Thermoplastics for Airframe Applications

A Review of the Properties and Repair Methods for

Thermoplastic Composites

Roger Vodicka

Airframes and Engines Division

Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory

DSTO-TR-0424

ABSTRACT

Thermoplastic composite materials have shown great promise as materials for current and future
aircraft components. It is likely that thermoplastic composite components will enter RAAF service in
the near future in the form of replacement components which were previously manufactured from
metals or thermosetting composites such as graphite/epoxy.
Thermoplastic resins offer a number of advantages over conventional thermosetting resins such as
epoxies. Thermoplastics exhibit chemical and impact resistance and may be used over a wide range
of temperatures. They have a very low level of moisture uptake which means their mechanical
properties are less degraded under hot/wet conditions.
Thermoplastic composite materials offer a number of advantages but may also require different
manufacturing and repair techniques. In particular it is often necessary to use significantly higher
processing temperatures and pressures than for typical thermosetting composite materials.
In general, thermoplastic composites are currently more difficult to repair than conventional
thermosetting composites. Given the range of possible structural forms and types of damage, it is
likely that a range of different repair techniques will be necessary with no single method being
optimum for all cases.

RELEASE LIMITATION

Approved for Public Release

D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N C E
——————————!———————————
DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION
Published by

DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory

PO Box 4331
Melbourne Victoria 3001

Telephone: (03) 9626 8111

Fax: (03) 9626 8999

© Commonwealth of Australia 1996

AR No. AR 009-900
October 1996

Approved for public release

 Thermoplastics for Airframe Applications
A Review of the Properties and Repair Methods
for Thermoplastic Composites

Executive Summary
Thermoplastic composite materials have shown great promise as materials for current
and future aircraft components. It is likely that thermoplastic composite components
will enter RAAF service in the near future in the form of replacement components
which were previously manufactured from metals or thermosetting composites such
as graphite/epoxy.

Thermoplastic resins offer a number of advantages over conventional thermosetting

resins such as epoxies. Thermoplastics exhibit chemical and impact resistance and
may be used over a wide range of temperatures. They have a very low level of
moisture uptake which means their mechanical properties are less degraded under
hot/wet conditions.

Thermoplastic composite materials offer a number of advantages but may also require
different manufacturing and repair techniques. In particular it is often necessary to
use significantly higher processing temperatures and pressures than for typical
thermosetting composite materials.

Repair methods for thermoplastic composite materials include the use of bolted repairs
and adhesively bonded repairs as per conventional thermosetting composites and
metallic components. However, unlike thermosetting resins, thermoplastics may be
re-melted after they are formed. They may also be joined using a process called fusion
bonding which produces high-strength welds. Fusion bonding allows thermoplastic
composites to be joined by heating them close to their melting point and then applying
sufficient pressure to consolidate a weld.

In general, thermoplastic composites are currently more difficult to repair than

conventional thermosetting composites. Given the range of possible structural forms
and types of damage, it is likely that a range of different repair techniques will be
necessary with no single method being optimum for all cases.
 Authors

Roger Vodicka
Airframes and Engines Division

Roger Vodicka graduated BSc. (Hons.) from Monash University

and joined AMRL in 1990. He currently works in the area of
composite materials and crack-patching repair technology. Current
working projects include environmental degradation of
composites, composite repair, battle damage repair, surface
treatment technology and composite manufacture.
____________________ ________________________________________________
 Contents

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1

2. HIGH PERFORMANCE THERMOPLASTIC RESINS................................................. 1

3. THERMOSETS AND THERMOPLASTICS - A COMPARISON............................... 2

3.1 Advantages of Thermoplastics as Composite Matrix Resins ..................................... 2
3.2 Disadvantages of Thermoplastics as Composite Matrix Resins................................ 4

4. AEROSPACE APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 5

5. U.S. DEFENCE RESEARCH EFFORTS ............................................................................ 6

6. REPAIR AND BONDING PROCEDURES ..................................................................... 7

6.1 Fusion Bonding.................................................................................................................... 8
6.2 Patch Repair ......................................................................................................................... 9
6.2.1 Mechanical Fastening .............................................................................................. 10
6.2.2 Mechanical Fastening Plus Adhesive Bonding ................................................... 10
6.2.3 Heated Fasteners ...................................................................................................... 10
6.2.4 Adhesive Bonding.................................................................................................... 10
6.2.5 Amorphous thermoplastic film bonding.............................................................. 11
6.2.6 Focused Infrared Heating ....................................................................................... 13
6.2.7 Dielectric/Microwave Heating.............................................................................. 13
6.2.8 Heated Tool Welding/Co-consolidation.............................................................. 13
6.2.9 Resistance Welding.................................................................................................. 14
6.2.10 Ultrasonic Welding................................................................................................ 14
6.2.11 Induction Heating.................................................................................................. 15
6.3 Thermo-reforming ............................................................................................................ 15

7. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 16

8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 17

9. APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................... 19

 PROCESS............................................................ 21
10. APPENDIX B - THERMABOND
 DSTO-TR-0424

1. Introduction

Thermoplastics are high molecular weight polymers which, unlike thermosetting

resins, do not form a rigid three-dimensional cross-linked chemical structure after
processing. This allows the thermoplastic resin to be readily re-melted and re-formed;
something that cannot be achieved using conventional thermoset resins. It is for this
reason that thermoplastics have great appeal as composite matrices. Manufacturing
methods can take advantage of this characteristic and so can repair and joining
techniques. Much research has been focussed on the development of thermoplastics;
especially in the areas of thermoplastic pre-pregs (fibres pre-impregnated with the
thermoplastic matrix material), manufacturing techniques and joining methods

The aim of this report is to examine the use of thermoplastic resins as replacements for
the currently used epoxies. In particular, aspects such as durability and repair
procedures are examined to determine whether thermoplastic components would
present any difficulties if they entered into RAAF service. This review focuses only on
recent developments in this field to enable the reader to get a clear idea of
developments in the last decade or so.

2. High Performance Thermoplastic Resins

A wide range of thermoplastics are available and in common use today. In the area of
high performance thermoplastics, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyphenylene-
sulfide (PPS) are probably the most widely reported thermoplastic resins. Most high
performance thermoplastics have a semi-crystalline polymer morphology since levels
of crystallinity never exceed about 90%. Crystallinity in high-performance polymers is
important as it has a strong influence on chemical and mechanical properties. In broad
terms crystallinity tends to increase the stiffness and tensile strength while amorphous
areas are more effective in absorbing impact energy. The degree of crystallinity is
determined by many factors including the type of polymer and the processing
conditions. In the processing of a particular polymer type, polymer crystals form
during cooling from the melt state. The rate of cooling is a crucial parameter in
determining the level of crystallinity.

