50 year Perspective of Automotive Engineering Body Materials and ...
50 year Perspective of Automotive Engineering Body Materials and ...
50 year Perspective of Automotive Engineering Body Materials and ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>50</strong> <strong>year</strong> <strong>Perspective</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Automotive</strong><strong>Engineering</strong> <strong>Body</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> <strong>and</strong> anAnalysis <strong>of</strong> the FutureJody N. HallManager, Global Die St<strong>and</strong>ards & <strong>Materials</strong> ApplicationsGeneral Motors Manufacturing <strong>Engineering</strong>Great Designs in Steel 20081
Steel Becomes the “Material <strong>of</strong> Choice”for Auto Bodies• Original bodies made <strong>of</strong> wood& steel• Quick to tool, easy to change• Large number <strong>of</strong> skilledworkersBenz Patent Motorwagen 1886 (Replica)• 1914 Dodge & Budd produce5,000 all-steel bodies• All-steel body was lighter,stronger, easier to make• Most significant advantage wasin paintingDodge Brothers Touring Car 19172
“Every time the price <strong>of</strong> steel goes up,Detroit’s s auto makers moan in anguish<strong>and</strong> intensify their search forreplacements”3
gas“Every time the price <strong>of</strong> steel goes up,Detroit’s s auto makers moan in anguish<strong>and</strong> intensify their search forreplacements”4
<strong>Materials</strong> Causing the Biggest Stir in <strong>Body</strong>TechnologyPlastics-“been getting the big play …as successor to steel”Aluminum Alloys-“about as strong as steel,less than half the weight”-“used…since birth <strong>of</strong> auto”-“most plentiful metal on earth”Magnesium Alloys-“even lighter than aluminum,stronger for its weight than steel”-“most easily machined <strong>and</strong> cast”-“enough in the ocean…to provide 100,000,000 tons a <strong>year</strong>”5
Published October 1953“The day <strong>of</strong> the passengercar made primarily <strong>of</strong> iron<strong>and</strong> steel is on the wane!Some sources predict thatby 1960 a Cadillac will weighless than a 1953 Chevrolet<strong>and</strong> a Chevy will probablyweigh about as much as amotorcycle.”6
Prediction <strong>50</strong>+ Years Ago…SteelAlMgPlasticsPASTFUTURE7
Key Product Drivers & Resulting VehiclesSafetyFocusClean Air ActHighway Safety ActOilShockGlobalCompetitionCustomerPersonalization19<strong>50</strong> 1960 1970 19801990 2000+1997 2006 – Audi – The introduces C6 Z06the firstPontiac releasesall aluminum Corvette volume is released.productioncar. Utilizes The Aluminum carbon framesfiberweigh fenders, up to less wheel than houses,40% <strong>of</strong>steel floors, frames <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> comparablean aluminumdesign.frame.1984 – Pontiac releasesthe Fiero. Small, fuelefficient sports car thatuses composite panelsto reduce overall weight.Late 1970’s – Dodge releases1953 – Chevrolet Introduces theCorvetteCharger w/ fiberglassXL that body.applies higherLightweight strength body steel improves <strong>and</strong> allaluminumaspects <strong>of</strong> components performance.that resulted in a285kg reduction in vehicle mass.8
Steel Mass ReductionMass ReductionOpportunity0%10%20%30%40%<strong>50</strong>%MILD STEELSCONV HSS1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030Time9
Current <strong>Body</strong> <strong>and</strong> Closure Metallic MaterialContent by Type for North AmericaConventionalHSSAdvancedHSS12.7%9.5%Aluminum &Magnesium0.8%Source: Ducker Worldwide2007MediumHSS15.8%BakeHardenableSteel6.6%Mild Steel54.6%8<strong>50</strong> Pounds10
The Question is …Why do these materials continue to fallshort <strong>of</strong> the prediction?11
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> by PerformanceDensity Modulus TensileStrengthElongationCorrosionResistanceMild Steel----------BASELINE - - --------Aluminum+ - 0 0 0 / +Magnesium+ - - 0 - 0 / -Polymers &+ 0 / - - / 0 / + - +CompositesKEY: 0 = equal + = better - = worse12
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> by ManufacturabilitySteelAluminumMagnesiumPolymer/CompositesAdvantages:Advantages:Advantages:Advantages:• Formability• Weldability• Infrastructure• Painted Surface• Formability• Castability• Painted Surface• Castability• Low costtooling• Shorter leadtimeDisadvantages:Disadvantages:Disadvantages:Disadvantages:• Castability• Lowerformability thansteel• Weldability• Formability• Elevatedtemperaturestamping &hemming• Weldability• Cycle Time• Infrastructure• Difficult torepair• PaintedSurface13
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> byOther Important CharacteristicsCost(Est. $/lb.)Availability(Annual Metric TonProduction)Environment(Primary Production Emissionsreported by industry)Mild Steel(Baseline)$0.<strong>50</strong> 110 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 2.3 – 2.7 kg CO 2 /kgAluminum(Al)Magnesium(Mg)PMC $1.20 -6.<strong>50</strong>$1.00 2.5 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 13.9 – 15.5 kgCO 2 /kg$1.<strong>50</strong> 0.5 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 18.0 – 24.8 kgCO 2 /kgUnknown• difficult to recycle• Emissions = 2.5 – 23.0 kg CO 2 /kg14
Current <strong>Body</strong> <strong>and</strong> Closure Metallic MaterialContent by Type for North AmericaConventionalHSSAdvancedHSS12.7%9.5% 0.8%Aluminum &MagnesiumSource: Ducker Worldwide2007MediumHSS15.8%54.6%Mild SteelBakeHardenableSteel6.6%8<strong>50</strong> Pounds15
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> by PerformanceDensity Modulus TensileStrengthElongationCorrosionResistanceMild Steel----------BASELINE - - --------Aluminum+ - 0 0 0 / +Magnesium+ - - 0 - 0 / -Polymers &+ 0 / - - / 0 / + - +CompositesHSS/AHSS 0 0 + + 0 / - 016
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> by ManufacturabilitySteel &HSS/AHSSAluminumMagnesiumPolymer/CompositesAdvantages:• Formability• Weldability• Infrastructure• Painted SurfaceAdvantages:• Formability• Castability• Painted SurfaceAdvantages:• CastabilityAdvantages:• Low costtooling• Shorter leadtimeDisadvantages:• CastabilityDisadvantages:• Lowerformability thansteel• WeldabilityDisadvantages:• Formability• Elevatedtemperaturestamping &hemming• WeldabilityDisadvantages:• Cycle Time• Infrastructure• Difficult torepair• PaintedSurface17
Comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>Materials</strong> byOther Important CharacteristicsCost(Est. $/lb.)Availability(Annual Metric TonProduction)Environment(Primary Production Emissionsreported by industry)Mild Steel(Baseline)$0.<strong>50</strong> 110 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 2.3 – 2.7 kg CO 2 /kgAluminum(Al)Magnesium(Mg)PMC $1.20 -6.<strong>50</strong>$1.00 2.5 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 13.9 – 15.5 kgCO 2 /kg$1.<strong>50</strong> 0.5 Million • easy to recycle• Emissions = 18.0 – 24.8 kgCO 2 /kgUnknown• difficult to recycle• Emissions = 2.5 – 23.0 kg CO 2 /kgHSS/AHSS $0.55 Included in MildSteel• easy to recycle• Emissions = 2.3 – 2.7 kg CO 2 /kg18
Steel StrategyElongation (%)7060<strong>50</strong>403020100IFMildSecond Generation AHSSIF- HSISOISOBHCMnConventional HSSTRIPHSLADP, CPL-IPAUST. SSTWIPFirst Generation AHSSMART0 300 600 900 1200 1600Tensile Strength (MPa)19
IF-HS7060<strong>50</strong>403020100Steel Strategy - GAPL-IPTWIPAUST. SSIFISOMildTRIPBHCMnDP, CPHSLAFuture Future Opportunity OpportunityThird Third Generation Generation AHSS AHSSMART0 300 600 900 1200 1600Tensile Strength (MPa)20Elongation (%)
What’s s the same?• Other than prediction <strong>of</strong> lightweight materialusage <strong>and</strong> the elimination <strong>of</strong> steel (by some)• Relative amongst materials:–Cost– Performance– Manufacturability– Availability• Fuel Cost• Strategy for material implementation21
<strong>Engineering</strong> Strategy<strong>Materials</strong>DesignManufacturing22
Business StrategyManufacturability& Cost:• material• design• manufacturingGovernment Regulations• Fuel Economy• Crash Performance• Emissions& Customer Requirements• Cost• Quality/Styling• Features23
Steel Mass Reduction OpportunitiesMass ReductionOpportunity0%10%20%30%40%<strong>50</strong>%MILD STEELSCONV HSSWith Steel Strategy& DOE SupportFreedomCAR GOALTechnologyDecision1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030TimeWithout DOESupportAHSSMASSCOMPOUNDING3rd GENERATION24
Global MarketNorth America Europe• Well developed market • Well developed market• Consumer dem<strong>and</strong> for largevehicles Latin America, Africa • Consumer & Asia Middle Pacific dem<strong>and</strong> East for a balance <strong>of</strong>utility• Relatively • Diverse low market fuel prices• Fast& efficiencygrowing diverse market• Primary• Newchallenges •market playersU.S. Relatively • CAFE Infrastructure high fuel prices still developing<strong>and</strong> emissions regulations(particularly • Lead in alternative • Taxes• Primarydiesel); strict fuels, on poorchallengesfuel economyare&new fuelcollision particularly performance ethanol emissionseconomy/emission regulationsrequirements• Primary challenge • Primary is product challenges CO 2 commitmentcost<strong>and</strong> Euro 5 emissions; strict collisionperformance requirements• Opportunity for more growth25
Global Transportation GrowthSource: Joe Carpenter, DOEVehicles per Thous<strong>and</strong> People800600400200AfricaChinaEastern EuropeMid-EastFormer Soviet UnionLatin AmericaDeveloping AsiaIndustrialized PacificWestern EuropeU.S. Historic01900 1910 1920 1930 1940 19<strong>50</strong> 1960 1970 1980 1990U.S.China, with 13 vehicles per 1000 people, is where the U.S. was in 1913China’s population is currently 4 times the population <strong>of</strong> the U.S.26
What materials will be usedto meet these dem<strong>and</strong>s?27
NORTH AMERICANLIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDS<strong>Body</strong> <strong>and</strong> Closure Metallic Material Content by Type2007 2015Con.HSSAdvancedHSS9.5%12.7%Aluminum &Magnesium0.8%AdvancedHSS34.8%Aluminum &Magnesium2.5%Mild Steel29.0%15.8%MediumHSS6.6%Bake Hardenable54.6%Mild Steel10.2%ConventionalHSS23.5%Bake Hardenable <strong>and</strong>Medium HSS8<strong>50</strong> Pounds800 Pounds with an EqualFootprint to 2007Source: Ducker Worldwide28
NORTH AMERICANLIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDSNorth American Light Vehicle Material Content Per in Pounds1975 2005 2007 2015Change From1975 to 2015Mild Steel 2,180 1,751 1,748 1,314 Down 866 lbs.High Strength Steel 140 324 334 315 Up 175 lbs.Advanced HSS -- 111 149 403 Up 403 lbs.Other Steels 65 76 76 77 Up 12 lbs.Iron 585 290 284 244 Down 341 lbs.Aluminum 84 307 327 374 Up 290 lbs.Magnesium -- 9 9 22 Up 22 lbs.Other Metals 120 1<strong>50</strong> 149 145 Up 25 lbs.Plastic/Composites 180 335 340 364 Up 184 lbs.Other <strong>Materials</strong> 546 629 634 6<strong>50</strong> Up 104 lbs.Total Pounds 3,900 3,982 4,0<strong>50</strong> 3,908* Up 8 lbs.Source: Ducker Worldwide* Same vehicle mix <strong>and</strong> average footprint as 200729
NORTH AMERICANLIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDS<strong>Body</strong> <strong>and</strong> Closure Metallic Material Content by TypeNorth AmericaEuropeAdvancedHSS34.8%Aluminum &Magnesium2.5%Mild Steel29.0%PHS, TWIP& Others12.0%Aluminum &Magnesium3.0%Mild Steel & BH25.0%10.2%ConventionalHSS23.5%Bake Hardenable <strong>and</strong>Medium HSS30.0%AHSS30.0%Conventional HSS201530
Why is this reasonable?• No real changes in basic trends over past <strong>50</strong><strong>year</strong>s• “Cash is King” – customer paying less thanbefore & dem<strong>and</strong>ing more• Infrastructure not ready• Availability – Infrastructure <strong>of</strong> metalproduction• Global Differences in Needs31
What could ‘disrupt’ this prediction• Fuel Cost & Availability• Material Cost & Availability• Economic Stability• Government Regulations• Technological Discoveries/Advances32
Conclusions• Always be a need/desire to push tolightweight materials for the auto industry• Doesn’t mean no steel• Current prediction is mainly some form <strong>of</strong>steel– Best value to customer (performance/cost)• However, disruptive event(s) is as likely, oreven more likely, than ever before33
Change language