Resin Transfer Molding Process Optimization

Using Numerical Simulation

and Design of Experiments Approach
JIHUA GOU, CHUCK ZHANG*, ZHIYONG LIATJG,
BEN WANG, and JAMES SIMPSON

Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering

Florida A&M University-Fhida State University
2525 Pottsdamer Street
Tallahassee, FL 323 1 0

The art of resin transfer molding (RTM) process optimization requires a clear
understanding of how the process performance is affected by variations in some
important process parameters. In this paper, maximum pressure and mold IXhg
time of the I?TM process are considered as characteristics of the process perform-
ance to evaluate the process design. The five process parameters taken into con-
sideration are flow rate, fiber volume fraction, number of gates, gate location, and
number of vents. An integrated methodology was proposed to investigate the effects
of process parameters on maximum pressure and mold filling tirne and to find the
optimum processing conditions. The method combines numerical simulation and
design of experiments (DOE) approach and is applied to process design for a cylin-
drical composite part. Using IiTM simulation, a series of numerical experiments
were conducted to predict maximum pressure and mold filling time of the RTM pro-
cess. A half-fractional factorial design was conducted to identlfy the significant
factors in the RTM process. Furthermore, the empirical inodels and sensitivity co-
efficients for maximum pressure and mold filling time were developed. Compara-
tively close agreements were found among the empirical approximations, numerical
simulations, and actual experiments. These results were further utilized to find the
optimal processing conditions for the example part.

1. INTRODUCTION In the RTM process, mold filling is regarded as one

of the most complex and critical stages Gecause it has
I n recent years, considerable attention has been de-
voted to resin transfer molding (a for )
producing
low-cost, high quality, and geometrically complicated
a great impact on process performance and final part
quality. RTM simulation provides a virtual examina-
tion for the design of tooling and material selections
composite parts. The RTM process involves a large
a s well as determiriation of processing conditions in a
number of variables related to process and product
short time and at a low cost. This led many researchers
performance. Common design variables are gate and
to develop their computer codes to simulate the m M
vent locations, pressure/flow rate, number of gates,
mold filling process,. Bruschke and Advani ( 1 ) obtained
number of vents, mold and resin temperature, part
reasonable results for isothermal resin flow to predict
geometry and material properties. Major product and
flow pattern for complex shell-like molds. Young et al.
process performance measures include process cycle
(2)provided 2D and 3D models to study the RTM mold
time, void content, dimensional accuracy and me-
filling process under isothermal conditions. Most of
chanical properties. The diverse combination of design
previous work was done for isothermal simulation,
variables makes the RTM process very complicated.
where heat transfer and chemical reaction problems
Consequently, current €?TMindustrial process design
were not considered. In subsequent work, Young (3)
relies on time-consuming and expensive trial-and-
used control volumle finite element method (CVFEM)to
error rather than a systematic approach.
simulate the mold filling process of RTM three dimen-
sionally under non-isothermal conditions. Kang and
~~ ~ ~
Lee (4) developed a new algorithm called FINE method
‘Corresponding author. to improve the 3JI non-isothermal simulation. Joshi

POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY2003, Vol. 24, No. 1 1

 Jihua Gou et al.
et aL (5)carried out the transient heat-transfer analy-
sis using LUSAS finite element package and developed
two user programs to simulate resin-cure kinetics.
Recently extensive advances have been made both in
the computational infrastructure and in the efficiency
and accuracy of numerical algorithms. Kanapady et aL
(6, 7 ) developed a new, implicit, pure finite-element
approach in symmetric multiprocessor machines for
large-scale FXM process simulation.
Another important research area in ErrM applica-
tions is process optimization. Young (8)proposed the
use of genetic algorithm (GA) to search for the param-
eters that could reduce the cycle time and enhance
property uniformity of the part. Mathur et aL (9)used
a genetic algorithm to optimize gate and vent locations
for RTM process in order to minimize mold filling time
and dry spot formation. The searching results of GA
were encouraging because of its potential to find a
near global optimum design in a large search space
with many local maxims. However, the large amount
of computation needed by a single mold filling simula-
tion limited the number of searching generations in
the evolution. To improve the computational efforts,
Spoerre et aL (10) developed an RTM process optimiza-
tion model using cascade correlation neural network
(NN) and GA.Through careful design and proper train-
ing, the cascade correlation NN algorithm was devel-
oped into a n accurate predicative model for optimum
FCIM process design. In a recent study, Luo et aL (1 1)
introduced an NN-based process optimization scheme.
With the simulation results, a neural network is trained
to create a rapid RTM process model. Compared to
the stochastic global search methods, classical ana-
lytic optimization methods have better rate of conver-
gence locally. Mychajluk et al. (12) minimized the
cycle-time with constraints on void content and other
Part design
I
a Geometry and finite
element models
RTM Simulation 1
Responses
I$ I
Factorial Design
Process parameters
FYg. 1. RTMprocess design scheme.
2 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1
process parameters. The injection pressure and the
mold temperature were the design variables. A contour
map of the design constraints and process parameters
was created to obtain the optimal design graphically.
Lin et aL (13) used the quasi-Newtonianmethod imple-
mented in the optimization software package, Global
Local Optimizer (GLO), to optimize the gate location in
order to minimize mold filling time. However, the ana-
lytical methods are only applicable when the objective
function is smooth and differentiable with respect to
the design variables.
I n summary, considerable research work has been
conducted in the analysis, modeling, and optimization
of the RTM process. They have provided fundamental
and preliminary understanding of the RTM process op-
timization problem. However, because of the extensive
computational effort involved, a complete Simulation
run of a complex part usually takes several hours. This
eventually makes it impractical for a lengthy simula-
tion to be applied directly to the optimization proce-
dure. This paper presents a new design scheme which
combines the RTM simulation and DOE approach to
optimize the RTM process as shown in Fig. 1. In this
new scheme, a set of numerical experiments are con-
ducted to predict maximum pressure and mold filling
time using RTM simulation before time-consuming and
costly actual experiments. Based on the simulation
results, the DOE approach is used to derive the em-
pirical models for the RTM process optimization. The
empirical models can reduce computational efforts in
the RTM process optimization since they are far less
complex than the original CVFEM models.
The objectives of this study are: 1) to develop a KI'M
process design scheme that combines the RTM simu-
lation and DOE approach: and 2) to quantitatively as-
sess the effects of process parameters on maximum
Empirical
Designed numerical
experiments
I
a
RTM Process
Factors
 RTlM Process Optimization

pressure and mold filling time of the RTM process and At the flow front region:
to find the optimum processing conditions.
Pfrunt = 0 (6)
2. RTM PROCESS MODELING AND SIMULATION Solutions to Eq 3 along with the boundary conditions
2.1 Governing Equations [Eq 4-61 yield the resin flow front location as well as
In order for process optimization and control of the pressure distribution as functions of time.
processing conditions, process model has been devel- 2.2 Numerical Method
oped based on the fundamental mechanics. Darcy’s
law can describe resin flow in the fiber preform with The IiTM mold filling process is a moving boundary
acceptable accuracy (14): problem, in which the computational domain changes
continuously at each time step. The control volume
frnite element method is used to solve this problem
I* without mesh regeneration. In the CVFEM, the entire
+
computational domain is discretized into a number
where V is the velocity of resin flow, p. is the viscosity of elements. By connecting the centroids of the ele-
of resin, and [K] is the permeability tensor of the fiber ments and the midpoints of the element borders, the
preform and P is the pressure. computational domain can be divided again into a
As the resin is incompressible, the continuity equa- number of polygonal control volumes. Details of the
tion is given by: CVFEM can be found in (2, 3, 15).
Since the thickness of the part is ofken much
-au+ - +a-u= o aw smaller than the length or width, the resin flow in the
ax ay az mold is considered to be a two-dimensional problem.
Equation 1 and Eq 2 are combined and integrated over Equation 3 can be rewritten as:
a control volume to yield the following expression:
r apl
rzi
where h, is the thickness of the part.
Using linear shape function for a 3-node triangular
Ldz J element, a n approximation of Eq 7 can be given as:
where n,, n,, and n, are the components of the vector P = a,, + a,x+ a,y (8)
normal to the surface of the integrated volume, k , (i,j where x and y are local coordinates, and the local co-
= x, y. and z) are the components of the permeability
ordinate system is shown in Rg. 2. a,,. al, a2 and
tensor [ K ] defined in a three-dimensional Cartesian depend on the corresponding coordinates and node
coordinate system. pressure.
The initial and boundary conditions are as follows. The pressure gradient in the element can be com-
At the injection gate: puted as follows:
US& = uo (41
At the mold wall:
ap
-- -0 (5)
dnwll

)/Jy f ; 1)
A
3

. . -
YA

-nA

1 (om A 2 &I
, 0)

Z Z
Global coordinate system Local coordinate system
Fig. 2. Transformation of coordinates.

POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1 3

 Jihua Gou et aL

Substituting Eq 9 to Eq 7 and integrating, we obtain the
equation within a small control volume, which is com-
posed of 3-node triangular elements.
where rn is the total number of elements in a control
volume, wxl, wx2. and wx3 are coefficients for the
pressure of node.
For a 4-node quadrilateral element, the pressure dis-
tribution of the quadratic element is represented by
P = Nipi (111
1
where N i = - ( l + < i < ) ( l + q i q ) ,C i = - 1 , + 1 . + 1 , - 1 ,
4 merical experiments were limited to five important
qi = -1, -1, +1, + l .
Similarly, we get the equation within a small control
volume composed of 4-node quadrilateral element.
Then a set of linear algebraic equations can be ob-
tained by writing Eq 12 for all control volumes in the
computational domain. Solving the linear algebraic
equations together with the appropriate boundary
conditions, we can obtain the pressure of each node
in the flow field.
After the pressure field is determined, the velocity
field can be calculated according to Darcy’s law. If a
control volume is completely filled (f= l),it is classi-
fied as the main flow region. If a control volume is
empty (f= 0).it belongs to the empty region. The con-
trol volumes partially filled with the resin is presented
our composite laboratory was chosen. Figure 3 shows
the major dimensions of the composite tube. The outer
diameters at the top and the bottom of the composite
tube are 13.5 inch and 12.00 inch, respectively. The
thickness of the composite tube is 0.25 inch. In our
numerical experiments, the composite tube was dis-
cretized into 1348 nodes and 1326 quadrilateral ele-
ments for the simulation of resin transfer molding pro-
cess. Figure 4 shows the finite element mesh for the
composite tube.
3.2 Selection of Factors and Responses
Since the RTM process involves a large number of
variables, the major variables with respect to the pro-
cess performance and product quality have to be iden-
tified. Based on our laboratory experience, our nu-
variables: flow rate, fiber volume fraction, number of
gates, gate location, and number of vents. The other
variables such as resin viscosity, resin temperature,
and mold temperature were kept as constant as pos-
sible in this study. The levels of the five variables and
their coded values used in the virtual experiments are
shown in Table 1 . These values were selected in order
to cover the normal range of our laboratory operations
for the composite tube. The flow rate of our RTM ma-
chine was limited to 1.0-2.0 cc/s. The high level, ? =
50%. was the highest fiber volume fraction by which
the RTM tube could be conveniently fabricated. At the
low level. vf = 45%. two plies less than the high level
were used. The fiber volume fraction of vf = 45% was
high enough to give proper contact with both mold
surfaces. Some preliminary actual experiments were
conducted to find two practically applicable injection
-r
-
9.50 e

-P
as the flow front region (0< f < 1).For a selected time J.50
increment, the volume of resin into control volumes
at the flow front region is calculated and added to the
original resin volume in the control volume at flow front
region. If the total resin volume in a control volume is
equal to the volume of the control volume, that control
volume is considered “full.”The mold f;ning is regarded
as a quasi-steady-state process by assuming a steady
state condition at each time step. Thus, the time in-
crement is determined in such a way that minimum
control volumes will be filled in each time step to en-
sure the stability of the quasi-steady-state approxima- 50
tion (15). After the flow front region at each time step
is updated, another pressure computation is performed
for the main flow region. The procedure is repeated 2.80 4
until the whole mold cavity is filled.

3.DESIGN OF NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS

3.1 Problem Description
With the purpose to investigate the effects of process
parameters on the predicted response variables, a
composite tube fabricated by resin transfer molding in FXg. 3. Major dimensions of the composite tube.

4 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY2003, Vol. 24, No. 1

 RTM Process Optimization

Table 1. Levels of Different Factors and Their Coded Values.

Factors Type Low High
Coded values Numerical -1 1
A-Flow rate (cds) Numerical 1 .o 2.0
B-Fiber volume fraction Numerical 45% 50%
C-Number of gates Numerical 4 8
D-Gate location Categorical Top Bottom
E-Number of vents Numerical 4 8

the processing cost. In this study, maximum pressure

and mold filling time were selected as the responses.

