AUTOCOMPOSITES:
A PAT H T O
H I G H - V O L U M E PA R T
C O M M E R C I A L I Z AT I O N
Purpose of Today’s Meeting
Why We Are Here
 To share a competitive strategy for
carbon fiber composite adoption.
 To propose a collaborative highvolume carbon fiber composite
part commercialization project.
Purpose of Today’s Meeting
Commercialization Project Highlights
 No Direct Funding Required from
OEM X Until Prototyping
 Vertically-Integrated CF Composite Material &
Manufacturing Team
 Commercialization of a CF Composite
Subassembly on a Host Vehicle
 Proposal of potential application
 Alignment with OEM X’s Production Schedule
(MY2018 target)
Purpose of Today’s Meeting
Year 1 Deliverables
 Design Concept for CF Composite Subassembly
 Structural Analysis, Validation & Optimization
 Low-Cost Material System (Including Recycled
Fiber) Assessment
 Manufacturing Process Selection and Plan
 Life Cycle Cost Assessment (including service
and end of life)
 Go / No-Go by September 2014 (in time for Oct 1
2015 budget)
The Autocomposites
Commercialization Launchpad (ACL) Team
The ACL team and partner OEM will select high-value
part families and optimized processes and materials
to cost-effectively commercialize automotive carbon
fiber composite at volume.
Strategy
Why Carbon Fiber Composite?
Has Highest Potential for weight reduction
(and MPG Improvement)
Weight Reduction Potential
MPG
20%
HSS
Al
+
30%
++
Mg
40%
++
50+%
CF
Near Term
Longer Term
•
•
•
•
Unparalleled mass reduction potential
CAFE compliance
++++
Economics will improve over time
Key enabler of 50% lighter vehicle
WHAT ARE OEMS DOING WITH CF COMPOSITES?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GM – Teijin
Ford – Dow
Toyota
Bentley
BMW
Volkswagen
Nissan
PSA
Tata – Jaguar – Land Rover
Workshop & Part Selection Logic Background
Autocomposites Workshop Highlights
45 leading automotive carbon fiber composite technologists
Criteria for part selection: maximize value beyond fuel savings, scalability
Selection of cost effective, high-volume mfg. process and mat’l systems
Opportunities to address OEM “pain points”
Bentley CF Composite Door Detail (Sample)
Steel Inner & Outer
15 parts ~46 lb
CF Composite Inner
6 parts ~26 lb
Potential Application
A cargo van sliding door offers a promising
business case. They are often sold to fleets where
fuel efficiency is highly desired.
Doors are large, heavy, relatively complex, and
offer high potential for parts consolidation,
improved durability, and secondary weight
reduction.
CF Door Value Proposition for Fleets
Steel vs CFC Door Lifetime Cost Comparison
$400
(1 Door)
$300
$200
$100
$0
Steel
-$100
Fiber
Resin
Mfg
Process
2ndaries
Mfg Sub
SGA,
Total Cost
Profits,
Allocation
2.5 Year Remaining
Fuel
Lifetime
Savings
Fuel
Savings*
-$200
*Assumed 55 month life
Potential Application: SUV Liftgate
• SUV market may be an entry point for CF
• Lightweighting the liftgate with CF composite may
offer sufficient value to provide a viable business
case
Commercialization
Project Proposal
Proposed Plan and Timeline
Stage Gate
Activity
Assess Value, Assemble
Team
Model Selection, Specs, IP
Part Design
Analysis & Optimization
Material & Process Eval
2013
Discovery
2014
Scoping
2014
Business Case
Cost Assessment
2014
2015
Development
Prototyping
Design Review (DFMEA)
Process Design, Integration
Process Testing
2016
Testing & Verification
Process Review
Review (PFMEA)
(PFMEA)
Process
Structural Testing (FMVSS)
DVP&R
2017
Launch
CommercialLine
Line
Production
Team
REDACTED
Timing
Strawman Year 1 Milestones Detail –
Dates TBV by OEM X
Responsible
Party
Milestone
Date
OEM X
Final Selection of Target Vehicle and Subassembly
March 14
OEM X
Provision of CAD, FEA models, loads, specs, req’s
March 21
OEM X
Initial assembly process impact review
April 1
OEM X
Selection of OEM X team to interface with ACL team*
April 1
ACL Team
Topology Optimization
April 21
ACL Team
Material and manufacturing process assessment
May 7
ACL Team
Initial cost assessment
May 7
ACL Team
Design concept
May 14
ACL Team
Ply, layup, size, shape optimization
May 28
ACL Team
Design refinement
June 11
OEM X + ACL Team
Confirmation of design / final revision
June 25
OEM X + ACL Team
Joint results and design review
July 1
OEM X + ACL Team
Joint manufacturing and assembly review
July 15
Team
Manufacturing process design
Aug 15
Team
Full cost assessment
Sep 15
Team
Final deliverables to OEM X**
Sep 21
*materials expert, loads/stress analyst, manufacturing / assembly process engineer, designer, executive level reviewer
**CAD model, BOM, material and manufacturing cost assessment, structural analysis results for all load cases relative to
baseline, mfg process design, assembly plan, feasibility report
WRAP-UP
Next Steps:
1. Agreement on a target model/part candidate by March 14
2. Delivery of CAD model, loads, FE model, spec’s,
requirements by March 21
3. Identification of collaborative interface team by April 1
Open Discussion:
