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