Standardization: a catalyst for development
 
Professor Dr Techn Wolfgang Winkler, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

The international standardisation traditionally based on a documentation of knowledge and experience of well known technologies is going to become a market opener for new technologies and simultaneously contributing to their industrialisation and to the quality assurance of the strategic product development and the re-lated applied research as well. The development of fuel cells is one of the first of these new technologies where the development process is already closely connected with the international standardisation process within IEC TC 105 "fuel cell technologies" [1].

1. International competition and co-operation

The WTO agreement [2] to avoid technical barriers is a strong argument for the international industrial policy to monitor and consider the developments in international standardisation. The motivation for policy and industry can be summarised under the following aspects:

General policy
• Support of global trade,
• Co-operation and competition,

Industrial policy
• Market opening by standards,
• Increase of competitiveness,
• Technological leadership,
• Increase of R&D quality.

There is no doubt that a free international trade supported by international standards is a general accepted political target in the industrialised world. The high cost of the development of new technologies is a strong motivation that leads to a mix of co-operation and competition in international R&D including the accompanying standardisation. The expectations for the own industries cover the rest of the above mentioned field from market opening to an increase of quality.

The US position how to form a strategy considers these aspects and is described e.g. in [3]. Figure 1 shows the conclusion. NIST produced a statement during 2000, which was mainly based on a view how Europe has had developed a long-term strategy for codes and standards with a strong commercial focus. The cited report added that Europe has achieved much success in ITC technology because it has been able to adopt common standards. However, it also noted that the US has been able to lead the world in other technological areas. The report concluded that the US needs to develop strategic alliances with partners from across the world to meet common targets in standardisation. However, it recommends that the US should aim to lead the world in "the development of standards and operational structures needed for the global market", since there will be associated economic benefits. This represents a move away from the traditional approach to the development of technical standards towards an emphasise on the commercial implications. The above cited statement identifies the importance of codes and standards for competitiveness.

Figure 1: US view of international standardisation in R&D process

Similar considerations have been published by METI in Japan in a general report on the Japanese strategies in industrial technology [4]. Figure 2 gives an outline of the paragraphs regarding international standardisation and R&D concentrating on high technology fields. Within this document, it was identified that, in the past, Japan has played a minor role in the development of international standards. The report emphasised the importance of standards, especially regarding the develop-ment of new technologies. It added that interest in international standards should come from both government and industry, and concluded with the recognition that international standards can control the marketplace. The report stated, that the complete Japanese research organisation including the universities had to be reorganised to fulfil the requirements of a product development oriented research for new technologies. The role of Japan in the international standardisation process has to be clearly improved to support its industrial competitiveness.

Figure 2: Japanese view of international standardisation in R&D process

Figure 3: European views of international standardisation in R&D

In 1996, the European Union already published a communication on "Standardisation and the Global Information Society: The European Approach" [5]. In this document, arguments regarding the importance of standards for information and communication technologies similar to that expressed by the NIST in 2000 were summarised. Again, this report highlighted that standards have an essential part to play in the development of markets and that Europe needs to be involved in their development in order to be competitive. But this document described only one successful action. From 1996 to 2001, there was some reference to the importance of standards, until a resolution on the EU's development policy linked them to the revision of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and the inclusion of developing countries within this process [6]. However, nothing is said about Europe's own strategies in this area. The importance of international standardisation for the European industry was not a topic at all. However the strategic idea came from Europe, but the real activities had been started and realised in Japan and US. Figure 3 gives an overview of the relevant European documents.

Figure 4: Possible impact of international standardisation
Beside the importance of international standards for the market entrance of new technologies there might be an other reason why the adequate participation in international standardisation is a must for an industrialised society. Figure 4 illustrates this concern. When examining any particular standard developed through the IEC, there is no impact on EU regulations at the first place, because the regulations are "law" and standards are voluntary. But from the perspective of the WTO, its agreements are a part of the international law as well. It might, therefore, be argued that any IEC Standard represents the international state-of-the-art. If, for example, a number of ANSI codes [7] would become accepted international standards, because there was no adequate European representation in the relevant committee, any deviation of European regulations from these standards might be seen as an illegal technical barrier for a free trade. However a final court decision may come to other conclusions but this example shows that the practical need of a broad European standardisation strategy is not restricted on new technologies.

Like in Japan the European approach must see the standardisation process as one part of a general technology development strategy. Therefor it seems necessary to include a short view on the situation of the European technology development strategy. Figure 5 gives an overview. From a financial perspective, banks require short-term returns on investments that they make. The easiest way to fulfil these investor requirements is leading to product improvement but avoiding expensive new technology developments. On the other side there are governmental research targets mainly oriented on "ethic issues" supporting NGO activities and citizens' concerns. There is a long time frame of about 30 years due to the complexity of the topic requiring a very basic approach and due to avoiding too strong frictions with the actual real economic demands. Consequently, there is a gap of interest, particularly over the 5-15 year period, where mid-term funding and R&D could deliver innovative products and generate future work places. This is a similar time-frame to that over which standards policies develop. In the US e.g. there is a specific ATP (Advanced Technology Programme) to bridge this "valley of death".

Figure 5: Problems in Engineering research within EU
2. Quality aspects

These general issues influencing a standardisation strategy are accompanied by more practical engineering aspects. These influences have to be seriously considered and to be integrated in the standardisation strategy as well.

In the past, standardisation activities had been targeted only towards quality improvement, safety improvement and cost reduction. The new demands to be fulfilled as well focus on free trade and the elimination of barriers on a global scale. Figure 6 illustrates the necessary balance to be developed between these different approaches.

Figure 6: Motivations of standardisation and their balance

Figure 7: Engineering tradition and economic demand

Traditionally, the development of standards was a long-term process operating on a type of feedback loop of continual improvement based on experience. New economic demands require this total process to be much quicker in order to deliver the gains earlier and ensure that standards are available when the product comes to market. Figure 7 gives the overview. How the shortening of the standards development process will effect the engineering targets mentioned earlier is important to understand, because it could mean that standards will need to be set for products that have yet to be developed fully. Thus the traditional approach will remain necessarily on a long term, but short term working solutions have to be developed to assure the necessary quality of the new standards and to keep them failure tolerant and flexible for integrating new upcoming experiences.

Figure 8: Time saving by interaction structure

How to condense the standard development process and keeping quality is one of the major engineering challenges within the strategy development. The only way is to assure a better interaction of the main process steps of the new technology development process: Research, Development, Engineering, Production and Operation, as indicated in figure 8. This could save time, reduce cost and potentially even improve the quality of the outputs.

Figure 9: Networking and strategy optimisation

It could best be achieved through the development of networks whose aim is to guarantee a high interaction of the players and to optimise the R&D strategy, as indicated in figure 9. This mirrors the thinking in Japan as described in the report mentioned earlier [4]. It is important that all stakeholders are involved in the process, from researchers to the potential users of the technology. The optimisation of the research strategy requires an analysis of the possible strategies before.

3. Research strategies and standards

The research for product development can be done in a bottom-up or in a top-down strategy. The bottom-up strategy is based on the results of basic research, thus defined here as BORE strategy (Basic Oriented REsearch). The top-down strategy is based on the demands of the market and thus defined here as PORE strategy (Product Oriented REsearch).

Figure 10: Basics oriented research (BORE) strategy

Figure 10 gives an overview of the BORE strategy. A number of results from basic research projects is available but no product definition. But there are market demands that might be specified for a future product. Connecting both, results and demands, should lead to a new product. However, it is true that basic research results can initiate new products, but the problem of this strategy is that the task of basic research is not to generate new products but to generate knowledge. There is no common link between the projects, if they are really good they are new and because they are new nobody knows the results before and a good organised link between different unknown results seems to be impossible. Compromises between funding agencies and researchers to proof to the politics how useful basic research can be commercialised may lead to the result that there is no product and no real new knowledge at the end of the project at all.

This approach can be improved by a top-down strategy, the PORE strategy, using the knowledge of the market for defining a specification as a design target for engineering. The first result of a design study will be an identification of available knowledge and of gaps in knowledge, where specific research activities must be initiated. The demand e.g. on an energy converter, if we take a fuel cell as an example, and the allowable cost of any design are determined by the market and deliver both the R&D targets of the product vision. The results of the basic research deliver the necessary database for this R&D process in engineering. The process design, mainly based on thermodynamics, is the first engineering step. The following design study results in a specification and an identification of the critical components. The specification allows the decision to stop or to proceed the project and it delivers the target for the next step. The identification of the critical components and the modified specification initiate further activities. The possible feedback at any stage of this R&D process allows a reengineering of the process or the design or it starts R&D activities of certain components or problems. Finally the result of the last step should be a basic engineering of the system including an engineering package of the "critical components". The delivery of the necessary design tools is a task of universities and research institutions in this Product Orientated REsearch (PORE) process to support the product development within industry.

Figure 11: Product oriented research (PORE) strategy
Something similar to this was proposed in Japan in the SOFC area, following a review of its research programmes. One outcome of this process is that it is now necessary to set R&D specifications based on product requirements, rather than for purely scientific reasons [8].

The PORE strategy has been used for the own research work on fuel cells. An own design study as a proof of concept of a high efficient Solid Oxide Fuel Cell gas turbine (SOFC-GT) cycle has been already presented in 1994 as shown in figure 12. The design study of a 50 MW unit showed that the SOFC technology can be pretty good integrated in the existing technology. Only the SOFC module and its interfaces are the completely new designs. The study already showed that the specific size of these plants is equal to actual CCGT plants [9].

Figure 12: Own design study of a 50 MW SOFC-GT system as a product vision from 1994 [9]

The process design and the mechanical design leading to the design study showed that it is possible to come to some very quick conclusions as to how to optimise the system and what research priorities are needed in future. Fig. 13 gives a list of the most important findings, mainly concerning the technical feasibility of the proposal.

Figure 13: Results from own design study 1994

The last two points have an impact on standardisation work and future R&D work concerning e.g. influences on stack design regarding the fuel cell integration into the entire system. The basic specification resulting from the study is the most important document for these further activities.

Figure 14: Own design study as product vision of a hybrid mobile SOFC-GT power-train platform 2000 [10]

A similar study was carried out for a mobile application in 2000 [10]. Figure 14 shows the outcome of this study. The temperature gradients of 200 K/min that can be realised by thin tubular SOFC, as shown by K. Kendall et. al. [11] give the impression that thin tubes can solve the start-up problem of SOFC in mobile applications. The second benefit of thin tubes in general is the high power density > 1 kW/l that can be expected. The development and the market introduction of the microturbines show the availability of small sized turbines down to 25 kW capacity. Thus there are no general showstoppers for automotive developments as described above.
        
The analysis of the design regarding necessary improvement is thus mandatory to prepare the next step of the PORE process, however the complete execution of such a steep clearly exceeds the possibilities of a small research group of an university. But the key aspects of this process had been again to identify where the gaps are and what demand on research exist to bridge them. The main outcomes of this study are listed in figure 15. The proposed use of microtubes and the combination with a SOFC-GT system and batteries gives an option to use SOFC systems onboard light weight vehicles and thus in aircraft as well, as now under development within Airbus and Boeing. The specification of such a system allows the first steps in preparing standardisation and indicates the future R&D topics to be solved. The main recommendations regarding R&D topics focus e.g. the design and manufacturing aspects of microtubular SOFC, improvement of batteries and electric storage in general, development of micro heat engines and microtechnology in general.

Figure 15: Results from own design study 2000
These examples show that the PORE process also allows a more innovative approach to be made to resolving a problem. Rather than looking at existing technology and identifying how it might be improved, the PORE framework can help to rethink the whole design of an application. The benefits of the PORE strategy are that, from an early stage, it is possible to obtain a basic specification of the product and what its costs are. It is also possible to identify key gaps, where there is a lack of knowledge or technical ability that can then be addressed by research. The strategy helps with the standardisation process as well, because there is already some idea as to what the product is and what it aims to do. This leads to the conclusion that R&D policies should be increasingly redirected towards product development, while still sustaining basic research interests. This is similar to the Japanese consensus approach to product development. The US Department of Energy and the US Department of Defense are continually developing product visions and funding studies that identify potential designs. They have seen that design plays a very important role in the process of research for product development.

The PORE process includes the industrialisation aspects as well because the production process is a key element in an industrial environment and a number of projects in material research are related to production aspects in industry and have thus similar requirements. Figure 16 gives an overview of the overall process borders of the production process and the fuel cell system itself as the new technology product. These borders show already where specifications and standardisation is needed to support industrialisation. The use of these outer balance borders does not influence the research and engineering process inside at all, but standardised input parameters help clearly to improve the quality of research because they guarantee the reproducibility of research results.

Figure 16: Process boundaries and possible standardisation issues during R&D

The quality of the raw materials e.g. for electrodes and electrolytes influences very clearly the cell performance, allowable impurities are an important topic of research because if they can be tolerated the material cost may be clearly reduced. These aspects will need standardisation as a key element of product quality again. On the other side the performance of the fuel cell system and its proof are key points in any delivery contract of fuel cell systems. Therefor this aspect was one of the first topics of international standardisation within IEC TC 105.

Figure 17: Example of top-down formalised industrial development process [12]

The German fuel cell system developer Webasto informed recently [12] about it's top down development strategy. One element of this process is shown in figure 17. The figure and the report about the strategy fits very well the PORE strategy. A specific internal standardised deep draw test sheet of interconnector material presented by Webasto was an example of standardised hardware already used. This example supported the statement that standards on typical boundaries of future business cases are helpful, while standards inside these boundaries may be seen as not useful limitations.

4. Process of improvement

Considering these results there is a need of renewing the research strategy within Europe in a similar way as Japan has already started in 2000. However a fundamental research of high quality is the base of new technologies, but it's results cannot be immediately transferred in new products without an integration process based on market and engineering tools as presented as PORE strategy.  However the first steps already started, there is still a continuous action further needed. There has been formed the "European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Platform" in March 2004 for generating a general strategy for these specific topic and in September 2004 a strategy paper for technology platforms has been released [13]. Standards has been identified as key issues there. But on the other side specific actions to foster the European position in the international standardisation process had already started earlier.

The thematic network FCTESTNET is the most important action in that field within the European Union. It had been proposed by the EC Joint Research Centre (JRC)-Institute for Energy and VDI to improve the European position in the industrialisation process with a network for harmonising testing procedures, for supporting international standardisation and for preparing an international co-operation. FCTESTNET started already in 2003 and is organised as shown in figure 18 [14].
 
Figure 18: Organisation of EU FCTESTNET as an example for networking [14]

The organisation of FCTESTNET reflects the needs of a better matching of research and application. Therefor there are three application oriented work packages to cover the fields of transportation, and of stationary and portable application. These work packages have to supply the demands of the market on the developing fuel cell technology to the network. The area of technologies is represented by three work packages concerning Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells (PEMFC, or PEFC), Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC) and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). These areas are connected by a balance of plant work package that is responsible for the integration aspects of the different fuel cells in different systems for each application. The work package external relations is responsible for collecting and supplying information about overseas results within the network and to keep contact to different relevant external organisations as e.g. IEC, CEN or CENELEC.

The organisation of international workshops brought FCTESTNET in the position to start an international co-operation already at a very early state of the network, as pointed out in figure 19. The great interest of overseas partners led to a joint proposal FCTESQA prepared by EU JRC-Institute for Energy with FCTESTNET members and overseas partners to use the findings of FCTESTNET in harmonising testing procedures for real testing activities on an international base. The findings of FCTESQA are planned to be supplied for international standardisation activities in general. The proposal FCTESQA is planned to be realised in beginning of 2006, when FCTESTNET will be ended following it's schedule.

Figure 19: World-wide internationalisation of EU testing network [14]

However the networks are the necessary tools, the strategy of improving the development of new technologies in Europe has to be defined and implemented. International standards will be one important element. Therefor the organised development of product visions must be a key issue of such a strategy. The definition of a basic specification, the definition of cost targets and the identification of gaps in knowledge are necessary conditions to initiate the connected R&D process by the definition of tailored R&D targets and to support the a long term quality and marketing policy by starting the accompanying standardisation process. Figure 20 gives an overview of this approach.

Figure 20: Standardisation and formulation of R&D targets

Figure 21: Columns of proposed European R&D strategy

The vision of a future European research framework as the base of new strategic products, supported by tailored international codes and standards is shown in figure 21. There is no debt that the product development within industry and fundamental research are two key elements of any R&D strategy. But this is not enough to remain competitive in a globalised world. The cost savings in industry and research budgets has opened a gap by neglecting the strategic product development. The strategic product development as the key issue of the engineering research must become the third column in the strategy again to close this gap by using the methods of fundamental research but by operating with the strategy of the product development as indicated by the PORE strategy.

5. Literature

[1] IEC TC 105 Fuel Cell Technology

[2] The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

[3] Raymond G. Kammer: "The role of standards in today's society and in the future" (13.09 00)

[4] National Strategies for Industrial Technology (Provisional Translation). In-dustrial Technology Division, Industrial Policy Bureau (Study Committee on Strategies for National Industrial Technology) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo. April 10, 2000

[5]  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE PARLIAMENT ON "STANDARDIZATION AND THE GLOBAL INFOR-MATION SOCIETY : THE EUROPEAN APPROACH". COM (96) 359. Brus-sels, 24 July 1996.

[6]  European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Community 's De-velopment Policy. 12.Development policy A5-0059/2001COM(2000)212 C5-0264/2000 2000/2141(COS)).Thursday 1 March 2001

[7]  http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/nss/nss.aspx?menuid=3

[8] Yokokawa, H. : Recent developments of Solid Oxide Fuel cells in Japan. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC VI) Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium, Editors S.C. Singhal, M, Dokiya, Electrochemical Society Pro-ceedings Volume 99-19. ISBN 1-56677-242-7. Pennington. 1999. p 10 - 18.

[9] Winkler W.: SOFC-Integrated Power Plants for Natural Gas. Proceedings First EUROPEAN SOLID OXIDE FUEL CELL FORUM. 3 - 7 October 1994. Ulf Bossel. Lucerne. 1994. p 821 – 848.

[10] Winkler W., Lorenz H. : Differences and synergies between mobile and sta-tionary SOFC-GT designs. Proceedings 7th International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. American Electrochemical Society, in EPOCHAL, Tsukuba, Japan. 2001. p 196 – 204.

[11] Alston T., Kendall K., Palin M., Prica M., Windibank P. : A 1000-cell SOFC reactor for domestic cogeneration. Journal of Power Sources 71 (1998). p 271 – 274.

[12] Stelter M.: Bridging the gap: Design of a APU Stack from an Automotive Supplier's Perspective. Proceedings 9th International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. American Electrochemical Society, in Quebec, Canada. 2005. p 59 – 65.

[13] EUROPEAN COMMISSION: TECHNOLOGY PLATFORMS from Definition to Implementation of a Common Research Agenda. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, ISBN 92-894-8191-9. European Communities, 2004.

[14] Tsotridis G.: FCTESTNET Fuel Cell TEsting and STandardisation NETwork. DG Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy PETTEN The NETHER-LANDS. Presentation at annual meeting 2003 of IEC TC 105 in San Diego.

Back