1. OEM X wants, needs, requests, etc.
2. Issues, concerns or road blocks
3. Etc.
BACKUP SLIDES
Value of Lightweighting SUV Liftgate
1. Improved MPG, CAFE compliance: ~1% improvement*
1. Reduced cost of liftgate components: ~$100 savings**
• Motor
• Struts
• Other
3. Improved reliability
• Large SUV power liftgate failure is a frequent industry complaint
4. Potential for improved safety
• CF absorbs the most crash energy
5. Improved Corrosion Resistance
*Analysis based on similar competitor vehicle
6. Halo
**Based on linear downsizing
A Co-Funded Effort
2014
2015
2016
2017
$
$Multiple investment streams
to cover program costs
RMI Donor Funding
Several government grants available:
• Vehicle Technologies Office (initial proposal decision pending, due 4/1 if selected)
• NIST Technology Roadmapping Proposal (submitted; decision pending)
• Advanced Manufacturing Office (no specific timeline but likely FY 2015)
• Clean Manufacturing Innovation Institute for Composites (just announced)
Why Carbon Fiber Composite?
II. Already makes sense for carefully-selected applications
Short Term :
Can make sense now for parts selected to maximize value
Viable high-speed mfg processes, while still a factor, are
ready today
Low cost material systems are hitting the market now
Why Carbon Fiber Composite?
III. Economics Will Improve In Time
1 BIW on 1 Mainstream Platform
OR
4 parts on 8 Mainstream Models
100
e r
b
arb
fi
n
o
Industrial
80
60
Wind
fc
o
1 Part on 4 mainstream models
OR
1 BIW on a 100k model
40
Millionpuds
Consumer
20
Aviation
Automotive
0
Current World Demand
Longer Term
Doubled Automotive
Demand
Doubled World Demand
Ongoing R&D, demand growth offer continuously decreasing material cost
Maturing supply chain offers continuously decreasing mfg cost
Improved design, analysis offer continuously increasing value
PROGRAM COSTS (THOUSAND $, NOTIONAL)
Team Funded (In Kind +
OEM X Data / Support)
Team + OEM X Funded*
Process
setup
Total:
Final
Config $5100
Tooling Material
$2650
Process
equip
Cost
Assessment
,
Prelim
Process
Design
Analysis +
Optimization
Manufacturing
process setup
& validation
2650
Testing, Subtotal:
Process Review $2600
design
Prototype
Part
Design
Prelim
Develop Analysis
Assemble specs
Team
Phase 1
*possible gov’t cost share options available
$550
Design
process
$1550
Design
part
$350
Project
Initiation
Phase 2
Government Funding Options Detail
Govt funding
source
Funding
announcement
Approximate
award
Status
Vehicle
Technologies
Office
FOA 991 Area of
Interest #14 Near Term
Market
Commercialization
Opportunities
$1M (50/50 Cost
share)
The ACL team submitted a
concept paper on 2/19; full
proposal due 4/1 if invited
Advanced
Manufacturing
Office
Unsolicited proposal
(can be submitted any
time, likely for FY 2015
start)
$5M
(likely 50/50
Cost share)
ACL team has developed an
abstract but has not
submitted to AMO
Advanced
Manufacturing
Office
FOA 977 Clean Energy
Mfg Institute for
Composites
?
FOA just released; may be
an opportunity for low cost
fiber incorporation within a
few years
A SUCCESSFUL INITIAL APPLICATION ALSO REDUCES KEY
BARRIERS FOR SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIONS
CF Door Value Proposition for LDVs
Product Part Approval Process (PPAP) Detail
2014
2015
2016
2017
Specs
IP Framework
Part Design
Analysis & Optimization
Material & Process Evaluation
Prototyping
Cost Assessment
DFMEA
Process Design & Integration
Process Testing
PFMEA
Structural Testing
DVP&R
Process Equipment Procurement
Process Tooling Procurement
Process Setup & Integration
Final Configuration
Start up line
Plan Detail 1
1. Autocomposites team identifies cost-effective near-term part candidates,
processes that can kickstart widespread adoption of automotive carbon
fiber composites (Complete)
2. -OEM X makes final selection of candidate part and target model
-OEM X provides requirements and specifications (CAD and FEA models,
loads)
-OEM X and Autocomposites team develop an IP agreement
3. Autocomposites team develops 3 design concepts based on 3 distinct,
high-potential thermoplastic material system – manufacturing process
combinations chosen in conjunction w rest of team
4. Autocomposites team performs analysis and optimization of design
concepts to maximize weight reduction and fulfill requirements
(ongoing review of results with OEM X)
5. Autocomposites team performs technical evaluation of each material
system – process combination in conjunction with Fraunhofer
(review of results with OEM X)
Plan Detail 2
6. Autocomposites team develops prototypes for each material system –
process combination
7. Autocomposites team develops full manufacturing cost assessment of
each material system / manufacturing process
8. Critical design review with OEM X (Design Failure Mode and Engineering
Analysis [DFMEA])
9. Autocomposites team selects most promising process in conjunction with
OEM X and develops detail process design and means of process
integration with existing manufacturing line
6. OEM X oversees procurement of equipment for and construction of
manufacturing pilot line
7. Critical process review with OEM X (Process Failure Mode and
Engineering Analysis [PFMEA])
Plan Detail 3
12. Autocomposites team begins structural testing in conjunction with OEM X
(additional prototyping as necessary)
13. Autocomposites team develops Design Verification Plan and Report in
conjunction with OEM X
12. OEM X oversees procurement of equipment for and construction of
manufacturing pilot line
CF Door Value Proposition for Fleets
Lifetime Cost of a Single Vehicle
$45
$40
$35
$30
$25
Tires
$20
Maintenance (including oil)
Vehicle
$15
$10
$5
$0
Base Cap Cost
Lifetime Fuel Cost
CF Door Price
Premium
Fuel Savings from
Maintenance
CFC Door
Savings/Ease of Use
Value
The Path to Scale
80
Double Current Large Tow Demand
Carbon Fiber Demand (M illion lbs)
70
60
50
40
30
20
Double Current Automotive Demand
10
0
Current Niche
+ Promaster Doors
+ All Chrysler Doors
+ Additional
Parts/Subsystems
+ Chrysler BIWs
The Path to Scale
BIW + Whole
System Integration
Carbon Fiber Demand (million lb)
80
Doubled Current Large Tow Demand
More Parts/
Subsystems
60
40
Current
Niche
Applications
Cargo Van
Door at 70k*
All Cargo
Vans (200k)
Minivans
Other Cars
and Trucks
Rear Hatch
(Cross-overs or SUVs)
20
Doubled Current Automotive Demand
0
*Includes both (left and right) door
CF Door Value Proposition for Fleets
Tires
Maintenance Oil
Fuel (85%)
Avg Annual Operating Costs Per Van
$-
$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000
• ~1.5% fuel use reduction
Top 8 U.S. Fleet
Owners
Cargo Van
Count
• For a 25k vehicle fleet, $2.5M annual
fuel cost reduction
AT&T
24,092
Comcast
22,360CK
Verizon
15,509
Sears Holding Co.
11,200
Xerox
9,750
Salvation Army
9,600
Century Link
6,724
Qwest
6,500
TOTAL
106,000
• + Maintenance savings and ease of
use
• X.x year payback
• (We’ve spoken to AT&T, Comcast,
Xerox, etc, who have indicated their
support…)
SMALL CAR SALES
MIDSIZE CAR SALES
Creating a clean, prosperous,
and secure energy future
TM