Reliability physics analysis can shorten the qualification process when forced to swap components or suppliers.

The post Mitigating Electronics Reliability Concerns During The Global Parts Shortage Crisis appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

Vernon Hills, IL (March 9, 2022) – With thousands of children and families gravely affected by the conflict in Ukraine, ... Read more

Are you a data scientist? You might be missing out on some opportunities to make money from it. Even if you already have a full-time job in data science, you will be able to leverage your expertise as a big data expert to make extra money on the side. If you’re feeling strapped for cash […]

The post Side Hustle Ideas for Experienced Data Scientists in 2022 appeared first on SmartData Collective.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing the world today. It’s only natural that researchers would address it with one of today’s most promising technologies. Teams across the globe have started using artificial intelligence (AI) to combat climate change. Scientists say the world must reduce emissions by 7.6% every year until 2030, […]

The post How Are Researchers Using AI to Combat Climate Change appeared first on AiiotTalk - Artificial Intelligence | Robotics | Technology.

We hope you enjoyed viewing Rob's 2020 video with Deborah Dull on the topic of circular supply chains or reading the transcript of that interview that we published recently...

The wonderful world of retail. As 2021’s holiday shopping statistics proved, pandemic or not, consumers are willing to spend. (My credit card statement will also attest to this fact). And while the year ahead may hold some challenges – try not to flinch too hard at the word “inflation” – it’s also full of opportunities. […]

I don’t know about you, but whenever I’m considering making a significant purchase, the first thing I do is head to the review section.Whether it’s novelty curtains or writing software, I always want to know what my peers think about a product first. Their opinions are the ones I place the most weight in - […]

The post Testimonials and Case Studies: How to Use Customer Satisfaction as Your Greatest Marketing Asset appeared first on Baremetrics.

This nonprofit organization, the Soil Carbon Coalition, was inspired in part by Allan Yeomans's 2005 book, Priority One: Together we can beat global warming, which Abe Collins and I had been reading. Yeomans suggested that increased soil carbon could make a difference for climate. In 2007 Joel Brown of the NRCS gave a talk in Albuquerque in which he said that according to the published literature, good management by land stewards did not result in soil carbon increase, and that it was too difficult to measure anyhow. With that, I resolved to begin measuring soil carbon change on ranches and farms that were consciously aiming at greater soil health.

I had done plenty of reporting on land stewardship and plenty of rangeland monitoring. I studied research-grade, repeatable soil sampling and analysis methods and combined them with some rangeland transect methods I had learned from Charley Orchard of Land EKG. In 2011 I bought an old schoolbus, made it into living quarters, and for most of the next decade I traveled North America slowly, putting in hundreds of baseline transects and carbon measuring sites mainly on ranching operations that had some association with holistic planned grazing. I resampled over a hundred at intervals of 3-8 years. The question I was asking was: Where, when, and with whose management, was soil carbon changing over intervals of several years? I called this project the Soil Carbon Challenge.

A lot of data accumulated. What did it show, what did it mean?

In order for there to be meaning or learning, there needs to be a context, a purpose. My purpose in embarking on this project, the question behind the question, was 1) to see if measuring soil carbon change over time could provide relevant feedback or guidance to land stewards who were interested in soil health, and 2) to see what soil carbon change, if it were significant and widespread, might imply for climate policy that was narrowly focused on more technical rather than biological solutions. Everywhere I traveled, water was the main issue for people, whether it was floods or drought. I measured soil carbon because it was central to the flow of sunlight energy through soils, critically influential for soil function, and easier to measure change than measuring soil water. At no point did I advocate for the commodification of soil carbon into credit or offset schemes.

The soil carbon change data that I got on resampling baseline plots was noisy and variable, especially in the top layers (0-10 cm depth). There were some pockets of consistent change, such as a group of graziers in southeast Saskatchewan showing substantial increases, even down to the 40 cm depth that I often sampled to. But the majority of change data that I collected did not offer solid support to the hypothesis that holistic planned grazing or no-till, for example, in a few years would increase soil carbon in every circumstance or locale, or that soil carbon would faithfully reflect changes in forage production, soil cover, or diversity.

Many of the people on whose ranches I sampled did not know what to do with the data or results, or simply interpreted the data as a judgment: a high or increasing level of soil carbon indicated good management, and low or decreasing was bad. Measured soil carbon change, especially at one or two points, was not meaningful, useful, or in some cases timely feedback, and may not have contributed much to their learning and decision making as I had hoped it might. For the most part the ranches I sampled on were widely scattered, and there was little interaction between them or mutual support, little opportunity for discussion or the development of a shared intelligence or a community of practice. The "competition" framing or context that I suggested in 2010 did not help. The effort tended toward an information pipeline rather than a platform that enabled people to take responsibility for their own learning. For a while I posted the data on this website, but that did little to foster discussion or interpretation, or encourage people to add learning to judgment.

Nor did the noisiness and variability of the data I collected offer solid support for soil carbon increase as a strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and easing climate change--a strategy that was growing increasingly popular, with many people and organizations advocating for it, and which has resulted in new programs, policies, and markets to try and reward ranchers and farmers for increases (usually modeled rather than measured) in soil carbon.

So the Soil Carbon Challenge was at least a partial failure, in that it took aim at the problems and technical issues at the tip of the iceberg, and fostered judgment more than learning and new questions. I did take some lessons from this decade of travel, conversations, workshops, transects and soil sampling, sample processing and analysis, data entry, and associated reading and research into the history of the discovery of the carbon cycle, water cycle, and climate issues. Some of these lessons resonated with what I had learned, and then forgotten, in the trainings I took in holistic management and consensus building in the 1990s.

Like many attempts at "solutioneering" the problems of soil health and climate, the Soil Carbon Challenge focused on the tip or immediately visible portion of the "iceberg," and was not designed around the center of gravity: human or people issues, paradigms and power, relationships and trust.

What I learned (or saw from a new perspective, or rediscovered):

1. Energy is a context for all life

and energy flow, from sunlight, is a pattern that connects all knowledge and activity. However, energy is an abstraction: we can only know it, sense it, or measure it by its results, the work it does, the changes it creates. Our planet is an open system largely run by sunlight energy. As I wrote here, "We are riding an enormous, incredibly complex, fractal eddying flow of sunlight energy used in many ways by interrelated communities of self-motivated living organisms whose metabolisms, behaviors, and relationships are increasingly influenced by our own." And, as Selman Waksman, Aldo Leopold, and others realized, soil is a major hub for sunlight energy flow.

2. Learning networks

are a context for the emergence of a community of practice, of a shared intelligence. These are social groupings where people share what they are learning, and are able to witness or share in the learning of others, and so gain an enriched perspective, with dialogue. It helps if these are participatory, ongoing, local, and include evidence as well as new questions. Some degree if trust is needed in order for judgments to ripen into learning, and listening is a key ingredient. Over the past year or so I have developed soilhealth.app as a way of supporting learning networks around soil health and sunlight energy flow, and am seeking partnerships on that project.

It's not that measuring soil carbon is a bad or useless thing, but a good context or purpose is needed. We learn from differences. Here are 4 suggestions for learning, about different kinds of differences, all of which may surprise and spark your curiosity:

1. To learn more about flows of sunlight energy, get an infrared heat gun ($15 and up) that measures or estimates radiant heat, and begin playing with it, pointing it at various stages of sky, soil, plants, and other surfaces and objects.
2. Use infiltration rings to gauge how well water infiltrates into various soil surfaces. Remember that soil moisture held in soil pores represents a huge capture of free sunlight energy.
3. Record change over time in some kind of indicator, quantity, or measurement you are interested in or curious about. Precipitation or infiltration for example. For ranchers, animal days of grazing on a particular pasture for example, or pounds of gain. Repeatable observations need some kind of recording system.
4. Share your observations and learning with others in a learning network. As two eyes helps you see depth, so do multiple perspectives enrich and deepen your learning.

Take a closer look at goods-to-person automation and review its differences to person-to-goods automation.

The post How Is Goods-to-Person Automation Different from Person-to-Goods Automation? appeared first on Tecsys.

There are many people these days who turn to CBD products for the wide range of benefits that they offer. This includes benefits such as improved mental wellbeing, a boost in energy levels, better overall health, and much more. Many people who use CBD products prefer to go for Delta-8 ones, but what a lot […]

The post About Delta 8 and Drug Tests appeared first on 1redDrop.

Real estate crowdfunding projects are expensive, to say the least, and hence many people resist their temptation to invest in this field because of a lack of resources. The concept of crowdfunding has given hope to large numbers of individuals aspiring to become successful real estate investors. However, there are still many people who are either unaware of or do not know about the various methods of crowdfunding to take a plunge into real estate investing. This article aims to be a perfect guide for such people as it contains crowdfunding tips that are easy, practical, and worth trying to […]

The post A Complete Real Estate Crowdfunding Guide for Beginner appeared first on Crowdfunding software.

While major steel producers are investing millions to increase electrical steel production capacity, the rapid growth of the hybrid and electric vehicle segment could potentially cause material demand to outpace supply from 2025.

As the automotive industry battles the semiconductor shortages, which have prevented the production of 9.3 million units to date, the rapid expansion in growth of EV sales raises questions about the future availability of sufficient electrical steel needed to produce electric motors to meet the electrification targets set by regulators and OEMs around the globe.

Several major steel producers have announced investments in new xEV steel capacity over the next three to five years, but will this be sufficient to meet the specific grade and regional requirements of the xEV market?

What is electric steel? Why does it matter for automotive?

Electrical steel, or silicon steel, is an iron-silicon alloy that possesses superior magnetic properties to other types of steel alloys making it optimized for a variety of electrical machines ranging from power and distribution transformers to electric motors.

While electrical steel is estimated by IHS Markit to account for only 1% of the 2 billion metric ton 2020 global steel market, its supply is being considered as an increasingly critical input to OEMs' electrification plans as well as various energy transition initiatives. An important automotive application of electric steel in automotive is electric motors. These systems convert electrical energy into mechanical energy by energizing copper windings in a stator, which creates a magnetic field then causing the rotor to spin.

The commercial electrical steel market is divided in two major categories: grain-oriented electrical steel (GOES) market and the non-oriented electrical steel (NOES) market.

This distinction is fundamental to understand which type of electrical steel the automotive industry has an exposure and what mitigation strategies might be required. GOES is used in static machinery like transformers, which require unidirectional magnetization, while NOES is used in rotating machinery like motors and generators, which require multidirectional magnetization.

Applications for NOES are extensive and include consumer appliances (washing machines, dishwashers, etc.), heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) (including domestic refrigeration), automotive applications, small, medium, and large industrial motors, power generators, pumps etc. Because of the significantly higher volume of demand for rotating machinery, global NOES production in 2019 significantly exceeded the quantity of GOES produced that year.

Carmakers have a direct exposure to NOES, but they are indirectly also exposed to GOES.

• NOES is a direct material input used in electric motor manufacturing for both hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as in many low-power motor applications, ranging from high duty cycle motors like those used in electric power steering, oil, and fuel pumps to short time duty motors like those used for comfort and convenience like electric seat adjustment or sunroof. Some 35 to 45 low-power motors are fitted on average per car, with about 20 in the B segment and 80 in the E segment (with some extremes like the Mercedes S-class that has more than 100 motors).
  
  
• The critical difference between the different motor types is in the NOES grade being used. For reference, mild hybrid motors use less than USD10 of high-grade NOES, while battery-electric vehicles will use anywhere between USD60 to USD150 per motor of an extension of high-grade NOES, referred to as xEV grade, which in some configurations can even represent more than USD300 NOES content per vehicle, for example, when featuring individual traction motors on the front and rear axles to independently power the four wheels, like in the Rivian R1T. This xEV grade is where capacity constraint concerns are emerging.

While this article will focus on specific concerns around xEV-grade NOES, it should be noted that GOES is critical to support the rollout of much-needed EV charging infrastructure. OEMs therefore have in indirect exposure to this electrical steel subsegment also, meaning it is critical for the automotive industry to understand and manage their exposure to both categories of steel alloys. Many steel mills also employ common production equipment for GOES and NOES. This further compounds the risk owing to the increased difficulty in understanding producer capacity allocation strategies.

Is there an imminent shortage of xEV NOES for the auto sector? Why?

NOES capacity has been sufficient to satisfy the needs of the different industrial sectors over recent years, however increased demand from the automotive sector, in particular with OEMs' acceleration in their electrification drive, is likely to result in significant pressure for steel manufacturers to serve both the automotive sector and the other sectors that use this steel alloy from 2023 onward.

While in 2022, with some apprehension and assuming no other upstream and downstream disruption, we expect OEMs' orders being fulfilled. We foresee a structural capacity deficit to satisfy the automotive sector's requirements, which will require significant capital investment in the coming years.

Of the over 11 million tons of NOES produced in 2020, xEV-grade NOES accounted for a total of 456,000 tons, but as far as the automotive sector is concerned, this is by far the most critical.

There are different reasons why a capacity crunch for xEV-grade NOES might emerge.

• There is limited room for new entrants: Only 14 companies are currently capable of manufacturing xEV-grade NOES that meet global OEM requirements. More manufacturers may decide to enter this sector in the future, however major barriers to entry exist caused by capital expenditures associated with cold rolling, annealing, and coating equipment, manufacturing know-how, OEM-supplier relationships, and patent protection. OEMs are now able to purchase high-quality NOES from an increased (albeit still limited) number of high-volume electrical steel suppliers.
  
  
• Concentrated manufacturing footprint: Some 88% of the manufacturing is concentrated in Greater China, Japan, and South Korea and then exported to other regions usually in the form of steel coils. Supply is extremely limited in North America. There are only five mills globally that have a broad product offering that meaningfully covers the full spectrum of products and only one of them is located outside of Asia.
  
  
• Scope to change material or steel supplier is limited: Owing to the correlation between the efficiency of a motor and an EV's operating range, differences in core loss (a critical measure of the input electrical energy wasted as heat during magnetization) between competing NOES products suppliers can have significant impacts on OEM purchasing decisions, particularly for OEMs that purchase electrical steel laminations in high volumes.
  
  While OEMs and tier-1 traction motor manufacturers may have multiple mills on their approved sourcing list, most programs only have one PPAP approved steel mill. Material characteristics are also matter of litigation among suppliers.
  
  For example, in October 2021, Nippon Steel sued Toyota and Baoshan Iron and Steel (Baosteel), a subsidiary of the state-run China Baowu Steel Group, which is the largest steelmaker in the world. Nippon Steel claims the steel supplied by Baowu to Toyota for its hybrid motor cores violates its patents on composition, thickness, crystal grain diameter, and magnetic properties.
  
  
• Downstream processes also face bottlenecks: Aside from the limited number of steel manufacturers capable of producing xEV NOES, bottlenecks may emerge across the entire downstream motor supply chain. Not only are there only 20 motor core lamination stampers which can cater the OEMs' needs, but there are also only five companies that can produce these unique stamping presses and fewer than 10 independent tool shops with the competency to fabricate the unique stamping dies that can support state-of-the-art motor designs.
  
  Lead times for certain pieces of key production equipment have doubled over the last four years. Furthermore, not only are many of these companies small, family-owned businesses that have capital constraints limiting their ability to scale, a good portion of these have not traditionally significantly participated in the automotive industry.

How much xEV-grade NOES do OEMs need in the medium term? How big is the shortage?

The global gross demand for xEV-grade NOES required for the manufacturing of traction motors in hybrid and electric light vehicles is expected to grow from 320,000 tons demanded in 2020 to just over 2.5 million tons by 2027 and in excess of 4.0 million tons by 2033.

Based on capacity data from Metals Technology Consulting, a significant concern emerges around capacity constraints in 2023. It is highly unlikely mills can support market demand from 2025 onward without significant additional investments. However, adding capacity in 2025 requires mills to make decisions imminently. The situation looks even more dire when factoring in that most xEV-grade NOES mills can only sustain 90% capacity utilization over extended time periods.

Due to the exponential growth of electrified vehicles in the coming years, there remains a risk of electrical steel supply not meeting demand between 2023 and 2025. Despite projected capacity increases, a structural shortage of 61,000 tons is likely to occur in 2026. Without further major investments, this shortage could rise dramatically to 357,000 tons in 2027, culminating to a 927,000 tons shortage by 2030.

Which OEMs are more exposed?

The shortage is expected to particularly impact OEMs that are targeting a high share of hybrid and electrical models as part of their future product sales. Albeit battery electric vehicles (BEVs) manufacturers, particularly pure-play OEMs like Tesla are more exposed, there is also an exposure for OEMs wanting to hedge their electrification bets with a higher hybridization share in their mix, like Toyota for example. Additionally, the likes of Jaguar, Mini, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and Alfa Romeo that intend to sell only plug-ins or EVs from 2025-30 onward, alongside larger OEMs like Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi and Volkswagen.

OEMs with a large share of vehicle builds in Europe also face serious headwinds as the supply-demand imbalance looks to be the most pronounced in that region, especially when factoring in cost competitiveness challenges resulting from tariffs on imported material.

Which region has the biggest gap?

Region-specific effects to OEMs will likely be directly driven by the production capabilities of domestic steel suppliers and the import tariffs in place in the region. In regions that are projected to demand significantly higher volumes compared with domestic supply, import tariffs can heavily affect operating expenses for OEMs that purchase motor cores at high volumes. For example, in the United States, Section 232 applies high duties, approaching 200%, on NOES imported from seven non-EU countries and quota-based tariffs on NOES imported from the EU.

Europe is the region with the highest supply imbalance, but to date, North America still has a major blind spot for NOES electrical steel production. Cleveland Cliffs (formerly AK Steel) is the only local producer of NOES. Cleveland Cliffs' NOES and GOES manufacturing shares common production equipment. Cleveland Cliffs is considerably focusing more on grain-oriented steel production to address the increasing regional demand for electrical transformers, thus reducing available xEV-grade NOES capacity.

The U.S. Steel-owned Big River Steel plant in Osceola, Arkansas, United States starts NOES production in the third quarter of 2023. This will bring 180,000 metric tons of NOES capacity per year online, 45,000 of which will likely be allocated to xEV-grade NOES.

Considering the aggressive vehicle electrification targets set by the Biden administration's infrastructure bill, the time required for Big River Steel to start xEV NOES production, and the further time required for it to ramp up production to full capacity, OEMs in the region will likely continue to face limited local supply options, driving up motor costs in the short term and hurting their international competitiveness.

Are steel manufacturers investing to fill that capacity gap? Can new players solve the situation?

Steel suppliers have announced multimillion-dollar investments to boost production of high-grade and xEV-grade NOES. However, even when accounting for these, there will still be an investment gap. For reference, the shortage of 650,000 metric tons by 2028 could require some 6 to 12 new mills (depending on size and location) to satisfy increased demand from the automotive sector.

Adding a new plant typically takes about three years for an existing player, with roughly one year for engineering and two years for construction. For a new player, it may take anywhere between two to eight years to produce high-grade NOES or xEV-grade NOES and to engineer and build the facility, on top of the initial three years.

What else could steel manufactures do to address the capacity constraint for autos?

The auto sector is a strategic growth area for steel manufacturers, particularly for special steel alloys, and is generally a major source of revenues. This could not paint a more different picture than what is evident in the semiconductor chip shortage. In this potential electrical steel shortage, the auto sector is more in the driver's seat than it has ever been in the chip shortage. The auto sector could benefit from the built-in flexibility that steel mills have. Most mills that manufacture electrical steel have cold mill designs. This allows critical pieces of equipment to be shared across low-grade NOES, high-grade NOES, and xEV-grade NOES. In several cases, mills also share equipment between xEV-grade NOES and GOES.

Mills were purposefully constructed in such fashion to allow for cost-effective mixed product manufacturing to mitigate risk in product mix changes. This results in a structure where mills can choose to allocate capacity based on market demand by product, product profitability, and contractual obligations with customers. However, changeovers to tweak the product mix could result in a capacity reduction of as much as 20%. The xEV-NOES grades that the auto sector needs are associated with higher profit margins.

Therefore, steel manufacturers will likely prioritize auto sector demand in the allocation of existing "swing capacities". This means that they will prioritize xEV-grade NOES over low-grade NOES. However, there is a potential risk that the blanket may be just too short, meaning that cutting high-grade NOES in favour of xEV-grade NOES could result in subsequent shortages of high-grade NOES. This is likely to cause downstream effects on the costs of the plethora of low-power motors used for auxiliary systems in a vehicle, as well as other industrial sectors.

Besides converting some capacity from other grades to xEV-grade capacity, steel manufacturers could also boost production by prioritizing the manufacturing of slightly thicker gauge sheets. Counterintuitively, using thinner steel sheets does not help expand production capacity. Techniques developed to improve magnetic characteristics at parity of thickness consume rolling capacity, which is a key constraint in production. For reference, 1 metric ton of double cold-reduced 0.25 mm xEV-grade NOES takes the same capacity as 2.5 metric tons of 0.35 mm xEV-grade NOES. There is, however, a major limit to using thicker sheets since it requires a painful redesign of motor cores to account for the decrease in motor efficiency and the resulting impact on the vehicle range.

Can't the OEMs or auto suppliers manufacture motors without NOES?

In short, axial flux motors are a design that uses GOES rather than NOES, but it's currently only applied in niche segments, particularly high-performance EVs, for example Ferrari LaFerrari was the first vehicle to feature an axial flux motor. Mercedes AMG is also going to feature this technology from 2025.

What does a mitigation strategy look like for OEMs?

In principle, the NOES shortage risk for the automotive industry can only be resolved through an overall increase in xEV-grade NOES production by steel manufacturers. However, OEMs, often in collaboration with major traction motor tier-1 suppliers, may pursue several mitigation strategies, including the use of alternative motor configurations and materials and greater vertical integration in the motor supply chain.

• Alternative motor configurations: A shortage risk of non-oriented electrical steel could be an opportunity to potentially energize traction motor innovation. For example, OEMs and tier-1 suppliers may try to change planar geometry of the rotors and stators to reduce planned design scrap material in the manufacturing process, which is typically anywhere between 30% to 45%, but in certain designs can be as high as 75%.
  
  
• Greater vertical integration: OEMs may seek to vertically integrate their motor supply chains and directly partner with steel manufacturers to better control their inputs. OEMs are keen to reduce their reliance on tier-1 suppliers for electric motors for various reasons, including the ability to now benefit from economies of scale with the higher volumes per platform, to retain in-house critical engineering skill, and to convert a portion of its workforce to this new value chain while internal combustion engine (ICE) manufacturing is being phased out.
  
  For example, General Motors (GM) recently announced an alliance with GE to create a regional supply chain for materials such as electrical steel. By partnering with steel manufacturers, automakers will be able to continuously push the operating range of their vehicles with optimized NOES grades for their needs.
  
  
• Thoughtful materials engineering and print specification development: OEMs that choose not to partner with steel mills may need to rethink how material specifications are developed. Today, that focus is principally around optimizing motor performance, not supply chain risk mitigation. This results in situations where OEMs can only purchase steel from one mill in the world because it is the only supplier that is capable.

Could this potential capacity crunch affect OEMs' electrification drive?

This potential shortage could severely affect OEMs' electrification plans if this is not addressed by adding more capacity and investment in new capacity. While measures such as "swing capacity" allocation (manufacturing capacity that can accommodate a broader product mix without major intervention to production line configuration or process), modifying motor core designs to reduce material usage, adopting different materials, and integrating supply chains can alleviate NOES supply chain risks for OEMs in the short term, increasing additional production capacity is the only measure to address the structural imbalance between capacity and the major demand ramp-up for electrical steel.

TO ACCESS THE FULL REPORT, PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO AUTOTECHINSIGHT'S NEWS AND ANALYSIS

AUTOTECHINSIGHT SUBSCRIBERS CAN ACCESS THE FULL REPORT HERE

Prateek Biswas, Senior Analyst, Supply Chain and Technology, IHS Markit