the role of body-in-white weight reduction in the …the role of body-in-white weight reduction in...

The Role of Body-in-White Weight Reduction in the Attainment of the 2012-2025 US EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy Mandate Dr. Blake Zuidema Automotive Product Applications – Global R&D May 13, 2013

The 2025 Challenge 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

© 2013 ArcelorMittal USA LLC All rights reserved in all countries

1

The Key Questions for Steel

• How much weight reduction can Steel provide? • How much weight reduction is needed to get to 54.5 MPG?

– Can we get to 54.5 MPG with Steel? • Which material gets us to 54.5 MPG at the lowest cost? • Which material gets us to 54.5 MPG with the lowest carbon

footprint?


2

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 today’s advanced steel grades

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

3


Elon

gatio

n (%

)

Tensile Strength (MPa)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1500 1200 300 900 2100

Mild BH

Elon

gatio

n (%

)

600 1800

MART

Today’s and FSV’s Steel Grades

FSV Achieved ~29% BIW weight reduction

with today’s steel grades


4

How much weight reduction can steel provide?

Elon

gatio

n (%

)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1500 1200 300 900 2100

Mild BH

Elon

gatio

n (%

)

600 1800

MART

Work beginning on third generation AHSS


Key: (Solid Circle) = Commercially Available today (Open Circle) = Emerging Grade

5

Lotus ICCT Venza Phase 1 Study • 2-G Approach • 2009 Toyota Venza baseline

Baseline Low Dev % WR Body 382.50 kg 324.78 kg Closures 143.02 kg 107.61 kg Bumpers 17.95 kg 15.95 kg Total 543.47 kg 448.34 kg 17.5%

Grade Baseline Low Dev Mild 80% 7% IF MS 12% 4% DP490 13% DP500 11% DP590 8% 31% DP780 33% DP980 1%

Steel Grade Composition

• 18% BIW weight reduction • 21% vehicle weight reduction • 20% BIW cost increase • 3% net vehicle cost DECREASE

6

Steel Grades in Lotus/ICCT Venza El

onga

tion

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1500 1200 300 900 2100

Mild BH

Elon

gatio

n (%

)

600 1800

MART

All steel grades are commercially available today


Key: (Solid Circle) = Commercially Available today (Open Circle) = Emerging Grade (Explosion) = Used in Lotus Venza Solution

7

FEV Venza Phase 2 Study • 2-G Approach • 2010 Toyota Venza baseline

Baseline Phase 2 % WR Body 386.2 kg 332.7 kg Closures 135.3 kg 118.3 kg Bumpers 7.5 kg 7.1 kg Total 528.9 kg 458.1 kg 13%

Grade Base Phase 2 Mild 80% 12% IF MS 12% 12% HSLA 350 6% HSLA 550 8% DP500 10% DP590 8% 34% DP780 6% PHS 1370 8% Al 4%


• 13% BIW weight reduction • 18% vehicle weight reduction • $3.33/kg weight saved in BIW

8

Steel Grades in FEV/ICCT Venza El

onga

tion

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1500 1200 300 900 2100

Mild BH

Elon

gatio

n (%

)

600 1800

MART

All steel grades are commercially available today


Key: (Solid Circle) = Commercially Available today (Open Circle) = Emerging Grade ( Explosion) = Used in FEV Venza Solution

9

EDAG NHTSA Accord Study • 3-G Approach • 2011 Honda Accord baseline

Baseline Optimized % WR Body 328 kg 255 kg Total 328 kg 255 kg 22%

Grade Base Opt. Mild 52 3% BH 210 2 4% BH 280 5% HSLA 350 4 6% DP 500 6% DP 590 42 7% DP 780 10% DP 980 12% MART 1200 12% CP 1200 15% PHS 1370 19%


• 22% BIW weight reduction • 22% vehicle weight reduction • $2.02/kg weight saved in BIW

10

Steel Grades in EDAG/NHTSA Accord El

onga

tion

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1500 1200 300 900 2100

Mild BH

Elon

gatio

n (%

)

600 1800

MART

All steel grades commercially available today


Key: (Solid Circle) = Commercially Available today (Open Circle) = Emerging Grade (Explosion) = Used in EDAG Accord Solution

11


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 Breakthrough

Lotus Venza Ph 1 2-G Today

FEV Venza Ph 2 2-G Today

EDAG Accord 2-G Today


12

2-G Approaches

3-G Approaches


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wei

ght R

educ

tion

(%)

AHSS Content (%)

ULSAB-AVC Today

Future Steel Vehicle Today

AM S-in Motion Today

AM S-in motion Breakthrough

Lotus Venza Ph 1 Today

FEV Venza Ph 2 Today

EDAG Accord Today

2-G

with

To

day’

s G

rade

s

2-G

with

Em

ergi

ng

Gra

des

3-G

with

To

day’

s G

rade

s

3-G

with

Em

ergi

ng

Gra

des


13

How much weight reduction is needed to get to 54.5 MPG? Publically-available models for assessing fuel economy

improvement potential

Source Model

US EPA

Data Visualization Tool

US EPA

Alpha Model

US EPA

Omega Model

US NHTSA Volpe Transportation Research Center

Cafe Compliance and Effects Modeling System (“Volpe

Model”)

Used for this study


14

Building a Credible Model Primary BIW Weight Reduction

•Perimeter = BIW structure, closures, bumpers, frame/engine cradle −Including box in pickups

•BIW weight reduction potentials from industry claims

•Primary BIW weight reduction potentials relative to a 2009 baseline: −Conv. = 0% (No BIW weight reduction)

−AHSS = 15% (2G –with today’s grades) −AHSS = 20% (2G –with emerging grades, 3G – with today’s grades) −AHSS = 25% (3G – with emerging grades)

−Aluminum = 40% (Achievable with 2025 technologies)

−CFRP = 50% (Achievable with 2025 technologies)


15

Other Key Input Assumptions

• Secondary Mass Savings – 35% of Primary • Weight Elasticity of FE - 7% for each 10% CW reduction • BIW Weight – 30-33% of CW • Non-BIW WR – Zero and 7.2% CW reduction (per EDAG) • Over-Cost – per industry claims • Alt. Power Train Penetrations – per literature forecasts • Power Train Improvement Potentials –

– Reduced by up to 20% from EPA assumption to determine increased role of WR if power trains do not deliver the improvements expected


16

How much weight reduction is needed to get to 54.5 MPG?

0

10

20

60

50

30

40

Fuel

Eco

nom

y (M

PG)

54.5 MPG

Is there a gap?


17

2025 Fuel Economy Gap Results Without Non-BIW Weight Reduction

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)

Based on EPA projections of US 2025 vehicle sales

Weight reduction only

from BIW light weighting in all cases

Unrealistic scenarios – NO material gets fleet to

54.5 MPG

Fuel economy standard would need to be relaxed


18

2025 Fuel Economy Gap Results With Non-BIW Weight Reduction

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)

Based on EPA projections of US 2025

vehicle sales

7% non-BIW vehicle weight reduction

assumed in all cases

Unrealistic scenario – NO material gets fleet to

54.5 MPG

Fuel economy standard would need to be relaxed


19

Which material gets us to 54.5 MPG at lowest cost?

All weight reduction from BIW

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Tech

nolo

gy C

ost

($/v

ehic

le)

BIW Weight Reduction Achieved

Average 2025 Per-Vehicle Incremental Technology Cost

EPA Assumption

15%

AHS

S

20%

AHS

S

25%

AHS

S

40%

Al

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

0 10 20 30 40 50

Tech

nono

gy C

ost (

$/ve

hicl

e)BIW Weight Reduction Achieved

Average 2025 Per-Vehicle Incremental Technonogy Cost

EPA Assumption -10%

EPA Assumption -5%

EPA Assumption

15%

AHS

S

20%

AHS

S

25%

AHS

S

40%

Al

With non-BIW weight reduction

Under scenarios where Steel gets the 2025 fleet to 54.5 MPG, it does so at a lower cost than if Aluminum or Carbon Fiber were used


20

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 A HSS and conventional steels less than 5%.• Aluminum data - global for ingots; European only for process from ingot to final products .

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$48.29

$72.43

$96.57

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$4.00/gallon $6.00/gallon $8.00/gallon

Fuel

Sav

ings

ove

r 15,

000

Mile

s

Gasoline Price

Comparison of Annual Fuel Cost Savings

AHSS at 54.5 MPG

Al at 57.0 MPG

Fuel Savings if Lighter Aluminum Solution Used

Consumers are unlikely to pay for fuel savings

beyond 54.5 MPG

With no use phase CO2 emissions advantage, aluminum and carbon fiber vehicles will present a larger lifetime carbon footprint than AHSS vehicles

200 100 0 25 50 75 125 150 175 0

10

40

30

20

Distance Driven (000 km) C

O2

Emis

sion

(Ton

nes)

Production Phase

Use Phase

Recycling Phase

Total Life

Cycle

Source: UCSB GHG Comparison Model V3.0 Note: Identical recycling rates assumed for both Steel and Aluminum

Mid-Size ICE-G at 48.5 MPG

21

Key Conclusions

• NHTSA’s Volpe Model shows that today’s commercial and emerging advanced steel grades provide sufficient weight reduction to, when combined with anticipated improvements in power train technologies, get the 2025 US light vehicle fleet to 54.5 MPG

• Steel gets the 2025 fleet to 54.5 MPG at a lower cost than if aluminum or carbon fiber were used

• Steel gets the 2025 fleet to 54.5 MPG at a lower total life cycle carbon footprint than if aluminum or carbon fiber were used


22

Thank You

• For more information on this study, contact: Dr. Blake K. Zuidema Director, Automotive Product Applications ArcelorMittal Global Research and Development (248) 304-2329 (Southfield, MI office) [email protected]

23

Backup Slides

24

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

CAFÉ

Req

uire

men

t (M

iles

per G

allo

n)

Cars

Trucks

Average

Track

Wheelbase

Track x Wheelbase = Footprint

The 2012-2025 US NHTSA Fuel Economy Rules:


25


AHSS weight reduction potentials used in this study:

Scenario AHSS Weight Reduction

2-G with today’s grades

15%

2-G with emerging grades 3-G with today’s grades

20%

3-G with emerging grades

25%


26

The Volpe Model • NHTSA Volpe Transportation Research Center

- 2017-2025 CAFE Compliance and Effects Modeling System (“Volpe Model”)

– Used by EPA/NHTSA to set 2012-2016 and 2017-2025 CO2/Fuel Economy standards

– Assesses the cost and improvement potential of numerous fuel economy technologies, including weight reduction

– ArcelorMittal has consulted with NHTSA officials to verify proper set-up, operation, and interpretation of the Volpe Model

Source: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/CAFE+Compliance+and+Effects+Modeling+System:+The+Volpe+Model

27

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/CAFE+Compliance+and+Effects+Modeling+System:+The+Volpe+Model




Building a Credible Model Secondary Weight Reduction •Secondary weight reduction potentials from fka/Univ. of Michigan study:

−35% of primary weight reduction Mass influence coefficients based on simple (one-step) secondary reduction

Subsystem

fka Analytical Method

U of M Regression Method

Body Structure 0.0961 0.1267 Bumpers n/a 0.0347 Suspension 0.0495 0.0548 Brakes 0.0367 0.0238 Powertrain 0.1063 0.1169 Fuel System 0.0101 0.0257 Steering 0.0070 0.0086 Tires/Wheels 0.0358 0.0497


28

Building a Credible Model Weight Elasticity of Fuel Economy

•Rate at which fuel economy goes up as vehicle weight goes down

•Without power train re-sizing: −2-4% MPG improvement for each 10% reduction in total vehicle weight

•With power train re-sizing:

−6-8% MPG improvement for each 10% reduction in total vehicle weight

•Elasticity chosen for this study:

−Assumes sufficient weight reduction to justify power train re-sizing −7% MPG improvement for each 10% reduction in total vehicle weight


29

Building a Credible Model BIW Contribution to Vehicle Weight • Sheet metal weights from A2MAC1 database for representative vehicle segments

y = 0.3645x - 182.41

y = 0.00000920x + 0.27878538

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

BIW

as

% o

f Cur

b W

eigh

t (%

)

BIW

Wei

ght (

Lbs)

Curb Weight (Lbs)

BIW Data - Unadjusted

BIW Wt

BIW %

Linear (BIW Wt)

Linear (BIW %)


30

Building a Credible Model Light Weighting Material Over-Cost

•Using industry claims for over-cost: −AHSS = $0.30/pound of weight saved −Aluminum = $2.71/pound of weight saved −CFRP = $4.87/pound of weight saved


31

Building a Credible Model Alternative Power Train Penetration

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2015 2020 2025

Pene

trat

ion

(% o

f Tot

al V

ehic

le B

uild

s)

FCVBEVPHEVHEVICE-DICE-G

2025 Assessment: No FCV Penetration BEV ~1% PHEV ~2% HEV ~10% ICE-D ~12% ICE-G ~75%


32

Building a Credible Model Power Train Application • Power trains allowed for application:

Class BEV PHEV HEV Diesel Subcompact PC Yes Yes Yes Yes Subcompact Perf PC Yes Yes Yes Yes Compact PC Yes Yes Yes Yes Compact Perf PC Yes Yes Yes Yes Midsize PC No Yes Yes Yes Midsize Perf PC No Yes Yes Yes Small LT Yes Yes Yes Yes Large PC No No Yes Yes Large Perf PC No No Yes Yes Minivan LT No No Yes Yes Midsize LT No No Yes Yes Large LT No No Yes Yes


33

Building a Credible Model Other, Non-BIW Light Weighting Sources

Source: Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Model Years 2017–2025, Report No. DOT HS 811 666, Prepared by Electricore, Inc, EDAG, Inc. and George Washington University for NHTSA under DOT Contract DTNH22-11-C-00193, August, 2012

System

Base Weight (kg)

Weight Reduction

(kg)

%

Net Cost Increase ($)

Front Suspension 81.33 39.90 49% -$11.00

Rear Suspension 53.20 13.27 25% $43.87

Wheels 93.86 14.24 15% $8.80

Instrument Panel 31.90 9.45 30% $15.43

Seats 66.77 20.03 30% $96.84

Interior Trim 26.26 3.03 12% $0.00

A/C Ducting 10.30 2.60 25% $0.00

Wiring 21.70 4.30 20% $0.00

Total 106.82 $153.94

EDAG 2012 report to NHTSA Baseline Vehicle – 2011 Honda Accord (2008 launch), 1480 kg curb weight

Together, these technologies have the potential to further reduce the full vehicle curb weight by an additional 7.2%, and gain an additional 5.04% improvement in fuel economy, at a cost of $0.65/lb weight saved

34

Building a Credible Model Other, Non-BIW Light Weighting Sources

Source: Mass Reduction for Light-Duty Vehicles for Model Years 2017–2025, Report No. DOT HS 811 666, Prepared by Electricore, Inc, EDAG, Inc. and George Washington University for NHTSA under DOT Contract DTNH22-11-C-00193, August, 2012

System

Base Weight (kg)

Weight Reduction

(kg)

%

Net Cost Increase ($)

Front Suspension 81.33 39.90 49% -$11.00

Rear Suspension 53.20 13.27 25% $43.87

Wheels 93.86 14.24 15% $8.80

Instrument Panel 31.90 9.45 30% $15.43

Seats 66.77 20.03 30% $96.84

Interior Trim 26.26 3.03 12% $0.00

A/C Ducting 10.30 2.60 25% $0.00

Wiring 21.70 4.30 20% $0.00

Total 106.82 $153.94

EDAG 2012 report to NHTSA Baseline Vehicle – 2011 Honda Accord (2008 launch), 1480 kg curb weight

Together, these technologies have the potential to further reduce the full vehicle curb weight by an additional 7.2%, and gain an additional 5.04% improvement in fuel economy, at a cost of $0.65/lb weight saved

Some of these weight reductions may be offset

by weight gains to address safety or

consumer preferences

35

Building a Credible Model Power Train Improvement Potentials

• EPA has made certain assumptions regarding the magnitude to which various power train technologies will improve fuel economy and of what these improvements will cost the OEM’s

• The OEM’s will argue that the EPA has over-estimated their improvement potential and under-estimated their cost

The Volpe Model power train improvement coefficients were reduced by 0 to 20% in 5% increments to assess the impact of lower improvements on weight reduction requirements


36

Building a Credible Model Summary of Major Input Variables

Parameter Range Studied BIW Weight Reduction - 0% (No BIW WR)

- 15%, 20%, 25% (AHSS) - 40% (Al) - 50% (CFRP) along with corresponding non-BIW secondary weight savings

Non-BIW Weight Reduction

- 0% (All WR from BIW) - 7.2% vehicle weight reduction

EPA Non-WR Fuel Economy Technology Improvement Coefficient Reduction

- 0% (No Reduction) - 5% - 10% - 15% - 20%


37

Can we get to 54.5 MPG with Steel?

Steel gets 2025 fleet to 54.5 MPG under most of the “realistic” scenarios considered

25% 0% 15% 50% 20% 40%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Car

bon

Fibe

r

Feasible scenarios with non-BIW light

weighting

Feasible scenarios with light weighting

from BIW only

BIW Light Weighting Pow

er T

rain

Impr

ovem

ent S

hort

fall

Key

No FE Gap

FE Gap

Unrealistic

BIW WR Only

With Non-BIW WR

AHSS

Alum

inum


38

A Note on Timing

• Cars launched in 2021 will still be produced in 2025 and will need 2025 weight reduction technology • Cars launched in 2021 will start being designed in 2018 • For 2025 new AHSS to get designed into cars in 2018, they must be commercial

2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012

Design Produce

Justify and secure capital

Build and commercialize

R&D to define solutions

Steelmaker Activities Customer Activities

Given normal investment justification and construction lead times, R&D to define proper solutions to 2025 gaps must be complete by 2014, so that

products can be commercialized by 2018

2018


39

the role of body-in-white weight reduction in the …the role of body-in-white weight reduction in...

Documents