Original Article

Journal of Reinforced Plastics

and Composites

An experimental study of temperature 2016, Vol. 35(7) 566–578

! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
distribution in an autoclave sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0731684415624768
jrp.sagepub.com

NEJ Kluge1, TS Lundström1, A-L Ljung1, LG Westerberg1 and

T Nyman2

Abstract
In this work, the temperature distribution on an industrial mold tool is monitored during autoclave runs with three
settings. In one of the settings, the temperature and pressure follow a scheme used in real moldings, while in the other
two cases, the temperature is increased as fast as possible with and without an applied pressure. The temperature
difference over the tool is relatively large and varies between 29 C and 76 C validating a detailed investigation of the
temperature at different points. Two results of this are that positions on the up-stream side of the tool are heated faster
than positions down-stream and the heating over the tool is symmetric while that within is asymmetric. Roughly
estimated heat transfer coefficients reveal that the temperature ramping has no significant effect on the local heat
transfer coefficients while the applied pressure more than doubled them. In addition flow field measurements with
particle image velocimetry are performed, revealing a very slow flow near the roof of the autoclave and a velocity peak
near the floor of it, indicating that the flow profile within the autoclave and variation in heat transfer coefficients should
be considered in autoclave simulations.

Keywords
Composites manufacturing, autoclave, pressure, heat transfer, flow, particle image velocimetry

Introduction lay-up there is often a breather and a bleeder for

Fiber reinforced polymer composites can be tailor-
made to have excellent mechanical properties and
added functionality. There are many methods to manu-
facture composites like sheet molding compound1,2 and
the vacuum infusion process.3–6 A third method is auto-
clave molding which often is used when high-
performance components are made for the aircraft
and space industry, for instance. Features of products
made with autoclave molding are very high fiber con-
tent, a minimum amount of voids and a corresponding
high stiffness to weight ratio.7 Drawbacks include
expensive equipment, relatively high energy consump-
tion, high costs of the material, and long cycle times.
The number of studies on the autoclave process is
relatively small and new studies are warranted due to
increasing demands on quality, reduced energy con-
sumption and reduction of costs.
When autoclave molding is employed a mold is cov-
ered with a lay-up of pre-impregnated fabrics and add-
itional parts such as honey-combs. On top of such a
removal of air and excess of resin, respectively.
Finally, the lay-up is sealed with an air-tight bag and
the breather is attached to a vacuum pump. This mold
tool is then placed within an autoclave which is a pres-
sure vessel where the gas within is heated and set into
motion in order to cure the fiber reinforced polymer
composites. The applied pressure within the autoclave
has for instance a decreasing effect on the amount of
voids in the molded components and will also contrib-
ute to a high fiber volume fraction.7–13 Composites
1
Division of Fluid and Experimental Mechanics, Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden
2
SAAB Aerostructures, Linköping, Sweden
Corresponding author:
NEJ Kluge, Division of Fluid and Experimental Mechanics, Luleå University
of Technology, Luleå 97187, Sweden.
Email: jimmy.kluge@gmail.com
Kluge et al. 567

made with autoclave molding are in fact of very good fan sucks the air through a package that heats it to a
quality in general. desired temperature. Then the air is transported to the
To achieve a high quality, it is important to keep the other end of the autoclave and turns back in the concave
temperature within components from increasing too end and into the space where the molding tools are
high during curing since this may decrease the mechan- placed. This end also serves as the door into the auto-
ical properties of the molded component.14 This can clave. This autoclave has a moveable floor to facilitate
happen even if the temperature of the gas that sur- the transportation of equipment and molds into and out
rounds the component is below the critical temperature of it, which inserted into the autoclave results in a height
due to an exothermic reaction caused by the cure. of 2.2 m in the center. The fan in this particular auto-
Simulations can be performed to predict the tempera- clave is capable to move the air with approximately
ture in the laminates where the exothermic reaction is 1.4 m/s on average when the autoclave is pressurized
considered. However, in such simulations, it is often according to the autoclave manufacturer. This velocity
assumed that the heat transfer coefficient has a constant was used exclusively throughout the experiments per-
value.15–18 By changing the value of the assumed heat formed in this work. The tool, presented in Figure 2,
transfer coefficient, it has been observed that the pre- being about 1 m wide, 2.4 m long and 1.1 m high, was
dicted temperature distribution in the laminates was placed in the centre of the autoclave.
significantly affected.18 It has, moreover, been experi-
mentally observed that just by changing location within
the autoclave, large variations of the heat transfer coef-
ficient are obtained.19 This is a problem in autoclave
molding since an uneven temperature can cause non-
synchronous cure of the composite, which may lead to
entrapment of voids and residual stresses in the mater-
ial that cause delamination.20
In this work, the temperature distribution over a
mold tool is studied with 48 temperature sensors
placed at multiple locations. This is done in order to
reveal the local effects of different autoclave settings
regarding air temperature ramping and pressure. In
addition, the velocity field inside a cylindrical autoclave
was measured with an optical method based on Particle
Image Velocimetry (PIV). It is of general interest to
know the velocity field especially regarding the location
of the tools within the autoclave.

Experimental setups and analysis

The experiments in this work were carried out at SAAB
Aerostructures in Linköping, Sweden, at full-scale indus-
trial conditions with a proper 11.0 m long cylindrical hot
air autoclave having a diameter of 3.0 m. A description
of the autoclave can be seen in Figure 1. In this case, a

Figure 1. Sketch of the design of the industrial autoclave used Figure 2. The front (a) and the back (b) of the tool seen from
in the experiments. lateral viewpoints and measurement positions.
568
Temperature distribution
The temperature distribution on a selected tool was
monitored at 48 positions for three different autoclave
settings. This tool was built of S235JRG2 steel with
material properties listed in Table 1.
The front and back of the utilized tool can be seen
from two viewpoints in Figure 2(a) and (b), respect-
ively, where the locations of the monitored positions
can be seen as well. When several measurement points
are attached to the same marked location in Figure 2, it
is only the first point that is located at the visible mark-
ing. The remaining points are placed at different depths
on a line normal to the surface that penetrates the
surface at the marked location. To be more specific,
the second point, in parentheses, is located on the
same metal sheet as the first point, but on the opposite
side. If a third or fourth point is given in square brack-
ets, these are located further into the tool on the next
metal sheet, where the third point is located on the first
surface, seen from without, and the fourth point in
parentheses is placed on the opposite side of the third
point, deeper into the tool. Out of these 48 measure-
ment points, four were built-in and used in regular
manufacturing routines (points 17–20). The remaining
44 positions were monitored with thermocouples that
were mounted with isolating joint and sealant tape. In
addition, the temperature and pressure of the surround-
ing air within the autoclave were monitored as well
during the experimental runs. The data were stored
each 60th second. Scrutinizing the monitored positions
in Figure 2 further, it can be seen that many points have
a corresponding point on the other side of the some-
what symmetric tool, e.g. points 1–4 have points 9–12
as corresponding measurement locations. Since the tool
Table 1. Material properties of S235JRG2 steel.
Property Value
Density 7822.8 (kg m3)
Specific heat 470–500 (J kg1 K1)
Thermal conductivity 53.35 (W m1 K1)
Table 2. Process instructions for the different settings. All settings used the low air velocity (1.4 m/s on average).
Setting Process instructions
1 Pressure increase to 610 kPa. Then moderate temperature increase (about 2 C/min).
2 Pressure increase to 610 kPa. Then fastest temperature increase (up to 14 C/min).
3 No additional pressure. Fastest temperature increase (up to 15 C/min).
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)
was placed in the center of the autoclave with the front
of the tool facing the flow of air, see Figure 1, similar
temperatures were expected from these locations. With
the same logic, the temperature difference between
points 1 and 13 was expected to be in the same range
as the temperature difference between points 9 and 21,
etc., see Figure 2(a).
Three different process settings were used in this
study listed in Table 2. Out of these, setting 1 with
applied pressure and a moderate air temperature
increase of about 2 C/min resembles a real autoclave
manufacturing cycle best. Settings 2 and 3 are more
extreme and applied in order to actually force the for-
mation of large temperature gradients over the tool.
For setting 2, pressure was applied as in setting 1, but
the temperature was set to increase as fast as possible.
The temperature was also set to increase as fast as pos-
sible with setting 3 as well, but the autoclave was set to
run without any applied pressure.
The resulting air temperature and pressure inside
the autoclave for the three settings are exposed in
Figure 3 where it can be seen that the main tempera-
ture increase is not initiated until the final pressure
has been reached for settings 1 and 2, which occurred
after about 18–19 min, while the temperature increase
is initiated after 5 min for setting 1. Focus in this
study is on the time after the main temperature
increases has been initiated until respective run ends
which practically implies minutes 18–125, 19–81, and
5–127 for, respectively, case. As a consequence of the
initial pressure increase with settings 1 and 2, the air
temperature has already increased to about 35 C
inside the autoclave before the main temperature
increase is initiated, see Figure 3. When the tempera-
ture was set to increase as fast as possible for settings
2 and 3, the air temperatures increased almost at the
same rate being 14 and 15 C/min at maximum for
respective setting, see Figure 3.
Estimation of average heat transfer coefficient
To further analyze the heat transfer to the tool with
different settings of the autoclave, estimations of heat
transfer coefficients are also presented in the results
Kluge et al. 569

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Minute
Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3
Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3

Figure 3. Temperature and pressure histories inside the autoclave for the three settings. Solid lines show the temperature ( C)
and dashed lines represent the pressure (kPa).

section. These are estimated by starting from the defin-
ition of the external heat transfer coefficient21
q
h¼
ðTw  T1 Þ
where q is the heat flux through the surface, Tw is the
temperature of the wall and T1 is the temperature of
the surrounding air. In this case, Tw and T1 are known
from the experiments, but the heat flux has to be esti-
mated. This is done by assuming that the temperature
sensors mounted on opposite sides of a metal sheet
form a 0.1  0.1 m2 piece, 8 or 10 mm thick depending
on location. Heat transfer along the metal sheets is neg-
lected and the temperature through the thickness in
assumed to be linearly dependent on surface tempera-
tures. The average temperature for these pieces at step n
of the two positions
Tp,n þ Tpopp,n
Tn ¼
2
where p denotes position and –opp denotes opposite are
then used to compute the total energy that have entered
the piece between the measurements
Qn ¼ mCp ðTn  Tn1 Þ
where m is the mass estimated by using the density
7822.8 kg m3 for the tool, and Cp the specific heat cap-
acity assumed constant at 485 J kg1 K1. By also
assuming a constant increase of heat energy between
the time steps the total heat flux into the piece can be
estimated as
ð1Þ
Qn
qtot,n ¼ ð4Þ

t
where
t in the current case is 60 s. The heat flux from
each side and position is for simplicity assumed to be
proportional to their surface temperatures as
Tp,n
qp,n ¼ qtot,n ð5Þ
Tp,n þ Tpopp,n
It should, however, be noted that this assumption is
very rough, one side may, for example, dominate the
heat flux from convection, while the other side increase
in heat mainly by conduction through the material. The
heat transfer coefficient for each position is nevertheless
then given by
ð2Þ
qp,n
hp,n ¼ 
ð6Þ
Tp,n  T1,n
This procedure is carried out for all position that has a
thermocouple mounted on the opposite side on the
ð3Þ metal sheet. There are, however, a few special cases.
The heat transfer coefficients for position 1 and 28
were estimated by using the temperature for them,
Tp,n, as average temperature, Tn, and their heat flux
were simply assumed to be 50 % of qtot,n because
570
monitored positions on their opposite sides were
assumed faulty. For positions 46 and 47 in the front
and back, all of the heat flux could be assumed to
emanate from one side since they were mounted on
hollow pipes with walls that were 4 mm thick, and the
heat transfer coefficients were estimated by assuming
that the average temperature Tn in equation (2) was
the same as the surface temperature.
Averaged results from equation (6) are presented in
the section with the results. The average was taken until
the first position with each setting reached the final
temperature since the energy in equation (3) becomes
zero when the temperature stabilizes.
Flow measurement
The velocity field inside the autoclave was measured
with PIV.22–24 In the present case, a Safex nebelgerät
F2010 smoke generator was applied to produce the par-
ticles in the form of smoke and a 150 mW portable red
laser device was used to illuminate a thin sheet in the
center of the autoclave along the flow direction. The
pattern of the smoke moving within the laser sheet
was recorded on a 720p video at 50 Hz with a Canon
EOS 550 camera placed near the cylindrical wall about
1.5 m up-stream the tool, facing the center of the auto-
clave. This can be seen as one of the simplest ways to
setup a PIV-system that also fit into the autoclave
under investigation. The image frames from these
movies were extracted and used in a correlation process
with the analysis software DaVis 7.2 where it was the
pattern of the moving smoke that was used for the cor-
relation. While running the smoke machine, the smoke
quickly spread and became homogeneously distributed
inside the closed autoclave. As a consequence, cross
correlation becomes unfeasible since there is nothing
to correlate with. Therefore, the smoke had to be por-
tioned manually by filling large plastic bags which then
were released at the end of the autoclave, behind the
tool, in order to not disturb the flow. Since this was
done manually inside the autoclave, no pressure was
applied and the measurements were consequently also
performed in room temperature (24 C). The cross-cor-
relation between two images only gave the velocity at
spots where smoke was moving at that specific time
interval. Therefore, a correlation method called sum
of correlation was used that adds results from multiple
image pairs into one, giving an average velocity field
over the whole area. To capture the whole height of the
autoclave, the camera had one high and one low pos-
ition. The results for each position are then combined
to give the velocity field over the whole height where the
result from a vertical line was extracted with the DaVis
software.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Height (m)
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Velocity (m/s)
Figure 4. The velocity inside the autoclave for different heights
from the floor.
Results
In this section, results from the PIV measurements
yielding the flow field, the temperature distributions
and the approximations of the local heat transfer coef-
ficients are presented.
Flow field
The velocity in the center of the autoclave as a function
of height, where the moveable floor is ground zero, can
be seen in Figure 4. The results clearly show that the
velocity near the roof and floor of the autoclave is very
low. The maximum velocity of about 2.1 m/s is consid-
erably higher than the average velocity 1.4 m/s given by
the manufacturer. The peak velocity does not appear in
the center between the floor and roof, instead it is more
in the center of the whole autoclave, which becomes
closer to the floor than the roof. Between the height
1.0 m and 1.4 m, the results gave a velocity profile of
non-physical behavior. The velocity distribution in this
region is most likely more linearly distributed in reality.
Temperature distributions
Scrutinizing the temperature history at each monitor
point it can be seen that most of the measurement
points gave sound results. Two of the monitored
points, 13 and 25, were however found to give unrea-
sonable low temperatures and were excluded. A likely
reason is that these thermocouples did not have direct
contact with the surface of the tool.
The general heating behavior of the tool with the
different settings can be seen in Figure 5 where the
max, min, and average temperature of all proper moni-
tor points on the tool are presented as well as the max-
imum temperature difference on the tool together with
Kluge et al.
°C Seng 1
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 5. The temperature of the air inside the autoclave, the max, the average, the min, and the difference between max and min
temperature over the tool.
the temperature of the air inside the autoclave. Notice
that the initial increase in pressure for settings 1 and 2
implies that the initial temperature of the tool starts at
about 32 C as compared to about 25 C for setting 3,
see Figure 5. For setting 1 the max, min and average
temperatures on the tool increase at about the same
rate as the air, but with different lag. As a consequence,
the maximum temperature difference stays approxi-
mately constant after it reached 29 C and until the
monitored points approaches the final temperature,
see Figure 5. For setting 2, the temperature of the air
increases more rapidly than for setting 1 which is
reflected in a rapid increase of the tool temperature
but neither the max, min or average tool temperature
increase at the same rate as the air. As a consequence,
the maximum temperature difference increases until it
peaks at 58 C. By comparing the results from settings 2
and 3 in Figure 5 it is evident that the absence of
applied pressure with setting 3 results in a slower over-
all heating of the tool. The maximum temperature dif-
ference peaks at 76 C at a later stage than the peak
form for setting 2. For all settings, the highest tempera-
ture is recorded at point 46 that is placed in the front of
the tool, see Figure 2. Interestingly, the temperature
logged at point 40 did, however, for periods reach the
same temperature as 46 with setting 1. Several sensors
being placed within the middle main frame 33, 35, 36,
and 45 are among those given the lowest temperature.
The temperature distributions for the whole tool will
now be presented in more detail where results are
divided into groups representing different parts of the
tool.
The temperature histories for the thermocouples at
positions 1 to 4, mounted on the left flange of the tool
(see Figure 2), can be seen in Figure 6. The most
571
Seng 2 Seng 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes
up-stream point, position 1, is heated at a faster rate
than the three down-stream points. A thorough inves-
tigation yields that among the three down-stream
points, position 2 has the highest temperature. The
coldest positions of them during large portions of the
heating period are interestingly position 3. The reason
for this may be that position 3 is in an area wherein
flow separation occurs.
The results obtained from positions mounted on the
corresponding positions on the right flange of the tool,
position 9 to 12 in Figure 2, showed very similar results
and behavior. While the temperature distribution is
rather symmetric between the left and right side on
the top of the tool the symmetry is not that obvious
inside the tool. The non-symmetric heating within the
tool is disclosed in Figure 7 where the temperature dif-
ferences between positions on top of the tool and their
corresponding position on the opposite side are pre-
sented for the left (a) and right (b) flange. Equal for-
matting of lines implies that the results are for the
corresponding locations on the left and right side, see
Figure 2. A positive difference indicates that the upper
side is warmer. The most significant differences between
the left and right flange are obtained for setting 2 and 3.
Regarding the back of the tool (4–16 and 12–24) the
upper position became warmer on both sides, but the
difference on the left side is much smaller than the dif-
ference on the right side. The temperature difference
between positions 2 and 14 in Figure 7(a) shows inter-
estingly that the temperature at position 14, placed
within the tool on the underside of the top metal
sheet, increased at a faster rate than position 2 on top
of the tool for all settings. This behavior is repeated on
the right side between positions 10 and 22 for settings 2
and 3, see Figure 7(b). The temperature differences
572 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)

