This document discusses a project to develop an extruder head capable of 3D printing fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites. A team of 5 mechanical engineering students from Colorado State University, advised by Dr. Don Radford, aims to combine the structural properties of composites with the manufacturing simplicity of additive manufacturing. The document provides background on composites properties, manufacturing techniques, and the goals and work plan for the project, which includes designing and testing an extruder head that can consolidate thermoplastic composites during additive manufacturing.

1.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Colin
Biery
(720)216-­‐7625
handsvod@rams.colostate.edu
Ryan
Dunn
(303)229-­‐8358
rysdunn@gmail.com
Michael
Hansen
(720)427-­‐1687
mikelangelo.mh77@gmail.com
Logan
Rutt
(303)495-­‐8382
lrutt@rams.colostate.edu
Tristan
Vesely
(925)876-­‐2343
tvesely@rams.colostate.edu
Colorado
State
University,
Mechanical
Engineering,
Senior
Practicum
Projects
Program
October
6,
2015
____________________________
___________________________
____________________________
___________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Advisor:
Dr.
Don
Radford

2.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Table
of
Contents
Introduction
...................................................................................................................................................
2
Background
....................................................................................................................................................
2
Composites
Properties
..........................................................................................................................
2
Composites
Manufacturing
.................................................................................................................
3
Additive
Manufacturing
........................................................................................................................
3
Current
Solutions
....................................................................................................................................
4
Problem
Statement
.....................................................................................................................................
5
Goals
.................................................................................................................................................................
6
Design
Constraints
.......................................................................................................................................
7
Work
Plan
and
Design
Evaluation
..........................................................................................................
7
Design
Evaluation
.....................................................................................................................................
11
Management
Plan
....................................................................................................................................
11
Meeting
times
.......................................................................................................................................
11
Timeline
and
Milestones
...................................................................................................................
13
Concluding
Statement
.............................................................................................................................
14
Budget
Breakdown
...................................................................................................................................
14
References
...................................................................................................................................................
15

3.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Introduction
Fiber
reinforced
thermoplastic
composites
are
incredibly
useful
materials
due
to
their
impressive
specific
stiffness
as
well
as
their
specific
strength.
Specific
stiffness
is
measured
by
Modulus
of
Elasticity
divided
by
density,
and
specific
strength
is
measured
by
tensile
strength
divided
by
density.
Unfortunately,
composite
manufacturing
is
a
difficult
and
costly
process
that
makes
the
practicality
of
composite
parts
unsuitable
for
many
designs.
In
contrast
additive
manufacturing
is
a
relatively
simple
manufacturing
processes,
but
creates
weaker
parts.
Combining
the
ease
of
additive
manufacturing
techniques
with
the
strength
of
composites
would
enable
designers
to
rapidly
create
components
that
meet
structural
requirements.
This
will
eliminate
lag
time
for
prototypes
and
reduce
market-­‐level
manufacturing
times.
The
proposed
solution
to
this
challenge
is
a
hot
end
extruder
head
capable
of
manufacturing
consolidated
thermoplastic
composites
through
3D
printing.
Advancement
of
composite
materials
in
engineering
design
strongly
depends
on
the
availability
of
new
manufacturing
processes
[7].
Background
Composites
Properties
Composite
materials
offer
mechanical
properties
for
engineering
applications
that
traditional
materials
cannot
compete
with.
Their
high
specific
strength
can
provide
the
same
capabilities
as
high-­‐grade
aluminum
at
five
to
ten
times
less
weight
[2].
Additionally
they
have
remarkable
durability
and
resistance
to
fatigue
[2].
Thermoplastic
fiber
composites
function
by
transmitting
external
energy
through
the
thermoplastic
matrix
material
to
the
hard,
brittle
fiber
reinforcements
within.
The
fibers
take
the
applied
load
while
the
matrix
protects
them
from
damage.
Properties
of
composites
heavily
depend
on
the
properties
of
the
matrix,
reinforcement,
and
the
ratio
of
matrix
to
reinforcement,
which
is
traditionally
stated
as
the
percent
weight
of
fiber
[2,8].
Fiber
orientation
is
one
factor
that
determines
the
properties
of
a
composite.
As
seen
from
Figure
1,
there
are
several
techniques
for
fiber
and
reinforcement
placement.
The
most
widely
practiced
fiber
placement
for
composites
is
continuous
and
discontinuous
(chopped)
fiber
[8].
Fibers
are
categorized
by
their
aspect
ratio
(length
divided
by
the
diameter
of
the
fiber),
where
continuous
fibers
have
long
aspect
ratios
and
discontinuous
fibers
have
short
aspect
ratios
[1].
Composites
are
most
effective
when
fibers
are
continuous
and
parallel,
increasing
their
ultimate
tensile
strength
and
Figure
1
-­‐
Continuous
vs.
Short
Fibers
[11]

4.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
stiffness.
Continuous
fiber
composites
have
anisotropic
material
characteristics,
and
fail
at
lower
stress
values
when
transversely
loaded
[2,8].
In
contrast,
Discontinuous
short
fiber
composites
tend
to
possess
more
isotropic
material
properties
when
compared
to
continuous
fiber
[2],
but
have
lower
tensile
strength
and
Modulus
of
Elasticity.
Consolidation
is
an
important
issue
when
dealing
with
composite
materials.
Consolidation
describes
how
effective
the
matrix/thermoplastic
is
at
reaching
and
spreading
between
all
of
the
fibers.
Proper
consolidation
uniformly
arranges
the
fiber
reinforcement
throughout
the
material
with
fiber
volumes
at
50%
or
above.
One
reason
composites
are
advantageous
over
other
materials
is
how
the
matrix
distributes
the
external
forces
experienced
by
the
composite
to
the
stronger
(and
more
brittle)
fibers
[5].
The
transfer
of
energy
between
the
matrix
and
fiber
is
accomplished
through
proper
wetting
of
the
composite.
Proper
wetting
provides
adequate
bonding
between
the
matrix
and
fibers,
and
transfers
loads
through
shear
to
the
fibers
[2].
With
inadequate
wetting
out
of
the
fiber
composite,
the
structural
strength
decreases
and
does
not
provide
proper
mechanical
properties
for
engineering
use.
Without
the
stiff,
brittle
fibers
the
thermoplastic
alone
is
far
weaker
and
has
a
lower
modulus
of
elasticity,
because
the
matrix
has
lower
tensile/compression
strength
and
modulus
of
elasticity
than
the
fibers.
Without
proper
consolidation
and
wetting
of
the
fibers,
these
material
advantages
can
be
lost.
If
the
fibers
are
not
distributed
evenly
through
the
thermoplastic
matrix
and
not
adequately
transferring
energy,
you
do
not
achieve
consistent
material
properties
throughout
the
composite.
Composites
Manufacturing
Although
composites
provide
strong
and
stiff
engineering
materials,
the
manufacturing
process
can
be
costly
and
time
consuming.
Manufacturability
is
a
limiting
factor
for
commercialization
of
these
materials,
where
the
process
involves
multiple
steps
and
require
bulky
molds
[7].
The
tooling
required
to
create
composite
components
are
expensive
to
design
and
manufacture
and
do
not
offer
adaptability
for
design
changes.
In
addition
to
expensive
tooling,
the
manufacturing
process
often
requires
human
intervention
[6].
With
high
labor
necessities
the
price
of
production
increases
due
to
lack
of
automation,
and
exposes
individuals
to
unhealthy
work
environments
containing
fumes
and
high
temperatures.
Additive
Manufacturing
Additive
manufacturing
(AM)
refers
to
the
process
of
building
3-­‐D
objects
by
adding
layer
upon
layer
of
material
to
create
a
complete
part
[10].
There
are
many
different
types
of
additive
manufacturing,
the
most
common
and
commercially
available
being
Fused
Deposition
Modeling
(FDM).
FDM
generally
uses
thermoplastic
filament
as
the
stock
material.
The
filament
is
fed
into
a
heated
extrusion
nozzle
where
it
is
melted
and
then
extruded
onto
a
base
plate
through
a
hot
end
extruder
head.
The
rate
at
which
the
filament
is
extruded
is
dependent
on
the
specified
printing
speed
of
the
extruder
head.
The
faster
the
printing
speed,
the
faster
the
filament
is
extruded
[10].
The
extruder
head
and
base
plate
move
on
a
minimum
of
three
axes
to
outline
the
geometry

