Ceramic Composite Core With CMC Face Sheets for Stronger Bonds

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current SiC-based ceramic matrix composite (CMC) materials for aerospace structures are bulky, expensive, and have limited bonding areas for connecting core structures with face sheets, leading to high costs and potential structural weaknesses.

Innovation Solution

A pliable matrix material is used to bond ceramic core structures with CMC face sheets, accommodating dimensional mismatches and enhancing bonding capabilities, while utilizing additive manufacturing to create a monolithic ceramic core structure with optimized thermal conductivity and stiffness.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional SiC-based CMC materials are used for aerospace structures, then structural integrity and high-temperature resistance are achieved, but the components become bulky and expensive with limited bonding areas

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvestructural integrityVSAvoidcomponent bulk

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSVolume of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The component is divided into two distinct parts: a lightweight ceramic core structure providing structural integrity and bonding surfaces, and a CMC face sheet providing high-temperature resistance. This segmentation allows each part to be optimized for its specific function, reducing overall bulk while maintaining reliability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The invention uses a composite structure combining ceramic core material with CMC face sheet material. The ceramic core provides stiffness and bonding area, while the CMC layer provides high-temperature capability, creating a composite that is both lightweight and reliable

Inventive Principle:

Principle #40Composite materials

2Temperature

If traditional CMC materials are used, then high-temperature resistance is achieved, but bonding area with core structures is limited leading to structural weaknesses

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvehigh-temperature resistanceVSAvoidbonding strength

Core Design Contradiction:

TemperatureVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The bonding interface is segmented into multiple locations on the ceramic core structure, distributing the bonding load across many small bonding areas rather than relying on a single large bonding zone, thereby strengthening the overall connection

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The ceramic core structure is designed with three-dimensional geometric features including protrusions and recesses that create bonding interfaces in multiple spatial dimensions, increasing the effective bonding area and improving bonding strength

Inventive Principle:

Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

3Manufacturing precision

If hand lay-up and tooling methods are used for fabrication, then near-net-shape parts are produced, but the process is bulky and expensive

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvenear-net-shape capabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The fabrication method transitions from conventional hand lay-up processes to additive manufacturing, changing the manufacturing parameters from manual layering to automated material deposition, thereby reducing labor costs and manufacturing complexity while maintaining near-net-shape capability

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The manual mechanical process of hand lay-up is replaced with automated additive manufacturing technology, substituting human-operated mechanical systems with computer-controlled deposition systems, reducing manufacturing cost and complexity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Strength

If more bonding area is provided between core and face sheets, then bonding strength improves, but component complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvebonding strengthVSAvoidcomponent complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

StrengthVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The bonding surfaces are merged into the fundamental geometry of the ceramic core structure itself, rather than being added as separate features. The protrusions and recesses are integral to the core structure, combining structural support and bonding functions in a single element, thereby increasing bonding strength without proportionally increasing complexity

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentEP4596524A1Ceramic composite component

Publication Date: 2025.08.06 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO

Figure 1~2
Figure 3
Figure 4

AI summary

A ceramic composite component (2200) includes a ceramic core structure (2204) having a plurality of hollow cells (260) defined by a plurality of walls (262) extending from a first side (2210) of the ceramic core structure (2204) to a second side (2212) of the ceramic core structure (2204), the second side (2212) opposite the first side (2210). A ceramic matrix composite (CMC) structure (2206) is coupled to the ceramic core structure (2204). The CMC structure (2206) comprises a plurality of CMC plies (302, 402, 402A, 402B) defined by a first side (2214) of the CMC structure (2206) and a second side (2216) of the CMC structure (2206) opposite the first side (2214) of the CMC structure (2206). A first CMC face sheet (2208, 2208A) is bonded to the first side (2210) of the ceramic core structure (2204) and the first side (2214) of the CMC structure (2206). A second CMC face sheet (2208, 2208B) is bonded to the second side (2212) of the ceramic core structure (2204) and the second side (2216) of the CMC structure (2206).