NASA/TM-

97-206310

Investigation Composite

of Springback Material
Discretionary

Associated
Fund

With

Component

Fabrication
Final Report,

(MSFC Center Director's Project 94-09)

M.A. Benzie Space Flight Center, Marshall Marshall

Space

Flight

Center,

Alabama

November

1997

The NASA

STI Program

Office...in

Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated the advancement of aeronautics and space science. The NASA Scientific and Technical Information (STI) Program Office plays a key this important part in helping role. NASA maintain

to

CONFERENCE

PUBLICATION.

Collected

papers from scientific and technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA. SPECIAL or historical PUBLICATION. Scientific, technical,

information from NASA programs,

The NASA STI Program Langley NASA's

Office is operated

by

Research Center, the lead center for scientific and technical information. The

projects, and mission, often concerned with subjects having substantial public interest. TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.

NASA STI Program Office provides access to the NASA STI Database, the largest collection of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. The Program Office is also NASA's institutional mechanism for disseminating the results of its research and development activities. These results are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which includes the following report types: TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of completed research or a major significant phase of research that present the results of NASA programs and include extensive data or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations of significant scientific and technical data and information deemed to be of continuing reference value. NASA's counterpart of peer-reviewed formal professional papers but has less stringent limitations on manuscript length and extent of graphic presentations. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific and technical findings that are preliminary or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release reports, working minimal analysis. CONTRACTOR contractors REPORT. Scientific and papers, and bibliographies that contain annotation. Does not contain extensive

English-language translations of foreign scientific and technical material pertinent to NASA's mission. Specialized services that complement the STI Program Office's diverse offerings include creating custom thesauri, building customized databases, organizing and publishing research results...even providing videos. about the NASA STI Program

For more information

Office, see the following: Access the NASA STI Program Home Page at http ://www.sti.nasa.gov E-mail your question help@sti.nasa.gov via the Internet to

Fax your question to the NASA Access Help Desk at (301) 621-0134 Telephone 621-0390 Write to: NASA Access Help Desk NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 800 Elkridge Landing Road Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 the NASA Access Help Desk at (301)

technical findings by NASA-sponsored and grantees.

NASA/TM-97-206310

Investigation Composite

of Springback Material
Discretionary

Associated
Fund

With

Component

Fabrication
Final Report,

(MSFC Center Director's Project 94-09)

M.A. Benzie Space Flight Center, Marshall Marshall

Space

Flight

Center,

Alabama

National Space Marshall

Aeronautics Administration Space Flight

and

Center

November

1997

Available

from:

NASA Center for AeroSpace Information 800 Elkridge Landing Road Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 (301 ) 621-0390

National

Technical

Information

Service

5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 2216 I (703) 487-4650

ii

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. EXPERIMENTAL

.................................................................................................................... APPROACH ..............................................................................................

1 2

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8

Taguchi Material Tooling Design

Designed Selection

Experiment .......................................................................................... ............................................................................................................. ...................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................

2 4 6 7 7 8 10 12 14 14 16 18 22 24 27 28 29

Configuration Considerations

Bagging Procedures .......................................................................................................... Part Fabrication ................................................................................................................ Collection ................................................................................................................. Experiment OF RESULTS Problems Data ................................................................................................. ................................................................................................... Confirmation

2.7 Data

3. DISCUSSION 3.1 Fabrication 3.2 Experimental

........................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................

3.3 Taguchi Analysis of the Data ............................................................................................ 3.4 Discussion of the Factors .................................................................................................. 3.5 Confirmation Experiment ................................................................................................. ...................................................................

4. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.............................................................................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................

iii

LIST

OF FIGURES

Different Standard Basic Bagged Autoclave Oven

tooling

angles

as shown configuration stackup

on male tools .............................................................. ................................................................................

3 7 9 9 11 l1 12 -.............. 13 13 15 15 17

2.

male tooling bagging

vacuum

.........................................................................................

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

part ready

for cure ............................................................................................... ..........................................................................................

used for processing

used for processing

................................................................................................. ............................................................................................ .............................................................................. diagram .............................................................................. ............................................................................. tooling during layup ..........................................

Tool measurement Part measurement Data point location female

procedure procedure mapping

Standard Closeup Summary

tooling

configuration in female

of bridging springback

problem

data versus

run number

..................................................................

LIST

OF TABLES

L I2 orthogonal Summary Epoxy Bagging Summary Relative

array Taguchi and levels selection

test matrix

........................................................................ ................................................................

3 4 5 8 16 17 19 20 20 21 25 25 26 29 29 30 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 33 33

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

of factors

for experiment summary

resin material materials springback springback

......................................................................... ..................................................................

used for entire data rankings summary

test matrix

............................................................................................... (l=lowest) ........................................................................

S/N ratio calculation S/N response Mean Control ANOVA ANOVA response factor table table

........................................................................................

........................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... matrix .......................................................................................

summary

table for initial table (Pooled)

.................................................................................................... and Taguchi analysis ...........................................................

Confirmation

run summary

Raw data for run

1 ...........................................................................................................

Raw data for run 2 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 3 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 4 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 5 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 6 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 7 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 8 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 9 ........................................................................................................... Raw data for run 10 ......................................................................................................... Raw data for run ! 1 ......................................................................................................... Raw data for run 12 ......................................................................................................... Raw data for confirmation run .........................................................................................

vi

LIST

OF SYMBOLS

sample

counter

J
k
H

level of the factor runs counter number effective number sample of factors number including in the estimated mean

rt e

of replications X at level j trial

n)
r

runs with factor size in a single ratio for error for mean

S/N

signal-to-noise sum of squares sum of squares

SSe
SS m

ss,
Ve

total sum of squares error variance pooled factor sample average average data point i error variance

Ve_ xj
Yi

of Yi for a given of all Yi mean of freedom of freedom of freedom

fl
Ve

estimated degrees degrees degrees

for error for pooled for mean error

Vep Vm

vT

total degrees

of freedom

vii

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

INVESTIGATION COMPOSITE (MSFC CENTER DIRECTOR'S

OF SPRINGBACK MATERIAL

ASSOCIATED

WITH

COMPONENT FUND

FABRICATION FINAL REPORT, PROJECT NO. 94-09)

DISCRETIONARY

1. INTRODUCTION

As the National Single Stage to Orbit To accomplish properties good fatigue Polymer matrix

Aeronautics (SSTO) vehicles higher have

and Space Launch

Administration Vehicle (RLV), materiaIs resistance compared

(NASA) the need

continues for weight

its efforts reduction

toward

Reusable stiffness been

is critical.

this, these density, composites structures resistance,

must use advanced and strength, stability) Aerospace weight.

that possess to damage

a multitude and moisture

of improved absorption, materials. success, more polymer can be traced

(lower matrix

and high temperature applications. to reduce

to conventional applications are beginning

aerospace with good to contain tank, etc.).

used in some

primary Recent and X-33 structures called

structural examples

in both military composite to DC-XA

and commercial LH2 tank,

vehicles

in order

of such hardware

(intertank,

and LH2 feedlines) materials often for space include of sheet

(LH2 multilobe continues springback.

As the use of composite the designs fabricate caused spring-in even metalworking during increase. These on a controlled by residual zero spring. on thick to conform stress.

to increase, which have Springback springing curing

the complexity proven difficult was originally prepregs springback, on sharp It poses as easily more

of to a

designs

sharp metal curing

radii and angles bent at an angle prepregs

basis because By contrast,

of a phenomena the majority in tooling because 1

term to describe manufacture.

the action

back after forming, or of a into

of high-temperature for composites

composite springin,

Low-temperature problem can cause

may exhibit occurs

The springback parts

primarily be forced

angles

and contours. problem shape

Springin

or springback

up to 4 of error on tools and parts. thicker-section parts cannot

than thin, mainly

to the rest of an assembly. of this research of composite associated springback parameters according will be selected and manufacturing project

The objective involved attempt processing hand layup measurement contributing to minimize and design techniques,

is to examine with composite Taguchi

some

processing

and design

parameters and by

in the fabrication

components

in order

to obtain

a better panels

understanding this, both Using Major findings composite

materials. fractional

To accomplish factorial matrix.

will be investigated. to an established panels engineers

Composite

angled

will be fabricated effects. These

precision can be

equipment, factors

the fabricated

will be inspected in the development

for springback of future

and a confirmation

run will be performed.

used to aid design hardware.

polymer

2. EXPERIMENTAL

APPROACH

The experimental polymer utilized composite will be presented,

method followed

used to determine is presented by a discussion 2.1 Taguchi

the significant First, of supporting

contributing the design details.

factors

in springback experiment

in

components

in this section.

of the Taguchi

Designed

Experiment was developed in the 1950's

Robust

design,

commonly

known

as Taguchi

Methods,

by Dr. Genichi Taguchi. Its purpose is to develop products and processes which perform consistently as intended under a wide range of user's conditions. This consistency is achieved by maximizing robustness; of factors meaning, which maximize the intended performance. fractional results 2 experiments is a specially to investigate designed the main effects and to main of a system while minimizing the impact tend to degrade Methods utilize

Taguchi interactions are distributed investigate effects making The scope are more

factorial Array

in a design.

The LI 20rthogonal making it a highly

array

in that interactions is its capability regarding for screening. effects, array. 4 This from

more or less uniformly 11 main effects, robust against

to all columns.

The advantage making

of this design

recommended factors,

array. 3 The conclusions it an excellent ordered fractional choice factorial not higher

confounding choice.

in this array,

of this experiment an excellent

is to look at individual

interaction

this array

The LI 2 is a Plackett-Burman of trials

approach drastically cuts down on the number 2 ! 1=2,048 trials, down to a total of 12 trials. Taguchi of factor included levels a range be designed techniques are intended against angles in order

that must be run for the experiment:

to achieve external in order to define

optimum a larger

performance effects

through conditions.

the selection noise can also This experiment robustness could

that are robust of fabrication

environmental to provide

(noise).

Intentional in which

into the test matrix

set of operating a larger

environment

be achieved. Robustness is a product insensitive to factors that are difficult range observed in composite angles hardware

or process to control. design: in figure

that performs consistently on target and is relatively 4 The three different angles chosen cover the typical 60 , 90 , and 120 . The male configuration 1. A more detailed discussion giving of the tooling 2.7. in experimental from each panel, tooling is presented for each

showing in section

all three

is presented discussion

2.3. Three

data points

will be taken

a total of nine data points in section methods

test condition.

A thorough

of the data collection underlying

is presented

Randomization

is the cornerstone

the use of statistical

design. 4 Randomization of the trial run order protects the experimenter from any unknown and uncontrolled factors that may vary during the entire experiment and influence the results. This will prevent order a bias in the interpretation characteristic(s) to prevent any unintentional of which biasing factors and interactions cause a change in the average in random of the quality of interest. 5 The runs designed in the experiment. in this experiment were done

FIGURE

l.--Different

tooling

angles

as shown

on male

tools.

The the three points factor panels from

Taguchi and

test noise

matrix

designed

for

this

experiment

is presented run. levels A run for each

in table is defined factor

l. This as the

table

includes of data columns

levels

conditions

for each

experimental

fabrication three empty

at angles each side panel of the

of 60 , 90 , and will table be collected. are reserved

120 , at the given The 12 runs will

from order.

which The

be done

in random

on the right

for data

collection.

TABLE

1 .--LI2

orthogonal

array

Taguchi

test matrix. N1-60 o Nz-90 o 3 1 2 3 1 N3-120o 2 3

Run/Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

B 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2

C 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1

D 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1

E 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2

F 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1

G 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2

H 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1

I 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2

J 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2

K 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1

The factors

to be tested

in this experiment

were chosen

based

on a literature

review

and Space Flight in table 2.

experience gained from previous composite material programs worked at NASA Marshall Center. These factors and the associated levels included in the test matrix are summarized TABLE 2.--Summary
Factor CureTemperature Resin Flow Fiber Modulus Tool Material Radius Orientation Tool Radius No. Plies Layup Pressure Intensifier Resin Content Cure Method A B C D E F G H I J K

of factors

and levels for experiment.

Level 2 350 F High High Steel Female 1 Inch 24 (0I+45I-45/90)s On No Bleed Autoclave

Level I 250 F Low Low Alum Male 0.25 Inch 8 (O/90)s Off Bleed Oven

Several rationale element factors several related control section

of the factors

are directly

related

to the material hardware.

selection

(factors configuration

A, B, and C). The considerations often are a key drive and its related processing fabrication in

and background in the processing design factors 2.6. features.

for these factors of polymer Rationale in section

are presented

in section

2.2. Tooling

composite

The tooling

(D, E, and F) are outlined most important

2.3. Performance quality to vacuum factors

requirements

for hardware 2.4. Finally, Several 2.5. Also,

for factors

G and H are presented composite bagging

in section hardware. in section

is the single

element

in producing in relation

processing-

(I and J) are discussed and another

for the panels

processing-related

(K) in this experiment

are outlined

2.2 The use of several materials material. choice different polymer

Material composite

Selection materials were considered. Polymer composite and the of their

consist of two distinct components which work together to achieve The first of these two materials is the matrix binder, or resin. Many of which to use is based Epoxies on the application usage and/or range. environment resin which system, phenolic, are the most commonly used polymer Bismaleidies,

the resultant desired resins are available, the hardware primarily and polyimides because are

to be built

will be subjected. use in processing,

cost, and temperature

examples of other resin systems that are used for higher temperature applications such as leading edges, aerostructures, and nozzles. Similar to the fiber selection, only epoxy resins were selected for use in this experiment experiment There on the desired temperatures, in springback distinguish experiment. for consistency more transferable purposes. The selection percentage resins, resins of epoxy resins also makes hardware the results being from the to the largest formulations characteristics. mismatch. of composite built in industry. to use based cure play a key role A in the

are different performance

of epoxy Epoxy Resins

with the selection are available of the resin

of which

with two different and fiber interface This is factor

250 F and 350 E Thermal due to the thermal if the curing temperature

characteristics

at both of these

temperatures

will be used to

difference

has an effect

on springback.

Just as these these factor between resins are simply

are different

epoxies

that cure at different to flow is factor of the resins on a relative chosen

temperatures, order

the flow characteristics The levels viscosity to satisfy Fiberite. chosen the difference

of for this

can also vary. The resistance Table 3 is a summary

B in the experiment. of magnitude for this experiment

high flow and low flow, based

the resins.

requirements

for factors

A and B. The resin designations TABLE 3.--Epo:o' resin material

are that from selection

the vendor,

summao'.

MaterialSelection Summary FactorA 250 F Cure 350 F Cure

FactorB LowFlow HighFlow 949 977-2 7740 938

The second Kevlar industry preclude which point

TM.

of these two materials properties, fibers Graphite were

is the fibers. selected

Common

fibers

used are graphite, have made for consistency the stress range fibers.

fiberglass, the

and

The material standard. the test matrix

availability,

and cost of graphite large. Design

fibers

their usage

for use in this experiment composite In order part drive to cover

and also to of It is at this design fibers very by

from becoming of the fibers

unreasonably on a given is determined.

requirements a wide

drive the selection analysis. of potential

graphite

fibers

to utilize.

The loads

the required

strength

applications, widely design fibers

this experiment used because High M55J,

will investigate of their relative fibers manufactured

both low and high modulus cost. IM7, manufactured expensive

The low modulus is one of those

are very widely

by Herculus,

used fibers. requirements.

modulus

are very

and are typically in factor C. the choice composite specifications

only used when

dictated

by Toray,

is a commonly

used high modulus

fiber. These

will be designated Polymer composite

by low modulus materials

and high modulus

can be obtained in the fabrication calIed

in two forms, of subsequent Prepreg These

being

dependent resin

on the and dry "offall

processing fibers, the-shelf' properties materials

applications by vendors chosen were

to be used using

hardware: include

or fibers

preimpregnated

with resin, a standard and fiber

prepreg.

can be custom throughout

run or obtained physical this experiment,

set of specifications. areal weight. with standard in several

such as resin content purchased

For consistency specifications. forms,

as prepregs

Prepregs techniques based weave.

themselves

can also be obtained fabric

also dependent Fabrics

upon

the processing forms utilized, designed, of their tape is used a of each amount of of

to be used. Woven

and unidirectional in a variety with a particular choice complex direction

tape are the two most common of roll widths. tow bundle

and both are produced on the application, Woven fabrics fibers different materials into desired

on rolls and available to be woven are the desired shapes aligned materials

can be custom layup because

size as well as with a particular involving thickness. have hand surfaces. Unidirectional

for most applications contours with a uniform would

workability preimpregnated total of eight of these setup eight costs

and along in a single (fiber/resin

of tooling

This experiment later. The availability an extensive given included

combinations), configuration These

to be discussed factors

in an identical unidirectional

woven

required

and lead time from the manufacturer. Therefore, a standard and fiber using set of processing areal weight,

were unreasonable, rolls were purchased specifications

the scope

this experiment. materials, 32 to 38 percent,

tape in 12-inch-wide specifications. 140 to 150 G/M E2.

of all eight resin content,

These

2.3 Tooling The material Materials graphite, defining fabrication commonly rubber, the lowest process selected for tooling metals approach is dependent (invar, should

Configuration on the requirements aluminum), sand, around nonmetals the requirements tolerances, tow-cost, (foam, of the composite (composites, component. monolithic in

used include cost tooling

steel, center

wood),

and one-time

use materials

salt, and plaster).

The rationale of the component finish, and 6

to be built on the tool. A thorough of the composite materials were

understanding component chosen

of the geometry, is required

surface efficient

to design based

tooling.

The tooling component Therefore, experiment

for this experiment intended to be used tooling.

on two key considerations---cost to be used The angles tooling for any subsequent run of parts. in this made in a be easily to be fabricated production could

and time. The parts to be made production, the tooling could easily should

in this experiment be inexpensive

are not intended

nor is this tooling

for a large

and easy to fabricate. The metal

be laid up on bent metal

bending fixture and supported with a frame for stability. Readily fabrication were 2219 Aluminum and 304 Stainless Steel. These difference--thermal experiment. A key element assembly. tooling Composite of the part for tolerance sometimes The tooling used. radius Female in composite components control. tooling part design are fabricated This design is more often common is the tolerance so that critical and easier expansion. The inclusion of this difference

available materials is factor

materials at the time of have a key inherent property D in the cooling material

fit-up

of the part in the subsequent are on the tooling orientation tooling surface of the is also later. the radius which

interfaces to layup

consideration processing

determines problems,

for the part. Male tooling orientation

on, but female

presents

will be discussed

is factor

E in this experiment. part design is the radius in the angle to be fabricated. F. The radius process.

Another This experiment chosen

key consideration will include however, was designed panel. include utilized does

in composite is often dictated such that each The basic several surface concept

a tight radius,

0.25 inch,

and a shallow

radius,

1 inch in factor manufacturing

in the design, The tooling

by the limitations composite is depicted features.

of the chosen would

part made in figure

result

in approximately to this basic Each piece of the layup 1/8-inch so that the bar or

a 12- by 12-inch configuration tooling, surface thickness the tooling however,

angled

2. Several discussed of sheet

variations factors. metal

were

in the test matrix, common pit-free

based

on the previously Each a piece

tool has two basic components: of composite was chosen surface. prepreg. Holes The

and the frame. of the surface would

The layup

was made by bending surface enough for all tools.

with dimensions

24 by 24 inches.

It also has a smooth heat uniformly,

for the layup This thickness to provide

plate is the same yet thick

thin enough

a firm layup

around

perimeter of the plate are used to fasten the plate to the frame, and the frame also has a stabilizer across each side. These features help keep the tool rigid and prevent unwanted warpage, bending, thermal cycling

FIGURE 2.--Standardmaletooling configuration.

2.4 One of the most desirable ratio. This allows of the fabrication plies in the design. 8 plies and a thicker resulting used in the aerospace Another to be controllable. (0/90)s designed process Factor panel properties parts, Design Considerations materials strength is their very is tailorable low weight-to-strength Also, made 0.005 as a result of only based on the number by using inch, Most parts

of composite the designed panel

for very thin, lightweight of composite G includes using

parts to be used for structural thicknesses--a and 0.120

applications. thin panel

two different of about 0.040

24 plies. Each

ply has a thickness inch (8 plies)

of approximately

in final panel

thicknesses industry

inch (24 plies).

fall within

these thicknesses. of a composite is symmetric part is that the layup sequences so that no springback angle of each ply has fabrication; spring.

key ingredient Factor

in the design Each

H includes

two fundamental stack stack,

stacking

for composite to purposefully

and (0/+45/-45/90)s. in the part. Using

is intentionally

an unbalanced however,

the part can be designed springback. Procedures a major pump,

The goal of this experiment,

is to minimize 2.5 Bagging

The vacuum material hardware. shapes. which, to complex be attained, pressure Additionally,

bagging

of a composite

part plays of a vacuum

role in the processing apply pressure pressure to conform pressure

of composite prepreg material vacuum lb/ft 2) can

The vacuum this allows control strength

bag has the ability for predictable directly relates

to evenly

With the incorporation

of 14.7 Ib/in 2 (2,000 application. to resin.

and consistent

The constant and bonding. Resin

in turn provides laminate

of part thickness

and assistance

in core placement

to the ratio of fiber content

is the weakest

and, therefore, key link. The main purpose of the resin is to bind the load-carrying fibers The even distribution of vacuum pressure aids in a more precise control of the fiber/resin In order to provide a consistent testing environment for this experiment,

together. ratio. 7

all the composites

panels were fabricated using the same basic bagging techniques and the same bagging materials. This was an essential element in the processing of these parts to ensure that they were processed consistently for better table comparison. The bagging materials materials were used for the pro_e_sing from a single vendor of all the parts source (Airtech is summarized International, in 4. 8 All the bagging obtained

Inc.), and each type of material used came from only one manufacturing additional noise into the experimental environment. All materials were minimum, the highest temperature cure in the test matrix, 350 E

lot, thereby reducing any chosen to withstand, at a

TABLE 4.--Bagging Material VacuumBag Breather loth C Solid Release Film Pressure intensifier Bleeder loth C PorousRelease Film Sealant ape T MoldRelease

materials

used for entire

test matrix.

Designation IpplonDP1000 Ultraweave 1324 A4OOOR Airpad Bleeder easeC L A4OOORP GS-213 Release-All 30

Comments Nylon,O.O02-1nch Thickness, 90 F Usage 3 Nylon6-6 Nonwoven,3 oz/yd2,450 Usage t F O.O02-1nch Thickness, 00 FUsage 5 Uncured Nonsilicone Rubber Fiberglass, O.O09-1nch Thickness, 00 F Usage 8 O.045-1nch Holes,0.25-InchCenters, imilarto A4OOOR S 400 FUsage Liquid,500 F Usage

The basic this basic the pressure consistent bagging resin

bagging technique

stackup

is depicted factor

in figure noted I. Pressure areas.

3. Based

on the test matrix, are used

two variations to provide

to more

were utilized,

by (*) and (**). The (*) materials intensifiers Inconsistent

were used only when

intensifier

was to be used,

in order

flow and compaction

in radiused

resin flow can lead to an increase

in void content, a "bleed" stack content area to serve

porosity, and the potential for delaminations. The (**) materials were used only when was to be used, factor J. Resin is bled out of the prepreg during cure to control the resin part. Vacuum paths ports were utilized on both sides part ready of the tooling in the breather in figure cloth 4. for air inside the bag. A bagged 2.6 Part Fabrication for cure is shown

in a composite as escape

Each processing

composite was controlled

part was fabricated to ensure in the same

according

to the factors

presented under exactly

in the test matrix. the same

The the These

that each part was fabricated controlled

conditions;

parts were fabricated

environmentally

laboratory

by the same two people.

controls helped to eliminate any potential source of environmental noise that could enter and influence the data. It is not always desired to eliminate all noise from an experiment, controllable condition, experiment noise could factor achieve was designed in section robustness into this experiment. across a larger Three panels were made an envelope as described 2. l : 60 , 90 , and 120 . This provided set of operating

the experiment though; one which the

for each test under

conditions.

VacuumBag Breather loth(x2) C Solid Release Film* Pressure Intensifier* Solid Release Film Bleeder Cloth(x2)** PorousRelease Film** PrepregLayup MoldRelease ToolingSurface
L '--

) .--

: ..............................
Sealant ape T vacuum bagging stackup.

FIGURE 3.--Basic

FIGURE 4.--Bagged

part ready

for cure.

to ensure tooling mold release

Prior to the layup of the composite parts, the tools had to be prepared. The bolts a stable tool. Each tool was then cleaned with solvents to remove contaminates surface. The outside The remainder the resin perimeter of the layup surface was covered with liquid-based bonding with 2-inch-wide from being mold release. surface,

were tightened from the Teflon coated

TM

tape.

This tape protected release. prevents

the area of the tool where in the prepreg

the sealant

tape will be located

with for

of the tool was then treated from permanently

The mold allowing

to the tooling

the part to release

from the tool after cure.

All prepreg process. templates. Teflon template Prior time in laboratory and at the exact
TM

materials conditions

must

be stored

in cold storage

to prevent

acceleration were

of the resin cure adequate size with then cut using are cut the same stock which and coated causes the on the

to the layup

of any part, the prepreg

was taken out of the freezer per the test matrix, made from

and allowed

to thaw. The plies required, to cut the plies ensures These templates were to prevent resin from

The use of templates required angles. served tape. The tape to become

that all plies for the parts thin aluminum to the template transferring

very tacky,

thus inhibiting

its efficient

use. The plies were

laid up centered

tool, per specifications During there were a previous factor. vacuum the 4th, layup,

in the test matrix. the bulk factor wrinkles, or looseness Debulking of the layup or folds between was controlled. which could Extreme create care was used to ensure wrinkles layup or bridging to ensure cloth, during the bulk adequate and a that

no air bubbles, ply. Bridging

in the prepreg plies, vacuum

as each ply was positioned the layup release debulks

on the tool or over

cure, was not allowed. Debulking compaction of 15 minutes.

was used extensively of a minimal performed ensure stack included nontacky, adequate

during

to aid in controlling film, breather were

is the process were

bag on the part during a porous additional compaction.

of the prepreg. If the material

This bagging always

bag. Debulks

after the I st, 8th,

16th, and 24th plies for a minimum also done after layup, for a minimum Following a vacuum the completed

was particularly according

12th, and 20th plies to further bagged

each part was vacuum of 8 hours.

to section

2.5 and held under

The parts were cured matrix, variety factor K, dictated ways. control within of different

using

the recommended vessel the parts

cure cycles methods shown

supplied

from the vendor.

