materials
Article
Three-Point Bending Properties of Hybrid Multi-Materials
Using Adhesive Bonding Dependent on Strength Difference
between Steel and Aluminum
Geonwoo Jeon , Dongwoog Ha, Yunmin Park and Changyeol Jeong *
Citation: Jeon, G.; Ha, D.; Park, Y.;
Jeong, C. Three-Point Bending
Properties of Hybrid Multi-Materials
Using Adhesive Bonding Dependent
on Strength Difference between Steel
and Aluminum. Materials 2022, 15,
3328. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma15093328
Academic Editor: Andrey Belyakov
Received: 30 March 2022
Accepted: 4 May 2022
Published: 6 May 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Materials 2022, 15, 3328. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15093328
Department of Nuclear and Energy System Engineering, Dongguk University, Dongdae-ro 123,
Gyeongju-si 38066, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea; wjsrjsdn9@gmail.com (G.J.); gkehddnr8612@naver.com (D.H.);
ssoowa12@naver.com (Y.P.)
* Correspondence: jcy@dongguk.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-54-770-2858
Abstract: The mechanical behaviors of two multi-materials, DP590 (steel sheet)–A356 (cast aluminum
alloy) and SS330 (steel sheet)–A5052 (aluminum sheet), were studied. A structural adhesive was used
for the joining of steel and aluminum at adhesion strengths of 10, 22, and 30 MPa. To demonstrate
that the three-point bending properties depend on the difference in strength between steel and
aluminum and adhesion strength, optical microscopy (OM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM),
and finite-element analysis (FEA) were performed. According to the results of the bending tests
on both multi-materials under the same stacking conditions, the flexural stress increased with the
improvement in the adhesion strength until interface separation or aluminum fracture. At the same
adhesion strength, the DP590 (lower)–A356 (upper) and SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower) configurations
exhibited a tendency to decrease in the sudden stress drop due to aluminum fracture and interface
separation. The bending results were analyzed through the FEA and the stress distribution as a
function of the stacking and adhesion strength was confirmed.
Keywords: steel; aluminum; multi-materials; adhesion; mechanical property; finite-element analysis
1. Introduction
Higher vehicle efficiencies are required to improve the fuel economy and reduce
emissions worldwide. In addition, the automobile industry has been confronted with
strengthened vehicle safety regulations [1,2]. The combination of two different materials to
satisfy the demands has attracted attention worldwide. Various joining methods for hybrid
multi-materials have been employed, such as welding [3,4], cladding [5,6], riveting [7,8],
and adhesive bonding [9–12]. The melting points of the two materials are different in the
commonly used welding, which causes material property loss [13,14]. The increase in
rivet strength is limited because rivets require an adequate ductility and high strength [15].
In addition, the method of mechanical fastening should consider the plasticity of the two
materials and is hindered by challenges such as stress concentration and the fastening
part cracking due to fastening pressure [16]. Structural adhesives have been used for
joining to compensate for the disadvantages of these joining techniques. Compared to
other joining methods, the adhesive bonding method has the following advantages [17–19].
First, the stress is evenly distributed throughout the adhesion surface to prevent stress
concentration. Second, chemical corrosion between steel and aluminum can be prevented.
Third, the adhesive bonding has an excellent fatigue resistance compared to those of
riveting or welding and excellent reductions in noise. Among the numerous types of
adhesives, structural adhesives are generally selected owing to their high strengths.
In the automotive industry, adhesives are already applied to structural units [20,21].
Studies on the improvements in adhesive strength and mechanical properties are being
performed to enhance crash properties. Extensive studies have been carried out to improve
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 2 of 17

the adhesion strength [9–12,22–24]. Several studies have been carried out on the mechanical
properties of multi-materials [25–27]. Alfano et al. [25] used two types of epoxy adhesives
and evaluated the fracture toughness of T-joints using different thicknesses of a cold-rolled
galvanized steel (FeP04). They reported that the adhesive thickness and steel thickness had
no significant effects on the adhesive fracture toughness. Azari et al. [26] studied the effects
of the mode ratio of load, adhesion thickness, substrate modulus, ejection fillet, and surface
roughness on the fatigue threshold and crack growth rate. They reported that the fatigue
crack initiation was insensitive to the detailed shape of the adhesive fillet. The effect of the
adhesive thickness on the fatigue behavior became more pronounced as the applied strain
energy release rate and crack growth rate increased. Loureiro et al. [27] studied the stiffness,
strength, impact, damping, and fatigue life based on different types of adhesives, such as
elastic, polyurethane, and epoxy, through single-lap joint and T-joint tests. They reported
that the epoxy adhesive has higher stiffness than the polyurethane in the single lap joint
test. Also, the stiffness of the T-joint with the polyurethane is much lower than that with the
epoxy. Maurel-Pantel et al. [28] evaluated the effect of adhesive thickness on mechanical
properties. Also, a parametric analysis was performed to define a new formula able to
describe the nonlinear response of the bonded connection in terms of vertical deflection
at varying adhesive properties. However, extensive studies on the bending properties
as a function of the stacking conditions and adhesion strength of multi-materials joined
with adhesives are lacking. Therefore, studies on the bending properties and fracture
behaviors of multi-materials are required to actively utilize joining using adhesives in the
automotive industry.
The aim of this study was to compare the mechanical properties of two types of multi-
materials joined with a structural adhesive. If only high-tensile steel is used, there is a
weight increase and energy absorption properties are deteriorated. Therefore, the use of
multiple materials and bonding methods are important. Bending properties are an impor-
tant standard for evaluating the resistance to impacts and fractures applied to transport
and vehicles. In addition, it is necessary to study the characteristics of the bonding of
the multi-materials related to the components of renewable energy systems, such as wind
power. For example, the blades of a wind turbine are bent due to the wind, and thus the
bending characteristics must be evaluated. A DP590 steel plate and A356 aluminum casting
alloy used as chassis parts were joined with a structural adhesive. DP590 is widely used
as a structural material for automobiles by combining high tensile strength and excellent
formability. In addition, A356 aluminum casting alloy is widely used in the automotive
industry due to its excellent corrosion resistance and mechanical properties. Three-point
bending tests were then carried out according to the adhesion strength. To compare the
bending properties dependent on the difference in strength between steel and aluminum,
SS330 steel plate and A5052 aluminum plates were joined and analyzed in terms of tensile
and bending properties. In addition, the fracture behaviors of the multi-materials were ana-
lyzed by optical microscopy (OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Furthermore,
a finite-element analysis (FEA) was performed to predict the distribution of stress and
bending properties depending on the adhesion strength and stacking conditions. The alu-
minum fracture and interface separation were analyzed depending on the displacement in
the three-point bending test.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Microstructures
Two types of steel, DP590 and SS330, and aluminum, A356 and A5052, were used.
Table 1 lists the chemical compositions of DP590 (ASTM A1088 standard), SS330 (ASTM
A36 standard), A356 (ASTM B26 standard), and A5052 (ASTM B209 standard). The three-
point bending test specimens were processed to a thickness of 1.8 mm for each DP590,
SS330, A356, and A5052 sheet.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18

