View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Automotive Mass Benchmarking Light-weighting – How much mass saving are we really achieving?
Harry Singh
EDAG, Inc.
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
3
2
Automotive Systems Mass Benchmarking using A2Mac1 Database 1
Benchmarking Systems and Attributes
Presentation Overview
Lightweighting - How much mass saving are we really achieving?
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Ansteel
ArcelorMittal
Baosteel
China Steel
Hyundai Steel
JFE
JSW Steel
Kobe
Nippon and Sumitomo
Nucor
POSCO
Severstal
SSAB
Tata Steel
ThyssenKrupp
U. S. Steel
USIMINAS
voestalpine
AK Steel Corp
ArcelorMittal Dofasco
ArcelorMittal USA
Severstal North America
Nucor Corp
ThyssenKrupp USA
U. S. Steel
Sponsoring Companies
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTION SOLUTIONS PLANT CONSTRUCTION
Turnkey systems, body in
white and assembly
System technologies
and products
Vehicle
development
Function
development
Electrics /
electronics
Tooling and
vehicle body
systems
Design concepts
Production
process planning
Production
engineering
Control engineering
and automation
technology
Factory and
logistics planning
Vehicle
validation
Project
management
Process consulting
Quality and
documentation
management
IT services
Range of EDAG and FFT Services
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Germany Detroit
São Paulo
Kuala Lumpur
New Delhi
Pune
Beijing
Shanghai
Yokohama
Changchun
Mladá Boleslav
Györ
Seoul Spartanburg
Puebla
Hertfordshire
Wherever You Need Us - Worldwide
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Benchmarked Systems (sheet metal)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Vehicles in this study (222 V)
Year of Production, Vehicle Types, Drive Types
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
The decision to implement a particular technology into the
vehicle is made 2 to 3 years prior to the vehicle release
date and for the intended market the vehicle will be sold in.
From the release date the vehicles are typically in production
for approximately 5 years.
Vehicles in this study
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Door – Frame Mass Statistics
Door Frame
Material N
Mass (kg)
Mean St Dev Min Max
Steel 203 17.01 2.70 9.85 27.20
Aluminum 16 11.71 1.77 9.23 15.54
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Door – Total Door and Frame Mass Statistics
Door Frame
Material N
Door Frame Mass (kg)
Mean St Dev Min Max
Steel 203 17.01 2.70 9.85 27.20
Aluminum 16 11.71 1.77 9.23 15.54
Door Frame
Material N
Total Door Mass (kg)
Mean St Dev Min Max
Steel 203 33.92 5.20 18.25 53.73
Aluminum 16 32.80 3.96 26.50 42.34
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Door – Total Door & Frame Mass 2000-2012
Mass saving achieved at frame
level is not realized at total
system level?
• Mountings of components?
• Additional sound insulation ?
• Additional consumer features?
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Door – Collected Data and Analysis
ḿ = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 (𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒1) + 𝛽2 (𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒2) +………………….….Equation 4.1
ḿ = 𝛽0(𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒1)𝛽1(𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒2)𝛽2… ………………………….Equation 4.2
ḿEFF =β0(attribute 1)β1(attribute 2)β2…
rn ……………………….Equation 4.3
Where:
ḿ EFF = predicted mass for mass efficient designs
r = standard error factor determined by the regression
n = number of standard errors below the mean for which at least three samples
were observed
Automotive Mass Benchmarking
(Malen, 2010)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Mass Front
Door Frame
(kg)
Area m^2Hinge Span
(mm)
Material Steel
= 1
W. Reg
Linkage =
1
W. Reg
Cable = 1W Reg
Post = 1
Window
Frame
Rear of A
= 1
Window
Frame
Overlappi
ng = 1
Window
Frame
Frameless
= 1
Vehicle
Type
Sedan = 1
Market
North
America =
1
9.23 1.164 400 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
9.50 1.161 395 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
10.32 1.180 416 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Front Door - Linear Model Attributes
Front Door – Regression Analysis Variables/Attributes
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Mass Front
Door Frame
(kg)
Area m^2Hinge Span
(mm)
Material Steel
= 1
W. Reg
Linkage =
1
W. Reg
Cable = 1W Reg
Post = 1
Window
Frame
Rear of A
= 1
Window
Frame
Overlappi
ng = 1
Window
Frame
Frameless
= 1
Vehicle
Type
Sedan = 1
Market
North
America =
1
9.23 1.164 400 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
9.50 1.161 395 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
10.32 1.180 416 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Front Door - Linear Model Attributes
𝑚 𝑘𝑔 = −4.205 + 13.57 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚2 + 5.10 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙0.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
+
1.06 𝑖𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
0.47 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 0.00 𝑖𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
Front Door (Frame Mass) – Regression Analysis
Variables/Attributes
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Total Front
Door (kg)Area m^2
Hinge Span
(mm)
Material Steel
= 1
W. Reg
Linkage =
1
W. Reg
Cable = 1W Reg
Post = 1
Window
Frame
Rear of A
= 1
Window
Frame
Overlappi
ng = 1
Window
Frame
Frameless
= 1
Vehicle
Type
Sedan = 1
Market
North
America =
1
30.55 1.164 400 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
36.23 1.161 395 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
28.63 1.180 416 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Front Door - Linear Model Attributes
Front Door (Total Mass) – Regression Analysis
Variables/Attributes
𝑚 𝑘𝑔 = 7.43 + 23.86 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚2 − 0.007 𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑚 + 1.51 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙0.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
+
0.0 𝑖𝑓 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
1.8 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 −1.47 𝑖𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
+
1.73 𝐹𝑟𝑚 𝑅𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐴 0.0 𝐹𝑟𝑚 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑛𝑔3.40 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠
+
−2.31 𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑎𝑛0.0 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠
+
1.07 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟0.0 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
A. Front Door
Frame mass estimate
𝑚 (𝑘𝑔)
= 10.144(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚²)0.884 1.43 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙1.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
1.06 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙
1.03 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 1.0 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
R2 = 0.56, Standard Error = 1.123
Steel efficient design
𝑚𝑒𝑓𝑓 (𝑘𝑔) =10.14(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚²)0.884 1.43𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙
1.12 (1.123) 1.06𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
1.03 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
1.00 𝑖𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
Aluminum efficient design
𝑚𝑒𝑓𝑓 (𝑘𝑔) =10.14(𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚²)0.884 1.0 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
1.0 (1.123) 1.06 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟
1.03 𝑖𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
1.00 𝑖𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡
B. Hood
Frame mass estimate
𝑚(𝑘𝑔) = 4.30 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚2 1.23 1.66 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙1.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
R2 = 0.80, Standard Error = 1.177
Steel efficient design
𝑚𝐸𝐹𝐹(𝑘𝑔) =4.30 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚2
1.231.66 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙
1.25 (1.177)
Aluminum efficient design
𝑚𝐸𝐹𝐹(𝑘𝑔) =4.30 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑚2
1.231.00𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
1.2 (1.177)
Frame Mass
(kg)
Mass Reduction
% Delta (kg)
Steel Ave 16.26
Alum Ave 11.34 -30% 4.91
Steel Efficient 12.92
Alum Efficient 10.10 -22% 2.82
For door with 1.1 m^2 area
Front Door – Frame Construction Material Comparison
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Manufacturer Model Year (Production)
Body Type
Front Door Frame Material: 1 = Steel 2=Alum
linear model estimated mass kg
Actual Mass kg
Peugeot 206 X Line 2003 Hatchback
- B 1 17.23 10.84
Suzuki Ignis 2006 SUV 1 15.87 11.41
BMW 5 Series 528i 2011 Sedan 2 12.07 9.23
Mercedes S Class 350 2006 Sedan - F 2 12.02 9.50
Mercedes A-Class 200 2007 Hatchback-
C 1 17.07 13.46
Honda Jazz 1.4 G5
LS 2003
Hatchback
- B 1 17.15 13.78
Citroen C5 2.0 HDi 2003 Hatchback
- D 1 15.38 12.57
Volkswagen Passat 2005 Sedan - D 1 19.22 15.52
Toyota Corolla VVT-i 2004 Sedan - C 1 17.36 14.16
Mazda 5 1.8 Elegance 2008 Van 1 18.28 14.97
Honda Jazz 2010 Hatchback 1 15.57 12.91
Audi A6 2011 Sedan 2 12.28 10.32
Citroen Elysee 1.6 SX 2007 Sedan - C 1 13.85 11.62
Citroen C8 2.2 HDi 2003 Van - E 1 19.29 15.94
Front Door – Efficient Door Frame Designs
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Peugeot 206 X-Line Suzuki Ignis 1.3 VVT BMW 528i
Mercedes A-Class 200 CDi Mercedes S-Class 350 Honda Jazz 1.4 G5-LS
Citroën C5 2.0 HDi Volkswagen Passat 1.9 TDi Toyota Corolla VVT-I
Front Door – Efficient Door Frame Designs
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Bumper – Beam Mass Statistics
Front
Bumper
Beam
N
Mass (kg)
Mean St
Dev Min Max
Steel 150 7.31 3.08 2.26 28.19
Aluminum 72 4.89 1.51 1.45 9.23
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Bumper
Beam
Material N
Bumper Beam Mass (kg)
Mean St
Dev Min Max
Steel 150 7.31 3.08 2.26 28.19
Aluminum 72 4.89 1.51 1.45 9.23
Bumper Beam
Material N
Total Bumper System Mass
(kg)
Mean St Dev Min Max
Steel 65 16.80 3.14 2.40 28.19
Aluminum 33 16.35 1.62 1.45 9.23
Front Bumper and Total System - Mass Statistics
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Front Bumper and Total System - Mass Statistics
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Bumper
Beam
Mass (kg)
Curb Mass
(Kg)
Material
steel: 1
Crush can
yes:1
Rail width
mm
Vehicle Type:
Pick up &
SUV
Destination
Market:
North
America
Bumper
Length mm
5.66 2055 1 1 1010.0 0 0 1204.0
4.80 1662 1 1 1105.0 0 0 1133.0
Linear model: bumper beam mass estimate
𝑚 = −9.07 + 0.0040 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑏 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠, 𝑘𝑔 + 0.00743 𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ, 𝑚𝑚 + 2.59 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙0.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
+ 1.27 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛 0.00 𝑁𝑜 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛
+ −0.86 𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘 𝑢𝑝 − 𝑆𝑈𝑉 0.00 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟
…..…..Equation 3.12.1
Power model: bumper beam mass estimate
𝑚 = 0.000157 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑏 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑔 0.845 𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑚 0.587 1.497 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙1.000 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
1.266 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛
1.00 𝑁𝑜 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛
0.87 𝑃𝑖𝑐𝑘 𝑈𝑝 − 𝑆𝑈𝑉1.00 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑠
…..…..Equation 3.12.2
R2 = 0.48, Standard Error = 1.346
Bumper Beam Mass – Regression Analysis
Variables/Attributes
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Total
Bumper
System
Mass (kg)
Curb Mass
(Kg)
Material
steel: 1
Crush can
yes:1
Rail width
mm
Vehicle Type:
Pick up &
SUV
Destination
Market:
North
America
Bumper
Length mm
30.24 2207 1 1 972.0 0 1575.0 1
25.06 2259 1 0 1053.0 1 1239.0 1 Linear model: bumper beam mass estimate
𝑚(𝑘𝑔) = −3.89 + 0.0077 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑏 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠, 𝑘𝑔 + 0.0064 𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ, 𝑚𝑚 + 1.81 𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑙0.00 𝐴𝑙𝑢𝑚
+ 2.07 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛 0.00 𝑁𝑜 𝐶𝑟𝑢𝑠ℎ 𝐶𝑎𝑛
+ −1.22 𝑁. 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎 0.00 𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠
Total Bumper System Mass – Regression Analysis
Variables/Attributes
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Material Options Bumper Beam Mass
(kg)
Mass Reduction
% Delta (kg)
Steel Ave 6.30
Alum Ave 4.21 -33% 2.09
Steel Eff 3.34
Alum Eff 2.98 -11% 0.37
For CVW 1500 kg, Average Rail Width 982 mm
Front Bumper Beam Construction Material Comparison
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Efficient Bumper Beam Designs
Suzuki Grand Vitra 1.6 DDiS Volvo S60 2.4 DS Peugeot 206 Lux 2.0 HDI
Suzuki Swift 1.3 GL Opel Isignia 2.0 CDTi Suzuki Swift 1.3 GL
Honda Accord 2.2 i-DTEC Honda CR-V 2.0 Comfort Honda FR-V 2.0
Suzuki Slash 1.3 DDiS Volvo XV90 T6 AWD Acura TSX Tech V6
Citroën C5 2.2 HDi Honda CR-V 2.4 EX-L
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Summary of Results – Component Level
Estimated Mass of Normalized Designs (Mid Size Sedan) kg
Vehicle Sub System
Average Designs Efficient Designs
Steel Aluminum
Steel Aluminum
% Delta % Delta
Front Door Frame
16.3 11.3 -30% -4.9 12.9 10.1 -22% -2.8
Front Bumper Beam
6.3 4.2 -33% -2.1 3.3 3.0 -11% -0.4
1. At total system level the delta mass saving is even lower
2. The results in the table are not for ‘optimized designs’ – AHSS with
bigger range of strength values can be used to develop most
‘optimized’ mass efficient designs with even lower mass difference
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Automotive Mass Benchmarking - Conclusions
1. Mass saving achieved at ‘component’ level is not always realized at
total system level?
2. Mountings of components may requires larger bolts/screws or
larger mounting pads?
3. Lower density panels allow more sound pass through therefore
additional sound insulation may be required?
4. To assess the potential of any lightweighting technology compare
the mass and cost implications for the total system not just the
components being replaced by lower density materials.
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Thank you for your
Attention
Harry Singh
Program Manager
harry.singh@edag-us.com
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by:
Use your web-enabled device to download the presentations from today’s event
PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE MAY 3
Recommended