°C Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes

Figure 6. The temperatures for points 1–4 on the left flange on top of the tool, and the maximum temperature difference between
them for settings 1–3.

(a)
°C Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes

(b)

°C
13
Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes

Figure 7. The temperature differences between points on the upper and lower side of the top on the left (a) and right (b) flange for
settings 1–3.
Kluge et al.
°C Seng 1
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Figure 8. The temperature for positions in the immersion on the top and the maximum temperature difference between them for
settings 1–3.
at the third positions from the front, which also where
the highest located monitored temperature differences
according to Figure 2, showed a more symmetric heat-
ing, the temperature differences between positions 3–15
and between positions 11–23 were small for all settings.
The temperature distribution in the immersed form
on top of the tool behaves similarly as the temperature
distribution on the flanges on top of the tool. Even
though the position in front, position 5, was mounted
at the margin in the beginning of the immersion (see
Figure 2) this position had the highest heating rate of
the points in the immersion for all settings, see Figure 8.
The temperature for the positions behind, positions 6,
7, and 8, are spread in a small temperature range simi-
larly as positions 2, 3 and 4 on one of the flanges. It is,
however, more clear that heat transfer to the third pos-
ition from the front (position 7) is decimated due to a
possible flow separation. The maximum temperature
differences are smaller between positions in the immer-
sion than between positions on the flanges. The reason
for this is mainly that the position in front on the
flanges was heated at a faster rate than the position in
front in the immersion. A careful analysis furthermore
shows that the points in the immersion are heated at a
slower rate than those on the flanges.
Figure 9 show the temperatures of positions 17–20
being the built-in monitors on the tool placed beneath
positions 5–8. Interestingly, it is not the position in the
front that increases in temperature fastest. Instead, it is
the second position, position 18 that has the highest
temperature increase rate. The temperature differences
between these positions are larger as compared to the
upper side, but stayed at a rather constant level with
setting 1. The increased temperature differences
573
Seng 2 Seng 3
Minutes
indicate that along the tool, there are larger differences
in flow speed within the tool than around it.
The temperature in the middle main frame was also
monitored. If concerning both of the two outermost
metal sheets together there are large temperature differ-
ences that reach 20 C with setting 1, 44 C with setting
2, and 61 C with setting 3. The maximum temperature
difference for, respectively, sheet was however lower.
To exemplify, for the outer sheet on the left side this
difference was 6 C, 17 C, and 23 C for settings 1, 2,
and 3, respectively. For the second metal sheet, the
maximum temperature differences were a little bit
larger which can be seen in Figure 10. The position in
front on each side of the metal sheet is warmer than the
positions down-stream, see Figure 10. The lowest tem-
perature at each depth was given by the position being
placed in the back. For the outer sheet, this behavior
was repeated, but the temperature gap between the
most up-stream point and the two positions down-
stream was not as distinct. The reason for the more
distinct temperature gap for the second metal sheet
may be an indication of significant conduction heat
transfer from the top side of the tool where the effect
become more apparent if the air flow is more dampened
deeper into the tool. But it can also depend on a com-
plex flow inside the tool. The previously described non-
symmetry of temperature increase within the tool was
repeated in the middle main frame where positions on
the left side generally increased in temperature at a
faster rate than positions on the right side for settings
2 and 3.
The temperature histories for the position in front
on the bottom main frame, position 46, is simply the
maximum temperature for the whole tool and each
574 Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)

°C Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes

Figure 9. The temperatures for the built in monitoring positions on the lower side of the immersion on the top metal sheet and the
maximum temperature difference between them.

