See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329612453

Hybrid Cells for Multi-Layer Prepreg Composite Sheet Layup

Conference Paper · August 2018

DOI: 10.1109/COASE.2018.8560586

CITATIONS READS
21 1,109

6 authors, including:

Rishi Malhan Ariyan Kabir

University of Southern California University of Southern California
37 PUBLICATIONS 695 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 750 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aniruddha Shembekar Brual Shah

University of Southern California University of Southern California
14 PUBLICATIONS 386 CITATIONS 37 PUBLICATIONS 959 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rishi Malhan on 23 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Hybrid Cells for Multi-Layer Prepreg Composite Sheet Layup
Rishi K. Malhan1 and Ariyan M. Kabir1 and Aniruddha V. Shembekar1 and
Brual Shah1 and Timotei Centea2 and Satyandra K. Gupta1
Abstract— We propose a hybrid human-robot cell for reduc-
ing labor in multi-layer prepreg composite sheet layup process.
The human expert performs initial experiments to assess the
process sequence, and the direction of the layup. The expert
knowledge is then transferred to the system in the form of high
level commands which are converted into low-level collision free
trajectories for the robots in the cell. This paper demonstrates
the feasibility of the composite sheet layup using the robotic
manipulators along with the design of end-effector tools that are
used during the layup process. We give a comparison between
manual and hybrid cell for execution times in different steps
involved. Finally, we give an overview of process consistency
benefits of the hybrid cell.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Robots are increasingly being used in a wide range of
industrial application areas like assembly [1], sheet lami-
nation based additive manufacturing [2], robotic finishing
[3], and composite manufacturing. Composites are advanced
structural materials consisting of fiber reinforcements with
high specific strength and stiffness embedded within an
engineered polymer matrix. The U.S. composites industry
is growing at a compound annual rate of 5%, and was
valued at $7.5 billion in 2015, with 62% of this value located
in manufacturing-intensive aerospace, ground transportation,
marine and clean energy sectors [4]. High-performance com-
posites are most often produced by laying down sheets of
”prepreg,”, i.e. a sheet of carbon fiber reinforcements pre-
mixed with an uncured, liquid polymer resin on a con-
toured tool (or mold). Multiple prepreg layers (sometimes
> 100 layers) can be required to achieve target stiffness and
strength. After layup, the resulting laminate is cured using a
prescribed heat and pressure cycle in an autoclave or oven
to convert the resin from a fluid into a vitrified solid and
maximize its properties.
Prepreg can be supplied in narrow forms (fiber tows or
tapes measuring 5 - 50 mm) or roll sheet stock (up to
1200 mm wide). Fiber tows and tapes are unidirectional,
lightweight (145 g/m2 ), compliant, and can be placed using
automated fiber placement (AFP), automated tape layup
(ATL) or automated dry fiber placement (ADFP) methods,
which consist of a large, complex material-dispensing head
attached to a gantry or robotic arm programmed to move
in prescribed patterns relative to the mold. Such automation
enables rapid material laydown rates but also presents disad-
vantages [5]. Material placement often results in either gaps
1 Center for Advanced Manufacturing, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA, USA [guptask]@usc.edu
2 M.C. Gill Composites Center, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA, USA [centea]@usc.edu
or overlaps between parallel fiber or tape courses, leading to
possible defects in cured parts. More importantly, AFP and
ATL systems are often incompatible with small or medium-
sized parts with complex (e.g. multi-curved) geometries due
to technical, size, or cost constraints.
Currently, geometrically-complex parts are most often
fabricated from prepreg sheets by human operators, us-
ing hand layup. Prepreg sheets offer advantages over fiber
tows and tapes, including higher areal weights (200 - 400
g/m2 , enabling rapid thickness build-up), multi-directional
fiber orientations (in woven fabrics), and consistent fiber
alignment (without gaps and overlaps). However, to date,
layup of prepreg sheets over complex molds has not been
rigorously automated, leading to low throughput, part-to-part
variability due to human factors, and high labor costs. Hybrid
manufacturing cells can increase automation levels in this
context, complement the use of AFP/ATL by addressing a
current capability gap, and serve as a disruptive technology
by replacing human activity with rigorous, science-based
methodologies that improve efficiency, increase consistency,
and allow humans to focus on high-value tasks.
Layup is challenging because prepreg, a flat fiber-
reinforced material that is relatively inextensible along the
fiber direction, must be draped onto a complex (often doubly-
curved) mold geometry while retaining desired fiber orien-
tations and avoiding damage. Shapes with double curvature
are typically “undevelopable,” such that a flat sheet cannot
be wrapped around the shape without wrinkling or splicing.
However, prepregs based on woven fabric reinforcements can
exhibit large in-plane deformation via trellis shear, allowing
forming over doubly curved shapes. During hand layup,
human laminators manually apply shear and compression
loads to the woven prepreg in localized regions, typically
1-10 cm2 at a time [6] [7].
In this paper, we present an approach for automating
prepreg sheet layup on three complex-shaped molds using
a hybrid cell. A planning module generates collision-free
trajectories and instructions for a multi-robot system based
on expert user input. The robotic system performs repeated
low-level tasks associated with layup. We will be referring to
the geometry on which the sheet is being conformed as the
“mold” and to the end-effectors being used as “tools” hereon.
Fig. 1 shows the CAD model of the three parts which are to
be made by our cell. We chose a mock-up of a GE-90-115B
fan blade and a jet engine half-nacelle as commercially-used
parts, as well as a custom-designed part incorporating com-
plex features typically considered challenging for prepreg
layup.

