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2019

G. A. Pappas*
Affiliation:
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), LMAF, STI, Lausanne, CH-1015, Switzerland
J. Botsis
Affiliation:
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), LMAF, STI, Lausanne, CH-1015, Switzerland
*
Email address for correspondence: georgios.pappas@epfl.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lightweight design demands and complexity requirements of modern high-end structures in aerospace, automotive, sports and bioengineering can be successfully covered by a combination of fiber reinforced polymers (FRPs) with metallic components. Conventionally, mechanical locking is favored in integrating multi-material parts, avoiding bonded interfaces. The feasibility of a multi-material carbon FRP–aluminum structural component of a robotic exoskeleton, fabricated in a single step with the FRP directly cured on the aluminum domain, was investigated. To conduct the feasibility analysis, pertinent systematic FE modeling involving cohesive contact was employed to optimize the design, while strength and fracture testing were conducted to define the formed interfaces’ resistance. Sandblasting treatment was also investigated and compared with plain surfaces. The results show that the effect of residual stresses due to curing process governs the created joint’s durability. To reduce their effect, the local compliance of the multi-material components was altered by introducing a compliant layer along with modification of the aluminum domains’ local geometry in a manner that does not compromise the overall structural integrity. The interface stresses of the optimized geometry are a few times lower than the ones estimated for the initial design. The methodology adopted herein delivers some guidelines on treating such problems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1. (Left): Exoskeleton concept & loads at extreme case, adapted from www.relab.ethz.ch and varileg.ch. (Right): Hip–pelvis component advanced design; initial input.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Design optimization approach based on the design parameters. Functionality$^{\unicode[STIX]{x2460}}$ and service loads$^{\unicode[STIX]{x2461}}$ are set constraints.

Figure 2

Figure 3. FE results of cohesive contact stress profile: (i) Normal; negative is in tension, (ii) Shear Vertical, (iii) Shear Horizontal. (Top): Iteration 1a. (Bottom): Iteration 1b.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Iteration 2 with epoxy layer ∼0.4 mm.(Left): 3D CAD and micrograph of sectioned dummy/prototype part. (Right): FE results of cohesive contact stress profile: (i) Normal; negative is in tension, (ii) Shear Vertical, (iii) Shear Horizontal.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Iteration 2 with epoxy layer ∼0.4 mm: Damage localization based on a quadratic traction criterion.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Iteration 3: (Top): Modified geometry. (Bottom): FE results of cohesive contact stress profile: (i) Normal; negative is in tension, (ii) Shear Vertical, (iii) Shear Horizontal.

Figure 6

Figure 7. FE results of cohesive contact normal stress profile due to thermal shrinkage on the deformed state scaled by $\times$100.(Left): Continuous hollow section. (Right): Example with slots.

Figure 7

Figure 8. FE results of cohesive contact stress profile of the optimum geometry: (i) Normal; negative is in tension, (ii) Shear Vertical, (iii) Shear Horizontal.

Figure 8

Figure 9. (Left): Detail on area Ⓐ of Figure 8: 3D representation of the machined slots and the 3D printed plastic inserts. (Right): Equivalent 3D von Mises stress state color plot on the aluminum domain, with slots induced.

Figure 9

Figure 10. (Left): Microscopy and color map of the roughness obtained by the video microscope. (Right): Roughness profile measurements on two typical segments (SB and plain), with the mean lines indicated.

Figure 10

Figure 11. Typical conjugate fracture surfaces of mode I and II specimens: (Left): Sandblasted. (Right): Plain surfaces.

Figure 11

Figure 12. Mean experimental R-curves: (Left): Mode I. (Right): Mode II. A variation of up to 40% is observed for the plain-surface specimens, and 10% for the SB ones. These variations are not shown in the figure for better clarity.

Figure 12

Figure 13. DSL experiments: (Left): Photograph of a typical specimen and the released surfaces post failure. (Right): Stress separation; see text for details.

Figure 13

Figure 14. Stress state at the interface of the DSL specimen from FE model resolved for the state $\unicode[STIX]{x2460}$ indicated in Figure 13 (Right); see text for details.

Figure 14

Figure 15. (Left): Concept and boundary condition of the numerical model with a cylindrical multi-material domain case study. (Right): FE results of cohesive contact normal stress profile on a hypothetical cylindrical connection. Negative is in tension. The color spectrum is reversed for better clarity.