Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesa

Modeling forces generated within rigid liquid composite

molding tools. Part A: Experimental study
M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton *

Centre for Advanced Composite Materials, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Received 11 August 2006; received in revised form 11 January 2007; accepted 11 January 2007

Abstract

The term liquid composite molding (LCM) encompasses a growing list of processes, including resin transfer molding (RTM), injec-
tion/compression molding (I/CM), and resin infusion (a.k.a. VARTM). All LCM techniques involve compressive deformation of the
fiber reinforcement prior to, and in many cases during mold filling. Forces acting on molds are primarily due to the requirement to com-
pact the reinforcement, and pressure generated due to resin flow through these fibrous structures. An experimental study of the forces
exerted on a mold during the RTM and I/CM processes is presented here. Two reinforcing materials have been considered, exhibiting
significantly different resistance to compaction. The evolution of mold clamping force has been shown to be strongly influenced by the
complex, non-elastic compaction behaviour of fiber reinforcements. The important effects include stress relaxation, an apparent lubrica-
tion by the injected fluid, and permanent deformation. Efforts to simulate the experiments will be presented in Part B of this study.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquid composite molding (LCM); A. Fabrics/textiles; D. Process monitoring; E. Tooling

1. Introduction have received significant attention, limited effort has been

Liquid composite molding (LCM) processes such as
resin transfer molding (RTM), injection compression
molding (I/CM, a.k.a. compression RTM), and resin infu-
sion (a.k.a. VARTM, SCRIMP) have become increasingly
popular for the production of fiber reinforced plastics.
These processes offer several advantages over more tradi-
tional composite molding processes including reduced sol-
vent emissions, achieved by containing potentially
hazardous gases (i.e. styrene) within a closed mold. Part
quality, process repeatability and production rates can also
be increased due to the potential for automation. Of all the
LCM processes, RTM has received the majority of atten-
tion in the literature, with other processes such as resin
infusion and I/CM being the focus of more recent studies.
While mold filling patterns and resin pressure evolution
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 9 373 7599x88194; fax: +64 9 373
7479.
E-mail address: s.bickerton@auckland.ac.nz (S. Bickerton).
placed into both measurement and modeling of the forces
acting on LCM tooling. This paper addresses tooling forces
generated during RTM and I/CM, prediction of which will
allow design of economically efficient molds, and the selec-
tion of appropriate processing parameters.
Fig. 1 presents a schematic of an I/CM process cycle.
Fibrous reinforcing material (or the preform) is placed into
a two-piece matched mold. The preform can be formed
from a variety of synthetic or natural fibers, creating the
structural skeleton of the finished product. Once placed
in the mold, it is compacted to an initial cavity thickness.
A charge of thermosetting resin is then injected, filling
through the fibrous preform and displacing air through
the vents. When the complete charge has been injected,
the injection gates are closed, and the mold cavity thickness
is further reduced until the final desired cavity thickness is
reached. This second compression stage is commonly com-
pleted using a constant compression speed or constant
applied force. The resin is driven out through the remain-
ing dry regions of the preform, fully saturating the part.

1359-835X/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesa.2007.01.012
1730 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

1) Placement of preform into mold 2) Compaction of preform to initial thickness

FIBRE PREFORM

3) Injection of a charge of thermosetting resin 4) Further compaction of preform and fluid

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of I/CM process steps.

Cure of the resin is initiated, and the part de-molded once
sufficient rigidity is attained. The RTM process can be con-
sidered as a special case of I/CM, resin being injected when
the cavity thickness is already at the desired final part
thickness, eliminating the second phase of compression.
During application of RTM and I/CM, significant
forces are generated within the mold. These forces are
due to the combined effects of fiber compaction and pres-
sure generated due to the flow of resin. A good understand-
ing of local tooling forces is required to accurately model
processes such as resin infusion, as they govern the evolu-
tion of laminate thickness during mold filling through to
resin cure [1–4]. A complete understanding is less impor-
tant for RTM, the final product thickness being defined
by the geometry of the rigid molds employed. Similar argu-
ments can be made for I/CM, however, tooling forces must
be considered to accurately predict the evolution of a con-
stant force compression phase. For both RTM and I/CM a
complete tooling force analysis will lead to more efficient
mold design, and the design of optimized cycles that max-
imize the use of available processing equipment [5,6].
The evolution of fluid pressure during the filling stages
of LCM processes has been well documented [7–12], how-
ever, little effort has been placed on the development of
models that accurately predict the time dependant tooling
forces that are generated. A range of RTM filling simula-
flow rate and mold compression speed. The presented data
will then be compared against simulation in Part B of this
study.
2. Experimental equipment
Two series of experiments have been completed address-
ing the RTM and I/CM processes. Once the part geometry
and composition (i.e. fiber and matrix materials, fiber vol-
ume fraction) have been selected, a number of process
parameters remain to be specified. For RTM, once the pre-
form is enclosed within the mold, injection gate position
and conditions must be specified. For the simple geometry
considered in this study, resin injection flow rate was the
only parameter varied. The I/CM process is more compli-
cated, both the injection and compression phases requiring
definition. The same flow rate was employed during the
injection phase, and the mold closing speed was varied
INSTRON UPPER PLATEN
L LOAD CELL
A
S
E
R

tions have been presented in the literature [13–18], but their

capabilities are limited to the evolution of resin pressure
TOP PLATE
and flow front position. Several authors have presented fill-
ing simulations for I/CM, focusing mainly on complex 3D
part geometries [11,12,19–21]. Significant experimental ver- MOULD BASE MOULD BASE
ification of RTM simulations has been presented, however INSTRON CROSS HEAD
I/CM simulations have had limited verification. The exper-
imental compaction behaviour of dry and wet fiber pre- INJECTION LINE
PT
forms has been documented [22–28], however, accurate
models that combine the effects of stress relaxation, perma-
nent deformation, and the possible lubricating effect of a
resin are still under development [29].
This paper describes a thorough experimental study of
resin pressure and tooling forces generated during RTM INJECTION DEVICE
and I/CM. Two different fiber reinforcements have been
studied, while varying process parameters such as injection Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the experimental setup.
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741 1731

for the compression phase. During all experiments, both

the force required to close the mold and resin pressure at
the injection gate have been monitored. While the mold
cavity thickness was specified by the supporting equipment,
this parameter was continuously measured to confirm
accuracy of the experiments. A schematic diagram of the
experimental setup is presented in Fig. 2.

2.1. Molding equipment

2.1.1. Instron testing machine and mold

A two-piece, circular aluminium mold (depicted in
Fig. 3a) was installed in an Instron 1186 testing machine
as shown in Fig. 3b. The Instron was used to control the
cavity thickness and closing speed, and provided adequate
mold clamping force for all experiments. The mold defines
a circular plate of constant thickness, with the final cavity
thickness taking any value up to 100 mm. The lower half
is 300.0 mm in diameter, and was firmly attached to the
lower Instron crosshead. A 10.0 mm diameter centrally
located injection gate allows the introduction of fluid into
the mold cavity. The upper half of the mold is a 40.0 mm
thick circular plate, and was mounted to the Instron load
cell as shown in Fig. 3b.
As each half of the mold was installed into the Instron
frame separately, and spacer plates were not used to define
cavity thickness, great care was taken to ensure the mold
plates were parallel. Eliminating the use of spacer plates
simplified the measurement of mold clamping forces, and
allowed any cavity thickness to be achieved. Thin metal
shims were used to adjust the level of the lower mold half,
ensuring an error tolerance for cavity thickness of
±0.05 mm.

2.1.2. Fluid injection device

To control the rate at which fluid was injected into the
mold, a constant flow rate injection device was developed.
This device employs a linear actuator to drive a piston at
constant speed into a cylinder containing the test fluid.
An accurately defined volume of fluid can be injected, a
pair of limit switches being used to specify the stroke of
the piston. This was particularly important for the I/CM
experiments, as any error in the volume of fluid injected
will significantly affect the subsequent compression phase.
The injection device provided constant fluid flow rates
between 1.7 cm3/s and 15.4 cm3/s, and was able to generate
injection pressures up to 1965 kPa (285 Psi).
2.2. Data acquisition
To monitor clamping forces generated during the exper-
iments, a 200 kN load cell was mounted between the upper
Instron crosshead and upper mold half (see Fig. 3b). Dur-
ing the injection and compression phases the gate pressure
was monitored using a pressure transducer. This trans-
ducer was fitted to the injection line above a manual shut
off valve, and had an operating range of 103 to
Fig. 3. (a) The two piece aluminium mold. (b) The mold, load cell and
laser gauge mounted in the Instron test frame.
1965 kPa (15 to 285 Psi). The valve remained open during
fluid injection, and was closed during the compression
phase of I/CM processes, stopping any flow back to the
injection device.
The actual mold cavity thickness was monitored using a
Banner L-Gage laser displacement gauge (model
LG10A65PU, resolution <10 lm, 75–125 mm range). This
was necessary as crosshead position data recorded by the
Instron testing machine does not account for deforma-
tion of the load cell. These deflections are necessary for
the operation of the load cell, and take a maximum value
of 0.2 mm at an applied force of 200 kN. A maximum
1732 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

deflection of 0.06 mm was observed during this study,
resulting in an error of 0.5% on a target fiber volume
fraction of 0.37. Voltage data from all sensors was recorded
to a desktop computer, running the LabView data acquisi-
tion software. LabView was also used to initiate and con-
trol the fluid injection device, increasing the accuracy and
repeatability of the experiments.
resin injected in actual LCM processes. A Newtonian corn
syrup solution was used as a test fluid, the viscosity being
tailored to that of typical LCM resins. Viscosity was mea-
sured using a Parr Physica UDS 200 rheometer, and was
found to be 0.198 Pa s at a temperature of 20 C.
3.2. Procedure

Circular reinforcement specimens were cut having an

3. Experimental program
outer diameter of 290 ± 2 mm. An 18 mm diameter hole
was punched at the centre of each specimen to encourage
3.1. Materials
in-plane flow during fluid injection. Ten layers were
stacked together to create a fiber preform. The preform
Two styles of E-glass fiber mat commonly used in LCM
was then weighed and placed into the mold cavity, locating
processes have been employed in this study, a chopped
the central preform hole directly above the injection gate.
strand mat (CSM) and a continuous fiber mat (CFM).
The mass of each preform is provided in Table 2, these
The random in-plane alignment of the fibers in both mats
all being within ±13.0 and 4.0 g of the average mass respec-
results in transversely isotropic permeability. Other rele-
tively, for CSM and CFM.
vant information about the reinforcements is provided in
With the preform in place, the mold was closed to the
Table 1.
initial preform height and the data acquisition and control
The CSM and CFM reinforcements are differentiated by
system activated to record the compaction load, fluid pres-
their resistance to compaction. CSM is formed from rela-
sure and cavity thickness throughout the test. The test was
tively short fiber bundles, bound together using a signifi-
then initiated, compressing the preform at 25.0 mm/min
cant amount of binder. This results in a structure that is
until the target thickness for the injection phase was
initially well consolidated, each layer having an uncom-
reached (4.7 mm for RTM and 6.5 mm for I/CM). When
pressed thickness of 1.3 mm, and initial fiber volume frac-
the laser displacement gauge indicated the target thickness,
tion of 0.21. CFM is formed from a continuous fiber
the data acquisition system sent a signal to the injection rig.
bundle, loops being repeatedly laid to form the mat. The
This signal activated the fluid injection at the required flow
result is a thick mat (10 mm), having low initial fiber vol-
rate. For the I/CM tests, the second phase of compression
ume fraction (0.035), and high resistance to compaction.
was manually initiated by reactivating the Instron once the
As a result CSM and CFM have very different compaction
complete charge of test fluid was injected.
resistance [27], although the permeability characteristics
are similar, and therefore make an interesting comparison
3.3. Program of experiments
for the LCM tooling force studies presented here.
Only the initial compaction and filling stages of RTM
Eight tests were carried out with each of the chosen rein-
and I/CM are considered here, neglecting cure of thermoset
forcing materials, four RTM tests and four I/CM tests, as
Table 1 outlined in Table 2. For all experiments in this study the
Reinforcing material specifications initial compaction rate of the fiber preform before fluid
CSM CFM injection was 25.0 mm/min. The fluid injection rate was
Glass fiber density (kg/m3) 2600 2600 the only parameter varied between each RTM test and
Arial density (g/m2) 430 450 the second phase compaction rate was the only parameter
Initial fiber volume fraction 0.21 0.035 varied between the I/CM tests. Table 3 indicates the exper-
Product code M750 M8610 imental parameters used for both the CSM and CFM
Supplier Aurora Glass Fibre New Zealand Ltd
experiments.

Table 2
Schedule of experiments and preform masses
Test no. Fluid injection rate Second phase compaction CSM preform CFM preform
(cm3/s) speed (mm/min) mass (g) mass (g)
RTM test 1 3.31 0 288.5 297.5
RTM test 2 6.35 0 279.2 291.2
RTM test 3 9.39 0 300.6 293.2
RTM test 4 0.00 0 293.2 297.4
I/CM test 1 15.47 2 298.0 292.8
I/CM test 2 15.47 8 294.8 293.9
I/CM test 3 15.47 18 289.2 297.3
I/CM test 4 0.00 18 290.8 293.7
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741 1733

Table 3 phase of the I/CM tests was also identical for both materi-
Experimental parameters for CSM and CFM experiments als. For both RTM and I/CM a ‘dry’ experiment was car-
Parameter CSM CFM ried out with each material. No fluid was injected into the
Initial preform height (mm) 13 50 mold during these tests, allowing the influence of the test
Cavity thickness during I/CM injection (mm) 6.5 6.5 fluid on the results to be identified.
Cavity thickness during RTM injection (mm) 4.7 4.7
Final cavity thickness (mm) 4.7 4.7
Volume fraction during I/CM injection 0.26 0.27
Final fiber volume fraction 0.36 0.37 4. Results

4.1. RTM gate pressures

To allow comparison of the tooling forces and required
injection pressures between each reinforcement style, the Fig. 4 demonstrates the relationship between flow rate
same final part thickness was used for both the CSM and and gate pressure during the RTM experiments. It can be
CFM tests. The cavity thickness during the fluid injection seen that the gate pressure is directly proportional to the

1.40E+06

9.39 cm3/s
1.20E+06
6.35 cm3/s
3
3.31 cm /s
Dry experiment
1.00E+06
Central Gate Pressure (Pa)

8.00E+05

6.00E+05

4.00E+05

2.00E+05

0.00E+00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0
Time (s)

9.00E+05

3
8.00E+05 9.39 cm /s flow rate
3
6.35 cm /s flow rate
7.00E+05 3.13 cm3/s flow rate
Dry experiment
Central Gate Pressure (Pa)

6.00E+05

5.00E+05

4.00E+05

3.00E+05

2.00E+05

1.00E+05

0.00E+00
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0
Time (s)
Fig. 4. Gate pressure traces for the RTM experiments with (a) CSM, and (b) CFM.
1734 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

flow rate for both CSM and CFM. This is expected as resin
flow through fiber reinforcements is known to be governed
by Darcy’s Law, local pressure gradients being directly
proportional to fluid velocity. Measured gate pressures
do not start to rise at exactly t = 0.0 s for all experiments.
This delay is due to the small length of tubing and the cen-
tral preform hole that were filled with fluid before any sig-
nificant gate pressure was generated. At the end of each of
the fluid injection phases the pressures can be seen to equal-
ize to zero gauge pressure over a period of approximately
15 s.
4.2. RTM clamping forces
Fig. 5a presents the RTM clamping force traces for the
CSM reinforcement. Up until 0.0 s the traces for all three
experiments are practically equivalent, the clamping force
being only due to compaction of the dry fiber preform.
The force rises very rapidly as the target cavity thickness
is reached, with some variation being noted between the
peak values. This is due to variation in the preform masses,
which fell between 279.2 and 300.6 g. To remove the influ-
ence of preform mass variations, the force traces have been

18.00

16.00 3
9.39 cm /s
3
6.35 cm /s
14.00 3.31 cm3/s
Dry experiment
Total Clamping Force (kN)

12.00

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
-25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0
Time (s)
1.80

1.60 3
9.39 cm /s
3
6.35 cm /s
1.40 3.13 cm3/s
Dry experiment
Normalised Clamping Force

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0
Time (s)
Fig. 5. (a) Clamping force traces for RTM experiments with CSM. (b) Normalized clamping force traces.
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741 1735

normalized relative to the peak value at 0.0 s, and are plot-
ted in Fig. 5b.
For the ‘dry’ experiment depicted in Fig. 5, a significant
amount of force relaxation occurs after the initial compac-
tion phase is completed. As no fluid was involved in this
experiment the relaxation effect can be attributed purely
to the non-elastic nature of the reinforcing material. Simi-
lar evolution of stress through the compaction and relaxa-
tion periods has been noted by several authors [22–27]. For
the ‘wet’ experiments the force traces differ significantly
during the injection phase. Increased clamping force is
noted for faster injection flow rates, the force during injec-
tion being a combination of preform compaction and the
generated fluid pressure field. Both the gate pressure and
the filled area of the mold increase with time, resulting in
an increasing fluid force component. As greater gate pres-
sures are generated with increased flow rates, the total
clamping forces also increase.
At the completion of injection a drop in the clamping
force is observed, corresponding to the reduction of gate
pressure. The clamping force continues to drop, relaxing
to values significantly below that observed in the dry exper-
iment. This demonstrates another interesting non-elastic
trait of fiber reinforcements. It has been suggested that

60.00

9.39 cm3/s
50.00 6.35 cm3/s
3
3.31 cm /s
Dry experiment
Total Clamping Force (kN)

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
-50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0
Time (s)

1.00
3
0.90 9.39 cm /s
6.35 cm3/s
3
0.80 3.31 cm /s
Dry experiment
Normalised Clamping Force

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0
Time (s)
Fig. 6. (a) Clamping force traces for RTM experiments with CFM. (b) Normalized clamping force traces.
1736 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

increased relaxation in the presence of a fluid may be due to
a lubricating phenomenon, allowing wet fibers to slip more
easily relative to each other. This would allow wet rein-
forcements to find preferential arrangements, requiring
lower compaction force for the same fiber volume fraction.
Clamping force traces for the CFM experiments are pre-
sented in Fig. 6a. The force magnitudes are significantly lar-
ger than for the CSM tests, primarily due to the increased
resistance to compaction provided by CFM. The normal-
ized clamping force traces are presented in Fig. 6b. This plot
highlights that the total clamping force traces do not rise
during injection as was observed for the CSM experiments,
but actually fall below levels observed for the dry experi-
ment. This is due to the relative magnitudes of the force
components due to reinforcement compaction and fluid
pressure. As the fluid pressure contribution is small com-
pared to reinforcement compaction, the non-elastic com-
paction traits dominate. During injection, stress relaxation
occurs in the reinforcement, which is further accelerated
as the preform is progressively wetted. While force compo-
nents are generated due to internal fluid pressure, these are a
small component of the total clamping force traces. The
magnitude of the fluid component is indicated by the drop
in clamping force occurring at the completion of injection.

Fig. 7. Separated clamping force components for RTM test 2. (a) CSM and (b) CFM.
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741
To further highlight differences between the various
force contributions for each reinforcement, the component
due to fluid pressure can be separated using analytical solu-
tions. The following result has been derived in an earlier
paper [5]:
    sion, the fluid being forced to flow through a rapidly grow-
2pP gate r2i rf 1 2 2
F fluid ¼ ln  ðrf  ri Þ ; ð1Þ
lnðri =rf Þ 2 ri 4
where rf is the radial position of the flow front, ri is the ra-
dius of the hole cut at the centre of the perform, and Pgate is
the gate pressure. For constant flow rate injection, flow
front progression is governed by:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Qt
rf ¼ þ r2i ; ð2Þ
phð1  V f Þ
where h is the laminate thickness, Q is the injection flow
rate, and Vf is the fiber volume fraction of the reinforce-
ment. Utilising the experimentally measured gate pressure
traces, Eqs. (1) and (2) have been used to estimate Ffluid
for two of the RTM experiments. The force component
due to fiber compaction, Ffibre, can then be estimated from
the measured clamping force, Fclamp, and the following
relationship:
F clamp ¼ F fluid þ F fibre : ð3Þ
The resulting force components are presented for RTM test
2 in Fig. 7. Results for the CSM and CFM tests are pre-
sented, emphasizing the differing influence fluid pressure
exerts during injection into each style of reinforcement.
For both materials secondary peaks are present in the Ffibre
component, which result from the gradual fading of the
fluid pressure field at the completion of injection. Force
traces from the completed dry experiments are also pre-
sented, highlighting the effect of the fluid lubrication effect
through injection, and after completion of filling. To aid
comparison between the wet and dry experiments, all traces
presented in Fig. 7 have been normalised to the peak fiber
compaction force at 0.0 s.
4.3. I/CM gate pressures
Fig. 8a presents the central gate pressures measured dur-
ing the CSM I/CM experiments. During the injection per-
iod from 0.0 to 13.0 s the gate pressure increases in a
similar manner to that observed for the RTM experiments.
As the initial flow rate is equal for each test, pressures rise
to the same level. Some influence of preform mass variation
is seen, the heaviest preform (see Table 2) generating the
greatest pressure due to increased fiber volume fraction
and therefore reduced permeability.
At the completion of injection all three pressure traces
dropped quickly as the fluid source was closed, and the
transition was made to the compression phase of filling.
Gate pressure evolution is very different during this phase,
rising slowly initially, the rate of increase continuing to rise
through to the end of filling. Completion of the compres-
1737
sion phase is indicated by the secondary peaks in gate pres-
sure. The rapidly climbing gate pressures are partially due
to the continuous increase in fiber volume fraction, and the
resulting decrease in permeability. A further contribution is
made by the increasing flow front speed during compres-
ing wetted area. By comparison, during constant flow rate
injection the flow front speed decreases, contributing to the
reducing rate of change of the gate pressure. Consideration
of the analytical solutions for flow front evolution (Eq. (2))
and gate pressure support this claim:
 
