Fiber Metal Laminates for Battery Boxes: A Compromise Between Strength and Rigidity †
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Flexural Strength Evaluation Before and After NSS
3.2. Flexural Stiffness and Rigidity Evaluations
- Introduction of RPET core: comparing the monolithic sample (CROSS-M1) with the sandwich-structure laminate containing a single prepreg layer between aluminum and core (CROSS-S1), the Flexural Stiffness and Rigidity values show an increase of 900% for the former (1.3 N/mm vs. 12.2 N/mm) and 850% for the latter (4.9 MN∙mm2 vs. 41.6 MN∙mm2). This behavior is due to the introduction of a rigid component in the FML lamination, namely the RPET core. The need to introduce this component concerns the need to meet the application requirements defined by the Stellantis group for the automotive application. Materials with low stiffness would, in fact, be too prone to flexural motion due to the vibrations transmitted to the battery box, risking rupture and the consequent compromise of the entire battery module [11].
- Increase in the thickness of the outer skin (number of prepreg layers): looking at the results of the three samples made with sandwich structure, it is possible to see a steady increase in the values of both Flexural Stiffness and Flexural Rigidity as the number of prepreg layers on the surface skin increases. This behavior is due to the increase in the overall thickness of the specimen. Taking Equation (2) as a reference, Flexural Rigidity (D) is proportional to the thickness of the outer skins by a factor of t3. It follows that an increase in skin thickness, has as a direct consequence an increase in the overall stiffness of the laminate.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costa, R.D.F.S.; Sales-Contini, R.C.M.; Silva, F.J.G.; Sebbe, N.; Jesus, A.M.P. A critical review on FMLs: From manufacturing to sustainable processing. Metals 2023, 13, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caggiano, M.; Saffioti, M.R.; Rotella, G. Fiber Metal Laminates: The Role of the Metal Surface and Sustainability Aspects. J. Compos. Sci. 2025, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares-Elejoste, P.; Ballestero, J.; Creonti, G.; Bassi, S.; Valli, C.; Mingazzini, C. Closed-loop recyclable and fire-resistant composites for electrical car battery boxes. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Waste Management, Resource Recovery and Sustainable Landfilling, Sardinia, Italy, 13–17 October 2025; Available online: https://members.sardiniasymposium.it/pdf_sardinia2025/3733_Mingazzini.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2025).
- Harrison, M. Vehicle Refinement: Controlling Noise and Vibration in Road Vehicles; Wang, X., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2010; p. 335. [Google Scholar]
- UNI EN ISO 14125; Compositi Plastici Rinforzati con Fibre—Determinazione delle Proprietà a Flessione. UNI: Milan, Italy, 2011.
- UNI EN ISO 9227; Prove di Corrosione in Atmosfere Artificiali—Prove in Nebbia Salina. UNI: Milan, Italy, 2017.
- ASTM D7249; Standard Test Method for Facesheet Properties of Sandwich Constructions by Long Beam Flexure. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2020.
- UNI EN ISO 10545-4; Piastrelle di Ceramica—Parte 4: Determinazione del Modulo di Rottura e della Forza di Rottura. UNI: Milan, Italy, 2019.
- Mingazzini, C.; Leoni, E.; Bassi, S.; Delise, T.; Scafè, M.; De Aloysio, G.; Laghi, L.; Morganti, M.; Falleti, G.L. Mechanical characterizations on biobased FMLs, being developed for battery boxes, before and after ageing. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2024, 2692, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadeghian, P.; Hristozov, D.; Wroblewski, L. Flexural Behavior of Sandwich Panels made of FRP Composites: Synthetic and Natural Fibers. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE) Annual Conference, London, ON, Canada, 1–4 June 2016; pp. STR-954-1–STR-954-10. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, S.; Chen, Y.; Luan, W.; Chen, H.; Huo, L.; Wang, M.; Tu, S. A review of multiscale mechanical failures in Lithium-Ion batteries: Implications for performance, lifetime and safety. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 2024, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creonti, G. Italian Patent Application IT 102024000013807. 2024. Available online: https://www.jec-italy.events/2025/proceedings/Day-1_1500-JEC-FORUM-ITALY-Mingazzini-110625.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2025).
- Odiyi, D.C.; Sharif, T.; Choudhry, R.S.; Mallik, S.; Shah, S.Z.H. A review of advancements in synthesis, manufacturing and properties of environment friendly biobased Polyfurfuryl Alcohol Resin and its Composites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2023, 267, 111034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ofondu Chinomso Iroegbu, A.; Meijboom, R. Dual-catalyst effect on the molecular weight enhancement of polyfurfuryl alcohol resin and stability. Discov. Chem. 2025, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]


| Sample ID | Sample Lamination | Curing Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| CROSS-M1 | Al 0.1 mm|CrossPreg glass (based on glass fabrics, 600 g/m2), 6 plies|Al 0.1 mm | 180 °C, 5 min, 6 bar |
| PFA-M1 | Al 0.1 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2), 4 plies|Al 0.1 mm | 180 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| PFA-M2 | Al 0.02 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2), 4 plies|Al 0.02 mm | 180 °C, 10 bar, 35 min |
| ELIUM-1 | Al 0.5 mm|Elium basalt Multiax, 600 g/m2, 3 plies +/− 45°|Al 0.5 mm | RT, 1 bar, 24 h |
| ELIUM-2 | Al 0.5 mm|Elium basalt Multiax, 600 g/m2, 8 plies +/− 45°|Al 0.5 mm | RT, 1 bar, 24 h |
| Sample ID | Sample Lamination | Curing Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| CROSS-S1 | Al 0.1 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 1 ply|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 1 ply|Al 0.1 mm | 170 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| CROSS-S2 | Al 0.1 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 2 plies|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 2 plies|Al 0.1 mm | 170 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| CROSS-S3 | Al 0.1 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 3 plies|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|CrossPreg glass, 600 g/m2, 3 plies|Al 0.1 mm | 170 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| PFA-BS | Al 0.1 mm|PFA Basalt fabrics, 650 g/m2, 2 plies|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|PFA Basalt fabrics, 650 g/m2, 2 plies|Al 0.1 mm | 180 °C, 10 min, 6 bars |
| PFA-CS1 | Al 0.1 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2), 1 ply|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2), 1 ply|Al 0.1 mm | 180 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| PFA-CS2 | Sized Al 0.1 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2)|RPET, 150 g/dm3, 10 mm|PFA (based on C fabrics, 400 g/m2)|sized Al 0.1 mm | 180 °C, 10 min, 6 bar |
| Sample ID | Test Performed & Test Conditions |
|---|---|
| CROSS-M1 | Flexural properties, UNI EN ISO 14125 [5]
Neutral Salt Spray, UNI EN ISO 9227 [6]
Flexural properties, ASTM D7249 [7]
|
| PFA-M1 | |
| PFA-M2 | |
| ELIUM-1 | |
| ELIUM-2 |
| Sample ID | Test Performed & Test Conditions |
|---|---|
| CROSS-S1 | Flexural properties, UNI EN ISO 10545-4 [8]
Neutral Salt Spray, UNI EN ISO 9227 [6]
Flexural properties, ASTM D7249 [7]
|
| CROSS-S2 | |
| CROSS-S3 | |
| PFA-BS | |
| PFA-CS1 |
| Before Neutral Salt Spray | After 670 h of NSS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexural Strength [MPa] | Young’s Modulus [GPa] | Flexural Strength [MPa] | Young’s Modulus [GPa] | ||
| Monolithic Structure | CROSS-M1 | 460 ± 35 | 19 ± 2 | 519 ± 36 | 20 ± 2 |
| PFA-M1 | 275 ± 24 | 34 ± 2 | 286 ± 2 | 34 ± 4 | |
| PFA-M2 | 170 ± 12 | 21 ± 2 | 163 ± 30 | 20 ± 3 | |
| ELIUM-M1 | 235 ± 8 | 38 ± 1 | 228 ± 16 | 38 ± 2 | |
| ELIUM-M2 | 248 ± 29 | 26 ± 1 | 249 ± 43 | 24 ± 1 | |
| Sandwich Structure | CROSS-S1 | 60 ± 12 | 7 ± 1 | 63 ± 2 | 7 ± 1 |
| PFA-BS | 16 ± 3 | 8 ± 1 | 10 ± 1 | 6 ± 1 | |
| PFA-CS1 | 65 ± 4 | 10 ± 1 | 67 ± 5 | 10 ± 2 | |
| PFA-CS2 | 39 ± 8 | 9 ± 1 | 35 ± 15 | 8 ± 1 | |
| K (Stiffness) (N/mm) (reg. lin. at 30 mm Deflection) | D (Flexural Rigidity) (MN∙mm2) | |
|---|---|---|
| CROSS-M1 | 1.3 | 4.9 |
| CROSS-S1 | 12.2 | 41.6 |
| CROSS-S2 | 26.3 | 93.5 |
| CROSS-S3 | 46.2 | 156.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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/).
Share and Cite
Mingazzini, C.; Scafè, M.; Mariani, E.; De Aloysio, G.; Morganti, M.; Laghi, L.; Ghetti, L.; Bassi, S.; Valli, C. Fiber Metal Laminates for Battery Boxes: A Compromise Between Strength and Rigidity. Eng. Proc. 2025, 119, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025119045
Mingazzini C, Scafè M, Mariani E, De Aloysio G, Morganti M, Laghi L, Ghetti L, Bassi S, Valli C. Fiber Metal Laminates for Battery Boxes: A Compromise Between Strength and Rigidity. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 119(1):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025119045
Chicago/Turabian StyleMingazzini, Claudio, Matteo Scafè, Edoardo Mariani, Giulia De Aloysio, Mattia Morganti, Luca Laghi, Leonardo Ghetti, Stefano Bassi, and Cristiano Valli. 2025. "Fiber Metal Laminates for Battery Boxes: A Compromise Between Strength and Rigidity" Engineering Proceedings 119, no. 1: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025119045
APA StyleMingazzini, C., Scafè, M., Mariani, E., De Aloysio, G., Morganti, M., Laghi, L., Ghetti, L., Bassi, S., & Valli, C. (2025). Fiber Metal Laminates for Battery Boxes: A Compromise Between Strength and Rigidity. Engineering Proceedings, 119(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025119045