Materials 2022, 15, 3328 3 of 17

A36 standard), A356 (ASTM B26 standard), and A5052 (ASTM B209 standard). The three-
point bending test specimens were processed to a thickness of 1.8 mm for each DP590,
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the (a) DP590 and SS330 steels and (b) A356 and A5052 aluminum
SS330, A356, and A5052 sheet.
alloys used in this study (wt%).
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the (a) DP590 and SS330 steels and (b) A356 and A5052
(a)
aluminum alloys used in this study (wt%).
Si C P Mn Fe
(a)
DP590 0.3 0.1 0.01 1 Rem
Si C P Mn Fe
SS330 0.02 0.04
DP590 0.02
0.3 0.1 0.9
0.01 1 Rem Rem
(b) SS330 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.9 Rem
Si Mg(b) Fe Zn Cu Ti Mn Cr Al
A356 7.0 0.4 0.15 0.1 Si Mg
0.2 Fe 0.2Zn Cu0.1 Ti Mn
- Cr RemAl
A356 7.0 0.4 0.15 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 - Rem
A5052 0.11 2.51 0.38 - 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.16 Rem
A5052 0.11 2.51 0.38 - 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.16 Rem

To
To understand
understand the the characteristics
characteristics of of the
the base
base metal,
metal, the
the microstructures
microstructures of DP590,
SS330,
SS330, A356, and A5052 were analyzed using OM (Nikon MA100, CFI60/CFI60-2
A356, and A5052 were analyzed using OM (Nikon MA100, CFI60/CFI60-2 system).
As
As shown in Figure 1a, the DP590 steel sheet microstructure consists of
shown in Figure 1a, the DP590 steel sheet microstructure consists of martensite
martensite mixed
mixed
with
with aa fine
fine ferrite
ferrite matrix
matrix andand has
has an
an average
average grain
grain size
size of
of approximately
approximately 99 µm. μm. SS330
SS330 is
is aa
general
general structural
structural steel,
steel, as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 1b.1b. The
The matrix
matrix consists
consists of
of ferrite
ferrite and
and pearlite
pearlite
with
with anan average
average grain
grain size
size of
of 15 μm. Figure
15 µm. Figure 1c 1c shows
shows the
the microstructure
microstructure of of the
the as-received
as-received
A356
A356 cast alloy. The A356 alloy is generally composed of an α-aluminum dendrite phase,
cast alloy. The A356 alloy is generally composed of an α-aluminum dendrite phase,
eutectic
eutectic Si,Si,precipitates,
precipitates, andandFe-based intermetallic
Fe-based compounds.
intermetallic The dendritic
compounds. arm spacing
The dendritic arm
of the A356
spacing of the alloy
A356 used inused
alloy this study
in this was
study approximately
was approximately34 µm.34 Figure
μm. Figure1d shows the
1d shows
microstructure of A5052, which is an Al–Mg aluminum alloy with
the microstructure of A5052, which is an Al–Mg aluminum alloy with a grain size of 53.9a grain size of 53.9 µm.
In
μm.addition, the white
In addition, part ispart
the white an Al matrix,
is an the gray
Al matrix, thepart
grayispart
Fe-rich particles,
is Fe-rich and the
particles, black
and the
part is a Mg 2 Si matrix.
black part is a Mg2Si matrix.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. OM
OM images
images of
of the
the microstructures
microstructuresof
of(a)
(a)DP590,
DP590,(b)
(b)SS330,
SS330,(c)
(c)A356,
A356,and
and(d)
(d)A5052.
A5052.

2.2. Adhesion Strength and Surface Roughness

The structural adhesives used in this study were 2216 B/A Gray and DP460 epoxy
adhesives (3M Science). The adhesion strengths of the two adhesives were evaluated using
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

2.2. Adhesion Strength and Surface Roughness

Materials 2022, 15, 3328 4 of 17
The structural adhesives used in this study were 2216 B/A Gray and DP460 epoxy
adhesives (3M Science). The adhesion strengths of the two adhesives were evaluated
using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1002 standard [29]. This
themethod
test American Society
covers for Testingofand
measurement theMaterials
apparent (ASTM) D1002 of
shear strength standard
adhesives [29].forThis test
metal
methodwhen
bonding coverstested
measurement of the apparent
under standard single lapshear
jointstrength
specimens of adhesives for metal
and specified bonding
preparation
when
and testtested under standard
conditions. The materialsingleused
lap joint specimens
to measure theand specified
adhesion preparation
strength was aand test
steel–
conditions. The material used to measure the adhesion strength
aluminum multi-material (DP590–A356 or SS330–A5052). The adhesion strength test was was a steel–aluminum
multi-material
performed more(DP590–A356
than 10 times for or SS330–A5052).
each conditionThe and adhesion strength
yielded values test22,
of 10, was
andperformed
30 MPa.
more than 10 times for each condition and yielded values
For the case of 10 MPa, the joint surface was uniformly polished in the lengthof 10, 22, and 30 MPa. For the
direction
case aofSiC
using 10 MPa,
paperthe joint
#2000 surface
(FEPA was uniformly
P-grade 2000) and polished
cured at 66 in °C
theforlength direction
2 h using a 2216 using
B/A a
SiC paper #2000 (FEPA P-grade 2000) and cured at 66 ◦ C for 2 h using a 2216 B/A Gray
Gray adhesive. In the case of 22 MPa, it was cured at 71 °C for 1.5 h using the DP460
adhesive. In the case of 22 MPa, it was cured ◦ C for 1.5 h using the DP460 adhesive
at 71 In
adhesive after polishing using a SiC paper #2000. the case of 30 MPa, the adhesion
after polishing
surface was ground using
in aa SiC paperperpendicular
direction #2000. In the case
to theoflength
30 MPa, the adhesion
using a mill file surface
and cured was
ground in a direction perpendicular to the length using a mill file and cured at 81 ◦ C for
at 81 °C for 8 h using the DP460 adhesive.
8 h Two
usingtypes
the DP460 adhesive.
of surface treatments, mill file and SiC paper #2000 treatments, were used
Two types of surface
for the specimen. The surface treatments,
treatments mill file andand
of DP590 SiCA356
paperwere
#2000 treatments,
also performed were used
using a
for the specimen. The surface treatments of DP590 and A356 were also performed using a
mill file and SiC paper #2000. The average arithmetic height, denoted as Ra, was measured
mill file and SiC paper #2000. The average arithmetic height, denoted as Ra, was measured
using a surface roughness measuring instrument (Mahr Metrology Perthometer PGK 120,
using a surface roughness measuring instrument (Mahr Metrology Perthometer PGK 120,
residual Rz values < 30 nm at a traversing speed of 0.1 mm/s). The roughness was
residual Rz values < 30 nm at a traversing speed of 0.1 mm/s). The roughness was measured
measured five times per specimen. The measurement standard was International
five times per specimen. The measurement standard was International Organization for
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 4287 [30].
Standardization (ISO) 4287 [30].
2.3.
2.3.Three-Point
Three-PointBending
BendingTest
Test
Figure
Figure 2 shows the shapeofofthe
2 shows the shape thebending
bendingtesttestspecimen
specimenaccording
accordingtotoASTMASTME290 [31].
E290 [31].
Bending
Bending specimens were manufactured into plate shapes with a width of 15 mm anda a
specimens were manufactured into plate shapes with a width of 15 mm and
length
lengthofof6060mm.mm.TheThenumber
numberofoftests
testswas
wastwotwototothree
threefor
forreliability.
reliability.TheThebending
bendingtest
test
was
was carried out at a displacement speed of 5 mm/min and stopped at a displacementofof
carried out at a displacement speed of 5 mm/min and stopped at a displacement
7.5
7.5mm.
mm.Figure
Figure3 3shows
showsa aschematic
schematicofofthe
thethree-point
three-pointbending
bendingtest.
test.After
Afterthethebending
bending
tests,
tests,the
thefracture
fracturebehaviors
behaviorswere
wereanalyzed
analyzedusing
usinga astereomicroscope
stereomicroscope(KEYENCE
(KEYENCEVHX- VHX-
1000, real-time image stitching up to 10,000 × 10,000 pixels) and SEM (JEOL
1000, real-time image stitching up to 10,000 × 10,000 pixels) and SEM (JEOL JSM-IT100, JSM-IT100,
5×–300,000×
5×–300,000magnifications).
× magnifications).

