Aerospace Materials
mixed reviews on this technology. Some welcomed this and some did not. Tose who were skeptical of using robots to expand equipment product lines said that delivery head size, weight, and complexity must be reduced before such machines would ever become widely used. Current delivery head size and weight necessitates using large robots, so it is still difficult to reduce the overall size of lamination equipment to a size that is more applicable to the smaller shops in the industry. Specialty Application Machines: Some of the people I talked
with liked the idea of “specialty” machines that are designed for a specific application. Tis too was not a consensus opin- ion. Some of the people I discussed this topic with thought that more universal application machines were still the best approach to automated lamination. Dual-Process Workcells: Tere was a consensus of opinion
Robot based AFP being developed by MTorres. The fiber placement head (left) attaches to the cell's robot.
Tey’ve all had a long history with automated lamination as well as the other processes used in the fabrication of aerospace composite parts. Each of them felt that automated lamination still needed improvements—and each had opinions regarding where these improvements are most needed. Following is a summary of their concerns.
Automation Issues Cost of Automation: A consensus opinion among the
people I talked with was the need for more affordable lamina- tion equipment. Everyone agreed that the spread of automated lamination processes has struggled due to the size and cost of the industry’s most advanced processes. ATL (automated tape laying) and AFP processing equipment has been historically sized and priced out of reach of the smaller shops of the world and the market for such equipment has therefore been very limited. Te high cost of ATL and AFP lamination equipment was by far the number-one issue that everyone felt must be addressed in the future. Lamination Equipment Variety: Most of the people I talked
with felt that equipment suppliers should offer more variety of composites equipment to their customers. Surprisingly, however, this was not a consensus opinion. Some felt that more equipment variety and smaller machines would enable automated lamination to spread to a larger segment of the composite parts supplier base. Others felt there is a limit to how far automated lamination would spread down the sup- plier base. Everyone agreed that some aerospace smaller parts would always be made with hand layup processes. Robot-Based ATL and AFP: Some lamination equipment
suppliers are starting to offer ATL and AFP equipment based on commercially available robots; the people I talked with had
144 Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing 2014
on this topic. All the people I talked to liked the idea of having one machine that would do both ATL and AFP processes. Everyone viewed this as a much better approach than having to buy two separate machines. Two composite equipment suppliers, MTorres and Fives Cincinnati, are already offering workcells with both ATL and AFP processes and quick-change delivery heads. More equipment suppliers will probably be offering this type of equipment in the future.
Other Areas of Concern My discussions with these industry experts also included
more than just automated lamination processes and equip- ment. Our discussions also addressed other composites topics and composites processes that could use some improvement: Teromplastics: I asked each person for their views on
thermoplastics. It was a consensus opinion that thermoplastics seem to be in a perpetual R&D mode. All said that thermo- plastics had been predicted as the “next big thing” for many years, but it never has happened. All said that thermoplastics processing still needs improvement before it would ever be- come mainstream in the aerospace composites industry. Out-of-Autoclave Processing: All agreed that out-of-auto-
clave cure would eventually become a widely used process in the industry—but all also agreed that it is still a few years away. Te primary reason given for out-of-autoclave process- ing taking several more years to become mainstream was the fact that autoclave cure is a proven process in the industry and most composites shops have autoclaves. Tere was doubt that autoclave cure would be replaced within the next few years. Inspection Processes: Te need for improved inspection pro-
cesses was mentioned by several of the people I talked with. One example given was the need for improved inspection of “tight radiuses.”
Some Predictions Based on the feedback I received from my discussions with a few industry experts for which I have a very high regard, I
Photo courtesy Mtorres
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271 |
Page 272 |
Page 273 |
Page 274 |
Page 275 |
Page 276 |
Page 277 |
Page 278 |
Page 279 |
Page 280 |
Page 281 |
Page 282 |
Page 283 |
Page 284 |
Page 285 |
Page 286 |
Page 287 |
Page 288 |
Page 289 |
Page 290 |
Page 291 |
Page 292 |
Page 293 |
Page 294 |
Page 295 |
Page 296 |
Page 297 |
Page 298 |
Page 299 |
Page 300 |
Page 301 |
Page 302 |
Page 303 |
Page 304 |
Page 305 |
Page 306 |
Page 307 |
Page 308 |
Page 309 |
Page 310 |
Page 311 |
Page 312