Development of a test device to determine the frictional behavior between honeycomb and prepreg layers under realistic manufacturing conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
During the autoclave manufacturing of sandwich components, several defects may arise. A typical defect in the use of honeycombs is core crush. The occurrence of this defect depends, among other things, on the angle of the honeycomb chamfer. To design this angle, the friction between honeycomb and prepreg must be known. Due to the low rigidity of Nomex® honeycomb in lateral direction, the determination of the frictional behavior between face sheets and honeycomb is a particular challenge. This paper shows the development of a test device for measuring the friction between honeycomb with film adhesive and carbon/epoxy prepreg for different temperatures and compressions corresponding to realistic manufacturing conditions. The device is also suitable for the evaluation of interlaminar friction between prepreg plies and tool-part-interaction. The requirements for the device are shown in detail. Advantages and disadvantages of various concepts for the individual modules are discussed in order to select the most promising design. As proof of concept, friction measurements between honeycomb and prepreg as well as prepreg to prepreg measurements are carried out. In the case of interlaminar measurements, the friction coefficient determined at 1 mm deformation deviates by 5.3% from already published values obtained with another device and is within the stated scatter range. The measurement results for honeycomb against prepreg are in direct correlation with manufacturing trials performed. Using the lowest coefficient of friction established, a critical angle of the honeycomb chamfer was determined. Subsequently, component samples were manufactured with an inclination angle of 7.5° above and 7.5° below the critical angle. The specimens with larger angle showed a strong core crush, whereas those with smaller angle exhibited no core crush. This demonstrates that with this device the honeycomb chamfer of sandwich components can be dimensioned based on the lowest friction coefficient determined between honeycomb and prepreg.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular and Composite Structures · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Metal Forming Simulation Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH, Germany
Institute of Aircraft Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Funding
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
References (28)
Show source-provided references
1. Hsiao HM · Aerosp Am · 2006 · 44 · 901
2. Kain TR. Composite honeycomb sandwich panel for fixed leading edges. Patent US6180206B1, USA, 2001
3. Dulieu-Barton JM, Crump DA, Griffiths D. Effect of core crush on honeycomb sandwich panels. In: International conference on sandwich structures (ed. G Ravichandran), Pasadena, USA, 14–16 June 2010, p.10.
4. 10.1016/1359-835X(96)00037-110.1016/1359-835X(96)00037-1 ↗
5. 10.1002/pc.1026410.1002/pc.10264 ↗
6. Hsiao HM, Lee S, Buyny R, et al. Core-crush resistant fabric and prepreg for fiber reinforced composite sandwich structures . Patent US20020009935A1, USA, 2001
7. Renn DJ · J Adv Mater · 1995 · 27 · 31
8. Schneider TL, Pelton TL. Composite prepreg material form with improved resistance to core crush and porosity. Patent US20030036325A1, USA, 2003.
9. Hartz DE, Hopkins WB, Pederson CL, et al. Composite honeycomb sandwich structure. Patent WO1997025198A1, World, 1997
10. Corbett DH, Smith SA. Tiedown ply for reducing core crush in composite honeycomb sandwich structure . Patent US5895699A, USA, 1999.
11. Hopkins WB, Hartz DE. Adhering tiedown plies in composite construction . Patent US5685940A, USA, 1997
12. Erickson DG, George PE, Mortensen RC, et al. Mandrel and method for manufacturing composite structures. Patent US7138031B2, USA, 2006.
13. 10.1177/002199831347632010.1177/0021998313476320 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.02.01010.1016/j.compositesa.2005.02.010 ↗
15. 10.1016/0956-7143(95)95008-M10.1016/0956-7143(95)95008-M ↗
16. Harrison P · World J Eng · 2010 · 7 · 5
17. 10.1177/089270570403541110.1177/0892705704035411 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2011.04.01010.1016/j.compositesa.2011.04.010 ↗
19. Weber TA, Tellis JJ, Duhovic M. Characterization of tool-part-interaction and interlaminar friction for manufacturing process simulation. In: European conference on composite materials (ed. K Drechsler), Munich, Germany, 26–30 June 2016, 7pp.
20. Joven RV. Characterization and modeling of shear stress during manufacturing and thermal properties of structural composite materials . PhD Thesis, Wichita State University, USA, 2013.
21. 10.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.02610.1016/j.compositesa.2014.08.026 ↗
22. 10.1002/978047061152410.1002/9780470611524 ↗
23. Hexcel Corporation. HexPly M18/1 Datasheet, https://www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/HexPly_M181_eu_DataSheet.pdf (2015, accessed 21 February 2019).
24. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2006.07.01010.1016/j.compstruct.2006.07.010 ↗
25. Hexcel Corporation. HexWeb HRH-10 Aramid Fibre/Phenolic Honeycomb Datasheet, www.hexcel.com/user_area/content_media/raw/HexWeb_HRH10_DataSheet_eu(1).pdf (2017, accessed 3 December 2018).
26. Hubert P. Aspects of flow and compaction of laminated composite shapes during cure . PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, Canada, 1996.
27. Brandenburger Isoliertechnik GmbH & CoKG.S4000 Technical specification, www.brandenburger-isoliertechnik.com/en/products/heat-protection-materials/pressure-resistant-insulation-materials/s-4000r/ (2018, accessed 5 December 2018).
28. 10.1007/978-94-011-5856-510.1007/978-94-011-5856-5 ↗