lQ ri
P gate ¼  ln ; ð4Þ
2phK rf
where l is the resin viscosity, and K is the isotropic perme-
ability of the reinforcement.
Further insight can be gained on the rapidly increasing
gate pressures by considering analytical solutions for the
compression flow phase:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V  pr2i h
rf ¼ þ r2i ; ð5Þ
phð1  V f Þ
lh_
P gate ¼ ððr2  r2f Þ þ 2r2i lnðrf =ri ÞÞ: ð6Þ
4Kh i
h_ is the instantaneous cavity rate of change, and V is the
total volume of fluid introduced during the injection phase.
Noting that ri is typically much smaller than rf during the
compression phase, Eqs. (5) and (6) can be combined to
give the following approximation to the gate pressure:
_
lhV 1 1
P gate    : ð7Þ
4p h2 Kð1  V f Þ
For constant speed compression the first term in this expres-
sion remains constant. Eq. (7) highlights the relative contri-
butions of increasing fiber volume fraction (1/K(1  Vf)),
and the increasing flow front speed (1/h2). Considering the
beginning (h = 6.5 mm, Vf = 0.26, K = 4.76 · 1010 m2)
and end (h = 4.7 mm, Vf = 0.36, K = 1.11 · 1010 m2) states
of the compression phase for the CSM I/CM experiments
presented here, gate pressure is predicted to increase by a
factor of approximately 9.4. Increasing fiber volume frac-
tion contributes a factor of 4.96, while the increasing flow
front speed contributes 1.90.
It is also very interesting to note the relatively slow sub-
sequent decay of pressure at the completion of mold filling,
an effect that will not be predicted by a Darcy’s Law based
simulation. As the rate of mold closure is brought to zero,
gate pressure should fall away very rapidly, if not instanta-
neously. Cavity thickness measurements made using the
laser displacement gauge have verified that mold closing
speed is effectively reduced to zero at the end of each com-
pression phase.
The gate pressure traces for the CFM experiments are
provided in Fig. 8b. The observed behaviour is very similar
to that of the CSM tests. The gate pressure magnitudes are
also similar, and increased consistency can be noted
1738 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741

4.00E+05

3.50E+05 18mm/min compaction

8mm/min compaction
3.00E+05 2mm/min compaction
8mm/min dry experiment
Central Gate Pressure (Pa)

2.50E+05

2.00E+05

1.50E+05

1.00E+05

5.00E+04

0.00E+00
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0
Time (s)

3.50E+05

18mm/min compaction
3.00E+05 2mm/min compaction
8mm/min compaction
8mm/min dry experiment
2.50E+05
Central Gate Pressure (Pa)

2.00E+05

1.50E+05

1.00E+05

5.00E+04

0.00E+00
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0
Time (s)

Fig. 8. Gate pressure traces for the I/CM experiments with (a) CSM and (b) CFM.

between the tests during the injection period, due to smaller
variance in preform masses. Gate pressure during both the
dry CSM and CFM experiments have also been presented
in Fig. 8, null values confirming that gate pressure mea-
surements were in no way influenced by forces applied to
the mold.
4.4. I/CM clamping forces
Fig. 9a presents the clamping forces measured during
the CSM I/CM tests. The dry experiment displays stress
relaxation in the reinforcement during the constant cavity
thickness periods for injection, and at the completion of
mold filling. As was observed for the RTM experiments,
the clamping force for the wet experiments reach long term
values approximately 50% lower than the dry test. A simi-
lar observation is made for the CFM tests presented in
Fig. 9b, highlighting the consistent influence of the fluid
lubrication effect.
During the fluid injection phase of the CSM experiments
clamping force rises steadily due to fluid pressure generated
within the mold, as was observed for the RTM tests. As the
same flow rate was used in each test, the clamping forces
are equivalent during this period. At the completion
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741 1739

16.00

14.00 18mm/min compaction

8mm/min compaction
2mm/min compaction
12.00 8mm/min dry experiment
Total Clamping Force (kN)
10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
-25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0
Time (s)

50.00
18mm/min compaction
8mm/min compaction
2mm/min compaction
8mm/min dry experiment
40.00
Total Clamping Force (kN)

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
-50.0 -25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0
Time (s)
Fig. 9. Clamping force traces for I/CM experiments with (a) CSM and (b) CFM.