Fig. 1: CAD model of three parts that are targeted for this work. A.
GE90-115B Fan Blade mock-up. B. Jet Engine Nacelle half mock-
up. C. Custom Designed Mold. CAD model of three Molds used
for this work. P. GE90-115B Fan Blade. Q. Jet Engine Nacelle half.
R. Custom Designed
II. R ELATED W ORK
A. Automation in Composites Manufacturing
Robots are used primarily for AFP, ATL and similar
variants. However, these methods have disadvantages that
include high setup costs, defects caused by fiber steering,
and technical, economic, and physical limitations that render
such processes unsuitable for small, highly-complex parts
[5]. Here, we demonstrate that advances in collaborative
robotics can be used in a hybrid cell to perform placement
of prepreg sheets, increasing the level of automation in the
production of parts unsuitable to traditional layup techniques
like AFP and ATL.
B. Automated Sheet Layup
Researchers at the University of Bristol performed the
first rigorous analyses and automation studies for prepreg
sheet placement. A press was first used to shear the prepreg
material, circumventing the need for extensive local shearing
during layup. Then, the sheets were placed using a 6-axis
industrial robot (ABB IRB 140). Use of specific end effector
tools based on geometric mold features was also investigated
[7]. Pre-shearing simplifies the layup step, but requires an
additional step and separate press tooling for every part
geometry, reducing efficiency and generality, and adding to
equipment costs. Furthermore, since the substrate geometry
changes as multiple prepreg plies are laid down, pre-shearing
may become progressively less effective for thick laminates.
Here, we focus on automated prepreg sheet layup without
pre-shearing, showing that a heating system can be incorpo-
rated into end effector and adequate shear can be achieved
using impedance motion control and collaboration between
multiple robots.
C. Manipulation of Flexible Material using Multiple Robots
Manipulation of flexible materials requires coordinated
motion and control of multiple different robots [8]–[11].
Learning from demonstration methods have been adapted to
learn tasks specific to deformable parts [12], [13]. Previous
attempts at automating sheet layup have had limited success.
For instance, systems created by Newell [14] and Molfino
[15] used four robotic arms to grasp corners of the plies
using only the initial grasping locations without changing
or readjusting the sheet. In contrast, human laminators use a
multitude of different grasps and actions during layup to form
prepreg over complex parts [6]. Automating this process
requires the robots to change holding position and trajectory
during the process because prepreg behaves non-linearly and
its state and shape can differ between runs [7].
III. OVERVIEW OF A PPROACH
The primary goal of our approach is to allow automated
placement of prepreg sheets onto a complex-shaped mold
using a hybrid cell. The placement process should be robust
and generally-applicable, as well as capable of conforming
prepreg to the mold surface without formation of layup-
induced defects (e.g. wrinkling, bridging over concave cor-
ners, fiber misalignment, or local damage caused by exces-
sive application of force). It should also minimize the time
required to perform layup. The major steps in our approach
are described below.
1) Mold Design: Mold design is primarily dictated by the
desired geometry and strength of the part being manu-
factured. Complex geometries often impose challenges
for manufacturing due to the presence of features such
as double curvatures and sharp corner radii, for which
design-for-manufacturing techniques are not prevalent.
For our work, we have chosen three molds. Figure
1 shows a simple concave shape replicating the jet
engine nacelle half, a mold for a mock-up of General
Electric GE90-115B fan blade, and a custom-designed
mold with hemisphere, ramp, and corner regions. We
machined the custom-designed mold with Aluminum
6061, while the other two molds were additively-
manufactured from ABS plastic to limit costs.
2) Material Selection: Material selection is mainly dic-
tated by structural performance requirements, but can
also be affected by costs and availability. The fiber
bed and resin affect the layup process because they
influence the prepreg sheet compliance, drapeability,
and tack (or level of adhesiveness before cure). The
prepreg used in this paper consisted of an aerospace-
grade woven carbon fiber fabric (Hexcel F3C, five
harness satin, 285 g/m2 areal weight) pre-impregnated
with an epoxy (Hexcel HexPly 913).
3) Drape Simulation: Draping simulators (e.g. Siemens
FiberSIM [16]) are used to determine the sheet geome-
tries required for draping on a given CAD model [17],
[18]. Figure 2 shows the simulations of a prepreg sheet
on three molds used in our experiments. Simulations
predict whether two-dimensional sheets with known
material properties can be draped onto a contour, or
if fiber locking angles are reached, represented by
red regions in Fig. 2. Fiber locking angles define the
minimum relative orientation of two tows in a weave,
below which wrinkles can arise and cutting/splicing
might be required. Simulation results can include a
fiber bed shearing map (Fig. 2), which can predict fiber
direction along the surface of the mold. Such infor-
mation allows human experts to assess start locations
and layup sequences, and provide insights into how
 wrinkles and voids during layup can be avoided.
Fig. 2: Drape simulation in Siemens Fibersim.
4) Prototyping by Human Expert: Experts carry out a
limited set of manual trials with different placement
strategies. Previous studies have shown that the angles
and fiber behavior depends upon the start point on the
mold [18]. The experts record the sequence of start
and end point pairs for each successful layup strategy.
This dataset forms the basis of a generic sequence of
paths on the mold, though it does not take into account
the non-linear behavior of the sheet during the process
which poses the main challenge for automation.
5) High-Level Planning by Human Expert: Through our
interface, the experts can indicate the layup sequence
to the automated system (Section V-B, V-C). For
example, they can click on the CAD model of the
mold to denote the start and end points for each layup
trajectory the robot needs to carry out, or for robot
grasping points.
6) Automated Generation of Robot Instructions: Motion
planning algorithms take the expert user’s input and
generate instructions for the robots. We have used
three robots for experimentation: one conforming robot
(KUKA iiwa 7) and two holding (or grasping) robots
(Epson S5 and C3). The conforming robot executes
draping and dibbing (local compression) motions to
conform the prepreg sheet to the mold surface. This
robot also shears the sheet while in motion. The
holding robots grasp and move the sheet to avoid
undesired contact between the sheet and the mold. Our
motion planning algorithms (Section V-D) generate the
instructions for the robots to carry out the layup in
collaboration.
IV. C ELL D ESIGN
A. Robot Layout
KUKA iiwa 7 was chosen based on the requirement of
impedance and force control during conformation, and the
two holding robots (Epson S5 and C3 for this cell) were
required based on the motion mapping discussed in Section
V-B. The optimum locations of the mold and robots were
selected based on the kinematic constraints of the robots
and collision avoidance. We used a hybrid of sampling, opti-
mization, and search-based algorithm [19] to find the optimal
placement location for each agent in the hybrid cell. During
each iteration, the robot trajectories were simulated and Flex-
ible Collision Library [20] was used to detect collision. Fig.
3 illustrates an on-going layup using the multi-robot system.
A video for this cell working on the mock-up of GE90 fan
blade can be found online at https://youtu.be/3XT9nzCwlOs
We also conducted experiments on custom-made aluminum
mold we mentioned before, using a cell with 3 DOF grasping
robots in [21]. We concluded that manipulation of sheet was
not possible with 3 DOF system and 6 DOF grasping robots
were needed. A video for our previous work can be found
online at https://youtu.be/yUAUaATqINw
Fig. 3: An ongoing composite sheet layup in the hybrid cell on the
mock-up of GE90-115B mold. Kuka iiwa 7 equipped with a custom
designed roller is used as conforming robot. Epson S5 (left) and
Epson C3(right) are used for grasping.
B. Mold Geometry
The GE90 Fan blade mold measures 292×160×93 mm,
jet engine nacelle is 225×200×90 mm, and custom designed
mold measures 254×254×88.9 mm. The fan blade mold
consists of a complex saddle-shaped surface. The jet engine
nacelle is formed from a steep concave double curvature with
radius decreasing from 90 mm to 67.5 mm along its length.
The custom-designed mold features slopes (ramps) angled at
55◦ and 50◦ , intersecting in a corner of radius 4.5 mm. The
molds were designed according to standard guidelines. The
mold designs are shown in Fig. 1.
C. End Effector Design
KUKA iiwa 7’s end-effector was equipped with a custom
roller and dibber tools (Fig. 4 A, B). During layup, draping
tools are mostly used for convex and flat regions. The roller
was chosen as a draping tool because it can apply pressure
without slipping and orientation can be changed without
affecting contact and shear forces due to its circular geom-
etry. The dibber is a sharply curved tool approximating a
human finger, useful for tight concave corners. End-effectors
were additively manufactured from ABS plastic. Silicone
(Smooth-On) with a Shore hardness of 30a was used for the

