Thermoplastic Composites for Aerospace Applications

  • Marco BarileEmail author
  • Leonardo Lecce
  • Michele Iannone
  • Silvio Pappadà
  • Pierluca Roberti


Composites world is in continuous evolution and there has been a progressive change in terms of manufacturing processes, passing from standard wet or prepreg manual layup to automated (preforming) technologies, with the objective to increase production rates and make cheaper manufacturing processes. This chapter deals with most recent advancements and applications of thermoplastic composites, focusing on the reasons why for aerospace sector, they are increasingly representing a more viable manufacturing solution for structural components. Starting from thermoplastic polymer structures and difference with respect to thermoset matrix based composites, the standard consolidation processes (autoclave/thermoforming) together with most promising automated and continuous out-of- autoclave manufacturing concepts and processes (Automated Fiber Placement/Automated Tape Laying, In Situ Consolidation, Continuous Compression Molding, Pultrusion), including assembling methods (Fusion/Welding), are illustrated. Furthermore, an overview on different recycling concepts related to thermoplastics and thermosets composites is provided. At last, an overview on the European thermoplastic development roadmap, supported by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program (2014–2021) for the next generation of aircrafts, is illustrated.


Automated manufacturing composites Thermoplastics Thermoforming Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) In situ Consolidation (ISC) AFP Continuous Compression Molding (CCM) Induction Welding (IW) 


  1. Ageorges C, Ye L, Hou M (2001) Advances in fusion bonding techniques for joining thermoplastic matrix composites: a review. Compos Part A 32:839–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed TJ, Stavrov D, Bersee HEN, Beukers A (2006) Induction welding of thermoplastic composites—an overview. Compos Part A 37:1638–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barile M, Lecce L, Sportelli A, Iagulli G, Raffone M (2017) Systematic down selection approach to automated composites lay-down processes. In: The third international symposium on automated composites manufacturing, Montreal (Canada), April 2017Google Scholar
  4. Barile M, Iannone V, Lecce L (2018) Automated fabrication of hybrid thermoplastic prepreg material to be processed by In-Situ Consolidation Automated Fiber Placement process. In: 5th international conference of engineering against failure, Chios, 20–22 June 2018Google Scholar
  5. Biron M (2007) Thermoplastics and thermoplastic composites. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies P, Cantwell W et al (1989) Cooling rate effects in carbon fibre/PEEK composites. Presented at 3rd ASTM symp. on fatigue & fracture, Orlando, Nov.Google Scholar
  7. Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation—Report of the High Level Group on Aviation Research (n.d.)Google Scholar
  8. Hart-Smith (1973) Adhesive bonded single lap joints. NASA CR-112236, Jan 1973Google Scholar
  9. Kenny J, D’Amore A, Nicolais L, Iannone M, Scatteia B (1989) Processing of amorphous PEEK and amorphous PEEK based composites. SAMPE J 25(4):21
  10. Maffezzoli A, Kenny JM, Nicolais L (1989) SAMPE J 25(4):35Google Scholar
  11. Mallon PJ, O’Bradaigh CM et al (1998) Polymeric diaphragm forming of complex curvatures thermoplastic composite parts. Composites 20(1):48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manson JE, Schneider T, Seferis JC (1990) Press-forming of continuous-fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Polym Compos 11(2):114–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marsh G (2007) Airbus takes on Boeing with reinforced plastic. Reinf Plast 51(11):26–27, 29. Scholar
  14. Marsh G (2013) Bombardier throws down the gauntlet with CSeries airliner. Reinf Plast 55(6):22–26. Scholar
  15. McCool R, Murphy A et al (2012) Thermoforming carbon fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part L J Mater Des Appl 226(2):91–102. Scholar
  16. MIL-HDBK-17-3F: Composite materials handbook, vol 3. Polymer matrix composites materials usage, design. Cap. 6. Department of DefenseGoogle Scholar
  17. Nguyen-Chung T, Friedrich K, Mennig G (2007) Processability of pultrusion using natural fiber and thermoplastic matrix. Res Lett Mater Sci 2007:1–6. Scholar
  18. Novo PJ, Nunes JP, Silva JF, Tinoco V, Marques AT (2013) Production of thermoplastic matrix pre-impregnated materials to manufacture composite pultruded profiles. Ciênc Tecnol Mater 25:84–90Google Scholar
  19. O’Bradaigh CM, Mallon PJ (1989) Compos Sci Technol 35:235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Offringa AR (1996) Thermoplastic applications composites-rapid processing applications. Compos Part A 27(A):329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pappadà S, Salomi A, Montanaro J et al (2015) Fabrication of a thermoplastic matrix stiffened panel by induction welding. Aerosp Sci Technol 43:314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Patent EP3017931A1 (2014) Induction machine for bonding polymeric matrix conductive composite material and bonding method for said machineGoogle Scholar
  23. Pepliński K, Mozer A (2011) Ansys Polyflow software use to optimize the sheet thickness distribution in thermoforming process. J Pol CIMAC 6:215–220Google Scholar
  24. Preimpregnated materials with semi-crystalline matrix and amorphous surface layers (2011) EP 2 109 532 B1 of 02/03/2011, LEONARDO S.p.A.Google Scholar
  25. Red C (2014) The outlook for thermoplastics in aerospace composites, 2014-2023. In: High-performance composites. Gardner Business Media, Inc., Cincinatti, pp 54–63Google Scholar
  26. Rudolf R, Mitschang P, Neitzel M (2000) Induction heating of continuous carbon-fibre reinforced thermoplastics. Compos Part A 31:1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scherer R, Friedrich K (1991) Inter- and intraply-slip flow processes during thermoforming of cf/pp-laminates. Compos Manuf 2(2):92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Starke J (2016) Carbon composites in automotive structural applications, Eucia: composites and sustainability 19.03.16.
  29. Thoppul SD, Finegan J, Gibson RF (2009) Mechanics of mechanically fastened joints in polymer–matrix composite structures—a review. Compos Sci Technol 69(3–4):301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vodicka R (1996) Thermoplastics for airframe application, a review of the properties and repair methods for thermoplastic composites. Department of Defence, DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  31. Wakeman MD, Blanchard P (2005) Void evolution during stamp-forming of thermoplastic composites. In: 15th international conference on composite materials (ICCM-15)Google Scholar
  32. Wong J (2017) Processing of high performance thermoplastic composites, 131-5048-00L manufacturing of polymer composite, CMAS Lab ETH Zurich, 01.03.2017Google Scholar
  33. Ye L, Beehag A (1996) Role of cooling pressure on interlaminar fracture properties of commingled CF/PEEK composites. Compos A: Appl Sci Manuf 27(3):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Barile
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leonardo Lecce
    • 1
  • Michele Iannone
    • 2
  • Silvio Pappadà
    • 3
  • Pierluca Roberti
    • 4
  1. 1.NOVOTECH Aerospace Advanced TechnologyNaplesItaly
  2. 2.LEONARDO Aircraft PomiglianoNaplesItaly
  3. 3.CETMA—Engineering, Design and Materials Technologies CentreBrindisiItaly
  4. 4.SOLVAY Aerospace Composite MaterialsMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations