Cool-Clave—An Energy Efficient Autoclave

Abstract

Out-of-autoclave (OOA) manufacturing techniques for composites result in lower fibre volume fractions than for fully compressed laminates. The lower fibre volume fraction produces a higher resin volume fraction, which becomes resin-rich volumes (RRV). Textile reinforcements with clustered fibres and consequent RRV generally have low strength but high in-plane process permeability, whereas the opposite is true for uniformly distributed fibres. The inevitable increase in resin volume fraction of OOA composites often compromises composite performance and leads to relatively higher weight and fuel consumption in transport applications. The retention of autoclave processing is recommended for highest performance when compression press moulding is not appropriate (for example, for complex 3D components). The traditional autoclave processing of composites heats not only the component to be cured but also parasitic air and the vessel insulation. Subject to minor modifications of the pressure vessel, electrically heated tooling could be implemented. This approach would need to balance insulation of the heated tool surface (and any heater blanket on the counter-face) against the quenching effect during the introduction of the pressurised cool air. This process optimisation would significantly reduce energy consumption. Additionally, the laminate on the heated tool could be taken to the end of the dwell period before loading the autoclave, leading to significant reductions in cure cycle times. Components could be cured simultaneously at different temperatures provided that there are sufficient power and control circuits in the autoclave. While autoclave processing has usually involved vacuum-bagged pre-impregnated reinforcements, implementation of the cool-clave technique could also provide a scope for using the pressure vessel to cure vacuum-infused composites.

Parametric Numerical Study and Multi-Objective Optimization of Composite Curing through Infrared Radiation

“…The edge effect and local heating effect as well as requirements for specific coil design for each heating pattern or component geometry prevent the adoption of induction curing on a large scale [3,11,13]. Ultraviolet curing (UV) exhibits low running and maintenance costs but requires UV-curable materials and, due to low penetration capabilities, is limited to mostly thin films and coatings While autoclave curing systems are known for producing parts with high quality, their high purchase and running costs, along with long energy-hungry curing cycles, can often be prohibitive (Figure 2) [5][6][7][8][9]. While conventional convection and conduction methods are well researched and controllable [11], they exhibit small margins in energy savings [3].…”