environmental protection agency - autosteel/media/files/autosteel/great designs in steel...•...

w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g

MY2017-2025 GHG Standard

for Light Duty Vehicles Mass Reduction

Hugh Harris

Environmental Protection Agency


1) Overview of MY 2017-2025 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

Outline


AGENDA ITEM #1

Overview of MY 2017-2025

Light Duty Vehicle GHG rule

3


EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking 2017-2025

• 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 2017-2021.

• A technical assessment is required to continue or modify the

standards for 2022-2025 vehicles.

4


EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking 2017-2025

LD GHG Footprint Curve – Cars

CAFÉ Fuel Economy Target (mpg)

CA

FÉ

Fu

el E

con

om

y T

arget

(m

pg) d

d

d

d

Mid Term Evaluation (Review

Stds for 2022-2025)

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


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 2008

– 66% advanced gasoline and diesel vehicles

– 26% mild hybrids

– 5% strong hybrids

– 3% plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and all electric vehicles

6


+ +

7

2017 2025 2021 2022

Final unless changed by rulemaking

2017-2021

Final

2022-2025

Augural

Joint Technical

Assessment Report (draft by November 15, 2017)

Mid-Term Evaluation


“No Later Than” Timeline

for 2022-2025 Mid-Term Evaluation

8

Key time frame to prepare underlying

technical work for the Mid-Term

Evaluation

FRM

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2017 2018 2019

No later than date

Technical Assessment Report

EPA/NHTSA/CARB

NHTSA Final

Action coordinated

with EPA Final

Action (NHTSA

rulemaking)

Either a NHTSA

Final Rule w/ EPA

Decision not to

reopen

OR

Joint EPA/NHTSA

Rule to alter

standards


AGENDA ITEM #2

Agency mass-reduction studies

9


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

0


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

1

w w w . a u t o s t e e l . o r g 1

2

Agency Holistic Vehicle Studies

CARB - 2010

Lotus Engineering, Toyota Venza

Low Dev

20% MR

High Dev

>30% MR

Hybrid PT

EPA – 2012

Toyota Venza

(FEV/EDAG)

NHTSA – 2012

Honda Accord

(EDAG)

CARB – 2012

Toyota Venza

(Lotus)

EPA – 2011-2014

Light Duty Truck

(FEV/EDAG)

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

NHTSA/EDAG released mass

reduction on Honda Accord -

Full vehicle/Glider

CARB continued study of

Venza high development

vehicle (Phase 2) – BIW only

All reports available online

EPA Truck study in progress


AGENDA ITEM #3

EDAG presentation on EPA Study

1

3


Full Vehicle Lightweight Designing Based on CAE Techniques

Javier Rodríguez

EDAG Inc.


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


1. Project Details

Mass Reduction Feasibility

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 computer-

aided engineering (CAE) tools

• Baselinevehicle2011HondaAccord

• Iden fylightweigh ngtechnologiesforMY2020modelyearvehicle

• Cost+/-10%ofcurrentbaselinevehicle’sMSRP

• Samevehicleperformanceandfunc onalityincludingsafety

• Allrecommendedtechnologiestobesuitablefor200,000annualproduc on,1Millionvehiclesover5years

• BaselineVehicle2011ToyotaVenza

• Onlytechnologiesandtechniquescurrentlyfeasibleformanufacturabilitywereconsidered

• Op onshadtobecosteffec veforaMY2017highvolumeproduc onvehicle

• ThevehicleNVHmodalcharacteris csandcrash/safetyperformancehadtobemaintained

• Thetotalcostimpactneededtobeminimal

NHTSA

EPA


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

17



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



Establishment of the Baseline, Inputs, outputs & Tools



Creation of the Baseline for the Optimization Process


Baseline Gauge Map


Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials


Baseline Material Map


Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.)


Baseline

System Sub-system System-Mass(Kg)

DoorFrt 53.2

DoorRr 42.4

Hood 17.8

Tailgate 15

Fenders 6.8

Sub-Total 135.2

UnderbodyAssembly 40.2

FrontStruture 42

RoofAssembly 31.3

BodysideAssembly 161.9

LadderAssembly 102.6

Sub-Total 378

RadiatorVerticalSupport 0.7CompartmentExtra 4.4

ShockTowerXmbrPlates 3.1Sub-Total 8.2

BumperFrt 5.1

BumperRr 2.4

Sub-Total 7.5

TotalWeight 528.9

Closures

BIW

BIWExtra

Bumpers

Baseline Sub-Systems Weights


Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.)