3.3 Results of Numerical Experiments

Q. 4 . Finite element mesh of the composite tube.
locations: the top or the bottom of the composite tube.
In the large part fabrication, multiple gates are usu-
ally favored. In this study, two numbers of gates were
used. The n = 4 value was chosen to represent a prac-
tical lower limit for gates and the n = 8 value was
chosen to represent a practical higher limit for gates.
Similarly, two numbers of vents were used. The n = 4
value was chosen to represent a practical lower limit
for vents and the n = 8 value was chosen to represent
a practical higher limit for vents. Since an end-to-end
injection method was chosen, the vents were located
at the other end of the tube, which was opposite to
the end where the gates were located.
Successful mold design is an important step in the
design and manufacturing of structural composites
because the mold involves enormous time and cost.
The injection pressure is one of the critical issues in
the mold design. If the injection pressure is higher
than expected, the unacceptable deformation of mold
will occur. Another important design metric is mold
filliig time. Mold filling time has a direct impact on
Although noisy data from laboratory experiments is
a generally accepted fact, the presence of noise in nu-
merical simulations, seems much less recognized. In
this study, the num8ericalnoise in the RTM simulation
was ignored because of the complex numerical model-
ing techniques. According to the factor-level values in
Table 1 , a single replicate of 25-1fractional factorial de-
sign, known as a resolution V design, was chosen. The
scheme resulted in 16 virtual experiments to estimate
maximum pressure and mold filling time. Such a de-
sign assumes that the system is dominated by some of
the main effects and low-order interactions, and most
high-order interactions are negligible (17). It provides
information concerning the main effects and the two-
factor interactions. ![nthe first numerical experiment,
the knitted fiber with fiber volume fraction vf = 45%
was used to simulate the RTM process. Suppose the
epoxy resin was injected at a flow rate of 1.0 cc/s at
the four gates on the bottom of the EZTM tube. The vis-
cosity of the resin was 0.3 Pa s. The maximum pres-
sure and mold filling tinie were obtained from the flow
pattern and pressure distribution at the end of the fill-
ing stage generated by the EiTM simulation as shown
in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Simulation results of the composite tube.

POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1 5

 Jihua Gou et al.

The factorial design of numerical experiments and
the values of the responses corresponding to each
simulation trial are reported in Table 2.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
In this study. the data analysis and optimization
was carried out using Design Expert, a commercial
experimental design software package developed by
Stat-Ease, Inc. The main results of the analysis are
presented here (16).
4.1 Analysis of Variance
The results of the design of numerical experiments
can be analyzed through a technique called analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The analysis of variance (ANOVA)
of the model for maximum pressure and mold filing
time is summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respec-
tively. The column "Prob > F" is the P-value of the null
hypothesis that there is no relation between factor
and response. We see that both models have P-values
less than 0.0001 and indicate that they are signifcant
at the confidence level limit of 99.9%.In ANOVA, R2 is
a measure of the amount of variability in the response
explained by the model. The value of R2 ranges 0-1
and the larger value is more desirable. Adding a vari-
able to the model will always increase R2, regardless
of whether the additional variable is statistically sig-
nificant or not. Thus it is possible for models that have
large values of R2 to yield poor predictions of new ob-
servations or estimates of the mean response. Adjusted
R-square (Ra2)is better suited for assessing predica-
tive accuracy. The value of Ra2 will often decrease when
unnecessary terms are added to the model. When R2
and R 2 differ dramatically there is a good chance that
non-signifcant terms have been included in the sta-
tistical model. Since Ra2 is very close to the ordinary
R2, the models for maximum pressure and mold filing

Table 2. Design Matrix and Results of the 2c1 Factorial Design.

Factor 8: Mold
Factor A: Fiber Factor C: Factor D: Factor E: Maximum filling
Flow rate volume Number Gate Number pressure time
Std Run (CW fraction of gates location of vents (Pa) (9)

1 12 1.o 45% 4 Bottom 8 92,300 759

2 13 2.0 45% 4 Bottom 4 212,000 379
3 4 1.o 50% 4 Bottom 4 234,000 689
4 9 2.0 50% 4 Bottom 8 408,000 345
5 2 1.o 45% 8 Bottom 4 89,300 754
6 6 2.0 45% 8 Bottom 8 151,000 377
7 3 1.o 50% 8 Bottom 8 167,000 686
8 7 2.0 50% 8 Bottom 4 395,000 343
9 8 1.o 45% 4 TOP 4 1040OO 779
10 14 2.0 45% 4 TOP 8 182,000 391
11 15 1.o 50% 4 TOP 8 201,000 711
12 16 2.0 50% 4 TOP 4 462,000 354
13 11 1.o 45% 8 TOP 8 71,700 774
14 10 2.0 45% 8 TOP 4 171,000 385
15 5 1.o 50% 8 TOP 4 189,000 701
16 1 2.0 50% 8 TOP 8 317,000 352

Table 3. Analysis of Variance Table for Maximum Pressure.

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F Value Prob > F
Model 2.149E+11 9 2.388E+ 10 276.66 < 0.0001
Residual 5.1 79E+08 6 8.361E+07
Cor Total 2.1 54E+ 11 15
Root MSE 9290.58 R-Squared 0.9976
Dep Mean 2.1 54E+05 Adj R-Squared 0.9940
C.V. 4.31

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Table for Mold Filling Time.

