C. David (Dave) WarrenField Technical Manager

Transportation Materials Research

Oak Ridge National LaboratoryP.O. Box 2009, M/S 8050

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-8050Phone: 865-574-9693

Fax: 865-574-0740Email: WarrenCD@ORNL.GOV

Lightweighting Composites and

Lower Cost Carbon Fiber

March 2013

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

ORNL’s missionDeliver scientific discoveries and technical breakthroughs that will accelerate the development and deployment of solutions in clean energy and global security, and in doing so create economic opportunity for the nation

2 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

DOE Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP)ORNL STP Office Effectively Mirrors VTP Program Structure

4 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

DOE Low‐cost carbon fiber initiativeDOE Low‐cost carbon fiber initiative

ORNL’s Composites and Carbon Fiber Timeline

1960s 1980s 2020s

CentrifugeProgram

Technology transfer Federal Work-for-Other

Begin CF advancedconversion R&D

Begin DOE Lightweight Material Program & ACC collaboration

Begin alternative precursor R&D

Carbon Fiber Technology Facility

1990s 2000s 2010s

Composite Joining

Industry calls for scale-up facility at ORNL workshop

5 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

25.2 Million barrels per day

Source of OilGross Imports 45%Domestic 55% (11.34 mbd)

ConsumptionTransportation 69.8%

Cost of Imports (@ $50/bbl)$567,000,000 /day$1,134,000,000/day @ $100/bbl

2.71 (10.8%)

US Domestic

13.88 (55%)

Venezuela 0.94 (3.71%)

Mexico 1.21 (4.80%)

Other OPEC1.12 (4.44%)

Iraq0.46 (1.83%)

Nigeria0.82 (3.25%)

Other Non-OPEC

2.91 (11.55%)Saudi Arabia 2.00 (7.94%)

CanadaSource: EIA Website

Transportation69.8% Industry

24.0%

1.1% Electric Power5.1% - Residential and Commercial

*According to the Transportation Energy Data Book 2009 –Consumption of Petroleum by End-Use Sector, Table 1.13.

The Oil Situation The Oil Situation –– Economic VulnerabilityEconomic Vulnerability

We use more in Transportation Alone than We Produce

U.S. ProductionRail

Off Highway

Water

Air

Medium and heavy trucks

Light trucks

Cars and Motorcycles

+Biomass, liquefied coal, etc.

Conventional Sources

Oil Dependency Oil Dependency –– Transportation OnlyTransportation Only

Cars, Light Trucks and Heavy Trucks Account for the majority

Mill

ion

Bar

rels

per

Day

• 10% Weight Reduction 6-8% FE Improvement

• 1 kg Weight Reduction 20 kg CO2 Reduction

Source: 2011 Model Car U.S. Specifications and Prices, Ward's Automotive Group, a division of Penton Media Inc.

FC = 0.0052 (Wt) + 1.6736 Mass Saving, Cost Penalty and Lifecycle CO2 Production

Cos

t Pen

alty

(%)

AHSS

Glass Fiber

SMC

Magnesium

Aluminum

Carbon Fiber

25% 25%35%

50%

65%

65%

2.3-2.7 4.5-5.9

21-2314-15

18-45

21-23

Lifecycle Change in kg of CO2 Produced per kg of

material in Transportation.Courtesy of Toyota

Vehicle Mass Reduction OpportunitiesVehicle Mass Reduction Opportunities

Carbon Fiber and Magnesium offer the greatest mass reduction & CO2 reduction opportunity.Cost & how to use them are the greatest obstacles for implementation.

8 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Structural Materials

Wt. Reduction Potential

Three Most Significant Technical Technology Barriers to Widespread Implementation Major Market Barriers

Aluminum 30-60%Joining dissimilar

materials and 7000 series.

Modeling tools and methods for joining and design.

Better casting and manufacturing methods. None

Magnesium 30-70%Cost effective,

environmentally friendly Mg production.

Corrosion in automotive environment and galvanic.

Alloy design - ductility for crash and

manufacturability.

Chinese rare earth dependence. Domestic

sources.

Carbon Fiber Composites 50-70% The cost of carbon fiber

too high.

Design methods, predictive tools and crash models for

structural applications.

High volume manufacturing and non-epoxy resin

compatibility.

Japanese market dominance. Worldwide

capacity too small.

CF Barrier: Price is too HighVehicle Materials Goal: Reduce the Cost of Carbon Fiber

Cost (DOE) and Price (OEM) Goal: $5 - $7 Per PoundProperty Goals: Minimum 250KSI Strength, 25 MSI Modulus, >1% Strain

(Some debate on what properties are required)

From March 2011 DOE Lightweighting Materials Workshop

Materials with 50+% Mass Reduction PotentialMaterials with 50+% Mass Reduction Potential

Focal Project I:Escort Front EndCrash Protection

Focal Project II:Pick-Up Bed

Manufacturability/Cost

Focal Project III:Carbon Fiber BIW67% Mass Savings

Focal Project IV:Composite Seat

Floor Pan

Low Cost Carbon Fiber Precursor

Mg/Composite Crash Structure

Composite Materials Program HistoryComposite Materials Program History

1990s 2000s 2010s

Ford Carbon Fiber Hood

CF Composite Rear Deck Lid and Seat

CF Fenders, Wheel CF Fenders, Wheel House, and Floor PanHouse, and Floor Pan

BMW Carbon BMW Carbon Fiber RoofFiber Roof

Silverado Truck Composite Bed

Delphi Heavy Vehicle Tie Rods

Aston Martin Cargo Deck and

Body Sides

DO

E/A

CC

Foc

al P

roje

cts

Volvo Class 8 Truck HoodIn

dust

ry M

ajor

Com

posi

tes

Intro

duct

ions

If the Demand is so Great, Why Don’t we see more applications in Automotive and other Industries?

#1 Reason - $$$$$$But there are other Reasons

A Carbon Fiber Producer will want Multiple Markets

“ Chicken or Egg: Which came first?”

CF Industry: Can’t Develop lower cost fiber until there is demand.Other Industries: Can’t Develop new applications until price is lower.

10 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy

10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation

10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation

Designers are not comfortable with carbon fiber composites, especially in crash critical applications. Test Standards not uniform.

Many composite processing methods are optimized for performance, not production rate efficiency.

Larger structures are more cost sensitive to the raw material cost. Less material is needed for smaller structures = manufacturing costs dominate.

Aerospace production processes pass through too many hands driving costs too high.

#5

#4

#3

#2

New Integrated PartnershipsBMW – SGLDaimler – TorayToyota – Toho TenaxAudi – GmbHEvonik - CAMIMSA

www.racingready.com

www.hamovhotov.com

10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation10 Obstacles to Market Growth in Transportation

Capital investment already sunk into metal forming equipment.

Size of the carbon fiber industry cannot support large scale vehicle or other industry utilization.

Boom or bust nature of the market. Aerospace preference.

The secret art of surface treatment and sizing. CF secure market position by guarding ST & Sizing.

The lack of resin targeted sizing systems. Sizings for aerospace systems are well developed. Not so for higher volume systems.

Polyurethanes, nylons, polyesters

Nylons

Vinyl Esters

#10

#9

#8

#7

#6

13 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Carbon Fibers can be divided into 4 Broad Cost/Performance Categories:

High Performance >750 KSI Cost is not Limiting(Aerospace) > 35 MSI Performance Driven

Moderate Grade 500 – 750 KSI Cost and Performance(Industrial) 25 – 35 MSI Balance

High Volume Grade 250 – 500 KSI Cost Sensitive(Not currently made) < 25 MSI Performance Enabling

Non Structural Usually Low Cost - Chemical & Electrical Properties

Making Carbon FiberMaking Carbon Fiber

Precursors Stabilization& Oxidation

Carbonization/Graphitization

SurfaceTreatment

Spooling &Packaging

Diagram from Harper International

Pitch, PAN or Rayon 200-300C, 80-120 MinPrecise Stretching

1200-1800C5-10 Min

HandleabilityResin Compatibility

CF_Ani1_PAN-noMusic_sm.wmv CF_Ani2_ConventionalConversion-noMusic_sm.wmv

Precursors Stabilization& Oxidation

Carbonization/Graphitization

ST/Sizing Spooling &Packaging

Diagram from Harper International

Baseline - $10.20$5.56(55%)

$1.78(17%)

$1.41(14%)

$0.80(8%)

$0.65(6%)

High PE Polyolefins(Savings: $5.65)

PAN-VA Textile (Savings: $2.61)

PAN-MA Textile (Savings $5.00 from a different

baseline)

High Content Lignin (Savings: $2.68-$5.98)

Advanced OxidativeStabilization

(Savings: $2.69 –Mass Throughput

Increase)

InterfacialOptimization

(Savings: $0.07)* Polyolefin Blends(Savings: $2.00-$5.00)

Lignin Blends(Savings: 11-25%)

Microwave Assisted Plasma

(Savings: $1.31) * But allows for the use of

far less fiber in the composite which yields a significant per part cost reduction.

The ultimate goal is to combine technologies where possible: Example: Savings from a new precursor produced by the advanced oxidation and MAP processes coupled with the fiber volume reduction achieved through interfacial optimization. The combining of technologies will occur in the CFTF along with scale-up with and transfer to industry.

Cost Reducing TechnologiesCost Reducing Technologies

15 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Designed for development of conventional processing recipes with limited quantities of precursor

Precursor Evaluation SystemPrecursor Evaluation System

– Residence time, temperature, atmospheric composition, and tension are independently controlled in each furnace

– Can process single filament up to thousands of filaments

– Precise tension control and stretching capability allows stretched/tensioned processing of ~20-filament tows

– Temperature capability from room temperature to 2,500ºC

16 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Conventional Pilot LineConventional Pilot Line• 1:20 speed of a commercial grade production line• Capacity for 1-5 tows• Preferred tow size ≥ 3k

17 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Carbon Fiber Technology Facility

Facility and equipment perspective.

• 25 tonnes/yr carbon fiber production capacity• Multiple precursors and material forms• Demonstrate technology scalability• Produce fibers for material and process evaluation • Develop partnerships and US workforce• Forecast start-up in Feb 2013

Photos courtesy of R&R Partners – DeveloperBlaine Construction – Construction managerBarge, Waggoner, Sumner, and Cannon – Designer

18 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

ORNL has Fostered the the Development of the OnlyIndustry Consortium Focused on Low-Cost Carbon Fiber

19 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

PressurizedGas StorageHigh SpecificStrength

Wind EnergyNeeded for LongerBlade Designs

Vehicle TechnologiesNecessary for 50+%Mass Reduction

Oil and GasOffshore Structual

Components

Power TransmissionLess Bulky Structures

Zero CLTE

Civil InfrastructureRapid Repair andInstallation, Time and Cost Savings

Bio‐Mass MaterialsAlternative Revenue Waste Minimization

Non‐AerospaceDefense

Light Weight,Higher Mobility

ElectronicsLight Weight,EMI Shielding

AircraftSecondary Structures

Non‐Traditional EnergyGeothermal, Solar & Ocean Energy

Energy StorageFlywheels, 

Li‐Ion Batteries, Supercapacitors

Courtesy Umeco

Courtesy Umeco

There are Several Potential High-Volume Applications for Carbon Fiber

www.bangordailynews.com www.armytankphotos.com

www.maxwelltechnologies.com

www.energy.gov

www.dell.com

retasite.wordpress.com www.photo-dictionary.com

Courtesy Boeing

Carbon Fiber Producers will

want to sell into Multiple Markets

20 Managed by UT-Battellefor the U.S. Department of Energy Presentation_name

Thank you for your attention.

Questions?