PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATION

Transcription

1 PILOT PROJECT PRESENTATION Project Team National Coordinator: António nio M. Cunha MIT Richard Roth Rob Cirincione UMINHO Júlio C. Viana Gustavo R. Dias Ricardo Simões Rodolfo Rito Rui Gomes FEUP Pedro P. Camanho Paulo C. Neves Sílvia Esteves Nuno Correia PIEP Bruno Silva Carlos Ribeiro Catarina Domingues Marta Gomes Paulo Antunes IST Arlindo Silva Elsa Henriques Inês Ribeiro Luis Reis Luis Sousa Paulo Peças Rui Baptista VW AutoEuropa Octávio Carmo Costa 2

2 Overview 3 EDAM Pilot Project Overview Program Objective: Demonstrate multidisciplinary and collaborative research among Portuguese and American universities and industry partners. Research Objective: Establish a process for evaluating the implementation of alternative lightweight materials and manufacturing technologies in engineering design applications. Case Study: Automotive closure component fender 4

3 Methodology Integrated approach to design and materials selection that considers: Detailed CAE/structural analysis Manufacturing strategy Cost estimation Also: Early stage materials selection; Life cycle cost; Life cycle analysis (LCA)/environmental analysis; Use of process modeling simulations to predict manufacturing parameters Common analyses and assumptions for all materials 5 Application: Automotive Fender Variety of material choices possible Must satisfy varied structural requirements Strength Stiffness Vibration Temperature Must fit current manufacturing standards Must fit current package space and attachment requirements Implementation of part into current automotive body assembly facilities also required Highly cost driven Yet still a large incentive for alternative lightweight solution 6

4 Classes of Materials Alternatives for Lightweight Fender Designs Metallic Solutions: Mild Steel High and Ultra High Strength Steels Aluminum RTM Fiber Reinforced Composite Solutions: Polyester Resin System Glass Fiber Reinforcement Ply Orientations Injection Molded Polymeric Solutions: Non-reinforced Polymer Blends Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Ribbed & Non-ribbed Structures 7 Pilot Project Methodology Creation of an Integrated Framework Structural Analysis CAE simulations Design Physical tests Specifications Process Models Moldflow simulations (injection molding) Manufacturing Specifications Cost Models Performance Cost StampingEnvironmental RTM impact Injection Molding Weight Thickness Cycle times Forming forces 8

5 Presentation Outline Structural analysis of baseline solution Material selection, structural analysis, and process characterization for: Metallic solution RTM solution Thermoplastic injection molding solution Cost modeling analysis of all solutions Conclusions Research University-Industry Collaboration 9 Baseline structural analysis 10

6 Analysis Methodology Current Fender - Geometry - Material Baseline specifications Numerical analysis Experimental analysis Design specifications - Design variables - Design constraints New solutions Metallic Composite Polymeric 11 Analysis Results Max. Stress (MPa) Max. disp. (mm) Frequency (Hz) 14.3 Experimental/Numerical P1 Acc1 P1 Acc2 P2 Acc1 P2 Acc2 P3 Acc1 P3 Acc2 P4 Acc1 P4 Acc2 P5 Acc1 P5 Acc2 CosmosWorks Abaqus Frequency (Hz) 12

7 Metallic solution 13 Analysis Methodology Existing Existing part part engineering engineering data data Relevant Relevant material material properties properties for for requirements requirements best materials (technological & economical criteria) Engineering Engineering detail detail analysis: analysis: part/process part/process re-design; re-design; cost cost analysis analysis Materials Materials candidate materials Preliminary Preliminary selection selection based based on on comparison comparison of of material material engineering engineering properties properties Material Selection Engine Engine Selection Selection of of material material based based on on engineering engineering and and economical economical properties properties potentially good materials (technological criteria) Estimation Estimation of of part part features features (dimensions, ) (dimensions, ) for for each each material material based based on on technological technological criteria criteria Estimation Estimation of of part part cost cost and and dedicated dedicated investments investments based based on on process process cost cost models models potentially good materials with economical data 14

8 Analysis Results Steels Aluminum Alloys Property HX220YD DOCOL 600P DOCOL 1000P AL6010 AL2036 GZ45/30 Yield Stress (MPa) Von Mises Stress (MPa) Thickness (mm) Safety factor Design thickness (mm) 0,65 0,50 0,35 (0,50) 1,00 1,00 1,10 15 RTM solution 16

9 Material selection Polyester Epoxy E-glass Aramid Carbon Polyethylene Boron Young s mod (MPa) Tensile str. (MPa) Density (kg/m 3 ) Epoxy Polyester Phenolics Polyamides Young s mod (GPa) Tensile str (MPa) Fracture tough. (KJ/m 2 ) Density (Mg/m 3 ) Analysis Results 18

