The compaction of a fabric reinforcement in a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) allows to determine the achievable fiber volume fraction across a wide range of pressures, a valuable information for composite manufacturing. As seen in the first international compressibility benchmark, inaccuracies in the fabric stack thickness measurement, the approach to compliance correction and the non-parallelism between compaction plates resulted in highly inaccurate compression curves. In this paper, the different variability sources affecting indirect thickness methods, based on the machine displacement, and direct methods with laser sensors are presented and its impact on the accuracy is estimated. In conclusion, both thickness measurement methods produced similar results; however, the thickness measured by direct methods experienced more variability due to minor changes in the rig’s displacement or the orientations between plates, combined with other sources of variability such as external interferences or vibrations from the compaction plate which led to variations in measurement precision throughout the tests.
EndruweitALongAC. Analysis of compressibility and permeability of selected 3D woven reinforcements. J Compos Mater2010; 44(24): 2833–2862. DOI: 10.1177/0021998310369586.
2.
AsayeshAMirgoliFGholamhosseiniA. An investigation into the effect of fabric structure on the compressional properties of woven fabrics. J Textil Inst2018; 109(1): 32–38. DOI: 10.1080/00405000.2017.1320817.
3.
RobitailleFGauvinR. Compaction of textile reinforcements for composites manufacturing. I: Review of experimental results. Polym Compos1998; 19(2): 198–216. DOI: 10.1002/pc.10091.
4.
BickertonSBuntainMJSomashekarAA. The viscoelastic compression behavior of liquid composite molding preforms. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2003; 34(5): 431–444. DOI: 10.1016/S1359-835X(03)00088-5.
5.
RobitailleFGauvinR. Compaction of textile reinforcements for composites manufacturing. II: compaction and relaxation of dry and H2O-saturated woven reinforcements. Polym Compos1998; 19(5): 543–557. DOI: 10.1002/pc.10128.
6.
SomashekarAABickertonSBhattacharyyaD.An experimental investigation of non-elastic deformation of fibrous reinforcements in composites manufacturing. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2006; 37: 858–867. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.06.012
7.
BublitzDColinDDrechslerK, “Implementation of a viscoelastic material model to predict the compaction response of dry carbon fiber preforms,” Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2022; 153: 106718. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2021.106718.
8.
LomovSVGorbatikhLKotanjacŽ, et al.Compressibility of carbon woven fabrics with carbon nanotubes/nanofibres grown on the fibres. Compos Sci Technol2011; 71(3): 315–325. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2010.11.024.
9.
SousaPLomovSVIvensJ. Methodology of dry and wet compressibility measurement. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2020; 128(Jan): 105672. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105672.
10.
YongAXHAktasAMayD, et al.Experimental characterisation of textile compaction response: a benchmark exercise. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2021; 142: 106243. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.106243.
11.
MayDKühnFEtchellsM, et al.A reference specimen for compaction tests of fiber reinforcements. Adv Manuf Polym Compos Sci2019; 5(4): 230–233. DOI: 10.1080/20550340.2019.1701826.
12.
MayDAktasAAdvaniS, et al.In-plane permeability characterization of engineering textiles based on radial flow experiments: a benchmark exercise. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2019; 121: 100–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.006.
13.
AnaYDavidMAndreasE.Measurement of textile compaction response and out-of-plane permeability: 2nd international benchmarking exercise. Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Composite Materials - Composites Meet Sustainability2022; 1-6: 26–30.
14.
ValkovaMAnthonyDBKucernakARJ, et al.Predicting the compaction of hybrid multilayer woven composite reinforcement stacks. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2020; 133(Jun): 105851. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2020.105851.
15.
GrieserTMitschangP. Investigation of the compaction behavior of carbon fiber NCF for continuous preforming processes. Polym Compos2017; 38(11): 2609–2625. DOI: 10.1002/pc.23854.
16.
WalbranWAVerleyeBBickertonS, et al.Prediction and experimental verification of normal stress distributions on mould tools during Liquid Composite Moulding. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2012; 43(1): 138–149. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.09.028.
17.
RenaudJVernetNRuizE, et al. “Creep compaction behavior of 3D carbon interlock fabrics with lubrication and temperature.” Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2016; 86: 87–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2016.04.017.
18.
VernetNTrochuF. Analysis and modeling of 3D Interlock fabric compaction behavior. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf2016; 80: 182–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.10.024.
19.
TrochuFVernetNSunY, et al.Hybrid twin models of fiber compaction for composite manufacturing based on dual kriging. Int J Mater Form2022; 15(3): 36. DOI: 10.1007/s12289-022-01679-3.
20.
SousaPLomovSVIvensJ. “Hurdles and limitations for design of a radial permeameter conforming to the benchmark requirements.” Front Mater2022; 9: 871235. DOI: 10.3389/fmats.2022.871235.
21.
BenderMFausterE. Novel test-rig for compaction behaviour analysis of textile reinforcements for improved RTM-process replication. Adv Manuf Polym Compos Sci2023; 9(1): 2263828. DOI: 10.1080/20550340.2023.2263828.
22.
KruckenburgTPartonR. Compaction of dry and lubricated reinforcements. In: Proceedings FPCM-7. Delaware: Proceedings FPCM-, 2004.
23.
YousafZPotluriPWithersPJ. Influence of tow architecture on compaction and nesting in textile preforms. Appl Compos Mater2017; 24(2): 337–350. DOI: 10.1007/s10443-016-9554-8.
