cz

1. NVKP16 (NCEP16)
NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
AND EXCELLENCE PROGAMME

2. 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, EU
2017)
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/km
of exceedance

3. 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 €

4. 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
Glass
Fiber
Carbon
Fiber
Natural
Fiber

5. Fast composite technologies overview
LP-RTM
Part
complexity
Low
High
Production
time
Slow Fast
Semi-structural/structural parts
Non-recyclable
Non-structural parts
Non-recyclable
Semi-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

6. Thermoset composites

7. 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

8. 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)

9. 3. Demolding
2. Hot pressing
1. SMC cutting &
stack preparation
5 min
Advantages:
▪ 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, 2017
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/04/20170424-mrc.html
Carbon Fiber Sheet Molding Compound (CF SMC)

10. Materials & Equipment for SMC
Price for Glass Fiber SMC:
5-10 €/kg
SMC-sheets production

11. Low-Pressure & High Pressure Resin Transfer Molding (LP-RTM & HP-RTM)
5 - 10 bar
30 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

12. BMW i8 upper floor panel (Krauss Maffei), 2016
1. Fabric stack preparation
2. Resin application
3. Wetted stack in mold
Mold 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

13. 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)

14. Thermoplastic composites

15. 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

16. Reinforced thermoforming equipment + injection molding

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Automated composite process line
Determination of technological steps
Digital 3-axis cutting
machine
T-RTM production
cell

22. 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 method
FEM 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. Interaction of
inidividual failure
modes
Composite
vehicle sandwich
structure
Deformation
modelling 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:

26. 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 =
𝐴𝑐
𝐴𝑝
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

27. 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]

28. 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

29. Questions?