Tape surface characterization and classification in automated tape placement processability: Modeling and numerical analysis

Clara Argerich; Ruben Ibáñez; Angel León; Anaïs Barasinski; Emmanuelle Abisset-Chavanne; Francisco Chinesta; Clara Argerich; Ruben Ibáñez; Angel León; Anaïs Barasinski; Emmanuelle Abisset-Chavanne; Francisco Chinesta

doi:10.3934/matersci.2018.5.870

AIMS Materials Science

2018, Volume 5, Issue 5: 870-888. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.5.870

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Topical Sections

Tape surface characterization and classification in automated tape placement processability: Modeling and numerical analysis

1.
GEM, UMR CNRS-Centrale Nantes, 1 rue de la Noe, BP 92101, F-44321 Nantes cedex 3, France
2.
ICI Institute, 1 rue de la Noe, BP 92101, F-44321 Nantes cedex 3, France
3.
ESI Group & Bristol Composites Institute (ACCIS), Queen’s Building, University Walk, BristolBS8 1TR, UK
4.
PIMM, ENSAM ParisTech, 151 Boulevard de l’Hˆopital, 75013 Paris, France

Received: 16 June 2018 Accepted: 26 August 2018 Published: 03 September 2018

Many composite forming processes are based on the consolidation of preimpregnated preforms of different types, e.g., sheets, tapes, .... Composite plies are put in contact using different technologies and consolidation is performed by supplying heat and pressure, the first to promote molecular diffusion at the plies interface and both (heat and pressure) to facilitate the intimate contact by squeezing surface asperities. Optimal processing requires an intimate contact as large as possible between the surfaces put in contact, for different reasons: (i) first, a perfect contact becomes compulsory to make possible molecular diffusion at the interface level in order to ensure bulk properties at interfaces; (ii) second, imperfect contact conditions result in micro and meso pores located at the interface, weakening it from the mechanical point of view, where macro defects (cracks, plies delamination, etc.) are susceptible of appearing. As just indicated, the main process parameters are the applied heat and pressure, as well as the process time (associated with the laying head velocity). These parameters should be adjusted to ensure optimal consolidation, avoiding imperfect bonding or thermal degradation. However, experiments evidence that the consolidation degree is strongly dependent on the surface characteristics (roughness). The same process parameters applied to different surfaces produce very different degrees of intimate contact. The present study aims at identifying the main surface descriptors able to describe the evolution of the degree of intimate contact during processing. That knowledge is crucial for online process control in order to maximize both productivity and part quality.
- surface characterization,
- curvature,
- machine learning,
- ATP composites manufacturing,
- consolidation,
- Sparse Proper Generalized Decomposition,
- nonlinear regression
Citation: Clara Argerich, Ruben Ibáñez, Angel León, Anaïs Barasinski, Emmanuelle Abisset-Chavanne, Francisco Chinesta. Tape surface characterization and classification in automated tape placement processability: Modeling and numerical analysis[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(5): 870-888. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.5.870

Related Papers:

Abstract

Many composite forming processes are based on the consolidation of preimpregnated preforms of different types, e.g., sheets, tapes, .... Composite plies are put in contact using different technologies and consolidation is performed by supplying heat and pressure, the first to promote molecular diffusion at the plies interface and both (heat and pressure) to facilitate the intimate contact by squeezing surface asperities. Optimal processing requires an intimate contact as large as possible between the surfaces put in contact, for different reasons: (i) first, a perfect contact becomes compulsory to make possible molecular diffusion at the interface level in order to ensure bulk properties at interfaces; (ii) second, imperfect contact conditions result in micro and meso pores located at the interface, weakening it from the mechanical point of view, where macro defects (cracks, plies delamination, etc.) are susceptible of appearing. As just indicated, the main process parameters are the applied heat and pressure, as well as the process time (associated with the laying head velocity). These parameters should be adjusted to ensure optimal consolidation, avoiding imperfect bonding or thermal degradation. However, experiments evidence that the consolidation degree is strongly dependent on the surface characteristics (roughness). The same process parameters applied to different surfaces produce very different degrees of intimate contact. The present study aims at identifying the main surface descriptors able to describe the evolution of the degree of intimate contact during processing. That knowledge is crucial for online process control in order to maximize both productivity and part quality.

References

[1]	Chinesta F, Leygue A, Bognet B, et al. (2014) First steps towards an advanced simulation of composites manufacturing by automated tape placement. Int J Mater Form 7: 81–92. doi: 10.1007/s12289-012-1112-9
[2]	Chinesta F, Ammar A, Cueto E (2010) Recent advances and new challenges in the use of the Proper Generalized Decomposition for solving multidimensional models. Arch Comput Method Eng 17: 327–350. doi: 10.1007/s11831-010-9049-y
[3]	Chinesta F, Ladeveze P, Cueto E (2011) A short review in model order reduction based on Proper Generalized Decomposition. Arch Comput Method Eng 18: 395–404. doi: 10.1007/s11831-011-9064-7
[4]	Chinesta F, Keunings R, Leygue A (2014) The Proper Generalized Decomposition for advanced numerical simulations. A primer, Springer International Publishing.
[5]	Chinesta F, Ladeveze P (2014) Separated representations and PGD based model reduction: Fundamentals and applications, CISM-Springer.
[6]	Chinesta F, Huerta A, Rozza G, et al. (2016) Model Order Reduction, In: Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics, 2Eds., Wiley.
[7]	Bognet B, Leygue A, Chinesta F, et al. (2012) Advanced simulation of models defined in plate geometries: 3D solutions with 2D computational complexity. Comput Method Appl M 201: 1–12.
[8]	Bognet B, Leygue A, Chinesta F (2014) Separated representations of 3D elastic solutions in shell geometries. Adv Model Simul Eng Sci 1: 4. doi: 10.1186/2213-7467-1-4
[9]	Bordeu F, Ghnatios Ch, Boulze D, et al. (2015) Parametric 3D elastic solutions of beams involved in frame structures. Adv Aircr Spacecr Sci 2: 233–248. doi: 10.12989/aas.2015.2.3.233
[10]	Ghnatios Ch, Chinesta F, Binetruy Ch (2015) The squeeze flow of composite laminates. Int J Mater Form 8: 73–83. doi: 10.1007/s12289-013-1149-4
[11]	Chinesta F, Leygue A, Bordeu F, et al. (2013) Parametric PGD based computational vademecum for effcient design, optimization and control. Arch Comput Method Eng 20: 31–59. doi: 10.1007/s11831-013-9080-x
[12]	Lee W, Springer G (1987) A model of the manufacturing process of thermoplastic matrix composites. J Compos Mater 21: 1057–1082.
[13]	Levy A, Heider D, Tierney J, et al. (2014) Inter-layer thermal contact resistance evolution with the degree of intimate contact in the processing of thermoplastic composite laminates. J Compos Mater 48: 491–503. doi: 10.1177/0021998313476318
[14]	Coy J, Sidik S (1979) Two-dimensional random surface model for asperity contact in elastohydrodynamic lubrication. Wear 57: 293–311. doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(79)90104-2
[15]	Longuet-Higgins M (1957) Statistical properties of an isotropic random surface. Philos T R Soc A 250: 157–174. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1957.0018
[16]	Longuet-Higgins M (1957) The Statistical Analysis of a Random, moving surface. Philos T R Soc A 249: 321–387. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1957.0002
[17]	Nayak P (1973) Some aspects of surface roughness measurement. Wear 26: 165–174. doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(73)90132-4
[18]	Oden P, Majumdar A, Bhushan B, et al. (1992) AFM Imaging, roughness analysis and contact mechanics of magnetic tape and head surfaces. J Tribol 114: 666–674. doi: 10.1115/1.2920934
[19]	Sayles R, Thomas T (1976) Thermal conductance of a rough elastic contact. Appl Energ 2: 249–267. doi: 10.1016/0306-2619(76)90012-X
[20]	Sayles R, Thomas T (1977) The spatial representation of surface roughness by means of the structure function: a practical alternative to correlation. Wear 42: 263–276. doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(77)90057-6
[21]	Yaglom A (1987) Correlation theory of stationary and related random function. Volume I: Basic Results, New York: Springer-Verlag.
[22]	Borodich F, Mosolov A (1992) Fractal roughness in contact problems. J Appl Math Mech 56: 786–795.
[23]	Ganti S, Bhushan B (1995) Generalized fractal analysis and its applications to engineering surfaces. Wear 180: 17–34. doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(94)06545-4
[24]	Mandelbrot B (1983) The fractal geometry of Nature, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
[25]	Mandelbrot B, Van Ness J (1968) Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Rev 10: 422–437. doi: 10.1137/1010093
[26]	Mandelbrot B, Passoja D, Paullay A (1984) Fractal character of fracture surfaces of metals. Nature 308: 721–722. doi: 10.1038/308721a0
[27]	Mandelbrot B (2002) Gaussian self-affnity and fractals, New York: Springer-Verlag.
[28]	Majumdar A, Tien C (1990) Fractal Characterization and simulation of rough surfaces. Wear 136: 313–327. doi: 10.1016/0043-1648(90)90154-3
[29]	Warren T, Majumdar A, Krajcinovic D (1996) A fractal model for the rigid-perfectly plastic contact of rough surfaces. J Appl Mech 63: 47–54. doi: 10.1115/1.2787208
[30]	Yang F, Pitchumani R (2001) A fractal cantor set based description of interlaminar contact evolution during thermoplastic composites processing. J Mater Sci 36: 4661–4671. doi: 10.1023/A:1017950215945
[31]	Leon A, Barasinski A, Nadal E, et al. (2015) High-resolution thermal analysis at thermoplastic pre-impregnated composite interfaces. Compos Interface 22: 767–777. doi: 10.1080/09276440.2015.1060734
[32]	Leon A, Barasinski A, Chinesta F (2017) Microstructural analysis of pre-impregnated tapes consolidation. Int J Mater Form 10: 369–378. doi: 10.1007/s12289-016-1285-8
[33]	Leon A, Argerich C, Barasinski A, et al. (2018) Effects of material and process parameters on in-situ consolidation. Int J Mater Form 1–13.
[34]	Saoudi A, Leon A, Gregoire G, et al. (2017) On the interfacial thermal properties of two rough surfaces in contact in preimpregnated composites consolidation. Surf Topogr-Metrol 5: 045010. doi: 10.1088/2051-672X/aa9667
[35]	Helmus R, Kratz J, Potter K, et al. (2017) An experimental technique to characterize interply void formation in unidirectional prepregs. J Compos Mater 51: 579–591. doi: 10.1177/0021998316650273
[36]	Leon A, Barasinski A, Abisset-Chavanne E, et al. (2018) Wavelet-based multiscale proper generalized decomposition. CR Mecanique 346: 485–500. doi: 10.1016/j.crme.2018.04.013
[37]	Dagnall H (2014) Exploring Surface Texture, Taylor Hobson Publishing Ltd.
[38]	Bhushan B (2001) Modern Tribology Handbook, CRC Press.
[39]	Torquato S (2002) Statistical Description of Microstructures. Annu Rev Mater Res 32: 77–111. doi: 10.1146/annurev.matsci.32.110101.155324

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)