of injection the gate was closed, and the clamping force
drops rapidly. A quick transition was achieved into the
compression phase, the clamping forces rising thereafter
in a similar manner as was observed for the gate pressures.
For the 8.0 and 18.0 mm/min closing speeds the peak
forces rise significantly above that of the dry experiment,
demonstrating the significant contribution provided by
the larger fluid pressures generated. The viscoelastic nature
of the reinforcing material also contributes to this to a
smaller extent, resistance to compaction increasing with
speed of compression.
As was observed for the RTM experiments, the clamp-
ing forces for the CFM material are dominated by the com-
ponent due to reinforcement compaction (see Fig. 9b).
During injection very small increases in clamping force
are noted over the values recorded for the dry test. Moving
into the compression phase the lubricating effect of the
infiltrating fluid is clearly evident, the peak clamping forces
of the wet experiments falling below the dry curve. As for
the RTM experiments, stress relaxation in the fiber rein-
forcements plays a significant role in all of the tests pre-
sented in Fig. 9.
1740 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741
5. Discussion
The focus of this work has been an experimental study
of the required mold clamping forces during RTM and I/
CM. To demonstrate the influence of fiber reinforcement
architecture, two similar materials have been considered.
Both are composed of randomly aligned glass tows of sim-
ilar fiber count, and exhibit similar permeability character-
istics. However, the compaction response of these materials
are very different, the CFM showing much greater resis-
tance to compression. This significantly affects the balance
between clamping force contributions due to internally
generated fluid pressure and reinforcement compaction.
Evolution of gate pressure during RTM has received sig-
nificant attention previously. Less data has been presented
on I/CM pressure evolution, and it is interesting to note the
change in behaviour between the injection and compression
phases. No additional fluid is introduced to the mold dur-
ing compression, the internal fluid pressure field being gen-
erated by the squeezing action of the mold platens. As the
platens are forced together, resin velocities increase and the
permeability of the reinforcement decreases. This results in
rapid increases in gate pressure, particularly towards the
completion of a compression phase. While clamping forces
are the focus of this work, measurement of gate pressures
has provided valuable insight into the force component
due to fluid pressure.
Measured clamping forces were dominated by fluid pres-
sure for the CSM, and by reinforcement compaction for
the CFM. The results of the CFM tests are therefore more
strongly influenced by the complex non-elastic behaviour
of the reinforcement. The important effects are stress relax-
ation, increased relaxation due to fluid lubrication, and
permanent deformation, which have been noted by several
authors [22–28]. For both reinforcing materials it is clear
that a purely elastic reinforcement compaction model is
not suitable for accurate prediction of tooling forces. A
simple combination of elastic models is applied in the sec-
ond part of this work, demonstrating significant improve-
ments over predictions using a single elastic model.
Development of a time-dependent non-elastic model is
the subject of ongoing work [29].
Prediction of RTM fill times and patterns has been the
focus of much research effort, tooling forces being consid-
ered a secondary issue to successful mold filling (i.e. elimi-
nation of dryspots). As industry becomes more confident in
the application of RTM, the drive to improve the cost effec-
tiveness will necessitate accurate force analysis of tooling.
For the I/CM process accurate force analysis is required
if fill times are to be predicted for the application of a con-
stant force compression phase. For LCM processes utilis-
ing flexible molds (i.e. resin infusion, RTM Light), local
laminate thickness evolution is governed by the compac-
tion behaviour of the reinforcement, and improved com-
paction models are vital for enhanced filling simulations.
6. Conclusions
A thorough experimental study of mold clamping forces
has been presented for RTM and I/CM of a simple part
geometry. Evolution of fluid pressures at the mold gate
were also measured and have followed trends observed
by other researchers. The relative contributions of fluid
and fiber force components have been demonstrated
through the study of two reinforcing materials with signif-
icantly different compaction response. Non-elastic compac-
tion effects, such as stress relaxation and an apparent
lubrication by the injected fluid, had a large influence.
While these non-elastic effects have been highlighted previ-
ously in the literature, this study represents the first signif-
icant experimental study of their influence on RTM and I/
CM tooling clamping forces. For the chopped strand mat
studied, clamping forces were dominated by the fluid pres-
sure component. Being a less compliant material, the
clamping forces were dominated by reinforcement compac-
tion for the CFM. In all experiments the target fiber vol-
ume fraction of the laminates were 0.36 or 0.37. As this
fraction is varied, the relative importance of fluid and fiber
force components will change.
It is clear that as many different reinforcing fabrics (i.e.
