Composite / Steel Cost Comparison: Utility
Composites offer the following:
Advantages Parts Consolidation Opportunities Primary / Secondary Weight Savings Low Investment Costs Increased Design Flexibility Disadvantages Materials and Labor Intensive Process Long Cycle Times Non-traditional Manufacturing Technology What is the competitive position of composite parts compared to its steel comparator?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Cost Analysis: Methodology
Composites Vehicle Design Ford Composite Intensive Vehicle (CIV) Complete Body in White : 8 pieces BIW Weight : approx. 300 kg Steel Comparator Honda Odyssey minivan Based on Accord chassis, so comparable size BIW Weight : approx. 400 kg Use steel stamping and assembly models to estimate Odyssey's BIW cost Use RTM and composites assembly models to estimate CIV's BIW cost Identify key process variables, cost drivers, necessary technical improvements
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Conceptual Resin Transfer Molding Process Flow
Preforming
Cut Reinforcement Material Thermoform Trim
Foam Core / Preform Subassembly
Resin Transfer Molding
Trim/Inspect
Trim Reaction Injection Mold Cure
Resin Transfer Molding
Foam Core Molding
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
General RTM Cost Model Structure
Inputs:
Material Composition Part Geometry Preform, Foam Core Geometry Exogenous Cost Factors Process Conditions Parameter Estimation Data Tooling Cost Estimation Number of Tools Cycle Time Estimation Machine Cost Estimation Number of Machines
Secondary Calculations:
Cost Estimation per Operation and Cost Summary
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Resin Transfer Molding Cycle Time Estimation
Cycle Time = Preparation Time + Fill Time + Cure Time Preparation Time: Mold Cleaning + Release Agent Coating + Gel Coating + Subassembly Placement + Mold Open/Close + Demold Fill Time:
"
Cure Time: f(Arrhenius constants, Mold Temperature, Percent Conversion) Rate Constants from typical values found in literature
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
RTM Fill and Cure Equations
Fill Time Based on application of D'Arcy's Law: Q = -(KA/m) dp/dx, where Q = volumetric flow rate, K=permeability, A=cross-sectional area, m=viscosity and dp/dx = pressure gradient Assumptions: Isothermal flow Incompressible, constant viscosity fluid Homogeneous reinforcement Cure Time dc/dt = (k1 + k2 c^m) (1-c)^n, where c=degree of conversion, k1 and k2 are Arrhenius constants, and m,n are empirical constants Assume m = 0, n = 2, Cure Time = (1/A)exp(E/RT) x c/(1-c), where A=pre-exponential factor, E=activation energy, R=gas constant, T=mold temperature, c=degree of conversion
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
RTM Fill Time Process Flow
Rectilinear Calculation Constant Flow or Pressure? Rectilinear or Radial Flow? Radial Calculation Rectilinear or Radial Flow? Rectilinear Calculation
Line Source or Sink?
Line Source Calculation
Line Sink Calculation
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
RTM Machine and Tooling Cost Equations
Machine Cost = C1 + C2 x (Clamping Force Requirement) + C3 x (Platen Area) C1, C2, C3 : regression constants Clamping Force = f(maximum injection pressure, mold geometry and mold design) Tooling Cost = C1 + C2 x (Part Weight)^C3 + C4 x (Part Surface Area) C1, C2, C3, C4 : regression constants, dependent on tool material Tool Material Options Steel Aluminum Epoxy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Effect of Mold Design on Fill Time and Machine Cost
Fill Time (sec) Rectilinear, Constant Flow Rectilinear, Constant Pressure Radial Source, Constant Pressure Radial Sink, Constant Pressure 12.15 Mold Force (N) 5.4 x 106 Press Cost ($) $3,012,346
249.11
4.03 x 105
$355,782
233.45
9.04 x 104
$176,850
15.54
1.36 x 106
$903,743
Flow Length = 1.4m (Rectilinear), 0.7m (Radial) Initial Injection Pressure = 5 x 105 N
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
RTM Cost Modeling Assumptions
Materials Prices: Resin (Vinyl Ester) Filler (Calcium Carbonate) Reinforcement: Glass Fiber CSM Carbon Fiber Carbon / Glass Blend Catalyst Foam Core (Polyurethane) $2.60 / kg $0.13 / kg $2.00 / kg $11.00 / kg $6.50 / kg $3.24 / kg $2.54 / kg
Foam Core Molding, Thermoforming and RTM Tool Material: Steel RTM Flow: Rectilinear, Constant Pressure 32 Steel Inserts
