Design Advisor. Estimating Secondary Mass Changes in Vehicle Design with Application to the. Donald E. Malen University of Michigan

Transcription

1 Estimating Secondary Mass Changes in Vehicle Design with Application to the Design Advisor Donald E. Malen University of Michigan

2 Design Advisor Design Advisor- Excel Workbook to support material selection decisions Secondary mass Cost Component benchmarking and scaling Graphic Dash Board GHG Sensitivity Analysis

3 Context for Design Advisor Material selection decisions often occur early in the design process Product Planning Configuration Detail Validation Production 1.8 m 4.7 m Sedan/Hatchback 5 passenger 100 kg cargo Powertrain Gas-IC Stamped Steel,10 kg Cast Magnesium, 6 kg limited available information Design Advisor advise the decision Vehicle Mass Cost LC GHG

4 Design Advisor Solution Map Define nominal vehicle Component technology Resize nominal vehicle for component change Compare vehicles Sensitivity analysis 1-Define nominal vehicle 3a-Input component and part data 3-Resize nominal vehicle for competitor component 4-Vehicle comparison summary Vehicle mass savings 5- Sensitivity analysis 2-Size powertrain for nominal vehicle 3b-Scale component for nominal vehicle Cost for part Environment impact Cost savings for resized subsystems Material Use Recycle

5 Example: Summary output Marginal trade off ratios stacked bar chart shows relative performance Total LCA for each vehicle

6 Summary Output - Graphs relative component cost relative subsystem cost - $1.89 $ $ $27.37 performance worse for resized vehicle performance better for resized vehicle relative fuel savings -$18.75 performance better for resized vehicle net cost difference $25.48 worse for resized when only product cost is considered net cost difference $6.73 worse for resized when fuel savings is considered

7 Summary Output- Trade off ratios relative cost reduction for resized relative mass reduction for resized T.O.R.= D product cost D mass = both metrics are better for resized vehicle both metrics are worse for resized vehicle one metric is better, one worse for resized vehicle Trade-off ratio significant

8 Summary Output- Life Cycle GHG difference worse for resized vehicle

9 Primary and Secondary Mass Change Steel10 kg Mag. 6 kg Chassis loads reduced fuel tank capacity reduced Aachener Karosserietage 2012 (VW AG) Primary mass change - 8 kg Body loads reduced Engine power reduced for same performance Secondary mass change due to resizing other subsystems Secondary mass change 1kg primary mass change Simple Compounded Regression method Analytical method SAE

10 Case Study 2- Hood Plans for 20xx vehicle Component: Hood Lightweight Vehicle Consortium J. Dahmus and R. Roth, 2008 hood area, A=1.5 m 2 Vehicle type: Hatchback L=4.2 m W=1.750 m 100 kg cargo New architecture Internal Combustion-gasoline Powertrain is fixed and will not change 6. liter/100 km (HYZEM schedule) Life time range =155,000 km Area=2 m 2 Original Component AHSS Stamped kg Area=2 m 2 Competitor Component Aluminum-wrought Stamped kg

11 Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel) Benchmarking and Scaling

12 Scaling Component Mass We have mass information on a hood from a previous study The nominal vehicle has different hood size A=2.0 m 2 A=1.5 m 2 m HOOD =14.66 kg m HOOD =? How should we scale this mass data to represent the mass of a hood for the nominal vehicle?

13 Scaling Component Mass Mass Drivers determined by statistical significance 25 mˆ Subsystem Attributes 4.28( Area m 2 ) 1.24 Component Interaction 1.65Conv.Steel 1.00Aluminum system Attributes 20 Hood 15 frame mass 10 kg Area m 2 benchmarking-130 hoods resulting scaling equation mˆ mˆ A B Area Area A B 1.24

14 hood frame Scaling Component Mass Closures Chassis Body knuckle body shell mˆ 4.28( Area m 2 ) 1.24 mˆ 0.343( FGAM, kg) McPherson SLA mˆ 3.418( GVM, kg) ( Area, m 2 ) deck lid frame Lower control arm instrument panel beam lift gate frame wheel front seat frame hatch frame exhaust bumper beam door frame

15 Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel) Summary Results (Same powertrain size)

16 Case Study 2- Hood (Alum vs. Steel) Summary Results (Powertrain resized)

17 Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity Nominal vehicle Resized vehicle DM M NOMINAL M NOMINAL Fuel consumption NOMINAL Fuel consumption=6.2 l/100 km M RESIZED =M NONMINAL + DM Fuel consumption RESIZED =? What is fuel consumption for resized vehicle?

