## 3 Results
### Case 7 Model's Spar-Cap Top Surface Temperature Results of Steady State Analysis  
Figure 7 shows the spar-cap top surface temperature of Case 7 to which \(T_{\text{H,N}}\) in Table 4 is applied to compare with the top surface temperature of the reference model. Looking at Case 7 in Figure 7, the spar-cap surface temperature tends to maintain an average of 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C regardless of the type of mold. However, a similar temperature discontinuity still existed at the offset position in Figure 6 of the reference models.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Section Number**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Obtained Formula**} & **Target Temperature of** & **Improved Heat Panel** \\  & & & **Spar-Cap Top Surface (\(T_{S,N}\))** & **Temperature (\(T_{H,N}\))** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Aluminum} & 1 & \(T_{S,1}\) = 0.8582 \(T_{M,1}\) + 5.0841 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 87.2942 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & 2 & \(T_{S,2}\) = 0.8435 \(T_{M,2}\) + 5.4083 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 88.4312 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & 3 & \(T_{S,3}\) = 0.8733 \(T_{M,3}\) + 4.4058 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 86.5615 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & 4 & \(T_{S,4}\) = 0.8999 \(T_{M,4}\) + 4.5054 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 85.0034 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & 5 & \(T_{S,5}\) = 0.9262 \(T_{M,5}\) + 2.6795 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 83.4814 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{CFRP} & 1 & \(T_{S,1}\) = 0.7889 \(T_{M,1}\) + 7.8966 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 91.7463 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\  & 2 & \(T_{S,2}\) = 0.7779 \(T_{M,2}\) + 7.9987 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 92.5586 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & \(T_{S,3}\) = 0.8063 \(T_{M,3}\) + 7.0694 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 90.4510 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 & \(T_{S,4}\) = 0.8270 \(T_{M,4}\) + 6.4472 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 88.9393 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & \(T_{S,5}\) = 0.8434 \(T_{M,5}\) + 5.9729 & 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 87.7722 \({}^{\circ}\)C \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Heat panel temperature by section to which obtained formula is applied.  
Figure 6: Top-surface temperature of spar-cap with steady state analysis (reference models): (**a**) aluminum mold; (**b**) GFRP mold.  
Figure 7: Top-surface temperature of spar-cap comparison between improvement model and the reference model on steady state analysis: (**a**) aluminum mold; (**b**) GFRP mold.  
Comparison of Steady State Analysis Temperature Distributions between Contact Interfaces of Materials  
It was confirmed that the graph shapes of Case 7 in Figure 7a and Case 7 in Figure 7b are slightly different. In order to recognize the cause of the difference in the graph shape, the temperature distributions of the spar-cap top surface, mold top surface, and heat panel were compared as shown in Figure 8. This figure clearly shows the cause of the slight temperature distribution difference between the aluminum mold and the GFRP mold. For aluminum molds, the temperature of the mold top surface tends to be approximately the same as the temperature of the heat panel. Since the aluminum mold has high thermal conductivity, it can be seen that the spar-cap top surface temperature response delay when changing the base temperature of the heat panel is relatively short compared to the GFRP mold. On the other hand, Figure 8b shows that the top surface temperature of the GFRP mold has a non-linear temperature distribution between the spar-cap top surface and the heat panel. Therefore, as the temperature of the heat panel becomes higher, the spar-cap top surface temperature can be kept even.