journal article·2025-03Open access

Integrating simulation and machine learning for accurate preform charge prediction in Sheet Molding Compound manufacturing

Mikhael Tannous, Sebastian Rodriguez, Chady Ghnatios, Francisco Chinesta

Abstract

Abstract The Sheet Molding Compound (SMC) process is essential in high-volume manufacturing of composite structures due to its scalability and efficiency. A primary challenge, however, lies in determining the initial charge shape that ensures complete mold filling without excessive overflow, typically resolved through labor-intensive trial and error. While simulations can anticipate the mold filling outcome, they often lack the capability to fine-tune the initial preform configuration, leading to inefficiencies in both time and material. This study presents an innovative, simulation-driven approach for accurately predicting initial charge shapes for two-dimensional (2D) mold designs. By employing Darcy’s Law and a fixed mesh grid framework, the methodology simulates a reverse material flow to trace the optimal preform shape. A complementary machine learning (ML) model was then developed to predict the preform shapes based on mold geometry, final thickness, and initial charge thickness. Serving as a digital twin of the SMC process, this ML model delivers results with comparable accuracy to simulations, significantly enhancing computational efficiency and avoiding common convergence issues in traditional simulations. This ML-driven digital twin approach also provides a robust proof of concept for addressing initial charge shapes in complex three-dimensional (3D) molds, where the computational demands of reverse flow simulations may present challenges. This combined simulation and ML framework equips manufacturers with a more precise and efficient tool for optimizing SMC processes, minimizing material waste, and reducing production time.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Injection Molding Process and Properties · Manufacturing Process and Optimization · Material Properties and Processing

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. Hsissou R, Seghiri R, Benzekri Z, Hilali M, Rafik M, Elharfi A (2021) Polymer composite materials: A comprehensive review. Compos Struct 262:11364010.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113640 ↗
2. Orgéas L, Dumont PJJ (2011) Sheet molding compounds. Wiley encyclopedia of composites, pages 1–3610.1002/9781118097298.weoc222 ↗
3. Binetruy C, Chinesta F, Keunings R (2015) Flows in Polymers, reinforced polymers and composites: A multi-Scale approach. Springer10.1007/978-3-319-16757-2 ↗
4. Perez M, Guevelou S, Abisset-Chavanne E, Chinesta F, Keunings R (2017) From dilute to entangled fibre suspensions involved in the flow of reinforced polymers: a unified framework. J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 250:8–1710.1016/j.jnnfm.2017.10.003 ↗
5. Perez M, Prono D, Ghnatios C, Abisset E, Duval JL, Chinesta F (2020) Advanced modeling and simulation of sheet moulding compound (smc) processes. IntJ Mater Form 13:675–68510.1007/s12289-019-01506-2 ↗
6. Lee LJ, Fan JD, Kim J, Im YT (1991) Flow analysis of sheet molding compounds in compression molding. Int Polym Proc 6(1):61–7210.3139/217.910061 ↗
7. Chinesta F, Cueto E, Khaldi NE (2011) Numerical modeling and simulation of sheet molding compound processes. IntJ Mater Form 4(1):1–1410.1007/s12289-010-0985-8 ↗
8. Rodriguez S, Monteiro E, Mechbal N, Rebillat M, Chinesta F (2023) Hybrid twin of rtm process at the scarce data limit. IntJ Mater Form 16(4):4010.1007/s12289-023-01747-2 ↗
9. Tezduyar TE (2001) Finite element methods for flow problems with moving boundaries and interfaces. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 8:83–13010.1007/BF02897870 ↗
10. van Loon R, Anderson PD, van de Vosse FN, Sherwin SJ (2007) Comparison of various fluid-structure interaction methods for deformable bodies. Computers & structures 85(11–14):833–84310.1016/j.compstruc.2007.01.010 ↗
11. Ebrahimian F, Rodriguez S, Di Lorenzo D, Chinesta F (2024) Optimization of precharge placement in sheet molding compound process. IntJ Mater Form 17(4):1–11
12. Kim MS, Lee WIl, Han WS, Vautrin A (2011) Optimisation of location and dimension of smc precharge in compression moulding process. Computers & structures 89(15–16):1523–153410.1016/j.compstruc.2011.04.004 ↗
13. Ghnatios C, Masson F, Huerta A, Leygue A, Cueto E, Chinesta F (2012) Proper generalized decomposition based dynamic data-driven control of thermal processes. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 213:29–4110.1016/j.cma.2011.11.018 ↗
14. Chinesta F, Cueto E, Huerta A (2014) Pgd for solving multidimensional and parametric models. In Separated Representations and PGD-Based Model Reduction: Fundamentals and Applications, pages 27–89. Springer10.1007/978-3-7091-1794-1_2 ↗
15. Ibáñez R, Abisset-Chavanne E, Ammar A, González D, Cueto E, Huerta A, Duval JL, Chinesta F et al (2018) A multidimensional data-driven sparse identification technique: the sparse proper generalized decomposition. Complexity 201810.1155/2018/5608286 ↗
16. Goodfellow I (2016) Deep learning
17. Goodfellow I, Pouget-Abadie J, Mirza M, Xu B, Warde-Farley D, Ozair S, Courville A, Bengio Y (2014) Generative adversarial nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2672–2680
18. Mounayer J, Rodriguez S, Ghnatios C, Farhat C, Chinesta F (2024) Rank reduction autoencoders–enhancing interpolation on nonlinear manifolds. arXiv:2405.13980
19. Hesthaven JS, Rozza G (2008) Proper generalized decomposition of multiscale problems. SIAM J Numer Anal 46(1):348–377
20. Nielsen MA (2015) Neural networks and deep learning, vol 25. Determination press San Francisco, CA, USA
21. Twu JT, Lee LJ (1995) Application of artificial neural networks for the optimal design of sheet molding compound (smc) compression molding. Polym Compos 16(5):400–40810.1002/pc.750160508 ↗
22. Hernández Q, Badías A, González D, Chinesta F, Cueto E (2021) Structure-preserving neural networks. J Comput Phys 426:10995010.1016/j.jcp.2020.109950 ↗
23. Garcıa JA, Gascón L, Chinesta F (2003) A fixed mesh numerical method for modelling the flow in liquid composites moulding processes using a volume of fluid technique. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 192(7–8):877–89310.1016/S0045-7825(02)00604-7 ↗
24. Piegl L, Tiller W (1996) The NURBS book. Springer Science & Business Media10.1007/978-3-642-59223-2 ↗
25. LeCun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (1998) Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE 86(11):2278–232410.1109/5.726791 ↗
26. Hinton GE, Salakhutdinov RR (2006) Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science 313(5786):504–50710.1126/science.1127647 ↗
27. Vincent P, Larochelle H, Bengio Y, Manzagol PA (2008) Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1096–1103. ACM10.1145/1390156.1390294 ↗
28. Kingma DP, Welling M (2013) Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv:1312.6114
29. Ferrándiz B, Daoud M, Kohout N, Chinesta F (2023) Prediction of cross-sectional features of spr joints based on the punch force-displacement curve using machine learning. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 128:4023–403410.1007/s00170-023-12102-9 ↗
30. Ronneberger O, Fischer P, Brox T (2015) U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234–241. Springer10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 ↗
31. Ghnatios C, Gravot E, Champaney V, Verdon N, Hascoët N, Chinesta F (2024) Polymer extrusion die design using a data-driven autoencoders technique. In International Journal of Material Forming 17(4):1–10