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Mean square F Value Prob > F
Model 5.486Ei05 6 91,427.81 288,808.76 < 0.0001
Residual 28.56 9 3.17
Cor Total 5.486E+05 15
Root MSE 1.78 R-Squared 0.9999
Dep Mean 548.69 Adj R-Squared 0.9999
C.V. 0.32

6 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. I

 RTM Process Optimization

time are good. The coefficient of variation (C.V.) meas-
ures the unexplained or residual variability in the data
as a percentage of the mean of the responses variable
(1 7). The C.V. values for maximum pressure and mold
filling time indicate that both models have low vari-
ability.
This approach ensures that only variables that have
a si@icant effect are included in the statistical model.
The statistical effect of each variable on the responses
is identified by the qualitative significance level, P-val-
ue. That is, P 5 0.05 indicates that the effect of the
variable is significant, and P > 0.05 indicates that the
effect of the variable is not significant. The results of
factorial analysis for maximum pressure and mold f i -
ing time are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6, re-
spectively. Factors with the value of P > 0.05 were
removed from Table 5 and Table 6. Examination of
Table 5 shows that the following design variables can
be declared highly sigmficant to maximum pressure:
(a) flow rate, (b) fiber volume fraction, (c) number of
gates, (d) number of vents, and (e) the interaction be-
tween flow rate and fiber volume fraction. The following
design variables can be declared sigruficant to maxi-
mum pressure: (a) the interaction between flow rate
and number of gates, (b)the interaction between flow
rate and number of vents, (c) the interaction between
fiber volume fraction and number of gates, and (d) the
interaction between fiber volume fraction and number
of vents. But practically maximum pressure will not
be significantly affected by the variations in these four
interactions. They become statistically sgnitkant be-
cause the numerically generated data do not have the
system noise. Therefore, the four interactions are not
included in the practical model for maximum pressure
although they are statistically significant.
Similarly, examination of Table 6 indicates that the
following design variables can be declared highly sig-
nificant to mold filling time: (a)flow rate, (b) fiber vol-
ume fraction, (c) gate location, and (d) the interaction
of flow rate and fiber volume fraction. Although they
are statistically signifcant, the following design vari-
ables are not included in the practical model for mold
filling time: (a)number of gates, and (b) the interaction
of flow rate and gate location.
4.2 Effect of Factars
The effect graph is very useful in interpreting the
main effects and interactions. The effects of factors on
maximum pressure and mold filling time are shown in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. It is observed that the B-
and B+ lines are not parallel. This indicates an in-
teraction between factors A and B. The main effects
or two-factor interactions which have large effects on
maximum pressure are B, A, AB,followed by C and E.
The main effects or two-factor interactions which have
large effects on moldl filling time are A, B, AB, followed
by D.
5. MODEL BUILDING AND OPTIMIZATION
5.1 Empirical Models
Once the significant factors are identified through
analysis of variance, regression analysis techniques are
used to build the quantitative model relating the sig-
nificant factors to t h e response. To build the empirical
model, only significant variables are included. Based
on the estimated co'efficients in Table 5 and Table 6,
the empirical models for estimating maximum pres-
sure and mold f m time are

Table 5. Factorial Analysis for Maximum Pressure.

Coefficient Degrees of Standard t for HO
Factor estimate freedom error coeff = o Prob > It1
Intercept 2.1 54E+ 05 1 2322.64
A-Flow Rate 71,856.25 1 2322.64 30.94 < 0.0001
B-Fiber volume fraction 81,231.25 1 2322.64 34.97 < 0.0001
C-Number of gates -21,518.75 1 2322.64 -9.26 < 0.0001
E-Number of vents -1 6,643.75 1 2322.64 -7.17 0.0004
A6 27,018.75 1 2322.64 11.63 < 0.0001
AC -7231.25 1 2322.64 -3.1 1 0.0208
AE -61 06.25 1 2322.64 -2.63 0.0391
BC -81 06.25 1 2322.64 -3.49 0.0130
BE -6731.25 1 2322.64 -2.90 0.0274
~ ~~ ~

Table 6. Factorial Analysis for Mold Filling Time.

Coefficient Degrees of Standard t for HO
Factor estimate freedom error coeff = o Prob > It1
Intercept 548.69 1 0.45
A-Flow Rate -1 82.94 1 0.45 -410.76 < 0.0001
6-Fiber volume fraction -26.06 1 0.45 -58.52 < 0.0001
C-Number of gates -2.1 9 1 0.45 -4.91 0.0008
D-Gate location 7.19 1 0.45 16.14 < 0.0001
AB 8.81 1 0.45 19.79 < 0.0001
AD -2.44 1 0.45 -5.47 0.0004

POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1 7

 Jihua Gou et al.

462ml
396950

7'7mi I
717mi
A. A+ B- Bt

(a) A main effect (A-Flow rate) (b) B main effect (B-Fiber volume fraction)

1
462000 462000

396950 396950

9 331900

K
266850
5
1
2 201800
-l

136750 136750

71700 71700

C- C+ E. E+

(c) C main effect (C- Number of gates) (d) E main effect (E-Number of vents)

462000.

396350

331900

f
i
I
266850

8 Zo'QW

136750

71700

A. A+

(e) AB interaction (A-Flow rate, B-Fiber volume fraction)

Flg. 6. Effect graphs for maximum pressure.

8 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1

 RTM Process Optimization

779 I 719 _I
I

706 333 706 333

633 667 633 667

E
I
n
5 561
u.
:
4. 488333

415 667 418.667

1
3431

A A+

(a) A main effect (A-Flow rate) (b) B main effect (€3-Fiber volume fraction)

779 779

706 933 796 333

633 667 633 667

E
CI E
561 561
-
U
-
LL

:
a 488333
2 488393

419 667 415 667

343 sp3

D D+ A A+

(c) D main effect (D-Gate location) (d) AB interaction (A-How rate, B-Fiber volume
fraction)
Fig. 7. Effectgraphsfor moldfling time.

P = 215400 + 71856.25A + 81231.25B
-21518.75C - 16643.75E + 27018.75- (13)
T = 548.69 - 182.94A - 26.06B + 7.190 + 8.81AB
(14)
where A, B, C, D,and E are the coded values of the
flow rate, fiber volume fraction. number of gates, gate
location, and number of vents, respectively. Based on
the analysis of variance, both of the models are ade-
quate.
5.2 Comparison Between Numerical Simulation
and Actual Experiments
To check predicative accuracy of the empirical mod-
els, four numerical simulations and actual experiments
were performed. The actual experimental work was
conducted with the: resin transfer molding machine
manufactured by Liquid Control Corp. The resin was
delivered to an alurninum mold through clear plastic
hose at a constant llow rate. To reduce the actual ex-
perimental cost, the mold was designed only for one
quarter of the tube clue to the symmetry of shape. The
knitted glass fiber mats were cut into preformed shape
and placed in the mold cavity before resin injection.
Multiple gates and vents were produced so that a wide
variety of experiments could be performed. These could
be plugged with small screws when not in use. To re-
cord the inlet pressure during the experiment, the
pressure sensor W a s screwed into the plastic hose
near the gate and then connected to the resin transfer

POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1 9

 Jihua Gou et aL

molding machine. In the Experiment 1, the fiber vol-
ume fraction = 45% was used. The resin was in-
jected at a flow rate of 1.25 cc/s on the top of the RTM
tube. Air was vented on the bottom of the tube. The
resin flow at 100 s after initial injection was repre-
sented in Q. 8.
The numerical simulation was compared with the
results taken from actual experiments as shown in
Table 7. Their relative errors were within 1.02% in
maximum pressure and 4.36% in mold filling time.
Therefore, the numerical simulation yields a good pre-
diction of maximum pressure and mold filling time. I t
can be seen that the CVFEM models are reasonable
representations of the actual resin transfer molding
process. In this study, the empirical models for esti-
mating maximum pressure and mold f w g time were
derived from numerical simulation results. The approx-
imations were compared with numerical simulation
results as shown in Table 8. Their relative errors were
Rg. 8. Resinflow at 100 s after initial injection.
within 3.96% in maximum pressure and 6.73% in
mold filling time. A good agreement exists between
approximations and numerical simulations. On the
other hand, the empirical models for maximum pres-
sure and mold filling time are also proven to be good
due to the large values of R2 and R2. Therefore, com-
paratively close agreements are found among empiri-
cal approximations, numerical simulations, and actual
experiments.
5.3 Sensitivity Coefficients
To quantify the effects of variations in some design
variables on maximum pressure and mold filling time,
the sensitivity coefficients are incorporated into the
analysis. The sensitivity coefficient is defined as the
partial derivatives of the numerical-type design vari-
ables such as maximum pressure (Sp,p= dP/dp) and
mold filling time (ST,e= dT/dp) with respect to the nu-
merical design variable. In this study, the sensitivity
coefficients of maximum pressure and mold filling time
to number of gates, gate location and number of vents
cannot be calculated because they are discrete varia-
bles. But the sensitivity coefficients of maximum pres-
sure for flow rate (SPA)and fiber volume fraction (SP,*)
can be calculated from Eq 13,respectively.
SPA = 71856 + 27018.75B (15)
Sp., = 81231.25 + 27018.75A (16)
Similarly,the sensitivity coefficientsof mold ming time
for flow rate (S,) and fiber volume fraction (ST,B)can
be calculated from Eq 14, respectively.
sTA - -182.94 + 8.81B (17)
S,, = -26.06 + 8.81A (18)

Table 7. Comparison Between Numerical Simulations and Actual Experiments.