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Key Carbon Fiber Design Assumptions for CIV
Use simple beam loading equations to estimate the equivalent thickness of carbon fiber part compared its glass fiber equivalent Ratio of moduli determines the thickness of the carbon fiber part Elastic Modulus (Msi): E glass fiber : 10.5 Carbon fiber : 34 Carbon / Glass : 22.25 Part thickness for glass fiber component : 3 mm Results Part thickness: Carbon fiber : 2.03 mm Carbon / Glass : 2.3 mm Relative Weight assuming calculated thicknesses (Glass fiber = 1.0) Carbon fiber : 46% Carbon / Glass : 65%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Key SMC Design Assumptions for CIV
SMC part thickness : 4 mm Reinforcing rib structure placed every 150 mm Reinforcing rib dimensions Length = 150 mm Height and Width are dependent on part geometry Foam cores assumed in parts where crush resistance is necessary Front End rails Floorpan SMC part is composed of two halves forming a closed section
Rib
Rib Pattern Part Cross-Section
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Comparison of Part Weights (including CIV inserts)
Steel SMC Glass Fiber Carbon/Glass Carbon Fiber 0 100
172 193.6 241.3 286.2
367.9
200
300
400
Weight (Kg)
Bodyside Floorpan
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Cross Member Front End
Roof
Materials Systems Laboratory
Results: Total Manufacturing and Assembly Cost
$3,000
$2,500 Steel RTM Glass RTM Carb RTM Ca/Gl SMC
$2,000
$1,500
SMC-Steel Break-even Point: ~ 30,000 vehicles/yr
RTM Glass-Steel Break-even Point: ~ 35,000 vehicles/yr
30 35 40 50 60
$1,000
10 20
Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
(Composites Wage: $25/hr)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Manufacturing Cost Breakdown: Glass vs Carbon Fiber
$2,000
Other Fixed Tooling Equipment Energy Labor Materials
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0 Glass (Volume = 35,000) Carbon Car/Gla
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Cost per Kilogram Saved (Relative to Steel Base Case)
$5 $4
Cost per Kg Saved
$3 $2 $1 $0 ($1) ($2) ($3) ($4) ($5) 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000) RTM Carb SMC RTM Glass RTM Ca/Gl
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Individual Sub-Systems: Roof
$200
Steel: RTM: SMC: 9 parts 2 Parts 1 Part
Steel RTM SMC 5%
$150
$100
SMC 30%
$50 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Individual Subsystems: Floorpan/Cross Member
$800
Steel: RTM: SMC: 57 parts 2 parts + 20 inserts 9 parts + 20 inserts
$700
$600
$500
Steel RTM
SMC 5% SMC 30%
$400 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Hybrid Vehicle Scenarios
$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200
Hybrid 30%
Hybrid Vehicle Bodyside: SMC (5-30% Scrap) Floorpan/Cross Member: RTM Front End: RTM Roof: Steel
Steel Hybrid 5%
RTM SMC
$1,000 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145
Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Hybrid Vehicle Scenarios
$2,000
Hybrid Vehicle Bodyside: SMC (5-30% Scrap) Floorpan/Cross Member: RTM Front End: RTM Roof: Steel
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
Steel Hybrid 5% Hybrid 30% RTM SMC 0 50 56 92 100 150
$1,200
$1,000 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Hybrid Vehicles: Cost per Kilogram Saved
$5 $4 $3
Cost per Kg Saved
$2 $1 $0 ($1) ($2) ($3) ($4) ($5) 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
RTM SMC Hybrid 5% Hybrid 30%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
Conclusions
Total cost of composites BIW is competitive with steel at low production volumes (< 40,000 per year) Carbon Fiber Use of carbon fiber significantly reduces BIW weight Material price for carbon fiber is too high to justify use in BIW applications SMC SMC design requires reinforcing ribs and box sections, which increase weight, tooling costs and assembly costs SMC can be competitive with RTM BIW, given design assumptions Subsystems Parts consolidation is a significant advantage for composites Roof: low parts consolidation, no crossover with steel Floorpan/Cross Member: high parts consolidation, > 50,000 crossover Designs must minimize material waste Bodyside: significant consolidation, high material costs => low crossover Hybrid vehicles can potentially become competitive with steel at high production volumes
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory
