Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and

Computers and Information in Engineering Conference

IDETC/CIE 2017
August 6-9, 2017, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

DETC2017-67368

ANALYZING COMPOSITE MATERIAL MANUFACTURING METHODS USING

FAILURE MODES EFFECT ANALYSIS

Elisabeth Kames Ryan Zaremba

Research Assistant Research Assistant
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, FL. USA Melbourne, FL. USA
ekames2011@my.fit.edu rzaremba2010@my.fit.edu

Beshoy Morkos
Assistant Professor
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Florida Institute of Technology
Melbourne, FL. USA
bmorkos@fit.edu

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the preliminary results of a case study
of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) in composite
manufacturing. The purpose of FMEA is to improve quality,
reliability, safety, durability, and reduce product life-cycle costs.
Six various methods of composite layup (both manual and
automated) were identified and examined with respect to various
defect types caused through the composite layup process such as
porosity, fiber misalignment, excess or insufficient resin, and
incomplete curing. An adaptation of FMEA for composite
manufacturing was used to analyze the different defect types, and
the occurrence, severity, and detectability of each type of failure
in each of the composite manufacturing processes. Failure was
defined as the loss of function or ability to perform a prescribed
task in a given manner for which that part was designed [1]. The
conclusions of this study are two-fold: design engineers can
analyze the most common composite material defects in order to
build robustness into the product and the methodologies used can
assist process improvement for manual or automated composite
manufacturing.
Keywords: Failure Modes Effect Analysis (FMEA), Composite
Materials, Defects, Composite Manufacturing
1 INTRODUCTION
Failure Modes Effect Analysis (FMEA) is a systematic
approach to identify potential causes of failure within a process
or product to reduce the likelihood of failure and ensure the
artifact can perform to its intended function. FMEA is performed
during the product design phase in order to recognize and remedy
potential modes of failure before the concept is brought to
realization. FMEA uses a bottom-up approach; the analysis
begins on the component level and progressively works up to the
final product [2].
There are three main focuses in FMEA:
a. Recognize and evaluate potential failures and their
effects;
b. Identify corrective actions to reduce the occurrence or
eliminate such failures;
c. Document the evaluations and effects of corrective
actions to continue to improve quality [2].
As a critical component, this study will use an adaptation of
the FMEA table to observe the results of common defects in the
composite manufacturing process. The study will evaluate and
analyze different manufacturing methods for a variety of
composites materials. This metric is then used to analyze
common defects in the composite manufacturing process and
their occurrence, severity, and detectability.
The unique benefit of this paper, and the gap the authors
wish to address, is with regards to the formalization of failure

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 modes and detection in composite modeling. As the use of
composites continues to grow in various manufacturing
industries, there is limited formalization on how failure is
monitored and documented. The current practice employs a case
by case approach for monitoring and documenting failure modes
in composites manufacturing. Often, this is performed
subjectively, based on the experience of expert engineers. The
work presented here will address this gap by recommending the
use of traditional FMEA tools for use within composites
manufacturing.
1.1. Motivation
Today’s engineers are faced with the challenge of choosing
the correct material and manufacturing process for their
application due to the wide range of material choices available
[1]. Fiber-reinforced plastics, also known as composites, are
becoming a more desirable material choice in the manufacturing
of product for industry. Composites offer the benefit of high
strength and stiffness with a lower density, affording weight
reduction in the finished product [3]. This high strength to weight
ratio makes composite materials a preferred choice in the
aerospace industry. Composites offer many advantages over
traditional engineering materials. Complex parts, including
special contours, can be fabricated using composite materials
without the necessity of fastening separate pieces. Also, near net
shape products can be manufactured without the need for post-
processing or machining, reducing cycle cost and time.
Composites offer great corrosion resistance and design
flexibility. For example, a composite material can have a
coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of zero depending on the
materials chosen and the orientation of the layup. This affords a
higher dimensional accuracy for completed products [1].
However, since composites are the combination of multiple
singular materials, quality control becomes a difficult task. There
is an increased opportunity for defects in the finished product,
resulting in less than desirable material properties.
The presence of defects in composite materials increases
the likelihood of material failure; this directly results in wasted
material and an increase in manufacturing cost and time. FMEA
is recognized as a useful tool for decreasing the likelihood of
such failures, however current FMEA practices occur during the
detailed design phase of composite manufacturing. Detailed
design occurs late in the design process when many crucial
design decisions have already been made regarding the finished
product. Therefore, the results from FMEA analysis of
composite parts can suggest a redesign of the product, delaying
production. Thus, a key motivator for this work is the
development, or utilization, of design tools early in the design
process to help designers and engineers make decisions. The
ability to assess the likelihood of defects and decrease the
occurrence of defects early in the design process would allow for
better and more reliable product design. This study aims to
examine whether FMEA can be applied to general composite
manufacturing processes to assist in design decisions early in the
design process.
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
1.2. Gaps in Composite Research
Composites have been recognized to offer many benefits in
terms of material properties, however composites cannot be
manufactured through conventional methods like their metallic
counterparts. Both fibers and metallic materials begin in a bulk
state and have some method of bulk deformation process applied
in order to achieve a useable state. For example, glass fibers are
produced by extruding molten glass into a long, continuous glass
filament [4]. Metallic materials then experience conventional
machining such as milling, drilling, or turning to reach the
desired final geometry. Composites, on the other hand, require
different processing methods based on the materials, part
geometry, and preferred material properties. Layup method, ply
orientation, resins, curing processes, and assembly must all be
considered before the manufacturing of a composite occurs [5].
Composites also present unique challenges versus metallic
counterparts. A finished composite part can experience cracks,
dents, scratches, erosion, debonding, and heat damage. While
some of these are similar in metallic structures, the ability and
process to repair the defects is quite different [6].
Ideally, many of these defects could be prevented during the
manufacturing of the composite product by recognizing common
causes and effects of failures early in the design process.
2 BACKGROUND
First developed by the U.S. Department of Defense (D.O.D)
for use in systems design, FMEA analyzes potential failure
modes within product to determine the effects of those failure
modes on product functionality [7]. FMEA is an iterative process
that has become a standard industry approach to determine
possible causes of failure in a product or process. Performed
during the product development process, the goal of FMEA is to
determine causes and effects of failure before the design is
finalized [1]. The goal of the FMEA process is to improve the
design’s reliability, safety, and durability. The following
questions arise during FMEA [1]:
a. What are the functions of the product?
b. How can the components, assembly, or sub-assemblies
fail?
c. What are the probabilities of those failures?
d. What is the severity of those failures?
e. What are the causes of those failures?
f. How does the failure effect the function or performance
of the product?
g. How will the failure be detected?
h. How can the failure be avoided?
i. How can the design be altered to avoid such failures?
j. Are there corrective actions to reduce the severity of the
failure if the failure is to take place?
k. How can all of the failure modes be ranked in severity
to determine the most detrimental failure?
The answers to each of these questions are used to create a
numeric assessment of the likelihood of occurrence, likelihood
of detection, and severity of impact of each failure modes. These
are commonly tabulated for comparison and given a Risk
Priority Number (RPN). A higher RPN indicates a larger risk to
 the function of the product. The failure modes and effects are
then analyzed to determine the most detrimental failure modes
and the corrective actions to prevent the occurrence of failure.
FMEA provides a means for reviewing the product and
design process before the product is brought to fruition. This
affords the ability to identify vital characteristics and ensure the
product satisfies the necessary requirements, while defining
corrective actions early in the design process. Secondarily,
FMEA offers the opportunity to present alternative functions,
materials, devices, and parts that may have previously been
overlooked during design. This can improve quality, cost
efficiency, and overall customer satisfaction [2]. However,
current FMEA practices occur late in the design process and are
product specific. This study aims to determine the viability of
assigning an FMEA score based on general manufacturing
processes to improve design and material decisions.
2.1. Composite Materials
A composite material is defined as the combination of two
or more materials, in which each of the materials maintain their
individual mechanical, chemical, and physical properties. This
combination results in more ideal properties than the original
materials alone [3].
The composite is comprised of a reinforcement material and
a matrix material. The reinforcement material provides the
hardness, strength and stiffness, while the matrix material holds
the orientation of the reinforcement fibers [3]. Therefore, the
higher percentage of fibers in the laminate increase the
mechanical properties of the composite. Reinforcement fibers
are typically made of glass, aramid, graphite or carbon, while the
matrix material is typically an epoxy resin.
Fiber reinforced plastics are subdivided into two primary
categories: continuous fiber composites or discontinuous fiber
composites. Continuous fiber composites have a high length to
diameter aspect ratio, therefore having a preferred fiber
orientation to optimize the strength and stiffness of the material
in the direction of the fibers. Continuous fiber composites
include knit, woven or unidirectional mats. Discontinuous fiber
composites are cheaper to manufacture, but the random
orientation of fibers results in a lower modulus and strength than
continuous fibers [3]. However, discontinuous fibers can show
better isotropy properties throughout the material.
Due to the hybrid nature of composite materials, the
mechanical properties are anisotropic, or vary in every direction
[8]. This results in multiple different elastic moduli, hardness,
and stiffness values depending on the orientation of the material
being tested. One similarity is that many of the reinforcement
fiber types are linear elastic to failure. This increases the severity
of any defects, as there is little forewarning before the material
fails.
There are various forms of composite materials and various
manufacturing processes based on the materials, loads applied,
and desired properties. Therefore, multiple common
combinations were analyzed. This study focuses on the more
common methods of manufacturing continuous fiber composites
and the most common defects observed using these methods.
3 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
3 CASE STUDY
A case study approach was applied to observe the
correlations between different composite materials and their
manufacturing processes, and common failure-causing defects in
the finished products.
The study was performed by correlating six common
composite manufacturing methods with four of the most
common material defects in composite manufacturing using an
adaptation of the FMEA table. Each of the authors, who work
heavily with composite materials, completed an individual case
study, designating values 1-10 for the occurrence, severity, and
detectability of defect in composite materials. These values were
used to calculate an RPN score for each of the possible
combinations.
The finalization of the case study required calculating the
averages and the standard deviations of each of the authors’
occurrence, severity, and detectability scores to create a final
table of results, shown in Table 4. Overall, the largest
discrepancies existed in the authors’ designations for the
detectability of the defects. This is because the detectability
depends heavily on the ability to distinguish defects in the
laminate. The largest standard deviation in the individual case
studies was only 2.5.
3.1. Manufacturing Processes
A wide array of processes are used in the manufacturing of
composite materials. The process selected for use depends
heavily on the reinforcement and matrix materials, the part
geometry, and the fiber orientation necessary to accommodate
for the loading scenario of the product. One manufacturing
method may be suitable for one application, but not suitable for
another [1].
This study focused on six of the most common methods of
manufacturing low volume composites. These methods were:
wet hand layup, vacuum bagging, resin-impregnated fiber layer
(prepreg) forming, resin transfer molding (RTM), vacuum
assisted resin transfer molding (VRTM or VARTM), and
advanced fiber placement (AFP).
Wet hand layup of composite materials is one of the most
flexible and cost effective methods of composite manufacturing.
Wet hand layup starts with a nonporous mold material that is
properly prepared for layup. The reinforcement fibers are placed
onto the mold and then a “wet out” process takes place. During
this step, the resin mixture is brushed, poured, or sprayed onto
the reinforcement fabric and spread using a hand roller or brush.
Then another layer of fiber is applied and the process is repeated.
Once the entire layup is finished, the composite is left to cure
[3,9].
Vacuum bagging is another method of hand layup of
composite manufacturing. The process is very similar to that of
wet hand layup where the reinforcement fibers are placed and
then layers of resin are placed on top of the fibers. Once the layup
is finished, it is covered with a vacuum bag that is affixed to the
tool. A vacuum is then drawn around the part [10]. Vacuum
bagging affords a compacting pressure that forces the
 reinforcement fiber plies together, which can also assist in 3.2. Materials
removing gases or moisture. The reinforcement fibers afford the majority of the strength
Resin-impregnated fiber layer (prepreg) is a sheet of fiber in a composite product due to their high modulus and small
that is pre-impregnated with the resin necessary to set and diameter. Three major types of reinforcement fibers were
therefore ready to be placed into a mold. The resin is partially considered in this study: glass, Kevlar®, and carbon.
cured to a sticky consistency, but not fully cured to a solid part Glass reinforcement fibers (commonly known as fiberglass)
[4]. Prepreg fiber can be coupled with a vacuum bag or the account for more than 90% of composite materials due to their
addition of heat to aid in contouring the material [3]. low cost and high strength to weight ratio [4]. Kevlar®,
Resin transfer molding (RTM) is the process of laying developed by DuPont, is the most common form of aramid fiber.
preformed reinforcement fibers into a closed mold and injecting Kevlar® is a less dense alternative to glass fibers, offering a high
a pressurized mixture of thermoset resin, catalyst, filler, etc. into strength to weight ratio. However, Kevlar® has a lower
the mold [1,11]. RTM produces parts with a near net final shape compressive strength than glass fibers [4]. Carbon reinforcement
and good surface finish. This quick process is ideal for high fibers offer the highest strength and stiffness of any commonly
volume manufacturing [1]. used reinforcement. The fibers do not rupture or corrode under
The addition of a vacuum can also be applied to the resin stress as the aramid or glass fibers do [4].
transfer molding technique, which is known as vacuum assisted The reinforcement materials are typically combined into
resin transfer molding (VRTM or VARTM). Similar to RTM, woven, knit, or omnidirectional roll for use. A woven composite
VARTM requires laying dry fibers onto a mold and injecting a reinforcement fiber describes weaving multiple reinforcement
resin mixture into it. However, only one half of a die or mold is fibers together. A knit reinforcement uses a nonstructural
needed as a simple mold cover is used on the other side. The synthetic (such as polyester) to stitch unidirectional
vacuum is applied to draw the resin into the structure [1]. This reinforcement material together. Omnidirectional reinforcement
process is beneficial for manufacturing large parts as only one material describes randomly oriented glass fiber strands that are
half of a die or mold is needed. Like the vacuum bagging process, held together with a soluble resinous binding agent [4]. Each of
the negative pressure assists in the compaction of the plies and the different fiber orientations afford very different mechanical
affords a better flow of resin. properties to the laminate. For example, omnidirectional
The final manufacturing process, advanced fiber placement reinforcement material is beneficial because it is lower cost and
(AFP) is an automated process of composite manufacturing. AFP offers multidirectional anisotropic mechanical properties, but the
uses robotic technology to precisely place fibers for complex lack of continuity in the fibers decreases the strength and
shaped and high performance structures [12]. The machines are stiffness of the material [13].
programmed to generate a fiber orientation, width, and thickness This study focused on continuous fiber composites such as
in order to improve functionality of composite structures. a woven or knit cloth.
Table 1 provides a summary of the six composite
3.3. Common Defects
manufacturing processes.
Due to the classically artisan manufacturing processes of
Table 1: Summary of Composite Manufacturing Processes composite materials, it is possible to have defects in the final
product. These defects create deviations from the ideal
Process Description performance of the material and commonly foreshadow a
Wet hand layup Hand layup process placing fiber structural failure due to the incomplete nature of the fiber and
reinforcement into the mold and matrix. The study addressed the four most common defects in
spreading resin mixture atop composite manufacturing: porosity, dry fibers, fiber
Vacuum Bagging Hand layup process similar to wet hand misalignment or waviness, and incomplete curing of the
layup, however a vacuum is added to composite structure.
cure procedure to apply pressure The most common composite defect is porosity, or the
Resin-impregnated Fiber reinforced fabric pre-impregnated presence of voids in the matrix [14]. Voids are cause due to
fiber layer forming with resin incorrect curing time, pressure, or temperatures. While voids do
(prepreg) not greatly affect the mechanical properties of the fiber
Resin Transfer Hand laying fiber reinforced fabric into reinforcement, the matrix dominant properties, such as inter-
Molding (RTM) a closed mold and injecting a resin laminar shear stress, are heavily affected by the presence of voids
mixture [14,15].
Vacuum Assisted Process similar to RTM, however a Another defect occurring during the manufacturing of
Resin Transfer vacuum is used to draw resin between a composites is excess or insufficient resin content. Excess resin
Molding (VRTM single sided mold and a cover coverage causes a resin rich laminate. This is a localized area
or VARTM) with a surplus of resin material, but lacking reinforcement fibers.
Advanced Fiber An automated process allowing for Insufficient resin coverage can result in a dry or resin starved
Placement (AFP) precise fiber placement including laminate. This is a localized area lacking enough resin to wet out
orientation, width, and thickness

