R&D Selection Methods
for New Materials and Processes
Elicia Maine
Centre for Technology Management,
University of Cambridge
October, 1999
Automotive R&D in New Materials /
Processes
• Why do OEMS and suppliers support R&D?
• Creating Profit Surplus
• Medium to long term view
• Methods to Create Profit Surplus through
new Materials and Manufacturing Processes
• Lower cost production through process innovation
• Raising market demand curve through marketable
performance enhancement
R&D Portfolio Planning
Technical Risk:
35%
0%
Market Risk:
100 %
30%
100 %
0%
Potential Reward:
50%
0%
100 %
Competitive Position:
85%
Risk / Reward Balance
Strategic
Increasing Risk
Unattractive
Bread and Butter
Increasing Reward
No Brainer
Selection of Automotive Materials R&D Projects
Viability
•
Value
Analysis
st
Co
Technical
Cost Model
Material in Basic Form
Shaped Material
nit
/U
• Lower risk
Exchange constants
Market
Assessment
Cost-Performance
Balance
e
lum
Vo
Grasp opportunity!
Exchange constants
Market Size Assessment
Substitution Time
Approach
Performance
Technical
Feasibility
• Communication
between Marketing
and R&D
Most suitable markets
Application Requirements
Material Selection
EMAM and MFA, University of Cambridge, Sept. 99
Establishing Performance Enhancements
Technical
Feasibility
Application Requirements
Material Selection
Minimum
Thickness (m)
Minimum foam thickness x (m)
Polyurethane (0.024)
Foam selection
for head protection
1.
Melamine Foam
(75% of energy absorbed by
elastic deflection of A-pillar)
Polyurethane (0.08)
Polyethylene (LD18)
Polyurethane (0.16)
Polyethylene (PE80)
0.1
Polyethylene (HD115)
Polyurethane (0.35)
Polyurethane (0.53)
Aluminium-SiC (0.16)
Polyurethane (0.70)
1.e-002
Polyurethane (1.05)
Aluminium-SiC (0.27)
Polystyrene (0.800)
Aluminium-SiC (0.41)
1.e-003
Aluminium (0.5)
4.5 kg head, impact velocity 11.2 m/s (40 km/hr) knock down factor 0.25
1.
10.
100.
Deceleration a* in units of g
Deceleration (g)
Aluminium (1.0)
1000.
10000.
Establishing Performance Enhancements
Technical
Feasibility
Application Requirements
Material Selection
Minimum
Thickness (m)
Minimum foam thickness x (m)
Polyurethane (0.024)
Foam selection
for head protection
1.
Melamine Foam
(75% of energy absorbed by
elastic deflection of A-pillar)
Polyurethane (0.08)
Polyethylene (LD18)
Polyurethane (0.16)
Polyethylene (PE80)
0.1
Polyethylene (HD115)
Polyurethane (0.35)
Polyurethane (0.53)
Aluminium-SiC (0.16)
Polyurethane (0.70)
1.e-002
Polyurethane (1.05)
Aluminium-SiC (0.27)
Polystyrene (0.800)
Aluminium-SiC (0.41)
1.e-003
Aluminium (0.5)
4.5 kg head, impact velocity 11.2 m/s (40 km/hr) knock down factor 0.25
1.
10.
Aluminium (1.0)
100.
1000.
10000.
Deceleration a* in units of g
Deceleration (g)
Forecasting Cost / Unit
Technical
Cost Model
$ / Unit
Material in Basic Form
Shaped Material
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
New Material
Incumbent
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Production Volume (Thousands of Units / Year)
200
Performance Cost Trade off
Value
Analysis
Cost-Performance
Balance
1/3 [£/m3]/[GPa1/3]
Cost x Density
C ost /(Modulus)
x d e nsity/Yo ung s m od ulus^0
.33 )
1000.
Al-matrix MMCs
Titanium
Beryllium alloys
100.
Tungsten alloys
Alporas
10.
CFRPs
Alulight
Stainless steels
Al-SiC composites
1.
Alcan
Lead alloys
GFRPs
White Cast Irons
Magnesium alloys
PP
Trade-off
surface
Aluminium alloys
0.1
Polystyrene
Performance
metrics for
C
ost an d m ass
MultO_1.CES; MFA 3-5-99; Main GB
panel
of specified stiffness
UPVC, Rigid
Low alloy steels
Grey Cast Irons
1.e-002
0.1
1.
D ensity/(Yo ung s m o d ulus) ^0.3 3 (M g/m ^3)/(G P a)^0.3 3
Density/(Young’s modulus)1/3, [Mg/m3]/[GPa1/3]
R&D Selection Conclusions
• Better way to Assess New Materials and
Processes for Automotive R&D
• Differentiation
• Lower Costs
• Material Suppliers and Industry Consortiums are
ALL going to tout their material
• Need for in house assessment and prioritisation
• OR standardised methods
Performance Cost Trade off
100
Value
Analysis
Greater Life
Cost
$10 / kg
Cost-Performance
Balance
10
C
Index M1
(Based on Cost)
B
1
Tradeoff Curve defined
by Exchange Constant
A
$1 / kg
0.1
D
Lower Life
Cost
0.01
0.01
0.1
1
Index M2
(Based on Mass)
10