Future of Automotive Body Materials

Future of Automotive Body Materials: Steel, Aluminum & Polymer Composites
Hoogovens Technology Day October 1998 Professor Joel P. Clark Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Introduction
Vehicle Lightweighting Key To Next Generation Product Development Improved Efficiency, Reduced Emissions Performance Improvement Increased Weight & Power Consumption of Vehicle Accessories Active Discussion Of Wide Range Of Approaches Advanced Materials New Powerplants Novel Control Systems Potential For Radical Change In Vehicles, Vehicle Development and Vehicle Design
Is It Time For A Leap To A New Vehicle Technology?

New Technologies Under Development/Consideration Ultra-Lightweight Vehicles Advanced Powertrains (hybrids, Electric, fuel cells) Computers On Wheels Who's Going To Build These Vehicles? Current Producers or New Entrants Recall The California EV Strategy As Specifically Directed Toward Developing A New Vehicle Production Industry Will That Happen This Time?
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
"Hypercars" Are Not The Answer

Manufacturability The Key Limitation Scale Economics Limit Polymer Strategies Technologies To Increase Processing Rates Problematic Metals Technologies Better-Suited To Current Scale Requirements Aluminum Initiatives Steel ULSAB Note: Materials Processing, Not Merely Material, Is The Key Enabling Factor
Is Radical Innovation The Answer?

Probably Not High Risk Economically Tenuous Strategically Weak Some Radical Innovations Should Be Pursued But They Should Not Be The Centerpiece Of Product Strategy Examples From Materials Field Steel Versus ...
) ! 0 ) # 3 # 2 1 ) % 0 ) ( ' & ! % $ # " !
Automobile Recycling Technology & Strategic Implications For Recycling Policy

Issue Rising Tide of Public and Private Concerns About Obsolete Vehicles Variety of Actions Proposed, With Varying Consequences For The Industry Findings Notwithstanding the Concerns, Vehicle Recycling Is Not A Major Environmental Problem Rather, The Issues, Both Historically and Currently, Stem From Economic Drivers and the Nature Of Market For Secondary Products & Materials Further, Policy Directions Fail To Recognize Key Distinctions Between Product Characteristics (Recyclability) and Market Features (Recycling)
Value to Industry Development Of Context For Discussion Demonstration Of Impact Of Underlying Structure Of The Problem Recommendations For Action By Industry And By Governments
Application and Value Of Life Cycle Analysis In Vehicle Design & Development
Issue Life Cycle Analysis An Emerging Analytical Framework Application To Designs Internally Potential For Larger Context (Regulatory Application) Findings LCA Is Not A Value-Free Method; Context Is Vital Element Of Its Use Nevertheless, Potential For Better Insight Into Product & Process Decisions Much Work To Be Done Value to Industry Development Of Argument To Frame Question Of LCA Utility Demonstration Of Both The Impact Of Context As Well As Potential Use Ongoing Dialog and Development Of Better Methods For Incorporation Of Environmental Considerations In Product Strategy
Preferred Approach
Environmental Effects
species s medium m location x time t
7 6 5 4
Inventory
AQM gives Conc (t,x)
Impact Analysis
Dose-response gives extent of effects to Receptor Cells
Valuation
based on WTP
Damage
4
Base Case: Convergence for Steel
SO4 Se Zn Cr AsH3 FN2) Cd H2S C20H12 C6H6 CO SO2 NOx CO2
Extraction Processing Use
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$Externalities to Air
Base Case: Convergence for Aluminum
V Co NH3 B Ni N2O As Cd Pb HCl Cu HF SO2 PAH CO2
Extraction Processing Use
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$Externalities to Air
BIW Demonstration Analysis

Problem: Select BIW design
Steel Steel Sheet High Strength Steel Sheet Al Sheet TOTAL BIW TOTAL Car 200 kg 50 kg ULSAB 18 kg 185 kg 141 kg 250 kg 1400 kg 203 kg 1353 kg 141 kg 1291 kg Aluminum Unibody
Key Assumptions: Sheet is made from 100% primary material End-of-Life scrap is recycled once with 85% efficiency
# 0 ) ( ( $ ! 0 ( C $ ( $ 3 " # ( $ E # D ( # 0 ) # ) ) ! C $ ( $ 3 C $ B ( % & # % ) ! ( ) ! " % # A 0 ( ! $ 0 E ( # % # D (
Fuel Economy: 22 MPG for Steel

E 0 B E ! A 0 B E # $ " ) E P ( ) ! " ) $ ! P # E ! $ I H G F
Basis for Comparison

LCI Data by IKP Stuttgart Materials, Manufacturing, Use, Recycling Several Modifications Application of XLCA Base Case $/kg Sensitivity Analysis
Environmental Damage Cost Comparisons

Damage Costs Per BIW
400 300 200 100

Damage Costs Per BIW
Use Materials
0 Steel Aluminum ULSAB
400 300 200 100 0 Steel ULSAB Aluminum
Toxics Criteria GHGs
Sources of Environmental Damage for Each Material

Cr $2 Pb CH4 N2O PAH PM10 VOC NOx SO2 CO2
$0 $50 $100 $7 $5 $6 $15 $20 $41 $46 $57 $143 $150 $200 $0 $50 $100
$2
$3
Steel
$347
$5 $4 $5 $14 $17
ULSAB
$310
Production Use
$1 $4 $5
Aluminum
$308
$12 $17
$37 $41 $50 $128
$33 $40 $67 $121 $0 $40 $80 $120
$150
Damage
Damage
Damage
Sensitivity Analysis
How Wrong Do You Have to Be for Ranking to Change? Bottom-Up Investigation Variations in Assumptions... Changes $/kg Estimates... Which May or May Not Change the Ranking Top-Down Investigation Validate Results Against National Figures
Sensitivity of $/kg of SO2 to Changes in Assumptions

50
40
$/kg SO2
30
20
10
0 0 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 6E-05 7E-05 8E-05
Low Value in Literature 8E-7

Base Case Value 2.4E-5
Deaths/person-day-ug/m3
High Value in Literature 7.2E-5
Sensitivity of Steel-Aluminum Ranking to $/kg Valuations

Total $/BIW
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0
Base Case $13/kg
Steel Aluminum
$/kg SO2
High Mortality $36/kg
Crossover $65/kg
100
Low Mortality $2.40/kg

Distance to Crossover for Steel and Al

AIR RELEASES SO2 PM10 CF4 Cr C2F6 B(a)P Ni HF B As HCl V Co Cu Zinc WATER RELEASES Pb Hg As HCl Phenol NH4+ Zinc CN-
0 2 4 6 Log10 [Crossover$/kg / Base$/kg]

10
(In)Sensitivity of Aluminum-Steel Ranking
Species Base $/kg required for National Annual (to Air) $/kg Steel to beat Al Damage Implied by Crossover Value SO2 13 65 $1.2 trillion PM10 13 138 $6.2 trillion Arsenic 2,800 3 million $37 trillion B(a)P 243 130,000 $88 trillion
U.S. GDP is $7 trillion. Estimates higher than this are absurd. ===> Aluminum is preferable to steel, given assumptions
Sensitivity of Aluminum-ULSAB Ranking

Species (to Air) Pb SO2 GHGs VOCs Base $/kg 1400 13 0.014 1.34 $/kg required for Steel to beat Al 1900 15 0.007 0.42 National Annual Damage Implied by Crossover Value $8.5 billion $280 billion $43 billion $8.8 billion
Many of these crossovers values are possible, given the uncertainties and subjective judgments in the model ===> ULSAB and Aluminum are too close to call
Sensitivity of ULSAB-Aluminum Ranking to Changes in Inventory Allocation Assumptions
$/BIW
340 320 300 280 260 0 1 2 3
ULSAB $310 Aluminum @ k=2 $279 Aluminum @ k=1

4 5
$262
Number of Times Aluminum is Recycled Assuming Steel is Recycled Once With k=2 All recovery efficiencies are 85%
Conclusions
Cases Demonstrate Ability to Rank Alternatives (or Determine that Several are Indistinguishable) Few Pollutants Matter Can Focus on a Few Drivers Can Test Robustness of Ranking Bottom-Up Approach, Revisiting Analysis Top-Down Scale Analysis
Automobile Product Innovation

Variety of Drivers Customers Governments OEMs Performance Targets Increasingly Stringent Environmental - Air Emissions, Recyclability Efficiency - Fuel Economy Safety Comfort Affordability/Manufacturability Leading to Increased Product Complexity/Content Safety Systems Entertainment Systems Navigation Aids
Where Is This Innovation Coming From?

Traditional View: Carmakers Develop Product Responses To Meet Product Goals, Customer Demands, Government Constraints/Controls Current Situation, However, Differs From This View Carmaker Role Is Changing Costs Of R&D Increasingly Being "Farmed Out" Technology Innovation Increasingly In The Hands Of Suppliers Issues How To Foster Development Of New Technology - What Is The Appropriate Technology Development Model? Ownership Of Technology - Whose Technology Is It? Implications For Industry Development Examples In Materials Technology & Technology Push For LightWeight Cars
Materials Technology & Automobiles

Henry Ford's Innovations Leading To Modern Automobile Industry Manufacturing Organization Assembly Line Labor Relations/Economics "$5/day wage" Manufacturing Technology Steel Automobiles
Primary Materials Extraction
Consequences For Ford Need To Become Steel Specialists

# 0 % # & 0 # ( $ $ ' ! 3 ( 0 R ! Q Q C $ E ( # $ '
Materials Refining & Processing
Effluent/Waste
Parts Fabrication
Subassembly/ Component Manufacture Vehicle Assembly
Vehicle Distribution, Sale & Use
Vehicle Disposal
Resources/Raw Materials
C
At The Peak Of Their Integration, Active In All These Aspects


C # $
# E # !
P
# 0 # B
% %
B ! ! (
% T
! ' 1 1
T E E E
E
% %
! ( 0 C "
% $ )
$ !
# ( S U
Steel - Then
Advantages Amenable To High-Speed Fabrication Technologies
R D % ( X ( S # T ) ) ! 0 u ( p ! 3 x y u 3 # # d 2 g ! $ f P u ! ! b s u C ! u # ! s e 0 ' ( x h U $ v d 3 ! 0 E ) u y ( c ) & g w Q y u ) ( $ E ! u ! s ! ) Y 0 $ W $ ! ) # E u b # ! v 0 ) r u ! ! x ( # 0 # % y ( % b u 3 2 p E B u ) s $ s ! & ( q s & # w a p y s E ! u 2 ( ( x w ! 0 B w P ) ! % v ! E 0 ! $ r ! Q y ( 0 ! 3 ! w $ v s ( ! U 0 B $ x w f W w c v w # U x ! c ( v s x $ ) ) ` V $ ) u u ! x ! ! ! C x & t u ! 3 ( s ) 3 ! s E 3 r x 3 $ ! ( # # 0 q y v ( p e 2 Y U d U 2
Inexpensive Material Good Engineering Properties; Tailorable Valuable Offal - "Waste" Has Market Value Many Suppliers, Largely Indigenous Disadvantages Relatively High Density Corrosion - Necessitates Expensive Processing
Changes Thru 1970's

Steel Industry Ford's Vertical Integration Ultimately Viewed As Inefficient Integrated Steel Producers Focus Upon Specialized Materials and Processing Steel Industry Complacent About Automobile Customers Development Of Overseas Steel Production Capacity; Notably Japanese Producers/Innovators Automobile Industry By Mid-to-Late 1960's, Automobile Companies Develop Unibody Design Rules; Sheet Metal/Spot Welding Emphasis; Shell Structures; Lighter Weight By Mid-to-Late 1970's, Automobile Companies Reevaluating Need For In-House Materials Specialists
In Some Cases, Wholesale Decimation Of In-House Material Capabilities
1980's
Emergence Of New Design Imperatives; CAFE & CAA Start To Bite Increased Competition, In Both Automobile and Materials Industry Changing Roles For Both Weight Reduction Imperatives Lead To Two Major Design Trends Reduction In Vehicle Size -- "Downsizing" Changes In Vehicle Material Composition
i
New Major Vehicle Design Concept Emerges Space Frame Design Skins Not A Part Of Vehicle Structure; Relaxes Performance Requirements Pontiac Fiero -- A Success and a Failure
Fiero - A Demonstration Of Key Industry Weakness

k t j q 0 o ! ! i B U t q ) u E m t p 0 o ) j ( m 2 x ) o # ~ E ) z ) k $ ! 0 b o V q c C g } & # o E W | t ) j ! { b o ! z z ! P y ) ( o $ ! n 0 S m ! x % ( ( k 0 w 3 ! U v Q H j 0 H t u ! t # ! s $ B & h U C r H H q p ( o # ( n % % m l k j i h
Capitalized Upon By Polymer Industry In US, Steel Industry In Japan Development of Customized Materials And Processing Technologies Targeted At Automobile Applications Leading To Development Of Automobile Design Experience Outside Of Automobile OEMs and Design Houses Challenge To Entrenched Steel Suppliers And Steel Designers Slow To Respond Weak Responses When Made However, Able To Continue To Exploit Downsizing Strategy Through Much Of The 1980's Coupled With New Powerplant/Powertrain Development
1990's -- Emergence Of New Pressures

Lightweighting Through Materials Choice Brought Up Short By Recycling Issues Clean Air Act & Amendments, Rather Than CAFE, Industry Design Driver Fuel Economy As Air Pollution Reduction Alternative Fuels/Fuel Sources Need To Become Proactive About Vehicle Performance Safety Economy Environment Aggressive Polymer Development Blocked Recycling Issues Failure To Accomplish Promised Performance
Light Metals As Remaining Alternative

Aluminum Advantages Different Forming Techniques Less Dense Compatible With Current Steel Practice More Recyclable, In Principle, Than RP/C Glut On The Market Corrosion Resistant Disadvantages Different Forming Techniques Less Stiff Just Different Enough To Be Difficult Nastier Primary Extraction Processes Relatively Expensive Incompatible With Steel Fastening
Aluminum Suppliers Anxious To Develop New Markets Substantial Investment In Design, Process Technology Development Willing To Offer Price Stability Competing Concepts, Development
Aluminum Economics
More Expensive Than Steel Ingot -> Conversion -> Sheet Hard To Reduce Ingot Costs; Opportunities To Reduce Conversion Costs Differences In Forming and Assembly Won't Reduce Costs May Increase Cost Two Basic Approaches To Consider Cost More Lightweight Vehicle; Worth Additional Expense, or Redesign Product and Process To Control Costs Both Approaches Taken; Latter Relies Upon Major Supplier Innovation and Support
Automaker And Aluminum Development/Control Points

Stamping Development and Research At All OEMs Large Aluminum Panels As Classic EPA Weight Class Stopgap Effort To Move Beyond To Understand Forming Processes Aluminum Suppliers Believe OEM Know-How Still Inadequate Extrusion Development Technology Largely Retained By Aluminum Companies Especially Development Of Complex Extruded Geometries Casting Development Know-how Widely Dispersed Already Aluminum Companies Emphasize Metallurgical Know-how & Alloy Development Design Work OEMs Working To Develop Analytical, Rather Than Normative, Designs Aluminum Companies Exploiting Superior Materials Know-how In Design, Forming Technology Development, And Assembly Technology Development
Materials Technology: In Whose Hands?

Certainly Materials, Design & Forming Technology Originally Under OEM Control Suppliers As Producers Of What OEMs Ask For, Rather Than Active Partner Steel Emerged As Material Of Choice, With Associated Entrenchment In OEM Organizations Relative Inertia In Vehicle Structural Development Limited Value Of In-House Materials Know-How Normative Design Processes; Rules of Thumb; Cost vs. Performance Driven Reinforced Steel's Position; Led To Poor Understanding Of Steel Supplier Failings With Re-emergence Of Performance Requirements, Exposure Of Limitations However, Suppliers Demonstrated An Ability To Provide Design and Process Development As Part Of Material Sales Pitch Suppliers Emerge As Partner In Product Development
Does Control Of Materials Technology Mean Control Of Product Development?

On The Face Of It, No -- Not Yet, Anyway Barriers To Exploitation Of That Competency Limit Position Of Suppliers Requires A New Producer, Exploiting New Material Technology Effectively To Change That Relationship Aluminum Current Efforts In Aluminum Bodies Are Largely Evaluative, Rather Than Commitments OEMs Are Demanding Major Price Concessions In Order To Consider Aluminum; May Require Similar Technology Concessions, Especially In Forming Steel Remains Major Automotive Material, With Entrenched Investment Is No Longer The "Default" Automobile Material OEMs Investing To Become More Material Flexible Polymers May Yet Reemerge; Substantial Technological Development In Place Issue Of Effective Use Thereof

Materials Technology As Exemplar Of Emerging Technology Development Trend In Automaking

A Possible Evolution Initial Development Wholly Within OEM Domain As Suppliers Learn The OEM Business, Push To Develop Technology To Meet Customer Needs As Vehicle Challenges Become More Numerous and Difficult, OEM Relies Upon Supplier For More and More Technology Development OEM Ultimately Turns The Bulk Of Technology Development Over To Supplier
Effect: Transfer Of Technology/Development Risk From OEM To Supplier?
Diversification Of R&D Risk: Wide Range Of R&D Experiments

OEM Efforts Precompetitive Research Partnerships - USCAR Joint OEM-Government Program for a New Generation of Vehicles OEM-Supplier Efforts Subgroups Within USCAR Industry Associations/OEMs - e.g., ULSAB or Steel/Auto Partnership Product Efforts - Audi A-8/Alcoa; Ford Concept 2000/Alcan; Saturn EV-1/Alcoa&Alcan OEM/Suppliers/Government/Academics IMVP, University of Michigan, etc.
TWB Cost Modeling Assumptions

Laser Welding Line Cost two-axis CO2 laser weld station, 6 kW beam weaving capability load/unload automation Set-up Time Down Time in Welding Reject Rate in Welding Reject Rate in Stamping No. of Laborers High Strength Steel Price Scrap Price Welding Speed No precision shear or dimpling Aluminum Price Scrap Price Welding Speed Precision Shear Equipment
$3.3 million
7 second/weld 10 % 3% 1% 3/welding line 0.39 $/lb 0.05 $/lb 128 inches/minute
1.50 $/lb 0.30 $/lb 72 inches/minute $300,000