PEEK thermoplastic resin is characterised by a high melting temperature (Tm) and high
glass transition temperature (Tg). It forms a partly crystalline polymer morphology that
has a high resistance to chemical attack, radiation and thermal oxidation. PPS has a
lower Tg and Tm than PEEK but is extremely thermally stable, has fire retardant
properties, can attain a high level of crystallinity and is resistant to many organic
solvents. Typical properties of PPS and PEEK resins are given in Table 1.

1
DSTO-TR-0424

Table 1. Some Properties of PEEK and PPS Thermoplastic Resins

Name (Manufacturer) Glass Melting Temperature Crystallinity

Transition Tm
Temperature
Tg
PEEK (ICI) 143°C 334°C 0-40%
PPS (PhillipsPetroleum) 85°C 285°C 0-65%

3. Thermosets and Thermoplastics - A Comparison

3.1 Advantages of Thermoplastics as Composite Matrix Resins

The advantages of thermoplastics over conventional thermoset resins (eg: an epoxy)

are summarised below:

• Unlimited shelf life:

− Since thermoplastic resins do not cure via a chemical reaction they do not have to
be stored in freezers. The thermoplastic is already “cured” to begin with and is
formed into the final net shape as required using heat and pressure. This
effectively infinite shelf life is a big advantage and avoids problems with
material age and storage.

• Wide range of manufacturing options:

− Many types of manufacturing methods are available for thermoplastics. These

include compression moulding, pultrusion, filament winding and
thermoforming. Prepreg material made from reinforcing fibres pre-impregnated
with thermoplastic resin can also be used to build parts using autoclave
processing as per thermosets.

• Short processing time:

− The manufacturing technique chosen affects the processing time but the majority
of time is consumed in melting the resin and compacting the part. The part must
then be cooled at a set rate to allow for the correct level of crystallinity to
develop. Injection moulding of thermoplastic resins can lead to very low cycle
times. Timing of injection is not as critical as for thermosets since at the melting
temperature, the viscosity of the resin will remain constant with time. In some
processes the only limiting factors in production are how quickly the material

2
 DSTO-TR-0424

can be heated and cooled. Furthermore, many processes can be readily

automated.

• Improved impact resistance:

− Thermoplastic resins have superior toughness compared to untoughened epoxies

but it must be stressed that improved impact performance for thermoplastic
resins does not necessarily translate into improved impact performance for
composites made from these resins. Unreinforced thermoplastics can undergo
large strains without failing but the constraint of a fibrous reinforcement tends to
negate this desirable aspect to some degree. Toughened thermoset composites
have been shown to have impact resistance values similar to that of
thermoplastic composites, sometimes even better. However, damage is easier to
detect on a thermoplastic composite since the surface permanently deforms to
form a visible physical depression.

• Ability to be re-formed:

− At temperatures above the melting temperature the resin will flow and may be
re-formed into another shape. One attractive aspect of thermoplastics is that
they may also be repaired by this method using high temperatures and
pressures.

• Low water absorption:

− The water absorption level for many thermoplastic resins is very low. PEEK and
PPS resins take up moisture to about the 0.1% level under hot and humid
conditions [1]. This compares with about 3% or more for many epoxy resins.
Moisture uptake results in a decrease in mechanical properties such as stiffness.
Moisture uptake is also important in bonded repair procedures since moisture in
the parent material is a source of voids in the repair bondline. Thermoplastic
matrix composites exhibit excellent mechanical performance in hot/wet
environments.

• High chemical resistance:

− Both PEEK and PPS thermoplastics exhibit excellent resistance to both jet fuel
and hydraulic fluids [2]. This makes thermoplastic material ideal for many
aviation operating environments. In general, crystalline morphologies have a
greater resistance to chemical attack.

• Simpler manufacturing:

− Automated procedures may be used for the manufacture of thermoplastics; this

reduces part costs substantially, offsetting the high raw-material costs. Joining
thermoplastic parts can be a simple process since they can be welded together
using local heating. The greatest advantage is that an autoclave is not required,

3
DSTO-TR-0424

allowing integrally heated tooling to be used. This reduces energy costs and
capital outlay.

3.2 Disadvantages of Thermoplastics as Composite Matrix Resins

The disadvantages of thermoplastics over conventional thermoset resins (eg: an

epoxy) are summarised below:

• High processing temperatures required:

− The temperatures required to form thermoplastics are far greater than for
thermosets. Typical processing temperatures for PEEK are 350°C and higher.
Conventional manufacturing equipment such as autoclaves may not be able to
reach these temperatures and different lay-up consumable materials such as
bagging films and sealant tapes are also required.

• High pressures required:

− Depending on the manufacturing process, high pressures can be required to

form thermoplastics. Thermoplastics melt at high temperature but still remain
fairly viscous which can make it difficult for the resin to flow and the composite
part to consolidate.

• High raw-material cost:

− The cost of thermoplastic resins is currently high but is expected to decrease over
time. The cost of thermoplastic resin prepregs can be up to four times that of
comparable epoxy prepregs. Overall cost reductions can be made since shorter
processing times are required and the fact that many parts can be produced
using automated equipment. This itself offsets much of the raw-material
expense and cost-effective parts can be made even when compared to
aluminium. Scrap material is also easily recycled.

• Repair procedures not fully matured:

− Repair procedures for thermoplastic composites have not yet fully matured and
have not become a regular part of aircraft service. Repair procedures which take
advantage of the numerous bonding techniques applicable to thermosets have
been investigated and show much promise. These are detailed later.

4
 DSTO-TR-0424

4. Aerospace Applications

The automotive industry has produced a wide range of thermoplastic parts which are
made in very short processing times using fully automated equipment. This
experience has been used by aerospace companies and many of these automotive ideas
and concepts have been used in the production of aircraft components

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company have used thermoplastics in the

manufacture of an aircraft door structure [3]. Thermoplastics were selected due to the
benefits listed above, even though the raw material cost of the thermoplastic compared
to aluminium was more than 20 times greater. Through automation the cost of
assembly was drastically reduced and the final component was half the cost of the
aluminium equivalent. The aluminium door consisted of 67 parts and 465 fasteners
while the thermoplastic equivalent used only 12 parts and 20 fasteners. Furthermore
the thermoplastic part failed at three times the ultimate design load which indicates
that further savings could be made by re-designing the original part. This would
further reduce the weight of the part, which was already 18% lighter than the
aluminium equivalent. Practical cases of in-service use of thermoplastics include a
trial by Lockheed of a graphite/PEEK thermoplastic composite undercarriage door on
a C-130 aircraft. The door is being trialed in Alaska with the aircraft landing on
unimproved runways.

A variety of demonstrator parts have also been manufactured from PPS resin by the
Phillips Petroleum Company [4]. The technique of thermoforming was employed.
This technique utilises existing technology which has been used to produce flat
reinforced thermoplastic sheets. Flat sheets are placed into a mould and pressed into
shape under high temperature and one to three atmospheres of pressure. In this
process the initial sheet thickness determines the final part thickness. Cycle times to
form the parts are of the order of 5 to 10 minutes.

Another demonstrator part made by Lockheed is the thermoplastic composite fighter

fuselage. A section of the fuselage measuring 122 cm long by 137 cm diameter was
manufactured using a variety of thermoplastic prepreg materials including AS4/PEEK
[5]. There are many more examples of the use of thermoplastics including a landing
gear strut door and access panel for the F-5F aircraft, a Hercules radome, parts of the B-
2 Bomber and the nose-wheel door for the Fokker-50 aircraft all of which are described
in [6].

5
DSTO-TR-0424

5. U.S. Defence Research Efforts

The United States Air Force (U.S. AIR FORCE) has been one of the largest investors in
aerospace thermoplastics research. A review of some of the thermoplastic oriented
programs initiated by the U.S. AIR FORCE is given in [7] and is also briefly
summarised in Table 2. A host of contractual programs involving many aerospace
manufacturers have been set up in addition to in-house research in the U.S. AIR
FORCE Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Materials Laboratory. It is anticipated that
a wealth of information will be generated as these programs proceed. At the time of
writing, complete details of published work in reference to these programs was largely
unavailable. The last contract is perhaps the most relevant to this review. Details of
this last program are presented later.

Table 2: Summary of recent USAF sponsored research in the area of thermoplastic composites
for aircraft applications

Program Aim Contractor

Thermoplastic Composite Develop processing Boeing Military Airplane
Technology Development technology to fabricate Company
airframe structural
components
Filamentary Producing components Celanese Research
Thermoplastic Preforms from graphite preforms Company
and PEEK thermoplastic
Processing Science of Scientific examination of McDonnell Aircraft
Thermoplastic Composites the thermoplastic
manufacturing process
Advanced Thermoplastic Processing technology, General Dynamics
Composite Processing quality control
measures,
implementation of
processes
High Temperature Develop and evaluate Lockheed Aeronautical
Thermoplastic Processing higher service Systems Company
temperature
thermoplastic resins
Manufacturing Science of Develop science based Lockheed Aeronautical
Complex Shape processing methods for Systems Company
Thermoplastics complex shape
thermoplastic parts

6
 DSTO-TR-0424

Program Aim Contractor

Design and Manufacture Assess and produce Lockheed Aeronautical
of Advanced thermoplastic parts for Systems Company and
Thermoplastic Structures primary and secondary Northrop Corporation
aircraft structure
Repair Technology for Program designed to Northrop Corporation
Thermoplastic Aircraft demonstrate on-aircraft
Structure repair procedures and
joining processes

6. Repair and Bonding Procedures

In choosing a material for an aerospace application an important consideration must

be how easy it is to repair and keep it in service. The greatest advantage of
thermoplastics over thermosets with regard to repair is that they can be melted and re-
formed. This is referred to as thermoforming or thermo-reforming. In theory, using
adequate temperature and pressure, a composite laminate of one shape can be
moulded into another. Disbonds and other forms of damage and defects may be re-
welded and repaired. The temperatures required to do this are perhaps the greatest
limitation - temperatures in excess of 350°C are typical. This may require the part to be
removed prior to repair which may not be practical. Also, a mould may be required to
apply the pressures correctly and ensure that the part is re-formed to the correct shape.
Conventional repair methods such as bolted and adhesively bonded patches have been
investigated; the latter technique shows much promise. Many novel repair methods
and joining techniques are available that have been specifically developed for
thermoplastics. New methods of applying repairs will need to be thoroughly
investigated. For example, conventional surface treatment techniques may not be
applicable to thermoplastics if an adhesively-bonded repair is chosen. Furthermore,
adhesives must be chosen carefully to ensure that they are compatible with the
adherends. Although a host of repair techniques are outlined here, no practical repair
situations which have proven themselves in service have yet been reported.

Repairs may be carried out in a number of ways.

• Fusion Bonding: Involves the repair of a crack or delamination within the

thermoplastic laminate by bringing the surfaces together under applied pressure
and heating the region to form a fusion bond.

• Patch Repair: A patch may be bonded over the damaged region in the same way
metallic structures have been repaired by the application of bonded composite
repairs [8]. All the joining methods described below in the section on Bonded

7
DSTO-TR-0424

Patch Repair, apart from adhesive bonding and the use of mechanical fasteners,
rely on fusion bonding. The method of applying the heat to the bondline is mainly
where the joining methods differ.

• Thermo-reforming: The whole part may be removed and returned to its original
mould for re-processing.

6.1 Fusion Bonding

Fusion bonding involves the localised repair of a structure by heating the affected
region and forming a weld between the surfaces. The surfaces to be repaired must first
be brought into intimate contact under applied pressure and the temperature at the
interface raised to allow molecular diffusion across the interface. It has been shown for
PEEK, that above the glass transition temperature physical links form between the
mating surfaces which can then bear loads great enough to see plastic deformation at
the interface [9]. The time required to heal a crack depends on the rate of diffusion
across the interface and the temperatures and pressures used. Diffusion models to
predict the conditions required to heal cracks in thermoplastics have been put forward
by Jud et al. [9]. Methods of applying heat to cause fusion bonding are outlined below.
The pressure required to allow fusion bonding to be effective depends on the material
and technique used. For field repair it is preferable that vacuum pressure be sufficient.
Cooling of the repaired area must be done carefully to ensure that the morphology of
the repaired region is left unchanged. A process using an automated system of heat
input such as that suggested by Rodgers and Mallon [10] may be required to ensure
reproducible repair procedures.

During the application of fusion bonding techniques it is necessary to know how much
local heat is being generated in order to form a good bond and avoid distorting the
parent material. In order to evaluate conditions necessary for induction heating
Rodgers and Mallon [10] utilised thermochromic paints to show the amount of heat
generated and help identify hot and cold spots. The use of a temperature indicating
compound as used in the work by Mahon et al. [11] may be useful to ensure even
heating in the bonding region.

If the damage is extensive and material has been removed from the component it may
be necessary to introduce additional thermoplastic resin into the region before forming
the fusion bond. One technique which utilises this method is referred to either as spin,
vibration or friction bonding. This technique produces heat through mechanical
friction. A piece of material shaped like a plug may be inserted into a hole in a
thermoplastic part and spun until the heat due to friction melts and fuses them
together. This technique has been described by Welder et al. in [12] and is detailed
below. It could be a suitable technique for the repair of specific types of damage.

8
 DSTO-TR-0424

6.2 Patch Repair

In addition to the design of a repair patch the surface treatment and application
methods used are crucial to its performance. Numerous joining methods have been
examined by Silverman and Griese [13] using APC-2 thermoplastic composite (PEEK
with AS/4 carbon fibre). A rating (0 to 10) for each of the various joining methods is
given, with 10 being ideal. Table 3 shows their evaluation of a number of joining
methods.

Adhesive 10 10 10 2 9 Y 10 N Y`
Bonding

Mechanical 10 10 10 1 8 Y 10 N Y
fasteners plus
adhesive
bonding

Resistance 5 8 8 10 7 Y 5 Y N
welding

Ultrasonic 5 5 5 10 5 Y 10 Y N
welding

Focused 10 6 4 10 5 Y 5 Y Y
Infrared

Amorphous 10 10 10 10 10 Y 10 Y Y
thermoplastic
film

Table 3. Summary of Methods Used for Thermoplastic Bonding. Reproduced from Reference
[13]. Y=YES N=NO

9
DSTO-TR-0424

It is essential to use a joining method appropriate to the joint design and material type
used. In the production of a forward fuselage component by Lockheed Aeronautical
Systems Company [5], amorphous thermoplastic film bonding (referred to also as
dual-polymer bonding), adhesive bonding, mechanical fastening and co-consolidation
(fusion bonding in a press or on a tool) were all used. This indicates that a variety of
bonding methods may need to be considered rather than just selecting a single
method.

6.2.1 Mechanical Fastening

Bolted joints have been favoured for many years as a repair method due to ease of
manufacture, low cost and ease of inspection. Disadvantages are that holes need to be
drilled into the structure which further weakens the region and the holes themselves
act as stress concentrators. A comparison of a bolted joint used on AS4/PEEK
composite compared to IM6/3501-6 graphite/epoxy composite was made by Walsh et
al. [14]. The thermoplastic composite showed a consistently higher bearing strength
in a number of layup configurations.

6.2.2 Mechanical Fastening Plus Adhesive Bonding

Silverman and Griese [13] examined a joining method using mechanical fasteners in
conjunction with FM300 adhesive for AS4/PEEK composite. A chromic acid etch
surface treatment was used prior to bonding and aluminium rivets were used to
mechanically fasten the joint. This technique gave a comparatively low lap shear
strength value of around 17 MPa.

6.2.3 Heated Fasteners

This method is similar to the use of mechanical fasteners. A mechanically fastened

joint is first made using a screw or an insert and this is then inductively heated in
order to melt the surrounding thermoplastic and form a better bond with the screw or
insert. This has been investigated by Benatar et al. [15]. An insertion method that
minimises fibre damage is required otherwise fibre dominated properties such as
longitudinal strength can be compromised. No experimental results were provided.

6.2.4 Adhesive Bonding

Adhesively bonded patches have been produced using both PEEK and PPS
thermoplastics. Adhesive bonding requires a suitable surface treatment, adhesive and
application method. Thermoplastic polymers have lower surface energies when
compared to epoxies which makes it difficult for adhesives to wet the adherend
surface and create a good bond. Correct adhesive choices are therefore critical in order
to produce strong and durable bonds.

Since thermoplastic resins can withstand temperatures common to many aerospace

graphite/epoxy prepregs (177°C/350°F), it is possible to use common aerospace epoxy,
acrylic and other thermoset adhesives. Adhesives that have been used successfully

10
 DSTO-TR-0424

include FM300 for both PPS [16] and PEEK [13] [17], FM 377 [18] and FM 87 [19] [20].
Kodokian and Kinloch [21] describe the use of a wide range of epoxy and acrylic-based
adhesives for bonding applications: Hysol 9309.3, FM73M, Permabond F241, F245,
F246 and V501 and Bostik M890, M896. An extensive review of adhesives for
PEEK/graphite composite bonding is also given in [22] and it was found that FM300
recorded a close second highest lap shear strength value of 23 MPa to AF-163-2K
adhesive (24.5 MPa) when tested at 298K. At higher temperatures (394K) the FM300
adhesive showed the best shear strength. Since FM-300 has been used extensively by
the RAAF in bonding and repair operations it would rate highly as the preferred
adhesive for the bonding of thermoplastics.

Surface treatment is critical in any adhesive bonding operation. Reported methods

include solvent wiping, mechanical abrasion, acid etching, grit blasting, plasma
etching, flame treatment and corona discharge treatment. The first four methods are
common to many metallic and composite surface preparation procedures and have
been the subject of extensive research. Plasma treatment utilises ionised gases to
atomically etch the thermoplastic surface which increases surface energy. A review of
plasma treatment for improved bonding of a range of thermoplastics is given in [23].
The term “corona treatment” is used commonly in the polymer industry to refer to any
polymer surface treated using an electrical discharge. Corona discharge treatment
utilises a high voltage electrode to produce corona discharge, a type of electrical
conduction that occurs in gases at atmospheric pressures. The discharge is directed at
the thermoplastic which is electrically grounded and placed on a table which may be
moved across the discharge path. A large array of electrodes may also be swept across
a surface to ensure even treatment. Flame treatment consists of simply passing a gas
flame above the surface of a sample in order to oxidise the surface. Although good
results have been gained using these last three methods it must be stressed that they
may produce a fire hazard if used under field conditions.

Silverman and Griese [13] have shown that the use of FM300 film adhesive combined
with a plasma etched surface gave the greatest lap shear strength of 41.6 MPa for
AS4/PEEK. Grit blasting and acid etching produced only half the lap shear strength
values of around 20 MPa. It would be interesting to compare the lap shear strengths
using all the available methods after exposure to a hot and humid environment. It
may be expected that the bond may become degraded with exposure since work by
Wu [17] demonstrates that APC-2 (graphite/PEEK) panels bonded with FM300 lose
lap shear strength when exposed to 95% relative humidity at 70°C (160°F). Lap shear
strength values changed from an initial value of around 17 MPa to around 13 MPa
after 45 days of exposure. Environmental durability factors are very important in
evaluating bonding methods.

6.2.5 Amorphous thermoplastic film bonding

This method is rated highest by Silverman et al. [13] as shown in Table 3. The method
involves the use of a Polyetherimide (PEI) film, ULTEM, which is used to bond two
graphite /PEEK composites at a temperature of 316°C; below the melting temperature

11
DSTO-TR-0424

of PEEK. This is a useful technique since the PEEK does not need to be melted and
hence the morphology of the repaired region will be unaltered. The technique was
carried out in only 5 minutes which is very short compared to the long time required
for some adhesive bonding operations requiring surface treatments and long cure
times (1 hour or more). High lap shear strengths of 35.6 MPa, second only to
adhesively bonding a plasma etched surface with FM300 (41.6 MPa) [13] were
obtained.

A source of pressure, such as a vacuum bag, and heat is all that is required to utilise
this technique in a field-repair situation. A patch made from thermoplastic could be
formed prior to bonding with an amorphous thermoplastic film such as PEI as the
adhesive. This technique was investigated by Smiley et al. [24]. PEI was used as the
amorphous thermoplastic film in both unreinforced form and reinforced with glass
scrim cloth. The bonding procedure was conducted under a vacuum bag at vacuum
pressure. The parent material was first dried at 130°C for 48 hours and the patch
applied at 250°C for 30 minutes. The bondline thickness was found to be important
and the glass scrim was a good way to achieve control of this. Joint strengths of up to
48 MPa were achieved. This report only looked at very short overlap joints (1.27 cm)
in which the joint received very high pressures (around 1.38 MPa) during processing.

Amorphous thermoplastic joining was the method chosen after an investigation

contracted by the U.S. AIR FORCE into “Repair Technology for Thermoplastic Aircraft
Structure” detailed by Heimerdinger et al. [25]. A layer of PEI film was placed onto
both sides of a single layer of APC-2 composite. The fibres in the composite layer were
exposed, by thermally degrading the matrix, and connected to a D.C power source
using aluminium sheet. This formed the heater layer which became the bondline.
Application of power to the heater layer melted the PEI film which formed a good
bond between the APC-2 parent structure, the PEI film and the patch. It was
demonstrated that bond integrity could be maintained even over large repair areas (20
cm by 20 cm) as shown by a mechanical test of the patched structure. The cure cycle
consisted of 60 minutes at 160°C followed by 30 minutes at between 285°C and 330°C.
The technique was found to be highly suitable for in-field repair. Full details of the
repair procedure, patented under the name Thermabond by ICI-Fiberite, are
included in Appendix C. This technique was found to be most suitable for the in-field
joining and repair of PEEK resin thermoplastic structure.

Monitoring of the Thermabond process using acoustic emission was investigated by

D’Antonio et al. [26]. Results of the acoustic measurement experiments could be
correlated to various stages in the fusion bonding process. Although the exact nature
of the acoustic emission events found during thermoplastic processing have not been
fully investigated the authors believe that they are due to friction of the polymer melt
front during melting and matrix cracking when cooling. This technique may be
suitable as a quality control step in a repair or manufacturing procedure and may
allow such a process to be automated. On optimising the Thermabond process for
APC-2 composite, lap shear specimens were found to have excellent bond integrity
and lap shear strengths in excess of 34 MPa were recorded.

12
 DSTO-TR-0424

Fracture toughness of the resulting bond must also be a factor in choosing a

thermoplastic resin adhesive. Thermoplastic films (PEEK and PEI) were shown to
produce far greater Mode I fracture toughness values than epoxy films even though
their lap shear strength values were comparable [27]. Work by Davies et al. [27]
indicates that the best lap shear strength results are obtained using PEEK film as the
adhesive with PEI being a good alternative. Results of tension-tension fatigue tests are
also in favour of bonding with PEEK film. In practical applications PEI may be better
suited due to the lower temperatures required for it to melt and form a bond.

The amorphous film chosen must be able to withstand the environment in terms of
humidity and temperature as well as the solvents it may become exposed to. Since
many thermoplastics exhibit good environmental resistance and low moisture uptake
this should not be a problem. The effects of adverse chemical environments on PEI
amorphous film bonded to APC-2 structure was examined by Voto et al. [28]. They
reported good resistance to jet fuel and Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK), however the
performance of PEI was poor in the presence of Skydrol hydraulic fluid and methylene
chloride (commonly used as paint stripper). Exposure to methylene chloride solvent
resulted in the joint dissolving. Under wet and hot/wet conditions the joint strengths
remained high. This shows that there is a need to choose an amorphous thermoplastic
film capable of withstanding harsh chemical environments and a range of widely used
solvents.

6.2.6 Focused Infrared Heating

Focused Infrared heating (IR) can be used to heat thermoplastics prior to joining or
forming. If a focused beam of IR radiation can be applied to the bondline a weld
between two adherends may be easily formed. Lap shear strengths of around 32 MPa
were achieved using this method for AS4/PEEK provided a layer of PEEK film is
placed on the bonding surface prior to forming the bond [13].

6.2.7 Dielectric/Microwave Heating

Both these methods were found to be unsuitable by Benatar et al. [31] due to
electromagnetic shielding caused by the conductive graphite fibres in composites such
as APC-2. They could be suitable for the repair of other non-conducting thermoplastic
composites such as those reinforced with Kevlar or glass fibre.

6.2.8 Heated Tool Welding/Co-consolidation

A heated tool (above the melting temperature of the thermoplastic) is used to press
two composite parts together to form a fusion bond between them. This melts the
thermoplastic resin at the interface and allows a weld to form. The technique is also
referred to as co-consolidation. The disadvantage with using this method for repair is
that the temperatures required cause the material to flow uncontrollably if the
component is not supported by tooling of some sort. Alternatively, the surface of the
adherends can be heated by the tool, then the surfaces can be pressed together to
consolidate the fusion bond.

13
DSTO-TR-0424

6.2.9 Resistance Welding

Resistance welding utilises a conductive element at the interface between the parent
material and the repair patch. The conductive element is then connected to a power
supply and heat is applied directly to the bondline. The resistive element, which can
consist of a piece of steel mesh, becomes a part of the weld. In the case of graphite
reinforced composite materials the graphite fibres themselves may be used as the
resistive element. In one investigation [29], chromic and sulphuric acid were used to
etch the thermoplastic matrix in a prepreg to expose carbon fibres. The fibres were
then coated with conductive paint and resistively heated by applying an electrical
current to the exposed fibres. Sufficient electrical current is applied to melt the prepreg
layer and form the weld. This method produced lap shear strength values greater than
33 MPa and the bond was not degraded after exposure to hot/wet conditions. A
model of the process has been developed by Xiao et al. [29]. This method was
favoured by the U.S. AIR FORCE in its investigations in bonding large areas of APC-2
composite (20 cm by 20 cm) using PEEK or PEI (polyetherimide) film [25]. High lap
shear bond strengths (41 MPa) and good bond integrity resulted. This was the
bonding technique chosen for their in-field repair procedure for thermoplastic
components (Appendix C).

6.2.10 Ultrasonic Welding

Ultrasonic heating methods utilise energy in the 20-40 kHz range to induce molecular
motion within the thermoplastic. This motion creates friction which is converted to
heat. Welds can then be produced under applied pressure. The ultrasonic energy is
highly directional and multiple passes of the beam are required to cover a large area.
The process can form welds in around one second. The method is promising provided
that the conditions are carefully chosen and controlled. Damage to thermoplastic
structure has been repaired by drilling out the damaged region, replacing the hole
with a plug of thermoplastic resin and using a portable ultrasonic welding unit to
consolidate the weld. Removal of material from a composite laminate will reduce it’s
strength since the load-carrying fibres from that region will have been removed. This
reduction is likely to be significant only in cases where the damaged area removed is
large. Repairs by this method utilised a 450 Watt ultrasonic hand-held welder that
produced repaired specimens with high mechanical properties [12]. Lap shear
strengths of 15 MPa have been recorded for AS4/PEEK composite bonded
ultrasonically [13]. This method was also used by Lockheed-Georgia to weld together
thermoplastic/graphite tape material to form a 3ft. by 2ft. curved access door for the C-
130 Hercules aircraft [30]. Theory of the ultrasonic joining process is presented by
Benatar and Gutowski [31]. Investigations by the U.S. AIR FORCE [25] concluded that
ultrasonic welding was not suitable for repair procedures to large areas (20 cm by 20
cm) since the bond strengths were variable and many charred and partially bonded
specimens resulted.

It has also been reported that ultrasonic and vibration welding equipment are too
heavy for practical in-field work [32].

14
 DSTO-TR-0424

6.2.11 Induction Heating

Induction heating is a non-contact method of heating thermoplastic composites

containing a conducting element. Local heating may be achieved using an induction
coil in very short times and high temperatures are easily obtained. Early induction
heating methods utilised a steel mesh screen placed in the bondline [12]. Since many
composites use graphite fibres to reinforce thermoplastic resins the fibres themselves
can act as the conductive element [10]. The theory of induction heating has been
treated by Fink et al. [33]. Work by Rodgers and Mallon [10] showed that 50% to 80%
recovery of compressive strength in impact damaged specimens could be achieved
using induction heating and applying pressure using a vacuum bag. The process is
suited to line welding and lends itself to automation [10]. Good bond strengths are
reported for this technique with lap shear strength values of 47.5 MPa reported for
APC-2 composite (AS4 graphite fibre/PEEK thermoplastic matrix) [34]. Portable
induction welding units are available for field repair operations and provide rapid
heating times of less than a minute. Commercial units are currently available which
utilise a flexible induction coil about 0.63 cm wide which can be bent to form contours
[32].

Work commissioned by the U.S. AIR FORCE to investigate bonding of APC-2

composite with PEEK film [25] indicated that induction heating produced low bond
strengths of around 17 MPa when bonding large areas (20 cm by 20 cm) and that over
such large areas bond integrity varied from nil to 100% with some charring of the
material occurring. A nickel screen was used as the conducting element in this
investigation.

Grumman Aircraft Laboratories report that induction heating was highly suitable for
both the construction and repair of a F-111A horizontal stabilator leading edge
demonstration component [11]. The part assembly involved the joining of
graphite/thermoplastic skins to I-stiffeners using adhesive bonding. The induction
heating process used the graphite fibres as the conducting element. The bonding
surfaces were prepared by mechanical abrasion followed by immersion in a solution of
sulphuric acid and sodium dichromate at room temperature. A film adhesive, 3M AF-
191, was used to bond the materials under vacuum bag pressure. The induction coil
was able to direct thermal energy to the bonding area with the surrounding skin seeing
only a slightly elevated temperature. The components produced by this method
compared favourably to those produced by autoclave co-consolidation. The report
recommends repair of thermoplastic components using inductively bonded
graphite/thermoplastic repair patches.

6.3 Thermo-reforming

Thermo-reforming involves the application of the same heat and pressure cycle as
used during manufacture to restore part integrity. The thermo-reforming and patch-

15
DSTO-TR-0424

thermo-forming of impacted thermoplastic specimens has been examined by Ong et al.

[35]. Three types of laminates AS4/PPS, T-300/976 epoxy and AS-4/PEEK were
evaluated in terms of their response to impact damage. After manufacture the
specimens were impacted, examined by ultrasonic C-scan and their residual
compression strength tested. For a given impact energy the damage area was greatest
in the order of PPS > Fiberite 976 epoxy > PEEK. For a given damage area the
retention of compression strength was in the order PPS > PEEK > Fiberite 976 epoxy.
With impacts of identical energy, compression strength retention was in the order
PEEK > PPS> Fiberite 976 epoxy. Repairs were then made to the AS-4/PEEK and AS-
4/PPS thermoplastics using two techniques. Thermo-reforming of the impacted
specimens was made using the original mould used to manufacture the laminates.
Also a patch thermoforming repair was applied by placing a patch on one side of the
impacted specimen and then thermoforming the assembly. Compression strengths
after impact indicated that for the AS-4/PEEK laminate over 83% recovery resulted for
the thermo-reforming technique. The patched thermo-forming repair produced a
result only 5% higher than thermoforming. The authors point out that the patched
laminate was expected to give 25% better performance but attribute their lower result
to the fact that only one side of the laminate was patched which may have caused
buckling. Furthermore the patch was not tapered at the ends which would produce a
high stress concentration at the step of the patch.

Thermo-reforming has also been examined by Unger et al. [36]. Results of fatigue tests
on AS4/PEEK composite coupons indicated that the fatigue life of the specimens could
be increased five-fold by applying a thermo-reforming ‘heal cycle’ at intervals where
microcracks such as fibre disbonds and delaminations were detected. Buckling
strength was also examined since it is a highly matrix dependent property; in this case
95% recovery was observed on application of the repair technique.

7. Conclusions

During manufacture of thermoplastic aerospace components it is likely that more than

one of the joining techniques discussed in this report will have been used. The repair
of different damage types and structures will therefore also require a range of joining
techniques with no one method being optimum for all cases. Induction and resistance
heating using amorphous thermoplastic film or prepreg seem to be the best methods
for in-field composite repair if an appropriate thermoplastic film resistant to chemical
attack and environmental degradation is used. Adhesive bonding is also promising
and a great deal of knowledge and experience with bonding metallic components
already exists. The Thermabond process must rate as the most likely candidate for
in-field thermoplastic repair. It does not require complex equipment and is not unlike
the adhesive bonding repair techniques currently used by DSTO and the RAAF. The
use of acoustic emission as a quality control procedure for the Thermabond process
may be a further positive step in producing a complete thermoplastic resin composite
repair methodology.

16
 DSTO-TR-0424

8. References

1. C.-C. M. Ma and S.-W. Yur, ANTEC ‘89 Conference Proceedings, pp 1496-1500

(1989)

2. C-C. M. Ma, C.-L. Lee, C.-L. Ong, M-F. Sheu et al., 35th International SAMPE
Symposium, pp 1143-1154 (1990)

3. D.A Archibald, J.W. Shwarz, J.L. Wanamaker, Proceedings of the American

Society for Composites, 4th Tech. Conf., pp 593-601, (1989)

4. J.R. Krone and J.H. Walker, “Composites Applications : The Future Is Now”, SME
Publications pp 112-124 (1989)

5. R.B. Ostrom, S.B. Koch, D.L. Wirz-Safranek, SAMPE Quarterly, October, pp 39-
45,(1989)

6. High Performance Thermoplastic Resins and their Composites, S. Beland, Noyes

Publications, pp 136-151, (1990)

7. D.M. Carlin, ANTEC ‘89 Conference Proceedings, pp 1447-1449 (1989)

8. A.A.Baker, “Repair Techniques For Composite Structures”, Editor: D.H

Middleton, Longman Scientific and Technical Publishers 1990, Chapter 13 in
Composite Materials in Aircraft Structure

9. K. Jud, H.H. Kausch, J.G Williams, J. Mat. Sci. , 16 pp 204-210, (1981)

10. B.A. Rodgers, P.J Mallon, Proceedings 14th SAMPE International European
Chapter Conference 1993, pp 259-270

11. J. Mahon, C. Rutkowski and W. Oelcher, 23rd International SAMPE Technical

Conference, October 21-24 1991, pp 724-738

12. S.M. Welder, H.J. Lause, R. Fountain, SAMPE Quarterly Jan 1985, pp 33-36

13. E.M. Silverman and R.A. Griese, SAMPE Journal, Vol. 25, No. 5, Sept/Oct 1989, pp
34-38

14. R. Walsh, M. Vedula, M.J. Koczak, SAMPE Quarterly, July 1989, pp 15-19

15. A. Benatar, T.G Gutowski, SAMPE Quarterly, Volume 18, No. 1, October 1986, pp
34-41

16. B.R. Bonazza, 35th International SAMPE Symposium 1990, pp 859-870

17. S-I Y. Wu, 35th International SAMPE Symposium 1990, pp 846-858

18. D.K. Kohli, 35th International SAMPE Symposium 1990, pp 907-921

17
DSTO-TR-0424

19. D.K Kohli, 34th International SAMPE Symposium 1989, pp1987

20. J.W. Powers W.J. Trzaskos, 34th International SAMPE Symposium 1989, pp 1998

21. G.K.A Kodokian and A.J Kinloch, J. Adhesion 1989, Vol. 29, pp 193-218

22. D.C Goeders and J.L Perry, 36th International SAMPE Symposium 1991, pp 348-361

23. E.M. Liston, J. Adhesion, Vol. 30, 1989, pp 199-218

24. A.J. Smiley, M.Chao and J.W Gillespie Jr., Composites Manufacturing, Vol. 2, No.
3/4, 1991, pp 223-232

25. M.W Heimerdinger, 79th Meeting of the AGARD Structures and Materials Panel
on “Composite Repair of Military Aircraft Structures”, Seville, Spain, 3-5 October
1994. AGARD-CP-550, 15-1 to 15-12

26. L. D’Antonio, C. Sabatino, A. Ortona, J.W Gillespie Jr., AECM-4 Proceedings of the
4th International Symposium on Acoustic Emission from Composite Materials,
1992, pp 331-340

27. P. Davies, W.J. Cantwell, P. -Y. Jar, P.-E. Bourban, V. Zysman and H.H Kausch,
Composites, Vol. 22, No. 6, Nov. 1991, pp 425-431

28. C. Voto and M. Iannone, AGARD-R-785, “The Utilization of Advanced

Composites in Military Aircraft”, April 1992, pp 22-1 22-5

29. X.R. Xiao, S.V. Hoa, K.N. Street, Journal of Composite Materials, Vol 26, No. 7,
1992, pp 1031-1049

30. A.S Brown, Aerospace America, Jan. 1990, pp 28-33

31. A. Benatar and T.G Gutowski, 33rd International SAMPE Symposium 1988, pp
1787-1797

32. C.F. Lewis, Mat. Eng., 107, No. 6, June 1990 pp 41-44

33. B.K Fink, R.L McCullough and J.W Gillespie, Polymer Engineering Science, Vol.
32, No. 5, pp 357-369

34. J. Border R. Salas, 34th International SAMPE Symposium 1989, pp 2569-2578

35. C-L. Ong, M.-F. Sheu and Y.-Y.Liou, 34th International SAMPE Symposium 1989,
pp 458-469

36. W. Unger, H. Ko, E. Altus, J.S. Hansen, Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal,
Vol. 34, No. 4, Dec. 1988, pp 233-238

18
 DSTO-TR-0424

9. Appendix A - Bibliography

• High Performance Thermoplastic Resins and their Composites, S. Beland,.Noyes

Publications, 1990.

Very good, and recent, literature review covering many aspects of thermoplastics
including properties, morphology, performance, processing, joining, costs and
applications.

• “An Overview on the repair of thermoplastic resin composites”, X.R Xiao, S.V Hoa
and K.N. Street. in “Composite Structures and Materials”, Ed: S.V Hoa and R.
Gauvin, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992, pp 125-133

Covers many areas of repair for composite materials. Induction and resistive heating
methods for repair are given the best chance for use in in-field repair situations.

• “A Review of Recent Developments in Joining High-Performance Thermoplastic

Composites”, K.C. Cole in “Composite Structures and Materials”, Ed: S.V Hoa and
R. Gauvin, Elsevier Science Publishers, 1992, pp 341-348.

Covers a whole range of joining options for thermoplastics. Adhesive bonding is

favoured due to its already wide use in industry but new techniques are shown to
have much promise after development is made to allow the procedures to be
conducted outside the laboratory.

• “Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structures”, A.A. Baker and R. Jones, (Martinus Nijhoff,
107-173 1988)

General reference on bonded composite repair of aircraft structure.

• A. A. Baker, “Composite Repair of Military Aircraft Structures”, AGARD

Conference Proceedings 550, AGARD-CP-550, pp 1-1 to 1-14, 1995

Covers many aspects of bonded composite repair to metallic aircraft structure with
focus on the Australian experience. Repair design, certification and efficiency are
described.

19
DSTO-TR-0424

20
 DSTO-TR-0424

 Process
10. Appendix B - Thermabond

This procedure details the U.S. AIR FORCE repair procedure for thermoplastic
components as presented in [25]. The application method for applying PEI to APC-2 is
patented under the name Thermabond by ICI-Fiberite.

The repair consists of four major steps:

• Patch formation

• Heater ply formation

• Surface preparation

• Patch installation.

Patch formation:

The patch, made from APC-2 composite, must be pre-formed to the required contour
since high temperatures are required. To do this in-situ would result in the parent
structure deforming during processing. The technique utilises ‘books’ of precured
APC-2 composite plies which are consolidated to the required thickness using PEEK
film cured under vacuum at 380°C for 10 minutes. Ultrasonic NDE is used to check
patch integrity. The entire patch may be formed on a female mould of required shape
using a cast ceramic mould.

Heater ply formation:

The heater ply is the layer which forms the bondline between patch and parent
material as well as being the source of heat in the resistance heating process. Heater
plies may be pre-formed and cut as required - all materials have indefinite shelf lives.

The heater ply consists of a single ply of APC-2 with two layers of 0.15 mm thick
General Electric Ultem 1000 PEI material cured to either side at 385°C, 30 psi, for 30
minutes. The heater ply must be made larger than the bonding area to allow fibres
from the edge of the heater ply to be exposed for connection to a D.C power supply.
Fibres are exposed from the heater ply edges using a propane torch. The exposed
fibres may then be clamped with aluminium sheet strips and electrically insulated
from the rest of the aircraft. Electrodes are then attached to a commercial welding
power supply.

Surface preparation:

The bonding structure is surface treated with the following procedure.

• Solvent wipe with Turco 4430 solvent

21
DSTO-TR-0424

• Abrade surface with Scotchbrite pad

• Apply Tetra-Etch solution for 10 minutes and then rinse with water

• Wipe surface clean and dry

• Pour on a solution of 5% Ultem 1000 PEI in methylene chloride

• Allow surface to dry for 10 minutes

Patch Installation:

• Cover repair area with 1 ply of Ultem 1000 PEI material wiped with isopropyl
alcohol

• Tack weld the film to the parent structure with a soldering iron

• Tape teflon film around the outside of the bond area

• Place heater ply on top of Ultem film

• Add another layer of Ultem 1000 on top of the heater ply

• Place patch on top

• Cover patch with fibreglass breather cloth and vacuum bag the entire layup

• Apply vacuum to layup

• Cure using applied current to the heater ply to achieve the following cure cycle

• Heat at 160°C for 60 minutes and then between 285°C and 330°C for 30 minutes

22
 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Thermoplastics for Airframe Applications

A Review of the Properties and Repair Methods for Thermoplastic Composites

Roger Vodicka

AUSTRALIA

TASK SPONSOR: RAAF

DEFENCE ORGANISATION

Defence Science and Technology Organisation

Chief Defence Scientist 

FAS Science Policy  shared copy
AS Science Industry and External Relations 
AS Science Corporate Management 
Counsellor Defence Science, London (Doc Data Sheet only)
Counsellor Defence Science, Washington (Doc Data Sheet only)
Senior Defence Scientific Adviser/Scientific Adviser Policy and Command (shared copy)
Navy Scientific Adviser (3 copies Doc Data Sheet and 1 copy of distribution list)
Scientific Adviser - Army (Doc Data Sheet and distribution list only)
Air Force Scientific Adviser
Director Trials

Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory

Director
Chief, AED
Research Leader
Task Manager
R. Vodicka

Electronics and Surveillance Research Laboratory

Director

DSTO Library

Library Fishermens Bend

Library Maribyrnong
Main Library DSTOS ( 2 copies)
Library, MOD, Pyrmont (Doc Data sheet only)

Defence Central

OIC TRS, Defence Central Library

Officer in Charge, Document Exchange Centre, 1 copy
Defence Intelligence Organisation
Library, Defence Signals Directorate (Doc Data Sheet only)
 Forces Executive

Director General Force Development (Sea) (Doc Data Sheet only)

Director General Force Development (Land) (Doc Data Sheet only)
Director General Force Development (Air)

Air Force

OIC ATF ATS, RAAFSTT, WAGGA (2 copies)

ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION

ATS (OICATS)
ATS-SRS
TFLMSQN (CENGR)
481 WG (OICAMF)
ALLMSQN (CENGR) at Richmond
SRLMSQN (CENGR)
MPLMSQN (CENGR)
ASI (OICASI)
ARMYLMSQN (CENGR) at Oakey, QLD
TALMSQN (CENGR) at East Sale, VIC

SPARES (6 copies)
 Page classification: UNCLASSIFIED

DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA 1. PRIVACY MARKING/CAVEAT (OF
DOCUMENT)
2. TITLE 3. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (FOR UNCLASSIFIED
REPORTS THAT ARE LIMITED RELEASE USE (L) NEXT TO
Thermoplastics for Airframe Applications DOCUMENT CLASSIFICATION)
A Review of the Properties and Repair Methods for
Thermoplastic Composites Document (U)
Title (U)
Abstract (U)
4. AUTHOR(S) 5. CORPORATE AUTHOR

Roger Vodicka Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory

PO Box 4331
Melbourne Vic 3001
6a. DSTO NUMBER 6b. AR NUMBER 6c. TYPE OF REPORT 7. DOCUMENT DATE
DSTO-TR-0424 AR 009-900 Technical Report October 1996

8. FILE NUMBER 9. TASK NUMBER 10. TASK SPONSOR 11. NO. OF PAGES 12. NO. OF
M1/9/129 AIR 95/163 RAAF 22 REFERENCES
36
13. DOWNGRADING/DELIMITING INSTRUCTIONS 14. RELEASE AUTHORITY

N/A Chief, Airframes and Engines Division

15. SECONDARY RELEASE STATEMENT OF THIS DOCUMENT

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

OVERSEAS ENQUIRIES OUTSIDE STATED LIMITATIONS SHOULD BE REFERRED THROUGH DOCUMENT EXCHANGE CENTRE, DIS NETWORK
OFFICE, DEPT OF DEFENCE, CAMPBELL PARK OFFICES, CANBERRA ACT 2600
16. DELIBERATE ANNOUNCEMENT

17. CASUAL ANNOUNCEMENT Yes

18. DEFTEST DESCRIPTORS

Thermoplastic Resins; Composite Materials; Airframes

19. ABSTRACT
Thermoplastic composite materials have shown great promise as materials for current and future aircraft
components. It is likely that thermoplastic composite components will enter RAAF service in the near future in the
form of replacement components which were previously manufactured from metals or thermosetting composites
such as graphite/epoxy.
Thermoplastic resins offer a number of advantages over conventional thermosetting resins such as epoxies.
Thermoplastics exhibit chemical and impact resistance and may be used over a wide range of temperatures. They
have a very low level of moisture uptake which means their mechanical properties are less degraded under hot/wet
conditions.
Thermoplastic composite materials offer a number of advantages but may also require different manufacturing and
repair techniques. In particular it is often necessary to use significantly higher processing temperatures and
pressures than for typical thermosetting composite materials.
In general, thermoplastic composites are currently more difficult to repair than conventional thermosetting
composites. Given the range of possible structural forms and types of damage, it is likely that a range of different
repair techniques will be necessary with no single method being optimum for all cases.

Page classification: UNCLASSIFIED