Optimization and mechanical response of modular infusion compaction and normalization

References

• Åström BT. Manufacturing of polymer composites. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Sloan J. Update: lower wing skin, wing of tomorrow. Composites World. September 2020. [accessed 2023 Sep 01]. Available from: https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/update-lower-wing-skin-wing-of-tomorrow
   Google Scholar
• Gipson L. “Hi-rate composite aircraft manufacturing (HiCAM) project”, ACC HiCAM; 2022. [accessed 2023 Sep 01]. Available from: https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/programs/aavp/hicam/description/.
   Google Scholar
• Tamakuwala VR. Manufacturing of fiber reinforced polymer by using VARTM process: a review. Mater Today Proc. 2021;44:987–993. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.102.
   Google Scholar
• van Oosterom S, Allen T, Battley M, et al. An objective comparison of common vacuum assisted resin infusion processes. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2019;125(July):105528. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105528.
   Google Scholar
• Waldrop JC, III, Harshman B, Burkett WR, et al. “Double Bag Vacuum Infusion Process”, US Patent. US 7413. 2008;694:b 2.
   Google Scholar
• Hindersmann A. Confusion about infusion: an overview of infusion processes. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2019;126(July):105583. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105583.
   Google Scholar
• Allende M, Mohan RV, Walsh SM. Experimental and numerical analysis of flow behavior in the FASTRAC liquid composite manufacturing process. Polym Compos. 2004;25(4):384–396. doi: 10.1002/pc.20032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIlhagger A, Archer E, McIlhagger R. Manufacturing processes for composite materials and components for aerospace applications. In Polymer composites in the aerospace industry. 2nd ed. Sawston (UK): Elsevier; 2019. p. 59–81.
   Google Scholar
• Lang EJ, Rydin RW. Channel assisted resin transfer molding; 2005. US 6,919,039 B2.
   Google Scholar
• Ricciardi MR, Antonucci V, Durante M, et al. A new cost-saving vacuum infusion process for fiber-reinforced composites: pulsed infusion. J Compos Mater. 2014;48(11):1365–1373. doi: 10.1177/0021998313485998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernin N, Chohra M, Advani S, et al. Vacuum assisted resin transfer molding techniques with flow flooding chamber; 2007. US 2007/0063393 A1.
   Google Scholar
• Alms J, Advani SG. Simulation and experimental validation of flow flooding chamber method of resin delivery in liquid composite molding. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2007;38(10):2131–2141. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.06.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alms JB, Advani SG, Glancey JL. Liquid composite molding control methodologies using vacuum induced preform relaxation. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2011;42(1):57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2010.10.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alms JB, Glancey JL, Advani SG. Mechanical properties of composite structures fabricated with the vacuum induced preform relaxation process. Compos Struct. 2010;92(12):2811–2816. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.04.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons GJ, Segui-Garza JJ, Hansell RG. Variable cavity volume tooling for high-performance resin infusion moulding. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part G J Aerosp Eng. 2010;224(4):499–509. doi: 10.1243/09544100JAERO582.
   Google Scholar
• Yalcinkaya MA, Sozer EM, Altan MC. Effect of external pressure and resin flushing on reduction of process-induced voids and enhancement of laminate quality in heated-VARTM. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2019;121(June 2019):353–364. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.040.
   Google Scholar
• Soltan J, Dulieu-Barton J, Kratz J, et al. Modular infusion: novel approaches to segregation and control of flow fronts within liquid resin moulding. ECCM 2022 – Proceeding of the 20th European Conference on Composite Materials. 2022; 2:161–169. doi: 10.5075/epfl-298799_978-2-9701614-0-0.
   Google Scholar
• Soltan J, Hartley J, Dulieu-Barton J, et al. Modular infusion: de-risking liquid resin moulding through segregation and control of flow fronts. Society of Advanced Material and Process Engineering (SAMPE), SAMPE 2023 Conference & Exhibition; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Rao S, Umer R, Cantwell WJ. An evaluation of the compression response of high-performance prepregs for Afp applications. Polym Polym Compos. 2015;23(6):389–398. doi: 10.1177/096739111502300604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong AXH, Aktas A, May D, et al. Experimental characterisation of textile compaction response: a benchmark exercise. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2021;142(March 2021):106243. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106243.
   Google Scholar
• Kabachi M, Danzi M, Arreguin S, et al. Experimental study on the influence of cyclic compaction on the fiber-bed permeability, quasi-static and dynamic compaction responses. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2019;125(April 2019):105559. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105559.
   Google Scholar
• Yenilmez B, Senan M, Murat Sozer E. Variation of part thickness and compaction pressure in vacuum infusion process. Compos Sci Technol. 2009;69(11–12):1710–1719. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2008.05.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwanenburg EA, Williams MA, Warnett JM. Review of high-speed imaging with lab-based x-ray computed tomography. Meas Sci Technol. 2022;33(1):012003. doi: 10.1088/1361-6501/ac354a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centea T, Hubert P. Measuring the impregnation of an out-of-autoclave prepreg by micro-CT. Compos Sci Technol. 2011;71(5):593–599. doi: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensadoun F, Barburski M, Straumit I, et al. Challenges of X-ray tomography technique on natural fibre-based composites. Non-destructive testing. European Conference. 11TH 2014. 2014;2(12):1588–1599. doi: ISSN1435-4934.
   Google Scholar
• Plank B, Helmus R, Gschwandtner M, et al. In-situ observation of bubble formation in neat resin during the curing process by means of X-ray computed tomography. 19th World Conf. Non-Destructive Test; 2016. pp. 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Torres JJ, Simmons M, Sket F, et al. An analysis of void formation mechanisms in out-of-autoclave prepregs by means of X-ray computed tomography. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2019;117(November 2018):230–242. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2018.11.010.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez Martin C, Maes V, Rosini S, et al. Observations of wrinkling in non-crimp fabrics during multi-ply stack forming using in situ XCT scanning. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2024;176(January 2024): 107880. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107880.
   Google Scholar
• Leutz D, Vermilyea M, Bel S, et al. Forming simulation of thick AFP laminates and comparison with live CT imaging. Appl Compos Mater. 2016;23(4):583–600. doi: 10.1007/s10443-016-9475-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kratz J, Galvez-Hernandez P, Pickard LR, et al. Lab-based in-situ micro-CT observation of gaps in prepreg laminates during consolidation and cure. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 2021;140(April 2020):106180. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106180.
   Google Scholar
• Geng Y, Jiang J, Chen N. Local impregnation behavior and simulation of non-crimp fabric on curved plates in vacuum assisted resin transfer molding. Compos Struct. 2019;208(September 2018):517–524. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.10.054.
   Google Scholar
• ASTM International. ASTM D7264 standard test method for flexural properties of polymer matrix composite materials. Annu B ASTM Stand. 2007;i:1–11. doi: 10.1520/D7264.
   Google Scholar
• Holmes J, Sommacal S, Das R, et al. Digital image and volume correlation for deformation and damage characterisation of fibre-reinforced composites: a review. Compos Struct 2023;315(October 2022):116994. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.116994.
   Google Scholar
• Mujika F. On the difference between flexural moduli obtained by three-point and four-point bending tests. Polym Test. 2006;25(2):214–220. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2005.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baek J, Pineda AR, Pelc NJ. To bin or not to bin? The effect of CT system limiting resolution on noise and detectability. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58(5):1433–1446. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar