DOE OSTI2021
IACMI Project 4.9, Tooling for Composites with Washout Features Produced by Additive Manufacturing, assembled a team including the industry lead, Ability Composites, NREL and Colorado State University (CSU). Ability Composites had originally expressed interest in alternate methods of producing tooling for composite parts. In follow-up discussions, it became clear that one of the bigger tooling challenges revolved around small production volume composite parts that were tooled on washout material due to the complex geometry. To build an understanding of the potential, both from a technology and a cost perspective, for replacing conventional washout tooling with 3D printed thermoplastic tooling, a number of commercially available dissolvable FDM printing materials were evaluated, leading to tooling representative of commercial articles of interest to Ability Composites. Ultimately, Ability Composites was able to directly compare autoclave processed prepreg composite parts produced on conventional washout tooling to composite parts molded on 3D printed dissolvable tooling produced at CSU. Small, laboratory test specimens were developed to investigate the structural performance of the candidate materials under autoclave processing conditions, which were nominally 121 °C (250 °F) and 345 kPa (50 psi). In addition, several internal structural configurations (infills) were evaluated under autoclave conditions using model materials. The results of these tests indicated that two materials, Stratasys ST 130 and Infinite Materials Solutions Aquasys 180 (AQ 180), were the best candidates, given the specified autoclave processing conditions. ST-130 was slightly more robust than AQ-180; however, the AQ-180 was carried forward as it was dissolvable in water, not requiring the basic solution needed to dissolve ST-130. Based on the preliminary material and 3D printed structures evaluations, larger tools with a truncated square pyramid geometry were created to produce prepreg composite test articles for 3D printed dissolvable tool evaluation under standard autoclave fabrication conditions. Two tools were manufactured using ST-130 and one tool using traditional ceramic washout tooling media. The tools were evaluated for geometric fidelity and surface roughness changes before and after carbon fiber/epoxy prepreg composites were manufactured on the tooling. The autoclave processing did not impact the geometry significantly and was completed at 121 °C and 345 kPa, indicating satisfactory tool performance. The results from surface roughness testing of both the resulting composite and the associated tooling indicated that an adequate surface resulted without the need for a surface sealing step, as was required for the conventional washout tooling. Based on results of the truncated pyramid tests as a basis, ST-130, AQ-120 and AQ-180 materials were carried forward to the tool geometry of interest to Ability Composites. These hollow rectangular bent ducts, which were complex in nature and not extractable after cure, were used to understand the impacts of tool material and thickness. One ST-130 tool was produced as a partially solid part, with an enclosed 40% dense infill region to reduce weight and material use. This was the same approach evaluated in the truncated pyramid portion of the study. This tool was to be envelope vacuum bagged and directly compared to a monolithic tool of conventional washout material. The traditional monolithic ceramic tool was manufactured by Ability composites using CNC-based subtractive methods. An additional five dissolvable polymer tools, manufactured from ST-130, AQ-120, and AQ-180, using a hollow design were 3D printed and used to produce carbon fiber/epoxy composite evaluation articles. These hollow dissolvable tools were expected to be less influenced by the autoclave conditions as the wall was solid and vacuum bagging was inside and outside the tool. This alternative geometry was also evaluated as an option in techno-economic modeling. Print times were reduced from in excess of 3 days to under 30 hours, while surface quality and and tool integrity were substantially improved in the transition from the partially solid tool to the hollow tooling concept. Ability Composites produced autoclave-cured prepreg ducts on each of these tools. The autoclave conditions utilized were more severe than those of the initial trials, reaching temperatures of 160 °C and a pressure of 414 kPa. Under these conditions, the partially solid 3D printed tool with skin and 40% dense infill crushed significantly; however, the thicker ST-130 hollow tool showed good promise, deforming only slightly. The thinner hollow tool walls were unsuccessful as were the other materials. Overall, the hollow tool manufacturing process saved significant amounts of time and material in manufacturing as compared to the solid ducts and produced composite surface quality improvements compared to the traditional washout tooling. The TEM was developed to allow direct comparisons between conventional washout tool manufacturing processes and those developed at CSU. It also allowed for two separate 3D printed tool geometries to be analyzed and compared. In this case, the square bent duct tool geometry was determined to be representative of common washout tools. This geometry was compared with a scaled-up version of it to assess differences in the two manufacturing processes based on tool size. The model was developed to make use of user input in the form of geometry details, process steps, manufacturing parameters, bulk material costs, capital equipment costs, and general costs to calculate overall labor, material, capital equipment, and energy costs per manufactured tool for the conventional and additive manufacturing processes for the two representative geometries. It was also able to estimate step-by-step process times for the manufacturing process and geometries. Based on significant input from Ability Composites and CSU from their knowledge gained from hands-on manufacturing of the 3D printed bent duct tool geometry, costs and process times were calculated for the two manufacturing processes. Results showed that the additive manufacturing techniques developed at CSU can substantially reduce the costs of tool manufacturing by reducing labor times and material usage. This is because additive manufacturing is a relatively hands-off process and allows for the tool design to be optimized to reduce material usage. The disadvantage, however, is that process times for additive manufacturing are significantly longer. The three-dimensional (3D) printing process is slow if tight tolerances are required, but the analysis did show that print times could be reduced with the hollow tool geometry. Also, further advances in additive manufacturing could expedite the process. Costs and process times for the tool washout process were calculated separately. They showed that costs are relatively insignificant when compared to the overall tool manufacturing processes, but with increases in tool size, costs for the conventional manufacturing approach are larger than for additive manufacturing. Again, the washout process for conventional tools is very hands-on, whereas for additively manufactured tools the print medium is dissolved in an automated detergent bath at the sacrifice of process time. The analysis showed that optimizing the additively manufactured tools may also reduce washout times. Overall, Project 4.9 demonstrated that commercially available dissolvable 3D printing materials exist that can be used to produce dissolvable tooling capable of surviving prepreg composites fabrication under autoclave conditions of 121 °C (250 °F) and 345 kPa (50 psi). An alternative hollow dissolvable tool design was developed which was structurally superior to the initial concept and was cost and time effective versus conventional washout tooling. The 3D printed sacrificial tool required no added surface sealing steps prior to composite part layup and cure, offering a significant advantage over the porous conventional washout tooling.