5.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
of
the
part.
Currently,
most
of
these
printers
move
in
the
x-­‐y
plane
to
create
a
layer
and
then
move
in
the
z-­‐direction
to
begin
printing
the
next
layer.
FDM
manufacturing
requires
no
tooling
or
user
interaction
to
create
finished
parts.
Parts
are
built
up
directly
on
the
base
plate
from
the
ground
up.
This
is
advantageous
as
it
requires
no
tooling
but
disadvantageous
because
it
is
limited
in
what
geometries
at
can
build
vertically.
They
are
built
up
using
G-­‐code
generated
from
3D
specific
software.
This
software
reads
stereolithography
(STL)
files
and
generates
the
code
directly
from
them.
This
form
of
AM
is
extremely
useful
for
developing
geometries,
however
it
is
disadvantaged
when
developing
structural
properties
for
application
purposes.
Current
Solutions
There
are
a
few
current
ways
that
composites
are
being
implemented
into
AM.
These
include
using
hot
end
extruder
heads
to
pull
and
consolidate
fibers,
use
plastic
filament
pre-­‐impregnated
with
chopped
fibers,
and
using
printing
plastics
and
fibers
in
series
using
multiple
extruder
heads.
A
laboratory
scale
extruder
head,
developed
by
engineers
in
Zurich
Switzerland,
is
capable
of
of
processing
continuous
composite
lattice
structures
[7].
The
method
of
manufacturing
is
inspired
by
conventional
3D-­‐
printing,
and
uses
a
novel
two-­‐stage
extrusion
head
to
manufacture
the
composite
as
seen
in
Figure
2.
This
novel
manufacturing
method
is
currently
patented
for
a
continuous
fiber
lattice
fabrication
(CFLF).
CSU
currently
has
two
graduate
students
working
with
composite
additive
manufacturing.
They
are
printing
commingled
tow,
a
form
of
composite
stock
material,
onto
a
rotating
mandrel
using
3D
extruder
heads.
This
method
requires
tension
on
the
stock
material
in
order
to
achieve
good
consolidation.
There
are
multiple
companies
that
are
selling
thermoplastic
filament
with
short
chopped
fibers
pre-­‐impregnated
into
the
filament.
This
composite
filament
can
be
Figure
2
–
Commingled
tow
extruder
head
developed
by
ETHZ
Structures
[7]

6.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Figure
3
-­‐
Mark
Forged
MarkOne
Printer
[3]
printed
in
many
commercially
available
printers
but
does
not
add
the
desired
benefit
to
properties
that
can
be
achieved
from
traditional
composite
manufacturing
methods.
The
only
commercially
available
FDM
printer
that
prints
continuous
fiber
composites
is
the
Mark
One©
by
MarkForged
[3].
It
uses
a
dual
head
extruder
system
to
print
nylon
out
of
one
head
and
pre-­‐preg
fibers
out
of
the
other.
This
is
called
follow
behind
consolidation
because
the
matrix
is
extruded
on
top
of
the
fiber
after
extrusion.
This
method
gives
much
higher
strength
values
than
a
purely
nylon
part
would
achieving
a
tensile
strength
of
590
MPa
for
nylon-­‐fiberglass
composite
[3].
Problem
Statement
Composite
material
production
is
a
time-­‐intensive
and
expensive
process
when
creating
highly
complicated
parts.
Tooling
is
difficult
and
must
have
a
high
level
of
precision
to
create
quality
parts.
Molds
created
for
a
part
are
specific
to
that
part,
they
cannot
be
used
to
manufacture
anything
else.
Fused
deposition
modeling
is
incredibly
easy
to
use
and
can
create
unique
shapes
for
virtually
no
overhead
cost.
It
is
versatile
and
capable,
but
the
parts
created
are
weaker
than
thermoplastic
parts
created
with
traditional
methods.
Being
able
to
produce
composite
materials
in
unique
shapes
via
additive
manufacturing
is
an
enabling
technology
opening
up
countless
opportunities
to
save
money
by
avoiding
costly
production
techniques.
Additive
manufacturing
is
a
rapidly
growing
field
that
keeps
making
breakthroughs
in
the
potential
it
has.
Composites
are
one
of
the
few
types
of
material,
if
not
the
only
one
left,
that
is
not
yet
being
printed.
Research
labs
are
already
starting
to
experiment
with
this
technology
[7].
Before
additive
manufacturing
of
composites
can
become
commercial
there
has
to
be
a
reliable
foundation
built
in
research
labs.
Researchers
who
make
the
most
strides
in
composites
extrusion
stand
to
gain
a
great
amount
as
many
commercial
companies
will
undoubtedly
begin
producing
as
many
composites
as
possible
this
way.
Ultimately
those
manufacturing
composites
stand
to
benefit
from
composites
extrusion
because
they
are
paying
the
outstanding
bill
for
current
production
methods.
Currently
Boeing®
requires
the
use
of
carbon
fiber
thrust
reversing
cascade
baskets
for
their
jet
engines.
There
is
only
one
company
in
the

7.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
world
which
produces
the
baskets
and
they
use
an
expensive
hand-­‐laying
process.
The
proposed
fused
deposition
modeling
method
of
composite
manufacturing
has
the
potential
of
being
a
viable
alternative
to
the
current
cascade
manufacturing
process.
Goals
The
designated
task
is
to
design
and
build
a
progression
of
laboratory
scale
composite
extruder
heads
capable
of
being
mounted
on
a
conventional
or
non-­‐
conventional
3D
printer.
The
heads
developed
must
successfully
print
fiber
reinforced
composite
material.
Each
extruder
head
will
be
capable
of
printing
composites
with
different
stock
material
options:
● One
head
capable
of
using
commingled
tow
and
of
wetting
out
dry
continuous
fiber.
● One
head
that
is
able
to
use
lower
cost
forms
of
plastic
feedstock
than
the
commercial
fused
deposition
plastic
filament.
● One
head
capable
of
extruding
continuous
patterns
of
plastic
and
reinforcing
dry
fiber
with
plastic
pellets
as
the
feedstock.
● Print
composites
made
up
of
a
polypropylene
thermoplastic
matrix
and
glass
reinforcing
fibers
in
order
to
demonstrate
capability
of
printing
composites
made
up
of
a
Peek
thermoplastic
matrix
and
carbon
reinforcing
fibers
Objectives
Table
1
-­‐
Design
Objectives
Objective
Name
Priority*
Method
of
Measurement
Objective
Direction
Target
Consolidation
5
Photo
Microscopy
Maximize
Evenly
distributed
fibers
Fiber
Volume
Fraction
4
Volume
of
fibers
(cc)
Maximize
60%
Hot
End
Temperature
Capability
3
Head
temperature
(degrees
C)
Maximize
500°C
Operating
Temperature
3
Head
temperature
(degrees
C)
Optimize
TBD
via
experimentation
Composites
Stiffness
2
Specific
Modulus
(GPa)
Maximize
26.5
GPa
[9]**
*
Priority
is
weighed
on
1-­‐5
scale
with
5
most
important
**
Value
provided
for
60%
by
volume
glass
fiber
reinforced
PP
composite.
Value
will
change
based
on
material
produced

8.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Design
Constraints
Table
2
-­‐
Design
Constraints
Constraint
Method
of
Measurement
Limits
Material
Stock
Form
Thermoplastics
and
Reinforcing
Fibers
Stock
Commingled
tow,
thermoplastic
filament,
dry
fiber,
thermoplastic
pellets
Size
Dimensions
(mm
x
mm
x
mm)
54
x
65
x
65
Commercial
Software
Compatible
slicing
and
controls
software
Cura,
Slic3r,
etc.
Manufacturing
Methods
Compatible
types
of
additive
manufacturing
Fused
Deposition
Modeling
Budget
Dollars
Spent
$2000
Safety
Possibility
of
Serious
Injury
0
Work
Plan
and
Design
Evaluation
The
work
plan
for
our
project
is
crucial
to
developing
a
successful
product
and
will
be
executed
in
three
iterative
design
and
manufacturing
processes,
each
of
which
are
determined
by
the
type
of
material
stock
to
be
extruded.
These
processes
are
broken
down
in
detail
in
tables
3-­‐5.

9.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Table
3
-­‐
1st
Extruder
Head
Iteration
-­‐
Commingled
Tow
Design
Process
Process
step
Task
Breakdown
(with
number
of
hours
allocated
to
each
task)
1. Acquire
3D
FDM
printer,
extruder
head,
and
commingled
tow
Polypropylene
(PP)
Twintex
stock
material
• Develop
printer
criteria
to
be
approved
by
Dr.
Radford
(3
hrs.)
• research
and
buy
printer
approved
by
Dr.
Radford
(8-­‐
10
hrs.)
• Communicate
with
Kent
Warlick
to
receive
PP
Twintex
material
(1-­‐2
hrs.)
2.)
Attempt
extruding
commingled
tow
through
original
standard
extruder
head
• use
small
amount
of
PP
Twintex
in
test
extrusion
of
commingled
tow
using
the
original
extruder
head
that
was
purchased
with
the
printer
(3
hrs.)
3.)
Determine
Procedure
for
effective
pultrusion,
consolidation,
and
extrusion
of
commingled
tow
with
extruder
head
• Meet
with
Kevin
Hedin
and
Kent
Warlick
to
determine
current
methods
of
tensioning,
consolidating
extruding,
commingled
tow
on
spinning
mandrel
printer
(1-­‐2
hrs.)
• identify
and
isolate
most
important
components
of
extruder
head
for
effective
tensioning,
consolidation,
and
extrusion
(3-­‐5
hrs.)
4.)
Develop
extrusion
angle
and
flat
plate
printing
techniques
• Use
information
acquired
from
initial
testing
and
mandrel
methods
to
generate
concepts
for
tensioning
consolidation
and
extrusion
(10-­‐15
hrs.)
5.)
Design
angled
extruder
head
to
consolidate
and
print
Commingled
tow
• Design
mechanical
components
necessary
to
achieve
goals
determined
in
concept
generation,
using
as
much
technology
from
prior
commingled
extrusion
process
as
necessary
(
10-­‐15
hrs.)
6.)
Manufacture
• Using
the
I2P
lab
and
the
team
printer,
print
any
parts
necessary
that
are
not
temperature
sensitive
(printing
time:
10-­‐20
hrs.)
• Machine
any
temperature
dependent
components,
either
in
house
or
professionally,
depending
on
complexity
of
geometry
(5-­‐15
hrs.)
(up
to
three
weeks
of
lead
time
for
professional
manufacturing)
7.)
Assemble
and
test
extruder
head
• Test
extruder
head
and
parts
printed
based
on
current
testing
methods
used
by
Kevin
Hedin
and
Kent
Warlick
and
previously
found
in
research
(15-­‐20
hrs.)
8.)
Revise
design
and
modify
extruder
as
necessary
based
on
testing
• Based
on
testing,
modify
or
redesign
components
of
extruder
head
to
increase
composite
print
quality
and
use
on
2nd
and
3rd
iteration
of
extruder
head
(5-­‐
20
hrs.)

10.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Table
4
-­‐
2nd
Iteration
-­‐
E-­‐glass
fiber
tow
and
thermoplastic
filament
Process
step
Task
Breakdown
(with
number
of
hours
allocated
to
each
task)
1. Acquire
E-­‐glass
Fiber
feedstock
and
PP
filament
feedstock
• Purchase
E-­‐glass
fiber
tow
feedstock
(2-­‐3
hrs)
• Purchase
PP
thermoplastic
filament
feedstock
(<1
hr)
2.)
Modify
1st
iteration
of
extruder
head
design
to
accommodate
for
thermoplastic
filament
feedstock.
• Generate
concepts
to
accommodate
for
new
feedstock
material
types
(5-­‐10
hrs)
• Modify
designs
of
first
iteration
of
head
to
be
capable
of
tensioning
consolidating,
and
extruding,
composite
as
separate
feedstocks;
dry
fiber
and
PP
filament
(14-­‐18
hrs.)
3.)
Manufacture
new
components
of
extruder
head
• Print
any
parts
necessary
that
are
not
temperature
sensitive
and
were
not
previously
manufactured
from
1st
iteration
(printing
time:
5-­‐10hrs)
• Machine
hot
end
extruder
head,
either
in
house
or
professionally,
depending
on
complexity
of
geometry
(5-­‐15
hrs)
(up
to
three
weeks
of
lead
time
for
professional
manufacturing)
4.)
Assemble
and
test
• Test
extruder
head
and
parts
printed
based
on
current
testing
methods
used
by
Kevin
Hedin
and
Kent
Warlick
and
previously
found
in
research
(15-­‐
20
hrs)
5.)
Revise
design
and
modify
extruder
as
necessary
based
on
testing
• Based
on
testing,
modify
or
redesign
components
of
extruder
head
to
increase
composite
print
quality
used
on
1st
and
to
be
used
on
3rd
iteration
of
extruder
head
(5-­‐20
hrs)

11.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Table
5
-­‐
3rd
Iteration
-­‐
E-­‐glass
fiber
tow
and
pellet
stock
Polypropylene
feedstock
Process
step
Task
Breakdown
(with
number
of
hours
allocated
to
each
task)
1.)
Acquire
matrix
pellet
feedstock
• purchase
PP
pellet
stock,
preferably
premixed
and
ready
to
be
used
as
is
(1-­‐3
hrs.)
2.)
Develop
compact
process
for
melting
and
extruding
pellet
feedstock
• Working
off
of
existing
technology,
develop
a
method
to
use
thermoplastic
feedstock
that
can
be
integrated
into
3D
printing
process
(8-­‐12
hrs.)
3.)
Modify
2nd
iteration
of
extruder
head
design
to
incorporate
pellet
feedstock
system
• Design
components
to
use
method
developed
to
use
pellet
feedstock
(10-­‐15
hrs.)
• Modify
designs
to
be
capable
of
dealing
with
the
addition
of
components
for
pellet
feedstock
(10-­‐15
hrs.)
4.)
Manufacture
new
components
of
extruder
head
• Print
any
parts
necessary
that
are
not
temperature
sensitive
and
were
not
previously
manufactured
from
1st
iteration
(printing
time:
5-­‐10hrs)
• Machine
any
components
that
are
temperature
dependent,
either
in-­‐house
or
professionally,
depending
on
complexity
of
geometry
(5-­‐20
hrs.)
(
up
to
three
weeks
of
lead
time
for
professional
manufacturing)
5.)
Assemble
and
test
• Test
extruder
head
and
parts
printed
based
on
current
testing
methods
used
by
Kevin
Hedin
and
Kent
Warlick
and
previously
found
in
research
(15-­‐20
hrs.)
6.)
Revise
design
and
modify
extruder
as
necessary
based
on
testing
• Based
on
testing,
modify
or
redesign
components
of
extruder
head
to
increase
composite
print
quality
used
in
1st
and
2nd
iteration
of
extruder
head
(5-­‐20
hrs.)

12.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Design
Evaluation
Our
main
design
objective
is
to
produce
a
high
quality
composite
so
there
must
be
a
way
to
test
for
quality.
Extrusion
temperature,
feed
rate,
and
nozzle
diameter
are
crucial
test
variables
that
need
structured
experiments
to
determine
optimum
printing
conditions.
Consolidation
will
be
measured
with
density
measurements
and
fiber
volume
fraction
will
be
measured
with
a
resin
burnout
method.
Resin
burnout
involves
weighing
the
produced
part
and
then
baking
it
and
letting
the
resin
evaporate
so
only
fibers
are
left.
Those
fibers
can
then
be
weighed
with
respect
to
the
original
weight
to
find
the
percentage
of
fiber
in
the
material.
Other
engineering
analysis
tools
that
will
be
required
for
a
successful
product
involve
mathematical
consideration
and
control
systems.
Mathematical
heat
transfer
calculations
will
be
required
to
determine
the
optimal
temperature
to
extrude
the
matrix
at
to
ensure
proper
wetting
out
of
fibers
and
solidification
upon
contact
with
the
print
plate
or
previous
layers.
Die
swell
will
be
an
important
variable
to
take
into
consideration
when
designing
and
testing.
Die
swell
is
determined
from
the
diameter
of
the
extrudate
and
the
diameter
of
the
extrusion
nozzle.
Material
selection
software
such
as
Cambridge
Engineering
Selector
will
be
a
valuable
asset
for
any
engineering
decisions
needing
to
be
made
regarding
material
selection,
this
is
most
likely
to
occur
in
nozzle
design.
Control
systems
will
be
implemented
in
regards
to
extruder
head
temperature.
Controls
should
be
user
defined
and
consistent
in
nature
and
therefore
a
system
of
heat
detection
is
necessary.
Management
Plan
Meeting
times
Team
Extruder
meets
Tuesday
and
Thursday
afternoons
starting
around
1:30pm
(depending
on
when
senior
design
lecture
get
out).
On
Tuesday
afternoons
Team
3D
Contour
and
Team
Extruder
Head
meet
in
order
to
coordinate
between
the
two
projects.
Team
Cascade
joins
this
collaborative
meeting
the
first
Tuesday
of
every
month
to
update
everyone
on
current
progress
and
to
prepare
the
interfacing
of
the
three
projects.
Cascade’s
involvement
in
the
collaborative
meetings
will
increase
as
the
design
process
progresses,
and
the
time
comes
to
start
interfacing
the
projects.
After
the
multi-­‐team
meetings
are
finished
Team
Extruder
continues
working
on
the
composite
extruder
head
specifically.
On
Thursday
the
team
initially
meets
with
Dr.
Radford,
along
with
the
other
Boeing
composite
teams
for
a
short
period.
Afterwards
Team
Extruder
has
its
own
meeting
to
prepare
questions
and
concerns,
while
the
3D
contour
team
meets
with
Dr.
Radford.
After
meeting
with
the
team’s
advisor
there
is
another
short
team
meeting
to
discuss
what
was
just
covered
and
what
needs
to
be
done
for
the
next
week,
including
goals
and
specific
tasks
for
each
team
member.