10 Thermoplastic injection molding solution 19 Analysis Methodology Material Noryl GTX 979 Makroblend KU Thermylene P6-20FG-0738 Thermylene P6-30FG-0600 Thickness 3 mm 3.1 mm 2.2 mm 1.9 mm V.M. Stress ( (MPa MPa) Painting solutions Total weight Max. Clamp. Force Cycle time 1.01 kg 870 tonne 17 s offline, online, inline painting IMD techniques (In-mould Decoration) Fender new features and functionalities 100% plastic one-module fender embedded lights & electric circuits low cost manufacturing processes smart fender 1.18 kg 1280 tonne 23 s 0.71 kg 920 tonne 15 s Source: Borouge and Borealis 0.66 kg 940 tonne 12 s 20

11 Stiffeners Moldflow Analysis (process simulations) Gate location shrinkage residual stresses warpage Flow analysis 21 Cost Modeling Analysis 22

12 Process-Based Cost Modeling Approach Product Description Process Model Processing requirements Operations Model PBCM Resource requirements Financial Model Production Cost Model comprehends Consumables Building space Energy Labor Equipment requirements Equipment utilization Effective production volumes 23 Each Cost Analysis Includes Assumed Plant Conditions Operating days/year, downtime, wages Baseline Process Parameters Tool costs, press types, material costs, cycle times Optimized Process Parameters Optimize press, labor, and blanks Sensitivity Analyses PBCMs Created for Metal Stamping Baseline Metallic Solutions RTM Injection Molding Based on detailed technical models of processes 24

13 Baseline Solution: Cost Results for Baseline Assumptions Baseline Scenario (cost per pair) Variable Costs % Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 $ MPa Steel 1.63 kg 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) Material Process Material Labor Energy Fixed Costs Main Machine Tooling Indirect Labor Building Maintenance $10.46 $0.01 $0.83 $0.45 $3.44 $18.78 $0.20 $0.46 $ % 0% 2% 1% 9% 50% 1% 1% 7% Total $ % Tool Investment $3,148, Metallic Solutions: Cost Results for Baseline Assumptions Metal Solutions Baseline Manufacturing Scenario Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 $ MPa Steel 1.63 kg 700 MPa Steel 0.50 mm 1.33 kg 700 MPa Steel 0.35 mm 0.93 kg 6010 Al 1.01 kg 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) 26

14 RTM: Cost Results for Baseline Assumptions Baseline Scenario (cost per pair) Variable Costs % Material $ % Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 $ MPa Steel 1.63 kg RTM 1.04 kg 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) Labor $ % Energy $1.80 6% Fixed Costs Main Machine $1.60 5% Tooling $ % Indirect Labor $0.95 3% Auxiliary Equipment $0.27 1% Building $0.24 1% Maintenance $0.43 1% Total $ % Tool Investment $838, Injection Molding: Cost Results for Baseline Assumptions Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 $15.00 $5.00 Injection Molding Solution Baseline Manufacturing Scenario 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) 220 MPa Steel 1.63 kg Noryl 2.5 mm with ribs 0.92 kg Variable Costs % Material $ % Labor $0.20 2% Energy $0.31 2% Fixed Costs Main Machine $ % Tooling $ % Indirect Labor $0.39 3% Building $0.12 1% Maintenance $0.44 3% Total $ % Tool Investment $405,000 28

15 Economic Comparison of All Solutions: Baseline Manufacturing Scenarios Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 $15.00 $5.00 RTM Injection Molding 220 MPa Steel 700 MPa Steel 0.50 mm 700 MPa Steel 0.35 mm 6010 Al RTM Noryl GTX with ribs 2.5 mm 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) Metal 29 Economic Comparison of All Solutions: Optimized Manufacturing Scenarios Manufacturing Cost per Pair $55.00 $45.00 $35.00 $25.00 RTM 220 MPa Steel 220 MPa Steel Optimized 700 Mpa 0.50 mm 700 Mpa 0.35 mm 6010 Al RTM Noryl GTX with ribs 2.5 mm Metal $15.00 $5.00 Injection Molding 0 25,000 50,000 75, ,000 Annual Production Volume (Pairs of Right and Left Fenders) 30

16 Conclusions 31 Research Conclusions Project successfully developed an evaluation methodology for alternative materials in engineering applications that comprehends performance and context 1. If structural requirements are relaxed, injection molding solution will be the lowest cost alternative solution 2. If structural requirements are not relaxed, RTM is competitive with the baseline solution below 75,000 pairs per year, before paint costs 3. Optimizations to the baseline manufacturing scenario can reduce baseline manufacturing costs up to 29%. 4. Under optimized manufacturing conditions (press, labor, and blank optimization), all alternative metal solutions are cheaper than the baseline, and are competitive with RTM at production volumes greater than 35,000 65,000 pairs/year 32

17 University-Industry Collaboration Conclusions Project was a laboratory for experimenting with techniques for collaboration amongst academic and industrial partners with a variety of backgrounds and expertise. Lessons learned include: 1. Regular communication among team members is essential 2. Initial specification of the problem itself is paramount 3. Common framework and established milestones are mandatory 4. Extremely engaging research, with expertise from different groups 5. Building relations on trust among team members is difficult, but essential 33