Industry White Paper

Automotive Rubber: A Roadmap for Improving Performance and Reducing Warranty Costs

Table of Contents

I.

HISTORY OF RUBBER PROCESSING

II. THE CURRENT METHOD USED TO ESTABLISH AUTOMOTIVE RUBBER COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS 4 III. THE IMPACT ON AUTOMOBILE OE PRODUCT AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

IV. INTELLIGENT PROCESS CONTROL : A ROADMAP FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE AND REDUCING WARRANTY COSTS 5 V. CONCLUSION 5

Signature Control Systems 10180 West Hampden Ave. Denver, CO 80227

303 783-0500 303 783-0800 Fax www.signaturecontrol.com

Industry White Paper Automotive Rubber

Page 2

HISTORY OF RUBBER PROCESSING

Since 1839, when Charles Goodyear first discovered the use of sulfur for the vulcanisation of natural rubber, many developments have been made in the science of rubber processing. Among the most important advances have been the development of synthetic rubber during and after WWII, and the invention of rheometric measurement devices, which allow manufacturers limited visibility into the curing dynamics of rubber compounds. However, in many ways rubber processing remains a black art, especially when compared to other automotive material processes, such as die-casting and forging. The automotive industry consistently struggles with a chain of variability that begins in the manufacturing of base polymers, and culminates in the curing (vulcanization) process. The following table outlines the major sources of process variation:
PROCESS Base Polymers PROCESS VARIATIONS viscosity vulcanization sites state of polymer chain advancement % of curative and other additives viscosity scorch state of polymer chain advancement state of polymer chain advancement heat energy imparted due to friction and working the material mold temperature mold shear path (friction heating) compound viscosity heat energy imparted due to injection and flow injection speed plant humidity and temperature operator induced variations

Compounding (mixing)

Calendaring or Extruding

Molding (vulcanizing)

Currently, the industry attempts to accommodate the cumulative effect of all variability by setting empirical curing parameters, and then adding a safety margin to the determined cure time. Typically, base rubber-molding parameters are set by testing small samples of rubber compound in a torque rheometer, which is a device that measures the development of mechanical strength (i.e. torque) at a given temperature over time. Furthermore, the rule-of-thumb is to set molding cure times based on the time it takes for a given compound to reach 90% of its potential torque strength. In the industry, this is referred to as TC90.

Industry White Paper Automotive Rubber

Page 3

However, the TC90 method is flawed for a number of reasons. First, a rheometry test is not representative of actual production processes. In fact, the thermodynamics of production molding processes often vary dramatically from those in a torque rheometer, especially in the case of injection molding. Another problem is that production mold conditions and shop floor environments are dynamic. Consequently, conditions may vary significantly from press to press, month to month. Finally, there may be significant material variability within a given lot of compound. As a result, suppliers must establish production-curing parameters based on the manufacture of prototype parts, which again often fails to duplicate the actual process. As a result, a safety margin is added to the cure time in an attempt to accommodate the many expected process variations as the parts move into production. The end result from this method of establishing cure parameters is a compromise in productivity and quality. Cycle times are overly conservative (from 5% to as much as 30% or more), and there tends to be a wide range of delivered part properties. In some cased, post curing operations are added to process to bring parts within specification. Post-curing and cure time safety margins often lead to an over-cured condition, which degrades the useful life of the rubber component due to premature heat aging of the compound.

I.

THE CURRENT METHOD USED TO ESTABLISH AUTOMOTIVE RUBBER COMPONENT SPECIFICATIONS

Automotive OEs typically specify a desired rubber component property, such as dynamic stiffness for a motor mount (or compression set or compression relaxation for a gasket), and then ask the selected supplier to design the mount to meet the specified property. Then, the supplier designs the mount and produces a pre-production quantity of parts that are each tested for stiffness. In order to meet the typical quality requirement, the tolerance for the stiffness specification is empirically set so that the pre-production parts spread of delivered properties yields a Cpk of 1.33. This is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Such a process typically yields a tolerance of 15%, which has effectively become an industry standard. As a result, automobile manufacturers generally accept broad tolerances as an inherent design limitation for rubber components.

II.

THE IMPACT ON AUTOMOBILE OE PRODUCTS AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The current state of process control for rubber components and its impact on the Automotive OE is enormous. Vehicle Design, Performance, and Customer Satisfaction Automotive OEs are unable to reliably model the noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) properties of a new vehicle because the rubber component specifications are too broad. This adds cost and time to new vehicle
Page 4

Industry White Paper Automotive Rubber

development, including expensive dynamic testing, and trial and error engineering. More importantly, it compromises the ultimate ride quality of the vehicle and thus impacts customer satisfaction. Warranty Costs Each year, the Big Three automotive OEs spend about $6-billion (~$500 per vehicle) in North America on warranty costs. And, although the detailed breakdown of warranty costs by OEs is a closely guarded secret, a conservative estimate places warranty costs associated with rubber components in the hundreds of millions per year. This estimate is based on recall data, and on the reported savings achieved by Tier 1 suppliers through quality improvement tactics such as lean manufacturing and programs like Six Sigma. Vehicle Life - Rubber automotive components age and their properties degrade over time due to heat and exposure to the elements. This process is accelerated due to the typical over-cured condition of rubber components. Combine this accelerated degradation with the initial vast spread of delivered properties, and rubber components represent the primary obstacle to achieving the goal of a 150,000-mile warranty.

III. INTELLIGENT PROCESS CONTROL: A ROADMAP FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE AND REDUCING WARRANTY COSTS
Signature Control Systems Intelligent Process Control technology allows rubber component manufacturers to see the rate, and state-of-cure of rubber compounds in real-time during the molding process. Sensors mounted directly in the mold detect subtle changes in the electrical impedance of the compound. Changes in impedance readings generate a unique fingerprint or signature for a given compound, which is then correlated with the specified end property of the rubber component. Consequently, manufacturers are able to monitor and control their molding process using the optimum processing time for each cure cycle. As a result, safety margins are eliminated, productivity is optimized, and product uniformity is tightly controlled.

IV. CONCLUSION
After considerable investment and development, rubber manufacturers have reached a technical barrier. They need new tools and technology to progress to the next level of excellence. Consequently, automotive design, performance, and warranty improvements are compromised and constrained by the current level of rubber processing capability. With in-mold cure sensors, the technology now exists to take rubber manufacturers to the next level of quality. This will result in improved performance and reduced costs for automotive OEs.

Industry White Paper Automotive Rubber

Page 5