Numerical Actual
Simulations Experiments Error
Case
Number Processing Conditions P (Pa) T (s) P (Ye) T (%)
Flow rate: 1.25 ccls
Fiber volume fraction: 45%
1 Number of gates: 8 107,000 647 106,900 655 0.09 1.22
Gate location: Top
Number of vents: 4
Flow rate: 1.5 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 47.5%
2 Number of gates: 4 216,000 523 213,800 530 1.02 1.32
Gate location: 6ottom
Number of vents: 8
Flow rate: 1.75 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 50%
3 Number of gates: 8 346,000 401 344,830 410 0.33 2.20
Gate location: Bottom
Number of vents: 4
Flow rate: 2.0 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 47.5%
4 Number of gates: 4 281,000 373 282,760 390 0.62 4.36
Gate location: Top
Number of vents: 8

10 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1

 RTM Process Optimization
Table 8. Comparison Between Approximationsand Numerical Siimulations.
Case
Number Processing Conditions
Approximations
Flow rate: 1.25 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 45%
1 Number of gates: 8 106,875
Gate location: Top
Number of vents: 4
Flow rate: 1.5 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 47.5%
2 Number of gates: 4 220,275
Gate location: Bottom
Number of vents: 8
Flow rate: 1.75 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 50%
3 Number of gates: 8 341,193
Gate location: Bottom
Number of vents: 4
Flow rate: 2.0 cc/s
Fiber volume fraction: 47.5%
4 Number of gates: 4 292,131
Gate location: Top
Number of vents: 8
It can be seen that the sensitivity coefficient of max-
imum pressure to fiber volume fraction is very large
and also depends on variations in flow rate. The sen-
sitivity coefficient of maximum pressure to flow rate is
large and depends on fiber volume fraction. It was also
found that the sensitivity coefficient of mold filling time
to flow rate is very large and depends on fiber volume
fraction. But the sensitivity coefficient of mold filling
time to fiber volume fraction is relatively small and de-
pends on flow rate.
5.4 Optimization of RTM Process
In fiTM process design, one of the objectives is to
minimize mold filling time subject to all necessary pro-
cess constraints such as pressure. To solve this opti-
mization problem, the simultaneous optimization of
multiple responses can be performed graphically based
on the empirical models. Graphical optimization dis-
plays the area of feasible response values in the factor
space. The area is the overlapping shaded area, which
satisfies the multiple constraints on the responses.
In the graphical optimization, the contour plot will
be displayed in two dimensions. If there are more fac-
tors than axes, the levels of the other variables need
to be set to identify the appropriate slice of the design
space. The sensitivity coefficients lead us to recognize
that the flow rate and fiber volume fraction are the
most sensitive factors with regard to maximum pres-
sure and mold filling time. Then flow rate and fiber vol-
ume fraction are selected as the axe variables, while
the other three factors such as number of gates, gate
location and number of vents are held constant. Since
gate location has a positive influence on mold filling
time, the injection of resin on the bottom of the com-
posite tube is suggested to minimize mold filling time.
POLYMER COMPOSITES,FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1
Numerical
Simulations I Error
p (Pa) T (4 P (%) T (Yo)
678 107,000 647 0.12 4.80
541 216,000 523 1.98 3.44
428 346,000 401 1.39 6.73
373 281,000 373 3.96 0
The variable, gate location, is kept constant at the
coded level -1. Frorn the empirical models, the linear
terms of number of gates and number of vents ap-
pears have a negative influence on maximum pres-
sure and mold fillirig time which implies that an in-
crease in number of gates and number of vents would
result in a less maximum pressure and mold filling
time. Therefore, the two variables, number of gates and
number of vents, are kept constant at the coded level 1.
The graphical opiimization criterion is specified by
choosing the response limits,lower and upper, for each
response to be included in the optimization. Based on
our laboratory experience, the mold cavity for the com-
posite tube needs to1 be completely filed with the resin
within 360 to 480 seconds subject to the maximum
pressure 200,000 to 300,000 Pa. The optimum region
was found by overlaying maximum pressure and mold
filling time response surfaces shown in Rg. 9. The op-
timum conditions for flow rate and fiber volume frac-
tion range 0.5-1.00 and -0.5-0.5 at the coded level,
respectively. That is, the optimum flow rate is in the
range of 1.75-2.0 cc/s, and the optimum fiber volume
fraction is in the rarige of 46.25%-48.75%.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions/recommendationscan be
drawn from the results and analysis:
1. Numerical simulation and DOE approach can be
employed to investigate the effects of process pa-
rameters on maximum pressure and mold filling
time and to firid the optimum processing condi-
tions. This melhod can reduce computational ef-
forts in the RIM process optimization since the
empirical models are far less complex than the
original CVFEM models.
11
 Jihua Gou et al.