Fig. 4: Design of the draping and dibbing tools used for the prepreg
sheet layup. (a) The roller for convex surfaces, (b) The dibber for
concave surfaces, (c) The draping and dibbing tools attached to the
consolidating robot while the robot executes dibbing trajectories on
the concave feature of custom designed mold.
roller and dibber to achieve the desired stiffness and avoid
adhesion with prepreg.
The roller radius is limited by the part geometry and
minimum curvature being draped. The roller material is
limited by the desired stiffness K (11 N mm−1 for our
case). Stiffer rollers can fail to conform to tight curvatures,
requiring more force to achieve the desired contact patch.
The roller width is restricted by the geometry of the mold,
with narrower rollers preferable for tight corners.
D. Heating System Design
Prepreg sheets can be heated during layup to increase tack
(adhesiveness), reduce resin viscosity, and facilitate deforma-
tion during placement. In our setup, a warm air flow (45◦ C at
0.5 Mpa) was maintained through internal channels created
in the draping and dibbing tools. The temperature was
selected based on experiments. The pressure was determined
according to heat convection in the prepreg at the given
velocity. Nozzles allowed air flow vectoring and, hence, as
shear was applied during conformation, the prepreg sheet
deformed in desired regions rather than globally, allowing it
to conform to local contoured surfaces. Fig. 4 shows a nozzle
attached to the end effector.
V. AUTOMATED I NSTRUCTION G ENERATION
A. Problem Statement
Let, C be the CAD model of the mold/part and M
be the surface where the composite prepreg sheet will be
consolidated. M can be represented as a collection of paths,
M = {p1 , p2 , . . . , pm }. Each path is defined with a start
point and an end point, i.e. pi = (psi , pei ) provided by expert
using our interface. From the ordered set, S, of start and
end point pairs, our motion planning module can generate
the draping trajectories. For each path a geodesic curve [22]
can be generated on M with (psi , pei ) as input. Each geodesic
curve (i.e. each path) can be represented as a collection of
waypoints, i.e. pi = {w1 , w2 , . . . , wni } and pi ⊂ SE(3).
The expert user provides the following inputs to the
system-
1) The CAD model of the mold/part, C.
2) Sequence of grasping locations for the
holding robots as a set of tuples, G = experiments at level X3 were then used for the sheet layup.
{(g11 , g12 ), (g21 , g22 ), . . . , (gm
1 2
, gm )}.
3) Sequence of start and end point pairs for the draping
paths S = {{ps1 , pe1 }, {ps2 , pe2 }, . . . , {psm , pem }}
The system generates the following robot instructions
using this input.
1) The draping trajectories (τdrape ) and dibbing trajecto-
ries (τdib ) as an ordered sequence of waypoints.
2) The process parameters draping force (Fdrape ), dibbing
force (Fdib ), tool velocity (v), temperature of airflow
(T ), Stiffness of the conforming robot (K))
3) The repositioning trajectories (τreposition ).
4) The sequence of grasping and moving motions for the
holding robots. (τgrasp )
B. Identification of Motion Primitives
Human motions need to be mapped to the robots to
determine the grasping techniques. The research presented
in [6] performs an extensive study of human motions during
the layup process and categorizes all the motions into eight
generic techniques. Below are the techniques that can be
mapped to the motions performed by the robot.
1) Sheet Guiding: Holding robots guide the sheet, align-
ing and manipulating it while the conformation robot
performs draping.
2) Tension Shearing: Fabrics can be sheared using tensile
force. Holding robots can grip the sheet and stretch
it in opposite directions, or the roller can dynamically
shear the sheet due to tension between the fixed and/or
already conformed area behind the roller and the slack
regions in front of it.
3) Tool Interaction: Humans use a technique of mold
interaction wherein the sheet is stretched using a corner