The test in a within with

in which Factor within _+1 F.

were to be cured.

Composite

parts are cured control

K included used, shown

two of those in figure

in this experiment--autoclave to temperature in figure 6, is also programmable

and oven curing. +1 F and pressure temperature

The autgclave

5, is programmable

+1 psi. The oven used,

control

2.7

Data

Collection

Procedures layup figure These measured

were put in place of 8, 12, and bevel

to ensure 16 inches

consistent

data collection purposes.

for this experiment. The angle

Prior

to

of a part, one end of the tooling at distances 7, using locations a universal

was marked

for indexing

of the tool was then can be seen in (5 minutes). for of the

from this side of the tool. This procedure to one-twelfth locations parts of a degree to the desired were three in nine data points

protractor Recall

with an accuracy correspond that there

on the tool map directly parts. data points point

to be measured

comparison experiment. layup, provided

on the composite Three a reference

made for each run of the per run. At the completion marking be mapped on the tool. This to the part. The

on each part result

each part was numbered and cured.

on the left half of the same side as the index the measurements from the tool could

by which

part was then bagged

l0

==
i

FIGURE 5.--Autoclave

used

for processing.

FIGURE 6.--Oven

used for processing.

11

FIGURE 7.--Tool

measurement

procedure.

The part was removed were cycling grease which baseline. These measurements

from

the tooling of these

surface

after the cure.

Identical

measurements including

as before thermal with a

taken on the tool. An average and the variability

two replications difference device.

at each data point due to several

was used as the tool

may show

a small

factors,

of the measurement

Locations

on the part were then marked

pencil in the angle facing the tool side at distances of 2, 6, and 10 inches from the side of the part had been numbered. These locations allowed for three evenly spaced measurements across each location 8. from which between springback. in the analysis the data were collected the tool baseline A negative value on the tool and part map to each other and the part measurement that the panel sprang inward. indicates is shown These data in to the edge effects of a part was 2 inches, The angle in order to get a true angle measurement that as by edge of the panel. was then measured at each of these points

part. The closest was not influenced shown in figure

The points figure location points

9. The difference is the observed were then used ............... An additional

measurement

at each

of the experiment. 2.8-(_onfi r-mation]_x p e rim en t

Q

..... of levels of the factors This is such as the be considered run for this and

run--confirmation were indicated when is to validate screening Because

experiment--using the conclusions low-resolution, within experiment. drawn small

a combination during

interactions, confirmation particularly

LI2

which important

to be significant

by the analysis,

must be run. The purpose the analysis phase. should experiment experiments,

of the

experiment are utilized.

fractional-factorial the conclusions

array,

of confounding in section 3.5.

columns,

preliminary experiment

until validated will be presented

by a confirmation

5 The confirmation

12

FIGURE

8.--Part

measurement

procedure.

24inches
4

,l
Indexed Side of Tool 8 in. 12 in. 16 in.

2 in. I _

6 in. Number n Part

10 in. I

12 inches

FIGURE 9.--Data

point location

mapping

diagram.

13

3. DISCUSSION

OF RESULTS

The data chapter. presented, First, by data collected

collected from

and results of some

from the test matrix problems Next, during the analysis

for this experiment of the panels

are presented details

in this followed will be

a discussion

fabrication performed

wilt be presented,

the experiment. the confirmation

of the data and supporting will be discussed.

and finally,

experiment

3.1 Fabrication The fabrication to process environmental of the panels noise which control for this experiment same conditions of a factor tooling

Problems in section 2.6. Every induce effort was made

was presented in order however,

each part under

the exact

not to potentially was encountered

unwanted the fabrication

into the experiment. led to the elimination mentioned, difficulty intensifiers wrinkles is difficult include questionable female in getting wrinkles,

One problem,

during

from the test matrix. processing problems. These radius. Potential problems Additional problems or looseness tape that was in the material tape; they are more

As previously primarily debulks between form. stem from and pressure plies, creating

often presents to lay down

the prepreg or folds

well in the actual in these regions.

aid in controlling or bridging complex regions. during contours,

the bulk factor in the prepreg

with this include

air bubbles,

which directions;

can lead to bridging the unidirectional a problem is limited inherent are used because

cure. Additionally, fabric 2.2. The typical female materials

used in this experiment When part designs into these "workable" the rational

to form into nonuniform However,

this experiment

to unidirectional

for its selection

is presented

in section

This processing

limitation

was encountered.

tooling

configuration

is shown bridging in the female of factor using

in figure 10. Despite extreme care during layup and additional debulks to help aid compaction, in the female radius proved to be unavoidable. A closeup of a layup in a female tool is shown figure tooling 11. The wrinkles worse and unidirectional orientation and bridging prepreg in the radius of each from tape had been were evident encountered. during the layup process to become E, the radius with the inclusion subsequent ply. An unworkable This resulted Consequently, situation panels between

and continued

in the elimination were

of the tooling,

the test matrix.

fabricated

the male tooling that would have driver

for the entire been obtained

experiment. The analysis was still run as intended, but any information on this factor is lost. Recall, that the material form selection was the key the reasoning for the selection were of this form, during as presented the fabrication in section of the 2.2.

to this problem.

Also recall

No other processing composite panels.

or fabrication

anomalies

encountered

14

FIGURE 10.--Standard

female

tooling

configuration.

FIGURE 1 1.--Closeup

of bridging

problem

in female

tooling

during

layup.

15

3.2 The procedures procedures process established would for data collection a baseline unwanted

Experimental in this experiment the data could noise

Data were presented in section 2.7. These

from which

be obtained

so that the data collection

not induce

environmental

into the experiment_ in the appendix. over a range Table from 5 presents section 2.1, angles

The raw data for each run in the test matrix a summary the intent of the resultant in this experiment mean springback is to analyze

is presented springback

data for the runs on each tool. Recall the measured

of fabrication Therefore, than three

in order to provide a larger environment in whichrobustness could be achieved. in section 3.3 will treat the data as nine data points from a single source, rather from three different sources. However, prior to the analysis, springback the single used used becomes exception. is one-twelfth some more observations positive examination standard of the data. The measured 0.0934,

the analysis data points upon increases and 2.7, angle

can be made

as the tooling

in 11 of the 12 runs, with run 9 being deviation, the accuracy run 9 is inside of the measurement the accuracy

The springback of a degree

mean for run 9, -0.0185, from section (0.0833). Clearly,

are very low in comparison device of the device

to the other

runs. Also, recall

the data for

and may not be able to discriminate

the relative

magnitude differences 11 runs; the magnitude

in the tools. This accounts for run 9 not following the same trend as the other of the numbers and the accuracy of the device have masked the data for run 9. equipment had been available trend as the rest of the data. to use for data collection, run 9 probably

If more precise measurement would also follow the same

TABLE 5.--Summary Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 60" -1.3750 -2.2084 -1.5695 -2.3194 -0.4028 -1.8889 -1.7083 -2.9583 -0.0417 -4.0000 -4.1389 -1.4305 90" -1.t944 -1.4306 -0.8195 -1.7639 0.1250 -0.9861 -1.2083 -1.8472 0.0834 -2.4722 -3.2223 -1.1944

springback 120 -0.3750 -1.1111 -0.5972 -1.3750 0.8334 -0.9444 -0.8889 -1.2639 -0.0972 -1.1667 -1.9722 -0.9583

data.

Average StdDev -0.9815 -1.5833 -0.9954 -1.8194 0.1852 -1.2731 -1.2685 -2.0231 -0.0185 -2.5463 -3.1111 -1.1944 0.4935 0.5137 0.4470 0.4146 0.5489 0.4983 0.3591 0.7550 0.0934 1.3452 0.9488 0.2083

A graphical is presented and Taguchi in figure 12 are clearly analysis.

summary

of the resultant The factors

mean

springback

data for each run on the individual seen in this graph; be the primary drivers

tools in the

12. The variability

in each of the runs can be easily in these runs will probably

runs 7, 9,

the most robust.

16

1.0

0.0

._
w CI

-I.0 -2.0 -3.0

._
J_

"" cI,

-4.0

] 60 ool T
-5.0 0 1 1 I 2 1 3

9oTool 12o Tool]

I 4 I 5 I 6 t 7 t 8 I 9 I 10 I 11 12

RunNumber

FICURE 12.--Summary Additional springback magnitudes rankings for the average observations of each run using from

springback

data versus

run number. the relative tool, then absolute magnitudes

can be made by examining First, the rankings magnitudes

the data. Table 6 presents

by run number.

are done for each individual and variabilities,

the data from all the tools for that run. Despite

the differing

and variabilities,

and the relative

the relative

are very consistent

run to run.

TABLE 6.--Relative
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 60 3 8 5 9 2 7 6 10 1 11 12 4

springback
90 5 8 3 9 2 4 7 10 1 11 12 6

rankings
120 2 8 3 11 4 6 5 10 1 9 12 7

(1 =lowest).

Average 3 8 4 9 2 7 6 10 1 11 12 5

17

3.3 The Taguchi factors optimize several robustness, replications There The three determine springback characteristic concept These is based factors

Taguchi

Analysis

of the Data (SIN) value. ratio to determine variability 5 being evaluated. is to The significant in order to

on the use of a signal-to-noise and levels are then chosen; to the desired the amount depending nominal the mean

and their levels.

first, to reduce present.

and second, into one value

to adjust

SIN ratio consolidates

that reflects available, is better,

of variation

are several

SIN ratios are: lower

on the type of characteristic is better. minimizing or negative. springback

characteristics the factors in absolute being

is best, and higher However, positive

This experiment

that will terms;

minimize

springback.

does not imply

that the lowest

is better--springback evaluated

can be measured is best.

The goal is to minimize the type of

thus, no springback, is nominal

or zero,

is the goal.

Therefore,

The best characteristic

for the nominal

SIN ratio is

S/N=-IOlog(Ve)

(1)

where variance.

Ve is the error variance

for the data set. 5 This form of the SIN equation in another value, form but is a function this form to calculate by doing is

is only a function and variance.

of the Since

The best SIN ratio exists

of both the mean

springback, means would

Yi, can take on a negative effect the calculations.

SIN must be used as the negative analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Ve is calculated

a no-way

on all the repetitions

for a run. Simplified,

the error variance

Ve=SSe/V

(2)

where

SS e is the sum of squares by subtraction

for the error and

v e is the degrees

of freedom

associated

with the error.

SS e can be obtained

from the total sum of squares:

SSe:SST-SS

(3)

The total sum of squares

is expressed

by

SST:i_I

y2

(4)

where

r is equal

to the number by

of repetitions

in a trial regardless

of noise

levels.

The sum of squares

for

the mean

can be expressed

SS m =rx();)

(5)

18

The degrees of freedom:

of freedom

for the error,

Ve,

can

also be obtained

by subtraction

from the total degrees

V e = V T -- V m

(6)

The total degrees and one degree

of freedom of freedom

is r, the number is reserved

of repetitions

in a trial regardless

of noise

levels, to

for the mean.

The equation

for v e then simplifies

Ve =

r-I

(7)

Combining

the terms

in the equations,

Ve can be simplified

to

y_y2-r(y)2
i=1

Ve=

r-1

(8)

The summary the components three

r---9.

of the S/N ratio

calculations different

is presented tools,

in table

7. Also included

for each run are Recall, there were

that contribute

to each part of the equations

that lead to the S/N ratio.

data points

for each of the three

for a total of nine data points

for each run; thus,

TABLE 7.--S/N
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean --0.9815 -1.5833 -0.9954 -1.8194 0.1852 -1.2731 -1.2685 -2.0231 -0.0185 -2.5463 -3.1111 -1.1944 SSI

ratio calculation
SSm 8.6696 22.5623 8.9171 29.7932 0.3087 14.5881 14.4820 36.8372 0.0031 58.3525 87.1124 12.8402

summary.
V. 0.2435 0.2639 0.1998 0.1719 0.3013 0.2483 0.1289 0.5700 0.0087 1.8097 0.9002 0.0434 S/N 6.1344 5.7854 6.9931 7.6480 5.2104 6.0498 8.8961 2.4416 20.5898 -2.5760 0.4566 13.6257

10.6179 24.6736 10.5158 31.1682 2.7189 16.5747 15.5135 41.3969 0.0729 72.8300 94.3140 13.1873

The response

tables

can now be created This table

using shows

S/N and which

y from table 7. First, reduce shows variability which

the response factors adjust

table the

for the S/N ratio will be generated. levels. Second, the response table mean and the associated levels.

factors

and the associated

for y will be generated.

This table

19

Each ratios, ratio

factor

is considered

separately

to create

these Let

tables. by

The test matrix,

table

l, and S/N The S/N

table 7, are needed for each entry

to perform

this calculation.

X be any factor

in the test matrix.

in the S/N response

table is calculated

1 [S/N]xj

nj

=--_i[S/N]k nj

(9)

where j = the level (1 or 2), k= runs in which factor X is set at level j, and nj =the number of runs where factor X is set at levelj (6 for every factor except E, which is 12, since there is only one level). The S/N response factor control indicate factors the strongest table is presented which deltas in table reduce 8. The largest differences factors between the levels one-half for each

factors

variability.

As a general

rule, about

of the

with the largest

are to be selected.

9 The strongest

are B, C, D, I, and K.

TABLE Lev./Fac. 1 2 Delta A 6.3035 7.2390 0.9355 B 8.4734 5.0691 3.4043 C 9.0400 4.5025 4.5375 D 5.1036 8.4389 3.3353

8.--S/N E.... 6.7712 0.0000

response F 6.7869 6.7556 0.0313

table. G 6.1347 7.4078 1.2731 H 5.9502 7.5923 1.6421 [ I 5.1312 8.4113 3.2801 J 6.8279 0.1133 K 3.4581 6.6263

6.7146 10.0844

The response

y for each entry using

in the y response

table is calculated

similar

to the entries

in the S/N

table,

nj

The factor

); response

table is presented factors which

in table adjust

9. The largest the mean.

differences

between factors

the levels

for each

indicate

the strongest

The strongest

are A, B, H, and K.

TABLE 9.--Mean
Lev./Fac. 1 2 Delta A -1.0779 -1.6937 0.6157 B -1.1451 -1.6265 0.4815 C -1.4514 -1.3202 0.1312 D -1.3572 -1.4144 0.0571 E -1.3858 0.0000

response
F -1.4676 -1.3040 0.1636

table.
G H I J -1.4437 -1.3279 0.1157 K -0.7585 -2.0131 1.2546

-1.2446 -1.5270 0.2824

-1.5964 -1.5031 -1.1751 -1.2685 0.4213 0.2346

20

When this analysis into four classes: 5

has been completed

and the tables

generated,

the control

factors

may be put

Class Class Class Class

I: II: III: IV:

Factors Factors Factors Factors

which which which which

affect both average, affect variation,

y, and variation,

S/N

S/N, only y, only

affect average, affect nothing.

The strategy to adjust nothing in table the mean is affected. 10.

is to select to the target A summary

levels value.

of class I and II factors Class IV factors factors

to reduce

variation classes

and class

III factors level since

may be set at the most economical and their associated

of the control

is presented

TABLE Control Factor A B C D E F G H I J K * * Affect

l O.--Control Factor Class * * III I II II IV IV W III II IV I

factor
Affect S/N &_

summary. Affect S/N AI Affect Affect Neither

Affect

S/N

Bl CI D2 E1 F2 G2 H2 I2 J2 K]

A discussion by class, using

of each factor

and its chosen

level is necessary

at this point. in table 10.

The factors

will be addressed

the data from tables

8 and 9 and the summary

Class

I Factors--These levels

factors is placed

affect

both average,

_;, and variation,

S/N. The primary

focus

on determining Factor

on the variation. S/N ratio. Level 1 also has the more desirable y

B--Level

1 has the higher

response. Therefore, this selection is easy, B I. Factor K--Level 1 has the same characteristics the choice is K1. factors affect variation, S/N ratio. S/N ratio.

for this factor

as in factor

B. Therefore,

Class -

II Factors--These C--Level

S/N, only. The mean Again, effect is not significant. effect Choose C 1. the mean is not significant. level 2 is the more

Factor

1 has the higher 2 has the higher

Factor D--Level Choose D2.

Factor I--Level 2 has the higher S/N ratio. desirable level for the mean. Choose I2.

Even though

not significant,

21

ClassIII Factors--Thesefactorsaffectvariation,S/N,only. - FactorA--Level 1hasthe meancloserto the targetvalue.Variationis not significant. Choose 1. A - FactorH--Level 2 hasthemoredesirable mean.Eventhoughnot significant,level 2 is the moredesirablelevel for the variation.ChooseH2. ClassIV Factors--Thesefactorsmaybe setatthe mosteconomicallevel sincenothing is affected. - FactorE--Recall, femaletools wereremovedfrom theexperiment,leavingonly onelevel for this factor,El. - FactorF--This factorhasvery little significanceto thevariationor mean.Level 2 is chosen because is easierto fabricate,F2. it - FactorG--Based on the datain the S/Ntable,level 2 is chosen.Enoughmaterialwas readily availableto fabricateconfirmationpanels, 2. G - FactorJ--Level 2 is moredesirablefor boththevarianceandmean.This factoris easy to processateitherlevel.ChooseJ2. The "PaperChampion"canbe established now thatthefactorandlevel analysisis complete. The "PaperChampion"is the optimaldesign,on paper,based the factoranalysisdoneto determine on the significantfactorsthatcontributeto the varianceandmean.This designwill be usedasa confirmationexperimentasdescribedin section2.8,with thepurposeof validatingthe conclusions drawn duringthe analysisphase. he confirmationexperimentwill bepresented section3.5. T in The "PaperChampion"for this experimentis A1B1C ID2EIF2G2H212J2K
3.4 This section These facts will discuss Discussion of the Factors in the test matrix in relation to the observed Recall, results. the The use I.

each of the factors

are important

in understanding is to minimize

the design springback

for the confirmation across

experiment.

objective of tables

of this experiment

a wide operating

environment.

8 and 9 will help in the evaluation Factor A was the curing curing temperature factor.

of each factor. of the epoxy resin. expected, The mean given springback was lower in the temperature; for the using

the lower tooling, however, confirmation

temperature

resin.

This was intuitively The measured the lower

thermal

expansion at the higher

and was a significant it was not significant. experiment.

robustness, temperature

S/N, was better

Therefore,

of 250 F was selected

Factor less erratic

B was the viscosity better factor

of the epoxy in controlling

resin.

It is expected results.

that a lower

flow resin will behave by the flow the lower

and produce

mean

and variability

This expectation and variability.

was confirmed Therefore,

results, being a significant resin was selected.

both the mean

22

FactorC wasthefiber modulus.Lower modulusfibersaretypically easierto process sincethey arelessbrittle thanhighermodulusfibers.This wasa significanteffectin the observed variability in the experiment. he mean,however,wasnot effectedby the choiceof fiber modulus. herefore,the lower T T modulusfiber wasselected. FactorD wasthe tooling material.Steelhasa thermalexpansion coefficientof half thatfor aluminum;thennaturally,the steelwouldbeexpected performbetter.This wasconfirmedby the to significantobserved S/N ratio.The tooling materialselectionwasnot significantto the mean;therefore, steeltooling wasselected. FactorE wastheradiusorientationof the tooling. As discussed section3.l, this factorwas in droppedfrom thetestmatrix.Male tooling wasusedfor theremainderof the experiment. FactorF wastheradiusof thetooling. This factorwasnot foundto havea significanteffect on the meanor variability. Themoreshallowradiuswaschosenfor the confirmationrun because it is easierto fabricateandhasa betterchance producinga higherquality part. of FactorG wasthethicknessof the part.Thickerpartsprovidemorestability afterthecureof the resinis completethana thinnerpart.The analysisconfirmedthat thicker parts are more robust and the
mean was closer to the desired since target. However, these facts were not found to be significant. required A thicker layup was chosen, available. Factor significance layer shrinkage the analysis did lean in that direction and the material was readily

H was the layup in controlling using classical

configuration lamination

of the parts.

The inclusion

of 45" plies showed the layup

some the

the mean,

but not the variability.

This may be accounted the mean,

for by the predicted including

theory. 10 To help control

45 plies was selected. Factor intensifier better pressure mean used for factor I was the use of a pressure to reduce B can be used here; results. intensifier in the bagging stack effect for cure. the mean. included The use of the A similar argument and produce

was shown

the variability controlling Therefore,

but not significantly the resin the confirmation

flow resin will result experiment

in less erratic

and variability

the use of the

intensifier. Factor J was the resin content or variability. robust resin and the mean was flow. As confirmed bagging sequence vessel. of the finished showed closer slightly in factor part. This factor that the parts to the desired was not found in which target. no resin Also, to have a significant bagging springback.

effect more

of the mean slightly

The analysis

was bled were

a no-bleed

stack restricts Therefore,

B, restricting

the resin

flow can help control

the no bleed

was selected. provides pressure on the part during stresses was found resin to be the most parts.

Factor crosslinking, potential significant more robust Therefore,

K was the curing where the oven a major in terms effect

The autoclave

does not. This pressure on the springback

adds internal

residual

in the part, with the

of being factor

of the final part. This factor As expected, encountered stresses

of controlling most likely experiment

the mean and variability. due to the residual was cured in the oven.

the oven cure was much in autoclaved

and controllable, the confirmation

23

3.5 This section the conclusions confirmation factorial will outline during

Confirmation

Experiment experiment 3.3. Recall, low-resolution, in order from section to validate 2.8, the

the steps taken phase important

in the confirmation done in section when screening,

drawn experiment

the analysis

is particularly

small fractional-

experiments, In section

such as the L i2 array,

are utilized. and the significant factors and the optimum experiment

3.3, the analysis Recall 1.

of the data was done Champion"

levels

were

selected.

that the "Paper

to be used in the confirmation

was A 1B 1C 1D2E IF2G2H212J2K Next, and interactions of the factorial then good Given allow the estimated effects.

mean for the preferred This estimated effect exists,

combination mean

of the levels

of significant predict those

factors the result, is poor. 5 should from the

must be calculated. If one factor exists.

is based to another

on the assumption to accurately between

of additivity factors

can be added

additivity

If an interaction in this experiment, of the factorial by,

then the additivity

the L 12 array used for good mean additivity as expressed

the confounding This additivity

of the interactions is based

in the design

effects.

on the difference

observed

#=2xj-(,,-I)xY
where estimate, n = the number andj of factors to avoid included in the estimate of the mean, to be included. these factors X is the factor Nonsignificant falling into the above included factors equation in the are not gives, is the chosen level of each of the factors overestimating.

(11)

used for the estimation will be used (factors

11 Therefore,

only factors

into class I, II, or III

A, B, C, D, H, I, and K). Inserting

/2= Y.(A 1+ B1 +C 1+D 2 +H 2 + 12 + KI )-(7-1)xY

(12)

Inserting

the y values

from table

9, this equation

becomes,

/] =(-1.0779-1. /] =0.0239 The confirmation Neither the initial .

145 I-1.4514-1.4144-1.

1751-1.2685-0.7585)-(6)X(-1.3858) (13)

experiment

results

cannot

be expected experiment

to completely utilized infinite

agree

with the estimate. The data set however, that

test matrix

nor the confirmation

replications.

for the confirmation experiment is one-twelfth the result is close to the estimate. Confidence The confidence interval

the size of the initial matrix. It is important, intervals are used for this purpose. 12 experiment is presented in reference

for a confirmatory

12 as,

(14)

24

where number size ibility variance ment. The that

Vep is the pooled of experiments/total confirmation effects,

error

variance, Vep is the degrees degrees of freedom considered If the actual and result experiment factors

of freedom for the in the calculation in the confidence reliable. added every error

pooled of/_,

variance, ne= total and r=- the sample the results for reproducin the

in the

experiment. error

is held are being

interval, data error

of factorial and The variance the values error

recognized,

12 Pooling to the total

observed table

in the

nonsignificant test matrix, is pooled

the experi11. table

ANOVA for the will

for the initial factors

including into the

factor, term

is presented

in table this

insignificant be used for the

in table

12. It is from

confirmation

experiment.

TABLE

l 1.--ANOVA SS 10.2366 6.2595 0.4646 0.0881 0.0000 0.7225 2.1532 4.7924 1.4855 0.3616 42.5011 264.5185 333.5836

table

for dof 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 97 107

initial V

matrix.

Source A B C D E F G H I J K Error Total

10.2366 6.2595 0.4646 0.0881 0.0000 0.7225 2.1532 4.7924 1.4855 0.3616 42.5011 2.7270

TABLE Source A B C D E F G H I J K Error Total

I2.--ANOVA SS 10.2366 6.2595 1.9357 1.6358

table dof 1 1 1 1

(Pooled). V 10.2366 6.2595 1.9357 1.6358

a

4.7924 2.6891 42.5011 263.5335 333.5836

1 1 1 100 107

4.7924 2.6891 42.5011 2.6353

25

The sample three interval equation

size for the confirmation data points results is alpha, a. Most literature in 95-percent any additional found

trial will be the same as a run in the initial the only missing in the results, proper 4, results interval ingredient for experiments confidence in reference runs without of this type typically controls could select

test matrix, in the confidence a value intervals for a, from

parts with three

for a total of nine. Now,

risk, of 0.05. This value a=0.05, interpolation

yet the resulting

0.05 are not so big that virtually

fit into it. Using F-value

of the F-values The equation

in a corresponding now becomes

of F0.05 ' 1,100 = 3.9467.

for the confidence

= O.0239 + _/(3.9467)

x (2.6353)

108/'(1+7 )

, 1]
(15) experiment of (16)

Y=0.0239+1.3878 resulting in a confidence interval for the estimated

, mean for the confirmation in the appendix. A summary

-1.3639<_<1.4117 The raw data for the confirmation of this data and its Taguchi analysis experiment

is presented 13.

is presented

in table

TABLE 13.--Cor_rmation
Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches Taguchi Analysis

run summary
60 -1.1667 -1.2500 -0.9583 Mean -0.9769 90 -0.9167 -0.8333 -0.8333
Me

and Taguchi
120 -0.958 -0.9166 -0.9587 S/N 16.9877

analysis.

o.o2db

The observed for the estimated and experiment

mean for the confirmation thereby validating Through a closer

experiment

falls within of factorial

the confidence effects,

interval interval and

mean,

the reproducibility

error recognized,

as reliable.

look at the equation

for the confidence

interpolation of the F tables, the observed mean value falls within the interval at an alpha value all the way up to _x =0.175. This places substantial weight on the validation results of this experiment. Several from discussion masked other observations run is much in section of the Taguchi lower analysis should be highlighted. matrix The observed except of the device variance have There-

of the confirmation

than any of the runs in the initial of the numbers of the measuring device

one, run 9. Recall

3.2, the magnitude

and the accuracy

the data for run 9 due to the accuracy

used in this experiment.

fore, the selection of class I and II factors to reduce the variability performed as desired. Also, the observed mean is one of the closest to zero from all the runs that were performed. This also confirms the selection of class II and III factors to adjust the mean to the target value performed matrix as desired. except one, run 9.

Finally, the observed S/N ratio is much higher than any of the runs in the initial A similar deduction can also be made about run 9 in this comparison.

26

4.

CONCLUSIONS

AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

This experiment reproducibility the confirmation experiment, were very sound.

yielded

several

significant the experiment

results.

The confirmation It shows

experiment the design

validated of the

the

of factorial experiment the fabrication

effects,

error recognized,

and experiment is significant. approach

as reliable. controls

The degree

to which

validated

of the panels, the strength

and the techniques of the Taguchi

and process

in this experiment experiments. this experiment learned in configuration, need

It also shows

to designing difficulties, can serve

Efforts designing

of this magnitude The problems parts. planned

are not likely encountered

to be completed with the female form selected,

without tooling While

was no exception. composite to be thoroughly was not included

as a lesson

The raw material in the fabrication valuable

as well as the tooling was still attained.

of composite information needs dealing These vacuum

parts.

it was unfortunate

this factor

in the experiment,

The material composite potentially to minimize method components, serious selected.

used in the design as expected. viscosity factors material and design directly

of tooling questions.

to be a major questions bagging

consideration

when induce

fabricating several in order

The factors of the resin,

with resin flow, however, must be dealt of the part for cure, selection,

with up front

springback; These

and the curing methods. the interaction making

affect design,

material

and processing not to explore

The orthogonal effects of the factors. array it an excellent and the analysis,

array chosen for screening

was to examine for future

only the main to highly confound experiments.

effects,

The L12 array was designed factors

the interaction the success

effects,

Given

of this experiment

the objective for future performing

of using this array was achieved. efforts a classical should include an investigation those of the interaction involving These effects of the efforts may

Consideration factors found to explore include

to be significant accurate

in this experiment, statistical methods

in particular, analysis

resin flow. Other techniques

of the data collected.

help to develop

prediction

for springback.

27

REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Stover, Robust Taguchi,

D.: Advanced Design

Composites, American

vol. 8, No. 2, March/April Supplier Institute, 1993.

1993.

Workshop,

G.; and Konishi, D." Design

S.: Taguchi and Analysis for

Methods--OrthogonaIArrays of Experiments, Engineering, Structures Fourth Second Guide, edition,

and Linear 1997. 1996.

Graphs,

1987.

Montgomery, Ross,

EJ." Taguchi E.M.:

Techniques Composite

Quality

edition, NASA

Silverman, 1996.

Spacecraft

Design

Contractor

Report

4708,

7. 8. 9. 10.

Basic

Guide

to Vacuum

Bagging,

Airtech Airtech

Advanced Advanced Optimization,

Materials Materials ITEQ

Group, Group,

no date. no date. Ltd., no date. and Solutions,

Vacuum Design

Bagging

and Materials,

of Experiment

and Engineering

International,

Ridgard, C.: Accuracy and Distortion SME #EM93-113, 1992. Taguchi, G.: Introduction Processes, 1986. Taguchi, G.;Yokoyama, to Quality

of Composite

Parts and Tools: Causes

11.

Engineering--Designing

Quality

Into Products

and

12.

Y.;andWu,

Y.: TaguchiMethods--DesignofExperiments,

vol. 4, 1993.

28

APPENDIX

The matrix will

raw

data

for this

experiment

are presented for the

in tables confirmation

14-26. run.

First,

the data

for the

initial

test

be presented,

followed

by the data

The sents point angle which location of the

data

presented tooling

below the

were

collected was

as described taken 9. The to the part after from. "Tool ]ayup. the

in section The (Pre)" The

2.7.

The

"Tool"

column represents the

reprethe data

angled

measurement

"Location" column "Tool of the

column represents (Post)"

on the part tool at the of the average thermal of the part

as described location specific

in figure prior

measured represents the

specific tool at the

column "Tool will

measured represents the cycling

angle the

location and tool

curing

part.

The

(Avg)" help

column minimize the

of the

"Tool

(Pre)" of the cure

"Tool on the

(Post)" resultant

columns. data.

This The

averaging column column

from angle the

expansion following and "Part"

"Part"

represents is the

measured between specific

at the specific It represents

location. the

The observed

"Spring" springback

difference at the

"Tool

(Avg)"

column.

in the part

location.

TABLE 14.--Raw

data for

run 1. Part 57.7500 58.0833 58.3333 88.6667 88.6667 88.6667 119.3333 119,5000 119.6667

Tool 60

Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

Tool (Pre) 59.5000 59.3333 59.3333 89.9167 89.9167 89.8333 119.8333 119,9167 120.0000

Tool (Post) 59.5000 59.4167 59.5000 89.8333 89.8333 89.8333 119.7500 119.7500 120.0000

Tool (Avg) 59.5000 59.3750 59.4167 89.8750 89.8750 89.8333 119.7917 119.8334 120.0000

Spring -1.7500 -1.2917 -1.0834 -1.2083 -1.2083 -1,1666 -0.4583 -0.3333 -0.3333

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

15.--Raw

data for

run

2. Part 58.2500 58.3333 58.3333 88.8333 89.6667 89.5000 119.1667 119.1667 119.1667

Tooi(Pre) 60.0833 60.6667 60.5833 90.2500 90.8333 91.0000 120.0833 120.1667 120.2500

Tool (Post) 60.1667 60.8333 60.7500 90.4167 91.0833 91.0000 120.4t67 120.4167 120.3333

Tool (Avg) 60.1250 60.7500 60.6667 90.3334 90.9583 91.0000 120.2500 120.2917 120.2917

Spring -1.8750 -2.4167 -2.3334 -1.5001 -1.2916 -1.5000 -1.0833 -1.1250 -1.1250

90

120

29

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

16.--Raw

data for

run

3. Pad 59.6667 59.5833 59.5833 89.0833 89.2500 89.0833 119.6667 119.7500 119.5833 Spring -1.6250 -1.5417 -1.5417 -1.9167 -0.7083 -0.8334 -0.6666 -0.5000 -0.6250

Tool(Pre) 61.0833 61.0000 60.9167 90.0000 89.9167 89.9167 120.3333 120.2500 120.1667

Tool (Post) 61.5000 61.2500 61.3333 90.0000 90.0000 89.9167 120.3333 120.2500 120.2500

ToolAvg) (
61.2917 61.1250 61.1250 90.0000 89.9584 89.9167 120.3333 120.2500 120.2084

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2Inches 6 Inches lOInches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

17.--Raw

data for Tool(Post) 61.0833 61.1667 61.0833 90.0000 90.0000 89.9167 120.5000 120.4167 120.3333

run 4. Tool (Avg) 61.0417 61.0834 61.0000 90.0000 90.0000 89.9584 120.4584 120,3750 120.2917 Part 58.7500 58.7500 58.6667 88.1667 88.2500 88.2500 119.0000 119.0000 119.0000 Spring -2.2917 -2.3334 -2.3333 -1.8333 -1.7500 -1.7084 -1.4584 -1.3750 -1.2917

Tool(Pre) 61.0000 61.0000 60.9167 90,0000 90.0000 90.0000 120.4167 120.3333 120.2500

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

1 8.--Raw

data for

run 5. Tool (Avg) 60.1667 60.6667 60.6250 90.3750 90.9583 90.9584 120.3750 120.3334 120.3750 Pad 59,7500 60.2500 60.2500 90.2500 91.2500 91.1667 121.2500 121.1667 121.1667 Spring -0.4167 -0.4167 -0.3750 -0.1250 0.2917 0.2084 0.8750 0.8334 0.7917

Tool (Pre) 60.1667 60.8333 60.7500 90.4167 91.0833 91.0000 120.4167 120.4167 120.3333