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

Shapeofofthe
Figure2.2.Shape
Figure thebending
bendingtest
testspecimen
specimen(ASTM
(ASTME290)
E290)[30].
[31].

Figure3.3.Structure
Figure Structureof
ofthe
thebending
bendingtest.
test.

2.4. FEA
The bending test were simulated by FEA using ABAQUS to confirm the stress
distribution according to the stacking configuration and adhesion strength. To verify the
validity of the analysis, the results of the bending test and FEA were compared.
The FEA was carried out using two-dimensional (2D) shell modeling to reduce the
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 5 of 17
Figure 3. Structure of the bending test.

2.4. FEA
2.4. FEA
The bending test were simulated by FEA using ABAQUS to confirm the stress
The bending test were simulated by FEA using ABAQUS to confirm the stress distri-
distribution according to the stacking configuration and adhesion strength. To verify the
bution according to the stacking configuration and adhesion strength. To verify the validity
validity of the analysis, the results of the bending test and FEA were compared.
of the analysis, the results of the bending test and FEA were compared.
The
The FEA
FEA was
was carried
carried out
out using
using two-dimensional
two-dimensional(2D) (2D)shell
shell modeling
modelingto toreduce
reduce thethe
analysis time. A CPS4R (four-node bilinear plane stress quadrilateral)
analysis time. A CPS4R (four-node bilinear plane stress quadrilateral) element was element was used
used to
to
setset
thethe plane
plane strain
strain conditions.
conditions. The number
The number of nodes
of nodes was 7026wasand
7026
theand the number
number of elements of
elements
was 3804was 3804material.
for each for each material. The mechanical
The mechanical propertiesproperties of eachused
of each material material used
in this in
study
this study are
are shown shown4.
in Figure inThe
Figure 4. Theratio
Poisson Poisson ratio
for all for all was
materials materials was 0.3.
0.3. Figure Figurethe
4 shows 4 shows
stress–
the stress–strain curves of each single material. The yield strength (YS), ultimate
strain curves of each single material. The yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength tensile
strength
(UTS), and(UTS), and elongation
elongation (EL) of each(EL) of each
single singleare
material material
listed inare listed
Table in Table
2. The 2. The
difference in
difference in UTS between DP590 and A356 was approximately
UTS between DP590 and A356 was approximately 400 MPa, while that between SS330 400 MPa, while that
between
and A5052 SS330
was and A5052
100 MPa. waswhich
A356, 100 MPa.
has aA356, which has
low ductility, a lowimmediately
fractured ductility, fractured
without
immediately
necking. A5052,without
whichnecking. A5052,
has a higher which than
ductility has athat
higher ductility
of A356, thanwith
fractured that extension
of A356,
fractured with extension after necking.
after necking.

Figure
Figure4.4.Stress–strain
Stress–straincurves
curvesof
ofthe
thesingle
single(a)
(a)DP590,
DP590,(b)
(b)A356,
A356, (c)
(c) SS330,
SS330, and
and (d)
(d) A5052.
A5052.

Table
Table 2.
2. YS,
YS, UTS,
UTS, and
and EL
EL of
of each
each single
single material.
material.
YS
YS(MPa)
(MPa) UTS
UTS(MPa)
(MPa) EL
EL(%)
(%)
DP590 374 632 29.8
DP590 374 632 29.8
SS330 275 356 48.9
SS330 275 356 48.9
A356 131 240 16.8
A5052 176 252 21.8

The bending pin was modeled as an analytic ridge. Hard contact was set for normal be-
havior at the interface between the pin and the multi-material to assign the zero-penetration
condition. The contact between the interface of the steel and aluminum exhibited cohesive
behaviors at 10 and 30 MPa. Also, to define the cohesive behavior of adhesive strengths
of 10 and 30 MPa, the traction-separation behavior was assumed as the stiffness coeffi-
cients for each adhesive strength. The cohesive behavior values corresponding to adhesive
 behavior at the interface between the pin and the multi-material to assign the zero-
penetration condition. The contact between the interface of the steel and aluminum
exhibited cohesive behaviors at 10 and 30 MPa. Also, to define the cohesive behavior of
adhesive strengths of 10 and 30 MPa, the traction-separation behavior was assumed as the
stiffness coefficients for each adhesive strength. The cohesive behavior values
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 6 of 17
corresponding to adhesive strengths of 10 and 30 MPa were used by deriving similar
values from the experimental results. In addition, the extended finite-element method was
applied to determine the failure behavior of A356 where the fracture occurred. Maximum
strengths
principal of 10(MAXPS)
stress and 30 MPaandwere used byprincipal
maximum derivingstrain
similar(MAXPE)
values from theused
were experimental
for the
results. In addition,
damage modeling of A356. the extended finite-element method was applied to determine the
failure behavior of A356 where the fracture occurred. Maximum principal stress (MAXPS)
3. and maximum
Results principal strain (MAXPE) were used for the damage modeling of A356.
and discussion
3.1.
3.Surface
ResultsRoughness
and Discussion
3.1.As a result
Surface of the adhesion strength of each of the multi-materials, the average value
Roughness
of the adhesion
As a result strength was measured
of the adhesion strength equally.
of eachToofimprove the adhesionthe
the multi-materials, strength
averagefrom value
22oftothe
30 MPa,
adhesion strength was measured equally. To improve the adhesion strengthand
the surface roughness of steel and aluminum, the curing temperature from
time were
22 to increased.
30 MPa, This indicated
the surface roughness that the adhesion
of steel area was
and aluminum, thewidened as the surface
curing temperature and
roughness
time were increased
increased. [32]. Theindicated
This adhesionthat strength is affected
the adhesion by was
area humidity,
widened andasthethecuring
surface
temperature
roughness and time were
increased increased
[32]. The adhesion to decrease
strength the humidity.
is affected This effectand
by humidity, leads
thetocuring
an
increase in adhesive strength. The surface roughness effect of the
temperature and time were increased to decrease the humidity. This effect leads to an adhesion area for steel
and aluminum
increase is presented
in adhesive as aThe
strength. parameter, Ra, in Figure
surface roughness 5 and
effect Table
of the 3. In the
adhesion areacase of
for steel
surface treatment with a bastard cut file, the Ra value was 0.93
and aluminum is presented as a parameter, Ra, in Figure 5 and Table 3. In the case ofμm for steel and 1.27 μm
forsurface
aluminum. Whenwith
treatment the asurface
bastard wascutpolished
file, the Ra with SiC was
value paper #2000,
0.93 µm for steel was
steel and0.02
1.27μm µm
andforaluminum
aluminum. was 0.11 the
When μm.surface
These wasresults were similar
polished with SiC to paper
those in othersteel
#2000, literature
was 0.02[33– µm
35].
andWhen the surface
aluminum was µm.
was 0.11 polished
Thesewith SiCwere
results papersimilar
#2000,tothe roughness
those in otherofliterature
cold working
[33–35].
mold
When toolthesteel SKD11
surface waswas 0.023 μm
polished with[33]SiC
and the roughness
paper #2000, theofroughness
an Al-Cu-Mg of coldalloy was
working
0.277
mold μmtool[34]. Hussein
steel SKD11 Zein
waset0.023
al. [35]
µmstated thatthe
[33] and theroughness
surface roughness value decreased
of an Al-Cu-Mg alloy was
as 0.277
the hardness
µm [34].increased.
Hussein Zein Ouretexperiment
al. [35] statedalsothat
showed similar
the surface results, asvalue
roughness aluminum
decreased has as
a the
higher roughness
hardness valueOur
increased. than steel. Variables
experiment for improving
also showed the adhesion
similar results, as aluminum strength
has a
higherthe
include roughness
surface value than steel.
roughness, typesVariables for improving
of adhesives, the adhesion
curing time, strength include
and temperature and
the surface
humidity, androughness,
systematictypes researchof adhesives,
is neededcuring time, on
depending andthese
temperature
variables.and humidity,
Also, it is
necessary to study the bending properties which allow for more diverse adhesive strength to
and systematic research is needed depending on these variables. Also, it is necessary
andstudy the bending
the type properties which allow for more diverse adhesive strength and the type
of base material.
of base material.

Figure 5. Surface
Figure roughnesses
5. Surface of of
roughnesses thethe
steel and
steel aluminum.
and aluminum.

Table 3. Surface roughness of steel and aluminum (the Ra values are shown in µm).

Steel Aluminum
Bastard cut file 0.93 1.27
SiC paper #2000 0.02 0.11

3.2. Bending Properties

Figure 6 and Table 4 show the results of the bending test on a single material prior to
the bending test on the multi-materials. In Figure 6, the flexure stress–displacement curve of
each single material shows that DP590, SS330, and A5052 were deformed without fracture
until the end of the test, whereas A356 was fractured at a displacement of 2 to 4 mm.
 3.2. Bending Properties
Figure 6 and Table 4 show the results of the bending test on a single material prior to
the bending test on the multi-materials. In Figure 6, the flexure stress–displacement curve
of each single material shows that DP590, SS330, and A5052 were deformed without
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 fracture until the end of the test, whereas A356 was fractured at a displacement of 2 7to
of 417
mm.

Figure
Figure6.6.Single-material flexural
Single-material stress–displacement
flexural curves
stress–displacement for (a)
curves forDP590, (b) A356,
(a) DP590, (c) SS330,
(b) A356, and
(c) SS330,
(d) A5052.
and (d) A5052.

Table 4. Bending test results of each single material.

Table 4. Bending test results of each single material.
Flexural
Flexural
Flexural StressStress
at at Flexural Displacement Flexural
Flexural Displacement
Maximum Displacement at
Maximum Load at Maximum Load (mm)
Load (MPa) at Fracture
Displacement (mm)
at
Maximum Load
DP590 1004(MPa) 7.5 Fracture (mm)
Not fractured
(mm)
SS330 523 7.5 Not fractured
DP590 1004 7.5 Not fractured
A356
SS330 386 523 2.87.5 4.3
Not fractured
A5052
A356 377 386 7.52.8 Not fractured
4.3
A5052 377 7.5 Not fractured
Two stacking structures were used for the bending test. The first was steel (upper)–
Two stacking
aluminum (lower),structures were
in which the used
steel wasfor the bendingwhile
compressed, test. the
Thealuminum
first was steel (upper)–
was tensioned.
aluminum (lower), in which the steel was compressed, while the
The second was steel (lower)–aluminum (upper), in which the steel was tensioned, whilealuminum was
tensioned.
the aluminumThe was
second was steelFigure
compressed. (lower)–aluminum (upper),results
7a shows the bending in whichof thethe steel was
DP590–A356
tensioned, while with
multi-materials the aluminum was compressed.
different adhesion strengthsFigure
in the 7a shows
steel the bending results
(upper)–aluminum of
(lower)
the DP590–A356while
configuration, multi-materials with different
Figure 7b shows adhesion
those in the strengths in the steel
steel (lower)–aluminum (upper)–
(upper) con-
aluminum
figuration. (lower) configuration,
In Figure 7, the suddenwhile
stressFigure
drop is7b shows those
considered to beinduetheto steel (lower)–
the aluminum
fracture or interface separation. The sudden stress drop exhibited a similar trend in a
previous study [36], where Kim et al. used copper/aluminum/copper cladding materials
and performed three-point bending tests. The bending test confirmed that the stress drop
section occurred because of the interface separation and fracture of copper and aluminum.
These phenomena are discussed in detail later by the OM images. In the bending test of the
DP590–A356 multi-material, a sudden stress drop was observed in the aluminum (upper)
configuration, except for the case of an adhesion strength of 30 MPa. In the steel (upper)
configuration, a stress drop was observed in all adhesion strength cases and a stress drop
occurred twice at 10 MPa. Figure 7c,d show the bending test results of the SS330–A5052
multi-material. A sudden stress drop was observed in the steel (upper) configuration at an
adhesion strength of 10 MPa and in all aluminum (upper) cases. As shown in Figure 7c,d,
at 10 MPa, the stress drop section appeared twice. The first stress drop section occurred as
the adhesive fractured, while the second section occurred as the interface separated.
 strength cases and a stress drop occurred twice at 10 MPa. Figure 7c,d show the bending
test results of the SS330–A5052 multi-material. A sudden stress drop was observed in the
steel (upper) configuration at an adhesion strength of 10 MPa and in all aluminum (upper)
cases. As shown in Figure 7c,d, at 10 MPa, the stress drop section appeared twice. The first
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 stress drop section occurred as the adhesive fractured, while the second section occurred
8 of 17
as the interface separated.

Flexuralstress–displacement
Figure 7.7. Flexural
Figure stress–displacementcurves
curvesofofboth
bothmulti-materials
multi-materialswith
withdifferent
different adhesion
adhesion
strengths:
strengths:(a)(a)DP590
DP590(upper)–A356
(upper)–A356(lower),
(lower),(b)
(b)DP590
DP590(lower)–A356
(lower)–A356(upper),
(upper),(c)
(c)SS330
SS330(upper)–
(upper)–
A5052
A5052(lower),
(lower),and
and(d)
(d)SS330
SS330(lower)–A5052
(lower)–A5052(upper).
(upper).

Theresults
The resultsofofthe
thebending
bendingtesttestat
atthe
thesame
samestacking
stackingconfiguration
configurationshowedshowedthatthatthethe
flexuralstresses
flexural stresses of
of both multi-materials
multi-materials increased
increasedwithwiththetheadhesion
adhesionstrength
strengthuntil
untilthethe
in-
terface separation
interface separationbecause the uniform
because deformation
the uniform of the multi-materials
deformation was maintained
of the multi-materials was
according toaccording
maintained the adhesion strength
to the adhesionincrease. In terms
strength of stress
increase. drop,of
In terms both multi-materials
stress drop, both
exhibited opposite bending properties according to the stacking. For
multi-materials exhibited opposite bending properties according to the stacking. For the the DP590–A356
multi-material
DP590–A356 in the steel (lower)
multi-material in the configuration (i.e., steel under
steel (lower) configuration tension),
(i.e., the tendency
steel under tension), of
a sudden
the tendencydrop
ofwas decreased
a sudden dropowing to the interfacial
was decreased owingseparation and aluminum
to the interfacial separationfracture.
and
In contrast,fracture.
aluminum for the SS330–A5052
In contrast, formulti-material
the SS330–A5052 in the configurationinofthe
multi-material aluminum under
configuration
oftension, the number
aluminum of sudden
under tension, thestress
number drops decreased
of sudden because
stress dropsofdecreased
the low ductility
becauseofofA356,
the
which was under tension and fractured without resisting the load. A5052,
low ductility of A356, which was under tension and fractured without resisting the load. which is more
ductile which
A5052, than A356, was ductile
is more not fractured owingwas
than A356, to itsnot
high fracture owing
fractured resistance. These
to its highresults
fracturecan
be explained by the occurrence of necking. A356 was broken without
resistance. These results can be explained by the occurrence of necking. A356 was brokennecking. However,
A5052 extended to fracture after necking, which is similar to the bending result shown in
Figure 6.

3.3. Observation of the Fracture Behavior

Figures 8 and 9 show the bending specimens of the multi-materials after the flexure
test. The sudden stress drops in the flexure stress–displacement curves were related to the
aluminum fracture (indicated by the white circle in Figure 8a), adhesive fracture, interface
separation, or step difference (indicated by white arrows in Figures 8 and 9). In Figure 8a,
compared to Figure 7a, the stress drop section was caused by the aluminum fracture.
Figure 8a (adhesion strength of 10 MPa) shows the aluminum fracture and interfacial
separation, consistent with the result of the double stress drop section in Figure 7a at
10 MPa. At 20 and 10 MPa in Figure 7b, the stress drop section occurred by interface
separation, as in Figure 8b. The same result is observed in Figures 7c and 9a, which
confirms that the interfacial separation occurred only at 10 MPa. Figure 7d demonstrates
that the stress drop section appeared under all conditions, which is consistent with the
result of the interface separation shown in Figure 9b. As the interface separation, the steel
and aluminum deformed separately, which resulted in the step difference.

Materials 2022, 15, 3328
Figure 8a (adhesion strength of 10 MPa) shows the aluminum fracture and interfacial
separation, consistent with the result of the double stress drop section in Figure 7a at 10
MPa. At 20 and 10 MPa in Figure 7b, the stress drop section occurred by interface
separation, as in Figure 8b. The same result is observed in Figures 9a and 7c, which
confirms that the interfacial separation occurred only at 10 MPa. Figure 7d demonstrates
that the stress drop section appeared under all conditions, which is consistent with the 9 of 17
result of the interface separation shown in Figure 9b. As the interface separation, the steel
and aluminum deformed separately, which resulted in the step difference.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.DP590–A356
DP590–A356 multi-material after
multi-material the the
after flexure test: test:
flexure (a) steel
(a) (upper)–aluminum (lower) (lower)
steel (upper)–aluminum and and
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white circle indicates the Al fracture, while the white arrow 10 of 18
(b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white circle indicates the Al fracture, while the white arrow
indicates interface separation or step difference.
indicates interface separation or step difference.

Figure9.9.SS330–A5052
Figure SS330–A5052multi-material after
multi-material thethe
after flexure test:test:
flexure (a) (a)
steel (upper)–aluminum
steel (upper)–aluminum (lower) and and
(lower)
(b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white arrow indicates adhesive fracture,
(b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white arrow indicates adhesive fracture, interfaceinterface separation,
or step difference.
separation, or step difference.

Under the conditions where a sudden stress drop was observed, bending was
observed only on one overhang sheet (Figures 8 and 9), owing to the bending moment,
affected by the shear strength acting on the adhesive–metal interface. The bending of only
one overhang sheet was reduced by increasing the adhesion strength and forming speed
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 10 of 17

Under the conditions where a sudden stress drop was observed, bending was observed
only on one overhang sheet (Figures 8 and 9), owing to the bending moment, affected by the
shear strength acting on the adhesive–metal interface. The bending of only one overhang
sheet was reduced by increasing the adhesion strength and forming speed [37]. This
bending behavior was consistent with the OM images; the sudden stress drop decreased as
the adhesion strength increased. In addition, all overhangs were observed when the steel
was under tension (lower). This is attributed to the difference in bending stress. As the
stress applied to the specimen increased, overhangs were observed. Thus, if the steel is in
the lower position, a larger stress is required for the same deformation.
Figure 10 shows SEM images of the central areas in the multi-materials after the
three-point bending test. Figure 10a shows the DP590 (upper)–A356 (lower) configuration.
As shown in Figure 10a, A356 fractured under all adhesion strengths. Adhesion peeling,
which means interface separation, appeared only under an adhesion strength of 10 MPa.
After the A356 fractured, DP590 was deformed in a single part and tension deformation was
observed at site No. 2. Figure 10b shows the DP590 (lower)–A356 (upper) configuration.
Under adhesion strengths of 22 and 30 MPa, site No. 1 showed that the deformation
layer was under a compressive stress. Nos. 2 and 3 had relatively small deformations
owing to the neutral layer around the adhesive, while No. 4 exhibited a large tensile
deformation. There was a stress drop section at 22 MPa, as shown in Figure 7b, but there
was no adhesive peeling or fracture in the SEM image, because adhesive fracture occurred
near the supporting pin before the end of the test. However, at 10 MPa, A356 near the
adhesive (site No. 2) exhibited a tensile deformation, which could be attributed to the
relatively quick adhesive peeling. As the adhesive peeled off, the steel and aluminum
deformed separately.
Figure 10c shows the SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower) configuration. Adhesion peeling
occurred under an adhesion strength of 10 MPa and the compressive stress led to the
deformation layer at No. 1. SS330 exhibiting a tensile deformation at site No. 2, likely
owing to the relatively rapid adhesive peeling. At 22 and 30 MPa, No. 1 exhibited a
compressive deformation. However, Nos. 2 and 3 near the adhesive layer exhibited a lower
deformation than those of Nos. 1 and 4. This indicates that the neutral layer was in the
middle between Nos. 2 and 3. A deformation due to the large tension was observed at No. 4.
Figure 10d shows the SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper) configuration, where adhesive peeling
was observed at 10 MPa. At 22 and 30 MPa, a stress drop zone occurred. However, it was
not visible in the SEM image because adhesive peeling occurred at the edge rather than at
the center of the specimen. Moreover, owing to the formation of a neutral layer between
Nos. 2 and 3, the deformation was small compared to those at other sites. A compressive
deformation was observed at No. 1, while a tensile deformation was observed at No. 4.
The results are in accordance with those of the stacking structure configurations of both
multi-materials. However, the opposite results were observed for DP590–A356 and SS330–
A5052. To determine whether this tendency was attributed to the difference in strength
between steel and aluminum or the ductility of aluminum, a bending test was performed
by joining DP590 and A5052. Figure 11 shows the bending test results of the DP590–A5052
multi-materials with different adhesion strengths. For the steel (upper)–aluminum (lower)
configuration, the tendency of the sudden stress drop decreased. This tendency was the
same as that of the bending test on SS330–A5052 in Figure 7c,d. In addition, the bending
strength improved as the strength of the lower material increased. Figure 11b (steel (lower)–
aluminum (upper)) shows a higher flexure stress than that of the steel (upper)–aluminum
(lower) configuration. These results are similar to those in the literature. When the soft
material was set outside, the total thickness decreased with the increase in relative curvature
and the bending moment was relatively low [38]. Based on these results, the stacking of the
multi-material was determined by the ductility of aluminum rather than by the difference in
strength between steel and aluminum. The bending characteristics had a larger influence on
the mechanical properties of each single material and adhesion strength. Thus, the flexural
stress was larger when a soft material was placed on the upper surface. For that reason,
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 11 of 17

under the aluminum (upper)-steel (lower) condition, steel with a relatively high strength
and elongation is located to the tensile load. Moreover, aluminum is located to a higher
compressive load to reduce the occurrence of fracture. The adhesion strength was sufficient
to prevent interface separation of the adhesive. However, if the adhesion strength was low,
aluminum with a good ductility in the lower position exhibited better properties in terms
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
of the stress drop tendency. Regarding the joining of steel and aluminum, not 11 of 18 the
only
ductility of aluminum but also the strength of the adhesive must be considered.