or other suitable profile of the mold [6]. Robots use
tool interaction wherein the sheet is held under friction
by the holding robot till there is a lack of sheet at
the roller end. Force generated by roller forces more
sheet to be released from the grippers overcoming the
friction and thus shearing it.
C. Identification of Process Parameters
The process parameters affect the performance of
layup. Initial process parameter values lie in the bounds:
Fdrape , Fdib ∈ [0.5, 6] N, vdrape ∈ [10, 100] mm-s−1 ,
T ∈ [35, 70] ◦ C, and Kdrape , Kdib ∈ [0, 5000] N-m−1 which
needs to be constrained for any layup setup. Each of these
parameters are limited by the maximum physical constraints
of the KUKA iiwa 7 robot, and the heating system. We
identify the right values of these parameters through carefully
designed experiments conducted on double curvature, single
curvature, flat (zero Gaussian), concave, and convex surfaces.
The experiments were designed over three levels
X1 , X2 , X3 . In each level, three values (low, medium, high)
of each parameter were considered for both draping and
dibbing. The parameters which caused a violation of any
draping or dibbing characteristics at X1 were discarded. X2
and X3 comprised of a refined range of the parameters based
on the experiments of the previous level. The results of the
 We needed feedback on layup or surface quality during
process parameter identification. Inspection of the surface
after conformation was carried out using a digital micro-
scope (DinoLite AM7915MZT). Reference standards were
established for comparison as shown in Fig. 5. Carbon fiber
is visible as a woven fabric, with wet shining resin areas
representing an undamaged surface. Damaged regions and
a comparison of roller and hand layup are also shown.
The following quality metrics were determined for each
experiment:
1) Resin Quality: At high pressure and temperature, any
applied contact displacement, parallel to the surface
can disturb the resin distribution by displacing resin
which should be avoided.
2) Conformity: Layup should produce excellent confor-
mity of sheet to the mold surface without voids (air
entrapped) and wrinkles.
3) Fiber Alignment: Draping can lead to fiber misalign-
ment relative to neighboring tows and the global mold
orientation. Fiber angle deviations are permissible up
to a certain extent (since they can be unavoidable
during shearing). High deviations cause wrinkling.
Fig. 5: Different surfaces as captured by digital microscope (a)
Original surface. Few resin areas marked in red. (b) Resin devoid
surface showing dry and damaged fibers marked in red. (c) Surface
after layup by a Roller. (d) Surface after a Hand Layup.
D. Generation of Joint Space Trajectories
The system goes through the following steps to generate
the joint space trajectories for the robots.
1) Identify concave and convex regions on the surface and
generate dibbing and draping paths respectively.
2) Generate draping (τdrape ), dibbing (τdib ), and repo-
sitioning (τreposition ) trajectories for consolidating
robot.
3) Generate corresponding moving and shearing trajecto-
ries (τgrasp ) for the holding robots.
4) Start executing planned motions after taking approval
from human expert.
1) Identifying Concave and Convex Regions
Neighbors of a specific face on the surface were computed
for regions having a change in gradient. Intersection of
surface normals around the face represents concave regions.
If normals do not intersect, it is convex region.
2) Generating Draping Trajectories
Once we have S, we generate a geodesic curve on the
target surface (M) for each start-end point pair ({psi , pei }).
The geodesic curves are shortest paths on free-form para-
metric surfaces [22] [23]. We computed geodesics on the
triangular mesh of the mold that the system takes as an input
[24]. Each geodesic constitutes a sequence of way-points. We
need to define collision-free configurations of the robot along
these points. Collision-free trajectories between successive
geodesic paths is generated by an algorithm similar to
