Fiber handling specialist Cygnet Texkimp and The Northwest Composites Centre (NWCC) in the UK have partnered to test the company’s fiber winding technology against braiding and traditional filament winding.

The project will demonstrate the damage tolerance and impact resistance of composite parts manufactured using Cygnet Texkimp’s multi axis winder (MAW) and 3D Winder technologies. Tests include four-point bending, impact, and bending after impact testing, the company said.

The research will be undertaken by the commercial arm of the NWCC which provides independent, accredited testing and qualifying services to the aerospace, automotive, oil and gas, marine and wind energy industries.

3D Winder is a robot-mounted, multi-axis, high-speed winding machine, which, according to Cygnet is the first winding technology of its kind capable of laying down high volumes of fiber quickly and accurately to make complex, curved composite components that are strong and repeatable.

The MAW uses rotating rings to lay down large volumes of material at high speed around a static mandrel. This technology is a development of the 3D Winder with improved throughput and and make long, straight, continuous composite parts with angles and slight curves, including aircraft wing spars, crash protection structures, fuel pipes, tubes, masts and other profiles.

‘Using science to investigate and compare manufacturing techniques is increasingly important as composites manufacturers and end-users look for better and more efficient ways to create high performance materials and parts,’ said Professor Prasad Potluri, director of the NWCC. ‘Trials like these are extremely useful not only to validate new technology but to give commercial customers the insights to select the right technology for their business. The main purpose of our research is to quantify how structural performance and damage tolerance can be maximised depending on the method of manufacture employed.’

This story uses material from Cygnet Texkimp with editorial changes made by Materials Today. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of Elsevier.