View
215
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Research Needs in Predictive Research Needs in Predictive Engineering of Advanced Composite Engineering of Advanced Composite
MaterialsMaterials
Research Needs in Predictive Research Needs in Predictive Engineering of Advanced Composite Engineering of Advanced Composite
MaterialsMaterials
Joseph Carpenter (DOE), Mark Smith (PNNL), and Dave Warren (ORNL)
2
3
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Source: Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 22, September 2002,and EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2003, January 2003
Mill
ion
s o
f B
a rre
ls p
er
Da
y
Domestic ProductionDomestic
Production
Actual Projected
Light Trucks
Year
MarineMarine
RailOff-roadOff-road
Cars
U.S. Energy Dependence is Driven By TransportationU.S. Energy Dependence is Driven By TransportationU.S. Oil Use for Transportation
Pa
ss
en
ge
r V
eh
icle
s
• Transportation accounts for 2/3 of the 20 million barrels of oil our nation uses each day.• The U.S. imports 59% of its oil, expected to grow to 68% by 2025 under the status quo.• Nearly all of our cars and trucks currently run on either gasoline or diesel fuel.
5
64%
Saudi Arabia 26.4%Iraq 11.5%Kuwait 9.8%Iran 9.6%UAE 6.3%Russia 5.4%Venezuela 4.7%Libya 3.0%China 3.0%Mexico 2.7%Nigeria 2.4%U.S. 2.2%
U.S. 24.9%Japan 7.3%China 6.4%Germany 3.7%Russia 3.4%S. Korea 2.9%Brazil 2.9% France 2.7%India 2.7%Canada 2.6%Italy 2.5%Mexico 2.5%
Nations that HAVE oil Nations that NEED oil
Source: EIA International Petroleum Information, December 2002. Data for 2000
The Oil ImbalanceThe Oil ImbalanceThe Oil ImbalanceThe Oil Imbalance
6
Our Oil SituationOur Oil SituationOur Oil SituationOur Oil Situation
(Millions of barrels per day)
Source of Oil Gross Imports 59% Domestic 41.1%
Consumption Highway Vehicles 68%
Cost of Imports (@ $25/bbl) $105.2 Billion
1.97 (17.1%)
US Domestic 8.04
Venezuela 1.4 (12.1%)
Mexico 1.55 (13.4%)
Other OPEC0.58 (5%)
Iraq0.46 (4%)
Nigeria0.62 (5.4%)
Other Non-OPEC
3.41 (29.6%)
Saudi Arabia 1.55 (13.5%)
Canada Source: EIA Petroleum Supply Annual 2002, Vol. 1
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1930 1935 1940 1950 1960 1965 1970 1973 1975 1980 1985 1990 1991 1993 1994 1996 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Annual World Oil Production
(Billions of Barrels)
Estimates of Remaining Oil Reserves
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
1996 2050
Bil
lio
ns
of
Veh
icle
s
IndustrializedNations
World
Projected Growth inLight-Duty Vehicle Registrations
Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption?Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption?Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption?Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption?
8
HISTORYHISTORYHISTORYHISTORY
1970 (to present) – In response to environmental movements of the 1960’s, the Clean Air Acts establish standards for criteria emissions (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen and sulfur oxides) from transportation vehicles and other sources.
1975 to 1986 (and to present) - Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 establishes Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for light-duty vehicles.
1993-2002 – Clinton’s Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) between US government agencies and “Big Three” automakers indicates that high-fuel efficiency (80 mpg) family autos are probably technically viable at a slight cost premium through use of alternate power plants (mainly diesel-electric hybrids), advanced design and lightweighting materials, probably spurs automotive technology worldwide, and provides model for government-industry cooperation.
2002 - PNGV morphed by Bush to FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) with more emphases on fuel-cell vehicles, all sorts of light-duty vehicles (not just cars) and limited to USCAR and DOE.
2003 – FreedomCAR expanded to include the Hydrogen Fuels Initiative to explore technologies for producing and delivering hydrogen for transportation and other uses (the “hydrogen economy”). Energy-supply industry brought in.
9
.
Distributed Generation
TransportationBiomass
HydroWindSolar
Coal
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Oil
Wit
h C
arb
on
S
equ
estr
atio
n
HIGH EFFICIENCY & RELIABILITY
ZERO/NEAR ZEROEMISSIONS
Why Hydrogen?: It’s abundant, clean, efficient,and can be derived from diverse domestic resources
10
HydrogenFuel Initiative
$158.5M
FreedomCAR$154.9M
Fuel Cells
($65.2M)
FY 04 FreedomCAR and Fuel PartnershipHydrogen* ($93.3M) + Fuel Cells ($65.2M) + Vehicle Technologies ($89.7M) = $248.2M
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative = Hydrogen* ($93.3M) + Fuel Cells ($65.2M) = $158.5M
FreedomCAR Partnership = Fuel Cells ($65.2M) +Vehicle Tech. ($89.7M) = $154.9 M
FY04-08 Commitment ($1.7B)
FY 04 Federal Share of the Budget
* Includes EERE ($82M), FE ($4.9M) and NE ($6.4M). **
Includes Omnibus Bill recision – passage
pending.
11
FY 03 Approp.
FY 04 Approp.
FY 05 Cong.
Vehicle Systems → Ancillary Systems $1.1 $1.2 $1.3
→ Simulation & Validation $2.4 $2.6 $3.5
Innovative Concepts → CARAT $0.5 $0 $0
→ GATE $0.5 $0.5 $0.5
Hybrid & Electric Propulsion → Energy Storage $21.6 $23.4 $28.7
→ Advanced Power Electronics $13.4 $13.5 $13.9
→ Light Vehicle & Ancillary Subsystems $3.1 $3.1 $3.7
Advanced Combustion Engines → Combustion & Emission Control $18.3 $19.4 $13.5
Materials Technologies → Automotive Propulsion Materials $1.9 $3.0 $2.0
→ Automotive Lightweight Materials $14.2 $16.6 $21.0
Fuels Technologies → Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels $5.0 $3.9 $0
→ Non-Petroleum Based Fuels & Lubes $0.3 $0.3 $1.4
Technology Introduction → Advanced Vehicle Competition $0.9 $0.9 $1.0
Technical Program Management Support $0.9 $0.8 $0.9
Biennial Peer Review N/a $0.5 N/a
FREEDOMCAR VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES TOTAL $84.1 $89.7 $91.4
FreedomCAR Vehicle Technologies FreedomCAR Vehicle Technologies Activities ($million)Activities ($million)
12
HFCIT Fuel Cell HFCIT Fuel Cell Activities ($million)Activities ($million)
FY 03 Approp.
FY 04 Approp.
FY 05 Cong.
Transportation Systems $6.1 $7.5 $7.6
* Distributed Energy Systems $7.3 $7.4 $7.5
Fuel Processor R&D $23.5 $14.8 $14.0
Stack Component R&D $14.8 $25.2 $30.0
Technology Validation $1.8 $9.9 $18.0
Technical Program Management Support
$0.4 $0.4 $0.4
Fuel Cell Technology Total $53.9 $65.2 $77.5
* Distributed Energy Systems R&D was not included in the FreedomCAR Partnership in FY 2003.
13
FY 03 Approp.
FY 04 Approp.
FY 05 Cong.
Production & Delivery R&D (EE) $11.2 $22.6 $25.3
Storage R&D (EE) $10.8 $29.4 $30.0
Safety, Codes & Standards, and Utilization (EE) $4.5 $5.9 $18.0
Infrastructure Validation (EE) $9.7 $18.4 $15.0
Education and Cross-cutting Analysis (EE) $1.9 $5.7 $7.0
EE Hydrogen Technology Subtotal $38.1 $82.0 $95.3
HFCIT Hydrogen HFCIT Hydrogen Activities ($million)Activities ($million)
* With the exception of Education and Cross-cutting Analysis, portions of all other lines were not included in the FreedomCAR Partnership in FY 2003.** Hydrogen activities will be part of the new FreedomFuel initiative to be implemented beginning in FY 2005.
14
Transitional Phases
I. Technology Developm ent Phase
II. Initial Market Penetration Phase
III. Infrastructure Investm ent Phase
IV. Fully Developed Market and Infrastructure Phase
Strong Governm ent R&D Role
Strong Industry Com m ercialization Role
200
0
2020
201
0
2030
204
0
PhaseI
PhaseII
PhaseIII
PhaseIV
RD&D I
Transition to th e M arketplace
Com m ercialization Decision
II
E xpansio n of M arkets and In frastructure III
Realizatio n of the Hydrog en Eco nom y IV
TimelineTimelineTimelineTimeline
15
Potential Hydrogen TechnologyPotential Hydrogen TechnologyTransition PathwayTransition Pathway
16
Efficiency Power Energy Cost* Life Weight
Fuel Cell System60% (hydrogen)
45% (w/ reformer)325 W/kg220 W/L
$45/kW (2010)$30kW (2015)
Hydrogen Fuel/ Storage/Infrastructure
70% well to pump70% well to pump 2 kW-h/kg2 kW-h/kg
1.1 kW-h/L1.1 kW-h/L
$5/kW-h$1.25/gal (gas
equiv.)
Electric Propulsion >>55 kW 18 s 30 55 kW 18 s 30 kW cont.kW cont. $12/kW peak$12/kW peak 15 years15 years
Electric Energy Storage 25 kW 18 s25 kW 18 s 300 W-h300 W-h $20/kW$20/kW 15 years15 years
Materials SameSame SameSame 50% less50% less
EnginePowertrain System** 45% peak45% peak $30/kW$30/kW 15 years15 years
* Cost references based on CY2001 dollar values
** Meets or exceeds emissions standards.
2010 FreedomCAR Technology2010 FreedomCAR TechnologySpecific GoalsSpecific Goals
2010 FreedomCAR Technology2010 FreedomCAR TechnologySpecific GoalsSpecific Goals
17
Missions:
- Support development of cost-effective materials and materials
manufacturing processes required to achieve successful commercial
introduction of fuel-efficient, low-emission, terrestrial transportation vehicles.
- Maintain ORNL’s High Temperature Materials Laboratory.
Objectives:
By 2010: 50 % weight reduction in automobile structure at same cost, with
increased use of recyclable materials.
By 2006: 22% tractor-trailer weight reduction through material substitution
and innovative design approaches.
DOE Transportation Materials DOE Transportation Materials Missions and Objectives Missions and Objectives
DOE Transportation Materials DOE Transportation Materials Missions and Objectives Missions and Objectives
18
• Largest Focus Areas- Aluminum and magnesium casting- Aluminum sheet formation and fabrication- Polymeric-matrix composites processing
•Smaller Focus Areas- Aluminum and magnesium metal production- Metal-matrix composites - Titanium metal production and fabrication- Steel- General manufacturing (e.g., joining, NDE, IT) - Glazing (glass)- Crashworthiness- Recycling
Automotive Lightweighting Automotive Lightweighting MaterialsMaterials
19
Lightweight Material MaterialReplaced
Mass Reduction (%)
Relative Cost (per part)*
High Strength Steel Mild Steel 10 1
Aluminum (AI) Steel, Cast Iron 40 - 60 1.3 - 2
Magnesium Steel or Cast Iron 60 - 75 1.5 - 2.5
Magnesium Aluminum 25 - 35 1 - 1.5
Glass FRP Composites Steel 25 - 35 1 - 1.5
Graphite FRP Composites Steel 50 - 60 2 - 10+
Al matrix Composites Steel or Cast Iron 50 - 65 1.5 - 3+
Titanium Alloy Steel 40 - 55 1.5 - 10+
Stainless Steel Carbon Steel 20 - 45 1.2 - 1.7
Weight Savings and Costs for AutomotiveLightweighting Materials
* Includes both materials and manufacturing.Ref: William F. Powers, Advanced Materials and Processes, May 2000, pages 38 – 41.
20
Table 3. Material Use in PNGV Vehicles (lbs.)
Material1994 Base
VehicleP2000 ESX2
Plastics 223 270 485Aluminum 206 733 450Magnesium 6 86 122Titanium 0 11 40Ferrous 2168 490 528Rubber 138.5 123 148Glass 96.5 36 70Lexan 0 30 20Glass fiber 19 0 60Carbon Fiber 0 8 24Lithium 0 30 30Other 391 193 273Total Weight 3248 2010 2250
Source: Ducker 1998
Material Use in Some PNGV Concept Vehicles
21
AAT
Vehicle Systems
FreedomCar Composites ResearchOffice of Transportation Technologies
C. David (Dave) Warren
Technical Manager Transportation Composite Materials Research
Oak Ridge National LaboratoryP.O. Box 2008, M/S 8065
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8050Phone: 865-574-9693 Fax: 865-574-0740
Email: WarrenCD@ORNL.GOV
22
AAT
Vehicle Systems
Composite Material Advantages
Density (lb/cu. ft.) Strength (Kpsi) Modulus (Mpsi)
Automotive Steel 480 60-200 30
6061 Aluminum 167 30-40 10Glass Fiber Composite 93 30-100 5-8Carbon Fiber Composite 79 60-150 10-35
Less Expensive Tooling Raw Material Cost
Parts Integration Repair Processes
Net Shape Forming Processing Methodologies
No Corrosion Recyclability
Energy Absorption Design Databases
Advantages Disadvantages
23
AAT
Vehicle Systems
DOE/FreedomCar COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCHResearch Program Organization
USCAR Program Coordination DOE/OTT
USAMP Program Management DOE/OAAT
ACC Technical Management ORNL
Materials Energy Management Processing Joining
Manufacturability Demonstration Projects
Car Platforms Automotive Suppliers
24
AAT
Vehicle Systems
COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCHWhat Was Done --- Glass Fiber Composites
Energy Management
SCAAPNHTSA Modeling Energy Management
Processing
P4 PreformingSlurry ModelingSlurry Processing
Materials
DurabilityDeformation & DegradationMaterials Screening
Joining
Adhesive BondingAdhesive Modeling NDT Rapid TestingNDT Laser ShearographyTest Method Analysis
Focal Project II
FreedomCar and BeyondGoals
25
AAT
Vehicle Systems
Why Composites for Cars?
Glass Fiber Composites can reduce weight by 20 -30%Data BasesDesign MethodologiesProcessing TechnologiesMaterial Crash ModelsRapid Cure TechnologiesJoining MethodsNDTRecycling
Carbon Fiber Composites can reduce weight by 40-60%All of the aboveFiber Cost
Weight Reduction = Fuel Economy & Emission Reductions
26
AAT
Vehicle Systems
Approach
Composite
LCCF
CF Preform Dev.
Thermoset Resin System
Selection/Testing Composite ProcessingDevelopment
ManufacturabilityDevelopment
Low Cost PrecurserDevelopment
Optimized Thermal Processing
Development
Advanced Processing Method
Developmentand/or
and
Thermoplastic Resin System
Development/Testing
or
Joining of Similar and Dissimilar
Materials
and
27
AAT
Vehicle Systems
COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCHWhat we are Doing --- Carbon Fiber Composites
Energy ManagementComputational Crashworthiness
Crash Energy ManagementIntermediate Strain Rate Testing
ProcessingP4 Carbon Fiber
Thermoplastic Composite FormingHigh Vol Processing of Composites
SRIM Composite Skid PlatesP4 Offsite Development
MaterialsCF Comp Durability
Creep Rupture Materials Screening
Recycling Thermoplastic Materials
JoiningHybrid JoiningCrash of Joints
Focal Project III& Offsite
FreedomCar and2011 Goals
Low Cost PrecursorsCommodity Textile PrecursorsOrganic/Recycled Precursors Microwave/Plasma Processing
28
Energy ManagementEnvironmental & Damage Effects Bonded & Mech Fastened StructuresNovel Design Concepts & Materials90o Impact & Design for Non-AxialCharacterization of Physical ParametersTP Materials CrashworthinessFailure and Damage ModelsComposite CAD/CAM Tools
ProcessingAdvanced Thermoplastic FormingAdvanced Processing TechnologiesCarbon Fiber Surface TailoringP4C Experimental DevelopmentClass “A” Structural Composites
MaterialsTP Resin DevelopmentMicro-Composite TechnologyNon-Thermal Curing of ThermosetsThermoplastic CrosslinkingInterfacial Optimization of CF
JoiningAdvanced NDE TechniquesGlobal/Local Stress AnalysisThermoplastic Welding
Low Cost Carbon FiberLCCF Follow-onCF Technology Deployment Line On-Line Feed Back Control for CFCold Plasma OxidationPlasma Modification of SurfacesE-Beam and UV Stabilization
Technology DemonstrationAdvanced Design & Manufacturing
DOE/ACC 5 Year Plan
29
DOE is increasing the composite materials emphasis in its High Strength, Weight Reduction materials for Trucks program.
Good potential for Large Scale implementationPremium for weight savingsLow volumes can be supported by CF industryNo model year changeoverLess capital to amortize
Currently 3 proprietary industry projects and 1 direct funded project.
AAT
Vehicle Systems
DOE HSWR Program
30
COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCHCoordination with Existing --- Carbon Fiber Composites
Energy ManagementComputational Crashworthiness Crash Energy Management Intermediate Strain Rate Testing
ProcessingP4 Carbon FiberThermoplastic Composite FormingHigh Vol Processing of CompositesP4A Dev for Aerospace
MaterialsCF Comp DurabilityCreep Rupture Materials ScreeningRecycling
JoiningHybrid Joining
Focal Project III
FreedomCar and2011 Goals
Low Cost PrecursorsAdvanced Polymer Precursors Non-Thermally Stabilized Coal Based PrecursorsOrganic/Recycled Precursors
Carbon Fiber ProcessingMicrowave Processing Advanced Processing Methods
Green - Much in Common Blue - Some in Common Red - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked
31
What is NOT yet being Done --- Carbon Fiber Composites
Energy ManagementEnvironmental & Damage Effects Bonded & Mech Fastened StructuresNovel Design Concepts & Materials90o Impact & Design for Non-AxialCharacterization of Physical ParametersTP Materials CrashworthinessFailure and Damage ModelsComposite CAD/CAM Tools
ProcessingAdvanced Thermoplastic FormingAdvanced Processing TechnologiesCarbon Fiber Surface TailoringP4C Experimental DevelopmentClass “A” Structural Composites
MaterialsTP Resin DevelopmentMicro-Composite TechnologyNon-Thermal Curing of ThermosetsThermoplastic CrosslinkingInterfacial Optimization of CF
JoiningAdvanced NDE TechniquesGlobal/Local Stress AnalysisThermoplastic Welding
Low Cost Carbon FiberLCCF Follow-onCF Technology Deployment Line On-Line Feed Back Control for CFCold Plasma OxidationPlasma Modification of SurfacesE-Beam and UV Stabilization
Technology DemonstrationAdvanced Design & Manufacturing
Green - Much in Common Blue - Some in CommonRed - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked
32
Automotive Lightweighting Automotive Lightweighting MaterialsMaterials Technical ApproachTechnical ApproachAutomotive Lightweighting Automotive Lightweighting MaterialsMaterials Technical ApproachTechnical Approach
