Automotive Mass Benchmarking - Autosteel | …/media/Files/Autosteel/Great Designs...w w w . a u t o...

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.


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?

http://www.a2mac1.us/


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


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


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


Benchmarked Systems (sheet metal)


Vehicles in this study (222 V)

Year of Production, Vehicle Types, Drive Types


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


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


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


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?


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)


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


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


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


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 (Total Mass) – Regression Analysis


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Front Bumper and Total System - Mass Statistics


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


Bumper Beam Mass – Regression Analysis



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



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


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


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


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.


Thank you for your

Attention

Harry Singh

Program Manager

[email protected]


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

Automotive Mass Benchmarking - Autosteel | …/media/Files/Autosteel/Great Designs...w w w . a u t o...

Documents

Transcript of Automotive Mass Benchmarking - Autosteel | …/media/Files/Autosteel/Great Designs...w w w . a u t o...