You are on page 1of 70

Accepted Manuscript

The engineering aspects of automated prepreg layup: History, present and future D.H.-J.A. Lukaszewicz, C. Ward, K.D. Potter PII: DOI: Reference: To appear in: Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date: S1359-8368(11)00545-2 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.12.003 JCOMB 1624 Composites: Part B 8 July 2011 30 November 2011 10 December 2011

Please cite this article as: Lukaszewicz, D.H.-J.A., Ward, C., Potter, K.D., The engineering aspects of automated prepreg layup: History, present and future, Composites: Part B (2011), doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2011.12.003

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

The engineering aspects of automated prepreg layup: History, present and future
D.H.-J.A. Lukaszewicz (1), C. Ward (2), K.D. Potter (3,*) (1) Research Assistant, ACCIS, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, BS8 1TR, UK; Email: Dirk.Lukaszewicz@Bristol.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0) 117 33 15331; Fax: +44 (0) 117 927 2771 (2) Research Assistant, ACCIS, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, BS8 1TR, UK; Email: C.Ward@Bristol.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0) 117 33 15503; Fax: +44 (0) 117 927 2771 (3) Professor in Composites Manufacture, ACCIS, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, BS8 1TR, UK; Email: K.Potter@Bristol.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0) 117 33 15277; Fax: +44 (0) 117 927 2771 (*): Corresponding author

Abstract
Highly consistent quality and cost-effective manufacture of advanced composites can be achieved through automation. It may therefore open up new markets and applications for composite products in aerospace, automotive, renewable energy, and consumer goods. Automated Tape Laying (ATL) and Automated Fibre Placement (AFP) are the two main technologies used to automate the layup of prepreg. The

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

historical development and past research of both technologies is reviewed; with an emphasis on past issues in application and capability as well as their solution, including both thermoset and thermoplastic material layup. It is shown that past developments have moved away from simply emulating manual layup into the now unique layup procedures for ATL, and into the current AFP technology base. The state of the art for both technologies is discussed and current gaps in the understanding of both processes highlighted. From this, future research needs and developments are derived and discussed.

Keywords: E. Lay-up; E. Automation; A. Laminates; A. Prepreg

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 1 Introduction Future aircraft programs. . which are collimated on the head and then delivered together. Evans [2] published a review of AFP systems only pertaining to a single industrial system. A review of ATL layup was published by Grimshaw [1]. Sloan [6] has published an industrially focused overview of ATL and AFP. Short introductions to different aspects ATL and AFP are also given by Åstrøm [3]. tape temperature. Additional areas where advanced composites are of increasing interest are renewable energy and automotive. contain more than 50% by weight of advanced composite components. Recently. Consequently the rate and economy of composite manufacture needs to improve to meet the requirements of these and future build programs. such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350XWB. however this source covers only a single industrially relevant equipment supplier. where advanced composites need to be cost effective in manufacture when compared to their metallic counter-parts. To achieve this automation is one way forward. speed and tape tension can be controlled during layup. Campbell [4] and Gutowski [5]. Layup speed. Automated Tape Laying (ATL) and Automated Fibre Placement (AFP) are the two main technologies that are employed today to manufacture advanced composite laminates from unidirectional prepregs. AFP is similar to ATL but utilises a band of narrow prepreg slices. ATL is employed to deliver wide prepreg tape onto a surface whilst automatically removing the ply backing. Similarly.

Filament winding with respect to composite manufacture (excluding process relevant to electrical components) is shown in an insert graph as a reference to illustrate the relative shortcomings in terms of scientific publications.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Despite this. . see Figure 1. where analogies are appropriate. Special emphasis is placed on the impact of current trends in areas such as structural tailoring and out-of-autoclave curing with respect to automated layup. most research in the field was directed at thermoplastic layup. Further. the authors are not aware of any other independent review of this important area of composite manufacture. With this in mind. this paper will review the historic development of ATL and AFP to highlight the development. while most components are manufactured from thermoset prepreg. and consequently understanding. an increasing amount of research is being conducted to improve existing thermoset layup processes. but thermoplastic prepreg is also discussed. indeed even the above reviews were never peer-reviewed publications. current and future research opportunities are discussed. The results were summed over a five-year period to provide meaningful trends. for ATL and AFP. Currently. and also present the current State-of-the-Art (SOA) for both processes. It shows the result of a literature search on Google Scholar for the number of archivable publications for AFP and ATL. This work will mostly aim to identify the engineering aspects of thermoset prepreg layup. Lastly.

and very early on it was realised that prepreg layup could be automated to improve the productivity and consistency of manual layup.1. [10]. In 1974 Goldsworthy et al. ATL could reduce layup errors and material wastage. More importantly. The earliest known reference to an ATL is a patent assigned to Chitwood and Howeth [9] in 1971. Grimshaw [1] in 2001 calculated the material wastage generation of an ATL layup as a function of part size to be up to . ATL systems were conceived from the end of the 1960’s onwards [8] and by the middle of the 1970’s research systems were developed and in application use.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2 Automated Tape Laying (ATL) 2.1 Historical developments of ATL 2. described an automated system delivering 76mm wide tape over a curved surface where the head was able to rotate and withhold material to improve the part complexity that could be manufactured using ATL layup.1 Early developments Carbon fibres became commercially available from 1966 [7] onwards. For example. Layup speeds were given to be 10-20 m/min. see Figure 3. however it was argued that this did not affect overall productivity. which resulted in improved material utilisation. and as a result they were normally part of a component centred production system for a given aircraft program. see Figure 2. describing a method of laminating composite tape onto a rotatable base-plate using Computer Numeric Control (CNC). Huber [11] noted that aerospace manufacturers and research institutions built most ATL systems as early as 1975 in-house.

which could only deliver tape onto a flat tool. Productivity of manual forming at the beginning of 1980 was stated as ~1kg/h [13. Dallas. similar to the first patent of Chitwood and Howeth [9]. Coad. Stone [19] introduced a commercial ATL system in 1984 from Cincinnati Milacron (now MagCincinnati) who had acquired a license for a UD-tape layup head from Vought Corp. At that time most ATL systems were Flat Tape Laminating Machines (FTLM). with ATL capable of achieving a 65% reduction in layup time and an additional reduction in material wastage rates for certain components. with similar results having been reported elsewhere [12]. The early 1980’s were as such a time of rapid development with multiple competing concepts.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 30% for small parts and decreasing exponentially to 2-4% for larger parts. To finally address this limitation. The system was capable of delivering tape over geometries with curvature up to 15° using an ultrasonic . due to both the lack of automated ply cutters and optimised consumables and prepregs. To address the issue of higher layup speeds. at up to 60m/min.14] and materials wastage rates were 50100 %.1. Werner and Dharan [18] by contrast discussed a robotic pick-and-place system to overcome ATL’s limitations regarding geometric complexity. TX. 2. Postier [15] reported a comparison between manual and ATL layup. Eaton [16] and Saveriano [17] introduced a layup system with a lightweight head that dispensed tape over a rotatable surface.2 ATL development from the 1980’s To enable ATL to become more widespread the technology was converted into a more generic process.

In 1986. layup systems were still not capable of delivering tape with defined compaction pressure and regular debulking cycles were still necessary. to follow the contour of the mould. layup speeds remained fairly low. This method has since been modified by Torres [25] not only to finalise a tape course. Grone. no mention of tape heating facilities was made and remaining issues were mostly related to layup reliability as a function of out-time of the prepreg and initiation of the first ply. Direct layup force control and head normality over curved surfaces was enabled by replacing the previous ultrasonic tracking system with force-controlled Z. However. Schnell and Vearil [24] then patented a method to finalise the end of a tape course cut under an oblique angle using a second flexible layup element. However.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 tracking system. and that accuracy was key to enabling off-line programming. Reliability was likely to be low. and improved reliability and quality. which were limited to speeds < 60m/min for layup applications. Albus [20] pointed out the limitations that robotic arms had during the middle of the 1980’s. To alleviate this issue most ATL systems became high-rail gantries resulting in heavy and stiff structures that were associated with very poor machine dynamics [21].and A-axes [23]. making it the first example of a Contour Tape Laminating Machine (CTLM). including layup speeds. Meier [22] introduced a system that has formed the basis for all modern commercial single-phase ATL systems. Furthermore. While layup dexterity had been increased by modifications and additions to the layup head. but also to . several technical issues still remained. which usually had to adhere to a coated mould or release cloth. for example due to breakage of the ply backing. accurate layup onto complex moulds.

However. to enable layup over a curved surfaces along a natural (the path a tape will take over a surface without friction) or geodesic path. The soft rollers employed for layup over complex geometries lead to uneven layup pressure and tape tension on the head. prepreg layup was still limited to fairly simple components and reliabilty was still affected by tack levels and their degradation with out-life due to limited heating. One such system is shown by Torres [27] which combined means for ply tensioning with layup pressure control. For example. Both of which could result in compressive forces acting on the tape between the layup roller and the tape supply and allowed transverse movement of the ply prior to delivery.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 start a ply. As layup capability had increased to more and more complex geometries at the end of the 1980s. but it is unclear whether ATL layup systems at the time were sufficiently capable to achieve this. as it detrimentally affected productivity. Lewis and Romero [26] introduced a layup system combined with significant software capability. To address the first. Olsen and Craig [30] argued that the effective pressure transferred from the head onto the laminate . and in particular to overcome the technical difficulties of first-ply attachment. Grimshaw [28] further demonstrated an ATL system having a segmented layup shoe connected to a pressure chamber. enabling accurate layup pressure and improved ply alignment over contoured surfaces. In 1995 this approach was extended to multiple layup elements operating independently from the layup head [29]. The other aim in using layup pressure control was to reduce debulking operations. ply alignment increasingly became an issue. To prevent such movement tape was delivered with controlled tension and combined with tightly controlled layup pressure to enable correct alignment of a ply.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 was a function of layup speed.14] and Foley [32] published economic assessments of various manufacturing methods available at the end of the 1980’s in terms of productivity and part cost. which was given by Goel [31] as ~ US$3. Considering the additional capital investment for layup systems. due to the fact that it is applied over a much shorter time frame. making its adoption into the commercial aircraft industry a slow process. and had to be much higher than during vacuum debulking. the roller geometry. The pressure on the laminate depends on the machine capability. A particular issue that remained in this period was the cost of an ATL system. consistency. They showed that automated layup offered no appreciable increase in productivity over manual forming. All of the works explored so far were aimed at increasing the manufacturing capability of ATL equipment but the issue of material outlife and changing tack levels remained unresolved. however the authors concluded that automation was still desirable due to effects that were not accounted for in their study. Further. or what it depended on. the recurring part cost increased for automated layup. and the shape of the mould the material is applied onto. whilst layup systems enabled accurate pressure control during layup it was unclear what the desirable pressure level was. Krolewski and Gutowski [13. and reduction of material wastage. roller material. including improved reliability. Disappointingly. . actual layup speeds were generally unchanged from the 10-20 m/min previously achieved. This meant that ATL had to be highly productive to offset the initial capital expenditure.5 M for most basic systems.

which could prevent such separation. and also enable tack control for layup of large parts. To enable layup onto such complex geometries some tape tension was required to keep the plies aligned. Lastly. which was reduced from 150mm to 50mm to improve dexterity when delivering tape onto contours with > 30° curvature. Benda and Stump [34] discussed the joint development of a component and layup system. Finally the authors concluded that a high layup pressure could result in delamination during layup. where a hot-air heating system was added to an ATL to enable tape attachment onto complex contours. and scaled weakly with the roller diameter and ply orientation. it was mentioned that the effective layup rate was 13m/min.1. in the context of a cure-on-the fly system. again unchanged from the earliest discussion dating back to 1981. It is unclear from the literature when heating was first used for thermoset layup. Sarrazin and Springer [35] addressed the question of optimal processing conditions for thermoset tape. that layup pressure was independent of the number of plies. .06m/min. however their study did not include tack. but irradiation heating for thermoplastic layup was in use by 1991 [33]. It was observed that the thermoset material only reached a limited degree of cure and that post-curing was still a necessity. Further changes included the layup roller diameter.3 Development in the 1990s until today Tape heating was introduced in the 1990’s to overcome issues during layup of complex laminates. Their work proposed a layup system where thermoset tape was heated to 150°C and used at speeds ~0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2. to effectively reduce post-curing. as the material is pushed and pulled apart in front of and behind the layup roller compressing the material onto the tool.

with conventional layup being singlephase layup. often referred to a twin (or dual) -phase layup. capability to handle high areal weight materials. to improve productivity for large parts with small features. 150 or 300mm wide material on one ATL head to potentially improve both productivity and layup dexterity. the focus of thermoplastic layup shifted quickly to AFP. stored on a ply-backing. which is in widespread use in the aerospace and renewable energy industries in particular. ATL can be considered a highly productive process for prepreg layup.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Grove [36] (in 1988) proposed a model for the laser assisted heating of thermoplastic tape to enable direct layup and consolidation of thermoplastic materials. capability to manufacture large parts. Forest-Liné’s system employ two separate head sides to deliver either the continuous ply course or small pre-cut prepreg patches. Forest-Liné [38. high mechanical properties due to the use of prepreg. ATL layup has further diversified by returning to the earliest ATL systems using a part centred layup approach. Today. further developments to ATL have thus been rather limited and were starting to be dominated by productivity requirements. and wound back onto a roll. Torres [37] introduced a system that combined at least two rolls of either 75. Since the middle of the 1990’s to the present day. however. and simplified offline machine programming. and machines are currently being developed that can address specific layup issues while also yielding very high productivity rates. Ply patches are pre-cut in a separate operation. though this can also be considered an AFP layup system.39] developed a nesting technology for ATL layup. Disadvantages are high initial capital . Advantages are high layup rates.

offering a cost competitive manufacturing route for large composite components and material with high prepreg areal weight. but do not have a comparable number of installed systems. which is typically 75. however forming may detrimentally affect the mechanical performance of the structure. due to fibre wrinkling.g. 150.2 ATL Process description ATL (and AFP) can be interpreted as a form of additive manufacturing or inverse machining. Ingersoll (USA) currently only supplies AFP systems. The ATL head handles the prepreg tape. 2.43] and the centre wing box of the A380 [43. Despite the potential complexity limitations of ATL manufacture. as opposed to material removal during machining [5]. although the latter was recently acquired by MAGCincinnati. GFM (Germany). e. and higher material wastage rates than AFP (see 3. The main manufacturers of aerospace ATL equipment are MAGCincinnati (USA).44]. wing skins [42.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 expenditure. it has recently received renewed interest due to the high productivity achievable for flat laminates [40]. MTorres (Spain).1). but has delivered ATL systems in the past. such as tail planes. After layup. ATL systems are used for manufacture of a variety of parts. or 300mm wide and supplied on a cardboard core [12] similar to the prepreg used . Entec (USA) and ATK (USA) supply ATL systems. since the part is built up by adding material. and Forest Liné (France). limited geometric complexity capability. Mikrosam (Macedonia). flat laminates can be formed into the desired shape by hot drape forming [41].

83-1ms-1 and accelerate at 0. which is required to accommodate variations in placement due to layup control and tape tolerances. or a vertical column system.28. This can be a flexible silicone roller. During the layup of each ply. At the start of a layup sequence.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 for manual layup.1000N (for . the prepreg can be modified for automated layup by changing the backing paper or degree of impregnation.29]. Material tolerances are normally sufficiently small to minimise the impact of gaps on mechanical performance. and a picture of ATL head is shown in Figure 5. Once the course has been applied. ATL’s are CNC systems that follow predefined paths accurately and reproducibly. However. Due to the mass of both the head and material. For most aerospace structures. Figure 6 [45]. and a schematic according to Ästrøm [3] is shown in Figure 4. ATL systems are normally mounted on horizontal gantries. courses consist of ramps and valleys as well as ply terminations. the ATL system attaches a pre-determined length of tape onto the tool using a soft silicone roller. Most ATL systems achieve a maximum linear layup speed of 0. a tape course is placed next to one other with a gap of 0. resulting in complex surface topologies. allowing the elimination of layup errors that could occur in manual layup. such as segmented laying shoes [24. the system accelerates to the layup speed and delivers the remaining material [23-25. but more sophisticated methods have also been developed to control the pressure distribution over complex surfaces.29].5ms-2 and typically deliver a compaction of F = 445N (for 75mm wide thermoset tape [46]) . Most commercially available systems store the prepreg material directly in the layup head.5-1mm. as well as the size of the parts typically manufactured. During layup the material is attached to the tooling using controlled additional force that is transferred through the end-effector. Figure 7.

At the end of the ply course the head decelerates just prior to finishing and cuts the tape automatically.1 MPa. . which would translate to a pressure of ~0. or if an automated fault detection system has identified a layup error.4 MPa for APC-2 at 316°C.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 300mm wide thermoset tape). After severing the tape. whilst layup pressures up to < 3. is delivered to finish the ply course. By contrast. Tension is imparted to avoid tearing of the backing paper. The distance between the blade position and the roller contact point is termed the “minimal course length”. To control the temperature during layup the material can be heated either in front of the layup head or on the layup system in delivery. Colton [47] quoted a necessary pressure of 1. the remaining or minimal course length. The head controls the input tension on the plies and ply backing between the material supply and the layup point during layup. and enabling layup into curved geometries. and it is used as a lower bound on the part sizes that can be manufactured . improving the alignment of the plies.around 100mm for most systems. the system is stopped by the program. for thermoplastic material layup.6 MPa have been reported elsewhere [48]. user intervention. This entire process is repeated course by course until the ply is finished. using rotating or pinching blades.

Figure 8. by combining the differential payout capability of FW and the compaction and cut-restart capability of ATL.1. To address this the layup head had the ability to slit down the wide tape into 3. but further developments in this process could not be identified.2 Development from the 1990 AFP systems were commercially introduced towards the end of the 1980’s. . The 1974 Goldsworthy [10] patent described an ATL system but also highlighted the challenge of conforming a tape to a curved surface. Several of the lessons learnt during the development of ATL.1 Historical developments of AFP 3.2mm slices and then deliver those at individual speeds by keeping the additional material on the head.1.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 3 Automated Fibre Placement (AFP) 3. 3.1 Early developments Quite possibly the first published AFP system has already been introduced in Figure 2. In reality this would have resulted in technical limitations during material layup and it is unclear whether these issues were resolved. such as roller design and material guiding were incorporated into these AFP systems and as such they were immediately available from commercial suppliers. and were described as a logical combination of ATL and Filament winding (FW) [49].

They also showed that a layup speed of 7m/min would result in a productivity of 5kg/h. Layup accuracy is highly important for AFP because the narrow tape will result in gaps between the material. Enders [55] for example introduced an AFP system that could deliver up to 24 tows in a sequence. showing that mechanical properties of both were comparable. and may affect mechanical performance. Kowalski. Bullock. Additionally. To enhance productivity. which was given to be comparable to ATL. Technical issues that remained unresolved in this period were the tension in the tows. reliability. and Young [51] demonstrated another type of AFP machine together with an offline programming system.54]. Barth [52] showed an AFP system that made use of cooled creel houses to reduce prepreg tack. the compression-after impact strength of laminates manufactured by AFP and manual forming was evaluated. and argued that offline programming was essential to AFP productivity as it directly affected machine production time. productivity. The AFP system controlled layup speed. The system was uniquely tightly integrated into the Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) system to address the earlier note [51] . The tows were typically delivered in a very complex path to the head prior to collimating. which are a function of the placement accuracy. thus enabling reliable despooling and improved layup reliability. though later studies showed a significant impact on mechanical performance [53. which were also individually driven. This had not however been studied in any detail. and layup accuracy.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Evans [50] initially overcame the limitations of Goldsworthy’s approach by keeping slit tape on separate bobbins. temperature. pressure. and tape tension. which could increase tension in the material and affect layup reliability.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

regarding AFP productivity. In use on a demonstrator component, a layup rate of up to 30m/min was reported - yielding a productivity of 1.9kg/h – and this was compared to a manual layup productivity of 0.7kg/h for the same component. Rather differently, Evans [56] improved productivity by focussing on reliability, such as material changes, tape tolerances and intermittent debulking. More reliable layup over complex geometries was achieved by delivering the tows along a curvilinear path; this is often referred to as steering. Quickly, it was realised that the ability to deliver material in curved fibre orientations added additional design freedom and enabled potential improvements in mechanical performance. Due to the smaller individual tape widths that were used for AFP, smaller steering radii could be achieved than for ATL. Some very interesting results for an industrial application were shown by Measom [57], who reported on the development process of a part with a complex layup. The component had initially been manufactured by FW and manual layup but manufacture with AFP reduced material wastage rates from 62% to 6% and productivity improved by 450% for layup of a single 12.7mm wide tape. However, to improve material delivery the areal weight was doubled, resulting in reduced downtime and further improved productivity. This result was supported by Pasanen [58] who reported a 43% cost reduction for AFP over manual layup. A schematic of an AFP layup head for layup of multiple tows was given by Evans [2], see Figure 9. Whilst the benefits of AFP for complex layups had been successfully demonstrated, the process was still not productive enough to quickly offset the initial capital expenditure with systems costing up to US$6 M [31]. The limitations were now affordability, process reliability, and productivity. Furthermore, the development of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

AFP in this period coincided with the advent of thermoplastic composites for aerospace structural applications, and significant research effort was devoted at developing AFP for thermoplastic layup. As Gruber [59] noted, this was driven by the need to manufacture large spacecraft and submarine structures, that exceeded most autoclaves diameters and required in-situ processing and reduced thermal residual stresses. The earliest approaches for developing thermoplastic layup were reported by Grove [36], Mantell and Springer [60,61], and Sarrazin and Springer [35]. These works identified a trade-off between layup pressure, temperature, and speed. Layup quality, mainly measured by interfacial healing and voidage, was detrimentally affected by layup speed; and as discussed by Bourban [62] the main limiting factor for thermoplastic layup was the amount of time required to heat the material above its melting point. Thus, the maximum layup speed was limited, with works reporting speeds of 3.6mmin-1 [63] to 5mmin-1 [64], resulting in considerably lower layup productivity than thermoset materials. This was further explored by Ranganathan [65], Pitchumani [66,67], and Tierney [68] to predict the optimal processing conditions for reduced void growth, as well as maximising speed and interfacial bonding. Most works used hot gas torches for material heating, but a laser heating was also successfully developed by Funck and Neitzel [69], Rosselli [70], and Pistor [71]. Goodman [72], and Burgess [73], similarly reported a method for curing photoactivated thermoset prepregs on the fly using an electron beam or ultra-violet-light(UV) as a radiation source for faster processing and reduction of residual thermal stresses. Overall however, both thermoplastic and thermoset in-situ processing approaches achieved limited layup speeds, whilst also exhibiting reduced mechanical properties.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

3.1.3 Development from the 2000 until today
Grant [8,74,75] described the change in focus for AFP layup from novel processes to addressing issues regarding affordability, process reliability, and productivity, and showed that AFP had mainly been employed in military and space programs until 2000, Table 1. Process reliability was detrimentally affected by splicing (welding of the tape ends) errors at the end of a bobbin, dropped tows, and material changes, which would result in unscheduled downtime and decrease productivity. Torres [76] introduced an automated system for splicing the tows together, and this could improve productivity by reducing down-time for material refilling. Oldani [77] also introduced an automated system to detect layup errors, improving productivity by reducing the time for quality inspection after ply layup. To increase tack levels and further minimise layup errors infrared heating of thermoset tape was introduced by Calawa and Nancarrow [78] to allow faster heating and higher layup temperatures. Furthermore, Hamlyn [79] introduced a system for rapidly exchanging layup heads and tools by keeping a second layup head ready for immediate layup, and this led reduced system downtime. Material delivery was also improved by using systems that either reduced the feed length, or by minimising the amount of redirects and twists in the tow using appropriate guide systems [80]. Despite improvements in raw productivity and reliability, several technical issues remained. Foremost, capital expenditure was still high compared to other manufacturing methods, and offline programming was still un-optimised although layup of curved

Coriolis (France). Ingersoll.7mm. Presently. Cincinnati. 6. Foster Miller/ATK (USA). Coriolis and Electroimpact supply their systems on industrial robots and gantries. AFP can deliver up to 32 tows in parallel at linear speeds of up to 1ms-1 [83]. Mikrosam (Macedonia) and MTorres (Spain). Foster Miller. The systems also tend to have higher acceleration in the linear axes with typical values around 2ms-2. and their application.82]. Ingersoll (USA). Mikrosam and MTorres use either column type or horizontal gantries. Electroimpact (USA). MAGCincinatti (USA). A band then forms a course. Gantry layup systems offer improved general productivity and reliability by handling more tows in the head. The capability to automatically manufacture unsymmetrical laminates that can have locally changing fibre orientations makes AFP a lead technology for future developments in the areas of smart and tailored structures.4mm. Robotic layup systems tend to have a lower initial capital expenditure and can be better tailored for specific applications. termed bands. Accudyne (USA).2 AFP Process description AFP systems differ from ATL in the width of the material that is laid down with typical material widths of 3. Rotational speeds and accelerations are more varied by company and therefore not quoted. 3.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 tapes onto a mould and AFP layup control are currently an area of ongoing research [81. . and 12. while a sequence of courses is termed ply. however AFP will normally deliver several [83] tows in a single sequence. The main manufacturers of AFP systems are Automated Dynamics (USA). Automated Dynamics.2mm. Accudyne.

the individual tow payout may improve productivity and reduced materials wastage rates [13]. and are therefore more relevant to AFP than ATL. The width and number of tows delivered depends strongly on the complexity and local geometry of the part that the course is to be laid over. productivity for layup of a complex fuselage . during manufacture [83. and is beneficial for example in structures such as fuselage sections with window cut-outs. as Figure 10 shows. typically around 50mm. For this reason AFP systems tend to have a lower “minimal course length’” than ATL. cut. thus material width and tow count will affect productivity. Whilst steering was initially conceived to improve layup over surfaces with double-curvature [10].1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 However. Each tow is normally driven individually and can be clamped. and restarted. enabling layup over complex geometries and some tow steering. An important consideration is the amount of gap between the tows. This makes it possible to deliver each tow at individual speeds. which is much larger than for ATL and typically scales with the amount steering. it is important to note that rotational speed and acceleration can have great impact on layup productivity for complex components. This may affect mechanical performance detrimentally and is often countered by transversely offsetting subsequent plies by half a tow-widths. For example. The quality of the “on-the-fly” cut normally decreases with increasing speed during cutting and secondary operations are therefore still necessary to remove crenulations around a geometric feature. AFP productivity is typically lower than ATL because it is generally employed for more complex parts. or wing skins with numerous pad-ups and valleys.84].

The small diameter of the bobbin can additionally enable accurate tension control during unwinding. or stored directly on the head [86]. The composite material for AFP layup can either be impregnated tows or slit prepreg tape. and as a result robotic AFP systems are presently cheaper than comparable gantry AFP or ATL systems. the layup operation during AFP is similar to that of ATL. The slit tape or impregnated tows are normally wound onto cardboard bobbins and supplied with an interleaf film to reduce tack and friction in the material supply. and product quality [12]. The material is delivered from the spools to a compaction roller.6kg/h [85]. which is about half of current ATL rates. During AFP layup tow tension on the head is negligible or controlled to be very low to enable layup into the convex geometries and features. The prepreg tape or tows are either delivered to the head from a creel cabinet. Robotic systems improve the affordability of AFP since industrial robots are significantly cheaper than gantry units. the latter requires column or gantry type systems. but as previously mentioned for ATL the short contact times may be ineffective to achieve sufficient compaction. Slit tape is more expensive than impregnated tows but potentially offers advantages with respect to productivity. Laser.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 section is ~8. . see Figure 11. To heat the tapes hot torches. where additional heat and force are again applied to compact the material in an attempt to eliminate vacuum void removal. The first allows the use of simple industrial robots due to the reduced head weight. reliability. Despite the differences in material form and material supply to the layup head. AFP systems tend to use flexible rollers to compress the material and reduce voidage. and infrared irradiation techniques are used.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 4 Research Opportunities 4. increases in productivity are the overriding goal for both ATL and AFP. while the latter two are discussed in following sections. The first two are discussed in this section. where AFP layup paths were optimised to reduce unnecessary acceleration with reported possible reductions in layup time of 33%. machine layouts.1 Productivity Currently. actual productivity quoted was given to be . Examples of software improvements can be found in Debout. This correlated well with laydown-rate estimates for APF from Boeing given to be 45. It is interesting to note that AFP was found to be more productive for all part sizes studied but particularly for small parts. Potential improvements are possible through improved software. To translate this model into real productivity estimated it needed to be considered that a typical ply course of a primary structural aerospace laminate is 2m long [90]. Consequently. Theoretical productivity drivers have been studied using simple models based on the machine capability. see Figure 12 and Figure 13. or linked to potential productivity increases. For typical machine data productivity was thus expected to be around 29. all potential improvements that are discussed in the following are governed by.3kg/h for AFP [89]. Chanal and Duc [87].4kg/h [85]. Weaver and Potter [88] and Lukaszewicz [89] have published productivity estimates for a simple flat component for both technologies based on the raw productivity values of the layup systems.2kg/h for ATL and 41. Lukaszewicz. materials and enhanced layup. however.

Ward. the layup time for an 8m long course is 4s and 2. For the speed and acceleration data given in Section 2. It is likely that . error correction or cleaning is significant. This downtime of layup machines. To enhance the predictive capability of existing software approaches. a knockdown of 80%. up to 50% for AFP [77]. Lukaszewicz and Potter [91] have studied the AFP layup of a small complex component with symmetric layup on a flat bottom side and contoured topside.2 for ATL.2 for AFP.89] since current productivity is already largely constrained by part design. quality inspection and layup errors will result in further productivity reductions. and 3. secondary operations and down-time. However. In addition.5s respectively including time for acceleration and deceleration. This shows that that even during layup of simple components the ratio between productive time and secondary operations is unfavourable. a better understanding of the part complexity is required. This large productivity reduction can further be explained by the fact that layup machines only spend a fraction of the time on actual layup. Addressing any of these productivity constraints should easily yield increases in productivity. By comparing the relative layup time between the two sides the productivity reduction due to part complexity was estimated to be 29% to 51% for this component due to acceleration and deceleration during layup. time for starting a new ply. but the translation into real productivity is still unresolved.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 8. More recently. This shows that theoretical productivity can be well estimated. due to material refilling. Further increases in layup speed are thus unlikely to yield any further productivity increases [88. including ply cutting. turning and repositioning is ~9s for ATL and ~7s for AFP due to the lack of cutting operations [89].6kg/h.

