NVKP16 (NCEP16)NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESSAND EXCELLENCE PROGAMME

Automotive composites overview

Main benefits of composite in automotive:

- Weight reduction

- CO2 emission reduction

- Excellent corrosion resistance

- Class A surface

- High strength-to weight ration, etc.

75

95

130

Potential target 2025

Target 2020

Current fleet average, EU2017)

Average CO2 emission per km of all cars sold per years in EU

12350

€/car

4035

€/car

0

Potential penalties, € per car in fleet

Source: McKinsey & Company, “Lightweight, heavy impact. How carbon fiber and other

lightweight materials will develop across industries and specially in automotive”, 2010.

Penalties for excess CO2 emission:

- 1 kg car weight ➔ - 0.08 g/km CO2

2012 - 2019:

• 5 € - for the 1st g/km of exceedance

• 15 € - for the 2nd g/km• 25 € - for the 3rd g/km• 95 € - for each

subsequent g/km

EU penalties for excess CO2 emission:

2020 - …

• 95 € from the 1st g/kmof exceedance

Weight Saving Effect for Different Areas

-1 kg weight ➔

17 600 €

Space Civil Aviation

-1 kg weight ➔

1 500 – 2000 €

Automotive

-1 kg weight ➔

3 - 20 €

Recycling Prospects of Various Composites

Resin is not

recyclable

Resin is

recyclable

& reusable

Recycled GF is

more

expensive than

virgin GF

Recycled CF is

potentially

cheaper than

virgin CF

NF is carbon-

neutral & fully

recyclable

Weak-medium

Medium

Medium-strong

Strong

Future prospects

of recycling

Source: JEC: Strategic Study. Composites penetration growth in Automotive: towards mass production 2010-2020 trends and forecasts

EU End-of-life vehicle

(ELV) regulation:

2006-2015

85% ELV reuse/recovery

2015-…

95% ELV reuse/recovery

85% ELV reuse/recycled

Thermosets Thermoplastics

Gla

ss F

iber

Carb

on

Fib

er

Natu

ral

Fib

er

Fast composite technologies overview

LP-RTM

Part

complexity

Low

High

Production

timeSlow Fast

Semi-structural/structural parts

Non-recyclable

Non-structural parts

Non-recyclableSemi-structural/structural parts

Recyclable

Vacuum infusion

LP-RTM – Low Pressure Resin Transfer Molding RIM PU – Reaction Injection Molding Polyurethane

HP-RTM – High Pressure RTM SMC – Sheet Molding Compound

T-RTM – Thermoplastic RTM LFI – Long Fiber Injection

R-RIM – Reinforced Reaction Injection Molding

Small series

≤ 2 000 units/year

Medium series

≤ 20 000 units/year

Mass production

≤ 150 000 units/year

R-RIM RIM PU

SMC

Wet-

compression

molding

LFI

HP-RTM

Reinforced

thermoforming

T-RTM

Thermoset composites

Polyurethane Resin Injection Molding

Advantages:

▪ Low-cost tooling for large parts

▪ Short cycle time

▪ Two side control surfaces

1 min

RIM units

Disadvantages:

▪ Secondary structures

▪ Requires long post-

processing

▪ Non-recyclable

Jaguar F-Type bumper

Advantages:

▪ Dimensional stability and inherent

stiffness even at high temperatures

▪ Excellent impact strength

▪ Higher design freedom of components

▪ Good paintability, even at temperatures

up to 180 °C, inline painting is possible

▪ Low mold investment

▪ The use of recycled carbon fibers and

hollow glass microspheres enable weight

savings of up to 30%

5 min

Core Features

Fendt tractor mudguard

Reinforced Reaction Injection Molding (R-RIM)

3. Demolding2. Hot pressing

1. SMC cutting &

stack preparation

5 minAdvantages:

▪ Short cycle time

▪ Complex shape

▪ Higher structural efficiency

(vs. GF SMC)

Disadvantages:

▪ Low mechanical properties

(vs. long fiber composites)

▪ Non-recyclable

Toyota Prius PHV hatch door frame, 2017http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/04/20170424-mrc.html

Carbon Fiber Sheet Molding Compound (CF SMC)

Materials & Equipment for SMC

Price for Glass Fiber SMC:

5-10 €/kg

SMC-sheets production

Low-Pressure & High Pressure Resin Transfer Molding (LP-RTM & HP-RTM)

5 - 10 bar30 min

Advantages:

▪ For structural components

▪ Shorter cycle time & higher geometry

complexity (vs. vacuum infusion)

▪ Premium quality sport carbon-fiber

appearance

Disadvantages:

▪ Non-recyclable

LP-RTM

Truck hood, LP-RTM

LP-RTM

HP-RTM

50 - 100 bar

HP-RTM

Roof (visible carbon), KraussMaffei

3 min

BMW i8 upper floor panel (Krauss Maffei), 2016

1. Fabric stack preparation

2. Resin application

3. Wetted stack in moldMold closed and vacuum applied

4. Curing in press

3 min

4. Demolding

Advantages:

▪ Simple mold technology

▪ Lower cost of the mold (vs. HP-RTM, T-RTM)

▪ Short cycle time

Disadvantages:

▪ Simple shapes

▪ Non-recyclable

Source: Huntsman Advanced Materials

Wet-Compression Molding

15 min

Advantages:

▪ First-class surfaces through simple

combinations of methods (painting

directly in the mold, thermoforming

film, PVC film)

▪ High component stability at

simultaneously low component weight

by using high fiber volumes, fillers or

paper honeycomb

▪ Variable fiber lengths 12.5 - 100 mm

and fiber volumes up to 50%

▪ Significant weight saving compared to

SMC

▪ High degree of automation with short

cycle times

Roof element for a Fendt tractor

Long Fiber Injection Molding (LFI)

Thermoplastic composites

Reinforced thermoforming

<1 min

Advantages:

▪ Very fast cycle time

▪ Recyclable

▪ Weldable

▪ Combinable with injection molding

▪ Recyclable

▪ High impact resistance (if to compare

with thermosets)

▪ Material low cost

▪ Low OPEX

p = 5 bar

T = 150-160°C

Door module carrier with integrated

organo sheet

Thermoplastic Composite Car

Suspension Arm

Reinforced thermoforming equipment + injection molding

Hyundai Pultruded Composite Beam

(Curved Reactive Thermoplastic

Pultrusion by CQFD 2015)

Roading Roadster R1 roof frame

(Thermoplastic RTM by Krauss

Maffei 2015)

PSA Peugeot Citroen door side

impact beam

(Tepex by DuPont 2013)

State of the art in TPC technologies

Thermoplastic Resin Transfer Molding (T-RTM)

Source: KraussMaffei Composite Solutions. RTM Market and Technologies

Advantages:

▪ Very fast cycle time

▪ For structural parts

▪ Weldable

▪ High impact resistance of products (if to

compare with thermosets)

▪ Combinable with injection molding

▪ Recyclable

▪ Material low cost

▪ Low OPEX

2 min

2. Preforming

1. Stack preparation

3. Polymerization

4. Demolding

Thermoplastic Roof Frame for Roding Roadster R1

Disadvantages:

▪ High CAPEX

NVKP_16-1-2016-0046

• Duration: 3 years;• Target market: Automotive;

• Place: Hungary, Budapest;

Project datas

Project Main Targets

• T-RTM process development less than 180 sec cycle;

• Building of a production line with Industry 4.0 features;

• Fully homogeneous recyclable product;

• Creation of a show-room in Budapest;

• Automated production of complex, continues fiber reinforced

composite, based on T-RTM technology

• Total cycle time less than 180 sec.

• Application of automated textile cutting and binder application

• Application of back injection with short fiber reinforced PA6

• Integrated industry 4.0 working cell

• Implementation of metallic inserts in the composite

• Implementation of injection molded ribs

• Application of PA6 based foam cores for structural sandwich

construction

• Implementation of IMC technology to achieve near class A surface

• Development of advanced FEM tool to calculate and design the

mechanical performance of the complex composite structure

• Development of faster initiator and activator systems;

Research and Developement Consortium

Production of Polymer Composite Components with a Short Cylce Time Automated Manufacturing Technology mainly for Automotive Applications

especially with respect to the Comlexity of the Composite Products as well as for the Recyclability

Main topics / objectives / enablers of subprojects

Demonstrator

part

Material science research

• Goal: make poliamide in-situ

with bulk polymerisation→

caprolactam polymerisation

• Find the optimum portion

of initiator and activator

substances for the chain-

reaction polymerisation of

caprolactam

• Define optimum

polimerysation environment

parameters (temperature,

humidity etc.) to maximise

molecular weight and

minimise polymerisation

time → TARGET: 2 mins

Manufacturing technology subproject

• Develop and design an automated T-RTM

based production line for complex products

in collaboration with Krauss-Maffei

• Including conveyor, manipulators, robotic

arms, pre-heating, stack manipulating,

preform press, grippers, pneumatic systems

• TARGET: continuous production with 2

mins cycle time

FEA subproject

• Establish validated methods to reliably predict for

any critical feature of a composite product with any

stackup sequence and reinforcement structure the

followings:

• Deformation, strength, failure characteristics

• Draping, warpage

• Fatigue behaviour

• Structural behaviour (stiffness and strength)

of joints (adhesive, rivet etc.)

• Effect of manufacturing defects on structural

characteristics

Lab. tests

System design work

Process optimisation

- Material mechanical

testing

- FEM based method

development

Automated composite process line

Determination of technological steps

Digital 3-axis cutting machine

T-RTM production cell

FEM subproject – Time plan

2017 2018 2019 2020

Dez. Jan.Febr.MärzApr. Mai Juni Juli Aug.Sept.Okt.Nov.Dez. Jan.Febr.MärzApr. Mai Juni Juli Aug.Sept.Okt.Nov.Dez. Jan.Febr.MärzApr. Mai Juni Juli Aug.Sept.Okt.Nov.Dez. Jan.Febr.MärzApr.

FEM simulation techniques: joints + automated component

Partitioning methodFEM simulation techniques: sandwich panels, metallic

Inserts and fasteners

FEM methods to predict fatigue behaviour of monolith and

Sandwich structures

End of project

FEM simulation techniques: composite monolith structures

Testing methodology: fatigue of monolith plates and

Sandwich structures

Testing strategy: stiffness and strength evaluation of diff.

joint types (adhesive – single/double lap etc., rivet etc.)

Testing strategy: evaluation of mechanical characteristics

of sandwich structures

Testing strategy: evaluation of mechanical characteristics

(stiffness and strength of composite monolith plates)

Consideration of the effect of manufacturing defects on the

Mechanical properties of composites in the design phase

Phase

1

Today

Phase

2

Phase

3

FEM subproject, phase 1 – Mechanical testing of monolith plates

• Goals:

• Define mechanical tests design to puspose to provide all inputs (loads, deformations) to infer the anisotropic stiffness

data (E11, E22, n12, G12 etc.) and strength parameters for the composite in question

• Design a generic test matrix that can be used in the future to characterise any composite materials

• Stich with standards (e.g. ISO 527, ISO 14125, ISO 178, ISO 14129, ASTM D5766, ASTM D5379 etc.)

• When standards do not fit, specify a unique testing method

CLT

CLT-1

Inverse solution

Stackup Specific Deformation (SSD) matrix

FEM subproject, phase 1 – Evaluation of composite stiffness parameters

Importance of the CLT-1 concept:

Ply specific stiffness constant probability distributions derived from

mechanical tests done on 0/90 stackup using CLT-1 (red) vs. results from

simple UD tests (blue)

Interaction of inidividual failure

modes

Compositevehicle sandwich

structure

Deformationmodelling in FE

environment

Test

plan

Face plate

Core

(grooved, perforated or flexi cut)

Face plate

Cuts filled with resin

• General buckling vs. Shear crimping

• How relevant is the face sheet peel?

• Face sheet stiffness params measured

• Core stiffness from supplier?

• Effect of resin filled cuts?

F

FEM subproject, phase 1 – Testing strategy of sandwich panels

Typical non-homogenous core sandwich panel:

Design

variables

Weight

calc.

Cost

calc.

+

Objective

function

Optimization

Mech.

simulation

Objective:

- Life-cycle cost

- Direct operating cost

DOC = C + p W

C: manufacturing cost

W: structural weight

p: weight penalty factor [€/kg]

𝐶 =𝐴𝑐𝐴𝑝

Mårtensson P., Zenkert D., Åkermo M.: Cost and weight efficient partitioning of

composite automotive structures. Polymer Composites, 38, 2174-2181 (2017)

Initial geometry

main directions

Draping simulation

γ(x,y)

partitioning -> adh. bends

joint mech. props.

update elem. prop. in bands

Static load cases,

modal analysis

Evaluation of results

+

new cycles with the part.

components

FEM subproject, phase 2 – Cost and weight-efficient partitioning of composite structures

FEM subproject, phase 3 – Effect of manufacturing defects on structural characteristics

Identify relevant defects

Characterise defects

- Mechanical model

- Back up / fit based on test result

Generate FE material datacard

(representing the desired

probability level)

Read the „defect map” onto the

part to design using the

corresponding data card, analyse

Make decisions (scrap part,

inspection limits etc.)

[1] [2] [3]

[4] [5]

[6]

List of references

[1] „Carbon Fibre Tea Tray,” Talk Composites Forum, [Online]. Available: http://www.talkcomposites.com/PrintTopic6678.aspx.

[2] M. LeGault, „Carbon fiber auto body panels: Class A paint?,” 10 January 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-auto-body-panels-class-a-paint.

[3] S. S. Rani F.Elhajjar, „Compression testing of continuous fiber reinforced polymer composites with out-of-plane fiber waviness and circular notches,” Polymer Testing, 2014.

[4] E. M. Z. A. J. V. H. Zrida, „Master curve approach to axial stiffness calculation for non-crimp fabric biaxial composites with out-of-plane waviness,” Composites: Part B, pp. 214-221, 2014.

[5] J. W. A. N. W. G. X. L. Y. W. Jun Zhu, „A multi-parameter model for stiffness prediction of composite laminates with out-of-plane ply waviness,” Composite structures, pp. 327-337, 2018.

[6] Lukaszewicz, Dirk*; Ionescu, Viorel-Constantin; Becherer, David, AUTOMOTIVE COMPOSITE DESIGN PROCESS, Conference Paper

Questions?