13.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Every
Wednesday
night
before
our
team
meeting
with
Dr.
Radford
everyone
in
the
team
completes
an
individual
progress
report
which
details
what
they
accomplished
in
the
last
week
and
what
they
hope
to
accomplish
in
the
upcoming
week.
The
project
manager
also
completes
a
progress
report
for
the
entire
team
that
is
sent
to
Dr.
Radford.
The
team
progress
report
also
includes
questions
and
concerns
that
the
entire
team
would
like
to
discuss
and
any
additional
documentation
that
is
separate
from
the
report.
These
progress
reports
are
sent
to
Dr.
Radford
no
later
than
8:00
AM
the
day
of
the
meeting
and
are
stored
in
a
folder
on
the
team’s
drive
for
reference.
Every
other
week
the
team
also
gives
a
PowerPoint
presentation
to
Dr.
Radford
covering
much
of
the
same
information.
Other
meetings
times
are
scheduled
as
needed
to
complete
certain
tasks.
Table
6
-­‐
Team
Meeting
Times
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Other
Days
1:30pm
-­‐
Combined
meeting
with
3D
Contour
Team
and
Boeing
Cascade
Basket
team(Cascade-­‐First
Tuesday
of
the
month)
-­‐
Separate
team
meeting
afterwards
Individual
and
team
progress
reports
finished
and
sent
by
the
end
of
the
day
Bi-­‐weekly
progress
report
finished
and
sent
every
other
week
2:00pm
-­‐
Combined
advisor
meeting
2:15pm
-­‐
Team
meeting
time
3:15pm
-­‐
Meeting
with
Dr.
Radford
3:45pm
-­‐
Quick
team
recap
Meetings
as
necessary
to
complete
tasks

14.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Timeline
and
Milestones
The
main
team
schedule
is
set
in
a
Gantt
chart
built
in
Microsoft
Project.
Important
milestones
which
are
closer
to
the
present
have
more
exact
dates
assigned
to
them.
In
order
to
complete
three
prototypes
within
the
allowed
time
for
this
project
milestones
are
set
very
close
together
and
sometimes
overlap.
Some
important
milestones
are:
● Oct.
6th:
Turn
in
project
plan
document
● Week
of
Nov.
9th:
Complete
concept
generation
and
evaluation
for
fiber-­‐
filament
and
fiber-­‐pellet
extruder
heads
● Week
of
Nov.
16th:
Complete
testing
and
evaluation
of
commingled
tow
extruder
head
● Dec.
3rd:
Critical
decision
meeting
to
determine
focus
on
commingled
tow
or
fiber-­‐filament
extruder
head
development
● Week
of
Dec.
14th:
Complete
full
3D
CAD
and
2D
drawings
for
fiber-­‐filament
and
fiber-­‐pellet
extruder
heads,
begin
fiber-­‐filament
extruder
head
manufacturing
● Week
of
Jan.
18th:
Finish
fiber-­‐filament
extruder
head
manufacturing
● Week
of
Jan.
25th:
Finish
fiber-­‐filament
extruder
head
assembly
and
begin
testing,
begin
fiber-­‐pellet
extruder
head
manufacturing
● Late
Feb.:
Critical
decision
meeting
to
determine
focus
on
fiber-­‐filament
or
fiber-­‐
pellet
extruder
head
development,
finish
fiber-­‐pellet
extruder
head
assembly
● Mid
Apr.:
E-­‐Days,
finish
extruder
head
project
and
present,
begin
integration
with
other
Boeing
Composite
teams
to
print
composite
cascade
basket
● Early
May:
Finish
integration
with
other
Boeing
Composite
teams
and
attempt
full
composite
cascade
basket
print

15.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Concluding
Statement
This
project
plan
was
intended
to
communicate
what
the
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
Team
will
be
working
on
for
the
academic
year.
Three
iterative
design
processes
will
be
used
to
develop
the
capability
to
print
with
three
different
forms
of
feedstock
material.
Difficulties
of
the
development
lie
in
achieving
wetting
between
fibers
and
matrix
as
well
as
between
layers
and
the
previously
produced
layer.
Evaluation
of
the
successes
put
forth
by
the
team
most
notably
involve
producing
a
composite
material
of
high
quality.
Budget
Breakdown
Table
7
-­‐
Team
Budget
Allotment
Item
Description
Estimated
Cost
3D
printer
A
commercially
available
3D
printer
which
can
fit
our
extruder
head.
Will
be
used
to
print
test
articles
for
all
three
prototypes.
Split
with
Contour
Team
$600
($1200
split
evenly
with
contour
team,
printer
may
be
donated/discounted)
Pico
B3
hot
end
Commercially
available
hot
end
for
extruder
which
will
allow
printing
of
commingled
tow
$150
(includes
shipping,
base
plate
cost)
Glass
fiber
and
PP
commingled
tow
Commingled
glass
fiber
inside
PP
matrix
to
be
used
for
first
prototype
$0
(provided
by
advisor)
Glass
fiber
E-­‐glass
fibers
used
as
reinforcing
material
in
second
and
third
prototypes
$40
(6
kg
of
fiber)
PP
filament
PP
matrix
in
filament
stock
form,
for
use
in
prototype
two
$80
(2
kg
of
filament)
PP
pellet
stock
PP
matrix
in
pellet
stock
form
for
use
in
prototype
three
$45
(10
lbs
of
pellets)
Production
of
custom
hot
ends
Professional
machining
for
prototype
two
and
three
hot
ends
$600
($60
per
hour)
I2P
printer
lab
printing
Printing
of
dual
extruder
head
and
prototype
parts
for
all
three
prototypes
In
total
the
Team
was
allocated
2,000
dollars
to
complete
all
three
prototypes.
This
money
was
granted
through
our
advisor,
Dr.
Radford,
for
use
on
this
project.

16.
Composites
Extruder
Head
Development
References
[1]
al.,
F.
N.
(2015).
Additive
Manufacturing
Of
Carbon
Fiber
Reinforced
thermoplastic
Composites
using
Fused
Deposition
Modeling.
Composites:
Part
B,
Engineering,
80,
369-­‐
378.
[2]
Campbell,
F.
(2010).
Structural
Composite
Materials.
ASM
International.
[3]
MarkForged
Develops
3D
Printer
For
Carbon
Fibre.
(2015).
Reinforced
Plastics,
1(59).
[4]
Michaeli,
W.
(2004).
Processing
Polyethelylene
Terephthalate
on
a
Single
Screw
Extruder
Without
Predrying
Usin
Hopper
and
Melt
Degassing.
ANTEC,
296-­‐298.
[5]
Premix
Inc.,
'Why
Composites?',
(2015).
Available:
http://www.premix.com/why-­‐
composites/adv-­‐composites.php.
[Accessed:
03-­‐
Oct-­‐
2015].
[6]
TWI,
'FAQ:
How
are
composites
manufactured?',
(2015).
Available:
http://www.twi-­‐
global.com/technical-­‐knowledge/faqs/process-­‐faqs/faq-­‐how-­‐are-­‐composites-­‐
manufactured/.
[Accessed:
02-­‐
Oct-­‐
2015].
[7]
Eichenhofer,
Maldonado,
Florian,
Ermanni,
M.
(2015).
ANALYSIS
OF
PROCESSING
CONDITIONS
FOR
A
NOVEL
3D-­‐COMPOSITE
PRODUCTION
TECHNIQUE.
20th
International
Conference
on
Composite
Materials,
20th.
[8]
Budinski,
K.
(1979).
Engineering
Materials:
Properties
and
Selection
(9th
ed.,
Vol.
1,
p.
773).
Upper
Saddle
River,
New
Jersey:
Reston
Pub.
[9]"TWINTEX®
PP
Mechanical
Properties
(non
Standard)."
Fiberglass
Industries,
Inc.
Fiber
Glass
Industries,
Inc,
2013.
Web.
5
Oct.
2015.
<http://fiberglassindustries.com/twintextechdata.htm>.
[10]
Gibson,
I.,
Rosen,
D.,
&
Stucker,
B.
(2010).
Additive
manufacturing
technologies
rapid
prototyping
to
direct
digital
manufacturing
(2nd
ed.,
Vol.
1,
p.
487).
New
York:
Springer
New
York.
[11]
Composite
Materials
Development.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
October
6,
2015.