auto/steel partnership lightweight front end structure .../media/files/autosteel/great...auto/steel...
TRANSCRIPT
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Auto/Steel PartnershipLightweight Front End Structure –
Hydroform Solution and Cost Analysis
Sanjay ShahGeneral Motors Corporation
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
AUTO/STEEL PARTNERSHIP MEMBERS
John Catterall (GM) / Jody Shaw (USS) – Project Leaders
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Background
Auto/Steel Partnership project on Lightweight Front End Structure using AHSS
Motivation for using AHSS:- Mass avoidance - Adequate performance- Lower overall cost
Phase I : Optimize ULSAB design using AHSSPhase II : Optimize Front Rail and Bumper system
of ’04 high volume production vehicle - Stamping Based
Phase III : - Hydroform Based
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Donor Vehicle Baseline Design
Components 27 stampingsSteel Grade BH210 & HSLA340Weight 39.2 kg
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Phase II : LWB Stamped Solution
Components 12 stampingsSteel Grade DP780Mass 30.5 kgMass Savings 22.4%
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Phase III : Hydroform Design Approach
- Use same approach for optimization of Front Rail and Bumper Beam using available packaging space as in Phase II - LWB Stamped design
- Meet all the performance objectives 35 mph NCAP frontal crash, 40 mph IIHS frontal off-set crash, static stiffness and dynamic stiffness
- Optimize design for mass by incrementally pushing manufacturing frontier (expanding knowledge)
- Follow general tube hydroforming mfg. guidelines (% expansion, bend radius, corner radius etc..)
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Solstice Structure
DP590T, 1.8mm Hydroform Rails
Current State of Art for Hydroforming – in production
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Hydroform Solution
Max tube expansion 8%
Min cornerradius to 10mm
Min bend radius to tube diameter ratio of 2.5
Max tube expansion 8%
Min cornerradius to 10mm
Min bend radius to tube diameter ratio of 2.5
Bumper - DP980 to Martensitic 1300Hydroform – DP600 to DP800
- Optimize using DoE for Gage and Grade
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Bumper (Inner and Outer)Mart 1300 1.2mmMart 1300 1.0mm
Rail ADP800 1.2mmDP800 1.3mm
Rail BDP800 1.3mmDP800 1.3mm
Rail CDP800 1.4mmDP600 1.4mm
Rail DDP800 2.0mmDP800 2.0mm
Rail EDP800 1.4mmDP600 1.4mm Rail F
DP800 1.3mmDP600 1.3mm
Tube Diameter (O.D.) = 108.6mm
Design 2 - Progressive CollapseSteel Grade DP800Mass 28.8 kgMass Savings 26.5%
Design 3 – Non-Progressive CollapseSteel Grade DP600 and DP800Mass 26.8 kgMass Savings 31.8%
Hydroform Solution
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Crash Simulation
35 mph full frontal NCAP – Design 2
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
35 mph NCAPDesign 2
SIMULATION RUN 35mph NCAP
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
35 mph NCAP Design 3
SIMULATION RUN 35 mph NCAP
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Crash Simulation Results
Crash Target Satisfied
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Stiffness Results
Design
Static Torsional(Nm/deg)
StaticBending(N/mm)
DynamicTorsional
(Hz)
DynamicBending
(Hz)
Baseline 21,002 12,639 21.1 24.4Design 2 20,482 12,399 24.8 26.3Design 3 20,454 12,387 24.9 26.4
Stiffness
Stiffness Target Satisfied
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Hydroform Solution - Mass Sensitivity
- Mass sensitivity of Bumper & Hydrof. Frt. Rail to mass of vehicle- By reducing mass of donor vehicle by 20%, additional mass savings of 12% to 18% in hydrof. rail & bumper system
Rail ADP800 1.0mm
Rail BDP600 1.4mm
Rail CDP800 1.3mm
Rail DDP600 1.4mm
Rail EDP600 1.3mm Rail F
DP600 1.0mm
Hydroform Design Option 2Mart 1300 1.0mmBumper (Inner and Outer)
Rail ADP800 1.0mm
Rail BDP600 1.4mm
Rail CDP800 1.3mm
Rail DDP600 1.4mm
Rail EDP600 1.3mm Rail F
DP600 1.0mm
Hydroform Design Option 2Mart 1300 1.0mmBumper (Inner and Outer) Mass Reduction
Design B =15.6kg (39.8%)
Mass = 23.6 kg
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Expanding Mfg. Systems with current challenges:
- Tubes from AHSS (DP800 and DP600)- Tubes with D/t > 70 (thin wall tubing)- Tailored tubes (Soudronic, Mubea,
Thyssen -Krupp, Noble International, Corus etc.)
Manufacturing Frontier
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
0,000,200,400,600,801,001,201,401,601,802,00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Rohrlänge in mm
Wan
dstä
rke
in m
m
HSLA420 TRBflexible rolled
1.0 > 1.6 > 1.8 > 1.6 > 1.0 > 1.4 > 1.0
tube length in mm
Shee
t met
al th
ickn
ess
in m
m
Flexible Rolling of Tailor Rolled Blanks
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Tailored Tubes
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Volvo C70 A pillar – Hydroform
Variable Wall and Diameter
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Expanding Mfg. Systems with current challenges:
- Tubes from AHSS (DP800 and DP600)- Tubes with D/t > 70 (thin wall tubing)- Tailored tubes (Soudronic, Mubea,
Thyssen -Krupp, Noble International, Corus etc.)
Manufacturing Frontier
- Hydroforming of AHSS, Tailored Tubes
- Joining Methods for closed section partsArc welding, Laser welding, Single Sided Spot Welding, Projection Welding, Adhesive, Mechanical Fastening etc..
