Effects of vacuum infusion configuration on homogeneity of glass fiber reinforced polymer composites for automotive components

Effects of vacuum infusion configuration on homogeneity of glass fiber reinforced polymer composites for automotive components

In this study, the effects of vacuum infusion configuration on the homogeneities of glass fiber reinforced vinyl ester composites have been evaluated. Three different sizes of samples (100x100, 500x500, and 1000x1000 mm) were fabricated. Three different configurations were used to fabricate the samples. The first two configurations had one inlet, while the third configuration had two inlets for resin infusion. Thickness variations and hardness (Shore D) measurements were performed to determine the homogeneities of the samples. The results revealed that, for small size samples, the configurations have no obvious effect on the homogeneity of the samples, both in terms of thickness variations and hardness values. However, for larger samples, the configuration where the resin is introduced into the preform in the center of the component showed better homogeneity than other configurations. Even a better distribution is assessed with the introduction of the resin in the center of the sample, although this configuration also resulted in thickness swellings in the central areas of the sample. The thickness swellings were observed around the inlet areas for all configurations. The study shows that the resin flow in the center of the component is preferable but thickness swelling must be considered when dimensional tolerances are critical.

___

  • [1] Akhshik, M., Panthapulakkal, S., Tjong, J., Sain, M., (2019). The effect of lightweighting on greenhouse gas emissions and life cycle energy for automotive composite parts. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 21(3): 625–36. doi: 10.1007/s10098-018-01662-0.
  • [2] Sathishkumar, T.P., Satheeshkumar, S., Naveen, J., (2014). Glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites – a review: Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1177/0731684414530790. 33(13): 1258–75. doi: 10.1177/0731684414530790.
  • [3] Yıldızhan, Ş., Akar, M.A., Özcanlı, M., Serin, H., (2019). Manufacturing Methods of Polymer Matrix Composites: A Brief Review of Techniques Convenient for Mass Production. 4th International Mediterranean Science and Engineering Congress (IMSEC 2019), p. 395–9.
  • [4] Serin, H., Derici, O.B., Yıldızhan, Ş., (2019). A Review on Open Mold Techniques for Polymer Matrix Composite Products | AVESİS. 4th International Mediterranean Science and Engineering Congress (IMSEC 2019), p. 400–4.
  • [5] Correia, N.C., Robitaille, F., Long, A.C., Rudd, C.D., Šimáček, P., Advani, S.G., (2005). Analysis of the vacuum infusion moulding process: I. Analytical formulation. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 36(12): 1645–56. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2005.03.019.
  • [6] Ouezgan, A., Mallil, E.H., Echaabi, J., (2022). Manufacturing routes of vacuum assisted resin infusion: Numerical investigation. Journal of Composite Materials.: 002199832211114. doi: 10.1177/00219983221111492.
  • [7] van Oosterom, S., Allen, T., Battley, M., Bickerton, S., (2019). An objective comparison of common vacuum assisted resin infusion processes. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 125: 105528. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105528.
  • [8] Abdurohman, K., Satrio, T., Muzayadah, N.L., Teten., (2018). A comparison process between hand lay-up, vacuum infusion and vacuum bagging method toward e-glass EW 185/lycal composites. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1130(1): 012018. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1130/1/012018.
  • [9] Ricciardi, M.R., Antonucci, V., Durante, M., Giordano, M., Nele, L., Starace, G., et al., (2014). A new cost-saving vacuum infusion process for fiber-reinforced composites: Pulsed infusion. Journal of Composite Materials. 48(11): 1365–73. doi: 10.1177/0021998313485998.
  • [10] Yenilmez, B., Akyol, T., Caglar, B., Sozer, E.M., (2011). Minimizing Thickness Variation in the Vacuum Infusion (VI) Process. Advanced Composites Letters. 20(6): 096369351102000. doi: 10.1177/096369351102000603.