MY GHG Standard for Light Duty Vehicles Mass Reduction

Transcription

1 MY GHG Standard for Light Duty Vehicles Mass Reduction Hugh Harris Environmental Protection Agency

2 Outline 1) Overview of MY light-duty vehicle GHG rule and Mid-Term Evaluation 2) Agency vehicle mass-reduction studies 3) EDAG presentation on the 2012 EPA full vehicle mass reduction project 2010 Toyota Venza 2

3 AGENDA ITEM #1 Overview of MY Light Duty Vehicle GHG rule 3

4 EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) worked together to develop a National Program of harmonized regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. Final Rulemaking to Establish 2017 and Later Model Years Light- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards are in effect for A technical assessment is required to continue or modify the standards for vehicles. 4

5 CAFÉ Fuel Economy Target (mpg) EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking Fuel Economy Technologies -Improvements to gasoline engines -Advanced transmissions -Advanced diesel engines -Mass Reduction -Electrification -Low rolling resistance tires - Increased aerodynamics Other -Averaging across product line -Credits for AC -Credits for off cycle d d d d LD GHG Footprint Curve Cars CAFÉ Fuel Economy Target (mpg) Mid Term Evaluation (Review Stds for )

6 Rulemaking technology assumptions A wide range of technologies exist that can be used to reduce GHG/improve fuel economy. i.e. Advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle mass reduction, hybridization The standards are performance standards, not technology mandates. Manufacturers can choose any technologies to meet the standards. o The agencies simply project possible paths toward compliance. The EPA projects that most manufacturers could comply in 2025 by producing an overall fleet with: 8% mass reduction compared to model year % advanced gasoline and diesel vehicles 26% mild hybrids 5% strong hybrids 3% plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and all electric vehicles 6

7 Mid-Term Evaluation Final unless changed by rulemaking Final Augural + + Joint Technical Assessment Report (draft by November 15, 2017) 7

8 No Later Than Timeline for Mid-Term Evaluation FRM NHTSA Final Action coordinated with EPA Final Action (NHTSA rulemaking) Key time frame to prepare underlying technical work for the Mid-Term Evaluation No later than date Technical Assessment Report EPA/NHTSA/CARB Either a NHTSA Final Rule w/ EPA Decision not to reopen OR Joint EPA/NHTSA Rule to alter standards 8

9 AGENDA ITEM #2 Agency mass-reduction studies 9

10 Whole-Vehicle Approach to Mass Reduction The Agencies believe the full potential of mass reduction will not be achieved with a focus only on individual parts OEMs will need to look at every system for opportunities and look at vehicle holistically Mass decompounding of engine, transmission, driveline, suspension, brakes, wheels 1

11 Completed holistic vehicle studies 2010: CARB/Lotus Engineering initial paper study on Toyota Venza (Phase 1) Low development (20%) vehicle High development (>30%) concept paper Hybrid powertrain study 2012: EPA/FEV (Phase 2) 2010 Midsize CUV low development (~20%) Investigation of current mass reduction technologies Adding vehicle crash analysis for feasibility (BIW and closure) Additional CAE analysis to validate NVH, durability, stiffness, driveability, etc. More rigorous costing methodology consistent with engine costing 2012: NHTSA/EDAG 20%+ MR study on Honda Accord Similar goals in mind Dynamic (ADAMS model) analyses 2012: CARB (Phase 2) 2009 Midsize CUV high development vehicle (>30%) Included Body in White and Closures only Longer time frame and advanced techniques Crash analysis and cost analysis included ** All Studies underwent rigorous peer reviews 1

12 Agency Holistic Vehicle Studies CARB Lotus Engineering, Toyota Venza Low Dev 20% MR High Dev >30% MR Hybrid PT CARB/Lotus Engineering Toyota Venza (Phase 1) 3 reports in one EPA/FEV released study on the 2010 Venza low development vehicle (phase 2) Full vehicle EPA 2012 Toyota Venza (FEV/EDAG) CARB 2012 Toyota Venza (Lotus) NHTSA 2012 Honda Accord (EDAG) NHTSA/EDAG released mass reduction on Honda Accord - Full vehicle/glider CARB continued study of Venza high development vehicle (Phase 2) BIW only EPA Light Duty Truck (FEV/EDAG) All reports available online EPA Truck study in progress 1

13 AGENDA ITEM #3 EDAG presentation on EPA Study 1

14 Full Vehicle Lightweight Designing Based on CAE Techniques Javier Rodríguez EDAG Inc.

15 Presentation Outline 1. Project Scope Mass reduction feasibility study 2. Project Initiation Establishment of the Baseline 3. Collaborative Optimization Collaboration Process Integration into the Optimization 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Definition 5. Optimized Model Output 6. Methodology for the Study Work Output 7. References

16 Same vehicle performance and func onality including 1. Project Details safety Mass Reduction Feasibility All recommended technologies to be suitable for 200,000 annual produc on, 1 Million vehicles over 5 years EPA Baseline Vehicle 2011 Toyota Venza Only technologies and techniques currently feasible for manufacturability were considered Op ons had to be cost effec ve for a MY 2017 high volume produc on vehicle The vehicle NVH modal characteris cs and crash/safety performance had to be maintained The total cost impact needed to be minimal The weight reduction and cost effects [4] of multiple lightweight designs were analyzed and evaluated together using advanced optimization software and engineering tools. This presentation highlights the processes used in the evaluation of full vehicle weight savings opportunities using advanced cooperative optimization computeraided engineering (CAE) tools

17 Mass-Reduction Results: Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact by Vehicle System 17

18 2. Project Initiation Establishment of the Baseline Vehicle level CAE models for noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) and crash were built based on physical NVH and regulatory crash testing The CAE load cases and performance criteria included: Structural strength (torsion, bending, and natural frequencies) Regulatory crash requirements (flat frontal impact FMVSS208/US NCAP, 40% offset frontal Euro NCAP; side impact FMVSS214; rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS) Durability and Fatigue Vehicle Performance Should (predictive) costs for every option and variation [4] The FEA model and simulation results of the baseline were correlated with physical testing

19 2. Project Initiation Establishment of the Baseline, Inputs, outputs & Tools

20 2. Project Initiation Creation of the Baseline for the Optimization Process

21 2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials Baseline Gauge Map

22 2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline Material Map

23 2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline Baseline Sub-Systems Weights System Sub-system System-Mass (Kg) Closures BIW BIW Extra Bumpers Door Frt 53.2 Door Rr 42.4 Hood 17.8 Tailgate 15 Fenders 6.8 Sub-Total Underbody Assembly 40.2 Front Struture 42 Roof Assembly 31.3 Bodyside Assembly Ladder Assembly Sub-Total 378 Radiator Vertical Support 0.7 Compartment Extra 4.4 Shock Tower Xmbr Plates 3.1 Sub-Total 8.2 Bumper Frt 5.1 Bumper Rr 2.4 Sub-Total 7.5 Total Weight 528.9

24 2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: Optimization Process Once the FEA model was created, EDAG built the baseline for the multidisciplinary optimization (MDO) model The MDO is the tool used to investigate weight optimization opportunities that will also meet performance and cost criteria Inputs BIW Analysis Closures Analysis Powertrain Analysis Interior Analysis Chassis Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Matrix Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Op miza on

25 3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs EDAG Exper se External Informa on FSV Engineering Report EDAG Light Vehicle LWSSFT Fuel Tank Advanced Steel Bumper Lotus Report Tier 1 supplier base Misc. Lightweight cars Audi Int. Lightweight Body BIW Analysis Closures Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Matrix FEV Exper se External Informa on Powertrain Analysis Interior Analysis Chassis Analysis Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Op miza on

26 3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs BIW Analysis Closures Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Matrix Powertrain Analysis Interior Analysis Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Op miza on Possible Solu ons Plot with: Opportunity versus Costs and Weight Chassis Analysis Variables Requirements Costs

27 3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs BIW Analysis Closures Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Matrix Powertrain Analysis Interior Analysis Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Op miza on Possible Solu ons Plot with: Opportunity versus Costs and Weight Chassis Analysis Variables Requirements Collabora ve Op miza on where Costs we decomposed the design concept process into more manageable pieces FEA/Should Costs Analysis confirm the overall performance

28 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Overview Design Variables Structural Varia ons Design Responses Objec ve and Constraints Output Matrix 0 Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Op miza on Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Proper es Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Op mum Solu ons Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Shape Constraints (Costs)

29 The model consisted of 484 parts, seven (7) load cases (Linear and Nonlinear) and one (1) should cost calculation The design variables included 242 continuous variables for part thickness and 242 discrete variables for material grades, assigned to the identified parts To reduce the number of variables: 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Design Variables Load path analysis for each load case was conducted on the baseline model to identify the necessary parts based on the criteria of higher cross-section forces The gauge and grade variables of the right hand side BIW parts were assigned as dependent variables to that of the left hand side parts Minimum and maximum limits for each gauge variable were defined based on Design Structural Design manufacturing feasibility and tooling impact Variables Varia ons Responses Objec ve and Constraints Output Matrix 0 Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Proper es Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Op mum Solu ons Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Shape Constraints (Costs)

30 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Structural Variations Based on EDAG expertise and input from other companies, including automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers, a design space matrix was generated with possible structural variations including engineering costs estimates Inputs EDAG Exper se External Informa on FSV Engineering Report EDAG Light Vehicle LWSSFT Fuel Tank Advanced Steel Bumper Lotus Report Tier 1 supplier base Misc. Lightweight cars Audi Int. Lightweight Body BIW Analysis Closures Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Matrix Powertrain Analysis Any idea included in the design matrix had to be feasible* for the vehicle and Interior Analysis capable of being in production for 2017 (EPA) Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements Costs Variables Requirements *Feasible idea = Currently Chassis in production in other vehicles Analysis Costs Design Variables Matrix 0 Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Structural Varia ons Proper es Shape Design OpObjec miza ve Output on Responses and Constraints Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Full Vehicle Analysis and Collabora ve Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Constraints (Costs) Op mum Solu ons

31 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Design Responses Several constraints and responses measured from different load cases were considered in the optimization model Body in White (BIW) natural frequencies and specific dynamic stiffness Left and right vertical displacements for bending and torsion stiffness Pulse, foot intrusion, left, center and right toe pan intrusions for flat frontal impact Pulse, foot intrusion, left, center and right toe pan intrusions for offset frontal impact B-Pillar to seat centerline intrusion gap for side impact Rear zone deformations for rear impact Roof rail resistance force for roof crush BIW and Closures cost (using current mat database costs) Fatigue and components life (as a design confirmation) Vehicle Performance (Acceleration, R&H, etc.) Design Variables Matrix 0 Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Structural Varia ons Proper es Shape Design Responses Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Objec ve and Constraints Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Constraints (Costs) Output Op mum Solu ons

32 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Objectives and Constrains The objective of the optimization was to minimize the total mass of the BIW and Closures Model performance was measured as a normalized value of the design responses Baseline model performance needed to be maintained or improved for the solution to be to considered viable BIW material cost constraints were also considered a critical parameter that also had to be satisfied in order to deliver viable results Design Variables Structural Varia ons Design Responses Objec ve and Constraints Output Matrix 0 Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Proper es Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Op mum Solu ons Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Shape Constraints (Costs)

33 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Optimization Engine and Outputs A hybrid and adaptive algorithm called SHERPA (Heeds MDO) was chosen as the optimization method. EDAG has also used this method in several previous studies Initially the optimization required more than 400 design evaluations. Each feasible design was analyzed by the engineering team and human input was always part of optimization process. Design Variables Structural Varia ons Design Responses Objec ve and Constraints Output Matrix 0 Overall Vehicle Weight Matrix 1 Material Thickness Material Subs tu on Joining Technologies Tailor Blank Technology Proper es Linear (S ffness) and Nonlinear (Crash) Objec ves (Weight Reduc on) Op mum Solu ons Matrix 2 Structure Redesign Shape Changes Future Manufacturing Technologies Alterna ve Structure Concepts Shape Constraints (Costs)

34 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Full Vehicle Process Overview

35 5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials Optimized Gauge Map

36 5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.) Optimized Material Map

37 5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline Weight Reduced Optimized Sub-Systems Weights System Sub-system System-Mass (Kg) System-Mass (Kg) Closures BIW BIW Extra Bumpers Door Frt Door Rr Hood Tailgate Fenders Sub-Total Underbody Assembly Front Struture Roof Assembly Bodyside Assembly Ladder Assembly Sub-Total Radiator Vertical Support Compartment Extra Shock Tower Xmbr Plates Sub-Total Bumper Frt Bumper Rr Sub-Total Total Weight

38 6. Methodology for the Study Work For further information on results, please go to the technical papers [1,2,3] These studies are an evolutionary implementation of advanced optimization technologies including multidisciplinary concept design and collaborative optimization. The Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) materials and manufacturing technologies proposed in the study are currently used in the automotive industry. The demonstrated mass reduction opportunities in the BIW utilizes existing technologies and could be fully developed within the normal product design cycle using the current design and development methods prevalent to the automotive industry.

39 7. References [1] Regulations & Standards: Light-Duty [2] FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle. July 2012, EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR [2] Joint Technical Support Document EPA-420-R , April [3] Final Rulemaking: Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards [4] ULSAB-AVC Cost Models Contact Information: Hugh Harris EPA Senior Engineer Tel Harris.hugh@EPA.gov Javier Rodriguez EDAG Inc. Director Vehicle Integration Tel javier.rodriguez@edag-us.com

40 PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE MAY 3 Use your web-enabled device to download the presentations from today s event Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by: