Title: Reducing Uncertainty, Risk and Cost of Variation in Composite Non-Dimensional Attributes

Authors: Scott Blake

DOI: 10.33599/nasampe/c.25.147

Abstract: How much are the structural integrity and performance of primary composite components affected by raw material flaws, laminate wrinkles, fiber waviness, laps, gaps, porosity, foreign object debris (FOD), fiber orientation and other non-dimensional attributes? The impact of variation in these factors is largely unknown and/or unquantified, which introduces uncertainty that must be addressed through risk-reduction measures such as overdesign and stringent manufacturing quality control. Such measures are necessary to ensure the quality, safety and performance of composite components, but they inflate the cost and increase the cycle time of producing these components. The advent of proven AI-enabled automatic in-process inspection technologies opens an opportunity to reduce this uncertainty. By digitally capturing and quantifying component features and anomalies during the fabrication process, automatic inspection generates digital images and data for an as-built digital twin of each fabricated component. Aggregated data on variation in non-dimensional attributes from multiple as-built digital twins serves as input for recently developed artificial intelligence/deep learning (AI/DL). This paper explains how applying AI/DL to captured as-built data provides composites fabricators with insights they may use to reduce uncertainty associated with non-dimensional attributes. Less overdesign and increased process tolerances may then be accommodated. The paper explores the resulting risk and cost reductions in several use cases.

References: 1. S. Blake and A. Atai, “Accelerating In-Process Automatic Inspection Engineering: Removing Inhibitors to Rapid Machine Learning-Based Application Development,” SAMPE Technical Paper TP21-472, 2021. DOI: 10.33599/nasampe/s.21.0472. 2. A. Halbritter and R. Harper, “Big Parts Demand Big Changes to the Fiber Placement Status Quo,” SME Composites Manufacturing Conference, Mesa, AZ, March 2012. 3. T. Rudberg, J. Nielson, M. Henscheid and J. Cemenska, “Improving AFP Cell Performance,” SAE Int. J. Aerosp. 7(2):2014, DOI:10.4271/2014-01-2272. 4. S. Blake, “A Systems Solution to Quality Escapes in Composites Manufacturing,” CAMX Technical Paper TP24-295, 2024. DOI: 10.33599/nasampe/c.24.0295. 5. M. El-Hefni, A. Mohamed, A.K. Dessouki, A. Osman, “Numerical validation and optimization of hybrid composite beam hull using multiple failure criteria,” Engineering Structures, Volume 286, 2023, 116139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116139. Image for Figure 2 from Hillman Composite Beams Inc. 2013 WV Dry Branch. HC Bridge, 2013, https://www.hcbridge.com/2013-wv-dry-branch/. 6. J. Cemenska, T. Rudberg, M. Henscheid, A. Lauletta, et al., “AFP Automated Inspection System Performance and Expectations.” SAE Technical Paper 2017-01-2150, 2017, DOI:10.4271/2017-01-2150. 7. J. Arinez, Q. Chang, R.X. Gao, C. Xu, and J. Zhang, “Artificial Intelligence in Advanced Manufacturing: Current Status and Future Outlook,” ASME Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 142, no. 11, Nov. 2020, 110804. DOI: 10.1115/1.4047855. 8. U. Khan, J. Iqbal and M. Khan, “Automatic Inspection System Using Machine Vision,” 34th Applied Imagery and Pattern Recognition Workshop (APR’05) (2005) 6-217. DOI: 10.1109/AIPR.2005.20. 9. S. Blake, “Generating Good Data for AI-Based Automatic Inspection and Remediation of Large-Scale Composite Components,” SAMPE Technical Paper TP23-149, 2023. DOI: 10.33599/nasampe/s.23.0149. 10. S. Blake and J. Su, “AI-Enabled Automatic Inspection in Wind Turbine Blade Manufacturing: Technology Validation and Demonstration,” SAMPE Technical Paper TP24-135, 2024. DOI: 10.33599/nasampe/s.24.0135. 11. C. Leiva, “Demystifying the Digital Thread and Digital Twin Concepts.” Industry Week, 25 Aug. 2018, https://www.industryweek.com/systems-integration/demystifying-digital-threadand-digital-twin-concepts. 12. T. Hahn, “Artificial Intelligence: Optimizing Industrial Operations.” The European Files, vol. 54, 2018, p. 30. 13. “Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. Machine Learning vs. Deep Learning.” Skymind, 25 Jan. 2019, https://skymind.ai/wiki/ai-vs-machine-learning-vs-deep-learning. 14. L. Scime, D. Siddel, S. Baird, and V. Paquit, “Layer-Wise Anomaly Detection and Classification for Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing Processes: A Machine-Agnostic Algorithm for Real-Time Pixel-Wise Semantic Segmentation.” Additive Manufacturing, vol. 36, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2020.101453. 15. Vincent Paquit, interview by Scott Blake and Karen Mason, 18 Aug. 2020. 16. A. Garcia-Garcia, S. Orts-Escolano, S. Oprea, V. Villena-Martinez, P. Martinez-Gonzalez, and J. Garcia-Rodriguez, “A Survey on Deep Learning Techniques for Image and Video Semantic Segmentation.” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 70, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.05.018. 17. J. Marcinkoski, B. James, and R. Ahluwalia. “Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul Truck Targets.” DOE Advanced Truck Technologies Subsection of the Electrified Powertrain Roadmap Technical Targets for Hydrogen-Fueled Long-Haul Tractor-Trailer Trucks, 31 Oct. 2019, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdf

Conference: CAMX 2025

Publication Date: 2025/09/08

SKU: 147

Pages: 14

Price: $28.00