2 Steering and Control Shirinzadeh and co-workers [81. future AFP systems need to be able to deliver these materials. This can only be resolved during the design phase to achieve higher productivity. AFP is currently limited to low areal weight prepregs. There are. However. Lastly. .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 small geometric features heavily impact layup time. Since prepregs in renewable energy industries and others tend to have higher areal weights. tow buckling. Optimising the layup program or identifying suitable starting points can alleviate this problem. which restricts its use to aerospace applications. as discussed by Debout. tow pull-up and tow misalignment. To match the material to a mould a point-cloud is typically generated that the control system will aim to follow. such as detachment from the tool and ply wrinkling. Chanal and Duc [87] this will also lead to unnecessary acceleration and deceleration as the control system follows the defined layup path. up to 1600gsm and more. The placement accuracy depends on the density of this cloud with a higher density leading to more accurate layup. To address this novel cutting methods are required. in principle three main tow steering defects. The available degree of steering in AFP and ATL layup is often reported to be the smallest possible radius fibres can be laid into without significant defect development. possibly laser cutting.82.91-93] give an excellent overview of the relevant work relevant to path planning for AFP and ATL. see Figure 14. 4.

The interaction between material properties and processing conditions needs to be studied further to gain a more detailed understanding of limitations of steering during layup. Other steering defects include tow gaps. Wang and Gutowksi [21] presented a theoretical approach to reduce laps and gaps during thermoplastic layup by allowing the plies to flow transversely during layup. A combination of experimental and modelling approaches is required to explain the changes in the tow or tape during steering. Johnson. a model for the defect development during layup of a curved tape was reported by Beakou et. see Figure 15. A possible explanation could be the effect of viscoelastic material behaviour. layup control or prepreg material. and gaps. Recently. Wiehn and Hale [94] reported the successful layup of AFP tows into radii as small as 50. Further. Lastly.8cm compared to 610cm for ATL layup of 150 mm wide tape. al. and Hale [95] reported that the number of defects is a function of the smallest steering radius.4. which was not included in the model. steering overlaps. tow misalignment is the result of variability in the layup system. [96]. Moon. to simplify layup accuracy requirements for thermoplastic .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Twisted tows can also occur but are less common. and the importance of material tack are discussed in section 4. but the impact of these defects on the mechanical performance of laminates has not been extensively studied. current steering approaches aim to incrementally form a radius by forcing the tape to follow the head rotation whilst being attached to the substrate and different steering approaches. similarly tow pull-up occurs on the outside of a tow due to excessive tensile forces. This. Tow buckling occurs on the inside radius of a tow if compressive forces are too high. such as shearing of the tape [97] need to be explored. however their model was not directly validated by the experimental results.

al. and stiffness reductions arising from tow drop areas. In an additional study Lukaszewicz and Potter [100] showed that the variability in the prepreg material was too high to allow simple development of strong analytical models. In particular. Croft et. There is continued interest in this topic due to the higher number of gaps during AFP layup and the relative difficulty of placing tows with the required tolerances. Weaver and Potter [98]. up to 32%. and results showed significant strength reductions. 4. It has been shown that this was aggravated by . al. see Table 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 layup. [99]. see Figure 16 and Figure 17. [54] conducted a number of mechanical tests on AFP laminates containing all the aforementioned defects and found significantly lower (3-15%) strength reductions than previously predicted. laps and gaps into the final cured component. The impact of AFP layup on mechanical performance as well as its reduction thus warrants further research. and Lukaszewicz et. temperature or pressure. To this end Lukaszewicz. This may be explained with defect reduction and fibre rearrangement during autoclave curing and is as such not a demonstration of the robustness of AFP but rather autoclave curing. such as layup speed. [53] explored the mechanical performance of AFP laminates using numerical modelling. approaches are required that aim to capture the translation of initial layup defects. Blom et. By contrast. conducted layup trials on industrial equipment to correlate the voidage in an uncured laminate to the processing conditions. al.3 Processing conditions during layup The exact conditions during layup may have a significant impact on the mechanical performance of the final laminate.

such as the fibre volume fraction and the void content. An improved understanding of the translation of the initial prepreg microstructure into the final part is thus required. To overcome the limitations due to inaccurate layup control. porosity and interface properties on the quality of the final product in in-situ layup [102. Lukaszewicz and Potter [88] have introduced a small research layup system. Material variability needs to be reduced to achieve uniform properties at the slit-tape level. Experimental results from such a system could then be used to evaluate models that link the deformation of plies during layup to microstructural features.4 Material research Prepreg materials have historically been developed with mechanical performance in mind and were then simply adapted for automated layup by developing specific ply backing films. or slitting prepreg tape for AFP layup.103] and this can be applied to thermoset layup. Further work in this area will be required to establish the impact of different layup conditions on the microstructural features of laminates. which is . research on the use of thermoplastic tape has illustrated the importance of tape uniformity. Despite this. 4. which had an additional impact on analytical layup quality models. Mechanical testing on laminates manufactured using a wide range of layup conditions and subsequent oven cure showed a change in mechanical performance of up 50% for the ILSS and compressive strength due to layup conditions alone [101].1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 the additional variability in the layup control [89]. see Figure 18 and Figure 19. that can be used to manufacture small test coupons using automated layup. such as voidage.

4mm wide.50. Ahn et. Another aspect of the prepreg layup process is the material tack. They observed that prepreg tack was a bulk property as well as surface-sensitive with viscoelastic behaviour that depended on material as well as operating conditions. In most cases the dimensional and physical tolerances between manual and automated layup are the same and only the backing and tack specification are changed [24. Le Cam and Béakou [106] used a probe tack test to measure . this topic has found new attention due to the impact tack can have on productivity. More recently. It was observed that prepreg tack correlated with the glass transition temperature and instantaneous temperature which was linked to both the increase in wetting area as well as the change in resin viscosity [105].56]. computerised optical fault detection is required to ensure that prepregging defects are detected during manufacture. slit tape needs to be prepared in the future with high degrees of impregnation. To avoid this. This would lead to unscheduled downtime for AFP layup and could result in excessive voidage in the dry fuzzy areas. which consequently leads to unreliable layup. which was linked to tack. This area would need to be removed and laid outside of the part. For example.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 typically only 3. process reliability and tow steering.al [104] used a compression-tension test on a stack of prepregs to measure the energy of separation. The most promising method of improving the uniformity of the final prepreg is an improvement of the uniformity of the resin film that is used during hot-melt processing. Further.2 or 6. Dubois. Later. this approach was extended to material aging as well. Figure 20 shows an image of slit tape for AFP layup with fuzzy edges. Removing materials wastage during layup is very time consuming and naturally has an excessively detrimental effect on productivity. Figure 21 shows a defect in a roll of ATL tape.

Their work demonstrated a non-linear behaviour of prepreg tack as a function of layup temperature and speed of deformation which should help to understand the development of defects during layup further. Lukaszewicz and Potter [108] recently proposed a model for the compaction of thermoset prepreg during . contact force. but rather discuss a more fundamental understanding of the effects of layup on thermoset prepreg. They observed an increase in tack force with increasing hold-time. temperature. models for the layup of thermoset prepreg that enable modelling of defects and their development do not exist. Schubel and Warrior [107] thus introduced a novel tack test which enabled testing at higher deformation rates. high toughness prepreg. all the works previously explored use low deformation rates during testing. deformation rate and humidity. Depending on the pressure. Crossley.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 various parameters influencing on a modern.5 Layup modelling and simulation This section will not address existing Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM) software. 4. and contact time of the roller. some flow can occur between the plies during layup. Currently this interaction is not well understood and further improvements in this area should be made. This is important as currently. which differ by one or two orders of magnitude from the deformation rates found during high-speed layup. while tack decreased with increasing temperature and outlife. which may reduce interply-voidage and improve laminate quality prior to cure [102]. However.

but also to the choice of system. Other aspects of the layup process that could be captured by modelling are the development of wrinkles and bridging at geometric features. However.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 layup. Potential solutions to this would either use a layup roller with tailored stiffnesses or uncouple the necessary flexibility of the layup system from the layup element. it has been demonstrated. As an example. bridging over concave features or crowning over convex features is often observed. which can severely affect mechanical properties. Again. however it is likely that these issues are not only related to the material and the processing conditions. Both may lead to wrinkling in the final part. Further. which can be used to describe this interaction and to enable direct layup at high quality. . effectively reducing debulking instances [34]. If machine control is inaccurate both types of defects can be linked to the amount of material that is available on the head. even if it is assumed that material delivery is accurately controlled these defects can occur due to the interpolation of geometric features in the CNC program. Approaches are therefore necessary to ensure that the interpolation and axis control result in the correct amount of material being available at any point during layup. flexible rollers are commonly used to conform difficult ramps. that an understanding of this interaction can improve ILSS and compressive strength by 50% [101]. but by using flexible rollers some chatter during layup inevitably occurs which may then lead to wrinkling or bridging.

or allowing the layup of high prepreg areal weight materials. for example through reducing unproductive travel of the individual units. improved layup kinematics. but also from combining several serial tasks into a single or parallel operation. having less downtime. where the robots either cooperate to achieve tasks quicker.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 4. . as well as higher productivity by controlling more tows. and optimised CNC post-processing can deliver further gains in productivity for both ATL and AFP. Systems that allow inline quality control by optical means are already in use or in development. Multiple robot interaction and synchronisation. Future layup systems will thus likely target automation and integration of more functions onto the head. for example by Ingersoll. Synchronisation of multiple robots can greatly improve the layup of large parts as several robots can work on different part areas and different stages of a ply sequence. Additional functions feasible for integration on the manufacturing process are tooling preparation and online inspection systems [109]. Adding more and more features to a single layup system will inevitably result in reduced per task performance.6 Functional integration Returning to Figure 1. or by equipping each robot for a specific task which can be carried out more efficiently. The most promising approach is therefore the combination of multiple robots into a single work-cell. it is important to note that automated layup derives its possible increases in productivity not only from automation of the manual operations.

reduction of secondary operations. material wastage rates are reduced and productivity for aerospace components may be higher due to the unique cut. Since the 1980’s AFP has become a relatively mature process. clamp. and able to handle high areal weight materials with few modifications. due to the robust nature and long history of the technique. potential productivity gains for ATL are limited. Productivity improvements can be expected from improved programming. which also has greater potential for future improvements. Overall.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 5 Summary ATL and AFP are finding more wide-spread adoption in a number of industries due to potential reliability and economic improvements. Future developments in renewable energy. ATL has been developed since the 1970’s as an automated version of manual tape laying and offers high productivity and reliability for simple or low complexity components. It is in particular highly productive for large simple flat components. AFP improves on ATL layup by allowing direct layup of more complex components. and restart capability per tow. In addition. AFP seems more suitable for typical aerospace components and materials and modifications are necessary to enable layup of wider and higher areal weight materials. Currently. The automated layup systems we see today were developed by industrial machine companies with either none or limited background in the composite industry. will likely rely on ATL layup of low-cost. reduction of down-time and multiple robot interaction. high-arealweight prepreg. for example rotor blade manufacture. Currently these companies are developing their composite expertise and tend to look for material .

Buckley (Airbus Operations Ltd. By addressing the topics and future targets outlined within this paper.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 solutions to address constraints in the manufacturing system. Material suppliers have historically worked with composite users employing manual layup and have limited or no expertise in the industrial machine industry and tend to look for machine modifications to address current constraints. .) for helpful discussions. Acknowledgements Studentship funding for D. Dr. K. J. Etches (University of Bristol) and M. The authors would like to thank Dr. is gratefully acknowledged.A.-J.H. The design approaches and software packages used by end-users to design components are often derived from manual layup and/or are insufficiently integrated with the layup machines. the academic community will have an important role in the future of composites and automated composite layup. Hazra. Lukaszewicz from Airbus Operations Ltd. This results in unnecessary constraints on the machine and its capability.

Economic comparison of advanced composite fabrication technologies. UK: Chapman& Hall. Patent 4627886. Sloan J. Nevada. Volume 34. 2008. 1987. Oxford. UK: Elsevier Advanced Technology. Factory automation for composite structures manufacturing. 2001. 6th April 1971. Carbon fibres and their applications. J Phys D: Appl Phys. Automated lamination of production advanced composite aircraft structures. California.. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] . Patent US 3. Fiber placement. Anon. High Performance Composites: Gardner Publications. Chitwood. 1989:329-40. Dorey. SAE International Congress and Exposition. 1987.20:24556. Gutowski TG (ed). 1997. Sampe J. Sampe Quart. Grant C. USA.April:45-8. ATL and AFP: Defining the megatrends in composite aerostructures.810. Krolewski S. 34th International SAMPE Symposium. 1985. Detroit.33(2):117-21. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Machine. Cincinnati: Cininnati Machine. Cost effective tape laying. Campbell FC. 2002.In: Volume 3F: Departement of Defense. 1981. Krolweski S. Effect of the automation of advanced composite fabrication processes on part cost. 1997. Composite tape laying machine with pivoting presser member. Åström. Reno. Manufacturing processes for advanced composites. USA. Automated Tape Laying.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Grimshaw MN. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Geodesic path length compensator for composite-tape placement method. Postier RA. Huber J. Evans DO. 1997.23(3):21-6. Covina. Gutowski T. USA: SAMPE. Ind Robot.805. 29th National SAMPE Symposium. 14th May 1974. Gutowsi T. 1984. MIL-HDBK-17-3F-Composite materials handbook. Automated processes for composite aircraft structure. Goldsworthy WB. Michigan. London. 2006. Eaton HL. 2004. Manufacturing of Polymer Composites. Inc. Advanced composites manufacturing.

Grone RJ. 29. Torres Martinez M. Automation in composite processing. 30 May 1985. USA: 1993. Albuquerque. 1991. USA. Patent US 4557783. 29th National SAMPE Symposium.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [17] Saveriano JW. Method and apparatus for laying composite material. Composite tape laying machine and method. Torres Martinez. Dharan CKH. Craig JJ. Patent FR 2713213-A1. Grimshaw MN. Tete enrubanneuse pour l'application de bande en materiau composite. 1990. Olsen HB. Vearil L. 5 December 1983. Automated contour tape laying of composite materials. Economics of composite material manufacturing equipment [BSc Thesis]. Patent EP 0371289-A1. Techno-economic analysis of automated composite manufacturing techniques. Automated composite tape layup using robotic devices. Grimshaw MN. 16th National SAMPE Technical Conference. California. Foley MF. Grone RJ. Massachusetts. USA. M. Research issues in robotics. Cambridge. Stone KL. 30 November 1994. 22nd International Sampe Technical Conference. 2000. Patent EP 0644040-A1. Patent EP 1097 799 A1. MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Laps and gaps in thermoplastic composites processing. Romero JE. Composite tape laying machine with pivoting presser member. Georgia. Nevada. Atlanta. Compos Manuf. 31st International SAMPE Symposium. Nevada. Albus JS. Boston. Torres Martinez M. 29th National SAMPE Symposium. Meier RA. 1984. Hecht JR. Coad CL. Gutowsi T. Tete pour l'application de bande de composite. USA. USA. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] . New Mexico.696. 1984..1987. Composite tape placement apparatus with natural path generaton means. New Mexico.9.2(2):69-78. 8 November 1989. In: IEEE International Conference on robotics and automation. 16th National SAMPE Technical Conference. Machine for applying composite and presser assembly therefor. 9 May 2001. Grimshaw MN.707. Werner SM. Reno. Lewis HW. Patent US 4. Albuquerque. Patent US 4627886. USA. USA. 8 November 1994. 1986. Reno. 1984. Covina. Wang EL. 1984. Design of a composite four-axis robot for prepreg layup. An advanced control system for composite material placement. Goel A. Schnell LR.