Tailor Welded Blank Considerations
Blank Holding Formability Precision Shear Laser System/ Mash Seam Welding Beam Issues
Steel Magnetic Possible difficulty at weld site Part dependent CO2 or Nd:YAG, MSW possible High quality desired
Aluminum Complex Fixturing Possible difficulty at weld site Almost always required CO2 or Nd:YAG MSW difficult High quality required, Higher power densities needed, Tightly focused beam Problems with oxide layer
Coatings
Problems with zinc coatings
Case 1 - Two Piece Outer Steel Body Side Design
Two piece outer design Quarter panel outer Door frame opening Necessary reinforcements
Case 2 - One Piece Outer Steel Body Side Design
One piece body side, ordinary blank Uniform thickness body side outer Necessary reinforcements
Case 3 - One Piece Steel Body Side Design
1.2 mm 1.5 mm 0.8 mm 1.4 mm
1.3 mm
1.2 mm
0.7 mm
1.8 mm
Number of Blanks: 8 Number of Welds: 9

Case 4 - One Piece Aluminum Body Side Design
2.0 mm 3.0 mm 2.4 mm
1.2 mm
Number of Blanks: 4 Number of Welds: 5
Cost Breakdown for Various Body Side Outer Designs ($/part)

Case 1: Steel Unibody

Case 2: Steel Unibody

Case 3: 1 piece Steel

Case 4: 1 piece Aluminum

Materials
$23.58 (21%) $1.48 (1%) (0%) $74.80 (66%) $13.76 (12%) $113.62
$23.49 (27%) $1.15 (1%) (0%) $51.76 (58%) $12.63 (14%) $89.03
$19.76 (38%) $2.08 (4%) $15.98 (30%) $14.64 (28%) (0%) $52.46
$45.63 (57%) $1.11 (1%) $11.64 (15%) $21.26 (27%) (0%) $79.64
Blanking Welding Stamping Assembly Total
Cost Breakdown for Tailor Welded Body Side Outers
Aluminum - $79.64
Material 57.3% Labor 9.6% Energy 2.2%
Steel - $52.46
Material 34.3%
Labor 4.2% Energy 0.9% Main Machine 9.0%
Maintenance Main Machine 2.3% 16.0% Aux. Equipment 1.8% Building 0.6% Fixed Overhead 4.8% Tooling 19.1%
Maintenance 4.1% Aux. Equipment 3.2% Tooling 20.6% Building 1.3% Fixed Overhead 8.6%
Sensitivity to Welding Speed for Aluminum TW Body Sides

90
80
Cost ($)
70
Aluminum Baseline Steel 1 Piece Baseline
60
50 50 70 90 110 130 150
Welding Speed (in/min)

Sensitivity to Weld Length in Al Design for Body Side Outers

$100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 50 70 90 110 130 150 Weld Length (in)
Aluminum 1 Piece Baseline
Cost ($)
Steel 1 Piece Baseline
Sensitivity to Aluminum Price for Body Side Outers

$100 $90
Cost ($/lb)
Aluminum Baseline
$80 $70 $60 $50

$1.00 $1.10 $1.20 $1.30 $1.40 $1.50 $1.60 $1.70 $1.80
Steel 1 Piece Baseline
Aluminum Price ($)


Aluminum Spaceframe Design Layout

Vehicle Design Philosophy and Specifications

Steel Unibody
Aluminum Unibody
Stamping 615 310 Extrusion Die Casting --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------Total 615 310 305
Aluminum Spaceframe SF-1 105 200
Aluminum Spaceframe SF-2 95 149 40
Aluminum Spaceframe SF-3 112 145 75
----------------- ----------------284 332
Unibody vs. Spaceframe Design Single Material Type vs. Metal Mix Multiple Joining Techniques
Cost Results: Aluminum Part Forming Processes

$25
$20
Die Casting
Cost/lb ($)
$15
$10
Stamping
$5
Extrusion
$0

Assumptions Concerning Cost Assessment

Part Production Spaceframe: Multiple Designs Unibody Designs: Single Design For Entire Production Volume Range
# 0 % & # $ ' $ # S ! 0 ( $ 3 # $ 3 3 ! $ # Q ! h $ X ( ! C ( $ Q ! ) ' ! % 0 % X ( $ G ' G G E G $ 0 A % # ( " ! X ( ) ! Q $ ! B 0 # a R ) ! ! P E 0 ( ) ! ! U C ! ! E P P # # a ) ) 0 # $ ( 0 ! ! & 0 0 U # 0 # ! % $ ) $ ( 0 & # # G # 3 $ 2 W G ( 0 ' ( G $ 2 Y & ( G $ ! $ I ' 0 ( ( " H ! ! # ) ! 1 C Y 1 0 $ b # ! S X X V P # ) G G $ ) G G ' # G G ! 0 G G 3 ( I % V I ) 0 " c ! A P % ) # # ) ! ) ! ! W ! 3 Y U
Assembly Unibodies: Spot Welding, Adhesive Bonding Spaceframes: Arc/Spot Welding, Adhesive Bonding, Mech. Fastening Assumption of Two BIW Assembly Setups:
X
Production Cost Results
Annual Production Volume 20,000 $4,472 N/A $6,073 $7,249 $5,774
Annual Production Volume 100,000 N/A $2,925 $2,791 $3,602 $2,545
Annual Production Volume 300,000 N/A N/A $2,404 $2,058 $1,417
Spaceframe SF-1 Spaceframe SF-2 Spaceframe SF-3 Aluminum Unibody Steel Unibody
BIW Production Cost Breakdown
BIW Production Cost

$9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0
20,000 BIW/Year 100,000 BIW/Year 300,000 BIW/Year
St. Unib. SF-1 Al. Unib. SF-3
Al. Unib. SF-3 St. Unib. SF-2
St. Unib. SF-3 Al. Unib.
Assembly Part Production

Conclusions
Cost Spaceframe Cost Effective at Low Production Volumes Aluminum Designs Compete with Steel Unibody:
& ! & % ! $ ) 0 ) # 2 ! ) " ! 3 # $ c ) ! ) ! # a # a # 0 # % 0 % & # & $ # ' $ ' A # Y 0 ! 0 # 2 0 B E ! # ) ) ! $ 0 G V G ( c G $ " S H # ' ! 0 % % & ! ( $ " " # 3 U S c
Airborne Emissions Aluminum Designs Always Better for Pollutants Associated with Use Aluminum Burdened by Process Related Emissions in Mining/Refining Even if Tradeoffs between Cost-Emissions Are Not Considered, Aluminum Vehicles May Be Commercially Successful.
Latest Steel-Aluminum Body Competition

Past MSL Work Focused On Space Frame Concepts Some Evaluation of Advanced Sheet Metal Processes New Thinking In Body Concepts Emerging More Refined Aluminum Designs
Mixed Metal Concepts - Aluminum & Steel Exotic Material Processing Options & Body Designs
Composite / Steel Cost Comparison: Utility

Composites offer the following:
Advantages Parts Consolidation Opportunities Primary / Secondary Weight Savings Low Investment Costs Increased Design Flexibility Disadvantages Materials and Labor Intensive Process Long Cycle Times Non-traditional Manufacturing Technology What is the competitive position of composite parts compared to its steel comparator?
Cost Analysis: Methodology

Composites Vehicle Design Ford Composite Intensive Vehicle (CIV) Complete Body in White : 8 pieces BIW Weight : approx. 300 kg Steel Comparator Honda Odyssey minivan Based on Accord chassis, so comparable size BIW Weight : approx. 400 kg Use steel stamping and assembly models to estimate Odyssey's BIW cost Use RTM and composites assembly models to estimate CIV's BIW cost Identify key process variables, cost drivers, necessary technical improvements
Preforming
Cut Reinforcement Material Thermoform Trim
Foam Core / Preform Subassembly
Resin Transfer Molding
Trim/Inspect
Trim Reaction Injection Mold Cure
Resin Transfer Molding
Foam Core Molding

General RTM Cost Model Structure

Inputs:
Material Composition Part Geometry Preform, Foam Core Geometry Exogenous Cost Factors Process Conditions Parameter Estimation Data Tooling Cost Estimation Number of Tools Cycle Time Estimation Machine Cost Estimation Number of Machines
Secondary Calculations:
Cost Estimation per Operation and Cost Summary
Resin Transfer Molding Cycle Time Estimation

Cycle Time = Preparation Time + Fill Time + Cure Time Preparation Time:
C W ! ) ) ( W U E 0 ( # 2 ! & E # 0 ( ! # b 2 0 ! ! ) E # 2 1 ! ) ! ( ! 3 R ! & # Q E 0 ( ! ! 2 ! & % # ( ' Q
Fill Time:
( & ! Q ) # $ # ' B E # $ B 0 A # S " # ) A # ( 0 Y 3 ) R C % $ E ) ! b b & # # & ! Q ) V ( U X
Cure Time:
f # ) $ ! P # ! $ 2 0 0 ( ! $ % ! 0 $ ! ' & ! $ 0 # ( " $ ! ) ! 3 ! ( P T & ( % # 3 Q C 0 ) 0 # ( $ 0 " ) ) 0 # % ( 0 ) ) # ! 2 B $ ! 0 $ ( d "
RTM Fill and Cure Equations

Fill Time Based on application of D'Arcy's Law: Q = -(KA/m) dp/dx, where Q = volumetric flow rate, K=permeability, A=cross-sectional area, m=viscosity and dp/dx = pressure gradient Assumptions:
& " C 0 ) # % ) P 0 ( 0 ) # % ! A # W " ) ) ( ! $ $ 3 ! B 0 # % # )
Cure Time dc/dt = (k1 + k2 c^m) (1-c)^n, where c=degree of conversion, k1 and k2 are Arrhenius constants, and m,n are empirical constants Assume m = 0, n = 2,
" # $ ! # 0 ! % $ ( E " ! & ( 0 % ! ! $ # 0 3 ( V $ ! ! H ! 3 $ 3 ! 0 & ! # $ ! B A T 0 f % H ( F 0 d ) 1 % # V % f ) T ( E 1 c d 3 V C ! E f $ ! 1 F d ! # ! 0 ( P T 0 % ! $ ( 2 c
f
& # Q ! $ ) ) ! $ ' # 0 % ! ) ! 0 $ ! 3 # 0 $ ' ! ( $ !
! %
0 $
( # "
Q !
$
) )
! # !
& #
!
( ) $ E
$ ! #
! P
W
#
S #
d %
"
RTM Fill Time Process Flow

Rectilinear Calculation Constant Flow or Pressure? Rectilinear or Radial Flow? Radial Calculation Rectilinear or Radial Flow? Rectilinear Calculation
Line Source or Sink?
Line Source Calculation
Line Sink Calculation

RTM Machine and Tooling Cost Equations

Machine Cost = C1 + C2 x (Clamping Force Requirement) + C3 x (Platen Area) C1, C2, C3 : regression constants Clamping Force = f(maximum injection pressure, mold geometry and mold design) Tooling Cost = C1 + C2 x (Part Weight)^C3 + C4 x (Part Surface Area) C1, C2, C3, C4 : regression constants, dependent on tool material Tool Material Options
! ! 0 U
Effect of Mold Design on Fill Time and Machine Cost

Fill Time (sec) Rectilinear, Constant Flow Rectilinear, Constant Pressure Radial Source, Constant Pressure Radial Sink, Constant Pressure 12.15 Mold Force (N) 5.4 x 106 Press Cost ($) $3,012,346
249.11
4.03 x 105
$355,782
233.45
9.04 x 104
$176,850
15.54
1.36 x 106
$903,743
Flow Length = 1.4m (Rectilinear), 0.7m (Radial) Initial Injection Pressure = 5 x 105 N

RTM Cost Modeling Assumptions

Materials Prices: Resin (Vinyl Ester) Filler (Calcium Carbonate) Reinforcement:
Q U $ 2 ! $ W ! W S S # ) W ) $ ( ( 2
$2.60 / kg $0.13 / kg $2.00 / kg $11.00 / kg $6.50 / kg $3.24 / kg $2.54 / kg
Catalyst Foam Core (Polyurethane)
Foam Core Molding, Thermoforming and RTM Tool Material: Steel RTM Flow: Rectilinear, Constant Pressure 32 Steel Inserts
Key Carbon Fiber Design Assumptions for CIV

Use simple beam loading equations to estimate the equivalent thickness of carbon fiber part compared its glass fiber equivalent Ratio of moduli determines the thickness of the carbon fiber part Elastic Modulus (Msi):
I h G F $ $ ! ! W W " " ) ) # ( W $ E ( c 2
Part thickness for glass fiber component : 3 mm Results Part thickness:

h G h ) ) $ ( ! W " 1 # # W W $ $ ( ( 2 2
Relative Weight assuming calculated thicknesses (Glass fiber = 1.0)

I ) ) $ ( ! W " 1 # # W W $ $ ( ( 2 2
Key SMC Design Assumptions for CIV

SMC part thickness : 4 mm Reinforcing rib structure placed every 150 mm Reinforcing rib dimensions Length = 150 mm Height and Width are dependent on part geometry Foam cores assumed in parts where crush resistance is necessary Front End rails Floorpan SMC part is composed of two halves forming a closed section
Rib
Rib Pattern Part Cross-Section

& h
X )
) )
) (
(
1
#
# W
W $
$ (
( 2
Comparison of Part Weights (including CIV inserts)
Steel SMC Glass Fiber Carbon/Glass Carbon Fiber 0 100

172 193.6 241.3 286.2
367.9
200
300
400
Weight (Kg)
Bodyside Floorpan Cross Member Front End Roof
$3,000
$2,500 Steel RTM Glass RTM Carb RTM Ca/Gl SMC
$2,000
$1,500
SMC-Steel Break-even Point: ~ 30,000 vehicles/yr
RTM Glass-Steel Break-even Point: ~ 35,000 vehicles/yr

30 35 40 50 60
$1,000
10 20
Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

(Composites Wage: $25/hr)
Manufacturing Cost Breakdown: Glass vs Carbon Fiber

$2,000
Other Fixed Tooling Equipment Energy Labor Materials
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0 Glass (Volume = 35,000) Carbon Car/Gla
Cost per Kilogram Saved (Relative to Steel Base Case)

$5 $4
Cost per Kg Saved
$3 $2 $1 $0 ($1) ($2) ($3) ($4) ($5) 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000) RTM Carb SMC RTM Glass RTM Ca/Gl
$200
Steel: RTM: SMC: 9 parts 2 Parts 1 Part
Steel RTM SMC 5%
$150
$100
SMC 30%
$50 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
$800
teel: RTM: SMC:
$700
57 parts 2 parts + 20 inserts 9 parts + 20 inserts
$600
$500
Steel RTM
SMC 5% SMC 30%
$400 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Hybrid Vehicle Scenarios

$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200
Hybrid 30%
Hybrid Vehicle Bodyside: SMC (5-30% Scrap) Floorpan/Cross Member: RTM Front End: RTM Roof: Steel
Steel Hybrid 5%
RTM SMC
$1,000 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145
Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Hybrid Vehicle Scenarios

$2,000
Hybrid Vehicle Bodyside: SMC (5-30% Scrap) Floorpan/Cross Member: RTM Front End: RTM Roof: Steel
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
Steel Hybrid 5% Hybrid 30% RTM SMC 0 50 56 92 100 150
$1,200
$1,000 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Hybrid Vehicles: Cost per Kilogram Saved

$5 $4 $3
Cost per Kg Saved
$2 $1 $0 ($1) ($2) ($3) ($4) ($5) 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
RTM SMC Hybrid 5% Hybrid 30%
Total cost of composites BIW is competitive with steel at low production volumes (< 40,000 per year) Carbon Fiber Use of carbon fiber significantly reduces BIW weight Material price for carbon fiber is too high to justify use in BIW applications SMC SMC design requires reinforcing ribs and box sections, which increase weight, tooling costs and assembly costs SMC can be competitive with RTM BIW, given design assumptions Subsystems Parts consolidation is a significant advantage for composites
$ ! P # ) ) # $ % G G G G I ! ! 0 ) # B 0 0 ( A & $ ! # P ) # ) # ) % # $ ) 0 % $ ( # 3 B E # B 0 ( $ & ! W # ) ! # Q % ) ) 0 ) $ # ( $ 3 2 1 A # ( 3 $ " # # # # S
Designs must minimize material waste Hybrid vehicles can potentially become competitive with steel at high production volumes
$ ! P # ) ) # $ % A # ) 0 ) # % ( $ ! 0 ( B E B # 0 ( & # ) # % 0 ( % " E ) ! & ) C & # X

Future of Automotive Body Materials

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Future of Automotive Body Materials

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Future of Automotive Body Materials: Steel, Aluminum & Polymer Composites

Is It Time For A Leap To A New Vehicle Technology?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

"Hypercars" Are Not The Answer

Is Radical Innovation The Answer?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Automobile Recycling Technology & Strategic Implications For Recycling Policy

AQM gives Conc (t,x)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Base Case: Convergence for Steel

SO4 Se Zn Cr AsH3 FN2) Cd H2S C20H12 C6H6 CO SO2 NOx CO2

Extraction Processing Use

Base Case: Convergence for Aluminum

V Co NH3 B Ni N2O As Cd Pb HCl Cu HF SO2 PAH CO2

Extraction Processing Use

BIW Demonstration Analysis

Fuel Economy: 22 MPG for Steel

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Basis for Comparison

Environmental Damage Cost Comparisons

400 300 200 100

0 Steel Aluminum ULSAB

400 300 200 100 0 Steel ULSAB Aluminum

Toxics Criteria GHGs

Sources of Environmental Damage for Each Material

$37 $41 $50 $128

$33 $40 $67 $121 $0 $40 $80 $120

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sensitivity of $/kg of SO2 to Changes in Assumptions

0 0 1E-05 2E-05 3E-05 4E-05 5E-05 6E-05 7E-05 8E-05

Low Value in Literature 8E-7

Base Case Value 2.4E-5

High Value in Literature 7.2E-5

Sensitivity of Steel-Aluminum Ranking to $/kg Valuations

Low Mortality $2.40/kg

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Distance to Crossover for Steel and Al

0 2 4 6 Log10 [Crossover$/kg / Base$/kg]

(In)Sensitivity of Aluminum-Steel Ranking

Sensitivity of Aluminum-ULSAB Ranking

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sensitivity of ULSAB-Aluminum Ranking to Changes in Inventory Allocation Assumptions

ULSAB $310 Aluminum @ k=2 $279 Aluminum @ k=1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Automobile Product Innovation

Where Is This Innovation Coming From?

Materials Technology & Automobiles

Consequences For Ford Need To Become Steel Specialists

Materials Refining & Processing

Subassembly/ Component Manufacture Vehicle Assembly

Vehicle Distribution, Sale & Use

At The Peak Of Their Integration, Active In All These Aspects