Towards digital fabrication of carbon fiber lattice structures

Hayley McClintock

W
IE
EV
PR

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
under the Executive Committee
of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
2024
 W
IE
EV
PR

© 2023

Hayley McClintock

All Rights Reserved

 Abstract
Towards digital fabrication of carbon fiber lattice structures
Hayley McClintock

W
Carbon fiber composites have garnered substantial attention in various industries due to their
IE
exceptional strength-to-weight ratio and versatility in applications. The conventional methods of
manufacturing carbon fiber structures involve labor-intensive and time-consuming processes,
EV
making them costly and limiting their design possibilities. To address these challenges, this thesis
explores the potential of digitizable fabrication techniques in revolutionizing the production of
carbon fiber structures.
PR

This research embarks on a comprehensive investigation of the principles and methodologies

behind digital fabrication technologies, such as weaving and laser curing, and their applicability
to carbon fiber composites. The study delves into the intricate interplay between material science
and digital fabrication, aiming to develop innovative strategies for the seamless integration of
carbon fiber into digitally-driven manufacturing processes.
This thesis also presents a detailed exploration of the design freedom and customization
opportunities enabled by possible digital fabrication techniques, allowing for the creation of
complex, lightweight, and highly tailored carbon fiber structures. This research demonstrates how
digital tools can facilitate the optimization of carbon fiber component geometry to meet specific
performance requirements, ultimately improving the overall efficiency of structures.
To validate the feasibility and advantages of digital fabrication for carbon fiber structures, the
research includes experimental case studies and prototyping efforts. These case studies involve
the development of functional prototypes, showcasing the potential of digital fabrication to
produce high-performance components for applications in aerospace.
In conclusion, this thesis contributes to the evolving field of carbon fiber composites by providing
a systematic exploration of the opportunities, challenges, and innovations associated with digital
fabrication techniques. The research underscores the transformative potential of marrying
cutting-edge digital tools with the exceptional material properties of carbon fiber, ultimately
advancing the state-of-the-art in manufacturing and design in various industries.

W
IE
EV
PR
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction or Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter 1: Design and fabrication of carbon fiber lattices using weaving techniques . . . . 3

W
1.1 Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2
IE
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
EV
1.3.1 Compression testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1.3.2 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

PR

1.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chapter 2: Design and fabrication of carbon fiber lattices based on a looping technique . . . 18

2.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.3.1 Compression testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.3.2 Finite Element Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

i
Chapter 3: Programmable laser curing of carbon fiber laminate structures . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2.1 DMA bending tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.2.2 Deployable lattice fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.2.3 Red laser sample fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 4: A Fabrication Strategy for Reconfigurable Millimeter-Scale Metamaterials . . . 37

W
4.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.2
IE
Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.2.1 Fabrication of Sarrus linkage arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

EV
4.2.2 Single hinge testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.2.3 Metamaterial testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

PR

4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.3.1 Metamaterial design and fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.3.2 Numerical model of folding behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.3.3 Empirical characterization of the compression mode . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.3.4 Analytical model of the hinges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.3.5 Analytical model of the compression mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Conclusion or Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

ii
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix A: Experimental Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix B: Lattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Appendix C: Technical drawings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix D: Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

D.1 Code to plot compression data from a single compression test . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

W
D.2 Woven lattice materials curve code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

D.3 Woven lattice comparison to literature values code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

IE
D.4 Looped lattice materials curve code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

D.5 DMA data code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

EV
D.6 FEA modeling processing code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
PR

iii
 List of Figures

1.1 Woven carbon fiber lattices. a) Lattice woven without supporting carbon fiber
tubes. b) Lattice woven with supporting carbon fiber tubes with a 3 mm outer
diameter. c) Lattice woven with supporting carbon fiber tubes with an 8 mm outer
diameter. d) Lattice with an alternative weave pattern. e) Lattice with a differing
density weave pattern. f) Lattice woven with a height gradation. . . . . . . . . . . 5

W
1.2 Lattice fabrication. a) Side cross-section schematic of weaving process. b) Top
view schematic of weaving process. The blue and purple arrows denote the direc-
tion of the weaving. c) Images of the weaving fabrication process. . . . . . . . . .
IE 7

1.3 Compression strength comparison. Comparison of the compressive strengths as a

function of relative density for similar lattice structures. Specific values for com-
EV
pression strength and relative density are given in Table 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1.4 Compression test results. A total of five samples were tested for each lattice geom-
etry. FE model results are shown in blue. a) Stress-strain curves for lattices made
without tubes. b) Stress-strain curves for lattices made with tubes with an outer di-
PR

ameter of 3 mm. c) Stress-strain curves for lattices made with tubes with an outer
diameter of 8 mm. d), e), and f) The curves of Model 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
with different mass scaling. Solid line pattern indicates meeting the criterion of
quasi-static condition, which can be verified by comparing the kinetic energy to
the internal energy in Abaqus. As expected, decreasing the mass scaling factor can
flatten the curves√︁by reducing the pseudo inertial force but increase the run time
by a factor of 1/ 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 (Table 2). The difference of the curves between
experiments and FEM is also due to the their discrepancy in geometry and initial
defects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

1.5 Failure modes. a) Failure mode of a lattice made without tubes. The inset shows
that failure occurs at the diagonal truss. b) Failure mode of a lattice made with
tubes with an outer diameter of 3 mm. The inset shows that failure occurs at both
the tube and the diagonal truss. c) Failure mode of lattice made with tubes with an
outer diameter of 8 mm. Failure occurs at both the tube and the diagonal truss. . . . 13

iv
1.6 Finite-element (FE) modeling of the carbon fiber/epoxy lattice structures. Hashin
damage variables HSNFCCRT (fiber direction compression criterion value), HSN-
MTCRT (transverse direction tensile damage criterium value), and DMICRTMAX-
VAL (maximum damage initiation value) are contoured respectively in models 1-3
due to their different failure modes. Red squares denote compressive buckling and
cracking in the diagonal struts, yellow squares mean tube transverse tensile failure,
and purple squares indicate tube buckling. The bottom row shows the correspond-
ing failure observed in the experimental samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.1 Examples of carbon fiber lattice structures made using a looping technique. a)
Lattice made with a single layer of looped struts. b) Lattice made with two layers
of looped struts. c) An alternate lattice design with tetrahedral struts. d) Single
layer lattice made with a shorter height and alternate weave pattern. e) Single layer
lattice made with double the carbon fiber tow for each loop. f) Lattice made with a
gradient height, resulting in a wedge shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

W
2.2 Lattice fabrication. a) Side view of the looping fabrication process for making a
single layer lattice. b) Side view of the looping fabrication process for making
IE
a double layer lattice. c) Fabrication process for making single layer and double
layer lattice. The top row shows the steps for a single layer lattice and the bottom
row shows the steps for a double layer lattice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
EV
2.3 Lattice compression strength. Compressive strengths for three samples each of
single layer and double layer lattice designs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.4 Failure modes. a) Failure mode of a single layer lattice. b) Failure mode of a
PR

double layer lattice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.5 Compression test results. A total of three samples were tested for each lattice
geometry. FE model results are shown in blue. a) Stress-strain curves for single
layer lattices. b) Stress-strain curves for double layer lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.6 Finite-element (FE) modeling of the carbon fiber/epoxy lattice structures. a) A

single unit of the single and double layer lattices. b) Failure mode of the single and
double layer lattices. c) Corresponding failure mode in experimental samples of
single and double layer lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 Different laser treatment methods for carbon fiber composites. . . . . . . . . . . . 30

v
3.2 Stiffnesses of laser treated prepreg carbon fiber. a) Red laser treatment stiffness
as a function of specific work. b) Blue laser treatment stiffness as a function of
specific work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3 Manufacturing process for deployable lattice structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.4 Examples of deployable lattice structures. a) Lattice with a single unit cell in
height. b) Lattice with two unit cells in height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.5 Examples of structures made using a red laser. a) Cylinders with varying radii. b)
A variety of curved surfaces made using different scoring patterns. . . . . . . . . . 35

3.6 Manufacturing process for curved structures made with the red laser. . . . . . . . . 36

4.1 Sarrus linkage array design. A) An ideal four-sided Sarrus linkage. B) A single

W
fabricated Sarrus linkage unit cell. In this context, we define a unit cell as a four-
sided Sarrus linkage with arm lengths of 𝐿 1 and 𝐿 2 , which consists of 16 hinges
with stiffness 𝑘, with each hinge able to rotate by amount 𝜃. In our fabrication
IE
approach, an extra layer of polyimide remains where the top and bottom laminates
connect as a remnant from the spacing layer that prevents the arms from sticking
together. C) A fabricated 3x3 Sarrus linkage array, where a single layer in the array
is produced by diagonally connecting an arbitrary number of unit cells. We defined
EV
𝑁 𝑠,𝑥 , 𝑁 𝑠,𝑦 , 𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 as the number of unit cells along the width, length, and depth of the
array, respectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.2 Experimental set-up for hinge bending stiffness tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

PR

4.3 Metamaterial array manufacturing. A) Arrays are manufactured using laminate

fabrication techniques. Individual layers are first laser-cut, then stacked and aligned
with heat and pressure applied. Once cured, the entire laminate is laser-cut again
to release the structure. Either single-layer or multi-layer arrays can be fabricated.
For a multi-layered array, single-layer arrays are first fabricated with a remaining
alignment frame, and then stacked and aligned. Once cured, the laminate is cut
again with a final release cut. B) Single-layer arrays with a single unit cell, an
array with 𝑁 𝑠,𝑥 =𝑁 𝑠,𝑦 =3, and an array with 𝑁 𝑠,𝑥 =𝑁 𝑠,𝑦 =8 unit cells. C) Varying array
dimensions using the same number of unit cells and altering the unit cell dimen-
sions. D) Demonstration of how arrays can be layered. Arrays with 𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 =1 layer,
𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 =2 layers, and 𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 =3 layers are shown. E) An example of different shaped
structures that both have approximately 1000 hinges. F) Examples of different
structural geometries that can be created using the base unit cell and variations of
the base unit cell. G) Demonstration of array fabrication with FR4, Steel, and CF
stiff layers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

vi
4.4 Analysis of the Sarrus linkage-based metamaterial. A) A fabricated array with
𝑁 𝑠,𝑥 = 5, 𝑁 𝑠,𝑦 = 5, and 𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 = 3. Deformation of this array along the B) bending
and C) compression modes. D) A model of the same metamaterial with 𝑁 𝑠,𝑥 = 2,
𝑁 𝑠,𝑦 = 2, and 𝑁 𝑠,𝑧 = 2. We show the angles that are actuated in the simulation, 𝜃 t
and 𝜃 b , in order to model the movement of the two modes. E) The elastic energy
of this array when assigning specific angles to 𝜃 t and 𝜃 b . F) The energy and G)
the curvature of the structure at the extremes of the bending modes for arrays with
varying unit cells and layers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.5 Metamaterial array characterization. A) Failure testing under compression from

the side. The array is placed unconstrained between two low-friction compressive
plates, and fails due to delamination or tearing of the hinges, which occurs at the
maximum compression shown for each array. B) Elastic cyclic testing for single,
double, and triple layer Sarrus arrays with no cutouts (𝐿 𝑐 = 0). C) Elastic cyclic
testing for double and triple layer Sarrus arrays with 𝐿 c = 0.5𝐿 2 and 𝐿 c = 0.66𝐿 2 ,
respectively. Shaded regions in B) and C) correspond to ± one standard deviation

W
(n = 4 cycles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.6 Experimental hinge characterization. A) A schematic of the top and side view of
IE
a hinge with the four design parameters labeled. B) The effect of varying cutout
width, 𝐿 c , on hinge stiffness for 25 µm (top) and 12.5 µm (bottom) thick hinges.
The shaded regions represent ± one standard deviation (n = 5 trials). See supple-
EV
mentary Figure S2 for the effect of varying hinge length, 𝑊h , and hinge width, 𝐿 2 ,
on stiffness. C) Hookean and Zener best-fit models plotted alongside normalized
stress-strain curves for all tested hinges (24 hinges, 5 trials each). Note that we plot
the product of the strain and 𝑊h on the 𝑥-axis to normalize the strain experienced
by hinges of different lengths, 𝑊h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
PR

4.7 Analytical model of the compression mode. A) Small deformations for elastic
cyclic testing for single, double, and triple layer Sarrus arrays with 𝐿 c = 0. B)
Small deformation with elastic cyclic testing for double and triple layer Sarrus
arrays with 𝐿 c = 0.5𝐿 2 and 𝐿 c = 0.66𝐿 2 , respectively. Shaded regions correspond
to ± one standard deviation (n = 4 cycles), and the model-predicted force (4.7) is
shown in black for both A) and B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.8 Alternative Sarrus linkage array geometries. Examples of alternative array geome-
tries include using three-sided or six-sided Sarrus linkages. Despite the altered
geometry, the structures still display the same bending modes as the four-sided
Sarrus linkage array. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

A.1 Jig used for creating woven lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

vii
A.2 Jig used for creating lattices made using loops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

B.1 Lattice woven without supporting carbon fiber tubes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B.2 Lattice woven with supporting carbon fiber tubes with a 3 mm outer diameter. . . . 78

B.3 Lattice woven with supporting carbon fiber tubes with an 8 mm outer diameter. . . 79

B.4 Lattice woven with an alternative weave pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

B.5 Lattice woven with a differing density weave pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

B.6 Lattice woven with a height gradation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

B.7 Lattice made with a single layer of looped struts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

W
B.8 Lattice made with two layers of looped struts.Lattice made with two layers of
looped struts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
IE
B.9 An alternate looped lattice design with tetrahedral struts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

B.10 Single layer looped lattice made with a shorter height and alternate weave pattern. . 86
EV

B.11 Single layer lattice made with double the carbon fiber tow for each loop. . . . . . . 87

B.12 Looped lattice made with a gradient height, resulting in a wedge shape. . . . . . . . 87
PR

B.13 Deployable lattice with a single unit cell in height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

B.14 Deployable lattice with two unit cells in height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

C.1 Technical drawing of jig used for woven lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

C.2 Technical drawing of base used for jig for looped lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

C.3 Technical drawing of the design used to make the deployable lattice structure. . . . 93

D.1 Code for processing the data generated by Abaqus when completing finite element
analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

viii
D.2 Code for processing the data generated by Abaqus when completing finite element
analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

D.3 Code for processing the data generated by Abaqus when completing finite element
analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

D.4 Code for processing the data generated by Abaqus when completing finite element
analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

D.5 Code for processing the data generated by the DMA when testing the stiffness of
laser cured carbon fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

D.6 Code for processing the data generated by Abaqus when completing finite element
analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

W
IE
EV
PR

ix
 List of Tables

1.1 List of comparable carbon fiber lattices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.2 Comparison among simulations and corresponding experiments from Figure 2.5 in
terms of peak values, wallclock√︁ run time, and quasi-static status. The simulation
run time is proportional to 1/ 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔. The FE Model 3 failed to reach a
quasi-static loading due to an unknown bug. The geometric difference, defects dif-

W
ference, and mass scaling are believed to be the major reason of the in-consistence
between FEM and experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.3
IE
Mechanical property of the carbon fiber/epoxy composite material. Variable 𝜌 is
mass density, 𝐸𝑖 , 𝜈𝑖 𝑗 , 𝐺 𝑖 𝑗 , 𝑆𝑖,𝑇/𝐶 ,and 𝑆𝑖 𝑗 are Young’s moduli, Poisson’s ratios, shear
moduli, normal strengths, and shear strengths in corresponding directions. 𝑈𝑖,𝑇/𝐶
EV
are tensile/compressive fracture energy in the corresponding directions [32] . . . . 17

2.1 Mechanical property of the carbon fiber/epoxy composite material. Variable 𝜌 is

mass density, 𝐸𝑖 , 𝜈𝑖 𝑗 , 𝐺 𝑖 𝑗 , and 𝜏𝑖 𝑗 are Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, shear
PR

modulus, and shear strength in corresponding directions; 𝜎𝑖,𝑇/𝐶 and 𝑈𝑖,𝑇/𝐶 are ten-
sile/compressive strengths and fracture energy in the corresponding directions [32]
[33]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1 Metamaterials fabricated using different methods and materials, spanning from the
macro-scale to the micro-scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

x
 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge all the hard work put into this thesis by my undergraduate
research assistants. Thank you to Bruno Rergis for his help designing and fabricating the jig used