Composite Manufacturing. The automation of the lay-up and consolidation of PEEK/Graphite fiber composites. A case study of contoured tape laying.3(3/4):119-21. 2011. http://www. J Compos Mater. 27 November 2008. MA. 91 p. 1996. 13 November 2008. Patent 5177340. The challenge of reducing both airframe weight and manufacturing cost. Larberg YR. Charra SRE. American Helicopter Society 52nd Annual Forum. Laminate wrinkling scaling laws for ideal composites. Design and manufacture of advanced composite aircraft structures using automated tow placement [Master Thesis]. et al.. Thomas J.es/pdf/torreslayup. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] . USA. Land IB.Tape Layer Machine. Volume 2010.6(3-4):123-34. 1987. Anaheim. Thermochemical and mechanical aspects of composite tape laying. Dillon G. Springer GS. 1995.pdf. Bautista C. . Device for separating and discharging trimmings cut in a pre-impregnated strip. Torreslayup . Åkermo M. 2001. Torres Martinez M. 1996. Tillement PAH.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Zaffiro JA. Li H. 2001. 32nd International SAMPE Symposium. Control of radiation heating system for thermoplastic composite tape. 1988. On the interply friction of different generations of carbon/ epoxy prepreg systems. USA. Air & Space Europe. USA. California. The A380 Programme . Patent Wo 2008/135645 A1. Charra SRE.42(9):1067-74. 1995. Composite lay-up head with a retractable device for separating a prepreg from its support tape. Chey S. 1987. Anaheim. Patent WO 2008/142273 A2. Tillement PAH. Cambridge. 32nd International SAMPE Symposium. Benda BJ.C.. Air & Space Europe. Head for application of carbon-fibre strips and application method. Grove SM. Sarazin H.The big task for Europe's aerospace industry.mtorres. Cincinnati Milacron Inc.19(5):367-75. Kau. Washington D. 2010. Composites. Compos Part A-Appl S. Gutowski TG. Baxter J. Automated fabrication of grpahite-epoxy composites. Hinrichsen J. 5 January. California. Thermal modelling of tape laying with continous carbon fibrereinforced thermoplastic.29:1908-43. Colton JS. Stump KH. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Patent WO 2008/020094 A1. 21 February 2008. Behlendorf J.3(3/4):35-9.

Covina.C. 35th International SAMPE Symposium. California. 1992. Pasini D. USA. A Theoretical Model to Study the Influence of Tow-drop Areas on the Stiffness and Strength of Variable-stiffness Laminates. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] . 1992. 1990:710-20. Fabrication of complex composite structures using advanced fiber placement technology. Vaniglia MM. USA. Processing thermoplastic composites in a press and by tape laying .June:228-33. J Compos Mater. California.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [48] Lamontia MA. Composites. California. J Compos Mater. Enders ML. Fiber placement process study. Mondo JA. 1990. Mantell SC. Long Beach. Evans DO. Experimental study of the effect of automated fiber placement induced defects on performance of composite laminates. Wang QL. USA. Proceedings of the 23rd Sampe Conference. Pasanen MJ. Lopes CS. Automated prepreg tow placement for composite structures. American Helicopter Society 52nd Annual Forum. The technique of filament winding. Hojjati M. Springer GS. Kromwijk PJ. Sewell K. 35th International SAMPE Symposium. 38th International SAMPE Symposium. Volume 46. 2009. Knight BW.26(16):2378-401. 36th International SAMPE Symposium. Croft K. Camanho PP. 46th International SAMPE Symposium. Schenectady.26(16):2348-77. Bullock DE. Chen J. 1989:1822-33. Blom AW. California. San Diego. Waibel BJ. California. Yousefpour A. Mantell SC. Developments in the fiber placement process. USA. Anaheim. Automated fabrication processes for large composite aerospace structures: a trade study. 2002. 1991:778-90. NY: Automated Dynamics Corporation. 1993:170-81. Martin JP. USA.43:403-25. Conformable Compaction System used in Automated Fiber Placement of Large Composite Aerospace Structures. Langone RJ. Gruber MB.42:484-91. 34th International SAMPE Symposium. Anaheim. Hopkins PC. Anaheim. Advanced composite fiber placement: process to application. Lamontia MA. Lessard L.experimental results. Fiber placement low-cost production for complex composite structures.. Paris. Hopkins PC. France. 1970. Springer GS. Manufacturing process models for thermoplastic composites. Gruber MB. Gurdal Z. Measom R. 2001:1986-97. California. Barth JR. 1996. Washington D. 1997. Evans DO. J Compos Mater. Compos Part A-Appl S. USA. Design considerations for fiber placement. 2011. USA.

Goodmann DL. Bryne CA. Composite Manufacturing. Paris. Lamontia M. 46th International SAMPE Symposium. On-line consolidation of thermoplastic composites using laser scanning. Long Beach. Design and optimization of a thermoplastic tow-placement process with in-situ consolidation. Effects of processing on laser assisted thermoplastic tape consolidation. 46th International SAMPE Symposium. Gillespie J. Wilenski MS. Guceri S. Guceri S. Long Beach. Santare M.30(10):114957.29(8):1040-62. Limitations on mechanical properties in thermoplastic laminates fabricated by two processes: Automated Thermoplastic Tape Placement And Filament Winding. Belvin HL. et al. Ranganathan S. 47th International SAMPE Symposium. 2002.Appl S. Compos Part A . Advani SG. Yardimci M. 2001. Gillespie J.28(12):102333. 1996. Gruber MB. Weidman DJ. California. Neitzel M. California.37(19):1745-68. Processing and testing of thermoplastic composite cylindrical shells fabricated by automated fiber placement.39(9):1883-97.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [62] Bourban P. Ranganathan S. Johnston NJ. Funck R. 1999. USA. Manson J. Compos Part A . Pistor C. USA. Analysis of transport phenomena governing interfacial bonding and void dynamics during thermoplastic tow-placement. Modeling of heat transfer and void dynamics for the thermoplastic composite tow-placement process. Lamontia MA. J Compos Mater.6(3-4):189-92. Pitchumani R. 1995.Appl S. 2001:2127-39. 2001:2024-36. Lamontia MA. 1997. Automated tape placement with in-situ electron beam cure: a viable process.32(8):1045-57. 2005. J Compos Mater. Don R. 2003. Long Beach. Cano RJ. Development of a cure-on-the-fly automated tape placement machine for electron curable prepregs. A nonisothermal process model for consolidation and void reduction during in-situ tow placement of thermoplastic composites. 1995. J Compos Mater. California. Burgess JW.31(3):244-75. Rosselli F.Appl S. Zanetto J. Bernet N. USA. Gillespie J. Improved thermoplastic tape winding using laser od directflame heating. 26th SAMPE Europe Conference. Tierney J. Lamontia M. 1997. Pitchumani R. Material phenomena controlling rapid processing of thermoplastic composites. Hulcher AB. Int J Heat Mass Tran. Compos Part A . [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] .

Hardy Y. Computer-Aided Design. Grant CG. 2008. Chanal H. Hamlyn A. Fibre application machine with tool changing system. SAE Aerofast. Kisch RA. 45th International SAMPE Symposium. 28 February 2007. 2007. Patent US 2008/0295954 A1. Oldani T. High-speed fiber placement on large complex structures. 2003. USA. Fiber placement process utilization within the worldwide aerospace industry. California.23(4):380-94. Alici G. Vogeli P. Hardy Y. Jeffries K. North Charleston.slideshare. Trajectory generation for open-contoured structures in robotic fibre placement. Medium wave infrared heater for high-speed fiber placement. Shirinzadeh B. Boeing 787 Lessons learnt.net/aergenium/b787-lessons-learnt-presentation. Patent DE 10 2008 010 424 A1. Foong CW. DeVlieg R. 2008. Izco L. Robot Com-Int Manuf. Calawa R. 48th International SAMPE Symposium. Nancarrow J. Tool path smoothing of a redundant machine: Application to Automated Fiber Placement. Long Beach. 2000:709-20. End effector and methods for contructing composite membranes. 2007. Motilva M. Duc E. USA. 2nd October 2008. Automated processing technology for composites: Current status and vision for the future. USA. http://www. 4th December 2008. Cassidy G.43(2):122-32. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] . France. Los Angeles. Patent WO 2008/122709-A1. Long Beach. Isturiz J. California. Hamlyn A. 2006.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [74] Grant C. SAE Aerospace Manufacturing and Automated Fastening Conference & Exhibition. USA. SAE Aerospace manufacturing and automated fastening conference and exhibition. Fabrication process of open surfaces by robotic fibre placement. DeVlieg R. Airbus SAS. Los Angeles. Oetomo D. USA. Faserstreifenverbinder fuer Bandwickler. California. Toulouse. Ang MH. Patent WO 2008/149004 A1. Fibre application machine with fibre supply flexible tubes. Martin J. Debout P. Shirinzadeh B. 2007. 11th December 2008. 2011. SAE Aerofast. Robot Com-Int Manuf. Vogeli P. South Carolina. California. High speed tow placement system for complex surfaces with cut / clamp / & restart capabilites at 85m/min (3350IPM). 2004. Alici G. Jeffries K. Torres Martinez M.20(1):17-28. Increasing Productivity in Fiber Placement Processes. Cassidy G.

2011. Potter K. Compos Struct.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [88] [89] [90] Lukaszewicz DH-JA. Long Beach. Paris. Verney V. Low cost robotic fabrication methods for tow placement.33(11):1469-77. Compos Part A-Appl S. Potter KD.24th Technical Conference Newark. The internal structure and conformation of prepreg with respect to reliable automated processing. Long Beach. Manufacturing Engineering. Hale RD. Shirinzadeh B. Automating composites fabrication. USA. 47th International SAMPE Symposium.93(10):2628-35. Lukaszewicz DH-JA. 2011. 2000. An automated ply collation system for material and process development. 2002. 2010. McConville A. Compos Pt A . Paris. Cano M.org/cgi-bin/findarticles.sme. Alici G. In-plane and out-of-plane deformation properties of unidirectional preimpregnated reinforcement. France. . 2008. Weaver PM. Hale RD. Moon RS. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. SAMPE Seico. Potter K. Johnson CC. identification and characterization for robot manipulators. personal communication. 2002.140(4): http://www. Potter K. Ang M. 2011. France.20:545-51. USA. 2009. [101] Eales J. Robotic fibre placement process planning and control. Shirinzadeh B. Nondestrcutive evaluation and mechancial testing of steered fiber composites.21:554-64. Morey B. Shirinzadeh B.Appl Sci Manuf. Lukaszewicz DH-JA.pl?&ME08ART28&ME&20080415&&SME&. Assembly Automation. California. 2002. Foong CW. ACS .42:283-92. Weaver PM. [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] Lukaszewicz DH-JA. 2011. A mathematical model for a pneumatically actuated robotic fibre placement system. Potter K. Lukaszewicz DH-JA.D. Sampe Seico. Alici G. Beakou A. The impact of processing conditions on the final part quality in automated tape deposition technologies. 2002. Wiehn MP. Thesis]. An empirical model for the automated deposition of thermoset composite.20:313-20. 2005. Enhanced stiffness modeling. Modelling slit tape buckling during automated prepreg manufacturing: a local approach. 2009. Le Cam J-B. Weaver PM. California. Optimisation of high-speed automated layup of thermoset carbon-fibre preimpregnates [Ph. Delaware. 47th International SAMPE Symposium. Robotica. Bristol: University of Bristol. USA.

[106] Dubois O. Gillespie Jr.13(3):197-206. 2010. Identification of Some Optimal Parameters to Achieve Higher Laminate Quality through Tape Placement Process. Tierney JJ. 2001. Potter KD. 2011. 30th International SAMPE Europe Conference. [109] Bannister M. Schledjewski R.Appl S.32(7):901-10. Prepreg aging in relation to tack. Cano RJ. Polym Comp. Leiden. Mitschang P. Proc IMechE. [110] Lukaszewicz DH-JA. J Appl Polym Sci. 1992. Netherlands: 2011. Challenges for composites into the next millennium . Wilhelm M. Proceedings of ICCM-18. Through-thickness compression response of uncured prepreg during manufacture by automated layup. Béakou A. Gruber MB. 2009. Analysis and characterization of prepreg tack. 1992.29(2):98-111. Seferis JC. Edinburgh. France. 2009.1177/0954405411411817. [104] Ahn KJ. Compos Part A . [108] Lukaszewicz DH-JA. [105] Ahn KJ. Experimental analysis of prepreg tack. Seferis JC.a reinforcement perspective. Peterson L. Schubel PJ. Pelton T. Le Cam JB. DOI: 10. Exp Mech. [103] Khan MA. Adv Polym Tech. Nowacki D. .45(3):399-406. Jensen BJ. The experimental characterisation and investigation of prepreg tack. Modelling of automated layup processes for improved efficiency and sustainability. 2009. Paris. JW.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [102] Lamontia MA. Warrior NA. [107] Crossley RJ. Potter K. In situ thermoplastic ATP needs flat tapes and tows with few voids. In: Sampe Setec. Zachmann HG. Part B: J Engineering Manufacture.

with Filament winding added in an insert graph as reference. The material is moved from left to right and material is applied to a mould using a bespoke tape layup head. Figure 8: Integrated slitting unit with individual tow pay-out from [10].1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Figure 1: Overview of annual publications on ATL and AFP. Figure 2: Drawing of an ATL delivering slit tape over a curved surface [10]. Figure 6: Example of a gantry type ATL laying onto a female tool [45]. Figure 5: Picture of an ATL layup head with relevant functional groups labelled. Figure 7: Column Type ATL laying 300mm wide tape onto a vertical tool. . Figure 9: Schematic of an AFP head [2]. This can be interpreted as the first AFP concept. Figure 4: Schematic of an ATL layup head. The prepreg material supply is not shown. according to Ästrøm [3]. Figure 3: Drawing of an early composite components manufacturing system from [11].

Figure 11: Ingersoll gantry-type AFP laying into a female mould [77]. Figure 15: Illustration of Laps and Gaps during AFP layup. Figure 14: Overview of the most common tow steering defect. from [89]. from [89].1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Figure 10: AFP layup of steered tows on a flat mould [53]. from [53]. Figure 17: Effect of tow drop angle T0 and to drop area on the strength reduction of a panel with steered tows. from [53]. Figure 13: Theoretical productivity comparison for ATL and AFP layup of a flat laminate as a function of maximum layup speed. Figure 18: ILSS for a laminate manufactured at different layup temperatures and subsequently oven-cured [110]. Figure 12: Theoretical productivity comparison for ATL and AFP layup of a flat laminate as a function of part size. . Figure 16: Effect of tow drop angle T0 and to drop area on the stiffness reduction of a panel with steered tows.

. Figure 21: Example of a common defect in ATL grade prepreg. for the ILSS samples from Figure 18. from [110]. measured by light microscopy. Figure 20: Example of fuzzy edges at the edge of a roll of slit tape.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Figure 19: Void content.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Table 1: Overview of AFP applications in 2000. open-hole tension (OHT) and open-hole compression (OHC) strength of AFP laminates. according to [54]. . inplane shear. from [75]. compressive. Table 2: Overview of the effect of various layup defects on the tensile. AFP was mostly used for military applications.

Aircraft program F-18 E/F C-17 Globemaster Bell Agusta 609 V-22 Osprey Premier I Hawker Horizon F22 Raptor Sea Launch Components made by AFP Inlet Duct. Stabilator Skins Fan Cowl Doors. Drag Angle. Aft Center Side Skins. Sponsons. Grips Fuselage Sections Fuselage Sections Stabilator Pivot Shaft Payload Fairing . Landing Gear Pods Fuselage Panels Aft fuselage. Side Skins.

.

Figure_1 .

Figure_2 .

Figure_3 .

Figure_4 .

Figure_5 .

Figure_6 .

Figure_7 .

Figure_8 .

Figure_9 .

Figure_10 .

Figure_11 .

Figure_12 .

Figure_13 .

Figure_14 .

Figure_15 .

Figure_16 .

Figure_17 .

Figure_18 .

Figure_19 .

Figure_20 .

Figure_21 .