Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Blake Zuidema Director, automotive product applications, global R&D
ArcelorMittal: Steel solutions for 54.5 mpg
Webinar overview
• About ArcelorMittal
• The 54.5 mpg challenge
• ArcelorMittal solutions for meeting the challenge – S-in motion – S-in motion for electric vehicles – S-in motion lightweight pickup – Lightweight door solutions
2
The world’s leading steel and mining company • Presence in more than 60 countries and an industrial footprint in
over 20 countries
• Leading supplier of quality steel in the major global steel markets including automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging
• World-class research and development and outstanding distribution networks
• In 2013, ArcelorMittal had revenues of $79.4 billion, crude steel production of 91.2 million tonnes and internal iron ore production of 58.4 million tonnes
Underpinning all our operations is a philosophy to produce safe, sustainable steel 2
Technology leader for automotive • Key figures
– 1,300 researchers in a worldwide network of 11 labs – $270 million invested in Global R&D in 2013 o 30 percent of R&D devoted to auto market
• Innovation in all fields concerned by automotive: – Advanced High Strength Steels – Hot stamping – Laser Welded Blanks – Tubular products – Long products
• Product innovation is supported by high level process expertise
3
ArcelorMittal will keep making significant efforts in R&D for innovation to meet the key challenges of the automotive industry
From steel provider… to a global solution provider
• ArcelorMittal’s leadership as solution provider recognized by OEMs
A long tradition of development of steel solutions
S-in motion demonstrates the potential of AHSS & PHS
1995 2008 2010 2014 2012
S-in motion electric & hybrid vehicles
Contribution to ULSAB/ULSAC industry-wide lightweight effort
ArcelorMittal’s ABC lightweight project
S-in motion pickup trucks
Chart for AHSS Flat carbon products
Essentially grades > 780MPa • Dual Phase family • Complex Phase family • Usibor® 1500 • Tailored welded blanks
(especially Usibor® 1500/Ductibor® 500)
• Trip 780 • Martensitic family
And also • DP490 Exposed 0.6 mm
→ Solutions ready for implementation on new vehicle projects
ArcelorMittal other Products • Tubular products for
chassis • Stainless for exhaust
system (K44X, LWB, tubes)
• Long products for spring (2050 MPa), steering knuckle (Forged SOLAM B1100)
Tensile strength values
Use of worldwide available ArcelorMittal products
Current and emerging steel grades E
long
atio
n (%
)
Tensile Strength (MPa)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1500 1200 300 900 2100
HSLA
IF
Mild IF - HS BH
Elo
ngat
ion
(%)
600
-
1800
MART
HF
PHS DP
ArcelorMittal’s steel grades of tomorrow
TRIP
Current
Emerging
The 2025 challenge
• 2012-2025 standards are based on each vehicle’s footprint • 54.5 is the sales volume averaged-fuel economy of the EPA/
NHTSA’s projected 2025 fleet • These standards cannot be achieved by powertrain improvements
alone
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
CAFÉ Req
uiremen
t (Miles pe
r Gallon)
Cars
Trucks
Average
Track
Wheelbase
Track x Wheelbase = Footprint
The 2012-2025 US NHTSA Fuel Economy Rules:
How much weight reduction is needed?
Based on EPA projections of US 2025
vehicle sales
Weight reduction only from BIW light weighting
in all cases
20 – 25 percent BIW weight reduction gets all vehicles to their 2025 fuel economy mandate
0%
5%10%15%20%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0% 15% 20% 25% 40%50%
Fuel
Eco
nom
y G
ap (M
PG)
How much weight reduction can steel provide?
