Transcript Document 7193781

Research Needs in Predictive
Engineering of Advanced Composite
Materials
Joseph Carpenter (DOE), Mark Smith
(PNNL), and Dave Warren (ORNL)
2
3
U.S. Energy Dependence is Driven By Transportation
U.S. Oil Use for Transportation
20
Actual
Projected
18
Air
16
Domestic
Production
14
12
s
hicle
e
V
y
Heav
Marine
10
Passenger
Vehicles
Millions of Barrels per Day
22
8
6
Off-road
Light Trucks
Rail
4
Cars
2
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
Source: Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 22, September 2002,
and EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2003, January 2003
• 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
The Oil Imbalance
64%
Nations that HAVE oil
Nations that NEED oil
Saudi Arabia
Iraq
Kuwait
Iran
UAE
Russia
Venezuela
Libya
China
Mexico
Nigeria
U.S.
U.S.
Japan
China
Germany
Russia
S. Korea
Brazil
France
India
Canada
Italy
Mexico
26.4%
11.5%
9.8%
9.6%
6.3%
5.4%
4.7%
3.0%
3.0%
2.7%
2.4%
2.2%
24.9%
7.3%
6.4%
3.7%
3.4%
2.9%
2.9%
2.7%
2.7%
2.6%
2.5%
2.5%
Source: EIA International Petroleum Information,
December 2002. Data for 2000
5
Our Oil Situation
(Millions of barrels per day)
Source of Oil
Gross Imports 59%
Domestic 41.1%
1.97 (17.1%)
Consumption
Highway Vehicles 68%
Other
OPEC
0.58 (5%)
Cost of Imports (@ $25/bbl)
$105.2 Billion
Other
Non-OPEC
3.41 (29.6%)
Source: EIA Petroleum
Supply Annual 2002, Vol.
1
Mexico
1.55 (13.4%)
US Domestic
8.04
Iraq
0.46 (4%)
Saudi Arabia
1.55 (13.5%)
Venezuela
1.4 (12.1%)
Canada Nigeria
0.62 (5.4%)
6
Can We Sustain Increasing Consumption?
30
25
Annual World Oil
Production
(Billions of Barrels)
20
15
10
5
0
Projected Growth in
Light-Duty Vehicle Registrations
1930
1935 1940 1950
1960 1965
1970 1973 1975
1980 1985
1990 1991
1993 1994 1996
2000 2010
2020 2030 2040
2050
Estimates of Remaining Oil Reserves
Billions of Vehicles
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Industrialized
Nations
World
1
0.5
0
1996
2050
7
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
Why Hydrogen?: It’s abundant, clean, efficient,
and can be derived from diverse domestic resources
Biomass
Transportation
Hydro
Wind
Solar
HIGH EFFICIENCY
& RELIABILITY
.
Nuclear
Coal
With Carbon
Sequestration
Oil
ZERO/NEAR ZERO
EMISSIONS
Distributed
Generation
Natural
Gas
9
FY 04 Federal Share of the Budget
FY04-08 Commitment ($1.7B)
Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative
Fuel
Cells
($65.2M)
* Includes EERE
($82M), FE ($4.9M)
and NE ($6.4M). **
Includes Omnibus Bill
recision – passage
pending.
FreedomCAR
$154.9M
$158.5M
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 Partnership
Hydrogen* ($93.3M) + Fuel Cells ($65.2M) + Vehicle Technologies ($89.7M) = $248.2M
10
FreedomCAR Vehicle Technologies
Activities ($million)
FY 03
Approp.
Vehicle Systems → Ancillary Systems
FY 04
Approp.
FY 05
Cong.
$1.1
$1.2
$1.3
$2.4
$2.6
$3.5
$0.5
$0
$0
$0.5
$0.5
$0.5
$21.6
$23.4
$28.7
$13.4
$13.5
$13.9
$3.1
$3.1
$3.7
$18.3
$19.4
$13.5
$1.9
$3.0
$2.0
$14.2
$16.6
$21.0
$5.0
$3.9
$0
→ Non-Petroleum Based Fuels & Lubes
$0.3
$0.3
$1.4
Technology Introduction → Advanced Vehicle Competition
$0.9
$0.9
$1.0
Technical Program Management Support
$0.9
$0.8
$0.9
N/a
$0.5
N/a
$84.1
$89.7
$91.4
→ Simulation & Validation
Innovative Concepts → CARAT
→ GATE
Hybrid & Electric Propulsion → Energy Storage
→ Advanced Power Electronics
→ Light Vehicle & Ancillary Subsystems
Advanced Combustion Engines → Combustion & Emission Control
Materials Technologies → Automotive Propulsion Materials
→ Automotive Lightweight Materials
Fuels Technologies → Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels
Biennial Peer Review
FREEDOMCAR VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES TOTAL
11
HFCIT Fuel Cell
Activities ($million)
FY 03
Approp.
FY 04
Approp.
FY 05
Cong.
Transportation Systems
$6.1
$7.5
$7.6
* Distributed Energy Systems
$7.3
$7.4
$7.5
Fuel Processor R&D
$23.5
$14.8
$14.0
Stack Component R&D
$14.8
$25.2
$30.0
Technology Validation
$1.8
$9.9
$18.0
Technical Program Management Support
$0.4
$0.4
$0.4
$53.9
$65.2
$77.5
Fuel Cell Technology Total
* Distributed Energy Systems R&D was not included in the FreedomCAR Partnership in FY 2003.
12
HFCIT Hydrogen
Activities ($million)
FY 03
Approp.
FY 04
Approp.
FY 05
Cong.
Production & Delivery R&D (EE)
$11.2
$22.6
$25.3
Storage R&D (EE)
$10.8
$29.4
$30.0
Safety, Codes & Standards, and Utilization (EE)
$4.5
$5.9
$18.0
Infrastructure Validation (EE)
$9.7
$18.4
$15.0
Education and Cross-cutting Analysis (EE)
$1.9
$5.7
$7.0
$38.1
$82.0
$95.3
EE Hydrogen Technology Subtotal
* 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
Timeline
Strong Government
R&D Role
Phase
I
Strong Industry
Commercialization Role
Transitional
Phases
I. Technology
Development
Phase
I
RD&D
Commercialization Decision
Phase
II
Transition to the Marketplace
Phase
III
II. Initial Market
Penetration
Phase
II
Expansion of Markets and Infrastructure
Phase
IV
III. Infrastructure
Investment
Phase
III
Realization of the Hydrogen Economy
IV
2040
2030
2020
2010
2000
IV. Fully Developed
Market and
Infrastructure
Phase
14
Potential Hydrogen Technology
Transition Pathway
Requirements
& Impacts Analysis
(OFCVT & OHFCIT)
Technology Development
and Validation
(OFCVT, OHFCIT & Industry)
System Development
& Validation
(OFCVT and Industry)
H
H22 Fuel
Fuel
Fuel
Cell
Fuel Cell Hybrid
Hybrid
Fuel Cell Technology
H
H22 Fuel
Fuel
Advanced
Advanced ICE
ICE Hybrid
Hybrid
Hydrogen Engines, Production & Storage Technology
Transitional
Transitional Liquid
Liquid Fuels
Fuels
Advanced
Advanced ICE
ICE Hybrid
Hybrid
Advanced Fuels & Engine Technology
Power Electronics &
Energy Storage Technology
Gasoline/Diesel
Gasoline/Diesel
ICE
ICE Hybrid
Hybrid
FreedomCAR Goals
Gasoline/Diesel
Gasoline/Diesel
ICE
ICE Conventional
Conventional
15
2010 FreedomCAR Technology
Specific Goals
Efficiency
Power
Fuel Cell System
60% (hydrogen)
45% (w/ reformer)
325 W/kg
220 W/L
Hydrogen Fuel/
Storage/
Infrastructure
70% well to pump
Electric Energy
Storage
2 kW-h/kg
1.1 kW-h/L
25 kW 18 s
Materials
*
**
45% peak
Cost*
Life
Weight
$45/kW (2010)
$30kW (2015)
>55 kW 18 s 30
kW cont.
Electric Propulsion
Engine
Powertrain System**
Energy
300 W-h
$5/kW-h
$1.25/gal (gas
equiv.)
$12/kW peak
15 years
$20/kW
15 years
Same
Same
$30/kW
15 years
50% less
Cost references based on CY2001 dollar values
Meets or exceeds emissions standards.
16
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
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
Weight Savings and Costs for Automotive
Lightweighting Materials
Lightweight Material
Material
Replaced
Mass Reduction
(%)
Relative Cost
(per part)*
Mild Steel
Steel, Cast Iron
10
40 - 60
1
1.3 - 2
Magnesium
Steel or Cast Iron
60 - 75
1.5 - 2.5
Magnesium
Aluminum
25 - 35
1 - 1.5
Glass FRP Composites
Steel
25 - 35
1 - 1.5
Graphite FRP Composites
Steel
50 - 60
2 - 10+
Steel or Cast Iron
50 - 65
1.5 - 3+
Alloy Steel
40 - 55
1.5 - 10+
Carbon Steel
20 - 45
1.2 - 1.7
High Strength Steel
Aluminum (AI)
Al matrix Composites
Titanium
Stainless Steel
* Includes both materials and manufacturing.
Ref: William F. Powers, Advanced Materials and Processes, May 2000, pages 38 – 41.
19
Material Use in Some PNGV Concept Vehicles
Table 3. Material Use in PNGV Vehicles (lbs.)
1994 Base
Material
P2000
ESX2
Vehicle
Plastics
223
270
485
Aluminum
206
733
450
Magnesium
6
86
122
Titanium
0
11
40
Ferrous
2168
490
528
Rubber
138.5
123
148
Glass
96.5
36
70
Lexan
0
30
20
Glass fiber
19
0
60
Carbon Fiber
0
8
24
Lithium
0
30
30
Other
391
193
273
Total Weight
3248
2010
2250
Source: Ducker 1998
20
FreedomCar Composites Research
Office of Transportation Technologies
AAT
Vehicle Systems
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: [email protected]
21
Composite Material Advantages
AAT
Vehicle Systems
Density (lb/cu. ft.)
Automotive Steel
6061 Aluminum
Glass Fiber Composite
Carbon Fiber Composite
480
167
93
79
Advantages
Strength (Kpsi)
60-200
30-40
30-100
60-150
Modulus (Mpsi)
30
10
5-8
10-35
Disadvantages
Less Expensive Tooling
Raw Material Cost
Parts Integration
Repair Processes
Net Shape Forming
Processing Methodologies
No Corrosion
Recyclability
Energy Absorption
Design Databases
22
DOE/FreedomCar COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH
Research Program Organization
AAT
Vehicle Systems
USCAR
Program Coordination
DOE/OTT
USAMP
Program Management
DOE/OAAT
ACC
Materials
Technical Management
Energy Management
ORNL
Processing
Joining
Manufacturability Demonstration Projects
Car Platforms
Automotive Suppliers
23
COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH
What Was Done --- Glass Fiber Composites
AAT
Vehicle Systems
Processing
Materials
P4 Preforming
Slurry Modeling
Slurry Processing
Durability
Deformation & Degradation
Materials Screening
Focal Project II
Energy Management
SCAAP
NHTSA Modeling
Energy Management
FreedomCar and Beyond
Goals
Joining
Adhesive Bonding
Adhesive Modeling
NDT Rapid Testing
NDT Laser Shearography
Test Method Analysis
24
AAT
Why Composites for Cars?
Vehicle Systems
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
AAT
Approach
Vehicle Systems
Low Cost Precurser
Development
Advanced Processing
Method
Development
and/or
Optimized Thermal
Processing
Development
LCCF
CF Preform Dev.
and
Thermoset Resin
System
Selection/Testing
or
Thermoplastic Resin
System
Development/Testing
and
Joining of Similar
and Dissimilar
Materials
Composite Processing
Development
Composite
Manufacturability
Development
26
COMPOSITE MATERIALS RESEARCH
What we are Doing --- Carbon Fiber Composites
AAT
Vehicle Systems
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
Low Cost Precursors
Commodity Textile Precursors
Organic/Recycled Precursors
Microwave/Plasma Processing
Focal Project III
& Offsite
Materials
CF Comp Durability
Creep Rupture
Materials Screening
Recycling
Thermoplastic Materials
FreedomCar and
2011 Goals
27
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
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
Processing
Advanced Thermoplastic Forming
Advanced Processing Technologies
Carbon Fiber Surface Tailoring
P4C Experimental Development
Class “A” Structural Composites
Technology Demonstration
Advanced Design
& Manufacturing
Materials
TP Resin Development
Micro-Composite Technology
Non-Thermal Curing of Thermosets
Thermoplastic Crosslinking
Interfacial Optimization of CF
28
AAT
DOE HSWR Program
Vehicle Systems
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
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
Focal Project III
Energy Management
Computational Crashworthiness
Crash Energy Management
Intermediate Strain Rate Testing
Green - Much in Common
Materials
CF Comp Durability
Creep Rupture
Materials Screening
Recycling
Carbon Fiber Processing
Microwave Processing
Advanced Processing Methods
FreedomCar and
2011 Goals
Blue - Some in Common Red - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked
30
What is NOT yet being Done --- Carbon Fiber Composites
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
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
Green - Much in Common
Blue - Some in Common
Red - Not Much in Common or Not Yet Ranked
Processing
Advanced Thermoplastic Forming
Advanced Processing Technologies
Carbon Fiber Surface Tailoring
P4C Experimental Development
Class “A” Structural Composites
Technology Demonstration
Advanced Design
& Manufacturing
Materials
TP Resin Development
Micro-Composite Technology
Non-Thermal Curing of Thermosets
Thermoplastic Crosslinking
Interfacial Optimization of CF
31
Automotive Lightweighting Materials Technical Approach
Lightweight Glazing
Magnesium Alloy
Thermoplastic
Composites
Metal Matrix
Composites
30% weight reduction
50% 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
Photo: Courtesy of GKN Aerospace
40% weight reduction / 10 X
reduction in part count
32
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
State-Of-Predictive Modeling
Professor Charles Tucker (Univ. of Illinois U-C)
Process
Analysis
Capabilities
Process
Micromechanics
Structural
Micromechanics
Integrated
Software
(Mold-filling or Post)
Neat Resin
Very good
Applies Hele-Shaw
principles in 2.5D or
mid-plane model
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Moldflow –
includes
process
simulation,
linear & nonlinear structural
analysis
(considered
excellent)
Short-Fiber
Composites
Good
Extended Hele-Shaw
Used in decoupled
models
Basic algorithms
Predict effect of fiber
content and fiber
orientation. Best
results for fully
developed flow
Good - small strain
models
Fair - non-linear
stress strain.
Moldflow
Considered
good
Long-Fiber
Composites
No models or
simulations for fiber
orientation available
No algorithms
available, but evidence
that existing modeling
framework will work
(ref. C. Tucker)
No models exist for
small or large nonlinear strain.
Foundation exists via
PNNL LDRD work
No integrated
package
available
34
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
C I  C I ( Fiber volume fraction, aspect ratio)


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
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
Anticipated Research & Development Advances
Process Modeling
PNNL/ Processing
Code Partner /
University Participants
Homogenization
(PNNL)
Continuum
Microscale: Fibers, matrix, defects…
Mesoscale: Composite element
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)
Structural Analyses
Macroscale: Composite structure
• Fiber orientation
• Process characterization
• Material properties
• Fatigue, creep & durability
testing
37
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
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
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
Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy
http://www.eere.energy.gov
Bringing you a prosperous future where energy
is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable
41
Back-up
Slides
42
World Fossil Fuel Potential
Source: H. H. Rogner, “An Assessment of World Hydrocarbon
Resources,” Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 1997.
43
Renewable Resources are Adequate
to Meet all Energy Needs
GJ per capita
1000
Source: adapted from
UN 2000, WEC 1994,
and ABB 1998.
Figures based on 10
billion people.
800
600
Demand
Range
400
Hydro
Wind
200
Solar
Geothermal
Biomass
0
44
Oil and Substitute Costs
2000 $ per boe
20
15
10
Unconventional
Oil
5
0
Produced
at
1.1.2000
0
Source:Shell, 2000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
billion barrels of oil equivalent
3000
3500
4000
45
Life Life
CycleCycle
Comparisons
of Cost, Energy
Use, and
Comparisons
of Cost,
Carbon
EmissionsEmissions
Energy Use,
and Carbon
Cost x $10,000
Energy use MJ/m
Electr
H2 FC
methanol FC
gas FC
FT hybrid
dies hybrid
gas hybrid
adv bod FT
adv bod dies
adv bod gas
2020 evol.
Carbon x 10 gC/km
'96 Camry
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Source: “On the Road in 2020,” Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Report # MIT EL 00-003, October 2000
46