To investigate the effect of MACM on the quality of the laminates, several scenarios that use different fabric types and resin systems were considered. Table 1 reports the manufacturing process and composite constituents of 6-ply, E-glass/epoxy composite laminates manufactured under six different fabrication scenarios. In the baseline scenarios (W-PW-INF, W-RM-INF, and W-RM-EPON), the laminates are fabricated by wet lay-up vacuum bag without external pressure. The other three scenarios (WM-PW-INF, WM-RM-INF, and WM-RM-EPON) are used to fabricate wet lay-up vacuum bag laminates under magnetic compaction pressure. The quality of these laminates is then compared to those made by the baseline scenarios. In the first and second scenarios, W-PW-INF and WM-PW-INF, plain weave E-glass/INF laminates are fabricated. In the third and fourth scenarios, W-RM-INF and WM-RM-INF, the plain weave fabric is replaced with random mat, and the same resin system (i.e., INF) is used. In the fifth and sixth scenarios, W-RM-EPON and WM-RM-EPON, the fabric is random mat E-glass, while the resin system is replaced with EPON which has a moderately higher viscosity of 766.9 mPa s compared to 296 mPa s for INF resin. A more detailed analysis of the last four scenarios can be found in Pishvar et al. 2017 and Amirkhosravi et al. 201738,39.
Figure 2a presents the magnetic pressure generated by NdFeB, N52-2.54 × 2.54 × 1.27 cm3 magnet as a function of the distance between the magnet and steel plate. This distance would correspond to the lay-up thickness during fabrication of the composite laminate, and thus can be used to determine the variation of the compaction pressure applied by the magnets. The inset in Figure 2a shows a photograph of the experimental set-up used for measuring the variation of the magnetic pressure as a function of distance. As explained in section 3 of the protocol, the set-up consists of two parallel steel plates (12.5 cm × 12.5 cm × 1.8 cm). The top plate is connected to a 4.45 kN (1000 lb) load-cell. The bottom plate is assembled on the cross-head of a mechanical testing instrument. By using this set-up, the attraction force of the permanent magnet placed on the bottom plate is measured as a function of the gap (i.e., the distance between the magnet and the top steel plate). The dashed line in Figure 2a represents the measured magnetic pressure (force over the area of the magnet) by the mechanical testing instrument, and the solid line represents the pressure determined from the data provided by the supplier of the magnets. There is generally good agreement between the measured pressure and the values obtained from the technical data sheet provided by the supplier. It is seen that the increase in magnetic pressure depends exponentially on the reduction of the gap. Therefore, as the laminate consolidates during the curing process, the thickness of the lay-up gradually decreases, and consequently, the pressure applied by the magnet increases. Figure 2b shows the same experimental data presented in Figure 2a but for the gap (i.e., lay-up thickness) range of 1-4.5 mm. In addition, the initial and final magnetic pressure applied during the cure of the laminates comprised of different fabric types (i.e., plain weave and random mat) and resin systems (i.e., INF and EPON) are displayed in Figure 2b. The lay-up thickness of plain weave/INF laminates (WM-PW-INF) during consolidation decreases from 1.5 mm to 1.4 mm due to resin outflow and cure. Accordingly, the magnetic pressure slightly increases from 0.38 to 0.39 MPa. The lay-up thickness of random mat/INF laminates (WM-RM-INF) changes from 2.8 mm to 1.7 mm, and, as a result, the magnetic pressure significantly increases from 0.27 to 0.36 MPa. The lay-up thickness of the laminates made with random mat/EPON (WM-RM-EPON) decreases from 3.7 mm to 2.5 mm, and thus, the generated pressure moderately rises from 0.22 to 0.29 MPa.
Table 2 presents the average thickness, fiber volume fraction, and void volume fraction of the laminates manufactured with and without magnetic consolidation pressure. As shown in Table 2, utilizing magnetic compaction pressure substantially reduces the average thickness of the laminates by 12-47%. As expected, the reduction in the laminate thickness is strongly correlated with the increase in the fiber volume fraction of the laminates, where the fiber volume fraction of the laminates significantly improves by 13-98% due to magnetic pressure. Among all scenarios, the effect of applying magnetic pressure on random mat/INF laminates is more pronounced (i.e., 98% increase in fiber volume fraction) because of two factors: (1) a significantly lower initial fiber volume fraction of uncompacted random mat laminates compared to plain weave laminates, and (2) the use of resin with a low viscosity of 296 mPa s, thereby allowing easier removal of excess resin. It is also notable that applying magnetic pressure has an additional advantage in decreasing the void volume fraction of laminates from 3.4-5.8% to 1.5-2.7%. Thus, the magnetic pressure drives not only the excess resin but also the voids out of the laminate.
Figure 3 displays the SEM images of E-glass/epoxy laminates manufactured under 6 different scenarios at 35X magnification. For easy visual comparison, the images of the laminates made without an external pressure are shown on the left and the laminates made under magnetic compaction are presented on the right. From these images, it is evident that utilizing the magnetic compaction pressure results in much-improved consolidation between the plies and, consequently, leads to a significant reduction in the resin-rich areas. As a result, the laminate thickness is remarkably reduced and the fiber volume fraction is increased, especially in the laminates made from random mat fabric and INF resin (WM-RM-INF). These images also show that the morphology of the voids is quite different in the laminates made with and without external pressure. Applying magnetic pressure reduces the number of voids and makes the voids smaller, leading to a lower void volume fraction in the laminates. Finally, compacting the voids that are located between the plies leads to more elongated voids.
Table 3 shows the flexural strength and modulus of all laminates and the percentage increase in flexural properties of the laminates made under magnetic consolidation pressure. The results clearly show that the flexural strength and modulus of laminates are significantly improved by utilizing the magnetic pressure. An increase of 98% in the fiber volume fraction of the random mat/INF laminates (WM-RM-INF), while having a minimum void content of 1.46%, causes a 62% and 67% increase in the flexural strength and modulus of the laminates, respectively. As expected, the plain weave/INF laminates (WM-PW-INF) which initially exhibited the lowest improvement of 13% in fiber volume fraction, showed the lowest increase, 7% and 22%, in flexural strength and modulus, respectively. Consequently, the enhancement in flexural properties of a variety of composite laminates made under magnetic consolidation pressure proves the capability of the MACM to improve the overall laminate quality.
Fabrication
scenario | Fabric type | Resin system | Manufacturing process |
| W-PW-INF | Plain weave E-glass | INF | Conventional wet lay-up vacuum bag without using external pressure |
| WM-PW-INF | Plain weave E-glass | INF | Wet lay-up vacuum bag with using magnetic consolidation pressure |
| W-RM-INF | Random mat E-glass | INF | Conventional wet lay-up vacuum bag without using external pressure |
| WM-RM-INF | Random mat E-glass | INF | Wet lay-up vacuum bag with using magnetic consolidation pressure |
| W-RM-EPON | Random mat E-glass | EPON | Conventional wet lay-up vacuum bag without using external pressure |
| WM-RM-EPON | Random mat E-glass | EPON | Wet lay-up vacuum bag with using magnetic consolidation pressure |
Table 1: Details of the constituents and six fabrication scenarios used in the manufacturing of 6-ply composite laminates.
| Fabrication scenario | Average thickness (mm) | Fiber volume fraction (%) | Increase in fiber volume fraction (%) | Void volume fraction (%) | Reduction in void volume fraction (%) |
| W-PW-INF | 0.98 ± 0.01 | 45.65 ± 0.82 | ― | 3.44 ± 0.46 | ― |
| WM-PW-INF | 0.86 ± 0.01 | 51.63 ± 0.87 | 13 | 1.74 ± 0.39 | 49 |
| W-RM-INF29 | 2.28 ± 0.04 | 24.84 ± 1.14 | ― | 5.09 ± 0.69 | ― |
| WM-RM-INF29 | 1.21 ± 0.01 | 49.10 ± 0.87 | 98 | 1.46 ± 0.24 | 71 |
| W-RM-EPON30 | 3.18 ± 0.01 | 17.34 ± 0.84 | ― | 5.81 ± 1.24 | ― |
| WM-RM-EPON30 | 1.99 ± 0.03 | 26.88 ± 1.99 | 55 | 2.71 ± 0.36 | 53 |
Table 2: Average thickness, fiber volume fraction, and void volume fraction of the 6-ply laminates manufactured under six different scenarios. The percentage increase in fiber volume fraction and percentage reduction in void volume fraction due to magnetic compaction (n = 6 for fiber volume fraction and void volume fraction and n = 35 for average laminate thickness; 95% confidence intervals for all data) are also given.
| Fabrication scenario | Flexural strength (MPa) | Increase in flexural strength (%) | Flexural modulus (GPa) | Increase in flexural modulus (%) |
| W-PW-INF | 638.9 ± 27.0 | ― | 24.1 ± 0.5 | ― |
| WM-PW-INF | 681.1 ± 35.5 | 7 | 29.5 ± 0.9 | 22 |
| W-RM-INF29 | 218.9 ± 11.4 | ― | 8.4 ± 0.3 | ― |
| WM-RM-INF29 | 354.6 ±15.5 | 62 | 14.0 ± 0.8 | 67 |
| W-RM-EPON30 | 158.1 ± 8.9 | ― | 6.8 ± 0.1 | ― |
| WM-RM-EPON30 | 253.5 ± 20.1 | 60 | 9.9 ± 0.6 | 46 |
Table 3: Flexural strength and modulus of the composite laminates and the percentage increase in flexural properties due to magnetic compaction (n = 7 for the laminates made by EPON and n = 14 for the rest; 95% confidence intervals for all data).

Figure 1: A simplified schematic of the preparation of composite lay-up and application of magnetic pressure, as described in the Protocol section. For this purpose, twenty-five NdFeB, N52-2.54 × 2.54 × 1.27 cm3 permanent magnets are utilized to apply consolidation pressure on the composite lay-up. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2: (a) Variation of magnetic pressure generated by NdFeB, N52-2.54 × 2.54 × 1.27 cm3 magnet as a function of the gap (i.e., lay-up thickness). The inset shows a photograph of the experimental set-up used for measuring the magnetic pressure. (b) The initial and final magnetic pressure applied during the curing of plain weave/INF (WM-PW-INF), random mat/INF(WM-RM-INF), and random mat/EPON (WM-RM-EPON) laminates. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3: SEM images of the 6-ply E-glass/epoxy composite laminates fabricated using a wet lay-up vacuum bag process with and without using magnetic pressure. (a) W-PW-INF (plain weave/INF laminate, without external pressure), (b) WM-PW-INF (plain weave/INF laminate, with magnetic pressure), (c) W-RM-INF (random mat/INF laminate, without external pressure), (d) WM-RM-INF (random mat/INF laminate, with magnetic pressure), (e) W-RM-EPON (random mat/EPON laminate, without external pressure), and (f) WM-RM-EPON (random mat/EPON laminate, with magnetic pressure). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.