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 all of the fibers. Either scenario affects the volume fraction of the
material.
Fiber misalignment or waviness in the orientation of the
fibers is another common defect in the manufacturing of
composites. Fiber misalignment is a potentially detrimental
defect, especially if the composite is intended to be loaded in
compression. Compressive loading near an area of waviness will
cause the load to depend on the matrix material, which is far
weaker than the fiber reinforcement. This can result in buckling
of the material [14,15].
Incomplete curing, caused either due to an incorrect curing
cycle time or faulty material, is a matrix defect [15]. This is the
phenomena when the resin does not fully cure to a solid matrix.
Insufficient curing time is the most common cause, but faulty
resin material may be the culprit as well. An inadequate addition
of hardener to the resin or an excess in a catalytic or reactive
agent can result in the incomplete cure of the composite.
Table 2 presents a summary of the four defects considered
in this study.
Table 2: Summary of Defects
Defect Description
Porosity Voids in the matrix material due to
incorrect curing parameters
Excess or Incorrect amount of resin resulting in a
insufficient resin weakened composite material
Fiber Skewing of the fiber material from the
misalignment or desired orientation resulting in unideal
waviness properties, especially in compressive
loading
Incomplete curing Phenomena when resin does not
of the laminate completely cure, resulting in an
unusable laminate
3.4. Case Study Method
Within the study, there were two comparisons made. First,
a matrix was formed exhibiting the viability of using each of the
six manufacturing processes for each of the fiber materials in
each of the different reinforcement orientations. This will
establish a basis for the severity of the defects for each of the
manufacturing processes. This matrix was used to create a rubric
for the occurrence, severity, and detectability scores. The bulk
items from the rubric are presented in Table 3, however each of
the values from 1-10 had individual parameters for each of the
scores. For example, a high detectability (a score of 10 indicating
difficult to detect) for incomplete curing was determined to
necessitate the use of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC),
which is explained later. Second, the six different manufacturing
processes were tabulated, each subdivided into the four major
defects. The occurrence, severity, and detectability of each of the
defects was assessed for each of the manufacturing processes to
establish a correlation between the material choice,
manufacturing method, and the likelihood of failure.
All methods were analyzed assuming nominal ambient
conditions. Heat or pressure were only considered if indicated by
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
the manufacturing process itself (e.g. vacuum bagging includes
the addition of a negative pressure).
3.5. Analysis Performed
The primary goal of the analysis was to identify the common
defects in composite manufacturing processes and their
occurrence, severity, and detectability using FMEA. Severity is
defined as the seriousness of the defect if it were to occur in the
laminate. Occurrence is the frequency or likelihood of existence
of the defect. In this case, the occurrence is heavily dependent on
the manufacturing process of the composite material. As an
example, a process that is vacuum assisted (such as vacuum
bagging or VARTM) is assumed to have a lower likelihood of
porosity due to the negative pressure removing the impurities
from the mixture. The detection is taken as the ability to identify
this failure in the manufacturing process before the finished
laminate reaches it user [1,2].
Each of the described parameters were given a qualitative
numeric value between 1 and 10. For the occurrence, a value of
1 indicates a low occurrence of the specific defect using that
manufacturing process, whereas a value of 10 indicates a heavy
likelihood of the defect occurring. The severity values were rated
on a similar scale: a value of 1 indicates that the defect is not
detrimental to the performance of the laminate, whereas a value
of 10 foreshadows failure. For the detectability, a value of 1
designates a defect that is easy to detect by the human eye, while
a value of 10 designates a defect that is difficult to detect and
repair.
Table 3 gives a general summary of the numbers designated
to the occurrence, severity, and detectability to obtain an RPN
score.
Table 3: Explanation of Scale Values Used in Study
1 5 10
Occurrence Rare Average High
occurrence occurrence likelihood of
occurrence
Severity Low severity Average High
severity severity
Detectability Easily Equipment Difficult to
detectable necessary to detect
detect
Once each of the parameters is given a value, the RPN value
is calculated for the defect. Equation 1, below, shows the
equation to calculate the RPN value, where S is severity, O is
occurrence, and D is the detectability [2].
Equation 1: RPN Value
𝑅𝑃𝑁 = 𝑆 × 𝑂 × 𝐷
It is important to note that the for the detectability column,
a lower value is better as it lowers the RPN number. Therefore,
for this column a lower value represented a defect that is easier
to detect and reconcile before production or distribution.
The higher the RPN value for the manufacturing process
and defect, the larger the risk the defect proves to be.
 4 RESULTS
The study resulted in an occurrence, severity, and
detectability value for each of the four defects examined for each
of the six manufacturing processes considered for composite
materials. Responses are shown on a value from 1-10, resulting
in an overall RPN score the risk priority number.
4.1. Severity of Defects
The severity of the defects in the composites were assigned
a value 1-10 where 1 is the least severe defect and 10 is a very
severe defect based on the specific manufacturing process. The
severity of the defects were held as a control value through the
study, as the severity will be constant regardless of the
manufacturing process used.
4.1.1. Severity of Voids in Material
Porosity or voids in material indicate an air entrapment,
reducing the strength and hardness of the material. Voids are a
moderately severe defect as they indicate the lack of matrix
material. This means that in that zone there is no load support
and gives way to increased localised stresses.
4.1.2. Severity of Excess/Insufficient Resin
Excess/insufficient resin amounts will vary the volume
fiber fraction of the composite material, changing the mechanical
properties of the laminate. A resin rich/resin starved laminate
will not perform to the desired and expected specifications. The
improper quantity of resin was considered to be the second most
severe defect, similar to voids.
4.1.3. Severity of Fiber Misalignment/Waviness
Generally, fiber misalignment is accepted to be a
detrimental defect in composite manufacturing. The fiber
reinforcement material affords the strength in the laminate [4].
Therefore, the goal is to orient the fibers in the direction of the
applied load to obtain the optimal strength and stiffness
characteristics. Fiber waviness or misalignment would be a
deviation from the designed fiber orientation, resulting in
incorrect mechanical properties of the material.
In a study on composites, the predicted effective axial
Young’s modulus was reduced from 164.7 GPa for a perfectly
oriented fiber to 163.2 GPa for a single misaligned fiber (a
reduction of 0.9%) and the maximum von Mises stress of the
laminate increased from 21.3 Pa to 23.3 Pa (an increase of 9.4%)
[16]. Therefore, the fiber misalignment was considered to be a
very severe defect.
4.1.4. Severity of Incomplete Curing
Incomplete curing in a composite material is a designation
of complete failure. The success of the laminate is dependent on
the ability for the resin to cure to provide matrix strength as well
as maintain the orientation of the reinforcement fibers. However,
the severity of incomplete curing was considered to be moderate,
as heat or pressure can be added to assist the curing process.
4.2. Occurrence of Defects
The occurrence of the defects was given a qualitative score
between 1-10, where 1 exhibited an unlikely occurrence and 10
exhibited a high likelihood of occurrence. The occurrence of
defects was heavily dependent on the manufacturing process. For
6 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
example, a process like wet hand layup is subject to a higher
probability of defects due to human error. Conversely, AFP is a
heavily automated process having a very low occurrence of fiber
misalignment. Also, the inclusion of heat or pressure is
considered to reduce the likelihood of some of the common
defects. While the vacuum bagging process is very similar to
hand layup, the occurrence of voids and inadequate resin
presence is reduced due to the negative pressure of the vacuum.
This is the same in the comparison of RTM and VRTM, where
the vacuum assistance reduces the likelihood of voids and resin
starved/rich material.
4.3. Detectability of Defects
The detectability of defects was assigned a value 1-10,
where 1 was a defect that was easy to detect and 10 was a defect
that required extensive processes to detect. For the purpose of
the study, easy detectability is assumed to be obviously viewable
by the human eye and a higher value would require extensive
testing procedures. Detectability numbers were reduced if the
defect could be detected and remedied during the manufacturing
process, and increased if the defect could only be detected once
the laminate was fully cured.
4.3.1. Detectability of Voids in Material
There are two common nondestructive methods of sensing
defects in composites: ultrasonic detection or low frequency
vibration [14]. Ultrasonic detection uses a scattering approach; it
is assumed that the fiber orientation is isotropic. The scattering
of waveforms indicates the presence or lack of material in an area
of interest, therefore indicating a void [17].
4.3.2. Detectability of Excess/Insufficient Resin
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
guidelines outline the best method of testing resin rich or resin
poor materials by performing a burnout test [18]. While this is a
destructive method of testing, it is the most thorough method of
testing the material to ensure the process success. The burnout
test is performed by measuring weight of the laminate sample,
placing the sample in a crucible in the oven in order to burn off
the resin material, and reweighing the sample once the resin is
burned off. These values can be used to calculate the fiber to
resin ratio of the material [18] to ensure the proper mixture for
the application.
4.3.3. Detectability of Fiber Misalignment/Waviness
X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) is the standard for
detectability in fiber waviness in composite material. The CT
images can provide a graphic of the fiber orientation inside the
laminate material. While CT technology is expensive, ultrasonic
detection alone will not suffice for the detectability of fiber
waviness because it would be necessary to compile a matrix of
the ultrasonic scattering as well as the anisotropy of the material
[17].
ASTM also outlines the burnout test as a sufficient method
to detect fiber waviness or misalignment in composite materials.
Recall, the burnout test requires measuring weight of the
laminate sample, placing the sample in a crucible in the oven in
order to burn off the resin material, and reweighing the sample
once the resin is burned off to obtain a fiber to resin ratio [18].
 4.3.4. Detectability of Incomplete Curing between the sample and the reference, and the data is recorded
There are two common mathematic means of analysing the on a thermogram to calculate the heat of the reaction [20].
degree of cure of materials. The first is quantifying the degree of
4.4. RPN Scores
residual cure and the second is measuring the shift in the glass
By evaluating the expression in Equation 1, the total RPN
transition temperature of the material [19].
values were obtained for each of the processes and defects
The degree of cure of epoxy resin can be detected through
analyzed. Each of the authors compiled a table designating their
temperature variations due to the chemical reaction [20].
qualitative results for the S, O, and D scores, as well as the
Therefore, the use of differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) is
resulting RPN number. Table 4 shows the average of the
used to evaluate the heat reaction during cure. The cure analysis
complete FMEA table for each of the processes and failure types
can either be performed in an isothermal environment or a
including the values for occurrence, severity, and detectability.
dynamic environment that is being heated at a constant rate. DSC
measures the heat flow resulting from the temperature difference
Table 4: Complete FMEA Table
Manufacturing Method Failure Type Severity Occurrence Detectability RPN
Porosity/Voids 5.5 8.0 2.5 110.00
Resin Rich/Starved 7.0 7.0 3.5 171.50
Wet Hand Layup
Fiber misalignment 7.5 7.0 2.0 105.00
Incomplete Curing 5.5 6.5 6.0 214.50
Porosity/Voids 5.5 4.0 4.0 88.00
Resin Rich/Starved 6.5 5.0 5.0 162.50
Vacuum Bagging
Fiber misalignment 7.5 7.0 2.5 131.25
Incomplete Curing 5.5 6.0 6.0 198.00
Porosity/Voids 5.0 4.5 5.0 112.50
Resin Impregnated Fiber Resin Rich/Starved 6.0 3.5 5.0 105.00
(Prepreg) Fiber misalignment 7.5 3.0 5.0 112.50
Incomplete Curing 5.5 5.5 6.0 181.50
Porosity/Voids 5.5 5.5 4.0 121.00
Resin Transfer Molding Resin Rich/Starved 6.0 5.0 5.5 165.00
(RTM) Fiber misalignment 7.0 6.5 2.5 113.75
Incomplete Curing 5.0 5.5 5.5 151.25
Porosity/Voids 5.5 3.5 5.5 105.88
Vacuum-Assisted Resin Resin Rich/Starved 5.5 4.0 5.5 121.00
Transfer Molding (VRTM) Fiber misalignment 7.5 6.0 2.5 112.50
Incomplete Curing 5.0 5.5 5.0 137.50
Porosity/Voids 5.5 4.0 5.0 110.00
Advanced Fiber Placement Resin Rich/Starved 5.5 3.5 5.0 96.25
(AFP) Fiber misalignment 7.0 2.0 5.5 77.00
Incomplete Curing 5.0 6.0 5.0 150.00