T1
T6
T5T4
T3
T2Linear-StaticTopologyOptimization
GaugeOptimization
Final DesignConfirmation
Phase1Technology Assessment
Packaging
Non-Linear Dynamic Topology Optimization(LF3G)Sub-System
3G Optimization Detail Design
Styling & aerodynamic
DesignConfirmation
Phase 2Report
FSV achieved a 29% BIW weight reduction (2009 baseline, 39% from the 1996 Taurus
PNGV baseline) using 3-G geometry, grade, and gauge optimization with advanced steel grades that are commercially available today
Source: WorldAutoSteel
The importance of geometry optimization in achieving maximum weight reduction:
• 2-G = Grade and Gauge optimization, typical of a carry over-constrained design
• 3-G = Geometry, Grade, and Gauge optimization, typical of a “clean sheet” design
How much weight reduction can steel provide?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wei
ght R
educ
tion
(%)
AHSS Content (%)
ULSAB-AVC 3-G Today
Future Steel Vehicle 3-G Today
AM S-in Motion 2-G Today
AM S-in motion 2-G Emerging
Lotus Venza Ph 1 2-G Today
FEV Venza Ph 2 2-G Today
EDAG Accord 3-G Today
2-G Approaches
3-G Approaches
25% fleet-average BIW weight reduction with 3-G and today’s
advanced steel grades
2-G: Grade and Gauge optimization only 3-G: Geometry, Grade, and Gauge Optimization
Steel gets us to 54.5!
Which material gets us to 54.5 MPG at lowest cost?
NHTSA Volpe Model results for full 2025 US fleet
Steel gets us to 54.5 at lowest
cost!
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
0 10 20 30 40 50
Per
Veh
icle
Cos
t ($U
S)
BIW Light Weighting Achieved (%)
AHSS-IntensiveBody Construction
Aluminum-IntensiveBody Construction
Carbon Fiber-IntensiveBody Construction
Fuel economy improvement technologies
Technology % Impr. Cost %/$ EV 68.5 $5,390 0.012
PHEV 40.7 $14,517 0.003
Hybrid 14.9 $5,810 0.003
BIW WR – Aluminum 11.4 $1,320 0.012
BIW WR – AHSS 7.2 $100 0.071
Turbo/Downsize 7.0 $600 0.008
Adv. Diesel 5.5 $1,040 0.005
Cyl. Deact. 4.7 $244 0.019
Var. Valve Timing 3.0 $60 0.050
8-Spd DC Trans. 3.9 $304 0.013
Cool EGR 3.6 $360 0.010
BIW Weight Reduction
BIW weight reduction is at or near the top of list for both magnitude and cost effectiveness of fuel economy improvement
Source: NHTSA Volpe Transportation Research Center CAFÉ Compliance and Effects Modeling System
AHSS!
Aluminum
Which material gets us to 54.5 MPG at the lowest carbon footprint?
Source: WorldAutoSteel
Steel
Aluminum
Magnesium
Carbon FRP
Current AverageGreenhouse Gas Emissions
Primary Production
18 – 45
2.0 – 2.5
Greenhouse Gas from Production (in kg CO2e/kg of material)
21 – 23
11.2 – 12.6
Footnotes:• All steel and aluminum grades included in ranges.• Difference between AHSS and conventional steels less than 5%.• Aluminum data - global for ingots; European only for process from ingot to final products .
Steel gets us to 54.5 at lowest total life cycle carbon footprint!
