Uncertainty in manufacturing of lightweight products in composite laminate—part 2: experimental validation

  • Wilma PoliniEmail author
  • Andrea Corrado


One of the obstacles for composite applications is the geometry assurance. Traditional dimension control operations for composites are mainly based on trial-and-error approaches, which cannot be directly and effectively employed in real-world part design and tooling development. With the increasing requirement for composite products to be affordable, net-shaped, assembly efficient, and effective dimension control is highly desirable. Currently, composite components cannot be processed to the tolerance level required for an assembly because of the lack of dimension control. Better dimensional control can improve assembly, reduce extra processing steps, and make parts interchangeable for rapid repair and retrofit. Variation analysis represents the best way to solve these assembly problems in order to ensure higher quality and lower costs, but few studies have focused on this issue. Therefore, the aim of this work is to experimentally solve an assembly constituted by parts in composite material and joined by adhesive in order to use these results to validate a numerical tool for variation analysis of compliant part.


Variation analysis Compliant part Composite material Adhesive 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



Special thanks to Federico and Walter A.

Funding information

This work was carried out with the funding of the Italian M.I.U.R. (Ministry of Instruction, University and Technological Research).


  1. 1.
    Albert C, Fernlund G (2002) Spring-in and warpage of angled composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 62:1895–1912. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banea MD, da Silva LFM (2009) Adhesively bonded joints in composite materials: an overview. Proc Inst Mech Eng L J Mater Des Appl 223:1–18. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baran I, Cinar K, Ersoy N, Akkerman R, Hattel JH (2016) A review on the mechanical modeling of composite manufacturing processes. Arch Comput Meth Eng 24:1–31. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darrow DA, Smith LV (2002) Isolating components of processing induced warpage in laminated composites. J Compos Mater 36:2407–2419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ding A, Li S, Wang J, Zu L (2015) A three-dimensional thermo-viscoelastic analysis of process-induced residual stress in composite laminates. Compos Struct 129:60–69. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding A, Li S, Sun J, Wang J, Zu L (2016a) A comparison of process-induced residual stresses and distortions in composite structures with different constitutive laws. J Reinf Plast Compos 35:807–823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ding A, Li S, Sun J, Wang J, Zu L (2016b) A thermo-viscoelastic model of process-induced residual stresses in composite structures with considering thermal dependence. Compos Struct 136:34–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding A, Li S, Wang J, Ni A, Sun L, Chang L (2016c) Prediction of process-induced distortions in L-shaped composite profiles using path-dependent constitutive law. Appl Compos Mater 23:1027–1045. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong C, Zhang C, Liang Z, Wang B (2004a) Assembly dimensional variation modelling and optimization for the resin transfer moulding process. Model Simul Mater Sci Eng 12:S221–S237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dong C, Zhang C, Liang Z, Wang B (2004b) Dimension variation prediction for composites with finite element analysis and regression modeling. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 35:735–746. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernlund G, Nelson K, Poursartip A (1999) Modeling of process induced deformations of composite shell structures. In: International SAMPE symposium and exhibition, 2000. SAMPE, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jareteg C, Wärmefjord K, Söderberg R, Lindkvist L, Carlson J, Cromvik C, Edelvik F (2014) Variation simulation for composite parts and assemblies including variation in fiber orientation and thickness. Procedia CIRP 23:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kappel E (2016) Forced-interaction and spring-in – relevant initiators of process-induced distortions in composite manufacturing. Compos Struct 140:217–229. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kappel E, Stefaniak D, Spröwitz T, Hühne C (2011) A semi-analytical simulation strategy and its application to warpage of autoclave-processed CFRP parts. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 42:1985–1994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salomi A, Garstka T, Potter K, Greco A, Maffezzoli A (2008) Spring-in angle as molding distortion for thermoplastic matrix composite. Compos Sci Technol 68:3047–3054. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thoppul SD, Finegan J, Gibson RF (2009) Mechanics of mechanically fastened joints in polymer–matrix composite structures – a review. Compos Sci Technol 69:301–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wisnom MR, Gigliotti M, Ersoy N, Campbell M, Potter KD (2006) Mechanisms generating residual stresses and distortion during manufacture of polymer–matrix composite structures. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 37:522–529. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUniversità di Cassino e del Lazio MeridionaleCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations