2011 june nhtsa_esv_pres

Aluminum –

The Safety Advantage

The Aluminum Association, Inc.

Aluminum Transportation Group

ESV (Washington), June 2011

1

Doug Richman (Kaiser) [email protected] www.aluminumintransportation.org

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.aluminumintransportation.org/

The Automotive Challenge

Global transportation goals:

– Improve transportation safety

– Reduce fuel consumption

– Reduce CO2 emissions

– Affordability

2

Downweighting Advances

Transportation Goals

Weight Reduction with Aluminum

• Improved safety

– Avoid downsizing

– Increase crush space without increasing weight

– Reduced kinetic energy

• Improved fuel economy

– 10% “achievable”

• Cost-effective (with inclusion of secondary weight savings)

• Reduced life-cycle CO2 Emissions

– 20% achievable

3

Why Reduce Vehicle Weight?

4

Weight Reduction

Improves Fuel Economy

Fuel Economy Improvement / 15% Weight Reduction

(EPA Combined Drive Cycle)

Passenger Vehicle Truck

Base EngineDownsized

EngineBase Engine

Downsized

Engine

Gasoline 5.0 % 10.0 % 5.3 % 7.1 %

Diesel 5.9 % 9.5% 5.4 % 7.0 %

PEV 9.5 % * N.A. 8.6 % * N.A.

PHEV 9.5 % * N.A. 8.6 % * N.A.

* Miles/KWH

Source: Ricardo Consulting Engineers, study for the Aluminum Association

Aluminum Weight Reduction

Opportunities:

6

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Body Structure

Blocks Wheels Transmission Heads Closures Chassis HEX Bumpers Wiring

(00

0 M

etr

ic T

on

s A

lum

inu

m)

Aluminum Penetration

Aluminum Opportunity

22% 100% 11%20%

69%

69%99+%

High AL penetration today

Transmissions

Heads

HVAC

Wheels

Blocks

Practical AL Growth

Closures

Body-in-white (BIW)

Chassis Structures

Bumpers

Note: 1 Lb. of Aluminum replaces approx. 2 Lb. Iron or Steel

Weight Reduction Studies

• Aluminum sponsored Auto Body Studies

– IBIS and Aachen

• 40-45% Body weight reduction

– 15% total vehicle (550 Lbs w/secondary)

– 10% fuel economy improvement

• No size reduction

7

Research Study Weight Reduction

(BIW and Closures)

IBIS (2008) 45%

Aachen (2010) 40%

Lotus (2010) 42%

Weight Savings Translate to Fuel

Economy Improvement

Kil

og

ram

s

Mass of Body-in-White Fuel Economy Improvement

Mile

s p

er

Ga

llo

n

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Steel (baseline) High Strength Steel Intensive

Aluminum Intensive

Source: ika - University of Aachen and the European Aluminium

Association (EAA)

Source: Aluminum Association calculated based on ika mass

reduction data; assumes 23% secondary weight savings, 27.5

MPG base vehicle 2010

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Steel (baseline-30 mpg)

High Strength Steel Intensive

Aluminum Intensive

2.7 MPG

Improvement

8

0.8 MPG per

100 lbs.

Downweighting -

Cost Competitive

9Source: EPA/NHTSA Joint Technical Support Document – Final Rulemaking; Mass + Secondary – Alum. Association/IBIS

Better

Improved Auto TransVVT-ICP

Engine Friction ReductionCylinder Deact. On OHV

VVT - CCP on OHV

Cylinder Deact on SOHC

Aero Drag Dred.

EGR Boost Combustion Restart

Belt Mounted BMISG

6/7/8 speed Auto Trans

Electric Power Steering

DVVL on DOHC

Mass Reduction

Low Drag Brakes Electric Power SteeringEngine Friction Reduction

Mass+Secondary

Turbo

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00

Cost ($)

Fu

el E

co

no

my Im

prove

me

nt (%

)

10%

$150

• 10% Mass Reduction: 9% reduction in battery size

• Low Mass Aluminum Structure Achieves:

– Weight reduction potential: 147 Kg (19%)

• Reduce battery cost: $ 900 – $ 1,950 (@ $750/KWh)

• Expected aluminum structure cost premium: $ 630

• Net cost savings = $775

– Reduced energy consumption: 1.3 KWh / 100 Mi per 100 Kg

Aluminum Body Reduces

EV Cost by $775

10

Aluminum

and

Vehicle Safety

DRI Study –

Vehicle Configurations

3,500 virtual collisions with SUV

• 595 single vehicle crashes

175 rollovers

420 hit fixed object

• 2,905 two vehicle crashes:

1,750 hit “Accord”

1,155 hit other “Explorer”

Conducted by Dynamic Research, Inc (DRI)and The Aluminum Association, Inc.

