In-Situ Consolidation Mechanics in Open-Atmosphere LFAM: The Role of Compaction Force and Thermal History

January 2025 35 min read

A Technical Review of Process-Structure Relationships in Compaction Roller Systems for CF/PA and CF/PEEK Thermoplastic Composites

In-situ consolidation mechanics visualization

Executive Summary

In-situ consolidation (ISC) represents a paradigm shift in thermoplastic composite manufacturing, enabling single-step production without autoclave post-processing. This review examines the critical process-structure relationships governing bond strength development in open-atmosphere large format additive manufacturing (LFAM) systems that employ compaction rollers—such as those used in laser-assisted automated fiber placement (LAFP). The analysis focuses on how roller pressure and nip-point temperature dictate interlaminar bond quality in carbon fiber reinforced polyamide (CF/PA) and polyether ether ketone (CF/PEEK) systems.

10–100 ms Consolidation windows limiting intimate contact development
>1000°C/s Cooling rates creating low crystallinity (10–17%)
2–6% Void contents vs. <1% in autoclaved parts
70–90 MPa Achievable ILSS (75–95% of autoclave benchmarks)

However, optimized process parameters—including compaction forces of 100–2000 N, nip-point temperatures of 350–430°C, and multi-pass strategies—can achieve ILSS values representing 75–95% of autoclave benchmarks.

1. Introduction

The consolidation of thermoplastic composites without autoclave processing has emerged as a critical enabler for cost-effective, scalable manufacturing of high-performance structures [1]. Unlike thermoset systems that rely on irreversible chemical cross-linking, thermoplastic matrices achieve interlaminar bonding through physical mechanisms—intimate contact formation and polymer chain interdiffusion (healing)—that are inherently reversible and highly sensitive to processing conditions [2].

Laser-Assisted AFP with Compaction Roller process schematic

Process Schematic - Laser-Assisted AFP with Compaction Roller

Diagram illustrating the key zones in laser-assisted automated fiber placement: laser heating zone, nip point, consolidation zone under roller, and cooling region. Shows incoming tape, substrate, compaction roller, and temperature gradients.

Laser-Assisted AFP for Thermoplastic Composites

In-Situ Consolidation Process Schematic

LASER SOURCE INCOMING TAPE NIP POINT (T nip ) COMPACTION ROLLER SUBSTRATE (PREVIOUSLY LAID) HEATING ZONE COOLING ZONE (Crystallization) Process Direction
350-430°C
Nip Temperature
0.1-1 kN
Compaction Force
50-500
mm/s Layup Speed

Temperature Profile Through Process

Tmelt (Melting)
Tg (Glass Transition)
Process Window

Source: Adapted from Stokes-Griffin & Compston, "Laser-assisted AFP for thermoplastic composites," Composites Part A, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2015.04.017

In open-atmosphere LFAM, the absence of autoclave pressure (typically 0.3–0.7 MPa) and controlled cooling environments fundamentally alters the consolidation physics [3]. The compaction roller must simultaneously: (1) eliminate surface asperities to establish intimate contact, (2) maintain sufficient temperature for polymer chain mobility, (3) apply pressure to suppress void growth, and (4) accommodate geometric variations in the substrate [4].

This review synthesizes recent advances in understanding these coupled phenomena, with emphasis on quantitative models for intimate contact and healing, the role of roller design in pressure distribution, and the relationship between thermal history and final part quality.

2. Thermodynamics of Fusion Bonding

2.1 The Two-Stage Bonding Model

Interlaminar bonding in thermoplastic composites proceeds through two sequential but overlapping mechanisms: intimate contact development and polymer healing (autohesion) [5]. The total degree of bonding (Db) is expressed as the product of these contributions:

Db = Dic · Dh

where Dic is the degree of intimate contact (ratio of actual to nominal contact area) and Dh is the degree of healing (ratio of achieved to ultimate bond strength) [6].

2.2 Intimate Contact: The Lee-Springer Model

The pioneering work of Lee and Springer [7] established the quantitative framework for intimate contact development. Their model represents surface roughness as a series of identical rectangular asperities that deform under applied pressure and elevated temperature.

Intimate Contact Development Schematic

Surface Asperity Deformation During Thermoplastic Consolidation

a Initial State
Mating Ply Surface w₀ b₀ a₀ AIR AIR
w₀
Gap Width
b₀
Asperity Width
a₀
Asperity Height
Papp
Papp
b After Consolidation
w(t) w(t) < w₀ Contact Area ↑
Gaps Reduced
Dic → 1.0

Intimate Contact Evolution

Dic = 1/(1 + w₀/b₀) · [1 + 5Papp/(a₀μmf) · t]1/5
Temperature Dependence
Higher temperatures reduce matrix viscosity (μmf), accelerating asperity deformation and contact development.
Pressure Effect
Applied pressure (Papp) drives viscous flow of asperities, directly influencing consolidation rate.
Surface Quality
Initial surface roughness (a₀, w₀, b₀) determines the time required to achieve full intimate contact.

Source: Lee & Springer, "Manufacturing process of thermoplastic matrix composites," J. Composite Materials, 1987. DOI: 10.1177/002199838702101101

The model reveals that time for full intimate contact (tic) is proportional to viscosity and inversely proportional to pressure. For PEEK at 400°C with a viscosity of approximately 500–1000 Pa·s and applied pressures of 0.1–1 MPa, the required intimate contact time ranges from 10 to 500 ms [8]. This presents a fundamental challenge for high-speed AFP, where contact times under the roller are often limited to 10–100 ms at layup velocities of 20–200 mm/s [9].

2.3 Polymer Healing: Reptation Theory

Once intimate contact is established, bond strength develops through the interdiffusion of polymer chains across the interface—a process described by de Gennes' reptation theory [10]. The degree of healing under isothermal conditions follows a characteristic relationship where the welding time (tw) is required for full strength recovery [11].

For non-isothermal processing typical of AFP, Yang and Pitchumani [12] developed an integral formulation. The welding time exhibits Arrhenius-type temperature dependence.

Reptation/Welding Times for Engineering Thermoplastics

Material Temperature (°C) Welding Time tw (ms) Activation Energy Ea (kJ/mol)
PEEK 370 177 150–200
PEEK 400 95 150–200
PEEK 430 71 150–200
PEKK 360 120–180 140–190
PA6 250 50–100 80–120
PPS 310 80–150 100–140

Data compiled from [11, 13, 14]

Critical Insight

For AS4/PEEK, full healing requires 71–177 ms at typical processing temperatures—often exceeding the contact time available under the compaction roller [9].

2.4 Crystallization Kinetics and the Processing Window

Semi-crystalline thermoplastics exhibit a narrow "processing window" bounded by the melting temperature (Tm) and degradation limits above, and crystallization/vitrification below [15]. For PEEK:

Melting Temperature Tm ≈ 343°C
Processing Range 370–430°C
Degradation Onset >430°C
Glass Transition Tg ≈ 143°C

Crystallinity vs. Cooling Rate

Effect of Thermal History on Semi-Crystalline Thermoplastic Composites

CF/PEEK Tm = 343°C | Tg = 143°C
CF/PA6 Tm = 220°C | Tg = 50°C
Autoclave Processing Optimal
35-40%
Crystallinity
1-10
°C/s Cool Rate
Slow, controlled cooling allows maximum crystalline development. Highest mechanical properties but longest cycle times.
In-Situ Consolidation (ISC) Typical AFP
17-25%
Crystallinity
100-1000
°C/s Cool Rate
Moderate cooling rates in laser AFP. Acceptable crystallinity with single-pass consolidation potential.
High-Speed AFP Challenging
<15%
Crystallinity
>1000
°C/s Cool Rate
Very rapid cooling limits crystal growth. May require post-processing annealing to achieve target properties.

Material Properties Comparison

Property CF/PEEK CF/PA6
Max Crystallinity (Slow Cool)
~30%
~45%
ISC Range Crystallinity
17-22%
28-35%
Crystallization Rate Slower Faster
Service Temperature 250°C+ 80-120°C
AFP Processability High Tprocess Lower Tprocess
💡
PA6 crystallizes faster than PEEK, making it more forgiving in high-speed AFP processes.
PEEK requires careful thermal management - rapid cooling can result in amorphous regions with reduced properties.
Post-annealing can recover crystallinity in under-crystallized parts from high-speed processing.

Source: Lee et al., "Effect of temperature history on crystalline morphology of PEEK," Composites Part A, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2022.106836

Cooling rate profoundly impacts crystallinity development [16]:

Crystallinity as a Function of Cooling Rate

Material Cooling Rate (°C/s) Crystallinity (%) Morphology
PEEK 0.1–1 (autoclave) 30–35 Large spherulites (15–30 μm)
PEEK 10–50 (hot press) 25–30 Medium spherulites
PEEK 100–500 (AFP) 17–25 Small spherulites
PEEK >1000 (rapid quench) 9–17 Microspherulitic/amorphous
PA6 0.5–5 36–50 α-phase dominant
PA6 >250 15–28 Mixed α/γ, reduced crystallinity

Data from [16, 17, 18]

In laser-assisted AFP, cooling rates can exceed 1000°C/s, leading to crystallinity levels of 9–17%—significantly below the 30–40% achieved in autoclave processing [19]. This reduced crystallinity affects:

⬇️

Chemical resistance (lower)

⬇️

Long-term creep resistance (lower)

⬆️

Impact toughness (often higher)

↔️

Interlaminar bond strength (variable)

3. Compaction Dynamics

3.1 The Role of the Compaction Roller

The compaction roller serves multiple functions in ISC [20]:

🔘

Pressure application for intimate contact development

🔥

Heat retention at the nip point during bonding

Void suppression through consolidation pressure

↪️

Geometric conformability to curved or variable-thickness substrates

Comparison of rigid vs deformable compaction roller configurations

Compaction Roller Configurations—Rigid vs. Deformable

Side-by-side comparison of rigid metal roller and deformable silicone roller showing contact geometry, pressure distribution, and conformability to curved surfaces.

Compaction Roller Design Comparison

Rigid vs. Deformable Roller Contact Mechanics

Rigid Roller
Metal / Hard Polymer
Line Contact
2-5 mm LINE CONTACT
Pressure Distribution
Pressure Contact Width High Peak Concentrated
2-5 mm
Contact Width
📐 On Curved Surface
GAP GAP
Gap Formation (Edge Lifting)
Deformable Roller
Silicone Sheath
Area Contact
10-25 mm AREA CONTACT
Pressure Distribution
Pressure Contact Width Distributed Uniform load
10-25 mm
Contact Width
📐 On Curved Surface
Full Contact (Conforms to Curvature)

Key Performance Metrics

Contact Width
2-5 mm Rigid
10-25 mm Deformable
Peak Pressure
High Rigid
Moderate Deformable
Dwell Time
Shorter Rigid
Longer Deformable
Complex Geometry
Limited Rigid
Excellent Deformable
Best For Rigid Rollers
• Flat or near-flat laminates
• High-pressure consolidation needs
• Precise layup control
• Thermoplastic tape with low tack
Best For Deformable Rollers
• Complex curved surfaces
• Variable thickness transitions
• Better void consolidation
• Thermoset prepreg applications

Source: AddComposites, "Deep Dive into Compaction Roller Design," 2023. addcomposites.com

3.2 Hertzian Contact Mechanics

For a rigid cylindrical roller pressed against a flat substrate, classical Hertzian contact theory provides the pressure distribution [21]. The contact half-width (a) and maximum pressure (pmax) depend on applied force (F), roller radius (R), roller/tape width (L), and effective modulus (E*).

For typical AFP conditions (F = 100–500 N, R = 20–40 mm, L = 6.35–25 mm), contact half-widths of 1–3 mm are achieved with peak pressures of 0.5–5 MPa [22].

3.3 Rigid vs. Deformable Rollers

Comparison of Compaction Roller Types

Parameter Rigid Roller Deformable (Silicone) Roller
Material Steel, aluminum, hard polymer Silicone rubber (Shore A 25–60)
Contact width 2–5 mm 10–25 mm
Pressure distribution Sharp peak (Hertzian) Broader, more uniform
Conformability Poor (gaps on curves) Good (adapts to R > 50 mm)
Max temperature >500°C (metal) 250–300°C (silicone limit)
Contact time at 100 mm/s 20–50 ms 100–250 ms
Applications Hot-gas torch AFP, high-temp Laser AFP, moderate curves

Compiled from [22, 23, 24]

Compaction roller force control window analysis

Recent research has demonstrated that softer rollers (Shore A ~28) show a larger force control window and better suitability for curved tools, while maintaining sufficient pressure for consolidation [23]. However, silicone temperature limits (~300°C continuous) can be problematic for PEEK processing at 380–430°C, necessitating active cooling or metal-core designs.

3.4 Pressure Distribution and Process Window

Experimental studies using pressure-sensitive films and embedded sensors reveal that increasing tool curvature leads to decreased compaction pressure uniformity [23]. A novel variable-pressure roller design achieved a 24% reduction in wrinkle defects compared to conventional rollers by adapting pressure distribution to local geometry [25].

Effect of Compaction Force on Consolidation Quality

Compaction Force (N) Contact Time (ms) Void Content (%) ILSS (MPa)
48 50 4.2 45.8
109 50 2.8 49.9
500 50 1.5 58.3
1000 50 0.9 65.2
2000 50 0.5 68.7

Data from CF/PEEK at 11 m/min layup speed [26]

The data demonstrate that void content decreases monotonically with increasing compaction force, falling below 2% when roller pressure reaches 2000 N at moderate speeds.

4. Thermal Hysteresis

4.1 Temperature Profile at the Nip Point

The nip point—defined as the first contact between incoming tape and substrate under the roller—represents the critical location where bonding initiates [27]. Temperature at this point must exceed the matrix melting temperature for sufficient time to enable intimate contact and healing.

Thermal Profile in the Consolidation Zone

Thermal Profile in the Consolidation Zone

Temperature vs. position plot showing the thermal history of a material element passing through the laser heating zone, nip point, and roller contact region.

Temperature Profile Along Process Position

Thermal History During Laser-Assisted AFP Consolidation

🔆 LASER ZONE
⊕ NIP
◎ ROLLER CONTACT
❄ CRYSTALLIZATION
→ EXIT
Peak (Laser Focus)~450°C
Tnip350-400°C
Tmelt (PEEK)343°C
Tg (Glass Trans.)143°C
📉
Cooling Rate
500-2000 °C/s
In roller contact zone. Critical for crystallinity development.
Contact Time
10-100 ms
Depends on layup speed and roller geometry.
🔥
Peak Temperature
~450 °C
At laser focus point. Must exceed Tmelt for bonding.
HOT Peak Melt Tg COOL

Process Zone Details

Laser Zone 400-450°C
Rapid heating from laser. Matrix melts and flows. Maximum temperature at focus point.
Nip Point 350-400°C
Critical bonding zone. Tape meets substrate above Tmelt. Intimate contact begins.
Under Roller 250-350°C
Compaction and initial cooling. Consolidation pressure applied. Cooling begins.
Crystallization 150-250°C
Crystal formation occurs between Tmelt and Tg. Rate affects final properties.
Exit / Ambient <150°C
Final cooling to ambient. Structure locked in. Residual stresses develop.

Source: Danezis et al., "In-process nip point temperature estimation," J. Composite Materials, 2023. DOI: 10.1177/08927057221122095

4.2 Laser Power and Placement Speed Interactions

The Linear Energy Density of Consolidated Segments (LEDCS) provides a useful metric for characterizing the relationship between laser power and placement speed [28]:

LEDCS = Plaser / vplacement (J/mm)

Experimental optimization has shown that ILSS values exceeding 50 MPa are achieved within LEDCS range of 1.58–3.75 J/mm for CF/PEEK [28].

Nip Point Temperature and ILSS Relationship

Nip Point Temp (°C) Placement Speed (mm/s) Laser Power (W) ILSS (MPa)
320 100 400 42.3
350 100 550 59.9
380 100 700 65.4
400 100 850 58.1 (degradation onset)
350 150 650 52.7
350 200 800 48.3

Data from [27, 29]

The data reveal a non-monotonic relationship: ILSS increases with nip point temperature up to approximately 380–400°C, beyond which thermal degradation reduces bond quality.

4.3 Through-Thickness Temperature Gradients

A critical challenge in AFP is the steep through-thickness temperature gradient, often exceeding 1000°C/s in cooling rate [30]. For a given nip point temperature, increasing deposition velocity escalates this gradient on the incoming tape, potentially leading to:

  • Incomplete melting at the interface center
  • Surface degradation while core remains below Tm
  • Residual thermal stresses from differential cooling

Models incorporating Lagrangian tracking of material elements through the consolidation zone have improved prediction of actual interface temperatures, enabling better process control [31].

4.4 Heat Source Configurations

Several heating technologies are employed in open-atmosphere ISC:

Comparison of Heat Sources for ISC

Heat Source Max Temp (°C) Heating Rate (°C/s) Control Advantages Limitations
Diode Laser >600 1000–5000 Excellent Precise, fast response Absorptivity variations
Hot Gas Torch ~500 100–500 Moderate Simple, uniform Slower, convective losses
IR Lamp ~450 200–800 Good Broad coverage Lower intensity
Ultrasonic N/A Frictional Moderate No external heat Complex mechanics

Compiled from [32, 33]

Heat source configurations in AFP systems

Laser systems dominate high-speed PEEK processing due to their ability to rapidly achieve temperatures above 400°C with millisecond-scale control. However, carbon fiber's high absorptivity can create surface overheating while the PEEK matrix remains below melting—a key challenge addressed by optimized beam profiles and micro-surface texturing of tapes [34].

5. Defect Characterization

5.1 Void Classification in ISC

Voids in AFP-consolidated thermoplastic composites are categorized by scale and formation mechanism [35]:

Void Types in ISC Thermoplastic Composites

Void Types in ISC Thermoplastic Composites

Cross-sectional view showing three void types: inter-bead voids (between deposited tracks), interlaminar voids (between layers), and intra-tow voids (within fiber bundles).

Cross-Section of AFP Laminate

Void Types and Distribution in Automated Fiber Placement Structures

IB
Inter-Bead Void
50-500 μm
IL
Interlaminar Void
10-100 μm
IT
Intra-Tow Void
1-20 μm
Micro-Void
In matrix
LAYER N 50-500 μm BEAD 1 IB BEAD 2 IB BEAD 3 10- 100μm IL VOID IL VOID IL LAYER N-1 FIBER BUNDLE (IT) Intra-tow FIBER BUNDLE FIBER BUNDLE VOID TYPE SUMMARY IB = Inter-Bead (50-500 μm) IL = Interlaminar (10-100 μm) IT = Intra-Tow (1-20 μm)
Void Size Scale Comparison
IT
1-20 μm
IL
10-100 μm
IB
50-500 μm
1 μm 10 μm 100 μm 500 μm

Void Formation Mechanisms

IB
Inter-Bead Voids
Between adjacent tracks
50-500 μm
Causes
Incomplete bonding between adjacent tapes
Programmed raster gaps in tool path
Tape width variations and edge quality
IL
Interlaminar Voids
Between stacked layers
10-100 μm
Causes
Insufficient intimate contact development
Inadequate consolidation pressure or time
Surface roughness and asperity mismatch
IT
Intra-Tow Voids
Within fiber bundle
1-20 μm
Causes
Trapped volatiles during processing
Incomplete fiber impregnation
Pre-preg quality and moisture content

Impact on Mechanical Properties

📉
Tensile Strength
↓ 5-10% per 1% voids
🔄
Fatigue Life
↓ Significant reduction
💧
Moisture Uptake
↑ Increased absorption
ILSS
↓ 7% per 1% voids

Source: Mehdikhani et al., "Voids in fiber-reinforced polymer composites," J. Composite Materials, 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0021998318772152

5.2 Porosity Levels by Processing Method

Void Content Comparison Across Manufacturing Methods

Manufacturing Method Void Content (%) Pressure (MPa) Notes
Autoclave (CF/PEEK) 0.1–0.5 0.3–0.7 Gold standard
Hot Press 0.3–1.0 0.5–2.0 Near-autoclave quality
Vacuum Bag Only (VBO) 1.0–3.0 0.1 Limited by atmospheric pressure
AFP In-Situ (single pass) 2.0–8.0 0.1–0.5 Speed-dependent
AFP + Repass 0.6–2.0 0.1–0.5 Significant improvement
MISC (Multiple ISC) 0.5–1.0 0.1–0.5 Approaches autoclave quality

Data from [26, 36, 37]

The data highlight that single-pass ISC typically yields 2–8% voids, while multi-pass strategies (repass, MISC) can reduce this to <1%—approaching autoclave levels.

5.3 Void Growth and Suppression Mechanisms

During ISC, void behavior is governed by competing mechanisms [38]:

1

Void nucleation

From dissolved gases, entrapped air, or incomplete wetting

2

Void growth

Driven by internal pressure exceeding matrix pressure

3

Void collapse

Under compaction pressure when Pcomp > Pvoid

4

Void stabilization

When matrix viscosity increases during cooling

For typical void sizes (10–100 μm) in PEEK, critical pressures of 0.1–1 MPa are required—explaining why AFP's limited consolidation pressure (0.05–0.3 MPa) struggles to eliminate larger voids.

5.4 Characterization Techniques

Modern void characterization employs multiple complementary techniques [35]:

  • Optical microscopy: 2D sectioning, quick assessment
  • Micro-CT (μCT): 3D void morphology, connectivity analysis
  • Ultrasonic C-scan: Non-destructive, large-area coverage
  • Density measurement: Bulk void fraction (ASTM D2734)

μCT studies of AFP CF/PA6 composites reveal average void contents of 6–7%, with interconnected inter-bead channels forming a network structure distinct from isolated intra-tow voids [39].

6. Mechanical Benchmarking

6.1 Interlaminar Shear Strength (ILSS) as Quality Metric

ILSS, measured by the short-beam shear test (ASTM D2344), provides the most direct assessment of interlaminar bond quality in thermoplastic composites [40]. It captures the combined effects of:

Intimate contact completeness

Polymer healing extent

Void content and distribution

Crystallinity at the interface

ILSS vs. Process Parameters for CF/PEEK

Interlaminar Shear Strength Comparison Across Manufacturing Methods

AFP Single-Pass
Hot Press
MISC / Autoclave
AFP Single-Pass (Low)
45-60 MPa
Void %
5.0%
Xc %
12%
AFP Single-Pass (Optimized)
60-70 MPa
Void %
2.0%
Xc %
20%
Hot Press
70-75 MPa
Void %
0.8%
Xc %
28%
AFP Multi-Pass (MISC)
~90 MPa
Void %
0.6%
Xc %
39%
Autoclave
95-100 MPa
Void %
0.3%
Xc %
35%
ILSS Quality Scale
40 MPa 60 MPa 80 MPa 100 MPa

Key Insights

🔴
Void Content Impact
Reducing void content from 5% to <1% can increase ILSS by 40-60%. Each 1% void reduction yields ~7% ILSS improvement.
💎
Crystallinity Effect
Higher crystallinity (35-39%) correlates with improved ILSS. MISC achieves optimal Xc through controlled re-melting cycles.
⚙️
Process Optimization
AFP multi-pass (MISC) approaches autoclave quality at lower cost and faster cycle times, making it attractive for production.

Source: Data compiled from Liu et al., J. Manufacturing Processes, 2022 and Fereidouni & Van Hoa, J. Reinforced Plastics, 2024.

6.2 ILSS Data: ISC vs. Autoclave

Comprehensive ILSS Comparison for CF/PEEK Systems

Manufacturing Method ILSS (MPa) Void (%) Crystallinity (%) Relative Performance
Autoclave (reference) 94–100 0.1–0.5 33–38 100%
Hot Press (optimal) 70–75 0.5–1.0 28–32 74–79%
LAFP In-Situ (single) 45–60 2–6 10–20 47–63%
LAFP In-Situ (optimized) 60–70 1–3 18–25 63–74%
LAFP + Repass 65–75 0.8–2 25–32 68–79%
MISC (Multi-pass ISC) 85–90 0.5–1 35–39 89–95%
LAFP + Hot Press Temper 73 0.5 30+ 77%

Data compiled from [26, 28, 37, 41, 42]

50–70% Single-pass AFP vs. autoclave ILSS
70–75% Optimized single-pass achievement
90–95% Multi-pass (MISC) vs. autoclave

6.3 Effect of Process Parameters on ILSS

Systematic studies reveal the relative importance of process parameters [28]:

Ranking by effect size (ANOVA analysis):

  1. Laser Power × Placement Speed interaction (most significant)
  2. Tooling (substrate) temperature
  3. Compaction force
  4. Tape tension (least significant)

ILSS Response to Individual Parameters

Parameter Low Setting High Setting ILSS Change
Laser Power 400 W 700 W +15–25 MPa
Placement Speed 50 mm/s 150 mm/s -10–20 MPa
Tooling Temp 100°C 200°C +8–15 MPa
Compaction Force 200 N 800 N +5–12 MPa
Tape Tension 10 N 40 N ±2–5 MPa

Data from orthogonal experiment arrays [28]

6.4 Other Mechanical Properties

Mechanical Property Comparison—ISC vs. Autoclave

Property ISC (AFP) Autoclave Ratio Notes
ILSS (MPa) 50–70 90–100 0.55–0.70 Sensitive to voids
0° Tensile Strength (MPa) 2100–2300 2200–2400 0.95–0.97 Fiber-dominated
0° Tensile Modulus (GPa) 130–140 135–145 0.96–0.97 Fiber-dominated
90° Tensile Strength (MPa) 60–75 80–95 0.75–0.79 Matrix-sensitive
GIc (J/m²) 1200–1600 1400–1800 0.86–0.89 Mode I fracture
GIIc (J/m²) 1800–2400 2200–2800 0.82–0.86 Mode II fracture

Compiled from [41, 43]

Fiber-dominated properties (0° tensile) show minimal degradation (<5%), while matrix- and interface-dominated properties exhibit the largest gaps—particularly ILSS (30–45% reduction).

7. Future Directions

7.1 Multi-Pass and Hybrid Strategies

The MISC (Multiple In-Situ Consolidation) approach demonstrates that autoclave-equivalent properties are achievable through optimized multi-pass strategies [37]. Key developments include:

  • Laser re-heating passes: Additional thermal cycles without material deposition
  • Staged consolidation: Progressive pressure application over multiple passes
  • Hybrid ISC + post-consolidation: AFP followed by localized hot pressing

7.2 Advanced Process Control

Real-time control of nip-point temperature using closed-loop laser power modulation shows promise for maintaining optimal bonding conditions across varying geometries [31]. Emerging approaches include:

📡

In-situ infrared pyrometry with <10 ms response

🖥️

Model-predictive control incorporating thermal models

🤖

AI/ML optimization of parameter trajectories

7.3 Material Innovations

New material developments aim to expand the ISC processing window:

  • Low-melt PAEK variants (e.g., PEKK, LM-PAEK) with reduced processing temperatures
  • Surface-modified tapes with enhanced absorptivity and reduced roughness
  • Interleaving films to improve interlaminar bonding

7.4 Toward Full Autoclave Equivalence

The path to true autoclave replacement requires addressing the fundamental time-temperature-pressure constraints of open-atmosphere ISC. Promising directions include:

1

Higher compaction pressures

(>1 MPa) through novel roller designs

2

Extended heating zones

For increased bonding time

3

Controlled cooling

To optimize crystallinity

4

Process integration

Combining AFP with in-line tempering

8. Conclusions

In-situ consolidation of thermoplastic composites in open-atmosphere LFAM systems remains constrained by the coupled physics of intimate contact, polymer healing, and crystallization. The key findings of this review are:

1

Bonding time is the critical bottleneck

At typical AFP speeds, consolidation windows of 10–100 ms are often insufficient for complete healing (requiring 70–180 ms for PEEK at optimal temperatures).

2

Compaction roller design significantly affects outcomes

Deformable rollers provide extended contact time and better conformability, while rigid rollers enable higher temperatures but limited contact duration.

3

Nip-point temperature must balance competing requirements

Temperatures of 350–400°C are optimal for CF/PEEK, with higher values risking degradation and lower values yielding incomplete bonding.

4

Void content is process-limited

Single-pass ISC typically achieves 2–6% voids; multi-pass strategies can reduce this to <1%.