°C Seng 1 Seng 2 Seng 3

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120
Minutes

Figure 10. The temperature for positions mounted on the outer (black) and inner (red) surface of the second metal sheet from the
left in the middle main frame and the maximum temperature difference between them for settings 1–3.

setting in Figure 5. Position 47 on the back of the tool
increased in temperature at a slower rate than the front,
and the temperature difference compared with the front
reached a constant value of 17 C with setting 1, peaked
at 50 C with setting 2, and at about 60 C with setting 3.
Position 48 on the side of the tool, without obstacles in
front, followed the temperature increase of position 46
better. With setting 1, the difference between position
48 and 46 was only about 2 C throughout the run,
while it reached at most 10 C with setting 2 and 20 C
with setting 3. Position 48 on the side may however be
heated from the opposite side of the metal, this is not
possible for position 46 and 47 since the opposite sides
for these positions are located within cavities.
Heat transfer coefficients
The estimated average heat transfer coefficients for set-
tings 1 and 2 are similar even though these runs were
performed with different temperature ramping rates,
see Figures 11 and 12. The only clear difference between
them is for positions 34 and 40 which achieve much
higher average heat transfer coefficients with setting 1.
The pattern of the heat transfer coefficients for setting 3
Kluge et al. 575

Figure 11. The average heat transfer coefficient (W m2 K1) with setting 1.

Figure 12. The average heat transfer coefficients (W m2 K1) with setting 2.

is in agreement with the other settings, but the heat
transfer coefficients with setting 3 are about a third of
the others, see Figure 13. While scrutinizing these esti-
mates of average heat transfer coefficient, it should be
noted that by allocating heat flux to different positions
with Equation (5), each side received about 50% of the
total heat flux. If the estimated average heat transfer
coefficient from all positions instead is interpreted as an
overall heat transfer coefficient, the values 38.4, 36.7,
and 14.8 W m2 K1 are obtained for settings 1, 2, and
3, respectively. Hence by increasing the relative pres-
sure to 610 kPa, the overall heat transfer coefficient is
increased by a factor of 2.6. The estimated heat transfer
coefficients in this study are lower than those estimated
in Slesinger et al.,19 but this was expected since the
autoclave in Slesinger et al.19 was of different design,
used a higher pressure (690 kPa), and had a higher inlet
velocity (5 m s1).
Discussion
For a typical autoclave run with the tool studied the
maximum temperature difference between the 46 pos-
itions studied is rather constant and about 29 C.
For the higher ramping rate investigated
T varies
throughout the run and has a peek of nearly
58 C and 76 C when no pressure is applied. Hence
the
T is crucially dependent on the rate of ramping
576
Figure 13. The average heat transfer coefficients (W m2 K1) for setting 3.
of temperature and of the pressure but is rather large
for all cases validating a detailed investigation of the
temperature at different points.
The reason for the constant temperature difference
for the typical autoclave run may be that there is time
for the heat from the hot areas to be distributed to
other colder areas by conduction. The rate of this is
governed by the conductivity that differs between
materials. So, one way to handle a faster ramping up
of the temperature is to choose another tool material.
The tool used in this study was built with a type of steel
with a thermal conductivity of 53 W m1 K1 and the
specific heat capacity of 485 J kg1 K1. A realistic
option to this would, for instance, be copper with a
thermal conductivity of 400 W m1 K1 and a specific
heat capacity of 385 J kg1 K1.25 The price for copper
is relatively high though, but a compromise can be to
drape the area where laminates are placed with copper.
As a consequence, it is also likely that the heat gener-
ated from the exothermal curing reaction would be dis-
tributed faster.
The detailed evaluation of the temperature history of
the point on the tool yields that the positions on the
up-stream side of the tool are heated faster than pos-
itions down-stream on the flanges, in the immersion and
on the bottom main frame. It is also clear that the heat-
ing over the tool is symmetric while that within it is
asymmetric. The heating within the immersion is less
than on the flanges. All these observations indicate
that the convection of air is of highest importance.
The faster heating of the up-stream points may
simply be due to a higher velocity of the boundary
layer at these points. This may also explain the slower
heating of the immersion. The non-symmetric behavior
may be an effect of the not fully symmetric geometry of
the tool. The air intakes in the front were, for example,
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)
slightly larger on the left side (see Figure 2(a)) and the
opening in the back where air can leave the interior of
the tool was also larger on the left side (see Figure 2(b)).
It may, however, also depend on a non-symmetric flow
inside the autoclave. If the measured differences depend
on these small differences in tool geometry or non-sym-
metric flow inside the autoclave is unclear.
The estimated average heat transfer coefficients
became very similar for settings 1 and 2. Some positions
differed though. It is reasonable to address those to
heat transfer caused by conduction inside the material
that with the longer cycle time with setting 1 had more
effect than with setting 2.
When the estimated heat transfer coefficients are cal-
culated, it is assumed that the heat transfer from each
side depends on the surface temperature which in prac-
tice resulted in about 50% share for each side. This
assumption may result in misleading results since it is
possible that the flow is stagnant at some positions,
making the convection heat transfer negligible com-
pared to the other side if the air speed much fast
there. For the top metal sheet on the tool, the positions
on the upper side are for example likely to stand for
more than 50% of the total heat flux since the speed of
the air flow probably is much higher there than inside
the tool. So, the total heat flux can be estimated, but it
is not sure how much each side is contributing to it.
Hence, the sum of heat transfer coefficient on each side
is probably in agreement with the sum of the real heat
transfer coefficients. By comparing the results from dif-
ferent positions, the values were, however, reasonable
since position 46 in the front, where the heat flux actu-
ally could be neglected on the opposite side due to a
cavity, achieved both the highest heat transfer coeffi-
cient and temperature. Position 47 on the back, where
heat flux also could be neglected due to a cavity, both
Kluge et al.
received low heat transfer coefficient and temperature.
If, for example, the heat transfer from the opposite side
of position 9 with setting 2 would be neglected, the heat
transfer coefficient for position 9 would become
107 W m2 K1 which is higher than the obtained
value for position 46 (70 W m2 K1).
The PIV measurements disclose that there is a jet
near the floor. This behavior in combination with the
large temperature differences observed on the tool indi-
cate that it is important to reveal the actual flow behav-
ior inside autoclaves in order to decrease the autoclave
manufacturing cycles by optimizing the flow. The effect
of homogenous velocity versus the experimentally
observed velocity field in this work will be investigated
further with CFD simulations in a future work. In add-
ition, the results also showed a non-physical sudden
increase of air speed. This was probably due to insuffi-
cient amount of smoke. This can be avoided with a
high-speed camera, intended for PIV measurements,
and a stronger laser. Using such a system the velocity
field can be measured in additional planes revealing
variations of the flow within horizontal planes in the
autoclave.
Conclusions
The temperature difference over the tool studies is
crucially dependent on the rate of ramping of tem-
perature and of the pressure applied. It is rather large
for all cases studied, 29–76 C validating a detailed
investigation of the temperature at different points.
The positions on the up-stream side of the tool are
heated faster than positions down-stream on the
flanges, in the immersion and on the bottom main
frame. It is also clear that the heating over the tool
is symmetric while that within it is asymmetric. These
observations indicate that convection is of highest
importance which elucidate the problem with non-
homogeneous flow inside autoclaves and that experi-
mental observations, with, for example, PIV, are
important since they may be used to optimize homo-
geneous heating.
Increased pressure did not significantly decrease
temperature differences between the right and left side
of the investigated tool. It did however significantly
decrease the temperature differences along the tool.
The applied pressure also increased the estimated
average heat transfer coefficients by a factor of about
2.6 compared with an autoclave run without applied
pressure. Different temperature ramps caused very
small differences for the estimated average heat transfer
coefficients. Even though simplifying assumptions were
made when estimating average heat transfer coeffi-
cients, the results showed large variations of convection
heat transfer over the tool.
577
With simple means, a velocity profile with a clear
peak near the floor was obtained where the velocity
was 50% higher than the claimed average velocity
inside the autoclave.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements to everyone at SAAB Aerostructures who
made these measurements possible and shared useful insights,
only available through years of experience, about autoclave
manufacturing. Staffan Nilsson and Roland Andersson at
SAAB Aerostructures are greatly acknowledged for running
the autoclave during the experiments. Dr. Torbjörn Green is
acknowledged for fruitful inputs regarding PIV.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This study is part of the PRICE project, led by Saab
Aerostructures, which receives funding from NFFP (National
Aviation Engineering Research Program).
References
1. Odenberger PT, Andersson HM and Lundstrom TS.
Experimental flow-front visualisation in compression
moulding of SMC. Compos Pt A-Appl Sci Manuf 2004;
35: 1125–1134.
2. Olsson NEJ, Lundstrom TS and Olofsson K. Design of
experiment study of compression moulding of SMC.
Plast Rubber Compos 2009; 38(9–10): 426–431.
3. Andersson HM, Lundström TS and Gebart BR.
Numerical model for vacuum infusion manufacturing of
polymer composites. Int J Numer Methods Heat Fluid Flow
2003; 13: 383–394.
4. Andersson HM, Lundstrom TS and Langhans N.
Computational fluid dynamics applied to the vacuum infu-
sion process. Polym Compos 2005; 26: 231–239.
5. Hammami A and Gebart BR. Analysis of the vacuum
infusion molding process. Polym Compos 2000; 21:
28–40.
6. Yang B, et al. Simulation prediction of the preform defor-
mation and resin flow in vacuum infusion process. Polym
Compos 2014; 35: 1968–1979.
7. Boey FYC and Lye SW. Effects of vacuum and pressure in
an autoclave curing process for a thermosetting fibre-rein-
forced composite. J Mater Process Technol 1990; 23:
121–131.
8. Koushyar H, et al. Effects of variation in autoclave pres-
sure, temperature, and vacuum-application time on poros-
ity and mechanical properties of a carbon fiber/epoxy
composite. J Compos Mater 2012; 46: 1985–2004.
9. Purslow D and Childs R. Autoclave moulding of carbon
fibre-reinforced epoxies. Composites 1986; 17: 127–136.
578
10. Grunenfelder LK and Nutt SR. Void formation in com-
posite prepregs – Effect of dissolved moisture. Compos
Sci Technol 2010; 70: 2304–2309.
11. Liu L, et al. Effects of cure cycles on void content and
mechanical properties of composite laminates. Compos
Struct 2006; 73: 303–309.
12. Olivier P, Cottu JP and Ferret B. Effects of cure cycle
pressure and voids on some mechanical properties of
carbon/epoxy laminates. Composites 1995; 26:
509–515.
13. Thomas MM, Joseph B and Kardos JL. Experimental
characterization of autoclave-cured glass-epoxy compo-
site laminates: Cure cycle effects upon thickness, void
content, and related phenomena. Polym Compos 1997;
18: 283–299.
14. Jinno M, et al. Smart autoclave processing of thermoset
resin matrix composites based on temperature and inter-
nal strain monitoring. Adv Compos Mater 2003; 12:
57–72.
15. Joshi SC, Liu XL and Lam YC. A numerical approach to
the modeling of polymer curing in fibre-reinforced com-
posites. Compos Sci Technol 1999; 59: 1003–1013.
16. Telikicherla MK, Altan MC and Lai FC. Autoclave
curing of thermosetting composites: Process modeling
for the cure assembly. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
1994; 21: 785–797.
Journal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites 35(7)
17. Oh JH and Lee DG. Cure cycle for thick glass/epoxy
composite laminates. J Compos Mater 2002; 36(1): 19–45.
18. Guo Z-S, Du S and Zhang B. Temperature field of thick
thermoset composite laminates during cure process.
Compos Sci Technol 2005; 65: 517–523.
19. Slesinger N, Shimizu T, Arafath ARA, et al. Heat trans-
fer coefficient distribution inside an autoclave. In:
ICCM-17, 21–27 July 2009, Edinburgh, UK.
20. Wang X, et al. Correlated rules between complex struc-
ture of composite components and manufacturing defects
in autoclave molding technology. J Reinforce Plast
Compos 2009; 28: 2791–2803.
21. Bejan A. Heat transfer. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, 1993.
22. Green TM. PIV in practice. Doctoral thesis, Department
of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå (2011).
23. Green TM, et al. Flow characterization of an attraction
channel as entrance to fishways. River Res Appl 2011; 27:
1290–1297.
24. Larsson IAS, et al. PIV analysis of merging flow in a
simplified model of a rotary kiln. Exp Fluids 2012; 53:
545–560.
25. Nordling C and Österman J. Physics handbook for science
and engineering. Lund, Sweden: Studentliteratur AB,
2008.