18 Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity Powertrain displacement fixed US combined, IC-Gasoline 0-60 mph acceleration time (s) 183 kw 235 kw 4.5 liter m= 2195 kg m= 1655 kg Fuel Consumption (l/100km) l/100 km/100 kg fka, Schulte-Corne, Claus, et al., Determination of weight influence on the energy consumption

19 Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity Acceleration fixed (engine downsized) US combined, IC-Gasoline 0-60 mph acceleration time (s) 183 kw 235 kw 4.5 liter m= 2195 kg m= 1655 kg Fuel Consumption (l/100km) l/100 km/100 kg

20 Internal combustion Fuel Consumption Mass Sensitivity liters/100 km/100 kg 0.45 Gas 0 Diesel NEDC HYZEM US comb resize PT no resize Parallel Hybrid Fuel Cell Plug-in Hybrid Electric Battery Electric 40 mi range 20 mi range Comp Mid SUV A Class C Class vehicle mass kg 1) reduced sensitivity to mass change 2) reduced sensitivity to powertrain resizing

21 Case Study 3- Hatchback closure Lightweight Vehicle Consortium J. Dahmus and R. Roth, September 11, 2008 Results Summary Hatchback Material Primary Process Total Mass (kg) Steel-AHSS Hydroform 7.81 Aluminum Stamping 6.77 All hatchbacks have surface area=1.0 m 2

22 Case Study 3- Hatchback closure

23 Case Study 3- Hatchback closure Shaping Cost Estimation AHSS Steel Aluminum SMC Composite Part Cost $80 $60 $40 $ Assembly Cost Part Production Cost Other Labor Equipment Tooling More information required to estimate these than is input to Design Advisor $0 D.A. Rigorous D.A. Rigorous D.A. Rigorous Material Cost 100,000 parts Lightweight Vehicle Consortium J. Dahmus and R. Roth

24 First Order Part Shaping Cost Model C ($/kg) material m CM 1cost f Al Mg NonFerrous Stamping tooling CT cost n $ part mass (kg) equipment 1 CC n cost LtWO 10 6 $ part mass (kg) Steel Stamping Steel Tailor Welded Blank Stamping Steel Hot Stamping Steel Open Roll Form Steel Tubular Hydroforming NonFerrous Stamping NonFerrous Forging NonFerrous Extrusion NonFerrous Die Casting Steel Forging Iron Casting Composite Sheet Molding Compound Composite Resin Transfer CES Process Selection Software, 2011

25 Case Study 4- Body Material, H. Singh 2011 Honda Accord Component: Body structure Sedan 5 passengers 100 kg cargo L=4938 mm W=1831 IC gasoline HYZEM life time range 155,000km ability to resize all subsystems including powertrain Contemporary steel mix Body structure mass (kg) GVM used to size component AHSS Alum Carbon fiber

26 Case Study 4- Body Material (Conv. Steel vs. AHSS) curb kg HYZEM l/100km

27 Case Study 4- Body Material (Conv. Steel vs. Alum) curb kg HYZEM l/100km

28 Case Study 4- Body Material (Conv. Steel vs. Carbon fiber) curb kg HYZEM l/100km

29 Life Cycle Assessment of Green House Gas Material Production Stage Use Stage End of life LCA C O 2 C O 2 C O 2 C O 2 SCO 2 material production shaping process fuel consumption C O 2 recycling fuel production Design Advisor uses models and parameters from UCSB GHG Model, R. Geyer, 2013

30 Material Production and Recycling GHG Material Production Primary production Material Production Finishing Part Forming material in vehicle Recycling recycled from vehicle Secondary production 1 kg prompt scrap used in primary production recycled from mfg process CO 2 Produced to secondary production which offsets primary production

31 component -component mass -material -manufacturing GHG cost mass vehicle -Length, Width -passengers, cargo -Powertrain type -Fuel type Summary: Design Advisor for Preliminary Material Selection Decisions Multiple Metrics Mass including subsystem resizing Cost Life Cycle GHG Use information available during preliminary design 5 pieces of info about each component 7 pieces of info about vehicle Parameters for models are pre-loaded Very quick analysis time <5 minutes data entry <30 seconds for computations B>A Accuracy sufficient for A-B comparison Uses rigorous analytical models Graphic display to promote What-if studies and understanding of trade-offs

32 -Download Design Advisor Free -Free Workshop See the bookmark and invitation included in your bag. Also available at worldautosteel.org : Estimation of Secondary Mass Effects in Vehicle Design white paper Design Advisor workshop: June 7 SMDI Offices, Southfield

33 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: