w w w . a u t o s t e e l .

o r g
Estimating Secondary Mass Changes in Vehicle Design with
Application to the

Design Advisor
Donald E. Malen
University of Michigan
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Cost
GHG
Secondary
mass
Sensitivity
Analysis
Graphic Dash
Board
Design Advisor
Design Advisor- Excel Workbook to support material selection decisions
Component
benchmarking
and scaling
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Material selection decisions often occur early in the design process




Product
Planning
Detail
Validation Production
Context for Design Advisor
Stamped Steel,10 kg
Cast Magnesium, 6 kg
advise the
decision
Design
Advisor
limited
available
information
Vehicle
Mass
Cost
LC GHG
Sedan/Hatchback
5 passenger
100 kg cargo

Powertrain Gas-IC
4.7 m
1.8 m


Configuration
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Design Advisor Solution Map
Sensitivity
analysis
5-
Sensitivity
analysis
Cost savings
for resized
subsystems
Cost for part
Vehicle mass
savings
Environment
impact

Material



Use



Recycle
4-Vehicle
comparison
summary
Compare
vehicles
3-Resize
nominal
vehicle for
competitor
component
Resize nominal
vehicle for
component
change
3a-Input
component
and part data



3b-Scale
component for
nominal
vehicle
Component
technology
1-Define
nominal
vehicle
2-Size
powertrain for
nominal
vehicle
Define
nominal
vehicle
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Marginal trade off ratios
stacked bar chart
shows relative
performance
Total
LCA for
each
vehicle
Example: Summary output
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
$27.37
performance worse
for resized vehicle
performance better
for resized vehicle
performance better
for resized vehicle
relative component cost
relative subsystem cost
relative fuel savings -$18.75
-1.89
net cost difference $25.48 worse
for resized when only product cost
is considered
net cost difference $6.73
worse for resized when fuel
savings is considered
0
- $1.89
$18.75
- $6.73
Summary Output - Graphs
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
relative mass
reduction for
resized
relative cost
reduction for
resized
both metrics are better for resized vehicle
both metrics are worse for resized vehicle
one metric is better, one worse for resized vehicle
Trade-off ratio significant
= -2.61
Summary Output- Trade off ratios
T.O.R.= A product cost
A mass
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
difference
607.12 worse for
resized vehicle
Summary Output- Life Cycle GHG
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Body loads
reduced
Chassis
loads
reduced
fuel tank
capacity reduced
Aachener Karosserietage 2012 (VW AG)
Engine power reduced
for same performance
Primary and Secondary Mass Change

Secondary
mass
change

due to
resizing
other
subsystems


0.519
0.342
0.406
0.684
Simple Compounded
Secondary mass change
1kg primary mass change
Regression method
Analytical method
SAE 2013-01-0655





Steel10 kg Mag. 6 kg
Primary mass
change
- 8 kg
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Vehicle type: Hatchback
L=4.2 m
W=1.750 m
100 kg cargo
New architecture
Internal Combustion-gasoline
Powertrain is fixed and will not change
6. liter/100 km (HYZEM schedule)
Life time range =155,000 km
Original
Component

AHSS
Stamped
14.66 kg
Competitor
Component

Aluminum-wrought
Stamped
11.00 kg
hood area, A=1.5 m
2
Component: Hood Plans for 20xx vehicle
Area=2 m
2
Area=2 m
2

Case Study 2- Hood
Lightweight Vehicle Consortium
J. Dahmus and R. Roth, 2008
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel)
Benchmarking and Scaling
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
We have mass information on
a hood from a previous study
The nominal vehicle has
different hood size
How should we scale this mass
data to represent the mass of a
hood for the nominal vehicle?
m
HOOD
=14.66 kg m
HOOD
=?
A=2.0 m
2
A=1.5 m
2
Scaling Component Mass
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Subsystem
Attributes
system
Attributes
Component
Interaction
Mass Drivers determined by statistical significance
(

=
Aluminum
Steel Conv.
m Area m
00 . 1
65 . 1
) ( 28 . 4
24 . 1 2
0
10
20
benchmarking-130 hoods
c
24 . 1

=
B
A
B
A
Area
Area
m
m
resulting scaling equation
Hood
frame
mass
kg
5
15
25
0 1 2 3
Area m
2
Scaling Component Mass
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
door
frame
hood
frame
deck lid
frame
lift gate
frame
hatch
frame
wheel
knuckle
front seat
frame
instrument
panel beam
bumper
beam
body
shell
exhaust
Lower
control arm
599 . 0 2 438 . 0
) , ( ) , ( 418 . 3 m Area kg GVM m =
Closures Chassis Body
24 . 1 2
) ( 28 . 4 m Area m =
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
SLA
McPherson
kg FGAM m
00 . 1
571 . 0
) , ( 343 . 0
478 . 0
Scaling Component Mass
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel)
Summary Results (Same powertrain size)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel)
Summary Results (Powertrain resized)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
What is fuel consumption for
resized vehicle?
M
NOMINAL

Fuel consumption
NOMINAL
Resized vehicle
M
RESIZED
=M
NONMINAL
+ AM


Fuel consumption
RESIZED
=?

AM
Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity
M
NOMINAL

Fuel consumption=6.2 l/100 km

Nominal vehicle
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Fuel Consumption (l/100km)
0
5 10 15
m=
2195 kg
m=
1655 kg
235 kW
4.5 liter
183 kW
0-60 mph
acceleration
time (s)
Powertrain displacement fixed
0.190 l/100 km/100 kg
US combined, IC-Gasoline
fka, Schulte-Corne, Claus, et al., Determination of weight influence on the energy consumption
Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
US combined, IC-Gasoline
Fuel Consumption (l/100km)
Acceleration fixed (engine downsized)
0
5 10 15
235 kW
4.5 liter
183 kW
0-60 mph
acceleration
time (s)
0.415 l/100 km/100 kg
m=
2195 kg
m=
1655 kg
Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
HYZEM NEDC
Comp Mid SUV
US comb
0.45
resize PT
20 mi
range
40 mi
range
A
Class
C
Class
0
no resize
1) reduced
sensitivity to
mass change

2) reduced
sensitivity to
powertrain
resizing
1000 2000
vehicle mass kg
Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity
liters/100 km/100 kg
Internal
combustion
Parallel
Hybrid
Fuel
Cell
Plug-in
Hybrid
Electric
Battery
Electric
Gas
Diesel
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Material Primary
Process
Total
Mass
(kg)
Steel-AHSS Hydroform 7.81
Aluminum Stamping 6.77
All hatchbacks have surface area=1.0 m
2
Case Study 3- Hatchback closure
Lightweight Vehicle Consortium
J. Dahmus and R. Roth, September 11, 2008
Results Summary Hatchback
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Case Study 3- Hatchback closure
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
100,000 parts
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
AHSS Steel Aluminum SMC Composite
20.43
26.31
59.88
D.A. Rigorous
Part
Cost









D.A. Rigorous D.A. Rigorous
28.99
67.85
30.83
Case Study 3- Hatchback closure
Shaping Cost Estimation
Lightweight Vehicle Consortium
J. Dahmus and R. Roth
Assembly Cost
Part Production Cost
Material Cost
Other
Labor
Equipment
Tooling
More
information
required to
estimate these
than is input to
Design Advisor
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
CES Process Selection Software, 2011
First Order Part Shaping Cost Model
Steel Stamping
Steel Tailor Welded Blank Stamping
Steel Hot Stamping

Steel Open Roll Form

Steel Tubular Hydroforming


Steel Forging


Iron Casting
Composite Sheet Molding
Compound

Composite Resin Transfer
NonFerrous Stamping

NonFerrous Forging

NonFerrous Extrusion

NonFerrous Die Casting
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

+
(

+
(

=
WO
C T M
t L
C
n

n
C

f
C m
C

1
1
material
cost
tooling
cost
equipment
cost
part mass (kg)
0
2
4
6
10 20
10
6
$

10
6
$

part mass (kg)
0
1
2
3
10 20
3.16 4.94
($/kg)
Al
Mg
NonFerrous
Stamping
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
255 213
1975
328

Contemporary
steel mix
AHSS Alum
Sedan
5 passengers
100 kg cargo
L=4938 mm
W=1831
IC gasoline
HYZEM
life time range 155,000km
ability to resize all
subsystems including
powertrain
GVM
used to size
component
1600
164
Carbon
fiber
1600 1600
Component: Body structure 2011 Honda Accord
Body
structure
mass (kg)
Case Study 4- Body Material
, H. Singh
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
curb 1534.431471 kg
HYZEM 7.27.0 l/100km
Case Study 4- Body Material
(Conv. Steel vs. AHSS)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
curb 1534.431411 kg
HYZEM7.2 6.84 l/100km
Case Study 4- Body Material
(Conv. Steel vs. Alum)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
curb 1534.431341 kg
HYZEM 7.2 6.64 l/100km
Case Study 4- Body Material
(Conv. Steel vs. Carbon fiber)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
fuel consumption material production shaping
process
fuel production
recycling
C
O
2
Material Production Stage
ECO
2
Life Cycle Assessment of
Green House Gas
C
O
2
C
O
2
C
O
2
C
O
2
Use Stage End of life LCA
Design Advisor uses models and parameters from UCSB GHG Model, R. Geyer, 2013
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Material Production and
Recycling GHG
1 kg
Finishing
material in
vehicle
prompt
scrap
CO
2
Produced
Material Production Part Forming
to secondary
production
which offsets
primary
production
recycled from mfg process
recycled from vehicle
used in primary
production
Primary
production
Secondary
production
Material Production Recycling
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Multiple Metrics
Mass including subsystem resizing
Cost
Life Cycle GHG

Use information available during preliminary design
5 pieces of info about each component
7 pieces of info about vehicle
Parameters for models are pre-loaded

Very quick analysis time
<5 minutes data entry
<30 seconds for computations

Accuracy sufficient for A-B comparison
Uses rigorous analytical models

Graphic display to promote What-if studies and
understanding of trade-offs
Summary: Design Advisor for Preliminary
Material Selection Decisions
B>A
-Length, Width
-passengers, cargo
-Powertrain type
-Fuel type
-component mass
-material
-manufacturing
component vehicle
mass
cost
GHG
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
www.worldautosteel.org
-Download Design Advisor Free
-Free Workshop
See the bookmark and invitation included in your bag.
Also available at worldautosteel.org :
Estimation of Secondary Mass Effects in Vehicle Design white paper
Design Advisor workshop: June 7
SMDI Offices, Southfield
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
todays event
PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE MAY 3