W
for the woven lattice. To David McIntosh for his help fabricating the looped lattices. To Yusong
Deng for his help fabricating the looped lattices, with the laser curing, and for formatting the
IE
corresponding Latex files. And to Michael Sheehan for the initial work on the laser curing
fabrication process. I would also like to thank Zechen Xiong and Yibo Peng for their help with
EV
developing the finite element analysis models for the woven lattices and the looped lattices.
Finally, I would like to thank Neel Doshi and Agustin Iniguez-Rabago for their contributions to
the modeling of the structure outlined in Chapter 4.
PR

xi
 Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of materials science and advanced manufacturing, carbon

fiber composites have emerged as a vital component in engineering, aerospace, automotive, and

W
various other industries due to their exceptional strength-to-weight ratio and remarkable
mechanical properties. The versatile applications of carbon fiber materials have, however, long
IE
been constrained by traditional manufacturing methods, which often rely on labor-intensive and
resource-consuming techniques. To unlock the full potential of carbon fiber composites, a
EV
paradigm shift towards digital fabrication methods has become essential. The present scientific
paper embarks on a journey toward the realization of this vision, exploring the possibilities and
challenges associated with the digital fabrication of carbon fiber lattice structures.
PR

Carbon fiber lattice structures, with their intricate and precisely engineered geometries, promise
to revolutionize industries that require lightweight yet robust components. These lattice structures
have demonstrated potential in enhancing the performance of materials, reducing weight, and
improving structural integrity. However, their adoption has been hindered by the limitations of
conventional manufacturing processes. The shift towards digital fabrication holds the key to
overcoming these barriers and unleashing the full creative potential of lattice structures, enabling
their application in a wide range of fields, from aerospace engineering to biomedical devices.
The transformation of carbon fiber composites through digital fabrication methods represents a
critical step forward in the pursuit of sustainability and efficiency. Traditional carbon fiber
production processes are resource-intensive, generating significant waste and environmental

1
impact. In contrast, digital fabrication offers the potential to minimize material waste and energy
consumption while enabling highly customizable and optimized lattice structures. This shift not
only aligns with the broader goals of sustainable manufacturing but also promises to open new
doors for product innovation and design.
Moreover, as digital fabrication technologies continue to advance and become more accessible,
their integration with carbon fiber materials creates a synergy that can lead to breakthroughs in
diverse industries. The ability to design and produce intricate lattice structures with precision and
repeatability allows for the development of products that were once considered too complex or
costly to manufacture. From lightweight yet incredibly strong components for space exploration
to patient-specific medical implants, the potential applications are limited only by our imagination

W
and technical capabilities.
To fully appreciate the transformative potential of digital fabrication in carbon fiber lattice
IE
structures, it is essential to explore the scientific and engineering principles that underpin these
processes. This paper will discuss the design considerations and simulation tools driving this
EV
evolution. We will also investigate the material science aspects, such as composite fabrication and
the compatibility of the resin with digital methods. By addressing the technological and material
challenges that researchers and engineers face, we aim to guide future innovations and ensure the
PR

practical realization of carbon fiber lattice structures through digital fabrication.

In this thesis, we develop fabrication processes for making carbon fiber lattice structures that
could be automated in future iterations. By exploring the state-of-the-art methods and materials,
as well as the challenges that lie ahead, we aim to contribute to the body of knowledge that will
drive innovation in the field. Through this exploration, we intend to shed light on the potential for
digital fabrication to transform the way we design, create, and utilize carbon fiber lattice
structures, paving the way for a more sustainable and efficient future in materials science and
engineering.

2
 Chapter 1: Design and fabrication of carbon fiber lattices using weaving

techniques

1.1 Introduction and background

When designing structures for aerospace applications, it is critical to reduce mass while main-
taining strength. To achieve this objective, lattice structures are often used as a way to engineer

