reinventing automotive steel/media/files/autosteel/great... · auto suspensions ulsab-avc advanced...

Reinventing Automotive SteelGreat Designs in Steel – May5, 2010

Jody Shaw – U. S. Steel

Harry Singh – EDAG, Inc

Akbar Farahani – ETA, Inc

www.worldautosteel.org2

WorldAutoSteel Membership

automotive group of the worldsteel

Ansteel Hyundai-Steel SumitomoArcelorMittal Kobe ThyssenKruppBaosteel Nippon Steel USIMINASChina Steel NUCOR U. S. SteelCorus-Tata POSCO voestalpineJFE Severstal


• Past steel projects and impact on vehicle structures

• The new drivers of structural design

• Future Steel Vehicle - Objectives- Design methodology- Preliminary results

• Conclusions

Today’s Presentation


ULSABUltraLight Steel Auto Body

ULSASUltraLightSteel Auto Suspensions

ULSAB-AVCAdvanced VehicleConcepts

www.worldautosteel.org

ULSACUltraLight Steel Auto Closures

Investment in Automotive

$60 Million


Body Structure Weight vs. Gross Vehicle Weight

(a2mac1 database 2001-2008 production vehicles)

450 Kg

400

350

300

200

150

250

1000 Kg

Body Structure: W/O Closures + IP Beam + Engine Cradle

1500 2000 2500 3000Gross Vehicle Weight

2001-2003 Steel BIW2004-2008 Steel BIW2004-2008 Top 10 Steel BIW

Impact of AHSS Solutions

-21%




450 Kg

400

350

300

200

150

250

1000 Kg



2001-2003 Steel BIW2004-2008 Top 10 Steel BIWAluminium

-28% -9%



450 Average net pounds per vehicle

400

350

300

100

0

200

2005 2007 2009 2020

250

150

50

Growth of AHSS

Source: Ducker Worldwide

81108

150

450





450 Kg

400

350

300

200

150

250

1000 Kg



2001-2003 Steel BIW2004-2008 Top 10 Steel BIWAluminium



ULSABUltraLight Steel Auto Body

ULSASUltraLightSteel Auto Suspensions

ULSAB-AVCAdvanced VehicleConcepts


ULSACUltraLight Steel Auto Closures

Investment in Automotive


Why Future Steel Vehicle?

Source: International Council on Clean Transportation

USAJapanEurope

Australia

China

100

60

80

120

160

140

180

200

220

260

240

280

Gra

ms

CO

2 /K

m (E

quiv

alen

t)

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030Source: International Council on Clean Transportation

USAJapanEurope

Australia

China

100

60

80

120

160

140

180

200

220

260

240

280

Gra

ms

CO

2 /K

m (E

quiv

alen

t)

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

Automotive CO2 Emissions Regulation.


Honda Clarity FCX

Mercedes F cell Mercedes E cell Plus

Early Introductions of Dedicated PlatformAdvanced Powertrain Vehicles





450 Kg

400

350

300

200

150

250

1000 Kg



2001-2003 Steel BIW2004-2008 Top 10 Steel BIWAluminiumSLC (Super Light Car)

SLC states 35% mass reduction ( = €7.80 / kg)

1.


www.worldautosteel.org13 www.worldautosteel.org

Will provide steel solutionsto address:

• Future emissions regulations

• Advanced powertrains vehicles

• Competitive material solutions

for 2015 to 2020



FSV Steel Technologies

FSV’s Steel Portfolio

Expanded range of steel gradesdenotes steel included in ULSAB-AVC

Mild 140/270 DP 350/600BH 210/340BH 260/370 SF 570/640 DP 700/1000

IF 260/410 MS 950/1200IF 300/420DP300/500

DP 500/800HSLA 350/450 TRIP 450/800

MS 1250/1500HSLA 490/600

denotes steel grades added for FSV

Mild 140/270 DP 350/600 TRIP 600/980BH 210/340 TRIP 350/600 TWIP 500/980BH 260/370 SF 570/640 DP 700/1000BH 280/400 HSLA 550/650 CP 800/1000IF 260/410 TRIP 400/700 MS 950/1200IF 300/420 SF 600/780 CP 1000/1200DP300/500 CP 500/800 DP 1150/1270FB 330/450 DP 500/800 MS 1150/1400HSLA 350/450 TRIP 450/800 CP 1050/1470HSLA 420/500 CP 600/900 HF 1050/1500FB 450/600 CP 750/900 MS 1250/1500HSLA 490/600


Conventional StampingLaser Welded BlankTailor Rolled BlankHigh Frequency Induction Welded Hydroformed TubesLaser Welded Hydroformed TubesTailor Rolled Hydroformed TubesHot Stamping (Direct & In-DirectLaser Welded Blank Quench SteelTailor rolled Blank Quench SteelRoll FormingLaser Welded Coil roll FormedTailor rolled Blank Roll FormedRoll Form with QuenchMulti Walled Hydroformed TubesMulti Walled TubesLaser Welded Finalized TubesLaser Welded Tube Profiled Sections

What’s New?

Broad Bandwidth of Manufacturing Options


Mass Reduction

Donor Vehicle

Donor Vehicle RailRail: 16.34kg

Design Optimization

Light Weight Front End Structure

2007 GDIS

TWTConcepts

32.0%

A/SP LWB Concept

22.4%

What’s New?


2008 GDIS

Design OptimizationWhat’s New?


Future Generation Passenger Compartment

Multidiscipline Optimization(Grade, Gauge, Geometry)

2009 GDIS



Donor Vehicle

Donor Vehicle Rail

A/SP LWB Concept

TWTConcepts

Mass Reduction

22.4%

32%

45%

Pilot Program2009 GDIS

Topography Optimization

FSV PilotProject


www.worldautosteel.org20 www.worldautosteel.org

Lightweighting technologies

• Expanded materials portfolio

• Expanded manufacturing technology portfolio.

• Aggressive design optimization technologies

What’s New?


Manufacturing Cost

FSV Design Drivers


Source: Argon National Lab

Mass Reduction

FSV Design Drivers

Source: International Council on Clean Transportation

USAJapanEurope

Australia

China

100

60

80

120

160

140

180

200

220

260

240

280

Gra

ms

CO

2 /K

m (E

quiv

alen

t)

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030Source: International Council on Clean Transportation

USAJapanEurope

Australia

China

100

60

80

120

160

140

180

200

220

260

240

280

Gra

ms

CO

2 /K

m (E

quiv

alen

t)

2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030

for fuel economy and emissions reduction


Source: Argonne National Lab

Vehicle Carbon Footprint

FSV Design Drivers


TopologyOptimization

GaugeOptimization

Final DesignConfirmation FEA

Phase1 –Technology Assessment

PowertrainLayout

Low-Fidelity 3GDesign OptimizationBody Structure

Sub-SystemOptimization Detail Design

Styling& CFD

Phase2 - Report& Decision for Phase 3

DesignConfirmationFEA

T1

T6

T4T3

T2

FSV Design Methodology

T5



BenchmarkingSize and type of vehicle (2020)PerformanceNA-Europe-Asia(EDAG, Germany, India & China)

Technology AssessmentLatest auto technologiesLow rolling resistance tiresLight weight

GlassSeatsLED Lighting & Displays

Technology AssessmentBatteriesWheel motorsDrive by wireFuel cellHydrogen storage and

infrastructure (Corland Study?)E85 and bio-diesel

OEM’sDirectionsTrends

Styling / CFD CAEFuture (2020) safety and structural:Performance requirementsFuture CO2/fuel efficiency requirements

Environmental ImpactCO2 greenhouse gassesWell to wheel efficiencyLife cycle assessmentEnergy sources and usageCO2 sequestration

Drive Train Module Technical SpecsQuantumSFCV / Tongij

worldsteel Existing and Ongoing ProgramsULSABULSACULSASULSAB-AVCFPCWeight Compounding-ASD

