Search Results

Electrostatic painting of exterior body components is considered standard practice in the automotive industry. The trend toward the use of electrostatic painting processes has been driven primarily because of environmental legislation and material system cost reduction efforts. When electrostatically painting thermoplastic body panels, side by side with sheet metal parts, it is imperative that the thermoplastic parts paint like steel. Electrostatic painting of thermoplastics has traditionally required the use of a conductive primer, prior to basecoat and clearcoat application. The use of conductive plastics eliminates the need for this priming step, while improving paint transfer efficiency and first pass yield. These elements provide an obvious savings in material and labor. The most significant benefit, is the positive environmental impact that occurs through the reduction in the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC's).

This paper will discuss, compare, and contrast current materials, designs, and manufacturing options for fuel filler doors. Also, it will explore the advantages of using conductive thermoplastic substrates over other materials that are commonly used in the fuel filler door market today. At the outset, the paper will discuss the differences between traditional steel fuel filler doors, which use an on-line painting process, and fuel filler doors that use a conductive thermoplastic substrate and require an in-line or off-line painting process. After reviewing the process, this paper will discuss material options and current technology. Here, we will highlight key drivers to thermoplastics acceptance, and look at the cost saving opportunities presented by the inline paint process option using a conductive thermoplastic resin, as well as benefits gained in quality control, component storage and coordination.

This paper will address several critical aspects of bumper system performance, including vehicle damage protection and crash-severity sensing considerations, energy-absorption capacity and efficiency, and low-speed impact consistency and sensitivity to temperature changes. The objective is to help engineers and designers establish a realistic perspective of the capability of the various technologies based on actual test performance. The scope of the evaluation will include a comparison of several bumper-beam material constructions when subjected to a 16-km/hr swinging barrier impact over a range of temperatures the bumper could see in service (-30 to 60C).

Current accelerated weathering protocols such as SAE J1960 or ASTM G26 do not provide reliable, predictive results for engineering thermoplastics. Correlation factors among resin types and even different colors of a single resin have variations that are 60-100% of the mean at the 95% confidence level, making these tests useless for lifetime prediction or even reliable ranking of materials. We have developed improved conditions using CIRA/sodalime-filtered xenon arc, a more rain-like water spray, and occasional sponge-wiping of the samples. The data for gloss loss and color shift agree very well with Florida data giving a correlation factor of 3100±680 kJ/m2 (at 340 nm) per Florida year at the 95% confidence level. The acceleration factor is 7.6x.

This paper discusses a Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) based methodology for designing an injection molded bumper energy absorber to help meet vehicle pedestrian protection requirements. The development process is described, and an example is presented of its use in designing an injection molded energy absorber for a range of various vehicle styling parameters. First, an idealized set-up incorporating the car styling parameters critical for pedestrian protection requirements was developed. Then, the vehicle and Energy Absorber (EA) geometries were parameterized and a DFSS process was employed to investigate the design space using Finite Element Impact Analysis with a commercially available Lower Leg Form Impactor.

The consumption of blow molded bumpers for passenger vehicles is increasing, particularly for small to mid-size vehicles. The performance required for bumpers in this class of vehicles varies by geographic region, as “global” vehicles are increasingly specified outside of the United States. For this reason, it is important to understand the impact performance provided by materials that could be blow molded into bumpers for this class of vehicles. This paper will compare the relative performance of polycarbonate/polybutylene terephthalate (PC/PBT) alloys vs. polyolefins for impact protection, weight, and processing performance.

Traditionally, the automotive electrical industry has used thermoplastic polyesters, nylon, and nylon alloys for its primary plastic applications. Current materials-specification trends in this segment are being dictated by 10-year warranty requirements (USCAR's EWCAP tests), higher functionality, increased pin densification, and elevated operating temperatures. This paper will discuss the implications of these trends and discuss materials approaches needed to address both application and manufacturing challenges.