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

BIWAnalysis

ClosuresAnalysis

PowertrainAnalysis

InteriorAnalysis

ChassisAnalysis

Inputs

FullVehicleAnalysisandCollabora veOp miza onVariables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

BodyStructureandClosuresDesignSpace

Matrix


Baseline Model: Optimization Process



Collaborative Optimization Process

• FSVEngineeringReport• EDAGLightVehicle

• LWSSFTFuelTank

• AdvancedSteelBumper

EDAGExper se

• LotusReport• Tier1supplierbase• Misc.Lightweightcars• AudiInt.LightweightBody

ExternalInforma on

BIWAnalysis

ClosuresAnalysis

PowertrainAnalysis

InteriorAnalysis

ChassisAnalysis

Inputs


Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs


Matrix

FEVExper se

ExternalInforma on


PossibleSolu onsPlotwith:

OpportunityversusCostsandWeight

BIWAnalysis

ClosuresAnalysis

PowertrainAnalysis

InteriorAnalysis

ChassisAnalysis

Inputs


Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs


Matrix




PossibleSolu onsPlotwith:

OpportunityversusCostsandWeight

BIWAnalysis

ClosuresAnalysis

PowertrainAnalysis

InteriorAnalysis

ChassisAnalysis

Inputs


Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs


Matrix

Collabora veOp miza onwherewedecomposedthedesignconceptprocessintomoremanageablepieces

FEA/ShouldCostsAnalysisconfirmtheoverallperformance




DesignVariables

Matrix0

• OverallVehicleWeight

Matrix1

• MaterialThickness

• MaterialSubs tu on

• JoiningTechnologies

• TailorBlankTechnology

Matrix2

• StructureRedesign

• ShapeChanges

• FutureManufacturingTechnologies

• Alterna veStructureConcepts

StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses

Linear(S ffness)andNon-linear(Crash)

Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons

FullVehicleAnalysisandCollabora veOp miza on


Overview


The model consisted of 484 parts, seven (7) load cases (Linear and Non-

linear) 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:

– 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

manufacturing feasibility and tooling impact

DesignVariables

Matrix0


Matrix1





Matrix2


• ShapeChanges



StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses


Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons


Design Variables


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

Any idea included in the design matrix had to be feasible* for the vehicle and

capable of being in production for 2017 (EPA)

*Feasible idea = Currently in production in other vehicles

DesignVariables

Matrix0


Matrix1





Matrix2


• ShapeChanges



StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses


Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons

• FSVEngineeringReport• EDAGLightVehicle

• LWSSFTFuelTank

• AdvancedSteelBumper

EDAGExper se

• LotusReport• Tier1supplierbase• Misc.Lightweightcars• AudiInt.LightweightBody

ExternalInforma on

BIWAnalysis

ClosuresAnalysis

PowertrainAnalysis

InteriorAnalysis

ChassisAnalysis

Inputs


Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs

Variables

Requirements

Costs


Matrix


Structural Variations


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.)

DesignVariables

Matrix0


Matrix1





Matrix2


• ShapeChanges



StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses


Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons


Design Responses


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

DesignVariables

Matrix0


Matrix1





Matrix2


• ShapeChanges



StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses


Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons


Objectives and Constrains


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.

DesignVariables

Matrix0


Matrix1





Matrix2


• ShapeChanges



StructuralVaria ons

Proper es

Shape

DesignResponses


Objec veand

Constraints

Objec ves(Weight

Reduc on)

Constraints(Costs)

Output

Op mumSolu ons


Optimization Engine and Outputs



Full Vehicle Process Overview


Optimized Gauge Map

5. Optimized Model

BIW Weights and Materials


Optimized Material Map

5. Optimized Model

BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.)


Optimized Sub-Systems Weights

Baseline WeightReduced

System Sub-system System-Mass(Kg) System-Mass(Kg)

DoorFrt 53.2 53.2DoorRr 42.4 42.4

Hood 17.8 10.1

Tailgate 15 7.7

Fenders 6.8 4.9

Sub-Total 135.2 118.3

UnderbodyAssembly 40.2 32.0

FrontStruture 42.0 36.2

RoofAssembly 31.3 24.1

BodysideAssembly 161.9 141.9LadderAssembly 102.6 90.2

Sub-Total 378 324.4

RadiatorVerticalSupport 0.7 0.7

CompartmentExtra 4.4 3.2

ShockTowerXmbrPlates 3.1 4.4

Sub-Total 8.2 8.3

BumperFrt 5.1 4.7

BumperRr 2.4 2.4

Sub-Total 7.5 7.1

TotalWeight 528.9 458.1

Closures

BIW

BIWExtra

Bumpers

5. Optimized Model

BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.)


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.

6. Methodology for the Study Work


[1] Regulations & Standards: Light-Duty

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm

[2] FEV, “Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis – Midsize Crossover

Utility Vehicle “. July 2012, EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

[2] Joint Technical Support Document EPA-420-R-10-901, April 2012

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10901.pdf

[3] Final Rulemaking: Model Year 2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse

Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm#finalR

[4] ULSAB-AVC Cost Models

http://www.worldautosteel.org/projects/cost-models/

7. References

Contact Information:

Hugh Harris

EPA

Senior Engineer

Tel + 1 734 214 4705

[email protected]

Javier Rodriguez

EDAG Inc.

Director Vehicle Integration

Tel +1 248 577 4036

[email protected]






http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10901.pdf










Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by:

Use your web-enabled device to download the presentations from today’s event

PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE MAY 3

environmental protection agency - autosteel/media/files/autosteel/great designs in steel...•...

Documents