Tool (Post) 60.1667 60.5000 60.5000 90.3333 90.8333 90.9167 120.3333 120.2500 120.4167

90

120

30

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

19.--Raw

data Tool (Post) 61.4167 61.3333 60.6667 89.5000 89.6667 89.6667 121.2500 121.4167 121.3333

for

run 6. Tool (Avg) 61.2084 61.1667 60.6250 89.5417 89.625O 89.7084 121.2084 121.4584 121.3333 Part 59.0833 59.1667 59.0833 88.3333 88.6667 88.9167 120.2500 120.5000 120.4167 Spring -2.1250 -2.0000 -1.5417 -1.2084 -0.9583 -0.7916 -0.9583 -0.9583 -0.9166

Tool(Pre) 61.0000 61.0000 60.5833 89.5833 89.5833 89.7500 121.1667 121.5000 121.3333

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Localion 2Inches 6Inches lOInches 2Inches 6 Inches lOInches 2 Inches 6Inches 10 Inches

20.--Raw

data Tool(Post) 61.0833 61.0000 60.9167 90.0000 89.9167 89.9167 120.3333 120.2500 120.1667

for

run

7. Part 59.2500 59.1667 59.1667 88.7500 88.6667 88.6667 119.4167 119.3333 119.3333 Spring -1.7083 -1.7500 -1.6667 -1.2084 -1.2083 -1.2083 -0.9166 -0.9167 -0.8334

Tool(Pre) 60.8333 60.8333 60.7500 89.9167 89.8333 89.8333 120.3333 120.2500 120.1667

Tool (Avg) 60.9583 60.9167 60.8334 89.9584 89.8750 89.8750 120.3333 120.2500 120.1667

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

21 .--Raw

data for

run 8. Tool (Avg) 6O.2084 60.5417 60.6250 90.2917 90.8333 91.0833 120.2084 120.3333 120.3333 Part 57.3333 57.6667 57.5000 88.4167 89.1667 89.0833 118.9167 119.1667 119.0000 Spring -2.8750 -2.8750 -3.1250 -1.8750 -1.6666 -2.0000 -1.2917 -1.1666 -1.3333

Tool (Pre) 60.1667 60.5000 60.5833 90.3333 90.8333 91.0833 120.I667 120.3333 120.3333

Tool (Post) 60.2500 60.5833 60.6667 90.2500 90.8333 91.0833 120.2500 120,3333 120.3333

90

120

31

TABLE

22.--Raw

data for

run

9.

Tool 60

Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

Tool (Pre) 61.3333 61.1667 60.6667 89.1667 89.1667 89.0000 120.6667 120.8333 120.7500

Tool (Post) 61.3333 61.0833 60.6667 89.0833 89.1667 89.0833 120.5833 120.9167 120.6667

Tool(Avg) 61.3333 61.1250 60.6667 89.1250 89.1667 89.0417 120.6250 120.8750 120.7084

Part 61.2500 61.0833 60.6667 89.2500 89.1667 89.1667 120.5000 120.7500 120.6667

Spring -0.0833 -0.0417 0.0000 0.1250 0.0000 0.1251 -0.1250 -0.1250 -0.0416

90

120

TABLE

23.--Raw

data

for

run

10. Part 55.0833 56.0000 54.9167 87.2500 88.0833 86.5000 118.3333 I19.1667 118.4167

Tool 60

Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

Tool (Pre) 59.5000 59.4167 59.5000 89.8333 89.8333 89.8333 119.7500 119.7500 120.0000

Tool (Post) 59.1667 59.1667 59.2500 89.7500 89.6667 89.5833 119.7500 119.8333 119.7500

ToolAvg) (
59.3334 59.2917 59.3750 89.7917 89.7500 89.7083 119.7500 119.7917 119.8750

Spring -4.2500 -3.2917 -4.4583 -2.5417 -1.6667 -3.2083 -1.4167 -0.6250 -1.4583

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2Inches 6Inches 10 Inches 2Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 21nches 6Inches 10 Inches

24.--Raw

data

for

run

ll. Pad 57.0833 57.2500 56.5833 86.0833 86.3333 86.0000 119.0833 119.2500 118.9167 Spring -4.2917 -4.04t7 -4.0834 -3.2501 -3.0834 -3.3334 -1.9167 -1.8750 -2.1250

Tool(Pre) 61.4167 61.3333 60.6667 89.5000 89.6667 89.6667 121.2500 121.4167 121.3333

Tool (Post) 61.3333 61.2500 6O.6667 89.1667 89.1667 89.0000 120.7500 120,8333 120.7500

Toot(Avg) 61.3750 61.2917 60.6667 89.3334 89.4167 89.3334 121.0000 121.1250 121.0417

90

120

32

TABLE

25.--Raw

data for

run

12.

Tool 60

Location 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

Tool (Pre) 59.1667 59.1667 59.2500 89.7500 89.6667 89.5833 119.7500 119.8333 119.7500

Tool (Post) 59.0833 59.0000 59.0833 89.5833 89.5000 89.4167 119.6667 119.7500 119.8333

ToolAvg) (
59.1250 59.0834 59.1667 89.6667 89.5834 89.5000 119.7084 119.7917 119.7917

Part 57.7500 57.6667 57.6667 88.4167 88.4167 88.3333 118.7500 118.8333 118.8333

Spring -1.3750 -1.4167 -1.5000 -1.2500 -1.1666 -1.1667 -0.9583 -0.9583 -0.9583

90

120

TABLE Tool 60 Location 2Inches 6Inches lOInches 2Inches 6Inches lOInches 2 Inches 6 Inches 10 Inches

26.--Raw Tool(Pre) 60.8333 61.0000 60.7500 89.5000 89.5833 89.6667 120.5000 120.7500 120.7500

data for

confirmation

run. Pad 59.7500 59.6667 59.7500 88.5000 88.6667 88.7500 119.6667 119.9167 119.8330 Spring -1.1667 -1.2500 -0.9583 -0.9167 -0.8333 -0.8333 -0.9583 -0.9166 -0.9587

Tool (Post) 61.0000 60.8333 60.6667 89.3333 89.4167 89.5000 120.7500 120.9167 120.8333

Toot(Avg) 60.9167 60.9167 60.7084 89.4167 89.5000 89.5834 120.6250 120.8334 120.7917

90

120

33

APPROVAL

INVESTIGATION WITH (MSFC CENTER COMPOSITE DIRECTOR'S

OF SPRINGBACK MATERIAL FUND

ASSOCIATED FABRICATION REPORT, PROJECT NO. 94-09) FINAL

COMPONENT

DISCRETIONARY

M.A.

Benzie

The information tion concerning MSFC Security

in this report of Defense Officer.

has been

reviewed energy

for technical activities

content. or programs

Review

of any informamade by the to be unclassified.

Department Classification

or nuclear This report,

has been

in its entirety,

has been determined

A.E WHITAKER DIRECTOR, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES LABORATORY

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

Form

OMBNo.0704-0188

Approved

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of inlormation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operation and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REP'oRT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

November
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1997

Technical

Memorandum
5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Investigation of the Springback Associated With Composite Material Component Fabrication /MSFC Center Director's Discretionary Fund Final Report, Project No. 94--09)
6. AUTHORS

M.A. Benzie
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMES(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING REPORT ORGANIZATION NUMBER

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama 35812 9.SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) ADDRESS(ES) AND National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001
11. SUPPLEMEWrARY NOTES
10.

M-842
SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

NAS A/TM-97-206310

Prepared
12a.

by Materials

and Processes
STATEMENT

Laboratory,

Science

and Engineering
12b.

Directorate
DISTRIBUTION CODE

DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY

Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category _ Standard Distribution

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum

.._f

200 words)

The objective of this research project was to examine processing and design parameters in the fabrication of composite components to obtain a better understanding and attempt to minimize springback associated with composite materials. To accomplish this, both processing and design parameters were included in a Taguchi-designed experiment. Composite angled panels were fabricated, by hand layup techniques, and the fabricated panels were inspected for springback effects. This experiment yielded several significant results. The confirmation experiment validated the reproducibility of the factorial effects, error recognized, and experiment as reliable. The material used in the design of tooling needs to be a major consideration when fabricating composite components, as expected. The factors dealing with resin flow, however, raise several potentially serious material and design questions. These questions must be dealt with up front in order to minimize springback: viscosity of the resin, vacuum bagging of the part for cure, and the curing method selected. These factors directly affect design, material selection, and processing methods.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

44 composite
1'7. sEcuRITY

materials,
CLASSIFICATION

springback,
18.

Taguchi

methods
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

16.

PRICE

CODE

A03
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

SECURITY

CLASSII:iC'ATION

oFREPORT Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500

OF _S PAGE Unclassified

OFABSTRACT Unclassified

i,i i Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescn_bed ANSI Std, 239-18 by 298-102

Unlimited