A higher RPN value indicates a larger risk in the

4.5. RPN versus Failure Type
consideration. The RPN values vary greatly with the lowest
Figure 1 shows a graphical representation of the RPN
value being 77 and the largest value being 214.5. From the
values with respect to the failure type. Incomplete curing results
independent study between the colleagues that completed an
in the highest average RPN values due to the severity and the
individual FMEA table, the largest standard deviation found
detectability of the defect. The RPN values for fiber
between the failure mode ratings was 2.5 while the max standard
misalignment are relatively consistent regardless of the
deviation for the manufacturing method ratings was 2.0.
manufacturing process. Conversely, excess or insufficient resin
and voids resulted in varying RPN numbers.

7 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 RPN vs Failure Type
Wet Hand Layup Vacuum Bag Prepreg RTM VRTM Advanced Fiber Placement

250.00

200.00

150.00
RPN

100.00

50.00

0.00
Void Resin Rich/Starved Fiber misalignment Incomplete Curing
FAILURE TYPE

Figure 1: RPN vs. Failure Type

4.6. RPN vs. Manufacturing Methods
Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the RPN value
obtained with respect to the manufacturing methods. Wet hand
layup resulted in a high RPN for two of the common defects
considered. On the contrary, AFP exhibited a much lower risk of
defects or failures. RTM and VRTM had similar RPN values for
the chance of fiber misalignment and incomplete curing, but
VRTM had a lower value for voids and excess/insufficient resin
due to the application of the vacuum pressure to remove
impurities from the laminate. Similarly, vacuum bagging and wet
hand layup resulted in nearly equivalent values for the failure
modes observed; however, vacuum bagging exhibited a lower
overall risk. The risk values for prepreg were similar to AFP,
VRTM, and RTM with the outliers being in the resin rich/resin
starved and incomplete curing, due to the pre-impregnation of
resin.
One major pattern that can be discerned from Figure 2 is that
an increase in the automation levels of the process results in a
decrease in the RPN values. This is primarily because the
occurrence of defects decreases with an increase in automation
levels. Additionally, methods that include vacuum assistance
exhibited lower RPN values due to the decrease of occurrence
and severity of defects, primarily in terms of porosity

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 RPN vs Manufacturing Method
Void Resin Rich/Starved Fiber misalignment Incomplete Curing

250.00

200.00

150.00
RPN

100.00

50.00

0.00
Wet Hand Layup Vacuum Bag Prepreg RTM VRTM Advanced Fiber
Placement
MANUFACTURING METHOD

Figure 2: RPN vs. Manufacturing Method

The manufacturing method with the lowest average RPN
5 DISCUSSION value was AFP while the wet hand layup had the highest average
Each of the RPN values differed due to the manufacturing RPN value.
process or defect in the material. The FMEA tables that were These results were wholly expected due to the degree of
created for the manufacturing methods and defects were controllability in the manufacturing processes. The risk priority
evaluated individually. The individual analyses resulted in values exhibit a direct correlation to this. The degree of
similar ratings for the defects with the largest standard deviation controllability of the manufacturing process is inversely related
being 2.5. to the RPN value. Therefore, a greater degree of controllability
5.1. RPN Results in the manufacturing process will result in a lower RPN value,
From the manufacturing methods and common associated and vice versa. While the averages may not state the method’s
defects that were observed in the FMEA analysis, the advanced occurrence, severity, or detectability outright, they do give a
fiber placement (AFP) method of fabrication showed to have the starting point for engineers while considering manufacturing
lowest risk factor. Table 5 shows the average risk factor with processes for critical or noncritical composite components.
regard to the manufacturing method used. From the assumptions Components that are structurally critical will find greater value
made for the manufacturing processes, cured in ambient in a lower RPN value. However, decreasing the risk factor
conditions unless otherwise stated, the average RPN results generally increases the cost of the manufacturing process due to
correlate with expected values. the increased control. For this reason, structurally noncritical
components can be manufactured using a process with a higher
Table 5: Average RPN Values RPN value.
Manufacturing Method Avg. RPN The RPN values obtained through this study was conducted
Wet Hand Layup 150.25 by two individual engineers. Thus the patterns that were
Vacuum Bagging 144.94 observed are not as clearly evident as they would be if there was
a greater pool of engineers contributing to the case study.
Prepreg 122.25
RTM 137.75 5.2. Limitations of Study
VRTM 119.22 The primary limitation of this study was the ability to
AFP 108.31 account for the various manufacturing methods, and defects in
the use of composite materials. There are many combinations of