Safety Improvement

with Downweighting

Study Conclusions:

Engineering –

Lighter, slightly larger vehicle is safer

Size (not weight) –

better predictor of safety

ELU Scenarios

0

20

40

60

80

100

Baseline Added Length

Constant Weight

Reduced Weight

Constant Length

ELU Other Car

Driver

85.9

63.0 61.8

28%27%

Adding crush space without adding

weight improves safety 27%

13

Conducted by Dynamic Research, Inc (DRI)and The Aluminum Association, Inc.

14

Source: ika - University of Aachen and

the European Aluminium Association (EAA)

STIFFNESS RELEVANCE AND

STRENGTH RELEVANCE IN CRASH

OF CAR BODY COMPONENTS

Public version of official report

83440 by ika

May 2010

Lightweight Potential of Aluminum

vs. High-Strength Steel

15

• Objective

– Determine maximum weight saving potential of steel

and aluminum in automotive

• No Safety compromise

• No NVH compromise

Source: ika - University of Aachen and the European Aluminium Association (EAA)

26 Components for Quantitative

Evaluation

16

1

4

5

6

7

8 9

3 2

10

11

2221

20

19

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Sidewall

Roof Crossmember

Roofrail

IP Crossmember

Cowl

Strut Tower Front

Longitudinal Upper

Longitudinal Front

Crash Management System

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Crossmember Rear

Crossmember Floor

Sill

Tunnel

Door Panels (outer + inner)

Door Frame

Door Crash Management

Door Hinge Reinforcement

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Firewall

A-Pillar

Roof

Rearwall

Strut Tower Rear

Floor

Longitudinal Rear

C-Pillar

B-Pillar

23

24

25

26


the European Aluminium Association (EAA)

Stiffness Load Cases (NVH)

17


European Aluminium Association (EAA)

Bottom

DOF

1;2;3 = 0

DOF

1;3 = 0DOF

3 = 0

DOF

4 = 0

DOF

4 = 0

DOF2 & 3 = 0

Rocker for

torque

application

Torsional stiffness

from deflection of

evaluation

point on front

longitudinal

Static Torsional Stiffness

Bottom

DOF

2 & 3 = 0

M=6800 Nm

DOF

1;2;3 = 0

DOF

1;3 = 0

DOF

4 = 0

DOF

3 = 0

DOF

4 = 0

Ftotal= 940 kg•g

=9221 N

Bending stiffness

from maximum deflection

of bending

Static Bending Stiffness

Load/force application

Deflection measured

Deflection measured

Deflection measured

18Source: ika - University of Aachen and


Strength Load Cases (Safety)

Euro NCAP Front Crash

• Velocity 64 km/h

• EEVC deformable barrier

• 40% offset

Euro NCAP Side Crash

• Velocity 50 km/hr

• EEVC moving deformable barrier

FMVSS 301 Rear Crash

• Velocity 48 km/h

• Rigid moving barrier

• 0% offset

Intrusion Evaluation Point

Acceleration Evaluation Point

Evaluated Using European and U.S. Crash Standards

BIW Lightweighting Potential

19

Steel AluminiumAluminumSteel



Total maximum weight reduction compared to reference car:

Steel (with YS up to 1,200 MPa): 11% Aluminum (with YS up to 400 MPa): 40%

Components

Weight Reduction Can Be Safe

Key Findings:

For most components strength not the limiting factor for conversion to

aluminum

Significant weight reduction achievable without compromise on safety

Weight reduction potential (BIW and closures)

• High-strength steel (with YS up to 1,200 MPa) = ~11%

• Aluminum (with YS up to 400 MPa) = ~40%

20

Full study available at EAA website:

http://www.eaa.net/en/applications/automotive/studies/



• Weight reduction critical to achieving 2025 objectives

Safety

Fuel economy

Emissions

• Proven aluminum components can achieve:

– 15% weight reduction (total vehicle)

– 10% MPG improvement ( MPG)

• Weight reduction additive to other fuel economy improvements

– Including: Diesel, Hybrid, Electric, Aero, Tires, etc.

• Weight Reduction enhances fleet safety

• Weight reduction with aluminum cost competitive with other fuel

economy technologies

Automotive Aluminum

Weight Reduction Facts

21

Aluminum Builds a Better Vehicle

Reduced Emissions

Mass Reduction

Enhanced Performance Improved

Safety

Better Fuel Economy

Infinitely Recyclable

22

Business

2011 june nhtsa_esv_pres