mats, crimped and non-crimped) are applied within LCM
processes, accurate characterisation of both permeability
and compaction response are required to complete LCM
tooling force analyses for rigid tools (RTM, I/CM). In
order to develop accurate simulations of processes within
flexible (resin infusion) or semi-rigid (RTM Light) tools
such analyses are required. This study has provided further
motivation for the development of reinforcement compac-
tion models addressing complex non-elastic behaviour.
Experimental data presented in this paper will be compared
against tooling force predictions in the second part of this
study.
Acknowledgement
The authors thankfully acknowledge the funds received
from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technol-
ogy New Zealand to carry out this research.
References
[1] Kang MK, Lee WI, Hahn HT. Analysis of vacuum bag resin transfer
molding process. Composites Part A 2001;32(11):1553–60.
[2] Acheson JA, Simacek P, Advani SG. The implications of fiber
compaction and saturation on fully coupled VARTM simulation.
Composites Part A 2004;35(2):159–69.
[3] Song X, Loos AC, Grimsley BW, Cano RJ, Hubert P. Modeling the
VARTM composite manufacturing process. in: Proceedings of
SAMPE technical conference; 2004. p. 469–81.
[4] Joubaud L, Achim V, Trochu F. Numerical simulation of resin
infusion and reinforcement consolidation under flexible cover. Polym
Compos 2005;26(4):417–27.
 M.J. Buntain, S. Bickerton / Composites: Part A 38 (2007) 1729–1741
[5] Bickerton S, Abdullah MZ. Modelling and evaluation of the filling
stage of injection/compression molding. Compos Sci Technol
2003;63(10):1359–75.
[6] Le Riche R, Saouab A, Breard J. Coupled compression RTM and
composite layup optimization. Compos Sci Technol 2003;63(15):
2277–87.
[7] Kendall KN, Rudd CD, Owen MJ, Middleton V. Characterization of
the resin transfer molding process. Compos Manuf 1992;3(4):235–49.
[8] Bickerton S, Advani SG. Experimental investigation and flow
visualisation of the resin transfer mold filling process in a non planar
geometry. Compos Sci Technol 1997;57(1):23–33.
[9] Bickerton S, Sozer EM, Graham PJ, Advani SG. Fabric structure and
mold curvature effects on preform permeability and mold filling in the
RTM process. Part I. Experiments Source. Composites Part A
2000;31(5):423–38.
[10] Wirth S, Gauvin R. Experimental analysis of mold filling in
compression resin transfer molding. Jo ReinfPlas and Compos
1998;17(16):1414–30.
[11] Kang MK, Lee WI. Analysis of resin transfer/compression molding
process. Polym Compos 1999;20(2):293–304.
[12] Han K, Ni J, Toth J, Lee LJ, Green JP. Analysis of an injection/
compression liquid composite molding process. Polym Compos
1998;19(4):487–96.
[13] Coulter JP, Guceri SI. Resin impregnation during composites
manufacturing: theory and experimentation. Compos Sci Technol
1989;35(4):315–30.
[14] Bruschke MV, Advani SG. A finite element/control volume approach
to mold filling in a anisotropic porous media. Polym Compos
1990;11(6):398–405.
[15] Young WB, Rupel K, Han K, Lee LJ, Liou MJ. Analysis of resin
injection molding in molds with preplaced fiber mats II: numerical
simulation and experiments of mold filling. Polym Compos
1991;12(1):20–9.
[16] Trochu F, Gauvin R, Gao D-M. Numerical analysis of the resin
transfer molding process by the finite element method. Adv Polym
Technol 1993;12(4):329–42.
[17] Simacek P, Advani SG. Desirable features in mold filling simulations
for liquid composite molding processes. Polym Compos 2004;25(4):
355–67.
1741
[18] Trochu F, Ruiz E, Achim V, Soukane S. Advanced numerical
simulation of liquid composite molding for process analysis and
optimization. Composites Part A 2006;37(6):890–902.
[19] Chen SC, Chen YC, Cheng NT. Simulation of injection compression
mold filling process. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer
1998;25(7):907–17.
[20] Pham X-T, Trochu F. Simulation of compression resin transfer
molding to manufacture thin composite shells. Polym Compos
1999;20(3):436–59.
[21] Pillai KM, Tucker CL, Phelan FR. Numerical simulation of
injection/compression liquid composite molding. Part 2: preform
compression. Composites Part A 2001;32(2):207–20.
[22] Kim YR, McCarthy SP. Compressibility and relaxation of fiber
reinforcements during composite processing. Polym Compos
1991;12(1):13–9.
[23] Pearce N, Summerscales J. The compressibility of a reinforcement
fabric. Compos Manuf 1995;6(1):15–21.
[24] Robitaille F, Gauvin R. Compaction of textile reinforcements for
manufacturing. I: review of experimental results. Polym Compos
1998;19(2):198–216.
[25] Robitaille F, Gauvin R. Compaction of textile reinforcements for
composites manufacturing. II: compaction and relaxation of dry and
H2O saturated woven reinforcements. Polym Compos 1998;19(5):
543–57.
[26] Saunders RA, Lekakou C, Bader MG. Compression and microstruc-
ture of fiber plain woven cloths in the processing of polymer
composites. Composites Part A 1998;29(4):443–54.
[27] Bickerton S, Buntain MJ, Somashekar AA. The viscoelastic com-
pression behavior of liquid composite molding performs. Composites
Part A 2003;34(5):431–44.
[28] Somashekar AA, Bickerton S, Bhattacharyya D. Exploring the non-
elastic compression deformation of dry glass fibre reinforcements.
Compos Sci Technol 2007;67(2):183–200.
[29] Kelly PA, Umer R, Bickerton S. Viscoelastic response of dry and wet
fibrous materials during infusion processes. Composites Part A
2006;37(6):868–73.