Engineering news
A Scottish-based consortium created the tool to offer an alternative to the traditional autoclave “curing” process, which heats and pressurises materials to create parts.
The group, involving aerospace company Spirit AeroSystems and the University of Strathclyde, and funding from the Scottish Innovation Centre for Sensor and Imaging Systems (Censis), said their tool could cut cycle times by up to 40%, bring energy consumption down and reduce operating costs by up to 50%.
In manufacturing, autoclaves – which cost about $4m – are vessels that process materials in moulds at high pressures and temperatures. They “cure” components for pre-determined cycles, typically two hours, to create high-strength, lightweight parts for high-value sectors, mainly aerospace.
An autoclave being used to produce a composite panel (Credit: Censis)
Normally parts are cured for standard periods of time at set temperatures, regardless of how they are responding to the curing process. The consortium in Prestwick say their new tool improves on this and removes the need for autoclaves. The device, described as a “multi-zone heated tool”, lets users monitor curing and match cycles to components’ individual geometry and how they are reacting to the process.
The result, the consortium claims, is better decision making and tailored manufacturing.
“In-process monitoring offers the ability to manufacture more effectively and helps companies tailor their processes to their products and customers,” said James Selka, CEO of the Manufacturing Technologies Association, to Professional Engineering. “By using innovative technology UK companies in global industries like aerospace can make themselves more competitive.”
The autoclave is a “bottleneck” in manufacturing lines, said Spirit's Advanced Technology Centre lead engineer Stevie Brown. “Removing it will reduce cycle times for components, cut production costs and decrease energy consumption.”
The consortium, which received £50,000 of funding from Censis, will continue the project for another year and hope to modify the tool to make it commercially available.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.