5

ILSS of 70–90 MPa is achievable

Through optimized parameters and multi-pass consolidation, ISC can reach 75–95% of autoclave ILSS values.

The continued development of advanced roller designs, closed-loop process control, and hybrid consolidation strategies offers a realistic pathway to autoclave-equivalent properties without the capital and operating costs of traditional autoclave processing.

Future of in-situ consolidation technology

References

[1] Agarwal, K., Kuchipudi, S. K., Girard, B., & Hober, M. (2018). "Advanced thermoplastic composite manufacturing by in-situ consolidation: A review." J. Composites Science, 4(4), 149. DOI: 10.3390/jcs4040149

[2] Fereidouni, M., & Van Hoa, S. (2024). "In-situ consolidation of thermoplastic composites by automated fiber placement: Characterization of defects." J. Reinforced Plastics & Composites. DOI: 10.1177/08927057241251837

[3] Mehdikhani, M., Gorbatikh, L., Verpoest, I., & Lomov, S. V. (2019). "Voids in fiber-reinforced polymer composites: A review on their formation, characteristics, and effects on mechanical performance." J. Composite Materials, 53(12), 1579-1669. DOI: 10.1177/0021998318772152

[4] AddComposites. (2023). "Pushing the boundaries of automated fiber placement: A deep dive into compaction roller design." Available: addcomposites.com

[5] Butler, C. A., McCullough, R. L., Pitchumani, R., & Gillespie, J. W. (1998). "An analysis of mechanisms governing fusion bonding of thermoplastic composites." J. Thermoplastic Composite Materials, 11(4), 338-363. DOI: 10.1177/089270579801100404

[6] Dara, P. H., & Loos, A. C. (1985). "Thermoplastic matrix composite processing model." Virginia Polytechnic Institute Report, CCMS-85-10.

[7] Lee, W. L., & Springer, G. S. (1987). "A model of the manufacturing process of thermoplastic matrix composites." J. Composite Materials, 21(11), 1017-1055. DOI: 10.1177/002199838702101101

[8] Mantell, S. C., & Springer, G. S. (1992). "Manufacturing process models for thermoplastic composites." J. Composite Materials, 26(16), 2348-2377.

[9] AddComposites. (2023). "An in-depth look at the in-situ consolidation in thermoplastic composites." Available: addcomposites.com

[10] de Gennes, P. G. (1971). "Reptation of a polymer chain in the presence of fixed obstacles." J. Chemical Physics, 55(2), 572-579.

[11] Bastien, L. J., & Gillespie, J. W. (1991). "A non-isothermal healing model for strength and toughness of fusion bonded joints of amorphous thermoplastics." Polymer Engineering & Science, 31(24), 1720-1730. DOI: 10.1002/pen.760312406

[12] Yang, F., & Pitchumani, R. (2001). "Healing of thermoplastic polymers at an interface under nonisothermal conditions." Macromolecules, 35(8), 3213-3224. DOI: 10.1021/ma010858o

[13] Regnier, G. (2016). "Modeling of thermoplastic welding." SAM/PIMM, Arts et Métiers. Available: sam.ensam.eu

[14] JEC Composites. (2024). "Composites welding: Characterisation and prediction of adhesion kinetics." Available: jeccomposites.com

[15] Stokes-Griffin, C. M., & Compston, P. (2015). "Investigation of sub-melt temperature bonding of carbon-fibre/PEEK in an automated laser tape placement process." Composites Part A, 84, 17-25.

[16] Lee, A., Wynn, M., Quigley, L., Salviato, M., & Zobeiry, N. (2022). "Effect of temperature history during additive manufacturing on crystalline morphology of polyether ether ketone." Composites Part A, 163, 107204. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2022.107204

[17] Tanniru, M., & Mada, M. R. (2024). "Crystallinity of neat and carbon fiber-reinforced polyamide-6 processed at different cooling rates." Composites Part A, 186, 108395. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108395

[18] Comelli, C. A., et al. (2024). "Observation of PEEK melting peaks within the additive manufacturing material extrusion process." Macromol. Mater. Eng., 309, 2300386.

[19] Hudson, T., et al. (2023). "Thermal response of thermoplastic composite tape during in-situ consolidation." SAMPE 2023. NASA Technical Reports: ntrs.nasa.gov

[20] Electroimpact. (2023). "In-situ consolidation AFP thermoplastics." HiCAM White Paper. Available: electroimpact.com

[21] Johnson, K. L. (1985). Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press.