30% weight reduction 50% weight reduction
Aluminum Tailor Welded Blanks
40% weight reduction / 50% reduction in part count
Superplastic Forming
35% weight reduction / reduction in part count
40% weight reduction / 10 X reduction in part count
Hydroforming
Metal Matrix Composites
Powertrain components - 40% weight reduction
Reduces mass by 60%
Magnesium AlloyLightweight Glazing Thermoplastic Composites
Photo: Courtesy of GKN Aerospace
33
Summary of Recent Composite Predictive Summary of Recent Composite Predictive Modeling Research and Development Modeling Research and Development
Summary of Recent Composite Predictive Summary of Recent Composite Predictive Modeling Research and Development Modeling Research and Development
ATP – Consortium between GE, GM, sub-contractors (1998) “Short” (1 ~ 2 mm) glass fiber thermoplastic injection molding Shrinkage prediction tool Abaqus/C-Mold interface Abaqus/Moldflow
Elastic stiffness using Tandon-Weng / Mori-Tanaka models Experimental determination of fiber length, distribution, and orientation Unit-cell model for stress-strain behavior Tensile strength (Kelly-Tyson model) Creep – curve fit algorithm Fatigue (S-N) supported by testing
Demonstration on automotive parts – Intake manifold, radiator, fender
Moldflow/Delphi (including University of Illinois) Injection molding of short fiber glass reinforced TP Methods for fully developed flow Focus on warping and distortion control Limited predictive properties
34
State-Of-Predictive Modeling State-Of-Predictive Modeling Professor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-CProfessor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-C))
State-Of-Predictive Modeling State-Of-Predictive Modeling Professor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-CProfessor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-C))
Process Analysis
Capabilities(Mold-filling or Post)
ProcessMicromechanics
Structural Micromechanics
Integrated Software
Neat Resin Very goodApplies Hele-Shaw principles in 2.5D or mid-plane model
Not Applicable Not Applicable Moldflow – includes process simulation, linear & non-linear structural analysis (considered excellent)
Short-Fiber Composites
GoodExtended Hele-Shaw Used in decoupled models
Basic algorithms Predict effect of fiber content and fiber orientation. Best results for fully developed flow
Good - small strain modelsFair - non-linear stress strain.
Moldflow Considered good
Long-FiberComposites
No models or simulations for fiber orientation available
No algorithms available, but evidence that existing modeling framework will work (ref. C. Tucker)
No models exist for small or large non-linear strain. Foundation exists via PNNL LDRD work
No integrated package available
35
Engineering Property Prediction Approach to Long Fiber Engineering Property Prediction Approach to Long Fiber ThermoplasticsThermoplastics
Engineering Property Prediction Approach to Long Fiber Engineering Property Prediction Approach to Long Fiber ThermoplasticsThermoplastics
Definition of the problem – Long Fiber Orientation Models Challenge of measuring fiber length, distribution and orientation Geometrical restrictions on fiber motion Interaction between fibers and fiber domains: the fibers are organized in domains
and are locally aligned with one another Wall effect may dominate the orientation behavior
Possible solutions of the problem Explore the established framework based on decoupled fiber orientation &
flow kinematics: Express the fiber interaction coefficient CI in Advani-Tucker or Folgar-Tucker
model as a function of the fiber aspect ratio and volume fraction
Prescribe geometric constraint to the fiber movement in the thickness direction Develop a coupled approach (long-term solution ?):
Accounting for effects of fibers on flow kinematics Determining the effect of processing conditions and fiber characteristics on the
morphology of the composite
),(II ratioaspectfractionvolumeFiberCC
36
Structural Modeling Problem Linear and nonlinear constitutive models (e.g. damage, fatigue, creep &
impact) using a multiscale mechanistic approach: Damage evolution laws accounts for the governing mechanisms Fatigue damage expressed in terms of material and loading parameters in a
continuum formulation The creeping composite is obtained from creeping matrix and elastic fibers
through homogenization Impact is modeled as an extension of quasi-static damage and is based on
rate dependent state variable approach Model implementation into commercial FE code (e.g. ABAQUS) to create
specific computational tools Interface with process modeling to obtain the as-formed composite
microstructure on which the composite properties are computed Predicted process-structural properties verified on molded parts
Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances
37
Homogenization (PNNL)
Microscale: Fibers, matrix, defects…
Process ModelingPNNL/ Processing Code Partner / University Participants
Constitutive Models (PNNL)• Evolution laws• Constitutive relations (damage, fatigue, creep, impact)• Finite element formulation• Implementation (e.g. ABAQUS)
Macroscale: Composite structure
Continuum
Mesoscale: Composite element
Adjustment of constituents’& process parameters
Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances Anticipated Research & Development Advances
Structural Analyses
Experiments (ORNL)• Fiber orientation• Process characterization• Material properties• Fatigue, creep & durability testing
38
Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites
Technical Issues for Predictive Modeling Tools
•Prediction of fiber orientation
•Fiber/matrix interface and degradation
•Rheological property models for fiber reinforced polymers
•Fiber-fiber interactions
•Fatigue and damage models
•Warpage and residual stress predictions
•Crash energy behavior
•Etc…………
39
Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites
Potential Roles for NSF/Academic Research
•Test methods and analytical tools
•Processing Technology
•Micromechanical characterization of basic constituent parameters
•Damage characterization using NDE methods
•Optimization and modeling of cure process
•Modeling and characterization of fiber-fiber interactions
•Modeling of moisture absorption and effects on properties
•Characterization and models for fiber-matrix interface properties
•Techniques for in-situ fiber orientation and distribution characterization
40
Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites Predictive Modeling of Polymer CompositesPredictive Modeling of Polymer Composites
Project Objective: Develop modeling tools that allow the engineering properties and performance of fiber-reinforced polymer composites to be accurately predicted and optimized
Project Task Plan
Task 1 – Develop material-process-performance test plan based around injection molding of fiber reinforced thermoplastics and liquid molding of fiber preforms
Task 2 – Evaluate property prediction capabilities of existing modeling codes
Task 3 – Develop models for enhanced composite property, geometry and durability predictions and experimentally validate
Task 4 – Characterization of composite property retention and durability
Task 5 – Integration of process modeling with structural analysis and predictive property codes
41
http://www.eere.energy.gov
Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable
Office of Energy EfficiencyOffice of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energyand Renewable Energy
42
Back-upSlides
43
Source: H. H. Rogner, “An Assessment of World Hydrocarbon Resources,” Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 1997.
World Fossil Fuel PotentialWorld Fossil Fuel PotentialWorld Fossil Fuel PotentialWorld Fossil Fuel Potential
44
GJ per capita
DemandRange
Solar
Wind
Biomass
Hydro
Geothermal
0
200
400
600
800
1000
N. A
mer
ica
S. A
mer
ica
Eur
ope
FSU
Africa
Mid
dle
East
& N
. AfricaAsi
a
Tot
al
Renewable Resources are Adequateto Meet all Energy Needs
Source: adapted from UN 2000, WEC 1994, and ABB 1998. Figures based on 10 billion people.
45
billion barrels of oil equivalent
2000 $ per boe
Source:Shell, 2000
Unconventional Oil
35000
5
10
15
20
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Producedat
1.1.2000
4000
Oil and Substitute Costs
46
Life Cycle Comparisons of Cost, Energy Use, and Carbon Emissions
Source: “On the Road in 2020,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report # MIT EL 00-003, October 2000
Recommended