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Assembly
RailFront Cradle Mount
Rear Cradle Mount
Torque Box(not shown)
Front & RearPanel Skirt
Tie Bar Extensions
Bumper
Welding to floor(MIG or spot)
Components and Joining : MIG welding chosen as primary method
Stamped rail shown
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
888
10------
9 .130 .400 .40
796 143675
888
10------
9 .130 .400 .40
796 143675
42.52
---
6.39
5.36
30.77
Weight(kg)
---
35
1
2
32
# of Parts
Hydroformings
TOTAL
Rollformings
Tailored Blanks
Stampings
------
31.6520
------
18.906
12.7514
Weight (kg)
# of Parts
12
2
---
---
10
# of Parts
20.60
28.85
---
---
8.25
Weight (kg)
Stamped Base Hydroform
BoltsRivets
MIG Welds (m)Spot Welds
BoltsRivets
MIG Welds (m)Spot Welds
888
10------
9 .130 .400 .40
796 143675
888
10------
9 .130 .400 .40
796 143675
42.52
---
6.39
5.36
30.77
Weight(kg)
---
35
1
2
32
# of Parts
42.52
---
6.39
5.36
30.77
Weight(kg)
---
35
1
2
32
# of Parts
Hydroformings
TOTAL
Rollformings
Tailored Blanks
Stampings
Hydroformings
TOTAL
Rollformings
Tailored Blanks
Stampings
------
31.6520
------
18.906
12.7514
Weight (kg)
# of Parts
------
31.6520
------
18.906
12.7514
Weight (kg)
# of Parts
12
2
---
---
10
# of Parts
20.60
28.85
---
---
8.25
Weight (kg)
12
2
---
---
10
# of Parts
20.60
28.85
---
---
8.25
Weight (kg)
Stamped Base Hydroform
BoltsRivets
MIG Welds (m)Spot Welds
BoltsRivets
MIG Welds (m)Spot Welds
Components and Joining
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Cost Modeling Approach
General Inputs
AccountingData
ProductionVolumes
Fabrication& Assembly Process Data
MaterialPrices
StampingPress
Information
AssemblyMethod
Data
Body Results
Cost SummaryBy Hood
Stamping CostSummary per Part
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost Results
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Body InputsStampingPartDescription
StampingData
BlankingData
AssemblySubassemblyList
Joining Methods
HydroformingPartDescription
HydroformData
TubeData
Body CalculationsStampingCost Breakdowns Process Data
AssemblyCosts for EachJoining Method
Predicted LineDescription
HydroformingCost Breakdowns Process Data
General Inputs
AccountingData
ProductionVolumes
Fabrication& Assembly Process Data
MaterialPrices
StampingPress
Information
AssemblyMethod
Data
General Inputs
AccountingData
ProductionVolumes
Fabrication& Assembly Process Data
MaterialPrices
StampingPress
Information
AssemblyMethod
Data
Body Results
Cost SummaryBy Hood
Stamping CostSummary per Part
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost Results
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Body Results
Cost SummaryBy Hood
Stamping CostSummary per Part
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost Results
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Cost SummaryBy Front
End
Cost Summary per Part & by Process
Assembly Summary per Subass’y
Body InputsStampingPartDescription
StampingData
BlankingData
AssemblySubassemblyList
Joining Methods
HydroformingPartDescription
HydroformData
TubeData
Body InputsStampingPartDescription
StampingData
BlankingData
AssemblySubassemblyList
Joining Methods
HydroformingPartDescription
HydroformData
TubeData
Body CalculationsStampingCost Breakdowns Process Data
AssemblyCosts for EachJoining Method
Predicted LineDescription
HydroformingCost Breakdowns Process Data
Body CalculationsStampingCost Breakdowns Process Data
AssemblyCosts for EachJoining Method
Predicted LineDescription
HydroformingCost Breakdowns Process Data
Camanoe Associates
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Total Cost
At 225,000 units/year
II
III
- Greenfield approach, Process based costing,, Dedicated Tooling cost, % Equipment Cost
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Cost Analysis
Dedicated Tooling Investment
Stamped Base HydroformStamped Base Hydroform
$5.0M$4.1M$4.4MAssembly
---$8.7M$2.4MTailored Blank Stampings
$19.5M
---$0.2M
$12.5M
$15.2M$20.6MTOTAL
$5.1M---Hydroformings------Rollformings
$5.1M$7.8MStampings
$5.0M$4.1M$4.4MAssembly
---$8.7M$2.4MTailored Blank Stampings
$19.5M
---$0.2M
$12.5M
$15.2M$20.6MTOTAL
$5.1M---Hydroformings------Rollformings
$5.1M$7.8MStampings
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Cost Analysis
Variable and Fixed CostStamped Base HydroformStamped Base Hydroform
$123$101$111TOTAL FIXED COST
*Includes labor and energy
$82$102$103TOTAL VARIABLE COST
$40$37$40Other Fixed Costs#
and overhead#Includes building, maintenance,
$39$46$54Other Variable Costs*
$214
$23$48
$49
$205$203TOTAL UNIT COST
$18$24Tooling Cost$65$40Equipment Cost
$43$56Material Cost
$123$101$111TOTAL FIXED COST
*Includes labor and energy
$82$102$103TOTAL VARIABLE COST
$40$37$40Other Fixed Costs#
and overhead#Includes building, maintenance,
$39$46$54Other Variable Costs*
$214
$23$48
$49
$205$203TOTAL UNIT COST
$18$24Tooling Cost$65$40Equipment Cost
$43$56Material Cost
II III
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
Detail Report at http://www.a-sp.org
Thank You
Hydroform based structure can provide mass and cost benefit
Lightweight Front End Structure
w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g
• The work was completed by a team effort between the Auto/Steel Partnership members and its Partners.
Acknowledgment
red cedarTECHNOLOGY