Research Needs in Predictive Engineering of Advanced Composite Materials

1. Research Needs in Predictive Engineering of Advanced Composite Materials Joseph Carpenter (DOE), Mark Smith (PNNL), and Dave Warren (ORNL)

2. 2

3. 3

4. Passenger Vehicles U.S. Energy Dependence is Driven By TransportationU.S. Oil Use for Transportation • 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. 4

5. 64% The Oil Imbalance Nations that HAVE oil Nations that NEED oil 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% Source: EIA International Petroleum Information, December 2002. Data for 2000 5

6. 1.97 (17.1%) Other OPEC 0.58 (5%) US Domestic 8.04 Other Non-OPEC 3.41 (29.6%) Iraq 0.46 (4%) Saudi Arabia 1.55 (13.5%) Mexico 1.55 (13.4%) Venezuela 1.4 (12.1%) Nigeria 0.62 (5.4%) Our 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 Source: EIA Petroleum Supply Annual 2002, Vol. 1 Canada 6

7. Annual World Oil Production (Billions of Barrels) Estimates of Remaining Oil Reserves Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption? Projected Growth in Light-Duty Vehicle Registrations 7

8. HISTORY • 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. 8

9. Why Hydrogen?: It’s abundant, clean, efficient,and can be derived from diverse domestic resources Biomass . Transportation Hydro Wind Solar HIGH EFFICIENCY & RELIABILITY Nuclear Oil Distributed Generation ZERO/NEAR ZEROEMISSIONS Coal With Carbon Sequestration Natural Gas 9

10. FY 04 Federal Share of the Budget FY04-08 Commitment ($1.7B) * Includes EERE ($82M), FE ($4.9M) and NE ($6.4M). ** Includes Omnibus Bill recision – passage pending. Fuel Cells ($65.2M) Hydrogen Fuel Initiative $158.5M FreedomCAR $154.9M 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 FY 04 FreedomCAR and Fuel PartnershipHydrogen* ($93.3M) + Fuel Cells ($65.2M) + Vehicle Technologies ($89.7M) = $248.2M 10

11. FreedomCAR Vehicle Technologies Activities ($million) 11

12. HFCIT Fuel Cell Activities ($million) * Distributed Energy Systems R&D was not included in the FreedomCAR Partnership in FY 2003. 12

13. HFCIT Hydrogen 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. 13

14. Timeline 14

15. Potential Hydrogen TechnologyTransition Pathway 15

16. 2010 FreedomCAR TechnologySpecific Goals * Cost references based on CY2001 dollar values ** Meets or exceeds emissions standards. 16

17. DOE Transportation Materials Missions and Objectives • 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. 17

18. Automotive Lightweighting Materials • 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 18

19. 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. 19

20. Material Use in Some PNGV Concept Vehicles 20

21. A A T Vehicle Systems FreedomCar Composites Research Office of Transportation Technologies C. David (Dave) Warren Technical Manager Transportation Composite Materials Research Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box 2008, M/S 8065 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8050 Phone: 865-574-9693 Fax: 865-574-0740 Email: WarrenCD@ORNL.GOV 21

22. A A T Vehicle Systems Composite Material Advantages Density (lb/cu. ft.) Strength (Kpsi) Modulus (Mpsi) Automotive Steel 60-200 30 480 6061 Aluminum 167 30-40 10 Glass Fiber Composite 93 30-100 5-8 Carbon Fiber Composite 79 60-150 10-35 Advantages Disadvantages Less Expensive Tooling Raw Material Cost Parts Integration Repair Processes Net Shape Forming Processing Methodologies No Corrosion Recyclability Energy Absorption Design Databases 22

23. A A T Vehicle Systems DOE/FreedomCar COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH Research 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 23

24. A A T Vehicle Systems COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH What Was Done --- Glass Fiber Composites Processing P4 Preforming Slurry Modeling Slurry Processing Materials Durability Deformation & Degradation Materials Screening Focal Project II Joining Adhesive Bonding Adhesive Modeling NDT Rapid Testing NDT Laser Shearography Test Method Analysis Energy Management SCAAP NHTSA Modeling Energy Management FreedomCar and Beyond Goals 24

25. A A T Vehicle Systems Why Composites for Cars? Glass Fiber Composites can reduce weight by 20 -30% Data Bases Design Methodologies Processing Technologies Material Crash Models Rapid Cure Technologies Joining Methods NDT Recycling Carbon Fiber Composites can reduce weight by 40-60% All of the above Fiber Cost Weight Reduction = Fuel Economy & Emission Reductions 25

26. A A T Vehicle Systems Approach Advanced Processing Method Development Low Cost Precurser and/or LCCF Development Optimized Thermal Processing Development CF Preform Dev. and Thermoset Resin System Selection/Testing Composite Processing Composite Development or Thermoplastic Resin System Development/Testing Manufacturability Development and Joining of Similar and Dissimilar 26 Materials

27. A A T Vehicle Systems COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH What we are Doing --- Carbon Fiber Composites Processing P4 Carbon Fiber Thermoplastic Composite Forming High Vol Processing of Composites SRIM Composite Skid Plates P4 Offsite Development Energy Management Computational Crashworthiness Crash Energy Management Intermediate Strain Rate Testing Joining Hybrid Joining Crash of Joints Focal Project III & Offsite Materials CF Comp Durability Creep Rupture Materials Screening Recycling Thermoplastic Materials Low Cost Precursors Commodity Textile Precursors Organic/Recycled Precursors Microwave/Plasma Processing FreedomCar and 2011 Goals 27

28. DOE/ACC 5 Year Plan Energy Management Environmental & Damage Effects Bonded & Mech Fastened Structures Novel Design Concepts & Materials 90o Impact & Design for Non-Axial Characterization of Physical Parameters TP Materials Crashworthiness Failure and Damage Models Composite CAD/CAM Tools Processing Advanced Thermoplastic Forming Advanced Processing Technologies Carbon Fiber Surface Tailoring P4C Experimental Development Class “A” Structural Composites Technology Demonstration Advanced Design & Manufacturing Joining Advanced NDE Techniques Global/Local Stress Analysis Thermoplastic Welding Low Cost Carbon Fiber LCCF Follow-on CF Technology Deployment Line On-Line Feed Back Control for CF Cold Plasma Oxidation Plasma Modification of Surfaces E-Beam and UV Stabilization Materials TP Resin Development Micro-Composite Technology Non-Thermal Curing of Thermosets Thermoplastic Crosslinking Interfacial Optimization of CF 28

29. A A T Vehicle Systems DOE HSWR Program DOE is increasing the composite materials emphasis in its High Strength, Weight Reduction materials for Trucks program. Good potential for Large Scale implementation Premium for weight savings Low volumes can be supported by CF industry No model year changeover Less capital to amortize Currently 3 proprietary industry projects and 1 direct funded project. 29

30. COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH Coordination with Existing --- Carbon Fiber Composites Processing P4 Carbon Fiber Thermoplastic Composite Forming High Vol Processing of Composites P4A Dev for Aerospace Low Cost Precursors Advanced Polymer Precursors Non-Thermally Stabilized Coal Based Precursors Organic/Recycled Precursors Joining Hybrid Joining Materials CF Comp Durability Creep Rupture Materials Screening Recycling Focal Project III Energy Management Computational Crashworthiness Crash Energy Management Intermediate Strain Rate Testing Carbon Fiber Processing Microwave Processing Advanced Processing Methods FreedomCar and 2011 Goals Green - Much in CommonBlue - Some in Common Red - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked 30

31. What is NOT yet being Done --- Carbon Fiber Composites Green - Much in CommonBlue - Some in Common Red - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked Energy Management Environmental & Damage Effects Bonded & Mech Fastened Structures Novel Design Concepts & Materials 90o Impact & Design for Non-Axial Characterization of Physical Parameters TP Materials Crashworthiness Failure and Damage Models Composite CAD/CAM Tools Processing Advanced Thermoplastic Forming Advanced Processing Technologies Carbon Fiber Surface Tailoring P4C Experimental Development Class “A” Structural Composites Technology Demonstration Advanced Design & Manufacturing Joining Advanced NDE Techniques Global/Local Stress Analysis Thermoplastic Welding Low Cost Carbon Fiber LCCF Follow-on CF Technology Deployment Line On-Line Feed Back Control for CF Cold Plasma Oxidation Plasma Modification of Surfaces E-Beam and UV Stabilization Materials TP Resin Development Micro-Composite Technology Non-Thermal Curing of Thermosets Thermoplastic Crosslinking Interfacial Optimization of CF 31

32. Photo: Courtesy of GKN Aerospace Automotive Lightweighting MaterialsTechnical Approach Thermoplastic Composites Lightweight Glazing Magnesium Alloy Metal Matrix Composites 50% weight reduction 30% weight reduction Reduces mass by 60% Aluminum Tailor Welded Blanks Powertrain components - 40% weight reduction Hydroforming Superplastic Forming 40% weight reduction / 50% reduction in part count 35% weight reduction / reduction in part count 40% weight reduction / 10 X reduction in part count 32

33. Summary of Recent Composite Predictive 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 33

34. State-Of-Predictive Modeling Professor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-C) 34

35. Engineering Property Prediction Approach to Long Fiber Thermoplastics • 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 35

36. Anticipated Research & Development Advances • 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 36

37. Anticipated Research & Development Advances Homogenization (PNNL) Process Modeling PNNL/ Processing Code Partner / University Participants Continuum Mesoscale: Composite element Microscale: Fibers, matrix, defects… • Constitutive Models (PNNL) • Evolution laws • Constitutive relations (damage, • fatigue, creep, impact) • Finite element formulation • Implementation (e.g. ABAQUS) Adjustment of constituents’ & process parameters • Experiments (ORNL) • Fiber orientation • Process characterization • Material properties • Fatigue, creep & durability • testing Structural Analyses Macroscale:Composite structure 37

38. Predictive 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………… 38

39. Predictive 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 39

40. Predictive 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 40

41. Office of Energy Efficiencyand Renewable Energy http://www.eere.energy.gov Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable 41

42. Back-up Slides 42

43. World Fossil Fuel Potential 43

44. Renewable Resources are Adequateto Meet all Energy Needs Source: adapted from UN 2000, WEC 1994, and ABB 1998. Figures based on 10 billion people. GJ per capita 1000 800 600 Hydro 400 Wind Solar 200 DemandRange Geothermal Biomass 0 FSU Asia Total Middle East & N. Africa Africa Europe N. America S. America 44

45. 2000 $ per boe 20 15 10 Unconventional Oil 5 Producedat1.1.2000 0 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 billion barrels of oil equivalent Source:Shell, 2000 Oil and Substitute Costs 45

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 46