Figure 10. SEM images of the central areas in the multi-materials after the three-point bending test:
Figure 10. SEM images of the central areas in the multi-materials after the three-point bending test:
(a) DP590 (upper)–A356 (lower), (b) DP590 (lower)–A356 (upper), (c) SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower),
(a) DP590
and (upper)–A356
(d) SS330 (lower),
(lower)–A5052 (b) DP590 (lower)–A356 (upper), (c) SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower),
(upper).
and (d) SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper).
Figure 10c shows the SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower) configuration. Adhesion peeling
occurred under an adhesion strength of 10 MPa and the compressive stress led to the
deformation layer at No. 1. SS330 exhibiting a tensile deformation at site No. 2, likely
owing to the relatively rapid adhesive peeling. At 22 and 30 MPa, No. 1 exhibited a
compressive deformation. However, Nos. 2 and 3 near the adhesive layer exhibited a

Materials 2022, 15, 3328
(lower) condition, steel with a relatively high strength and elongation is located to the
tensile load. Moreover, aluminum is located to a higher compressive load to reduce the
occurrence of fracture. The adhesion strength was sufficient to prevent interface
separation of the adhesive. However, if the adhesion strength was low, aluminum with a
good ductility in the lower position exhibited better properties in terms of the stress drop
tendency. Regarding the joining of steel and aluminum, not only the ductility of12 of 17
aluminum but also the strength of the adhesive must be considered.

Figure
Figure11.
11.DP590–A5052
DP590–A5052 multi-materials withwith
multi-materials different adhesion
different strengths:
adhesion (a) steel
strengths: (a) (upper)–
steel (upper)–
aluminum (lower) and (b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper).
aluminum (lower) and (b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper).

Figure
Figure1212shows
showsOM OMimages
imagesof of the
the specimens
specimens after the bending
after the bending tests
tests on
onDP590–A5052.
DP590–
A5052. The sharp stress drops in the flexure stress–displacement curves were related
The sharp stress drops in the flexure stress–displacement curves were related to interface to
interface fracture or separation, as reflected by the previous results. Moreover,
fracture or separation, as reflected by the previous results. Moreover, interface interface
separation
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
separation can be observed in Figure 12a at an adhesion strength of 10 MPa and
can be observed in Figure 12a at an adhesion strength of 10 MPa and Figure 12b at adhesionFigure
12b at adhesion strengths of 10 and 22 MPa. Figure 11b shows that, at 22 MPa, a sharp
strengths of 10 and 22 MPa. Figure 11b shows that, at 22 MPa, a sharp stress drop period
stress drop period appeared three times, but the OM image showed only one interface
appeared three times, but the OM image showed only one interface separation. This could
separation. This could be attributed to the interface separation after double fracture of the
be attributed to the interface separation after double fracture of the adhesive.
adhesive.

DP590–A5052multi-material
Figure 12. DP590–A5052
Figure multi-materialafter
afterthe
theflexure
flexuretest:
test:(a)(a) steel
steel (upper)–aluminum
(upper)–aluminum (lower) and
(lower)
(b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white arrow indicates interface separation or stepstep
and (b) steel (lower)–aluminum (upper). The white arrow indicates interface separation or difference.
difference.
3.4. FEA Results
3.4. FEA Results
The FEA was performed for comparison to the bending test results. In the FEA,
The FEA was
the distribution ofperformed
stress, thefor comparison
separation to the the
between bending
steel test
andresults. In theand
aluminum, FEA,thethe
fracture
distribution of stress, the separation between the steel and aluminum, and the fracture
results of A356 were analyzed. Figure 13 presents the results of the von Mises stress and
results of A356 for
displacement were analyzed.
each FigureThe
condition. 13 presents the results
FEA results of the (upper)–A356
of DP590 von Mises stress(lower)
and are
displacement for each condition. The FEA results of DP590 (upper)–A356 (lower) are
shown in Figure 13a. The fracture of A356 occurred under all conditions. The fractured
shown in Figure 13a. The fracture of A356 occurred under all conditions. The fractured
displacements of A356 at 10 and 30 MPa were 2.52 and 3.20 mm, respectively. These results
displacements of A356 at 10 and 30 MPa were 2.52 and 3.20 mm, respectively. These
results are very similar to the results of the bending test, as shown in Figure 7a. In
addition, the stress was concentrated in DP590 after the A356 fracture. The fracture
displacement of A356 was very similar to that of the bending test. Figure 13b shows the
results of DP590 (lower)–A356 (upper). At an adhesion strength of 10 MPa, the adhesive
peeled off at a displacement of 3.44 mm. This is comparable to the result of the experiment,
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 13 of 17

are very similar to the results of the bending test, as shown in Figure 7a. In addition,
the stress was concentrated in DP590 after the A356 fracture. The fracture displacement of
A356 was very similar to that of the bending test. Figure 13b shows the results of DP590
(lower)–A356 (upper). At an adhesion strength of 10 MPa, the adhesive peeled off at a
displacement of 3.44 mm. This is comparable to the result of the experiment, where the
adhesive peeled off at a displacement of 3.76 mm (Figure 7b). The separation of steel and
aluminum could be observed at both ends of the specimen. At all adhesion strengths,
there was no significant difference in the maximum von Mises stress.
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW However,
14 of 18 the stress
distribution was more spread to both ends of the specimen at 10 MPa than at 30 MPa.

Figure
Figure13.13.
FEA results:
FEA (a) DP590
results: (upper)–A356
(a) DP590 (lower), (b)(lower),
(upper)–A356 DP590 (lower)–A356
(b) DP590(upper), (c) SS330
(lower)–A356 (upper), (c) SS330
(upper)–A5052 (lower), and (d) SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper).
(upper)–A5052 (lower), and (d) SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper).
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 14 of 17

The results of SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower) are shown in Figure 13c. There was no
The separation
interface results of SS330 until (upper)–A5052 (lower) are
the end of the bending testshown
at 30 in Figure
MPa. At 1013c.MPa,
There was no
interface
interface separation until the end of the bending test at 30
separation occurred at a displacement of 3.87 mm, similar to the displacement of 4.12 mm MPa. At 10 MPa, interface
separation
in Figure 7c.occurred
In addition,at a displacement
a neutral layer of 3.87
was mm,formed similar
betweento thethe
displacement of 4.12 mm
steel and aluminum,
in Figure 7c. In addition, a neutral layer was formed between the steel and aluminum,
which was also observed in the SEM image in Figure 10c. Figure 13d shows the results of
which was also observed in the SEM image in Figure 10c. Figure 13d shows the results of
SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper). At an adhesion strength of 10 MPa, the separation between
SS330 (lower)–A5052 (upper). At an adhesion strength of 10 MPa, the separation between
SS330 and A5052 was 3.07 mm, slightly different from the displacement of 3.68 mm in the
SS330 and A5052 was 3.07 mm, slightly different from the displacement of 3.68 mm in the
bending test. In addition, at 30 MPa, there was no separation of the steel and aluminum
bending test. In addition, at 30 MPa, there was no separation of the steel and aluminum
until the end of the bending experiment. There was no difference in the maximum von
until the end of the bending experiment. There was no difference in the maximum von
Mises stress at 10 and 30 MPa. However, at 10 MPa, the stress distribution was spread to
Mises stress at 10 and 30 MPa. However, at 10 MPa, the stress distribution was spread to
both ends of the specimen. A neutral layer was formed between the steel and aluminum,
both ends of the specimen. A neutral layer was formed between the steel and aluminum,
similar to the result shown in Figure 10d.
similar to the result shown in Figure 10d.
Based on the FEA results and bending test, the flexure stress increased when the steel
Based on the FEA results and bending test, the flexure stress increased when the steel
was placed in the lower position. In other words, a smaller deformation occurred when
was placed in the lower position. In other words, a smaller deformation occurred when the
the
steelsteel
waswas in lower
in the the lower position,
position, even even
if the ifsame
the force
same was force was applied
applied to the multi-
to the multi-material.
material.
In addition,In addition,
there wasthere was no separation
no separation between between
the steel andthe steel and aluminum
aluminum when thewhen the
adhesion
adhesion strength was sufficiently high. Thus, the setting of
strength was sufficiently high. Thus, the setting of aluminum in the lower position is of aluminum in the lower
position is of interest
interest when aluminum when aluminum is
is sufficiently sufficiently
ductile. However, ductile. However,
if the adhesionifstrength
the adhesion
is low,
strength is low, it is more advantageous to
it is more advantageous to set steel in the lower position.set steel in the lower position.
To
Toverify
verifythetheFEA,FEA,thetheresults
resultsofofFigure
Figure77werewerecompared
comparedto tothe
theflexure
flexurestress
stresscurves
curves
for
for each
each displacement
displacementobtained obtainedby bythe
the FEA,
FEA, as as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 14.
14. The
Theresults
resultsof ofthe
the
bending test are shown by the solid lines, while the data obtained
bending test are shown by the solid lines, while the data obtained by the FEA are shown by the FEA are shown
by
bythethedotted
dottedlines.
lines.All Allanalysis
analysisdata
dataexhibited
exhibitedaasimilar
similartrendtrendtotothat
thatofofthe
theexperiment.
experiment.
The
The comparison of the bending and analysis results showed similar flexuralstress
comparison of the bending and analysis results showed similar flexural stressvalues
values
and
andstress
stressdrops
dropsin in similar
similar sections.
sections.The Thesimilarity
similarityof ofthe
thebending
bendingstress
stressvalues
valuesverified
verified
the
thematerial
materialproperties
propertiesof ofFEA,
FEA,andandthe
thesimilar
similarstress
stressdropdropsections
sectionsverified
verifiedthethecohesive
cohesive
behavior
behaviorparameters
parametersof ofFEA.
FEA.In Inthis
thismanner,
manner,the thevalidity
validityofofthe theinterpretation
interpretationwas wasverified.
verified.

Figure
Figure 14. Flexural stress–displacement
14. Flexural stress–displacementcurves
curves obtained
obtained by FEA:
by the the FEA: (a) DP590
(a) DP590 (upper)–A356
(upper)–A356 (lower),
(lower), (b) (lower)–A356
(b) DP590 DP590 (lower)–A356
(upper),(upper), (c) (upper)–A5052
(c) SS330 SS330 (upper)–A5052 (lower),
(lower), and
and (d) (d) SS330
SS330 (lower)–
(lower)–A5052
A5052 (upper).
(upper).

4.4.Conclusions
Conclusions
Themulti-materials
The multi-materialswere
wereobtained
obtainedbybyjoining
joiningsteel
steeland
andaluminum
aluminumwith
withaastructural
structural
adhesive.Their
adhesive. Theirbending
bendingproperties
propertieswere
wereevaluated.
evaluated.The
Themechanical
mechanicalbehaviors
behaviorsof
ofthe
thetwo
two
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 15 of 17

multi-materials, DP590 (steel sheet)–A356 (cast aluminum alloy) and SS330 (steel sheet)–
A5052 (aluminum sheet), were investigated. The following conclusions were obtained by
the test results and FEA:
(1) The surface roughness, curing time, and temperature were increased to improve
the adhesion strength from 22 to 30 MPa. In other words, to increase the adhesion
strength, it was necessary to consider not only the surface roughness of the specimen,
but also the curing time and temperature.
(2) According to the bending tests on the DP590–A356 and SS330–A5052 multi-materials,
the bending stress increased with the adhesion strength. It was necessary to improve
the adhesion strength for the joining of the two different materials. The stress drop
section was more significant in DP590 (upper)–A356 (lower), SS330 (lower)–A5052
(upper), and DP590 (lower)–A5052 (upper). According to these results, the stress drop
section was attributed to the ductility of aluminum, not to the difference in strength
between steel and aluminum.
(3) According to the bending tests, if the adhesive was toughed to not cause adhesive
peeling, the flexural stress was larger when the aluminum was placed on the upper
side. However, if the adhesion strength was low, the setting of aluminum with a good
ductility in the lower position provided better properties in terms of the stress drop
tendency.
(4) The FEA results confirmed that the stress distribution was more spread at 10 MPa
than at 30 MPa to both ends of the specimen. The flexural stress increased when the
steel was placed at the lower position. In addition, the flexure stress–displacement
curves obtained by the FEA and measured bending results were very similar, which
verified the validity of the FEA results.
In conclusion, the ductility of aluminum and stacking dependent on the strength of the
adhesive should be considered together in the joining of steel and aluminum. Furthermore,
for experiments on the relationship between the adhesives and the multi-materials, fracture
behavior analysis and microscopic observation for the deformation are required. Also, it is
necessary to study the strain analysis of steel and aluminum, which are the base materials
of adhesive-bonded multi-materials, and the fatigue failure behavior of multi-materials;
this will be dealt with in a follow-up study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.H.; data curation, G.J.; formal analysis, Y.P.; method-
ology, G.J. and Y.P.; supervision, C.J.; validation, D.H.; visualization, G.J.; writing—original draft,
G.J.; writing—review and editing, C.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partly supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Eval-
uation and Planning (20214000000010), the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology
(20004117), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1F1A1046846), funded by the
Korean government.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sherwood, C.P.; Mueller, B.C.; Nolan, J.M.; Zuby, D.S.; Lund, A.K. Development of a Frontal Small Overlap Crashworthiness
Evaluation Test. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2013, 14, 128–135. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Adoption of the Paris Agreement; FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1;
United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
3. Agudo, L.; Eyidi, D.; Schmaranzer, C.H.; Arenholz, E.; Jank, N.; Bruckner, J.; Pyzalla, A.R. Intermetallic Fe x Al y -phases in a
steel/Al-alloy fusion weld. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42, 4205–4214. [CrossRef]
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 16 of 17

4. Movahedi, M.; Kokabi, A.H.; Seyed Reihani, S.M.; Cheng, W.J.; Wang, C.J. Effect of annealing treatment on joint strength of
aluminum/steel friction stir lap weld. Mater. Des. 2013, 44, 487–492. [CrossRef]
5. Jin, J.Y.; Hong, S.I. Effect of heat treatment on tensile deformation characteristics and properties of Al3003/STS439 clad composite.
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 596, 1–8. [CrossRef]
6. Akramifard, H.R.; Mirzadeh, H.; Parsa, M.H. Cladding of aluminum on AISI 304L stainless steel by cold roll bonding: Mechanism,
microstructure, and mechanical properties. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2014, 613, 232–239. [CrossRef]
7. Abe, Y.; Kato, T.; Mori, K. Joinability of aluminium alloy and mild steel sheets by self piercing rivet. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
2006, 177, 417–421. [CrossRef]
8. Abe, Y.; Kato, T.; Mori, K. Self-piercing riveting of high tensile strength steel and aluminium alloy sheets using conventional rivet
and die. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 3914–3922. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, F.; Wang, H.P.; Hicks, C.; Yang, X.; Carlson, B.E.; Zhou, Q. Experimental study of initial strengths and hygrothermal
degradation of adhesive joints between thin aluminum and steel substrates. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2013, 43, 14–25. [CrossRef]
10. Al Robaidi, A.; Anagreh, N.; Massadeh, S.; Al Essa, A.M. The effect of different surface pretreatment methods on nano-adhesive
application in high strength steel and aluminum bonding. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2011, 25, 1725–1746. [CrossRef]
11. Zhu, X.B.; Li, Y.B.; Chen, G.L.; Wang, P.C. Curing-induced distortion mechanism in adhesive bonding of aluminum AA6061-T6
and steels. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. Trans. ASME 2013, 135, 051007. [CrossRef]
12. Bamberg, P.A.M.G.P.; Reisgen, U.; Schiebahn, A.; Barbosa, J.D.V.; Marx, B.; Coelho, R.S. Digital image correlation analysis of the
effects of the overlap length, adhesive thickness and adherends yield strength over similar and dissimilar joints of high strength
steel and aluminum alloys. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2018, 83, 69–75. [CrossRef]
13. Chastel, Y.; Passemard, L. Joining technologies for future automobile multi-material modules. Procedia Eng. 2014, 81, 2104–2110.
[CrossRef]
14. Coelho, R.S.; Kostka, A.; dos Santos, J.F.; Kaysser-Pyzalla, A. Friction-stir dissimilar welding of aluminium alloy to high strength
steels: Mechanical properties and their relation to microstructure. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2012, 556, 175–183. [CrossRef]
15. Mori, K.; Abe, Y.; Kato, T. Self-pierce riveting of multiple steel and aluminium alloy sheets. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2014, 214,
2002–2008. [CrossRef]
16. Thoppul, S.D.; Finegan, J.; Gibson, R.F. Mechanics of mechanically fastened joints in polymer-matrix composite structures—A
review. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2009, 69, 301–329. [CrossRef]
17. Tong, L.; Steven, G.P. Analysis and Design of Structural Bonded Joints, 1st ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA,
1999. [CrossRef]
18. Adams, R.D.; Comyn, J.; Wake, W.C. Structural Adhesive Joints in Engineering, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1997.
[CrossRef]
19. Banea, M.D.; da Silva, L.F.M. Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: An overview. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater.
Des. Appl. 2009, 223, 1–18. [CrossRef]
20. Dilger, K.; Burchardt, B.; Frauenhofer, M. Automotive Industry. In Handbook of Adhesion Technology; Springer International
Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–35. [CrossRef]
21. Boutar, Y.; Naïmi, S.; Mezlini, S.; da Silva, L.F.M.; Hamdaoui, M.; ben Sik Ali, M. Effect of adhesive thickness and surface roughness
on the shear strength of aluminium one-component polyurethane adhesive single-lap joints for automotive applications. J. Adhes.
Sci. Technol. 2016, 30, 1913–1929. [CrossRef]
22. Zhai, L.L.; Ling, G.P.; Wang, Y.W. Effect of nano-Al2 O3 on adhesion strength of epoxy adhesive and steel. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
2008, 28, 23–28. [CrossRef]
23. Teng, J.G.; Fernando, D.; Yu, T.; Zhao, X.L. Treatment of steel surfaces for effective adhesive bonding. In Proceedings of the
CICE 2010—The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in Civil Engineering, Beijing, China, 27–29 September 2010.
[CrossRef]
24. Rudawska, A. Selected aspects of the effect of mechanical treatment on surface roughness and adhesive joint strength of steel
sheets. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2014, 50, 235–243. [CrossRef]
25. Alfano, M.; Morano, C.; Moroni, F.; Musiari, F.; Danilo Spennacchio, G.; Di Lonardo, D. Fracture toughness of structural adhesives
for the automotive industry. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2018, 8, 561–565. [CrossRef]
26. Azari, S.; Ameli, A.; Papini, M.; Spelt, J.K. Analysis and design of adhesively bonded joints for fatigue and fracture loading:
A fracture-mechanics approach. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2013, 27, 1681–1711. [CrossRef]
27. Loureiro, A.L.; da Silva, L.F.M.; Sato, C.; Figueiredo, M.A.V. Comparison of the mechanical behaviour between stiff and flexible
adhesive joints for the automotive industry. J. Adhes. 2010, 86, 765–787. [CrossRef]
28. Maurel-Pantel, A.; Lamberti, M.; Raffa, M.L.; Suarez, C.; Ascione, F.; Lebon, F. Modelling of a GFRP adhesive connection by an
imperfect soft interface model with initial damage. Compos. Struct. 2020, 239, 112034. [CrossRef]
29. ASTM D1002-10; Standard Test Method for Apparent Shear Strength of Single-Lap-Joint Adhesively Bonded Metal Specimens by
Tension Loading (Metal-to-Metal). ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
30. ISO 4287; Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture: Profile Method—Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture
Parameters. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997.
31. ASTM E290-14; Standard Test Methods for Bend Testing of Material for Ductility. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2014.
Materials 2022, 15, 3328 17 of 17

32. Lim, J.D.; Susan, Y.S.Y.; Daniel, R.M.; Leong, K.C.; Wong, C.C. Surface roughness effect on copper-alumina adhesion. Microelectron.
Reliab. 2013, 53, 1548–1552. [CrossRef]
33. Ahn, J.H.; Shen, Y.F.; Kim, H.Y.; Jeong, H.D.; Cho, K.K. Development of a sensor information integrated expert system for
optimizing die polishing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2001, 17, 269–276. [CrossRef]
34. Tian, W.; Chao, B.; Xiong, X.; Li, Z. Effect of surface roughness on pitting corrosion of 2A12 aluminum alloy. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci.
2018, 13, 3107–3123. [CrossRef]
35. Gamal, G.A.; Al-Mufadi, F.A.; Salman, S.M.M.; Zein, H. The relationship of surface roughness and hardness of BiSn solder alloys
due to the variation of Sn content. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2018, 6, 103–109.
36. Kim, I.K.; Hong, S.I. Effect of heat treatment on the bending behavior of tri-layered Cu/Al/Cu composite plates. Mater. Des. 2013,
47, 590–598. [CrossRef]
37. Takiguchi, M.; Yoshida, F. Analysis of plastic bending of adhesive-bonded sheet metals taking account of viscoplasticity of
adhesive. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2003, 140, 441–446. [CrossRef]
38. Li, Z.; Zhao, J.; Jia, F.; Zhang, Q.; Liang, X.; Jiao, S.; Jiang, Z. Analysis of bending characteristics of bimetal steel composite. Int. J.
Mech. Sci. 2018, 148, 272–283. [CrossRef]