Search Results

Every now and then a good idea happens. The Modular head was a great idea and enabled the use of multiple types of AFP heads, ATL, ply cutting, part probing, etc. with the use of a single machine and machining cell. At the time the modular head was developed by Electroimpact circa 2004, the industry assumed (and accepted) that AFP was an unreliable process. It still isn’t as reliable as we’d like. One way of coping with this lack of reliability is to stage more than one head in the AFP cell so that a spare head of the exact same type is ready to jump into action if the head out on the floor has an issue. If the reliability of the AFP process were to increase 10x or 50x, would there still be a business case for the multiple AFP head system? The modular head may still win the day, but the metrics change. For instance, if there was only 20 minutes of down time for every head load, it may no longer be advantageous to have 2 heads of the exact same type in the cell.

In AFP manufacturing systems, manually inspection of parts consumes a large portion of total production time and is susceptible to missing defects. The aerospace industry is responding to this inefficiency by focusing on the development of automated inspection systems. The first generation of automated inspection systems is now entering production. This paper reviews the performance of the first generation system and discusses reasonable expectations. Estimates of automated inspection time will be made, and it will be shown that the automated solution enables a detailed statistical analysis of manufactured part quality and provides the data necessary for statistical process control. Data collection allows for a reduction in rework because not all errors need to be corrected. Expectations will be set for the accuracy for both ply boundary and overlap/gap measurements. The time and resource cost of development and integration will also be discussed.

In many existing AFP cells manual inspection of composite plies accounts for a large percentage of production time. Next generation AFP cells can require an even greater inspection burden. The industry is rapidly developing technologies to reduce inspection time and to replace manual inspection with automated solutions. Electroimpact is delivering a solution that integrates multiple technologies to combat inspection challenges. The approach integrates laser projectors, cameras, and laser profilometers in a comprehensive user interface that greatly reduces the burden on inspectors and decreases overall run time. This paper discusses the implementation of each technology and the user interface that ties the data together and presents it to the inspector.

The Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) machine layup run time in large scale AFP layup cells consumes approximately 30% of the entire part build time. Consequentially, further reductions to the run time of the AFP machine part programs result in small improvements to the overall cycle time. This document discusses how Electroimpact's integrated system and cell design reduces the overall cycle time by reducing the time spent on non-machine processes.

Incorporation of laser projectors in AFP machine cell controller reduces ply boundary inspection time, on-part course identification and part probing.

Manufacturing C cross-sectional components with high aspect ratios out of carbon fiber reinforced composites is desirable by the aircraft industry. Modular AFP heads with short, fixed tow path have the fundamental performance characteristics required to successfully and productively automate the production of these part families. Aircraft parts in this family include wing spars, stringers, and fuselage frames.

The A380 aircraft is the largest passenger aircraft ever built and an appropriate machine was required to accomplish the fastening of the wing plank to stringer and buttstrap joints. The lower wing panels are curved along the length and move 1.42m out of plane. All previous E4000 machines had clampup heads that would extend and retract whatever distance was required to contact the wing panel. To improve toolpoint alignment, Electroimpact added a Z-axis that moves the yoke in order to reduce the necessary travel envelope of the clamp table axes and to cause them to clamp in the same plane regardless of panel position along the Z-axis.

Wing skin riveting and bolting requires the surface to be flush to +/–.025mm(.001″) to produce an acceptable finish. Using the method described in this paper, automated wing riveting technology and panel assembly techniques can achieve better shave height and countersink accuracies than have previously been possible in production.