1 00

0.50

\
R g . 9. Optimum region of maxi-
0.00
\
IMaximum
mum p r e s s u r e a n d mold filling
time.

-050

-1 00
I I I I
3 -050 0 00 050 1.go

Flow rate

2. It was found that maximum pressure is sensitive
to fiber volume fraction and flow rate, followed by
number of gates and number of vents. Together
with multiple gates and vents, the low fiber vol-
ume fraction and flow rate will yield a low maxi-
mum pressure at the end of the filing stage.
3. Mold filling time is sensitive to flow rate and fiber
volume fraction, followed by gate locations. To
reduce the mold filling time, a higher flow rate
and fiber volume fraction and gates on the bot-
tom of the RTM tube are suggested.
4. The region of the optimum was found by over-
laying maximum pressure and mold filling time
response surfaces based on the empirical mod-
els. Together with multiple gates on the bottom
of the composite tube and multiple vents on the
top of the composite tube, the optimum con-
ditions for flow rate and fiber volume fraction
are in the range of 1.75-2.00 cc/s and 46.25%-
48.75%. respectively.
5. The proposed models are applicable within the
selected range in this study. For understanding
the responses beyond this range, suitable modi-
fications of the models have to be made. More-
over, the influence of other parameters such as
material properties, resin and mold temperature,
and the curvature of mold need to be examined.
6, Another branch of the research is to derive the
empirical process model from the results of ac-
tual experiments using DOE approach. Then, the
numerical simulation will be performed to opti-
mize the RT!M process with the empirical relation-
ship as the starting point. This will signifkantly
reduce the computational time for simulation it-
erations in optimization, as the less important
factors can be excluded from the simulation. A
future work of this study will investigate the ef-
fectiveness of this approach.
REFERENCES
1. M. V. Bruschke and S. G. Advani, SAMPE (1991).
2. W. B.Young, K. Han, L. H. Fong, J. Lee, and M. J. Liou,
PoZyrn Compos., 12,6 (1991).
3. W. B. Young, P o b m Compos., 15.2 (1994).
4. M. K. Kang and W. I. Lee, composites Science and Tech-
nology. 59 (1999).
5. S.C.Joshi, X L. Liu, and Y. C . Lam, Composite Science
and Technology, 59 (1999).
6. R. Kanapady, K. K. Tamma, M. Baddourah, a n d A.
Mark, Advances in Engineering S o j b a r e , 29 (1998).
7. R. Kanapady, K. K. Tamma, and A. Mark, Numerical
Heat nansfer, Part B: Fundamentals. 36.4(1999).
8. W. €5. Young, J. CompositeMaterials, 28. 12 (1994).
9. R. Mathur, B. K. Fink, and S. G . Advani, PoZyym Corn-
ps., 20,2 (1999).
10. J. Spoerre, C. Zhang, H. P. Wang, and R. Parnas, J.
CompsiteMaterials, 32,13 (1998).
11. J. Luo, Z. Liang, C. Zhang, and B. Wang, Composites
PartA:Applied Science and Manufacturing, 32 (2001).
12. G. Mychajiuk, S. Manoochehri, and R. Parnas, J. Ad-
vanced Materials, 28, 1 (1996).
13. M. Y. L h ,M. J. Murphy, and H. T. Hahn. Composites
Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, 31 (2000).
14. S. G. Advani, Flow and Rheology in Polymeric C o m p s -
ites Manufaturing, Elsevier Publishers (1994).
15. T. G. Gutowski, Advanced Composite Manufacturing,
John Wiley & Sons (1997).
16. Design-Expert 6 User's Guide, Stat-Ease, Inc. (2000).
17. D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of E.xpriments,
John Wiley & Sons (2001).

12 POLYMER COMPOSITES, FEBRUARY 2003, Vol. 24, No. 1