200 100 0 25 50 75 125 150 175 0
10
30
20
Distance Driven (000 km)
CO
2 E
mis
sion
(Ton
nes)
Production
Phase Use
Phase Recycling
Phase
Total Life
Cycle
Source: UCSB GHG Comparison Model V3.0
Mid-Size ICE-G in 2025
S-in motion
• Objectives – Design lightest vehicle with currently available AHSS grades relative
to a modern baseline C-class vehicle – Build a catalogue of worldwide solutions per sub module – Include worldwide crash, stiffness requirements & performance
ratings – Achieve at the lowest possible cost
• Use of worldwide available ArcelorMittal products ⇒ Solutions ready for implementation on new vehicle projects ⇒ Includes tubular products, stainless steels, long and forged products
• Scope: Body In White, Hang on parts and Chassis
• Worldwide ArcelorMittal R&D teams involving: – automotive suppliers (engineering offices, diemakers, prototypes) – industrial partners (Gestamp and MA)
S-in motion
Weight Saving Optimizations Constraints: • 5* EuroNCAP • Benchmark level
NVH performance
Lightest Vehicle
Baseline Meshing Baseline Set-up
Baseline
Innovative Design Proposal
Sub-module approach
3 Solutions Front Module (-10.1 kg)
4 Solutions Rear Module (-11.2 kg)
3 Solutions Body Side (-13.3 kg)
3 Solutions Door Module (-3.7 kg)
Methodology (Body in White)
• Generic vehicle, representative of 2010 C-segment vehicle • Basis of comparison for solutions in terms of weight, cost and performance
S-in motion
• Crash assessment – EuroNCAP, Rear Crash, AZT Danner, Roof Crush, Door Crash…
• Stiffness assessment – Static Stiffness (torsion & bending), Modal Analysis, Door sag…
• Forming feasibility – FE simulation for formability assessment (cold and hot stamping)
• Assembly feasibility – Risk analysis of weld combinations and tests on critical
assemblies
• Industrial validation – Industrial forming and assembly sequences – Cost assessment
All the automotive requirements checked for each solution
Validation S-in motion
Many weight saving steel solutions (different steel grades / different processes) for 63 parts through five sub-modules (Front module, Body side, Rear module, Doors, & Chassis)
Module catalogue S-in motion
For the lightest BIW concept, 29 parts (~69 kg) are made with press hardened steel
Press hardened steels offer high mechanical resistance for complex geometries without springback effects
Hot stamped parts on the lightest BIW
S-in motion
For the lightest BIW concept, 16 parts are made with laser welded blanks
Laser welded blanks offer an effective way to reduce steel thickness while maintaining performance
Laser welded blanks on the lightest BIW S-in motion
Lightest BIW Weight Breakdown Baseline Weight Breakdown
Tensile strength values
54% AHSS Processes • Hot stamping 29 parts • Stamping of LWB 16 parts • Roll forming 2 parts
36% AHSS Processes • Hot stamping 4 parts • Stamping of LWB 8 parts • Roll forming 1 part
300 kg 259 kg
Steel grade breakdown BIW & bumper system
S-in motion
Lightest vehicle S-in motion
904 768
1191610303
1749
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Base line S-in motion
kg C
O2
eq Ecobenefit
Use Phase
Production + End of life
Body in white and hang-on part contribution for greenhouse gas
emissions (CO2 equivalent)
Use Phase • Fuel used: gasoline • Lifespan: 200,000 km • Fuel economy: 6.6 l / 100 km
Weight savings of 73 kg for the whole vehicle yields a reduction of: 6.23 g CO2 / km
(-14%)
CO2 emissions during use phase of the whole vehicle
Life cycle analysis S-in motion
45%51%
18%15%
34%32%
3%2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Baseline WP4
Tooling Amortization
Assembly
Process
Material
Baseline Lightest vehicle
Weight savings are achieved at neutral cost!
Lightest BIW: cost summary
S-in motion
• BIW & closures: → 57 kg weight savings at neutral cost – 16 kg weight savings for chassis
components • More than 6.2 g/km CO2 (14%)
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the use phase of the whole vehicle
• Catalogue of solutions for worldwide requirements: – More than 70 solutions for single
parts – More than 18 solutions for the 5
modules – All at lower cost
• Roll-out to all customers through ArcelorMittal worldwide customer teams
Lightest EU vehicle weight BIW breakdown
PHS applications
© A
rcel
orM
ittal
– A
ll rig
hts
rese
rved
for a
ll co
untri
es
Can
not b
e di
sclo
sed,
use
d, o
r rep
rodu
ced
with
out p
rior w
ritte
n sp
ecifi
c au
thor
izat
ion
of A
rcel
orM
ittal
CO
NFI
DE
NTI
AL
– P
rivile
ged
Info
rmat
ion
- Arc
elor
Mitt
al p
ropr
ieta
ry in
form
atio
n
Conclusions S-in motion
S-in motion for advanced powertrains
Project objective
• New powertrain estimated to be from 10% to 20% of the market in 2020
• New powertrain issues • Heavier crash loads on EV requires more energy absorption (good
for AHSS, UHSS) • Battery protection requires less intrusion (good for PHS) Aluminum threat • On EV cars, lower weight allows downsizing of expensive batteries • Specific lightweighting cost assessment for Electric Vehicle (EV):
13 - 26 $/kg saved on the cost of the battery pack today and 7 - 13 $/kg saved in 2020 (source EAA)
Demonstrate weight savings potential of AHSS on the BIW structure of new powertrain vehicles
S-in motion advanced powertrain
Project approach • Starting from the same baseline as ICE S-in motion • Build an EV S-in motion
– Scope of study: Body in white – Main objective: demonstrate the weight saving potential of
AHSS on EV BIW
ICE S-‐in mo+on
EV S-‐in mo+on
ICE baseline
Carry over of ICE S-‐in mo+on
lightest vehicle solu+ons
2009/2010
S-in motion advanced powertrain
Weight saving results Main Achievement: • 11% weight savings vs. the ICE BIW baseline
289 249 259
11 10 10
220 220367
701
701732
0100200300400500600700800900
10001100120013001400
Baseline ICE S in motion EV S in motion
Wei
ght (
kg)
BIW Crash management system Powertrain Others
1252 kg 1180 kg 1337 kg
ICE Powertrain EV Powertrain
Main Challenge: 147 kg (66%) powertrain
weight increase
Result: 30 kg (11%) Body in white weight
reduction
S-in motion advanced powertrain
EV BIW Weight Breakdown ICE Baseline Weight Breakdown
Steel grade breakdown BIW without bumper system
58% AHSS Processes • Hot stamping 29 parts • Stamping of LWB 17 parts • Roll forming 2 parts
35% AHSS Processes • Hot stamping 4 parts • Stamping of LWB 8 parts • Roll forming 1 part
Tensile strength values 290 kg 259 kg
NPT BIW + Panels (Body Side, Roof)
7%10%10%
21%
21%
23%
5%
3%
PHS >=1300MPa AHSS>=1180MPa AHSS>=900MPa AHSS>=780MPa AHSS>=590 Mpa AHSS>=450MPa HSS Mild steel
Baseline: BIW + Panels (Body Side, Roof)
11%
14%
3%25%
40%5% 2%
PHS >=1300MPa AHSS>=1180MPa AHSS>=900MPa AHSS>=780MPa AHSS>=590 Mpa AHSS>=450MPa HSS Mild steel
S-in motion advanced powertrain
ArcelorMittal currently available grades
Essentially AHSS grades • Usibor® 1500, Ductibor ® 500 • Dual Phase family • Complex Phase family • Laser welded blanks • MartINsite® family
And also • DP490 Exposed
S-in motion Steel PickUp Objectives
ArcelorMittal emerging grades portfolio
• New hot-stamping grades (Usibor®
2000, Ductibor ® 1000) • High formability grades (980HF,
1180HF) • Near-term exposed grade
• Define the lightest pickup truck with current, emerging grades • Consider crash, stiffness requirements, performance ratings • Achieve at the lowest possible cost
• Topologic optimization which is one of the tools for 3G approach (Gauge, Grade, Geometry) was intensively used on Cab and Frame
Topology Optimization
Design space extrapolated from public FEA model
Topologic optimization main load path Integrated front structure design
Project Scope – Baseline Vehicle: • Cab + front and rear doors: 375 kg • Box + tailgate: 129 kg • Frame: 243 kg • Total weight: 748 kg
• Crash assessment – USNCAP Full Frontal Impact, IIHS Roof Strength, IIHS ODB
40% Overlap, MDB Side Impact, FMVSS214P Side Pole Impact, FMVSS301 Rear Impact …
• Stiffness assessment – Static Stiffness (torsion & bending), Local Stiffness, Modal
Analysis, Door sagging…
• Forming feasibility – FE-simulation for formability assessment (cold and hot
stamping)
• Assembly feasibility – Risk analysis of welding combinations and tests on critical
assemblies
• Industrial validation – Industrial forming and assembly sequences – Cost assessment
Validations All major automotive requirements are validated
Steel grades breakdown (current grades) Total scope
Steel Pick-up weight breakdown Baseline weight breakdown
Tensile strength values
63% AHSS & PHS
Processes • Hot stamping 37 parts • Stamping of LWB 17 parts
13% AHSS
748 kg 574 kg 174 kg / 23% Weight-savings
(Estimate)
Achievement - steel pickup vehicle with current grades
SUBSTANTIAL weight reduction achieved against a 2014 baseline Balanced weight reduction across all in-scope systems
Baseline (kg) Steel PickUp
(current grades - kg)
Weight savings vs. Baseline
kg % Cab + Closures 375 286 89 24%
Box + Tailgate 129 100 29 23% Upper Body Total 505 386 119 24%
Frame 243 188 55 23%
Total Scope 748 574 174 23%
S-in motion Steel PickUp Cost considerations
$0.72/kg ($0.30/lb) of weight saved
S-in motion Steel PickUp Conclusions
• ArcelorMittal Steel PickUp solution: 574 kg – Cab + Doors: 286 kg – Box + Tailgate: 100 kg – Frame: 188 kg
• 174 kg (23%) of weight savings compared to baseline weight (748 kg)
• Solutions are validated for crash and stiffness requirements
• Main complex parts are validated for forming and assembly
• ArcelorMittal steel pick-up solution with emerging grades: 552 kg
• 196 kg (26%) of weight savings compared to baseline weight (748 kg) with emerging grades
• All with cost-effective steel solutions
Steel Pick-up weight breakdown (current grades)
Tensile strength values
Ultra lightweight car door solutions for now and in the future
Steel baseline
S in motion S1
Short term:outer 0.6mm
Mid term:outer 0.55mm
Mid term:outer 0.5mm Aluminum baseline
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Wei
ght (
kg)
Cost(€)
Evolution of door solutions Weight vs. cost
Front door solution based on short term availability of materials and technology:
• Use of MS1500 and Usibor®1500P steel grades • Use of new LWB inner panel concept • Use of local reinforcements rather than large ones in
order to optimize weight savings
Baseline Front Door S-in motion New Lightweight Steel Door Solutions
14.5 kg 18.3 kg Medium term: 12 kg Short term: 13.3 kg
Market ready
Aluminum Door
10.5 kg
Cost Estimates:
Steel:
Steel base price: $864/t
Steel scrap price: $201/t
Aluminum:
Aluminum 5xxx: $4020/t
Aluminum 6xxx: $5092/t
Aluminum scrap: $2412/t
Front door solution based on mid term availability of materials and technology:
• Use of MS1500 and Usibor®1500P & 2000 steel grades • Use of new LWB inner panel concept with thin gauge • Outer & Inner panels < 0.6 mm
Cost of weight saving ~0 €/ kg
Cost of weight saving ~1 €/ kg
Cost of weight saving for Aluminum ~8 €/ kg
* 1€ = $1.34 USD
Ultra lightweight steel door “Short term” solution
Weight breakdown
13.3 kg
5. Front side reinforcements
Upper hinge renforcement: Usibor® 1500P 1.5 mm Lower hinge renforcement: Usibor® 1500P 2.0 mm Rear view mirror rft: HSLA380 1.1 mm
2. Waist Beam
Beam : MS1500 0.9 mm Closing plate: DP780 0.65 mm
3. Stiffener & door beam
Waistline stiffener: HSLA300 0.7 mm (replacing HSLA300 0.8 mm) Door beam: Usibor® 1500P 1.2 mm
4. Panel
Door outer panel: DP490 0.6 mm
1. Door inner
Inner: Laser welded blank AM05 0.8 mm / AM05 0.6 mm (replacing AM05 0.8 mm / AM05 0.5 mm)
Front frame reinforcement: DP450 1.1 mm Rear frame reinforcement: DP450 0.6 mm
Tensile strength values
Weight: - 4.9 kg (- 27%)
“Short term” design highlights
Hot stamped local hinge reinforcements
• Improve door sag and door pull overload performance
• Better tolerances by hot stamping
New LWB door inner Frame stiffness performance
Roll formed beltline beam Good front impact behavior
Hot stamped door beam Good side impact behavior
0.8 mm
0.6 mm Innovative lower door hinge forms hollow section with the door inner improving door sag performance
Lower Door Hinge Reinforcement:
Ultra lightweight steel door “Mid term” solution
5. Front side reinforcements
Upper hinge reinforcement: Usibor® 1500P 1.5 mm Lower hinge reinforcement: Usibor® 1500P 2 mm Rear view mirror rft: HSLA380 1.1 mm
2. Waist Beam
Beam : MS1500 0.9 mm Closing plate: DP780 0.5 mm
3. Stiffener & door beam
Waistline stiffener: HSLA300 0.8 mm Door beam: Usibor® 2000 1.1 mm
4. Panel
Door outer panel: 0.5 mm DP490 or increased YS steel grade *
* According to Dent Resistance requirements
1. Door inner
Inner: Laser welded blank 0.8 mm / 0.5 mm AM05 with or without improved formability
Front frame reinforcement: DP450 1.1 mm Rear frame reinforcement: DP450 0.6 mm
12.0 kg
Tensile strength values
Weight: - 6.3 kg (- 34%)
0.6 mm
0.75 mm
0.7 mm
0.65 mm
0.5 mm
DP490 2%+BHmin
Denting Experiment
Dent Test Location
BH220 2%+BHmin
BH260 2%+BHmin
Increase of panel yield strength enables reduced thickness with equivalent dent resistance
0
2
4
6Prod
uction
(millon
vehicles)
Dent resistance level kF0.1 (N)
Critical dent resistance area =>Trials based on results for
location 1,2 ,3
Dent resistance requirement depending on OEM
benchmarking
0.55 mm
Dent resistance with higher yield strength
0.5 mm outer panel stiffness & oil canning
• Thickness decrease requires additional reinforcements (stiffness patches) to fulfill stiffness requirement on weakest point
• Testing and simulation show stiffness improvement provided by patches on 0.5 mm panel.
• 0.5 mm panel and 4.1 mm patch exceeds 0.67 mm panel stiffness
FEA
Experimental
0.5 mm (1.8 mm patch)
0.5 mm (4.1 mm patch) 0.67 mm Baseline (no patch)
0.5mm (no patch)
Patch skin: Glass cloth (0.2 mm)
Rubber-Epoxy foam (up to 3.9 mm)
0.5 mm panel
“Read through” on thin outers
Assessment done by
+/- 0.05 m-1 curvature change
Example: 0.5 mm + patches
+/- 0.2 m-1 curvature change
Defectometry analysis
Altitude
Slope
Curvature
Defect identification
Defect
Impact of Patches on Outer Panel
• Low curvature change related to patches(<0.06 m-1)
• Measured on door panel
Finish Analysis
• Eye visible curvature change threshold : +/- 0.2 m-1
• No visible defect induced by patch
Performance – A,B,C,D segments
Door Sag
10°and 70°opening Load: 750 N
Requirements
à Max displ.: 10 mm à Residual displ.<1 mm
Wind Overload
Load: 400 N
Requirements à Max opening: 6° à Residual opening <1°
Beltline Stiffness
Load: 100 N
Requirements à Max displ.: 3 mm à Residual displ.: none
Frame Stiffness
Load: 100 N (applied separately)
Requirements à Max displ.: 2.5 mm à Residual displ.: none
Door Crush Sub system model Imposed displacement Requirements
à Peak load >60 kN
Side Impact FMVSS214S Imposed displacement Pole impact 450 mm /80 ms Requirements
à At 152 mm >10 kN à At 304 mm >16 kN à At 457 mm >37 kN
Static load cases
Performance criteria
Above target Close/at target
Close/below target
Not meeting target
Expected Performance Results Short Term Mid Term
STATIC
Door Sag 10°
Door Sag 70°
Wind Overload
STIFFNESS
Front Frame Stiffness
Rear Frame Stiffness
Beltline Stiffness
CRASH Front Crash
FMVSS214S Side Impact
Crash load cases
SynergyTM door • Clean sheet design - 3G (Geometry, Grade, Gauge)
optimization considering 6 load cases simultaneously • Revolutionary, not evolutionary design concept • Matches aluminum mass at ~ 30% lower cost • Uses structural adhesives • Concept can be applied to open or closed inner designs • All grades and gauges currently available • Patent applied for
LWB inner and outer window frame
DP980 / DP600 LWB reinf. for hinge strength
Hot stamped picture frame, gusset beam and vertical beam outside of glass drop.
Picture frame Vertical Beam
Gusset Beam
SynergyTM door concept: Design highlights
Multi-functional inner structure, important for static load cases and side intrusion
SynergyTM door
The entire inner structure resists intrusion thereby eliminating the traditional impact beam
Note: Adhesive properties and Usibor® 1500 fracture are modeled (no fracture observed).
FMVSS static side intrusion Average Force 2442 lbf vs. target 2250
lbf in first 6 in.
SynergyTM door
Vertical Beam 0.6 mm, Usibor® 1500
Waistline Beam
0.6 mm, Usibor® 1500
Module Extension
0.5 mm DP490
Outer Panel Door outer panel: 0.55 mm DP490
Header / Frame Inner and Outer Rear Frame, Laser welded blank: 0.76 / 0.58 mm DP490 Front Frame, Laser welded blank: 0.55 mm DP490 / 0.60 DP980 10.3 kg
Tensile strength values
Weight: - 4.3 kg (- 29%)
Front Frame
Rear Frame
Gusset Beam 0.6 mm, Usibor® 1500
Hinge Assembly :
0.6 mm, DP600 1.5 DP980
3.5 mm DP980 Washers
Adhesive length = 3400 mm
Hot Stamped “picture frame”
0.6 mm, Usibor® 1500
SynergyTM door Performance
Performance Results SynergyTM Door
STATIC Door Sag
Wind Overload
STIFFNESS
Torsional Stiffness
Mid position Frame Stiffness Rear position Frame Stiffness
Beltline Stiffness
First Mode (>= 55 hz)
CRASH FMVSS214S Side Impact
Dent
Oil Canning
Performance criteria
Above target Close/at target
Close/below target
Not meeting target
SynergyTM door Costs
$25 $21
$13 $30
$18
$18
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Baseline Synergy™ Door
Cos
t per
Doo
r
Assembly Forming Materials
$56 $69
**Note: Material cost inputs as of July 2013
Cost penalty of SynergyTM door: ~ $3 per kg saved
Cost penalty of aluminum door: ~ $10 per kg saved
Camanoe Associates
Annual Production Volume = 200,000 vehicles/year
14.64 kg 10.5 kg
SynergyTM door Conclusions
• Cost effective approach to mass reduction, 30% less cost than aluminum alternative
• Demonstrated 27% weight savings using steels and technology currently available, without compromising safety and structural requirements
• Up to 34% potential weight savings with future grades and technology
• Using a clean sheet approach and 3G optimization technology, a new door architecture was presented for a D segment door, showing up to 29% weight savings and extensive use of AHSS and UHSS
Closing comments
• The 54.5 mpg challenge is substantial – vehicle weight reduction is absolutely required to fully meet the 2025 mandates
• ArcelorMittal’s current and emerging steel grades provide sufficient weight reduction potential which, when combined with expected improvements in powertrains, can help automakers achieve their 2025 fuel economy requirements
• Steel provides the necessary weight reduction at a lower cost and lower total life cycle carbon footprint than other light weight materials
ArcelorMittal offers proven steel solutions to help automakers reach 54.5
56
Q&A
corporate.arcelormittal.com automotive.arcelormittal.com @ArcelorMittal #SteelStrong