W
a low density material that maintains the desired mechanical properties. A lattice structure is a
framework or grid-like arrangement of interconnected elements. Unlike trusses, lattice structures
IE
do not necessarily have to consist of triangular patterns, and the elements can form various shapes,
such as squares or hexagons.
EV
Lattice design and geometry has long been studied, and there are a number of geometries that
yield high performance lattices, such as octet-truss [1], tetrahedral [2, 3], pyramidal [4, 5], and 3D
Kagome lattices [6, 7]. Traditionally, these lattices were made from metal, and were fabricated
PR

using traditional manufacturing methods such as investment casting [8] and sheet folding [9, 10,
11].
Recently, carbon fiber has emerged as a superior alternative to metal for constructing lattices.
With a higher strength to weight ratio, carbon fiber performs better than other previously used met-
als. Typically, a prepreg carbon fiber composite is used, where the carbon fiber is preimpregnated
with epoxy. This allows the carbon fiber composite to be molded into the desired shape, and then
cured into place using a combination of heat and pressure.
Carbon fiber lattices can be fabricated using some of the same methods used for metallic lat-
tices. Common techniques are usually cutting and folding [12, 13], snap fitting [14, 5], hot press
molding [15, 11, 10], or using mechanical fasteners [16, 17]. One drawback with almost all of these

3
fabrication methods is that they require manual assembly. This is time consuming and unwieldy,
and is not practical for fabricating structures at larger scales.
One possible solution to this issue is to use additive manufacturing methods, such as 3D print-
ing. By employing digital manufacturing processes, not only is fabrication time reduced, but errors
introduced by manual assembly are eliminated as well. Moreover, the programmability of digital
manufacturing processes allows for customization and optimization not afforded using bulk pro-
duction processes.
Currently, there are a number of carbon fiber 3D printers commercially available. Many use
chopped carbon fiber particles mixed with thermosets [18], but some also use continuous carbon
fibers [19, 20], though these fibers do not usually span across multiple layers. For example, Liu

W
et. al [21] demonstrated a free-hanging 3D printing technique that allows for the truss orientation
to follow the axis of the slant of the struts. However, the 3D printing process can still be quite
IE
time consuming. Similarly, Eichenhofer et. al [22] presented a pultrusion/extrusion method to
additively manufacture lattices in a continuous manner with directed orientation of the fibers. Ad-
EV
ditionally, winding can also be used as a method to continuously produce lattice structures [23, 24,
25]. One drawback with these methods is that they do not allow for a robust connection between
layers if a lattice was made with more than one unit cell in height.
PR

In this research, we explore an alternative method to designing and fabricating carbon fiber
lattices. Drawing inspiration from crocheting and sewing processes, the carbon fiber is woven
through a diagonal carbon fiber grid held tightly in a jig. These taught threads are equivalent to
the warp threads in a loom, except that they are interlaced into a lattice instead of being parallel.
We then join lattice by weaving thread vertically, equivalent to the weft threads in a loom. The
resulting 3D lattices then contain both diagonal and rectangular struts. Though previous work has
demonstrated the effectiveness of woven lattices [26, 27], the method here offers the advantage of
not needing a faceplate during fabrication. Without the restriction of the faceplate, more advanced
designs can be created. For example, the warp planes do not need to be parallel to each other or

4
a) b) c)

10mm
10mm 10mm

d) e) f)

10mm

10mm 10mm

W
Figure 1.1: Woven carbon fiber lattices. a) Lattice woven without supporting carbon fiber tubes.
b) Lattice woven with supporting carbon fiber tubes with a 3 mm outer diameter. c) Lattice woven
IE
with supporting carbon fiber tubes with an 8 mm outer diameter. d) Lattice with an alternative
weave pattern. e) Lattice with a differing density weave pattern. f) Lattice woven with a height
gradation.
EV
even planar or uniform. Similarly, the weft threads can be non-uniform, optimizing strength to
weight performance.
Here, after fabricating three different designs, the lattices are subjected to compression test-
PR

ing to determine the compressive strengths of the structures. The results are then compared to
a finite element (FE) simulation to validate the experimental findings. Finally, the results of the
compression testing are compared to similar structures.

1.2 Methods

Carbon fiber tow is used as the main lattice material, as it is high strength and low weight, and is
commercially available. The carbon fiber tow (HMT301-34/700 Tow Preg, Northern Composites)
is pre-impregnated with resin, meaning that the tow can be directly cured without having to apply
resin after shaping the material. The fiber volume ratio is taken to be 60% and the individual

5
filaments that make up the tow are taken to be 5-8 µm [28]. The method described here is based
on crocheting and sewing principles. First, an aluminum jig is fabricated that contains holes along
each wall (shown in Appendix A). Carbon fiber tow can then be woven through these holes to
form a diagonal grid. Two layers of these grids are woven onto the jig to use as a substrate for the
weaving process. Additionally, if desired, vertical, unidirectional, pultruded carbon fiber tubes can
be added at each node of the grid by placing unidirectional carbon fiber tubes (McMaster-Carr) at
the nodes and curing them in place with a small amount of epoxy. Here, two different tubes are
studied; one with an outer diameter of 3 mm and an inner diameter of 2 mm, and another with an
outer diameter of 8 mm and an inner diameter of 6 mm. Once the tubes are cured in place (or after
the grid is woven if tubes are not being used), a latch hook is used to loop and knot carbon fiber

W
tow around the grid. The latch hook is first lowered through both grid layers with the latch open.
Then, the carbon fiber tow is wrapped around the hook, and the hook is pulled back up and the
IE
latch is closed. Once pulled through, the latch hook is then moved above the next location and the
process is repeated. Once the grid is in place, the lattices are cured at 230°C for 20 minutes. After
EV
curing, the lattice is removed by cutting the connections to the jig. Both the weaving process and
the removal process can be automated in future iterations of this project. A final step of dipping the
entire structure in epoxy after the initial curing is also added to increase the strength of the lattice.
PR

An overview of this process is shown in Figure 3.3.

1.3 Results

Three different lattice designs were tested in this study. These include two lattices made with
different diameter tubes and a lattice woven without tubes. Examples of these structures, as well
as other lattice designs, are shown in Figure 1.1 and in Appendix B. The variety of fabricated
structures demonstrates the versatility of the design approach. To test the strength of the structure,
the lattices undergo compression testing and the compressive strength is calculated and compared
to similar structures found in the literature. These findings are then corroborated by a finite element

6
 a)

b) c)

W
IE
3 cm
EV
PR

Figure 1.2: Lattice fabrication. a) Side cross-section schematic of weaving process. b) Top view
schematic of weaving process. The blue and purple arrows denote the direction of the weaving. c)
Images of the weaving fabrication process.

7
analysis of each of the three structures.

1.3.1 Compression testing

To characterize the strength of the lattice, compression tests were performed on three different
designs to determine their respective compressive strengths. Samples were placed in a universal
testing machine (Instron) with a measuring range of 6kN to 600kN and compressed at a rate of 5
mm/min to maintain a quasi-static condition. This gave a maximum force, which was then con-
verted to compressive strength by dividing by the structural cut cross sectional area of the lattice.
Relative density was computed by normalizing the density of the lattices by the density of the
constituent carbon fiber, coated in epoxy after the initial curing process. The value for the density

W
of the constituent carbon fiber was computed with experimentally found values, and was found to
be 1100 kg/𝑚 3 . The results of the compression tests are shown in Figure 2.3, where the data is
IE
also plotted with reported values from similar lattice structures found in the literature. Stress-strain
curves were also computed for each sample type. The stress was calculated by dividing the exper-
EV
imentally found force by the cross-sectional area. These results are shown in Figure 2.5. It should
be noted that the heights differ between the lattices without tubes and with tubes. This difference
occurs during the fabrication process, wherein the two parallel diagonal grids are pulled towards
PR

each other during the weaving process for the lattice without tubes. In addition to adding strength,
the tubes also keep the vertical distance between the two horizontal grids uniform.
Compared to similar lattices, the lattices with the added carbon fiber tubes show a comparable
performance to similar designs (a complete listing of the data points shown in Figure 2.3). For
example, for the lattice made without tubes, the data points are similar in range to four other
lattices found in the literature. The lattice made with tubes of outer diameter 3mm is about the same
relative density as these four points, but has a higher compressive strength. The lattice made with
tubes of outer diameter 8mm is not close in range to the other lattices, but has a higher compressive
strength than all but 5 of the lattices found in the literature. One detail to note is that many other

8
 14
Literature
No tubes
12 Tubes with outer diameter 8mm
Tubes with outer diameter 3mm
Compressive Strength (MPa)

10

W
8

6
IE
4
EV

2
PR

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Relative Density

Figure 1.3: Compression strength comparison. Comparison of the compressive strengths as a

function of relative density for similar lattice structures. Specific values for compression strength
and relative density are given in Table 1.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.