CODES3 described in [25]. As stated earlier in Section IV-C,
roller was chosen as its circular geometry constrains only 5
degrees of freedom in the pose of the robot. The sixth degree
of freedom or angle made by the surface normals of roller
and the mold can be set as a variable. For planning in a space
with lesser degrees of freedom, we use search to determine
a trajectory which offers continuous motion over each of
the paths. Each depth in the graph computed corresponds to
all the valid collision-free configurations of the robot at that
way-point. We search through this tree for different initial
configurations of the robot at the start point. We used the
norm of angle change in each joint as the cost to go to a
new state. Manipulator is programmed to keep the cartesian
velocity of roller constant. This velocity is selected through
identification of process parameters (Section V-C).
3) Motion Planning for Holding Robots
For each patch (Pi ), a grasp location is determined for
holding robots. Holding robots need to manipulate the sheet
such that there is no contact between the sheet and the mold
except the point at which the conforming robot is applying
the force. Based on the geometry of the mold and sheet, our
system determines where and how the grasping robots need
to move the sheet. We consider end-points of all trajectories
in Pi as a frontier. We translate this frontier away from the Pi
which is being currently draped by the conforming robot by
a distance greater than or equal to some positive value such
that there is no collision between conforming and holding
robots. We constrain the holding robots to grasp from the
edges of the sheet. We project rays from initial frontier to
the translated frontier and iteratively increase the angle made
by the rays with the mold until there is no collision between
the rays and the mold. Grippers of the holding robots are
aligned with the normals of the surface at the grasping point.
Trajectories from one grasp point to the other are calculated
by an algorithm similar to CODES3 [25].
E. Process Parameter Experiments
Under impedance control, the minimum Fdrape necessary
for layup was 10 N, below which conformity degraded.
Higher force of Fdrape =20 N was required for double
curvature compared to flat and single curvature. Corners
required Fdrape =30 N. These results were obtained at v=20
mm-s−1 and T =45 ◦ C. For v=40 mm-s−1 , the conformity
deteriorated at Fdrape =10 N but remained unchanged at
Fdrape =20 and 30 N. Resin quality was satisfactory for
all the above cases. Draping characteristics were unaffected maximum deviation tolerance of 15◦ was kept. 75% of the
by v as high as 60 mm-s−1 beyond which the motion region was found to have fibers aligned within 5◦ of average
was too haphazard causing low conformity and high fiber deviation. Layup on the custom-made mold was cured under
misalignment. Trajectories were executed without slippage manufacturer recommended temperature and pressure cycles
of the roller. Fdib =30 N was essential to prevent poor to produce a final component. Visual inspection showed no
conformity in concave regions. Fdrape =35 N caused damage signs of defects caused by resin dislocation showing that the
to the prepreg resin surface but allowed high conformity parameters chosen were appropriate for the process. Fig. 7
by shearing the sheet to a great extent. A temperature of shows the cured part.
45◦ C was suitable in all cases. Lower temperature reduces
tack, lowers conformity, and increases required shear forces.
Higher temperatures cause excessive tack and resin dislo-
cation (or adhesion to the roller). Velocity and pressure are
dependent on dimensions of the roller (in our case, φ40 mm,
width=28 mm & K=11 N-mm−1 ), which define a contact
patch area. The pressure vs force relation helps to generalize
these results and implement process parameters over different
designs. Pressure at Fdrape =10, 20, 30, 40 N was determined
to be 0.07, 0.1, 0.2, 0.25 MPa, respectively.
F. Manufacturing Quality Analysis

Fig. 8: Deviation color map obtained by laser scanning. The color

map shows deviations of the parts from tool dimensions.

Fig. 6: Automated Layups A. GE90-115B Fan Blade replica. B. Jet

Engine Nacelle half. C. Custom Designed Mold.

Fig. 6 illustrates the three

layups performed using our cell.
A laser coordinate measurement
machine (Hexagon AB, Romer
Absolute Arm with integrated
laser scanner) was used to scan
the parts for conformity (Fig.
Fig. 7: Cured part made 8). Three layers of prepreg were
from the layup on custom deposited building up 2.25 mm
Fig. 9: Color map shows the fiber alignment on layup of mold
designed mold. thickness. Results showed the replica of GE90 fan blade. 75% of region was observed within
surface was within a tolerance deviation of 5◦ was observed, and some of remaining regions went
of [−0.4, +0.4] mm indicating satisfactory conformation up to 15◦ .
with the mold contour. Fiber alignment for automated layup
was closer to drape simulation output and consistent for all
layers. Fig. 9 shows the results for layup on mold replica of G. Execution Time and consistency Comparison
GE90 fan blade. Apodius Vision System 3D integrated with Table I gives a comparison of execution times for both
Hexagon AB absolute Romer arm was used to determine manual and hybrid cell at different steps. Hybrid process is
the fiber alignment of the uncured layups. It determines the more consistent as identical trajectories are executed from
average fiber distribution in a region and detects the areas one layer to the other layer. Hand layup can cause fiber
where this alignment changes with respect to the regional misalignment due to human variability. A higher number of
average. Consistent direction of fibers was observed when a layers and safety factors are needed to avoid this problem in
 TABLE I: Time taken by different operations in Human Operated
[5] D. H. J. A. Lukaszewicz, C. Ward, and K. D. Potter, “The engineering
Cell and Hybrid Cell aspects of automated prepreg layup: History, present and future,”
Item Time (minute) Applicable for Composites Part B: Engineering, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 997 – 1009, 2012.
Drape Simulation 5.00 Both Cells [6] M. Elkington, D. Bloom, C. Ward, A. Chatzimichali, and K. D.
Human Trials 28.50 Both Cells Potter, “Hand layup: understanding the manual process,” Advanced
Contingency Handling Manufacturing: Polymer & Composites Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 138–
0.75 Both Cells
by Human 151, 2015.
Single sheet layup Only Human [7] M. Elkington, C. Ward, and K. D. Potter, “Automated layup of sheet
9.13
by human (Average Time) Operated Cell prepregs on complex moulds,” in SAMPE Long Beach Conference,
Instruction Generation 2016.
4.00 Hybrid Cell
by Human [8] Z. Peng and L. Yuanchun, “Position/force control of two manipula-
Automated Plan Generation 0.10 Hybrid Cell tors handling a flexible payload based on finite-element model,” in
Plan Verification 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics
5.00 Hybrid Cell
and Adjustment by Human (ROBIO), Dec 2007, pp. 2178–2182.
Reposition of Consolidating Robot 3.11 Hybrid Cell [9] J. K. Mills and J. G. L. Ing, “Dynamic modeling and control of a
Reposition of Holding Robots 0.07 Hybrid Cell multi-robot system for assembly of flexible payloads with applications
Tool Change 0.18 Hybrid Cell to automotive body assembly,” Journal of Robotic Systems, vol. 13,
Grasping and Releasing 0.12 Hybrid Cell no. 12, pp. 817–836, 1996.
Single sheet layup by robots 5.39 Hybrid Cell [10] K. Kosuge, H. Yoshida, T. Fukuda, M. Sakai, and K. Kanitani, “Ma-
nipulation of a flexible object by dual manipulators,” in Proceedings
hand layup. This can lead to higher part weight and higher of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
cost. vol. 1, May 1995, pp. 318–323 vol.1.
[11] H. Dominik and W. Heinz, Robot Manipulation of Deformable Ob-
VI. C ONCLUSIONS jects. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[12] A. X. Lee, H. Lu, A. Gupta, S. Levine, and P. Abbeel, “Learning
In this paper, we have presented an automated composite force-based manipulation of deformable objects from multiple demon-
layup hybrid cell that automates nearly 60 % of the layup strations,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ICRA), May 2015, pp. 177–184.
process (considering the worst-case custom designed mold). [13] H. Lu, “Learning manipulation of deformable objects from multiple
The instructions and trajectories for conforming and grasping demonstrations,” 2015.
robot motions required for layup, are automatically generated [14] R. O. Buckingham and G. C. Newell, “Automating the manufacture
of composite broadgoods,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and
from high-level expert input. Finally, we presented an exe- Manufacturing, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 191 – 200, 1996.
cution time comparison and overview of process consistency [15] R. Molfino, M. Zoppi, F. Cepolina, J. Yousef, and E. E. Cepolina,
benefits of the hybrid cell. Future advances can include “Design of a hyper-flexible cell for handling 3d carbon fiber fabric,”
Recent advances in mechanical engineering and mechanics, vol. 165,
integrating online inspection systems to perform contingency 2014.
handling and correction of trajectories. An algorithm will be [16] E. Bernardon, “Fibersim, cad integrated software tools for composite
developed in the future to auto-generate drape trajectories manufacturing and design,” in Society for the Advancement of Material
and Process Engineering. International SAMPE Europe conference,
and grasping trajectories for robots by evaluating the drape 1998, pp. 163–173.
model which in our work, were mainly governed by expert [17] S. B. Sharma and M. P. F. Sutcliffe, “Draping of woven fabrics:
user inputs. Progressive drape model,” Plastics, Rubber and Composites, vol. 32,
no. 2, pp. 57–64, 2003.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [18] S. G. Hancock and K. D. Potter, “The use of kinematic drape mod-
elling to inform the hand lay-up of complex composite components
This work is supported in part by National Science using woven reinforcements,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and
Foundation Grant #1634431. Opinions expressed are those Manufacturing, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 413 – 422, 2006.
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect opinions of [19] A. M. Kabir, J. D. Langsfeld, C. Zhuang, K. N. Kaipa, and S. K.
Gupta, “A systematic approach for minimizing physical experiments
the sponsors. The authors acknowledge Siemens PLM for to identify optimal trajectory parameters for robots,” in 2017 IEEE
supplying a FiberSIM license, Hexagon AB for facilitating International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singa-
the work with Apodius Vision System 3D, The Boeing pore, May 2017, pp. 351–357.
[20] J. Pan, S. Chitta, and D. Manocha, “Fcl: A general purpose library for
Company for donating prepreg, and Airtech International for collision and proximity queries,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA),
donating consumables. 2012 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2012, pp. 3859–3866.
[21] R. K. Malhan, A. M. Kabir, B. Shah, T. Centea, and S. K. Gupta,
R EFERENCES “Automated prepreg sheet placement using collaborative robotics,” in
Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering
[1] R. K. Malhan, Y. Shahapurkar, A. K. Kabir, B. Shah, and S. K. Gupta, (SAMPE) Technical Conference and Exhibition, Long beach, CA,
“Integrating impedance control and learning based search scheme USA, May 2018.
for robotic assemblies under uncertainty,” in ASME Manufacturing [22] T. Maekawa, “Computation of shortest paths on free-form parametric
Science and Engineering Conference, College Station, TX, USA, June surfaces,” Transactions of the ASME-R-Journal of Mechanical Design,
2018. vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 499–508, 1996.
[2] P. M. Bhatt, M. Peralta, H. A. Bruck, and S. K. Gupta, “Robot assisted [23] K. REDFIELD, “Finding geodesics on surfaces,” 2007.
additive manufacturing of thin multifunctional structures,” in ASME [24] D. Martı́nez, L. Velho, and P. C. Carvalho, “Computing geodesics on
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, College Station, triangular meshes,” Computers & Graphics, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 667–
TX, USA, June 2018. 675, 2005.
[3] A. M. Kabir, A. V. Shembekar, R. K. Malhan, R. S. Aggarwal, [25] A. M. Kabir, B. C. Shah, and S. K. Gupta, “Trajectory planning
B. C. Langsfeld, J. D.and Shah, and S. K. Gupta, “Robotic finishing for manipulators operating in confined workspaces,” in 2018 IEEE
of interior regions of geometrically complex parts,” in ASMEs 13th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, College Station, (CASE), Munich, Germany, Aug 2018.
Texas, USA, June 2018.
[4] Composites Manufacturing. (2016) State of the composites industry.
[Online]. Available: http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine.com/
2016/01/state-of-the-composites-industry-lucintel-2016

View publication stats