[22] Peeters, D., et al. (2023). "Analysis of roller compaction pressure distribution in automated dry fibre placement." Composite Structures, 320, 117187. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117187

[23] Rajan, S., et al. (2025). "A novel compaction roller with variable pressure distribution and contact time for automated fiber placement." Composites Part A, 188, 108521. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108521

[24] Borflex Composites. (2023). "Fiberroll compacting AFP roller range." CompositesWorld. Available: compositesworld.com

[25] AddComposites. (2024). "High-temperature compaction rollers for advanced fiber placement." Available: addcomposites.com

[26] Liu, J., Wang, S., Yang, H., Zhu, D., & Guo, Y. (2024). "Processing and characterization of high-performance thermoplastic composites manufactured by laser-assisted automated fiber placement in-situ consolidation and hot-press." J. Industrial Textiles, 54. DOI: 10.1177/15589250241254440

[27] Danezis, A., Williams, D., & Skordos, A. A. (2023). "In-process nip point temperature estimation in automated tape placement based on analytical solution and remote thermal measurements." J. Composite Materials, 57(3), 493-506. DOI: 10.1177/08927057221122095

[28] Guo, J., et al. (2024). "Influence of process parameters on the interlaminar shear strength of CF/PEEK composites in-situ consolidated by laser-assisted automated fiber placement." Composites Part B, 284, 111679. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2024.111679

[29] Li, Z., et al. (2025). "Multi-objective optimization of laser heat flux distribution considering interlaminar shear strength and warping in laser-assisted automated fiber placement." Polymer Composites. DOI: 10.1002/pc.29964

[30] CompositesWorld. (2023). "Consolidating thermoplastic composite aerostructures in place, Part 2." Available: compositesworld.com

[31] Santos, R. A., et al. (2025). "A transient thermal model within the laser shadow during laser-assisted automated fiber placement." Composites Part B, 290, 112029. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2025.112029

[32] Stokes-Griffin, C. M., & Compston, P. (2015). "Optical characterisation and modelling for oblique near-infrared laser heating of carbon fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites." Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 72, 1-11.

[33] Khan, M. A., et al. (2022). "Review: Filament winding and automated fiber placement with in situ consolidation for fiber reinforced thermoplastic polymer composites." Polymers, 13(12), 1951. DOI: 10.3390/polym13121951

[34] Sun, Y., et al. (2024). "Optical properties optimization of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic tapes by micro surface texturing for enhanced laser heating efficiency." Composites Part A, 180, 108090. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2024.108090

[35] Mehdikhani, M., et al. (2019). "Voids in fiber-reinforced polymer composites: A review." J. Composite Materials, 53(12), 1579-1669. DOI: 10.1177/0021998318772152

[36] Hu, W., Centea, T., & Nutt, S. (2020). "Effects of material and process parameters on void evolution in unidirectional prepreg during vacuum bag-only cure." J. Composite Materials, 54(10), 1279-1290. DOI: 10.1177/0021998319864420

[37] Zhang, D., et al. (2023). "Effect of voids and crystallinity on the interlaminar shear strength of in-situ manufactured CF/PEEK laminates using repass treatment." Composites Part A, 166, 107391.

[38] PMC. (2022). "Research on void dynamics during in situ consolidation of CF/high-performance thermoplastic composite." Polymers, 14(6), 1247. DOI: 10.3390/polym14061247

[39] Sommacal, S., et al. (2021). "Fibre flow and void formation in 3D printing of short-fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites." Additive Manufacturing, 46, 102187. DOI: 10.1016/j.addma.2021.102187

[40] ZwickRoell. (2023). "Interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) ASTM D2344." Available: zwickroell.com

[41] Shi, Y., et al. (2023). "Interlaminar shear strength of Carbon/PEEK thermoplastic composite laminate: Effects of in-situ consolidation by automated fiber placement and autoclave re-consolidation." Composites Part B, 269, 111105. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111105

[42] Chen, J., et al. (2021). "Effect of consolidation force on interlaminar shear strength of CF/PEEK laminates manufactured by laser-assisted forming." Composite Structures, 266, 113779. DOI: 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.113779

[43] Shin, K., et al. (2023). "CF/PEEK interleaved laminates with PEEK film interleaving manufactured by laser-assisted forming: Microstructure and interlaminar shear strength." Composites Part A, 169, 107527. DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesa.2023.107527

Learn More

Have questions about implementing in-situ consolidation for your thermoplastic composite manufacturing?

Contact Us for a Consultation
Pravin Luthada

Pravin Luthada

CEO & Co-founder, Addcomposites

About Author

As the author of the Addcomposites blog, Pravin Luthada's insights are forged from a distinguished career in advanced materials, beginning as a space scientist at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). During his tenure, he gained hands-on expertise in manufacturing composite components for satellites and launch vehicles, where he witnessed firsthand the prohibitive costs of traditional Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) systems. This experience became the driving force behind his entrepreneurial venture, Addcomposites Oy, which he co-founded and now leads as CEO. The company is dedicated to democratizing advanced manufacturing by developing patented, plug-and-play AFP toolheads that make automation accessible and affordable. This unique journey from designing space-grade hardware to leading a disruptive technology company provides Pravin with a comprehensive, real-world perspective that informs his writing on the future of the composites industry.