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 reinforcements and resin materials that offer a diverse range in
performance and cost benefits.
The manufacturing process depends heavily on the
orientation of the reinforcement fibers (unidirectional,
bidirectional, multidirectional) which was heavily generalized in
this study. While all of manufacturing methods presented are
capable of multiple fiber orientations, certain manufacturing
processes will be preferred based on the fiber orientation and
complexity.
Finally, the FMEA process alone has some limitations. One
of the largest limitations in FMEA is the inability to analyze the
effects of compound failure [2]. Failures are analyzed on the
component level, subassembly level and the assembly level,
however there is no correlation drawn between the individual
failures. Also, considering all factors and failures methods can
be time consuming. This is especially true on complex systems.
Complex systems present the possibility of redundancies in the
FMEA which wastes time and resources.
6 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATION, AND
FUTURE WORK
The FMEA table is used to study the effects of defects in
composite materials with respect to the manufacturing process
used to produce the laminate. Six composite manufacturing
processes were analyzed for four of the most common defect
types to determine the occurrence, severity, and detectability of
the defect. RPN scores were generated to assess the overall
potential risk. The results indicated that an increase in
automation or mechanical assistance to the process reduced the
RPN value, while human involvement increased the RPN value.
The FMEA for composite manufacturing is recommended
for design engineers as a preliminary analysis for key failures or
discrepancies that may occur during the manufacturing process.
Design engineers should note that this analysis is wholly
subjective and is based on individual engineer’s discretion;
therefore it is recommended that design engineers create their
own FMEA. Using the RPN values obtained through FMEA
does not guarantee that the given discrepancy or failure mode
will be the primary mode of failure of the designed component.
However, the information presented in this paper does confirm
that FMEA practices are applicable to composite manufacturing
methods and could be used early in the design process to
decrease likelihood of failure. This suggests that further
adaptation could be made to formalize the approach and expand
the findings of the work.
Suggested future work would be to extend this study to a
broader range of composite manufacturing processes to observe
if the conclusions hold true on rarer defect types. Further, the
completion of more analyses is suggested in order to obtain a
greater number of data points to observe the effect on the
averages and standard deviations presented. Also, the
completion of testing using the various methods discussed in the
Detectability of Defects section would afford the opportunity to
compare experimental values to the theoretical values
established in this study to determine the accuracy of the values.
10
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
REFERENCES
[1] Mazumdar, S. K., 2002, Composites Manufacturing
Materials, Product, and Process Engineering, CRC
Press, Boca Raton.
[2] Press, D., 2003, Guidelines for Failure Mode and Effects
Analysis for Automotive, Aerospace and General
Manufacturing Industries, CRC Press LLC.
[3] Campbell, F. C., 2010, Structural Composite Materials,
Materials Park, OH.
[4] 1999, Marine Composites, Eric Greene Associates, Inc,
Annapolis, Maryland.
[5] Campbell, F. C., 2004, Manufacturing Processes for
Advanced Composites, Elsevier Advanced Technology.
[6] Johnson, O., 2014, “Lighter, tougher, stronger:
composite materials have proven their value to the
rotorcraft industry, offering benefits in weight, strength
and cost--but what are the implications for
maintenance?,” Vert. Mag.
[7] 2015, “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) for
Classification,” Am. Bur. Shipp.
[8] Landel, Robert F., Nielsen, L. E., 1994, Mechanical
Properties of Polymers and Composites, New York.
[9] Chowdhury, F.H., Hosur, M.V., Jeelani, S., 2007,
“Investigations on the Thermal and Flexural Properties
of Plain Weave Carbon/Epoxy-nanoclay Composites by
Hand-Layup Technique,” J. Mater. Sci., 42(8), pp.
2690–2700.
[10] 2015, “System and Method of Vacuum Bagging
Composite Parts,” Def. Aerosp. Week.
[11] Liu, Z., 2014, “The Manufacturing Technology
Research of Composite Resin Transfer Molding,”
Frontiers of Advanced Materials and Engineering
Technology ll, Hong Kong, pp. 419–422.
[12] Anderson, Robert L., Grant, C. G., “Advanced Fiber
Placement of Composite Fuselage Structures.”
[13] Schott, Nick R., Rosato, Marlene G., Rosato, D. V.,
2012, Plastics Technology Handbook- Volume 2.
[14] Smith, R. A., “Composite Defects and Their Detection,”
Encycl. Life Support Syst.
[15] Rueda, S. H., 2013, “Curing, Defects and Mechanical
Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Composites,”
Universidad Politecnica De Madrid.
[16] Bednarcyk, Brett., Abdoudi, Jacob., Arnold, S., 2014,
“The Effect of General Statistical Fiber Misalignment on
Predicted Damage Initiation in Composites.”
[17] Pain, Damien., Drinkwater, B., 2012, “Detection of
Fiber Waviness using Ultrasonic Array Scattering Data,”
World Conference on Nondestructive Testing, Durban,
Copyright © 2017 ASME
 South Africa.
[18] Pfund, B., 2010, “The Burnout Test,” Prof. Boatbuild.
[19] “Characterization of the Degree of Cure of
Thermosetting Resins by DSC,” TA Instruments,
(Thermal Solutions).
[20] Fleszar, M. F., 1988, “Differential Scanning Calorimetry
as a Quality Control Method for Epoxy Resin Prepreg,”
US Army Armament Res. Dev. Eng. Cent.

11 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/04/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use