Phase 1 DeliverablesVehicle PackageVTS (Vehicle Tech Spec)

Plug-in hybridFuel cell hybridElectrical vehicle

Light Weight AHSS Body Structure Concepts

and

New Opportunities for Steel

Structural Optimization

Future Steel Vehicle (FSV)

Source: FSV Phase 1 report


FSV Advanced Powertrain Options

Worldwide over 70% market share between two vehicle sizes: Small cars (up to 4,000mm, A/B class) and Mid-Class cars (up to 4,900mm, C/D class)


FSV Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)Required battery size for 250 km driving range:

Battery Pack Energy density 130 Wh/kg

Battery Pack Energy density 180 Wh/kg


FSV-1 Well-to-Wheel CO2 Emissions Potential

Source: FSV Phase 1 report

FSV Environmental Targets

138Toyota Prius 2010

168Ford Fusion HEV 2010


FSV Safety Requirements

Regulation

Roof Crush Rollover (FMVSS 216)

Roof Crush/Rollover (IIHS)

Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

Pole Impact

Front Impact

Bumper Impact

Ped-Pro (Pedestrian Protection)

Meet or exceed existing & upcoming safety requirements


• Low Rolling Resistance Tires

• Lightweight glazing

• LED lighting

• Instrument and panel displays

• Lightweight seating

• ‘By-wire’ technology

Other Advanced Technologies Evaluated


495.0

1065.0 850.0300.0

328.0

780.0

2524.0

390.0

Minimum Vision & Obscuration Requirements

16° Approach Angle 25° Departure Angle13° Ramp Breakover Angle

Minimum Angles & Clearances

150 mm Ground Clearance

FSV BEV Packaging


T1T1

T6

T5T4

T3

T2 Linear-StaticTopology

Optimization

GaugeOptimization

Final DesignConfirmation

Phase1Technology Assessment

Packaging

Non-Linear Dynamic Topology Optimization

(LF3G)Sub-System3G Optimization

Detail Design

Styling & aerodynamic

DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T1

Aerodynamics & Styling


FSV Styling & CFD

Coefficient of Drag (CD) Target: 0.25

T1

First styling theme

CFD – Computational Fluid Dynamic


Styling & CFD – Cooling Air Flow Motor Compartment

T1

Front air intake opening optimized for the required cooling flow


Drag Coefficient 0.27

Styling & CFD - effect of external features

Drag Coefficient 0.24 with rear wheel skirt

T1


FSV: BEV Final Styling

T1

Utilities Access and Charging Port


FSV versus VW Polo 2010 – Body in White Mass & Size

2470 mm

701 mm

839 mm 661 mm

2524 mm 595 mm

231

190

BIW Mass (kg)

233

329

Powertrain Mass (kg)

VW Polo 2010

FSV

FSV BIW mass target


Design Optimization Process Overview

T3Sub-Systems

MD 3G HolisticOptimization

T2MD LoadPath

Topology and 3GOptimization

Select Major MembersManufacturing

Process

T1- ESLMD Topology

DesignOptimization

Process Enablers:Model Parameterization Tools (SFE-Concept)Multi-Disciplinary (MD) Optimization Tools (HEEDS,GENESIS)Analysis Tools (NASTRAN,LS-DYNA) High Performance Computing

ESL= Equivalent Static LoadingMD = Multidisciplinary3G= Geometry, Grade and Gages


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging


(LF3G)Sub-SystemTopographyOptimization

Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T2

Topology Optimization Load Cases


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T2

Topology Optimization Results


Multidisciplinary (MD)Topology Design Optimization

Topology optimization drives the material of structure to where it is most effective.Allow Topology Load Path Optimization to influence locations

and shape of components based on Packaging. Topology Optimization is interpreted by engineering judgment.


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T2

Topology Optimization


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T2

T3

LF3G Load Path and 3G Optimization


Design Optimization Automated Process

MD 3G Optimization

Monitoring

ACP Automated

Process

ACP = Accelerated Concept to ProductMD 3G =MultiDisciplinary Geometry, Gage and Grade

Design Solution

Geometry


T3

LF3G Load path and 3G Optimization

T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report


Low Fidelity 3G (Geometry, Gauge & Grade) Optimization

T3


LF3G Optimization Results


T3

LF3G Optimized Body Structure Geometry

LF3G Optimization Results


Low Fidelity 3G Optimization – Results Interpretation

‘Sheet Steel design’

‘LF3G Optimized Geometry’

T3

LF3G Optimized Body Structure Geometry – interpreted to sheet steel design


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T3T4

LF3G Optimization


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T4

Sub Systems 3G Opt – Selection of Manufacturing Process


Front NCAPFront ODB

Rear ODBSide

PoleRoof

BendingTorsion

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Load

case

Res

ulta

nt F

orce

(% to

tal l

oad)

Front NCAP

Front ODB

Rear ODB

Side

Pole

Roof

Bending

Torsion

Sub System 3G Opt – System selection load path mapping

T4


Body Structure – Sub System 3G Optimization

Nodal Boundary Constraints

Geometry

Variables for optimization:

1.Section Geometry using control points

2.Material Grade

3.Panel Gauge

T4


Move together for flat mating condition

Independent Control Points

Rocker otr

Rocker reinf

Floor side inr

Hold seal flange

Design Space (common)

Body Structure – Sub System 3G Optimization

S2S1

S3S4

S5T4


Stamping AHSS

Roll-forming AHSS

Hydroforming AHSS

Extrusion Aluminum

Body Structure Sub System – Rocker Solutions

Move together for flat mating condition

Independent Control Points

Rocker otr

Rocker reinf

Floor side inr

Hold seal flange

Design Space (common)

Section control points –constraining method determines the manufacturing solution


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T4

T4 – Structural Subsystem Optimization


Stamping AHSS

Roll-forming AHSS

Hydroforming AHSS

Extrusion Aluminum



LWB

TRB

Blanks

ConventionalStamping

RollForming Hydroforming

HotStamping



Body Structure Sub System - Selection

1. Mass

2. Cost

3. Total Life Cycle Assessment – GHG Emissions; CO2 Equiv (kg)

• Vehicle use phase (200,000 km)

• Material Manufacture

• Vehicle Manufacture

• Vehicle recycling

LCA Ref: fka & UCSB


Component Costs

Material

Labor

EnergyEquipment

Tooling

Building

Maintenance

Cost Model Energy, Maintenance Parameter FSVValues (sample)

Energy consumption rate 1000 kW/hr

Space requirement 150 sqm/line

Manpower 2 worker/line

Line Rate 240 hits/hr

Reject rate 1.00%

Press line die average change time 30 mts

Press line lot size 1500

Maintenance Percentage 10%

$1,500 /sqmBuilding unit cost

25 yrBuilding life

20 yrEquipment life

10%Interest (Equipment, Building etc.)

FSV Values

Building, Equipment Parameters

3525 hrs/yrAnnual Paid Time

0.25 per direct worker

Indirect workers (Overhead)

$45.00 /hr*

Wage (including benefits)

FSV Values

Labor Parameters

Grade HDG Exposed Multiwall Tube Blank

Premium($/kg)

Premium($/kg)

Premium($/kg)

Premium($/kg)

Premium($/kg)

Premium($/kg)

Reference US Spot Midwest Market Price Trend 2009

Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270 0.35 4.6 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.55 0.25 0.065

2 BH 210/340 0.4 3.4 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.55 0.00 0.00

3 BH 260/370 0.4 2.8 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.55 0.00 0.00

4 BH 280/400 0.5 2.8 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.55 0.30 1.10

5 IF 260/410 0.4 2.3 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.55 0.30 0.70

6 IF 300/420 0.5 2.3 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.55 0.30 1.10

7 HSLA 350/450 0.5 5.0 0.12 0.10 NA 0.55 0.30 1.50

8 HSLA 420/500 0.76 5.0 0.14 0.10 NA 0.55 0.45 1.25

9 HSLA 490/600 0.75 5.0 0.16 0.10 NA 0.55 0.45 1.65

10 HSLA 550/650 0.75 5.0 0.35 0.10 NA 0.55 0.45 1.65

11 SF 570/640 2.9 5.0 0.35 0.10 NA NA 0.45 2.05

12 SF 600/780 2.9 5.0 0.35 0.10 NA NA 0.45 2.05

13 TRIP 350/600 0.6 4.0 0.40 0.10 NA NA 0.45 1.25

14 TRIP 400/700 0.8 4.0 0.45 0.10 NA NA 0.45 1.65

15 TRIP 450/800 0.9 2.0 0.50 0.10 NA NA 0.50 1.30

16 FB 330/450 1.8 5.0 0.20 0.10 NA 0.55 0.30 1.10

17 FB 450/600 1.8 5.0 0.25 0.10 NA 0.55 0.45 1.65

18 DP 300/500 0.5 2.5 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.55 0.45 0.85

19 DP 350/600 0.6 4.0 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.55 0.45 1.25

20 DP 400/700 0.6 4.0 0.28 0.10 NA 0.55 0.45 1.65

21 DP 500/800 0.6 4.0 0.31 0.10 NA 0.55 0.50 0.90

22 DP 700/1000 0.6 2.3 0.38 0.10 NA NA 0.55 0.95

23 DP 1150/1270 1.0 2.0 0.38 0.10 NA NA 0.55 0.95

24 TPN-K600/900 1.0 1.8 0.35 0.10 NA NA 0.65 1.45

25 TPN-W750/900 1.6 4.0 0.38 0.10 NA NA 0.55 0.95

26 CP 500/800 0.8 2.0 0.31 0.10 NA NA 0.50 1.30

27 CP 800/1000 0.8 3.0 0.45 0.10 NA NA 0.55 1.35

28 CP 1000/1200 1.0 2.3 0.47 0.10 NA NA 0.60 1.40

29 CP 1050/1470 1.0 2.0 0.47 0.10 NA NA 0.60 1.80

30 MS 950/1200 0.5 3.2 0.47 NA NA NA 0.60 1.00

31 MS 1150/1400 0.5 2.0 0.48 NA NA NA 0.60 1.40

32 TWIP500/980 0.8 2.0 1.20 0.10 NA NA 0.60 1.80

33 MS 1250/1500 0.5 1.5 0.51 0.10 NA NA 0.65 1.05

34 HF 1050/1500 (22MnB5) 0.6 2.3 0.75 NA NA 0.55 0.65 1.05

0.73

Min t(mm)Item # Steel Grade

1

Max t(mm)

Tailor Rolled Coil

Tubes (straight, as

shipped)Ref

Material Price($/kg)

Process DataBlank size, Cycle

Time, Press Type & Size, Tooling Cost

Material Data

Cost Assessment Model

Same approach - MIT advanced Materials Lab used for ULSAB


1.4 mm DP700/1000

1.2 mm DP700/1000

FSV: Rocker Optimization – Closed Roll-form from TWC

Tailor Welded Coil (TWC)


Material production greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:

Importance of Life Cycle Assessment

Steel

Aluminium

Magnesium

Carbon FRP

Current AverageGHG Emissions

Primary Production

18 – 45

2.0 – 2.5

GHG from Production (in kg CO2eq/kg of material)

21 – 23

11.2 – 12.6

Footnotes:• All steel and aluminium grades included in ranges.• Difference between AHSS and conventional steels less than 5%.• Aluminium data - global for ingots; European only for process from ingot to final products .


Rocker - Total Life Cycle Assessment – CO2 equiv (kg)

21.5-158.6-0.7-44.9-182.6Solution 3 - Roll Form

32.5-223.410.1-67.5-248.2Solution 4 -Hydroform

9.1-32.13.9-18.0-37.1Solution 2 -Hot Stamp

-3.848.00.48.6+53.2Solution 1 -Stamping

-956.814,640 5.7229115,980Baseline -Rocker 10.26 kg

Vehicle Recycling

Vehicle Use Phase

Mfg baseline -rocker

Material & Mfg.

Total Life Cycle


Stamping 3 piece AHSS

Stamping 2 piece Aluminum

HydroformedAHSS

Stamping 2 piece AHSS – LWB

Body Structure Sub System – Front Rails

T4


Body Structure Sub System – Shotgun

Stamping 2 piece AHSS – LWB

Stamping 2 piece Aluminum

T4


T4

Body Structure Sub System – B Pillar

Stamping AHSS – LWB

Roll forming

Hydroforming

Stamping Aluminum


Body Structure Sub System – Rear Rail

T4


HydroformingStamping Aluminum


Body Structure Sub System – Roof Side Rail

T4

Stamping Aluminum


Hydroforming


Body Structure Sub System – Tunnel Support Rails

T4


Roll forming AHSS

Roll forming Aluminum


HF3GTechnologyAssessment

High Volume Manufacturing

Feasibility

Sub-System Mass (kg)

Manufacturing

Cost ($)

LCA CO2Savings

(kg)Baseline B ST Stamping Conservative 10.26 19.99 0

ST Stamping Conservative 10.95 21.33 53

ST TRB Stamping TRB Mid-Term 10.52 24.18 16

ST LWB Stamping LWB Conservative 10.47 27.86 30

HST Hot Stamp Conservative 9.80 24.98 -37

HST TRB Hot Stamp TRB Mid-Term 9.66 27.68 -47

HST LWB Hot Stamp LWB Mid-Term 9.66 31.60 -37

RF Roll Form Conservative 7.98 14.18 -183

RF TRB Roll Form TR Coil Aggressive 7.95 16.47 -189

RF TWC Roll Form TW Coil Conservative 8.07 15.66 -177

HF HydroForm Conservative 7.05 22.80 -248

HF LWT Hydroform LWT Mid-Term 6.96 27.89 -245

HF MWT Hydroform MWT Aggressive 6.96 23.91 -255

Aluminum AL Extrusion Mid-Term 7.53 39.70 -204

HF3GManufacturing Interpretation

Stamping Solution( HEEDS Mass)

Hydroform(HEEDS Mass)

Roll Form(HEEDS Mass)

Rocker Cost, Mass & LCA CO2 eq Assessment


$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45C

ost (

$)

4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00

Mass (Kg)

IncreasingValue

Rocker Technology Options(Mass vs Cost Value)

Parallels of Constant Value ($9.39/kg)

FSV – Mass Paradigm Shift


Rocker Technology Options(Mass vs Cost Value)

Parallels of Constant Value ($9.39/kg)

ST LWB

HST LWB

HF

HF LWT

HF TRT

AL

ST

ST TRBHST

HST TRB

RF

RF TRBRF TWC

B ST

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00

Mass (Kg)

Cos

t ($)

increasingvalue

Rocker Technology Options(LCA CO2 reduction, Cost & Value)

Parallels of Constant Value ($100/tonne)

AL

ST TRB

ST LWB

HST

HST TRB

HST LWB

RF

HF LWT

HF TRT

RF TRB RF TWC

HFB ST

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

$45

-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

LCA CO2 Saved (Kg)

Cos

t ($)

increasingvalue

FSV – Rocker Cost, Mass & LCA CO2 eq Assessment


FSV – Shot gun, Mass & LCA CO2 eq Assessment


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T4

Conclusion


T1

T6

T5T4

T3


Optimization

GaugeOptimization



Packaging



Detail Design


DesignConfirmation

Phase 2Report

T4T5

Conclusion


Thank you for your attention

reinventing automotive steel/media/files/autosteel/great... · auto suspensions ulsab-avc advanced...

Documents