Automotive OEMs and their Tier 1 suppliers do not buy materials based on data sheets. They buy materials that have passed a qualification process that can take 12-24 months and cost the material supplier $50,000-150,000 in testing, documentation, and engineering time. The data sheet gets your foot in the door. The qualification process determines whether you actually get a purchase order. Here is what the process looks like from a material supplier's perspective.
Phase 1: Initial Material Assessment (Months 1-3)
The first interaction with an OEM materials engineering group is typically a request for a preliminary data sheet and a small sample — 5-10 kg of material. The OEM's materials lab runs a screening test battery to determine whether the material is worth evaluating further. For a nanocellulose composite, the screening battery typically includes: tensile properties (ASTM D638 or ISO 527), flexural properties (ASTM D790 or ISO 178), impact resistance (ASTM D256 Izod or ISO 180), heat deflection temperature (ASTM D648 or ISO 75), density (ASTM D792), melt flow rate (ASTM D1238), and moisture absorption at 23°C/50% RH.
The screening decision is binary: the material either meets the preliminary property targets for the intended application or it does not. There is no negotiation — if the data says 5.0 GPa flexural modulus and the target is 5.5 GPa, the material fails screening regardless of how close it was. This is why we test exhaustively in our own lab before submitting material for OEM evaluation. We already know whether NC-200 meets the targets for each application before the OEM runs their own tests.
We provide two types of sample at this stage: standard NC-200 (untreated) and NC-200S (silane-treated). For applications where the strength target is marginal with untreated CNC, we recommend the customer evaluate both and select based on their own data. This avoids the situation where an untreated sample narrowly fails and the qualification opportunity is lost.
Phase 2: Detailed Characterization (Months 3-9)
If the material passes screening, the OEM or their designated testing laboratory runs a full characterization program. This goes well beyond the screening tests and includes conditions that simulate the part's service environment. A typical automotive interior material characterization includes: tensile and flexural properties at -40°C, 23°C, and 85°C; aged properties after 500 hours at 120°C (simulating under-dashboard temperatures); moisture-conditioned properties after reaching equilibrium at 23°C/50% RH and 70°C/90% RH; UV aging per SAE J2412 or J2527 (if the part is visible — dashboard, door trim); fogging per DIN 75201 (volatile emission from material surface); total organic compound emission per VDA 278; and flammability per FMVSS 302.
This testing requires 100-200 kg of material, molded into test bars and plaques by the OEM's preferred molder. We supply the material in pellet form; the OEM handles molding. This is deliberate — they want to verify processability on their own equipment and mold designs, not just on ours.
The testing itself costs $30,000-80,000 depending on the number of conditions and the OEM's internal testing rates. Some OEMs run everything in-house; others use accredited external labs. The material supplier typically bears a portion of this cost through reduced or free material supply and engineering support during the testing program. We budget approximately $20,000 per OEM qualification in material and engineering time at this stage.
Phase 3: Part-Level Validation (Months 9-15)
Passing material-level testing does not mean the material is approved. The OEM next requires part-level validation — the material must be molded into the actual production part geometry and tested to part-level performance specifications. These specifications go beyond material properties and include: dimensional stability after thermal cycling (-40°C to 85°C, 100 cycles); assembly fit with mating components; surface appearance (color, texture, gloss) after environmental exposure; creep resistance under sustained load at elevated temperature; and fatigue life for parts subject to cyclic loading (seat brackets, door check arms).
Part-level validation requires a prototype mold — either a soft (aluminum) or production-intent (P20 steel) mold depending on the OEM's requirements. The mold is typically funded by the Tier 1 supplier, not the material supplier. However, we provide processing support — recommended barrel temperatures, injection speeds, holding pressures — and often send an applications engineer to the molder's facility for the first trial run.
Parts are tested by the OEM's validation engineering group. This is a separate team from the materials engineering group that ran Phase 2 — the validation engineers are responsible for the complete part performance, not just the material properties. Communication between the two groups is not always smooth. We have seen cases where the materials group approved our material but the validation group's test results differed because they used different specimen preparation methods or conditioning procedures. Documenting our test methods in exhaustive detail — and sharing that documentation with both groups — reduces these discrepancies.
Phase 4: PPAP and Production Approval (Months 15-24)
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) is the formal documentation package that demonstrates the material and part meet all requirements for series production. For a new material, the PPAP includes: initial process capability study (Cpk > 1.33 for critical dimensions); material certification from the material supplier (our certificate of analysis); control plan for incoming material inspection; measurement system analysis (gage R&R) for critical part dimensions; process flow diagram for the part manufacturing process; FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) for the part; and all test reports from Phase 2 and Phase 3.
The PPAP is submitted by the Tier 1 supplier to the OEM. The material supplier's role is to provide the material certification, the process capability data for the material itself (batch-to-batch consistency in key properties), and technical support for any questions that arise during PPAP review. We maintain a running process capability database for NC-200 — every production batch's flexural modulus, tensile strength, and density are tracked. Our current Cpk for flexural modulus is 1.67, which comfortably exceeds the 1.33 minimum requirement.
PPAP review can take 2-4 months at the OEM. Rejections are common — missing documentation, test results that need clarification, requests for additional conditioning or aging tests not in the original program. Each rejection adds 4-8 weeks to the timeline. Our experience suggests budgeting for at least one PPAP resubmission in the timeline.
The Supply Agreement
After PPAP approval, the Tier 1 supplier issues a material specification that references our NC-200 product by grade designation and revision level. They then issue a long-term supply agreement — typically 3-5 years, matching the vehicle platform life. The agreement specifies annual volume commitments, pricing terms, quality requirements (reject rate targets, response time for quality issues), and change notification requirements.
Change notification is critical for material suppliers. If we change anything about NC-200 — raw material source, process parameters, plant location, equipment — we must notify all qualified customers before implementing the change. Some changes require re-qualification (new raw material source). Others require only notification (new equipment of identical type). The definitions of which changes require which level of notification are specified per AIAG CQI-28 or the OEM's own change management standard.
We maintain a customer notification matrix that tracks every qualified customer, their specific grade and specification revision, and the notification requirements. It is a significant administrative burden — we currently have three active qualifications in progress and each one generates approximately 40 hours of documentation work per year beyond the initial qualification. Small materials companies frequently underestimate this ongoing cost.
What We Have Learned
Three years of automotive qualification work with NC-200 has taught us that the technical hurdle is the smallest part of the challenge. The bigger hurdles are: documentation discipline (every test, every batch, every change must be recorded and traceable), timeline management (qualification takes longer than anyone initially estimates — plan for 18-24 months, not 12), cost allocation (budget $50,000-100,000 per qualification in material, testing, travel, and engineering time), and organizational patience (there will be setbacks, re-tests, and scope changes that are outside your control).
For material suppliers considering the automotive market: start the qualification process only when your production process is stable and your supply chain is secure. Automotive OEMs will not qualify a material from a pilot line. They need to see the same material, from the same process, at the same facility, with at least 6 months of consistent batch data. We waited until our Atlanta production line had run 20 consecutive batches within specification before initiating our first OEM qualification. That patience saved us from the embarrassment of qualifying a material we could not consistently produce.
For inquiries about qualifying NC-200 or NF-400 for your automotive application, contact Derek at derek@soarceusa.org with the part description, material specification, and target timeline. We will assess whether our current production data supports entering qualification for your specific requirements.